Funny you should say this. I have an electric car precisely because we drive so little. It's very cheap -- £180 per month including charging costs, about $300. It's a little Renault Zoe and it's fantastic. We charge it maybe once a week. (The charge point was installed free, too)
Well, in fairness, that is the EU... (don't take that as a knock, you are free to run your nation how you wish)
You have a situation there that doesn't exist anywhere else that I am aware of. Between your gas taxes, your car taxes, your EV rebates, etc. I can understand why more people in the EU buy EVs than anywhere else in the world.
Last year, 0.75% of all cars in the world sold were "plug in somethings", including straight EVs and Plug-in Hybrids. But in the EU, the number was 1.27%.
---
In the US, the percentage is even lower than the average of the world. Our gas is cheap, our rebates on EVs aren't as big as elsewhere, and our cars in general are pretty cheap and are not taxed based on the size of the engine or fuel consumption (except in extreme rare cases).
As an example, since you provided a price to something...
In the US, you can lease a nice mid-size gas powered car like the Ford Fusion (which I think exists in Europe too, but maybe not under the same name) for $200 a month with nothing due at signing. You keep it 3 years, then get another one. A long term rental, to be sure, but $200 for a nice 5 passenger car is a pretty good deal.
You can, as an option, buy that car for about $16K. It gets 29MPG mixed city/highway driving which means that if you drive the 37 miles a day average, you'll spend $77 a month if gas is $2/gal.
So your monthly cost is $277 a month including fuel. The Model 3 won't even be close to those numbers, even if electricity is free, which it isn't.
If you could lease a Model 3 for $300 a month, I think you'd move a LOT of them... But I suspect that won't be happening for awhile... But time will tell. Price is one of the biggest things to overcome, and it is getting there, but not there yet.:)
The bet is that there is a large chunk of the population who prefer the tradeoffs involved in an electric car to the tradeoffs involved in a gas-powered car, especially once range anxiety is dealt with by hitting 200miles.
The range is the big question, since the answer to that so far has been a resounding "no" in terms of acceptance.
Clearly, range anxiety is more psychological than a practical concern for the typical US driver, given that on average people drive 37 miles per day.
While that is true, it would be a mistake to dismiss such concerns as trivial, people buy on emotion more than logic.:)
The other consideration is that at 37 miles a day, you really have to get the car's price down even lower before it make any kind of financial sense. But then, emotion rules the roost.
There are many millions of folks who could fit a charge point at home and find themselves using it only once a week,
I suspect you overestimate how many Americans have a garage or safe place to put such a charge point. Until I was 30, I had no place to do this, having lived in apartments with no garages. Yes, many people will be able to do this, but millions more won't. A whole lot of Americans also don't actually own the house they live in, further making it a challenge.
Now you may say that for you, it's obvious that the tradeoffs are nowhere near to close to favouring an electric car -- and who's to argue with how you personally feel? But it's not obvious that the same is true for everyone else.
Of course, and if you like your EV, by all means, enjoy it. I'm not against EVs at all. I'm against the PRICE of EVs. They are still too expensive, even this Model 3. Get the Model S down to $40K base and the Model 3 down to $20K base and they'll sell like crazy.
Not at their current prices however.
(Being urban in a city with good public transport, we charge it less than once a week.)
Consider that the VAST majority of the US is not any of that. New York, Chicago, and maybe DC, but that's about it. There is too much land in the US to ever make public transport work most places.
Certainly, many people who've been in my little Renault Zoe with a wimpy range of just 60 miles have told me they really prefer it to their gas-powered cars: they're very attracted by the quiet, lack of vibration, instant acceleration and ability to charge at home.
Tastes are different on different sides of the Atlantic of course... It is also worth noting that I would prefer a Model S to my current car, if I didn't have to pay for it.:) How many of your friends have bought a Renault Zoe?
I'll bring you back to the range issue. I completely agree that for most people, 200 miles is plenty. But you have to keep in mind that it only has to strand someone once, then they ask "why do I own this bloody thing?" This is less likely to happen to early adopters who love EV for its own sake and spend the big bucks buying it. But once the price comes down, average people who just don't care will own them, then run out of power, because that is what people do.
A Cadillac or Corvette are both already 2-3 times the cost of a normal car. The current Tesla models are not more expensive than other cars in their class, and neither will the Model 3.
And what exactly is their class?
I notice the EV fans like to call Tesla a luxury car. Why? It isn't that nice inside, it doesn't come with all the normal luxury car services.
You're giving it way too much credit.
You can buy cars just as nice for a whole lot less money.
Taurus sales - about 50,000 cars per year. About a tenth of what they are planning to produce of the Tesla Model 3.
True, but so what?
The Taurus is, for better or worse, a car that Ford does not market at all. It exists largely because it has existed and they might as well make it, since it is really the same vehicle as the Explorer. Same platform, same engine, same transmission, same wheelbase, etc. Only a few sheet metal panels and a few internal panel differences, otherwise, same vehicle.
In any case, the Taurus isn't the Model 3's counterpart, the Fusion is. The Taurus is bigger than the Model 3.
Ford sold 300,170 Fusions in 2015 Toyota sold 429,355 Camrys in 2015 (best selling car).
How many of those 500,000 Model 3 that Tesla plans to sell will be in the US? Maybe 50K? Maybe 100K? That would be a staggering amount to sell, considering that Tesla doesn't really have a dealer network here and can't even sell in all the states.
How about worldwide, 500k cars? Consider that in 2015, worldwide annual sales of plug-in hybrids (not just EVs, but ALL plug-in hybrids) was 540,000. So Tesla plans to double it all with one model? Maybe he will, I wouldn't want to go betting against him, but that doesn't mean he'll do it either.
Consider also that those sales are there because of tax incentives and not because of the cars themselves. Last year in Georgia, they went from having a $5K state rebate to charging an annual fee for EVs. EV sales plunged by 90% there.
Even in Europe, which seems to be EV crazy, still only sold 1.24% of all cars sold were plug-in hybrids (and this is NOT pure EVs, it includes the Prius plug-in) as well.
