-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Brovane
Member
The Tesla figure is 2.5 miles per kwh (400kwh-1,0000 miles) so I was being more generous than Tesla. The Idaho National Laboratory testing shows AC Consumption 340 Wh/mi at 70mph which is 2.94 Mkwh so I took a number of 2.8 Mkwh figuring typical AC load, speeds higher than 70mph etc.
I ran the numbers and I was surprised myself at the results.
10 Best Gas and Diesel Cars That Get 40 MPG on the Highway | Edmunds
Ouch, use or lose. Is Tesla afraid a bunch of people are gonna bank their credits or something?? What harm would that do in allowing rollover credits?
JCLeonard
Member
I understood it to mean that on the day of transfer the new owner is granted 400kWh and the "anniversary" date is shifted to the new date. Time will tell
Bangor Bob
Member
Currently, I'm driving a lifetime 62mpg car. At ~$2.50/gal and roughly 37mpg, and $0.17 for residential electricity, my electric miles currently cost within a penny per mile of gas miles, and Supercharging at $.21 would flip that.
Granted, that's externalizing the cost of pollution from the ICE, but that's not likely to get wrapped into the price of gas under the next administration.
Since all of the Edmund fuel economy data are from EPA highway, then the fair comparison against Tesla S would be to also use EPA rated. I recall EPA highway result done just this year showed a 90D getting over 300 miles, so in this case using exact same condition as Edmund cars, Tesla would get about 3.33 miles/kWh.
So for your example of 400 miles, it would use 120.1 kWh, and at Supercharger rates cost $24. The A3 (and all the Edmund cars) would cost $27 (slightly less since most of the Edmund cars are better than 40 mpg).
So, basically a high performance luxury car (Tesla S) saves about 10-12.5% compared to minimum performance cars. Upgrade those cars performance to say the new Audi A4 for more power/torque (but still much less than MS) at 37 mpg will cost just over $29, or 20.8%.
It's not that large, but even the A4 isn't in the same performance league as MS. Plus it's diesel and the emissions from diesels are some of the worst. Jump up to the sportier car models that better match against MS, and the fuel gap does get much larger.
Bangor Bob
Member
Now run the same comparison on the Model 3. The cost comparison is going to be somewhat less favorable there, and the (base) 3 is in the segment where economy matters much more.
dgpcolorado
high altitude member
Well, if you are going to use personal anecdotes: I've had solar panels for many years and pay nothing for electricity. My Model S has free Supercharging so I pay nothing for electricity. I think it is fair to say that if I started driving an ICEV again it would cost me more than zero to fuel, even at 62 mpg.
Nevertheless, the current Teslas are expensive cars — even the bottom-of-the-line one that I purchased used. If cost is the criterion these are not the cars to own. Quibbling about small differences in fuel costs between a Tesla and an ICEV strikes me as silly. Even the Model 3 won't be all that inexpensive to purchase or own until one can pick up used ones a few years after they are introduced. If TCO is the goal, pick up a gas-sipping used ICE car. Meanwhile I will continue to enjoy driving my Tesla, with the free fuel being just a nice bonus, not a reason to own one.
idealsol
Member
Agreed, any additional cost is a factor, but it wouldn't a determining factor for me. I thought about this when they announced the changes to free lifetime Supercharging
We likely won't average 2,000 miles a year in supercharger miles. If that is the case, then I would be paying $80/yr if I didn't have free supercharging. That's 1k free, and an additional 1k for appx $80 at California's rate of .20/Kwh. Sure, I'd rather not pay anything, but I don't see it as any kind of a deal breaker. If you are currently using the superchargers a lot, I realize you may have different thoughts
It would be interesting to know what the average Tesla actually uses per year at a supercharger
If you'd like to share your supercharger usage stats, please post
swaltner
Active Member
JPP
Active Member
In NoCA with PG&E on an EV-A TOU rate plan (I have solar), if I charge my S from 11 pm to 6 am I pay $0.11/kw. That's about $1.10 for 30 miles of charge. I wonder what Tesla pays PG&E for power at the Superchargers?
JPP
Active Member
In NoCA with PG&E I am on a EV-A TOU plan (and have solar). From 11 pm to 6 am I pay $0.11/kw, so about $1.10 for 30 miles of driving. For sure I would rather pay that at home than twice that on the road. But of you need to charge during the day on my plan, it's $0.35-$0.40/kw.
idealsol
Member
Heavy energy users in California will likely benefit from a TOU plan. As Az_Rael mentioned the best off peak rate we get from SCE is .14 in winter, .13 in summer. Long before we got a Tesla, we got the TOU plan, and we've probably saved money every month since we converted.
I would say we saved 600-800/annually pre-Tesla
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
I like it. Good plan (this + idle fees pan). A few quirks but should generally work. One trick some folks will use to avoid idle fees when they can't (or just won't) get back to their car in time to move it is up the charge limit using the app. Of course, you can't up it beyond 100%, so not really a concern IMO. Rates are reasonable. I'd like to maybe see slightly higher free amount per year, but 400 is reasonable.
theslimshadyist
Active Member
I believe the published policy says no, the annual "allotment" resets on every delivery anniversary
theslimshadyist
Active Member
Similar threads
- Question
