70D vs. 90D Speed Regrets?

[liuping]

to be honest, the only time the extra power really matters is during passing manouveres.

I think you meant: "the only time the extra power really matters to me is during passing manouveres."

The extra acceleration from 0-60 does matter to quite a few people. Otherwise no manufacturer would make cars with better than 0-60MPH in 10 seconds acceleration. :smile:

Many people do accurate quickly from traffic lights, especially from traffic controlled on-ramp lights. And no, it does not get boring after 50 (or 100 or 1000 times).

 

[brianman]

With chris's help, I think Flat's newer chart is more useful.

I think it might be interesting to split out the 70->70D transition better.

More specifically, let's assume the 0-60 incremental cost rate from 70 to 70D is the same as 70D to 90D ($13,846). Using that recalculate the "Incremental Cost (Speed)". Subtract that number from $13,212 to get the "Incremental Cost (AWD)" of 70D. I think that better captures the value proposition of 70 the 70D upgrade.

 

[liuping]

With chris's help, I think Flat's newer chart is more useful.

I think it might be interesting to split out the 70->70D transition better.

More specifically, let's assume the 0-60 incremental cost rate from 70 to 70D is the same as 70D to 90D ($13,846). Using that recalculate the "Incremental Cost (Speed)". Subtract that number from $13,212 to get the "Incremental Cost (AWD)" of 70D. I think that better captures the value proposition of 70 the 70D upgrade.

The chart also does not reflect the improved traction of the D models over the 70. It's not just better range and acceleration. In wet and snowy conditions I think the D adds additional value.

(I know it's not on the chart, but I actually prefer the 90D to the original P85, due the the improved traction during acceleration.)

 

[chriSharek]

to be honest, the only time the extra power really matters is during passing manouveres. And from what I have heard once you are above 50mph there is hardly any difference in acceleration. 0-60 in 4 seconds is a bit rediculous and noone will drive off like that at a traffic light. I'm sure it'll get boring after doing it 50 times.

Funny you say this, because it was from 30 to 50 that I could really feel the difference between the 70D and the 85D. Now that I'm getting a 90D instead of the 85D, it'll be even more noticeable. Keep in mind that the 90D provides the best range also!

 

[Lennox]

The 90d is superb, the traction is stunning!! Enjoy!

 

[Burt Court]

I may be the only oddball here (but I'm old) but I would trade my P85D for an S70 (non-D) with all the toys I have now. I love the auto-pilot.
old burt

 

[chriSharek]

. . . . I'm old . . .

You said it; we did not!

 

[brianman]

The numbers really do look pretty nice for the 90D from a financial perspective.

Notes:
- The highlighted yellow boxes are calculated.
- For simplicity, I assumed we apply a constant "Range cost ($/mi.)" calculated from the base 70.
- "Accel cost ($/sec.)" is calculated by as follows: ({Delta Price ($)} - (({Range cost ($/mi.)} * {Delta Range (mi.)}) + {AWD cost ($)})) / - {Delta 0-60}.
- I started with $4,000 for the AWD cost but that put the "Accel. cost ($/sec.)" negative for the 70D. I ended up with $2,000 being the highest multiple of $1,000 that would keep the 70D Accel cost non-negative.

 

[FlatSix911]

Brian, why did you keep the range cost constant ... you should use the calculated range to get a valid comparison.

The numbers really do look pretty nice for the 90D from a financial perspective.

View attachment 112701

Notes:
- The highlighted yellow boxes are calculated.
- For simplicity, I assumed we apply a constant "Range cost ($/mi.)" calculated from the base 70.
- "Accel cost ($/sec.)" is calculated by as follows: ({Delta Price ($)} - (({Range cost ($/mi.)} * {Delta Range (mi.)}) + {AWD cost ($)})) / - {Delta 0-60}.
- I started with $4,000 for the AWD cost but that put the "Accel. cost ($/sec.)" negative for the 70D. I ended up with $2,000 being the highest multiple of $1,000 that would keep the 70D Accel cost non-negative.

 

[brianman]

Brian, why did you keep the range cost constant ... you should use the calculated range to get a valid comparison.

I keep the range cost per mile constant, which I considered reasonable. That said, feel free to tweak the spreadsheet attached to my previous post and reply with a better fit?

 

[FlatSix911]

I keep the range cost per mile constant, which I considered reasonable. That said, feel free to tweak the spreadsheet attached to my previous post and reply with a better fit?

