Thinking about joining legal action on recent massive price cut

[MattUNI]

So you'd need to add the $6000 FSD package to the $58,190 car to be equivalent in function....which gets you to $64,190 for a functionally equivalent car today.

Compared to $65,200 that doesn't seem much of a hit.

(and even less of one if you're not account for the $350 in hardware new cars don't come with but yours did- or the $200 higher destination fee new cars come with- or the lifetime data you got if you ordered before July 1, 2018 if you did so...plus any gas savings since you got the Tesla then instead of now....)

This logic is laughably wrong, and yes, I read later back and forths. Putting the full 6K FSD package value toward an EAP only car - just because right now, the FSD package only has what EAP has - is such a fallacy and strawman argument that I feel like this is an intentional troll post.

Instead, using actual logic, where Elon stated EAP owners should get a $3K credit off of the $6K or possibly soon-to-be $7K FSD package, since features overlap, one should logically conclude to add $3K as the additional value of the overlapping features.

Therefore, somebody with EAP should in fact NOT credit $6K, per the possible troll - or extreme fanboi - or maybe just not well thought out post quoted above. However, they should factor in $3K - per Elon's own words of implying that's what the overlapping features are worth.

This is incredibly simple logic. If you disagree, sorry, you're not a logical person.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

How much damage these tactics do to the brand remains to be seen. Tesla seems to be betting that it won't really matter and the response on this forum seems to confirm that.

The biggest damage to the brand name is all the false promises around FSD. I don't think that's really come to pass yet.

The second possible damage is to the Roadster 2.0

The reason is the biggest price drops have happened to the Performance vehicles. So if Tesla can't be trusted with pricing on the P3D+ or the Performance Model S than they can't be trusted on a Roadster 2.0

That's Tesla new Halo car that people are supposed to lust after.

When I bought my first Tesla I debated a lot between buying a used Ferrari, and new Tesla. I ended up getting the Tesla, and I don't regret that for a second.

Ideally Tesla would have turned me into a Roadster 2.0 owner.

But, they didn't. Instead they stumbled around, and played games with the pricing of their P3D+ and the Model S performance so much that they aren't to be trusted with that kind of cash.

In fact I probably won't get any P model Tesla again at least not from a "I'm lusting after it so take my money perspective", but from a much more calculated "Am I going to get my monies worth?"

Tesla simply doesn't have a good track record of how they handle P owners to buy on trust. They do things like misrepresenting specs, limiting number of launches (I think that one gotten straightened out), and massive overnight price decreases.

That's fine as not every car company can be Ferrari or Porsche which often protect the value of their vehicles (they generally drop a predictable amount over time).

People that feel like they got screwed either as a direct of their own miscalculation (mine) or where they feel unfairly taken advantage of they tend to be more careful next time.

I think Tesla is experiencing some drop in existing customers going for their top tier products because of past experiences.

I'll likely jump ship to a Porsche Taycan unless Tesla makes serious strides with FSD. I don't think I'm alone in this not because people in this forum share my opinion, but because of all the P owners that are no longer here.

I expect more long time owners to jump ship once Tesla has a serious Performance oriented competitor.

 

[wdolson]

No - They were a great incentive from the Federal Govt. Tesla didn't give me that credit, so there is no beef with Tesla on that front.

One way to look at it is Tesla is now offering the same incentive to everyone by lowering prices. I noticed the prices started dropping right around the time the tax incentive started going away.

The depreciation of Performance cars has always been high. A used Performance S and a standard S with the large battery on the used market are very close in price after a few years. Older Performance cars are also a glut on the used market soon after Tesla comes out with some kind of new performance benchmark on the P cars.

The new Performance cars are just settling to a more reasonable price compared to the non-Performance cars.

As for FSD, the problem turned out to be much more difficult to achieve than Elon thought. FSD without a driver monitoring may never be possible and/or never approved by regulators. Some kind of self driving will probably come to market, but I think there is a chance it won't be what all the experts think.

Self driving vehicles have to contend with a slew of edge cases. Many are rare, but with 1 billion vehicles, they still happen every few days statistically.

