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

“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.

Advertisement
-

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.

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

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.

Advertisement
-

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

News

NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way

NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.

Published

on

By

Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.

The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.

Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.

The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.

Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla uber bull Ron Baron says ‘the time to buy the stock is now’

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.

Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:

“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”

The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.

Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.

His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.

Advertisement
-

Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.

That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.

Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.

Advertisement
-
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX’s next Starship launch is about to attempt its biggest leap yet

SpaceX targets September 22 for Starship Flight 14, its first attempt to reach real orbit.

Published

on

By

SpaceX has set September 22 as the target date for Starship’s 14th test flight, and this one carries a different goal than any of the 13 that came before it. Every previous Starship mission has intentionally flown a suborbital arc, reentering the atmosphere within the same hour it launched. Flight 14 is designed to send the craft into a genuine orbit around Earth for the first time.

The launch window opens at 7:15 a.m. Central time at Starbase in South Texas and runs for 75 minutes, pending regulatory approval, according to SpaceX’s mission description published Tuesday. If the flight goes as planned, Starship will circle the planet roughly six times at an altitude near 275 kilometers over about ten hours before a deorbit burn sends it toward a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean west of Chile, a departure from the Indian Ocean recoveries used on the last several flights.

The mission also marks the first attempt to put a working batch of Starlink V3 satellites into actual service. Flight 13 carried 20 of the new satellites in July, but because that mission never left a suborbital trajectory, the payload reentered along with the ship instead of separating into orbit.

SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit

Each V3 satellite is rated for roughly one terabit per second of downlink capacity, so a successful deployment on Flight 14 would be SpaceX’s largest single jump in network bandwidth since Starlink began flying on Falcon 9.

Flight 13 still did the heavier lifting on the technical side. That July mission flew a deliberately more stressful reentry profile to test Starship’s heat shield, and the ship survived its softest splashdown yet, intact enough for drone inspections shortly after landing. Elon Musk said the flight delivered “all the heat shield data we needed and then some,” a result Teslarati covered in detail when he later said SpaceX had solved the vehicle’s biggest reusability challenge. Flight 14 is where SpaceX starts spending that confidence on an actual orbital insertion rather than another controlled fall back to Earth.

Advertisement
-

One thing Flight 14 will not attempt is a tower catch of the ship. Musk floated the idea right after Flight 13, but walked the timeline back in August, saying a catch attempt was more likely “in a few months.” The Super Heavy booster will still aim for its own recovery, targeting an offshore landing point in the Gulf of America, the same approach used on recent flights.

September 22 is SpaceX’s own target, not a locked date. Starship’s schedule has slipped before over hardware readiness and FAA sign off, and the company has said as much in its own mission notes. But the plan itself represents the clearest marker yet that Starship is moving from a suborbital test program into something meant to carry paying payloads and, eventually, people.

Continue Reading