Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

0-60 ludicrous model 3 - How much will you pay and How fast should it be?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Because 35k vehicle doesn't have so much play room as vehicle that costs 70k. The only way to reduce price is not to over-engineer it.
JeffK said, that those who buy the P-model will pay for everything, not only their own car engineering, but the whole fleet additionally wasted resources (as I understood that). That might be the case for Model S, but not for Model 3. Because.....

P will require rubber mounts for rear axle that are capable to withstand enormous torque. Need to design beefier hooks or those rubber mounts will not stay where they have to. 1kg weight addition to all Model3's, price: 15€. P model will require more capable coolant loop to the rear axle, hose diameter +20%, heat exchanger that is appropriate for at least some accelerations: 15€+20€. More airflow required through front bumper: Cd -0,02 for all vehicles, cost 5€, range worse on all models. P model for 100k will have 80kWh pack. Curb weight increase (battery price only added to those who opted). Frame/body structure needs to be modified to be appropriate for 80kWh pack weight. Weight increase +10kg on all models (compared to 70kWh battery weight). Manufacturing costs: +150€ for all Model3s. Range reduction. Need suspension parts that are suitable for higher gross vehicle weight. +5kg weight for all models. Range reduction for all models. Higher running costs (all versions). Beefier wheels required (applies to only P version). Frontal crash structure on all models must be suitable (5-star rating) for the new gross vehicle weight (near Model S weight). Weight increase: +20kg. Cost: +70€. range reduction on all models. I believe I was able to count only 10-20% of requirements with their own negative side effects.

So now, every non-P model will be 40kg heavier due to changes that are only required to go from 3.5sec to 2.5sec. And base model will be less efficient do to worse Cd, higher weight. JeffK said, that P buyers will not only pay for hardware but also all other expenses Tesla will have due to extreme P performance. Ok, lets say that the price of the base model will suffer only 300€. Multiply this with 475 000 vehicles that have performance between 6 and 4 seconds. This is 142 million Euros. This sum must be embedded in P-price. We sell 25 000 P models. 570€ additional cost to P model option due to fleet-wide modifications. This is direct cost. Indirect cost must also take into account -15mile range on all models. And either bigger pack for everybody to compensate that or more aluminum used (or other material). How much will that cost. How much will every non-P Model3 will lose value due to extra energy requirement per distance traveled? This are questions that I can not even estimate. Very complex. But at least I brought up basic chain reaction that is required for more capable top Model3 version.

Let's mirror that to Model S. 30 000 vehicles. 1500 ludicrous annually. Additional cost per every Model S (aka over engineered 60 70 models). 1000€ (much more than Model 3). 1000*30000=30 000 000€. Ludicrous option additional cost 20 000€ for everyone who wants that (go check out price difference between 100D and P100D). Possible to sell with that price and with profit? Yes.


Yes I know, my numbers are made up. I gave my best estimations. But it works like that. Whoever wants to dispute should give more precise estimations.
Some may say, that P-variant requirements are only applied for P models. Yea sure. Some. maybe they have different part number for the whole rear axle but one thing is absolutely sure. They will not have different body design according to models. And they will not have different coolant hoses/clamps, pumps, heat exchangers, front bumpers and all those "small things" all different.

Did I at least convince SOMEBODY that having 55kWh and 90kWh battery pack on the same body is not going to cost near-nothing for non-90kWh versions?


Actually AFAIK, it wasn't 40kWh, it was software limited 60kWh.


There are reasons why Model S60 weights 400kg/880lbs more than Bolt 60kWh. Empty huge frunk/trunk doesn't actually add to weight. Bolt will not handle 75kWh pack (even though it is possible to fit it) and same carrying capacity (5 seater). Model S will. And it also works with 90kWh pack. And even 100kWh pack. And second drive unit. But that should be it. Now put that on Model 3 and we get Model S again. Making nose shorter and vehicle more aerodynamic and tires 1" smaller will not make noticeable difference.
No one is saying it will cost nothing to the base model to allow flexibility to have multiple battery options. You are arguing against something that no one claimed.

Rather what everyone is pushing back against you for is the claim it would not make financial sense for Tesla to offer a loaded top end model approaching $100k on the Model 3, simply because its annual volume is in the 100s of thousands instead of 10s of thousands.

