Tesla Model S

First off, I want to point out very clearly that I do not have an agenda against electric cars. I would own one if there was one that functioned just as well as a gasoline powered car. That said, let's take a look at the best electric car in the world.

This is the Tesla Model S. It is an electric car. It is nice to look at.

Now, if you are a true, die-hard petrol-head, you may think that talking about a car with electric power instead of one that is gasoline powered is just something that you shouldn't do. Motor Trend, the American-biased American-based Grand Chancellor of all things fast and furious, named this car the 2013 Car of the Year though, so that must mean something, right? They are a reliable source for the masses, and surely they wouldn't want to mislead their motoring enthusiast readers. That's what it would seem on the surface.

In my opinion, the Model S won the award for Car of the Year, simply because it is an electric car, that performs much like any other sedan of its time, maybe even better than some, and it looks good. In fact, it looks great.  Do looks, comparability, and innovativeness alone warrant a Car of the Year Award though? Not to me. Here’s why.

In Motor Trend’s March 2013 article on the Model S, they say that the Model S is “not just a good electric car, it is a good car.” They may be right. Some of the specs and observations they make, at least paint a picture of a car that functions as a sporty sedan running off of electricity. Where I think you must start to raise some red flags though is when you look at what their claim is based off of. They are saying that the Model S is great, because someone charged it up, and rolled it on to a track, where their trained drivers and writers can ride around and take notes. It’s a little on the quick side and handles well. It’s comparable to other luxury sedans. It seats five adults and has good space for passengers and cargo. You know, that sort of uninteresting blathering that they tend to write into their articles. Usually, these sort of Motor Trend reviews can be useful to consumers and car buyers, but in this one they still fail to notice the most obvious flaw with the car. 

Their review is skewed because it does not take into account the fact that is possibly the most significant repercussion of owning an electric-engine car as your primary means of daily transportation.

The Model S has to be charged. Tesla claims you’ll get 62 miles per hour of charge if you use the “High Power Wall Connector”. You can use this method to charge more quickly only if you opt for the more expensive Dual-Charger setup. By my estimate, the High Power connector, which you would have in your home garage, would actually give you plenty enough charge to make your daily commute. So, if you put you Model S into the charger every night while you sleep, you can make it to work, some errands, and back home. I don't see that this is a huge deal, but I feel I must quote one of my colleagues, as he so bluntly pointed out, "What if you forget to plug it in one night? You won't be making that big meeting in the morning, that's for sure."

What if you're not just going on your drive to work though? What if you’re going on a road trip or a vacation, and you’ll be driving for an entire day. Inevitably, your car will at some point need reviving. Tesla says that you can get 31 miles per hour of charging if you use what they call a “Mobile Connector”. This connects to a type of outlet you’d find on any wall.

So, to refuel your car on petrol that takes 4 minutes, let’s say. And in that 4 minutes’ time, your car is now ready to go again. If you pull over and plug your Tesla Model S into its “Mobile Connector” for the same amount of time, you will be able to drive for 2 miles. 2 miles. The car that I drive is a comparable sedan, and in one short, gasoline fill-up, I can go for about 240 miles, highway. Using the mobile wall charger, The Tesla Model S would have to charge for 7 hours and 45 minutes before it could go the same distance.

Tesla says that in the near future they look to expand the amount of Supercharger Stations across the country, and in the next few years they’ll have a hundred stations in California. They have to cater to the affluent environmentalists out there. The Supercharger gives the Model S 300 miles per hour of charging. (If I can make a note here, that’s still only 20 miles of power in the amount of time it takes to top off a petrol tank.)

