Model X not so cheap, after all

[smorgasbord]

There were rumors that the Model X crossover was supposed to be at a lower price level than the Model S.

However, the recent Q2 2011 quarterly report says that pricing will be similar to that of the Model S. So, it'll be a few more years before we see Teslas that compete on price with Volts, not to mention Leafs.

Anyone know the expected price of the Rav4?

 

[doug]

Which Model S? Supposedly the base price is still under $60K.

 

[Lloyd]

There were rumors that the Model X crossover was supposed to be at a lower price level than the Model S.

However, the recent Q2 2011 quarterly report says that pricing will be similar to that of the Model S. So, it'll be a few more years before we see Teslas that compete on price with Volts, not to mention Leafs.

Anyone know the expected price of the Rav4?

Toyota says that details and pricing, including US distribution, and Canadian sales will be released at a later date.

 

[SByer]

The Model X is an 'extra'. It is not what BlueStar was supposed to be (compact sedan). In spite of $4/gal prices, people are still stupid enough to buy SUVs. If I were Tesla, I'd capitalize off of that idiocy myself.

 

[Norbert]

Yes, when Model X was semi-announced, the media confused it with the Bluestar, which is now usually called "Third Generation Vehicle", and will be lower cost. Model X was always meant to be in the Model S price range (It might be a bit more expensive, being larger, but just guessing). Some articles are still confusing them.

For Bluestar, times mentioned are between late 2015, and 2017, I think.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I always assumed the Model X will cost around or more than the Model S, since it is based on the same platform and will likely be slightly bigger. I've never heard anyone say that the Model X will cost less.

 

[dsm363]

I'm not sure you'd want it to cost less. That would mean the range would probably be sub-100 miles on such a large car. Will be interesting to see what it looks like.

 

[NigelM]

As Tesla has confirmed that the Model X will be based on the Model S' platform, it's hard to see how the pricing would be seriously different.

 

[felixtb]

As Tesla has confirmed that the Model X will be based on the Model S' platform, it's hard to see how the pricing would be seriously different.

the VW passat and audi A6/7 are the same platform and have seriously different price points so that's not really an issue but I agree this difference would probably be on the up side and not the down side considering seize and scope
of car.

In spite of $4/gal prices, people are still stupid enough to buy SUVs. If I were Tesla, I'd capitalize off of that idiocy myself.

if SUV or crossovers are stupid depends on your needs and not on gas price. there are actually large group of people who feel the need for larger cars than even the model S can give, due to such things as family seize, type of use, general time on the road, and many other specific needs. so please do not knock people's perceived or actual need for a bigger car than yours.

But YES again TESLA is absolutely right to go after this group because they often feel pointed out as environmental bullies and many of them are not but do have the need for a large vehicle. and often these people have quite deep pockets so it should be a good seller.

 

[stopcrazypp]

the VW passat and audi A6/7 are the same platform and have seriously different price points so that's not really an issue but I agree this difference would probably be on the up side and not the down side considering seize and scope
of car.

The Passat and A6 don't share a platform AFAIK. The Passat is PQ46, while the A6 uses the MLB/MLP. You do have a point since the A4-A8 models all use this platform. Although the more "affordable" A3 shares a platform with the Golf.

 

[de704]

There were rumors that the Model X crossover was supposed to be at a lower price level than the Model S.

Model X is not the Gen 3 Tesla car. Model X is a variant of the Model S. It's impossible for an SUV version of any car to be cheaper.

More mass = More Cash!

 

[SByer]

\if SUV or crossovers are stupid depends on your needs and not on gas price. there are actually large group of people who feel the need for larger cars than even the model S can give, due to such things as family seize, type of use, general time on the road, and many other specific needs.

Meh, most SUVs don't have as much useable cargo capacity as many wagons or minivans and are less safe than wagons and sedans in mountainous regions (deaths/ppm are higher due to higher single-vehicle roll-overs). Their perceived advantages are mostly just marketing hype unless you need to tow things often.

There are people who need them, sure. I think I'm pretty safe in estimating that that number is less than 20% of those that have them. Let's stop subsidizing gas and find out!