Humans have a distrust of machines that can kill them doing too much for them unless the machine is flawless every time. Very few people ever get stuck in elevators, and it's very rare that it happens due to a probably with the elevator itself, it's usually due to a power outage. It's still a trope in dramas to have people stuck in elevators. And that's tech so old that most of us have probably never seen a human elevator operator.

Aircraft autopilots have advanced to a point where pilots are mostly not needed now. They are even able to take off and land on autopilot, but humans are usually at the controls in those situations. Worldwide regulations still require two crew on the flight deck. In Asia the flight crew are not even allowed to control the plane manually above 3000 ft unless there is an emergency.

Self driving vehicles without a driver may never be approved in at least some places, or it may takes a very long time to be approved.

 

[MXWing]

I expect more long time owners to jump ship once Tesla has a serious Performance oriented competitor.

A competitive performance car that I can take over 100 miles one way?

You honestly know better that volume > charging network > fsd.

Porsche is not gong to deliver on any of those 3 either within a decade.

If us owners (you included) had a concern, it’s if Tesla is going to be around in 5-10 years.

If they can have mass adoption it helps all owners.

It’s never about Tesla in the future versus Tesla today.

It’s about the competition in the future at the time that the Tesla is released.

The Roadster is either the best value at the time of its release or it isn’t.

The Model S performance is probably the quickest and most versatile car in the entire world.

It was affordable to you and met your needs the day you bought it.

If it’s more affordable to someone in 6 months it should have no logical bearing on your individual situation.

Would you have been happier with an alternative car? Would you have waited for 6 months if you knew the future (which no one does).

What if you wanted perforated seats badly? Active spoilers? Obsidian black? Silver? All discontinued. Maybe comes back? Maybe it doesn’t.

Any past actions are all coulda woulda shouldas in the world of today and tomorrow.

With all respect intended, you are too smart to make the arguments you made. I’m going to assume it’s just emotions talking.

 

[daniel]

The biggest damage to the brand name is all the false promises around FSD. I don't think that's really come to pass yet.

There might be no damage at all if the general public never believed it was possible anyway.

I expect more long time owners to jump ship once Tesla has a serious Performance oriented competitor.

In a market economy people will look for the best value. If Tesla ever has a "serious" competitor some of its customers will switch. But that's the real question, isn't it? Will Porsche ever be serious about producing a reliable electric car in numbers sufficient to meet demand? Will the other car makers. Right now, none of the other car makers, all of whom have the money, engineering people, and factory capacity, is competing with Tesla other than low-volume compliance cars. Only Nissan is serious about selling EVs, and they're selling to an entirely different demographic: lower cost, less fancy, shorter range, and consequently less expensive EVs.

Tesla needs to solve serious service issues right now. But to date you can't buy a car that really competes with a Tesla.

... As for FSD, the problem turned out to be much more difficult to achieve than Elon thought. FSD without a driver monitoring may never be possible and/or never approved by regulators. Some kind of self driving will probably come to market, but I think there is a chance it won't be what all the experts think.

Self driving vehicles have to contend with a slew of edge cases. Many are rare, but with 1 billion vehicles, they still happen every few days statistically.

Humans have a distrust of machines that can kill them doing too much for them unless the machine is flawless every time.

Nothing is flawless every time. The goal is not perfection. The goal is safer than a human driver. And while some people will kick and scream against an autonomous car that is not perfect, regulators and insurance companies will approve FSD when it has fewer accidents and fewer fatalities than human-driven cars.

The task is indeed proving difficult. Those millions of edge cases are a serious issue. But humans have accidents that are not edge cases. A rational person will accept a car that has one fatality per billion miles when humans have 12 1/2 fatalities in the same distance, even if the FSD car has its accidents in edge cases whereas the human driver has his accidents on the open highway.

The biggest problem around FSD for Tesla is that Elon Musk has made promises he cannot keep. But that is not really a problem if the only people who believed him were a few fans who were not paying attention to his record of promises not kept on time. I'm a big fan of Tesla and I admire Elon Musk, but I never believe the time lines in his promises. So I pay for what I can get now, not for the vaporware promised next month. I'll buy FSD when it exists.

