Make an Offer :Reduced Price:2014 Model S 60KWH Subzero Weather package Rear Seating SC enabled - SO

[brandonmbeard]

Unless there are options not listed here you can get a brand new one with zero(aka 50 miles) on it for $82,570. You just have to wait approximately 60 days for delivery.

So buyers ask yourself? Is $20,500 more worth it for 2 extra months of driving? Just for those not mathematically inclined that comes out to about $341 per day. I tell you what, if someone wants to buy a brand new one and doesn't want to wait to drive one. I will lease them my car for 60 days at $250/day.

 

[Jackyche]

Price "reduced" to $103K!! LOL! Seller either has a good sense of humor or perhaps it is some kind of scam.

Its definately not a scam. A scam is an absurdly underpriced car that is too good to be true.

This is the opposite of scam, a rip off. Absurdly overpriced car that's too shocking to be true.

 

[dsm363]

Still $20k or more overpriced.

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

Still $20k or more overpriced.

for an S85
and it is in Fremont!

 

[dsm363]

Reduced Price:2014 Model S 60KWH Subzero Weather package Rear Seating Superch...

for an S85
and it is in Fremont!

Yep. Maybe he'll get lucky and someone won't do any research. Never did post why he getting rid of it after 1,000 miles. Could be a marketing gimmick. Certainly had gained attention for the sale so when he drops it to 70k that person will have gotten a great 'deal'.

 

[Canuck]

I agree that anyone can try to sell anything for any price they want. But does this private forum really want to be a party to this? It's fine if someone somewhat overprices their car but this is so overpriced and absurd as to be offensive.

I think the mods should remove this entire thread to keep up the integrity of this place. There's plenty of other sites he can post his car for sale.

 

[Ugliest1]

He'd probably get more interest on other sites - people on this forum know too much.

 

[brianman]

I think the mods should remove this entire thread to keep up the integrity of this place. There's plenty of other sites he can post his car for sale.

So you're for censorship of legitimate behavior? Weird.

 

[ecarfan]

Don't delete this thread. It contains a lot of valuable information that every prospective purchaser of the car being discussed should read.

 

[Canuck]

So you're for censorship of legitimate behavior? Weird.

Damn right. Not on the part of the government though. There's a big difference. If you run a nice restaurant, and some clown comes in with no shirt and no shoes, he gets censored. All good privately owned businesses are for censorship. It makes for a much better consumer experience.

You use the word "legitimate". It means "conforming to the law or to rules", an example being "no shirt, no shoes, no service." I am only suggesting that this place have a "no attempt at scamming rule" to make this a better forum.

I guess you don't mind anyone coming here and posting anything they want provided it's legitimate. No rules ultimately leads to anarchy which is why the First Amendment has reasonable restraints, the most common example being you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre (well, unless there actually is a fire).

- - - Updated - - -

Don't delete this thread. It contains a lot of valuable information that every prospective purchaser of the car being discussed should read.

Point taken.

 

[ElSupreme]

You use the word "legitimate". It means "conforming to the law or to rules", an example being "no shirt, no shoes, no service." I am only suggesting that this place have a "no attempt at scamming rule" to make this a better forum.

This has roots in health regulation, and propagation of disease.

I guess you don't mind anyone coming here and posting anything they want provided it's legitimate. No rules ultimately leads to anarchy which is why the First Amendment has reasonable restraints, the most common example being you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre (well, unless there actually is a fire).

This as well as the health driven 'no shirt, no shoes' rules are based in the thought that performing these actions can potentially harm the general public. And thus infringes on others rights. So your individual rights are limited, such that you don't infringe on others rights.

These aren't truly issues of censorship, but about infringing other's rights.

 

[Canuck]

This has roots in health regulation, and propagation of disease...These aren't truly issues of censorship, but about infringing other's rights.

It was one example. I can come up with many others. For instance, try going into a restaurant and playing your trombone. No health risk there but you'll be kicked out. Hell, some restaurants you can't even wear shirts without a collar.

You next argument makes no sense to me. One of the main purposes of censorship is not to infringe on other's rights, (i.e. 'fire' in crowded theatre example) whether that right be to have a nice meal in a high class restaurant, or read a Tesla forum without people trying to scam. And if you say these are not "rights" in the traditional sense, that argument fails because we are not dealing with government. This is a private forum, and it establishes the rights (rules) for its members in order to facilitate its desired result. But keep the thread, ecarfan is right.

 

[ElSupreme]

It was one example. I can come up with many others. For instance, try going into a restaurant and playing your trombone. No health risk there but you'll be kicked out. Hell, some restaurants you can't even wear shirts without a collar.

