[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

27k sounds about right.

From £120k original it's a steal as long as the err battery won't ..

[David70]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

For a 273-mile range, slow, zero options, silver paint and ugly ass wheels Model 3. Get the Model 3 with self driving and real paint and wheels and it's a $52K car (incl. wall charger) with Uncle Sam's tax rebate, which comes later and doesn't reduce the loan payment or tax on the car on the $59K priced car.

It'd be interesting to know how the average $48K retail price is calculated. There are lots of well-equipped Model 3 ICE alternatives for $35K or even less like the Accord, Camry and Altima. The $15K price delta buys 100,000+ miles of gas and maintenance. And they have no range or refueling limitations.

You want to compare it to an Accord/Camry but can't buy the Tesla without upgrading because it is slow (how many seconds faster 0-60 than the above?), stock wheels aren't good enough and you have to add $15,000 "Self Driving" to the Tesla? An "enthusiast" trying to buy reasonable transportation and saying he has to spend $15k on Self Driving seems strange.

You can complain about when the $7500 hits your bank account but you still have to include it in your overall price of the car.

If you are interested in how the average price of cars is calculated, look it up. Point was that is the average so there is a significant part of the population spending over $50k, whether they need to or not.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by David70

You want to compare it to an Accord/Camry but can't buy the Tesla without upgrading because it is slow (how many seconds faster 0-60 than the above?), stock wheels aren't good enough and you have to add $15,000 "Self Driving" to the Tesla? An "enthusiast" trying to buy reasonable transportation and saying he has to spend $15k on Self Driving seems strange.

You can complain about when the $7500 hits your bank account but you still have to include it in your overall price of the car.

If you are interested in how the average price of cars is calculated, look it up. Point was that is the average so there is a significant part of the population spending over $50k, whether they need to or not.

Why does FSD at $15k have to be added?

[David70]

Originally Posted by gblansten

Why does FSD at $15k have to be added?

That's my question.

Post I replied to said -

Get the Model 3 with self driving and real paint and wheels and it's a $52K car (incl. wall charger) with Uncle Sam's tax rebate, which comes later and doesn't reduce the loan payment or tax on the car on the $59K priced car.

Best I can tell is he "needs" self driving but none of the other cars listed can come with it. It is the best way to jack up the price but hard to figure out why anyone would spend this kind of money when looking for reasonably priced car. From what I have read about it, hard to believe anyone is buying it as it seems like a huge waste of money.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by David70

That's my question.

Post I replied to said -



Best I can tell is he "needs" self driving but none of the other cars listed can come with it. It is the best way to jack up the price but hard to figure out why anyone would spend this kind of money when looking for reasonably priced car. From what I have read about it, hard to believe anyone is buying it as it seems like a huge waste of money.

The point I was making is you are using a stripped Model 3 as an example that EV cost the same or lower as the average $48K ICE. It is only because the Govenment subsidizes the price by $7,500 (18%) that the price gets anywhere near an ICE sedan. Also, if the average price of a car is now $48K, that is not reflective of every manufurer's low ball, no-option trim. Adding FSD is adding the "tech" Tesla's are famous for and 5.8 secs. to 60 is really slow for the "famously fast" Tesla Model 3 (just ask BGM). The lowball stripper Accord LX is $27.3K. The price difference to the stripped Model 3 buys 70,000 miles of fuel for the Accord.

Or plug in the $26,300 Camry SE instead of the Accord LX, same difference. The Camry sells about 100,000 more units per year than the Model 3.

[Efthreeoh]

EV are still "if" more chargers are built, "if" condensed housing add chargers... "if" charging gets faster, "if" solid state batteries...

If if if if...

People buy EV only "if" the Govenment subsidizes them $7,500. Lol.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

EV are still "if" more chargers are built, "if" condensed housing add chargers... "if" charging gets faster, "if" solid state batteries...

If if if if...

People buy EV only "if" the Govenment subsidizes them $7,500. Lol.

Public money squandered.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The point I was making is you are using a stripped Model 3 as an example that EV cost the same or lower as the average $48K ICE. It is only because the Govenment subsidizes the price by $7,500 (18%) that the price gets anywhere near an ICE sedan. Also, if the average price of a car is now $48K, that is not reflective of every manufurer's low ball, no-option trim. Adding FSD is adding the "tech" Tesla's are famous for and 5.8 secs. to 60 is really slow for the "famously fast" Tesla Model 3 (just ask BGM). The lowball stripper Accord LX is $27.3K. The price difference to the stripped Model 3 buys 70,000 miles of fuel for the Accord.

