75? 100? 75? 100? ARGHHH!

[kbM3]

This is not the first time I've heard this said and while it sounds good to me, it is also counter-intuitive to me. Why do folks here believe the 75 will depreciate at a higher rate than the 100? Less appeal because range is king? High rate of battery degradation?

I would think a lower price will almost always bring in a bigger audience. A $30K car will have a lot more buyers than a $50K car. Hence I would say the lower priced car would have more price stabilization. Look at how many model 3 reservations are out there.

In terms of battery degradation, there are lots of threads here that claim 5% degradation over 5+ years. That difference is nominal.

I believe in the resale market the difference will not be $17K. It will be less. Which means the 75 held its value better. What am I not considering here?

I assume that Model S 85's depreciated at around the same percentage as 60's. I am too lazy to verify, but you can check. Assuming they do and that also holds true between the 100D's and the 75D's , here is an example calculation:

Just for round numbers assume that each car depreciates 50%. That means after five years, if you sell the car, the 100D has only cost you an additional $8500 (Or 50% of 17K) vs. the 75D.

E.g. 100D buy new for 100k. After five years sell it for 50K and you are only out 50K.
75D buy new for 83k. After five years sell it for 41.5K and you are out 41.5K. So the 100D cost an extra 8.5k to drive five years, Rough calculation not including extra finance charge, sales tax, insurance.

 

[chris5639]

I assume that Model S 85's depreciated at around the same percentage as 60's. I am too lazy to verify, but you can check. Assuming they do and that also holds true between the 100D's and the 75D's , here is an example calculation:

Just for round numbers assume that each car depreciates 50%. That means after five years, if you sell the car, the 100D has only cost you an additional $8500 (Or 50% of 17K) vs. the 75D.

E.g. 100D buy new for 100k. After five years sell it for 50K and you are only out 50K.
75D buy new for 83k. After five years sell it for 41.5K and you are out 41.5K. So the 100D cost an extra 8.5k to drive five years, Rough calculation not including extra finance charge, sales tax, insurance.

Fair point. So you're not saying depreciation rate is any different but rather than you will only pay for the fraction of the cost delta proportionate to the depreciation you used. This is the typical amortization of a capital expenditure. Dealers use this concept all the time. "It will only cost you $100 more a month..." But this assumes you won't move into a new car with the same cost delta. Still, I think it is a fair point where the decision of 75 and 100 based on cost difference can be looked at at a year by year basis. I did this when I was shopping and based it on a 10 year schedule. $18K (cost delta + tax) / 10 = $1,800 a year. About 5 round trip domestic flights a year if we're still comparing road trips with flying

[Edit] 5 flights is not fair as it assumes one person in the X. The larger the family the better the argument for the road trip.

 

[aaydemi]

I'm having the same struggle. 75D would be more comfortable financially, but I could stretch a bit and make the 100D work. I've been back and forth on it many times. 17k in a vacuum is a lot of money. I realize that everyone's financial situation is different. Speaking strictly in a financial sense though, and not taking into account how you'll use the car, at what cost difference would you say jumping to the 100D is "worth it"? In other words, what's your threshold for saying "the premium for the upgrade does not line up with what you're getting." A 3k difference is probably a no-brainer. 17k is a steep premium that's hard to justify for the extra batteries and shorter supercharge times. What about 8k? 10k? 12k?

 

[Peteybabes]

i'm going to say it again...there's a fire sale on 90D's right now!

there was more added today and there are tons with $10K + in discounts and even more with $7k-$9k+ in discounts.

 

[kbM3]

It is a no-brainer that the 75D will be a more economical choice. The question is how much really are you paying extra for a 100D and is that worth it to you for the extra enjoyment/convenience?

The more years you keep the 100D, the more you end up paying for it in total (because you will recoup less of the delta when you sell). However you will pay a smaller average amount per year.

I agree with the poster above that $1800 a year is a good approximation for a reasonable period of time to own it (say between three and thirteen years).

