True, but it sounds like the base Model 3 also got a price cut.
So, if you’re in the market for a “cheap” electric car, you have a price cut. If you’re looking for a high end one, you have a price cut. It’s only if you’re looking for a “cheap, high end” electric car that your cost goes up.
That seems like a reasonable trade off for Tesla. Let the value buyers go for a Model 3, and push the premium buyers to the higher end. Plus, with the Model 3 released there may not be too many people getting the entry level Model S and X anyway.
I would bet their thought process is more that there is less competition in the longer range market, so they will do better. There are lots of options now if you don't need much range.
I'd rather have the price cut than the tax credit it they are for the same nominal amount ($1,875). First, you don't pay taxes or licensing on that amount and second if you financed the car you don't pay interest on that amount.
People are very reluctant to purchase BEVs that do not have mileage comparable to ICEVs because conceptually EVs aren't common place and people don't understand they can start the day with a full tank every day.
There's a portion of the market who will compromise range just to have a BEV and I would imagine the Model 3 has cannibalized most of that market from the S and X.
Honestly when you're talking about vehicles that cost almost 100k, it's hard to quibble over a few thousand dollars savings from a smaller battery.
Yep. My guess is that they're making clear the Model S is on a higher tier than Model 3 by giving it even more autonomy for a lower price. Understandable move since M3 is known to have eaten up some sales of both S and X
Cutting prices (again) on a product for which there is "unlimited demand" and they claim to not be able to build fast enough while the company loses hundreds of millions of dollars is sensible?
For the model 3, the SR+ dropped ~$1k (now starting at $38,990) partially offsetting the $1875 decrease in tax credit which began July 1st. The AWD dropped ~$2k (now starting at $47,990) and the Performance dropped ~$5k (now starting at $54,990).
The pricing for the higher margin trims offers amazing value for those focused on performance. Is there much competition for that kind of performance at this pricing?
Model 3 Performance at $54,990: 0-60 in 3.2s
Model S Performance now includes Ludicrous at $99,990: 0-60 in 2.4s
Model X Performance now includes Ludicrous at $104,990: 0-60 in 2.7s
But don't use it to often in a row, because the battery will be getting hot and will limit the power output to level, which is way below any term related to performance.
Motor Trend's track test impression of the M3P was actually quite positive: "In our testing, we found the Model 3 Performance to be a joy around the track."
You have to be going ~160 mph for several minutes to induce the overheat power reduction mode. In the US it would take driving on an oval racetrack. I enjoy watching YouTube videos of people running these on German highways to get them to overheat. Those are quite fun videos to watch. I highly recommend.
I would appreciate American tourists not to abuse the Autobahn as their racetrack.
And remember, even when there is no speed limit, Richtgeschwindigkeit is 80 mph, and if you're going faster, the judge will apportion more liability to you in case of an accident, even if you've driven perfectly.
If you trash the aerodynamics (i.e. get a roof rack and put something on it) you can probably overheat it at normal highway speeds (i.e. 80mph) given a few miles of uphill.
True for the old Model S, but not a factor on the Model 3 unless you are on the track.
Bjørn Nyland has an amazing series of EV videos (of course, mostly Tesla). He recently set the 24-hour EV range record, and has milllions of views. He's also funny as hell to listen ramble on and on.
Here is him trying to overheat a Tesla Model 3 [1], but you could spend an afternoon on his channel watching him drive around [2].
Sorry but this isn't accurate at all. It's an electric muscle car. It goes fast in a straight line and that's it. It can't corner, it can't sustain the acceleration for long periods of time due to overheating (which is completely reasonable - it wasn't designed for that), it's heavy as hell. It's just really really good at flooring it from a standstill or low speed, cruising, and highway acceleration (50 mph to 90 mph).
This isn't a knock on any Tesla, but they're grand tourers at best. Certainly not a supercar. You can't compare these with something that can actually corner at all.
This is a fully stock (even tires) Tesla Model 3P running Laguna Seca in 1:46.1 at the end of a long day of racing BMWs. Just for fun the driver wanted to take his Telsa out, and his boss is riding shotgun. [1]
The production EV record is held by a non-stock TM3P (upgraded suspension, brakes, and tires) at 1:37.5 [2].
