backtop


Print 53 comment(s) - last by web2dot0.. on May 23 at 4:46 PM

High-end Tesla Model S could be the most efficient EV in the land

Tesla is set to put its Model S all-electric sedan on the market a few months ahead of schedule, with the first customer deliveries taking place next month. Another bit of good news for Tesla and the people who are waiting for their Model S to take up residence in their driveway has surfaced. 
 
Motor Trend reports that the top-of-the-line (85 kWh) Model S is expected to earn a window sticker rating from the EPA showing a 265-mile driving range.
 
There has been confusion on the driving range for a fully charged Model S, mostly because multiple numbers have been thrown around since the vehicle was first unveiled. The driving range has been at different times said to be 160-miles, 230-miles, and 300-miles depending upon the size of the battery pack installed. Tesla also recently noted that the car was able to achieve a 320-mile driving range on a full charge in the EPA's 2-cycle driving test.
 
The new 265-mile range for the window sticker is based on the EPA's new five-cycle test. If Tesla is able to land that 265-mile driving range on the EPA's new test, the Model S will be massively superior to other electric vehicles, such as the Nissan Leaf, which was only able to muster a 73-mile driving range on the same test. Granted, the high-end Model S is much more expensive than the Leaf.
 
The real world driving distance will likely vary significantly, depending on where the vehicle is operated and how heavy the driver's right foot is.
 
The Model S is also available with smaller 40 kWh or 60 kWh battery packs. The base Model S will sell for $57,400 and range up to $105,400 for higher end versions with an 85 kWh lithium-ion battery. Tesla has 10,000 orders in hand for the new Model S EV.
 
Word that the car may come early sent shares of Tesla stock surging.

Source: MotorTrend



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Need some Keeir math
By Spuke on 5/15/2012 8:33:53 PM , Rating: -1
Need him to explain to me how a $100k car is cheaper than a $20k one.




RE: Need some Keeir math
By Samus on 5/15/2012 9:34:35 PM , Rating: 1
Considering it is a luxury car, comparing it to a 20k car is foolish.

And in the segment it competes in (60k-100k) it is substantially faster and more fuel efficient than anything. The only other car that can outperform it is a Nissan GT-R for 86k and it gets 15MPG, requires carbon-ceramic brake service every 20,000 miles (thousands of dollars) and requires a $2,500 set of tires. No need to mention it is a nightmare to maintain elsewhere.

The Model S is almost zero-maintenance. Nothing. The first thing that needs service are tires and brakes at 50,000, unless of course you find yourself in need of windshield wipers or a turn signal bulb (all of which are LED, so unlikely.) This is proven with the Roadster which uses a similar power train and so has a similar maintenance schedule.

The Model S can't be compared to anything else. For the price, it's untouchable in performance alone. Then you consider the Jaguar-like ride quality, interior, and amenities, and the ridiculous 'fuel' economy is just icing on the cake.

I don't think they'll have any trouble selling thousands of these a year the same way Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Lexus and Infinity have no trouble selling cars in the 60k+ territory. The only hurdle comes after the 8-10 year period when you need to replace a $20,000 battery pack.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Mint on 5/15/2012 10:09:51 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that $60k-100k is a lot for a car with a 50-130 mile tether on it (except when you happen to find a charger near your route AND have the time to recharge there).

I don't think pure-EVs are the way to go. A 50-mile range Model S with a tiny 50HP engine/generator (maybe $2-3k?) will let me save 80% of the fuel, save $10-40k up front on the battery, but let me drive 10x as far or more.

Of course, there's enough people out there that won't mind having a $100k luxury car sit in the garage when they go on a road trip, as they have another one that runs on gas, so Tesla will find its niche.

For many people, however, a car like the Fisker Atlantic is infinitely more appealing, assuming it gets built.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Samus on 5/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: Need some Keeir math
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2012 8:31:41 AM , Rating: 3
A 130 mile range gets me to the next major city and back. Not enough for a road trip.