 

[jbcarioca]

This is a nice thread. If I were buying a new X I definitely would get a 100D. The X uses, IME, about 12015% more electrons than does an S. I'm comparing SP85D with X90D. Thus, again IME, the X has disproportionately large impact from wind and hills, compared with S.
Were I buying an X I'd try for the biggest battery I could afford to mitigate effects of wind, hills and cold. With an S I might go for a 75, but still larger if I had the budget.

The largest factor to think of is that owning a Tesla makes one want to drive, so you'll drive more on longer trips than you would otherwise. Everybody from people on this thread to the IIHS agree that Tesla drivers drive more than do others.

Speaking personally, I now drive to places I'd always flown to prior to Tesla.

Its wise to assume you just might behave that way also. if so, You'll probably want the 100 in order to make the long trips even easier. That said, people do happily go coast to coast in 60's.

So, my post is schizophrenic. Welcome to the world of choosing Tesla battery capacity.

 

[chris5639]

I'm having the same struggle. 75D would be more comfortable financially, but I could stretch a bit and make the 100D work. I've been back and forth on it many times. 17k in a vacuum is a lot of money. I realize that everyone's financial situation is different. Speaking strictly in a financial sense though, and not taking into account how you'll use the car, at what cost difference would you say jumping to the 100D is "worth it"? In other words, what's your threshold for saying "the premium for the upgrade does not line up with what you're getting." A 3k difference is probably a no-brainer. 17k is a steep premium that's hard to justify for the extra batteries and shorter supercharge times. What about 8k? 10k? 12k?

Here's how I did it in my spreadsheet prior to purchase:

Take $1,000 off the delta for 72 amp charger if it matters to you. Take more off if the difference in acceleration is something you can put a dollar amount to.

What is left is purely the battery difference.

Current upgrade from 60 to 75 is $2,000 or $4,500 depending on S or X (total B.S. but that's another thread). So let's use the X number.

So $4,500 / 15 kWh = $300 / kWH

If you consider the upgrade from 75 to 100 is 25 kWH x $300 / kWH = $7,500 so that should be the upgrade price.
If you consider the upgrade from 75 to 100 is 30 kWH x $300 / kWH = $9,000

In the extreme case if we say the 60 - 75 is really only 10 kWH it would mean $450 / kWH, 75-100 is 30 kWH would mean the upgrade price should be $13,500.

This is what I meant when I said I modeled this out before. The $13,500 price would have been a no-brainer for me. Anything above any of these 3 amounts is pure profit for Tesla unless we think Tesla is selling 75 as a loss leader.

 

[RyDad1]

I also wanted to add that I would be LEASING my X. Not financing.

 

[Peteybabes]

I also wanted to add that I would be LEASING my X. Not financing.

wow, that makes a huge difference! You can get hooked up with a Demo P100D MX for as much as a loaded 75D!!

Model X P100D 5YJXCAE43GF020908 | Tesla

 

[Peteybabes]

Silver or Blue, White interior (black leather 2nd choice), AP2 (dont need FSD), Premium sound, 20" wheels, 5 or 6 seats, PUP, Cold weather package (but not a deal breaker)

what $$$$ are you trying to be at?

 

[Peteybabes]

I've found a good one for OP's specs...

Model X 90D 5YJXCDE20HF040602 | Tesla

 

[Hsuester]

OP, there's been some significant changes to the Model X configurator with regards to 0-60 mph times and seat options.

 

[MIT_S60]

OP, there's been some significant changes to the Model X configurator with regards to 0-60 mph times and seat options.

No kidding, those new 75 times have me jealous.

 

[Peteybabes]

OP, there's been some significant changes to the Model X configurator with regards to 0-60 mph times and seat options.

+1

i suggest ordering a new one now...you can also get fold flat 7 seater...

 

[wdolson]

As I posted in the prediction thread, the announced 0-60 times are in line with the 75 becoming the new 90 very soon. The existing 75 pack would struggle to put out enough current to get a 4.2 s 0-60 time, but that just happens to be the old 0-60 time for the old 90D.