Tesla CEO short-circuits over critical NY Times review

Paul A. Eisenstein , The Detroit Bureau – 3 days

Never shy to take on a major media outlet that has leveled criticism at his products, Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk is accusing the New York Times of publishing a “fake” story regarding a lengthy drive of the battery-car start-up’s Model S sedan.

The entrepreneur – who also founded the Space X rocket company – took offense to a report by Times correspondent John Broder who claims he was unable to complete a drive from Washington, D.C. to Boston and had to finish the trip on a flatbed.

Musk told CNBC on Monday that a recent New York Times article claiming that cold weather cuts the mileage on the company's electric car is bogus.

"Essentially, we think the article is a bit of a set up and is unreasonable," Musk said.

During a test drive chronicled in the New York Times article, the charge on the Tesla Model S was not enough to reach the next charging station on his journey up Interstate 95 to Boston. (Watch: Tesla's Big PR Fail)

But Musk told CNBC that after downloading the vehicle logs following the test drive, "it showed in fact (the author) had not charged up to the maximum charge in the car. It's like starting off a drive with a tank that's not full."

And instead of driving to the next Supercharger station to recharge the car, the drive took an extensive detour through Manhattan and drove at speeds which decreased the car's range, Musk said.

“NYTimes article about Tesla range in cold is fake. Vehicle logs tell true story that he didn't actually charge to max & took a long detour,” Musk declared in one of several Tweets he has issued about the Times review.

He also noted that, “Tesla data logging is only turned on with explicit written permission from customers, but after Top Gear BS, we always keep it on for media.”

The Times has meanwhile fired back, issuing a statement that, "Any suggestion that the account was 'fake' is, of course, flatly untrue.”

It added that, "Our reporter followed the instructions he was given in multiple conversations with Tesla personnel. He described the entire drive in the story; there was no unreported detour. And he was never told to plug the car in overnight in cold weather, despite repeated contact with Tesla."

Musk has shown a prickly sensitivity to negative reviews and also filed suit against the popular BBC automotive series, “Top Gear,” when it ran a story claiming Tesla’s earlier Roadster model ran out of juice during testing.

The controversy centers around the new Tesla Model S which went on sale last July. The battery-car maker has introduced three primary versions of the sedan with company-defined ranges of 160, 230 and 300 miles – though the EPA ratings are lower. Until recently, Tesla was producing only the longest-range model.

The test drive was designed to experience not just the Tesla Model S but also the network of so-called Supercharger stations that Tesla is setting up in primary markets. Using 480-volt current, they’re supposed to be able to deliver an approximately 80% charge in about a half hour, a fraction of the time it would normally require using a conventional, so-called Level II 240-volt charging system.

Broder reportedly plugged into Superchargers in Newark, Delaware and Milford, Connecticut. Even so, the veteran NY Times correspondent claims he couldn’t make it to the second charger before running out of power and required a flatbed to get there.

In his series of Tweets, Musk has suggested he will offer other journalists the opportunity to drive the Model S along the same route as the Times. That is leading to a flurry of hand-raising by automotive journalists who have been generally unable to get into the widely discussed battery car even seven months after its introduction.

The lack of availability has made it extremely difficult to confirm Tesla’s claims for range with the Model S – which it contends is significantly greater than for any other battery vehicle now on the road. Other products, such as the Nissan Leaf and Ford Focus EV, deliver less than 100 miles per charge – albeit with significantly smaller battery packs.In fact, spokeswoman Shanna Hendricks again advised TheDetroitBureau.com that, “We are limited by press car availability. We do not have huge fleets like other car makers.”

It remains to be seen what Tesla might do beyond criticizing the Times’ story. It filed suit against the BBC, the producer of Top Gear, only to have the courts toss the maker’s claim out. The same thing happened after Tesla amended its legal claim, the court declaring, that what Top Gear aired was not “defamatory at all, or, if it is, it is not capable of being a sufficiently serious defamatory meaning to constitute a real and substantial tort."

CNBC contributed to this story.

Copyright 2013 The Detroit Bureau

Read More

Ford speedometer claims for review by EPA face

Paul A. Eisenstein, the Detroit Bureau
The reinforced environmental protection agency mileage claims for two of the Ford Motor Co. two latest hybrid models to review.

The move was a report by consumer reports magazine, the Ford Fusion hybrid and Ford C-Max delivered raised extensively promoted hybrid significantly lower fuel consumption than the manufacturer in its advertising. The Federal Agency is particularly sensitive to the issue after the discovery that the South Korean Automakers Kia and Hyundai the fuel-economy figures for 13 of their own products become fake.

According to consumer reports, after 2,000 miles to go were the two Ford hybrids drive less than 35 miles per gallon in the city, lower than Ford claims, while the two models just fell on the highway and combined driving cycle, as well as 12 mpg. The gas-electric models C-Max and fusion are rated at 47/47/47 mpg.

