[adamtulinius]

This mimics numbers from Denmark, where Model 3 had a failure rate of 20-25% after four years a couple of years ago, and last year the first Model Y's had to go through their first 4 year inspection and 45% failed. 34% of Model 3's failed last year.

For comparison: Last year VW ID4 had a failure rate of 2%, and the average for _all_ electric cars (no matter age, including Teslas) was 7% failure.

Causes: Breaks, wheels, steering, and a few more critical things along those lines.

Objectively speaking, Tesla cannot manufacture cars that live up to European standards.

Source: https://fdm.dk/nyheder/nyt-om-trafik-og-biler/tesla-skandale...

[varjag]

Quite surprised about ID4 numbers. Ours in the shop a few times per year, and we often crack jokes about it with other owners.

[thyristan]

The report from the original article is not a general problem rate but more specific: TÜV does mandatory technical inspections every two years. In those inspections, only safety- and environment-critical problems are checked for, so e.g. brakes, rust on structural parts, high emissions, non-working lights. But there is a whole bunch of stuff that they don't check for, e.g. heating/cooling, GPS not working, doesn't charge/start sometimes, ...

So it's quite possible that both are true: Maybe ID4 has lots of non-safety and non-environment problems, so it is in the shop very often, but still rarely fails an official inspection.

[adamtulinius]

Oh I'm sure there's many faults on the VW (as well as Skoda, Audi and Seat) electric cars, but not in the "failing inspection" category apparently.

(I drive a Skoda Enyaq, so no particular shade meant towards the VW-group)

[tzs]

Assuming you are not an outlier, could it be VW has a low TÜV failure rate because they are in the shop often?

I have no idea what German auto shops do, but whenever I take my car in to a shop in the US for service (routine or otherwise) they generally include various inspections and adjustments to various things, including things that Google is telling me are part of the TÜV inspection.

[ubermonkey]

After an ongoing ugly experience with a GTI, we'll never buy another VW.

[retired]

In The Netherlands, all ID3 and ID4 cars go through pre-inspection before they go for the annual technical inspection. Hence the low failure rates.

Going to the yearly inspection on worn tires and brakes is just owners failure.

[bayindirh]

Yes, but if a car is using regenerative braking 99% of the time, the car should track this and use brakes occasionally to "polish and maintain" them. It's not hard, and if the pads are running out, it should warn the user. Tesla does neither AFAIK.

You should check your tires, yes. At least while changing from winter to summer and vice versa, however if the cars torque profile is too aggressive and it's eating tires, you should note it at the user's manual that thread wear should be checked more frequently with respect to other cars.

> how is that to do with Tesla manufacturing standard?

My friend's Toyota Auris needs new discs every 100,000KM, new pads every 60,000KM. I change discs around 60,000KM (heavier car, mostly rush-hour traffic, hilly city, automatic transmission), and never failed an inspection w.r.t. braking power.

[eqvinox]

> how is that to do with Tesla manufacturing standard?

Unless further data/evidence is provided, it is reasonable to assume all car owners treat their cars equally shitty, and as such can be ignored in this equation since it applies equally to all manufacturers.

[thyristan]

Worn brake disks are a manufacturing problem. Nominally my VW needs new brake disks every 100Mm. Practically it needs new ones every 40Mm, because VW makes them from shitty steel that rusts and wears like hell, especially when there is salt on the roads in winter.

Some manufacturers use better steel and therefore have a longer disk lifetime.

[adamtulinius]

That's interesting with the pre-inspection. I haven't heard about a systematic pre-inspection here. I also don't think it really matters, the most important metric I'm quoting is 7% failure rate across _all_ electric cars, and no way that's caused by every non-Tesla owner going to a pre-inspection.

(inspection costs around 80 euros in Denmark, so there's no financial reason to go to a pre-inspection anyways, just do the inspection and have it redone if the car fails).

Tesla wouldn't even recognize the problem at first, and refused repair of customer cars. Of course there's issues with every brand of car. It's just that the numbers show that Teslas are much, much worse with regards to safety critical components.

[mc32]

When electric vehicles started to become mass produced one of the selling points was due to fewer mechanical parts, there’d be less wear and fewer parts to fail and replace on electrics; however it seems electrics have introduced other complexities that kind of wash the advantage of fewer parts…

[adamtulinius]

You're ignoring the basic fact that Teslas doesn't fail because of the electric drive chain, but because of basic things like wheels, suspension and brakes. Sure, electric cars are heavier, but heavy cars (vans, trucks) have existed for ages.