Another thing to consider. US Auto sales in 2015 were 17.5 million car and light trucks. Worldwide auto sales were 74.38 million.
EVs will continue to rise, 500k would be a lot. Time will tell how far that can grow.
They are gearing up to produce 500,000 Model 3 per year.
I have no doubt they can build that many. The question is, will they sell that many once the early adopters have them?
The tax incentives aren't likely to stick around once the numbers grow that high, even Musk knows that, which is why he has targeted $35K without them.
Keep in mind that the best selling vehicle in the US is the Ford F-150, and Ford sold 780,354 of them last year. For Tesla to sell 500,000 of anything will be a massive feat.
I can see which way this is going even if you can't.
Trend lines don't continue the way you might think they do. By your implication, if they sell 500,000 Model 3, then the next one after that will sell 5,000,000. And THAT isn't going to happen.
The price just did change by a whole lot. It's not in the ballpark of the average priced car. And it looks to be the best car you can buy for that money.
"Best" car for the money is very subjective. Musk said that, but he is selling them, so that doesn't mean much. Frankly, I can think of a LOT of other cars that I'd rather spend $35K on.
And lets be honest, the Model 3 isn't REALLY going to be $35K, not the way most people buy them. Closer to $50K is more like it once equipped with everything. Keep in mind that at $35K, you get auto-emergency braking, but you do NOT get autopilot, you pay extra for that. The hardware is there so you can buy it later, but it is optional.
Right now a lot of people seem dazzled by "oh look, new shiny". Once you sit in one you might be less impressed. Triple that if you bothered to go sit in the new cars being sold by Ford and Chevy these days (which have gotten massively better in the past 10 years).
More likely he hauls "toys" (four wheelers, dune buggies, whatever) a couple times a month
Actually, I have a 7x14 foot cargo box trailer that holds up to 7,000lbs of stuff. I have to move several pallets of equipment a few times a year for work.
A cheap pickup truck would do it, but why not use your nice vehicle that is a pleasure to drive and that you already own anyway?
maybe, a few kids to and from school and activities.
Yep, my wife drives it more than me, we have 3 kids and they have friends. More than once a week all 7 seats are full and then there is the stuff behind the seats.
I don't think a Taurus is a good counter example because they aren't that great, but maybe they are.
The Taurus is a better car than most people give it credit for. Ford doesn't sell that many of them, it doesn't get much marketing and the nameplate is remembered from the 90s as a rental car too much.
But it is larger than the Fusion and nicer in many ways.
Would I pay normal price for it? No, not a chance. But I got a demo for a screaming good deal. Sticker of over $30K, paid $20,750 for it. It is a Limited with everything on it. I paid less for it than a mid-level Fusion would cost. Granted, that deal isn't open to everyone, I was at the right place, right time, but that is why I own it. It was simply too good a deal to pass up.
You are right, overbuying for "I might need to carry something" is a common justification for "mine's bigger than yours" purchases in the US.
I would fully agree that way too many nice pickup trucks never have anything in the bed. Yet they continue to sell.:)
On the flip side, who is the first person everyone calls when you need something moved? The person with the pickup truck.:)
$40K buys you a nice Ford F-150 with quite a list of features. $40K will likely buy you a nice Model 3 with quite a list of features.
The F-150 will burn more fuel, but be more useful in more situations than the Model 3. They each have their place, but considering that Ford's F-150 has been, not just the best selling truck, but the best selling vehicle of any type (car or truck) in the US for 38 straight years, should tell you how useful such a vehicle really is.
In 2015, Ford sold 780,354 of them. That's not nothing.:)
I have to ask though, because I see similar posts like this (and yours twice now), are you actually hauling 7 people, a ton of cargo and a 4 ton trailer on a regular base?
The 7 people, yes, often more than 3 days a week. Not just my wife, but often our three kids and their friends.
Then you have their stuff. Try taking 4-6 kids and their stuff to the park for the afternoon. blankets, balls, a cooler, chairs, etc.
It all fits without a fuss in the back of the Yukon XL (it wouldn't in a normal size Yukon, that vehicle is kinda silly with no room behind the third row).
As for cargo, yes... when I need the truck for work, my wife takes the Taurus (which comfortably fits our kids in the back, the rear seat is huge) and I take the Yukon. One quick touch of the two buttons and all the seats fold down and I have plenty of room for boxes, supplies, and anything else I need to move around.
Regarding a trailer, that is less often, a few times a year.
It seems a very US-ian thing to do, I never heard people in Europe buying a car that does more then they need for regular day-to-day work. It's quite common to just hire the required vehicle for the one day a year most people would need such a thing.
You can't really rent (hire) a truck like this. The car rental companies don't carry them and if they did, they would cost so much, you might as well own one.
Example: This weekend we are driving from Dallas to Galveston for a stay at the beach. It is 5 hours each way. Myself, my wife, and our three kids. And all the toys. Could this technically be done in our Taurus? Yes. Would it be NEARLY as nice? Not a chance. There is plenty of room in the back for the kids to spread out, have their space, toys, etc. without being in each others way. Behind the third row, we've got beach chairs, balls, inflatable toys, a cooler, and food for the weekend. The Yukon XL is an amazing highway cruiser, it is smooth and comfortable and a wonderful vehicle to take a road trip in.
We do this sort of thing multiple times a year. Some weekend trips, then usually one or two longer trips to Florida or another state.
What I am objecting to, however, is the statement that a 35k USD car is "only for rich people". Plenty of "normal" people own cars here. It's a matter of priorities. Priorities, mind you, that I don't agree with. I do have a car, but I really wish I could get rid of it so I can spend the money on better things.
You have to look at more than the price of the car
What are normal wages there? What are they here? What does housing, food, and energy cost there? Here?
Or to put another way, what percentage of your income goes towards your car, vs what percentage of the average American's income goes towards their car.
$35K is just a number. If Minimum wage was raised to $30/hr tomorrow, it wouldn't be a big deal, but that price wouldn't hold either.
Its been less than a day and they've already got 115,000 pre-orders, for a car that wont be delivered for another year. Given that you have to put down $1000 to pre-order, those aren't idle orders either. Seems your estimate of 50,000 vehicles MAX is a bit off.
