Quote:
Originally Posted by ynguldyn
You can't take a response on a BMW forum in a thread about a BMW model where Tesla comes up specifically in comparison to BMW and say that another reply comparing BMW to Tesla, but now less favorably to BMW, is suddenly whataboutist.
How is it not obvious that I was talking about the actual finished product and not about plant design? Do people walking into the showroom really care how the car was manufactured or that the brand is trying to juggle three different types of powertrains? They just want something that will work, day in day out. Teslas are a much simpler product, with fewer parts, and you can't have a failure of something that doesn't even exist in a car. And if Tesla has this advantage because they only build EV, well, tough luck.
"Large sample data" only addresses initial quality, which is not what I was talking about.
|
Let's skip over the issue of style of debate and go to the interesting part.
You offered a concern that BMW will never "make up the difference" because platform sharing for ICE and EV is "simply too complex" as part of your discussion about quality. Apparently, your concern is not initial quality, but quality over time, from your last comment? (BTW, large sample data is also studied over 3 years in service. At JDP it is IQS vs VDS data.) I still disagree that the platform-sharing approach adds complexity*. The platform consists of the floorpan, cowl, engine box. If BMW had identified how to package ICE and EV powertains as well as package the batteries, and the design/dynamic intent is achieved, what is this "complexity" you allege? The ability of the body structure, the interior components, etc. to all function as designed is not in any way impeded by the fact that the same platform on another program is shared. Can you be more specific on what exact kind of complexity will relate to and inhibit quality from platform sharing?
(*One issue may be semantics. We used "complexity" at my former employer OEM to count build combinations. Some use it to mean counting parts - known as APEI...assembly plant end items.)
As to simplicity equating to reliability, that may be true if certain basic engineering goals are accomplished which sometimes seem to elude Tesla. As simple as you suggest Tesla may be, the rate of failure for various components seems to be high enough, based on owner reports, to offset that potential benefit. One recent example I read on just one car...
three installations of an electronically activated rear door latch as each failed to allow the door to open when activated. Other OEMs do not use an electronically activated latch, so your premise is correct that it cannot fail for them.
https://insideevs.com/news/449158/te...ar-door-stuck/