Can't decide between Model S or Audi S6

[Zythryn]

You don't even need to own a high-performance EV to experience that, a Leaf will do the trick just fine
I've had the Leaf for a year now and will never buy an outdated ICE box again. I might trade in the Leaf for a GenIII in a few years though.

It really is quite incredible. But the drive experience of the Model S is as impressive a leap over both the Roadster and the Leaf as the Leaf is over a normal ICE.
I am not sure if it is improved suspension, sound deadening, air suspension, or just a more refined electric motor. I drove a Roadster for over two years, it was my daily driver, and I have had the pleasure of test driving a Leaf. But even those cannot compare.
In the end, I suspect the 'designed and built from the ground up as an electric car' really paid off!

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

Okay... This is a somewhat long one, so brace yourselves… And I understand if you think that this maybe sounds pretentious, but hopefully you won’t regret reading it. And yes, there will be numbers… The main ones are marked with bold.

The numbers I've seen say that you can save more CO2 with $1000 than you can by buying electric. If you have proof that my numbers are wrong, show them. Until then, stop trying to tell me that anyone that can buy electric and doesn't is environmentally irresponsible.

My point remains: $20k to save 40 tons of CO2 is a lousy choice.

The main theory is what Norbert, Thanks!, is also saying (post #108, as well as post #85), but I’ve probably been unclear about this, so apologies for that. Here it is:

I don't think anyone says that's the choice.

The choice is to help jump start the conversion of the majority of *all* cars to electric, along with a similar progress in solar (and wind, hydro, and other sustainable energy sources).

Also through this, the price of batteries (as for solar) will be reduced within the next years to the point where electric cars will not anymore cost more than ICEs (in many cases the Model S is already comparable).

[...]

[Or if] you want/need a smaller car, you might consider Tesla's future GenIII car, which will have a base price $20k lower. However Tesla will only be able to build it if the sales volume of Model S provides Tesla with enough profits to make the necessary investments. And that's the point in terms of environmental benefits, not the instant savings by the Model S you buy for yourself.

The bigger Tesla’s success, the faster other auto companies will make an S4/S5–sized competitor as well as an even more competent S3-sized competitor than the Leaf. And this should include Audi… And the more Model S’s Tesla sells the faster we’ll get the Tesla GenIII…

How does one put a number on that?

Norbert (Thanks again!) also writes this (same post #108):

I'm not sure why you say the S6 is 20k cheaper. The Model S Performance + tech package, in CA, seems $15k more, however *minus* gasoline savings, which can easily be in that range. You get air suspension, large cargo room, expected top-5-star crash test rating, HOV-lane access, and pre-heating and pre-cooling of the cabin, for example.

But you’ve wanted numbers, so here’s some numbers:

2° Celsius (about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), 565 Gigatons CO2, 2,795 Gigatons CO2, 16 years (counting from JULY 19, 2012), 275 parts per million of carbon dioxide, 392 parts per million of carbon dioxide, and 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide.

Sources:

Global Warming's Terrifying New Math | Politics News | Rolling Stone

350 Science | 350.org

”The First Number: 2° Celsius [about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, my edit]

[...]

167 countries responsible for more than 87 percent of the world's carbon emissions have signed on to the Copenhagen Accord, endorsing the two-degree target.

[…]

The official position of planet Earth at the moment is that we can't raise the temperature more than two degrees Celsius – it's become the bottomest of bottom lines. Two degrees. [My bold]

[…]

Some context: So far, we've raised the average temperature of the planet just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected. [My bold] (A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is a shocking five percent wetter, loading the dice for devastating floods.) Given those impacts, in fact, many scientists have come to think that two degrees is far too lenient a target. "Any number much above one degree involves a gamble," writes Kerry Emanuel of MIT, a leading authority on hurricanes, "and the odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes up." Thomas Lovejoy, once the World Bank's chief biodiversity adviser, puts it like this: "If we're seeing what we're seeing today at 0.8 degrees Celsius, two degrees is simply too much." NASA scientist James Hansen, the planet's most prominent climatologist, is even blunter: "The target that has been talked about in international negotiations for two degrees of warming is actually a prescription for long-term disaster."