115,000 preorders worldwide... I said 50k in the US, and that was a per year figure.
Those preorders are not commitments, it is refundable. Musk does a good job with promotion, he is Steve Jobs in that way, far more than most other car CEOs. This is the early adopter sales, once people see and drive the car and consider the limitations, you'll find that it doesn't extend across much more than that.
Worldwide, he may well sell 250,000 of them a year. I think it will sell well in CA, maybe a few other places. Beyond that, the economic realities will bite into it.
My Tundra cost right near $35k, and it can tow 9800 lbs, haul 1700 lbs, has plenty of space for 5 normal sized adults to comfortably sit in it, but burns gas at 15 mpg.
Personally, I would trade in my Tundra in a heartbeat if someone would come out with a serial hybrid truck.
You know, not everyone lives in the states.. Hello from Canada, land of the $6 gallon of gas, coupled with my old 2 hour each way commute meant I was easily spending $400 CDN a month on gas. I just picked $200 out of the air as it seemed more reasonable than a Vancouver commute.
Totally fair points.
Allow me to say... If the Model 3 makes sense for you personally, then by all means, buy one.
I am NOT in any way dismissing the car's technical merits. It is just expensive for the average person.
I see in many stories and comments posted to Slashdot "oh, the days of gas cars are ending, everyone will be driving EVs in 25 years, get with the program".
Yea, yea, maybe... we'll see... but a lot has to shift to make that happen.
EV sales are a rounding error right now. Even if they grow each year, they will still be a very small percentage of total vehicle sales.
A number of things are going to prevent them from taking over, and price is but one of them. My comments are, as much as anything, aimed at the posters who can't seem to understand why anyone continues to buy gas cars.
11 liters @ $1.14 per liter (at today's prices) means I spend $1 for 4.9 miles I drive commuting in traffic. Just a bit of a difference.
The irony... you clearly don't know that much about a Ford Explorer based on your comments.
The Ford Explorer is not in the same league as the Model X. Safety? The Model X will eat the Explorer's lunch.
You can't possibly know that. The Model X isn't even for sale yet, it hasn't been crash tested, you're just guessing.
add to that the automatic braking and autopilot features.
The Explorer has versions of all of that. Parking assist? Check. Adaptive cruise with lane departure warning and collision warning? Check.
Acceleration? Model X beats the crap out of the Explorer.
The Explorer does 0-60 in 6 seconds flat The top end Model X will do better... for $100+K. The base Model X is exactly the same as the Explorer, 6 seconds.
For its size it's impossible to beat the storage capacity since there's no huge engine up front.
The Explorer has more room in the back, the roof doesn't slope down like the Model X does.
It will also handle a lot better than an Explorer.
Since the Model X isn't out, you don't know that.
And you likely haven't driven a modern Explorer if you say that, the top end trims with AWD and the turbocharged V6 engine are almost sports cars in their performance. Or sporty cars.
And frankly, "top end handling" is not the most important factor in the purchase of these vehicles to begin with.
Oh, and you keep ignoring that the Model X is TWICE the price of the Explorer.
I don't consider Tesla to be a luxury name plate. Maybe you do, if so, fair enough.
Just making the car expensive doesn't make it luxury. If that was the case, then a Ford F-150 is a luxury truck because you can get the sticker well over $60K.
My Yukon XL Denali was $73K, and that wasn't sticker, that was below invoice (it stickers for over $80K).
Are those luxury vehicles?
That is a matter of opinion. Obviously a lot of people think it is good value for money. If you don't care about it being electric then yeah, it's probably not a good deal for you. For others that sort of thing matters hugely.
Fair enough, I can see that point of view. If being EV is worth so much, then fair enough.
But if it was, then let me ask you, why isn't Ford selling tons of Fusion Energi Plug-in Hybrids? You can get one fully loaded with EVERYTHING including adaptive cruise, air conditioned seats, collision warning, automatic park assist, lane departure, and a hundred other things, for $35K. That isn't the "entry level", that is maxed out, and it is just as large as the Model 3.
Combine it with virtue signaling and a more measured choice to support renewable technologies and you have a car that is not trying to compete with your 6k-under-sticker Fusion example, but is in competition with the Nissan Leaf (~30k) and the Chevy Volt (~26k). Can it add 5k to 9k of value to those? Probably.
Fair enough...
How many Leaf and Volts were sold last year? How many Fusions were sold last year?
My point in asking the question is simply to point out to the "EVs will replace gas cars" crowd that they won't, until some major, major shifts happen.
I have nothing against the Model 3. I wish Tesla all the success in the world. My comments are mostly directed to the "why buy a gas car, this is the future, everyone should have one" people.
EV sales in the US are a rounding error and they will remain so until the price changes by a whole lot.
I'm not sure where you got those numbers, my truck was near $35k, 0% APR 60 mo, and costs me $577.77 for the loan. If you just take 35k/60 it is 583.34, so I can't see how you got 624.79 unless you are including destination, tax, etc fees.
First, yes, I was including TT&L, which aren't free.:)
So $37,500 with TT&L and the interest rate won't be 0%. You got 0% because the dealer or manufacture bought the rate down to sell the car. Tesla likely won't be doing that. So you have to put in some interest, say 3%.
As this car should last longer, you may be able to get other loan terms such as 10 year, but they will have higher than 0% apr.
That isn't why you would get a longer loan. Your truck will easily last 20 years. You just aren't likely to own it for that long and with a 10 year old, you'll be way underwater on it for a long time.
Another reason for EVs is high elevation... ICE cars lose power as they go up. EVs do not. Granted, even 200 miles of range isn't enough for most mountain driving right now.
While that is true, there are two solutions...
GM went the "big engine route". The 6.2L 420 horsepower, 460 ft/lb torque engine in the full size trucks has power to spare so that as you go high, it doesn't really matter since you weren't using it all to start with.
Ford went the "turbocharging route". The 3.5L EcoBoost engine doesn't lose much power as it climbs.