 

[Knightshade]

This logic is laughably wrong

I'm sorry you find facts and math to be wrong. Doesn't change what they are though.

Putting the full 6K FSD package value toward an EAP only car - just because right now, the FSD package only has what EAP has - is such a fallacy and strawman argument

You don't seem real clear on what the words fallacy or strawman actually mean, because that's neitehr of those things.

It's instead a fact-based statement about the only possible configuration that offers apples-to-apples feature parity between a tesla bought last year and one bought today.

Instead, using actual logic

Already did, sorry you missed it.

, where Elon stated EAP owners should get a $3K credit off of the $6K or possibly soon-to-be $7K FSD package, since features overlap, one should logically conclude to add $3K as the additional value of the overlapping features.

.... what?

What he actually said was they should only be charged 3k, because that's what the actual price to add FSD to an EAP car always was (pre-delivery- and Tesla no longer charges extra post delivery).

When Tesla dropped EAP they clearly made a mistake by raising the price for EAP owners- and once someone pointed this out to Elon, he agreed it should be fixed.

And it has been BTW.


However- there's no reason to include it in our "comparing the two cars today" discussion though- because EAP cars gain literally nothing today by buying FSD.

They will in the future. And certainly if you decide to do a "how much does a tesla cost today versus in 2018" comparison once FSD actually has unique (non-EAP) features in it- then it would be "logical" to require the EAP car to have FSD.

But of course since Elon has made it clear that FSD for new cars is going to cost more by then the math may still not look any different (especially if they keep the 3k price for EAP owners).

But that day isn't here yet, so it's not relevant when doing a price compare today

Not sure how/where you kept getting lost on that fact.

Therefore, somebody with EAP should in fact NOT credit $6K, per the possible troll - or extreme fanboi

Once again you appear to not understand the meaning of the words you're using.... If your entire argument is personal attacks at least don't embarrass yourself by using them incorrectly.

 

[PhatCat]

I've only been paying attention to this thread to see how high the "disagrees" on the original post gets. Come on 400!

420..funding secured.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Using Porsche as an example of appropriate and stable pricing is not realistic to me. Porsche prices due to emotion, not reality. They put super premium pricing on their higher performance models, not because they are actually faster on a track, but because people want to own the fastest ones...at any cost.

I am perhaps alone in applauding Tesla for continuing to bring better value to their cars. If they can find a way to reduce their prices, and bring availability to more people, they will do it.

I know it hurts, from an individualistic perspective, when someone else gets a better deal than you did. Everyone wants to get the best deal in the World. Tesla is often repricing their cars to reflect reducing governmental incentives. This more fairly reflects the net cost to more of their customers and also represents Tesla's hard work in reducing their production costs.

On a positive note, it seems as though used Tesla tend to hold their resale value better than other high end/high volume vehicles. Just because the latest cars carry a lower price tag, it seems that the used cars somehow maintain their original value, even though the new ones are now a bit cheaper.

 

[daniel]

I am perhaps alone in applauding Tesla for continuing to bring better value to their cars. If they can find a way to reduce their prices, and bring availability to more people, they will do it.

Nope. You're not alone. I want to see more people ditching fossil fuels and moving to electric. I'm glad there are two companies (Nissan and Tesla) and not just one that are serious about selling electric cars, and I am glad that Tesla is lowering prices.

I know it hurts, from an individualistic perspective, when someone else gets a better deal than you did.

If I paid more for my car, I also got to drive it sooner.

But yes, when you buy something just before the price drops, it hurts. Think of people who bought a house just before the housing bubble burst. Some of them lost their entire life savings and the house they just bought. Or someone who buys a computer and a newer and better model comes out at the same price two days later. That's how the market works. At least nobody lost their car because Tesla lowered its prices so that more people could afford the car after the subsidies ended.

 

[dmurphy]

I am perhaps alone in applauding Tesla for continuing to bring better value to their cars. If they can find a way to reduce their prices, and bring availability to more people, they will do it.

