The "Federally compliant for incentive" Tesla

[5_+JqckQttqck]

Think the base car would be $41,685 after TAX/Delivery costs and BC/Federal incentives, but no AP and 150km range, hmmmm...
.

That's not far off of then 200km Hyundais with poorer BMS and tech. It's a stab at the competition as much as it is at the Federal Libs for creating such short sighted rules on their EV program. Of course, still better than no program vs the PC's Green plan (which is still in the works 6months away from an election)

 

[ArtLightstone]

In my opinion, Tesla would HAVE to offer an upgrade path. They are not making a different, less expensive version of the Model 3 SR or SR+ for Canada, so Tesla would take a huge financial hit by selling the exact same car for a greatly reduced price. The software locked range does not make the car any less expensive to produce.

The only purpose for the locked range would be to entice buyers to make an additional payment to Tesla at some point after the car is delivered (and the government rebate is received).

 

[ATC@LWSK]

In my opinion, Tesla would HAVE to offer an upgrade path. They are not making a different, less expensive version of the Model 3 SR or SR+ for Canada, so Tesla would take a huge financial hit by selling the exact same car for a greatly reduced price. The software locked range does not make the car any less expensive to produce.

The only purpose for the locked range would be to entice buyers to make an additional payment to Tesla at some point after the car is delivered (and the government rebate is received).

As much as I agree with your thinking, what if such action by Tesla violates the incentive rules, and TC comes after them (or the owners)? I for one won’t risk buying a severely crippled version hoping that “maybe” Tesla will offer an upgrade path, especially since they’re saying that they won’t. TBH, When I heard yesterday about the price reduction, I didn’t for one second think that anyone would consider the SR at 150km range. It was clear that it was done only to get the SR+ on the incentive list. I am surprised of how many people are actually considering it.

 

[Ulmo]

So, this just came out. Too many compromises personally. 150km range makes it basically a city car although having the charging network balances it out a bit.

Tesla launches cheaper Model 3 with 150km range in Canada to get $5,000 incentive

Will resale value be the full value of the unlocked battery? I.e., would Tesla unlock the battery in a private sale?

 

[pcons]

Will resale value be the full value of the unlocked battery? I.e., would Tesla unlock the battery in a private sale?

No one here could possibly answer that. Best to assume the answer is no.

 

[AtlasTracer]

TBH, When I heard yesterday about the price reduction, I didn’t for one second think that anyone would consider the SR at 150km range. It was clear that it was done only to get the SR+ on the incentive list. I am surprised of how many people are actually considering it.

It shouldn't be that surprising. I think it's too bad Tesla decided to make this 150 km. The original SR was 47,600 and went 350 km. If they had offered the SR- (let's just call it that now for simplicity) and had the range as 250-280 km for the $44,999 - they would, legitimately, get a lot of sales. But perhaps they would be losing money.

Right now Nissan is offering the Leaf SV (non-plus) for $41,698 and it has a range of 243km. If you ask most car-buyers if they would stretch $4k for a Tesla with the same range - they would (unless they are against a sedan or Tesla, but thats a separate issue).

The problem is they are asking customers to "stretch" almost $10k from the SR- just to get a reasonable range car. Yes the SR+ is competitive with the Kona EV, Niro EV, Leaf Plus and new Soul EV as far as range and price. But customers looking at a 45k (max) car are NOT looking at a Kona or Niro. Those cars are 52-55k.

If they had just kept the SR at $47,600 with 350km range (range-limited SR+) as well as adding the SR- at 150km. They would have succeeded in getting almost no one to buy the SR- because the jump to the SR is pretty small for most buyers (some won't for sure). But right now the jump is 10k. That's not an easy sell for the staff at the Tesla stores IMO.

 

[pcons]

It shouldn't be that surprising. I think it's too bad Tesla decided to make this 150 km. The original SR was 47,600 and went 350 km. If they had offered the SR- (let's just call it that now for simplicity) and had the range as 250-280 km for the $44,999 - they would, legitimately, get a lot of sales. But perhaps they would be losing money.

Right now Nissan is offering the Leaf SV (non-plus) for $41,698 and it has a range of 243km. If you ask most car-buyers if they would stretch $4k for a Tesla with the same range - they would (unless they are against a sedan or Tesla, but thats a separate issue).

The problem is they are asking customers to "stretch" almost $10k from the SR- just to get a reasonable range car. Yes the SR+ is competitive with the Kona EV, Niro EV, Leaf Plus and new Soul EV as far as range and price. But customers looking at a 45k (max) car are NOT looking at a Kona or Niro. Those cars are 52-55k.

If they had just kept the SR at $47,600 with 350km range (range-limited SR+) as well as adding the SR- at 150km. They would have succeeded in getting almost no one to buy the SR- because the jump to the SR is pretty small for most buyers (some won't for sure). But right now the jump is 10k. That's not an easy sell for the staff at the Tesla stores IMO.

That all makes sense, but Tesla needs to make money, and they dont make enough on the SR or SR-. Plain and simple. That's why the SR is even now 'off menu' even in the US and other places. They want people to buy the SR+. To be honest, the 10k 'premium' to move from the leaf to an SR+ is well worth it. If people can afford it that is, I get the argument that the leaf might be all that some can afford. Welcome to capitalism

 

[AtlasTracer]

That all makes sense, but Tesla needs to make money, and they dont make enough on the SR or SR-. Plain and simple. That's why the SR is even now 'off menu' even in the US and other places. They want people to buy the SR+. To be honest, the 10k 'premium' to move from the leaf to an SR+ is well worth it. If people can afford it that is, I get the argument that the leaf might be all that some can afford. Welcome to capitalism

I guess my point is. There is a market for a 45k EV. Tesla should have realized people would actually WANT to buy it. So offering a model that is exactly the same but has a less-restricted battery (original SR) for a few thousand more means they can get customers into the SR, make a few thousand more on them AND then up-sell them on AP/FSD.

Heck - if you get someone looking at a SR for 47,600 without AP - it's easier to walk someone to an SR+ that includes AP. The issue is a mental block. Customers are not willing to immediately jump the 10k. Which is why manufacturers often have such small jumps between models. Once you get them in the door and looking at the base - they often will go up a model (or 2) because its "just" a bit more.

As someone that started looking at a MR...and then switched to LR and ordered. And then when AP became included it was just a few thousand more to an LR AWD - I switched (which I'm picking up tomorrow). But when I was originally looking at the MR there was no LR RWD and no way I was going to jump strait to LR AWD at the time. But when LR RWD was added - it was a no brainer. And then I made the jump again to AWD eventually. The jump was about 10k originally from MR -> LR AWD. But once it was $4k at a time...it was easier for me to justify (which is silly I know - because I still spent the same $10k more )

 

[felixculpas]

Presuming battery pack mfg costs of $150 / kWh, that's $7500 for SR 50 kWh / 350km and about $3215 for the compliance vehicle. So about $4300 USD tied up in locked battery capability. $5773 CDN. I don't normally analyze these things but I would guess they still might be squeezing out a slim profit on the compliance model. I don't see why it would be considered unethical for them to provide an upgrade path if the incentive program is nuked by a new incoming gov't but obviously a little risky to presume that's a viable outcome and if there was even a hint of it being possible, could be a bit of a stampede in the final weeks such as what occurred in Ontario.

I'm not sure I understand why they bothered to get a compliant model into the program. Perhaps it was just for the exercise of doing so and flushing out for some people who do their research how ridiculous the program is in the first place. I would hazard that most people at this price point aren't going to be participating in much up-selling.

How will supercharging work? Full speed to 100%? That could be a bonus.

 

[phigment]

Hmm: Anybody h https:

Presuming battery pack mfg costs of $150 / kWh, that's $7500 for SR 50 kWh / 350km and about $3215 for the compliance vehicle. So about $4300 USD tied up in locked battery capability. $5773 CDN. I don't normally analyze these things but I would guess they still might be squeezing out a slim profit on the compliance model. I don't see why it would be considered unethical for them to provide an upgrade path if the incentive program is nuked by a new incoming gov't but obviously a little risky to presume that's a viable outcome and if there was even a hint of it being possible, could be a bit of a stampede in the final weeks such as what occurred in Ontario.

I'm not sure I understand why they bothered to get a compliant model into the program. Perhaps it was just for the exercise of doing so and flushing out for some people who do their research how ridiculous the program is in the first place. I would hazard that most people at this price point aren't going to be participating in much up-selling.

How will supercharging work? Full speed to 100%? That could be a bonus.

Offering upgrade path shouldn't be prohibited by the government. The point of having the limit of $45K is to ensure there are cars available that are affordable to more people. Allowing an upgrade path does not change that. People have the option of taking it or not. Prohibiting the update doesn't stop people from buying the cheaper version.

Tesla wants to sell the higher margin car. So they made the compliant car unappealing. Without this car they couldn't get the SR+ car in to the program. If the SR+ wasn't in the program you would have the following:
$45K competitors - $5K
$53K Tesla.

That's an $13K difference!

By getting the SR+ on the list there is only an $8K difference, much more manageable for consumers to justify the price difference.

Think of it:
$40K Kona vs $53K SR+... no thanks
$40K Kona vs $48K SR+.... hmm... maybe I can afford that.

 

[Ulmo]

No one here could possibly answer that. Best to assume the answer is no.

I'm thinking Tesla could commit to doing so (upgrading the vehicle to unlocked after sale to second (customer-type) owner) in writing after a minimum number of miles or months, and do said written commitment before initial new vehicle purchase.

 

[MP3Mike]

Does the Federal credit require you to keep the car for a specific period of time or have to forfeit the credit?

 

[pcons]

I guess my point is. There is a market for a 45k EV. Tesla should have realized people would actually WANT to buy it. So offering a model that is exactly the same but has a less-restricted battery (original SR) for a few thousand more means they can get customers into the SR, make a few thousand more on them AND then up-sell them on AP/FSD.

Heck - if you get someone looking at a SR for 47,600 without AP - it's easier to walk someone to an SR+ that includes AP. The issue is a mental block. Customers are not willing to immediately jump the 10k. Which is why manufacturers often have such small jumps between models. Once you get them in the door and looking at the base - they often will go up a model (or 2) because its "just" a bit more.

As someone that started looking at a MR...and then switched to LR and ordered. And then when AP became included it was just a few thousand more to an LR AWD - I switched (which I'm picking up tomorrow). But when I was originally looking at the MR there was no LR RWD and no way I was going to jump strait to LR AWD at the time. But when LR RWD was added - it was a no brainer. And then I made the jump again to AWD eventually. The jump was about 10k originally from MR -> LR AWD. But once it was $4k at a time...it was easier for me to justify (which is silly I know - because I still spent the same $10k more )

I totally get your logic and how you ended up in the more expensive trim, I did quite a similar thing: I could have bought an RWD but I had a strong feeling our rebates in Ontario would be cancelled and I wouldn't get one in time, so I went with the AWD which was 'only' 5k more at the time. But then Tesla sued our government, and if I had ordered RWD I would have gotten the rebate, so my '5k' AWD upgrade effectively cost me more like 20k

In any event, the logic of 'baby jumps' to a more expensive option would only work with a small percentage of people I think, and opens up a big risk that Tesla legitimately loses money on every SR(canadian) they sell. They did the simple thing which is not to change the vehicle config/BOM and put such a big software limit to make it not make sense to spend that much on a 150km trim because they want people looking at the SR+.

Honestly, from a business side its the right call. Lets just assume they are breaking even on the SR, they are very likely losing money on the SR-, so selling a boatload of them would really hurt the company. I dont know that for a fact of course, but I'd be pretty surprised if there was any profit in the SR- version of the model 3 since it has everything the SR+ has from a hardware perspective. Even the SR+ is a software unlocked version of the SR(normal), so they must be losing money if someone buys the 150km SR- and adds no options.

 

[pcons]

Hmm: Anybody h https:


Offering upgrade path shouldn't be prohibited by the government. The point of having the limit of $45K is to ensure there are cars available that are affordable to more people. Allowing an upgrade path does not change that. People have the option of taking it or not. Prohibiting the update doesn't stop people from buying the cheaper version.

Tesla wants to sell the higher margin car. So they made the compliant car unappealing. Without this car they couldn't get the SR+ car in to the program. If the SR+ wasn't in the program you would have the following:
$45K competitors - $5K
$53K Tesla.

That's an $13K difference!

By getting the SR+ on the list there is only an $8K difference, much more manageable for consumers to justify the price difference.

Think of it:
$40K Kona vs $53K SR+... no thanks
$40K Kona vs $48K SR+.... hmm... maybe I can afford that.

I'm not so sure about the 'no thanks' on the kona vs SR+. The SR+ is a significantly better car anyway, and the 40-48k delta is pretty much a no-brainer IMHO.... just like how a BMW 3 series is much better than a loaded Civic. I'm not trying to say they shouldn't have gotten the compliance car in there, but its about making sure a precedent isnt set that others could potentially follow.

I still think the upgrade path limiting makes sense, otherwise ANY car manufacturer could play the same 'upgrade' game. Even if it was for a 100k+ car. Software limit it to the point that its useless, and offer a 60k upgrade to allow the rebate to apply and get a fully functional car. By not allowing the upgrade option you close that loophole. If they didn't do that Tesla could list a P100DL for 44,999 with 10km range (or Audi e-tron, or Jaguar iPace...not just limited to Tesla), and offer a software 'upgrade' to unlock the full range of the car.

At that point, any limits in the program become pointless. But the program does say that if the government feels any car manufacturer is playing tricks with their pricing just to qualify, they could remove them from the list. By Tesla agreeing not to software unlock it, they are satisfying the government that they wont be able to play this game.

 

[pcons]

I'm thinking Tesla could commit to doing so (upgrading the vehicle to unlocked after sale to second (customer-type) owner) in writing after a minimum number of miles or months, and do said written commitment before initial new vehicle purchase.

