Electrek authors own stock in TSLA, so they are about the most biased source there is on the topic. Certainly nothing here should be confused with journalism.
They also don't call out that their links to amazon are referral codes, meaning they take a little slice of whatever you purchase if you follow that link.
They do, it's just an abbreviated disclosure and in small text, at the very end of the article:
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More[1].
Also fun fact: Amazon's affiliate program pays out for any[2] purchase made within 24 hours of clicking the link. So even if you don't immediately purchase anything during that visit, if you purchase anything within the day after clicking it, the affiliate still gets a cut of the transaction.
Overall the Model Y seems like a far better car from Tesla's perspective - much simpler design, cheaper to build, tons of under-the-hood improvements to make it more efficient.
From a consumer perspective, you really do get larger Model 3 - you pay a bit more, get a lot more volume, higher seating position and worse driving performance. Most of the improvements would probably only show up in comparison with similar cars ie longer range, cheaper price etc.
It's very slightly worse since it sits higher up and is heavier. But it's not like it's bad. And most people aren't buying the car to take it on a track. The larger size and higher seating position likely greatly outweigh any hit to performance for most people.
Worse driving performance when compared to the model 3. Better performance than most competitors in the same category.
You can get 3.5s in 0-60 with the performance version.
- one extra inch of ground clearance
- hatchback instead of trunk
- a few more inches of head/leg room
And because of that, it's an "SUV".
This positioning is not at all exclusive to Tesla, but it's still annoying. Call them "CUVs", "crossovers", "lifted, less-practical wagons", whatever.
Ultimately the problem is that Americans all want "SUVs", but most (rightfully so) don't want the downsides of an actual body-on-frame SUV (poor mileage, ride, packaging), or have any need for off-road capability. As a result, our most competitive auto segments are "lifted, less-practical wagon/minivan". Sigh.
I don't see how wanting these features in a vehicle is a "problem", per se. Yes, we want to be able to bring our entire families and enough stuff with us to enjoy an outing. Yes, that means a slightly bigger vehicle; but yes, we need to be able to use it to commute as well.
This desire has lead to the creation of a thriving segment of the market where you can get a vehicle for ~25-35k that gets reasonable gas mileage while offering AWD and a lot of space. It works well for a lot of people - jack of all trades.
Only urbanite bugmen with no families really see this as a "problem", because that type of person never actually has all the seats in the car occupied, or bothers to load a boat on top and drive out to go camping and fishing somewhere, or otherwise actually utilizes the capabilities of the vehicle.
For you, there are small electric jellybean cars.
I would have one of those too, but insurance costs make that prohibitive. Give me an insurance-follows-driver model so I can own a shitty cheap old pickup, a family SUV, and an electric commuting jellybean car, and I will happily do that and use less fuel overall.
These vehicles with taller profiles often don't have more space than their platform-equivalent wagon or hatch variants. Sometimes, they're actually smaller. They just have worse aero and therefore worse fuel economy, because people like to sit higher.
~Nobody is buying a Kicks/C-HR/HR-V to go offroad/fishing/etc. Nor do these vehicles offer more space compared to similarly priced or similarly capable vehicles in these manufacturers lineups. They simply have a confidence-inspiring seating position and look cool.
To give an example, the Subaru Crosstrek is a lifted Subaru Impreza hatchback. They share nearly all parts, and have the same interior and cargo space. The differences are:
1. Crosstrek costs more ($22,145 vs $18,695)
2. Crosstrek is less efficient (33/27 mpg vs 36/28 mpg)
3. Crosstrek is taller (64" vs 59")
4. Crosstrek outsells the Impreza in the US (131k vs 66k)
Americans love feeling tall and are willing to pay for the extra few inches.
The actual hatchback/liftback trunk design is far more practical, however, and is part of why wagons/estate cars and hatchbacks are more popular in Europe where a car's footprint is more of a concern (and particularly hatchbacks in many Asian cities where the footprint is even more constrained). I think expanding vertically is still better than expanding horizontally, within reason.
As you probably know, it's beneficial both for the wide opening to insert larger objects into the trunk as well as the folding of seats (less common in sedans/saloon cars) to provide much more space when rear seats aren't needed.
3.6 extra inches of clearance for the Crosstrek vs. the Impreza is a lot more than the 1 here though. I think that's part of the complaint.
The Crosstrek also gets a beefier rear diff, stiffer suspension, and larger brakes too.
They're the same platform, and share a lot of bodywork, but that's not uncommon among manufacturers now. The Golf and Atlas are both on VW's MQB platform now but that's about where the comparisons end.
Beefer rear diff, stiffer suspension, larger brakes all say "towing" to me.
"The Crosstrek also has a beefed up locking center differential for towing and a standard six-speed manual transmission,The Impreza’s manual only has five gears..."
That certainly accounts for the price difference. Those higher end parts have real costs.
And, Americans have plenty of stuff to tow around. (I am an American car guy.)
Do you have any data that shows Americans are buying the Crosstrek because they "love to feel tall" and not because of all the differentiating factors between it and the Impreza?
It may be more that that's what the dealerships stock and push, but there really are very few other differentiators.
The Crosstrek comes stock with a 6-speed manual instead of the Impreza's 5-speed (though 90% of them are sold with the execrable CVT instead); the Crosstrek only comes as a hatchback while the base Impreza is a sedan; the Crosstrek has intermittently been available with a hybrid system.
- 500 mile range on gas hybrid, 40 mile range on battery
- AWD
Commute to work during the week without touching gas, then on the weekend take roadtrips to the mountains at 50 mpg. And get cheap Toyota repairs/maintenance for everything. It's the quiver of one.
* Still need oil / change spark plugs / timing belts / all the ICE junk
* But have a degrading battery like an EV
* Have weight of both ICE and EV at the same time
* Deal with legacy dealer network (slimey sales, have to pay a big cut to dealers)
* There are an entire 5k being made for the entire US (vs 400k? Model Ys), so you can't even get one if you want one (source: https://electrek.co/2020/06/30/toyota-cuts-output-of-rav4-pr...) . IF you can find one, expect to pay 5-10k over sticker price.
Significantly less often. If 90% of your driving is on the battery, then you might be able to go the life of the car without replacing belts and plugs. You'd still need to change the oil, but could probably get away with only doing it once a year.
> But have a degrading battery like an EV
Depends on the battery. Also, even if it degrades a whopping 50% (Which would probably take 20+ years), you still have the ICE to keep you going.
> Have weight of both ICE and EV at the same time
With only a 40 mile battery, not a big deal.
> Deal with legacy dealer network
Yeah, that's pretty stupid. Dealers just get in the way, and I really wish haggling wasn't a thing at all.
> There are an entire 5k being made for the entire US
I'm guessing that they don't profit much if any on each car sold.
I'm a Model 3 owner, but I don't expect everyone to be able (or want) to drive a BEV. Honestly I wish more plug-in hybrids were being made. They can be electric for most people's commute, yet have the ICE to prevent range anxiety.
As a Y owner, I think plug-in is a false path. It gives you downsides to both, while not being great at either.
Drive ICE until you can switch, and then switch. For that 1:1000 place you absolutely need an ICE (I need to drive to the top of a mountain in the winter), rent an ICE. Just made my switch this year, because there was finally a BEV that was cool enough to compel me to drive it in a form factor I wanted.
I guess it depends on what you consider to be the greatest downsides to ICE. Maintenance was never a concern for me, but emissions was. Also, I like quick cars, but hate how loud they can be.
It's why I got a Model 3 Performance. Insanely quick acceleration (that doesn't yell to every cop within a mile that I'm gunning it) when I want it, and crazy good efficiency when I don't. If someone made an ICE that could do 0-60 in under 3.5 seconds while still getting 50+ mpg on the highway, I probably would have gotten one. There aren't even any plug-in hybrids that can achieve that.
> Drive ICE until you can switch, and then switch. For that 1:1000 place you absolutely need an ICE (I need to drive to the top of a mountain in the winter), rent an ICE.
I could definitely support that plan.
I haven't road tripped in my Tesla yet. I planned one this year (Portland -> San Diego, about 2400 miles round trip), but cancelled it due to COVID closing everything we were going to do. Though I've taken a couple 300-mile day trips. 150 miles out, then recharged for the return trip while eating dinner or shopping. Easy and fun.
The 5k units is due to COVID affecting battery manufacturing, there's no question this is circumstantial and nothing inherent to the vehicle itself. They say 20k vehicles for the next year. With the current crazy dealer markup, that's supply & demand.
So 20k Rav4 primes vs 800k? Teslas made in 2021 (not sure exact date Texas will start producing)?
If the car is any good, 20k should mean you can't really get your hands on it without paying over MSRP. If the car is a dud.. well, you won't want it anyway
What are some good, unbiased reviews of the Model Y? Other than Doug DeMuro(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAXDcTH6hPw), every other YouTube reviewer I've found has some stake in Tesla or is a Tesla/EV fanboy.
>In the meantime, I took a Model Y on a road trip from Oakland, California to Sonoma and Napa over the last week to get a first impression and road trip test.
That is not a road trip. I had to look it up: 40-50 miles.
I'm considering a drive from south Texas to northern Colorado next month. That's a road trip.
I'm gatekeeping because I saw the title and thought it would be covering charge duration, long term comfort, etc. This is a day trip, and it isn't a bad review to do - let's just label it properly.
As far as an actual road trip, no other all-electric comes close to Tesla simply due to the supercharger network. That said, it can't compare (and probably won't for a while) to an ICE road trip.
Road trips are long-distance, by definition, or else the term is meaningless. 48 miles? Less than an hour? I know people who drive more than that each way from home to work! I can make that trip in my Fiat 500e, with its super-limited range.
Wikipedia has a few choice quotes: "While there is no consensus as to what distance or time must be traveled/spent in order for the event to qualify as a road trip, it is a commonly held belief that commuting by means of automotive transportation should not qualify as a road trip, regardless of the distance. Some argue that travel may not require a set distance to qualify as a road trip."
"In the United States, a road trip typically implies leaving the state, or in extreme cases, leaving the country for places such as Canada or Mexico. However, in larger states, travel within the state may also be considered a road trip."
For me, a drive from Dallas to Waco (100 miles) is a day trip, aka a kolache run. It's also longer than I can round-trip in my Fiat. A drive from Dallas to Austin (200 miles) is starting to verge on something approaching a road trip. Dallas to Houston (250 miles), still approaching a road trip. Dallas to San Antonio (300 miles), I have called this a road trip, even though I'm second-guessing that now.
That was expensive, I definitely don't recommend the tiny sidewalls the model 3 performance comes with. Fortunately there's Tesla and 3rd party 19" wheels that come with much more reasonable sidewalls.
We take our Model 3 Long Range on 14 hour road trips a few times per year to visit family. You can expect to spend roughly 30 minutes charging for every 3 hours of driving. The Autopilot is amazing on the freeway. Really love the car wouldn’t want to go back to long trips in our old car that was a nightmare by comparison.
In June I drove from Sacramento to Denver in a Model 3 Performance (similar range to the model Y). No problem, lots of fun, very comfortable, and the charge times were just enough to grab a quick drink, some food, and get back in the car. Often I've have a choice of refilling at 30-40% charge or 10-15%.
The car was pretty packed, because 99% of my belongings were on a moving truck, so needed a computer, blankets, a few kitchen implements, soap/shampoo, and clothes enough for 3 days ... for 3 people.
Granted more storage space in a model Y would have been nicer.
There are tons of reviews out there for such trips. They are typically a blast! Planning to go cross country as soon as we get past the plague again ;)
Regardless of whether most people use an SUV for offroading or not, it doesn't matter. Most SUVs conform to some basic features, especially around wheel clearance being higher than a typical car.
This is just a roomier Model-3 or a Smaller minivan.
50 miles. Hmmm. Now, that's a test I can pass on a bicycle.
Joking aside, we were ready to go all-in this year with electrics. I even installed an oversize solar array in order to be able to solar-charge at least two vehicles.
And then the fires happened here in California. This changed my mind.
What became brutally apparent during the fires was that the fuel/energy infrastructure comparison between liquid and electric energy isn't even a comparison. People had all kinds of problems when their standard 30 to 50 mile commutes turned into 300 mile commutes. The charging network simply wasn't ready and, if I remember correctly, power outages caused additional issues.
