90D gone. A new MS will be 75, 75D, 100D, or P100D

[whitex]

Tesla probably barely broke even on the software limited 60s.

That doesn't quite add up. When they dropped the 60, they just lowered the 75 price to the same price of $69,500. This means that those who got a 60 and upgraded, paid $71,500, and if your theory is correct and Tesla barely broke even on those, that would mean they are losing an additional $2K per car on the 75's today.

 

[smilepak]

They got rid of the 90 to make room for the new 85 which will replace the current 75.



Tesla has always had a large and small pack battery. The large has 16 modules and the small 14. The original 60 had fewer cells per module, but Tesla standardized the module when they had the 90 and 75. Both cars had an equal number of cells per module.

Tesla dropped the 90 which is based on the old module they are discontinuing. After the clear out most of the inventory 90s sitting around, they will introduce a new 85 or 90 (it will actually be an 88 KWH pack) using the same module as the 100 KWH. It saves them money to use one module. The new 85 or 90 will not be software limited, they only did that to the 75s to try and get some Model 3 people to bite on an S. The people on the waiting list who were going to bite for a small pack Model S did and they dropped it from their line up as soon as sales started dropping.

A software limited battery is lost money to Tesla unless the buyer upgrades someday. A lot of the software limited 60s buyers didn't upgrade until they offered the incentive by slashing the price. Tesla probably barely broke even on the software limited 60s.



That's the highway range only. The normal, combined range is rated at 294. It varies a bit car to car though. Mine rates itself at 298.

That is interesting.

My lease end July 2018 on the 70D. The plan is CPO 2016 85D or 90D

 

[JonG]

That is interesting.

My lease end July 2018 on the 70D. The plan is CPO 2016 85D or 90D

It's speculation.

I think they're on a wide spread simplification of models and spec at the moment and we'll soon have 50, 75 and 100 packs. If they've any sense when they get the new batteries in these packs, after a small redesign the 75 will fit in the M3, S and X. That would be sensible if they can do it.

 

[wdolson]

That doesn't quite add up. When they dropped the 60, they just lowered the 75 price to the same price of $69,500. This means that those who got a 60 and upgraded, paid $71,500, and if your theory is correct and Tesla barely broke even on those, that would mean they are losing an additional $2K per car on the 75's today.

I believe they raised the price of the base 60 from $65K to $67K in December 2016, then dropped it altogether in April of this year and lowered the price of the base 75 to $69.5K. That's $4500 more than the 60 was selling for late last year.

 

[smilepak]

If all that do come to fruition then in July 2018, getting a CPO 85D or 90D with AP2 would be prefect replacement for the 70D I have now.

I am max at 238 with 70D, at %90 it's usually 209. Sad for LA living.

 

[computerchuck]

My 90% charge is 227 (yesterday). Not bad for 22 months and 40k miles.

 

[whitex]

I believe they raised the price of the base 60 from $65K to $67K in December 2016, then dropped it altogether in April of this year and lowered the price of the base 75 to $69.5K. That's $4500 more than the 60 was selling for late last year.

It was $66,000 before the increase and $68,000 after. You are off by $1,000 but I get your point (maybe you included referral, but then your 75 price should also include the referral for fair comparison). What my point was is that the 60 was already at $68,000. When dropping the 75 price to $69,500 they added standard glass roof and power liftgate, so if we value those at $1,500 Tesla effectively dropped the 75 price to the same level as the 60 price at the time (which was after the Nov $2K price increase, yes). If 60 was a break even before the November increase, then after the increase it was making money. Offering 75 at the same price doesn't make any more money, actually less because some people did buy 75's at higher prices when 60's were available.

