Connect with us

News

Tesla falls behind in J.D. Power owner satisfaction study

Credit: One Tire Fire | YouTube

Published

on

Tesla has fallen behind a few points on a recently published owner satisfaction study, with others such as Rivian, Porsche, and Jaguar landing some of the index’s top spots.

J.D. Power published its 2024 U.S. Automotive Performance, Execution and Layout (APEAL) Study last week, which measured owner satisfaction with their vehicles after 90 days of ownership. The index looked at responses from 99,144 owners of 2024 model year vehicles, noting that satisfaction for mainstream brands has increased from not resonating well with consumers in past years.

Tesla had an overall score of 870 in the evaluation, dropping from its 878 score in the 2023 APEAL Study. Meanwhile, OEMs like Porsche, BMW, Dodge, Ram, and several others saw their scores jump year over year.

Tesla is no longer just a luxury brand, says major auto outlet

Advertisement

“Traditional manufacturers have listened to the Voice of the Customer,” notes J.D. Power Senior Director of Auto Benchmarking Frank Hanley. “They’re launching enhanced vehicles that are more in line with what customers want, including improved interior storage and higher quality materials, as well as ensuring features have ease of use.

“For BEVs, recent launches from traditional manufacturers have surpassed perennial leader Tesla when it comes to owners’ level of emotional attachment and excitement with their new vehicle,” Hanley said.

J.D. Power also notes that the study took place from July 2023 through May 2024, based on vehicles registered from April 2023 through February 2024. The APEAL is now in its 29th year with the 2024 publication, requesting that vehicle owners consider their satisfaction with 37 separate vehicle factors.

Infotainment systems were the lowest-ranking across all the categories evaluated with an average of 823, though the figure still marked a 5-point improvement from last year. Vehicles using Android Auto or Apple CarPlay generally ranked better, with averages of 832 and 840, respectively.

Advertisement

Despite Rivian and Tesla gaining high scores on the overall evaluation, these automakers and Polestar were not awarded, due to the brands not meeting study award criteria.

“Since J.D. Power is prohibited by Tesla, Polestar and Rivian from sampling owners in all states, we are not able to include their models with rank eligible models from other manufacturers.” explains Hanley.

J.D. Power’s top-ranked vehicle brands in the 2024 APEAL Study

Top 10 premium brands by owner satisfaction

  1. Rivian (900)*
  2. Porsche (891)
  3. Jaguar (886)
  4. Land Rover (882)
  5. BMW (881)
  6. Mercedes-Benz (876)
  7. Lincoln (874)
  8. Genesis (873)
  9. Tesla (870)*
    premium segment average (870)
  10. Cadillac (868)

Top 10 mass-market brands by owner satisfaction

  1. MINI (858)
  2. Ram (854)
  3. Kia (853)
  4. Hyundai (846)
  5. GMC (845)
  6. Volkswagen (844)
  7. Buick (842)
  8. Chevrolet (841)
    mass-market segment average (838)
  9. Dodge (837)
  10. Honda (836)

*These brands did not meet the criteria for the APEAL Study’s awards, meaning that they were not rank-eligible, according to J.D. Power.

Other recent assessments from J.D. Power

Last month, Tesla, Rivian, and Polestar were given low ranks in the J.D. Power Initial Quality Study for 2024, as many battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) were reportedly found to require more repairs, in part due to including newer technology.

Advertisement

In May, J.D. Power ranked Tesla’s mobile app the best among several automakers, just ahead of Mercedes, BMW, and Genesis. The firm also said earlier this year that Mercedes-Benz and Tesla have the best websites in the industry.

Updated 7/29/24: Added second quote from Frank Hanley detailing the exclusion of Tesla, Rivian, and Polestar from awards.

RELATED:

Tesla urged to rethink unorthodox vehicle controls by traffic safety expert

Advertisement

What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.

Zach is a renewable energy reporter who has been covering electric vehicles since 2020. He grew up in Fremont, California, and he currently lives in Colorado. His work has appeared in the Chicago Tribune, KRON4 San Francisco, FOX31 Denver, InsideEVs, CleanTechnica, and many other publications. When he isn't covering Tesla or other EV companies, you can find him writing and performing music, drinking a good cup of coffee, or hanging out with his cats, Banks and Freddie. Reach out at zach@teslarati.com, find him on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla owners explore potential FSD pricing options as uncertainty looms

We asked Tesla owners what the company should price Full Self-Driving moving forward, as now it’s going to be subscription-based. There were some interesting proposals.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla is starting the process of removing the ability to purchase the Full Self-Driving suite outright, as it pulled the purchase option in the United States over the weekend.

However, there has been some indication by CEO Elon Musk that the price of the subscription will increase as the suite becomes more robust. But Tesla finds itself in an interesting situation with this: the take rate for Full Self-Driving at $99 per month is about 12 percent, and Musk needs a significant increase in this rate to reach a tranche in his new compensation package.

This leaves Tesla and owners in their own respective limbos: Tesla needs to find a price that will incentivize consumers to use FSD, while owners need Tesla to offer something that is attractive price-wise.

We asked Tesla owners what the company should price Full Self-Driving moving forward, as now it’s going to be subscription-based. There were some interesting proposals.

