By on December 17, 2008

From egmcartech.com: “For the record: Thanks to The Stig’s impressive turn behind the wheel, the Tesla Roadster gets a higher ranking in Top Gear’s performance board than a Porsche 911 GT3. Jeremy Clarkson, a die-hard ‘petrol head’ with a clear bias against green cars generally, said that it must be ‘snowing in hell’ because he had such a great time driving the Roadster and now considers himself a “volt head” thanks to the Roadster’s amazing performance. This is amazingly high praise from Clarkson, whose entire schtick is to savage even his most beloved petrol-guzzling sports cars.

However, I would like to clarify a couple things. Never at any time did Clarkson or any of the Top Gear drivers run out of charge. In fact, they never got below 20 percent charge in either car; they never had to push a car off the track because of lack of charge or a fault. (It’s unclear why they were pushing one into a garage in the video; I’ll refrain from speculating about their motives and their acting ability.)

The “brake failure” Clarkson mentions was solely a blown fuse; a service technician replaced the Roadster’s pump and it was back up and running immediately. They were never without a car, and the Top Gear testing did not put the Roadster’s reliability or safety in question whatsoever. Again, I’m going to leave out comments as to why the good folks at Top Gear might have mischaracterized the blown fuse as a brake failure, which is was decidedly not.

I am also unclear as to why Clarkson said it took 16 hours to recharge the Roadster without qualifying that statement at all. The vast majority of people who have taken delivery of their Roadsters (and there are more than 100 of them now) have much faster systems that recharge from dead to full in as little as 3.5 hours. However, I really enjoyed and heartily endorse Clarkson’s suggestion that, if people want to race Roadsters 24-7, they should simply buy two.

If anyone continued watching the show until the end, you no doubt also saw the show’s astoundingly uninformed coverage of Honda’s hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle, which cannot be purchased at all but rather leased for $600 per month in Southern California to 200 pre-qualified customers in the next three years. Clarkson rips on the Roadster for being three times the price of a Lotus Elise — yet I find it odd that the humble advocates for everyman at Top Gear never even mention the price of the Clarity, which is about five times the cost of a Roadster, according to industry analysts. (Honda refuses to divulge the price of the Clarity, but its previous FCX, first delivered in 2002, cost about $1 million each to produce, and executives have coyly indicated that the new ones are about half the cost of the old ones.)

A conspicuous omission, me thinks. Let the readers beware.

Rachel Konrad
Senior Communications Manager
Tesla Motors Inc.”
[thanks to tigeraid for the link]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

48 Comments on “Tesla Motors Responds to Top Gear Review...”


  • avatar
    PeteMoran

    Well, I stopped watching Top Gear the night Clarkson repeated the internets myth “it does more environmental damage to build a Prius than…..” dribble.

    I wrote to the BBC to request a correction (Toyota told me they have given up fighting that myth) and got a response from Top Gear producers; “Jeremy stands by his claim. Go away.” WTF!!!

    Tabloid controversy is the name of the game for these guys lately. The recent “kill a prostitute” saga only reinforces my belief.

  • avatar

    Methinks “me thinks” is one word. Or at least I like it better that way. In any case, this is a good response to the review, I particularly like that they endorsed the idea of getting two cars. It was certainly interesting to see Clarkson thoroughly enjoying himself in an electric car; say what you will about business models or actual production, the Tesla Roadster is an exciting and interesting car.

  • avatar
    no_slushbox

    Most British will never drive a car, so I can’t blame Top Gear and Clarkson for exagerating and twisting the experience a bit for their entertainment.

    Giving Top Gear a car but then correcting Top Gears misrepresentations puts Tesla ahead of the American arm of any other American car company.

    I was at a Honda dealer over the weekend looking at a CR-V lease (my girlfriend likes the whole up high thing), and the dealer was being a shithead.

    He wanted almost as much as a Clarity lease costs to lease to lease a loaded CR-V no money down (but prime credit, but I refuse to put a down payment on a rental), so I asked him about leasing a Clarity.

    Not surprizingly, no dice. You know famous people in Hollywood are nuts when they are turning down free Maserati leases (at least they are free according to Entourage) to pay $600 a month for an even more bloated Accord. EV-1 part duex.

    I’m sure Tesla would sell me a car. Not sure when I would get it, but they would sell it to me.

