Does Fuel Savings really make that much of a difference?

[UMD86]

Before I received my Model S I was spending $9,000 a year in GASOLINE but now my fuel bill last year was $950. With the savings over 5 years plus market value - the car will pay for itself.

 

[ENZA]

I am near San Francisco and charge at an off peak rate of $0.10/kW. I don't think Southern California is cheaper than that.

SDG&E off-peak is $0.16/kWh. However because I have solar, my average price per kWh over a billing cycle has been around $0.06.

@yobigd20, What they said. You're probably referring to if a solar system was installed. Otherwise, cost is about the same if not more by a margin... well, in south orange county anyway for all I know.

 

[tliving]

New board member, right now just a lurker and a dreamer. I am planning for the future replacement for our 'larger' car which is a 15 year old BMW 540iT (wagon with a V8). It seems as 'estimated' savings is always factored into the payment cost. Here in NJ I'm paying nearly 17 cents a KWH (delivered) which when calculating savings over gas, is essentially insignificant compared to the monthly payments on a Tesla. Or does everyone use time of day metering and only charge the car off peak?

Currently most driving is in our BMW diesel (335D), which averages well over 30MPG. MPG almost doesn't matter to me, it's the TOLLS!! I spend more on Ezpass than I do on gas/diesel. But I see there is a 10% (off peak) discount for low/zero emissions cars. That's almost as much as much as the fuel savings. Does anyone really buy a Tesla because of the lower fuel costs?

Similar price per kWh here in Massachusetts. I did an analysis of getting a new Acura MDX (what I had before) vs getting a Model S with my mileage and ended up getting the Model S. Details here:
Cost Justification a tie? | Tesla Living
Obviously depends a lot on how much you drive. I drive a ton so that helps balance things. I'm also trying (seems in vain) to work with SolarCity to lower my kWh costs.

 

[karmamule]

I checked with Solar City but I have too many large trees around my house for solar to be effective, and chopping them down didn't feel like a good idea so that's out. My electricity cost is higher than normal for eastern MA (about 26 cents per kwh rather than around 18 cents) because I signed up for "100% green" power from nstar. (Every person who signs up for that forces nstar to buy that much more power from renewable sources.)

Even with that increased cost I figured that my electricity will cost about half of what I was paying for gas for my current car. (A volvo that needs premium fuel and gets about 22 to 23mpg.) Someone driving a car that took standard gas and got mid-30's mpg would only save a couple bucks per week. But, this way I can "take credit" so-to-speak for completely zero emissions driving both for my car and for my electricity. In my case I'm valuing zero emissions more than sheer cost.

 

[ThortsMD]

There have been several comparisons made above with Model III.

In Washington state (no sales tax on EVs), I like to quote the following:
Base Model III plus usual extras: $40K
Comparable $40K ICE car (pick one)

Over ten years of ownership, I get these rough numbers:
Model III: Purchase price $40K, no sales tax, no $7,500 tax incentive, reduced maintenance (half), 12K miles/yr over ten years, electricity mostly free (for me with solar): $45K
ICE car: $40K, plus tax, plus twice maintenance, plus gas (12K miles/yr at 22 miles/gal) at an average of $5/gal over the 10 years, very low estimate): $75,300

Difference: $30,300

Some balk about including solar. Gas:electricity is about 10:1, so you could subtract $2,700....netting $27600.

If folks get in line and are able to claim one of the few and early $7,500 tax credits, it's $35,100

If you keep the Model III's price at $35K, it comes out that the Tesla model III essentially pays for itself compared to an ICE over ten years, or pays for a second car, compared to buy an ICE of the same initial price (THIS explains the stock price).

I get a lot of flak for giving rides and prostalizing EVs....but it's always with the statement, "So save for a Model III and save a boatload of money!"

This is ringing bells in people's minds. It only takes 5 mins to go through this explanation. Just a suggestion.

 

[Lerxt]

I doubt they will give the Model 3 a $7500 rebate, it could get very expensive with 500,000 cars a year.

 

[ElSupreme]

I doubt they will give the Model 3 a $7500 rebate, it could get very expensive with 500,000 cars a year.

In the US the first 200,000 BEV from a single manufacturer (TESLA, GM, Ford, BMW, VW/AUDI/Porsche) recieve a Federal Government tax credit on your annual income tax. This is based on US delieveries. This will most likely (assuming 2017-2018) apply to the first 20-50k units of Model 3 will be elligible. And there is a phase out system (so the people with the 200,001st vehicle don't get screwed) probably another ~50k units of Model 3 or so will get some lesser subsidy.

Tesla isn't footing the bill the US Government is, and they already have a phase out plan on the books. So no one is going to be footing 500k units at $7500 a pop.

 

[Robert.Boston]

I had an e92 335i, from my recollection I pay about $60-$65 per tank and I was able to get about 230 miles out of it. I used to fill up once every 4 days to a week so my fuel costs was roughly about $260~$300 a month. I just called my utilities company and they did a ballpark estimate that I would be adding another $330 of electricity use per month. Considering that you will charge at off-peaks and if you're just looking for a quick answer to your question with a ballpark and without getting into the technicalities, then the answer is no. It does not make much of a difference... at least for the peeps in Southern California. Just give or take $30/month.

This math just doesn't seem right.

You drive about 1,400 miles/month, based on your data (230 miles/tank * 6 tanks/month). That's about 428 kWh of battery power, or about 475 kWh of power at the wall allowing for losses. Yet SCE thinks it will add $330? That would be nearly $0.70/kWh. I think that's about 3x too high.

 

[Merrill]

That cannot be correct, with a second meter and PG&E I pay off peak .05 per kW so that would be around $24.00 for 475 kW

 

[liuping]

This math just doesn't seem right.

You drive about 1,400 miles/month, based on your data (230 miles/tank * 6 tanks/month). That's about 428 kWh of battery power, or about 475 kWh of power at the wall allowing for losses. Yet SCE thinks it will add $330? That would be nearly $0.70/kWh. I think that's about 3x too high.

In SDG&E areas, EV_TOU2 rates for super off peak (midnight-5am) $0.16/kwh. 475 kWh would be just $76 a month in electricity, or over $2200 saving a year.

It sounds like they just added the new usage onto a tiered rate plan, so it is using the top tier rates. There are other (better) options.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

The Math is incorrect. I have driven 18000 miles and have only used 6000 kW. In virginia we pay .10 per KW. So $600 for 18000 miles.

 

[johnnyS]

Southern California Edison time of use from midnight to 6:00 a.m. is $.10 per KW. The first month on the standard tiered plan was kind of painful before we were switched to TOU. Additional savings from using superchargers add up. I have HOV stickers which save me an hour or two per week. We can use toll lanes for free or at a reduced cost. Tires are expensive for the 21" wheels. I could not justify purchasing a gasoline car in a similar price range. Someone did an analysis and came to the conclusion that owning a model S is no more expensive than a Honda Odyssey. Most of us have found we drive more miles on the model S than expected and less on our other cars. It is still unknown what the long term maintenance and long term resale will be.