Breezy
Member
It's arguable whether it's "fast," but 90 miles in 30 minutes is approximately the same as an MS60. How it compares to the Model 3 remains to be seen.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
diamond.g
Active Member
Breezy
Member
I'm not sure. Here's one example of a refreshed 60 (75) at a Supercharger, which gains 103 miles in 30 minutes.
Refresh Model S60D SC data | Tesla Motors
I had understood the classic 60 to charge at up to 120 miles/30 minutes. I think "your charging rate may vary" applies here.
Oh, if that's what you meant, it's the 90D that starts at $95,500. The P90D starts at $115,500. In my mind though, the 60D, 75D, 90D, P90D, and P100D are all relatively minor variants of the same car that start at $74k and then you either increase battery capacity for more range, or swap out the rear motor for a higher performance. They all look basically the same with the same option choices. You're just trading range and performance for the most part (with a couple of very minor visual embellishments).
MiamiNole
Member
Was just about to type pretty much this same response but figured somebody probably already beat me to it.
Bolt will likely be cheaper. I got $5k off sticker on my volt before leasing incentives 10 days ago. The first few cars will be sold at sticker but very quickly GM will have no other choice but to start using heavy discounts.
I expect the bolt will be leasable for $250 / $300 after tax a month for 15k miles a year with little due at signing and before state tax credit (if applicable).
Just give it some time. Once people understand how screwed they will be for road trips (no supercharging in my understanding), that it takes 2 entire days to charge on a conventional 110v, they will freak out (and in my case in SoCal at up to 44 cents a kWh.. Twice as much as gas)
But anyway to summarize my view: bolt will be cheaper than 3 likely.. Especially to lease.
I expect the bolt will be leasable for $250 / $300 after tax a month for 15k miles a year with little due at signing and before state tax credit (if applicable).
Just give it some time. Once people understand how screwed they will be for road trips (no supercharging in my understanding), that it takes 2 entire days to charge on a conventional 110v, they will freak out (and in my case in SoCal at up to 44 cents a kWh.. Twice as much as gas)
But anyway to summarize my view: bolt will be cheaper than 3 likely.. Especially to lease.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I think it depends on the supply/demand for the Bolt vs the Volt. I think there is more excitement for the Bolt and supply would be more constrained. The Volt did well for the first two years of the first gen launch (with a bit more than 23k sales per year), but haven't able to replicate that performance even with the less expensive second gen.
jelloslug
Active Member
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
If you got a 2016 VOLT in September 2016, that likely means the 2017 VOLT is on the lot, or on the truck on its way to the 'independent franchised dealership'. The '$5,000 off sticker' was likely what they considered a fair judgement of what you would have lost in value over the past year anyway, had you bought in September 2015 instead. You did them a favor by accepting only that amount off.
I doubt substantial discounts of any sort will be necessary for the BOLT prior to the release of Model ☰. The 'independent franchised dealerships' for Chevrolet are primed and ready to institute up-charges to the price range of the BMW i3, because they know the BOLT is a better product, and likely feel it is an amount that 'the market can bear'. Perhaps, if they have as much as a nine month window before Tesla Motors begins sending invitations to Configure Model ☰, they will at that point dispense with the markups and offer the BOLT for 'only' MSRP.
The 'cheap' leases for electric cars that I've seen tend to allow 10,000 miles or less per year. I think those have been on the FIAT 500e for the most part. One was a ridiculously low amount up front, and like, $99 per month. If you expect the BOLT lease to be around $300 per month, but allow only 15,000 miles per year, you might be right. But that sounds a bit more like the amount for a Cadillac ATS instead, and those usually command around a $2,500 starting fee to lease.
Far more Model ≡ buyers will get the tax credit than Bolt buyers. It all hinges on the number of cars produced in the quarters after the 200,000 limit is reached. Tesla hopes to produce 100k to 200k, in that time frame; Chevy 30,000.
Thank you kindly.
I really doubt that, unless Tesla plays the "time 200,000th delivery juuuust right" game.
Even if they managed to time it wrong it would likely only make a small difference. But Elon has already pretty much said that they will try to make the 200,000th US delivered car be at the start of a quarter.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Elon said they had every intention to do that. Unless the election changes things, I see the likelihood of more Model 3s than Bolts delivered with full tax credit very high. The sheer volume differences (and built to order model) allows Tesla to deliver a lot more vehicles in a quarter than any other EV maker, so Tesla can play that game a lot better than other automakers. And from the charts, GM used up most of their quota with the Volt already.
