Tesla fan-boys routinely claim these cars are superior, technically. Vastly so. Unfortunately, the facts don’t concur.  

Save thousands on any new car (Australia-only): https://autoexpert.com.au/contact

AutoExpert discount roadside assistance package: https://247roadservices.com.au/autoexpert/

Did you like this report? You can help support the channel, securely via PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DSL9A3MWEMNBW&source=url

A Model S P100D - the Tesla flagship - weighs 2241 kilos, has an EPA range of 507 kilometres and uses a 100kWh battery. These are called facts. We can all agree on them.

A Hyundai Kona Electric weighs 1685 kilos, has a 64kWh battery and offers an EPA range of 415 kilometres. Also, facts.

So, when you do physics - like, just above basic high school physics - you might ask yourself: ‘What does a technological advantage actually look like?’

Because there really should be some numbers that shine like a beacon, illuminating just how smart and advantageous a Tesla is, because of its alleged incredible technical edge, right? Otherwise it’s all just empty rhetoric.

If something exists ontologically, you can measure it, right? So this alleged superior tech should manifest in a measurable way, by virtue of its objective performance.

Devices with superior tech typically do more with less. A more efficient refrigerator consumes less electricity and yet still keeps the champagne equally cold.

We can measure this kind of thing with epistemological objectivity. (I’m imagining every Tesla fan boy in the universe scratching his head, at this point. Like, what’s that? It’s how science rolls, dudes - with epistemological objectivity. Look it up. Watch the John Searle tech talk at Google HQ, on artificial intelligence.)

I’d suggest that a deep, fundamental Tesla technological advantage would be demonstrated if the Tesla flagship, for example, used substantially fewer watt-hours of electrical energy to transport a tonne of mass over a given range measured against a laboratory controlled test standard.

If it did, we could prove its superiority, objectively. All we’d need are those three previously quoted data points, about which there is no dispute that I know of. We’d just need to calculate watt-hours stored in the battery, per tonne of vehicle, per kilometre of range.

And if you ‘interesting’ fan-boys are right, Tesla should shine like a beacon of technical superiority. And the claim of superiority to which fan-boys adhere would thus be impervious to dispute.

Get a calculator and crunch the numbers for yourself: Model S P100D: uses 88 watt-hours to take one tonne, one kilometre. Hyundai Kona Electric: 86 watt-hours per tonne, per kilometre.

Conclusion: Pretty similar technology. But the Hyundai Kona is slightly ahead on energy efficiency fundamentals. The numbers do not lie. They’re called ‘facts’ and you Electric Jesus fan boys are not required to like this result. However you feel about the numbers, they remain facts. And they say Tesla lacks a measurable technical edge.

So, three parts down - one to go. Internal combustion: not dead, and not dying any time soon. Hate away in the comments, but save your best work for tomorrow, because you Tesla nut-jobs are really going to hate Part Four.