According to that chart, reviewer stalled out after traveling 51 miles (point 7) after seeing an estimated range of 32 miles (point 6). Except for the cold overnight loss-of-estimated-range, the car's reported range estimates all seem accurate and conservative.
So, was the 'detour' Musk refers to mixed in with the overnight drop? Or perhaps there was another unreported drain on the battery, overnight?
Looking back at the original article - www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html?pagewanted=all - it seems that at low-power-charge point 6, "after an hour [Tesla] cleared me to resume the trip to Milford". Presumably, that's why the reporter set out on a 118-mile journey (6-7, 7-8) with a car whose self-reported estimated range was only 32 miles.
So some things to look for in Musk's reply: (1) Why the severe overnight range drop? (2) Why the mixed-signals about whether it was OK to depart Norwich (point 6)?
The NYT does not seemingly have the incentive to fabricate this much data. Musk on the other hand is defending his company.
I look forward to their being more information released, but given the above chart, I do not immediately believe that the NYT reporter lied just because the company that was being reviewed says so.
I don't claim to know what's going on, but the NYT most certainly does have an incentive, and so does the reporter: it's a controversial, interesting story. Tesla has been firing on all cylinders, the Model S has won many accolades, and this reporter's experience is the first major black mark on the company's reputation. A positive review would just be another on the pile and would hardly be noticed, but something like this is guaranteed to get attention.
Also most papers these days have had bouts of blatantly paid pieces (either fluff or hit pieces). The data stands to be investigated, as Musk has effectively demanded.
