...at least that is how they are sold. And people take it seriously.

- Brake disks are not a regular maintenance piece. Brake pads are the pieces that need replacement every 30.000 kilometers, depending on how hard you use them. But brake disks can outlast the car.

- Axle suspension is also not regular maintenance piece. Damper, bushings and springs need supervision and get changed every 80.000 kilometers or so. But to change an axle suspension without a serious hit to the car is very weird.

Unless you are using brake disks and an axle suspension designed for a 1,000 kg lighter car. In that case, you might end with twisted or broken pieces after a few thousand kilometers.

Let's read the text further and see the description for the winner, Mazda 2, emphasis mine

--- start quote ---

Mazda 2. Only 2.9 percent of these French-manufactured Japanese hybrid compacts turn up at their first periodic technical inspection with significant faults at an average mileage of 29,000 kilometers.

--- end quote ---

And then:

--- start quote ---

At the bottom of the table, the Tesla Model Y took over in last place from the Tesla Model 3 (17.3 percent). Second to bottom was the Ford Mondeo (14.3 percent), while the third from bottom was the Tesla Model 3 at 13.1 percent.

--- end quote ---

So, at regular inspection intervals (as proscribed by manufacturers and regulators) Teslas show significant faults.

I don't think the actual quality difference under Equal conditions is a large as the TUV report suggests.

The average European drives about 12,000 km (~7500 miles) per year [1]. The maximum inspection period allowed by the EU for most personal cars is 2 years [2].

The average person in the US drives about 13,400 miles (~ 21,500 km) per year [3].

So, roughly, the average European vehicle is inspected after a driving distance which is about the same as that which the average US vehicle puts behind it in a year.

I thus doubt that the Tesla numbers from the article are greatly affected by a lack of inspections.

[1] https://www.acea.auto/fact/fact-sheet-cars/

[2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/45/oj/eng (chapter III, article 5, point 1).

[3] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm

Seems like if that’s true of BEVs generally one could find similar trends with Nissan Leafs, etc.

(I drive a Skoda Enyaq, so no particular shade meant towards the VW-group)

So it's quite possible that both are true: Maybe ID4 has lots of non-safety and non-environment problems, so it is in the shop very often, but still rarely fails an official inspection.

Unless further data/evidence is provided, it is reasonable to assume all car owners treat their cars equally shitty, and as such can be ignored in this equation since it applies equally to all manufacturers.

Some manufacturers use better steel and therefore have a longer disk lifetime.

You should check your tires, yes. At least while changing from winter to summer and vice versa, however if the cars torque profile is too aggressive and it's eating tires, you should note it at the user's manual that thread wear should be checked more frequently with respect to other cars.

> how is that to do with Tesla manufacturing standard?

My friend's Toyota Auris needs new discs every 100,000KM, new pads every 60,000KM. I change discs around 60,000KM (heavier car, mostly rush-hour traffic, hilly city, automatic transmission), and never failed an inspection w.r.t. braking power.

(inspection costs around 80 euros in Denmark, so there's no financial reason to go to a pre-inspection anyways, just do the inspection and have it redone if the car fails).

Tesla wouldn't even recognize the problem at first, and refused repair of customer cars. Of course there's issues with every brand of car. It's just that the numbers show that Teslas are much, much worse with regards to safety critical components.