TMC, as a private organization could choose to censor this individual if they wanted. Same as a restaurant can refuse service to an individual who continues to play a trombone it it's dining room. Using TMC as a platform for 'free speech' isn't a protected right.

You next argument makes no sense to me. The sole purpose of censorship is not to infringe on other's rights, (i.e. 'fire' in crowded theatre example) whether that right be to have a nice meal in a high class restaurant, or read a Tesla forum without people trying to scam.

There are no rights (at least in the USA) to reading on TMC without people trying to scam. There are no rights to having a nice meal in a high class restaurant.

Yelling 'Fire' (falsely) in a crowded theater would cause evacuation and possibly panic (and did in the original court case) which ended up with people being trampled and hurt. This infringed upon their rights to not be hurt in public areas. I would classify the 'no shirt, no shoes' rule as dubious in actual health prevention. But me contacting a disease due to others actions is something that the courts deemed I have protections against.

So in both cases my right to not be harmed (either by trampling mob, or contracting disease that is easily preventable) takes precedence over your rights to yell 'fire' or not wear proper clothing.

Also private business, open to the general public, have the right in the united states to refuse service to individuals, but not groups. I can ban "Matt" but I cant ban all "Matt"s. There is some room to debate what constitute a 'group'. "Matt"s would most likely be classified as a group, while 'people playing trombone while eating' would probably not fall under the group classification. I also believe 'people not wearing shoes, and/or shirts' wouldn't fall under a group classification.

 

[palmer_md]

He's not scamming anyone. He clearly stated that he paid 90something thousand and he want 100something thousand for the car. The markup is for someone who does not want to wait.

I personally don't think he is going to find any takers, particularly on this site, but he seems to be making an honest attempt to sell the car for a profit. Good on him if he can connect with a motivated buyer who is willing to pay the premium for the quick purchase. There were dozens of these (marked up cars) for sale in mid 2012 because they were scarce. It's a little tougher to sell a marked up car at this point, but who are we to stop him if he thinks there is a buyer out there.

 

[Canuck]

I edited my post after you quoted me, which I think deals with your arguments. I saw your argument coming after re-reading my post.. lol. Of course, I understand "There are no rights (at least in the USA) to reading on TMC without people trying to scam." My whole point was trying to establish that right! - which the mods at this forum have the power to do.

But we can agree to disagree. Peace...

(EDIT: Actually, as I re-read our posts, we actually agree on the general principles so I take back what I said about agreeing to disagree. We can agree to agree!)

- - - Updated - - -

He's not scamming anyone.

I think if someone pays what he's asking they would have got scammed.

 

[brandonmbeard]

He's not scamming anyone. He clearly stated that he paid 90something thousand and he want 100something thousand for the car. The markup is for someone who does not want to wait.

I personally don't think he is going to find any takers, particularly on this site, but he seems to be making an honest attempt to sell the car for a profit. Good on him if he can connect with a motivated buyer who is willing to pay the premium for the quick purchase. There were dozens of these (marked up cars) for sale in mid 2012 because they were scarce. It's a little tougher to sell a marked up car at this point, but who are we to stop him if he thinks there is a buyer out there.

I'm trying to figure out how he paid 90K - as i mentioned in my post unless there are option he's leaving out, this car is $82,500 - $7,500 tax credit.

 

[ElSupreme]

I'm trying to figure out how he paid 90K - as i mentioned in my post unless there are option he's leaving out, this car is $82,500 - $7,500 tax credit.

I think he is including CA sales tax.

 

[GlennAlanBerry]

He probably counted the California state sales tax, and did not deduct for the Federal and State tax credits.

He can try to sell his car for whatever he wants. If someone wants to buy it for that price, good for him! Anyone who does any basic research should realize that it is not a good price for a 60 with those options, especially since the buyer won't get the tax credits.

 

[palmer_md]

I think if someone pays what he's asking they would have got scammed.

Not if they know up front that they could get the same car for less if they just wait a few months.

 

[brandonmbeard]

He probably counted the California state sales tax, and did not deduct for the Federal and State tax credits.

He can try to sell his car for whatever he wants. If someone wants to buy it for that price, good for him! Anyone who does any basic research should realize that it is not a good price for a 60 with those options, especially since the buyer won't get the tax credits.

and the buyer will have to pay sales tax on the higher prices as well. vehicle sales tax is one of those tax situations i completely disagree with - as the state can collect tax on the same vehicle multiple times, depending on how many times it's sold.