I'll give a simple counter example: the BMW 3 series which is made in ~500k units annual starts at $33k and a loaded M3 sedan is $90k.

The way BMW makes that work is the options on the M3 have extremely high margins. Any tweaks they made to the base model to allow such options is more than made up for by that high price.
 
I totally forgot I watched this video before...someone wants to give some estimate on 0-60 time for this prototype?

This video will give you a better idea because it watches the screen:
Start at about 1:51

This is a rolling start, from what I can tell he straightens the wheel all the way and hits the accelerator at 1:53 and it hits 60 at 1:57.

In one video, one of the engineers wouldn't say if that was the performance version, I'm betting no.
 
I'm anticipating a 25 percent maybe 30 percent to move from the base model 3 to an awd p85D...

About 11 grand on top of the 35 grand base price.

46 grand...For p85 D awd

Additional options not included...

I think you are way too optimistic here. Of course it wouldn't be too expensive for Tesla, but the P100D probably isn't really much more expensive to build than the base 60. The reason why it is much, much, more expensive, is that they can easily sell it for that price and find enough customers to pay for it.

The same will go for the Model 3, if it can beat a C63 AMG S, it will be priced accordingly. I'd say that even the 100D equivalent will be pretty quick and rather affordable, but their high performance version will be expensive, as long as there is no cheaper competition around. The P100D commands an almost 100% price increase over the most basic Model S. 68k for the most basic Model S and 134k for the cheapest P100D. So the performance Model 3, without any options, should cost almost 70k. Which would be inline with the 64k a M3 costs and the 73k a C 63 AMG S costs.
 
The BMW M3 starts at $14K more than a base 5 series; a MB C63S starts at $20K more than a base E class. Why would it be so odd for a top of the line 3 to cost more than S60?
Because Performance ICE Sedans from certain brands tend to charge far too much for what they offer -- especially if they are German. That's why the Performance of the Tesla Model S has always been a bargain compared to those same brands and others. And despite the ridiculously high base prices for BMW M3, Mercedes-AMG C63, Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio, and Cadillac ATS-V compared to the base versions of the unadorned cars...? You overlook that the base prices for some Performance editions among competitors, such as AUDI S4, Lexus IS350 F-Sport, Jaguar XE S, and Infiniti Q50 RED Sport, are much more reasonable.

I expect the Tesla Model ≡ P85D will start on the reasonable end, perhaps $48,000 to $55,000 at most, with only its fully loaded counterpart approaching or exceeding the base price of a BMW M3 initially. This is supposed to be the 'even more affordable' car in Tesla's lineup, after all.

It isn't necessary to add $30,000 to the base price of the car just to sniff at a Performance version, then add another $30,000 in options above and beyond that point within this market whether ICE or EV. I'm thinking Tesla will be fine at $15,000 above base price for Performance to start, with a possibility of another $15,000 over that for amenities and features. Thus, a maximum price point of around $65,000 for a car that blows the doors off a BMW M3, while being better equipped overall.
 
So the performance Model 3, without any options, should cost almost 70k. Which would be inline with the 64k a M3 costs and the 73k a C 63 AMG S costs.

I can agree with this. At the end of the day, Tesla is a company that still has a functional business model to uphold and unless their business model is about to drastically change, the performance model will likely be more costly to the buyer than a lot of people here are making it out to be.
 
You guys might be right. I was just looking at the pricing on a p85D at 69 grand after tax incentive versus the p60 at 54 grand after tax incentive...

I looked at it and said 25 to 30 percent increase from rear wheel drive p60 to awd p85D ..

I guessed 25 to 30 percent on 35 grands around 11 grand...

11 plus 35 equal 46 grand...

Mentioning sports sedans like BMW m3 or the new Alfa quadrofollio and I'm a sports car enthusiast for decades...as great as the telsas perform...they can't really do even a lap of say car and drivers lightning lap.

Tesla is an amazing street passenger vehicle and in acceleration it's amazing....but it's not a sports sedan in the same vein as an Alfa quadrofollio or m3....no matter how fast it accelerates...

I think pricing should be close to what I'm calling for as I have a deposit on one...for my family sedan duties...

I'd like awd and a p85D acceleration...for under 50 before I start adding more options....of course I might be dreaming....if it's much more...I'll probably tone down the p85 to something closer to that price range...

