Tesla Slashes Price Of Model S 75 By $5,000 To Just $69,500 (Update)

1 month ago by Eric Loveday 91

Tesla Model S 75 Now Just $69,500

Is it Black Friday already?

As most of us tucked in for the night, Tesla took to its website to tweak Model S pricing in a big way.

Previously priced from $74,500, last night (concurrent with the already-announced cancellation of the 60 kWh version of the Model S) Tesla slashed pricing for the 75-kWh Model S by some $5,000.

Update:  A previous version of this story mistaken understood the price decrease was $7,500…with details below.  Update 2 (below):  We also got a statement from Tesla on the recent price changes, and the reasons behind them.

The Model S 75 is now the cheapest Tesla offered.

Tesla Model S

Tesla’s pricing on the 75 Model S has changed several times since its introduction some 10 months ago. Originally, it was priced from $74,500, but tweaks to equipment, etc. resulted in some slight price changes from time to time.

A Tesla spokesperson sent InsideEVs’ the following statement on the changes:

“Periodically we have adjusted pricing and available options to best reflect the value of our products and our customers’ preferences. Today’s updates include slight price decreases to our 75, 75D and 90D models to account for the discontinuation of our 60 kWh models, and next week will be implementing slight price increases to our higher end 100D and P100D models. We expect our total average selling price to remain almost exactly the same. 

Price increases for our 100D and P100D models will take effect on April 24, 2017 to best accommodate customers already in the order process, while price decreases for 75, 75D and 90D models will take effect today.”

In addition to the price drop overnight, Tesla shook up the equipment list quite a bit. The all-glass roof is now standard, as is the rear powered liftgate. Deletions include the previously-optional smart air suspension and optional 72-amp charger. These options are now reserved for higher-line Teslas. Okay, so they’re not exactly deletions, as neither was standard equipment. But if you demand either of these two options on your Model S, then the 75 version isn’t for you.

Additionally, battery upgrades to 75 kWh (unlockable via OTA software update) for the 60-kWh Model S and 70-kWh Model S are priced from only $2,00 and $500, respectively.

New U.S. Tesla pricing:

Tesla lineup gets some new pricing structures this week

Model S

  • 75: $69,500
  • 75D: $74,500
  • 90D: $87,500
  • 100D: $97,500 (beginning 4/24)
  • P100DL: $140,000 (beginning 4/24)
Model X
  • 75D: $82,500
  • 90D: $93,500
  • 100D: $99,500 (beginning 4/24)
  • P100DL: $145,000 (beginning 4/24)

You can order your now-cheaper Model S 75 here.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

93 responses to "Tesla Slashes Price Of Model S 75 By $5,000 To Just $69,500 (Update)"

  1. Kim Jorgensen says:

    That is a healthy discount when they include glass roof and power tailgate,impressive.

  2. Terawatt says:

    Good to see the price being reduced for a change. Maybe some day they’ll get down to the price they told everyone Model S would have prior to its introduction… Was it $56k?

    1. Terawatt says:

      I checked, but didn’t find the $56k figure in the initial pricing. $49,900 (40 kWh), $59,900 (60 kWh) and $69,900 (85 kWh) seems to have been the prices initially announced (in February 2012):

      http://web.archive.org/web/20120204234125/http://www.teslamotors.com/models/options

      While there’s no doubt the Model S has evolved and got a lot more autonomous tech and a better interior today, it’s quite interesting to note that the 85 kWh version was almost exactly the same price as the 75 kWh one today. Considering what has happened to both battery prices and Teslas volume since 2012 I think it’s a surprise they haven’t got any cheaper. Then again this is probably because the market seemed to want more tech and better interior, not a lower price…

      I do wonder though what Tesla could sell the 75D for if they eliminated all the autopilot stuff. It’s pretty clear there is a segment of the market that would prefer not to pay for all that stuff. And for people who aren’t ofte driving in heavy traffic, I think that’s easy to understand. Driving is actually enjoyable, at least in good conditions, when traffic isn’t an issue, so why would you want the machine to take over (at least apart from safety)?

      1. BenG says:

        Long drives on the interstate would be nice to sit back and relax rather than constantly driving. Especially once they get to true autonomous driving where you could take a nap.

        1. Terawatt says:

          I live in Norway. How relevant do you think “long drives on the interstate” are to me?