I don't care that people want to buy this car. I care that every American tax payer has to help them buy a luxury car.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By lelias2k on 5/16/2012 9:11:19 AM , Rating: 2
And I care that every American tax payer has to "help" Big Oil through tax breaks in the order of billions of dollars. As if they needed any help.

Exxon Mobil alone had $41 BILLION in profits AFTER taxes. Do you really think they need ANY break? :|


RE: Need some Keeir math
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2012 10:37:02 AM , Rating: 2
False. They get largely the same "breaks" that every other corporation is eligible for. Why shouldn't they be able to write off things just like every other corporation?

And I'm far more concerned with a company like GE making the billions it does and paying absolutely NO taxes for the past 2 years. And even getting money back.

Now since you say you feel that way though, how about you tell your senator to support Jim Demint's bill to end all breaks and subsidies entirely. Nothing for anyone. But surprise, Democrats are fighting it because it would make many "green" energy businesses no longer feasible since they only survive due to the massive amount of money the taxpayers give to them.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By lelias2k on 5/16/2012 11:45:22 AM , Rating: 2
Let me start by saying that I never talked about other corporations not getting breaks, so there's nothing "false" about my statement. We cool there?

Now, I know you are an oil lover, but even you have to have two working brain cells and realize that, although a fantastic source of energy, the consequences of its use are extremely damaging to our planet, be it environmental or economical.

So I really don't see why somebody would give incentives to a problem and not to those who are looking for a solution.

But hey, that's just me.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2012 1:26:07 PM , Rating: 2
Ah so now we're on to insulting people and saying they're brain dead unless you believe in man made global warming. And your comment on oil being bad economically is founded in what exactly? That we get a lot from foreign sources because people like yourself stop us from developing it here in the US?

I do not "love" oil. I love being able to freely move around this great country to go where I want. Gasoline allows me to do that cheaply and effectively. Batteries do not.

You offer no solution. You offer a heavily subsidized fantasy. Even if electric cars could do the job, the fact remains that you are moving from one relatively rare resource to a larger set of much rarer resources. The materials required to make batteries are in short supply globally and we have far less of them here in the US than we do oil.

In case you try to say we have none, yesterday the GAO itself testified to Congress that in oil shale from the south west states alone we have more oil than all the rest of the worlds known oil reserves. And they estimate at least half of it is recoverable with existing technology.

Now I've said multiple times that I support a true solution like diesel made from algae. But eco-nuts don't want anything that burns period. Nevermind the thousands of jobs that market would create and the highly efficient, fun to drive, and practical cars we could drive as a result. And it would require very little change to our existing infrastructure to implement.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By lelias2k on 5/16/2012 2:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
Did I say anything about global warming? Why in hell do you keep putting words in my replies?

I'll go with something much simpler: lock yourself in your garage and turn on your car. We'll talk tomorrow. No? :|

And do I really have to explain the economical consequences?

Everything is a freaking fantasy until someone comes and shift paradigms. That's the history of the world.

We have a bunch of things being researched, but unfortunately without money it is hard to revolutionize the world.

I love the idea of solar roadways (http://solarroadways.com/intro.shtml), especially because it is something designed to fit into a process already in place (repaving our crappy roads) and presents so many more benefits while costing (theoretically) not much more. That is not a heavily subsidized fantasy, just a possible solution that needs investment, like almost anything else that we have out there today.

There's is so much more going on out there, not just freaking EVs. That's the topic of THIS article, but not of the whole renewable energy movement.

The real problem is that what most people care is "to move freely around this great country" while doing that "cheaply and effectively". Who the hell cares if we could sacrifice a little in order to maybe provide a better future for ourselves and our descendants? Nah, I'll just take the easy and cheap route. With a coke to go, please. :|


RE: Need some Keeir math
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2012 4:42:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the consequences of its use are extremely damaging to our planet


That implies you believe that the burning of fossil fuels is damaging the planet. I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm saying what you're not but still believe.

And carbon monoxide poisoning has nothing to do with whether or not fossil fuels are damaging the planet. Seal your garage and start filling it with water. Talk to you tomorrow.... That was your logic there. Now water is bad for the planet too I guess.

