Is a Model 3 really cheaper?: A simplified analysis from an owner

[ALSETJC]

The software updates, electric tech, cheap running costs, electric torque, nvh, convenience, no emissions vehicle feels like it's worth more than the cost and more value than a comparable BMW or Audi. So yes I feel there is great value here.

 

[TMThree]

If you find yourself in the position of needing to fully finance any new vehicle purchase, it is very likely that interest will completely offset any electricity savings!

If you have a 4.5% interest rate, the cost of borrowing $74,000 over 7 years is $12,400. Borrowing the the cheaper $42,000 vehicle is $7000 over 7 years. However, dealerships (not Tesla) often have something like 0% or 0.9% financing. 0.9% over 7 years costs you only $1,300, a difference of $11,100.

I usually pay cash for my cars, but in this case I financed my model 3 even though I had the cash for it.

0.82% interest rate over 36 months. Financed $40k (USD) for a monthly payment of $1100. It's going to cost $500 USD total for the loan, and the cash in my bank account is earning 2.04% interest, so I'll be making money off getting the loan.

 

[camalaio]

Camalaio, just a quick note, not sure if any other B.C. residents chimed in, but in regards to the step 2 pricing. Did you factor into your calculations that you were only paying the higher .14c price?

Realistically if the car is what bumped you up into step 2, then most of your charging has still been at step 1 and 0.09c

It might be worth looking at your bill and seeing what % of the bill is step 2 then apply that % to your charging costs. It will always be a rough calculation, unfortunately.

Great write up by the way! Fun to read.

Just imagine if you were paying $1.50/L like people a bit closer to the city! You’d be payed off even sooner!

It was amazing earlier this year when we were close to $1.90, everyone I knew started talking about going electric. (Sadly I think a lot have postponed with the lower fuel costs again)

Thanks! I did indeed use the second tier for the costing. The reason I did this (but thanks for pointing it out, I did not make this clear) is that even in a home with very low electricity usage, we were riding the edge of the second tier already. Nearly all of the charging cost is thus in the second tier. Hot water and heat are natural gas, AC is electric, lights are all LED, stove is electric. Nothing else fancy going on for power draw.

I remember paying $1.48/L here, that was not enjoyable to see nearly $100 for a fill. Then I saw the prices in Vancouver, my goodness. And you're absolutely right, a few people around here did delay their EV purchase considerations one the gas costs went down!

I looked back at my spreadsheet and realized I need to make a clarification.

I included in my cost the benefit of having a free lease return. That was a one time cost that affected only me. I also included the cost of installing a charger.

I was truly trying to figure out the costs to me, and my number of about $93.33 is pretty accurate.

But when you back out those two items. The difference rises to $160.72 (in favor of Tesla). So the cost of owning a Tesla over three years is 25.7% lower than the Mercedes.

So the answer to you original question is: definitely yes.

Thanks for the update. For what it's worth, I consider the cost of the charger meaningful if you do indeed need a charger installed at home. 120V/12A is doable if you travel less than 100km per day and can plug in for at least 12h, preferably more.

So, what I am assuming will happen.......

Elon is currently trying to bring the cost of batteries down so he can bring the costs of all of the vehicles down. Especially now that he bought out/merged with Maxwell Technologies!

Hopefully what this will mean is that future battery pack replacements will be cheaper than what they are now!

I do certainly hope so, however even Model S/X can't use the new battery tech that the Model 3 is currently using. We must be aware that further development may result in a form factor that's not compatible with the current vehicles, however future vehicles should indeed be better/cheaper.

My own penny by penny detailed analysis showed that depreciation is the single biggest cost of any new car for at least the first few years and completely changes the analysis. It actually helps the tesla a lot, since at the end of your analysis period you are left with an asset worth more than the subaru. For my usage case (45,000km per year in canada where gas is more expensive) over 7 years it made a LR RWD model 3 cheaper than a mid spec camry! Not to mention at my usage, if you follow the mfg recommendation the ICE maintenance gets very costly (though in my analysis I assumed I would do my own work after warranty, which I have always begrudgingly done). Parts for a timing belt/waterpump swap are not cheap! Engine air filters, synthetic oil, filters (which recently went way up in price)...