          My point was exactly that not everyone has the same use of autopilot. And while even I may sometimes want to go on some long trip in my Tesla, and maybe we can find a scenario in which AP wouldn’t be entirely useless to me, there is simply little doubt that if it makes the car much more expensive, I would rather do without.

          With full autonomy the picture will probably change, even for me, but I do not expect this to be a legal possibility anytime before 2025 at the earliest. And by FULL autonomy I do mean FULL – no requirement that there be anyone behind the wheel. Partial autonomy has very little value for me.

          Of course, I don’t know how much cheaper the car would actually be without AP. Developing AP costs the same regardless of whether all or only some of the cars have it, and electronics is very cheap to mass produce, so I am not sure the component cost for one car’s autopilot hardware adds up to a big number. But it would be interesting to know.

          1. Terawatt says:

            I touched on it paranthetically in the original post, but there actually is one reason to want the AP hardware, even for someone like me: Safety. Things like automatic emergency braking may some day prevent me from running over a child or something similarly gruesome (or even worse).

            Tesla’s promise to enable the safety features linked to AP on all Model 3s goes a long way towards justifying making the AP hardware standard.

            And who knows, maybe I’ll buy the software option in 2025 :p

            1. AlphaEdge says:

              I kinda like the future of driving. Be able to drive like a miniac and have the car takeover to prevent accidents. 😉

              1. Nick says:

                Or drive as carefully as possible and realize that in the end the car will do a much better job on its own.

            2. Nix says:

              Terawatt — The $57,400 (before tax incentive) price was announced in 2009 (8 years ago). Since then inflation has changed the value of the dollar, and the equivalent of $57,400 is now $65-66,000.

              http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/19/tesla-model-s-will-cost-57-400-just-49-900-after-tax-breaks/

              If you are going to compare current prices to prices announced in 2009, you have to adjust for inflation, because the value of each dollar is no longer the same.

          2. Zach says:

            Your logic makes sense if you really think it will take until 2025 for full autonomous. I’m pretty sure there would be a significant lawsuit as well for all current tesla owners, who were told the car had the hardware necessary for full self driving.

      2. Viktor says:

        If you read on that site it’s after the federal tax credit so the real price on a Tesla Model S 60 was $67,400 and already in the end of 2012 they higher the price to $69,900.

        https://www.tesla.com/blog/2013-model-s-price-increase

        So the Model S 75 is now little cheaper then the Model S 60 was in 2013.

        1. Terawatt says:

          Right. A pretty suspect marketing practice, if you ask me. 🙂

          But great to see that prices have at least moved in the right direction, even as the product keeps getting better.

          1. arne-nl says:

            “suspect marketing practice”

            haha all marketing is suspect 🙂

          2. R.S says:

            Basically you can now get a S 75, with almost the same range as the S 85 and the $3,750 tech package (and more) now included in the base price, for 10k less.

            Even the 60 was over 5k more expensive, once you’ve added supercharging capability and the tech package.

            Tesla is definitely moving in the right direction.

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “…why would you want the machine to take over (at least apart from safety)?”

        Isn’t safety sufficient reason by itself?

        Driving, and riding in an automobile, is one of the most dangerous things most people do on a regular basis.

        Human beings are rather poor at judging relative danger. A lot of people have fear of flying on a commercial plane flight, yet you’re far more likely to die in an accident on your way to the airport than you are to die in an airliner crash.

      4. unlucky says:

        Those prices you link are after $7500 rebate. The $49,900 you found after rebate is $57,400 before rebate and is the figure Tesla announced. It also was before delivery charges I think.

    2. Mark says:

      Actually, in 2013 the Model S 40 kWh version (a software limited 60 kWh battery) was right at $57,500 US, or $50,000 after the Federal Tax Credit. So Tesla delivered what they promised.

      This I know because I saw a new one being prepped for delivery in Dania Beach, FL, and the Monroey label was right on the promised money!

  3. neea says:

    Proof that pigs are capable of flight.

    1. William says:

      Your “Swine Flew”, could use a flight re-assignment on a different carrier, as you are welcome stay deplaned after you disembark from this Tesla Trip!

      1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

        He can fly the friendly skies with United Airlines. 😀

      2. needa says:

        The ‘Tesla Apologist’ part of you needs to be reassigned to a bowl. Maybe them it will understand some humor.

