One of the 20 best cars of the decade
 

Nobody posted this yet?
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/ele...-cars-decade#2

Now I really want to drive one of those Alpines. Stupid US government overreach.

That's a pretty awkward list of cars tbh.

2 problems with this.

1. This decade doesn’t officially end until the 31st of December 2020.
2. Number 1 is a Tesla!?!? Influential cars of the past decade yes, but best, no.

Didn't look at the list but 20 cars in ten years means there is probably a lot of junk on that list.

Let's make our list then. 1st car is our 86/BRZ as we are driving it. What else?

I will name Tesla 3.

About as awkward as the last few seasons of Top Gear

That just means they'll post another clickbait article. Pageviews ftw?

Yea, i really don't get the metrics they're using to narrow the list down.

Tesla as a brand is very influential, but none of their cars stand out as being any more influential than another

Eleventy million is a lot of HP

By definition a decade is any 10 year span. It is not the end of the 22rd decade, but is the end of the 2010 decade

inb4argument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_D...d_of_a_century

Technically I think that means the decade ends after 2020, i.e. January 1st 2021 is the beginning of a new decade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_0


Umm... #racecar or something.

Except that nobody actually thinks that way except a few neckbeards looking for an idiotic argument. When people look back at "the 20s," they'll count 2020 among them, because it's a 20. Whether it's technically correct is irrelevant and inconsequential.

So all those millennium babies born just after midnight Jan. 1st, 2000 are frauds? The media was spreading false news even back then?
No wonder Y2K bugs fizzled. ;)

Well, back in the day - what year? Now, I'm not sure - :confused0068:


humfrz

I was more shit stirring with that argument. Yeah agree when you think of the ‘80s for example, you think 1980 to 1989 not 1981 to 1990.

Point 2 about the Tesla being number 1 is the bigger problem. I can’t see it being “best” unless you’re into acceleration and gadgetry. A car that heavy wouldn’t be very nimble like an 86/BRZ.

2010-2019 is 10 years. That's a decade by definition. Counting successive decades from 1AD then yes, 2020 is actually the end of that decade. Everyone is right and you can now piss people off by talking about the end of the decade every year

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/decade

My decade begins in 2015. So I've got 5 years yet.

I wouldn't buy one personally, but I think it's pretty easy to make an argument for Tesla.

Starting a new car company is hard.

Starting a new car company that sells something unlike anything that existed at the time all while managing to position oneself in such a way as to draw in tech, luxury and sport buyers is harder still.

Toyota was building the Prius for years before Tesla came along, and despite its success, you only ever saw lukewarm attempts from other automakers to dip into the market. Then Tesla showed up and now you have real efforts at innovation from all sectors to compete.

For better AND worse, Tesla is the metric against which all other automakers are now having to judge their battery-powered attempts.

I think changing regulations had as much or more to do with that then Tesla. Tesla helped accelerate it, sure. What Tesla really did was help clarify the playing field. Everyone was working on alternative fuels, they just didn't have a focus. By entering the marketplace, Tesla helped consolidate the effort on electric, good or bad.

It goes both ways and is what I read on Corvette, Camaro and Mustang forums from Euros complaining about EU overreach.

Within 10 years we'll all be complaining about off-peak charging restrictions implemented to conserve limited grid capacity.

I understand the point you are trying to make,but comparing the Prius to a Tesla is kind of a false equivalency,considering one is a hybrid and the other is totally electric.

Not only that,the reason that other manufacturers weren't interested in electric cars is because of the lack of need for parts. They talked about this in the documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car". A totally electric car eliminates the need for parts like alternators,water pumps,exhaust systems,spark plugs,etc.,thus taking away another revenue stream.

the other important aspect is reliability. the consumer reliability expectations of an established automaker is drastically different than that of tesla.

we can see it most notably right now with the porche taycan and it's battery programming.

im just gonna say, the 2008 subaru outback 2.5xt is the best car ever made and the 2008 outback should be on the list of best cars of the decade, if not the turbo version then the n/a.

They go well with a lift kit and some all terrain tyres too.

A "smallish" camper trailer on the back and your good to go traveling Australia.

Boosted version of course, we all need that added torque.

Yes, Toyota was building the Prius for years before Tesla came along.
No, other several other automakers had heavily invested ventures into hybrid/battery powered vehicles before Tesla.
The Honda Insight actually predates the Prius in the U.S. Although you could say that was lukewarm, I suppose. Honda released the Civic hybrid in 2003, which was reasonably popular. Ford even released the hybrid Escape in 2005. At least 10 other hybrid models existed before Tesla was even heard of, with many more going into production.
Tesla delivered their first car in late 2008.
At that point in time, Tesla was still a joke. A company deep in debt, barely surviving off of steep government subsidies.
Nobody was trying to 'emulate' Tesla. And they didn't catch on until a few years ago.