By comparison, here are a list of Laguna Seca records [3].
Most of the stuff around the 1:45-1:47 mark is a hot hatch, a grand tourer, or a muscle car.
Seriously, you gotta understand, I'm super hyped for the electric GT series with the Model S to take off, but these are not supercars. They're comparable to an M series BMW or a nice muscle car, which is fine.
I’m not even disagreeing with you! “Supercar” is obviously a loaded term. I would never expect a fully stock $54k product to meet that label. IMO, if it’s not six figures it’s by definition excluded from even being considered in that group.
But 1:47 is with stock tires even. I don't know where you draw the line, if you are upgrading suspension parts and not just tires, rotors, and pads, but that’s still pretty basic kit to see 1:37, which does make it competitive with some supercars.
I’d like to see a time with TM3P just with racing tires, pads, and rotors, but stock suspension, if it can beat 1:40 on that chart.
By most accounts, the stock TM3P is ahead of the BMW M3 on the track, not just drag. It’s not a supercar, but it is the most super car you can get for $54k!
You'll kill me for saying it, but this sport sedan has the same toss and catch that makes the best front-drive hot hatches such a joy to hustle—bolstered by no-joke instant horsepower and the predictability of vectoring all-wheel drive.
The instant acceleration and drag strip performance means it's closer to something like a Dodge Demon than a Ferrari 488. That's OK, it's just not realistic to say it's something it's not.
I don't think it's a supercar. But it handles better than a muscle car and you can absolutely compare it to something "that can actually corner at all" by looking at the list you posted at Laguna Seca. It's about 10 seconds slower than an AMG GT, which is certainly a supercar. Plus, most drivers are not going to be capable of taking either the AMG nor the M3P to the limit, so admittedly it's sort of a moot point.
That happens with ICE vehicles too, Grand Tour got several to overheat and go into "limp home" mode. They're also not designed to be run at a high load factor.
Since when is 0-60 the go-to stat for performance?
It's once metric of many in how a car performs. And yes, there is plenty of performance competition at those prices. The 100D runs a 10.5 quarter mile, which is really good, but not world beating. Factor in any of the competitors pricing their cars below production cost and the landscape looks much different.
A 10.5 is an INSANE quarter mile time. That's like track prepped sport bike speeds.
I go to the strip several times a year and I'm pretty sure running a sub-11 quarter mile would scare me. This is coming from someone who drives a reasonably quick car (12.7ish).
I do agree that 0-60 is a silly performance benchmark, since it measures traction more than power in modern cars. But performance Telsas are fast by any measure.
The M5 does a 10.5 1/4 mile, it is a very impressive time for a production vehicle but it's not insane. A lot of production sports bikes are into the 9s.
A 10.5 is only normal to arm-chair racers spoiled by the glut of 600+hp factory cars. Even 10 years ago, those times were reserved for hyper-cars, or stripped-out hotrods which were towed to the track.
Even today it's impressive to see a street car run under 12s. On a given test and tune night, I'll see maybe one out of 50 street cars run sub-11s, and they're always obviously modified.
You claim it isn't insane, yet your example is BMW's fastest car. I'll throw out another Definitely Not Insane Car running a similar time: Ferrari 488 GTB.
The point is that once you get up into this echelon of cars, 10.5 isn't game-changing. Chrysler built a car that will stomp the Model S, and it costs 20% less. For $100k you can build many cars that will outperform a Model S; 10.5 quarter mile isn't "insane" at that price if that's what you're optimizing for.
I suppose it's exhausting seeing Tesla marketing claim "fastest car ever!" because 0-60s are fast (which, as you said is mostly due to traction and the electric drivetrain). It's embarrassing when people start comparing the Model S performance to Ferraris and Lamborghinis. They aren't even in the same league when it comes to being race ready.
A 10.5 is an INSANE quarter mile time. That's like track prepped sport bike speeds.
No, it's not. It's what my old-man BMW on/off road bike will do (with a Cycle World editor onboard, not me). It's what the 1982 Honda 1100cc V65 Magna would do (with Pee Wee Gleason, professional drag racer, onboard) 37 years ago.
