Tesla unveils more affordable Model 3, gives glimpse at Apple's future auto competition

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 117
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,213member
    What really amazes me is when the iOS redesign came out all the tech press went nuts because buttons were gone and OMG I don't know what or where to tap because there aren't any buttons; they decried the so-called lack of "accordance". Yet Tesla shows off a vehicle whose dashboard has nothing more than a 15" screen in the middle of it; not a button to be found anywhere, not even the steering wheel and everyone in the tech press drools and says this is the most amazing thing ever. No! It's bad design. I can't tell you how often I use the buttons on my steering wheel to change stations or audio source or to get to menus. I love having a dial with tactical feedback to turn the volume up or down or adjust the air. I would hate for all of that to be housed in a 15" screen in the middle of the dashboard.
    caliirelandpatchythepiratepropod
  • Reply 42 of 117
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,035member
    sog35 said:
    auxio said:
    A bit dramatic, but a few more things to consider before you pre-order.
    Not much risk in a $1000 deposit.
    You can get your deposit back at anytime without penalty.
    IMO, its a good risk since getting the car early can give you a $7,500-$10,000 tax credit.
    The trade off is you lose about $2 in risk-free investment return (put the $1000 in the bank)

    IMO the chance of getting the $7500-$10,000 tax credit offsets the small chance Tesla goes Bankrupt AND does not have the cash to pay back your deposit.
    The other risk is that you may not even get the credit, and so the actual cost of the car is $42k.  Still a bargain for an electric car, but it's a risk over buying the Bolt where you'll more than likely get the credit (without having to put any money on the line).
    bb-15
  • Reply 43 of 117
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,504member
    kent909 said:
    If you read the comments here, you have to almost resign yourself, that we all or at least our children are going to die from the effects of climate change. They have sold 200K+ in the first day.  I bet they sell over a million the first year.  That is 200K to 1 mil  cars that will be on the road that can be powered by sustainable clean energy. But hey, fuck climate change, the car has a lame interior and they are losing money on each car. I know that because Musk is my friend and he told me so. Don't get me started on the S or the X where I can buy a gas guzzling SUV that is better equipped for the same money and certainly in powered by something that can never ever be a clean energy source. Eat shit Al Gore. The point of this car is not to appease our delicate sensibilities. It is about saving the planet. Tesla is the disruptive force. Do you think GM gives a rats ass if the Bolt is a complete failure and never sells. The Bolt is a PR stunt for them. If this is what Tesla can do, just think what GM or Ford or Toyota could do if they did't have their mouths around big oil. The rest is all just BS. get over yourselves.
    Well...I am going to die anyway, and I'm old enough that it probably wont be from climate change. This therefore isn't my problem, so I actually don't give a shit. Save the planet my ass. The planet will be fine, and it might be better off without us. It's not going anywhere. We are. 

    What is BS is that someone expects me to pay to assuage their guilt feelings. 
  • Reply 44 of 117
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    "Looks like Steve Jobs"
    "Apple should quit"
    "iPhone moment"
    "Apple should buy Tesla and lose billions"
    "Apple is doomed"

    DREAM ON
    irelandpatchythepirate
  • Reply 45 of 117
    This article is misleading..  

    The quote of:
    "The first 200,000 U.S. units will also qualify for federal tax subsidies supporting electric vehicles, potentially making the car as cheap as $27,500." 

    Is just wrong, the government subsidy is for the first 200,000 EV unit of ANY type for a company.  Tesla has already stated that they have sold around 75,000 Roadsters, Model S's and X's..   So with ongoing sales of those, by the time the Model 3  hits any streets probably only 50-80 thousand units will qualify.

    The writers and editors need to do some fact checking before making blanket statements like that.    People now think that if they are in the 200K they get the subsidy.  It will be lucky if only 1/3 or 1/4 of the Model 3's will quality. 

    Again, that's 200,000 cars from a single manufacture of ANY model that qualifies.   Check the facts please!



    bb-15nomadmac
  • Reply 46 of 117
    hexclockhexclock Posts: 597member
    A side note about the perceived environmental benefits. Nearly 70% of electricity generated in the United States comes from fossil fuels, so you might feel better about yourself driving an electric car, but in reality it's just shifting the problem somewhere else. 
    zoetmbcornchip
  • Reply 47 of 117
    gfedorgfedor Posts: 3member
    sog35 said:
    gfedor said:
    Nice car.

    But to say that $35,000 (or even $27,500 if lucky to get the credit) is a "car to be priced for the general public instead of rich sports and luxury car buyers" is way off the mark.

