Tesla (previously Volvo dealership)

[Plutonic Panda]

Satisfaction != reliability.

Not so sure I’d agree with that.

[TheTravellers]

Not so sure I’d agree with that.

Reliability is *part* of satisfaction, but reliability and build quality can still be sh*t and a person can still be "satisfied" with the car. Reliability/build quality = objective and can be measured by number of recalls, things broken, etc.. Satisfaction = subjective and can encompass all kinds of things, some that can't be actually measured.

I was fairly satisfied with my 1975 Chevy Monza (first car, was given to me by my dad, who drove it previously), but it was a POS by any objective means of measuring reliability and build quality - many many things wrong with it from the very start and other things that kept popping up during my ownership.

[Pete]

^

Haha, I also had a 1975 Monza.

The build quality was criminally bad.

Cars have come lightyears since that time.

[jccouger]

It's all up to the consumer.

You guys can choose your cars based on panel gaps.

I'll choose my cars based on self driving technology, safety, performance, range, charging networks, continuous updates, operating & maintenance costs.

[SouthOfTheVillage]

I’ve heard Teslas lose 50% of their range in 0 degree weather.

No thanks. I like my twin turbo V6s just fine.

[TheTravellers]

^

Haha, I also had a 1975 Monza.

The build quality was criminally bad.

Cars have come lightyears since that time.

We should compare notes to see what all we each had to fix, lol... Mine was extra-bad because it had a 262 V8 in it and the frame wasn't built to handle that motor.

[Martin]

this is before me, but my mom drove a 1970 mustang and my folks traded it in for a '75 monza. if i remember right, they had it for a whole 6 months before ditching it for a chevy malibu.

[Bill Robertson]

this is before me, but my mom drove a 1970 mustang and my folks traded it in for a '75 monza. if i remember right, they had it for a whole 6 months before ditching it for a chevy malibu.

I'm almost surprised the Malibu was better. My first new car was a 77 Camaro and by 80 or 81 I had replaced the A/C and heater systems. The rear quarter panels and wheel wells had rusted through. And I had to replace the rear differential. I loved that car but it was the second biggest POS I've ever owned.

[Martin]

I'm almost surprised the Malibu was better.My first new car was a 77 Camaro and by 80 or 81 I had replaced the A/C and heater systems. The rear quarter panels and wheel wells had rusted through. And I had to replace the rear differential. I loved that car but it was the second biggest POS I've ever owned.

it did pretty well... my folks kept it till '82 or '83 when they bought a toyota cressida... mom has driven toyota products ever since. my oldest brother 'inherited' the malibu and drove it till it it threw a rod on him in '87. 11 years isn't a bad run for a car of that vintage... but reliability is way better now.

[Pete]

this is before me, but my mom drove a 1970 mustang and my folks traded it in for a '75 monza. if i remember right, they had it for a whole 6 months before ditching it for a chevy malibu.

Bizarre.

My very first car was a 1970 Mustang and my second was a 1975 Monza.

Both were horrible in terms of reliability and build quality. I then bought a 1982 Audi 4000 which was a million times better but still pretty bad by today's standards. I recently looked it up and discovered it had 78 horsepower.

[TheTravellers]

Bizarre.

My very first car was a 1970 Mustang and my second was a 1975 Monza.

Both were horrible in terms of reliability and build quality. I then bought a 1982 Audi 4000 which was a million times better but still pretty bad by today's standards. I recently looked it up and discovered it had 78 horsepower.

My next one after the 75 Monza was an 85 Jeep CJ-7, with all the extra things for real off-roading, fantastic vehicle, like day and night between it and the Monza.

[Bowser214]

Tesla Dodges Direct Sales Ban in New Mexico, Opens Sales Center on Tribal Land
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enth...edgdhp&pc=U531

[Plutonic Panda]

It’s bizarre that the government has laws forcing a middleman between car makers and customers. Just like how Oklahoma won’t allow chain liquor stores and yet claims to be a pro business state directly conflicting with that ideology.

[soonerguru]

...like how Oklahoma ... claims to be a pro business state directly conflicting with that ideology.

There are stacks and stacks of examples undermining this fatuous branding canard.