Yeah, others have brought up the depreciation thing. I approached this with what in hindsight is an obviously uncommon case (buying new, driving it 'til it dies). I am absolutely going to redo this at some point with estimated depreciation and resale comparisons, because that is indeed what a lot of owners will do.

Put away your Excel spreadsheets. It’s about the drive. The Crosstrek is a good car but it does not hold a candle to the performance and driving characteristics of an M3. This is an apples/oranges comparison. If you want the most transportation value for the dollar buy a 1 year old Camry. An AWD BMW 3 series with twin turbo six is somewhat comparable to an M3....but reliability is a problem after 4 or 5 years. I know this based on much personal experience.

FWIW, we were also considering an Impreza. Crosstrek was chosen for the extra ground clearance which is nice, but the Impreza has that light hatchback driving feel that the Model 3 just can't reproduce. The Long Range Model 3 is a heavy car that does shockingly well at hiding its weight (it weighs the same as my Honda Crosstour, which drives like a boat in comparison), but a lot of small hatchbacks do handle a bit more tightly on the twisties.

Your definition of “significantly” differs from mine in this case.

Tesla battery development is a continuous process, and subtle changes in chemistry (which Tesla has implemented over the past several years) can have significant real-world consequences in terms of increased capacity and durability. And that has nothing to do with Tesla Superchargers.

I also take issue with your earlier statement:


It is not true that at 12 years/300.000km a Tesla battery has to be replaced. We have extensive Model S data showing that after the first year of 2-5% capacity loss, degradation continues at 1-2%/year (it does not increase). Using your example of 12 years at 300,000km a pack would have 75% to 85% capacity which would still be useful for many people.

And as others have pointed out, the history of storage battery technology over the past few decades shows that battery costs have dropped dramatically. Over the next decade, as EVs are built by the millions, battery cost will obviously continue to decline simply due to manufacturing scale and will also very likely decline as new technology is developed. So it is clear that EV battery pack replacement costs a decade from now will be much less than they currently are.

Do you think that a decade from now, the cost of an ICE drivetrain is going to be significantly less than it is now? Of course it won’t be. In fact, as EVs gradually take over the automotive market, and the ICE share of the market declines, ICE drivetrains are not going to be cheaper and they may very well become more costly.

Your analysis neglects all those points.

Hold up there, not 300,000km. 480,000km. The 300,000 is miles.

Elon has said he expects 300,000/500,000 miles out of the Model 3 batteries. I assume these are SR+ and LR respectively, because they line up with the statement of 1500 cycle counts. That's about 800,000km for the LR. So yes, according to Elon optimism, the batteries should last beyond 480,000 by almost double. These claims are so far just claims (and they're not backing it by warranty -- warranty is only the first 192,000km with a qualification of 70% of original capacity).

EDIT: If one travelled the same distance in the 12 years that I mentioned with an SR+, they would have saved a lot more money up front but the 300,000mi or 480,000km travelled is indeed what Elon mentioned as the expected life. It's an interesting data point, and honestly impressive given it's only a 50kWh pack. Hope it holds true.

While we do have examples of some excellent Model S/X packs that have gone incredible distances, we also have examples of S/X packs that suffered a terrible fault later in their life that needed to be replaced. The warranty on S/X is different, unlimited for battery packs if I recall correctly. There are million mile Honda engines out there, but most won't make it that far due to a variety of issues. In my case 75% capacity would be no good: it's getting close to a new SR+'s range at that point, which we decided was too little for our driving needs.

You're absolutely correct that ICE drivetrains aren't getting cheaper, though EVs are currently a large price premium over ICE vehicles. It's entirely possible they'd end up around the same price one day (there's a lot more to vehicles than the drivetrain costs), and we'll all be very happy for this day.

I do agree that small battery changes over time have had significant changes (esp. for durability/cycle count), you are right. When I mentioned "battery material constraints (chemistry, form factor, power characteristics, cooling needs)", I'm referring to the fact that a technological leap forward may require sufficient changes that a battery pack swap to get the newer technology is impossible.

