特斯拉对Model 3评分反应过度，是否传达出相反的信息？

对特斯拉（Tesla）而言，被评价为“平均水平”不只会感到失望——这还是一件值得去还击的事情。

这一点在上周四体现得淋漓尽致。《消费者报告》（Consumer Reports）在当日的报告中对一些新车的可靠性进行了打分，其中预测称特斯拉新款Model 3轿车的可靠性只有平均水平。

《消费者报告》并未驾驶或测试过Model 3，其评分的部分依据在于该车在特斯拉Model S基础上的升级，两款车采用了类似的技术。更宽泛地说，《消费者报告》写道，报告“根据制造商的历史和采用相同主要部件的汽车数据，对每款新车和重新设计的车型进行了预测。”

但是特斯拉对此无法接受，公司在当天就作出反应，大肆抨击《消费者报告》的评测方法。特斯拉声称，可靠性评分缺乏“基本的科学诚信”，部分原因在于评分者“根本没有驾驶过Model 3”。

特斯拉的声明还表示：“我们的数据一次又一次地证明《消费者报告》的报道一贯不准确，并对消费者形成了误导。”

《消费者报告》则在上周五予以了还击，表示“特斯拉似乎有所误解，或是搞混了我们的一些基础工作。”杂志重申，其可靠性报告依据的是制造商的过往表现，与评论或道路测试并不一样。此外，《消费者报告》称，“平均水平”的可靠性“对于任何上市第一年的汽车来说，都算是一个大体积极的预测。”

这让特斯拉的反应显得更加奇怪。该公司对其他一些汽车厂商可能十分满意的评分表示抱怨，并抨击这个杂志的基本诚信，然而当杂志给出好评时，公司又乐于引用其表述。

例如，在2015年8月的道路测试中，《消费者报告》给特斯拉Model S P85D打出了103分的高分（满分100分）。如今被特斯拉斥之为“一贯不准确”的赞美，仍然在特斯拉的新闻页面出现了不下六次。正如美国全国广播公司财经频道（CNBC）所言，甚至连首席执行官伊隆·马斯克都会在Twitter上直接引用《消费者报告》的测评结果——如果这个结果是正面的话。

特斯拉在服务上得到了顶尖的评价。最重要的是，《消费者报告》表示97%的车主都希望他们的下一辆车产自特斯拉（酸性测试）。

——伊隆·马斯克（@elonmusk），2015年10月21日

这不是特斯拉第一次与《消费者报告》争论，尽管这家汽车厂商本次的表现显得尤其敏感。事实证明，公司反应过度是有原因的。

由于Model 3似乎严重的产能问题，特斯拉目前处在特别脆弱的状态。上周五，摩根大通（JPMorgan）将Model 3第四季度出货量的预测减少了一半。这些问题——尤其是有报道称一些汽车是手工组装的，而自动化系统都被用在了网上——让人们有理由对其可靠性产生担忧。《消费者报告》甚至都没有在可靠性评估中引用这些报告，看起来已经算是对特斯拉手下留情了。

在生产Model X豪华多功能车上，特斯拉也遭遇过类似的问题，不过Model 3是完全不同的情况。正如马斯克的长期总体规划所述，这是特斯拉从奢侈品小众市场向大众市场转型的一次赌博。如果他们无法取得圆满成功——例如，假如Model 3没有赢得前几代豪车那样的良好声誉——就可能给公司雄心勃勃的路线图蒙上阴影，并影响公司的巨额估值。

当然，马斯克和特斯拉已经证明，他们可以克服早期的逆境，实现惊人甚至魔术般的成就。在这个阶段看衰他们，是忽略了他们的决心和才华。不过在这次交锋中，公司本只需保持沉默，就能传达出更加强大的自信。（财富中文网）

译者：严匡正 

If you’re Tesla, being called “average” isn’t just disappointing – it’s worth starting a fight over.

That became clear last Thursday, after Consumer Reports published a new report rating the reliability of several new cars, including the prediction that Tesla’s new Model 3 sedan would have average reliability.

CR hadn’t driven or examined a Model 3, but based its rating in part on improvements to Tesla’s Model S, from which the Model 3 borrows technology. More broadly, Consumer Reports wrote that it “makes predictions on every new and redesigned vehicle based on the manufacturer’s history and data from vehicles that share major components.”

But Tesla wasn’t having it, responding before the end of the day with broad condemnation of Consumer Reports’ methods. Tesla declared the reliability rating lacked “basic scientific integrity,” in part because the reviewers “have not yet driven a Model 3.”

“Time and again,” Tesla’s statement continued, “our own data shows that Consumer Reports’ automotive reporting is consistently inaccurate and misleading to consumers.”

On Friday, Consumer Reports shot back, saying, “Tesla seems to misunderstand or is conflating some of what we fundamentally do.” The publication reiterated that its reliability prediction is based on a manufacturer’s track record, and is different from a review or a road test. Moreover, Consumer Reports said that an “average” reliability rating is “generally a positive projection for any first model year of a car.” Consumer Reports’ initial press release that touted the rating even characterized it as “promising.”

That makes Tesla’s response seem doubly strange. The carmaker complained about a rating some other manufacturers might have been perfectly content with – and did it while impugning the basic integrity of a publication they’ve been happy to cite when it gives them good reviews.

That has included the perfect 100 awarded to the Tesla Model S P85D in Consumer Reports road tests back in August 2015. Accolades from Consumer Reports, which Tesla now says are “consistently inaccurate,” are still featured no fewer than six times on Tesla’s press page. As CNBC pointed out, even CEO Elon Musk has directly cited Consumer Reports results on Twitter – when they’re positive.

Tesla gets top rating of any company in service. Most important, CR says 97% of owners expect their next car to be a Tesla (the acid test).

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 21, 2015

But this isn’t the first time Tesla has sparred with Consumer Reports, though the carmaker comes off as particularly thin-skinned this time around. And it turns out there’s a reason for the overreaction.

Tesla is in a uniquely tenuous position right now, thanks to what appear to be serious production challenges with the Model 3. On Friday, JPMorgan cut the fourth-quarter forecast for Model 3 deliveries in half. Those issues — particularly reports that some of the cars have been assembled by hand while automated systems are brought online — provide legitimate fuel for concerns over reliability. Consumer Reports didn’t even cite those reports in its reliability assessment, which could be seen as cutting Tesla some slack.

Tesla had similar problems with production of the Model X luxury SUV, but the Model 3 is a whole new ballgame. It’s Tesla’s bid to move from the luxury niche into the mass market, as outlined in Musk’s long-standing Master Plan. If they can’t pull it off — for instance, if the Model 3 doesn’t live up to the sterling reputation of its luxury siblings — it could undermine that ambitious roadmap, and the company’s massive valuation.

Of course, Musk and Tesla have shown that they can overcome early headwinds and accomplish stunning, nearly magical things. Betting against them at this stage ignores a deep well of determination and talent. But in this exchange, the company might have conveyed more confidence simply by keeping quiet.