Let's face it, while enthusiasts like me and you can afford a loaded 100k Model S, the base model will be a stretch for the majority of people who at this point in time are interested in the Model S. Some of you guys are forgetting that we are near a depression, and for somebody that is/was on the fence a 160 mile pack S will not make sense. While you do save quite a bit of money on gas, for anyone that lives any distance away from a Tesla Service Center, that will be offset by $1 per mile in ranger fees every year. On top of that, the people who buy the S for it being a green car will look silly when the ranger drives 600 miles in a GM van that gets 8mpg to service their Tesla. I'm just being VERY realistic here, and bringing up very valid concerns non-enthusiasts will have.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla's continuing viability as a company thread.
- Thread starter qwk
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
What about ranger fees for the annual service? BTW a Lexus ES350 is about $15-20k less. I don't mind having a discussion, but at least state facts instead of make up prices.
This is very serious. It's also more ammo for idiots like Romney, who have a ****-on for companies that got government loans after the Solyndra fallout. I hope that Tesla reconsiders at least the 3-phase thing in Europe, and the DC charging in the US.
All of those people bought the CHAdeMO port but almost none of them can use it yet.
They don't really *need* it clearly beause they can't use it yet.
It is largely a mental safety net - having it makes you feel safe with your purchase and the capabilities of the car, even if you never use it.
It is possible that Tesla is still gauging the necessity of CHAdeMO.
I want it. I will be very disappointed without it, and I plan on getting the 85kW Supercharger capable car.
They don't really *need* it clearly beause they can't use it yet.
It is largely a mental safety net - having it makes you feel safe with your purchase and the capabilities of the car, even if you never use it.
It is possible that Tesla is still gauging the necessity of CHAdeMO.
I want it. I will be very disappointed without it, and I plan on getting the 85kW Supercharger capable car.
Are you talking about the leaf? If so, maybe you need to take a gander on the Leaf forums.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Are you seriously trying to say BlueStar won't have QC - and will be competitive ?
I can understand if the higher model S's have a better 0-60, but some very basic features like QC that make EVs practicle should be in every model, atleast as an option. Infact, the lower range model needs QC even more than the highest range model.
At this point, I don't see how the 160 miler competes well with Infiniti EV - with 130 mile range (vs 160), QC and $10K less. Infiniti EV will catch everyone for whom the base S was already a stretch.
Given this - I seriously doubt Tesla can sell 20K model S's a year ( I also doubt Chevy can sell 40K Volts a year @ 32K). Tesla needs to sell a lot of 160 milers in order to get the volume up - and make most of the profits on options and on higher range models. This is what most car companies do.
Last edited:
Has enough definitive information about the Infiniti EV been released to really make that statement?
Yes, this is somewhat of the point I was trying to make. I think that Tesla underestimates the number of base pack cars that people are interested in. I would bet that after the early adopter enthusiast sales dry up, it's mostly going to be the 160 milers that they will sell. Looking at the reservation numbers and the polls here, and assuming most want the bigger packs is amateurish at best.
Two unrelated facts:
TSLA stock has dropped 5% ($1.44/share) at this point, presumably in response to the pricing sheet. Not a positive market reaction, but not a "run to the doors" reaction either.
Collectively, MB, Audi, BMW, and Lexus sell over a million E-class, A6/A7, 5-series, and L-class sedans annually. If this is the "market" for the Model S, 20,000 cars/year is a very manageable market share.
TSLA stock has dropped 5% ($1.44/share) at this point, presumably in response to the pricing sheet. Not a positive market reaction, but not a "run to the doors" reaction either.
Collectively, MB, Audi, BMW, and Lexus sell over a million E-class, A6/A7, 5-series, and L-class sedans annually. If this is the "market" for the Model S, 20,000 cars/year is a very manageable market share.
You misread my post. By "Let's keep in mind that the Model S isn't Bluestar.", what I meant is, people expecting to get a well-equipped car for cheap(ish) should be looking to Bluestar, NOT Model S. Model S has always been (in my mind anyway) the mid-to-highend luxury vehicle (above bluestar, but below the Roadster). I made the comment because it sounds like a lot of people were planning on buying the bare minimum vehicle but expecting capabilities of the mid-range Model S. For those folks, it sounds like Bluestar is what they should be after.