The only car that is priced at all similarly is the SRT Demon, and that's a limited run. Are you seriously arguing that the 100D is priced hundreds of thousands below cost, or even 10s of thousands?
genuinely curious, like what? I think they're even more competitive up to speeds under 60. Are you saying quarter mile is just as important? Or that acceleration itself isn't everything in "performance"?
Right, but that's not under $55k. There's no question you can get a car that will beat a TM3P at Nurburgring for more money.... The question is, can you find one for the same or less money?
Next, is it one you can comfortably pickup groceries and take the family for a road trip?
Acceleration is nice for drag racing or beating the guy next to you at a stop light. If you actually want to go to a track or just enjoy hitting some windy mountain roads, weight, handling, and braking become a lot more important.
For normal every day driving pretty much every car handles well enough. Few people are taking corners with the tires screaming (and those that are get looked down upon of being unsafe or whatever). It's acceleration that really makes a car more convenient to daily drive. When you have tons of acceleration things like taking turns into fast moving traffic or merging around that dunce who decided to come to a stop at the end of the ramp become non-issues.
a 200hp hot hatch already has more than enough power to make a quick right turn or merge into a faster lane. you don't really need more unless you're trying to race people on entrance ramps, which is a race you will eventually lose to some insane tuner no matter how much money you spend.
Part of my commute is on a ~70mph road that has a bunch of side roads dumping into it. The people who have to merge into 70mph rush hour traffic with no ramp to get up to speed would greatly benefit from the kind of acceleration a Tesla offers. The other day some guy in an exotic car (didn't see what, probably a Maserati of some sort since those are the most common exotic around here) pulled out in front of me from one of those turns and proceeded to let it sing. Had it been almost any other vehicle I would have had to tap the brakes and been quite annoyed.
The point that I was making, and that I have just introduced an example to support, is that there are practical applications for the kind of acceleration that make certain types of people clutch their pearls.
Also, a 200hp hot hatch is going to have a hell of a time putting that power to the ground. There's a reason I'm talking in terms of acceleration and not power.
that's a good example, not many situations like that near where I live.
that said, if I need to accelerate faster than my gti can handle at full throttle in 2nd/3rd gear, I will probably just wait for a bigger gap. everyone has their own tolerance for these things though; I play merges extra safe.
Tax levels vary by state, and sometimes by country or city as well. (Texas levies a 6.5% sales tax on all cars statewide, the local taxes don't apply to car purchases.) There's no way to quote a "U.S. price" that includes taxes.
From these prices you need to add state registration fees ($100-$500), destination & doc fee ($1,200), and sales tax (0-10% depending on the state and city).
You have to add in the delivery and registration fees, add in state sales tax and city/town excise tax, but then subtract the Federal and possibly state-level tax credits. So depending on the state your final price could be higher or even lower than the sticker.
> The pricing for the higher margin trims offers amazing value for those focused on performance. Is there much competition for that kind of performance at this pricing?
if your definition of "performance" includes anything other than launching 0-60 a couple times, then yes, there are plenty of ice cars that offer the same level of performance at or below the Tesla price point.
even if all you care about is that 0-60 number, it comes with caveats. to actually get the advertised number, you need to wait 30+ min to heat up the battery, and you can't do it more than a couple times before performance degrades. it will be a while before EVs can match the agility and sustained performance of their ice counterparts.
FWIW, I purchased a Tesla Model 3 LR edition back in September 2018 with enhanced auto pilot and later added in full self driving at the 2k discount price in 2019. So that car would have be $57,500 for which I took the $7500 Federal Tax Credit on.
The LR is no longer so I would end up with an AWD which I would not want, but if equipped as before it would be $54,990. This used to be a $5000 option over the price of the LR. If my TM3 were totaled today I would not buy one if I had to choose AWD, first it is a feature I have no use for where I live nor do I want the efficiency loss compared to the LR.
So has there been much movement?
TBH, in a few years my replacement likely will not be a Tesla, there are many things to like about the TM3 but road noise and lack of full blue tooth audio support are issues I will not suffer long. This company has its priorities ass backwards at times, apparently fart gags and video games are more important than delivering promised voice commands and then doing a proper blue tooth audio stack. When 20k cars do both features better its disappointing.
> This company has its priorities ass backwards at times, apparently fart gags and video games are more important than delivering promised voice commands and then doing a proper blue tooth audio stack.