Ford responded to the influential not-for-profit magazine it was, that can vary and insist that owners have often reported mileage higher than the EPA pay approved. For his part, LINC Wehrly, Director of EPA compliance testing center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, carefully echoed this position of the Detroit News, tells "" A hybrid vehicle will be widely variable than a conventional vehicle,"when it comes to fuel mileage observed."

However, the EPA is mode apparently in crackdown after the discovery during the test by Hyundai and Kia mileage claims that the two Korean companies overstated their fuel consumption by up to 6 mpg to 13 separate models. You were forced to the numbers - an embarrassment for companies that had advertised a number of products, the more than 40 mpg - and issue credit to owner previously rolled back.

The Agency had indicated, that it to see if it the fuel economy regulations properly complied with and that evaluation will take Ford now under the microscope would be looking at other manufacturers.

Ford global marketing Chief Jim Farley said, the manufacturer is not abusing the provisions are recorded and released a statement, claiming the company "early C-MAX hybrid and fusion hybrid, customers praise the vehicles and a range of fuel economy figures, including to sign some reports about 47 mpg." This reinforced the fact that driving conditions, and other factors driving style can help lead, that mileage will vary." The EPA was commissioned by the Congress with both the corporate average fuel economy or CAFE, standards, monitoring and ensuring the industry mileage claims. But the Agency relies on the vendors who treat actual exam and analysis and some fear, with fuel consumption now as the top priority of most American motorists, increases the pressure to turn the data.

The C-Max and fusion hybrids can be up to 62 km/h electric, a clear advantage in the EPA test process the tests run only up to 60 km/h in vehicles. Even at low speed, the two Ford vehicles will fire when the battery is low or if a motorist driving aggressively and, significantly, which can reduce fuel consumption, the manufacturer confirms their gas engines.

The Detroit Bureau: White House wants black boxes in all future CarsLike Hyundai, there were a number of reports and reviews, which claims the C-Max and fusion hybrids, providing less than the mileage found. But critics note that this is far unique. Variations of less than 20% are common, especially on battery-based products. The EPA revised its process physical and chemical investigation in 2008 largely to hybrid vehicle results in sync with the real drive make.

It is unclear, how long, the EPA review takes the Ford hybrids.

The Agency could fit the numbers but Ford will find rules in compliance with the current test. The manufacturer clearly the procedures were injured have, but it would be subject to significant fines and possibly steps similar to Hyundai and Kia, to meet owner.

These two Maker are still the threat of a lawsuit. Several owners have filed against already claims the Korean brands

Read More

Review: 4-cylinder Ford Escape strikes the right tone

Ford

The 2013 Escape will offer only four-cylinder engines. Can such engines really match customers' power expectations? Yes.

By Dan Carney, msnbc.com contributor
We’ve seen this movie before: Stagnant economy. Soaring gas prices. Government-mandated increases in fuel economy that doom the big vehicles Americans prefer.

In the 1970s, automakers responded to those conditions with that they called “downsizing.” Cars became cheaply made, cramped and slow. For some reason, consumers weren’t thrilled with these new models. The quick-and-dirty solution was to bolt a turbocharger onto their wheezing, underperforming four-cylinder engines with the promise of hot performance and good fuel economy. Sailors have made more reliable promises to girls in foreign ports.

The technology was immature and the result was unreliable: short-lived engines with poor dynamic driving qualities. Ford was one of the culprits, with turbocharged four-cylinder engines offered in models like the Mustang and Thunderbird, which were traditionally powered by V8s.

But that was a long time ago. In response to pricey gas and more stringent federal fuel economy standards, Ford is rolling out a family of smaller turbocharged engines to replace bigger, thirstier ones. And this time, Ford got it right.

While the V6 engine option was popular in the outgoing Escape compact SUV, the 2013 Escape will offer only four-cylinder engines. Can such engines really match customers’ power expectations? Yes they can. Especially when they are the turbocharged EcoBoost engines that Ford offers as an upgrade from the base engine.

The base engine is an update of 168-horsepower, 2.5-liter four-cylinder seen in the outgoing model and it is a good one for budget-conscious drivers, with 22 mpg city and 31 mpg highway. But things start to get more interesting with the next step in the lineup, with a 178-hp turbocharger EcoBoost 1.6-liter four-cylinder.

That's an incredibly small engine to expect to move a 3,500-plus pound SUV, but thanks to modern turbocharger technology it makes both the peak power and the low-speed torque to move the Escape with good hustle. It has marginally better horsepower, torque and fuel economy than the base engine, a combination that makes it an appealing upgrade. The EcoBoost 1.6 offers the maximum fuel economy among the Escape’s engines, with 23 mpg city and 33 mpg highway.

