News
CR responds to Tesla over claims that its reviews are inaccurate and misleading
Consumer Reports has fired back at Tesla, issuing a statement that defends its recent report that predicts Model 3 to have “average reliability”. “Tesla appears unhappy that CR expects the new-to-market Tesla Model 3 to be of average reliability, which is generally a positive projection for any first model year of a car.” says CR in a press release sent to Teslarati.
The nonprofit organization that aims to educate consumers on the value of product, that can be anywhere from a household vacuum cleaner to an automobile, through its product testing reinforces its methodology for making predictions. “Here’s how we make the prediction” notes CR, addressing Tesla’s claim that the organization’s “automotive reporting is consistently inaccurate and misleading to consumers”.
“CR uses survey data it receives from car owners to predict the expected reliability of new cars being introduced to the market by looking across a manufacturer’s historic results (akin to how a weather forecaster predicts it will be sunny) — separate from the hands-on road tests we use for our overall score.” reads the press release.
The organization provides further reasoning for the predicted reliability rating assigned to Tesla’s latest mass market vehicle. “For the Model 3, we looked at more than 2,000 consumer survey responses about Tesla models. In fact, the Tesla Model S is now reported as having above average reliability for the first time ever. The Tesla Model S is also currently CR’s top rated car, period. (Kudos on both, Tesla!)”
We’ve provided the full press release from Consumer Reports below. Let us know what your thoughts are in the comments section.
CONSUMER REPORTS RESPONDS TO TESLA’S COMPLAINTS ON REPORTING, RESEARCH AND REVIEWS
Late yesterday, Tesla shared with select journalists what appears to have been a prepared statement of supercharged and unsupported claims about the performance and safety of their own vehicles and our 2017 Annual Reliability Survey results, taking the occasion to air a number of grievances against Consumer Reports (CR) and our overall reporting on Tesla and its products.
As is often the result of any new product or company that electrifies the market, Tesla does garner an outsized level of attention, scrutiny and discussion by the media. While we appreciate Tesla’s efforts to typically embrace and navigate, if not directly steer, this attention, we would like to offer some clarity on the examples they cite. (For other, perhaps not surprisingly Tesla-positive, examples from CR, you can visit the articles currently available at the Tesla press site, at least until they pull those links down, or visit us at CR.org).
Tesla seems to misunderstand or is conflating some of what we fundamentally do — our Annual Reliability Survey report and the related predictions versus our car reviews and tests.
First, Tesla appears unhappy that CR expects the new-to-market Tesla Model 3 to be of average reliability, which is generally a positive projection for any first model year of a car. This expectation is based on CR’s 2017 Annual Reliability Survey, measuring the dependability as opposed to the satisfaction, of more than 300 car models, model year 2000 to 2017, using the responses of individual owners of more than 640,000 vehicles. We provide this information to help people make informed purchasing decisions as new products reach the market.
Here’s how we make the prediction: CR uses survey data it receives from car owners to predict the expected reliability of new cars being introduced to the market by looking across a manufacturer’s historic results (akin to how a weather forecaster predicts it will be sunny) — separate from the hands-on road tests we use for our overall score.
For the Model 3, we looked at more than 2,000 consumer survey responses about Tesla models. In fact, the Tesla Model S is now reported as having above average reliability for the first time ever. The Tesla Model S is also currently CR’s top rated car, period. (Kudos on both, Tesla!)
Second, Tesla has taken larger issue with how CR produces car ratings, citing specific examples where they think our testing methods fell short or were unfair. CR conducts a battery of 50 standardized tests across all the vehicles we review — we have a lot of mileage in this arena. We also continuously update our ratings as new surveys are conducted and we test the cars we purchase to reflect the current realities of what a consumer should expect in the marketplace. (That’s right, purchase. CR does not accept any advertising and purchases the products we rate like any other regular person.) The Model S rating has changed over time, going up and down, as new data becomes available.
Thanks to technological advances such as product changes delivered by an over-the-air software update and thereby adding or subtracting features, we reevaluate products to inform consumers about what to expect after any update. These changes are then reflected in our ratings. Tesla frequently updates its software in just this way, which is relatively unique in the automotive market, often resulting in material changes to its products and therefore our ratings — both positively and negatively. It also happens to drive more frequent press coverage given the need to communicate product changes to consumers.
While our reliability survey data feeds into the overall score we give any product,that is just one input. As with all the cars we review, you can rest assured that we will thoroughly test and evaluate the Model 3 with the same care and scrutiny we apply to all the cars we test just as soon as we can get one — we’re waiting patiently along with other consumers.
As an independent, nonprofit organization that works side-by-side with consumers to create a fairer, safer, and healthier world, CR provides trusted knowledge people depend on to make better, more informed choices. We conduct evidence-based product testing and ratings, rigorous research, hard-hitting investigative journalism, public education, and steadfast advocacy on behalf of consumers’ interests. Buying a car that has an average or above average score for predicted reliability will likely reduce the chances of having problems with the car.
We at CR are confident in our data, methods, and reporting — and the historic results we’ve achieved in improving consumer products, services, and the marketplace. We will continue to report on and test Tesla’s products in the same fair-minded, consumer-focused way we do with all manufacturers, to help shape products to best serve the needs of consumers.
Elon Musk
SpaceX issues statement on Starship V3 Booster 18 anomaly
The incident unfolded during gas-system pressure testing at the company’s Massey facility in Starbase, Texas.
