Tesla Discontinues Base Model X 60D Before It Arrives, Will Model 3 Suffer The Same Fate?

8 months ago by Mark Kane 83

Tesla model X base 75D pricing

Tesla Model X 75D, 90D, P90D and P100DL

Despite not being able to "show" the refreshed Model S/60 kWh cars for much of the month, orders still came in

Tesla Model X 60D – we hardly knew you

Like other Tesla base models before it, the Tesla Model X 60D didn’t survive very long; heck, it was just about to arrive when the option disappeared.

Without comment, Tesla quietly ditched the entry level version heading into the weekend.

Just as a reminder, the Model X 60D was only introduced this summer in July from $74,000.  The 60 kWh version actually carried a 75 kWh battery on board, but was software limited to 60 kWh.

The reason could be weak demand for 60 kWh X, but more likely it is low margins on the vehicle, especially with that unused/unpaid 15 kWh worth of battery given away with each SUV.  Tesla has also recently stressed the need to simplify production.

The Model X 60D was estimated to go some 200 miles EPA, and after federal tax credit cost (and added DST) was priced from $67,700 – with an open option for owners to upgrade to 75 kWh (extending the SOC window for battery) for $9,500.

Recently, Tesla did some tweaks with Model X options making Smart Air Suspension standard (a $2,500 option, that bumped the MSRP by the same amount). The result of all the actions together increases the base cost of a Model X by some $11,500 to $85,500.

Anyone getting nervous on base Tesla Model 3 pricing now?

Anyone getting nervous on base Tesla Model 3 pricing now?

While the plight of the base pricing of the Tesla Model X (and previously in the S) doesn’t concern us too much, we are certainly feeling more than a little unsettled about the Model 3’s promised starting price-point of ~$35,000.

Not that it would not be initially offered at $35,000…that seems assured;  but that it will quickly be discontinued and made unavailable in favor of higher priced options.

The Model X base price bump due to the discontinuation on the 60D edition is over 15%. A similar bump on the Model 3 would mean pricing around $40,500 by the time it is actually delivered.

Our advice:  If you are looking to buy that $35,000 Model 3, as soon as you see the option available…lock it down.

source: Teslarati

Tags: , , , , , , ,

83 responses to "Tesla Discontinues Base Model X 60D Before It Arrives, Will Model 3 Suffer The Same Fate?"

  1. GeorgeS says:

    The X uses more juice and a 60 is already too small. Good marketing move Tesla.

    1. Terawatt says:

      Maybe not as good as not announcing it in the first place then?

    2. mark says:

      I think tesla discontinued the x60d because many x60d buyers figured it was a great deal. you can charge a x60d 100% all the time for a 200 mile range and the 75kwh battery wouldn’t degrade because it was a software limitation on the charge capacity. Pay the $11,000 for the 75 and you are recommended by tsa charge to 80%-90% for 200 miles.

  2. David Murrau says:

    They probably didn’t like the Bolt EV having more range than the Model X.

    1. JP White says:

      And at half the cost with the same battery size.

      I think you are spot on.

    2. Brett says:

      Yep, the Bolt would have been too close for comfort. I think it’ll be problematic for the Model 3 as well, given the range.

    3. floydboy says:

      No, I’m thinking that was the furthest thing from their minds.?

  3. Brian says:

    Not nervous about base Model 3. 60 kWh should give 240 mi of range in the smaller, slipperier car, and battery packs will be significantly cheaper / kWh. There will need to be a large proportion of sub 40k units sold to get above 200k / year sales volume.

    1. Terawatt says:

      It’s lovely that you have faith, dear. And it’s Sunday to!

      1. Brian D Anderson says:

        The word you wanted is “..too”. Just pointing out salient data; no faith required.

        (Not afraid to use my real name)

    2. JP White says:

      The only reason to discontinue a 60kw model 3 would be to replace it with a larger battery at the same price.

      If Tesla promise a $35000 car, but quickly discontinue the base model in favor of a more expensive model they will take flak for bait and switch. Also the car becomes less affordable of you remove the base model.

      I believe the base model will sell better than a more expensive version. Price becomes a bigger factor for consumers as you move down the price curve.

      1. Priusmaniac says:

        The Model 3 is a very different situation than the Model X because the price level is not comparable.

        The base Model X is not the entry Tesla like the base Model 3 will be. That means that if the Model 3 60 is cancelled in favor of a Model 3 80 at a 5000 $ premium, many people are not going to buy at all instead of reverting to another cheaper Tesla.