Or plug in the $26,300 Camry SE instead of the Accord LX, same difference. The Camry sells about 100,000 more units per year than the Model 3.

I'm starting to really hate the use of average/mean figures. I really wish more stats are put out there with mode figures which provides a better picture as to what most people are buying not mean.

ICE cars can still be had well below the average $48k price being thrown around here. Toyota has a few models that fit that bill. I bought my 2019 Toyota C-HR LE with minimal options for $20,600 OTD in 2019.

[Patton250]

Lol

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CuAUV...I2MzMwZWM3ZA==

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

People buy EV only "if" the Govenment subsidizes them $7,500. Lol.

FTFU: People buy EV only "if" the Tax Payers subsidizes them $7,500.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

FTFU: People buy EV only "if" the Tax Payers subsidizes them $7,500.

As I said previously, non EV owners are subsidizing EV owner's use of electricity. And it's only going to get worse as more EVs hit the road.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by David70

That's my question.

Post I replied to said -



Best I can tell is he "needs" self driving but none of the other cars listed can come with it. It is the best way to jack up the price but hard to figure out why anyone would spend this kind of money when looking for reasonably priced car. From what I have read about it, hard to believe anyone is buying it as it seems like a huge waste of money.

So just running rough numbers for the difference between buying an Accord LX vs. a Tesla Model 3 RWD (279-mile range) with no options and how the tax credit affects the cost to the buyer for the Tesla. By not including the $7,500 tax credit to lower the pre-loan Tesla MSRP costs the buyer a $1,080 increase in total purchase cost (purchase price + down payment and total monthly payments - which includes the loan cost). If the buyer could add the -$7,500 to the Tesla's $41,880 MSRP it drops the down payment (using a 10% downpayment factor) by $750 and the monthly payment by $130.50. In summary, not including the $7,500 in the transaction costs the buyer $8,580 more in total cost, then taking the $7,500 off the back end once the buyer gets his tax credit (assuming he can get the entire $7,500 back - i.e. he needs to pay more than $7,500 per year in Federal income taxes). Numbers for a 60-month loan.

Now comparing the cheapo Accord to the Cheapo Tesla, the Accord is $7,900 less expensive than the Tesla in total purchase cost (applying the tax credit after the purchase of the Tesla). $7,900 buys a bit more than 2,400 gallons of gas, or 77,000 miles of free travel in the Accord. The Accord is a larger car, 105 cubic feet in passenger space compared to just 97 cubic feet for the Model 3. The Tesla does have about 3 cubic feet more cargo space because of its frunck. The Model 3 weighs 623 pounds more than the larger Accord. And the back seat of the Model 3 sucks (I've spent over an hour in one - it completely sucks for an adult to sit in it)

So, when I point out such facts, the Tesla fan boys (like BMG) retort with "but but but the tesla is waaaayyyy faster than the Accord" and "Ooohhh, the Tesla's tech is waaaayyy better than ANYTHING". Yet the cheapo Model 3 is 5.8 seconds to 60 (vs. the Accord LX at 6.6 seconds) and has none of the magic Tesla tech, which is why I added in FSD in my original post you complained about. The Accord LX has all the same basic drivers aids as the non-FSD Model 3 has (i.e. traffic driving assist and lane keeping). The Accord has a 420-mile range and recharges in 5 minutes anywhere in the USA, which completely negates Tesla's charging network attributes (which really applies to EV-to-EV comparisons).

I'm not trying to win any argument here, just pointing out facts that EV just are not near on par with their ICE equivalents when one compares the actual cost of them. Even at a Government subsidized price of $34K, the Model 3 is not worth buying when reviewing it as a transportation device. If you compare the cheapo base-model Model 3 to a compact car (which it really is) such as a Corolla, the picture for the Tesla gets much worse.

[Car-Addicted]

Does it seem odd that the folks that buy EV's to save the world consistently brag about how fast their EV is?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

I'm starting to really hate the use of average/mean figures. I really wish more stats are put out there with mode figures which provides a better picture as to what most people are buying not mean.

