Model 3 Mid Range Battery Available
3.tesla.comJust in case anyone is wondering how this plays out pricewise, the base model is $46.2k, but they headline the price as $33.2k:
Price $45,000
Incentives: -$7,500
Gasoline savings: -$4,300
Price after savings: $33,200
Destination & doc fee: $1,200
It's rather disappointing that for all the talk from Tesla about disrupting the way people buy cars they maintain nonsense practices like adding on destination and doc fees, and add new ones like working gasoline savings into the displayed price.
Only in the US would be advertising a sticker price that includes hypothetical "gas savings" be not considered misleading to the consumer.
Perhaps if they want to advertise gas savings they should be forced to also add "increased home electricity costs".
They do account for electricity costs in the "gas savings":
"The average person drives between 10,000 and 15,000 miles and spends between $1,000 and $1,500 on gasoline per year. In comparison, the cost of electricity to power Model 3 over the same distance is up to three times lower. Over the six year average length of car ownership, that's between $4,300 and $6,400 in gasoline savings.
We've assumed a fuel economy of 28 miles per gallon for a comparable gasoline powered sedan, for example, the 2017 BMW 3 series. We've also assumed the national average of $0.13 per kilowatt-hour for electricity and $2.85 per gallon for premium gasoline over the next six years."
But the cars I plan to buy also don't use gasoline. Ex: Chevy Volt, or the Prius Prime.
I dunno, I find it dishonest. Any electric vehicle shopper knows that gasoline is a major cost-driver and reason to buy electric instead.
The Chevy Volt is currently $33,520. Then gets a $7500 Federal Credit (and unlike Tesla, Chevy hasn't run out yet. If your Tesla 3 is delivered in January 2019, you only get $3750 in credits). AND it mostly won't use gasoline (50-mile all-electric range == good enough to not use gasoline in over 99% of my expected drives)
Agreed, it's smarmy.
It almost wants me to walk into a Tesla showroom and show them their press release and say "I'll take the $33,200 model. Here is my check."
The back pedaling and hand waving would be entertaining.
What are the ramifications of never changing the gas in a hybrid like the Volt? Does it “go bad” eventually?
Yes, it would! Fuel lasts about 30 days before it starts to oxidize. That basically starts to leave a gunk behind as the gasoline both oxidizes and slowly evaporates from the not-quite airtight tank. The fuel in the injectors evaporate and leave grime behind, clogging them, and this happens in many other places in the engine as well. The process starts after about 30 days, and by a year you're almost guaranteed to have fuel so rotten/sticky that the car doesn't start, or just barely generates power.
The Volt, BMW i3, and basically any other car with a range extender periodically run the engine in "maintenance mode", because it's good to circulate fluids, burn off some gas, and take some load off the battery for a while.
If you need to store a car for more than a month, you should top off and add a bottle of fuel stabilizer before driving home.
https://www.plugincars.com/putting-thought-putting-gas-chevy...
It appears that the Volt will detect the gasoline going bad (or at least, puts it on a timer and then assumes), and forcibly burn it off roughly once a year. Before doing so, it encourages you to use a bit of gas.
To be honest: this is the first link from a search engine. So its not an issue I've looked into very strongly. Nonetheless, it seems like GM has already figured out a procedure for "stale gas" issues.
https://forum.quartertothree.com/t/volt-gas-goes-stale/69063
So it seems to be a timer of some sorts, roughly on the order of ~once a year or so.
EDIT: I found a video on youtube showing the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEe4Rkg4GfA
The author of the video notes that you can drive the Volt just fine. He just had a camera handy and stay'd in his garage in this case however.
That is a concern. I am a happy driver of a Chevy Volt, and in daily commuting only ever use battery. The practices I use to preserve gas in the tank for long-term storage are:
* Keep the tank full of gas: air space is prone to condensation
* Avoid ethanol-added gasoline, it's more hypro-philic
* Add a fuel stabilizer (like 1 fl oz per 5 gallon)
* live in California, it's really dry.
These are adapted from techniques for winter storage of cars.
I tried the steps you suggest, but on adding up the cost after a few weeks I found that, what with commuting from California to work, I was making a net loss.
Volt has 2 maintenance modes it automatically goes into
Engine Maintenance mode: haven't used the gas engine in some period (month?) so it uses the engine for a small period of time (less than my 12 mile commute) so get the engine oil moving.
Fuel maintenance mode: doesn't let average age of gas be over a year. i.e. I filled my tank August 30, 2017 from basically empty. On Aug 29, 2018 it went into fuel maintenance mode and even though I had a full battery, it would only use gas. I was probably around 1 gallon left, I filled it up, so expect around june 2019, it will go into fuel maintenance mode again unless I finish off the tank and fill it up again.
