Holding pattern for Model Y. Keep my A3 e-tron or get a Model 3 while I wait?

[ammulder]

A Performance Y then, is a bit daft if you ask me.

You're joking, right? Isn't Tesla's whole model "Sure I could buy the vehicle I want for $A, but the higher-performance model only costs $A+B, and if I can afford $A, surely I can afford to add $B and get WAY better acceleration..."

 

[Cloxxki]

You're joking, right? Isn't Tesla's whole model "Sure I could buy the vehicle I want for $A, but the higher-performance model only costs $A+B, and if I can afford $A, surely I can afford to add $B and get WAY better acceleration..."

People will buy a crossover that goes that quick, sure. Doesn't make it make sense.

 

[TSLA_Hopeful]

I've got a Model Y reservation (Moment the page went up and 5 seats, so hopefully Fall 2020).

I currently own an A3 e-tron, which is getting me back and forth to work on the battery (where I charge for free) which has Tesla trade in value of $26.5K. I can't find ANY of them on auto trader to see what the private sale value is.

I'm wondering if I should stick with the A3 for the next 1.5-2 years until the Model Y comes out, OR if I should take advantage of the current tax credit, current blue book value of my A3, and get a SR+ or better Model 3.

My thinking is the Model 3 will depreciate slower over the next 2 years, and ultimately I'll spend less money than if I trade in my A3 in 2 years.

Am I being impatient? Should I just wait? Thoughts?

Definitely get the model 3. A couple reasons:
1) Financially, it's likely a wash, especially by the time comes when the Model Y is here. As people mentioned, your 3 will likely not deprecate due to the self driving capabilities and hardware built in. Also you get 3750.
2) Your total cost of maintenance will push that even closer to the Tesla
3) You're enjoying the Tesla lifestyle for a longer time. We only live once and three years is a long time to deprive yourself
4) You never know, you may love your 3 so much that you never get the Y. If you do decide to get the Y, it is a more firm decision knowing you drove a 3 for years and know what you are getting yourself into.
5) You also are helping the environment (a bit)

 

[ammulder]

People will buy a crossover that goes that quick, sure. Doesn't make it make sense.

I'm not so sure. If the thinking is that the crossover is more practical... why not have a car that's practical AND quick, instead of two different cars?

If I could talk my wife into replacing the Odyssey with a Tesla, I totally would. Unfortunately, even the Model X has barely more than half the cargo space of the minivan (with seats folded; closer to a third with the seats up, according to Google's numbers). So for the foreseeable future, it's going to be Model 3 for quick and minivan for practical.

 

[Cloxxki]

5) You also are helping the environment (a bit)

This argument is used too much. It only goes for the owner driving it past say 70-100,000 miles otherwise all driven in an ICEV, depending on whose calculation you trust. BEVs are a sucker punch to the environment which takes a while to subside, after that (4-5 years on a long range car), it's smooth(er) sailing. Still pumps small rubber particles into people's lungs.

 

[turtlesz]

If you look at general sales figures of sedan versus hatchbacks, it's clear what most people prefer.
Model 3 is a success not because it's a clumsy hatchback, but in spite of it, due to the tech underpinnings and the Model S and X having so much (high cost, novel) image.
I bet that many of the early adopters, those who stood in line or bought one of the first 200,000 Model 3, will want to upgrade to the Y. They got a more pricey Model 3 to begin with after all, they can swing it, no-problem.
With Model Y hitting the market at only a small premium over the 3, I expect new sales to immediate below 1:2, even 1:4 unless they do something special to keep Model 3 relevant to some audience(s). Introduction of a Ludicrous version with the upcoming bigger PM motor to go into the S and X, for instance. If they want to, they could probably make Model 3 pull as hard as SP100DL does today. Bit lighter, bit smaller battery, it evens out if they can (choose to) amp it up for just 3 seconds.
Model 3 losing popularity in new sales can't help price retention of a huge supply of used ones. And if the Model SR can be had relatively short term (with good V3 charging), why would you pay a s similar amount for the 2017-2018 Dual Motor (Ps) that only offer range, not utility?

I suppose I hope for early adopters it won't be too painful a depreciation for them, but then, that's what being an early adopter is all about. Bragging rights don't come cheap.