  • avatar
    cgraham

    ‘The “brake failure” Clarkson mentions was solely a blown fuse; a service technician replaced the Roadster’s pump and it was back up and running immediately.’

    Am I missing something here, or does this not make any sense at all? Does ‘pump’ mean ‘fuse’? If i blow a fuse, thats not a big deal, if i need a new PUMP that impacts reliability.

  • avatar
    mattb

    cgraham:
    it sounds to me like the fuse is in the pump and isn’t easily replaceable so they just replaced the whole pump.

    however, if it was a fuse fail that had something to do with the brakes, I would imagine that it is a safety issue. I’d like to see a more descriptive diagnosis from the Tesla guys.

    I like the roadster a lot, but I see its impracticality for a few situations (trips, etc), and I’m glad that the TG guys gave it a pretty fair shake, even if they did a bit of acting along the way.

  • avatar
    thetopdog

    Does anybody else find it hard to believe the Tesla (which I believe has low-rolling resistance tires) made it around the track faster than a 911 GT3 with Pilot Sport Cup R-compound tires? Isn’t it just an Elise with a battery pack? How is it that fast?

  • avatar
    CarnotCycle

    Given the critical function of brakes, I find it strange they are using fuses anywhere in the brakes. Put a circuit breaker on the dash, so like on an airplane you know what blows and what doesn’t BEFORE your life depends on it working, and you have some input on recovery modes while operating the vehicle. Just my two cents…

  • avatar
    akear

    Do you believe TG will ever be unbiased when it comes to reviewing an American car?

  • avatar
    no_slushbox

    thetopdog:

    Apparently if the time is rounded to the tenth of a second the Tesla is only tied with the GT3.

    According to the Top Gear list the Tesla is about a second slower than an Exige and about 8 seconds quicker than an Elise (possibly the first generation).

    I’m not sure if Top Gear requires the car to run on stock tires.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/powerlaps.shtml

  • avatar
    zerofoo

    Here we go again….

    Top Gear is ENTERTAINMENT – their reviews are hardly impartial.

    Would you watch Top Gear for camping tips, amphibious vehicle how-tos, or recommendations on crossing Botswana?

    No you wouldn’t – but each of those episodes was fun to watch.

    If you want honest reviews – read TTAC, if you want to be entertained, watch Top Gear.

    -ted

  • avatar
    tedward

    I love Jeremy Clarkson because he had a Prius hosed down with machine-gun fire on one of his trips to the US. My hero. Still, if he’s gonna hate the Prius for being awful to drive he should’ve given the Tesla a slightly fairer shake than he did. I mean, a torque rich, mid-engine, elise based roadster that just happens to use no gas sounds pretty damn good to me. And if he really hates the Prius for the reasons that he claims then supporting this car a little bit may just lend some credibility to his opinions.

    On the other hand, they’re well into production on this thing and they can’t keep one example, cherry-picked I’m sure, running for a single track session? You have got to be kidding me. The fact that a pump needed replacement (if it went down as mentioned above) also indicates that the likely weak spots in their design aren’t engineered to be easily servicable or cheaply repaired. If the “reasonably priced car” can do it, than that 90k roadster sure as hell better be able to.

  • avatar
    afuller

    Perhaps it was a breaker that failed for some sort of pump in the car and Jeremy didn’t get his terms absolutely correct?

    Regardless, if it was a brake pump that needed to be replaced it was probably an ABS pump wouldn’t you think? Even an electric car uses hydraulic brakes I believe which puts an ABS pump failure in the same category as it would in your neighbors Buick, not that big of a deal.

  • avatar
    Wulv

    Yes there are some holes in the Tesla explanation.
    The brake/fuse thing scares me, bah it was only a fuse, easily changeable. Who the hell has time to change a fuse or a PUMP when your brakes fail?
    “I am also unclear as to why Clarkson said it took 16 hours to recharge the Roadster without qualifying that statement at all. The vast majority of people who have taken delivery of their Roadsters (and there are more than 100 of them now) have much faster systems that recharge from dead to full in as little as 3.5 hours.” he does qualify his statement, he says ,”To fully recharge the batteries on this from a normal 13 amp socket like that, takes 16 hours”. The vast majority of users have had “systems” installed in their house specifically to recharge their car.

    I thought the Tesla Roadster was an alright looking car, next to the actual Elise it is downright fugly, at least with the top up. I have seen both, but never together before.

