Tesla Model S

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Their EV1 was actually pretty impressive, especially given the era. Volt is just a fancy Prius.

Actually I consider the Prius a brain-dead Volt, but point taken. The EV1 was amazing for its time.

The amusing part of all this of course is the best first cars (circa 1900) were all electric for the most part. Cheap oil killed them off.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by White Shadow

That Tesla is badass. Faster than an M5, yet doesn't use a drop of gas.

Of course the downside is the high price tag. Not many people are going to pay that price to own a car that doesn't use gas. Just doesn't make financial sense. That's why I wonder if Tesla will survive as a company. To really become viable, they need to build cars that will sell to the masses, and when you're in the electric car market, that means an affordable car with a decent range per battery charge.

If I were in the market, I'd probably buy the new (base) Tesla sedan before I purchased the Volt even with the price differential (which is saying something because I"m a cheap SOB usually). It can handle 90% of my driving, plus doesn't drive like a Prius. For the other 10% I'd just haul out the Suburban and not feel guilty for doing it.

[Justin.b]

Model S starts around $50k. I hadn't looked at them before but I though they were pricier than that.

Edit: That price includes a $7500 tax credit, but Chevy includes that credit in the Volt pricing on their website as well.

-Justin

[White Shadow]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

If I were in the market, I'd probably buy the new (base) Tesla sedan before I purchased the Volt even with the price differential (which is saying something because I"m a cheap SOB usually). It can handle 90% of my driving, plus doesn't drive like a Prius. For the other 10% I'd just haul out the Suburban and not feel guilty for doing it.

Sure, but my point is that the market for electric cars is still pretty much dictated by the desire to save money on gas. Not everybody thinks that way, but the majority sure does. And if saving money is the concern, then paying a premium for a car like the Tesla just doesn't make much sense. From a dollars and cents perspective, you'll never recoup that initial cash outlay, even if you never buy another drop of gas in your life. That's why I think the Tesla has a rough road ahead. If someone can build a relatively affordable electric car (maybe somewhere in the $30K range) and give it a decent range, then I think purely electric cars will have a future of profitability. Until then, I think it's more of a passing fad. Right now, the Nissan Leaf fits the bill as far as price, but the range makes it more of a city runabout then a real car that can be used the way most people use their cars these days.

[White Shadow]

Originally Posted by Justin.b

Model S starts around $50k. I hadn't looked at them before but I though they were pricier than that.

-Justin

If you want a version that gets decent range, then you're looking at more like $80K, which comes with the 85-kilowatt-hour battery pack. I believe the cheapest model starts at almost $60K, but that's with the smallest battery pack and the shortest driving range. I don't think you can buy a Model S for $50K from what I've read. I have heard there are tax incentives, but that's separate from the actual price that Tesla is charging (no pun intended) for the car.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by White Shadow

... if saving money is the concern, then paying a premium for a car like the Tesla just doesn't make much sense....

I absolutely agree.

If your only justification is saving money (which mine usually is) then you are right on target. I talked several people down off the ledge during the gas price hikes a couple of years ago asking them about whether they cared about saving gas, or saving money. They would always say saving money. I would then show them pretty quickly that trading a perfectly good, reliable car for one that got marginally better gas mileage (even it if was 100% better) had an ROI of many, many years.

Usually when I buy a car its because I have no car (the current one is worn out, dead on the side of the road) or to fill a gap in my family's transportation (need to haul 5, have a 2 seater sports car).

When I bought the FR-S I had no DD, so for me, the Tesla could have made sense.

[Justin.b]

Originally Posted by White Shadow

If you want a version that gets decent range, then you're looking at more like $80K, which comes with the 85-kilowatt-hour battery pack. I believe the cheapest model starts at almost $60K, but that's with the smallest battery pack and the shortest driving range. I don't think you can buy a Model S for $50K from what I've read. I have heard there are tax incentives, but that's separate from the actual price that Tesla is charging (no pun intended) for the car.

Model S starts at $49,900 on their website, which includes the $7500 tax credit.

You can upgrade that from the 40kw to 60kw for $10k, and to 80kw for $20k.

So yes, without the tax credit you're looking at close to $80k for an 80kw version.

-Justin

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by Giccin

With all of this volt talk.. I had always thought GM lost money to the gov. when a volt is sold.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

No that's just nonsense. For a new car with completely different technology than the standard lineup, it is normal business practice to sell at cost or even at a loss at first. The profits come when it's monetized through several models or after selling a large enough number of cars until the cost per unit drops to profitable levels.

I doubt Honda or Toyota was making any money off their first gen hybrid cars until at least the second generation just as an FYI.

Originally Posted by Justin.b

Model S starts at $49,900 on their website, which includes the $7500 tax credit.

You can upgrade that from the 40kw to 60kw for $10k, and to 80kw for $20k.

So yes, without the tax credit you're looking at close to $80k for an 80kw version.

-Justin

The Model S is REALLY $57,400. The Volt is REALLY $39,145. The Model S starts at $18k more than the Volt.

Originally Posted by Tesla

STARTING
PRICE
$49,900
After $7,500 Federal
Tax Credi

http://www.teslamotors.com/models/options

Originally Posted by Chevy

MSRP*1 as low as
$31,645. Price after tax savings. Net price shown includes the full $7,500 tax credit*1. $39,145 MSRP*1,2 with federal tax savings from $0 up to $7,500.

http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car.html

[White Shadow]

Originally Posted by Justin.b

Model S starts at $49,900 on their website, which includes the $7500 tax credit.