The Volt has something called "maintenance mode", which starts the engine about every 4-6 weeks, and does a process a little more involved every few months or so to burn gas that would go bad.
While I dislike them using the gas saving in the headline figure, I cannot criticize the way they came up with the gas saving figure, that's an extremely fair way to calculate it (almost too conservative).
And while it may be a bit hidden (After incentives & gas savings -> Gasoline savings) they even allow you to customize it a bit based on Miles/Year and gasoline price.
Numbers are even better in Canada where we have cheap hydro power and tax the shit out of gasoline.
Washington state has cheap hydro also, as to a lesser extent do many of the other states in the west coast (California has lots of hydro, but they also need lots of electricity and even import from Washington).
Is electricity in Canada generally cheaper than in the states?
It looks similar. 10¢/kWh in Canada vs 12¢ in US (US cents for both). https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/average-elect...
I bet it depends on region, distance to station, maint, etc. I moved an hour outside a major metro and my electricity prices increased 60%, but gasoline only 2-5% in the USA. Plenty of trucking, but not much hard infrastructure. Most neighbors still burn wood or truck in propane for heat, yet the average home value is quite high. Its an odd situation, and points out how many of these solutions miss even the suburban populations, much less the rural.
What about the cost to have an electrician install the charging system in your garage?
And the Tesla wall unit also costs $500. Is that included in the price of the car?
That is disgraceful behaviour.
I guess bottled water then should be considered free since it's significantly healthier than drinking any else.
Or maybe my laptop should be considered free since it's used to earn money.
Totally agree. And their full $7500 (max possible) federal tax rebate just ran out a few days ago.[1] Now it drops to $3,750 (max possible) and orders delivered after June 30 2019 will only receive an $1,875 (max possible) tax credit.
[1]: http://fortune.com/2018/10/12/tax-credit-tesla-deadline/
If you order right now, there's a chance you'll still get the car by the end of the year (which is all that really matters with the credit), but you'd be cutting it pretty close. All Tesla claimed was that Oct 15 is the deadline for guaranteeing getting the car before the end of the year. Likely, there'll be a bit of leeway that will see people ordering within the next few days also get the car by the end of the year, especially with a 4-6 week promised turnaround for the AWD models (6-10 on the RWD one talked about here cuts it really close).
The full $7500 tax credit is applicable on any new, inventory, or demo vehicle previously not registered to someone until December 31st, 2018. You might have to order a Model 3 by a certain date to take delivery before then, but the tax credit is applicable until the end of the year.
Source?
I also find the way they are listing the price annoying, but the destination fee is government mandated and has to be a separate line item per KBB.
[1] https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/articles/destination-charges/
To their credit, Tesla does not inundate the masses with ads designed to incite emotional responses and associations that incentivize you to buy no matter the price.
They don't? Different marketing channels is very different than some egalitarian no advertising model. Tesla was launched on 'incintive to buy no matter the price', their roadster was hardly practical, nor superior to supercars at the time.
Looks like they still don't have the "standard interior" option available, so that's extra $5k. Once (or if) they offer standard interior, we're talking $40k. If they're calling this battery option mid-range and it's 260mi range, then it's sounds like we're yet to see the 200+mi (maybe 210-220) $35k car. They're probably not able to produce the $35k car yet without losing money.
You're making a huge assumption. Tesla's past behavior is that they fill their assembly line with the highest margin cars until they run low on demand for them, then add lower margin cars. That says nothing about the profitability of the $35k car. Plus, we're talking marginal profitably: the assembly line is a sunk cost now that it's fully purchased.
I kinda get you, but just because there's a bunch of marketing gibberish on the pricing page doesn't mean they aren't being disruptive.
I was specifically addressing their claims of disrupting the buying process. Under that criteria, ending price obfuscation (especially the doc fee) should be table stakes. As for the gas savings, it wouldn't be bad at all if they trumpeted the net cost after 5 years and clearly demonstrated the savings, but they lead with a made up price that no one will be paying. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I think part of the point of being disruptive is that you don't need to sink that low.
The iPhone disrupted the phone buying process, and still showed you a discounted price, after phone carrier subsidy.
Thank god in most places in the world that kind of disruption is illegal.
TCO isn't nonsense.
Because they aren't comparing to the TCO of other automobiles, they have to adjust the sticker price to help buyers consider the TCO.
Did Apple include TCO in their iPhone pricing given that they support their device longer than other OEMs ? No.
Did Toyota include TCO in their hybrid car pricing given that it also reduces gas consumption? No.