I'm not dropping too much more coin...I figured automous mode, awd and p85D for 55? I don't know whatever else options will be offered ...I'm assuming wheels? Glass roof? Sunroof? Winter heat steering wheel? Paint? Stereos? Leather extras?? I tend not to ever buy that stuff as I found over the years of ownership..I play with it for six months and then forget about them...

I'm assuming there is a lot of money in those options...I tend to like strong powerplants, I need awd for the wifey to be happy and I like the Aston Martin like styling....

I don't care about range over the 215 miles so I think that any higher range would be an extra cost option as well...

I don't need supercharger aspects for longer distance driving either and I think that's a higher cost option too..

I'm sure you guys are right and I'm wrong...but until I hear otherwise I'm hopeful

Maybe we can get a shorter range of 215 miles and zero to sixty in under four seconds...with awd for 45 grand...I'd go for that...maybe 55 with a couple of options...

Not that I can't afford more money for a car...I tend to think more than 55 grand is absurd for any car...I'm old school so pricing has sort of caught me off guard these days...I remember when the Lamborghini Muira S was $19,999.....so I just have a hard time rationalizing any car even the new corvette z06 available at 70 grand these days...

$45 to 55 grand is closer to my rationalization zone...for awd , zero to sixty under 4 seconds ,a 215 mile range and autonomous mode capabilty...other options to add to the price of course...

Just shooting the breeze in excitement of this weeks possible start of pilot production
 
  • Like
Reactions: wallet.dat
I think you are way too optimistic here. Of course it wouldn't be too expensive for Tesla, but the P100D probably isn't really much more expensive to build than the base 60. The reason why it is much, much, more expensive, is that they can easily sell it for that price and find enough customers to pay for it.

The same will go for the Model 3, if it can beat a C63 AMG S, it will be priced accordingly. I'd say that even the 100D equivalent will be pretty quick and rather affordable, but their high performance version will be expensive, as long as there is no cheaper competition around. The P100D commands an almost 100% price increase over the most basic Model S. 68k for the most basic Model S and 134k for the cheapest P100D. So the performance Model 3, without any options, should cost almost 70k. Which would be inline with the 64k a M3 costs and the 73k a C 63 AMG S costs.
The problem with your theory is that you overlook how the Tesla Model S P100D is priced -- compared to its competition -- as opposed to its own entry-level version. The Mercedes-AMG S65 starts at $226,900 now, and even the S63 starts at $144,700 -- both higher than the $135,700 amount for the Model S P100D. The Tesla is a BARGAIN when it comes to Performance. And for those more interested in 'luxury' for whatever reason, the $91,200 saved by not getting the Mercedes-AMG product goes a long way at West Coast Customs, Unplugged Performance, or the local custom automotive upholsteror of your choice.

The Mercedes-AMG C63 S sedan starts at $72,800. The Tesla Model S P100D starts at $59.8% of the Mercedes-AMG S65. So, if a Model ≡ P100D were 'priced accordingly' it would start at around $43,539. It seems to me that perhaps you are the one who is being 'way too optimistic here'... And I'm your Friendly Neighborhood Over-the-Top Optimistic Tesla Certified Apologist Fanboy! :D

More seriously though, despite my firm belief that the Model ≡ will eventually receive battery pack capacities well in excess of 100 kWh, perhaps as much as 120kWh to 140 kWh some day... Elon Musk has informed us via twitter that the car doesn't have enough room for even 100 kWh capacity right now. So it is very possible the maximum capacity will be no more than 90 kWh initially.

Not because of marketing, or protection of Model S sales, as some purport... More because of a need to fulfill as many 'affordable' orders as soon as possible... And the motivation to train Consumers to purchase cars with 'enough' capacity (somewhere between 250 miles and 350 miles is the 'sweet spot' Elin and JB have spoken of) and range instead of almost always going for 'the big battery' as they did with Model S.

I believe that every version of the Model ≡ will provide the most 'BANG for the BUCK' compared to competitors. This in an effort to show EVs can be simultaneously superior and affordable compared to ICE vehicles. There is no need to either GiMP the cars or GOUGE on pricing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EinSV
We want ludicrous performance, but with something we can actually afford. These are very different market segments. Physically there's is zero reason a performance version of the Model 3 shouldn't be able to outperform the Model S. If they handicap Model 3 for no reason it's not going to drive people into buying the performance version of the Model S. If they don't have money for it now, they're not magically going to have money for it later.