Things you say make no sense because they are not feasible due to cost. Solar roadways? Who's going to pay for it? How long would it last? It would require incredible subsidies to even be remotely feasible. And it would mean roadways would have to be completely replaced every 15-20 years after they're put down since the solar cells would wear out.

The vast majority of the "renewable" energy movement is full of grand ideas that are completely infeasible and/or unaffordable. They never think about the trillions of dollars required to implement them. And then all the issues with the idea even if it was implemented. Solar and wind power doesn't work and still requires other sources of energy to be built. Batteries currently don't meet most people's needs. Now when those things change, they shouldn't need subsidies to survive and I won't have a problem with them. Until then, I'll stand against my money being used to pay for them. Period.

If you believe in them so much though, you're free to use your money to invest in them.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By JediJeb on 5/16/2012 3:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Exxon Mobil alone had $41 BILLION in profits AFTER taxes. Do you really think they need ANY break?


I have posted this before but just seeing the sum of $41 billion profits does not tell the whole story. Consider that if you have a 401k with mutual funds, or almost any type of retirement other than Social Security that uses mutual funds or stocks, you will find that it is invested in those big oil companies. Let's say a meager 10 million people have investments in Exxon Mobile through retirement accounts. Just splitting that profit evenly among those people would only give them $4,100 into their retirement accounts for a year. If 100 million people are invested into Exxon Mobile and they all get even splits then they will receive $410 into their retirement accounts. Now not everyone is invested evenly into Exxon Mobile and not all of those profits will got into payouts to stock holders, but even if it did those stock holders end up getting not so much return out of that $41 billion profit. Overall it may seem like a huge sum, but when spread out among all the people invested in the company, it doesn't go as far as you might think. Also unless those accounts are Roth IRAs then eventually there is going to be a bunch of taxes paid on those already taxed profits when people begin to cash out of their retirement plans, so the government is still going to get more tax revenue from it, actually to some extent double dipping as they will receive taxes on money that in a sense has already been taxed once.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By lelias2k on 5/16/2012 4:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, sorry, they are really poor and we should just give away all the breaks they can get.

But hey, don't even think about creating any incentives to companies looking for alternatives. Let's just keep doing the same old thing. It has worked so well for us.

On the other hand, looking at it from your way of explaining things and considering we have about 70 million tax payers in the US, the 465 million loan (and not giveaway...) given to Tesla to build the Model S comes to about $6.50 per person. Yeah, I'll give up a beer to try and see if it will work out. :)


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Keeir on 5/16/2012 4:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
You know what your problem is?

You don't understand how business works.

Exxon may have made ~41 billion in profits... but they also had sales of 486 billion. Thats a profit margin of 8.6%.

Microsoft makes a profit margin of 33%!

General Mills makes 11.5%

Boeing makes 5.8%

VW makes 9.92%

Wells Fargo makes 20%

Wal-Mart makes 3.68%

Given this spread, Oil company making between 5-15% profit doesn't seem unreasonable.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By bah12 on 5/16/2012 9:08:20 AM , Rating: 3
He said tether so. 50-130 mile is accurate for a round trip meaning if you plan on coming back the same day you cannot travel more than 50-100 miles. Think dog on a chain. If you plan on staying 4hrs at your destination and they let you charge there then sure you can extend that, but his comment is spot on.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Mint on 5/16/2012 1:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you. You'd think that people on a tech site would be intelligent enough to realize that most people come back home after driving somewhere...


RE: Need some Keeir math
By nolisi on 5/15/2012 10:16:28 PM , Rating: 5
You won't convince these people. Anytime you bring up the subject of electric/hybrid cars, their instinct is to compare the vehicle to econoboxes that are completely outclassed by many of these vehicles in size, amenities, and style. They become so blind that leather seats in a luxury vehicle become equivalent to cloth buckets in a hatch back because they seem to only have the ability to compare one factor in a vehicle at a time, and in this case it's efficiency.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By corduroygt on 5/15/2012 10:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
How do you know the performance of the car rivals the GTR? A S550 or a 750i would be cheaper and faster. Especially in metrics like 60-100 mph acceleration where EV's start to run out of breath?


