[M3forMe]

Originally Posted by saeyedoc

474 miles of range in an E90 M3? All downhill coasting in neutral? I can barely get more than 200 miles before the low fuel warning comes on. That's the biggest annoyance to me with the M3, I average about 50 miles a day on my commute, end up gassing up every 4-5 days.

Who said 474 miles in their M3? They forgot to reset to trip. There is NO WAY. I don't care how much you baby it. All highway with cruise control on flat roads I think the most I got was like 300 and I was on fumes.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by M3forMe

Who said 474 miles in their M3? They forgot to reset to trip. There is NO WAY. I don't care how much you baby it. All highway with cruise control on flat roads I think the most I got was like 300 and I was on fumes.

No one. I said 474 miles on my E90, which is '06 325i. 30 MPG x 16 gallons. Not sure how an M3 got in the discussion.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by yousefnjr

Amazingly profitable? They posted their first quarterly profit in May of $11mil, after selling ~$60 million in carbon credits, not to mention a $7,500 gov't subsidy on each model sold... That's not what I would call amazingly profitable, that's called getting a lot of help. Over time, sure they'll make healthy profits, but it's hard to say they would've even survived this long without a favorable environment to sell their product in.

I'm glad you pointed this out because it is a factor on the long term profitability of the company. But just to be clear to the uninformed, when you say $7,500 gov't subsidy, you are talking about the incentive for the consumer to buy an electric car (that has to have a minimum 16KWhr battery). The purchaser gets the $7,500, not Tesla. It's a G.W. Bush-era program BTW. And there is a $2,000 tax credit to install a home-charging station too...

[yousefnjr]

Originally Posted by M3forMe

Got it. Keep thinking they are not profitable and a bad business. Well come back and check this exact thread in 1 year. Until then I am buying shares at $166.00.

Reading comprehension here is incredible. I didn't say they were a bad business and couldn't turn a profit, I'm saying they won't be able to release a budget model with similar performance to the Model S without a significant drop in development costs. In words that you and my 4 year old nephew might understand, we're not there yet.

[yousefnjr]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'm glad you pointed this out because it is a factor on the long term profitability of the company. But just to be clear to the uninformed, when you say $7,500 gov't subsidy, you are talking about the incentive for the consumer to buy an electric car (that has to have a minimum 16KWhr battery). The purchaser gets the $7,500, not Tesla. It's a G.W. Bush-era program BTW.

True, it goes to the consumer, and that helps to increase demand for the product. The price comes down and more people can afford it, it's no longer out of reach for some. Tesla benefits for sure.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by yousefnjr

True, it goes to the consumer, and that helps to increase demand for the product. The price comes down and more people can afford it, it's no longer out of reach for some. Tesla benefits for sure.

Agreed. I knew what you meant. I wanted to make sure others, who are not up on the subject of incentives understood it.

[M3forMe]

Originally Posted by yousefnjr

Reading comprehension here is incredible. I didn't say they were a bad business and couldn't turn a profit, I'm saying they won't be able to release a budget model with similar performance to the Model S without a significant drop in development costs. In words that you and my 4 year old nephew might understand, we're not there yet.

Good one asshat. You sure told me. Just like your 4 yr old nephew. I am headed to time out douchebag.

[yousefnjr]

Originally Posted by M3forMe

Good one asshat. You sure told me. Just like your 4 yr old nephew. I am headed to time out douchebag.

Funny, because he also throws tantrums and has nothing important to say.

[son_of_siggy]

Originally Posted by yousefnjr

True, it goes to the consumer, and that helps to increase demand for the product. The price comes down and more people can afford it, it's no longer out of reach for some. Tesla benefits for sure.

I'm not sure a $7500 tax incentive on a 60-110k car is the make or break factor for buyers. Given that the incentive is the same when across all electrics I doubt this does much to drive up their sales.

