FWIW our store uses P100Ds for test drives, but they are running special firmware that allows you to pull up a menu and switch its driving behavior to that of any other model on the fly... which was pretty cool since on my 24 hr test drive I got to see how even models they don't make/sell any more compared to the current ones.
That ability to "retune" was an easter egg added in the last year. Basically it allows any car to emulate any other car of the same model with less performance. I had forgotten about that. I guess most of the test drive cars are P100Ds now. When I test drove (in late 2015) there was a mix available.
I have suspected for a while that at least some of their demo/test drive cars are ones that were canceled orders. One time when I was in the store there was an S75D with something odd in the configuration, but at the moment I can't remember what it was.
That seems pretty sketchy math on the corolla...he's citing Edmunds a lot in the video... Edmunds pegs 5 year depreciation on the Corolla at 46%... they have no info on the Model 3 of course, but for the S they put it at 53%...
Edmunds also uses an insanely nonsense # for maintenance on the corolla (over $3000- despite there being no required maintenance in 5 years other than oil, filter, and brake fluid changes)
A more realistic comparison over 5 years (using S depreciation rate, and cost of the actual needed maintenance on both cars) puts the Corolla more like $5000-$10,000 cheaper, not $600...and that's depending on how many generous assumptions in Teslas favor (that maintenance/repairs is half what it is on an S, that you pay cash, and that you pay the same insurance on the Corolla as the Tesla) you wish to make - I can show the math if anybody actually cares)
A fair point. I think a fairer comparison would be a base Model 3 to a Toyota Camry or Corolla with as close to the same options as the base M3. For example I don't believe the base Toyotas come with power seats and the M3 does. I don't know much about Toyotas, I crossed them off my list early on when I was shopping because I couldn't get the seats back far enough for my legs.
Even if the M3 is only moderately competitive on cost of ownership, what you get with the car is worth it.
Yeah- bit of cheating using the BMW- depreciation and repairs are awful there.
Use a Lexus IS instead. Mine is 10 years old now- at 5 it was still worth about 67% of what I paid for it new. (and FWIW unlike a typical BMW, my total cost for repairs in 10 years has been $0.00)- so TCO for me was probably at least 2k less than his estimate on the Model 3.
Don't get me wrong, given the choice I'm still buying a new Model 3 over a new IS- but that's in part because Lexus actually managed to make the car worse in the current gen than my 10 year old one....and in part because I have a longer, more highway, drive to/from work than when I bought the Lexus and AP is going to make that drive way nicer.
I don't use AP very often, the car is too much fun to drive myself. However in stop and go traffic it's outstanding. I'm fortunate to work at home these days so I don't have to do the daily commute.
What is the path of the legacy automakers to reach scale ?
Step #1 secure enough batteries. Something very few are doing.
Hardcore euro fanboy? I’m a Tesla investor and have followed Tesla closely since 2013. Volkswagen will invest as mush money into battery that Tesla hole market value. Now the 150 GWh per year maybe is less then what Tesla will produce by 2025. Tesla do have an advantage then it comes to battery spec and amount and will therefore have an advantage in the market but what I react to was that Tesla will continue to have a five year advantage only because they was five years ahead of the competitors. Why wouldn’t Volkswagen and LG be able to adopt Tesla’s battery technology but Tesla can adopt there and other manufacturers knowledge about car safety and other areas?
Volkswagen Battery Order To Nearly Match Tesla's Entire Market Value
VW is being very cagey in their announcement, as most legacy automakers do. They only talk about what they will be doing by 2025 and not what they are doing in the long term. Reporters on these stories also seem to assume Tesla is going to stand still while the competition catches up. The Model S was introduced in 2012. That was 6 years ago. 2025 is 7 years from now. Even if Tesla dramatically slows down their pace of innovation (it's probably likely they will slow down some for logistical reasons, but their pace will probably be way above the industry average), they will likely be way beyond where VW plans to be by 2025 in that year.
Anybody can reverse engineer Tesla's battery tech and Tesla has made it pretty clear they aren't going to defend their patents (and they aren't patenting a lot of things they do now). But Tesla is always innovating. If VW or LG decides to copy Tesla's battery tech today, it will take them close to a year to bring it to production at which point Tesla might be on a better chemistry. And even if Tesla isn't on a better chemistry they need to ramp up factories to make as many cells at the same price point as Tesla and nobody is able to do that right now and nobody will be able to for a few years minimum.
It sounds like VW is planning to match Tesla's 2018-2019 capability by 2025. Even if they can match Tesla's 2020 capability by 2025, that puts them 5 years behind.
Yesterday we were listening to a pod cast which had an interview with Rick Wilson who is a former Republican strategist. He's recently pretty much left the fold. Anyway he was talking about why he likes free markets because the private sector can do things much better than the government. My SO and I had a discussion about it and there are many things the private sector can do more efficiently (maybe not as fairly to all, but that's a different discussion).
Ultimately what it boils down to is the larger the organization, the slower it is to change and get things done in general. Even the largest companies are smaller than the US government which makes them more nimble at doing things. But smaller companies are far more nimble than big ones. The smaller company is faced with a lack of resources larger organizations have, but give a smaller organization some kind of parity in resources and most smaller organizations will run circles around the bigger one.
The TV show Silicon Valley has been demonstrating that with the battle between Hooli and Pied Piper. Hooli has the resources of any giant corporation, but they keep bumbling because they have grown inefficient.
By 2025 Tesla will still likely be smaller than most of the rest of the legacy automakers. But even now they are getting big enough to compete head to head because they have developed the key capacity necessary to build EVs before anyone else. Legacy automakers have large supply chains with most parts developed and produced by third parties. The two things they have kept in house are engine development/production and final assembly. Tesla never developed a single ICE and has no need for that entire legacy operation.
Instead Tesla had brought a lot of tech most companies farm out in house. They also did everything possible to streamline battery production, way beyond what anyone else has done to date.
Another things that makes a smaller organization more efficient is less internal political struggles. Every legacy automaker has advocates for ICE. Even though most managers at this point know that the ICE's future is limited, there are lots of hard core support for the ICE and that slows them down and causes them to waste resources preserving their ICE tech when Tesla is fully committed to one tech.
I also notice that VW article refers to VW having a large range of plug-ins by 2025. It doesn't say a wide range of BEVs. That's a critical detail most articles about legacy makers talks about. There will be some BEVs in the mix, but some PHEVs too. The legacy automakers are trying to keep the ICE alive as long as possible.