Here is a recommendation ... hope this helps.

 

[brianman]

First, the P90D Range cost field has no impact on anything, so not sure why that is worth changing.

Second, why do consider the range cost for the 70D->90D to be of lower value than the range cost from 90D -> P90D? It it somehow inherently less valuable?


I guess what I'm getting at is -- your tweaks to the range cost column are based on...?

 

[FlatSix911]

First, the P90D Range cost field has no impact on anything, so not sure why that is worth changing.
Second, why do consider the range cost for the 70D->90D to be of lower value than the range cost from 90D -> P90D?
It it somehow inherently less valuable?I guess what I'm getting at is -- your tweaks to the range cost column are based on...?

The Range cost is simply a function of Cost ($)/Range (Miles) and is a good measure of value in addition to acceleration.
See my previous posts in this thread for a more detailed discussion.

 

[brianman]

The Range cost is simply a function of Cost ($)/Range (Miles) and is a good measure of value in addition to acceleration.
See my previous posts in this thread for a more detailed discussion.

I did read the rest of the thread but that doesn't help me understand where you're getting your numbers from. Hence asking for clarification.

My spreadsheet attempts to tease out the contribution in costs/value of the various improvements up the product line. It seems like your numbers muddy them rather than separate them.

 

[Pinarello]

I purchased a loaded MS 70D after doing my research. I would rather invest my extra funds into key features I wanted instead of the performance. As for range, I live in the far Chicago suburbs and drive all over the Chicago area, Northwest Indiana and Southern Wisconsin. Range has not been an issue even in the winter months. As for acceleration, no one riding with me has ever been disappointed when I put the pedal to the floor. The reaction is usually "wholly crap this thing is fast!" With two kids in college, my savings had a place to go. :smile:

BTW, I absolutely love Autopilot and would guess that at least half of my miles driven are with autopilot engaged.

 

[Max*]

I took a stab at the table myself.

If we take the logic that any upgrade encompasses the following 3 items: Range, AWD, speed -- and the goal of my table was to break out the cost of each update in increments over the BASE model (different approach from the two tables displayed here earlier).

I used the same approach with the AWD price upgrade as Brian did.


I think this table tells the same story, but a different way. If you want a fast car, the step increase for speed alone between the 90D and P90D is huge, so the 90D is the golden middle for speed. If you want/need more range, the step increase from the 70D to 90D is significant, if you don't need the range, it's a good savings staying with the 70D. And obviously speed costs a ton (P90D, P90D) acceleration costs.

Things we already knew...

 

[brianman]

Max:
- Your version makes you pay for AWD twice for 90D, thrice for P90D, and quadruply (word?) for P90D. The delta price (H column) is from the vehicle directly above, not from 70.
- Your new column Range Cost $ (J) can be calculated more simply: F5*I$3. If you look back at my original calc for Accel cost ($/sec), you'll see that's essentially what I used in that equation though I didn't break it out as a separate column.

 

[Max*]

Max:
- Your version makes you pay for AWD twice for 90D, thrice for P90D, and quadruply (word?) for P90D. The delta price (H column) is from the vehicle directly above, not from 70.

My delta price column is from the 70. Unless I'm missing something?

I was going to get a price comparison to the base 70 (as I stated previously), so I had to change the table around some. I changed the whole "Delta" (F, G, H) section to be from the base 70.

- Your new column Range Cost $ (J) can be calculated more simply: F5*I$3. If you look back at my original calc for Accel cost ($/sec), you'll see that's essentially what I used in that equation though I didn't break it out as a separate column.

lol, yeah, that's a good point.

 

[brianman]

My delta price column is from the 70.

I missed that. Mea culpa.

While we're here:
When I go to configure the base 70, I see $70,000 as the cash price. What am I missing?

- - - Updated - - -

While we're here:
When I go to configure the base 70, I see $70,000 as the cash price. What am I missing?

Ah, +1200 -7500.

 

[Max*]

I missed that. Mea culpa.

While we're here:
When I go to configure the base 70, I see $70,000 as the cash price. What am I missing?

- - - Updated - - -


Ah, +1200 -7500.

That took me a while to figure out too, I thought it's a bit unfair to use the federal credit reduction, but I stuck with it as someone before me had that in their table (FlatSix911? I think)