You can upgrade that from the 40kw to 60kw for $10k, and to 80kw for $20k.

So yes, without the tax credit you're looking at close to $80k for an 80kw version.

-Justin

Right, but like I said, the price of the car is the price of the car. You can't automatically deduct a tax credit and say that you're paying a flat $49,900 for the car. Why? Simple, if you understand how tax credits work. In order to receive that $7500 tax credit, first you have to apply for it (after you purchase the car for the full price) and then you have to have more than a $7500 federal tax bill. In other words, if your caculated tax bill at the end of the year is, say, $4,000, then you can kiss that other $3,500 goodbye because you aren't going to see a dime of it.

[White Shadow]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I absolutely agree.

If your only justification is saving money (which mine usually is) then you are right on target. I talked several people down off the ledge during the gas price hikes a couple of years ago asking them about whether they cared about saving gas, or saving money. They would always say saving money. I would then show them pretty quickly that trading a perfectly good, reliable car for one that got marginally better gas mileage (even it if was 100% better) had an ROI of many, many years.

Yup, I did the same thing with my cousin who currently owns a Chevy Trailblazer. Yes, it's pretty much a gas hog, but he owns it outright and it's in sound mechanical condition. His theory was that he could trade it in on a Rav4 and save all kinds of money on gas. But when I started running the numbers for him, it became obvious that it would take him about 3 years of gas savings just to break even on the sales tax alone that he'd have to pay on the new car. And that's not even considering any other factors at all. He finally came to his senses and decided not to sell his TrailBlazer.

[Justin.b]

Originally Posted by White Shadow

Right, but like I said, the price of the car is the price of the car. You can't automatically deduct a tax credit and say that you're paying a flat $49,900 for the car. Why? Simple, if you understand how tax credits work. In order to receive that $7500 tax credit, first you have to apply for it (after you purchase the car for the full price) and then you have to have more than a $7500 federal tax bill. In other words, if your caculated tax bill at the end of the year is, say, $4,000, then you can kiss that other $3,500 goodbye because you aren't going to see a dime of it.

I understand that, but both this car and the Volt have their prices listed on their respective websites as the post-credit number. I'm not digging up the tax credit and throwing it in here to confuse the issue. Both manufacturers list their adjusted price in big bold fonts and explain the tax credit in much smaller ones.

I'm fine with calling it $57,400 and $39,145 for the two prices.

-Justin

[Justin.b]

Originally Posted by White Shadow

Yup, I did the same thing with my cousin who currently owns a Chevy Trailblazer. Yes, it's pretty much a gas hog, but he owns it outright and it's in sound mechanical condition. His theory was that he could trade it in on a Rav4 and save all kinds of money on gas. But when I started running the numbers for him, it became obvious that it would take him about 3 years of gas savings just to break even on the sales tax alone that he'd have to pay on the new car. And that's not even considering any other factors at all. He finally came to his senses and decided not to sell his TrailBlazer.

Gas savings doesn't save you all that much. I have put together a spreadsheet that compares hybrid vehicle prices to their gasoline equivalents and even at $5/gallon none of them even cover the price differences over 100,000 miles.

In the case of something like the Tahoe vs the Tahoe hybrid, gas would have to be $7.40/gallon and it would take 200,000 miles to make up the difference.

Gas would need to be $6/gallon for a Prius to come even with a Corolla over 100,000 miles. Even at $11/gallon you won't break even in 100k on a Highlander, Escape or Tahoe.

I'm thinking either hybrid owners are poor at math or buy them to make a statement even if they claim it's for the savings.

-Justin

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Actually I consider the Prius a brain-dead Volt, but point taken. The EV1 was amazing for its time.

The amusing part of all this of course is the best first cars (circa 1900) were all electric for the most part. Cheap oil killed them off.

The big annoying thing for me is how the greenies really distort things. The movie about killing the electric car left a bit of a bad taste for me. Then I actually did some casual research into the EV1 and GM really made a tremendous effort to genuinely build an electric car at the time. It was actually the greenies that killed it, in my opinion. CARB legislating the cars in an economic and market condition that was pretty much the opposite of what was necessary to sell the cars was a recipe for failure.

I own a few books on green power because it's interesting from a technical point. But omg the propaganda and shitty car-sense is amazing.

One is about converting a Miata to a true zero carbon plug-in hybrid where the ICE is exclusively a biodiesel-powered generator. This guy completely mis represents their dyno comparo, ignoring stuff like clutch and gearing and the fact the Miata ended up over 3000 lbs. But because the electric motor makes lots of low rpm torque, he assumes it will be faster. Then he makes his biodiesel out of methanol for cost reasons, neglecting the carbon cost associated with making it.

It's tech we should be getting on, but a lot of the 'pioneers' are turning off normal people with their attitudes. (South Park hybrid episode...)

[serialk11r]

Yea ultimately the goal is to have as much stuff running off electric power as possible for efficient control, but currently the price of batteries is really killing the economics. Motors are expensive, but gas engines are too especially all the emissions controls.

Realistically, I think cars will always run on liquid fuel of some sort because the infrastructure doesn't need to be sorted out that way. Thankfully just having auto start-stop and more gears gets us most of the way there in terms of efficiency (ignoring congestion issues), and "retrofitted" kinetic energy recovery along with those should get us 90% of the way there. With waste heat recovery coming in maybe 5-10 years standard all this should matter even less. Not until the cost of electric energy storage capacity becomes close to nothing compared to the rest of the car do I see electric vehicles really taking off.