The Prius caught on because it was quite revolutionary, and Toyota marketed it well. Also, talking about "The Prius" is a bit easier than saying "The Honda Civic Hybrid". Even so, nobody marketed their electric/hybrid stuff the way Tesla does as it is their sole method of surviving.
Until very recently, electric vehicles are a cute afterthought for most automakers. Just a way to "seem green" and a meager offering to help achieve CAFE quotas.

Yes, Tesla absolutely changed the game. But they did so while spending other people's money recklessly - a luxury that most automakers don't have.

This is mostly correct.
It's something that was going to happen anyway, certainly when you consider what the EPA regulations are now, but Tesla made BEVs 'sexy' and probably fast-forwarded them 10 years.

You absolutely can compare the Prius to the Tesla. Their only real difference is performance, while their similarities are immense.
The goal behind them is pretty much the same: to bring more energy-efficient vehicles to the forefront. And they both do it through electric propulsion.
The Prius is for nerds, and the Tesla is for rich nerds. That's the only real difference.

The 2nd point you make - about electric cars being far simpler, requiring less parts - is true, but I think you're misrepresenting it a bit. Dealerships, for sure, try to downplay electric vehicles due to lack of repair & maint revenue to be collected later, but I don't think the automakers share this behavior.

I don't think so.
I think Tesla had much more scrutiny than anyone else. Mostly because of the grandiose ideas that Tesla presented. "It's gonna be great. The bestest ever. The batteries are gonna contain the power of the sun. And we're gonna warranty those suckers for 1 billion years. And it's never gonna break down"
So any time any sort of issue came up - a single car caught on fire, a pedestrian collision after like 500k miles of autonomous driving logged, etc - Tesla got reemed for it.
Additionally, their company image was so fragile that if their reliability rating dipped even slightly, they might seem like a fraud and lose everything. On top of that, all their eggs were in the same basket. If the Prius suddenly went bad, that's fine, that's only like 3% of Toyota's sales. They would just push the Corolla a bit harder until they got the Prius fixed again.

tesla has had a lot of growing pains with product fitment and reliability that the owners are much more ok with than other products. as evidenced with the door handle issues, the rusting glass, or the inconsistent panel gaps, or replacement part extreme wait times.

they still achieve high reliability and satisfaction marks despite some very obvious flaws despite other manufacturers facing great scrutiny over similar issues.

You know what's missing from that list?

https://www.motortrend.com/uploads/s...uarter-031.jpg

I can't have this one either. Stupid government overreach.

Also the Prius, like the Tesla, had "Hollywood power" behind it. When the Prius first came out, Hollywood embraced it whole hog as the savior of the planet. It showed up on TV shows, movies, red carpet events, etc. Sure, Toyota paid or arranged for some of that, but it was bigger than just that. It became the "it" car to have for the Hollywood elite for a while.

Yes.
This was huge. I actually just watched a short 10-minute CNBC mini documentary about it. Here: [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDAphEzYAzM[/ame]

"The Rise and Fall of The Toyota Prius"

The point you just made was a significant factor, which they included as well.

Yeah, definitely. Sort of weird looking back, but also not. The Prius introduced a new, hip trend to be part of. "It's cool to save gas". Obviously the Honda Insight didn't tap into this because that car was more extreme.

Nice article, thanks for postinghttps://juragan.club/assets/8/o.png

I'll stand by my statement. Of course there were "hybridized" versions of cars from other automakers, and the even more-rare dedicated platform like the Insight, but they were all footnotes compared to the Prius.

Tesla's business acumen is problematic, but they changed the discussion. As long as it was mostly just the Prius, the other automakers stuffed a motor and some batteries into a random sedan or SUV and called it close enough. Tesla hit and showed there was real money on the table, and "suddenly" (by automotive standards) we have a number of different options to choose from.

Yes,you can compare them,but they aren't the same. One still requires gasoline,the other one doesn't.It really is that simple. Sure,they are marketing to the (somewhat) same customers,but one company is still in cahoots with "big oil" while the other isn't.

