Castanet

tabanner wrote:

I'm not sure which other threads you are referring to, but I'm pretty sure car manufacturers can not lie about fuel/energy consumption. You think if Tesla was making "gross exaggerations", they'd be selling as many cars as they are??

They do it all the time...

No one buys a telsa for the 6000km range...

Actually, many people do buy due to the range (also why many of the first EVs didn't sell well due to low range). People also buy for the technology, not having to buy gas anymore, etc.

Perhaps some automakers do try to lie about MPG which is why there is also the EPA which tends to be more accurate from what I've read. However, when it comes right down to it, most days of the year, driving between -10 and 20 degrees..I'd say you're going to get close to the EPA for most vehicles (gas and electric).

tabanner wrote:Perhaps some automakers do try to lie about MPG which is why there is also the EPA which tends to be more accurate from what I've read. However, when it comes right down to it, most days of the year, driving between -10 and 20 degrees..I'd say you're going to get close to the EPA for most vehicles (gas and electric).

You're confusing "lying" with testing under controlled conditions. It's more than just temperature, it's how you drive the vehicle, speed, acceleration, braking, the topography of the roads, etc.

Now, if you want to talk about lying. Lets point out that Tesla is advertising a car for $38000 where the actual selling price is $54000

OKkayak wrote:

tabanner wrote:Perhaps some automakers do try to lie about MPG which is why there is also the EPA which tends to be more accurate from what I've read. However, when it comes right down to it, most days of the year, driving between -10 and 20 degrees..I'd say you're going to get close to the EPA for most vehicles (gas and electric).

You're confusing "lying" with testing under controlled conditions. It's more than just temperature, it's how you drive the vehicle, speed, acceleration, braking, the topography of the roads, etc.

Now, if you want to talk about lying. Lets point out that Tesla is advertising a car for $38000 where the actual selling price is $54000

The cheapest Model 3 was never $38,000 in Canada.

tabanner wrote:
The cheapest Model 3 was never $38,000 in Canada.

Thats my point, but doesn't stop Tesla from advertising that price. $38,290 is the price on their website IIRC, unless, you click the tiny "potential savings" switch off. Sneaky

OKkayak wrote:

tabanner wrote:
The cheapest Model 3 was never $38,000 in Canada.

Thats my point, but doesn't stop Tesla from advertising that price. $38,290 is the price on their website IIRC, unless, you click the tiny "potential savings" switch off. Sneaky

Not really. The purchase price is listed. Other manufacturers list prices after rebates etc., all the time. And the Model 3 is the only model that qualifies for a rebate so why wouldn’t they advertise “potential” savings?

The whole thread has been derailed. It is about a minority of strata owners being able to force a majority to pay for their charging infrastructure needs in already existing buildings. And I say bull crap to that.
Change the building code for future buildings so the wiring and mains supply are engineered for such a load...fine. But to expect everyone to pony up for a handful of owners without a 75% strata vote in existing buildings is bull chit. These people are trying to end run the Strata act to circumvent majority vote with legislation.

Bull xxxx like this makes one wonder if owning a condo is a smart investment. You have the potential to pay some unexpected expenses. I say they should never be forced into this unless there is a majority that need it.