Btw, even if someone got a 60 before the increase with glass roof and power liftgate, they would have paid $70,500 (glass roof + PUP for $4,500), which is $1,000 more than current 75. So, for $1,000 more they'd get the bio defense mode, multi-position headlights, fog lights, and accent lighting but 10KWh less usable battery. If you compare exact apples to apples and upgrade the 60 for $2K and add $3.5K to the 75 (so identical cars in the end), then the people who bought the 60 pre-increase and upgraded for $2K, saved $500 on a 75 with glass roof and PUP. Those who got a 60 after the increase and upgraded paid $1,500 more for 75 + glass roof + PUP than it would cost today. There were other savings available last year if you didn't want glass roof, or if you wanted leather with ash-wood only, but that's just options that went away, not related to battery much.

 

[wdolson]

It was $66,000 before the increase and $68,000 after. You are off by $1,000 but I get your point (maybe you included referral, but then your 75 price should also include the referral for fair comparison). What my point was is that the 60 was already at $68,000. When dropping the 75 price to $69,500 they added standard glass roof and power liftgate, so if we value those at $1,500 Tesla effectively dropped the 75 price to the same level as the 60 price at the time (which was after the Nov $2K price increase, yes). If 60 was a break even before the November increase, then after the increase it was making money. Offering 75 at the same price doesn't make any more money, actually less because some people did buy 75's at higher prices when 60's were available.

Btw, even if someone got a 60 before the increase with glass roof and power liftgate, they would have paid $70,500 (glass roof + PUP for $4,500), which is $1,000 more than current 75. So, for $1,000 more they'd get the bio defense mode, multi-position headlights, fog lights, and accent lighting but 10KWh less usable battery. If you compare exact apples to apples and upgrade the 60 for $2K and add $3.5K to the 75 (so identical cars in the end), then the people who bought the 60 pre-increase and upgraded for $2K, saved $500 on a 75 with glass roof and PUP. Those who got a 60 after the increase and upgraded paid $1,500 more for 75 + glass roof + PUP than it would cost today. There were other savings available last year if you didn't want glass roof, or if you wanted leather with ash-wood only, but that's just options that went away, not related to battery much.

I just messed up the math. Did it in my head when I wasn't really awake.

By reducing the number of options and including some things as standard, Tesla is providing more to the customer at the same price, but they are actually increasing their profit margins in the end. Every option they offer has an internal price. By eliminating options, they reduce their bottom line.

With the roof options, I would suspect the setup to install the solid metal roof and glass roof had some differences and they probably had to do some kind of switch on the line to switch roof types. The setup to install the new solid glass roof and the sunroof are the same. It may Have only taken a few minutes to do the switch back and forth, but they might have had to do it several times a day costing say an hour a day. Additionally when there are variations in the assembly process, there is more room for mistakes to made with the installation.

By eliminating the solid roof as an option, Tesla may have increased the wholesale cost of the parts a little (the solid glass roof probably does cost a bit more than the metal roof did), but they are probably saving money in a more streamlined production process that both increases the number of cars they can build a week, but also reduces the amount of labor that goes into each car on average.

They may have figured it was cheaper to make all cars with the automatic hatch motor than switch back and forth between cars with and without it. The average wholesale price of parts is a bit higher, but the workers are more efficient because ever car gets that assembly.

Elon has talked about how they are working to make the Model 3 production line as efficient as possible. He's hinted they are revolutionizing factory design. Some of the low hanging fruit is economizing the Model S and X production lines, which both help them work out new techniques in advance and have the added effect of making production of those cars more efficient. I've been watching the changes they have made since Elon tweeted about that and they have been reducing the number of options and generally streamlining to make those cars cheaper to produce on average. And they have been throwing some "bonuses" to the customers in the form of options that have become standard.

That's why I'm sure a new 85 or 90 is in the works that will use the modules from the 100 KWH pack. Again, it's a lot more economical for them to use one module for all the packs and give the low end customers more for their money than it is to keep two different pack modules in production. They might up the price of the 75 a little with the new size, but they might not if sales are flagging a bit. They would still make almost the same profit from a new 85 sold at the same price as the existing 75. The cost of the parts would be higher, but production would be more efficient.