[secretsquirrel]

Originally Posted by son_of_siggy

I'm not sure a $7500 tax incentive on a 60-110k car is the make or break factor for buyers. Given that the incentive is the same when across all electrics I doubt this does much to drive up their sales.

That much money will make people who were already considering the car choose it over a competitor.

[saeyedoc]

Originally Posted by M3forMe

Who said 474 miles in their M3? They forgot to reset to trip. There is NO WAY. I don't care how much you baby it. All highway with cruise control on flat roads I think the most I got was like 300 and I was on fumes.

That's why I had the ?. Since this is a subset of the M3 forum I assumed E90 meant E90 M3. My bad.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The difference is the Volt's intended use is to replace a gas-only car with a extended-range electric car; both vehicles are range-unlimited. The Tesla is meant to replace a gas-only car with an electric-only car and is range-limited.

The Volt's most cost-efficient use pattern (i.e. intended use) is to use it mostly in electric-only mode and occasionally use it in gas mode (this helps offset the initial high cost of the car as compared to other compact sedans of the same interior size - i.e. a Honda Civic, or a Chevy Cruze). When you start using the Volt in the drive pattern I described above, the cost efficiency goes down (but the use capability doesn't); and on a comparative cost-basis, other cars (such as the Civic or Cruze) are more cost effective to use in my 160 mile daily trip. Cost comparative basis meaning a monthly cost to operate the car which includes car payment, fuel, and maintenance. The Civic and Cruze (just used here as examples for discussion) purchase prices are a lot lower than the Volt, which is why on a more-gas-intensive-use of the Volt, the Civic and Cruze are less expensive to use. The savings by use of electricity as the fuel in the Volt (because it is less expensive than gasoline per mile), offsets the price differential of the Volt. This changing for the better though as GM has reduced the Volt's price by $5K recently.

Now to wrap this back to the Tesla S... The Tesla S is convenience range-limited, whereas the Volt is not; that's the difference. Meaning as compared to a gasoline car, which can be refueled almost anywhere in the United States in 3 minutes, the Tesla S can't match the convenience of refueling an ICE-powered car when it runs out of fuel; the Volt can be used unlimited in gas-mode. The minimum time to refuel the S is 30 minutes for 200 miles (estimated). Tesla now says it can refuel the S in 90 seconds for a cost $45 for 300 miles (estimated) additional range, but you can refuel an E90 in under 3 minutes for 474 miles of range (estimated) for $60.

The issue with your point is you say the Tesla is the best thing since sliced bread because you've narrowed down the Tesla to use as a limited range vehicle. My point, and other's points here, is that the Tesla is meant to replace a range-unlimited ICE car (that's what Elon Musk thinks too - go read the website, and as evidenced by Tesla building an infrastructure for Tesla-only fuel stations), which when taken in whole as a convenient conveyance device, the Tesla is not the better car.

DC - NYC via 83 out of B'more to York, PA, 222 to Allentown, 78 into NYC. I could find an even better off-interstate route, but the point is if you want to possibly use the Tesla in an extended range capacity you are limited to major interstate routes, which grossly limits your freedom of choice. I won't even go into the political ramifications of that...

First of all, I don't think the tesla is the best thing since sliced bread. I was in one last week (a P85) and there were definitely some fit and finish issues. The car is blazing fast and the low center of gravity really gives it handling prowess but I do think it needs larger contact patches. The tires are quite skinny for a performance car.

You keep mentioning these specific scenarios in which the car does not make good sense by cherry picking locations and routes to help your point but the reality is that commutes are generally short and repeated identically on a daily basis. Nearly every person in my office (40ish people) commutes shorter than 40 miles with most being shorter than 20. Those people would charge the car once every 2-5 days and it would make perfect sense for them. They can take any route they please and the car still makes sense. The Model X will also be the ultimate soccer mom mobile. Repeated drives in a small range is exactly where a fully electric car make most sense.