This. It makes It makes me angry when I see those features it reminds me that this is a company not run by adults.
No, however it was something Elon Musk remarked about to some fanfare when the commands were introduced. Yet there has been no update since then.
One would hope you could tell the car to change radio stations, switch to the phone for music, or even control the temperature, but for now we get limited navigation and satellite radio commands.
Would I use them, some. However the point was, they don't focus well. Fart gags and video games are not features that make every day driving easier. Having full access to the music on my phone via blue tooth like nearly every other car has had for years would be. Instead I have to use my phone to change play lists which actually is not legal in my state.
From what I read the only way to control most of the things is through the central screen, which can be a pain compared to dedicated knobs. "Hey tesla, fire up the A/C" seems better than having to touch/look at the screen.
The games/jokes are probably not built by the same teams anyway. It's more of a PR thing.
Are there other cars that do full self-driving? I feel like worrying about audio Bluetooth on a fully self-driving car would be like the Apollo 11 astronauts complaining about the flavors of space ice cream available on the moon.
What strikes me in that Google Sheet is the progression over just the last 6 months. I love that they don't constrain themselves to a model year release cycle, and just continuously iterate to provide better performance per dollar.
At then end of January, 2019 they were selling a 270 mile range Model S, 0-60 in 4.2, without AP, for $85k. Today for $80k you get 370 miles of range, 0-60 in 3.7, with AP.
Obviously the question on everyone's mind is, what are the gross margins? If these are strictly process improvements which are fully maintaining margins, then it is extraordinary progress in 6 months. I would expect that there is some combination of process improvements, technology transfer from Model 3 -> S/X, and at least some margin erosion, particularly as the Federal tax credit continues to wind down.
The TM3P for $54,900 is truly an absurdly low price for that level of performance. I'm somewhat shocked it's not at least $57,990, but I understand what they're doing -- it's almost pure margin for them when they get an upsell from LR-AWD to Performance, so the more they can shift the mix to performance the better.
I've heard process inefficiencies in their current manufacturing pipeline held as a criticism against Tesla. But while it's less ideal than having all the inefficiencies worked out already, I consider this _promising_. They have produced S&X at around 25% gross margin up until now, IIRC. If there is still relatively low-hanging fruit to be picked, that is another line of defense against being undercut by the competition.
As long as a significant part of that gross margin can be put back into capital expenditures (developing new vehicles and infrastructure, developing more manufacturing capacity), things are looking bright for continued EV development and adoption regardless of what the incumbent manufacturers are up to.
"To streamline our offerings" means "to streamline and simplify our production"
The past was always about "prices can be lowered (or the margin becomes better) when the production scales". Now production is back-scaled. It seems they hit some production peak were more doesn't mean better margin.
Or in other words: "we need more margin on the higher priced versions to be able to lower the price on the cheap version without hurting our overall margin that much."
I haven't seen any evidence that their production has scaled. They brute-forced production with that outdoor tent and lots of manual labor and cut corners to attain numbers, but that's not scaling, that's hacking the numbers. They're still trying to figure out how to get the production line working.
>I haven't seen any evidence that their production has scaled.
You can't explain it to some people, and they have no interest in evidence. The other day on Twitter Musk was talking about the SpaceX rockets they're going to attach to a version of the car (LOL!) and how it's all going to tuck neatly behind the license plate. The thread following it was half-filled with people claiming how cool that was going to be, and what they were going to do with it. I'm talking grown adults here. The other half was grown adults saying they're just going to be happy making $100,000 a year letting out their Tesla as a robotaxi. Completely detached from reality.
I've never seen anything like this in my life. I think EVs are great, and actually priced out a Bolt (couldn't get service where I live) so I'll have to wait until my recent lease expires in a couple years to go looking in a more mature market. But it's hard for me to fathom that there are people who believe we're going to driving (and being driven) in rocket cars any day. Meanwhile, people are still waiting weeks and months for minor repairs on their cars.
How is it that people can see reality so differently?
> They brute-forced production with that outdoor tent and lots of manual labor and cut corners to attain numbers, but that's not scaling, that's hacking the numbers.
They did that ... A year ago. Watching the quarterlies since then, they've taken that brute-force, all-hands-on-deck one week peak production number, and turned it into the standard weekly production number (ish). They are clearly progressing/scaling, just not as fast as Musk guidance suggested.