[…]

The Second Number: 565 Gigatons

Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees. ("Reasonable," in this case, means four chances in five, or somewhat worse odds than playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter.) [My bold]

[…]

[The Fourth number: 16 years (counting from JULY 19, 2012) my edit]

.../study after study predicts that carbon emissions will keep growing by roughly three percent a year – and at that rate, we'll blow through our 565-gigaton allowance in 16 years [My bold]

[…]

The Third Number: 2,795 Gigatons

This number is the scariest of all /…/. It was highlighted last summer by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a team of London financial analysts and environmentalists who published a report in an effort to educate investors about the possible risks that climate change poses to their stock portfolios. The number describes the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries (think Venezuela or Kuwait) that act like fossil-fuel companies. In short, it's the fossil fuel we're currently planning to burn. And the key point is that this new number – 2,795 – is higher than 565. Five times higher. [My bold]


Source: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math | Politics News | Rolling Stone

350 parts per million is what many scientists, climate experts, and progressive national governments are now saying is the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere.

Accelerating arctic warming and other early climate impacts have led scientists to conclude that we are already above the safe zone at our current [392, my edit] ppm, and that unless we are able to rapidly return to below 350 ppm this century, we risk reaching tipping points and irreversible impacts such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and major methane releases from increased permafrost melt.

There are three numbers you need to really understand global warming: 275, 392, and 350.

Since the beginning of human civilization up until about 200 years ago, our atmosphere contained about 275 parts per million of carbon dioxide.[Partly my bold] Parts per million is simply a way of measuring the concentration of different gases, and means the ratio of the number of carbon dioxide molecules to all of the molecules in the atmosphere.

[...]

By now—and this is the second number—the planet has about 392 parts per million CO2 – and this number is rising by about 2 parts per million every year.

Scientists are now saying that's too much – that number is higher than any time seen in the recorded history of our planet. [My bold]

[...]

As James Hansen of [NASA, my edit], the first scientist to warn about global warming more than two decades ago, wrote:

"If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm [the level when this part of this text was written in 2008, my edit] to at most 350 ppm."

That will be a hard task, but not impossible. We need to stop taking carbon out of the ground and putting it into the air. Above all, that means we need to stop burning so much coal—and start using solar and wind energy and other such sources of renewable energy –while ensuring the Global South a fair chance to develop. If we do, then the earth’s soils and forests will slowly cycle some of that extra carbon out of the atmosphere, and eventually CO2 concentrations will return to a safe level. By decreasing use of other fossil fuels, and improving agricultural and forestry practices around the world, scientists believe we could get back below 350 by mid-century./..."


Source:

350 Science | 350.org

Now, there’s some numbers…

Where do you end up when you do the math?

Some more numbers:

4,900,000 Barrels of oil. The amount that gushed into the Gulf of Mexico in the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. [And who knows how much of whatever it was BP also dumped into the Gulf to try and 'clean it up'. My unsourced (?) edit.]

Source:
Autodesk University 2010 Showcases Impact of Great Design - YouTube
(at the 3:11 mark)

257.000 Barrels of oil. The amount leaked in the Exxon Valdez catastrophe.
(Source: Same as above.)

8,333,333 Barrels of oil (approximately). The amount deliberately spilled during the Kuwait war.

Source:
Autodesk University 2010 Showcases Impact of Great Design - YouTube
(at the 2:57 mark)

1.000.000.000 Barrels of oil. The amount deliberately burned during the Kuwait war. (Source: Same as above.)

There’s also still the human-rights/democracy argument concerning the dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Iran and the likes. By defunding those dictatorships, democracy in those countries stand a better chance.

If it was me flooring an S6/S4/E63/C63, how am I suppose to get a smile on my face when I know that flooring it will line the pocket of the dictators in Saudi Arabia and Iran and the likes? And of course emitting even more CO2 as well! We may only have 16 years, remember…

Sending a check to TerraPass or the like would remove more CO2 from the world's atmosphere.

Granted, this is perhaps a minor nitpicking, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here, but as I understand it TerraPass doesn’t remove CO2 or Methane from the atmosphere. Instead they work to prevent more CO2 and Methane from getting there. Or?