We have evidence of this within Tesla. The 2170 cells used in the Model 3 packs simply don't fit in the exterior dimensions needed for a Model S/X pack, and thus miss out on this advancement for now. A future S/X may use 2170 cells, but the this pack is not expected to be compatible with older S/X models with the 18650 packs.

Another example is a recent article (sorry, I cannot find it) where I believe it was Tesla claimed some very impressive improvements in cycle count, but it required keeping the battery at 20 degrees C (68F). 40C (104F) was too hot and significantly reduced cycle count to some degradation point. If this was used on newer Tesla models and packs, it would likely be fair to say a cooling system change would be required to support the pack. It was also unclear if the 20C mattered only in use or if maintaining 20C at all times was important, in which case a lot of energy would be spent cooling the battery during the day in hot regions. Insulation would be good, which increases the size of the battery pack and... yepp, it gets complicated!

 

[camalaio]

I usually pay cash for my cars, but in this case I financed my model 3 even though I had the cash for it.

0.82% interest rate over 36 months. Financed $40k (USD) for a monthly payment of $1100. It's going to cost $500 USD total for the loan, and the cash in my bank account is earning 2.04% interest, so I'll be making money off getting the loan.

Dang, Tesla gives you <1% financing in the US? I did not know this. We're subject to bank rates here, I think the lowest is around 3.5% right now.

 

[Shauren]

Apples and oranges (or kumquats) was my first reaction too. However, on reflection I see where the OP is coming from. If he wants an all wheel drive car then the Model 3 AWD LR is the cheapest AWD EV with an acceptable range that he can buy. It is significantly more expensive than what he would like to pay for an ICE AWD so the question is whether he can justify the higher sticker price through fuel and other savings.

I looked into whether it was worth getting an EV about two years ago and decided that is cheaper to get an efficient diesel (but instead kept my old inefficient diesel because it was cheaper still if depreciation is added to the equation). Two years on, with government incentives, acceptable ranges and the old diesel now getting expensive to keep on the road, EVs make sense financially. But I live in the UK where gas is expensive (and so is electricity).

 

[TMThree]

Dang, Tesla gives you <1% financing in the US? I did not know this. We're subject to bank rates here, I think the lowest is around 3.5% right now.

No, Tesla won't match a rate that low. It was from a local credit union. Much better rates with a CU compared to a national bank.

 

[camalaio]

Apples and oranges (or kumquats) was my first reaction too. However, on reflection I see where the OP is coming from. If he wants an all wheel drive car then the Model 3 AWD LR is the cheapest AWD EV with an acceptable range that he can buy. It is significantly more expensive than what he would like to pay for an ICE AWD so the question is whether he can justify the higher sticker price through fuel and other savings.

I looked into whether it was worth getting an EV about two years ago and decided that is cheaper to get an efficient diesel (but instead kept my old inefficient diesel because it was cheaper still if depreciation is added to the equation). Two years on, with government incentives, acceptable ranges and the old diesel now getting expensive to keep on the road, EVs make sense financially. But I live in the UK where gas is expensive (and so is electricity).

Nailed it, thanks for bringing clarity to that point. Can you rewrite my post with more brevity since you seem to understand where I'm coming from?

Really want AWD, really want a smaller vehicle. It's really the cheapest EV option with that one requirement. We've said for years that we'll get an EV when there's a cheap enough small AWD offering, otherwise a Subaru is the next vehicle unless someone else came out with something interesting. Actually, had we not gone with the Model 3, the new AWD version of the Mazda 3 hatchbacks would have been a consideration. They came out after we got the Model 3.

This same thought process applies to many people around here (coworkers and friends), which is why I have these notes to publish here as it's frequent conversation. A lot of people wanting smaller vehicles. A lot of people wanting AWD. Some wanting both. And now considering a matching EV.

No, Tesla won't match a rate that low. It was from a local credit union. Much better rates with a CU compared to a national bank.

Hot dang, I feel like we're missing out here in Canada. Well done, US credit unions.

 

[PACEMD]

How many kumquats does it take to screw in a light bulb? Cause now I can't tell if a Model 3 is cheaper or more expensive than a Mercedes, BMW, Subaru, Camry, Audi, or the Cadillac of Cadillacs, the Cadillac........