  • avatar
    CarnotCycle

    You know, looking at these other posters, the electrical issue could have been with the mechanical brakes and not the electric ones, but it does bring up an interesting question…

    What is the “stopping power” of the electric component of the brakes on cars like a Tesla – or even a Prius – before they need old-fashioned mechanically actuated friction to finish stopping? If the mechanical brakes on a Prius or a Tesla went out, how much retrorocket is left with the electric brakes?

  • avatar
    OldandSlow

    I’ll second the comment that TG is geared toward entertainment rather than an unbiased appraisal of the cars tested. Hoonage and an intense dislike of the Green police are a standard part of the show. I rather enjoy their antics.

  • avatar
    TexasAg03

    The “brake failure” Clarkson mentions was solely a blown fuse; a service technician replaced the Roadster’s pump and it was back up and running immediately. […] Again, I’m going to leave out comments as to why the good folks at Top Gear might have mischaracterized the blown fuse as a brake failure, which is was decidedly not.

    It was a brake failure. The failure may have been due to a blown fuse, but it was a failure of the brake system.

  • avatar
    Lokki

    Brake failure…

    I am no fan of the Tesla but I would suspect that the brakes are a Lotus component. If that were the case, I wouldn’t fault Tesla per se for any problems. Additionally, with today’s dual master cylinders and other safety features, I wouldn’t really be too worried about a single failure under track conditions. That’s not indicative of anything. I’d be more worried about the M5 transmission failures that keep popping up in road test reports.

    Having said that, I’m still not clear on why the Tesla is anything wonderful. Lots of marketing for sure, but under that, so what? It’s just a rich kid’s toy without any meaning or impact. Something to be offered in the Neiman Marcus Christmas catalog, and then forgotten.

  • avatar
    Lumbergh21

    Anybody who has had their brakes fail for whatever reason knows that it is always a big deal. Second her explanation of the failure is anything but clear. A fuse blew so we had a service technician simply replace the pump? Was it a fuse or a pump or as some have suggested a fuse integral in a pump? And, how often do you have a service technician handy to replace anything? THE CAR BROKE DOWN. no sugar coating of the fact will change that. How many of the other super cars have broken down on Top Gear’s test track? The Koenigsegg (sp?), Ford GT, Ariel Atom, any of the Porsches? To excuse it as, “this is a supercar, they break down”, doesn’t fly for me.

  • avatar
    alex_rashev

    Folks,

    This is a brake booster problem – it’s “brake failure” in a way, sure, but it’s not that big of a deal. The car still has gigantic binders and weighs like a Miata – you’d just have to press the pedal a bit harder, that’s all.

    Electric cars don’t have the luxury of a convenient vacuum source, which is why they commonly use a vacuum pump driven by an electric motor (kinda like diesel trucks).

    Not a big deal at all. Given that it’s a new-ish car, component failure is to be expected. Definetely beats the strut tower failure of a brand-new Passat that I witnessed the other day (and subsequent collision with a parked car).
    Remember, failure curve is an inverted bell. Shit falls off the least when you have ~70K-150K miles on the car, from my experience.

  • avatar

    First of all, it does do more environmental damage to build a Prius than a regular car. The scientific explanation is that, what you save in emmissions from the vehicle, you are emmitting during production.

    Natural Gas by the way emites more units of CO2 than regular gasoline does.

    An electric car requires more energy (for production of electricity, transportation of electricity, and enthropic loss) than regular gasoline cars do.

    The way I see it, Clarkson is right. The Tesla isn’t efficient enough for everyday needs.

    Alternative fuel vehicles need to have a “refuel and go” model that is already in place with our gasoline cars. They also need to be spacious vehicles.

    Design them after the Accord, the 300C, the Lincoln Town car, the Edge, the Pacifica and the Town & Country. That’s the only surefire way to offer enough variety while producing an intelligent product.

  • avatar
    guyincognito

    Yeah, I think Tesla needs Mr. Siry back. This explanation sucks. Ok, maybe technically the car never completely drained the batteries but it clearly couldn’t be driven around the track anymore and needed a recharge. And the 16 hour charge time, while not in line with what you could possibly get on specialized home charger, is what you would face if you took it to the only reasonable place to use such a vehicle, the track. And the car broke down, whether a fuse, pump or any combination. Maybe Jeremy’s lack of technical knowledge prevented him from describing the problems in specific detail but I don’t see anything from this statement that disproves his claims.

