Not sure where the $40K number comes from but the *base* model with options (not all options, just things like leather, the tech package, and a color other than white or black) will be $60K after the federal tax credit. That's a lot of coin for a car with a range of maybe 100 miles that doesn't even have advanced features like adaptive cruise control. The step up model with the 60 kWh pack definitely offers better value, but at $70K and lacking the amenities you find in cars for tens of thousands less you can hardly say it's a good value.

At these prices TCO doesn't come into play because the depreciation is too great. The best hope from a financial standpoint is to buy and have Tesla go out of business, in which case you'll have quite a collector's car.

I haven't BTW driven the Model S. I had the option but the "test drive" consisted of driving around Space X for a few minutes, which wouldn't have provided me with much of an idea about real world ride and handling. No doubt it's got good acceleration and is very responsive, that comes with any electric drive, but I'm not convinced on the handling. Having both the head engineer and the chasis engineer leave or getting the boot just as the car launches doesn't engender confidence. Something was obviously a problem and either management wouldn't fix it (my guess) or couldn't fix it and just blamed these two guys.

 

These are verifiable facts, people

Not sure where the $40K number comes from but the *base* model with options (not all options, just things like leather, the tech package, and a color other than white or black) will be $60K after the federal tax credit. That's a lot of coin for a car with a range of maybe 100 miles that doesn't even have advanced features like adaptive cruise control. The step up model with the 60 kWh pack definitely offers better value, but at $70K and lacking the amenities you find in cars for tens of thousands less you can hardly say it's a good value.

Here are the actual prices for each base model Tesla (ignoring all incentives, credits, and rebates):

40kWh - $57,400
60kWh - $67,400
85kWh - $77,400
85kWh Performance - $92,400
85kWh Signature Performance - $105,400

If you qualify for the $7,500 Federal tax credit, then after you buy a base model at one of the above prices (plus sales tax, don't forget!), you can file your taxes on the following April 15th and pay $7,500 less than you otherwise would have. If you live in California, you can get a $1,500 tax rebate within a month of purchase, as long as you keep the car at least 3 years. Other states have other incentives, like Colorado.

Deducting the $7,500 credit off the advertised price is very disingenuous since (a) some people may not qualify for it and (b) you have to pay the full price when buying the car, not $7,500 less.

Here are the actual prices for each car model fully loaded:

40kWh - $57,400 + $18,850* = $76,250
60kWh - $67,400 + $18,850* = $86,250
85kWh - $77,400 + $18,850* = $96,250
85kWh Performance - $92,400 + $12,350* = $104,750
85kWh Signature Performance - $105,400 + $5,900* = $111,300

And as a previous poster noted, this car doesn't even have adaptive cruise control. And as I've noted previously, it doesn't have Blind Spot warning, heads-up display, night vision/pedestrian detection, cooled front seats, seat/mirror memory, etc. So if you're going to buy a Model S, it has to be for the all-electric main feature, the super-quiet driving experience, the Lexus-like ride, the 17-inch high-tech touch control screen, the acceleration, the "cool factor," and bragging rights. And money should not be something you need to think about on a daily basis!

*Options:
Metallic Paint: $750
Panoramic Roof: $1,500
21" High Performance Tires (non-Performance/Signature): $3,500
Nappa Leather Interior (non-Performance/Signature): $1,500
Tech Package (non-Signature): $3,750
Sound Studio Package (non-Signature): $950
Active Air Suspension (non-Performance/Signature): $1,500
Rear-Facing Seats: $1,500
Parcel Shelf (non-Signature): $250
Paint Armor: $950
Twin Chargers (non-Signature): $1,500
High-Power Wall Connector: $1,200

 

True, I think he meant to say 50k as that is the price of the base model after the federal rebate.

100 mile range though Don, really? The base model range at a constant 55mph is 160 miles. EPA rating of the 85kwh pack is 265, which is just about 12% less than Tesla's 300 mile constant 55mph range. If you use the same adjustment, you get a range of 140.

The handling has been the most universally applauded aspect of the Model S. The skateboard design has been used to wonderful affect.
If you are visiting MN sometime after October come on by. I'd be happy to give you a ride

Koz, thanks so much for the review!!

 

100 mile range though Don, really? The base model range at a constant 55mph is 160 miles.

The math seems straightforward. If you think something is off then tell me. But the math tells me: Three miles a kWh for a car this heavy isn't bad. (You get somewhat more in the Volt but it's 1000 pounds lighter, rated at 99 MPGe rather as opposed to the 89 MPGe the Model S is rated at). In fact the EPA says the Model S will need 38 kWh for every 100 miles, which is 2.63 kWh per mile from the wall. Unless the charger is ungodly inefficient you're getting 3 miles/kWh. The pack is 40 kWh. The most you can use is 80%. That's 32 kWh usable. 32 kWh X 3 miles/kWh = 96 miles. Moreover, that's to the point where the battery goes flat, and no one (hopefully) is going to do that.