    I get that the technology is new and there is NRE to be recovered, and I get that the car is "cool", but until manufacturers (Tesla, GM, Toyota, Honda, etc. maybe even Apple) starts taking the basic electric motor train technology and adapting it to cars with less bells-n-whistles, none of these types of cars will be within the economy of the general public.

    With 3 or 4 models under its belt by now, I would have hoped Tesla would lead the way towards making a car that could start to take more hydrocarbon vehicles off the road.  Don't get me wrong, I think the car has lots of style and would love to have one myself, but $35k is still to rich for me.
    Dude, the average price of a car in the USA is $33,000.

    Have you gone car shopping lately?  To get a nicely equipped Honda Civic will cost you close to $27k.  Go buy a Honda Accord and you are at $30+.  Go buy any decent sized SUV and you are at $35k-$40.  Same with a full sized pickup.

    $35,000 is mainstream.  Especially since this car will give you 70mpg (based on electric vs gas prices) and save you couple thousand a year just on gas and repairs/maintenance.
    Actually, I have been shopping for a new car lately, but even the average price you quote is still too high for basic transportation.

    I bought my current car in 2001 for $18,000 (cash) and it was not a basic stripped down model either.  Owing for inflation that equates to $24,000 in present dollars.  However to buy a comparably equipped car today would cost upwards of $28-30,000.  With car prices increasing faster than inflation the idea that a $35,000 car is now "average" is ridiculous.

    If the goal is to innovate and sell glitz then sure, Tesla and others are right on the mark with what they're offering today, but the market of available consumers that can afford that is small.  If the goal is to innovate and get more folks out of hydrocarbon vehicles, then the price has to come down substantially more IMHO.

    Your argument about saving on fuel and maintenance costs is valid.  Lifetime costs should be better with something like a Tesla, but the up front cost of purchase is still a barrier.  To finance a $35,000 car at today's rates of ~3%, your monthly payment would be upwards of $625-$770.  I am considered upper middle class and I can assure you I cannot afford that type of payment regardless of the long term savings.

    Don't get me wrong, I think Tesla's cars are wonderful and would love to have one.  I'm not against the strides they and others are making in the alternative to hydrocarbons arena.  My gripe is that we need to move past the finance innovation on the backs of the rich with the promise of more reasonable pricing down the road.  We're down the road already.  Tesla and others have been making these innovations for years now and we're not seeing the promise of affordable cars.  Lots of innovation (which is fun and good), but not much (if anything) on the affordability front.

    I'd gladly do without Ludicrous speed, gull wing doors, glass roof and fancy styling if I could just get a car that gets me away from hydrocarbons, descent range (100miles + per charge) at a price that still allows me to put a roof over my family's head and food on the table.  A $35,000 Tesla does me no good sitting in the garage if I can't also afford the garage.


    patchythepirate
  • Reply 48 of 117
    knowitall said:
    Not necessarily.  
    I think Apple has some amazing technology to offer car makers including Tesla.

    Things like:
    1. Coherent navigation services for accurate autonomous EVs.
    2. SIRI based CarPlay for exquisite UI for interaction with the car.
    3. Advanced iOS based object oriented automotive operating system.
    4. Amazing connectivity and an AppStore for your car.

    But I still think working with Tesla in the US would be better both companies especially since TESLA already has the GigaFactory and the manufacturing plants.
    Apples only plus is a huge pile of money.
    I think its Teslas last option to use Apples software; why give control to another company if your very successful developing software yourself.
    The worry should be the other way around.
    Not at all.  Take a good look at Apple's APIs and Development tools.
    The lack of SIRI alone makes TESLA's car interface archaic and dangerous.
    TESLA reminds me of the BeOS.  Lots of potential but still has a long way to go.
  • Reply 49 of 117
    gfedorgfedor Posts: 3member
    jbdragon said:
    gfedor said:
    Nice car.

    But to say that $35,000 (or even $27,500 if lucky to get the credit) is a "car to be priced for the general public instead of rich sports and luxury car buyers" is way off the mark.

    I get that the technology is new and there is NRE to be recovered, and I get that the car is "cool", but until manufacturers (Tesla, GM, Toyota, Honda, etc. maybe even Apple) starts taking the basic electric motor train technology and adapting it to cars with less bells-n-whistles, none of these types of cars will be within the economy of the general public.

    With 3 or 4 models under its belt by now, I would have hoped Tesla would lead the way towards making a car that could start to take more hydrocarbon vehicles off the road.  Don't get me wrong, I think the car has lots of style and would love to have one myself, but $35k is still to rich for me.
    But how about 2-3 year old used Tesla 3 to buy? Price drops just driving off the dealer lot.  A used one could be in the $20,000 or less price range.  Older the price drops more.  This gets the car into lower income people's hands and people upgrade to the newest version.
    Used is always cheaper accounting for the depreciation costs.  However, in this case since the Tesla 3 won't be out until 2017 (at best), that used market you speak of is still 4 years away.  So...you have to look at what's available *today* which is mostly going to be Prius's (Priui?) and a few other offerings from Ford and the like (mostly hybrids, not pure electric like Tesla).  They do come in at around $18-20k used so they have that going for them.

