Vehicles 136

• Tesla increased the starting prices of the Model 3 sedan and Model Y crossover by $500.
• The Model 3 now starts at $41,190 for the Standard Range Plus model, and the Model Y starts at $53,190 for the Long Range model.
• Tesla previously decreased both models’ prices and dropped the Model Y’s Standard Range model from its lineup prior to increasing their prices again.

Tesla has increased the price of the Model 3 sedan and Model Y crossover once again after previously decreasing both models’ starting prices at the beginning of the year. The Model 3 now starts at $41,190 and the Model Y at $53,190.

Electrek reports that Tesla increased prices for the Model 3 and Model Y in March, April, and earlier this month. The latest pricing update is an uptick of $500, but both models are now a full $3000 more expensive than they were when Tesla initially decreased their prices in February. Car and Driver has reached out to Tesla to see why it has been steadily increasing prices. We think that it’s due to the semiconductor shortages. Tesla did halt Model 3 production for a few days in February. The Model 3 Performance and Model Y Performance’s starting prices remain unchanged at $58,190 and $62,190.

The Model 3’s entry point is for the Standard Range Plus model, which comes standard with rear-wheel drive and an EPA-estimated range of 263 miles. The Model 3 Long Range model now starts at $50,190, and it has all-wheel drive and 353 miles of EPA-estimated range. Tesla discontinued the Model Y’s Standard Range model earlier this year, so its starting price is for the Long Range Model. The EPA estimates it will travel 326 miles on a single charge.

Tesla’s Model 3 is still more expensive than other electric vehicles available today, but it offers more range. The Model Y Long Range is more expensive than the Ford Mustang Mach-E California Route 1, which has less EPA-estimated range at 305 miles.

• SWSD stands for shift work sleep disorder, a chronic condition related to the hours workers keep. People with this condition need to be extra careful when sleepy if they need to drive.
• Researchers at the University of Missouri looked through real-world data and discovered that people with SWSD are 300 percent more likely to be in a crash (or a “near crash”). Others with sleep troubles, like people with sleep apnea or insomnia, have a 30 percent greater risk.
• One of the study authors told Car and Driver that, if possible, it’s best to rest after work before getting behind the wheel or to rely on other drivers, like with public transportation or a taxi.

For centuries, people have been working through the night. But in the 21st century, people who work the “graveyard” shift—or any overnight job—may have to contend with an impact that people in the long-ago past did not: a much, much higher chance of crashing their car. Much higher.

Pretty much by definition, shift work sleep disorder (SWSD) commonly affects people who don’t work a traditional nine-to-five job and have to work through the night. According to the Cleveland Clinic, around 20 percent of the full-time workforce in the U.S. is required to do some sort of shift work, and of those people, 10 to 40 percent may suffer from the sleep disorder. On the low end, that means at least 2.5 million people are potentially affected with SWSD. The disorder “causes difficulties adjusting to a different sleep/wake schedule, which results in significant issues with falling asleep, staying asleep, and sleeping when desired,” the Clinic said on its website.

Researchers at the University of Missouri wanted to understand what happens to people’s ability to drive when their internal body clocks get turned around by SWSD. U of M Civil and environmental engineering professors Praveen Edara and Carlos Sun looked at data collected in a real-world driving study that was part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, which was established by Congress and ran from 2006 to 2015. Their findings, in short, are that people with SWSD are three times more likely to crash (or be in a near crash) than people without this condition. Other sleeping problems, specifically sleep apnea or insomnia, resulted in a 30 percent greater chance of crashing (or nearly crashing).

“The magnitude of the crash risk increase for drowsy drivers is concerning, both to them and other motorists on the road,” Edara told Car and Driver. As the report noted, in 2017 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recorded 91,000 “police-reported crashes” involving drowsy drivers, involving 50,000 injuries and close to 800 deaths.

It is still unclear exactly why SWSD was found to have a larger impact on safety than other sleep disruptions, he said, but there are some strategies night shift workers can take to minimize their risk of a crash. Unsurprisingly, these involve getting some rest or avoiding getting behind the wheel.

Due to the heightened safety risk experienced by drivers with SWSD, late-shift workers are encouraged to use non-driving transportation modes, such as taxi, transportation network companies, and public transit, when available,” Edara said. “Resting before driving back to home after completing their shift is another option to mitigate the risk. This is consistent with the Hours of Service guidelines established for long-haul commercial drivers by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that include rest periods to increase driver alertness.”

The National Transportation Safety Board releases a list of its top 10 most wanted safety improvements each year. While the 2020–2021 list doesn’t include any mention of drowsy drivers, their 2019–2020 list includes “screening and treating obstructive sleep apnea” as well as “reduce fatigue-related accidents.”

Now that a link has been established between SWSD and an increased chance of crashing, Edara said in a statement that the next move should be to work with medical professionals to figure out exactly why the risk is higher in people with SWSD. Seems like there is an obvious answer here, but Edara said a better understand will help them “develop and test to improve the overall safety of these drivers and the other motorists around them.”
The study’s name is “Sleep Disorders and Risk of Traffic Crashes: A Naturalistic Driving Study Analysis,” and it was published in Safety Science.