There is a race up a mountain towing trailers between a F-150 with the EcoBoost and a GMC Sierra with the 6.2L V8. Neither had trouble accelerating from 60 to 75, while climbing a grade, while towing trailers.
Umm, yes actually it does mean that (roughly) half the new cars sold for more and (roughly) half the cars sold for less. (yes I'm aware of the difference between average and median)
Actually, you must not be aware of the difference between average and median based on what you said.
80% of the cars could be sold for $20K, and the average could be $35K.
What Fusion have you driven that does 0-60 in under 6 seconds and gets close to 100mpg equivalent?
The average buyer doesn't care that the Fusion doesn't get 0-60 in under 6 seconds. It does it in 7.3 seconds, which is plenty fast enough.
100mpg sounds great, until you compare actual dollars.
Driving the average of 12,000 miles a year, the Fusion will cost you (at $2 a gallon) about $70 a month in fuel. The Model 3 will cost *something* in power. It is cheap, not free. So the Model 3 may save you $50 or so fuel costs a month.
You are comparing a run of the mill no-frills commuter to a low end luxury car.
Bloody lord, what on Earth makes you think the Model is a luxury car? Take the glasses off.
BTW, toss $8,000 worth of upgrades on that Fusion and for $24K or so, you end up with something that is really well equipped and still costs more than $10K less than a Model 3 with none of the "new car company, new EV car concerns".
Also, if you haven't been in a Fusion recently, you should try it, they have gotten much nicer recently. Ford also sells a third of a million of them a year, so someone likes them.
And a lot of cars right around $30-40K are sold. What is your point?
My point is that the cars sold for $30-40K are nicer, bigger, more useful vehicles than the Model 3.
My primary complaint against the Model 3 is that you're paying a lot for a little.
When Ford announces their new F-150s for the upcoming year, I don't usually see people flipping out that they're far too expensive and out of the reach of hard working, salt-of-the-earth Americans.
Then you need to read more than Slashdot, which largely doesn't care about the F-150.
Go to Ford forums or truck forums and you'll find LOTS of people bitching at how expensive they are.
Many, many posts from people saying:
"Dammit, I just want a decent truck for a decent price, I don't need the stupid thing to park itself or come with all that tech, just sell me a basic truck that is nice for $25K!"
And others along those lines.
But when Tesla comes up with a car at $35K, suddenly people start pushing the idea that being able to afford one is a pipe dream--just another toy for rich people who are rubbing the noses of the working class in it! Those Tesla bastards!
The problem is not the $35K price point, plenty of people can afford that. It is what you GET for the price that is the problem. You can get a car, more or less the same in terms of people moving, space, and features, for close to half the cost. Option up the Ford Fusion a bit to put a few nice things in there and the price does go up, but it is still more than $10K less.
And how much will a Model 3 be that actually sells? $35K is the base, much like the Model S had a base of $70K, but a LOT of Model S were sold that were $100K.
I'm willing to bet average selling price of the Model 3 ends up being closer to $50K than to $35K.
In what universe is a Ford Explorer in the same league as a Model X? Performance, fuel economy, features, safety, handling, etc are all wins for the Model X.
In this one... you just saying the Model X is better doesn't make it so.
Have you driven a recent fully loaded Explorer? They are REALLY nice vehicles. Except for the dealership experience (blah), they are luxury at the top end.
In terms of features, what exactly does a Model X have that a Explorer Platinum doesn't? Well lets see, you can actually BUY an Explorer today. But putting that issue aside, there really isn't anything the Model X has that is missing from the Explorer.
In terms of performance, try again. The Model X 70D version does 0-60 in 6 seconds. The Explorer Platinum? 0-60 in 6 seconds. Granted, you can get the P90D performance version that does 0-60 in 3.8 seconds, but for what price? Well we don't know yet because you can't buy one, but I'll bet it is well north of $100K.
If you want to compare with a gas car you need to look at something like a Mercedes G-Glass.
For some reason, you want to give Tesla "luxury car status". The Mercedes G-class isn't actually that much nicer inside, if at all, than the Ford. It just costs a lot more for the name and dealership service.
You can't be giving that Fusion price in US$. It's off by about $10,000.
Yes, that is US$, and yes, $15,998 for a new base model Ford Fusion.
David McDavid Ford in Fort Worth, TX sent out an e-mail. That car has a MSRP if $23,475 - Discount of $5,665 - Customer Cashback (from Ford) of $2,000.
You sound like an early adopter: the technology is shiny, and you want it. Five years down the line, you'll take a net loss if you sell a hamburger for less than $4.58; while your competitors are able to sell the same burger for $3.25 and make a small profit. You're "that expensive burger place", and you go out of business because nobody buys from you.
Yes, except no... because I can afford to just lower my price and take a capital write off...
The cost is all front loaded for robots, they cost very little to actually use, but a whole lot to buy. My day-to-day running costs are not likely to be much, if any, higher than yours, I just paid more up front.
A write off of capital is a non-cash balance sheet transaction, it doesn't cost me money today, that money was already spent.
That changes a bit if I financed the robot and have to make payments, which is why large chains like McDonalds will likely take the safer route and setup another company to buy and lease the robots to the franchise owners to remove that risk from both the parent company and the franchise owners.
It is also worth noting that this all only works if wages rise to $15/hr nationally.
That isn't a pile of junk... it is a well equipped car with nice features that solves the "moving people from point A to point B problem" and does it for less than half the price of the Model 3 while burning very little gas to do it...
Slashdot Mirror
Funny you should say this. I have an electric car precisely because we drive so little. It's very cheap -- £180 per month including charging costs, about $300. It's a little Renault Zoe and it's fantastic. We charge it maybe once a week. (The charge point was installed free, too)
Well, in fairness, that is the EU... (don't take that as a knock, you are free to run your nation how you wish)
You have a situation there that doesn't exist anywhere else that I am aware of. Between your gas taxes, your car taxes, your EV rebates, etc. I can understand why more people in the EU buy EVs than anywhere else in the world.
Last year, 0.75% of all cars in the world sold were "plug in somethings", including straight EVs and Plug-in Hybrids. But in the EU, the number was 1.27%.
