Using the configurator model under any Tesla vehicle, the price detail page proudly shows "estimated 3-year gas savings" upwards of $3,900. We should all be in agreement that yes, you won't ever need to buy gasoline for driving your Tesla. But the obvious question is, you're paying at the Supercharger, you're paying to plug in at home. Depending on your area, electric rates and Supercharger stations are charging a premium rate. So, the obvious question is: does the estimated 3-year gas savings take into account the difference between what you would pay for gasoline vs. electrical rates at your home and the SC station? Hasn't this claim been challenged by TMC, consumer groups, etc. or is this the first post on this topic? Thanks for your replies.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Is Tesla's "estimated 3-year gas savings" claim misleading?
- Thread starter mm9351
- Start date
It does take into account the cost of electricity at home, but not supercharging. It also assumes that you drive a fuel vehicle with the average or worse fuel economy.
It is still grossly misleading and dishonest. You can't save your way to a lower monthly payment. If one already has a fuel efficient vehicle like a Prius or a MINI Cooper, it's less than half the savings. And if you are trading in a Tesla, there IS no savings at all. It's even worse if you're going from a Model 3 to an X.
Tesla should stop this absolutely deceitful and shady way of showing a lower price. You can't get a loan for the savings total. It has to be the full amount. The default should be the actual cost of the car. Leave the monthly "savings" as a side note incentive.
It reminds me of an old comic of a woman who bought a fur coat and told him she saved $10,000 on it. He said "You should have bought two and you'd have saved enough to buy a car."
It is still grossly misleading and dishonest. You can't save your way to a lower monthly payment. If one already has a fuel efficient vehicle like a Prius or a MINI Cooper, it's less than half the savings. And if you are trading in a Tesla, there IS no savings at all. It's even worse if you're going from a Model 3 to an X.
Tesla should stop this absolutely deceitful and shady way of showing a lower price. You can't get a loan for the savings total. It has to be the full amount. The default should be the actual cost of the car. Leave the monthly "savings" as a side note incentive.
It reminds me of an old comic of a woman who bought a fur coat and told him she saved $10,000 on it. He said "You should have bought two and you'd have saved enough to buy a car."
Agreed! Take a look at Lucid Motors for their order configurator page. The price is the price. $69,900 for the Air Pure edition. Period. Add destination, document fees, order deposit. No fanfare and probable, estimated savings BS. Tesla has a loyal fan base and really needs to reconsider how they present the pricing structure to always default to "probable savings" showing that misleading $4000 discount. Tesla is better than that, and its current and potential customers deserve better. Just my 2 cents, no pun intended.
Last edited:
They list “potential savings”.
Tesla also allows you to change the estimated annual mileage, cost of gas, and cost of electricity to recalculate.
The ONLY issue I have is that the default when you load the page is to show the price with savings.
I would much rather have the active tab default to “Purchase Price”.
The information & calculations are quite transparent and, frankly, helpful.
I have spoken to many people that were under the impression that electricity costs more than gas. While that misconception exists, I think it is quite appropriate to list the potential savings.
Tesla also allows you to change the estimated annual mileage, cost of gas, and cost of electricity to recalculate.
The ONLY issue I have is that the default when you load the page is to show the price with savings.
I would much rather have the active tab default to “Purchase Price”.
The information & calculations are quite transparent and, frankly, helpful.
I have spoken to many people that were under the impression that electricity costs more than gas. While that misconception exists, I think it is quite appropriate to list the potential savings.
The default to this is the biggest problem.
They should not be allowed to reduce the monthly payment shown as a result of those savings because it doesn't reduce your payment at all. It reduces your net spending, but not your payment.
Words have meanings. Use them properly and don't hide behind false equivalents.
They should not be allowed to reduce the monthly payment shown as a result of those savings because it doesn't reduce your payment at all. It reduces your net spending, but not your payment.
Words have meanings. Use them properly and don't hide behind false equivalents.
MY1stEV
Member
I agree, it is stupid to show this as part of the pricing for the car.
But I will also concede that it was not misleading in my case.
I drive around 12,000 miles per year. My total cost for charging in 2022 was $435 and $455 for 2023. I charge at home 50 weeks out of the year, and 2 weeks are mostly supercharging when on vacations. At home, I pay 15¢ per kWh June thru Sept, and 10¢ per kWh the remaining 8 months of the year. Supercharging on trips in the southern US is around 36¢ per kWh.
My previous car didn't have a handy app that tracks all of this, so I don't have any hard stats on how much I spent on fuel when I had a gas car, but I am confident it was equal to or greater than 3 times what I spend on charging per year.
But I will also concede that it was not misleading in my case.
I drive around 12,000 miles per year. My total cost for charging in 2022 was $435 and $455 for 2023. I charge at home 50 weeks out of the year, and 2 weeks are mostly supercharging when on vacations. At home, I pay 15¢ per kWh June thru Sept, and 10¢ per kWh the remaining 8 months of the year. Supercharging on trips in the southern US is around 36¢ per kWh.
