Our comparison between VW and Tesla based on the data collected by Sandy Munro continues with a look at the control electronics. This time the Ford Mustang Mach E is also added. And the first question is what to conclude when you know that the ID.4 and the Mach E have over 50 controllers and the Model Y only has half.

This is called a greater degree of integration, which in this case is ascribed to the Tesla, where more functions are assigned to specific controllers. Of the number at Tesla, three have to be called the main controller. And if you now add their orientation to the front and to both sides, then the basis of this architecture is probably the autopilot.

At VW and Ford, a stock that has grown over many years will probably be dragged along in order to save costs. In addition, these can also be individual controllers from suppliers, on whose software and hardware one is still dependent. Maybe you have to worry less with more controllers that have been tested for many years, but you can also assume that this also explains some VW problems with the Update over the Air.

In any case, greater integration is definitely an advantage, and VW is now striving with great effort. However, the number of connections in the connectors then also increases. If you want to save the control devices in the doors, you have to run a lot more cables through the problematic door openings to a common controller.

Or you can connect the electronic components in the doors to the controllers for the corresponding sides via CAN buses. Incidentally, if we emanate from 13 CAN buses for the ID.4, 10 for the Model Y and 9 for the Mach E, the individual bus participants will probably not have been counted among the controllers in these statistics.

Especially since some of them are still referred to as 'CAN FD'. The addition Flexible Data indicates the possibility of up to four times faster transport of data compared to the classic CAN bus, because both the size of the data fields and the transmission rate can be changed during operation. This enables a faster exchange to high-tech control units.

While the consequences for the costs of defects for the larger integration are clearly higher than the replacement of one of the smaller control units, the effects on the car wire harness and the number or size of the plug connections are still difficult to estimate. Of course, where nothing breaks, nothing needs to be replaced. After all, PCs and laptops at least have achieved remarkable durability in the meantime.

In terms of the number of Ethernets, it comes to an astonishing 12 (ID.4) to 2 (Model Y) to 4 (Mach E). It is very fast and fits perfectly with all consumer electronics used outside of the car, allegedly so heavily used by VW for their cameras. Instead, Tesla obviously works with Low Voltage Differential Signaling for its cameras, Ford with both systems to a relatively small extent.

Then the discussion participants come to a completely unexpected statistic. If we leave the Ford aside with similar values as the VW, the ID.4 still carries 77 possible fuses in 3 boxes with it and still has 7 relays. Model Y has three zeros there. The first two of these indicate electronics that switch off in the event of errors and switch on again automatically when they are rectified.

One also argues about the abandonment of UTA. Should it really be possible to use it to repair a defect and to reactivate the electricity in this way? How to get from control currents to working currents without relays remains a mystery here. Presumably (electronic) relays are soldered to the circuit boards and of course not individually replaceable.

From the last three schemes and the discussion about them, we have only learned that the above-mentioned assumption of alignment on the autopilot is confirmed with the Model Y and that this is not possible with VW and Ford without adding hardware. It's interesting that an emission-free car doesn't even need a 16-pin OBD connector. But if this is the case, however, the customer can connect common accessory tools.

No, the data and sketches shown represent a picture that is too different for one to believe that VW has taken over something from Tesla directly. However, the requirements for the design are too unlike for that. Tesla was able to restart, while VW could or had to take over much systems that were bought and tested at a high price.