The facts say it's rubbish. The brainwashed folks who own them would tell you it was the best thing since sliced bread even if they were on their second vehicle because autopilot killed both their teenage children in the first one. The brainwashing is extreme and, frankly, frightening. Reminds me of the people's temple and Jonestown.
Keith, you seem a bit misguided and maybe give CR more credit than they deserve. Read the report again and try to justify how the facts result in a unreliable rating of 2/5.
It's also a poor example using the unfortunate death of an extreme situation to make your point. You're better than that.
The facts are that ~ 1% of respondents to a survey(that is vulnerable to "stuffing")
from 8 months ago complained about fit and finish issues being:
main screen reboot
stress crack on rear panel glass on CR test vehicle
None of these have anything to do with reliability. Call them out for quality control if that's what it is, or service issues, or repair times.
Furthermore, of the 17 rated trouble spots, the model 3 scored a 5 on 14, a 4 on 2 and a 3 on 1, yet the final score is a 2. In what universe does that have any logic? Especially if you were to weight the outcomes based on significance to "reliability", where everything except Paint/Trim, Body Hardware, and In car Electronics most likely could leave you with a non-functioning car (A reboot of the screen takes about 30 seconds and does not affect the drivability of the car).
The same people that complained were the same people that were the most satisfied. Is unreliability synonymous with most satisfied? CR has this data too. It's in their report.
Tesla still needs to continue to improve on those areas and are constantly doing so wherein lies an area that CR needs improvement.
All other manufacturers don't make any significant modifications throughout a model year. Once in while you get a mid year refresh but if there's a flaw or screwup, chances are it stays as is till the next model year. Tesla makes constant improvements when
they become aware, not held on to till the next model year. Tesla had already addressed these issues in August when they became aware from the own internal QC. Doesn't negate that they happened or that the data is wrong but that to carry the label of unrecommended for a year when it was "fixed" before the report comes out does your readership a disservice.
If CR is going to be an authority on a product that they have enough influence to effect the market price, they better know that product and the manufacturing and processes to give full and fair evaluation especially when it deviates from the norm.
Then you have the comparable ratings for Audi, Camry, Accord, and BMW in the link. All but BMW are recommended and all have had recalls. Tesla Model 3 has never had a recall.
So you have a publication that by their own admission is the most satisfying vehicle to own of all the vehicles they survey, (agree, has nothing to do with reliability), did great when they did their own testing, the safest car you can buy, (agree, has nothing to do with reliability), the highest ratings in all categories related to reliability and they would rather encourage their readers to buy a ICEV. That can't improve itself.
Someone used a great analogy that CR unrecommended a popular restaurant. The reader questioned them why since they have a queue out the door every night, the food gets rave reviews, everybody that eats there loves it and recommends it to their friends. CR response, " a few people complained about the décor?"
Then you have the response from CR Auto Editor Patrick Olsen when questioned falls back to, "they have to do well in our testing, they have to be reliable, and they have to be safe. And if you can't connect all of the parts of that, we're not going to recommend it."
So Paint/Trim and In-car Electronics were rated "good". Body Hardware rated "average". Everything else rated "great".
You just sunk your own battleship.