Not alone. There's at least three of us. I know @jjrandorin is with it too.

I know it hurts, from an individualistic perspective, when someone else gets a better deal than you did. Everyone wants to get the best deal in the World. Tesla is often repricing their cars to reflect reducing governmental incentives. This more fairly reflects the net cost to more of their customers and also represents Tesla's hard work in reducing their production costs.

On a positive note, it seems as though used Tesla tend to hold their resale value better than other high end/high volume vehicles. Just because the latest cars carry a lower price tag, it seems that the used cars somehow maintain their original value, even though the new ones are now a bit cheaper.

I've said it over and over again, but I really believe it - whatever price I paid when I bought my car, that's my price. What happens with someone else - 1 hour, 1 day, 1 year later - doesn't change my deal at all. I was happy with the price on my Model 3 when I signed - otherwise, I wouldn't have.

And yes -- you're also spot on about resale value. Hand wringing and doomsday sayers aside, the actual REALITY in the market is that resale value on Model 3 is holding strong. Quite strong. It's a hot car, and in demand. Just a quick look at Carvana - the lowest price Model 3 for sale is $44,300. RWD, 8700 miles give or take. Dang close to the price of a brand new LR RWD (if they were still available).

Worrying about resale value dropping through the floor seems to be tail-chasing. It's just not a thing.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Using Porsche as an example of appropriate and stable pricing is not realistic to me. Porsche prices due to emotion, not reality. They put super premium pricing on their higher performance models, not because they are actually faster on a track, but because people want to own the fastest ones...at any cost.

I am perhaps alone in applauding Tesla for continuing to bring better value to their cars. If they can find a way to reduce their prices, and bring availability to more people, they will do it.

I know it hurts, from an individualistic perspective, when someone else gets a better deal than you did. Everyone wants to get the best deal in the World. Tesla is often repricing their cars to reflect reducing governmental incentives. This more fairly reflects the net cost to more of their customers and also represents Tesla's hard work in reducing their production costs.

On a positive note, it seems as though used Tesla tend to hold their resale value better than other high end/high volume vehicles. Just because the latest cars carry a lower price tag, it seems that the used cars somehow maintain their original value, even though the new ones are now a bit cheaper.

Historically Tesla was often compared with Porsche due a popular joke about a Porsche doubling in price when you added features. Features were largely psychological or emotional. Like for example ludicrous mode added tens of thousands of dollars to the car.

I'm not saying that Tesla doesn't deserve praise for bringing better value to their cars, but that it wasn't a very even handed change across the line up. It mostly impacted the top end which could be damaging to other top tier products.

Porsche is isolated from this because they only sell higher end vehicles, and the parent corporation (VW) leaves it up to Audi to fill the middle along with VW to fill the bottom.

Porsche is also extremely careful in not making a lower end product (like a Cayman) compete too much with a higher end one (like a 911), This was actually really maddening to me as it always felt like the Cayman was held back.

With Tesla they do silly things like omitting things like a Heated Steering wheel from the Model 3, and pretending that somehow one needs to get a Model S for that. It's hysterical to me when a Leaf has one.

For resale comparisons one can purposely compare things that didn't change that much like a Model 3 LR or they can pick something that changed significantly like a Model S 100D Performance with Ludicrous mode.

What I see is Tesla rapidly shifted from a very customer orientated company with large margins to a company with much smaller margins that isn't as customer focused. It's so bad that you have Elon fielding complaints about on hold music.

So in a lot of ways it's simply a different company with a very different focus.

 

[KrenGrl]

wow this must be some kind of tmc record. An original poster that has almost 10 times more "disagrees" than they have posts !

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

The biggest problem around FSD for Tesla is that Elon Musk has made promises he cannot keep. But that is not really a problem if the only people who believed him were a few fans who were not paying attention to his record of promises not kept on time. I'm a big fan of Tesla and I admire Elon Musk, but I never believe the time lines in his promises. So I pay for what I can get now, not for the vaporware promised next month. I'll buy FSD when it exists.

