Except that they like to point out that the Porsche and Ferrari are "little 2 seaters with no cargo capacity" while the Tesla can carry seven passengers and has exceptional cargo capacity - well, without the passengers in the third row. And the fact that the 0-60 time was with only a driver on board, not the seven passengers + cargo, so it's a little unfair to call out the others for that.
Cadillac CTS-V is the actual luxury vehicle Tesla is competing against.
Roughly the same price. CTS-V has significantly better laptimes on Laguna Seca (roughly 10-seconds faster) than Tesla's best lap times. Tesla has better 0-60 acceleration but that's about it.
CTS-V has better skidpad-tested turning radius, better braking, better suspension, etc. etc.
Porsche and Ferrari are high standards and all, but they're not commuter cars, nor are they luxury cars. They are race cars that have been converted into barely street-legal form. Its unfair to compare a Tesla against them... as the Tesla is a 4-door sedan.
Someone claimed a 1:45 time with the Tesla S (maybe it was one of the faster models?), which is the fastest time I'm aware of. But still not close to the 1:38 time of the CTS-V.
I really don't think the people who buy Teslas would otherwise be buying Cadillacs. The Tesla P90D and similar are competing against the top option package BMW 7-series, Audi A8 and similar.
The Tesla P90D is $107,700 AFTER the federal credits.
The Cadillac CTS-V starts at $85k, while the normal CTS is around $45k. BMW 7-series is also around $85k with electric / hybrid models flirting $100k.
Tesla is definitely in a higher price class, but not much higher. I think its a fair comparison price-wise and feature wise.
Both the Cadillac CTS and the Tesla S are "fast" sedans with spacious interiors and cost upwards from $50,000+, with racing versions (either the CTS-V or P90D "Ludicrous") just around $100k.
---------
I can agree that the BMW 7-series counts as a competitor, but it isn't considered by anyone to be a "fast" vehicle. Aimed at more luxury. The Tesla 0-60 score has always been front-and-center as part of marketing... as has been the CTS-V.
Tesla's 4500lb curb-weight because of a 2000lb battery is a severe disadvantage. The Tesla weighs the same as an F-150 TRUCK, no lie.
An ICE car zips-around the corner with literally a thousand-pounds lighter than the electric-based Tesla. In fact, the Tesla S barely performs any better than $30k hot-hatchbacks like the Ford Focus ST or Subaru Impreza WRX. (Both of which are 4-door 5-seater sedans for a daily driver)
----------
When you get to $50,000+ ultra-luxury cars, they all have awesomely low center of gravity and optimized suspensions. IMO, it all comes down to weight for why the Tesla fails to perform on the track.
Also, the battery IIRC overheats if held in "Ludicrous" mode too long. The ICE engine virtually never overheat and can be revved high for many laps at a time.
I've heard of more issues of ICE Cars where brakes overheat... forcing the car to stop the track early... rather than the engine overheating. Tesla batteries can output a lot of power, but only for a limited time. I don't know if that "limited time" is one or two laps, but its apparently an issue.
Performance cars don't necessarily all perform well on a track. The Ford Focus ST allegedly has brakes overheat after just a few laps for example. Although, its like they say: front-wheel drive is wrong-wheel drive in these sorts of high-performance comparisons.
Not playing down the versatility of the car at all. But it's very apples and oranges if you're saying on one hand the Tesla is "better" because of the additional capacity, when both the Porsche/Ferrari were tested using exactly the same capacity as the Tesla (i.e. "a driver"), and saying "but this can carry seven people" without "at quite a lower speed"...
Not at all. They're saying that you can use the same car for hauling the family on vacation as you use to go 0-60 in 2.5 seconds, where with one of these other cars you'd need to buy two separate vehicles. They're in no way implying that the car does both things simultaneously.
That their purpose isn't to be versatile isn't a point in favor of their versatility. Tesla still wins this point as a net, regardless whether it matters to you personally.
It's like saying a multitool is more versatile than a hammer. It's true, but a multitool still makes a shitty hammer. If I want a hammer and you hand me a multitool I'm gonna be disappointed.
The exposition of the relatively versatile features was placed in the same paragraph as the acceleration claim. You'd expect the two to reconcile.
However, according to the disclaiming asterisk, the acceleration claim hasn't even been tested and is only an estimate, making the title claim particularly dubious.