They way the build cars with manual labor is pretty much how cars are built. The automated to much and now they went back to something that is more industry standard.
They are defently not the best in production of the actual car assembly, but its not like they are on all that inferior.
And I don't know what you mean with 'cut corners'. What corners?
> Employees in the open-air GA4 “tent,” which is not fully automated, tell CNBC they were pressured to take shortcuts to hit goals — reducing vehicle testing for water leaks and using electrical tape on plastic housings to make quick fixes during Model 3 assembly.
They use tape to make fixes to plastic covers. What a horrible thing. Slighty reduced testing? Wow, certainlty has never been done by any automaker ever. Clearly Tesla are death traps.
Tesla cars have been getting great reviews from virtually every single tester. The rate as some of the safest cars ever built. But of course they are horrible because they fixed up some plastic covers with tape. You got to be kidding me.
Tesla invest way as much into the software and electronic in the car compared to every other automaker. Go listen to Monroe (who does car breakdown and costing for other car company) he describes how Tesla software and electronic is far superior anything in any other car. How they massivly innovated on battery technology, cooling loop, electirc motors and and much more. He describes in detail how they are ahead of the competition on those things. Those things are about 100x more relevant to me then plastic covers.
And I don't own a Tesla or even care much for Tesla overall. But the constant articles about Tesla being horrible because of every little issue with their production line is just insane. If that level of detailed analysis was applied to every new car company trying to bring a car to market, its virtually certain you could make articles about that as well.
The car production lines are working just fine right now. The current constraint on their production numbers is battery production, which is largely up to Panasonic.
Also, multi-coated white is now the default paint (previously one of the most expensive options). Which is nice and possibly saves some energy in "normal" climates (white cars are cooler).
Should save energy in all climates. White is generally highest reflectance and lowest emissivity (depends on material obviously) compared to say black, so in hot climates it won't absorb as much heat, and in cold climates it won't radiate as much out.
Sam Altman has openly condemned critics for being "in it for the money", while those who own the stock long are just good people fighting climate change. This is seen as a battle ground, so it's not a surprise. You cannot criticize Tesla in certain circles:
"It's gross seeing so many root against Tesla. Be the person on the side of the climate and innovation, not the person hoping to make money on puts."
There's some irony in that the same people who boast about Teslas being the best selling cars ever also say there are so many "enemies". How can both be true?
Unfortunately for some, sentiment is shifting away from our Tech Overlords. Anti-trust here, a fraud or two there and the hero worship will all be over.
Pushing Tesla more toward the "low end" was probably a strategic mistake. I think the "3" in general hurt their brand, and the "X" is an oddball in their lineup.
A better strategy would have been to have just the model "S" and a $200,000 roadster.
A friend of mine got his Los Altos High son a model "3" for graduation. The other kids make fun of him. "Couldn't you afford a "real" Tesla?" they say! Like it or not, the "3" is perceived as a compromise--not the real thing.
Talking sedans? Damn, I can't imagine spending that much on... well, any car, really, but certainly not a normal commuter sedan. Or does that include minivans or trucks or SUVs or "crossovers"?
96 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 230 ms ] threadSo, if you’re in the market for a “cheap” electric car, you have a price cut. If you’re looking for a high end one, you have a price cut. It’s only if you’re looking for a “cheap, high end” electric car that your cost goes up.
That seems like a reasonable trade off for Tesla. Let the value buyers go for a Model 3, and push the premium buyers to the higher end. Plus, with the Model 3 released there may not be too many people getting the entry level Model S and X anyway.
from the full price, matching the reduction in incentives.
Note that the price cut is offset by the 50% reduction in federal tax credits from $3,750 to $1,875.
There's a portion of the market who will compromise range just to have a BEV and I would imagine the Model 3 has cannibalized most of that market from the S and X.
Honestly when you're talking about vehicles that cost almost 100k, it's hard to quibble over a few thousand dollars savings from a smaller battery.
2. If they need to flash a lower price in marketing materials, they have the Model 3 now
Seems like a sensible move.
Cutting prices (again) on a product for which there is "unlimited demand" and they claim to not be able to build fast enough while the company loses hundreds of millions of dollars is sensible?