In my opinion the Y is vastly bigger in everyday reality. Isn't it 66 vs 25 ft³ cargo space? The Model 3 is just exceptionally awkwardly packaged, even for a sedan. The BMW 3-series is aimed to defeat foremost, has significantly better cargo space despite the lack of a frunk.
Also, in the Y you get higher seats which should vastly improve seating comfort especially in the back. Tesla's flat floor system is nice and cost effective but other brands are already seeing ways to put batteries under the second row or in place of the "drive shaft tunnel" to get a comfortable (large) seat to foot bed height. Sitting in the back of an X is vastly better than in a 3, due to the seat height. People care for rear seat comfort, if they're not early adopters.

Looking a few years into the future, Model 3 could become more of an entry level car as economies of scale allow. While using the low stance to offer motorsport inspired cars where the rear seat is just not a factor at all. Ludicrous. Wing game. And the car would actually be a great platform for it, seeing track times fom the stock Performance car, let alone with (frankly, needed), mods.
A Performance Y then, is a bit daft if you ask me.

I own a BMW 435i coupe, a Model X and Model 3. All 3 are different cars but there is a place for each. The cargo space for a 3 isnt something to scoff at and the seats do fold down. It beats the others in the sport sedan segment including the 3 series, A4, C class in terms of total storage + there is a compartment in the bottom of trunk + the frunk. Crossovers and SUVs are the hot sellers but BMW still made a brand new 3 series, Mercedes makes the C class and Audi makes the A4. Why would they still make such a car if nobody wanted them? They are well reviewed cars and exist in a sea of crossovers and SUVs. A segment of the population will still prefer them due to their lower riding height, etc. Making a blanket statement that the Y is 98% better for everyone isn't really a correct statement to make. Some people want the lower to the ground car which can handle better, is lighter for better range and enjoy the cosmetics of a sedan. I understand what you are saying, I am just saying Tesla may have to shift around production numbers but there will be people who want an SUV and others who want a sedan. Also Tesla sales for premium trims might have soared in 2018 due to many wanting to buy for the tax credit phase out. People might not be ready to jump right on the bandwagon at the release of the Y, none of us will truly know that today and have to wait and see. We will have to wait and see what the demand will be like for the upper level trims of the Y which produce more profit for Tesla. Point is there is a market for sports cars, sedans, minivans, trucks, suvs albeit at different numbers. Depreciation will depend on demand and if there is a huge surplus of cars sitting on lots along with Tesla induced price cuts. If Tesla cut production rate to 2000 there would be a wait for cars and people who want them would have to pay the prices. Ferrari makes limited numbers of cars and sells them all, if they flooded the market with a 10,000 per week run rate at $300k each car they would quickly run out of buyers who had the money and have to cut prices and take a hit on their depreciation too.

 

[Big Earl]

This argument is used too much. It only goes for the owner driving it past say 70-100,000 miles otherwise all driven in an ICEV, depending on whose calculation you trust. BEVs are a sucker punch to the environment which takes a while to subside, after that (4-5 years on a long range car), it's smooth(er) sailing. Still pumps small rubber particles into people's lungs.

The average life of a modern vehicle is 160,000 miles. If the break-even point is 100,000 miles, you’re still 60,000 miles ahead. Take good care of it and run it to 300,000 miles and you’re way ahead. That works whether the car is on its first owner or fifth owner.

 

[Solor]

This argument is used too much. It only goes for the owner driving it past say 70-100,000 miles otherwise all driven in an ICEV, depending on whose calculation you trust. BEVs are a sucker punch to the environment which takes a while to subside, after that (4-5 years on a long range car), it's smooth(er) sailing. Still pumps small rubber particles into people's lungs.

Not to mention he drives on battery power alone on his commute to work so the argument is mute.

 

[11thIndian]

Continued thanks for the input folks. While my current commute is covered by the 24mi of the A3, if I have to go anywhere else in the evening the engine comes on for the last mile or two the next morning.

I think my best compromise is the LR RWD with FSD (You can still order that off-menu, right?). While AWD would be nice, I think I’d get more out of the vehicle with the FSD features, especially as they expand over the next few years. Dual Motor is nice, but not really necessary in the Bay Area- plus I get the longest range to boot. Sort of wish they still offered the Mid-Range version.

And it’s good to hear from some previous Audi owners. The battery already had to be replaced and imported from Germany. Maybe getting out now before I have any problems I have to pay for is the right move.

 

[Cloxxki]

Not to mention he drives on battery power alone on his commute to work so the argument is mute.

What are you on about?
I respond to the notion that buying a brand spanking new long range BEV somehow saves the planet. For it to break even with a same class new petrol cars, there's a lot of miles to be logged, a lot of fuel to be burnt. Simply because BEVs are more energy intensive to build, due tto the battery. A large battery car takes more miles to displace all that environmental strain.