I'm not sure what the Model X really is. While it's got the body-on-frame of a traditional SUV - the skateboard platform prevents it from being the unibody construction of a crossover - but with the advantages of the EV platform, it's really a new kind of beast. It shouldn't have the rollover problem of an SUV, but it will shorten the range from the Model S. Sure wish they would skip it for a good looking wagon, though.

 

[AnOutsider]

Sure wish they would skip it for a good looking wagon, though.

I think that would be foolish. European countries love wagons way more than Americans do -- and I'm one of the wagon haters myself. Forget utility, they're just hideous to me.

As for the rest of it, I think you might be being a bit narrow-minded. We have an S5 and a Q5.. If I remember correctly, the Q5's underpinnings are pretty similar to the S5, yet it feels far more spacious, has much more cargo room, and in general, is far more comfortable to drive (don't get me wrong, I love driving the S as well).

In the end, drive what makes you happy, but also keep in mind that Tesla needs to make money, and to do that, they have to go after what's going to sell more. Last I checked, wagons were FAR behind Crossovers and "Luxury Hatchbacks".

 

[jkirkebo]

Meh, most SUVs don't have as much useable cargo capacity as many wagons or minivans and are less safe than wagons and sedans in mountainous regions (deaths/ppm are higher due to higher single-vehicle roll-overs). Their perceived advantages are mostly just marketing hype unless you need to tow things often.

I need to tow things. Not often, but once in a while. I don't need a SUV to tow (using a VW Touran now) but since Tesla won't put a hitch on the Model S what choice is there, short of keeping the Touran instead of buying a Tesla ?

 

[Doug_G]

In the end, drive what makes you happy, but also keep in mind that Tesla needs to make money, and to do that, they have to go after what's going to sell more. Last I checked, wagons were FAR behind Crossovers and "Luxury Hatchbacks".

Okay, so call it a "crossover / minivan hybrid" (I think Tesla actually said something to that effect).

Now stand back and take a good look at it. If you look closely you might just see a stylish-looking station wagon!

 

[S-2000 Roadster]

Let's stop subsidizing gas and find out!

Should we stop federal and state per-gallon gas taxes at the same time? That's about $0.50/gal, varying from state to state.

 

[dsm363]

Should we stop federal and state per-gallon gas taxes at the same time? That's about $0.50/gal, varying from state to state.

I think he meant we don't tax gas enough or to the level other countries do.

 

[AnOutsider]

Okay, so call it a "crossover / minivan hybrid" (I think Tesla actually said something to that effect).

Now stand back and take a good look at it. If you look closely you might just see a stylish-looking station wagon!

lol doubtful, but we'll see

 

[S-2000 Roadster]

I think he meant we don't tax gas enough or to the level other countries do.

Less of a tax is not the same thing as a subsidy, except in political newspeak. A huge military presence and activity in oil-producing nations is a form of indirect subsidy, but it's actually far more insidious.

 

[SByer]

Less of a tax is not the same thing as a subsidy, except in political newspeak. A huge military presence and activity in oil-producing nations is a form of indirect subsidy, but it's actually far more insidious.

There's also fairly direct upstream subsidies to the oil industry in the form of tax loopholes, including outrageous write-off and depreciation advantages. Additional indirect subsidies include lax environmental enforcement and shielded liability. $4/gal would be a conservative guess (we've had pointers to reasonable estimates elsewhere in the forums) not including military costs, which could easily add another $4/gal, not including military lives lost.

The excise taxes, which are nominally supposed to cover use costs, haven't been raised since the 80s and cover less than 35% (depending on state) of the cost of ongoing maintenance of the road system, much less any needed improvements. The general fund is raided to fill in the rest. It would be best if this was turned into a real use tax - miles per year multiplied by estimated road damage by that type of vehicle, including EVs - but that's pretty much a political impossibility - especially given the trucking industry. And that only makes sense once the tremendous subsidy advantage given to gas has gone away.

I think punitive taxes are as bad as subsidies - they both tilt the playing field with unintended consequences. But we're not even in the ballpark of where the taxes on gas and cars in the U.S. could be considered punitive.