But that also gets messy: I buy the SR- and then I immediately 'sell' the car to my wife (which would not result in paying sales tax since you can transfer ownership to a direct relative), and boom the car has been 'sold' to a second party and we can unlock the battery....at least that's the first thing I would try if they did allow it

As with all things Tesla, maybe a software unlock will be available in the future. No one can predict. The only sure thing today is Tesla and the government are saying there is no upgrade path, and no plan to make one. So, buyers beware.

 

[Rlhm3]

150 km in the winter....hmmmm.....even in Vancouver....I won't try it. I would stay away from such a car.

Agreed, in a cold Canadian winter 150km is really 75km of actual range.

 

[phigment]

I'm not so sure about the 'no thanks' on the kona vs SR+. The SR+ is a significantly better car anyway, and the 40-48k delta is pretty much a no-brainer IMHO.... just like how a BMW 3 series is much better than a loaded Civic. I'm not trying to say they shouldn't have gotten the compliance car in there, but its about making sure a precedent isnt set that others could potentially follow.

I was having this debate with somebody yesterday. All they could see is that the Kona offers 45km more range. In their mind, autopilot vs whatever else lane keeping is equivalent. Kona (or was it the Niro) offers more options like heated stearing wheel, vented seats, more colours, comes in a hatchback and has a TONNE more buttons. But in the end all they really saw was $45k/415km or $53k/368km

I still think the upgrade path limiting makes sense, otherwise ANY car manufacturer could play the same 'upgrade' game. Even if it was for a 100k+ car. Software limit it to the point that its useless, and offer a 60k upgrade to allow the rebate to apply and get a fully functional car. By not allowing the upgrade option you close that loophole. If they didn't do that Tesla could list a P100DL for 44,999 with 10km range (or Audi e-tron, or Jaguar iPace...not just limited to Tesla), and offer a software 'upgrade' to unlock the full range of the car.

At that point, any limits in the program become pointless. But the program does say that if the government feels any car manufacturer is playing tricks with their pricing just to qualify, they could remove them from the list. By Tesla agreeing not to software unlock it, they are satisfying the government that they wont be able to play this game.

I agree Tesla made the right move. But I don't see any logical reason for the government to place a limitation. From their perspective, somebody can get the car for cheap. Besides, Tesla wouldn't play that game for expensive cars. What would stop somebody from buying an artificially reduced S and parting it out.

 

[S'toon]

It shouldn't be that surprising. I think it's too bad Tesla decided to make this 150 km. The original SR was 47,600 and went 350 km. If they had offered the SR- (let's just call it that now for simplicity) and had the range as 250-280 km for the $44,999 - they would, legitimately, get a lot of sales. But perhaps they would be losing money.

Right now Nissan is offering the Leaf SV (non-plus) for $41,698 and it has a range of 243km. If you ask most car-buyers if they would stretch $4k for a Tesla with the same range - they would (unless they are against a sedan or Tesla, but thats a separate issue).

The problem is they are asking customers to "stretch" almost $10k from the SR- just to get a reasonable range car. Yes the SR+ is competitive with the Kona EV, Niro EV, Leaf Plus and new Soul EV as far as range and price. But customers looking at a 45k (max) car are NOT looking at a Kona or Niro. Those cars are 52-55k.

If they had just kept the SR at $47,600 with 350km range (range-limited SR+) as well as adding the SR- at 150km. They would have succeeded in getting almost no one to buy the SR- because the jump to the SR is pretty small for most buyers (some won't for sure). But right now the jump is 10k. That's not an easy sell for the staff at the Tesla stores IMO.

Um, incorrect. THe Kona, Niro, and Soul are all starting the $45K price range, and all have longer range than the new $45K Model 3.

I must note, they just announce that the new 2020 Ioniq will get a longer range. It'll cost way less than the Model 3, and have longer range to boot.

So, for a person like myself, I can't stretch to the SR+, and the new SR- isn't worth it. They just lost a customer.

 

[phigment]

Um, incorrect. THe Kona, Niro, and Soul are all starting the $45K price range, and all have longer range than the new $45K Model 3.
View attachment 403668
View attachment 403670
I must note, they just announce that the new 2020 Ioniq will get a longer range. It'll cost way less than the Model 3, and have longer range to boot.

So, for a person like myself, I can't stretch to the SR+, and the new SR- isn't worth it. They just lost a customer.

You mean you're getting a $21K car with a battery for only $23K more:

 

[hill]

A crazy what if .... say my son buys SR, then (wink wink) sells it to me here (or 'gifts' it to us) in SoCal - after whatever given length of time is necessary to accommodate the law. No use tax here in SoCal for family transfers. Then I upgrade, & sell it / gift it back to him.

.