[Red Bread]

Ha, maybe it was the seats too. The MC has great track seats but they got painful on longer drives. Did Dallas to LA and LA to SLC a few times with that car though and Dallas to Santa Fe countless times with bikes or skis on the roof, which usually dropped highway mileage down to 14-15. Made for some tight runs between small West Texas gas stations. But that thing had a great hatch, held nearly as much back there as my current GTI, just obviously didn't have the back seat.

[Soterios]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

considering you have a perfectly good car at home (I have 4 to choose from - all different to serve a specific use-case).

See. That statement there tells me you're litterally the person who SHOULD buy a Tesla (or rather can). You don't need it to be able to road trip.

You don't NEED that car to go on long trips because you have other options. That's my interest level. I have three cars now, and I'm planning on buying a goofy Jeep Wrangler to crash into trees soon. I could replace one of the things I own with a Telsa and have no negative side effects.

So when are you putting your deposit in?

[Red Bread]

There are so many better cars right around the corner. Taycan, eTron and many more in the next three years all spell trouble for Musk Inc. I'm amazed that he hasn't tempted someone into his Supercharger network. It seems much more promising than his actual cars.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Soterios

See. That statement there tells me you're litterally the person who SHOULD buy a Tesla (or rather can). You don't need it to be able to road trip.

You don't NEED that car to go on long trips because you have other options. That's my interest level. I have three cars now, and I'm planning on buying a goofy Jeep Wrangler to crash into trees soon. I could replace one of the things I own with a Telsa and have no negative side effects.

So when are you putting your deposit in?

I started looking at the Model S in 2012. I drive a minimum 175 miles a day. I'd love to have an electric sports sedan to retire my E90. The Model S didn't payback itself for my commute.

A buddy at work got a Model 3 a few months ago; he was a early deposit person. I've been in his car twice. It's fast alright, he has the AWD big battery version. In October, Tesla released the medium battery RWD version. My buddy tried to convince me to order one and take delivery while the $7,500 credit was still available. But I just wasn't all that impressed with the Model 3. It's expensive even with the tax credit and fuel savings. The back seat really really really sucks. I've ridden motorcycles all over the country for nearly 30 years and I was more uncomfortable in the backseat of the Model 3 after 20 minutes than I've ever been on a bike trip with Monkey Butt.

The Model 3 is loud as a regular car at highway speeds. The winter range for the mid-size battery is marginal for my commute. And it's just outright stupid looking on the front end. So no thanks. I'm waiting on GM, hopefully they'll make a sedan off the Bolt chassis with 260 - 300 miles of range.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

There are so many better cars right around the corner. Taycan, eTron and many more in the next three years all spell trouble for Musk Inc. I'm amazed that he hasn't tempted someone into his Supercharger network. It seems much more promising than his actual cars.

I agree. Musk said he wanted to revolutionize automotive transportation and convert the world to EV. Cool, but he should have done that as an engineering partner/component supplier rather than start a brand new car company. LG is advancing the EV state of the art as a major component and tech partner to GM. LG and GM are taking the right approach. Musk has been banking on fanfare IMO.

[Red Bread]

Agreed and the big boys are bringing fast charge to market much quicker. Porsche has claimed an available fast charge of 62 miles (100km) in 4 minutes. That's a big advantage over Tesla and I'd imagine Audi will have that available too.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Agreed and the big boys are bringing fast charge to market much quicker. Porsche has claimed an available fast charge of 62 miles (100km) in 4 minutes. That's a big advantage over Tesla and I'd imagine Audi will have that available too.

But the thing is, those cars are going to be $100,000. Until EVs are $35K, for the average buyer, they don't pay off.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

But the thing is, those cars are going to be $100,000. Until EVs are $35K, for the average buyer, they don't pay off.

You and this weird argument. First, the Taycan and eTron are both under six figures. $92k and $75k, before incentives ($10k in TX.)

And yes, a Porsche is not $35k. But why is that your arbitrary price point? An E90 wasn't $35k either and wasn't going to get better mileage than a Prius either.