A lot of buyers liked their V6 engines, though. What are they to do? The 240-hp 2.0-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder is the answer for them. Ford did extra homework on this engine, giving drivers more power than the old model’s V6 with fuel economy nearly equal to that of the base engine, at 23 mpg city and 30 mpg highway.

But just as importantly, Ford engineers sweated the detailed needed to make the EcoBoost 2.0 smooth and quiet enough to serve as a legitimate substitute for a V6. This is the area where carmakers will see the most resistance from customers, because V6 and V8 engines are smooth and quiet, with a refined exhaust note. Four-cylinders are inherently raucous, challenging engineers to find ways to tame their obnoxious nature if upmarket customers are to accept them.

Ford has achieved that with the 2.0 EcoBoost. The 1.6 EcoBoost targets a customer with a sportier mindset who might want to hear the engine a little bit, so it is louder, but the 2.0-liter is thoroughly muffled.

That quietness is indicative of the 2013 Escape’s overall refinement. Like the Ford Focus compact car on which it is based, the Escape is a notch above its competitors, providing a rich feeling driving experience. Unlike the Focus, the Escape enjoys a proper automatic transmission, with six gears and slick shifts, so the Escape won’t chase away potential buyers with an irritating, rough-driving automated manual transmission posing as an automatic.

The Escape’s cabin is opulently detailed, and even the entry-level models have pleasant soft-touch surfaces. The thick-rimmed steering wheel connects to excellent steering that provides superb feedback. The Mazda CX-5 is the Escape’s only equal dynamically, and the Escape has less road and wind noise inside for a more placid passenger space.

Like other new Fords, the Escape boasts an improved version of the annoying-to-use Sync voice command system and MyFord Touch touch-screen infotainment systems. The latest iteration is less of a pain in the, er, neck to use but still falls short of the simplicity and convenience of properly designed knobs and switches. At this point MyFord Touch remains an exercise in technology for technology’s sake, so we look forward to the next upgrade. We’d still opt for the conventional radio and climate controls.

But here’s a tiny electronic detail they got right: the turn signal. Seems simple enough, but in recent years Ford and other carmakers have decided that it would be better for the control stalk to return to center, even when you’ve activated the turn signal. For the Escape they’ve gone back to having the stalk remain in the raised or lowered position if the turn signal is on, letting you know it is still on and making turning it off simple. When the stalk is already in the middle, how do you cancel a turn signal?

Other electronic gimmicks: a tailgate that opens and closes remotely by kicking your foot under the rear in the manner of an old straight-ahead field goal kicker (props to Redskins kicker Mark Mosley, 1982 NFL MVP, the last straight-ahead kicker and the only kicker ever named MVP!). And electronic grille shutters that block airflow to the radiator at highway speeds to trim aerodynamic drag and boost fuel economy.

The “U” in SUV does stand for “Utility” and Ford added that in the Escape by stretching the vehicle’s wheelbase and adding most of that newfound space to the rear seat for more passenger legroom. The cargo area is also larger for that ubiquitous “stuff” people cite when explaining their need for an SUV rather than a sedan.

The Escape marks our third consecutive compact SUV review, as this hotly contested segment turns over this year. That’s because compact SUVs are second only to sedans in popularity, and the two groups account for 60 percent of new car sales.

With impressive innovations like EcoBoost providing an excellent combination of power and frugality, it is easy to see why these vehicles are attracting a large following.

2013 Ford Escape

Base price: $23,295 (including $825 delivery)Price as tested: $26,875 (including $825 delivery)EPA fuel economy: 23 city, 33 highwayPros: Slippery styling, zippy handling, bank-vault solidityCons: MyFord Touch infotainment hassles, and, um, that’s about itVerdict: The best compact SUV in the mainstream segment, with the handling of the Mazda CX-5 and the quietness of premium-segment models.Standard equipment: 2.5-liter 168-hp four-cylinder engine, six-speed automatic transmission, power steering, AM/FM/CD six-speaker stereo, battery saver featureMajor options: 1.6-liter 178-hp EcoBoost engine, Sync voice control, Sirius satellite radio, fog lamps, SecuriCode keyless entrySafety equipment: electronic stability control , antilock brakes, brake assist, dual-stage front airbags, side airbags, driver’s knee airbag, tire pressure monitoring

Read More

Review: Little Chevy Sonic boasts style, pep

 

Brian Konoske (Photographer) / GM

The 2012 Chevrolet Sonic hatchback.

By Dan Carney

Only a block from the media introduction of the 2012 Chevrolet Sonic, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art hosted an exhibit of products created for the Braun electronics company.

The exhibit demonstrated how the designs, by Dieter Rams boosted the appeal of consumer products and  influenced today’s paragon of industrial design: Apple.