RE: Need some Keeir math
By topkill on 5/15/2012 11:02:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Especially in metrics like 60-100 mph acceleration where EV's start to run out of breath?


Do you know some facts about the Model S and its performance? I'd be interested in your source for this statement. Do you have one or are you just making assumptions?


RE: Need some Keeir math
By macca007 on 5/16/2012 4:42:46 AM , Rating: 2
Are you serious?
Pure Electric cars shit on anything combustion wise when it comes to acceleration,It's instant torque! lol
Go youtube White Zombie car blowing away a GT-R on the drag strip, Just a crappy old Datsun outfitted with electric motors and batteries shits on it's newer Datsun(Nissan hehe).
Think you may be referring to Hybrids which are pretty sluggish. The problem with electric cars is not the acceleration it is the range and the price,Both of which will continue to improve. Combustion engines have had how many decades to improve? Electric motors (for cars) has had bugger all time spent on them.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By cpeter38 on 5/16/2012 10:42:38 AM , Rating: 2
Have you driven one?

Electric motor acceleration is great off the line, but the torque drop off as you speed up is *not* great. Although the Tesla Roadster (Sport) is much faster in 0-60 than the Porsche Boxster (3.7s vs 4.3s), they have identical 60-80 (1.6s). There is no comparison at higher speed. The Boxster 80-100 time is about half of the Roadster time (3.3s vs 5.1s). See http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/convertibles/1... for more info.

quote:
Electric motors (for cars) has had bugger all time spent on them.


Really?

quote:
At the turn of the [20th] century, 40 percent of American automobiles were powered by steam, 38 percent by electricity, and 22 percent by gasoline. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electr...


Even if engineers were able to make electric motors better, what improvement do you think is available? They are already 95% efficient! The battery is the problem/issue. Nothing else.

ICE cars won the early competition because they were more practical.

They still are.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By 91TTZ on 5/16/2012 10:48:10 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Are you serious? Pure Electric cars shit on anything combustion wise when it comes to acceleration,It's instant torque! lol


So let's compare a 2012 Nissan Leaf to my 1991 Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo:

Leaf 0-60: high 9's
300ZX 0-60: low 5's.

quote:
Combustion engines have had how many decades to improve? Electric motors (for cars) has had bugger all time spent on them.


The first cars were electric. The electric motor is older and more mature than the internal combustion engine. Electric cars used to outclass gasoline-powered cars in almost every respect until the internal combustion engine was improved upon.

The sad fact is that the performance of electric cars has barely improved due to fundamental limitations in battery technology.

You can buy a 2012 Nissan Leaf with a 73 mile range today, but you could have bought a Fritchle Electric with a 100 mile range 104 years ago:

http://krisdedecker.typepad.com/.a/6a00e0099229e88...


RE: Need some Keeir math
By sigmatau on 5/16/2012 5:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
He doesn't and it is wishfull thinking that this EV will even come close to a GTR. It's beyond laughable. There is a reason why the GTR is called Godzilla.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Keeir on 5/16/2012 12:58:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
a $100k car


Well, since that "100k" car is the performance version capable of 0-60 at 4.4 seconds and comes with an 8 year, unlimited miles battery warranty, and has 7 seat belts, I am curious what 20K car we are comparing it too!

The Base Model S costs ~57,500. Over 100,000 miles, it will use 32,000 kWh. At 10 cents per kWh thats 3,200 dollars. At 20 cents per kWh thats 6,400 dollars.

It's comparable to a G37 sedan which costs ~40,000 at the same equipment level. Over 100,000 miles, it will required 4,550 gallons of gasoline. At today's premium price out my door of 4.45 dollars thats -20,000 dollars.

Pre-Rabate Model S - ~65,000
G37 - ~60,000

Seems like the base Model S is pretty comparable.

Which is usually my point Spuke... You can't just judge any EV by the MSRP.