Oops, Polestar 2. May solve all of your problems.

[FC4]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Good for you! But what does having "done well in life" have anything to do with the desire to take a road trip? LOL

I could afford to do better things with my time.

[Soterios]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I started looking at the Model S in 2012. I drive a minimum 175 miles a day. I'd love to have an electric sports sedan to retire my E90. The Model S didn't payback itself for my commute.

A buddy at work got a Model 3 a few months ago; he was a early deposit person. I've been in his car twice. It's fast alright, he has the AWD big battery version. In October, Tesla released the medium battery RWD version. My buddy tried to convince me to order one and take delivery while the $7,500 credit was still available. But I just wasn't all that impressed with the Model 3. It's expensive even with the tax credit and fuel savings. The back seat really really really sucks. I've ridden motorcycles all over the country for nearly 30 years and I was more uncomfortable in the backseat of the Model 3 after 20 minutes than I've ever been on a bike trip with Monkey Butt.

The Model 3 is loud as a regular car at highway speeds. The winter range for the mid-size battery is marginal for my commute. And it's just outright stupid looking on the front end. So no thanks. I'm waiting on GM, hopefully they'll make a sedan off the Bolt chassis with 260 - 300 miles of range.

To your last bit, I agree. I've always seen Telsa as the catalyst brand for EV. They made them viable and cool for the market.

GM/Toyota/etc are going to roll them out of existance if they're not careful. The disparity in quality control and production capability are still too great for that not to happen.

I'll probably never own a Tesla, but I might own a Toyota TacomaEV in a few more years.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

But the thing is, those cars are going to be $100,000. Until EVs are $35K, for the average buyer, they don't pay off.

If people are willing to pay $100K today for an ICE sport sedan then its highly likely they'll be willing to pay the same for an equivalent EV model.

I think the idea of equivalence is the key.

Certainly there are disadvantages to owing an EV today such as limited range and lack of gas-station-like charging convenience. But then there are also benefits to the EV such as being able to charge at home (if that is convenient - and for many it is), not having to worry about routine engine maintenance, perhaps access to special expressway lanes or parking lot spaces, etc. So its give and take. Obviously someone whose use case happens to fall on the losing side of those trade-offs isn't going to go with the EV. But someone who comes out ahead could very well be willing to spend as much - or maybe even commensurately more if it works out to be a bigger win for them - on the EV than they did on they ICE vehicle.

In my case I was able to obtain an extremely low mileage (about 500mi) CPO EV at a price that was similar enough to the equivalent ICE vehicle that I decided to give it a try. So far it has worked out nicely.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

You and this weird argument. First, the Taycan and eTron are both under six figures. $92k and $75k, before incentives ($10k in TX.)

And yes, a Porsche is not $35k. But why is that your arbitrary price point? An E90 wasn't $35k either and wasn't going to get better mileage than a Prius either.

Oops, Polestar 2. May solve all of your problems.

Yeah, but real porsche prices are base price *150%, with any normal options.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Yeah, but real porsche prices are base price *150%, with any normal options.

Yeah, I'd assume the Taycan won't come with a way to actually charge it. The cheapest charger will probably be $10k. Then you'll need sixty eight interior parts covered in leather and a bunch of suspension options and it will cost more than a P100D.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

You and this weird argument. First, the Taycan and eTron are both under six figures. $92k and $75k, before incentives ($10k in TX.)

And yes, a Porsche is not $35k. But why is that your arbitrary price point? An E90 wasn't $35k either and wasn't going to get better mileage than a Prius either.

Oops, Polestar 2. May solve all of your problems.

$35K is not arbitrary it's a mathematical realization. At least in the US where gasoline is cheap, a $20K price delta between a $30,000 Accord and a $50,000 Model 3, buys about 270,000 miles of use at 30 MPG for the Accord. 270,000 miles is over 20 years worth of driving for the average American. A 2019 Accord is a nicer all around car than the Model 3. $35K for an EV brings a realistic time for payback vs. an ICE equivalent over 5 years, but within the realm of real ownership times.