        In that sense it would be better to have the base Model 3 at exactly 200 miles but for an even lower price like 34500 $ instead of having it at 35000$ with 240 miles. Still more people could access it and the ones that want to have more range can always purchase the more energetic battery.

        Of course how much more energetic that other battery will be is a completely different question. In this case the best would obviously be that it would be as much more than the base battery as possible. 75 KWh, 80 KWh, 100 KWh? That is actually one of the big remaining surprises to be unveiled at the second presentation. I hope it will be 80 or more, we will see.

  4. Didier says:

    I have another reading of all this. Tesla needed to meet high sales and reassure the market. So just like last week all Model S 24 Months leases went up $300/Mo overnight (and 24Month option disappeared), all inventory cars are now priced almost at same level as new ones. The so called “no discount-gate” lets me wonder if all this was not actually orchestrated to sell as many cars as possible (hence 60kWh X), then come back to the real business model. Don’t get me wrong, huge fan of Elon Musk and Tesla, but it looks all too coincidental to me…

    1. no comment says:

      i tend to see it much the same way. the 60kWh option was an “end of the quarter” special, but when they realized that tesla no longer needed the 60kWh option to meet short term sales goals, they (for the time being) cancelled the option.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        That makes more sense than any other speculation I’ve seen on the subject.

        Could be true.

    2. Terawatt says:

      Now this makes sense. It’d be amazing to be a fly on the wall in offices and board rooms in various car companies these days. Especially at Tesla since they have the most ambitious plans and the least ability to absorb any major mistakes. Must be a very exciting place to work!

      1. wavelet says:

        Well, the churn rate among execs is apparently quite high, so definitely exciting (-: Very hard to work in Musk’s orbit.
        According to several reports I’ve read, among other employees, the turnover rate is about the same as other Silicon Valley tech, about 3 years (but less than at established car companies).

  5. Dave says:

    I suspect that Tesla offered the X with 60kWh IN CASE there would be a lot of buyers.

    Now they they know there are not a lot of buyers, they are canning it. Good move.

    Model 3 is in a different market sector… I do not think they will do the same trick on that one.

    1. dale says:

      if the other car companies increas range then tesla will need to start model 3 with a larger range at a larger base price or loose money

    2. Ad van der Meer says:

      Don’t forget they also ditched the Model S 40 kWh before it was there to order. It put me in another EV.

      1. El Asso wipo says:

        They sold some s40. They actually had the 60 KWh pack but was software locked to 40. Obviously no profit there, so it got canned almost immediately.

        1. Vexar says:

          I saw a Model S 40kwh in the service center once. It was there as a trade-in as I recall. They immediately made money by doing that internal software update.

          I wouldn’t worry about the base Model III disappearing. Even though a high quotient of the initial orders are from existing Model S or X owners, it certainly isn’t the majority. Tesla moves on demand. If nobody buys the base model, it goes away. If nobody buys the Model X without the active air suspension, it goes away. Basic economics.

    3. pjwood1 says:

      First, there are 60D Model Xs on the road. I saw a couple, at recent delivery. Second, 60D cars were introduced much later than 90’s, and Tesla was slow to get any Model Xs out, if we remember. So, I’m not sure it is so easy to say “nobody wanted” a 75 kilowatt hour Model X (the “60”).

  6. Victor says:

    Range is King. In some parts of this country that Tesla superchargers are far apart and few between, although that is improving. Everyone needs the extra range to complete their longer Journeys worry-free. I will need the larger battery pack and I will sacrifice to get it in my model 3. It will be interesting to see what percentage of buyers will want the smaller battery pack in their model 3. I think Tesla should poll the reservation holders.

  7. Murrysville EV says:

    If there is a bait-and-switch on the Model 3, I may cancel my reservation.

    If Model 3 options are priced like Porsche’s, I may cancel my reservation.

    Tesla needs to realize that given the quantity of Model 3 reservations, it will soon be a mid-range EV mfr, far more than it is a high-end EV mfr. They’ll be competing in high-end Camry territory, and such shenanigans will not fly.

    1. Clive says:

      No bait & switch…

      Base car = 215+ miles, at the price point you were promised.

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        You don’t know anything at this time point what you will get or not and for what price. Tesla financials now don’t show that they would be able to sell almost the same car for half the price for long.