---
In the US, the percentage is even lower than the average of the world. Our gas is cheap, our rebates on EVs aren't as big as elsewhere, and our cars in general are pretty cheap and are not taxed based on the size of the engine or fuel consumption (except in extreme rare cases).
As an example, since you provided a price to something...
In the US, you can lease a nice mid-size gas powered car like the Ford Fusion (which I think exists in Europe too, but maybe not under the same name) for $200 a month with nothing due at signing. You keep it 3 years, then get another one. A long term rental, to be sure, but $200 for a nice 5 passenger car is a pretty good deal.
You can, as an option, buy that car for about $16K. It gets 29MPG mixed city/highway driving which means that if you drive the 37 miles a day average, you'll spend $77 a month if gas is $2/gal.
So your monthly cost is $277 a month including fuel. The Model 3 won't even be close to those numbers, even if electricity is free, which it isn't.
If you could lease a Model 3 for $300 a month, I think you'd move a LOT of them... But I suspect that won't be happening for awhile... But time will tell. Price is one of the biggest things to overcome, and it is getting there, but not there yet. :)
The bet is that there is a large chunk of the population who prefer the tradeoffs involved in an electric car to the tradeoffs involved in a gas-powered car, especially once range anxiety is dealt with by hitting 200miles.
The range is the big question, since the answer to that so far has been a resounding "no" in terms of acceptance.
Clearly, range anxiety is more psychological than a practical concern for the typical US driver, given that on average people drive 37 miles per day.
While that is true, it would be a mistake to dismiss such concerns as trivial, people buy on emotion more than logic. :)
The other consideration is that at 37 miles a day, you really have to get the car's price down even lower before it make any kind of financial sense. But then, emotion rules the roost.
There are many millions of folks who could fit a charge point at home and find themselves using it only once a week,
I suspect you overestimate how many Americans have a garage or safe place to put such a charge point. Until I was 30, I had no place to do this, having lived in apartments with no garages. Yes, many people will be able to do this, but millions more won't. A whole lot of Americans also don't actually own the house they live in, further making it a challenge.
Now you may say that for you, it's obvious that the tradeoffs are nowhere near to close to favouring an electric car -- and who's to argue with how you personally feel? But it's not obvious that the same is true for everyone else.
Of course, and if you like your EV, by all means, enjoy it. I'm not against EVs at all. I'm against the PRICE of EVs. They are still too expensive, even this Model 3. Get the Model S down to $40K base and the Model 3 down to $20K base and they'll sell like crazy.
Not at their current prices however.
(Being urban in a city with good public transport, we charge it less than once a week.)
Consider that the VAST majority of the US is not any of that. New York, Chicago, and maybe DC, but that's about it. There is too much land in the US to ever make public transport work most places.
Certainly, many people who've been in my little Renault Zoe with a wimpy range of just 60 miles have told me they really prefer it to their gas-powered cars: they're very attracted by the quiet, lack of vibration, instant acceleration and ability to charge at home.
Tastes are different on different sides of the Atlantic of course... It is also worth noting that I would prefer a Model S to my current car, if I didn't have to pay for it. :) How many of your friends have bought a Renault Zoe?
I'll bring you back to the range issue. I completely agree that for most people, 200 miles is plenty. But you have to keep in mind that it only has to strand someone once, then they ask "why do I own this bloody thing?" This is less likely to happen to early adopters who love EV for its own sake and spend the big bucks buying it. But once the price comes down, average people who just don't care will own them, then run out of power, because that is what people do.
A Cadillac or Corvette are both already 2-3 times the cost of a normal car. The current Tesla models are not more expensive than other cars in their class, and neither will the Model 3.
And what exactly is their class?
I notice the EV fans like to call Tesla a luxury car. Why? It isn't that nice inside, it doesn't come with all the normal luxury car services.
You're giving it way too much credit.
You can buy cars just as nice for a whole lot less money.
So, basically, Tesla just introduced an electric model that is the same price as a non-electric car.
Yes, if you don't look too closely at the cars themselves.
The Model 3 is not equal to your average $35K car, it is closer to a $22K car.
Taurus sales - about 50,000 cars per year. About a tenth of what they are planning to produce of the Tesla Model 3.
True, but so what?
The Taurus is, for better or worse, a car that Ford does not market at all. It exists largely because it has existed and they might as well make it, since it is really the same vehicle as the Explorer. Same platform, same engine, same transmission, same wheelbase, etc. Only a few sheet metal panels and a few internal panel differences, otherwise, same vehicle.
In any case, the Taurus isn't the Model 3's counterpart, the Fusion is. The Taurus is bigger than the Model 3.
Ford sold 300,170 Fusions in 2015
Toyota sold 429,355 Camrys in 2015 (best selling car).
How many of those 500,000 Model 3 that Tesla plans to sell will be in the US? Maybe 50K? Maybe 100K? That would be a staggering amount to sell, considering that Tesla doesn't really have a dealer network here and can't even sell in all the states.
How about worldwide, 500k cars? Consider that in 2015, worldwide annual sales of plug-in hybrids (not just EVs, but ALL plug-in hybrids) was 540,000. So Tesla plans to double it all with one model? Maybe he will, I wouldn't want to go betting against him, but that doesn't mean he'll do it either.
Consider also that those sales are there because of tax incentives and not because of the cars themselves. Last year in Georgia, they went from having a $5K state rebate to charging an annual fee for EVs. EV sales plunged by 90% there.
Even in Europe, which seems to be EV crazy, still only sold 1.24% of all cars sold were plug-in hybrids (and this is NOT pure EVs, it includes the Prius plug-in) as well.
Another thing to consider. US Auto sales in 2015 were 17.5 million car and light trucks. Worldwide auto sales were 74.38 million.
EVs will continue to rise, 500k would be a lot. Time will tell how far that can grow.
You remind me of this guy.
Yep, he got that wrong, didn't he? Jobs got really lucky and did really well with the iPhone. And even the iPad.
And how about that iWatch? Oh wait, no...