And I really don't have a problem (yet ). I get to drive a classic BMW NA in-line 6, manual-transmission, rear-drive sports sedan for basically 31 cents a mile.

[Red Bread]

And it has steering feel. Kiss that good bye with just about anything new that's not a 4C, Caterham or Ariel.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

If people are willing to pay $100K today for an ICE sport sedan then its highly likely they'll be willing to pay the same for an equivalent EV model.

I think the idea of equivalence is the key.

Certainly there are disadvantages to owing an EV today such as limited range and lack of gas-station-like charging convenience. But then there are also benefits to the EV such as being able to charge at home (if that is convenient - and for many it is), not having to worry about routine engine maintenance, perhaps access to special expressway lanes or parking lot spaces, etc. So its give and take. Obviously someone whose use case happens to fall on the losing side of those trade-offs isn't going to go with the EV. But someone who comes out ahead could very well be willing to spend as much - or maybe even commensurately more if it works out to be a bigger win for them - on the EV than they did on they ICE vehicle.

In my case I was able to obtain an extremely low mileage (about 500mi) CPO EV at a price that was similar enough to the equivalent ICE vehicle that I decided to give it a try. So far it has worked out nicely.

Sales of $100,000 cars are not a large part of the market regardless of architecture. There are just not that many rich people who can afford $100K for basic transportation. $100,000 EVs are not going to saturate the market and make it convert to electric. For most people in the automotive market, the EV use case does not make economic sense. Any equivalent car to the Tesla Model 3 (mid-sized 4-door sedan) costs $20K to $30K less. The payback is 20 years and 250,000 total accumulated miles, which 95% of 1st-owners never reach.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

And it has steering feel. Kiss that good bye with just about anything new that's not a 4C, Caterham or Ariel.

Speaking of Ariel... Their Nomad is about the coolest car you can buy IMO. My Wife would kill me if I brought home an $80,000 car I can only drive about 9 months a year.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Sales of $100,000 cars are not a large part of the market regardless of architecture. There are just not that many rich people who can afford $100K for basic transportation. $100,000 EVs are not going to saturate the market and make it convert to electric. For most people in the automotive market, the EV use case does not make economic sense. Any equivalent car to the Tesla Model 3 (mid-sized 4-door sedan) costs $20K to $30K less. The payback is 20 years and 250,000 total accumulated miles, which 95% of 1st-owners never reach.

There is a market precedent for a premium attached to RWD sedans and Tesla benefits from that. We are starting there, at a minimum, when talking about an equivalent vehicle. Among those RWD sedans on the market, the $46K-starting-MSRP Tesla Model 3 is nowhere near the low mark in questionable value. There are all manner of low end Lexus IS or GS, BMW 3 or 5 Series, Mercedes C or E Class, Infiniti Q50 or Q70, Jaguar XE or XF, and probably others that either meet or eclipse the Tesla in price while offering questionable content for their privilege of ownership.

You are letting the hoards of people out there who don't blink while buying these as-marketed "premium" vehicles, often starting at $50k or sometimes $60k or more, slip past your bullshit radar while turning around and calling them out on the spot for peaking in at a Tesla store. Time to recalibrate.

The buying public is full of people willing to pay a dear price for a vehicle just because it is a fancy RWD sport sedan with a European or Japanese badge. Heck, in some cases they are paying through the nose for these cars and they are not RWD nor even particularly sporty - the Camry-based Lexus ES should jump to mind. Now, some of them are noticing they can get a Model 3 at those prices, and it just happens to offer a more engaging drive than most of those others I mention. Plus, yeah, its electric too, so for those that fall into the win column on what that offers, they actually walk away with the better purchase.

This *is* the market we are in. Tesla *is* selling a non-insignificant volume of vehicles to this crowd. True story.

[Red Bread]

Yeah, what rwd sedan that can run low 5 to mid 3 second 0-60 runs is available for less than a Model 3? Maybe the Stinger, but that's not going to win any interior quality contests or even handle as well as a base Model 3. You need to raise your comparables to actually be, well comparable.