I'm gonna let you in on a modern marketing secret: there's much more out there than buying ads.
Tesla Pricing history: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F5IQOynIawoXiJPVarLD...
Model 3 Performance at $54,990: 0-60 in 3.2s
Model S Performance now includes Ludicrous at $99,990: 0-60 in 2.4s
Model X Performance now includes Ludicrous at $104,990: 0-60 in 2.7s
If your planning on buying a car to track a 4 door, 5k lbs car isn't exactly the best choice.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/road-tests/a22625274/t...
And remember, even when there is no speed limit, Richtgeschwindigkeit is 80 mph, and if you're going faster, the judge will apportion more liability to you in case of an accident, even if you've driven perfectly.
BTW: Model S max speed is 155 mph.
Bjørn Nyland has an amazing series of EV videos (of course, mostly Tesla). He recently set the 24-hour EV range record, and has milllions of views. He's also funny as hell to listen ramble on and on.
Here is him trying to overheat a Tesla Model 3 [1], but you could spend an afternoon on his channel watching him drive around [2].
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4oeV0Cgyk0
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/user/bjornnyland/videos
I have the slow one and it's Very Performant, so much so that I rarely get a chance to use the speed.
Sorry but this isn't accurate at all. It's an electric muscle car. It goes fast in a straight line and that's it. It can't corner, it can't sustain the acceleration for long periods of time due to overheating (which is completely reasonable - it wasn't designed for that), it's heavy as hell. It's just really really good at flooring it from a standstill or low speed, cruising, and highway acceleration (50 mph to 90 mph).
This isn't a knock on any Tesla, but they're grand tourers at best. Certainly not a supercar. You can't compare these with something that can actually corner at all.
The production EV record is held by a non-stock TM3P (upgraded suspension, brakes, and tires) at 1:37.5 [2].
By comparison, here are a list of Laguna Seca records [3].
[1] - https://youtu.be/_DZSMxrHyHo
[2] - https://youtu.be/D1MDCPk-7Yw
[3] - https://i.imgsafe.org/7d/7d96bea0ab.png
https://fastestlaps.com/tracks/laguna-seca-post-1988
Most of the stuff around the 1:45-1:47 mark is a hot hatch, a grand tourer, or a muscle car.
Seriously, you gotta understand, I'm super hyped for the electric GT series with the Model S to take off, but these are not supercars. They're comparable to an M series BMW or a nice muscle car, which is fine.
But 1:47 is with stock tires even. I don't know where you draw the line, if you are upgrading suspension parts and not just tires, rotors, and pads, but that’s still pretty basic kit to see 1:37, which does make it competitive with some supercars.
I’d like to see a time with TM3P just with racing tires, pads, and rotors, but stock suspension, if it can beat 1:40 on that chart.
By most accounts, the stock TM3P is ahead of the BMW M3 on the track, not just drag. It’s not a supercar, but it is the most super car you can get for $54k!
You'll kill me for saying it, but this sport sedan has the same toss and catch that makes the best front-drive hot hatches such a joy to hustle—bolstered by no-joke instant horsepower and the predictability of vectoring all-wheel drive.
The instant acceleration and drag strip performance means it's closer to something like a Dodge Demon than a Ferrari 488. That's OK, it's just not realistic to say it's something it's not.
It's once metric of many in how a car performs. And yes, there is plenty of performance competition at those prices. The 100D runs a 10.5 quarter mile, which is really good, but not world beating. Factor in any of the competitors pricing their cars below production cost and the landscape looks much different.
I go to the strip several times a year and I'm pretty sure running a sub-11 quarter mile would scare me. This is coming from someone who drives a reasonably quick car (12.7ish).
I do agree that 0-60 is a silly performance benchmark, since it measures traction more than power in modern cars. But performance Telsas are fast by any measure.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_car...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_mot...
edit: Actually 10.5 is pretty insane for a production vehicle but we live in a time with a lot of insanely fast and overpowered cars.
Source? On your wikipedia page it says 10.9 ... Also, it's currently more expensive than a Model S Performance.
It was an argument against the "insanity" of a 10.5 time, you're right it costs quite a bit more.
Even today it's impressive to see a street car run under 12s. On a given test and tune night, I'll see maybe one out of 50 street cars run sub-11s, and they're always obviously modified.