That's also when the Model S is new. Completely different story after a few years. The Panasonic cells are basically good for 500, maybe 600 cycles. Now if you're willing to live with 75% of the initial capacity they might be good for 3X or 4X that number of cycles, but now you will be below 100 miles in almost any drive cycle.

As for the performance being very good, I'm not buying that at all. At this point I don't think anyone has really gotten what I'd call a decent test drive. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. But head engineers don't quit or get fired because all is working perfectly.

 

Nope, I meant what I wrote. I certain DonC and I will stay on opposite sides of the fence with regards to the Model S but I'll give it a whirl anyway. Plug-ins have value beyond their ICE counterparts that is directly prportional to their electric only range up to a point. Of course, that value is specific to the owner just as YMMV, YVMV (Your Value May Vary). For me, a pack size larger than 40kWh has almost no value and it would actually be more of a detriment to be stuck carrying the ~200lbs of unused weight around. I assumed $10K as the value beyond a comparable ICE for the 40kWh pack. Comps average about 22mpg and using 12K/yr and $4/gal, gas cost calculates to $17.5K in 8 years. Using 46kWh per 140miles of electric calcs to $3.5K. Bringing back to present value, leaves about $10K. This is conservative, IMO, since there will certainly be value to the ~30kWh capacity left in the cells at the end of this period. The maintenance costs should also be significantly less for the EV. Since the base model is $49,900 after the credit, I feel a $40K ICE comp is more than fair for a starting point.

Sure, one may want options in their car that are not part of the base model but that is only relevant on an individual basis. There are plenty of standard features in the Model S that you won't find in the $40K comparable ICE vehicles. For similar reasons, the Volt comps to ICE vehicles starting at $25K from a cost/value perspective. That being said, leather ($1500) and the Tech Package ($3750) are the only options for the Model S that have some elements that are standard in many $40+K vehicles. Of course to set the baseline with this is totally discounting the standard features that the Model S comes with that are not included in most $40K vehicles.

As far as range, the 40kWh pack is @400lbs lighter (at least according to the rep I spoke with but he admittedly was unsure of this value) and will come in around 140 miles for EPA rating as Zythryn suggests. This is in line with what the Leaf is rated on a mile/kWh basis. I do think that the EPA needs to re-evaluate their BEV rating system. They should use a range based 75% of their current calculation in addition to the day one range. What good is it to buy a car based on the initial range if it won't suffice after a couple of years? For most people they should purchase based on charging to 80% or whatever the lower charge point is in the beginning of battery life. Once the capacity diminishes to the point that that is no longer acceptable then charge to the higher level. If this doesn't provide acceptable range then they should purchase a larger pack or longer range BEV. To that end, I consider the base Model S an 105 mile BEV.

All EVs are created equal no more than all ICEs are created equal. The Volt ride is very good, excellent for a $25K car. The acceleration is more than adequate for around town driving and the torque is great. The Model S is at a different level on every level of the ride, somewhat like a S class is to a C class Mercedes or an ES is to an LS Lexus. The Volt's passing power is reasonable up to 65MPH start but gets sluggish from their, not so for the Model S. The S is about 4500lbs and larger. The size of the interior and heft are apparent, in a good way. Add the leather, tech package, pano roof, and air suspension and you rival any $60K sedan.

Like I state originally, if the range and plugging-in works then the value is easily their versus its ICE peers.

 

Koz, where are you getting $40,000 from? If the Model S was actually $40,000 then I'd have a different opinion of it. But AFAIK it's at least $50,000, and, as mentioned, $60,000 after a few options.

I also completely disagree that anyone is going to buy a Model S without options like leather seats. The Model S is purely and simply a "look at me" vehicle, and cloth seats just aren't going to cut it on a "look at me" sedan. If you did it would be a very bad idea come resale time. If I bought a Model S, in addition to the leather and tech package you've mentioned, I'd definitely want the glass roof ($1500), active air suspension ($1500), rear seats ($1500), and an upgraded paint job ($750-$1500). That still BTW isn't a fully loaded Model S. You have an opportunity to spend thousands more on things like a high wattage charger ($1200) or larger wheels ($3500). Realistically if you only dropped $10K on options you'd be lucky.