      2. Nate says:

        Not if they repeat what they did with the X.

      3. Pinewold says:

        My bet is base Model 3 range is at least 240, maybe even 250 miles. The reason is new 20170 gigafactory batteries are good enough to double Tesla power pack 2.0 capacity over power pack 1.0. If Tesla Gigafactory is able to do the same for model 3 we May have 300 mile Model 3’s

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          If Tesla planned to give 240-250 miles of range to the Model ≡, then they wouldn’t be advertising it as a 200-mile car.

          Tesla has much narrower design profiles for the Model ≡ than they did with the Model S and the X. Those were priced in the “premium” category, where a few thousand dollars more or less doesn’t have much impact on sales.

          But the ~$35k Model S has to be delivered at that price point, because that price range is in a much more competitive market. You can see comments in this very thread saying that if Tesla doesn’t deliver at that price, would-be customers will choose not to buy the car. Tesla is quite aware of that; they are quite aware that they do have to follow thorough on the promise of a 200+ mile car with a base $35k price point, even if very few buyers are going to actually get that base model with no options.

          Tesla has repeated the $35k promise so often that canceling it would be a major public relations disaster. Tesla knows this, and it’s not a very realistic scenario to think that they won’t follow through. If for some reason the Model ≡ winds up looking like it will be too expensive to sell at that price, then Tesla will cut out some things they planned to include, or more likely make them optional rather than standard equipment.

  8. dale says:

    Now that 60kw is gone will they start 3 modle at 75kw, or 85kw? I still want a 100kw modle3

    1. dale says:

      or higher

      1. dale says:

        if the price doesnot start at $35000, then I will not beable to get a 100kw car at a less cost than a 90kw

    2. mr. M says:

      I would think that 60kW is pretty low. Almost any car on the road today has 60kW of power.

      Tesla will most likely give the model 3 around 150kW of power and a top version with 300+kW.

  9. Jonathan B says:

    Not shocked at all. Next to go is the Model S60. Even if they did sell the X60/S60 in greater quantities, they will likely find very few buyers to pony up $9K later for an extra 13kwh of capacity. Yes I can do math, but Tesla won’t free up the full 75kwh of the larger pack, but they are freeing up the full 60kwh within it if you buy the cheaper model, so you’re probably paying for only 13kwh more of range for a whopping $9K!. Let’s say they get 1 of every 10 buyers of an S60 or X60 to drop the dough down the road, that’s less than $1000 extra margin for them on those cars. Not worth it.

    Here’s what I think will happen. Sometime around Thanksgiving, you’ll see the S60 go away as well and the S75 and X75 will magically drop in price to $68K and $75K respectively. If Tesla is going to put a 75kwh pack in there anyways why not sell more cars at a more attractive price.

    Tesla knows that they cannot product enough Model 3’s for their existing demand, and by the time they can ramp up orders, there will be a heckuvalot more players in the EV space. They need to get Model 3 reservation holders (like me) off those lists and into a Model S. The only way to do that is to get the price down to a justified level for me to make the jump.

    $66K for an S60 is not low enough. I wasn’t going to buy a base Model 3 anyways, so lets say that I would option my model 3 out to $45K, between Dual motors and a bigger batter, a sunroof, etc… it would probably be about there anyways. If Tesla can offer me an S75 at $69K… Hmmmm… That a bigger car, more luxurious, more space, nicer finishes, aluminum vs. steel, free supercharging, and 260mi of range (about what my upgraded Model 3 would have been)? I might just bite. Also factor in that the CA state credit will be gone by the time the Model 3 comes out, that’s an extra $2500 right there too. So now my differential between the two cars is about $20K. I might just go for it.

    Anyways, Elon, if you’re reading this and you want me in your showroom before the end of Q1, which I’d prefer so that I can get my $7500 back more quickly, how bout you sell me an S75 for roughly the same price as the S60, maybe you do something extra special as well for all of us who have Model 3 reservations already. It’s not a discount if you call it a “loyalty credit” Maybe turn my $1K deposit into a $2K deposit if I buy an S or an X? Hmmmm….. Gotta hit those production numbers Q1, you know its the toughest time of the year to sell cars…. You’ve got my number… Ok maybe you don’t but I’m not posting it here…

    1. pjwood1 says:

      Somewhat agree, but two things:
      13kwh, or 15kwh, aren’t how buyers see it. They see 218 mile daily and range charges, versus 234 and 259 as the benefit of the software unlocked “75”.