 

[Cloxxki]

The average life of a modern vehicle is 160,000 miles. If the break-even point is 100,000 miles, you’re still 60,000 miles ahead. Take good care of it and run it to 300,000 miles and you’re way ahead. That works whether the car is on its first owner or fifth owner.

How many first owners make it to 100,000 miles? New owners are the ones deciding used will not cut it for them, reselling is their form of "recycling". They get new stuff, others can do the green recycling.
The world needs a fleets of small as possible range BEVs to cover miles for economic continuance (debatable) but the act of buying a fancy new BEV with long range aves nothing and no-one in itself.
Buying a LEAF with 100,000 miles on it, that's a green thing to do. Because there were many ways to pollute more over the next year of ownership.

 

[Big Earl]

How many first owners make it to 100,000 miles? New owners are the ones deciding used will not cut it for them, reselling is their form of "recycling". They get new stuff, others can do the green recycling.
The world needs a fleets of small as possible range BEVs to cover miles for economic continuance (debatable) but the act of buying a fancy new BEV with long range aves nothing and no-one in itself.
Buying a LEAF with 100,000 miles on it, that's a green thing to do. Because there were many ways to pollute more over the next year of ownership.

It's about the lifecycle of the car. It doesn't matter how many miles the first owner puts on the car as long as someone else buys it and logs more miles. As a used car is affordable to more buyers, BEV adoption can spread beyond those who have the financial means to purchase one new. The more BEVs on the roads, the better, provided their average lifespan is greater than the break-even point for manufacturing emissions.

I absolutely agree that battery size is important. The smaller the battery, the sooner that break-even point happens and the more emissions the vehicle can offset. If a person can make do with 200 miles of range instead of 300 miles (assuming equal efficiency), spend an extra 30 to 60 minutes charging on an occasional road trip, carbon emissions from battery manufacturing can be reduced by ~33%, which is huge. This is why I find the Audi e-tron's (the new EV SUV, not the PHEV A3) poor efficiency particularly annoying. Being familiar with Audi longevity, I actually question whether its break-even point is achievable.

 

[Cloxxki]

It's about the lifecycle of the car. It doesn't matter how many miles the first owner puts on the car as long as someone else buys it and logs more miles. As a used car is affordable to more buyers, BEV adoption can spread beyond those who have the financial means to purchase one new. The more BEVs on the roads, the better, provided their average lifespan is greater than the break-even point for manufacturing emissions.

I absolutely agree that battery size is important. The smaller the battery, the sooner that break-even point happens and the more emissions the vehicle can offset. If a person can make do with 200 miles of range instead of 300 miles (assuming equal efficiency), spend an extra 30 to 60 minutes charging on an occasional road trip, carbon emissions from battery manufacturing can be reduced by ~33%, which is huge. This is why I find the Audi e-tron's (the new EV SUV, not the PHEV A3) poor efficiency particularly annoying. Being familiar with Audi longevity, I actually question whether its break-even point is achievable.

Someone gets it!!

But let's not be all cumbaya about CO2 emission and then ignore that the influx of BEVs is effective a sucker punch for the environment. A few solar panels on GF1 are not going to change that. Also, Tesla is not exactly market leader in getting the most miles from a kWh of cells stuck into cars. That's just hard to do with really long range cars.
Please let V3 be a change to smaller batteries. I like a good 400+ mile flagship but it should be for poser, super duper expensive. Normal people (say, 90% of car owners) can easily do with 150 miles if the car behaves itself around 0% and charging is closer to 5C than to 2C. Fast charging is key to get apartment dwellers on board. A good charger along the stretch where you sit in traffic jams makes sense.

 

[MXWing]

I solved this problem already - with the end goal of transition to the Y.

The time for a persons FIRST Tesla is

TODAY

Added second Model 3 to family, 3SR stupid cheap.

 

[11thIndian]

Today, I looked at my Model Y order page and discovered I now have a referral code. This may seem a silly question, but can I use my own referral code to order a Model 3? I'm sure the answer is no, but I thought I'd ask.

Here's how the math is looking for my Model 3 purchase

SR+ Grey with FSD: [$45,500 + 7%tx + $1,200doc fee = $49,885]
-$26,500 Trade-in
-$3,750 FedTxCredit
-$2,500 CA Tax Credit
-$800 PGE CA Electric rebate
Total $16,335

or LR DM Grey with FSD: [$55,000 + 7%tx + $1,200doc fee = $60,050]
-$26,500 Trade-in
-$3,750 FedTxCredit
-$2,500 CA Tax Credit
-$800 PGE CA Electric rebate
Total $26,500