Source: Project Types | TerraPass

In closing: I don’t know if your baby is a boy or a girl, so to simplify things I’m just going to assume it’s a girl, and that she’s absolutely adorable. Congratulations buy the way!

If you’re still convinced that you have a case for buying the ICE-car; Are you still also convinced that a gas-guzzler S6/S4/E63/C63 is a luxury that your baby girl can afford?

Why not buy the most efficient ICE-car instead (with a sufficient safety level of course!), try and refrain from flooring it, and instead get that smile from looking into your baby girl’s eyes?

And finally as a perhaps not so minor side note: Can you really trust disabled passenger airbags though, when in comes to placing your kid in a rear facing child seat in the front passenger seat. I don’t know if I would do that. I think I’d double down and put the rear facing child seat in the backseat instead.

 

[smorgasbord]

I'm not sure why you say the S6 is 20k cheaper.

Model S Performance is $102,270 before tax and rebates, plus $1900 for cheapest mandatory service.
The most comprable Audi S6 is $74,645 before tax, plus no more than $800 for Audi Care.

Let's add 9.125% sales tax to both, then subtract $10K from Model S for Fed & State rebates. That brings us to $103,502 vs $82,256, which is a $21,246 difference. That's assuming the service plan isn't taxed (which probably isn't true). Note that the Audi's price is negotiable downwards, MSP's isn't.

So, it is more than fair to say the S6 is $20K cheaper. Now, if you add the options that aren't available on the MSP, you can bump the price up another $8500 or so, but then it's not apples to apples. And if things like Heads-up display or power folding mirrors or adaptive cruise control or side collision warning are important, there's only one choice.

TCO is another story. The Audi S6 is rated at 20 MPG combined. Let's pick $5/gallon gas, or $0.25/mile in fuel for S6. Let's pick $0.11/kWh for electricity, or $0.037/mile in fuel for Model S. The difference per mile is $0.213. Divide 21246/.213 and you get almost 100K miles. Which means that the difference in price boils down to residual value after 100K miles. I think both cars will still be going strong, even if Model S's range is a bit reduced. I'd call it a draw on TCO - it depends on things that are unknowable today. Note that this is a HUGE achievement for Tesla and what makes Model S easily the most compelling EV available today.

Note that both cars have air suspension, with S6 having 4 different settings for steering, transmission, and air suspension. MSP beats S6 on cargo capacity, but S6 has larger separately lockable capacity, and this weird thing called "door pockets." S6 also easily beats MSP on rear seat legroom and headroom, but 5 passengers in S6 requires footwell sharing. For 4 people, S6 is better but for 5 people it'll depend on the occupants particular shape and size.

 

[Zzzz...]

Model S Performance is $102,270 before tax and rebates

??? See attachment.

 

[Norbert]

Model S Performance is $102,270 before tax and rebates, plus $1900 for cheapest mandatory service.

I'd lean more towards Zzzz..., but I guess one needs to include the tech package. If you include the $1900 service which is for 4 years, then you'd also need to include the free Supercharger which in 4 years can easily be a saving, compared to the S6, of 3500 miles / 20 mpg * $5/gallon ~ $900. Audi Care seems $880 but doesn't include wear & tear parts other than oil, so is not directly comparable.

More importantly, it doesn't seem necessary to include options such as sound package and twin chargers on the Model S, and the Audi's moon roof doesn't look like even half the Model S's, and not something I'd pay extra for (unlike the Model S panoramic roof). HUD display and so forth are extra cost options on the S6 (and will surely be available on the Model S sometime in the future), so shouldn't be mentioned at all, in a price comparison.

The Model S 21" wheels are fancier than the Audi's $1000 20" option, and probably worth closer to their separate cost, which is $3,500.

Door pockets vs open console space (and spaciness in general) is a preference, and personally I prefer the open console (especially since I had things fall out of my last car's door pockets when I opened the doors, but maybe some other cars have better door pockets).

The Model S destination charge is optionally to your door step, a service apparently not offered by Audi, and includes a multi-hour introduction.

In summary, I think your comparison is biased towards the Audi.

 

[derekt75]

In summary, I think your comparison is biased towards the Audi.