This car has been out for about a year and it is wildly popular. The infrastructure will continue to expand as sales increase so the problems you mention will quickly fade away. At the end of the day, I'm not going to buy one. Not because I think it's a bad car, but because I'm something of a purist and really enjoy rowing my own gears and hearing the sounds of the engine at work.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

First of all, I don't think the tesla is the best thing since sliced bread. I was in one last week (a P85) and there were definitely some fit and finish issues. The car is blazing fast and the low center of gravity really gives it handling prowess but I do think it needs larger contact patches. The tires are quite skinny for a performance car.

You keep mentioning these specific scenarios in which the car does not make good sense by cherry picking locations and routes to help your point but the reality is that commutes are generally short and repeated identically on a daily basis. Nearly every person in my office (40ish people) commutes shorter than 40 miles with most being shorter than 20. Those people would charge the car once every 2-5 days and it would make perfect sense for them. They can take any route they please and the car still makes sense. The Model X will also be the ultimate soccer mom mobile. Repeated drives in a small range is exactly where a fully electric car make most sense.

This car has been out for about a year and it is wildly popular. The infrastructure will continue to expand as sales increase so the problems you mention will quickly fade away. At the end of the day, I'm not going to buy one. Not because I think it's a bad car, but because I'm something of a purist and really enjoy rowing my own gears and hearing the sounds of the engine at work.

Me too brother, me too. A Cadillac ATS will probably be my next sports sedan. It's better than any F30 I driven.

The problem with people who consider the Tesla, if they looked at the real economics of it, would not get one. It costs more to own, and it has less utility (i.e. range) than an ICE-powered car, and is less convenient to use. The reason Henry Ford became the richest man in the world (at the time) is because he produced a product that was easier to use, provided more utility, and cost less to own than the product it replaced... (the Horse).

[drob23]

Thing is Tesla now has a market capitalized worth of $20 billion(!), which is nearly 40% of GM and 33% of Ford. Here is the actual volume of sales

2013 sales to date

Tesla - 12,700
GM - 275,000
Ford - 221,000

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize something is awry.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Me too brother, me too. A Cadillac ATS will probably be my next sports sedan. It's better than any F30 I driven.

The problem with people who consider the Tesla, if they looked at the real economics of it, would not get one. It costs more to own, and it has less utility (i.e. range) than an ICE-powered car, and is less convenient to use. The reason Henry Ford became the richest man in the world (at the time) is because he produced a product that was easier to use, provided more utility, and cost less to own than the product it replaced... (the Horse).

You're forgetting that most car buyers do not care about any of the above. Case in point... BMW X6. It's an SUV with no U. And don't give me that SAV crap, that's marketing bullshit - It's an SUV. A GT-R runs circles around most supercars yet people still buy Porsches and Ferraris. The bottom line is that people buy cars because they like them. In the price range of the Tesla S, people aren't really married to every penny and to most is it a commuter car and they maintain other vehicles for trips that require one.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

You're forgetting that most car buyers do not care about any of the above. Case in point... BMW X6. It's an SUV with no U. And don't give me that SAV crap, that's marketing bullshit - It's an SUV. A GT-R runs circles around most supercars yet people still buy Porsches and Ferraris. The bottom line is that people buy cars because they like them. In the price range of the Tesla S, people aren't really married to every penny and to most is it a commuter car and they maintain other vehicles for trips that require one.

Then why build the network of Supercharger stations? It doesn't make sense to build the infrastructure if wealthy people, who have interest in the Tesla regardless of the cost of ownership, and have no intention to use the S as a unlimited-range car, specifically buy the car. Again, I refer to the content and context of the Tesla website where is states "it is no longer a question of why not use electricity, but why use gasoline?"

[KingOfJericho]

You'll always be able to find a part of the country where you won't have a supercharger station but the vast majority of the population centers will be covered. There are people in this country who must plan their trips thoroughly before leaving home in their ICE powered cars so this isn't a problem unique to fully electric vehicles.