Did Rolex include TCO in their watch pricing given that the resale value doesn't significantly depreciate ? No.
Nobody does this because it's intentionally deceptive.
Actually, iPhone pricing from US telcos used to only show the discounted price, with the carrier subsidy. You paid sales tax on the full price, but that number was in the fine print.
These days you can buy it either way, so it's more obvious.
Back in those days I didn’t think you could buy them unlocked, which I guess makes it a more “fair” private than if you were to do it today.
But yeah it was weird in other countries when you would see “Thing X costs $Y” and everyone would do the $Y * exchange rate and say “why is it so much cheaper there”. Then you come to America and discover that the advertised price excludes compulsory fees and taxes. All American companies do this, and I would argue it is unethical, and should be illegal, but I don’t have the billions of dollars needed to buy a law.
The $7500 incentive halves this month, it’s too late to get it ATM.
I keep seeing people saying "it's too late", but the order page literally says "All customers are eligible for the full $7,500 Federal Tax Credit if they take delivery by the end of the year."
As long as you take delivery before Jan 1, you will get the $7500 federal tax credit. Tesla said you had to order by Oct 15th to guarantee delivery before then.
Yes, that is what they told me.
It also appears they have removed the option for purchasing the "Full Self Driving" functionality.
Quite sensibly. It seemed pretty shady to me to charge customers for a feature that wasn't delivered or legally approved or likely even finished.
I suspect they're finding the shipped hardware isn't enough to accomplish what they want with the necessary reliability. Elon has already hinted that shipped 3's will need a computer upgrade to support full self-driving. They are probably wisely backing off on guaranteeing full self-driving on hardware that hasn't been proven to succeed to specification.
Total speculation, but I'd bet a chocolate chip cookie that they'll find they need to make changes to the sensor array as well. (If I were designing this from scratch, I'd want a wide stereoscopic baseline between cameras for optical ranging. They have multiple cameras, but they are narrowly spaced, and may have fields of view that differ too much for stereoscopic fusion. I'd aim for "larger number of shittier/cheaper cameras.")
> It seemed pretty shady to me to charge customers for a feature that wasn't delivered or legally approved or likely even finished
It's still available for the Model X and Model S. The disclosure when you pay for it is very clear. They are not acting sketchy when they sell it to you. I'd guess it has more to do with not enough people ordering it, so removing the option streamlines fulfillment.
> I suspect they're finding the shipped hardware isn't enough to accomplish what they want with the necessary reliability.
Yeah they already admitted to this. Anyone who has paid for full self driving is getting a Hardware 3.0 (HW3) upgrade for free. They said full self driving will require HW3.
> Total speculation, but I'd bet a chocolate chip cookie that they'll find they need to make changes to the sensor array as well.
Yeah, as an owner I'm pretty worried that will be the case but I guess we will see. I doubt they will admit to this publicly though - they seem adamant that the sensors today should be sufficient.
> The disclosure when you pay for it is very clear.
IMO their marketing probably leads customers to be more optimistic about the expected payout of their $x,000 investment than is justified. Though that is not necessarily deliberate deception, they may be unrealistically optimistic themselves.
Misleading marketing or not, I'd say it's sketchy in the sense that it's an over-promise. If they eventually have to face a reality where their hardware doesn't it cut it, they might be on the hook for thousands of customers' respective thousands of dollars of pre-orders, which is a huge capital liability. Quite possibly 10 figures.
I noticed that and two other changes that cancel each other out from when I ordered mine.
White paint is now $2k instead of $1500
White interior is now $1k instead of $1500
supply chain back pressure ?
This is really interesting, I can't seem to find any reporting that has picked this detail up yet.
Full self driving capability is still available for purchase for existing long range battery Model 3 owners that didn't pay for full self driving capability up front. The cost is still $5k.
This is neither the short range battery (220 miles, $35k base price) or the long range battery (310 miles, $49k base price). This is a 3rd option: mid-range battery (260 miles, $45k base price).
Are these all not physically the same battery and the range is a software unlock? ISTR Tesla unlocking the additional range for free last time when there were storms in Texas.
> Model 3 Mid Range Rear-Wheel Drive $45,000
> Incentives - $10,000
> Gas Savings- $4,300
> Price after Est. Savings $30,700
This is good news, but it's still not the $35,000 model.
Also, what's the breakdown on the incentives? I thought the federal rebate was $7500 if they haven't run out of those yet. Are they including state rebates (which presumably aren't the same everywhere)?
Including "gas savings" in the price seems more than a little disingenuous.
