Official Tesla Model 3 thread
- Thread starter KJD
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
golfcart
Well-known member
SageBrush said:
I think y'all both have points depending on your use for the car and how long u plan to keep it. I think as a second car/commuter the 40kWh Leaf is a better value just because it's a lot cheaper but as a primary vehicle there is no doubt the Tesla is way more viable especially over the long term.
lpickup
Well-known member
SageBrush said:
Yeah, tried to convince my wife that a LEAF was entirely sufficient for a second car given that we have the LR Model 3 for trips, but she was insistent that she had a car with over 200 miles of range, so we ended up with a Bolt (would have been a Hyundai Kona EV, but her lease ran out before they started selling them--actually she would have gone for a SR Model 3 if the lease was still going!)
My wife took the same stance as yours but we decided to agree to disagree and just the sell the first car someone wanted. The LEAF stayed and the Prius Prime went to a new home. She now is quite pleased with how things turned out since she has adopted the EV lifestyle and appreciates the money saved. She also likes the fact that I no longer come into the house after an oil change.lpickup said:
The Bolt makes for a good choice too if it can be bought cheaply, you live in an area with CCS, and you can stomach GM.
golfcart
Well-known member
I'm still kind of angry at Elon for not putting heated seats in the $35k model. It makes me wonder if they actually want to sell any of those or if they just want to say they kept their promise.
That caught my attention too, but I would not care about it if I lived in a temperate climate like CA. In fact, I would appreciate not paying for something I would never use. Since CA is a HUGE market for Tesla your argument that demand for that model will be poor reads like sour grapes.golfcart said:
IIRC, a $2,000 upgrade that includes a better interior, heated seats, and a larger battery is offered. That strikes me as the sweet spot in value.
golfcart
Well-known member
SageBrush said:
Of course it's a little bit of sour grapes but I do think they'd prefer to sell the $37k version.
Fair point about California though, the coastal areas probably don't care about heated seats.
I'm not sure about that at all. Look at what the customer gets for $2,000:golfcart said:
5.3 second 0 -60 (instead of 5.6)
20 more EPA range miles
12-way *power* adjustable seats
Heated front seats
LED fog-lights
Upgraded Audio
Upgraded interior materials
golfcart
Well-known member
SageBrush said:
Why offer it then? Nobody expected that trim.
I don't speak for everybody.golfcart said:
My point is that the $35k version may be popular in moderate climates and Tesla is offering an improved package for $37k.
I just looked up the LEAF prices. The 40 kWh 'S' model msrp is $30k while the 62 kWh 'S' model is $6,500 more. The larger battery gives 75 more EPA miles of range. So Nissan is charging $86 per extra EPA mile. Tesla is charging $100 per extra EPA mile ... and adding all the rest I listed above. And of course the LEAF battery is garbage. But even if we used the LEAF battery as a baseline for cost the $2,000 is 20 miles * $86/mile = $1,720 of that amount. So for $280 you get close to the premium interior and a considerably faster car.
As I said, the $37k Model 3 is a sweet spot in value.
golfcart
Well-known member
SageBrush said:
I never disagreed with that statement, we are in full agreement that it is definitely the sweet spot.
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
SageBrush said:
Having spent a lot of years in California, I can assure you your contention that seat heaters are not needed is quite wrong. Our ability to adapt is quite small. A Washingtonian visiting California wouldn't need seat heaters but Californians would.
I remember jumping out of bed to stand in front of the wall heater (only heat in my apartment) to warm up because I was freezing. The temperature? 65º
lpickup
Well-known member
golfcart said:
I'll go back to a statement I made earlier (not sure if it was here or somewhere else), but if a $35K car was promised in 2016, in today's dollars that would be $36,707. Now yes, Elon promised a $35,000 car. I don't remember him making any particular promises about specific trim components (certainly not something like heated seats), but if you expect a $35,000 car in 2019 dollars, because of inflation, you are going to get a little bit less car. Although frankly, heated seats is definitely something I would not expect to show up in a base car. And if it makes you feel better, you are getting a glass roof for that $35,000, and that was almost certainly mentioned as something that would NOT be on the base model (it was advertised as being part of the $5000 PUP package).