 

[PACEMD]

No seriously, if you're the kind that needs a hard copy justification for what you buy then compare the Model 3 numbers to whatever other car you have in mind that meets your own personal criteria. The results are not generalizable beyond that except in a FYI kinda way........meaning I don't care if the Model 3 cost more or less than a BMW because I ain't buying no stinkin' BMW. But that's just me.........

That said I dig the way camalaio did put this together. I like the way your mind works.............

 

[MSP2023]

I usually pay cash for my cars, but in this case I financed my model 3 even though I had the cash for it.

0.82% interest rate over 36 months. Financed $40k (USD) for a monthly payment of $1100. It's going to cost $500 USD total for the loan, and the cash in my bank account is earning 2.04% interest, so I'll be making money off getting the loan.

Wow!!! .82% geez, which bank is that? My credit score is in the 800s, and shopping around financing $40k for 60mths the rates are 3 to 3.4%!!

 

[afadeev]

This seems like such an apples and oranges comparison. You're comparing two cars that are in completely different classes. No one should be cross shopping a Tesla and a Subaru. The Model 3 is more in line with the BWM 3 series, Mercedes C class or the Lexus ES.

You clearly haven't met Scoobie owners - some of them are full on NUTS for their cars, cranked upto 11.
I know a few, and they would never concede that their Scoobie's are in any way inferior to 3/C/IS sedans (ES is more of a 5-series/E-class competitor).

Unfortunately there aren’t currently any EVs in the Subarus price range and you're not going to make up the price difference in gas and maintenance no matter how much Tesla likes to point out "potential savings".

I don't know about you, but I don't shop for cars in a narrow price range. I shop for cars that fit a certain size (small vs. mid vs. large/SUV/van), and need (winter beater vs. daily commuter vs. family hauler vs. track toy).

From that perspective, a Scoobie Crosstrek is very much in the 3-series / Model 3 vehicle category. The exact price cut-off points do not really matter, since 3-series alone ranges in price from $30-80+K, as other potential competitors can be had at varying price points.

P.S. " I suspect the insurance was somehow cheaper on the Tesla". "Somehow" as in "very likely". LOL

There is NOTHING cheap about Tesla insurance.
Fan-boys keep arguing that it "should be", since Tesla's are rated super-safe, and because of autopilot, but it's not that simple in real life. The reality on the ground is Tesla's are a b*^ch to insure, and even Elon is aware of the problem and is trying to do something about it (in Cali only).

a

 

[Dan203]

I don't know about you, but I don't shop for cars in a narrow price range. I shop for cars that fit a certain size (small vs. mid vs. large/SUV/van), and need (winter beater vs. daily commuter vs. family hauler vs. track toy).

My main criteria is speed, although practicality did play a role in me choosing a 340i over an M235i when I bought my last car. And the 4 doors have been handy. But I really don’t drive that much and when I do I want to have fun. And one of the funnest things in the world to me is just blasting off from a red light. For my acceptable price range the Model 3 Performance fit that bill swimmingly. Maybe next time I'll break down and spring for the Model S Plaid, but for now it seems a bit silly for me to spend more on a car than on my mortgage. But speed can be addictive so next time I might be looking for another hit.

 

[Billyk24]

One feature to consider, the air cooled HVB from Subaru is prone to degrade fast(er) if one is going to do multiple charges daily, drive in warm weather for multiple months a year. Don't buy the statement that the HVB fans turn on when plugged in for charging. Level 2 charging at 9amps will increase the HVB temperature six months a year. The HVB size (9kWh) and stated range (18 miles) is poor. The rear cargo area of the Subaru features an 8 inch rise over the "normal" floor in an attempt to fit in the HVB.

 

[ecarfan]

Hold up there, not 300,000km. 480,000km. The 300,000 is miles.

Thanks for the correction. I misread your post, thinking that since you were in Canada you were using km.

Elon has said he expects 300,000/500,000 miles out of the Model 3 batteries. I assume these are SR+ and LR respectively, because they line up with the statement of 1500 cycle counts. That's about 800,000km for the LR. So yes, according to Elon optimism, the batteries should last beyond 480,000 by almost double. These claims are so far just claims (and they're not backing it by warranty -- warranty is only the first 192,000km with a qualification of 70% of original capacity).