Jeep will soon have three opulent three-row SUVs in its lineup: the new Grand Cherokee L as well as the upcoming Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer. The Grand Cherokee L is a compelling choice among mid-size three-row SUVs such as the Ford Explorer, Kia Telluride, and Toyota Highlander. It’s a new, stretched version of the popular Grand Cherokee SUV, and it’s ushering in a luxurious new generation. Prices range from $38,690 for the base Laredo model to $66,985 for the fully loaded Summit Reserve. If we were going to buy a three-row Grand Cherokee L, this is how some of our editors would order them from Jeep’s online configurator:

Jeeps are too expensive, so I went with a lightly optioned Grand Cherokee L in its base Laredo trim. The optional $2000 four-wheel-drive system is a must, and I opted for a few niceties including a $1095 sunroof and the $1295 Luxury Tech package, which includes heated seats, a power liftgate, and additional power outlets. Unfortunately there aren’t many interesting colors available, and even the boring grays and blacks cost $345 extra. So I went for the no-cost Bright White, because I’ll only pay more for a paint color if it’s really worth it. The 5.7-liter V-8 engine is desirable but only available in the upper trim levels, so I’ll settle for the standard 3.6-liter V-6 and eight-speed automatic transmission. My $43,775 Grand Cherokee sure isn’t fancy, but it looks handsome and is fairly nicely equipped for the price.

For nearly the same price as an all-wheel-drive Overland, I decided to load up an all-wheel-drive Limited model with some features that would be out of reach on the more expensive trim. I added the larger 10.1-inch infotainment display for $995, the panoramic sunroof for $1795, and the Luxury Tech Group II package for $2295. That bundle includes a ton of must-haves, including a wireless smartphone charging pad, perforated leather upholstery with ventilation, a power-adjustable steering column with memory settings, rain-sensitive windshield wipers, and a few extra driver-assistance features including an off-road camera.

Jeep, disappointingly, isn’t offering many colors on the Grand Cherokee L, so I’d choose Diamond Black Crystal ($345), which I’d probably regret the first time it rained. It offsets the chrome trim nicely and looks great in contrast with the tan-colored leather interior. The only issue with choosing the Limited over the Overland is that it comes standard with some dinky-looking 18-inch wheels, which I remedied here by adding the $1495 20-inch wheel option. I also ordered the $995 Trailer Tow package for an added level of usefulness. The Grand Cherokee L in this spec rings up at a still pricey $55,610, but that’s a savings of $1080 over an optionless Overland.

The first box I’m ticking is four-wheel drive. It’s a Jeep. I’m going to choose the Overland trim because it’s the most rugged of the Grand Cherokee L’s trims, and if I have to buy a Jeep, that’s how I’m getting it. It comes with the $1095 Off-Road Group package, which adds a few off-roading goodies to give it the coveted Trail Rated badge. It’s crazy that there are only four colors, but I’m going to settle for Silver Zynith with the black roof. I’ll gladly take the 18-inch wheels over the 20-inchers because I’m at least hitting some two-tracks in this Jeep. And, of course, I’m going for the 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 for the extra $3295. The interior is going to be gray, and I want the larger screen, even though it’s $1795. Now this three-row Jeep costs $63,915, which is admittedly a lot to spend on a Jeep.

There’s no doubt that I could’ve spent less money on this build and still had a well-optioned, affordable Jeep Grand Cherokee L, but with Jeep steadily moving upmarket, it made sense to option out a higher trim that would try to compete with household luxury marques. I ended up selecting the Overland trim, 4×4 of course, and wearing a hue of midnight blue paint that Jeep calls Transmission Heater for $345. To add to the niceties inside, I opted for the Luxury Tech Group IV package that includes upgraded leather 12-way power-adjustable seats with massagers up front, four-zone automatic climate control, second-row window shades, and an induction phone charger. Since the Grand comes standard with the new Uconnect 5 infotainment system, I had to splurge the extra $1795 to try the larger 10.1-inch display. I’d be awfully remiss to forgo the $1095 Off-Road Group, which includes 18-inch wheels, beefier tires, a sturdier rear axle with a limited-slip differential, skid plates for the front suspension, fuel tank, and transfer case, and of course, a Trail Rated badge. Lastly, for $3295 I chose the 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 engine option because getting the wimpy six-cylinder would just seem un-American.

• Buyers are paying more for new cars as average transaction prices rise. Ford cited an average transaction price of $43,600 in April.
• This is the result of low inventory and high demand for new vehicles causing automakers to reduce incentives.
• Price-conscious shoppers may want to find segments where supply is higher.

The combination of strong demand for new cars and tight inventories is creating a perfect storm of high vehicle prices. Many buyers in 2021 are paying more for new vehicles compared with last year as incentive spending drops and average transaction prices (ATP) rise, and this trend could increase as the global microchip shortage continues to affect production for many models.