At the average age of cars on the road currently of ~10 years and ~150,000 miles, most cars use more fuel dollars over thier life than initial cost.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Spuke on 5/16/2012 10:34:58 AM , Rating: 2
5.6 seconds Keeir according to Tesla themselves for the 85kWh battery. That's right on their page! Where is this 4.4 crap coming from? For some reason I can't post it but there are at LEAST 5 cars that are MUCH quicker than that one in that price range. I'm going to get right to the point and this will be my last post on these EV threads.

I don't have a problem with EV's, I just don't want to pay for some rich guy to buy a LUXURY car! Buy your own damn car and leave me out of it!

My largest problem is misinformation and just plain ignorance of ALL the facts. $60k for a G37? BZZZZZZT!!! Subtract at least $10k. Source? Infinitiusa.com. The internet is your friend. 0-60 in 4.4 sec for the model S. BZZZZZZT!!! Try 5.6 for the 85kWh version. Teslamotors.com is the source for that. Regardless, even at 4.4 sec, four of those 5 cars I mysteriously can't list are STILL faster! What you and the other poster said is a LIE !!! That grates the sh!t out of me and drives me to post. If you and others would quit lying, you wouldn't hear a peep from me.

On a personal note, I am a registered independent raised by an admittedly VERY left wing family. But, philosophically, I am only into things that work, left or right and in between. We're all right, We're all wrong. That's how I roll.

I'm done.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2012 12:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
Fight on Spuke. I'm with you!! Agree with everything you said, emphatically.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By lelias2k on 5/16/2012 1:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
You really didn't get the price comparison he was making?

I guess I am done too then... lol


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Mint on 5/16/2012 1:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
Talk about math fail.

$40k G37 + $20k gas = $60k. Get it? That's only 10 years. You'll probably get another 10 years out of an EV with a battery replacement, given the simple drivetrain and low maintenance.

You absolutely cannot get 5 different performance luxury cars AND the gas to run them for 10+ years for 60k.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2012 2:33:49 PM , Rating: 1
I love how we're factoring in the cost of gas as "cost" of the car. What a fucking skewed and biased tactic. Intellectually unethical to do that, especially since he's apparently assuming the electrical vehicle is 100% free to run. Oh and the chargers to actually make EV's practical are "free" too I guess.

I don't really care what costs what. I care that we're paying to help people buy their playboy toy vehicle.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Keeir on 5/16/2012 3:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
-Reading- Comprehension.

I assumed the Model S cost 6,200 in electricity to run. That's a average price of 20 cents per kWh.

quote:
I love how we're factoring in the cost of gas as "cost" of the car.
-

If you buy a car as an art peice, that's really great. 99% of this country buys a car as a transporation device. They are buying transporation. Not a lawn scuplture.

In the end, the cost to travel a mile versus the quality of that mile is paramount.

Economy cars cost 30-60 cents per mile
Luxury cars cost 50-80 cents per mile
Buses cost 40-80 cents per mile
Light Rail costs 50-75 cents per mile

Where do EVs fit in?

The Volt (based on the lease) is at ~45 cents per mile
The Model S (based on base model and 100,000 miles AND rebate) is ~61 cents per mile


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2012 3:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I assumed the Model S cost 6,200 in electricity to run. That's a average price of 20 cents per kWh.


Which doesn't matter because it gets $7,500+ subsidy right off the bat. Give me a $20k gas credit and hey, I'm all ears.

quote:
If you buy a car as an art peice, that's really great. 99% of this country buys a car as a transporation device. They are buying transporation. Not a lawn scuplture.


And we've already established that EV's utterly fail as transportation devices. Yet you keep using any argument, any skewed math and assumptions to state otherwise.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Keeir on 5/16/2012 5:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which doesn't matter because it gets $7,500+ subsidy right off the bat. Give me a $20k gas credit and hey, I'm all ears.


I guess I am really confused.

I presented the cost of a Base Model S over 100,000 miles (length of warranty on battery) as 57,500 (pre Rebate MSRP) + 6,200 (20 cents per kWh, 80% higher than current retail US average)

Versus

G37 Sedan - 40,000 dealer price + 20,000 (4.45 per gallon, average price on the West Coast)

~64,000 to me seems very comparable to ~60,000. This is not considering any rebate.

quote:
And we've already established that EV's utterly fail as transportation devices. Yet you keep using any argument, any skewed math and assumptions to state otherwise.


