對(duì)特斯拉（Tesla）而言,，被評(píng)價(jià)為“平均水平”不只會(huì)感到失望——這還是一件值得去還擊的事情,。

這一點(diǎn)在上周四體現(xiàn)得淋漓盡致?！断M(fèi)者報(bào)告》（Consumer Reports）在當(dāng)日的報(bào)告中對(duì)一些新車的可靠性進(jìn)行了打分,，其中預(yù)測(cè)稱特斯拉新款Model 3轎車的可靠性只有平均水平。

《消費(fèi)者報(bào)告》并未駕駛或測(cè)試過(guò)Model 3,，其評(píng)分的部分依據(jù)在于該車在特斯拉Model S基礎(chǔ)上的升級(jí),，兩款車采用了類似的技術(shù),。更寬泛地說(shuō)，《消費(fèi)者報(bào)告》寫道,，報(bào)告“根據(jù)制造商的歷史和采用相同主要部件的汽車數(shù)據(jù),，對(duì)每款新車和重新設(shè)計(jì)的車型進(jìn)行了預(yù)測(cè)?！?

但是特斯拉對(duì)此無(wú)法接受,，公司在當(dāng)天就作出反應(yīng)，大肆抨擊《消費(fèi)者報(bào)告》的評(píng)測(cè)方法,。特斯拉聲稱,，可靠性評(píng)分缺乏“基本的科學(xué)誠(chéng)信”，部分原因在于評(píng)分者“根本沒(méi)有駕駛過(guò)Model 3”,。

特斯拉的聲明還表示：“我們的數(shù)據(jù)一次又一次地證明《消費(fèi)者報(bào)告》的報(bào)道一貫不準(zhǔn)確,，并對(duì)消費(fèi)者形成了誤導(dǎo)?！?

《消費(fèi)者報(bào)告》則在上周五予以了還擊,，表示“特斯拉似乎有所誤解，或是搞混了我們的一些基礎(chǔ)工作,?！彪s志重申，其可靠性報(bào)告依據(jù)的是制造商的過(guò)往表現(xiàn),，與評(píng)論或道路測(cè)試并不一樣,。此外，《消費(fèi)者報(bào)告》稱,，“平均水平”的可靠性“對(duì)于任何上市第一年的汽車來(lái)說(shuō),，都算是一個(gè)大體積極的預(yù)測(cè)?！?

這讓特斯拉的反應(yīng)顯得更加奇怪,。該公司對(duì)其他一些汽車廠商可能十分滿意的評(píng)分表示抱怨，并抨擊這個(gè)雜志的基本誠(chéng)信,，然而當(dāng)雜志給出好評(píng)時(shí),，公司又樂(lè)于引用其表述。

例如,，在2015年8月的道路測(cè)試中,，《消費(fèi)者報(bào)告》給特斯拉Model S P85D打出了103分的高分（滿分100分）。如今被特斯拉斥之為“一貫不準(zhǔn)確”的贊美,，仍然在特斯拉的新聞頁(yè)面出現(xiàn)了不下六次,。正如美國(guó)全國(guó)廣播公司財(cái)經(jīng)頻道（CNBC）所言,，甚至連首席執(zhí)行官伊隆·馬斯克都會(huì)在Twitter上直接引用《消費(fèi)者報(bào)告》的測(cè)評(píng)結(jié)果——如果這個(gè)結(jié)果是正面的話,。

特斯拉在服務(wù)上得到了頂尖的評(píng)價(jià),。最重要的是，《消費(fèi)者報(bào)告》表示97%的車主都希望他們的下一輛車產(chǎn)自特斯拉（酸性測(cè)試）,。

——伊隆·馬斯克（@elonmusk）,，2015年10月21日

這不是特斯拉第一次與《消費(fèi)者報(bào)告》爭(zhēng)論，盡管這家汽車廠商本次的表現(xiàn)顯得尤其敏感,。事實(shí)證明,，公司反應(yīng)過(guò)度是有原因的。

由于Model 3似乎嚴(yán)重的產(chǎn)能問(wèn)題,，特斯拉目前處在特別脆弱的狀態(tài),。上周五，摩根大通（JPMorgan）將Model 3第四季度出貨量的預(yù)測(cè)減少了一半,。這些問(wèn)題——尤其是有報(bào)道稱一些汽車是手工組裝的,，而自動(dòng)化系統(tǒng)都被用在了網(wǎng)上——讓人們有理由對(duì)其可靠性產(chǎn)生擔(dān)憂?！断M(fèi)者報(bào)告》甚至都沒(méi)有在可靠性評(píng)估中引用這些報(bào)告,，看起來(lái)已經(jīng)算是對(duì)特斯拉手下留情了。

在生產(chǎn)Model X豪華多功能車上,，特斯拉也遭遇過(guò)類似的問(wèn)題,，不過(guò)Model 3是完全不同的情況。正如馬斯克的長(zhǎng)期總體規(guī)劃所述,，這是特斯拉從奢侈品小眾市場(chǎng)向大眾市場(chǎng)轉(zhuǎn)型的一次賭博,。如果他們無(wú)法取得圓滿成功——例如，假如Model 3沒(méi)有贏得前幾代豪車那樣的良好聲譽(yù)——就可能給公司雄心勃勃的路線圖蒙上陰影,，并影響公司的巨額估值,。

當(dāng)然，馬斯克和特斯拉已經(jīng)證明,，他們可以克服早期的逆境,，實(shí)現(xiàn)驚人甚至魔術(shù)般的成就。在這個(gè)階段看衰他們,，是忽略了他們的決心和才華,。不過(guò)在這次交鋒中，公司本只需保持沉默,，就能傳達(dá)出更加強(qiáng)大的自信,。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：嚴(yán)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.