According to Cox Automotive, new-vehicle inventory was down 25 percent compared with this time last year at the start of April and could soon be down by as much as 40 percent. At the same time, nearly all automakers are reporting strong sales numbers through the first few months of 2021. With fewer vehicles on dealer lots but strong consumer appetites for new cars, automakers are rolling out fewer incentives; in other words, you won’t find much cash on the hood. Cox Automotive said that incentive spending fell by nearly 16 percent during the first quarter. Measured as a percentage of average transaction prices, incentives dipped below 10 percent for the first time since 2016.

General Motors said that its transaction prices rose by an average of $3500 per vehicle in the first quarter of 2021. Ford claimed that its high average transaction price of $43,600 in April 2021 was driven by a greater mix of more expensive SUV and truck models, which now comprise 94 percent of its sales since the company dropped most of its passenger-car models. It used the example of the Bronco Sport compact SUV to show how this switch has benefitted the company, as the Bronco Sport’s average transaction price (ATP) of $31,800 in April was considerably higher than the out-of-production Fusion mid-size sedan’s $22,600 ATP.

While this shift may boost automakers’ bottom lines, it’s not so good for value-minded consumers. With used-car prices also on the rise, price-sensitive shoppers in need of a vehicle are facing a tough market. “It’s getting more difficult for shoppers to find excellent deals,” noted Charlie Chesbrough, Cox Automotive senior economist. “If price is the ultimate driver, shoppers might be wise to focus on segments of the market where inventory is healthier.” Cox’s data indicates that compact and mid-size cars and subcompact SUVs may have better supply, which means there could be better deals to be had.

How long will these higher prices last? We don’t know, but surely not forever. Reuters reported that many auto executives, including GM CEO Mary Barra, believe that the chip shortage will worsen in the second quarter of 2021, which could further impact inventories and drive prices even higher. The bottleneck is expected to improve in the second half of the year, at which point the supply and demand could start to balance out. If you can hold off on your new-vehicle purchase for a few more months, your wallet might thank you.

• In our highway fuel-economy testing, a Tesla Model S Long Range Plus went 320 miles at an average speed of 75 mph.
• This is the first EV that’s broken the 300-mile barrier in our range testing.
• The Long Range Plus model has the same 100.0-kWh battery pack as its predecessors, such as the Model S 100D, which went 270 miles in the same test. Tesla unlocked the extra range with a series of efficiency-minded modifications to the rest of the car.

In the five years since we started conducting a 200-mile highway fuel-economy test, we’ve had the pleasure and inconvenience of running the test on a wide array of EVs. The test involves an out-and-back loop of a 100-mile stretch of interstate taken at a cruise-controlled 75 mph. Often, a highway fuel economy test of an EV involves a shortened loop and a lot of nail-biting on the part of whichever test driver has been assigned to the task. But when we recently got our hands on a Tesla Model S Long Range Plus, the scene was different. No shortened loop, no nerves. We had to lengthen the course instead, notching 320 miles at 75 mph, the best result of any EV yet.

The Model S Long Range Plus was a flash in the pan of Tesla’s lineup. Announced in June 2020 with an EPA-estimated 402 miles of range, it’s already off the menu as Tesla prepares for the launch of the Model S Long Range, Plaid, and Plaid Plus, which promise 412, 390, and more than 520 miles of range, respectively (not to mention claims of sub-two-second zero-to-60-mph times for the Plaids). But even if it’s destined to be quickly overshadowed by an even more impressive sibling, the lucky few who bought a Long Range Plus while it was available should take heart in knowing that, for now, they’re driving the only EV on the road that could actually beat certain gas cars in a range battle.

The Model S Long Range Plus would tie in a range war with a Mustang Shelby GT500, which earned 20 mpg during our highway fuel-economy test and has a 16-gallon fuel tank. And that’s only if the driver of the GT500 could resist the siren call of the Predator V-8 and stick to a 75-mph cruise. At the 320-mile mark, the low fuel light would probably be on in a Jeep Renegade, which earned 29 mpg on our test but has a 360-mile range between fill-ups.

The Model S Long Range Plus has a 100.0-kWh battery, the same capacity of its predecessors such as the 2018 Model S 100D, which had 335 miles of range according to the EPA methodology and went 270 miles in our highway range test. Tesla eked out 67 extra miles of EPA range by employing a number of efficiency measures, including shaving weight from the car’s interior, adding model-specific aerodynamic wheels and tires, and making tweaks to the electric motor. Those changes also helped us go 422.7 miles in a different Long Range Plus during a test in which we drove at 65 mph instead of the 75 mph we use for our highway fuel-economy test. We’re eager to get our hands on a Model S Plaid Plus, as it claims nearly 30 percent more range, but the launch of that trim has been delayed until the middle of next year, so the Long Range Plus should hold our EV highway range crown for a while.