SpaceX has issued an initial statement about Starship Booster 18’s anomaly early Friday. The incident unfolded during gas-system pressure testing at the company’s Massey facility in Starbase, Texas.
SpaceX’s initial comment
As per SpaceX in a post on its official account on social media platform X, Booster 18 was undergoing gas system pressure tests when the anomaly happened. Despite the nature of the incident, the company emphasized that no propellant was loaded, no engines were installed, and personnel were kept at a safe distance from the booster, resulting in zero injuries.
“Booster 18 suffered an anomaly during gas system pressure testing that we were conducting in advance of structural proof testing. No propellant was on the vehicle, and engines were not yet installed. The teams need time to investigate before we are confident of the cause. No one was injured as we maintain a safe distance for personnel during this type of testing. The site remains clear and we are working plans to safely reenter the site,” SpaceX wrote in its post on X.
Incident and aftermath
Livestream footage from LabPadre showed Booster 18’s lower half crumpling around the liquid oxygen tank area at approximately 4:04 a.m. CT. Subsequent images posted by on-site observers revealed extensive deformation across the booster’s lower structure. Needless to say, spaceflight observers have noted that Booster 18 would likely be a complete loss due to its anomaly.
Booster 18 had rolled out only a day earlier and was one of the first vehicles in the Starship V3 program. The V3 series incorporates structural reinforcements and reliability upgrades intended to prepare Starship for rapid-reuse testing and eventual tower-catch operations. Elon Musk has been optimistic about Starship V3, previously noting on X that the spacecraft might be able to complete initial missions to Mars.
Investor's Corner
Tesla analyst maintains $500 PT, says FSD drives better than humans now
The team also met with Tesla leaders for more than an hour to discuss autonomy, chip development, and upcoming deployment plans.
Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) received fresh support from Piper Sandler this week after analysts toured the Fremont Factory and tested the company’s latest Full Self-Driving software. The firm reaffirmed its $500 price target, stating that FSD V14 delivered a notably smooth robotaxi demonstration and may already perform at levels comparable to, if not better than, average human drivers.
The team also met with Tesla leaders for more than an hour to discuss autonomy, chip development, and upcoming deployment plans.
Analysts highlight autonomy progress
During more than 75 minutes of focused discussions, analysts reportedly focused on FSD v14’s updates. Piper Sandler’s team pointed to meaningful strides in perception, object handling, and overall ride smoothness during the robotaxi demo.
The visit also included discussions on updates to Tesla’s in-house chip initiatives, its Optimus program, and the growth of the company’s battery storage business. Analysts noted that Tesla continues refining cost structures and capital expenditure expectations, which are key elements in future margin recovery, as noted in a Yahoo Finance report.
Analyst Alexander Potter noted that “we think FSD is a truly impressive product that is (probably) already better at driving than the average American.” This conclusion was strengthened by what he described as a “flawless robotaxi ride to the hotel.”
Street targets diverge on TSLA
While Piper Sandler stands by its $500 target, it is not the highest estimate on the Street. Wedbush, for one, has a $600 per share price target for TSLA stock.
Other institutions have also weighed in on TSLA stock as of late. HSBC reiterated a Reduce rating with a $131 target, citing a gap between earnings fundamentals and the company’s market value. By contrast, TD Cowen maintained a Buy rating and a $509 target, pointing to strong autonomous driving demonstrations in Austin and the pace of software-driven improvements.
Stifel analysts also lifted their price target for Tesla to $508 per share over the company’s ongoing robotaxi and FSD programs.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Version 3 booster crumples in early testing
Photos of the incident’s aftermath suggest that Booster 18 will likely be retired.
SpaceX’s new Starship first-stage booster, Booster 18, suffered major damage early Friday during its first round of testing in Starbase, Texas, just one day after rolling out of the factory.
Based on videos of the incident, the lower section of the rocket booster appeared to crumple during a pressurization test. Photos of the incident’s aftermath suggest that Booster 18 will likely be retired.
Booster test failure
SpaceX began structural and propellant-system verification tests on Booster 18 Thursday night at the Massey’s Test Site, only a few miles from Starbase’s production facilities, as noted in an Ars Technica report. At 4:04 a.m. CT on Friday, a livestream from LabPadre Space captured the booster’s lower half experiencing a sudden destructive event around its liquid oxygen tank section. Post-incident images, shared on X by @StarshipGazer, showed notable deformation in the booster’s lower structure.
Neither SpaceX nor Elon Musk had commented as of Friday morning, but the vehicle’s condition suggests it is likely a complete loss. This is quite unfortunate, as Booster 18 is already part of the Starship V3 program, which includes design fixes and upgrades intended to improve reliability. While SpaceX maintains a rather rapid Starship production line in Starbase, Booster 18 was generally expected to validate the improvements implemented in the V3 program.
Tight deadlines
SpaceX needs Starship boosters and upper stages to begin demonstrating rapid reuse, tower catches, and early operational Starlink missions over the next two years. More critically, NASA’s Artemis program depends on an on-orbit refueling test in the second half of 2026, a requirement for the vehicle’s expected crewed lunar landing around 2028.
While SpaceX is known for diagnosing failures quickly and returning to testing at unmatched speed, losing the newest-generation booster at the very start of its campaign highlights the immense challenge involved in scaling Starship into a reliable, high-cadence launch system. SpaceX, however, is known for getting things done quickly, so it would not be a surprise if the company manages to figure out what happened to Booster 18 in the near future.