  • avatar
    polpo

    I wonder if the fuse in question is a hydraulic fuse, not an electrical one.

    In any case; yeah; I’m becoming less and less enamored with Top Gear with their poor acting ability and sound production (did anyone actually believe the noise the Tesla “made” when the batteries “went out”?) and doing a bad job of covering up the fabrications in their shows. It’s one thing to stage something for the larking about segments, but for the reviews it strains journalistic integrity greatly.

  • avatar
    exnilo

    Simple fact. It took 2 Tesla’s to complete the test. I don’t recall seeing 2 Porches, or 2 of any other car to complete a test. Sure he over the top, thats what makes it entertaining. Note: the car did over heat and had brake trouble. Despite that fact I thought he was fairly generous to the Tesla!

  • avatar
    dgduris

    I wonder of the brake pump had to be replaced because it was malfunctioning and caused the fuse to blow.

    TG is over the top. But, you know, that’s all part of fair balance on the UK telly.

  • avatar
    RichardD

    The service Top Gear rendered to the motoring community is this: it revealed Tesla’s two dirty secrets.

    One. The range isn’t 200 miles during sporting driving. Anyone with half a brain could have figured this out, but Tesla sales material never mentions the possibility you’d ever see less than 200 miles. And I think the “20% charge” thing is spin. There’s a certain level under which you don’t let laptop batteries drop or they essentially become useless.

    Two. The handling sucks. All of the massive PR blitz Tesla did on this car, as documented on TTAC, intentionally avoided allowing anyone to evaluate the handling. It’s obvious that if you take one of the best handling cars on the planet — the Lotus Elise — and stick THREE Oprahs in the passenger seat it’s going to suck.

    Has any outlet besides Top Gear or TTAC mentioned these facts? If so, I haven’t seen it. The people who WANT this car to be the greatest invention since the flourescent lightbulb are the ones distorting the truth. I though Jeremy was quite balanced.

  • avatar
    Orangutan

    I would hardly call a mysterious 100 cars “well into production”, tedward.

  • avatar
    tedward

    Orangutan…yeah, I wondered about that myself as I was writing it. The thing is, I don’t think they’ll ever ramp up to serious mass production (I love the idea of an affordable electric sedan, but they’ll have to show me customers and cars before I believe it). As it stands, they’re a tiny niche-market exotic car manufacturer, so I figure 100 cars could be a significant portion of the cars they end up building. Hope I’m wrong.

  • avatar
    AnalogKid

    You have to take Clarkson’s biases with a grain of salt. He hates Porsche’s too. Just in this series he compared a 911 GT2 to a Gallardo and totally ragged on the 911’s handling, while ignoring the fact that GT2’s have no traction control at all, by design. He then hid the fact that the 911 had the exact same time around the track as the Gallardo.

    Those who criticize the Tesla’s handling miss the point. Sure it’s heavier than the Elise, but the electric motor has so much torque that it is still faster, even with the extra weight.

    I love Top Gear, but they did overplay the technical problems. The brake issue is pretty minor and it’s no surprise at all that the range is vastly reduced – that’s not just “sporting” driving they’re doing there, it’s track abuse that would void the warranty of my 335i.

    All in all, I think the Tesla did pretty well. Yes, it’s a rich guy’s toy and yes, they hyped it to death but I’m still rooting for these guys. I drive by the Tesla store in LA every day on my way home from work. It’s a pretty car and it would be a blast to drive.

  • avatar

    I just thought it was interesting that Jeremy critisized the Roadster for failing to meet its range targets in “real-world conditions”. I don’t know about you folks but my drive to work doesn’t look much like the Top Gear Test Track.

    Thumbs up for entertainment though.

  • avatar

    I think saying the Tesla’s handling sucks might be a little much. Is it inferior to the Elise? Absolutely. (Although it might be interesting to see some hard numbers on the difference between the low rolling resistance tires and some actual performance rubber.) Compared to most passenger cars, it still seems pretty good. The question I have is how does its handling compare to something like a 370Z or a Corvette?

  • avatar
    t-truck

    TG entertaining as always, but did we really learn anything?

    It is not a surprise that track cars get lousy mileage and car that you trash the hell out of may actually break down, grand discoveries there!