      About “68k” for an S75, I think we just saw what Tesla did with X as a lead to what will happen with S. The dropped the price only ~$1,500, for battery upgrade (9000), plus mandatory air suspension (2500). Now both come, at $10,000 more. I don’t think Tesla is about to drop the 75kwh MS version, by $6,500 (74,500, to 68,000), because of what they just did with X. They may not be aiming to match Q3 deliveries, at this point. Something short of 80k deliveries may not be the worst thing. They already have faster X production and about 5k cars that were in transit, to help out.

      1. Jonathan B says:

        You do neglect to realize that the cost of the X is likely much higher than the S. There’s much more room to play with price on the S.

    2. JP White says:

      Given the current delivery rates of 25,000 per quarter, it’s not a case of getting your $7500 early, it’s a case of getting it.

      Not sure many model 3 owners if any will get the $7500. Musk foresaw that and priced the model 3 before incentives.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Yup. It was always rather iffy as to whether or not the full $7500 tax credit would be available even for the earliest Model ≡ customers. It may well be that even the earliest ones will get only 1/2 credit.

        And as you say, Tesla (and Elon) were fully aware of that, and are trying to price the Model ≡ to be cost-competitive even with only a partial tax credit.

      2. Jonathan B says:

        I’d say that its pretty likely that 100,000+ Model 3 buyers will get the full $7500 tax credit. Look at the details of the law. The credit remains in effect in full for the quarter following the quarter the manufacturer reaches 200K cars sold in the US. So if Tesla hits 200K on March 1st 2018 (my estimation puts it around this date). They can sell as many cars as possible at the full tax credit up to September 31st 2018. Because March 1st is the first day of business Q3, they would have that whole quarter and Q4. If this is timed to sync up with max production capacity and they can move 50-75K cars per quarter, everyone gets the credit.

        I’m not worried about my tax credit on Model 3, I’m also pretty high up the list, but I do think the CA state credit will be gone again by then.

    3. Huhu says:

      A price drop this year? That is wishful thinking, prices are likely to stay stable for rest of the year. If anything, Tesla is more likely to raise the prices than to lower them.

  10. no comment says:

    i don’t think that there is a basis for suspicion about the $35,000 base price for a tesla model 3. the real issue is when will tesla deliver a model 3 that is priced at $35,000? i would expect that the initial model 3 cars will be loaded with upcharges. then, you as a reservation holder, can decide whether you want to buy the upcharged model 3 when your reservation slot is offered delivery.

    since reservations were made with no promised price, there is no contract between the reservation holder and tesla. so if the initial model 3 cars are not $35,000, that doesn’t mean that tesla is going to change the base price to over $40,000. so i don’t understand why the writer of this article would suggest this as being a possibility.

    1. Terawatt says:

      Maybe not suspicion, but definitely uncertainty. And Tesla’s motives here need not make much difference to reservation holders who plan to spend 35k and get a week equipped car with no serious drawbacks. How many really expect this is unknown.

      I don’t think it matters. Model 3 has had more effect on the world as a potential threat than it ever will as a product. By the time it arrives the manufacturers will be cancelling their ICE-related R&D and redirecting their efforts to EV programs. For me, what matters is that the EV revolution happens, not who becomes kings in this new landscape. As a reservation holders I can’t wait for part two of the reveal, but as a citizen I no longer think it matters much how things turn out for Tesla. I certainly won’t hesitate to cancel my reservation and buy from an incumbent if that seems to be better for me.

      1. no comment says:

        so you presumably made a $1,000 on a car where you didn’t know what it was going to be or when it was going to arrive, and now your attitude is “it doesn’t matter”???

        this is why i have never believed that the 400,000 “reservations” were real. the whole thing look too much like an apple ipad product launch. but a car is very different from an ipad.

        now it looks like the fanboys are starting to line up with excuses for why they won’t actually end up buying a tesla model 3. i guess in the end, the lack of a supercharger network that was once claimed to be “a deal breaker” won’t be such a deal breaker after all.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “no comment” commented:

      “…if the initial model 3 cars are not $35,000, that doesn’t mean that tesla is going to change the base price to over $40,000. so i don’t understand why the writer of this article would suggest this as being a possibility.”

      Yeah, it makes no sense. I wonder if the Teslarati blogger who goes by “Gene” has a hidden agenda, because this comes across as subtle FUD directed against Tesla. Or maybe “Gene” thinks he can apply public pressure to ensure that Tesla never discontinues the base Model ≡.