The closest thing you'd do is drive people from a high profit margin, highly optioned Model 3 to a low profit margin, base model Model S. The very idea doesn't make business sense.
You want top of the line performance, you pay top dollar. Can't afford that? Well, sucks to be you. You don't get top of the line performance. That's not how the world works. The Model 3 will not offer top of the line performance for half the price. The market segments of the S vs 3 are not "expensive and 100% fast" vs "cheap and 100% fast". The 3 will be more like "cheap and still pretty damn fast but not as fast" because it makes no business sense for your budget car to outperform your high end model, especially if both cars are marketed as "performance" vehicles.

Converting a loaded 3 order to a stripper S doesn't make sense, as you've pointed out, but nobody who's jonesing for performance would even consider that because a loaded 3 will most certainly outperform all S models except performance.

The bottom line is that just because people can't afford the S doesn't mean you can get a cheaper S AKA the Model 3, because then nobody would buy the S. You will get Ludicrous performance on the 3, but it'll be 2015 Ludicrous, not 2017, which is still pretty freakin' fast. If you don't have the money for 2017 Ludicrous, you will never get that (until 10 years later when 2027 Ludicrous is accelerating people back in time). That doesn't mean you're not going to buy the 3. You're still gonna buy it and be happy with it, but you'll always wish you could afford the S. And maybe someday you will! And then you'll move up and give Tesla more money. That wouldn't happen if the 3 fulfilled every hope and dream.

Physically there's is zero reason a performance version of the Model 3 shouldn't be able to outperform the Model S.
I'm not a battery vehicle engineer, but everything I've heard is that bigger battery = bigger discharge. Can a Model 3 truly accelerate faster than an S when it has a smaller battery? Or have we hit a wall or reached a breakthrough that would allow a 75-80kWh battery to discharge as much energy as 100kWh?

Sure, the 3 will be smaller, but do you really think the slightly reduced weight and smaller profile will affect its acceleration so drastically that it could outperform a car with 20% more battery? It'll actually probably be comparable in weight because of the increased steel construction.

I'm sure this post sounds real pessimistic and I sure hope I'm wrong because that would be awesome. :cool:
 
I can agree with this. At the end of the day, Tesla is a company that still has a functional business model to uphold and unless their business model is about to drastically change, the performance model will likely be more costly to the buyer than a lot of people here are making it out to be.
Tesla's business model has consistently been to offer much more Performance for a lower price than their ICE based direct competitors.

  • The 'new' Porsche Panamera now starts at $85,000. The 'new' Panamera Turbo starts at $146,900.
  • The BMW 740i starts at $81,500. The Alpina B7 starts at $137,000. The BMW M760i starts at 153,800.
  • The Mercedes-Benz S550 starts at $96,600. The Mercedes-AMG S65 S starts at $226,900. The Mercedes-Maybach S600 starts at $191,300.
  • The Tesla Model S 60 is $68,000. The Tesla Model S 100D is $92,500. The Tesla Model S P100D is $135,700 -- including a $1,200 Destination and Documentation Fee.

I expect to see a similar pattern of relative bargain pricing for the Model ≡ relative to its direct competitors. For instance, the BMW 340i xDrive starts at $49,900 and will almost certainly get its doors blown off by the base Tesla Model ≡ at $35,000. Just for the fun of it, and to prove a point: The ICE AGE is OVER.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EinSV
Mentioning sports sedans like BMW m3 or the new Alfa quadrofollio and I'm a sports car enthusiast for decades...as great as the telsas perform...they can't really do even a lap of say car and drivers lightning lap.

Tesla is an amazing street passenger vehicle and in acceleration it's amazing....but it's not a sports sedan in the same vein as an Alfa quadrofollio or m3....no matter how fast it accelerates...
There is a reason why Elon Musk and JB Straubel refer to the Model ≡ as the Tesla Generation III vehicle. Quite some time ago, Elon noted that with any type of technology it typically takes about three iterations to get it 'right'. So that it is undoubtedly 'better' in all the ways that matter most compared to what came before it. The idea is that you build upon what was learned before, to create better products.