So here is where I think your arguement train goes of course. Many things are transportation devices. From the Segway to airplanes. Each has a relative per mile cost AND a range and convience factors.

I am pretty sure I can drive from New York to California using a Model S. So I am unclear how it can be termed "not a transporation device". The Model S has limited range, limited infrastructure support, but very low running costs and very high interior flexability (Understand that it has a total cargo volume of 74.1 cubic feet which is more than a CR-V). I am unaware of a transportation device that is perfect though... maybe someday there will be free instaneous transfer to any spot in the Universe with an error check system to prevent accidents.

Your arguement seems to boil down to

"We shouldn't subsidize EV technology because EVs are bad."

Errr...

Providing private market subsidies is bad, regardless of the merits of the technology! Private market subsidies distort economic evaluation and spending. As long as you continue to say EVs are unequivoally bad, your arguement will eventually flip flop. EVs, using existing trends in Batteries, will likely pass ICE in the 2015-2020 time frame. Will it then be good to subsidize the technology? Will that then justify today's subsidies? Not in my opinion but the way you've framed the arguement, it certain suggest the subsidizes were right.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2012 5:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"We shouldn't subsidize EV technology because EVs are bad."


What!? No.

quote:
I guess I am really confused.


So am I. I'm confused why you keep factoring in fuel costs besides the fact that it skews the argument more in EV's favor. We're talking about the cost of the vehicle straight up.

Basically you're saying fuel costs make the massive initial price gap between ICE and EV more in line with each other than the sticker price suggests. I'm saying this is a transient, and misleading argument at best.

First off people don't really pay cash for new vehicles. They are financed. So how much extra financing are you paying for that EV over the course of a say 5 year loan?

quote:
Providing private market subsidies is bad, regardless of the merits of the technology! Private market subsidies distort economic evaluation and spending.


Agree obviously.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Keeir on 5/16/2012 8:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

quote:
"We shouldn't subsidize EV technology because EVs are bad."

What!? No.


Then why the constant Strawmen arguements that EVs are bad. Unless it proves some fundamental point to your arguement that I am missing?

quote:
So am I. I'm confused why you keep factoring in fuel costs besides the fact that it skews the argument more in EV's favor. We're talking about the cost of the vehicle straight up.


Question: How do you get that Shiny new car to your home? Oh right, fuel!

Question: How do you play with that Shiny new car? Oh right fuel!

Seriously Reclaimer, would you take a free car knowing it got 1 MPG (and had 100% reliability and no maintainence)? I mean its -free- right? Nothing is better than free! While that is a stupid example, I think it should be clear than you DO think about the cost of fuel. This make believe world where EVs and ICE cars cost "about the same" to run doesn't exist in the USA today. Today, EVs cost 0.02-0.06 (depending on your local per kWh charges) per mile versus the -very- best non-hybrid ICE at 0.11 per mile. If I said I had a luxury car that got 200 MPG I think you'd be very very interested in the MSRP AND be willing to pay a very large premium. (cost wise assuming 4.45 dollars per gallon of premium and 8 cents per kWh)

quote:
First off people don't really pay cash for new vehicles. They are financed. So how much extra financing are you paying for that EV over the course of a say 5 year loan?


That's going to depend in great part on the Loan Rate. For a 60 year loan, each 1,000 loan at 1% is ~26 dollars extra.

So in the above example, the Model S costs an extra 17,000 or so dollars. Assuming a loan rate of ~3% which seems fairly typical right now thats an extra 546 dollars. At ~6% which is a very high loan rate, but Tesla doesn't have a financing wing maybe? thats like 1,200 dollars extra. Not exactly crushing I think.

I've never recommended EVs for all. EVs work best for heavy users at low speeds with highly predictable daily travel with small variance. PHEV works best for people who 75% of the times travel +/- 25% pf the PHEV's AER. If you not one of those people, then EVs and PHEV's haven't been designed to meet your needs. But F150, F250, F350s all exist. But they really only meet the requirements of a smaller and smaller subset of the population. They don't work well for those outside the market. Doesn't mean they can't/shouldn't exist.