    I would love to see what Tesla could do if they applied just the electric drive train to a simple vehicle without all the other innovative (and expensive) bits.  Sure, put in a few of the more mainstream creature comforts so it's not a Flinstonesmobile :)  Could they get down to the low $20k's for it?  Don't know, but I sure with they (or someone) would try.
  • Reply 50 of 117
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,695member
    knowitall said:
    Not necessarily.  
    I think Apple has some amazing technology to offer car makers including Tesla.

    Things like:
    1. Coherent navigation services for accurate autonomous EVs.
    2. SIRI based CarPlay for exquisite UI for interaction with the car.
    3. Advanced iOS based object oriented automotive operating system.
    4. Amazing connectivity and an AppStore for your car.

    But I still think working with Tesla in the US would be better both companies especially since TESLA already has the GigaFactory and the manufacturing plants.
    Apples only plus is a huge pile of money.
    I think its Teslas last option to use Apples software; why give control to another company if your very successful developing software yourself.
    The worry should be the other way around.
    I agree.  There were probably a few people at Apple today who felt a bit like the guys at Blackberry when they first saw the iPhone.
  • Reply 51 of 117
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,050member
    sog35 said:
    After seeing this I think Apple should drop all AppleCar plans.

    The smarter move would be to buy Tesla or stay out of the car business all together.

    Its pretty evident that Tesla will be losing $10k or more for each of these cars they sell.
    No way on earth does this car cost less than $45k to build and sell.
    Is the $1000 downpayment transferable?  I have suspicion many people making a reservation is to sell the reservation later at a huge profit.  May be several thousands dollars.  
  • Reply 52 of 117
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,050member
    sog35 said:

    So you want Apple to buy a company losing $10K per car? Or you believe an Apple owned Tesla wouldn't lose $10K per car?
    Buy Tesla and jack up the price to what it should be $45,000-$50,000

    Better plan is Apple should invest a few billion in Tesla and require them to use Apple's CarPlay interface.
    I have a hunch that this Model 3 will be a failure.  Tesla will be able to deliver all the orders because of the Gigafactory will be a failure.  
  • Reply 53 of 117
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,982member
    Bookworm said:
    This article is misleading..  

    The quote of:
    "The first 200,000 U.S. units will also qualify for federal tax subsidies supporting electric vehicles, potentially making the car as cheap as $27,500." 

    Is just wrong, the government subsidy is for the first 200,000 EV unit of ANY type for a company.  Tesla has already stated that they have sold around 75,000 Roadsters, Model S's and X's..   So with ongoing sales of those, by the time the Model 3  hits any streets probably only 50-80 thousand units will qualify.

    The writers and editors need to do some fact checking before making blanket statements like that.    People now think that if they are in the 200K they get the subsidy.  It will be lucky if only 1/3 or 1/4 of the Model 3's will quality. 

    Again, that's 200,000 cars from a single manufacture of ANY model that qualifies.   Check the facts please!



    I'm pretty sure that you have to have at least $7500 in tax liabilities to get the full $7500 credit, and if your tax liability is less than that, it will only zero out the tax liability and you will lose the difference.
  • Reply 54 of 117
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,982member
    sog35 said:
    Why are you talking about the Model X?

    We are talking about the $35,000 Model 3.

    Everyone knows the Model X is an overpriced car made for a specific customer. 

    And why is putting down $1000 downpayment idiotic when you can get a 100% refund at anytime?  Put that $1000 in a zero-risk investment and you are lucky to get $10 in investment return.  So all these people are risking is $10.  Plus if they order early they have a very good chance of getting tax credits worth $7,500-$10,000.

    And maybe just maybe these 'idiots' understand that electric cars are far better for the environment than gas cars.

    Your irrational hate for Tesla is weird.

    You mentioned the 200,000 pre-orders the Model 3 had vs the unannounced Bolt pre-orders (which is a strawman anyway, since Chevy doesn't do pre-orders) to somehow imply the Model 3 is a better car. I countered that if people were stupid enough to buy a $144K Model X without even driving one, then there are obviously going to be lots of Tesla fanboys that would plunk down $1,000 to pre-order a Model 3. It has nothing to do with how good the Model 3 may or may not be, because none of the people ordering has a clue.