    Overall they seemed to have rather favorable impression of the Tesla, even though they did their best to handicap it like charging it with a lamp socket instead of a 50amp connection that every household has for their cook stove.

    A more interesting review would be how it handles in mixed driving and what real life range might be there. Any reviews like that out there yet?

  • avatar
    RichardD

    “Those who criticize the Tesla’s handling miss the point. Sure it’s heavier than the Elise, but the electric motor has so much torque that it is still faster, even with the extra weight.”

    It’s only faster in a straight line (as long as you don’t accelerate for more than 55 miles). The regular Exige (identical to the US Elise) was 0.9 seconds faster and the supercharged Exige was 2.2 seconds faster than the Tesla on the Top Gear track. The Elise tested by Top Gear was the lame 135hp Rover version.

    So you might as well just buy a Mustang with an unreliable aftermarket supercharger and you get the same effect. Elise/Exige brakes don’t “blow fuses” on the track. In fact, they’re quite amazing and the Elise/Exige drivetrain is also completely bulletproof in track use thanks to the good folks at Yamaha.

  • avatar
    ca36gtp

    Mmm, I smell delicious damage control.

    A brake failure is a brake failure, it doesn’t matter what caused it or how long it took to repair.

    Nor does it matter how long an electric car takes to charge regardless of the equipment offered if the answer is greater than 3 minutes. Any more, and the vehicle becomes useless to anyone who needs to travel more than the Tesla’s seemingly-overestimated range. James May made that point very clear in his test of the FCX Clarity.

    My father once drove a total of 700 miles to pick up a new dog from a shelter and bring it home. Did the whole trip in a day. A Tesla would simply be incapable of stepping up to the plate in those situations that people sometimes find themselves in.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Just out of curiosity: does Clarkson still refer to amounts of pound-feet of torque as “torques”?

  • avatar
    ca36gtp

    Sometimes, he uses a different unit every time. Hammond seems to be the only TG presenter who can get it right.

    Clarkson’s best moment for me was the Fiat 500 Abarth segment a few weeks ago, when he looked at the MP3 player connector with a “Windows Mobile compatible” sticker next to it and said “There’s a place here for you to plug in your….windows?”

  • avatar
    esldude

    I was actually impressed they got 55 mile range. They don’t usually report mpg during sessions at their test track. You can bet they are at least half, probably more like one third the mpg in normal driving. That makes me think the Tesla would give 100-150 miles range. Considering how much lower the average speed they might even be close to the claimed 200 miles range during plain vanilla type driving.

    For most purposes, a Tesla with 100 or more mile range with a bit of spirited driving thrown in doesn’t sound too bad.

    The car as configured is clearly possible of meeting or coming quite close to the claims made for it. The issue of course is the cost, and whether they are a real viable company with any real production even at those high initial costs.

  • avatar
    tesla deathwatcher

    Darryl Siry used to get on my nerves with his “Tesla can do no wrong” attitude. But he was nothing compared to this Rachel Konrad. I’ll bet she thinks her s**t doesn’t stink.

  • avatar
    chris724

    “My father once drove a total of 700 miles to pick up a new dog from a shelter and bring it home. Did the whole trip in a day. A Tesla would simply be incapable of stepping up to the plate in those situations that people sometimes find themselves in.”

    A regular gas powered Lotus wouldn’t be a good choice either for that chore. How about “I once had to haul 1,000lbs of cinder blocks in my F250. A Miata would simply be incapable of stepping up to the plate in those situations that people sometimes find themselves in.” Yes, this is true. So don’t use a Miata for that! The amortized cost of a 700 mile trip would be $200 or more. That’s a ridiculous anecdote to use against the Tesla.

  • avatar
    Brett Woods

    Flashpoint – About that claim: “An electric car requires more energy (for production of
    electricity, transportation of electricity, and enthropic loss) than regular gasoline cars
    do.”

    I bet 20:1 (you know how to pre-mix right) that you are parroting and couldn’t find
    data or add it up if your job depended on it.

    As for transport and “enthropic” loss… between a bucket of electrons vs. a bucket of oil… you shouldn’t even need the back of an envelope. Perhaps you are slightly retharded?

  • avatar
    ca36gtp

    A regular gas powered Lotus wouldn’t be a good choice either for that chore. How about “I once had to haul 1,000lbs of cinder blocks in my F250. A Miata would simply be incapable of stepping up to the plate in those situations that people sometimes find themselves in.” Yes, this is true. So don’t use a Miata for that! The amortized cost of a 700 mile trip would be $200 or more. That’s a ridiculous anecdote to use against the Tesla.