      Long-term, that’s a rather silly idea. As the EV revolution advances, BEV buyers will demand cars with longer and longer range. But we’ve seen Tesla offer more and more options at the same price point in the Model S, so it seems reasonable to think that a few years from now, Tesla will raise the “bottom end” of the Model ≡’s range while still offering an approximately $35k price point… or at least $35k in 2017 dollars; inflation may eventually drive up the actual price.

  11. Spider-Dan says:

    I expect that the “$35,000” Model III will be offered to the same extent that the “sub-$60,000” 40kWh Model S was: a few scant deliveries, then quickly cancelled due to “lack of demand.”

    1. Hauer says:

      I do not think so. They will NEED this pricepoint to compete in 2018/2019. Just to get potential EV buyers to click on the Tesla configurator.
      From there on it is happy upselling.

    2. Someone out there says:

      It does look so, however the Chevy Bolt EV makes it a bit more complicated. Tesla is supposed to be the leader in EVs, if GM can produce a better AND cheaper car, what does that do for Tesla’s image? Tesla is kind of stuck here, they absolutely need a model that is cheaper than the Bolt and has similar range yet at the same time is sufficiently feature-less to sell the higher optioned cars. At the same time the higher optioned cars can’t be too good either or they will cannibalize the model S sales.

      1. floydboy says:

        Absolute nonsense. Model 3 at its current announced price point, is already cheaper than the Bolt. Model 3 is an aspirational product that’s going to be competing with the likes of BMW and Mercedes, not the Chevy Bolt!

    3. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

      No need for the quotes. The 40kWh _was_ canceled due to lack of demand. With Tesla ramping from 0,the S40 was different enough from the S60 and S85 that only higher
      initial demand could have saved it.

      For Model 3 Tesla gave a base spec of 211+ miles, sub-6s 0-60mph and Supercharging capability. Essentially, the base will be S60 and there will not be an S40.

      1. Spider-Dan says:

        I think it’s incredibly naive to believe that Tesla would have continued to eat the costs of shipping software-limited 60kWh batteries as a what was effectively a loss leader.

        It was not a coincidence that the delivery dates for the S40s were pushed out way in the future, and it’s also not a coincidence that the S40 was end-of-lifed before a single delivery took place. It made no business sense whatsoever to put 60kWh of batteries in a car that you are selling as if it had 40kWh.

    4. pjwood1 says:

      I’d agree some reason will arrive for a 35,000 Model 3 being a rarity, but it won’t be “demand”. Those super imposing the MS40’s story on the Model 3 60, might consider what the supercharging landscape was like in early 2013. Triple that, include CHAdeMO adapters, CCS growth along with 20 more kwh in a lighter car, and there’s little reason to say “low demand” (claim as they might).

    5. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      I think that you need to think again, and less carelessly this time. Pricing on the Model ≡ is much more important than it is on the Model S or X. The Model ≡ has to be priced competitively.

      1. Spider-Dan says:

        Counterpoint: no, it doesn’t.

        The MIII will be production-constrained for quite a while; Tesla won’t need to sell $35k MIIIs until they run out of people willing to pay $40k, $50k, and $60k.

  12. Rebel44 says:

    IMO, Tesla will eliminate 60kWh option even from Model S, but will lower prices of base S and X due to comming competition from cheaper 200+ miles EVs (including Model 3).

    1. Mike I. says:

      When the Model 3 starts shipping, there is much less reason for the S60 to exist. I think that is the point when they will discontinue it.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Yes, I too think that Tesla will discontinue the S60 when the Model ≡ becomes available in quantity… if not before.

  13. Just_Chris says:

    Live by the sword die by the sword.

    Tesla have pushed range as the big divider, the thing that makes them better than everyone else and now GM have released a car at almost half the price with a longer range. I think it is probably best to quietly kill off the lower range X and try to work out how to get the model 3 to stack up with the base model starting with a 75 kWh pack.

    The bolt is a really interesting car in so many ways but what really interests me is if GM are going to use it to conquer the world or if it is just a strategic fly placed in Tesla’s and Nissans champagne. A car that makes the model 3 and leaf 2.0 sound mediocre but is never stocked in any serious numbers.