My analysis pretty well matched smorgasbord's, except I was adding several hundred for a 14-50 connector in my garage but wasn't including price of the twin chargers. I do think you should include things like sound, moon roof, and tech, since that stuff is standard on Audi. In fact, you can't buy the S6 without parking sensors.

The supercharging stations won't save me much (any?) money. If I drive to LA, I'll probably find it easier to drive a gasoline car. If I drive to Yosemite, I'll definitely find it easier to drive a gasoline car. I doubt the difference between Tesla's 21" wheels and Audi's 20" wheels is worth very much to me.
On the other hand, convenient interior storage does matter to me.

The destination charge is a rip off by all auto manufacturers. I'm not going to give Tesla $1000 credit for dropping off a car at my door rather than me picking up a car at a dealer a dozen miles away. Nor will I give them credit for a multi-hour introduction. If the Tesla guy is still at my house two hours after the car is delivered, I suspect I will be unhappy.

I think Smorgasbord's comparison was quite neutral for my purposes.

 

[brianman]

The destination charge is a rip off by all auto manufacturers. I'm not going to give Tesla $1000 credit for dropping off a car at my door rather than me picking up a car at a dealer a dozen miles away.

A little reading material:
Vehicle Destination Charges - New Car Business Destination Fees - Kelley Blue Book

Faulting Tesla for this seems misdirected.

 

[derekt75]

Okay... This is a somewhat long one, so brace yourselves… And I understand if you think that this maybe sounds pretentious, but hopefully you won’t regret reading it. And yes, there will be numbers… The main ones are marked with bold.
[...]

All the numbers you cited had to do with pointing out that burning fossil fuels at our current rate is bad for the earth. I don't think this was disputed.
My dispute was that you could do much more for the environment with $20k than using it to buy an electric car instead of a gasoline car. I don't feel this argument was addressed.

Yes, TerraPass works to prevent CO2 from reaching the atmosphere rather than trying to remove it once it's there. I fail to see how that's important. If there's one ton less CO2 in the air, it's good. In fact, according to your logic, it's generally better to prevent the CO2 from getting released, since that means fewer related environmental problems (like oil spills or deforestation, or what not).

I do see your point that choosing to buy one electric car instead of a gasoline car could remove more than one gasoline car from the road. but I don't think it's more than a 2 for 1 gain. Even if it's a 5 for 1 gain, I still think your enviro-dollars would be better spent elsewhere.

I swear that sometimes it's as hard to have a rational conversation with "oil is bad" liberals as it is to have a rational conversation with the "global warming is a myth" conservatives.
[Over on the AudiWorld forum, someone is trying to convince me to not buy Tesla because he's mad that he's been forced to "pay for it".]

Regardless, I'm very sorry that you might want something different from me, but the environmental aspect of the Tesla is a minor consideration in my purchase.

- - - Updated - - -

A little reading material:
Vehicle Destination Charges - New Car Business Destination Fees - Kelley Blue Book

Faulting Tesla for this seems misdirected.

I wasn't trying to fault Tesla. I said I felt ripped off by all auto manufacturers. but I wasn't about to say that their delivery was $1000 better than Audi's, either. I'm intrigued, though, that it's "government mandated". Thanks for the link.

 

[brianman]

I wasn't trying to fault Tesla. I said I felt ripped off by all auto manufacturers.

I guess my point is that using this in a decision tree for Model S vs. Audi S6 sounds a little like deciding whether to use Plus or Premium gasoline based on the taxation impact of the choice.

 

[derekt75]

I suggest you take a ride in both, again. Start with the Model S, then the Audi.

Good plan.
I drove the BMW M5 today. It seemed pretty similar to the Audi S6. It might have taken a hair longer to shift, but it was pretty close. (So, so much better than the Infiniti M56 which took forever to downshift).

I then drove the Model S again. I actually thought that it took a bit more g-force for me to get the M5 or S6 to start squealing the tires than for the MSP, which somewhat surprised me with Tesla's 21" wheels and low CG. (All 3 are way better than my SLK32). I also found that MSP's traction control was a bit more intrusive than I had remembered. While it's light years ahead of my SLK32's traction control, I thought Audi's Quattro was able to better deal with wheels that were slipping.