The problem with FSD was the approach.

Elon/Tesla lost of a lot of credibility for selling a product like FSD with the promises made. I can't even think of another company who did anything close to that. It was almost to the point of being ludicrous to sell it so far before the necessary regulatory framework (at a federal level), and when it was technically feasible from a HW/SW perspective.

A lot of damage has already been done as an automotive companies best customer is an existing owner, and their loyalty. Once they mess that up they jeopardize that for good. We're coming up to 3 years with nothing to show for FSD.

I tend to completely leave out FSD anytime I talk about Tesla to someone who might buy one. I don't think it's all that important when talking about Tesla versus it's competitors. Most of its competitors will only have AP related features, and Tesla already includes these for the purchase price.

I only talk about it when the person is really into technology, and would enjoy an incremental increase in autonomous capabilities even if it doesn't achieve FSD.

That's why I bought FSD despite all my misgivings about it. I don't believe most people who bought it truly understood the technical challenges and regulatory concerns. I think regulatory stuff is going to be a lot tougher than most people imagine.

Like you say the goal for FSD is safer than an average human driver, but that's not a good comparison. The problem is the average driver statistically is a lot worse than the average good driver. The bad drivers account for way more than their fair share of accidents.

A good driver being one that doesn't drive while distracted, intoxicated, etc.
A good driver being one that has a lot of experience, and knows how to deal with a lot of situations.

if a Self-driving car is 2X better than a good driver on average than I can see that being plausible. People are still going to resist due to the irrational fear AI getting someone killed. So that 2X number might have to be higher.

As to competitors keep in mind that Porsche isn't just Porsche, but VW/Porsche/Audi.

They're also not just VW/Porsche/Audi as they are also things like Ford (with their partnership with VW), Rivian, etc along with other European companies (BMW if they ever get it into gear).

The reason is the Electrify America charging network is growing, and it's slowly becoming a viable alternative to Tesla. The other reason is the charging speeds is getting better, and the Audi E-Tron is fast enough at charging that it can be an alternative to the Model 3/S/X (despite it's poor range).

This is why I view the Audi E-Tron, Porsche Taycan, and some others as viable competitors to Tesla. They might not be very comparable efficiency wise right out of the gate.

I don't see the Nissan Leaf as being very serious as they still don't have good battery thermal management, and they don't have a CCS adaptor yet (as far as I know) so they can't take full advantage of the Electrify America network.

 

[wdolson]

Using Porsche as an example of appropriate and stable pricing is not realistic to me. Porsche prices due to emotion, not reality. They put super premium pricing on their higher performance models, not because they are actually faster on a track, but because people want to own the fastest ones...at any cost.

I am perhaps alone in applauding Tesla for continuing to bring better value to their cars. If they can find a way to reduce their prices, and bring availability to more people, they will do it.

I know it hurts, from an individualistic perspective, when someone else gets a better deal than you did. Everyone wants to get the best deal in the World. Tesla is often repricing their cars to reflect reducing governmental incentives. This more fairly reflects the net cost to more of their customers and also represents Tesla's hard work in reducing their production costs.

On a positive note, it seems as though used Tesla tend to hold their resale value better than other high end/high volume vehicles. Just because the latest cars carry a lower price tag, it seems that the used cars somehow maintain their original value, even though the new ones are now a bit cheaper.

The top end cars are also limited production and that draws in investors who are going to drive the car once and then put the car up on blocks in storage and hope the car appreciates in value.

A couple of years ago I knew nothing of this world until ironically, I found Tesla. I knew the names of most of the supercar companies, but that was the extent of it. When I was saving up for my Model S I watched a lot of YouTube videos about Tesla including the early stars like Bjorn. But through links I also discovered some humorous car channels like Doug DeMuro and learned about the exotic car investment market.

Apparently over the last few years the exotic car market has been booming. On another channel someone estimated how many $1 million+ cars were out there in 2000 vs today and concluded that while it's hard to measure exact numbers, it's clear that the market has grown significantly and a lot of these super expensive cars haven't depreciated much.

