Analyst Test Drives Tesla Model X – Sold On Its Safety And Utility

1 year ago by Steven Loveday 35

nick tesla tweet 1

Tweet From Nick, Researcher at Floatingpath.com

nick tesla tweet 2

Text

Andrea James, Wall Street analyst at Dougherty, was supremely impressed with her Tesla Model X test drive.

Being an Uber user, Andrea loved the autopilot feature and joked that, with the way she drives, such an option makes the world safer. She sells Tesla stock and is often questioned by investors. Although she admits to not being car savvy regarding acceleration times, metrics and speaking in “guy talk”, she willingly offers her opinion.

A few years back, Andrea was asked about her ride in the Model S. She said:

“As a city girl, I’m not the best judge, but given the performance data set, auto journalists should be impressed.”

Overall, Andrea is focused on safety. She has to protect herself, her child, and others on the road. The Model S is the safest car on the market and she confesses to having “sold” the car to people simply on that fact alone. Space for passengers and “stuff” is her other selling point. She elaborated:

Over the years, I’ve had many people ask me, “Should I buy a Tesla? I don’t know if I can afford a Tesla.” And I sort-of joked back, “Can you afford to get maimed in a car accident?”

The Model X, with safety ratings likely to meet or exceed the Model S, and its seven-seat, SUV platform, seemed a great catch for Andrea. Soon enough, she will be a proud owner.

Tags: , , ,

35 responses to "Analyst Test Drives Tesla Model X – Sold On Its Safety And Utility"

  1. Sammy says:

    I absolutely love this car. I’d buy one in a heartbeat, if I could afford the car. If it was 20% cheaper I could afford it.

    1. David Murray says:

      Lucky you. I would need it to be at least 50% cheaper before I could afford it.

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        Yup, I need to be $45K before I can afford it.

        1. ffbj says:

          Me too. Or a little less.

          1. Brian says:

            Saw a used 2013 model s with 78k miles for $39,500 in San Diego. That’s the lowest used I’ve seen non salvage on the market. Wish I could have gotten it but doesn’t make sense $ for me.

    2. alohart says:

      It would have to be half its weight and size before I’d buy it. Driving such a huge vehicle as a daily driver would be incredibly wasteful unless one always carried several passengers and/or lots of cargo for over 100 miles/day.

  2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Speaking for myself, I would be very glad to see discussion of Tesla’s cars move beyond the obsession over 0-to-60 times and drag racing.

    Really, I think most people buying cars look mainly to other things, such as comfort, style, luggage/cargo space, and — yes — safety.

    1. Daniel says:

      Amen + 100X Most main stream buyers “me included” could care less about a cars 0-60 time. In terms of any vehicles all around utility and function 0-60 means almost nothing so long as performance is adequate. Read “more than strait line performance”.

      1. Nick says:

        couldn’t care less*

        (Assuming you don’t care at all. 😀 )

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          My inner Grammar Nazi says:

          It is truly amazing to me that over the past few decades, the blunder “I could care less” has become a lot more common to hear than the correct “I couldn’t care less”. Sadly, I heard a U.S. presidential candidate deliver this blunder just the other day.

          It’s like people don’t even stop to think what the words they are saying mean. When someone says “I could care less”, I always have the urge to ask “So, how much less could you care?” >:-/

        2. Ambulator says:

          Nowadays I just convert it in my head and read on, but how could you let “strait line” go without comment?

    2. evcarnut says:

      Speed & safety put the X in a Class of it’s own..Most CUV/SUV are Unsafe Slugs that rollover like a dog.

  3. Jychevyvolt says:

    We need bolt news.

    1. vdiv says:

      “Smithers! Release the Bolts!” 😉

    2. ffbj says:

      How? It does not exist.

  4. tftf says:

    “As a city girl,”

    She is a Tesla fan girl, read her analysis and public interviews over the past few years

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Good for her.

    2. Ambulator says:

      She certainly doesn’t sell Tesla stock as the article claims, at least not openly. Of course, if she owns Tesla stock she will eventually sell it but I don’t think that’s what was meant.

  5. Get Real says:

    Well, what she is really saying is she’s a fan of Tesla making the safest cars in the world.

    BTW tftf, I keep noticing that you are neglecting to disclose here on your posts about Tesla that you are short on TMC stock.

    1. floydboy says:

      Oh ok, that explains the universally negative tone on anything Tesla.

  6. ffbj says:

    Video killed the radio star.
    Vid of the aforementioned:

  7. ModernMarvelFan says:

    Well, a Volvo XC90 is also very safe (I would argue that it matches Model S since it actually got tested by IIHS which Model S hasn’t). Volvo XC90 is way cheaper than Model S or Model X.