I aslo don't believe the range you guys are claiming. They simply can't be squared with the released EPA numbers. The EPA site doesn't list the range but it does say that the Model S uses 38 kWh/100 miles. That's at best 3 kWh/mile from battery to wheels. How can you get 140 miles from a 40 kWh pack using 3 kWh or more per mile? Heck this doesn't compute even if you used 100% of the cell capacity, and using 100% of cell capacity simply isn't possible. Because if the EPA says it takes 38 kWh to go 100 miles, then it's not going to say that you can go 140 miles on 40 kWh.

 

I had a detailed response go poof when posting so this will be brief.

-$40K is derived by subtracting from the $50k after tax price, the $10K differential in 8 year running costs I enumerated previously. Any talk of normalizing costs with the base model features of a $40K car should include adding in the extra value of the Model S features that aren't in the $40K costs. Premium paint, pano roof, air suspension, rear seats, or upgraded chargers are either not available or are options for $40K cars so it is not logical to add them in.

-The ride is what it is or at least to the point I drove it which is not to an extreme or on a track. For every day driving, the Model S is a high end ride. The higher cost, higher performance versions rival any sedan on the market for power. According to every test drive review I've read, and there are many, it is a fantastic ride. Some of those reviews were after more than an hour behind the wheel and not from EV friendlies. Perhaps you should have taken the test drive, then there would be more to dispute this with other than the fact that some engineers moved on.

-The range comes out to 135-140 for the 40kWh pack no matter how you slice it, at least if it is done logically. You are using 38kWh/100 miles rating but this is from the wall just as the Volt's rated 36kWh/100 miles is from the wall. The rating for the Model S is based on the 85kWh pack, which is about 400lbs heavier than the 40kWh pack, so the 40kWh version will probably be 36-37kWh/100 miles. The 2012 Volt is rated 35 miles per charge and that is about 10kWh from the pack, times 4 and you get 140 miles for 40kWh. No, I won't be charging to full very often if ever and nobody else should purchase expecting to charge to full every day. This is why I derated to 75% to arrive at a more realistic 105 miles of everyday range. Of course if you live where the temps get below 0 degrees, you should plan accordingly (drive 60 or get a bigger pack).


-

 

Not sure anyone is debating the initial cost of the Volt vs Model S. I compared the two feature and performance wise to give an understood baseline. Model S is bigger and more luxurious than the Volt. Two different class of vehicles to me. I see the Volt as a value competitor to Lexus IS, Meredes C, BMW 3, etc. I see the Model S competing against BMW 5 & 7, Mercedes E & S, Jaguar, etc.

 

Glad ti hear the Tesla Model S addresses the Volt's biggest shortcomings and then some. The "base model" is the best "deal", but I wonder how many buyers will end up with that model...a $70-$90K "solution" to the Volt's shortcomings is not really a fair comparison. In all honesty, if the Volt were a size larger and they improved the braking that would address my biggest complaints. I REALLY hope the Tesla Model S does well as it will help to mainstream this type of car and drive a more affordable price point.

 

I think the 40kWh is the wrong way to buy a Tesla . If I wanted a car that doesn't allow me to leave town , I would buy a Nissan Leaf for half the price . At least the 60kWh Tesla with super charging allows for long distance traveling . I consider 112 mile range for the 40kWh and 170 miles for the 60Kwh . The single 10kWh charging at home is fine for any battery pack .

 

It is perfectly OK for an individual to define what is acceptable for themselves but it's a bit presumptuous to project your wants or desires onto the general public. The only right way to buy ANY car is to evaluate one's own wants and needs in a vehicle and determine which car best fits them. I don't give crap why anyone else thinks or defines as what is appropriate for a price range combination other than how it could affect resale value. There is no BEV that offers long distance travel in a meaningful way to me since there isn't fast charging or battery swap places and will not be to an "acceptable degree" for me anytime soon. To pay $10k or $20k extra for capacity that will never be needed and rarely if ever used is beyond foolish IMO.

If I were EVangelical and were willing to compromise time and convenience to completely avoid burning gas under any circumstances, then it would be a different story for me and there would be more value to the larger packs. Others that will value the larger packs are those that regularly drive longer, but not too long, distances. It is great that Tesla is offering battery size options to meet varying driving needs/wants. It just happens that the 40kwh pack satisfies mine. Looking at the general population's driving patterns, I believe a lot of people will end up feeling the same way. Of course the smaller pack comes with less performance and plenty of people will probably opt for the better performance of the bigger pack regardless of their range needs. This happens all of the time with conventional cars where people pay several thousand dollars extra just for higher performing versions of the same car.