    And if someone made an electric pick-up, it STILL wouldn’t be able to make long trips with those same cinder blocks. We’re not comparing cargo and vehicle type, we’re comparing gas vs. electric. No matter what, as TG correctly pointed out, the fundamentals of a purely electric car are BACKWARDS compared to gas engines.

    At the very least, any “future of travel” electric car should have the same basic capabilities of a 12-year-old Sentra.

  • avatar

    Does anyone have a valid link to the show?

    I notice the video was taken off due to a BBC copyright claim.

    D

  • avatar
    doug

    David, here’s a link to the entire episode that seems to work for the moment: http://www.megavideo.com/?v=ATLOMFAI

    There may be some ads that are NSFW. I’m not sure since I have them blocked.

  • avatar
    doug

    Btw, here’s a proper review from Road&Track:
    http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=10&article_id=7297

  • avatar
    John B

    Re: “Just out of curiosity: does Clarkson still refer to amounts of pound-feet of torque as “torques”?”

    It’s a joke guys, just a joke. Get it?

  • avatar
    kamm

    PeteMoran :
    December 17th, 2008 at 8:49 am

    Well, I stopped watching Top Gear the night Clarkson repeated the internets myth “it does more environmental damage to build a Prius than…..” dribble.

    I wrote to the BBC to request a correction (Toyota told me they have given up fighting that myth) and got a response from Top Gear producers; “Jeremy stands by his claim. Go away.” WTF!!!

    Tabloid controversy is the name of the game for these guys lately. The recent “kill a prostitute” saga only reinforces my belief.”
    *****
    Clarkson is your typical everyday drunken Britton: loudmouthed, arrogant yet shockingly clueless.

    I think TG is a highly overrated tacky show, with a pretty mediocre host – what reply would you expect from someone still believing the “environmental damage” story of Prius…?

    Lame amateurism, nothing else – why bother? Clown has his show, do as I do: don’t watch it, that’s all.

  • avatar
    kamm

    The way I see it you’re full of it, just like Clarkson.

    1. It’s never been the question of building the Prius but the total environmental damage throughout its lifetime of regular vs hybrid cars.

    2. The original debate was about hybrid vs H3 and

    3. it was done by a paid automotive marketing group (CNW)in 2007 and since then they keep updating their idiotic, corrupt papers: http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

    4. It was THROUGHLY DEBUNKED over and over again – remember, CNW is paid to keep this idiocy around – by the US Dept of Energy, the MIT, the Pacific Institute, Rocky Mountain Institute, the blogosphere – it was RIDICULED for using sentences like “perhaps with time we will use technical terms like gigajuelles (!!!) but it just confuses the consumers” etc.
    Did I mention these clueless/loser paid mouthpieces of Hummer estimated that the energy used during the car’s operational cycle only accounts for 10% of its lifetime energy use…?

    It’s a complete load of BS, an utter piece of junk with ZERO scientific value – perfect feed for thought for clowns like Clarkson.

  • avatar
    tedward

    Kamm…I didn’t like the CNW study either (no reviewable data means no provable credibility) but my reservations are mostly limited to the fact that they guard their data. If you bother to even look at the study (and I didn’t read the whole thing, not claiming that) it’s pretty clear that the Prius scores so badly because at the point of manufacture so few of the parts are having their environmental costs spread across a wide range of vehicles. It absolutely makes sense that this would have the effect of making the prius more environmentally expensive (but without data…). In this case it’s pretty obvious that the Prius will score better as more vehicles are spun off of that drivetrain. Also, I think they scored the Prius with a very low likely milage in it’s lifetime, don’t remember why, but I would also assume as this number goes up then the car’s score would also improve.

    I’m not going to cheerlead this study for the rest of the discussion though (it really isn’t kosher on manufacturing weight imo), but I do want to say that I think it has received far more press than it merits, and that the Prius scoring higher than the HUMMER should really be taken in the context of the Prius being a relatively modern vehicle with little parts sharing. Certainly nothing like a GM truck line.

    Also, are you insinuating that MIT had something to do with paying for this study or were you saying that an MIT professor criticized the study, not sure.

  • avatar
    B-Rad

    Top Gear has disappointed me.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States