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

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?


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














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