And yet, somehow, at the end of the day, the grin on my face was much bigger after driving the Tesla. Instantaneous power is so wonderful. It can make things so smooth (or more precisely, it's so much smoother when driving like a supervillain is out to get you). And it's so much quieter when you stomp the pedal.

After that experiment, it seems likely that I'll finally finalize my reservation.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess my point is that using this in a decision tree for Model S vs. Audi S6 sounds a little like deciding whether to use Plus or Premium gasoline based on the taxation impact of the choice.

Yes, the destination charge should not be included in the decision. I was trying to say that in my initial point, but I should have said that more explicitly.

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

Excellent experiment.

 

[smorgasbord]

In summary, I think your comparison is biased towards the Audi.

I tried my honest best to make the two cars as similar as possible. If I was trying to bias towards the Audi, I'd have mentioned, for instance, that Audi's Google Maps integration blows away Model S's - with both 3D, heading up and voice control that can understand an address you speak. I'd have mentioned that Audi's rear camera has guides that are tied to the steering wheel to show you exactly where the car will go.

If you think the comparison makes the Audi look better, that's your view. Others will disagree. I'm not buying an S6 over an MSP, but I find the comparison compelling. It also shows where Tesla needs to go to continue to compete in this market segment.

For instance, the Tech Pkg is needed to get xenons, Homelink, backup camera, turn by turn navigation, etc. that are standard on the S6.

I also added the Carbon fiber inlays and rear seat airbag options to the S6: those are no-charge in MSP. If you're not getting carbon fiber interior in MSP, then the price difference goes up another $350.

Twin chargers were a must for me, since I travel routes that have 70 AMP J1772s but no superchargers planned (eg, Hwy 101 in CA). If you don't need the Twin Chargers, drop $1500 and the difference in price is still right around $20K. So, your question remains answered.

If your use of Superchargers will reduce the mileage for the TCO break-even point by 3500 miles, by all means, use 96,500 instead of 100,000 miles.

Since S6 comes with a sunroof standard, you have to configure MSP with one for an honest comparison. If you want to consider MSP's sunroof as better because it's bigger (despite the prison bar), that's OK, but S6's sunroof slides into the roof and so doesn't have the noise and aerodynamic problems that Tesla's does. It also has a shade, which some people apparently prefer. But, configuring MSP with no sunroof isn't fair. Maybe Tesla should offer a more normal sunroof for less money.

While MSP has 21" wheels included, I did add the top wheel option from Audi. Both have 35 aspect ratio tires, so that seemed fair. On the plus side for Audi, there are 18 instead of 7 "Max Performance Summer" tire models available for that size, and also a number of "Ultra High Performance All-Season" tires available versus none for the MSP. I personally like the look of Audi's 20" better than the turbine design of MSP's, and the turbine design will be harder to hand clean. OTOH, the grey color for MSP is pretty cool.

If you're trying to make a case for MSP being delivered to your door as a real purchase reason, then I think you're grasping. I feel I was being more balanced. And, it's SOP for car salesmen to spend a couple hours going over the car's functionality with you - that's not something new from Tesla.

Finally, options not available on either car are important to mention, since those may sway one's decision either way. For instance, if your garage is narrow and you need power folding mirrors (not to mention 3.5" less width), then you might be forced into S6. If you really like the 17" touchscreen, that might make up for lack of other options. If you're uncomfortable with visibility out the rear window, you might not be comfortable in MSP. If you drive in snow, then you might need Audi's 4WD.

I believe I've made it clear that I think Tesla has done a fantastic job with Model S. That doesn't mean I have to ignore where it falls short, or where I disagree with the design decisions made. I completely understand if having the best drivetrain on the planet means to some that what Model S lacks is less important, but I also understand that for other people there are other factors that are important.

 

[Norbert]

My analysis pretty well matched smorgasbord's, except I was adding several hundred for a 14-50 connector in my garage but wasn't including price of the twin chargers. I do think you should include things like sound, moon roof, and tech, since that stuff is standard on Audi. In fact, you can't buy the S6 without parking sensors.

The Model S also has sound without the sound package. Otherwise, why not include the Audi's sound package at $5,900 ?

The moon roof on the Audi is not worth the Model S's $1,500 panoramic roof. Maybe $500.

Third party parking sensors are something like $150.