If we as a nation want to -lower- imported oil, lower transporation costs, increase national security, lower real pollution, and C02 levels... then we need to have a segmented personal transporation market. I'd prefer the market where, when appropriate, people buy EVs, PHEVs, HEVs, Diesels ICEs, and Gasoline ICEs than having Mass Transit versus Gasoline ICE.

Whether you like it or not, the Model S -is- a crediable alternative to a midsize entry level luxury car upto real luxury. The cost difference is minimal and is within -striking- distance with improvements that come from large scale manufacturing experience. I still don't think it should get a subsidy... but this isn't Solar power at 45 cents per kWh wholesale or Mass Transit costing more than 1 dollar per passenger mile.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2012 11:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think it should be clear than you DO think about the cost of fuel.


Right which is why hybrids make up like 3% of all car sales are EV's are less than half a percent.

quote:
Then why the constant Strawmen arguements that EVs are bad.


I don't think "EV's are bad". I'm just pissed off how they've become tied into the current political atmosphere, the clear anti-ICE agenda and "green" nonsense, and why something that's still not ready for prime time is being forced onto the market by these outside forces.

quote:
If we as a nation want to -lower- imported oil, lower transporation costs, increase national security, lower real pollution, and C02 levels...


Ugh I rest my case. Maybe if people supporting EV's weren't so inherently Liberal I could get behind them more. I don't know. Look whadyawant? I've been playing Diablo more than I've been sleeping this week lol.

quote:
I'd prefer the market where, when appropriate, people buy EVs, PHEVs, HEVs, Diesels ICEs, and Gasoline ICEs than having Mass Transit versus Gasoline ICE.


Except this doesn't work. The market has shown EVERY TIME that when offered a choice, consumers will pick standard ICE vehicles over all others.

It seems like the answer to this for EV proponents is to simply remove that choice or slowly but surely mandate all other alternatives out of existence. Like this recent CAFE debacle.

So if you want to debate EV's vs ICE in a vacuum I guess I'm not the best opponent. Because to me it's impossible to remove them from the current economic and political discussion.

Plus Obama is huge on EV's, and that's a serious strike against the technology. Of course :)


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Keeir on 5/17/2012 12:39:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ugh I rest my case. Maybe if people supporting EV's weren't so inherently Liberal I could get behind them more. I don't know.


Well, I guess if you against everything those guys say, then there isn't any arguement that can "convince" you of anything.

quote:
Except this doesn't work. The market has shown EVERY TIME that when offered a choice, consumers will pick standard ICE vehicles over all others.


Err what choice is there for EVs again? A super expensive Roadster not in production? A B-Segment Hatch with... questionable styling?

The Tesla Model S is the -first- EV on the market that gives 100+ miles range combined with styling, performance and gadgets that are in line with TCO of competing gasoline cars.

Looking at the Ford Motor Company History, Ford produced the Model N which sold at a rate of ~7,000 a year. Ford then produced the Model T which sold at a rate of 750,000 a year over 20 years of production.

There is a tipping point for these new transportation technologies. EVs and the PHEVs may go from being really unpopular to -SUPER- popular in just a few years. I think though you ought to give up the fallacy that the market has made a clear preference. The market has clearly shown that it WILL purchase Hybrids... but the Hybrid has to be cheap enough to offset the risk and drivability issues in the design. The market has shown it WILL purchase Diesels... but Diesels without AdBlue. EVs and PHEVs are still so new, I don't think the market has really said anything about them yet. I've always felt the Leaf was a poor choice for a NA EV. I've always felt like the Volt went too far to be an "everyman's" car. The Model S is still too expensive. But here we sit at 3? options. Hardly a referendum on EV ownership.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Mint on 5/17/2012 4:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think "EV's are bad". I'm just pissed off how they've become tied into the current political atmosphere, the clear anti-ICE agenda and "green" nonsense

Not all green agenda is nonsense, and likewise not all liberal support that which is nonsense. I'm a liberal, but I don't support wind power, solar power, or the anti-nuke stance (hell, even the co-founder of GreenPeace is pro nuke).

