Indeed that seems like a good article. There is something very fishy about the range of the X though. On my first 1,000 miles my average is 2.5 miles per kWh, and I have not babysat the car at all, driven above the ideal efficiency range whenever possible (60-65 is ideal) and driven a lot in the city with traffic, floored the car a bunch of times. To get to 2 miles per wh I would have to drive like a maniac. So something is very wrong about their findings. Also please note the X is now 15 to 20% more efficient than the model tested.

As far as inside fit and finish, maybe the others are better but I cannot find a single flaw or issue with my interior except for a small rattle (my Cayenne TTS was worse in that regard, never fixed). I will not comment on handling as it would require a back to back drive. But the X is a large 7 seater and there is little body roll, the steering feel is no real different than my RRS. No doubt the interior of the Audi and Jag are better though in a more traditional sense. Tesla does not even try to compete directly yet though.

On another note, today I will end up with 20% or less battery with my 2.5 miles per wh actual measure. With the Audi or the Jaguar, I would have to recharge, This would be a deal breaker, I would never buy a car with less range than mine, that excludes the cars in this article and the standard range X or model 3.

Also there is something wrong with the prices, how did they manage to put 20k pounds of options? Mine has everything and it was only an extra $10k.

Last the real competition of the non Tesla will be the model Y, not the X.

So basically the article skips over or lies about the two strengths of the Tesla: range and autopilot wink is it biased? Your call.

And for the record, for people who routinely do long trips, EV is not for you today.