The fact that gas stations exist pretty much at every freeway exit is a massive strategic advantage during an emergency.
One mental tool that came to mind was to imagine that we had to evacuate and we had two vehicles in front of the house: An electric Suburban-like SUV and the electic powered version of exactly the same vehicle. Which keys would I take?
The answer was simple; I would leave the electric behind.
Another interesting data point is that, due to the pandemic, we've had a couple of cars almost parked 100% of the time for since, say, March. Let's put it this way, last time I went to drive my little sports car it had spider webs between the tires and the ground. I've never seen that before.
Without constant charging this would be a massive problem for electrics. It hasn't been an issue with our IG cars, although, yes, there's a practical limit to how long gasoline can be stored without consequences.
Frankly, I don't know what it will take to spin my head back around. I absolutely do want electric vehicles in the future, and that future was going to be 2021 or 2022. Now that timeline is pushed to until such time as the infrastructure and practical realities of running electric cars become equivalent.
This is also why I believe the future of electrics has to lie in some kind of a liquid-based battery charge technology rather than conventional charging. In other words, you would pump a liquid into your battery pack in 5 minutes rather than electrons.
There's a question about whether or not the electrical grid could handle having tens of millions of electric vehicles charging at one time. I haven't done any math on this, which means it is hard to have a valid opinion. Gut feeling? I am not sure we can support mass adoption of electrics.
52 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 125 ms ] threadhttps://electrek.co/about/
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More[1].
Also fun fact: Amazon's affiliate program pays out for any[2] purchase made within 24 hours of clicking the link. So even if you don't immediately purchase anything during that visit, if you purchase anything within the day after clicking it, the affiliate still gets a cut of the transaction.
[1] With More linking to https://electrek.co/about/#affiliate
[2] "any" purchase that's not for a product in an excluded category for the affiliate program, such as digital downloads.
Overall the Model Y seems like a far better car from Tesla's perspective - much simpler design, cheaper to build, tons of under-the-hood improvements to make it more efficient.
From a consumer perspective, you really do get larger Model 3 - you pay a bit more, get a lot more volume, higher seating position and worse driving performance. Most of the improvements would probably only show up in comparison with similar cars ie longer range, cheaper price etc.
So, why to buy it then ?
Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMVnxiHPmig
- one extra inch of ground clearance - hatchback instead of trunk - a few more inches of head/leg room
And because of that, it's an "SUV".
This positioning is not at all exclusive to Tesla, but it's still annoying. Call them "CUVs", "crossovers", "lifted, less-practical wagons", whatever.
Ultimately the problem is that Americans all want "SUVs", but most (rightfully so) don't want the downsides of an actual body-on-frame SUV (poor mileage, ride, packaging), or have any need for off-road capability. As a result, our most competitive auto segments are "lifted, less-practical wagon/minivan". Sigh.
This desire has lead to the creation of a thriving segment of the market where you can get a vehicle for ~25-35k that gets reasonable gas mileage while offering AWD and a lot of space. It works well for a lot of people - jack of all trades.
Only urbanite bugmen with no families really see this as a "problem", because that type of person never actually has all the seats in the car occupied, or bothers to load a boat on top and drive out to go camping and fishing somewhere, or otherwise actually utilizes the capabilities of the vehicle.
For you, there are small electric jellybean cars.
I would have one of those too, but insurance costs make that prohibitive. Give me an insurance-follows-driver model so I can own a shitty cheap old pickup, a family SUV, and an electric commuting jellybean car, and I will happily do that and use less fuel overall.
~Nobody is buying a Kicks/C-HR/HR-V to go offroad/fishing/etc. Nor do these vehicles offer more space compared to similarly priced or similarly capable vehicles in these manufacturers lineups. They simply have a confidence-inspiring seating position and look cool.
1. Crosstrek costs more ($22,145 vs $18,695)
2. Crosstrek is less efficient (33/27 mpg vs 36/28 mpg)
3. Crosstrek is taller (64" vs 59")
4. Crosstrek outsells the Impreza in the US (131k vs 66k)
Americans love feeling tall and are willing to pay for the extra few inches.