    1. JH says:

      They don’t have the production capacity for it to be anything more than a fly in the eye on tesla…

    2. pjwood1 says:

      “if GM are going to use it to conquer the world”

      Hardly, and you were probably saying that in jest. GM wants nothing to do with fostering the idea the Bolt can travel long distance. Lyft drivers have first crack, at what GM would be happier having seen as the “ubber golf cart, for debtors”. GM does this kind of thing, where others shrink the tires, and seal the windows…

  14. a-kindred-soul says:

    Who thinks that Tesla sells the S60 in the hope people upgrade (unlock) the battery? Some people might do that, but it is expensive. No, the reasoning behind the S60 is that when Tesla receives them back after the lease period is over, they unlock the battery and have a second hand S75 for sale.

    Other companies can only DREAM of such options to retain value of their lease cars.

    1. Terawatt says:

      That’s silly. They spend exactly the same to make the car in order to sell it for less so that they can achieve a lower depreciation number?

      I’ve always hated segmentation. Elon Musk speaks as if he does do. Paraphrasing: “You should always ask if what you’re doing is making your product or service better for the customer. If it isn’t, don’t do it.” But nobody in their right mind could claim that hampering the product through software restriction improves it. Nor does it lower the production cost of the car. It does however provide strong incentives for hacking the car, since it makes jailbreaking software worth thousands per user.

      If they can make a 60 kWh pack more cheaply than a 75 kWh one, offering one may well make sense. Making a 75 kWh pack and then adding a limitation feature to have it pretend it’s 60 kWh is exactly the sort of modern business tactic we would love to see Tesla stay as far away from as possible. It stinks!

      1. wavelet says:

        Segmentation is a fact of life in pretty much all non-generic-commodity consumer products, from $10 to $100000…
        I dislike it as well, but apparently it works well for profits, or at least in some product areas it wouldn’t exist, and I’m not aware of any.
        Tesla certainly uses it, a lot. Despite the still (relatively) small production volume, they still have the “P” and “ludicrous” options…

      2. BenG says:

        These recent sales of 60 kwh S and Xs that were actually software limited 75s, they were just a tactic to temporarily drive volume sales. A loss-leader in a way, though I don’t know if they were actually taking a loss, probably just severely crimping the profit on those particular ones. But the company will see other benefits by the temporary push, i.e. in the capital and debt markets. I expect the Model S 60 to also be discontinued soon.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      a-kindred-soul said:

      “…the reasoning behind the S60 is that when Tesla receives them back after the lease period is over, they unlock the battery and have a second hand S75 for sale.”

      This is a fallacy; a false binary dilemma. It certainly won’t be the case that either all buyers will choose to pay to unlock the full 75 kWh, or none of them will.

      Some buyers certainly will pay for that; some already have paid for upgrade on delivery. Many won’t, and Tesla won’t unlock the extra capacity until the car is resold through Tesla’s CPO program.

      Either way, Tesla makes money.

  15. Anon says:

    I’m more bummed that the paint shop dropped the Titanium color. 🙁

    1. pjwood1 says:

      ..and now white costs 1500 more. They dropped solid, for pearl. Options are where bears get Tesla’s margins wrong. This move adds to a pile of good Q3 results.

  16. Terawatt says:

    It’ll sure be interesting to see. At the end of the day it needs to be both competitive and profitable. If that’s not possible as promised and presumably envisioned or at least hoped for, they obviously have to do something. Like delay the introduction of that trim. They’ve certainly left themselves this option, and there’s no firm commitment to how many would be offered at base price.

    Recall that Model S was announced as a “from 59,900 dollars” vehicle.

    This time around a lot more people will be disappointed and angry if they don’t get what they expected, but this matters much less than we like to imagine. If there’s enough buyers for whatever they eventually offer it’s far more important to Tesla’s well-being to make a profit and make sure those who do buy are happy than it is to avoiding offending us newest members of the “family” as their hyperbole has it.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Terawatt said:

      “This time around a lot more people will be disappointed and angry if they don’t get what they expected, but this matters much less than we like to imagine.”

      Hmmm, on the contrary, I’d say it matters a lot more than you seem to imagine. Tesla has repeated the promise of a base $35k price for the Model ≡ so many times by now, that it would be a major blow to Tesla’s credibility and customer loyalty if they didn’t (eventually) deliver on that.

      It seems odd to me that so many commentors here don’t seem to understand that a few thousand dollars difference in price is much more important to those buying in the market category of a $35k-42k car, than it is in the market category of a $75k-100k car.