[chssooner]

Texas doesn't allow it, just like most states don't. I know Connecticut doesn't, and their auto dealer industry is very sue-happy if it is ever mentioned.

The number of states you can buy at a Tesla dealership is not as high as you think.

[jccouger]

What a joke

https://electrek.co/2022/02/21/tesla...electric-cars/

[Pete]

The irony:

This effort comes just after Oklahoma pulled out the red carpet for Tesla in trying to convince the automaker to build a factory in the state.

[onthestrip]

A little conflict of interest fun fact: the author of this bill is Mike Dobrinski, owner of chevy car dealerships...

[king183]

The irony:

I think I've said this elsewhere on OKCTalk, but it's worth repeating because this is a good example. Too many people focus on the "embarrassing headlines" theme for why we don't get new business, but in my previous work, where I advised several Fortune 500 companies on potential relocation of the HQs or an expansion of their operations to new states, I almost never heard that as a reason--directly or indirectly. More often, Oklahoma was rejected because there is a pervasive distrust of the state government (and local government partners) to, in a phrase, "keep their word." That doesn't apply exclusively to financial incentives; it often applies specifically to laws and regulations that would make it much more difficult to do business here. There is also a pervasive belief that the government is simply amateurish and doesn't know how to properly coordinate among appropriate executive agencies and branches of government. No business wants to invest millions of dollars in start up costs to suddenly have to deal with BS they were promised in closed-door negotiations would be a non-factor.

[king183]

The irony:

I think I've said this elsewhere on OKCTalk, but it's worth repeating because this is a good example. Too many people focus on the "embarrassing headlines" theme for why we don't get new business, but in my previous work, where I advised several Fortune 500 companies on potential relocation of the HQs or an expansion of their operations to new states, I almost never heard that as a reason--directly or indirectly. More often, Oklahoma was rejected because there is a pervasive distrust of the state government (and local government partners) to, in a phrase, "keep their word." That doesn't apply exclusively to financial incentives; it often applies specifically to laws and regulations that would make it much more difficult to do business here. There is also a pervasive belief that the government is simply amateurish and doesn't know how to properly coordinate among appropriate executive agencies and branches of government. No business wants to invest millions of dollars in start up costs to suddenly have to deal with BS they were promised in closed-door negotiations would be a non-factor.

[Pete]

^

Case in point: we offer tons of incentives to both Tesla and then Canoo, but even though we have a deal with the latter, our legislature is actively working against them.

[king183]

^

Case in point: we offer tons of incentives to both Tesla and then Canoo, but even though we have a deal with the latter, our legislature is actively working against them.

This is exactly right. And something I have heard nearly a dozen times from other companies, including a MAJOR tech firm that was considering doing some pretty cool stuff in OK about 10 years ago.

[HangryHippo]

I think I've said this elsewhere on OKCTalk, but it's worth repeating because this is a good example. Too many people focus on the "embarrassing headlines" theme for why we don't get new business, but in my previous work, where I advised several Fortune 500 companies on potential relocation of the HQs or an expansion of their operations to new states, I almost never heard that as a reason--directly or indirectly. More often, Oklahoma was rejected because there is a pervasive distrust of the state government (and local government partners) to, in a phrase, "keep their word." That doesn't apply exclusively to financial incentives; it often applies specifically to laws and regulations that would make it much more difficult to do business here. There is also a pervasive belief that the government is simply amateurish and doesn't know how to properly coordinate among appropriate executive agencies and branches of government. No business wants to invest millions of dollars in start up costs to suddenly have to deal with BS they were promised in closed-door negotiations would be a non-factor.

This is infuriating.

[soonerguru]

Our rural legislators don’t want OKC and Tulsa to land new industry. It’s that simple.

[PhiAlpha]

It’s been argued, and I somewhat agree, that there’s too much focus on the crazy bills our legislators dream up when in reality 99% of them have no chance of making it to a vote but the fact that any time at all is spent on them by anyone is infuriating.

That said, this bill isn’t that off the wall and could make it farther along. So stupid and nonsensical…though I’ve spent over a decade now watching politicians at the national level support ridiculous anti-O&G legislation that would likely cause the price of gasoline to increase if passed (or at minimum not help in decreasing it)…then turn around and complain/blame oil companies for fuel price increases so nothing really surprises me anymore.