ICE cars can still be had well below the average $48k price being thrown around here. Toyota has a few models that fit that bill. I bought my 2019 Toyota C-HR LE with minimal options for $20,600 OTD in 2019.

Well, that's why I'd like to know how the $48.5K average is calculated. I looked into it a bit this morning. The top 5 selling cars in 2022 were the F-150, Silverado, and RAM pickups, with the RAV-4 and Camry at 4th and 5th. They add up to just 14% of the 14M units sold in 2022. Pickups are pricy machines and probably skew the average pricing. I think ADM skews the number as well. So I agree with you, there are a lot of models that are priced well below the "average".

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

As I said previously, non EV owners are subsidizing EV owner's use of electricity. And it's only going to get worse as more EVs hit the road.

And road taxes at this point too...

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

So just running rough numbers for the difference between buying an Accord LX vs. a Tesla Model 3 RWD (279-mile range) with no options and how the tax credit affects the cost to the buyer for the Tesla. By not including the $7,500 tax credit to lower the pre-loan Tesla MSRP costs the buyer a $1,080 increase in total purchase cost (purchase price + down payment and total monthly payments - which includes the loan cost). If the buyer could add the -$7,500 to the Tesla's $41,880 MSRP it drops the down payment (using a 10% downpayment factor) by $750 and the monthly payment by $130.50. In summary, not including the $7,500 in the transaction costs the buyer $8,580 more in total cost, then taking the $7,500 off the back end once the buyer gets his tax credit (assuming he can get the entire $7,500 back - i.e. he needs to pay more than $7,500 per year in Federal income taxes). Numbers for a 60-month loan.

Now comparing the cheapo Accord to the Cheapo Tesla, the Accord is $7,900 less expensive than the Tesla in total purchase cost (applying the tax credit after the purchase of the Tesla). $7,900 buys a bit more than 2,400 gallons of gas, or 77,000 miles of free travel in the Accord. The Accord is a larger car, 105 cubic feet in passenger space compared to just 97 cubic feet for the Model 3. The Tesla does have about 3 cubic feet more cargo space because of its frunck. The Model 3 weighs 623 pounds more than the larger Accord. And the back seat of the Model 3 sucks (I've spent over an hour in one - it completely sucks for an adult to sit in it)

So, when I point out such facts, the Tesla fan boys (like BMG) retort with "but but but the tesla is waaaayyyy faster than the Accord" and "Ooohhh, the Tesla's tech is waaaayyy better than ANYTHING". Yet the cheapo Model 3 is 5.8 seconds to 60 (vs. the Accord LX at 6.6 seconds) and has none of the magic Tesla tech, which is why I added in FSD in my original post you complained about. The Accord LX has all the same basic drivers aids as the non-FSD Model 3 has (i.e. traffic driving assist and lane keeping). The Accord has a 420-mile range and recharges in 5 minutes anywhere in the USA, which completely negates Tesla's charging network attributes (which really applies to EV-to-EV comparisons).

I'm not trying to win any argument here, just pointing out facts that EV just are not near on par with their ICE equivalents when one compares the actual cost of them. Even at a Government subsidized price of $34K, the Model 3 is not worth buying when reviewing it as a transportation device. If you compare the cheapo base-model Model 3 to a compact car (which it really is) such as a Corolla, the picture for the Tesla gets much worse.

When anything that takes repeated chunks of my time which gets more valuable as I get older, I add into the costs figures what my hourly wage would be. On travel sitting at a charger even for 30 minutes is a significant amount of time where I would factor in the cost of half of my hourly rate. Multiply that out over a year and that hidden cost is pretty eye opening. For me I drive a lot due to various things going on in my life. My 2019 C-HR has 113,000 miles on it already. Much of that mileage isn't due to what people would traditionally call long distance pleasure drives. It's from my day to day driving requirements even though I live in a very urban/metropolitan area.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by M2siast

Are your 77,000 miles example in the Accord excluding the cost to charge the Model 3?

I assume if we include the running costs in recharging for the Model 3, you could go farther in the Accord than 77,000 miles if it wasn’t factored in.
It’s not free to recharge an EV and it is getting expensive in some places.