Federal incentives cut in half in January. If I am not mistaken, the order deadline for a guaranteed delivery before Jan 1 passed a few days ago. It is possibly misleading to incorporate the full $7500 savings into the price, because they may not be able to deliver your car soon enough for you to claim it-- and they know this.
Agree about the gas savings. That's totally low.
Yes, they likely are. I only see $7500 as my incentives line. You can click "Learn more" in the Federal Tax Credit blurb to get more info on the incentives, it might include state information.
I assume the 35000 model is the "Standard Battery available in 4-6 months" that's below the options.
You're right, they're including a $2,500 California rebate.
It looks like they've removed the long range single motor option. It used to be
- Long range single motor: $49,000
- Long range dual motor: $54,000
- Long range performance: $64,000
Now it's:
- Mid range single motor: $45,000
- Long range dual motor: $54,000
- Long range performance: $64,000
So it looks like a savings of $4,000 off the older long range single motor.
The RWD LR model 3 was my go-to and the one I was considering.
With this change, they have now essentially replaced that model with one that has 50 mile less range.
Now the long range version looks so much less appealing as the price is now over $60k($5,000 more for entry LR) for an AWD upgrade I have absolute no use for.
reply
I'm the opposite direction. I got a RWD LR model 3, but I hardly ever drive it. And when I do it's all local stuff, well under 100 miles per day. I'd rather have saved the $4,000 and gotten a mid-range.
If someone approached me and offered to trade their mid-range + $3,500 for my long-range, I'd happily take that deal.
This has 260 mile range, and the webpage says 'Standard battery available in 4 to 6 months' so this still isn't the $35k Tesla. Its a sort of in-the-middle option.
Long Range > Mid Range > Standard
They've probably exhausted RWD demand backlog so I wouldn't be surprised if this was (initially)a software-limited long range battery, so that they can sell their RWD inventory.
Given that the delivery dates are 6-10 weeks in the future, they have plenty of time to put the correct size battery packs in. The previous examples of software-limited packs were in situations where they offered a bunch of sizes, more than 2, in a much lower volume product, and didn't want to produce or keep producing all of them. This time it's only 2 sizes in a higher volume product.
Musk mentioned it on his twitter, it's a long range battery with less cells in it. So a compromise really.
That would be incredibly environmentally irresponsible, considering the impact of mining lithium, cobalt, rare earths etc. You'd basically be wasting limited resources, which would run contrary to Tesla's stated mission of creating a more sustainable future.
My guess is that all the battery is used and the extra capacity allows for a "full" charge without really getting full. It could also let the range stay at the original level for a lot longer as the battery deteriorates. I would hope so anyway.
Lithium batteries do not use rare earths.
Tesla's specific battery chemistry uses significantly less cobalt than the other common vehicle batteries
Didn't they previously stop doing software-limited batteries after people got annoyed by it? Seems weird that they would start doing it again.
They're doing it with performance models. Their hardware is basically identical to non-performance AWD.
I just noticed they're now advertising the 0-60 of the performance trim as 3.3 seconds. Only a week or so ago, they were advertising 3.5 seconds.
I might have to test drive one soon. My wife is strongly disapproving me getting a Roadster in a few years. If I find that 0-60 in 3.3 seconds is enough, I might settle for a Model 3.
EDIT: They also removed the option to purchase full self-driving. Interesting...
3.3 is pretty dang fast. People sometimes complain about how fast my budget EV (hint: not a tesla) accelerates when I drive them around.
I test drove a 90D and the acceleration off the line is heart-stopping. And that is listed at 4.7s.
I've been on roller coasters that launch from 0 to 120 mph in 3.8 seconds, which is quicker than a Roadster 2.0. I rode it enough times that even that kind of acceleration no longer felt mind-blowing.
I'm worried that getting a car that does 0-60 in 3.3 would actually feel somewhat underwhelming considering that I'm, I guess "calibrated", for something quicker. Maybe I'd feel different though when I'm in control with the power at my command.
I'll probably test drive a Model 3 next year.
It's still $45k, now we will have to wait for the non-premium interior option for the $35k price.
EDIT: $40k price since it seems that there will be a smaller battery than this. Seems like a good way to make more money when people wanting the smaller range battery get tired of waiting.
Enhanced autopilot is now $5k up front or $6k later. It used to be $4k up front or $5k later.
I really can't bring myself to buy a new car but this would be about the most enticing. Even if I were wealthy I would probably still buy used cars (and my hobby is racing so it is not as if I don't appreciate cars).
at high 'racing' speeds, perhaps you should be aware that it doesn't have the best aerodynamics for road-holding (i.e. negative lift or downforce). also many people have reported some vibration issues that couldn't be resolved; https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/vibration-high-speeds
On the plus side, the Model 3 is much better with the cooling issues that S/X have when track racing. What cars this inexpensive have good downforce?
check comment below (BMW 3 series or Golf GTI)
Can you kindly recommend a good $40k-ish car that actually generates downforce?
BMW 3 series or Golf GTI - tried both on max speed. super stable.
still, Tesla is a very good ctiy car. a larger and better-looking BMW i3 or a cheaper i8.
How much does aero matter on a 4100 lb. car? (1850 kg)
$6,000 for auto-pilot? When the sensors are already in all cars? Can I run my own models à la comma.ai?
Do you honestly think the biggest cost associated with this program is the sensors?
If it's only a software update, when most of ML efforts are open sourced, I don't see why I can't install my own solution.
> I don't see why I can't install my own solution
You'd kill yourself and become Tesla's PR problem.
comma.ai seemed safe, technically is no different in term of softwares used. Tesla auto-pilot did kill more than 10 people now. Why pay for something that might be inferior than the free one?
This is mostly the end game of Elon's Tesla Master plan:
Regarding one of the last points in that, I continue to be baffled by Elon/Tesla's focus on shared personal vehicles, instead of public transport.
I continue to be baffled why people are baffled that most people prefer not to travel in cramped, enclosed spaces with random strangers and without the option to carry more than what you can hold in your hands. Sometimes people even have more than one small child with them. Is that really so hard to understand? The personal transport vehicle has been desirable from the beginning of time and now (almost) everyone can afford one. The big downsides are traffic congestion and space taken up with parking and roads. Those can be almost completely mitigated with cheap tunneling tech and automatic driving. Musk and friends are serious working on both of those projects also.
>I continue to be baffled why people are baffled that most people prefer not to travel in cramped, enclosed spaces with random strangers and without the option to carry more than what you can hold in your hands.
Transport is typically supply-led.
For roads, more roads encourage more drivers, and more drivers congest the system, leading to marginal overall improvement - there are only so many cars that can travel a stretch of road in any given period of time.
While with public transport there are also only so many buses/trains that can travel a stretch of road/rail at a time, we are typically well short of saturation - outside of some of the densest metros, there is often capacity for increasing the number of services. Investment in these forms of transport increases frequency and reliability, and simplifies connections. The 'downside' is that this increased efficiency tends to attract more users to the public transport system - which yes, means imperfect reduction of crowding, but still significantly improved throughput.
Also, the people on public transport are not 'random strangers', they are members of your community.
Re carrying, as a sibling comment says: backpack. Alternatively one of those granny trolleys. Plus, many buses/trains intended for longer transport (c.f. commuting) have luggage racks.
"More roads encourage more drivers"
Roads allow more people to do what they want to do. If we can eliminate the bad things about individually controlled transport (road noise, inefficient petroleum based power, huge parking lots, etc) why should we not let people have this great thing they desire. Are you anti-democratic?
Driving is not free. It takes time and money for gas and wears out your vehicle. People don't (generally) just drive around for the hell of it, especially at commute times when the roads a most full.
"the people on public transport are not 'random strangers', they are members of your community"
This I think is the main reason some people want public transportation to be mandatory. Somehow being forced to be with other people (who are all on their phones, desperately pretending no one else exists) is a good thing? Standing up for 40 minutes packed, hot, and smelly. Occasionally aggressive beggars; homeless people who stink up the entire train car sleeping; mentally ill people yelling at the ether, etc. Not all the time but at least once a month if you are a commuter. I guess it is a cool experience to have to see how the other half live, but a some point many people don't desire such things.
"backpack"
For the human race to continue, each couple must have greater than 2 children. Try taking 3 children under the age of ten by your self, walking to a bus stop, getting on the bus, getting on BART, walking to the doctors appointment, and then back again. Basically impossible.
RWD base price is $33,200 (after incentives), even less than the long quoted base price of $35k, though presumably incentives on the standard battery Model 3 (not yet available) would make the after incentives price even cheaper.
Only if you get the car before December 31st. With a 6-10 week turnaround, you'd have to buy it now and hope you're lucky, but cutting it close either way. And even then, it's not 33200, it's actually $37500 because of "potential gas savings".
From Jan 1 to Jun 30, it'll be $41240 and from Jul 1 to Dec 31 2019, it'll be $43125. As of Jan 1 2020, there'll be no more federal tax credit and the car will be full price at $45000.
...after tax incentives and "gas savings"
No. It is impossible, even with incentives to get it for under $37,500 - because that base price includes "gas savings" that are not in any way an actual discount on purchase price.