FWIW, I would be happy buying a Nissan Leaf equivalent if one were available with a 36kwh pack from an American car manufacturer but that's because I personally don't put a lot of value in the "luxury" aspects of cars. For those that do value luxury, I stand firmly behind my statements that the Model S provides excellent relative value.

 

It seems a bit silly to fall into the value vs cost discussion when it comes to the Model S. Take any car in the $60k-$70k price range, and the buyer isn't doing any such calculation. A car at the point is because you have some level of desire that exceeds a value formula. I never understand why people fall back to that argument when they are trying to use it in comparison to other, much less expensive cars. It's one thing to compare it to a BMW 5 or 6 series, or any number of other luxury models. But comparing it to a Volt or a Leaf is preposterous. I like my Volt fine, but I'd much rather have a Model S. And most likely, those who would choose the Volt or Leaf do not desire or aren't in the market for a $60k-$70k luxury car.

 

I can compare the value of anything to whatever I want . I purchased a new BMW 530i and a new Chevy Impala in the same year . We also had an old Dodge truck . Each car serves it's own purpose .

I am a potential Tesla customer but could not pass up the incredible values of the Volt so I bought two of them . If I was earning as much as I was in 2007 , I would consider the 60kWh model S with super charging and a single 10 kWh home charger . I value the 40kWh Tesla as an expensive , beautiful car that unfortunately pushes me back to the Nissan Leaf because it will never be able to leave town .

 

Hey, I love my Volt, but I'd take a 60/80kWh Model S in a heartbeat. The range for either is all I would possibly need. The only options I would get is the tech package and paint upgrade. However, comparing the Model S and Volt is like comparing the Volt to a Mitsubishi i, not the same class.

 

" However, comparing the Model S and Volt is like comparing the Volt to a Mitsubishi i, not the same class."

Funny , That's exactly what I did . I started with the Mitsubishi Miev because of the low price . Later , I compared it to the Leaf and Volt . However , I assumed the Volt was priced higher than what I was willing to spend . When I realized the Mitsubishi and Leaf were limited to in town use only , I gave up on my quest until I spotted an ad for the special lease deals on the Volts .

 

Those figures make more sense - MPGe can die in a fire for all I care - but they still don't add up. At those values the Model S would need a battery with a usable capacity of slightly more than 100kWh to achieve the EPA-tested range of 265 miles, the Roadster a battery of 73kWh to reach 244 mi, and the i-MiEV a 21kWh usable capacity (in reality the total capacity of the battery is 16kWh) to get to 62 miles.

 

EPA kWh per 100 miles includes charging losses. If the Model S battery sizes are usable kWh, as I've read suggested a couple times, instead of total, the ~100kWh/~20-30% losses is right in line the Volt experience (12-13 kWh for 10 usable.)

 

Completely forgot about the charging inefficiencies. Thanks, I finally understand.

I wouldn't be too quick to call out Tesla on their drag coefficient claims, though. According to that EPA data, the Model S is 70% heavier than the Roadster but only 25% less efficient, and 22% heavier than the Volt/8% less efficient. It probably has the highest efficiency per kg (if that makes sense) of any electric vehicle on the market.

 

So if I use the Volt window sticker that says I will save $7000+ per year in gasoline then the fully loaded 40kWh Model S is relatively free over the course of 10 years.

Maybe I should get one.

With the dual chargers included in the upgrades, that is 61 miles per hour of charging at home and 25-30 at the public charging stations already setup around town. I could probably get a couple hundred miles per day if needed. I wonder if I can plug in two public charging stations and get 50 miles per hour of charging. I get 6 months of unlimited charging for $25.

I doubt it. As I understand it, there aren't two cables, just two 10kW chargers sharing a cable. I suppose since you need a Tesla - J1773 adapter anyway, you could in theory make it a Y - not sure the car would then allow faster charging, even assuming that tying the two cables together wasn't an exciting experience...

 

You'll save as much gas as you typically used to buy each year for your ICE. No more than that. It's just advertising hype saying someone could save $7,000 in fuel. That's a lot of driving or really high gas prices. I drove an Infiniti M56 with premium gas on a 15,000 mile/yr lease and never paid more than $3,800 for gas in a 12-month period. So by leasing a Volt, I'm saving a little less than $3,800 per year (because I'll have to fill up the Volt eventually). I'd save a fraction more if I bought a 100% electric Tesla Model S or a Leaf, but not significantly more. So in 12 years my full-loaded Volt will have paid for itself. (Except that I'm replacing it in two years with a newer Volt or ELR when my lease runs out!)