Again, it's looking like the Polestar 2 is likely to be the closest direct competitor. Around $35k (likely after incentives), which would make it nearly identical to the midrange Model 3.

[mkoesel]

^ That Polestar 2 is garning some attention with the promise of Model-3-like pricing, range, and performance without having to play build quality roulette. I am keeping a close eye - could be a winner.

Plus who hasn’t dared to dream about owning a car from a company whose name sounds both like a line of makeup for strippers and a Polish road surfacing operation.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

There is a market precedent for a premium attached to RWD sedans and Tesla benefits from that. We are starting there, at a minimum, when talking about an equivalent vehicle. Among those RWD sedans on the market, the $46K-starting-MSRP Tesla Model 3 is nowhere near the low mark in questionable value. There are all manner of low end Lexus IS or GS, BMW 3 or 5 Series, Mercedes C or E Class, Infiniti Q50 or Q70, Jaguar XE or XF, and probably others that either meet or eclipse the Tesla in price while offering questionable content for their privilege of ownership.

You are letting the hoards of people out there who don't blink while buying these as-marketed "premium" vehicles, often starting at $50k or sometimes $60k or more, slip past your bullshit radar while turning around and calling them out on the spot for peaking in at a Tesla store. Time to recalibrate.

The buying public is full of people willing to pay a dear price for a vehicle just because it is a fancy RWD sport sedan with a European or Japanese badge. Heck, in some cases they are paying through the nose for these cars and they are not RWD nor even particularly sporty - the Camry-based Lexus ES should jump to mind. Now, some of them are noticing they can get a Model 3 at those prices, and it just happens to offer a more engaging drive than most of those others I mention. Plus, yeah, its electric too, so for those that fall into the win column on what that offers, they actually walk away with the better purchase.

This *is* the market we are in. Tesla *is* selling a non-insignificant volume of vehicles to this crowd. True story.

I've been in a Tesla 3, it's nowhere near the over-all quality car of the ones you think it competes with. You state the Model 3 starts at $46K, yet fail to mention that the AutoPilot alone is a $5,000 option and that it makes no point to buy a Tesla without AutoPilot because the entire tech fantasy that the Model 3 is, is based on its perceived ability to drive itself in some low-complexity traffic situations. So the real lowest price of the Model 3 right now is $51K (less $3,500 from us fellow tax payers). The Tesla 3 just had an instantaneous $4,000 price hike as of Jan 1st.

The re-calibration needs to be at Tesla where Musk promised a $35K 4-door sedan BEFORE the $7,500 tax incentive (now missing from his "adjusted" price), which the 400,000+ messiah-following Musk-head junkies signed up for. If there is bullshit being flung, go look at Tesla, not me.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I've been in a Tesla 3, it's nowhere near the over-all quality car of the ones you think it competes with.

Except that Tesla is, as a point of fact, conquesting customers from all of those makes, including BMW with the 3 Series near the top of the list.

Moreover, the quality of ICE vehicles on the market doesn’t suddenly take a nose dive when you drop down to $35K. In fact, it’s just the opposite - many of the products in that bracket match or exceed the quality of those that fall into the premium segments I mentioned earlier. Furthermore, obviously the Model 3's quality will not magically, drastically improve at a $35K price. So to the same extent that quality is the reason the Model 3 doesn’t make sense at a mid-$40K purchase price, it’s still going to be a factor at at a mid-$30K purchase price.

If you don’t want the pain of having a nerve bumped, bough out of the discussion. We are not going to play the same “shoot the messenger” game over and over.

You state the Model 3 starts at $46K, yet fail to mention that the AutoPilot alone is a $5,000 option and that it makes no point to buy a Tesla without AutoPilot because the entire tech fantasy that the Model 3 is, is based on its perceived ability to drive itself in some low-complexity traffic situations.

Nonsense. Stop trolling.

We could tack all sorts of “must have” options onto any car on the market and jack up the price of entry to a fake number to suit an agenda. But we’re not going to do that. The car starts at $46k MSRP, period. Edit: Actually, it is $44K now, as of January 2nd.