As you probably know, it's beneficial both for the wide opening to insert larger objects into the trunk as well as the folding of seats (less common in sedans/saloon cars) to provide much more space when rear seats aren't needed.
The Crosstrek also gets a beefier rear diff, stiffer suspension, and larger brakes too.
They're the same platform, and share a lot of bodywork, but that's not uncommon among manufacturers now. The Golf and Atlas are both on VW's MQB platform now but that's about where the comparisons end.
"The Crosstrek also has a beefed up locking center differential for towing and a standard six-speed manual transmission,The Impreza’s manual only has five gears..."
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/impreza-vs-crosstrek
That certainly accounts for the price difference. Those higher end parts have real costs. And, Americans have plenty of stuff to tow around. (I am an American car guy.)
The Crosstrek comes stock with a 6-speed manual instead of the Impreza's 5-speed (though 90% of them are sold with the execrable CVT instead); the Crosstrek only comes as a hatchback while the base Impreza is a sedan; the Crosstrek has intermittently been available with a hybrid system.
Though I think the idea that the more expensive model is pushed by dealers makes sense too.
https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/5e0840dce96...
- hybrid motor + battery
- 500 mile range on gas hybrid, 40 mile range on battery
- AWD
Commute to work during the week without touching gas, then on the weekend take roadtrips to the mountains at 50 mpg. And get cheap Toyota repairs/maintenance for everything. It's the quiver of one.
* Still need oil / change spark plugs / timing belts / all the ICE junk
* But have a degrading battery like an EV
* Have weight of both ICE and EV at the same time
* Deal with legacy dealer network (slimey sales, have to pay a big cut to dealers)
* There are an entire 5k being made for the entire US (vs 400k? Model Ys), so you can't even get one if you want one (source: https://electrek.co/2020/06/30/toyota-cuts-output-of-rav4-pr...) . IF you can find one, expect to pay 5-10k over sticker price.
So a little bit of worse of both worlds.
I will gladly take my model Y, thanks ;)
Significantly less often. If 90% of your driving is on the battery, then you might be able to go the life of the car without replacing belts and plugs. You'd still need to change the oil, but could probably get away with only doing it once a year.
> But have a degrading battery like an EV
Depends on the battery. Also, even if it degrades a whopping 50% (Which would probably take 20+ years), you still have the ICE to keep you going.
> Have weight of both ICE and EV at the same time
With only a 40 mile battery, not a big deal.
> Deal with legacy dealer network
Yeah, that's pretty stupid. Dealers just get in the way, and I really wish haggling wasn't a thing at all.
> There are an entire 5k being made for the entire US
I'm guessing that they don't profit much if any on each car sold.
I'm a Model 3 owner, but I don't expect everyone to be able (or want) to drive a BEV. Honestly I wish more plug-in hybrids were being made. They can be electric for most people's commute, yet have the ICE to prevent range anxiety.
Drive ICE until you can switch, and then switch. For that 1:1000 place you absolutely need an ICE (I need to drive to the top of a mountain in the winter), rent an ICE. Just made my switch this year, because there was finally a BEV that was cool enough to compel me to drive it in a form factor I wanted.
It's why I got a Model 3 Performance. Insanely quick acceleration (that doesn't yell to every cop within a mile that I'm gunning it) when I want it, and crazy good efficiency when I don't. If someone made an ICE that could do 0-60 in under 3.5 seconds while still getting 50+ mpg on the highway, I probably would have gotten one. There aren't even any plug-in hybrids that can achieve that.
> Drive ICE until you can switch, and then switch. For that 1:1000 place you absolutely need an ICE (I need to drive to the top of a mountain in the winter), rent an ICE.
I could definitely support that plan.
I haven't road tripped in my Tesla yet. I planned one this year (Portland -> San Diego, about 2400 miles round trip), but cancelled it due to COVID closing everything we were going to do. Though I've taken a couple 300-mile day trips. 150 miles out, then recharged for the return trip while eating dinner or shopping. Easy and fun.
If the car is any good, 20k should mean you can't really get your hands on it without paying over MSRP. If the car is a dud.. well, you won't want it anyway
And if you want an insight into Model Y build issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhvT6OIq7XE
That is not a road trip. I had to look it up: 40-50 miles.