The supercharging stations won't save me much (any?) money. If I drive to LA, I'll probably find it easier to drive a gasoline car.

Why? That sounds arbitrary.

I doubt the difference between Tesla's 21" wheels and Audi's 20" wheels is worth very much to me.

Again, that's an arbitrary personal statement. Some people don't want an electric car at all, but that's not a basis for a discussion. Other's have said the car to compare, in terms of size, would be the S7, so that's already a very subjective perspective here, just because you say "but I want an S6, and I started the thread".

The destination charge is a rip off by all auto manufacturers. I'm not going to give Tesla $1000 credit for dropping off a car at my door rather than me picking up a car at a dealer a dozen miles away. Nor will I give them credit for a multi-hour introduction. If the Tesla guy is still at my house two hours after the car is delivered, I suspect I will be unhappy.

You are close to crossing a line here. My argument applies to the difference between Audi's $895 destination charge, and Tesla's $990 + $180.

I think Smorgasbord's comparison was quite neutral for my purposes.

However "your purposes" are not neutral.

 

[Norbert]

I tried my honest best to make the two cars as similar as possible. If I was trying to bias towards the Audi, I'd have mentioned, for instance, that Audi's Google Maps integration blows away Model S's - with both 3D, heading up and voice control that can understand an address you speak.

But then you'd also have to mention that the Tesla's maps are displayed on a great (literally) 17" display.

I'd have mentioned that Audi's rear camera has guides that are tied to the steering wheel to show you exactly where the car will go.

So will the Model S with a free software update.

If you think the comparison makes the Audi look better, that's your view.

Not better, but cheaper.

For instance, the Tech Pkg is needed to get xenons, Homelink, backup camera, turn by turn navigation, etc. that are standard on the S6.

I thought so. That's why I included it as well.

Twin chargers were a must for me, since I travel routes that have 70 AMP J1772s but no superchargers planned (eg, Hwy 101 in CA). If you don't need the Twin Chargers, drop $1500 and the difference in price is still right around $20K. So, your question remains answered.

Well, a SuperCharger around San Luis Obispo is shown on the map which Elon showed for the locations planned for the next few months. With the one in Gilroy, this should allow you to travel 101 between SF and LA.

If your use of Superchargers will reduce the mileage for the TCO break-even point by 3500 miles, by all means, use 96,500 instead of 100,000 miles.

I don't quite follow. You include service cost for the next 4 years, but nothing else within that time frame. That's drawing the line just where it is most favorable to the Audi.

Since S6 comes with a sunroof standard, you have to configure MSP with one for an honest comparison. If you want to consider MSP's sunroof as better because it's bigger (despite the prison bar), that's OK, but S6's sunroof slides into the roof and so doesn't have the noise and aerodynamic problems that Tesla's does. It also has a shade, which some people apparently prefer. But, configuring MSP with no sunroof isn't fair. Maybe Tesla should offer a more normal sunroof for less money.

I'd say it's not fair either way, and you chose the to be unfair with bias for the Audi (allocating a full $1,500 for Model S).

While MSP has 21" wheels included, I did add the top wheel option from Audi. Both have 35 aspect ratio tires, so that seemed fair. On the plus side for Audi, there are 18 instead of 7 "Max Performance Summer" tire models available for that size, and also a number of "Ultra High Performance All-Season" tires available versus none for the MSP. I personally like the look of Audi's 20" better than the turbine design of MSP's, and the turbine design will be harder to hand clean. OTOH, the grey color for MSP is pretty cool.

Still, the separate cost for the wheels that come standard with the Model S Performance, is $3,500. That's $2,500 more than the 19" wheels (AFAIK), whatever your personal preference is (some prefer the 19" even if they can have the 21" wheels for no cost, but that doesn't diminish their value otherwise). Your choice may be reasonable in itself as a preference, but still in favor of the Audi cost-wise.

If you're trying to make a case for MSP being delivered to your door as a real purchase reason, then I think you're grasping.

Why would I? It's just an additional cost factor, which I mention since you included the difference between the delivery costs in *your* calculation. So I am just saying that you get something for that difference. How much it is worth to you, depends on your preference, but again you made a choice cost-wise in bias for the Audi by including that difference in your calculation (even if small in this case, but it adds up).

