Real price numbers
I'm a bit confused because Tesla previously said you basically had to get the maintenance for the warranty to be valid, right?
Correct.
So . . . now here are extended options for both, priced separately. How's this work? Am I not required to extend both or else they're useless?
Correct.
I guess I could extend maintenance but not warranty, but . . . ? (head explosion)
Correct.
There is one other option. As has been noted before, Tesla's official statement that you are required to get the maintenance in order to use the warranty... is a statement that Tesla intends to violate the federal Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act. So you could get the warranty without the maintenance, demand a maintenance manual from Tesla, and then sue (or file an FTC compliant) to force Tesla to comply with the warranty. I don't recommend it, but with >20,000 buyers, someone will probably do it.
Basically, I view these prices as follows, assuming you don't decide to spend your free time forcing Tesla to follow federal law:
(1) The car comes with a warranty which expires just before the end of 1 year. The real price of the car, before local sales taxes and local registration fees, is $10,577 more than the advertised price. This is because of Tesla's practice of quoting after the $7500 tax credit (which not everyone will get), and because of "delivery" and "final inspection and prep" fees and the California Tire Fee.
(2) The warranty for years 2-4 costs $1900, because of the mandatory "maintenance contract".
(2) The extended warranty is $4400 for years 5-8.
(3) Unlimited ranger service costs $500 for years 1-4, and another $500 for years 5-8. A bargain if you live a long way from a service center.
Basically, it's deceptive pricing. I'll buy it anyway; deceptive pricing is completely and utterly normal in the automotive industry, and I think the pricing is reasonable. For a car with a lot of new tech and an entirely new factory, $4400 actually seems reasonable to me for an extended warranty.
The pricing *scheme* leaves a bad taste in my mouth as an investor, since I think they could have picked a scheme which didn't violate federal law, but the actual prices are OK.
UPDATE:
The "pay as you go" maintenance scheme vs. the pre-paid scheme.
Suppose you're making r% interest on money in the bank. Let s be your starting balance and r be your yearly interest rate. I assume, to the benefit of the pay-as-you-go scheme, that inspections are at the end of the year.
pre-paid: after 4 years, you end up with
(s-1900) * (1+r)^4 = s (1+r)^4 - 1900 * (1+r)^4
pay-as-you-go: after 4 years, you end up with
(((s * (1+r) - 600) * (1+r) - 600) * (1+r) - 600) * (1+r) - 600
Which simplifies to
s (1+r)^4 - 600 * ( (1+r)^3 + (1+r)^2 + (1+r) + 1)
Accordingly, the pre-paid plan is better if
1900 * (1+r)^4 < 600 * ( (1+r)^3 + (1+r)^2 + (1+r) + 1)
Solving numerically, the breakeven is roughly if your interest rate is 10%.
So if your interest rate is 10% or less, the prepaid plan is unequivocally better. And it almost certainly is.
If you would have to borrow the money for the prepaid plan at rates upwards of 10%, then go with the pay-as-you-go scheme. Otherwise, get the prepaid scheme.
Edit: Or, I suppose, if you plan to invest the money in Tesla stock and expect to double it in a year, you might want to go with the pay-as-you-go scheme. :tongue: