Tesla blamed drivers for failures of parts it long knew were defective
Reuters’ report that Tesla blamed owners for steering and suspension failures it allegedly knew were due to defective parts has sparked broader scrutiny of the company’s safety practices and customer treatment. Commenters contrast Tesla’s innovation, range and software advantages with poor build quality, high defect rates reported by regulators and consumer groups, and aggressive efforts to deny or limit warranty coverage. Many argue this behavior resembles fraud and should trigger stronger regulatory penalties, while others note that legacy automakers have also concealed defects, framing the controversy as a test of how safety and accountability are enforced in the EV era.
Alleged defects and regulatory / legal issues
- Many see Tesla’s handling of known suspension and steering issues as intentional deception: shifting blame to customers (“abuse”) to avoid recalls, warranty costs, and balance‑sheet impact.
- Commenters argue this should trigger severe regulatory penalties, potentially including fraud findings similar to other auto scandals (VW diesel, Toyota throttle).
- Some stress that carmakers do sometimes pay out-of-warranty when safety is involved; failing to report known safety defects is seen as legally dangerous.
Quality, reliability, and safety
- Multiple anecdotes of serious failures: suspension “whompy wheel,” broken steering knuckle, early control-arm failures, wheels falling off.
- Others report very trouble‑free high‑mileage Teslas, claiming low maintenance (tires, washer fluid only).
- External reliability data cited from Germany’s TÜV and UK surveys place Tesla near the bottom of defect rates for 3‑year‑old cars, especially for safety-related items, though caveats about methodology are noted.
- Some argue the reported $3.9M/year warranty spend on suspension seems small for a fleet of millions, questioning the scale of the problem.
Comparisons with other automakers
- Several note legacy brands (VW, Toyota, Ford) have also denied defects or blamed drivers, but usually under strong recall and regulatory regimes.
- Others highlight that Tesla’s EV powertrain is solid but “the rest of the car” lags established makers on fit, finish, and durability.
- Debate over whether Tesla still leads in range and software; some insist competitors are “years behind,” others say many EVs now match range and exceed on build quality and comfort.
Autopilot, software, and UX
- Many negative first‑hand reports of Autopilot/FSD and vision‑only systems: phantom braking, lane confusion, bad behavior at exits and in fog, and over‑sensitive or under‑sensitive driver monitoring.
- Others praise FSD’s recent progress and overall Tesla software integration, and emphasize that traditional automakers’ infotainment and ADAS software can be worse.
- Strong dislike from some for overuse of touchscreens and removal of physical controls (stalks, knobs), seen as unsafe and user‑hostile.
Ownership model and corporate behavior
- Concern about Tesla’s ability to remotely alter cars (remove apps, disable features, threaten resellers), reinforcing a sense that owners don’t fully “own” the vehicle.
- Musk’s public behavior and politicization are driving some potential buyers away; others separate the product from the CEO and remain enthusiastic.