From my perspective, Tesla moved from the experimental 'Proof of Concept' vehicle built by AC Propulsion, the tzero, to their Generation I vehicle, the Tesla Roadster.

Next was the Model S as the first of two Generation II vehicles. And the Model X more recently arrived as part of Generation II as well. Both vehicles have been continually improved since their release. And Tesla learned the fundamentals of mass manfacturing and distribution with these Generation II vehicles.

The company grew through many trials and tribulations and became stronger as a result. Among those was proving that long range electric vehicles are a viable form of sole transportation. Another was proving there was a viable market of buyers for them. Another has been dealing with legal challenges to their chosen means of distribution through direct sales. Another was demonstrating the ease by which a network of DC Fast Chargers, Superchargers, could enable long distance driving between population centers.

Now is the time to bring together all the lessons learned so far for a proper Tesla Generation III launch with Model ≡. Please understand that from the very beginning, the earliest point where Elon Musk spoke of Tesla Generation III, he indicated their target was the BMW 3-Series. People such as you gaffed.

It is interesting to note however that since 2012 or so, BMW has no longer been able hide behind their legendary handling, steering feel, or 'fun-to-drive' factor to win head-to-head comparison tests. They had been losing instrumented tests since the early 1990s, but seasoned professionals still preferred the way their cars 'felt' while getting their butts kicked, so BMW 3-Series would still 'win' those tests somehow.

Not so much anymore. And if so many others, including Buick, Cadillac, AUDI, Jaguar, and Alfa Romeo have managed to 'dial in' their cars to consistently, one after the other, best BMW at their own game... There is no reason whatsoever to believe the Tesla Model ≡ won't be able to follow suit.

Yes, the car will be great on public roads, surface streets and open highways. But just as the Model S and Model X have proven effective on the Autobahn, I believe the Model ≡ will go the extra 2-1/2 to 14 miles or so to prove electric drive can excel at the world's best closed circuit raceways as well. I would not doubt that a Model ≡ P85D would be tuned so that it could perform admirably compared to race-prepped gas guzzling vehicles. Look for a 'flying lap' below 7:30 at Nürburgring by 2020. And on shorter courses, gas guzzlers will be seeking relief from event regulators once they can no longer score a podium position. Likely by asking for reverse pole position starts and weight handicaps for EVs. It won't matter one bit. That's assuming all the oil sponsors don't lobby for EVs to be outlawed by formula from the outset.

Do not doubt that theTesla Model ≡ in Performance trim will offer a sense of driving excellence that goes far beyond straight line performance both on road and track.
 
I'll give a simple counter example: the BMW 3 series which is made in ~500k units annual starts at $33k and a loaded M3 sedan is $90k.

The way BMW makes that work is the options on the M3 have extremely high margins. Any tweaks they made to the base model to allow such options is more than made up for by that high price.

BMW 3-series options cost the same for every variant possible (except higher powered vehicles have more as standard and some options are cheaper due to something being already in standard list). BMW M3 whatever option costs as much as for 320i. There are some extra options that are only available for M3, like some colors, wheels and brake discs.

M3-s are sold in thousands, not in hundreds of thousands nor tens of thousands. How much profit can be made if extreme ludicrous version has requirements for 300€ for all Model3-s (lets assume 500 000 sold annually) and there are 10 000 sold annually?
 
How much profit can be made if extreme ludicrous version has requirements for 300€ for all Model3-s (lets assume 500 000 sold annually) and there are 10 000 sold annually?
If any modifications were already factored into the $35,000 base price then the percent of profit would be the same no matter how many ludicrous models they sold. As I've mentioned before, there are plenty of safety reasons to do this as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red Sage
BMW 3-series options cost the same for every variant possible (except higher powered vehicles have more as standard and some options are cheaper due to something being already in standard list). BMW M3 whatever option costs as much as for 320i. There are some extra options that are only available for M3, like some colors, wheels and brake discs.

M3-s are sold in thousands, not in hundreds of thousands nor tens of thousands. How much profit can be made if extreme ludicrous version has requirements for 300€ for all Model3-s (lets assume 500 000 sold annually) and there are 10 000 sold annually?
You're forgetting that there are more than just two variants (of both BMW 3 series and Tesla Model 3). The costs that you mention are spread across a continuum of models. Also Tesla expects very few people will buy a true base Model 3. They cancelled the Model S 40 (it was going to be a real 40kWh battery but when so few people ordered it they cancelled the option and just software limited a 60kWh battery) but so few people ordered it they cancelled it. If 500,000 people buy $35k Model 3's Tesla will go bankrupt whether there is a PDL model or not.