Advertisement

Price Reduction

Although people are willing to pay the $99 per month for the FSD suite, it certainly is too high for some owners. Many suggested that if Tesla would back down the price to $49, or somewhere around that region, many owners would immediately subscribe.

Others suggested $69, which would make a lot of sense considering Musk’s obsession with that number.

Different Pricing for Supervised and Unsupervised

With the release of the Unsupervised version of Full Self-Driving, Tesla has a unique opportunity to offer pricing for different attention level requirements.

Unsupervised Full Self-Driving would be significantly more expensive, but not needed by everyone. Many people indicate they would still like to drive their cars manually from time to time, but others said they’d just simply be more than okay with only having Supervised FSD available in their cars.

Time-Based Pricing

Tesla could price FSD on a duration-based pricing model, including Daily, Weekly, Monthly, and Annual rates, which would incentivize longer durations with better pricing.

Annually, the rate could be $999 per year, while Monthly would stay at $99. However, a Daily pass of FSD would cost somewhere around $10, while a $30 per week cost seems to be ideal.

Advertisement

These all seem to be in line with what consumers might want. However, Tesla’s attitude with FSD is that it is the future of transportation, and with it offering only a Monthly option currently, it does not seem as if it will look as short-term as a Daily pass.

Tiered Pricing

This is perhaps the most popular option, according to what we’ve seen in comments and replies.

This would be a way to allow owners to pick and choose which FSD features they would like most and pay for them. The more features available to you, the more it costs.

For example, if someone only wanted Supervised driving and Autopark, it could be priced at $50 per month. Add in Summon, it could be $75.

Advertisement

This would allow people to pick only the features they would use daily.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla leaves a single loophole to purchase Full Self-Driving outright

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla has left a single loophole to purchase Full Self-Driving outright. On Sunday, the option officially disappeared from the Online Design Studio in the United States, as Tesla transitioned to a Subscription-only purchasing plan for the FSD suite.

However, there is still one way to get the Full Self-Driving suite in an outright manner, which would not require the vehicle owner to pay monthly for the driver assistance program — but you have to buy a Model S or Model X.

Months ago, Tesla launched a special “Luxe Package” for the Model S and Model X, which included Full Self-Driving for the life of the vehicle, as well as free Supercharging at over 75,000 locations, as well as free Premium Connectivity, and a Four-Year Premium Service package, which includes wheel and tire protection, windshiel protection, and recommended maintenance.

It would also be available through the purchase of a Cyberbeast, the top trim of the Cybertruck lineup.

This small loophole would allow owners to avoid the monthly payment, but there have been some changes in the fine print of the program, as Tesla has added that it will not be transferable to subsequent vehicle owners or to another vehicle.

Advertisement

This goes for the FSD and the Supercharging offers that come with the Luxe Package.

For now, Tesla still has the Full Self-Driving subscription priced at $99 per month. However, that price is expected to increase over the course of some time, especially as its capabilities improve. Tesla seems to be nearing Unsupervised FSD based on Musk’s estimates for the Cybercab program.

There is the potential that Tesla offers both Unsupervised and Supervised FSD for varying prices, but this is not confirmed.

In other countries, Tesla has pushed back the deadline to purchase the suite outright, as in Australia, it has been adjusted to March 31.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla Sweden’s port deal sparks political clash in Trelleborg

The extension of Tesla’s lease has drawn criticism from the local Social Democratic opposition.

Published

on

Andrzej Otrębski, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Tesla Sweden’s lease agreement at the Port of Trelleborg has triggered a political dispute, with local leaders divided over whether the municipally owned port should continue renting space to the electric vehicle maker amidst its ongoing conflict with the IF Metall union.

Tesla Sweden’s recently extended contract with the Port of Trelleborg has triggered calls for greater political oversight of future agreements.

Tesla has used the Port of Trelleborg to import vehicles into Sweden amid a blockade by the Transport Workers’ Union, as noted in a report from Dagens Arbete (DA). By routing cars via trucks on passenger ferries, the company has maintained deliveries despite the labor dispute. Vehicles have also been stored and prepared in facilities leased from the municipal port company.

The extension of Tesla’s lease has drawn criticism from the local Social Democratic opposition. Initially, the Port of Trelleborg hinted that it would not enter into new agreements with Tesla, but it eventually opted to renew its existing contract with the EV maker anyway.

Advertisement

Lennart Höckert, an opposition councilor, described the port’s decision as a “betrayal of the Swedish model,” arguing that a municipally owned entity should not appear to side with one party in an active labor dispute.

“If you want to protect the Swedish model, you shouldn’t get involved in a conflict and help one of the parties. When you as a company do this, it means that you are actually taking a position and making things worse in an already ongoing conflict,” Höckert said. 

He added that the party now wants politicians to review and approve future rental agreements involving municipal properties at the port.

The proposal has been sharply criticized by Mathias Andersson of the Sweden Democrats, who chairs the municipal board. In comments to local media, Andersson described the Social Democrats’ approach as “Kim Jong Un-style,” arguing that political leaders should not micromanage a company governed by its own board.

Advertisement

“I believe that the port should be run like any other business,” Andersson said. He also noted that operational decisions fall under the authority of the Port of Trelleborg’s board instead of elected officials.

Continue Reading