Tesla even does their best to mask the impracticality of the Model S in their incomprehensible spec sheet. If you're an electrical engineer or a Baby Einstein you can understand it, but for most anyone else, its just too much jargon, scientific descriptions, and electrical terminology. They say that they seek to provide an affordable luxury sedan, so that the common auto buyer has the Model S as an alternatively fueled option, but seriously can anyone understand this? http://www.teslamotors.com/models/specs

I won't go on too much about the projected battery life and the price of replacing your battery once it has died completely. In electric cars, the battery life has historically been about 7 to 10 years, maximum. The cost of replacing the battery is more than the cost of replacing the entire transmission in other similar sedans. I don't know if Tesla has worked extensively to extend the battery life expectancy, but I do know that it would be more than inconvenient to replace the transmission in any other new car every 10 years.

The bottom-line is that the Tesla Model S does have its short range functionality, and is comparable to most other sedans in many ways. However, it is severely limited by the amount of time it takes to recharge its battery, and the availability of capable charge sources.

I do love the Model S for its looks, and I admire the work that Tesla is doing. It is a good car. I hope that their electric car projects can continue to have the success and recognition they have bolstered recently. 

Marvel at it one last time.

I won’t be buying one though. At least not until you can recharge its battery in less than ten minutes. That’s just a huge limitation that I feel you can’t overlook – unless you’re a Motor Trend writer.

I want to hear some more you guys on the subject of electric cars. I am not the biggest fan yet, but I could be swayed. Elon Musk, go ahead and send me one and I'll let you know if I change my mind. Oh and Mitt Romney, if you're reading this, you couldn't have been more wrong about Tesla. The rest of you, comment below and tell me if I'm being obtuse here.

Car Brand Slogans: A Review

Below is a listing of some slogans that were recently used by automotive companies, along with a little nugget of truth about each. Being in marketing, I study these kind of things, and I thought it'd be entertaining for you all to have a glimpse into the mind of a genius.

BMW: “BMW. The Ultimate Driving Machine.”
Audi: “Keeping ahead through technology.”
You have to enjoy the fact that your grammar check will grab you for both of these ads and tell you "nein, your sentence is nicht gut." These slogans are about the same: very assertive, very German, not bad, but not very memorable.

Mercedes-Benz: “Unlike any other.”
Mercedes-Benz is deeply involved in so many different things related to automotive manufacturing; one could really say that they are “unlike any other.” This one is alright.

Alfa Romeo: “Alfa Romeo. Beauty is not enough.”
This slogan is good because it is accurate, not ridiculous boasting or just making up nonsense like most slogans. Alfa really does make truly beautiful cars, so this works. I also love Alfa Romeo so I'm totally biased here.

Ford: “Built Ford Tough”
Effective. You have to admit, it works. My only problem with this is that Ford writes its ads as if their target is car-buying Neanderthals.

Dodge: “Dodge. Grab life by the horns.”
Not great. This ad slogan was written exclusively for high school football coaches.

Chevrolet: “Chevy: an American revolution.”
You can’t really point out a problem with this slogan, but then, you couldn’t repeat it to me two minutes from now either, could you?

Volkswagen: “Relieves gas pains.”
This is a great plan from VW’s marketers – have your customers associate your brand with flatulence.

Toyota: “The car in front is a Toyota.”
            “Toyota. Moving forward.”
When you read the old ad campaign, “The car in front is a Toyota”, you just think - if there is a Toyota in front of me, the accelerator is stuck. Then you read the new, slightly better slogan: “Toyota. Moving forward.” – you still think - of course its moving forward, it can’t stop either.

Saturn: “Saturn. Like always. Like never before.”
A part of this slogan is accurate; like always, your Saturn will be absolute rubbish. Like never before… no it will be embarrassing, like it always was.

(I have enlarged their logo image here so that you can marvel at this absolutely wonderful masterpiece artwork that is the Saturn logo.)

If you have a favorite slogan not seen here, or if I have offended your most beloved car maker in some way, post below in the comment box. I might enjoy reading your submissions.

Dodge Dart (its a Fiat)

Looks awful right? This is a 1966 Dodge Dart. They were decent little 4-door sedans. Nothing special though. Just a car. Many who remembered this car were far from elated, or even cared at all, when Dodge announced that they were going to release a new version of the Dart in America last year.