EVs - especially PHEVs - make a lot of sense, and even if they aren't self-sufficient now, subsidies (and they're really rather insignificant - well under 1/1000th of gov't spending to kickstart an industry that will reduce $1000 per capita in oil imports) do make sense as long as you are confident that the industry has a future. If you don't subsidize it, somebody else will (e.g. China, which they already did with solar).

quote:
The market has shown EVERY TIME that when offered a choice, consumers will pick standard ICE vehicles over all others.
Why do you assume that the market is static? Are you willing to bet that this observation of yours will hold for even three years, let alone the decade+ timescales needed for planning by companies and governments alike to make sound decisions?


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Keeir on 5/16/2012 2:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
5.6 seconds Keeir according to Tesla themselves for the 85kWh battery. That's right on their page! Where is this 4.4 crap coming from? For some reason I can't post it but there are at LEAST 5 cars that are MUCH quicker than that one in that price range. I'm going to get right to the point and this will be my last post on these EV threads.


http://www.teslamotors.com/models/options

To get to 100k+ you must select "Signature Performance" Read carefully. You must add ALL the options as well.

quote:
My largest problem is misinformation and just plain ignorance of ALL the facts. $60k for a G37? BZZZZZZT!!! Subtract at least $10k. Source? Infinitiusa.com.


A G37 equipped like a base model S will cost ~40,000 at the Dealer with a reasonable markdown. Now how are you going to drive it without buying gas?!? I AM VERY CONFUSED how you miss this point. The G37 gets 22 EPA combined mileage.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?acti...

The Model S (according to this article) gets 3.1 miles per kWh on the -SAME- test.

According to the EPA the G37 will cost .18-.20 dollars per mile to drive. This is just gasoline.

According to the EPA the Model S will cost .03-.06 dollars per mile to drive.

Over 100,000 miles, a very -normal- length of time to own a car, the G37 is going to cost 18,000-20,000 is fuel costs even if fuel doesn't increase in price.

http://www.edmunds.com/infiniti/g-sedan/2012/tco.h...

According to Edmunds, the expected TCO for a G37 Sport over -just- 5 years and 75,000 miles is 64,492 .

Sorry that MATH appears to be hard for you or you don't have a concept that a Car cost more to fuel and maintain than to buy. But the Model S at ~60,000 MSRP is very comparable TCO wise with a G37. Even if you live in California.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By sigmatau on 5/16/2012 5:31:56 PM , Rating: 2
I tend to drive a lot and have been looking at the cost of total ownership instead of the initial cost of a vehicle. Your post makes sense. Make sure to add the fuel cost, even though 1/6 as much as gas, to your final analysis for an EV too. Even though it will increase the TCO of the EV in your point, it will also show just how much of a difference it is to maintain and fuel that sucker.

I wish I paid 1/6 the cost of gas. That's like 60 cents a gallon.

Also, batteries for these vehicles have been lasting longer than what is in say a cell phone. The Prius's battery, even though it's not lithium, lasts over 10 years. This car comes with an 8 year warranty so people can't really complain about having to factor in a replacement battery.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Keeir on 5/16/2012 9:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
I did add it...

I am confused how people are missing this point.

I added Fuel and didn't take a rebate.

A base Model S over 100,000 miles will cost peanuts to run. My cost today would be 2,890 dollars.

MSRP + Fuel - Rebate = ~53,000 for me
MSRP + Fuel (20 cents per kWh) = ~64,000


RE: Need some Keeir math
By corduroygt on 5/16/2012 12:26:51 PM , Rating: 2
BS numbers aside (4.4 sec lol), you forgot to add all those times that you'll have to rent a car because you need more than a 100-mile range.


RE: Need some Keeir math
By Mint on 5/16/2012 1:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
That's the average age, not median lifetime, which is 16.09 years:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/grnhsgas/vmt.pdf
So your case gets even stronger. Expect replacement batteries to be much cheaper 10 years from now.

As I mentioned before, however, Tesla's biggest problem is that it's a pure EV.


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki