Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Discontinues Its Most Affordable Model S (engadget.com)
Tesla will be discontinuing its cheapest Model S option, the Model S 75, this Sunday. What that means is that the all-wheel-drive version -- the 75D -- will take its place as the low-end Model S sedan, currently listed at a starting price of $74,500. Engadget reports: The move to discontinue the Model S 75 was first announced by Tesla in July after it dropped the price by $5,000 a few months earlier. The removal of the model from Tesla's offerings follows its discontinuation of the Model S 60 and 60D vehicles in April, which at the time were the least expensive Model S options available. As well as streamlining its EV line and making all Model S options all-wheel-drive, knocking off the low-end Model S vehicles is also likely being done to carve out a bigger separation between the Model 3 and Model S lines. Custom orders for the Model S 75 will be taken until Sunday, September 24th and the pre-configured versions will be available for purchase until inventory runs out.
Make them the expensive ones. No shade, just saying.
ceci n'est pas un sig.
More like 100,000 cars, but I still think your generalization stands.
https://www.recode.net/2017/4/3/15160462/tesla-ford-deliveries-record-sales
Not so.
Early on, there was a 40 kWh option available. This was cancelled; those who ordered it received the 60 kWh pack, software limited to 40 kWh. In 2015, the 60 kWh model was discontinued. In 2016, the 60 kWh model was reintroduced as a software limited 75 kWh model. Apart from those specific models (the 40 kWh and 2016 and later 60 kWh models), no model S has had a software limitation on battery capacity.
You can upgrade the smaller capacity batteries to higher capacities at the workshop but it's not a cheap option. That said, if they had the 40 kWh option still available, I'd be tempted to grab that and upgrade the battery later on, as a way to save a bit of cash on the initial purchase. Moot point.
> I thought they were all physically the same?
Nope. The lowest end had only 1 motor and 2-wheel drive. All the higher end were 2 motors and 4-wheel drive. The battery packs did overlap in some models, though.
The point is, they have so much sales demand that "supply and demand" is taking over. They can sell every single higher-end car they make and still can't keep up, so there is no reason to offer the lesser models. Plus, by selling ONLY 2-motor cars, it streamlines production and will reduce that price some.
Finally, if you were in the market for the lowest-end S, you might now be pointed to the new model 3, which is the target for "entry level" electric car, now. I know I have no interest in the model 3, because it can't compete with the performance of cars like the Infiniti G37S/Q50 or its market equivalents. Of course, the higher end model S is twice FOUR TIMES the price of those ICE cars, so it isn't like I am really in that market, either. :( Some day...
I just checked, and the remaining options are the 75D, the 100D, and the P100D. The "D" means "dual-motor"... these are the all-wheel-drive versions.
This change means Tesla can more or less stop making rear-drive-only motors (just make a few as needed for repairing already-sold rear drive cars).
I looked at the Model S ordering page, and noticed that a lot of stuff that used to be optional is now standard on the Model S. The "smart air suspension" is now standard. The upgraded stereo is no longer a standalone option, but part of a "premium upgrades package" that includes the improved cabin air filter, the better stereo, and the cold-weather package (which also used to be a stand-alone option).
Now your only options are: "premium upgrades package", "enhanced autopilot", "full self-driving", and the rear-facing child seats for the rear cargo area. And probably most people will get the "premium upgrades package", looks worth it to me... and "enhanced autopilot" and "full self-driving" are both pure software upgrades. So really there are only two options now, and one of those is the child seats.
It's just like Apple: they have streamlined their offerings, they will have less to keep track of.
And as noted in the article, this also segments the Model S a bit above the Model 3.
P.S. IMHO Tesla's "most affordable Model S" would be a CPO (a Certified Pre-Owned car, i.e. a used car bought directly through Tesla). Tesla still sells those; you can still get one with the 60 battery if you like. I just checked and the least expensive CPO car it offered me was $40,800 (a 60 battery rear-drive car).
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Apple computers don't suck you fucking troll.
Posted from my Mac mi{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER
#DeleteFacebook
Not quite. Tesla has high prices because they need to charge that to stay in business. They staying afloat. The luxury yuppie image is purely because those are the people that can afford the vehicles. If they weren't targeting them they would be a historical foot note. Apples prices are high purely because people will pay it. They are practically printing money.
By the time there is a decent choice of EVs in most price brackets, the resale value of your current car is going to be crap anyway, unless it's a classic. Conversion is going to be expensive and is probably only worth it on really expensive cars. There's a company doing conversions on Porsche 911s, but it is very pricey and the range isn't great (though performance is).
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
>"In terms of performance, I would expect the Tesla 3 to be better. Certainly it will accelerate faster under real driving conditions. The Q50 interior is probably nicer though."
You can expect what you will, but I already researched it and the Tesla 3 will be significantly slower (which is acceleration) than the G37 or Q50 or its class. And, of course, the handling will be worse by far due to weight. PLUS the interior and room and range and features are all considerably worse, too. The only advantage the 3 would have is that it is electric (and therefore quiet and uses no gas).
The Tesla S, on the other hand, will eat it alive (acceleration)... and pretty much all cars except exotics. And the features are as good or better than most. The Tesla 3 is much, much, much less car than the S.
For those who are curious:
G37 S 0-60 ($37k): 4,9s
Q50 0-60 ($45k): 5,1s (Q50 Red Sport 400 ($58k): 4,5s)
Model 3 SR ($35k): 5,6s
Model 3 LR ($44k): 5,1s
Model 3 SR/LR with performance package: Announced, but performance and pricing TBD.
Given the typical torque-power curves of ICEs and EVs, the two ICEs would probably match the Model 3 variants somewhere around 0-40 to 0-60, with the ICEs winning beyond that and the Model 3s winning below that. As for the performance Model 3s, who knows? Obviously they won't have it threaten a P100D, but I'd wager that for the LR it'd go for somewhere in the 3,5-4,2s ballpark, and add around $10k to the price; it's cheaper to up an EV's accel than a gasoline vehicle's.
All we want to do is eat your brains.
Putting a ton into R&D is only reasonable at this point in time, and has clearly paid dividends. It's part of the reason why its competition hasn't yet managed to pose a serious threat to them; they've been seriously lagging behind. The only company that's even tried to threaten them on range is GM (barely), but it comes in the form of an econobox vehicle at BMW prices. Nobody comes even close to threatening them on charge times (miles range per minute charging). Competitors like Nissan are still using battery packs that don't even have climate control.
I agree that eventually they're going to need to cut R&D and investment into new facilities. But that time is not now. Now is the time for seizing the marketplace and securing Tesla's position as one of the world's largest auto manufacturers. And it's very important for them to go big, because that's what lets them bring production prices down to the point where they can threaten ICEs.
All we want to do is eat your brains.
Yeah, conversion EVs are usually pretty lousy. Even from-the-factory EVs built on existing ICE architectures are usually pretty poor. EVs are best designed from the ground-up as EVs, with the battery pack forming the base of the floor, and the shape dictated only by aerodynamics / safety / space requirements, not by the constraints of a nonexistent ICE powertrain.
All we want to do is eat your brains.
Meanwhile, Model 3 has the same sort of low CG, but is also roughly as light as its ICE competitors. I can't wait to feel the handling on it for myself; reviewers have been raving over it.
All we want to do is eat your brains.
Fair point. I was basing my answer on the Model S, but if you opt for the Model 3 SR with the smaller battery, I suspect the handling will actually be quite good. I haven't seen any formal tests of it yet though. The LR with it's larger battery will accelerate better, but likely handle worse. Depending on if you want better acceleration or better handling, there is an option for you.