Finally, options not available on either car are important to mention, since those may sway one's decision either way. For instance, if your garage is narrow and you need power folding mirrors (not to mention 3.5" less width), then you might be forced into S6. If you really like the 17" touchscreen, that might make up for lack of other options. If you're uncomfortable with visibility out the rear window, you might not be comfortable in MSP. If you drive in snow, then you might need Audi's 4WD.

Once more, this description sounds biased in favor of the Audi.

I believe I've made it clear that I think Tesla has done a fantastic job with Model S. That doesn't mean I have to ignore where it falls short, or where I disagree with the design decisions made. I completely understand if having the best drivetrain on the planet means to some that what Model S lacks is less important, but I also understand that for other people there are other factors that are important.

That's true for any car, but needn't express itself in a cost calculation. Comparing prices from the point of view of someone who needs a pick up truck would make both the Audi and the Model S very non-competitive, but what would be the point?

 

[Norbert]

All the numbers you cited had to do with pointing out that burning fossil fuels at our current rate is bad for the earth. I don't think this was disputed.
My dispute was that you could do much more for the environment with $20k than using it to buy an electric car instead of a gasoline car. I don't feel this argument was addressed.

Yes, TerraPass works to prevent CO2 from reaching the atmosphere rather than trying to remove it once it's there. I fail to see how that's important. If there's one ton less CO2 in the air, it's good. In fact, according to your logic, it's generally better to prevent the CO2 from getting released, since that means fewer related environmental problems (like oil spills or deforestation, or what not).

I do see your point that choosing to buy one electric car instead of a gasoline car could remove more than one gasoline car from the road. but I don't think it's more than a 2 for 1 gain. Even if it's a 5 for 1 gain, I still think your enviro-dollars would be better spent elsewhere.

I swear that sometimes it's as hard to have a rational conversation with "oil is bad" liberals as it is to have a rational conversation with the "global warming is a myth" conservatives.
[Over on the AudiWorld forum, someone is trying to convince me to not buy Tesla because he's mad that he's been forced to "pay for it".]

Regardless, I'm very sorry that you might want something different from me, but the environmental aspect of the Tesla is a minor consideration in my purchase.

If you still feel like your argument wasn't addressed:

It sounds like you are confusing a cost calculation based on your personal preferences (in this thread you already acknowledged that the S7 would "probably" be a better comparison to the Model S than the S6) with a more general argument about the environmental efficiency of buying an electric car.

First of all, if you buy an electric car which is, let's say, $8k more expensive (and get back the difference in gasoline savings), it's not just the $8k which work for supporting electric cars, but the whole price of the car. And, in a sense, twice that, since not only will there be that much more support for electric cars, but also that much less support for ICEs. (If you would otherwise buy an ICE, that is). So those $8k actually work maybe $180k in favor of electric cars.

Then, if everyone argued the same way as you, and similarly compared a Prius to the Leaf, and a Cruze to the Volt, there'd be no more electric cars.

Which might not be that much of a difference in the short-term, if everyone gave the money to "TerraPass" instead. But by the time much of our electricity is generated from sustainable sources, we'd still have this huge fleet of ICEs producing CO2 and smog and consuming oil.

Whereas if we ignore the kind of thinking which you are promoting above, then we'd have a huge fleet of electric cars by then, therefore fresh air, and *much less* CO2 production and oil consumption.

Of course, you could always contribute to "TerraPass" additionally.

 

[pete8314]

...While MSP has 21" wheels included, I did add the top wheel option from Audi. Both have 35 aspect ratio tires, so that seemed fair. On the plus side for Audi, there are 18 instead of 7 "Max Performance Summer" tire models available for that size, and also a number of "Ultra High Performance All-Season" tires available versus none for the MSP. I personally like the look of Audi's 20" better than the turbine design of MSP's, and the turbine design will be harder to hand clean. OTOH, the grey color for MSP is pretty cool....

I agree on all counts. The tires, if you opt for 21" on the Model S, add to the TCO, due to the faster wear and higher price of 21" tires. They're still not cheap for the S6, but at 20", and the less-sticky 'all-seasons' tires, I suspect the tire cost on the S6 would be about 50% of that on the P85.