I'm considering a drive from south Texas to northern Colorado next month. That's a road trip.
I'm gatekeeping because I saw the title and thought it would be covering charge duration, long term comfort, etc. This is a day trip, and it isn't a bad review to do - let's just label it properly.
Road trips are long-distance, by definition, or else the term is meaningless. 48 miles? Less than an hour? I know people who drive more than that each way from home to work! I can make that trip in my Fiat 500e, with its super-limited range.
Wikipedia has a few choice quotes: "While there is no consensus as to what distance or time must be traveled/spent in order for the event to qualify as a road trip, it is a commonly held belief that commuting by means of automotive transportation should not qualify as a road trip, regardless of the distance. Some argue that travel may not require a set distance to qualify as a road trip."
"In the United States, a road trip typically implies leaving the state, or in extreme cases, leaving the country for places such as Canada or Mexico. However, in larger states, travel within the state may also be considered a road trip."
For me, a drive from Dallas to Waco (100 miles) is a day trip, aka a kolache run. It's also longer than I can round-trip in my Fiat. A drive from Dallas to Austin (200 miles) is starting to verge on something approaching a road trip. Dallas to Houston (250 miles), still approaching a road trip. Dallas to San Antonio (300 miles), I have called this a road trip, even though I'm second-guessing that now.
Oakland to Sonoma? Ha!
https://youtu.be/uC95WACQhCY
In June I drove from Sacramento to Denver in a Model 3 Performance (similar range to the model Y). No problem, lots of fun, very comfortable, and the charge times were just enough to grab a quick drink, some food, and get back in the car. Often I've have a choice of refilling at 30-40% charge or 10-15%.
The car was pretty packed, because 99% of my belongings were on a moving truck, so needed a computer, blankets, a few kitchen implements, soap/shampoo, and clothes enough for 3 days ... for 3 people.
Granted more storage space in a model Y would have been nicer.
How about something like Seattle to San Diego and back via 2 different routes, like I did on my forester . Or longer?
Regardless of whether most people use an SUV for offroading or not, it doesn't matter. Most SUVs conform to some basic features, especially around wheel clearance being higher than a typical car.
This is just a roomier Model-3 or a Smaller minivan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_classification#SUVs_/_off-...
Wikipedia hints you can pretty much call anything a SUV, it has no black and white definition.
Joking aside, we were ready to go all-in this year with electrics. I even installed an oversize solar array in order to be able to solar-charge at least two vehicles.
And then the fires happened here in California. This changed my mind.
What became brutally apparent during the fires was that the fuel/energy infrastructure comparison between liquid and electric energy isn't even a comparison. People had all kinds of problems when their standard 30 to 50 mile commutes turned into 300 mile commutes. The charging network simply wasn't ready and, if I remember correctly, power outages caused additional issues.
The fact that gas stations exist pretty much at every freeway exit is a massive strategic advantage during an emergency.
One mental tool that came to mind was to imagine that we had to evacuate and we had two vehicles in front of the house: An electric Suburban-like SUV and the electic powered version of exactly the same vehicle. Which keys would I take?
The answer was simple; I would leave the electric behind.
Another interesting data point is that, due to the pandemic, we've had a couple of cars almost parked 100% of the time for since, say, March. Let's put it this way, last time I went to drive my little sports car it had spider webs between the tires and the ground. I've never seen that before.
Without constant charging this would be a massive problem for electrics. It hasn't been an issue with our IG cars, although, yes, there's a practical limit to how long gasoline can be stored without consequences.
Frankly, I don't know what it will take to spin my head back around. I absolutely do want electric vehicles in the future, and that future was going to be 2021 or 2022. Now that timeline is pushed to until such time as the infrastructure and practical realities of running electric cars become equivalent.
This is also why I believe the future of electrics has to lie in some kind of a liquid-based battery charge technology rather than conventional charging. In other words, you would pump a liquid into your battery pack in 5 minutes rather than electrons.
There's a question about whether or not the electrical grid could handle having tens of millions of electric vehicles charging at one time. I haven't done any math on this, which means it is hard to have a valid opinion. Gut feeling? I am not sure we can support mass adoption of electrics.
Hell, I've done it on foot multiple times.