You have to look at it this way. Dual motor was always between 4K and 6K addon to the LR RWD. Including tax credits, price for a base LR RWD was 41,500 while price for a base dual motor LR is 46150. That's a $4650 difference or pretty much right in the range of the historical difference between RWD and AWD LR cars.
No more $35K Model 3?
- Thread starter whitex
- Start date
You have to look at it this way. Dual motor was always between 4K and 6K addon to the LR RWD. Including tax credits, price for a base LR RWD was 41,500 while price for a base dual motor LR is 46150. That's a $4650 difference or pretty much right in the range of the historical difference between RWD and AWD LR cars.
Go back to the post you replied to and read the whole thing - the context was Q4 call, not the reveal.
Mac00kemdanno
Member
That doesn’t even make sense. $40k is only $2.9k less than mid-range but with a smaller battery and crappier interior.
Hence my comment that MR is likely going up to $45+ when a $40K SR shows up. Similar thing happened to Model S in the past - once a lower cost car was available (Model 3) the base Model S prices went up.
Actually $35,000 in 2016 equals $36,700 in 2019 due to inflation, so the gap is even smaller.
If you're going to compensate for time and inflation, you should also include the federal rebate going away. A lot of people reserving counted on a $27,500 car.
If people thought they were getting a Tesla for $27,500 they are nuts. Musk shouldn’t have ever said “before incentives” but some states will still have $1,000 to $5,000 incentives even after the federal credit goes away so they will still have some who can get a sub $35k car if they want it.
Also, I don’t think most people really were going to order a black, non EAP version of the car with cloth interior.
Should have, could have, doesn't matter - the fact is he did. Maybe if he said $42.5K he wouldn't have gotten as many reservations.
The point is a starting price. Not only that, Elon also promised at the launch that even without any options the car will be very nicely equipped, meaning he wanted people to think $27.5 was a viable option. That said, black is the second most popular color for cars, and with EAP being an option you can buy later, and it not being out of Beta yet, plenty of people would be fine foregoing it at the deliver date to save money.
A malapropism/homonym, but seems oddly appropriate. Tesla promises one thing, then later says "adieu" to that earlier promise. Then rinse and repeat.
Actually I would not be surprised if the mid range was discontinued shortly after the introduction of the short range. The battery pack on the mid range is relatively expensive since they have a full sized pack with just fewer cells. The short range is supposed to have a new pack size optimized to be less expensive.
My SPECULATION:
The first model will be short range with PuP costing 40k. $2900 less than the mid range, but Tesla probably saves enough with the new pack design.
When the next tax incentive cut happens LR versions drop $2k, but the SR version does not. Essentially AWD and the bigger pack costs $8k
The next iteration a bit later is SR without PuP, still costing more than $35000, but drops $1k or so a quarter until it hits the magic $35k.
SammichLover
Banned
Spellcheck strikes again, cleaning up my fumbled "ado".A malapropism/homonym, but seems oddly appropriate. Tesla promises one thing, then later says "adieu" to that earlier promise. Then rinse and repeat.
Sure it's appropriate though, this claiming of there being a "goodbye, farewell" when there just isn't any rational basis for it.But really the true joke here is your myth in your post here. Further up there was an allusion to the "$49,900" Model S. Well turns out that actually did ship, as promised. Not for long because it wasn't popular due to the feature set. But there it was sold in 2012, re-imaginig of history notwithstanding. All this creative misreading of the website too is just the same old rehash of nonsense that's been getting recycled for ages.
Last edited:
Eth3r
Member
If the SR had no glass roof, cloth interior, manual adjusting seats, no seat warmer, no power folding mirrors, no fog lights, weaker speakers, less sound insulation, and of course a shorter range, would people pay 35k for it? Because it seems that target price can be met if those things were cut from the car. Perhaps even go cheap on wheels and tires...
https://i.redd.it/xzaxena1ekh21.jpg
Oh look it is back on the website. I'm 100% surprised by this /s
Oh look it is back on the website. I'm 100% surprised by this /s
boaterva
Supporting Member
Late update since I can't edit this anymore.... looks it was a cache issue on mobile. On desktop, this is not there. My bad, and I see what all the concern is about!
voip-ninja
Give me some sugar baby
That's really not true.
Mercedes & BMW both offer their AWD variants as a $2,000 premium. Same with Audi before they dropped FWD A4 from the US market.
Tesla is charging quite a premium for dual motor functionality vs. what traditional AWD costs from other luxe manufacturers. Arguably their system is superior but might actually be cheaper to implement so could cost the same.
You are forgetting the fact that there's a significant performance increase going from RWD to AWD. On ICE cars AWD just means better traction.
Also companies set pricing on what the customer is willing to pay and not necessarily how much it costs them.
Changes based on what location you click (canada English vs usa English)
So unless you think only canada is still getting it, more evidence it is probably just a website error
voip-ninja
Give me some sugar baby
Somewhat incorrect. 0-60 times on my 340xi were better than on the 340i even though it weighed 200 pounds more. If your argument is that dual motor on Tesla adds horsepower where-as on ICE cars AWD systems add traction that is technically true, but since performance of higher power ICE cars is usually traction limited the end result is the same for most practical driving situations.
Similar threads
- Poll