As for "it is no longer a question of why not use electricity, but why use gasoline?", this is very realistic for many people. I, myself, could easily make the Tesla a full replacement for my S4. I choose not to but based on my driving needs, it would work absolutely flawlessly. Someone with different priorities (mine is driving engagement) and my driving needs would jump at the Tesla - and they already are. I see several daily.

My point is that you keep saying that it doesn't make sense but are forgetting that for many people it does. They don't mind paying a premium as finding the most sensible car is not their primary motive.

[saeyedoc]

Hard to put a price on the convenience of never having to stop for gas. I'm going every 5 days to fill up my M3. I'd consider a Tesla if they'd come up with an induction charger so I don't have to plug it in. I commute about 50 miles a day, so I'd really only have to charge it twice a week or so.
Would still like a good supercharger network so I could take it on an occasional long trip.

[drob23]

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the charging rate is abysmally slow if you are on 120 or 240. The range estimate is incredibly generous if you drive it like you should.

While everyone wants to say they'd buy one and charge it at night/work, truth is, a very low percentage of the people who have this use it as a DD, let alone have a significant commute. Most owners have multiple cars and view this more like jewelry than a practical solution. The real question is who will buy this once all the brad pitt's and Larry paige's of this world already bought them. I think the car is pretty fantastic, I just don't see this as a sustainable business model, maybe the model x will change things.

I think the plug in hybrid is the way to go, especially a series solution like the volt. If I was a little wealthier and had a shorter commute, I'd love to have something like a fusion plug in hybrid.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by drob23

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the charging rate is abysmally slow if you are on 120 or 240. The range estimate is incredibly generous if you drive it like you should.

While everyone wants to say they'd buy one and charge it at night/work, truth is, a very low percentage of the people who have this use it as a DD, let alone have a significant commute. Most owners have multiple cars and view this more like jewelry than a practical solution. The real question is who will buy this once all the brad pitt's and Larry paige's of this world already bought them. I think the car is pretty fantastic, I just don't see this as a sustainable business model, maybe the model x will change things.

I think the plug in hybrid is the way to go, especially a series solution like the volt. If I was a little wealthier and had a shorter commute, I'd love to have something like a fusion plug in hybrid.

Also, the majority of the Teslas I see are being driven to or from work during normal commuting times.

[drob23]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

Also, the majority of the Teslas I see are being driven to or from work during normal commuting times.

It charges at 15 mi/hr on 240. The use info was discussed by some execs at an auto oem during the ride n drive I staffed for a model s.

Plug in hybrid is relatively cheaper without oversized batteries and you aren't completely reliant on ev mode. Would save you a ton of gas for that daily 30mi and be a dedicated DD commuter, then get e46 m3 for fun times.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

You'll always be able to find a part of the country where you won't have a supercharger station but the vast majority of the population centers will be covered. There are people in this country who must plan their trips thoroughly before leaving home in their ICE powered cars so this isn't a problem unique to fully electric vehicles.

As for "it is no longer a question of why not use electricity, but why use gasoline?", this is very realistic for many people. I, myself, could easily make the Tesla a full replacement for my S4. I choose not to but based on my driving needs, it would work absolutely flawlessly. Someone with different priorities (mine is driving engagement) and my driving needs would jump at the Tesla - and they already are. I see several daily.

My point is that you keep saying that it doesn't make sense but are forgetting that for many people it does. They don't mind paying a premium as finding the most sensible car is not their primary motive.

Wait, find a part of the country that won't have supercharging stations try like 95% of the roads won't be covered, ever. 85% of all car purchases are made for sensible reasons. 15% is not many people.

The Tesla would be ideal for my 160-mile round trip commute, except my priority is to maintain a low cost of ownership commensurate with a quality driving experience. The Tesla cost $20K more to own for my commute than most all other ICE cars that provide a quality driving experience.