My previous car didn't have a handy app that tracks all of this, so I don't have any hard stats on how much I spent on fuel when I had a gas car, but I am confident it was equal to or greater than 3 times what I spend on charging per year.
Watts_Up
Well-Known Member
Tesla used to have a cost calculator where you were able to select different parameters,
such as price of gas and electricity and annual mileage. This was more usefull and realistic.
If you look at the website for other countries, the "gas saving" tab is not present, I remeber that it has to be removed in Germany.
such as price of gas and electricity and annual mileage. This was more usefull and realistic.
If you look at the website for other countries, the "gas saving" tab is not present, I remeber that it has to be removed in Germany.
Last edited:
They still do, it is available after clicking on the details of the ‘potential savings’.
I hate the leeway auto dealers are given in this country to deceive customers. Tesla’s example hear is the smallest offense compared to all the other shenanigans.
I want that info & calculator available. I do agree it shouldn’t reduce the payments shown.
I just located this calculator you refer to on the Tesla Channel website. I do think it's a very useful tool and takes into account the state you live for charging at home rate equivalency. Absolutely agree that savings on operating costs do not qualify for reducing your monthly payments.
Tesla Gas Savings Calculator
dbeiler
Member
Not necessarily a misconception, it is a reality in some cases. I've paid $.37 a KWH for supercharging in a gas station parking lot that sold gas for $2.70 a gallon. The electricity cost included zero in road tax. The gasoline cost included $.47 a gallon in state and federal road tax. Even without figuring in the gross disparity in taxation, my road trip cost roughly 30% more in electricity than it would have in gasoline. Apples to apples in taxation, my trip would have cost near 50% more than gasoline.
Electricity is generated by powerplants that do not achieve anywhere near 100% efficiency. The powerplant owner isn't eating that cost; it gets passed on to the consumer.
Perhaps I should have been more specific.
To be more accurate I should have said: “I have spoken to hundreds of people, in person, over the last 13 years, that were under the impression that charging at home was more expensive than gasoline.”
It is very true that road tripping can be about the same cost. But you would be surprised how many people I spoke with that were shocked when they found out how much less charging at home can cost.
dbeiler
Member
Residential charging is the golden ticket to cheap EV ownership.
Tesla conveniently does not use the electric charging cost per kwh THAT THEY THEMSELVES CHARGE in their misleading fuel savings calculator. Oh, the irony.
Tesla conveniently does not use the electric charging cost per kwh THAT THEY THEMSELVES CHARGE in their misleading fuel savings calculator. Oh, the irony.
Again, the significance to that varies widely. To me, that has no significance what so ever.
If you do nothing but use Superchargers it makes a big difference.
Luckily, you can change the cost of electricity to match your specific use case.
I think the gas savings has to be a one size fits all in the initial screen, so I understand it being wildly off.
But it's not even mentioning the fact you no longer need to do Oil Changes, and that easily gets you to that savings number. I know that technically it's not "reducing your payments," but oil changes are total BS dealerships and manufacturers absolutely price in to the sale of a gas car. It's like the Timeshare model - you trick them with a high upfront fee implying that's all they'll pay, then they're stuck because of Sunk Cost and you can hit them with higher and higher recurring fees for years.
My previous car, a Prius, was a great car. I traded it in at 18 years old and it was still running, I hope whoever buys it does great with it. But I bought new and every required oil change (to keep the 10yr warranty) would magically metastasize into a much bigger bill of service required to keep the warranty. That schedule is DEFINITELY baked into Toyota's cost calculations. In other words, it's entirely fair to consider total cost when buying the car - yes not every dime of an oil change is going to Toyota but you can be certain most of it is, and all the other surprise required service. $4000 in 3 years is easily within what Toyota sapped from me in the first several routine maintenance years.
But it's not even mentioning the fact you no longer need to do Oil Changes, and that easily gets you to that savings number. I know that technically it's not "reducing your payments," but oil changes are total BS dealerships and manufacturers absolutely price in to the sale of a gas car. It's like the Timeshare model - you trick them with a high upfront fee implying that's all they'll pay, then they're stuck because of Sunk Cost and you can hit them with higher and higher recurring fees for years.
My previous car, a Prius, was a great car. I traded it in at 18 years old and it was still running, I hope whoever buys it does great with it. But I bought new and every required oil change (to keep the 10yr warranty) would magically metastasize into a much bigger bill of service required to keep the warranty. That schedule is DEFINITELY baked into Toyota's cost calculations. In other words, it's entirely fair to consider total cost when buying the car - yes not every dime of an oil change is going to Toyota but you can be certain most of it is, and all the other surprise required service. $4000 in 3 years is easily within what Toyota sapped from me in the first several routine maintenance years.
Similar threads
- Article