Those claims have some validity based on Tesla’s long history with the Model S pack and the fact that Tesla has built far more long range EVs with liquid battery cooling systems than any other manufacturer, by orders of magnitude in fact (the Nissan Leaf still only has a passive air cooled pack, which is a poor design that Tesla never used). No other auto manufacturer has anything like Tesla’s engineering expertise and experience with large, high capacity EV packs.

While we do have examples of some excellent Model S/X packs that have gone incredible distances, we also have examples of S/X packs that suffered a terrible fault later in their life that needed to be replaced.

Outliers mean nothing. What matters is the data. See Battery Survey « Plug In America

There are million mile Honda engines out there, but most won't make it that far due to a variety of issues.

Again, outliers mean nothing. And ICE cars with several hundred thousand miles on the odometer have a resale value of next to nothing. Buyers know that they will be a maintenance nightmare, and value them accordingly. In contrast, electric motors, properly designed (like Tesla motors) can on average last for many many years, as do the battery packs.

In my case 75% capacity would be no good: it's getting close to a new SR+'s range at that point, which we decided was too little for our driving needs.

It’s fine for you to talk about your specific use case. I am discussing cost of Tesla ownership and the EV resale market.

My point remains: it is not true that at 300,000 miles a Tesla battery pack has to be replaced, as you unequivocally stated in your analysis. High mileage used Teslas will remain very useful vehicles for many people, as they will still be more than capable of handling the average daily US commute. The average daily travel for all Americans is just 40 miles/day. Of course there are people who drive much longer distances every day, as there are people who drive much shorter distances. But a Tesla with just 150 miles of indicated range on it will be a very useful car for many people, and in the future EV charging will be far more ubiquitous than it is now.

 

[camalaio]

One feature to consider, the air cooled HVB from Subaru is prone to degrade fast(er) if one is going to do multiple charges daily, drive in warm weather for multiple months a year. Don't buy the statement that the HVB fans turn on when plugged in for charging. Level 2 charging at 9amps will increase the HVB temperature six months a year. The HVB size (9kWh) and stated range (18 miles) is poor. The rear cargo area of the Subaru features an 8 inch rise over the "normal" floor in an attempt to fit in the HVB.

Ah, I should have clarified that Canada does not have the Hybrid Crosstrek yet, so no HVB involved. We debated waiting for that, but our one-way commute distance (60km) is indeed greater than what the battery can provide, so the value to us was not very high. It's a shame, with perhaps double the capacity we may just have got one, but indeed fitting the battery would be even more of an issue.

Thanks for the correction. I misread your post, thinking that since you were in Canada you were using km.

Those claims have some validity based on Tesla’s long history with the Model S pack and the fact that Tesla has built far more long range EVs with liquid battery cooling systems than any other manufacturer, by orders of magnitude in fact (the Nissan Leaf still only has a passive air cooled pack, which is a poor design that Tesla never used). No other auto manufacturer has anything like Tesla’s engineering expertise and experience with large, high capacity EV packs.

Outliers mean nothing. What matters is the data. See Battery Survey « Plug In America

Again, outliers mean nothing. And ICE cars with several hundred thousand miles on the odometer have a resale value of next to nothing. Buyers know that they will be a maintenance nightmare, and value them accordingly. In contrast, electric motors, properly designed (like Tesla motors) can on average last for many many years, as do the battery packs.

It’s fine for you to talk about your specific use case. I am discussing cost of Tesla ownership and the EV resale market.

My point remains: it is not true that at 300,000 miles a Tesla battery pack has to be replaced, as you unequivocally stated in your analysis. High mileage used Teslas will remain very useful vehicles for many people, as they will still be more than capable of handling the average daily US commute. The average daily travel for all Americans is just 40 miles/day. Of course there are people who drive much longer distances every day, as there are people who drive much shorter distances. But a Tesla with just 150 miles of indicated range on it will be a very useful car for many people, and in the future EV charging will be far more ubiquitous than it is now.

