Trouble for Tesla: Why Consumer Reports Says Its Model S Was ‘Undriveable’

Trouble for Tesla: Why Consumer Reports Says Its Model S Was ‘Undriveable’

The Tesla logo is seen on a Tesla Model S P85D outside the company's headquarters in Palo Alto, California April 30, 2015. REUTERS/Elijah Nouvelage
© Elijah Nouvelage / Reuters
By Jonathan Berr

Consumer Reports in 2013 gave the Telsa Model S the highest rating of any vehicle in its history. This year’s review did not go as well for Elon Musk’s company.

The venerable magazine had to delay testing of the company’s newest model because its drivers couldn’t open the doors on the $127,000 sedan, temporarily making the car “undriveable.”

The door handles on the Model S P85 retract automatically and lay flush against the vehicle when they are not in use. Once the vehicle receives a signal from the key fob, the handles move to allow people to grip them. Unfortunately, the door handles stopped working after Consumer Reports testers had the vehicle for 27 days and had driven just over 2,300 miles.

That malfunction caused other problems, the magazine says: “[S]ignificantly, the car wouldn't stay in Drive, perhaps misinterpreting that the door was open due to the issue with the door handle.”

Consumer Reports’ troubles aren’t unique. The non-profit’s car reliability survey found that the Model S has had a far higher than average number of problems with doors, locks and latches, according to the organization’s website.

The testing experience wasn’t all bad, though, because the automaker’s customer service is top notch. A technician was sent to the Consumer Reports Auto Test Center the morning after the problem was reported and quickly diagnosed the problem.

“Our car needed a new door-handle control module — the part inside the door itself that includes the electronic sensors and motors to operate the door handle and open the door,” Consumer Reports says.  “The whole repair took about two hours and was covered under the warranty.”

Eric Lyman, vice president of industry insights at TrueCar, told The Fiscal Times that the speed in which Tesla addressed that issue will earn it more kudos from customers who have seen carmakers drag their feet in making needed repairs.  The door handle issue isn’t a big deal, he said.

“Telsa is still a relatively new automaker,” he said. “The reality is that we see this kind of thing happen all of the time. This is pretty normal in the course of business in the auto industry.”

The timing of the mishap comes as Telsa is struggling to repair its credibility with Wall Street after the electric vehicle maker’s disappointing earnings performance.  Bloomberg News reported last week that the Palo Alto, Calif.-based company might have to raise money because of what one analyst described as its “eye watering” cash burn rate, or else it might run out of money in the next three quarters.

The electric vehicle maker also is facing increased competition from more established rivals. General Motors (GM), for instance, recently unveiled a Chevrolet Bolt concept car that is set to hit the market in 2017 with a projected price of about $30,000 and a battery range of 200 miles. The next generation Nissan Leaf, another electric vehicle, will hit the market at about the same time.

For now, Tesla’s biggest challenge may in convincing consumers to buy electric vehicles while oil remains cheap.

Big Ad Buys to Push Tax Reform

By The Fiscal Times Staff

Two conservative groups are spending millions to promote an overhaul of the tax code.

The American Action Network announced Thursday that it will spend $2 million on a new TV ad featuring a Midwestern mom who says her family is “living paycheck to paycheck” and that a middle class tax cut would give them “piece of mind.” The ad will air in 28 congressional districts currently held by Republicans. Americans for Prosperity, backed by the Koch brothers, will spend $4.5 million on ads that promote tax reform while criticizing three red-state Democratic senators -- Claire McCaskill (MO), Tammy Baldwin (WI) and Joe Donnelly (IN).

Some States Will See Dramatic Obamacare Price Hikes in 2018

The federal government forms for applying for health coverage are seen at a rally held by supporters of the Affordable Care Act, widely referred to as "Obamacare", outside the Jackson-Hinds Comprehensive Health Center in Jackson, Mississippi, U.S. on Octo
Jonathan Bachman
By Yuval Rosenberg

Premiums for Affordable Care Act policies are set to rocket higher in many places in 2018. Many of the rates for next year won't be made public until November, but The New York Times found that Georgia has already approved increases of up to 57.5 percent, while the average rate in Florida will jump by about 45 percent and the average in New Mexico will climb by 30 percent. Minnesota, on the other hand, announced this week that a new state reinsurance program has helped stabilize rates and price changes for individual plans in the state will range from a decrease of 38 percent to an increase of 3 percent.

Confusion stemming from the White House and Congress, including uncertainty about whether the Trump administration will continue to make cost-sharing payments to insurers, is largely driving the increases. Keep in mind, though, that about 85 percent of people who buy insurance through Obamacare exchanges won’t feel the price hikes because their plans are subsidized — but the federal government will have to shell out more for those subsidies.

A Tax Reform 'Game Changer'?

By Yuval Rosenberg

The National Association of Home Builders says it's open to changes to the mortgage-interest deduction — a major policy shift that could have significant implications for the Trump administration's proposed tax reform, Politico's Lorraine Woellert reports. The break benefiting homebuyers was preserved as part of the tax framework released last week, but the reform plan also calls for increasing the standard deduction, a shift that would make the mortgage interest deduction less valuable. The National Association of Realtors last week criticized the administration's plan, even though it left the mortgage tax break in place. "This proposal recommends a backdoor elimination of the mortgage interest deduction for all but the top 5 percent who would still itemize their deductions," the group's president said.

Warren Buffett: Eliminating the Estate Tax Would Be a ‘Terrible Mistake’

Berkshire Hathaway chairman and CEO Warren Buffett talks with a reporter before the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska, U.S. May 6, 2017. REUTERS/Rick Wilking
Rick Wilking
By Michael Rainey

The world’s second-wealthiest man is worth about $75 billion, but he isn’t worried about the government taking a bite out of his estate after he’s gone. In fact, Buffett thinks the estate tax, which applies to just a few thousand estates a year, is a reasonable way to allocate resources, especially in a society in which the rich have gotten much richer over the last few decades. Buffett’s main concern is the emergence of “dynastic wealth” that “goes totally against what built this country, what this country stands for.” In an interview Tuesday, Buffett criticized the latest GOP proposal to get rid of the estate tax: "If they pass the bill they're talking about, I could leave $75 billion to a bunch of children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. And if I left it to 35 of them, they'd each have a couple billion dollars ... Is that a great way to allocate resources in the United States?” (CNBC)

Treasury Pulls a Paper That Contradicts Mnuchin’s Corporate Tax Argument

By Yuval Rosenberg

The Treasury Department has taken down from its website a 2012 analysis that found that business owners and shareholders — not workers — bear most of the burden of corporate taxes. The findings of the report run counter to the argument Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has been making in selling the benefits of a reduction in the corporate tax rate. The Trump administration’s tax reform framework calls for dropping the corporate rate from 35 percent to 20 percent.

The 2012 report from the Office of Tax Analysis found that “workers pay 18 percent of the corporate tax while owners of capital pay 82 percent” — figures that are “in line with many economists’ views and close to estimates from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation and Congressional Budget Office,” according to The Wall Street Journal.

A Treasury spokeswoman told the Journal: “The paper was a dated staff analysis from the previous administration. It does not represent our current thinking and analysis.”

Jason Furman, who was chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, tweeted that the goal of the technical paper series that included the removed study “was to be more transparent about the methodology Treasury used for its modeling and analysis.”