Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Model 3' started by Tforme, Jul 20, 2018.
Tesla drops $35,000 price from Model 3 page—insists plans haven’t changed
What do you think?
I think the thread should be retitled to include prefix "Restarting a rumor:".
Tesla is damned if they do, damned if they don't. If the $35,000 price was listed they'd be getting blasted because it isn't actually available to order right now. This is non-news as nothing has changed, the SR version is still listed at the bottom of the page in the "Specifications" section
It's still mentioned on the Model 3 page:
And on the configurator:
I think the author of the article in question is an idiot.
I think the people commenting on the article buying it hook line and sinker are even bigger idiots.
Old news, non-issue, FUD.
Well that's fun... it seems they've upgraded the drivetrain warranty on the short range car to 8 years and 120,000 miles. It used to be less than the long range.
Confirmation bias is strong in those ones.
Not sure what you saw in the article that's not accurate.
The article says:
1. Tesla dropped the $35K from their page - this is true; It's been reported elsewhere on this forum with screenshots.
2. When asked, Tesla said that this didn't represent a change in plans - sounds like a factual report, too.
3. Elon Musk previously tweeted that $35K car would be 3-6 months after $5k/month - also true (in fact the tweet is quoted in the article)
4. Current estimate of 6-9 months implies no deliveries before 2019 - also seems to match consensus on this site
Not sure how these assertions either make the author or people who believe the article "idiots."
IMO, Musk has a promise he needs to keep (profitability before end of year), and will milk high-price Model 3 sales as long as he can.
Eventually, demand will taper, and there will almost certainly still be a healthy demand for the $35K model 3, which I fully believe Tesla will be profitably producing and selling in volume in 2019.
The only thing about that I'd dispute is the implied assertion in the title of this thread connecting this to the "disappearance" of the $35K Model 3. "Delay" would be the right word - "disappearance"? No way.
Except, it's not actually true, so there's that.
Post #4 in this thread shows the standard SR model is still there.
Their website also still mentions the 35k price specifically in the model 3 press kit.
Only my experience, but when I got my first Tesla I noticed I wanted to drive more. My usage went up to near 27000 miles a year, near double of when I drove gas cars. It became apparent that the long range battery was more valuable than I had thought.
I only hope those of you who think you only need the SR battery will not be sorry. I think the LR is very worth it.
Except for those who can't afford it.
You read too much into my statement - I didn't say or mean that the SR model was removed, and the article also didn't say that. It merely stated that the price was removed. Here's the direct quote from the article: "But later in the day, Tesla revamped the Model 3 page, removing any mention of a $35,000 price (or any other price) in the process." When I said the $35K was removed I meant no more and no less than the text with the actual number.
Is this statement in any way not true?
I think some people here are just eager to vilify any article that isn't unequivocally positive about Tesla. This article didn't even have a negative tone to me - just reporting that it looks like Tesla isn't going to deliver the SR on Musk's original timeline (big surprise there, right?), supported with factual evidence of the original timeline and the new apparent timeframe.
There's nothing there to justify S'Toon's "idiot" statements, nor is there anything there for any Tesla supporters (a group in which I include myself, btw) to feel defensive about.
Yes it's not true in the way I already mentioned.
Press Kit | Tesla
Now you're just being argumentative: The "Press Kit" is not the "Model 3 page".
The article states that the price was removed from the page. It doesn't state it was removed anywhere else or that the author believes the Model 3 SR will not be produced - did you read the article?
Well, since you asked, I think that Seeking Alpha and every media outlet that re-parrots their dreck is crap. Crap, even.
Further, there is exactly zero reason to believe that Tesla will not release a $35K car near year-end. That's year-end 2018, for those familiar with Tesla's sense of time.
Further further, I can't imagine anyone paying exactly $35K for a base model. Just because you can does not mean you should. Alright, fine - they would make wonderful rental fleet company cars to supplant the loaners currently in short supply at SvCs. Although I'm not sure it would go over well to give an S/X owner a 3 and expect them to pay for their charging, but that's another rabbit hole.
Think about it - how many strippie base model *anythings* do you see out there as a percentage of total model sales? The psychological side aside, I'm not a fan of black cars with black interiors, no active driver assist features and so forth.
But even a base Model 3 will be FAR PREFERABLE to an ICE. So there's that.
You poor soul. Let me help you:
The CNBC article is quoted:
"Tesla, the maker of fully electric cars, will have the first public showing in St. Louis of its new $35,000 "more affordable" family sedan in at the company's University City showroom Friday.
The Model 3, recently named Popular Mechanic's Car of the Year, holds up to 310 miles on a single charge and carries five adults."
(bold added for emphasis)
Is this a case of "fake news?" CNBC is the one that needs help.
Tesla is not accepting reservation on Model 3 in the USA anymore, so why list SR when you can't order it?
The automobile department's editor at Arstechnica is blatant Tesla hater (and all around pud, to boot). To the point of being comical (it's a really bad look for an otherwise reasonable and modestly reputable site). That particular writer, and innuendo article, is not even close to the worst example that you'll find there.