EDIT: Phew, this is long eh? Sorry. I think the analysis and discussion is valuable to some so I'm not going to attempt to trim it. Enjoy, if the information is valuable to you.

Apologies for the unit confusion, it was inevitable. Many thanks for a link to some data though, always valuable to have.

So I took some time to go through their charts, but not much of the raw data yet. When using raw data, I used the "most recent reports" data instead of the "all reports" data since it's important to ensure I'm not double-counting battery replacements on the same vehicle, etc.

Of the 575 Model S vehicles in the raw data, 38 have had battery replacements. That is a very significant statistic of around 15% of the sample set, not an outlier.
Of these battery replacements, the replacements occurred at a median of 30,261.5 miles and an average of 34,484.6 miles. 35,000 miles or 56,000 km is an alarmingly short lifetime for 15% of the reported group of vehicles. The highest odometer reading at replacement was 90,000 miles or about 145,000 km, still well within warranty notably (but would this continue after the warranty expires?).

Moving on to degradation, for some models for the Model S (85 for example), there are data points significantly above the rated range. The data therefore seems suspect, unfortunately? Note that the owners were supposed to report rated range, not range they experience. But let's go with it anyways, it's what we have.

I 100% agree that better-cooled batteries will outlive others, but larger batteries have the same effect as well. See Nissan Leaf results here: Battery Survey « Plug In America

The trendline for non-replaced batteries suggests 70% original capacity is achieved around 80,000 miles (almost 130,000km). I couldn't find the EPA rating for the older 24 kWh models, but let's take a slightly more recent guess of 300 Wh/mi or about 186 Wh/km. 80,000 miles then requires 24,000 kWh from a 24 kWh pack, meaning about 1000 cycles to 70% original capacity. If Elon's 1500 cycle count life can be expected to also mean 70% original capacity (fair implication given that the warranty is for 70%), then it is implied that Tesla's packs are doing 50% better.

However, let's compare Plug in America Leaf to Plug in America Model S. Let's pick 85D, which has essentially the same trendline as 85 and thus I have a little extra confidence that the trendline reflects something real (given the capacities started out the same). 70% capacity would be 185 miles. We don't even see this on the chart, with ~210 miles occurring at 240,000 miles, which is about 80%. So we can estimate 360,000 miles is where 70% is (this linear estimate is poor for various reasons and indeed a simplification). At 295 Wh/mi (seems to be the EPA rating for 85 model) we've used 106,200 kWh, or about 1250 cycles. This is expected: better than the Leaf (1000 cycles), not quite as good as the Model 3's pack is expected to be (1500 cycles). Note that the S packs were "only" 25% better than the Leaf in terms of cycle count, but the capacity difference makes those cycles go significantly further, a testament to the importance of total pack size.

So you're right: As long as we're assuming the Model 3's packs are better, it's potentially reasonable to assume that 500,000 miles to 70% original capacity is achievable on average.

However, I think it's really important to consider that even at a rated range of 240 miles for a brand new SR+, people are still finding commitment to EVs difficult even with the very valid point of the average daily commute being 40 miles/day. The early 24 kWh Nissan Leaf (rated 107 miles) could manage this commute even with 70% capacity, with room for AC/heat energy usage, and that has been available since 2011. So the fact that the car still works for the daily needs even with degradation has been irrelevant to many people for nearly a decade at this point, and that's still true today.

In view of people wanting the most range at any possible time, yes the expected 20-25% degradation at 480,000km for a LR Model 3 is a big deal to many people, however nonsensical that appears when just reading the numbers. For my personal drives, that's the difference between needing to make an extra stop (previously 1, now 2) on common routes, and for some routes now needing to charge at all since before I did not need to. I also wouldn't want to be deeply discharging an older battery pack as the risk of damage is increasing (most people are familiar with accelerated battery wear towards end of life, and this is fair to carry forward to EV packs), so that leaves me with less than half of the original capacity that I'm comfortable with using (staying within 25-85%, a 60% range on a 75% original capacity, meaning 42% of original rated range or 140 miles or 225 km). Yes, this same "partial usable capacity" applies to the Leaf as well to be fair, and people will and do more deeply cycle them due to the smaller pack sizes.