      Those people who wanted a car with a base price of $35k wouldn’t merely be angry and upset in the highly unlikely event that Tesla canceled the base $35k trim level; most of them would choose to buy a non-Tesla car. And Tesla understands that, even if you don’t.

  17. leafowner says:

    Car companies put cars on sale all the time — no big news here. Rather than a rebate or other typical auto tactic – Tesla used a lower level model.

  18. Michael Will says:

    Ridiculous headline. How does model X end of quarter special have any bearing on future model 3 outlook, if anything could correlate it would be model S and even there I would doubt it does,

  19. Bacardi says:

    The theory to selling (or leasing) up-gradable cars is even if owner one doesn’t upgrade, Tesla can upgrade it later…Costs them almost nothing to “activate” the additional capacity, autopilot etc…So accept a trade in, upgrade it and resell it for more money…

    But Tesla’s ultimate goal should be to convert TM3 reservations to Model S/X’s so maybe the 60S won’t go away…

  20. wavelet says:

    I suspect that someone’s whose considering the X in the first place (base price $90K for the 7-seater w/out any options) is unlikely to go for the lower-range car in the first place.

    I suspect Once you add common upgrades (AP, suspension, interior, audio, high-current charger), you’re above $100K anyway, and at that point, few people would go for the 60kWh.

  21. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

    The X60D is a software-limited X75D which is always going to be a sales offer on a high-end vehicle. 2016Q3 is over, so the sale has ended.

    Nothing to do with Model 3.

  22. zzzzzzzzzz says:

    Third quarter dump below cost has ended, delivery numbers are good enough for multi-billion share dump this year.

    1. Get Real says:

      I’m sure investors are eager to get invested into a company set to grow exponentially starting with the 400,000 Model 3 pre-orders.

      It’s called “massive growth potential”, unlike that of the perpetually struggling fool-cell cars zzzzzz!

      1. sven says:

        I think you either don’t understand what “exponential growth” means or you’re really bad at math. 😉

  23. BenG says:

    Model 3 may not need to be 60kwh base model to meet the promised 215+ mile range. The Bolt gets 238 mile range from 60 kwh, and it has relatively bad aerodynamics.

    The base Model 3 could well be a 50 or 55kwh battery.

  24. JakeY says:

    I’m not sure why anyone would be worried. Like the 40kWh S, the 60D was just a software based discount on the 75D. It was just a way to get people in at the lower end.

    I don’t expect Tesla to do anything like that for the Model 3, given the margins are much lower and they can’t afford giving away capacity for free (and hoping the user will unlock it later). It might even have less than 60kWh in actual capacity for the base model.

  25. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    The article says:

    “The reason could be weak demand for 60 kWh X, but more likely it is low margins on the vehicle, especially with that unused/unpaid 15 kWh worth of battery given away with each SUV.”

    Right. So why did Tesla offer this in the first place? It seems to make no sense for an auto maker to offer a discount version of its highest-end “halo” car!

    When I first saw the announcement of a lower-trim Model S, I thought it made sense from the standpoint of Tesla wanting to ramp up sales while waiting for the Model ≡ to go into production. A lower trim level Model S would accomplish that goal.

    But it seems to me that a lower trim level Model X would be cutting too much into profits. Even aside from the “halo model” aspect, Model X production is too new for Tesla to have figured out how to lower production costs much, as they surely have with the Model S.

    I’m not at all surprised that Tesla has cancelled the lower trim level Model X. What surprises me is that they ever offered it in the first place. To offer it and then cancel that offering before it ever went into production, is something that as a Tesla fanboy, I find disturbing. That suggests some poor decision making and/or indecision by high level executives at Tesla. 🙁

  26. Bill Howland says:

    I, as anyone else, have no crystalball regarding the various ramifications of the Model 3.

    I do know that Tesla has stated the first vehicles will have several options and will be much higher priced than $35k.

    In view of the reservations, it seems there will be quite a bit of time before a ‘stripped’ model will be offered, so future buyers of ‘striped’ models will have to be patient.

    Of course, during this time, the competition will not be standing still, either.

  27. Bill Howland says:

    Discontinue the model 3? Perish the thought!

    Discontinue the CHEAP 3? Well, it , per Elon’s own statement, won’t be available for a while anyway.

    Think of all the flak Mr. Kane would had got if he had ever owned a Roadster. Absolutely every word would be compared to it.