    Further, since the deposit is 100% refundable then none of those pre-orders has any commitment. So that makes them even less useful to judge demand since we have no idea how many will back out after seeing the Model 3 announcement (since over half of them ordered BEFORE they saw the car), how many will back out after waiting 12, 18, 24 months for the car, or how many will back out after seeing the final car and its actual price/features and options.

    Ordering early means nothing for tax credits. The initial Model 3's will be the higher-end models (like Tesla has also done in the past) so the people who decide they want to spend more will get their pre-orders before those that want to wait for the base $35K model. That is, if Tesla doesn't already hit their 200,000 vehicle limit by the time the Model 3 is released.

    Considering how poorly equipped the Model S and Model X are for their price points, what makes you think the Model 3 is suddenly going to be "fully loaded" when it debuts? Teslas existing cars are highly relevant to show us what the Model 3 will bring (fast acceleration, cheap interior, lack of features).


    Nothing irrational about my opinion since I work in the automotive engineering field. If you saw a Tesla the way I do (as a series of assembled components and sub-assemblies) you'd realize there's NOTHING special or unique about them. People act like they created some incredible machine that nobody else in the world knows how to.
    People seem to think that there is some kind of barrier to entry in the EV market; I agree with you, there isn't. There's also plenty of room for innovation beyond the current EV leaders. Apple will only enter the market if there is a sound design, consummate manufacture, and real bankable margins at the intended production levels. An Apple car would have to be a halo product in Apple's lineup.

    Tesla is all about reduction in battery cost, and I would be surprised if they honor the current pricing two years from now.
  • Reply 55 of 117
    thrangthrang Posts: 783member
    Oh, now I get it...its Aprils Fools day....because that is one atrocious design...
  • Reply 56 of 117
    CMA102DLCMA102DL Posts: 121member
    I am disappointed. By 2016 we should be driving flying vehicles.
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 57 of 117
    focherfocher Posts: 645member
    So much misinformation. 

    1.  The tax credit is 7500 for the first 200k vehicles from each manufacturer then has a "ramp down" over multiple quarters that is not volume based. 

    2. Existing car manufacturers absolutely have a barrier to their entry in the EV space - their existing product / revenue and dealers who make most of their profit on service and maintenance. 

    3. The Model S has captured 25% of the luxury car segment in the US. It's the #1 selling luxury car. 

    4. The base Model 3 is $35k BEFORE any tax credits or rebates (some states also have additional over the federal credit). It will be cheaper than the Bolt, much better performing, and is not a Chevy. Tesla is an aspirational brand. Tesla owners are rabidly in love with the Tesla and its products. Sound familiar?

    5. Elon Musk has said again and again that he started Tesla to kickstart the move to EVs. He wants the other manufacturers to join in. 
    edited April 2016 patchythepiratenomadmac
  • Reply 58 of 117
    Apples future Auto competition...... hmmm lets see Apple actually make a car first before we consider that statement :smile: 
  • Reply 59 of 117
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,424member
    sog35 said:
    Wow.

    Looks like the car Steve Jobs would have made.


    No. Not by a long shot. A man who obsessed with a love of Porsche would not be cooing about that design. It looks like a concept car FORD would make.
    Agree. Although he did have a Porsche or two in the eighties & early nineties, I think he was more of a Mercedes man. 

    On topic, this thing looks like the future… from 1996. 

    And I didn't realize Elon was such a horrible presenter. Not that I'm much better.
    mdriftmeyer
  • Reply 60 of 117
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    mike1 said:
    gfedor said:
    Nice car.

    But to say that $35,000 (or even $27,500 if lucky to get the credit) is a "car to be priced for the general public instead of rich sports and luxury car buyers" is way off the mark.

    I get that the technology is new and there is NRE to be recovered, and I get that the car is "cool", but until manufacturers (Tesla, GM, Toyota, Honda, etc. maybe even Apple) starts taking the basic electric motor train technology and adapting it to cars with less bells-n-whistles, none of these types of cars will be within the economy of the general public.

    With 3 or 4 models under its belt by now, I would have hoped Tesla would lead the way towards making a car that could start to take more hydrocarbon vehicles off the road.  Don't get me wrong, I think the car has lots of style and would love to have one myself, but $35k is still to rich for me.

    I read today that the average selling price of a new car today is $33K. Price-wise, this hits the mark 100%. Even better if one lucks into the rebates.
    Reason its that high is because There is a lot of SUV and Trucks in there which have a high price.
    This thing is NOT a SUV or a Truck. If you compare it to the average price of a comparable car, it's pricey.

    I find the car also fucking ugly in an aggressive way; don't know what the hell they were thinking as a designer.


    edited April 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.