The 2012 Dart was targeted at younger people - those who had no memory of the lame old Dart. The CEO of Dodge-Chrysler said before its release, "Whoever’s buying [The Dart] doesn’t have an historical memory of our segment predecessors... It’s almost virgin territory when you’re talking to young buyers now.”

Dodge did a great job, I think, in targeting this market through funny ads that featured cool guy extraordinaire, Tom Brady, and financing programs that allow you to register parts of the car like a wedding registry. 

Also, it looks brilliant.

In spite of its looks and a good marketing campaign though, the new Dart did not sell well in 2012. And I'll tell you why.

First of all, its positioning. Dodge-Chrysler Group is now owned by Fiat Motors, which means really nothing. (The end consumer doesn't usually see a change in mid-range cars when these type of mergers take place.) This means that, while the Dart's success in the small car market is crucial to the success of Dodge, its success is being hindered by its position in that market. You would find the Dart directly between the Fiat 500 and the Chrysler 200, both of which seem to be preferable by the small car buyers of 2012. 

Another reason the Dart did not succeed in its initial year was not the fact that the first 5000 sold only had manual transmission. (Dodge's CEO actually tried to use that as a possible reason for poor sales) The reason that the Dart didn't do so great last year was the fact that people don't expect a small car from Dodge-Chrysler, because of their almost total reliance on large cars; trucks, vans, and SUV's. 70% of their vehicle sales last year were trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles. 

What does this mean for the Dart? It means that it may just take a few years to catch on. It is a good little car, without a doubt, and it looks stunning. I think that people are not perceptive of the fact that Dodge can make a good, small car. When they think Dodge, they think big. Dodge will just have to be diligent marketers so they can become competitive in the small car market, like they want.

We will just have to give it another full year to see if the Fiat dream is going to come true, and if Dodge can sustain its survival through a revival of the Dart.

A Brief Introduction & The Ford Taurus

So here's how its going to work.

I'm Preston. I enjoy things that have engines and wheels. I am going to blog about different cars, and nearly any and all things related to motoring. This is the beginning of it all. Enjoy my musings.

The Ford Taurus: Then and Now

This is my first car - 1998 Ford Taurus SE. A wonderful piece of American machinery, this Taurus and all others will always be sort of special to me, because this one has served me well in my young age. It was my portal to freedom.

some specs:

• 3.0L 12-valve V6 engine
• 145 horsepower at 5200rpm
• 170 ft-lbs of torque at 3250rpm
• 4 speed automatic

It might seem like this would be a fast car, but that V6 has to carry over 3 tons of senseless weight.

The older Taurus models, this model year in particular, was not a looker at all, and really, there is nothing special about them at all. Honestly, if the government were to distribute basic transportation to us all, this would be it.

it pains me to say this because I adore my Taurus, but...
1998 Ford Taurus -- bad car.

Without any clever transition, this is the 2013 Taurus. More appealing to the eye, no question, than the 1998 model, this new Taurus looks more like a Jaguar or an Aston Martin, and much less like basic transportation.

This car is much quicker than the older model, and it looks much better. I look at this car and I actually want to drive it.

In researching I found that, if you're feeling creative, you can create your own 2013 Taurus here.
http://bp3.ford.com/2013-Ford-Taurus?branding=1&lang=en#/Models/

If you're not feeling like doing creativity,
some specs:

• 3.5L 24-valve DOHC TiVCT V6 engine - standard
• 6-speed electronically controlled automatic overdrive - standard

There's plenty of other boring technical things like electronic assisted this-and-that. But without any of that, I'll just go ahead and say it for you: in comparison to the fish-faced 1998 Taurus, this car is so much better in every single way.

now I want one because...

2013 Ford Taurus -- good car.

*This entire post leaves out of the picture the new 2013 Taurus SHO, which I hear is actually quite nice not only on the road, but also on the track. If you would be willing to drop over 40,000 on a heavy 4-door with AWD, this is my recommendation.

If you have any thoughts, please comment. 
I'd love to hear from you. especially if you disagree with me.