Getting back to the point of the thread though, this is all about taking a subjective, personal view on what the OP believes is important. None of these are bad opinions, and even if some of them are perceived as being biased, so what? This is a debate of sorts, to help the OP make a decision (which I can relate to!).

 

[ElSupreme]

And yet, somehow, at the end of the day, the grin on my face was much bigger after driving the Tesla. Instantaneous power is so wonderful. It can make things so smooth (or more precisely, it's so much smoother when driving like a supervillain is out to get you). And it's so much quieter when you stomp the pedal.

After that experiment, it seems likely that I'll finally finalize my reservation.

Congrats. At the costs we are discussing what you just described is what really matters. I think almost everyone here thinks you made the correct decision. :smile:

 

[pguerra]

I'm getting the Tesla. However, when the EV version of the Audi S6 comes out, I'll reconsider then. By going all electric and still being a performance vehicle, Model S has its advantages, and so far nothing else competes. The decision between Model S vs smelly gas powered Audi S6 ought to be an easy one.

 

[smorgasbord]

Norbert, I'm done with the point/counterpoint. I feel that what's really going on here is that derekt75 and myself are comparing cars we can actually buy, but I honestly don't know what you're comparing. It strikes me as some kind of academic exercise where you allocate dollar "worth" to feature differences between the cars. Whether it's the relative worth of the two sunroofs, the included additional cost of 21" wheels, or even Tesla's higher destination charge, I feel your approach is not helpful to those trying to make a decision between vehicles, which is the point of this thread.

I'll just add that your continuing to insist that my comparisons favor the Audi completely ignore my statements about how great the Model S is various categories (drivetrain, pedal stomping, touchscreen, 3-person backseat, etc.). And that suggests to me that you have other motives than honestly discussing what derekt75 originally set out to answer. Your bias is to flat-out refute any advantage to the S6. I see pros and cons to both vehicles. Who is more biased?

For instance, mentioning that the Audi has 4WD does not show a bias on my part. It highlights a feature lacking in Model S. I predict it won't be long before Tesla introduces a 4WD Model S variant, and then you'll have to move on to some other line of attack.

I love Tesla and what they've done, but I'm not going to wear rose-tinted driving goggles when making personal buying decisions. Model S doesn't get a free pass just because it's electric - and I know Musk understands that.

 

[Norbert]

I feel that what's really going on here is that derekt75 and myself are comparing cars we can actually buy, but I honestly don't know what you're comparing.

I can explain that.

I'm simply wondering, for example, why your comparison includes a sound package for the Model S, but not for the Audi. Very simple. To me it just doesn't look like a "fair" (your word) comparison of "apples to apples" (your words). If someone cares enough about an *optional* sunroof to include it in a cost comparison and chooses to pay $1,500 for it, then it should be pointed out that this *choice* is for a much better sunroof (at least in my opinion).

I'll just add that your continuing to insist that my comparisons favor the Audi completely ignore my statements about how great the Model S is various categories (drivetrain, pedal stomping, touchscreen, 3-person backseat, etc.). And that suggests to me that you have other motives than honestly discussing what derekt75 originally set out to answer.

Nonsense. I objected to the statement that with the Model S, you pay "$20k to save 40 tons of CO2". My response was that it is neither $20k on one side of the equation (mostly, but not only, due to gas savings, it is much less), nor is it 40 tons of CO2 on the other side of the equation (it is support for an electric car future, plus a for a better sunroof).

For instance, mentioning that the Audi has 4WD does not show a bias on my part. It highlights a feature lacking in Model S. I predict it won't be long before Tesla introduces a 4WD Model S variant, and then you'll have to move on to some other line of attack.

Mentioning 4WD, by itself, does indeed not show a bias, and I haven't said so. However, I don't need another line of "attack", since derekt75 has meanwhile decided that the Model S is worth its money (for him).

I love Tesla and what they've done, but I'm not going to wear rose-tinted driving goggles when making personal buying decisions. Model S doesn't get a free pass just because it's electric - and I know Musk understands that.

I happen to disagree, as I think Model S is getting a lot of free passes because it's electric (not talking about myself), and that is, in my mind, a very good thing. It is, in a sense, a main reason I am here on this forum.