    1. Skryll says:

      Too expensive for an old school gas car. Getting in and out of the car is easier on the X because of new door and roof design. Cabin filters eliminate gas cars ugly smell when you drive behind one. And you don’t emit poisonous exhaust fumes when warming it up its cabin for winter driving in your garage.

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        $49K is a lot less than $129K…

        Easier access to 3rd row that cost $4K as option and can’t carry anything on the roof?

        Volvo also got the same star rating that every Model S has and did well in IIHS’s crash as well which Model S wasn’t tested yet.

    2. ffbj says:

      Volvo has a fine reputation for making really safe cars. I like Volvo.

    3. Nick says:

      The Volvo has a huge engine in the way of the crash structure.

      Safety is one of the many areas it’s handicapped by legacy technology.

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        “The Volvo has a huge engine in the way of the crash structure.”

        2.0L engine is hardly ever considered as “large” by any ICE definition.

        “Safety is one of the many areas it’s handicapped by legacy technology.”

        How is it being handicapped? Do you have any reference or information to show that Volvo isn’t as safe as a Model S?

        Volvo XC90 got 5 stars all around just as Model S. XC90 also aced IIHS’s crash test which Model S hasn’t been tested yet.

        Volvo XC90 with its higher height will also naturally do better in the rear end crash (or submarine crash where a vehicle run into the back of a semi).

        Just because Tesla is awesome, it doesn’t mean other cars aren’t.

        Do you have any evidence to show that Volvo XC90 isn’t safe or as safe as Tesla?

      2. ModernMarvelFan says:

        “http://www.ibtimes.com/safest-cars-nine-models-including-toyota-highlander-volvo-xc90-have-zero-driver-1799268”

        Volvo XC90 is part of the so called “zero fatality” club.

        I know that Tesla Model S isn’t part of that club. Yes, it is very safe and the fatalities are due to “suicidal drivers”. But the fact remains that XC90 is very safe.

    4. evcarnut says:

      Isn’t the volvo a Hybrid????

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        Yes, PHEV or ICE version.

        Doesn’t change the fact that it got the same and better safety rating than Model S and it starts at only $49K.

        That is important directly aimed “Can you afford to get maimed in a car accident?”

        Some people might be able to pay $50K for a car but not $80K to $130K…

  8. Get Real says:

    With way less range (25 miles) and a price of 70k. I think that most people who want the electric driving experience would rather have the X.

    PS, I also don’t know if you were talking about the non-plug in gas or diesel models?

    1. ModernMarvelFan says:

      Yes, what you said are true but the article is really about “Can you afford to get maimed in a car accident?”

      The title is about Safety and Utility.

      So, the XC90 fits those criteria better than Model X in terms of cost and safety.

      However it would fail the criteria if EV range or all electric driving are added. But that wasn’t part of requirement according to the “city girl”….

  9. Get Real says:

    Disingenuous at best. We don’t have an official Model X safety rating yet so no way to compare. However it should track much like the Model S and become the safest vehicle in its class since it shares alot in design.

    Perhaps the Volvo has more utility if you need a range-robbing roof rack, but the X can use a roof rack on one side with the FWD disabled, and it can tow and use a trailer hitch mounted racks as well as store internally.

    In any case, IMHO you would be a fool to spend 70k for a pathetic 25 AER when MX D70 is only a little more and has 10 times the range plus included Supercharging.

    Might as well get the Outlander plug-in when it gets here as its specs are close to the Volvo at what should be less then 1/2 price.

    1. ModernMarvelFan says:

      “Perhaps the Volvo has more utility if you need a range-robbing roof rack, but the X can use a roof rack on one side with the FWD disabled, and it can tow and use a trailer hitch mounted racks as well as store internally.

      Volvo doesn’t need the roof carry capacity to beat the Model X. At $49K, it can do all that without even load anything on the roof.

      “In any case, IMHO you would be a fool to spend 70k for a pathetic 25 AER when MX D70 is only a little more and has 10 times the range plus included Supercharging.”

      Yes, if EV range is part of the consideration. But it isn’t according to the article. It is about utility and safety ONLY.

      Not to mention that 3rd row seating are $4K option on the Model X where it is standard on the Volvo.

      “Might as well get the Outlander plug-in when it gets here as its specs are close to the Volvo at what should be less then 1/2 price.””

      Outlander PHEV won’t have 3rd row seat and aren’t ranked as high in terms of safety.

  10. Get Real says:

    Was also going to say that the real tragedy in this segment is GM’s SQUANDERING its technological lead in EREV tech by not starting to put its’ excellent Voltec based philosophy into SUVs/Trucks $%&*@!

    Instead they have put it into 2 Cadillac sedan models and Cadillac is a fast-sinking brand going nowhere.

    Along with GM’s refusal to invest in DCFC network and battery production just shows how some of the best engineering in automotive sector cannot overcome poor management

    They could OWN this market for the forseeable future if they would lose their conservatism and ICE bias.