 

I've created a calculator that allows you to enter the cost of electricity, petrol, amount of CO2 per kWh, how far you drive, etc, and calculate the amount it would cost you over 5 years and how much CO2 your car would release:

http://tarts.cc/emissions

It uses the EPA kWh/25mi and mpg figures from the site. It's metric only at the moment but I'm hoping to implement US customary units eventually.

You could say it's the same as the existing EPA calculator, and it really is, but I also consider it significantly easier to operate.

 

I agree with the others. OTD the base model S will be at least $60k with a base range battery. The larger batteries are heavier and will reduce overall economy. I have been dreaming of this car but I don't know if I would trade the limited range for a range extending engine that the volt offers at almost half the price. No doubt the acceleration and ride are much superior in the Tesla, but you would have to be smoking the chronic to think you can lease one under $300 like I did with the Volt. Plus the Volt is available NOW, and the base Tesla might not hit the streets for at least another year of two....

 

What's interesting is that Tesla's estimated range doesn't decrease at the same rate as the battery pack capacity:

85kWh -> 60kWh = 29.4% decrease
300mi -> 230mi = 23.3% decrease

60kWh -> 40kWh = 33.3% decrease
230mi -> 160mi = 30.4% decrease

This indicates that Tesla thinks the car will actually get more efficient as you move down the range, probably due to a decrease in the overall weight of the vehicle. With this, though, you can make a pretty accurate estimate of what the range of the other models might be, using the EPA-tested range of the 85kWh model.

85kWh = 265 miles

So I'm guessing:

65kWh = 203 miles
40kWh = 141 miles

These values somehow come to a range difference of almost exactly 100km between each battery pack:

265mi = 426.5km
203mi = 326.7km
141mi = 226.9km

 

I think this is what's referred to as cognitive dissonance. We have two "sociopaths" (Musk, Jobs) who were part of respective organizations (Paypal/Tesla/SpaceX and Apple/Pixar/Next) and the companies did turn out great. Neither alleged sociopath was a thief and neither was a sexual predator. Everything turned out quite well for a lot of people, including most employees of those companies, most investors in those companies, and much of the public who uses (or will use) the tech those companies created.

So you can't say that it "never turns out well for anyone but the sociopath" and "having a sociopath in your organiztion is not great" because those statements don't correlate with the two examples given. Therefore, "never" should be changed to "rarely" for that first statement to be remotely accurate, and you should add "necessarily" after "not" in the latter statement for it to be more realistic:

"It rarely turns of well for anyone but the sociopath."

"Having a sociopath in your organization is not necessarily great."

 

As I Volt owner with a Model S reservation, I don't understand DonC's hostility toward the Model S. It appears he's hoping for its failure, which for a moderator of this forum I find quite amazing. His attitude reminds me of the naysayers who criticized the Volt in it's early days and continue to do so, often in spite of the facts.

 

In relation to an argument earlier, '18650' is just the size of the battery - it has nothing to do with the battery chemistry itself.

Both the Tesla Roadster and the Tesla Model S use the 18650 form factor, but the chemistries are very different.

The Roadster uses cells with cobalt-oxide cathodes. These are essentially the same cells used in laptop batteries.
The cells in the Model S, on the other hand, use nickel-cobalt-aluminum cathodes. I'm not sure how these batteries perform, but they are definitely not laptop batteries as some are claiming.

 

Apparently the Model S doesn't actually use the full capacity of the battery, or at least, not by default:

 

Apparently the Model S doesn't actually use the full capacity of the battery, or at least, not by default:

That is the method Tesla has used for the Roadster as well. The 'standard' charge is about 80%, which protects the battery. If you press the screen and change it to max range it uses more of the battery.
Personally, I like having access to using almost all of the battery if I need the range. However, building in protection of the batteries from the owner by never allowing access to a larger percentage of the pack also makes some sense.
The Leaf erred in this and with its short range to start with, drivers found they often needed a large percentage of the battery. In hot environments this is apparently too much stress on the battery.
In the case of the Volt, they protected too much of the battery (better to err on the side of caution if you are going to err. They are apparently going to be giving more access to the battery pack.
Tesla needs to do a very good job educating their customers so that they don't wind up with customers damaging their own batteries. With 1200 cars or so, that was relatively easy, although they still had a couple people kill their own packs through not following simple rules.
With 20000 a year, it will be an interting challenge. They have made refinements to how the software protects the batteries and the controls in the car, as seen I the picture above, do a good job spelling it out.

 

There have been a lot of reviews now and, other than a nit here or there, the reviews have been glowing. Edmunds just did a more extended track test and they report performance is as claimed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU9qYfXltqE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

Nice Koz, thanks for posting. Looks like it handled pretty well on the track. Glad reviewers are starting to get a bit more time with it. I look forward to the range tests too.