You claim it isn't insane, yet your example is BMW's fastest car. I'll throw out another Definitely Not Insane Car running a similar time: Ferrari 488 GTB.
Whether or not it's "insane" is semantics.
The point is that once you get up into this echelon of cars, 10.5 isn't game-changing. Chrysler built a car that will stomp the Model S, and it costs 20% less. For $100k you can build many cars that will outperform a Model S; 10.5 quarter mile isn't "insane" at that price if that's what you're optimizing for.
I suppose it's exhausting seeing Tesla marketing claim "fastest car ever!" because 0-60s are fast (which, as you said is mostly due to traction and the electric drivetrain). It's embarrassing when people start comparing the Model S performance to Ferraris and Lamborghinis. They aren't even in the same league when it comes to being race ready.
Which car is that?
No, it's not. It's what my old-man BMW on/off road bike will do (with a Cycle World editor onboard, not me). It's what the 1982 Honda 1100cc V65 Magna would do (with Pee Wee Gleason, professional drag racer, onboard) 37 years ago.
Pretty nuts for a car, though.
Indeed. Any stock Supersport 600 bike will do 10.5 right out of the showroom.
Next, is it one you can comfortably pickup groceries and take the family for a road trip?
The point that I was making, and that I have just introduced an example to support, is that there are practical applications for the kind of acceleration that make certain types of people clutch their pearls.
Also, a 200hp hot hatch is going to have a hell of a time putting that power to the ground. There's a reason I'm talking in terms of acceleration and not power.
that said, if I need to accelerate faster than my gti can handle at full throttle in 2nd/3rd gear, I will probably just wait for a bigger gap. everyone has their own tolerance for these things though; I play merges extra safe.
Looking at the french prices, the model 3 performance (3.4s) is 62000 euros once the ecobonus has been deducted - that's nearly 70k USD!
if your definition of "performance" includes anything other than launching 0-60 a couple times, then yes, there are plenty of ice cars that offer the same level of performance at or below the Tesla price point.
even if all you care about is that 0-60 number, it comes with caveats. to actually get the advertised number, you need to wait 30+ min to heat up the battery, and you can't do it more than a couple times before performance degrades. it will be a while before EVs can match the agility and sustained performance of their ice counterparts.
The LR is no longer so I would end up with an AWD which I would not want, but if equipped as before it would be $54,990. This used to be a $5000 option over the price of the LR. If my TM3 were totaled today I would not buy one if I had to choose AWD, first it is a feature I have no use for where I live nor do I want the efficiency loss compared to the LR.
So has there been much movement?
TBH, in a few years my replacement likely will not be a Tesla, there are many things to like about the TM3 but road noise and lack of full blue tooth audio support are issues I will not suffer long. This company has its priorities ass backwards at times, apparently fart gags and video games are more important than delivering promised voice commands and then doing a proper blue tooth audio stack. When 20k cars do both features better its disappointing.
This. It makes It makes me angry when I see those features it reminds me that this is a company not run by adults.
One would hope you could tell the car to change radio stations, switch to the phone for music, or even control the temperature, but for now we get limited navigation and satellite radio commands.
Would I use them, some. However the point was, they don't focus well. Fart gags and video games are not features that make every day driving easier. Having full access to the music on my phone via blue tooth like nearly every other car has had for years would be. Instead I have to use my phone to change play lists which actually is not legal in my state.
From what I read the only way to control most of the things is through the central screen, which can be a pain compared to dedicated knobs. "Hey tesla, fire up the A/C" seems better than having to touch/look at the screen.
The games/jokes are probably not built by the same teams anyway. It's more of a PR thing.
At then end of January, 2019 they were selling a 270 mile range Model S, 0-60 in 4.2, without AP, for $85k. Today for $80k you get 370 miles of range, 0-60 in 3.7, with AP.
Obviously the question on everyone's mind is, what are the gross margins? If these are strictly process improvements which are fully maintaining margins, then it is extraordinary progress in 6 months. I would expect that there is some combination of process improvements, technology transfer from Model 3 -> S/X, and at least some margin erosion, particularly as the Federal tax credit continues to wind down.