I hadn't seen any actual options and pricing on the Infiniti EV yet. Do you have a link?
*shrug* I don't know if they can or can't, I just know I'm a little annoyed with all the folks spelling doom, gloom, and falling skies for the company just because they didn't get what they felt they deserved. It just feels like there's more emotion than objectivity flying around.
Lexus ES350 base $36725, nicely equipped $42000 accel: 0-60 in 7 seconds
BMW 528i base $46700, nicely equipped $54900 accel: 0-60 in 6.6 seconds
Mercedes C350 $40575, nicely equipped $49800 accel: 0-60 in 6.5 seconds
Model S 40kW: $49900, nicely equipped $55150 accel: 0-60 in 6.5 seconds
So I'll give you $13200 less for the 0.5 second slower ES350, so $3200 less after you factor in $10000 of gas savings over 4 years.
( Those numbers from motortrend.com )
Last edited:
Arnold Panz
Model Sig 304, VIN 542
This to me is the most important key point -- Tesla needs to sell relatively few Model S compared to the luxury car market as a whole in order to hit their sales targets. From what I've always inferred from Tesla's statements, the intention with the 160 pack is that for those who couldn't ordinarily afford a more expensive car, this is a way to get the awesome touchscreen, all electric car without spending an arm and a leg (relatively). There's also the added benefit of the much lower cost of maintenance and electricity v. gas that makes the car much more affordable over the life of the car relative to its ICE cousins.
As for the quick-charging, I'm sure that's disappointing, but if someone is getting the 160 mi. pack, I would think that's generally for daily commuting, which would entail overnight charging. At a 31 mph charging rate if the battery were completely depleted the car is fully charged in about 5.5 hours. I have a friend who has a deposit down for an S who was planning to get the 230 pack. He doesn't ever expect to take long drives with the car, and is totally fine not having the quick charge even on the 230 pack given how he plans to use it (daily commuter).
Frankly, I found the pricing to be very much in line with what Tesla has been saying all along, which is that you can get one of these cars for $50k, but it's not going to have any of the bells and whistles (rear camera etc.), and it will be around $100k for a top of the line version. This is very similar to Mercedes E, Audi A6, BMW 5 etc. My biggest disappointment as a Signature holder is that we're essentially paying a premium to have the Signature. I was sort of hoping that getting a no-choice fully loaded car and giving Tesla $40k interest free for two years (or more) would perhaps result in a slight discount off of a fully loaded non-Sig S. I'm not overly surprised, just a little disappointed on that point, but otherwise the pricing is basically exactly what I expected it to be across the board.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
QC is not a mid range capability - it is a bare necessity. Afterall a econobox like Honda Fit has a higher range - so any EV that wants to compete in the marketplace needs a QC.
Well, we didn't have one for S before yesterday, either. But, I'm 100% sure it will have QC.
In any case, given that Infiniti EV is only a few months away from 160 miler S, it becomes a competitor even if no details of Infiniti EV are announced now.
Well, OP isn't buying the 160 miler. Infact it seems most of the people "defending" Tesla on this decision seem to be the ones not affected by this decision.
I'm not sure why you think Infiniti can produce and sell a competitive EV for less than Tesla. I can understand saying the 160 miler won't be competitive with ICE's on price, but what do you think Infiniti brings to the table with their EV in terms of cost of scale or other areas that give it that advantage over Tesla?
I don't think this is relevant. If you don't want to pay them don't buy the car if you live far away from a Tesla location.
I have confidence that Tesla could sell all 20,000 cars to customers within 100 miles of a Tesla store.
I stand by my statement that the valid complaint is the lack of quick charging.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
I'm going by what people heard in a focus group conducted by Infiniti. It also compares well with BMW i3 which BMW has said will price around $45k.
And yes, I'm sure Infiniti can sell the car for less than Tesla, given their very deep pocket, complete vertical integration and cost sharing with Leaf.