This is relevant to the new Sonic because if carmakers from time to time lose focus on the importance of the styling of their vehicles, they especially seem to think that people who buy low-priced subcompact cars have no taste, style or aspirations.

Subcompact cars, outside a few niche premium products like the Mini Cooper and Fiat 500, have been doomed to wear dull, indifferent styling.

But Braun, and then Apple, showed that it is possible to design affordable, mainstream, high-volume products that look like they belong in a museum. I wouldn’t necessarily predict that the 2012 Sonic is museum-ready, but the car’s adventurous, expressive styling does offer small-car shoppers some redemption from the too-often invisible style of cars in the segment.

The vivid flair of sport motorcycles provided the Sonic’s inspiration inside and out. The influence is most apparent in the quad circular headlamps and in the instrument binnacle atop the steering column. 

Elsewhere, well, it’s hard to find much else on a compact car that resembles the spare appearance of a sportbike. But a prominent exhaust or faux handgrips molded into the steering wheel would have been an overwrought interpretation of the theme.

Some un-motorcycle-like details: Engineers sought to make the Sonic as safe as possible with a profusion of airbags. It’s hard to imagine where they could fit 10 airbags in such a small car, but that fact certainly cultivates the mental image of the entire cabin stuffed with pillowy cushions in the event of a disaster.

Of course, those cushions are no good if the metal box around them is flimsy, so the Sonic is reinforced with high-strength steel that yields a body shell 77 percent stiffer than that of the outgoing Aveo model.

Some other upgrades? How about available sunroof, heated seats and remote start? Here is some substance to support the Sonic’s style that lets customers escape the feeling that they’ve shortchanged themselves by buying a subcompact.

One miss: the outgoing Aveo model offered a lumbar adjuster for the driver’s seat that is absent from the Sonic. We brothers of chronic lower back pain beg for its return.

Also un-motorcycle-like: sluggish, indifferent throttle response that lags disappointingly on the application and churns onward after lifting off the gas with the inertia of a temporary government program.

The tiny 1.4-liter four-cylinder engine produces an impressive 138 horsepower and a more surprising 148 pound-feet of torque thanks to a turbocharger. Once a shibboleth connoting maximum performance, turbocharging is now a tool applied to improve fuel economy because it lets small engines do the work of big ones. Seeing a torque number that’s bigger than the horsepower rating is the proof Chevy’s engineers have accomplished that feat because in small engines that order is normally reversed.

But it seems that tuning engines to sip gas like espresso rather than to gulp it like Gatorade saps them of the crisp response epitomized by the zing of sportbikes. Even the masters of small engine tuning at Honda struggle with this. Hopefully GM's tuners can continue to improve this detail.

Of course it’s a detail that matters only to us unreformed enthusiasts who insist on choosing the Sonic's superb six-speed manual transmission, with its precise shifter and smooth clutch take-up. Most Sonic buyers will choose the automatic, which masks the engine's throttle response characteristics.

Behind the wheel the driver's eye falls on a vast expanse of plastic. What did you expect in a subcompact, Terrazzo tile? But Chevy's designers wisely chose not to pretend otherwise.

"We do have a plastic dashboard," noted design manager Kathy Sirvio. "Instead of trying to make it look like something it is not, we put a nice technical grain on it."

If you have ever wondered what a reviewer means when discussing "good" vs. "cheap" plastic, this is it. Good plastic is honest enough to not pretend it is something else, without surrendering all pretense of style so that it looks like something found at the bottom of your kid's toy box.

The high-strength steel in the body shell contributes to the Sonic's solid feeling, both on the road and when closing doors. Standard aluminum wheels trim away a couple decibels of road noise, further refining the drive. 

Both motorcycles and subcompact cars are supposed to get good fuel economy, and the EPA says the Sonic is superlative, with a 40 mpg highway rating for the tested manual transmission. But fuel economy depends substantially on how the car is driven, and a few days of fun driving pushed my test car's mileage down to an un-motorcycle-like 25 mpg.

I'll take the blame for that this time, but it was surprising to see such a low number. Drivers who were born to be mild but appreciate motorcycle-influenced style can aim for the EPA's 40 mpg rating with their own Chevy Sonic.

Vital stats: 2012 Chevrolet Sonic

Base price: $16,495

As tested: $17,195

EPA fuel economy (city/highway): 29/40

Pros: The only subcompact made in America, 10 standard airbags, premium options, such as seat heaters.

Cons: A sluggish, disconnected throttle response.

Verdict: Not just GM's first great subcompact; the Sonic is the first one that’s good.

Standard equipment: 138-hp, 1.4-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine, aluminum wheels, tilting and telescoping steering, power windows and door locks, heated outside mirrors.

Major options: Six-speed manual transmission.

Safety equipment: Electronic stability control, 10 standard airbags, antilock brakes.

Read More