One risk to Tesla is that if Musk gets hit by a bus tomorrow, the whole thing is toast. :)
The Model 3 is still nearly 2 years to sale, time will tell how it works out. I actually do wish him the best of luck, but it isn't there yet.
Maybe the one after that. :)
They are gearing up to produce 500,000 Model 3 per year.
I have no doubt they can build that many. The question is, will they sell that many once the early adopters have them?
The tax incentives aren't likely to stick around once the numbers grow that high, even Musk knows that, which is why he has targeted $35K without them.
Keep in mind that the best selling vehicle in the US is the Ford F-150, and Ford sold 780,354 of them last year. For Tesla to sell 500,000 of anything will be a massive feat.
I can see which way this is going even if you can't.
Trend lines don't continue the way you might think they do. By your implication, if they sell 500,000 Model 3, then the next one after that will sell 5,000,000. And THAT isn't going to happen.
The price just did change by a whole lot. It's not in the ballpark of the average priced car. And it looks to be the best car you can buy for that money.
"Best" car for the money is very subjective. Musk said that, but he is selling them, so that doesn't mean much. Frankly, I can think of a LOT of other cars that I'd rather spend $35K on.
And lets be honest, the Model 3 isn't REALLY going to be $35K, not the way most people buy them. Closer to $50K is more like it once equipped with everything. Keep in mind that at $35K, you get auto-emergency braking, but you do NOT get autopilot, you pay extra for that. The hardware is there so you can buy it later, but it is optional.
Right now a lot of people seem dazzled by "oh look, new shiny". Once you sit in one you might be less impressed. Triple that if you bothered to go sit in the new cars being sold by Ford and Chevy these days (which have gotten massively better in the past 10 years).
More likely he hauls "toys" (four wheelers, dune buggies, whatever) a couple times a month
Actually, I have a 7x14 foot cargo box trailer that holds up to 7,000lbs of stuff. I have to move several pallets of equipment a few times a year for work.
A cheap pickup truck would do it, but why not use your nice vehicle that is a pleasure to drive and that you already own anyway?
maybe, a few kids to and from school and activities.
Yep, my wife drives it more than me, we have 3 kids and they have friends. More than once a week all 7 seats are full and then there is the stuff behind the seats.
I don't think a Taurus is a good counter example because they aren't that great, but maybe they are.
The Taurus is a better car than most people give it credit for. Ford doesn't sell that many of them, it doesn't get much marketing and the nameplate is remembered from the 90s as a rental car too much.
But it is larger than the Fusion and nicer in many ways.
Would I pay normal price for it? No, not a chance. But I got a demo for a screaming good deal. Sticker of over $30K, paid $20,750 for it. It is a Limited with everything on it. I paid less for it than a mid-level Fusion would cost. Granted, that deal isn't open to everyone, I was at the right place, right time, but that is why I own it. It was simply too good a deal to pass up.
You are right, overbuying for "I might need to carry something" is a common justification for "mine's bigger than yours" purchases in the US.
I would fully agree that way too many nice pickup trucks never have anything in the bed. Yet they continue to sell. :)
On the flip side, who is the first person everyone calls when you need something moved? The person with the pickup truck. :)
$40K buys you a nice Ford F-150 with quite a list of features. $40K will likely buy you a nice Model 3 with quite a list of features.
The F-150 will burn more fuel, but be more useful in more situations than the Model 3. They each have their place, but considering that Ford's F-150 has been, not just the best selling truck, but the best selling vehicle of any type (car or truck) in the US for 38 straight years, should tell you how useful such a vehicle really is.
In 2015, Ford sold 780,354 of them. That's not nothing. :)
I have to ask though, because I see similar posts like this (and yours twice now), are you actually hauling 7 people, a ton of cargo and a 4 ton trailer on a regular base?
The 7 people, yes, often more than 3 days a week. Not just my wife, but often our three kids and their friends.
Then you have their stuff. Try taking 4-6 kids and their stuff to the park for the afternoon. blankets, balls, a cooler, chairs, etc.
It all fits without a fuss in the back of the Yukon XL (it wouldn't in a normal size Yukon, that vehicle is kinda silly with no room behind the third row).
As for cargo, yes... when I need the truck for work, my wife takes the Taurus (which comfortably fits our kids in the back, the rear seat is huge) and I take the Yukon. One quick touch of the two buttons and all the seats fold down and I have plenty of room for boxes, supplies, and anything else I need to move around.
Regarding a trailer, that is less often, a few times a year.
It seems a very US-ian thing to do, I never heard people in Europe buying a car that does more then they need for regular day-to-day work. It's quite common to just hire the required vehicle for the one day a year most people would need such a thing.
You can't really rent (hire) a truck like this. The car rental companies don't carry them and if they did, they would cost so much, you might as well own one.
Example: This weekend we are driving from Dallas to Galveston for a stay at the beach. It is 5 hours each way. Myself, my wife, and our three kids. And all the toys. Could this technically be done in our Taurus? Yes. Would it be NEARLY as nice? Not a chance. There is plenty of room in the back for the kids to spread out, have their space, toys, etc. without being in each others way. Behind the third row, we've got beach chairs, balls, inflatable toys, a cooler, and food for the weekend. The Yukon XL is an amazing highway cruiser, it is smooth and comfortable and a wonderful vehicle to take a road trip in.
We do this sort of thing multiple times a year. Some weekend trips, then usually one or two longer trips to Florida or another state.
What I am objecting to, however, is the statement that a 35k USD car is "only for rich people". Plenty of "normal" people own cars here. It's a matter of priorities. Priorities, mind you, that I don't agree with. I do have a car, but I really wish I could get rid of it so I can spend the money on better things.
You have to look at more than the price of the car
What are normal wages there? What are they here? What does housing, food, and energy cost there? Here?
Or to put another way, what percentage of your income goes towards your car, vs what percentage of the average American's income goes towards their car.
$35K is just a number. If Minimum wage was raised to $30/hr tomorrow, it wouldn't be a big deal, but that price wouldn't hold either.
Its been less than a day and they've already got 115,000 pre-orders, for a car that wont be delivered for another year. Given that you have to put down $1000 to pre-order, those aren't idle orders either. Seems your estimate of 50,000 vehicles MAX is a bit off.