No. Just rough numbers. I've posted different numbers way earlier in this thread that uses a more elaborate calculation that includes charging the Tesla and adding in the cost of Maintenace for the Accord (or any ICE). But the results are nearly the same. The price delta buys a lot of free gas. And that's with the Government (taxpayer) incentives in place. Tying to use a battery to power an automobile just makes no sense. Using electricity to power an automobile makes total sense. The answer is to generate the electricity on-board using a series hybrid. But Governments don't want ICE burning gasoline/diesel at any cost, which is why the BIG push for BEV and subsidized charging stations.

Utter waste of time and money.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

When anything that takes repeated chunks of my time which gets more valuable as I get older, I add into the costs figures what my hourly wage would be. On travel sitting at a charger even for 30 minutes is a significant amount of time where I would factor in the cost of half of my hourly rate. Multiply that out over a year and that hidden cost is pretty eye opening. For me I drive a lot due to various things going on in my life. My 2019 C-HR has 113,000 miles on it already. Much of that mileage isn't due to what people would traditionally call long distance pleasure drives. It's from my day to day driving requirements even though I live in a very urban/metropolitan area.

Not to repeat myself, but when I was driving 35,000/year to my office, no EV could safely cover the daily distance 180 miles in the winter. People said, "well, just sit for 20 minutes and get 50 miles of range back". Like you, when you have a normal hour and 45 minute drive without stopping, adding just 20 minutes is not within the tolerance level. And when I had to drive around the DMV to client meetings during the day, nope, EV wouldn't work.

If GM would resurrect the Volt and make it a pure series hybrid with a purpose-built ICE to just power a generator AND make look normal and cool (like a Caddy ATS) I'd buy one and replace my 3-Series.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

So, when I point out such facts, the Tesla fan boys (like BMG) retort with "but but but the tesla is waaaayyyy faster than the Accord" and "Ooohhh, the Tesla's tech is waaaayyy better than ANYTHING". Yet the cheapo Model 3 is 5.8 seconds to 60 (vs. the Accord LX at 6.6 seconds) and has none of the magic Tesla tech, which is why I added in FSD in my original post you complained about. The Accord LX has all the same basic drivers aids as the non-FSD Model 3 has (i.e. traffic driving assist and lane keeping). The Accord has a 420-mile range and recharges in 5 minutes anywhere in the USA, which completely negates Tesla's charging network attributes (which really applies to EV-to-EV comparisons).

Granted, I don't have time in a M3P or Plaid, but I test drove a gentleman's M3 dual motor a few months ago and he got me to open it up in a few situations and he commented that it's not that it goes from 0-60, it's that the initial 0-60 acceleration is available at virtually any speed and situation, already rolling at 60, whatever. That's what I was doing, opening it up at 60 and flooring it and it seemed to live up to that claim. Way way faster than a accord in terms of response and acceleration at those speeds.

My point is that "way way faster" may be more than just 0-60.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Does it seem odd that the folks that buy EV's to save the world consistently brag about how fast their EV is?

Seems odd to think a car will save the world.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

EV are still "if" more chargers are built, "if" condensed housing add chargers... "if" charging gets faster, "if" solid state batteries...

If if if if...

People buy EV only "if" the Govenment subsidizes them $7,500. Lol.

I didn't get any $7500 subsidy.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Addressing a few of your posts. The trendline is a misrepresentation. In 2010 there were no BEV from mainstream manufacturers, other than the 80-mile Leaf (Dec. 2010). The trendline is global sales, we should be looking at US sales, where BEV have a harder sell do to potential traveling distances, which is where EV sales volume is going to level off at some point.

You are the current typical EV adopter. Dual income or well financed, and keep an ICE in the fleet. Great demographic to be in, but the reality is the market has a huge 2nd tier ownership group that can't afford a 2 or 3 car household, and do not have private overnight charging access. This is why some of us see a plateau for BEV adoption.

I think the data is accurate, I just think the last 2 years need to be looked at much more succinctly due to all the crazy things with Covid.

ICE manufacturers had a ton of supply chain issues whearas manufacturers like Tesla took advantage of that with their own chips and were able to manufacture more cars than ever.

The government also stimulated EV sales more than ever with extended tax credits that were combined with a large reduction in price by Tesla... people jumped on the opportunity more than ever.

I too would be curious to see US data on this.