All that to say much of that E300 you're quoting will be absorbed by the 400,000 mid-level Model 3's that will have some elements of the PDL cars in the same way as BMW. For example you can buy an "M-sport" 3 series that has M3 suspension (and I think body panels) but not the motor and so some costs are spread there. Tesla will likely do similar things.
 
BMW 3-series options cost the same for every variant possible (except higher powered vehicles have more as standard and some options are cheaper due to something being already in standard list). BMW M3 whatever option costs as much as for 320i. There are some extra options that are only available for M3, like some colors, wheels and brake discs.

M3-s are sold in thousands, not in hundreds of thousands nor tens of thousands. How much profit can be made if extreme ludicrous version has requirements for 300€ for all Model3-s (lets assume 500 000 sold annually) and there are 10 000 sold annually?
I can concede the point about relative option cost of M3 vs lower versions (more accurately I should have said they already have more margin from the M3 version itself and bundling of expensive options; Tesla does similar in bundling for P100D). But none of what you say disputes my counter example as to your point about feasibility of expensive versions for vehicles made in 100s of 1000s (it seems you have dropped that argument).

From a macro level, if BMW can make a car that sells in 500k annual units that starts at $33k and have a version at $90k, I am so far seeing zero reasons why Tesla can't do the same. The M3 may sell only in thousands, but BMW makes it work anyways: what is different about Tesla's case that makes it impossible for Tesla? I have not seen a convincing argument from you.

@strider brought up some specifics. Tesla is not actually expecting to sell only a base Model 3 and then the loaded Ludicrous version. They will be selling many different versions (the S has 7 versions). The costs would be spread across those versions. For example, the extra weight of batteries are shared by all versions using the large capacity pack, not just the Ludicrous version. If there are two motor sizes, the costs to support the large motor is shared by all the RWD versions. Front motor costs are shared by all AWD versions. It goes on and on in this matter.

In the worse case scenario, let's say there are purely $300 worth of requirements for all Model 3s purely to support Ludicrous (highly unlikely from above, but I will entertain you) and 10k annual Ludicrous units out of total 500k. That is $150 million for 500k. Spread out to the 10k Ludicrous cars, that is $15k. That actually pushes the max price higher and makes the price spread even larger, not smaller.
 
Last edited:
I hope you guys are right...I've heard or rather read of the disappointing track performance of the model S in the car and driver lightning lap...if things change awesome..if not I don't really care.

I'm buying a model 3 as a quick accelerating Aston Martin look a like as a four door sedan to move more than 2 people.

Something about keeping the batteries cool for more than one lap seems to be outside the current amazing performer like the p100d...

I'm not buying the tesla to do road course work so I don't think it matters...I just don't think comparing the tesla to a sports sedan is accurate at this point in time...the electric cars are heavy as well and tend to be less than vehicles that are thousands of pounds lighter...

Still it doesn't matter to me...as I want the tesla 3 for a quick accelerating stunningly beautiful awd sedan
 
As I've stated before, would be thrilled at around 4 flat 0-60, especially for my $45-50 budget. Anything quicker than that is just icing on the cake for me. Yes, 0-60 times in the 2s get headlines and a bunch of YouTube videos, but is really good for little but bragging rights in the real world. Heck, my Sonata turbo is about 6.5, and I can smoke about 70 percent of the cars on the road today. 4 seconds would be mighty quick in my book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arnis and Model 3
As I've stated before, would be thrilled at around 4 flat 0-60, especially for my $45-50 budget. Anything quicker than that is just icing on the cake for me. Yes, 0-60 times in the 2s get headlines and a bunch of YouTube videos, but is really good for little but bragging rights in the real world. Heck, my Sonata turbo is about 6.5, and I can smoke about 70 percent of the cars on the road today. 4 seconds would be mighty quick in my book.
It's good to hook the vocal car enthusiasts if you can, this leads to others converting to electric. There are some people like Jeremy Clarkson who you'd have a difficult time converting though...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red Sage