Now, the one point worth arguing is whether losing out on $3850 or $5625 of tax credit is a valid argument.
Looking back at expectations in the days leading up to March 31, 2016, and the time shortly after, I'll say this.
Prior to the announcement, the whole reason that I went to the store to wait in line as opposed to just ordering online later that day was because my expectations at the time were that the Model 3 would not enter production until 2018 and not ramp up until 2019 (it was only after seeing the reservations that the schedule was accelerated by a year). In doing my math, I figured that I would have to be near the front of the line to get the full tax credit, given that in that time frame I expected Model S & X alone to trigger the phase out. I fully expected to get the car in either late 2018 or early 2019 (and this is why I had timed a car lease to terminate then). Now while I don't think it was specifically mentioned whether the base model would be offered at the time of release or not prior to the reveal, reasonable expectations would have been that it would not (although I was still holding out hope for a non-PUP release within a few months). So a reasonable expectation for someone placing a deposit pre-reveal was probably around 50/50 (or worse) that the base model would be eligible for the full $7500 tax credit.
Post-reveal the expectations changed. It shifted to Model 3 producting being ramped up in time for a significant number to be eligible for the full credit, although it was also clear by then that the base model would not be the priority. I think a fair assessment of the odds would have been greater than 50/50, but definitely not a sure thing.
So yes, there is some merit to the argument that $35K reservation holders are in effect having to pay more than they expected, but I do think a reasonable expectation was that it would not be eligible. A reasonable expectation would have been that it would have been in time for the $3750 credit, and for a lucky few, this may be the case, but most are going to be in the $1875 time period. Meaning effectively they lose out on $1875. And that gets us back to the inflation argument again...$35,000 + $1875 of lost credit opportunity is $36,875, which in 2016 dollars is $35,160.
EVDRIVER
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2010
- Messages
- 6,753
DaveinOlyWA said:
It's 19 where I am in CA now. The bay area is cold in the summer and northern CA gets in the 30's. Seat heaters are very useful in CA and reduce the need for using the heater. Spend a summer in SF, it's not SD or Florida and I think 65 is ver warm when those in So Cal are freezing,
golfcart
Well-known member
lpickup said:
I'm not sure you too my comment in context.
I agreed with Sagebrush that the SR plus was the best value my only disagreement was that Tesla actually wanted to sell a lot of $35k models. I don't think they do. I think they made the SR plus such a no brainier that most everyone will get the $2k upgrade. I think the $35k SR is made simply for hype and to fulfill the promise he made years ago but I doubt they make any money on it.
lpickup
Well-known member
golfcart said:
I totally agree. I think it was a mistake in the first place to make a promise of $35K at some point (at least 2 years) in the future without at least leaving an out for inflation. I am sure they don't want to sell it.
On the other hand, it seems like with everything they bundled in to the SR+ package, they probably wouldn't want to sell that either! I can't see how they would make any more profit on SR+ than they would on SR.
Oils4AsphaultOnly
Well-known member
I don't know what all you Californians are complaining about, but I think you need to move up to the 21st century!
I've never used the seat heaters myself, because I remote start the HVAC as I prepare to leave the house/office. The cabin is ready by the time I get into the car. We barely get below 32F in the mornings, you don't save that much energy forgoing the cabin heater.
Not having the heaters to meet the $35k price target was an economic decision that still results in a marketable product - just not for all regions.
I've never used the seat heaters myself, because I remote start the HVAC as I prepare to leave the house/office. The cabin is ready by the time I get into the car. We barely get below 32F in the mornings, you don't save that much energy forgoing the cabin heater.
Not having the heaters to meet the $35k price target was an economic decision that still results in a marketable product - just not for all regions.