The TM3P for $54,900 is truly an absurdly low price for that level of performance. I'm somewhat shocked it's not at least $57,990, but I understand what they're doing -- it's almost pure margin for them when they get an upsell from LR-AWD to Performance, so the more they can shift the mix to performance the better.
As long as a significant part of that gross margin can be put back into capital expenditures (developing new vehicles and infrastructure, developing more manufacturing capacity), things are looking bright for continued EV development and adoption regardless of what the incumbent manufacturers are up to.
The past was always about "prices can be lowered (or the margin becomes better) when the production scales". Now production is back-scaled. It seems they hit some production peak were more doesn't mean better margin.
Or in other words: "we need more margin on the higher priced versions to be able to lower the price on the cheap version without hurting our overall margin that much."
You can't explain it to some people, and they have no interest in evidence. The other day on Twitter Musk was talking about the SpaceX rockets they're going to attach to a version of the car (LOL!) and how it's all going to tuck neatly behind the license plate. The thread following it was half-filled with people claiming how cool that was going to be, and what they were going to do with it. I'm talking grown adults here. The other half was grown adults saying they're just going to be happy making $100,000 a year letting out their Tesla as a robotaxi. Completely detached from reality.
I've never seen anything like this in my life. I think EVs are great, and actually priced out a Bolt (couldn't get service where I live) so I'll have to wait until my recent lease expires in a couple years to go looking in a more mature market. But it's hard for me to fathom that there are people who believe we're going to driving (and being driven) in rocket cars any day. Meanwhile, people are still waiting weeks and months for minor repairs on their cars.
How is it that people can see reality so differently?
They did that ... A year ago. Watching the quarterlies since then, they've taken that brute-force, all-hands-on-deck one week peak production number, and turned it into the standard weekly production number (ish). They are clearly progressing/scaling, just not as fast as Musk guidance suggested.
They are defently not the best in production of the actual car assembly, but its not like they are on all that inferior.
And I don't know what you mean with 'cut corners'. What corners?
Another article currently on the front page: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/15/tesla-workers-in-ga4-tent-de...
> Employees in the open-air GA4 “tent,” which is not fully automated, tell CNBC they were pressured to take shortcuts to hit goals — reducing vehicle testing for water leaks and using electrical tape on plastic housings to make quick fixes during Model 3 assembly.
Tesla cars have been getting great reviews from virtually every single tester. The rate as some of the safest cars ever built. But of course they are horrible because they fixed up some plastic covers with tape. You got to be kidding me.
Tesla invest way as much into the software and electronic in the car compared to every other automaker. Go listen to Monroe (who does car breakdown and costing for other car company) he describes how Tesla software and electronic is far superior anything in any other car. How they massivly innovated on battery technology, cooling loop, electirc motors and and much more. He describes in detail how they are ahead of the competition on those things. Those things are about 100x more relevant to me then plastic covers.
And I don't own a Tesla or even care much for Tesla overall. But the constant articles about Tesla being horrible because of every little issue with their production line is just insane. If that level of detailed analysis was applied to every new car company trying to bring a car to market, its virtually certain you could make articles about that as well.
edit: neat table here: https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity_table
A polished aluminum car would be the best, but would probably blind all other drivers.
Sam Altman has openly condemned critics for being "in it for the money", while those who own the stock long are just good people fighting climate change. This is seen as a battle ground, so it's not a surprise. You cannot criticize Tesla in certain circles:
"It's gross seeing so many root against Tesla. Be the person on the side of the climate and innovation, not the person hoping to make money on puts."
https://twitter.com/sama/status/1130913917864034304?lang=en
There's some irony in that the same people who boast about Teslas being the best selling cars ever also say there are so many "enemies". How can both be true?
Unfortunately for some, sentiment is shifting away from our Tech Overlords. Anti-trust here, a fraud or two there and the hero worship will all be over.
A better strategy would have been to have just the model "S" and a $200,000 roadster.
A friend of mine got his Los Altos High son a model "3" for graduation. The other kids make fun of him. "Couldn't you afford a "real" Tesla?" they say! Like it or not, the "3" is perceived as a compromise--not the real thing.
If someone says that, then they are the type of person that would mock any car choice.
That is luxury pricing to the rest of automotive industry.
It shows Tesla is held to a different standard.