At this 225km of range before I need to charge again, I personally face problems. The wife can't comfortably drive to work (120km round trip) and then need to drive somewhere else after work that's not within town (visiting parents 50km away or something like that, something we do often, 100km round trip). In Winter, the situation is even worse of course and Winter does exist here. So we'd need a second non-discharged (or gas) vehicle or to start hitting up a Supercharger, which may be 2 hours round trip out of our way (Yeah, Tesla is working on Canada Superchargers, but really only the Trans Canada right now and progress has been slow for years), not to mention the Supercharger is further accelerating wear and taking up time for a trip we take frequently. Oh, and I need enough charge to make that 1 hour one-way trip to get to the Supercharger too.

This distance case is common around here since in the part of Canada I live in, the population is a bit spread out and it's not uncommon for people to drive to "the big city" (it's not a big city) on a weekly basis. As mentioned, I wrote this with the context of my surroundings and perhaps I could've done better to outline the daily or weekly travel needs of people around here. In order for the EV to make sense, it needs to be able to replace a gas vehicle entirely, not necessitate a backup vehicle in the future to account for range loss.

Now... at this point, yes, the degraded pack may be useful to someone who never needs longer commutes. They can either purchase this very used Tesla (I'd have concerns about suspension/steering components, general body/frame wear from salty roads, etc. like I would with any vehicle so the price is going to drop hard) or purchase a newer (not necessarily new) lower-range EV that suits their needs better, which will certainly exist 11 years from now.

With some caveats (smaller city Canadian driving, "rural-ish" depending on your perspective), I stand by my statement that at 480,000km some people would need to consider battery pack replacement even if Elon's optimism for the Model 3 battery packs holds true. Even if the average commute is 40 miles, it is unlikely to be your maximum travel distance in one day over the course of a year, and having a second vehicle to go longer distance definitely costs more.

Which brings everything back around to the original post: Long-term, you aren't saving money as a heavy commuter over buying a cheaper gas vehicle today. You've sufficiently worn out an expensive vehicle to the point where its value is significantly impacted, and your usage of the vehicle may require replacement of major components. Even if it doesn't, it's an 11 year old heavily used vehicle whether it's an EV or not, so you're going to have other types of major repairs (for example, suspension work) while only having just broke even with the long term costs of a roughly $40,000 gas vehicle. Buy a Long Range Model 3 because it's what you want, not because it makes sense financially compared to cheaper gas vehicles you may have considered along with it.

P.S.: I didn't touch on the fact that the linked graphs show alarming numbers for drive unit failure as well, nearing 40% for the oldest models. I'm giving Tesla the benefit of the doubt, expecting these failure rates to improve for more recent vehicles. Hoping, actually. Really hoping. Keep in mind I own a Tesla that I plan to own long term, I really want it to last!

P.S.2.: My province is rolling out significant Level 3 charging infrastructure even in rural areas, so relying on far-away Superchargers may not be reality 11 years from now. However, that requires Tesla adopting a reasonable fast-charging standard for the North American models, like CCS. I have a CHAdeMO adapter that peaks at 50kWh which is far better than nothing (and better for the battery, really). Today, Level 3 infra is better if you have a CCS-capable vehicle in BC, and it's only getting better as gas companies jump on board to provide Level 3 charging at their gas stations within incredibly short time frames. They even started by placing these chargers where there is zero existing charging infrastructure, and thus probably zero customers! The number of stalls at a Supercharger station is still attractive, but standard Level 3 chargers are taking over in terms of locality. If there's one CCS cable every dozen blocks, I don't need one Supercharger station with a dozen stalls.

P.S.3.: I've given a huge advantage in my cycle count calculations, and I suspect Elon did the same in the Twitter post regarding cycle count & distance. As the battery degrades, a "full cycle" nets you less distance, though I calculated it as if it still gets the original rated range. The truth is that you'll reach 1500 cycles faster than the above calculations imply, and the lower range per cycle means you will be cycling more often, which more rapidly degrades the battery.

EDIT: Phew, that was long eh? Sorry. I think the analysis and discussion is valuable to some so I'm not going to attempt to trim it. I hope the post was of some value if you got this far!