115,000 preorders worldwide... I said 50k in the US, and that was a per year figure.
Those preorders are not commitments, it is refundable. Musk does a good job with promotion, he is Steve Jobs in that way, far more than most other car CEOs. This is the early adopter sales, once people see and drive the car and consider the limitations, you'll find that it doesn't extend across much more than that.
Worldwide, he may well sell 250,000 of them a year. I think it will sell well in CA, maybe a few other places. Beyond that, the economic realities will bite into it.
My Tundra cost right near $35k, and it can tow 9800 lbs, haul 1700 lbs, has plenty of space for 5 normal sized adults to comfortably sit in it, but burns gas at 15 mpg.
Personally, I would trade in my Tundra in a heartbeat if someone would come out with a serial hybrid truck.
Would you if the "serial hybrid truck" was $75K?
You know, not everyone lives in the states.. Hello from Canada, land of the $6 gallon of gas, coupled with my old 2 hour each way commute meant I was easily spending $400 CDN a month on gas. I just picked $200 out of the air as it seemed more reasonable than a Vancouver commute.
Totally fair points.
Allow me to say... If the Model 3 makes sense for you personally, then by all means, buy one.
I am NOT in any way dismissing the car's technical merits. It is just expensive for the average person.
I see in many stories and comments posted to Slashdot "oh, the days of gas cars are ending, everyone will be driving EVs in 25 years, get with the program".
Yea, yea, maybe... we'll see... but a lot has to shift to make that happen.
EV sales are a rounding error right now. Even if they grow each year, they will still be a very small percentage of total vehicle sales.
A number of things are going to prevent them from taking over, and price is but one of them. My comments are, as much as anything, aimed at the posters who can't seem to understand why anyone continues to buy gas cars.
11 liters @ $1.14 per liter (at today's prices) means I spend $1 for 4.9 miles I drive commuting in traffic. Just a bit of a difference.
Move to the US! :)
You are clearly clueless.
The irony... you clearly don't know that much about a Ford Explorer based on your comments.
The Ford Explorer is not in the same league as the Model X. Safety? The Model X will eat the Explorer's lunch.
You can't possibly know that. The Model X isn't even for sale yet, it hasn't been crash tested, you're just guessing.
add to that the automatic braking and autopilot features.
The Explorer has versions of all of that. Parking assist? Check. Adaptive cruise with lane departure warning and collision warning? Check.
Acceleration? Model X beats the crap out of the Explorer.
The Explorer does 0-60 in 6 seconds flat The top end Model X will do better... for $100+K. The base Model X is exactly the same as the Explorer, 6 seconds.
For its size it's impossible to beat the storage capacity since there's no huge engine up front.
The Explorer has more room in the back, the roof doesn't slope down like the Model X does.
It will also handle a lot better than an Explorer.
Since the Model X isn't out, you don't know that.
And you likely haven't driven a modern Explorer if you say that, the top end trims with AWD and the turbocharged V6 engine are almost sports cars in their performance. Or sporty cars.
And frankly, "top end handling" is not the most important factor in the purchase of these vehicles to begin with.
Oh, and you keep ignoring that the Model X is TWICE the price of the Explorer.
Because it is a car sold by a luxury brand.
Does price alone make something a "luxury brand"?
I don't consider Tesla to be a luxury name plate. Maybe you do, if so, fair enough.
Just making the car expensive doesn't make it luxury. If that was the case, then a Ford F-150 is a luxury truck because you can get the sticker well over $60K.
My Yukon XL Denali was $73K, and that wasn't sticker, that was below invoice (it stickers for over $80K).
Are those luxury vehicles?
That is a matter of opinion. Obviously a lot of people think it is good value for money. If you don't care about it being electric then yeah, it's probably not a good deal for you. For others that sort of thing matters hugely.
Fair enough, I can see that point of view. If being EV is worth so much, then fair enough.
But if it was, then let me ask you, why isn't Ford selling tons of Fusion Energi Plug-in Hybrids? You can get one fully loaded with EVERYTHING including adaptive cruise, air conditioned seats, collision warning, automatic park assist, lane departure, and a hundred other things, for $35K. That isn't the "entry level", that is maxed out, and it is just as large as the Model 3.
But they aren't selling.
Why?
Combine it with virtue signaling and a more measured choice to support renewable technologies and you have a car that is not trying to compete with your 6k-under-sticker Fusion example, but is in competition with the Nissan Leaf (~30k) and the Chevy Volt (~26k). Can it add 5k to 9k of value to those? Probably.
Fair enough...
How many Leaf and Volts were sold last year? How many Fusions were sold last year?
My point in asking the question is simply to point out to the "EVs will replace gas cars" crowd that they won't, until some major, major shifts happen.
I have nothing against the Model 3. I wish Tesla all the success in the world. My comments are mostly directed to the "why buy a gas car, this is the future, everyone should have one" people.
EV sales in the US are a rounding error and they will remain so until the price changes by a whole lot.
I'm not sure where you got those numbers, my truck was near $35k, 0% APR 60 mo, and costs me $577.77 for the loan. If you just take 35k/60 it is 583.34, so I can't see how you got 624.79 unless you are including destination, tax, etc fees.
First, yes, I was including TT&L, which aren't free. :)
So $37,500 with TT&L and the interest rate won't be 0%. You got 0% because the dealer or manufacture bought the rate down to sell the car. Tesla likely won't be doing that. So you have to put in some interest, say 3%.
As this car should last longer, you may be able to get other loan terms such as 10 year, but they will have higher than 0% apr.
That isn't why you would get a longer loan. Your truck will easily last 20 years. You just aren't likely to own it for that long and with a 10 year old, you'll be way underwater on it for a long time.
Another reason for EVs is high elevation... ICE cars lose power as they go up. EVs do not. Granted, even 200 miles of range isn't enough for most mountain driving right now.
While that is true, there are two solutions...
GM went the "big engine route". The 6.2L 420 horsepower, 460 ft/lb torque engine in the full size trucks has power to spare so that as you go high, it doesn't really matter since you weren't using it all to start with.