The Government is way off their targets for ZEV adoption.
They have 2 choices, continue to subsidize the cars (which apparently has not been effective). Or give it up as a failed experiment.
Normally American bureaucrats will take the first path. Effectiveness of mandates is seldom a criteria for their discontinuance.
So it historically, I'd bet on the hand outs being extended.
They have 2 choices, continue to subsidize the cars (which apparently has not been effective). Or give it up as a failed experiment.
Normally American bureaucrats will take the first path. Effectiveness of mandates is seldom a criteria for their discontinuance.
So it historically, I'd bet on the hand outs being extended.
Tesla Motors has missed targets in the past. Not saying they will this time, nor will have much effect on my purchase, but it is a possible outcome based on history.
Keep in mind the current price marketing for Tesla Motors is different than other car companies.
Go to the site, and configure the cheapest model (60) and go to CASH.
In big letters at the top is $50,500.
In big letters at the bottom is $66,000
But the actual MSRP is really $67,200 because MSRP normally includes dest.
Now that is still a bargain for an aluminum car with 200 miles of EV goodness, but they do play a little with the numbers.
If they use the same method of price advertising a $35,000 on top of the page is $46,574 at the cash register.
To be honest, I think we will see a number closer to the second number. That's still WAY cheaper than a S60.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
True enough. Their targets are likely too low, and their time frame allowed too long. When campaigning for Presidential office in 2008 Senator Barack Obama set a target for something like 3,000,000 electric vehicles on the road in the US by 2020. He figured that with over two dozen brands of automobile manufacturers and 15,000,000+ vehicles sold per year, and twelve years to manage the feat, that wasn't too much to ask... But he was unaware of the formidable resistance to the concept that was held by the entire traditional automobile industry. With those guys, even offering 1.66%~ of their annual output as fully electric vehicles was anything but a 'reasonable' request in their eyes. As it is, offering the Chevrolet BOLT at 30,000 units per year will just barely bring General Motors to within striking distance of 1% of their nationwide annual sales.
Whenever someone claims that a government program 'has not been effective' my ears perk up. More often than not, that phrase is seriously laced with [BOLSHEVIK]. Because when you actually look at the data itself, time and again, it is proven incorrect at the least, and a bald-faced lie at worst.
Normally, American bureaucrats take the path of least resistance and greatest stupidity. They may claim that a program is somehow 'ineffective' as an excuse for cancellation even if that isn't the case. Meanwhile, they will claim another program is absolutely 'necessary' when the business it supports has been unfailingly profitable for decades. The incentive programs that support the petroleum industry are very effective, but are likely not necessary any longer, beyond making stratospheric profit levels a whole 0.0005% higher overall. The incentive programs that support electric vehicles are being cut by State governments just as they begin to show signs of their effectiveness.
I'd bet on them being axed. So did Elon Musk. He's been telling people to not expect any incentives whatsoever for their Tesla Generation III vehicle since 2013. He points this out whenever someone, like you, decides to 'question' whether or not the stated $35,000 amount is 'after incentives'. And he always says, "No. That's without ANY incentives." If only people would listen when he says that... He believes either Tesla will do so well that the incentives will be gone shortly after launch, or that a changing political climate will lead to the incentives being eliminated. Either way, don't count on it.
By Federal law the Destination Fee/Delivery Charge must be called out separately from the price of the vehicle. Judging by the destination fees for its direct competitors, I would presume the Destination Fee for Model ☰ will probably be another $1,000 or so. So, the $35,000 car would cost you $36,000 plus sales tax, title, and licensing fees -- unless Tesla Motors decides that $1,000 amount is included within the $35,000 base price.
Luckily, just about anything I predict will almost certainly be wrong.
jgs
Active Member
To clarify what 3Victoria said, EM has repeatedly said $35K before discounts for the base model.
Whether or not the $35K includes the destination charge or not we'll need to wait and see. Not that it's right, but I don't think most manufacturers include it in their advertising, the same way they don't iinclude taxes, title fees, or documentation charges. So, at worst, the $35K becomes $36K, that's a far cry from $46.5K
Similar threads
- Locked
- Article