The only difference with Porsche and the other super sports car companies is they offer more of a range from something affordable by the upper middle class (as Doug DeMuro once commented in the 80s every reasonably successful dentist had a Porsche 911, though my dentist has a Model S ) on up to super cars that perform and cost on par with the $500K and up cars out there.

 

[FlatSix911]

Not accurate. I ordered my P3D+ at launch and paid 71,500. (and then got 5k back) You also need to map the tax credits there to have a real picture. Actually my update doesn't even describe it properly. My price included premium paint and interior so it wasn't the "base price". would have been under 70.

Thanks for re-posting the chart... it is correct. Take a look at your base price without options... 64K

 

[FlatSix911]

Using Porsche as an example of appropriate and stable pricing is not realistic to me. Porsche prices due to emotion, not reality. They put super premium pricing on their higher performance models, not because they are actually faster on a track, but because people want to own the fastest ones...at any cost.

I am perhaps alone in applauding Tesla for continuing to bring better value to their cars. If they can find a way to reduce their prices, and bring availability to more people, they will do it.

I know it hurts, from an individualistic perspective, when someone else gets a better deal than you did. Everyone wants to get the best deal in the World. Tesla is often repricing their cars to reflect reducing governmental incentives. This more fairly reflects the net cost to more of their customers and also represents Tesla's hard work in reducing their production costs.

On a positive note, it seems as though used Tesla tend to hold their resale value better than other high end/high volume vehicles. Just because the latest cars carry a lower price tag, it seems that the used cars somehow maintain their original value, even though the new ones are now a bit cheaper.

I agree. Porsche prices do not accurately reflect the performance value.

Often pricing is more accurately driven by scarcity of very limited edition models... RSR, 918, etc. for investor speculation and appreciation.

Tesla is not yet at this level with collectors... they may start with new Roadster.

 

[Ramona48]

With the recent major price reduction, I feel like I'm hit with the penalty for being a few months earlier adopter.

Not sure if I'd line up at the stores overnight or put reservation money.

I bet many of you, the loan balance is higher than how much you can buy the cars right now. Even with the tax credit refunds.

I can't even imagine how recent S or X owners feel right now.

You can easily disregard by saying 'that's how business works' but US is a country with lawsuits with a few MPG difference.

If there's no compensation gesture from Tesla, I'm willing to join a party with legal action. Do any of you know which firms are cooking up those ideas?

Well, I look at it like this, if I went to the store and bought a tv for say $1,000 and the next week it's price dropped to $800, do I have the right to sue? Remember, the only ones to get any money out of a class action suit are lawyers.

 

[--1--]

I'm not asking for sympathy or a refund. I ordered my fully loaded Model 3 Performance April 17 and picked it up on May 4th. I paid $68,000 plus. Two months later, the price was reduced $6200. That's a huge price reduction. I don't want to hear about computers, iPhones, and home previously purchased that were later reduced. Other Model 3s were reduced, but by a much smaller percentage. I feel my Model 3 was over priced to start with. I'm a big EV advocate with three prior to my Tesla. I love the car, but I love it and Tesla less. No explanation or justifications by anyone will change my mind.

 

[ucmndd]

I feel my Model 3 was over priced to start with.

I suppose that begs the obvious question - why did you buy it?

 

[Kilotango74]

If you feel it was

I'm not asking for sympathy or a refund. I ordered my fully loaded Model 3 Performance April 17 and picked it up on May 4th. I paid $68,000 plus. Two months later, the price was reduced $6200. That's a huge price reduction. I don't want to hear about computers, iPhones, and home previously purchased that were later reduced. Other Model 3s were reduced, but by a much smaller percentage. I feel my Model 3 was over priced to start with. I'm a big EV advocate with three prior to my Tesla. I love the car, but I love it and Tesla less. No explanation or justifications by anyone will change my mind.

“overpriced to begin with” then why the hell would you purchase it in the first place. Also you may not want to hear about “ computers, iPhones” etc, but those are accurate comparisons for a product that is tech based. Tesla is a tech company not a car company.