Ford went the "turbocharging route". The 3.5L EcoBoost engine doesn't lose much power as it climbs.
There is a race up a mountain towing trailers between a F-150 with the EcoBoost and a GMC Sierra with the 6.2L V8. Neither had trouble accelerating from 60 to 75, while climbing a grade, while towing trailers.
Umm, yes actually it does mean that (roughly) half the new cars sold for more and (roughly) half the cars sold for less. (yes I'm aware of the difference between average and median)
Actually, you must not be aware of the difference between average and median based on what you said.
80% of the cars could be sold for $20K, and the average could be $35K.
What Fusion have you driven that does 0-60 in under 6 seconds and gets close to 100mpg equivalent?
The average buyer doesn't care that the Fusion doesn't get 0-60 in under 6 seconds. It does it in 7.3 seconds, which is plenty fast enough.
100mpg sounds great, until you compare actual dollars.
Driving the average of 12,000 miles a year, the Fusion will cost you (at $2 a gallon) about $70 a month in fuel. The Model 3 will cost *something* in power. It is cheap, not free. So the Model 3 may save you $50 or so fuel costs a month.
You are comparing a run of the mill no-frills commuter to a low end luxury car.
Bloody lord, what on Earth makes you think the Model is a luxury car? Take the glasses off.
BTW, toss $8,000 worth of upgrades on that Fusion and for $24K or so, you end up with something that is really well equipped and still costs more than $10K less than a Model 3 with none of the "new car company, new EV car concerns".
Also, if you haven't been in a Fusion recently, you should try it, they have gotten much nicer recently. Ford also sells a third of a million of them a year, so someone likes them.
And a lot of cars right around $30-40K are sold. What is your point?
My point is that the cars sold for $30-40K are nicer, bigger, more useful vehicles than the Model 3.
My primary complaint against the Model 3 is that you're paying a lot for a little.
When Ford announces their new F-150s for the upcoming year, I don't usually see people flipping out that they're far too expensive and out of the reach of hard working, salt-of-the-earth Americans.
Then you need to read more than Slashdot, which largely doesn't care about the F-150.
Go to Ford forums or truck forums and you'll find LOTS of people bitching at how expensive they are.
Many, many posts from people saying:
"Dammit, I just want a decent truck for a decent price, I don't need the stupid thing to park itself or come with all that tech, just sell me a basic truck that is nice for $25K!"
And others along those lines.
But when Tesla comes up with a car at $35K, suddenly people start pushing the idea that being able to afford one is a pipe dream--just another toy for rich people who are rubbing the noses of the working class in it! Those Tesla bastards!
The problem is not the $35K price point, plenty of people can afford that. It is what you GET for the price that is the problem. You can get a car, more or less the same in terms of people moving, space, and features, for close to half the cost. Option up the Ford Fusion a bit to put a few nice things in there and the price does go up, but it is still more than $10K less.
And how much will a Model 3 be that actually sells? $35K is the base, much like the Model S had a base of $70K, but a LOT of Model S were sold that were $100K.
I'm willing to bet average selling price of the Model 3 ends up being closer to $50K than to $35K.
In what universe is a Ford Explorer in the same league as a Model X? Performance, fuel economy, features, safety, handling, etc are all wins for the Model X.
In this one... you just saying the Model X is better doesn't make it so.
Have you driven a recent fully loaded Explorer? They are REALLY nice vehicles. Except for the dealership experience (blah), they are luxury at the top end.
In terms of features, what exactly does a Model X have that a Explorer Platinum doesn't? Well lets see, you can actually BUY an Explorer today. But putting that issue aside, there really isn't anything the Model X has that is missing from the Explorer.
In terms of performance, try again. The Model X 70D version does 0-60 in 6 seconds. The Explorer Platinum? 0-60 in 6 seconds. Granted, you can get the P90D performance version that does 0-60 in 3.8 seconds, but for what price? Well we don't know yet because you can't buy one, but I'll bet it is well north of $100K.
If you want to compare with a gas car you need to look at something like a Mercedes G-Glass.
For some reason, you want to give Tesla "luxury car status". The Mercedes G-class isn't actually that much nicer inside, if at all, than the Ford. It just costs a lot more for the name and dealership service.
You can't be giving that Fusion price in US$. It's off by about $10,000.
Yes, that is US$, and yes, $15,998 for a new base model Ford Fusion.
David McDavid Ford in Fort Worth, TX sent out an e-mail. That car has a MSRP if $23,475 - Discount of $5,665 - Customer Cashback (from Ford) of $2,000.
They offer a 2016 Fiesta SE for $13,107.
Their phone number, if you like, is 844-843-0602
You sound like an early adopter: the technology is shiny, and you want it. Five years down the line, you'll take a net loss if you sell a hamburger for less than $4.58; while your competitors are able to sell the same burger for $3.25 and make a small profit. You're "that expensive burger place", and you go out of business because nobody buys from you.
Yes, except no... because I can afford to just lower my price and take a capital write off...
The cost is all front loaded for robots, they cost very little to actually use, but a whole lot to buy. My day-to-day running costs are not likely to be much, if any, higher than yours, I just paid more up front.
A write off of capital is a non-cash balance sheet transaction, it doesn't cost me money today, that money was already spent.
That changes a bit if I financed the robot and have to make payments, which is why large chains like McDonalds will likely take the safer route and setup another company to buy and lease the robots to the franchise owners to remove that risk from both the parent company and the franchise owners.
It is also worth noting that this all only works if wages rise to $15/hr nationally.
Well....you get what you pay for, eh? ;)
Joke all you like, smirk all you like...
That isn't a pile of junk... it is a well equipped car with nice features that solves the "moving people from point A to point B problem" and does it for less than half the price of the Model 3 while burning very little gas to do it...
0 to 60 in six seconds? Is that not more?
Not much, a Ford Fusion will do 0-60 in 7.3 seconds.
Frankly, that is "close enough".
---
Also, my understanding from the release is that the 0-60 time of 6 seconds is not the base model, but the upgraded 2 motor model that will cost more.
Unless I misread it of course.