Why wouldn't automakers share in this behavior? There's absolutely no way they want to leave money on the table. here's an article that talks about it.

https://hbr.org/2006/05/winning-in-the-aftermarket
After-sales services are a high-margin business, and they account for a large chunk of corporate profits. According to a 1999 AMR Research report, businesses earn 45% of gross profits from the aftermarket, although it accounts for only 24% of revenues. An Accenture study, for instance, reveals that GM earned relatively more profits from $9 billion in after-sales revenues in 2001 than it did from $150 billion of income from car sales.

Even though the article talks about how some companies feel like aftermarket parts and services are a pain in the ass,There's no way they want to turn their nose up at extra money. That's just the way big (successful) corporations work.

What Tesla did that mattered was commit to infrastructure. Had they not done the charging network, they would still be a niche product for " the see we care" people that first bought the Prius.

The big three didn't do this because they don't consider themselves in the fuel business and it probably never even got to the "what if" stage. Tesla had no choice because that was the only way they were going to sell their cars in any volume

Of course, if Tesla really wanted to change the world instead of sell vehicles (as they claim) they would open their chargers up to any electric vehicle, at a higher cost of course which is fair.

I remember when the Prius first came out. It's humorous to me now, at the time I was actually considering spending my hard earned money on one. I took 3 test drives on different occasions before snapping out of it and buying my WRX.

I suppose there is some (unlikely) prestige backlash when you pull up in your Model S and there's a Nissan Leaf parked "in your spot."

I think you are incorrect on #1. If someone said "turn of the century" they would be talking about going from 1899 to 1900, not 1900 to 1901. To which the decade would be 1900 to 1909 (this I'm just saying to prove my point because MATH). And when they say "the roaring 20's" they're talking about 1920 thru 1929, not 1921 thru 1930.


But, who cares if you are right or wrong, obviously the internet doesn't care...... or doooo theyyyyyy :iono:

Which is why you would do a comparison...
And what is it you think electricity is made from...?

Here's where you're being short sighted.
First of all, having a shitty product doesn't magically produce more profits. What you just said is "the more the car breaks down, the more profit GM makes"
Well...not quite... Kinda like saying Harley-Davidson is somehow ahead of the curve by selling junk 1980s tech to beat out Honda's ultra-reliable modern machines.
What actually happens is people catch on and say "wtf?" and start buying more Toyotas. Which is exactly what happened to the domestic auto market from 1970 onward...
Did you know there is still a 25% tariff on imported pick up trucks? The chicken tax.
Whoever can make the most reliable, lowest cost of ownership product, will likely eventually win. Obviously there are other factors, but that's generally how consumer habits trend.

Secondly, and more importantly... the "auto" industry is becoming obsolete. Look very carefully. Pay close attention at advertising, marketing, trends, etc. Look how "auto" companies are beginning to position themselves. They are moving away from "car makers" and starting to call themselves "mobility companies"
GM has a ridesharing program, to compete with Lyft and Uber, called Maven. Tesla is rapidly pioneering the "autonomous car", which several other "mobility companies" are following. GM also sells a heavily autonomous vehicle, the CT6. See that here: https://www.cadillac.com/ownership/v...y/super-cruise

I am not familiar with what I assume to be a plethora of technologies from other companies, but I do have some experience with late model Toyotas. Really, just in the past few years, Toyota has put "lane departure awareness", "blind spot awareness", adaptive cruise control, and other features into their cars. Even low tier cars such as the Corolla.

These technologies are currently referred to as safety features, but they will eventually improve enough to 'stitch' themselves together as a fully autonomous vehicle.

Some time in the future, car ownership will become awkward. I have been in both GM and Toyota corporate presentations that speak heavily on this topic. They say things like "the automobile is the 2nd largest purchase most people will make in their lifetimes, but yet they only use it 6% of the time. It spends 95% of its life parked. How does that make sense?"
And their solution is to have communal car ownership, aka ridesharing. You rent the car, drive it to work, and park it. Then it's available for someone else to rent.

So this talk of intentionally dwelling on overpriced machines with intentionally short, or maintenance-intensive, lifespans for the sake of short-term profit is quite problematic.


Again, hitting the nail on the head. Tesla rapidly fast-forwarded the landscape of long distance BEVs. Even though the Mitsubishi i-MiEV and Nissan Leaf both debuted in 2009 (before Tesla was hot), they were seen as silly cars that were chained to their low range batteries, and you needed to plug in at home every night.
I don't quite remember any other automaker even presenting the idea of a vast network of charging stations to make that huge barrier become a minor inconvenience.

Potatoes and Lemons, duhhhhh

And lightning, haven't you watched the new "Lost in space".