  4. Mister G says:

    Will a top of the line model 3 be under $69.5k?

    1. Terawatt says:

      I think so, but even if not, so what?

      Most other manufacturers segment the market as much as possible to extract every last dollar from every customer. And that is why you can get BMW 3-series cars that cost way more than the cheapest 5-series, and similarly for basically every other brands.

  5. needa says:

    This is hella good news for Mod3 pack upgrades. Now we can assume that upgrade costs to max pack is going to be 2k or less.

    1. Terawatt says:

      Apparently, you can.

      I for one cannot. I am pretty sure that the 75 kWh battery cannot be bought as a standalone option independently of what other choices you make. Just like today, they’ll have “product lines” tied to the battery size and options within each product line, some of which will themselves be packages that bundle what you want with stuff you don’t really care about.

      And unlike what Tesla did with the latest S60, the Model 3 with a smaller battery will actually have a smaller battery – not just some software restriction to simulate a smaller battery. Hence Tesla’s cost is lower as well when delivering the smaller battery.

      I expected the add-on price to drop multiple times, and in more steps before it reached rock bottom, but it’s quite clear Tesla has every reason to keep making it cheaper. It’s a classic example of segmenting. Start with a high price so that you get the maximum money from those willing to pay it. Gradually lower the price to sell to the next segment, and the next, and the next, until you’ve extracted as much money as possible. In this case it is a no-brainer because Tesla incurred the cost before the cars were even delivered. Should they sell the upgrade even for $10?!? Yes! It’s a ten dollar profit at this point, since it doesn’t cost *anything* to deliver (sale and delivery being automated). But only to customers unwilling to pay more than ten dollars – otherwise it is an opportunity cost.

      Due to the underlying economics here it was always easy to predict that the price would come down. But it coming down by so much in a single step is a bit puzzling to me. Perhaps conversion rates were so low that they felt a huge price cut was the only way to get the ball rolling and get folks talking about it?? IDK. It’s kinda odd they don’t just shave off a quarter of the price at a time.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “It’s kinda odd they don’t just shave off a quarter of the price at a time.”

        I think it’s an indication that Tesla is having a hard time keeping demand for the Model S up at the level they want. I think Tesla is doing that for the same reason they created the artificial, electronically limited new S60 in the first place; to generate more demand for a model of car whose market seems to be maxed out.

        What really surprises me here is that Tesla is so resistant to start using paid advertising. I expected them to do that when it was time to create more demand, not slash several thousand dollars off the amount of (gross) profit it makes per car.

        But you have what I find to be a very interesting analysis of spreading out the price segments, and thanks for that. I’m not into marketing and sales, so this is all new to me.

        1. AlphaEdge says:

          Advertising would go along way to drive sales. Dragged a friend into a Tesla show room and he never knew that the car could drive itself down the highway and is now interested in getting the M3.

        2. unlucky says:

          I think you’re right. But hard is also relative. It’s still a big seller considering the price. An enormous seller.

          I also think this is prep to try to convert Model 3 orders to S orders. Even if the 3 is on time people will be waiting in that list quite some time to get one. Good time to pull an upsell. And shaving $7500 will make that easier.

          Also note it appears Teals is going to raise the price on the 100D (and P100D?). Goes to Terawatt’s market segmentation point.

          On another note I think the 75 being the entry-level S now I think we can also determine that the range of the base 3 will be no more than that of the S75. So even if we believe greatly in Tesla’s ability to make an efficient smaller car I can’t see the base 3 topping the 249 of the base S75. It just wouldn’t be a good idea in terms of market positioning. It would make it harder to upsell 3 customers to an S among other things.

          So if you believe the 3 base will outdo a Bolt EV then you can guess its range will be 240-245.

      2. needa says:

        As soon as I hit post I remembered that they will not be doing software upgrades. But too late to change.

    2. Joe says:

      No we cannot assume that. The likely reason they did that was to avoid angering recent MS60 buyers that would have purchased 75 if they had known of the price drop.

      1. pjwood1 says:

        Exactly. It’s been a ~year since a “60” started being sold with 75KWh on board. Ever since, the option to access the full 75KWh only amounted to long range charging. The 60 could still be daily charged to “100%” achieving the same range as the 75. Why pay the $7,000+? Some did, but not many. The 75 had been discounted over the past year. This low upgrade cost will shore up all cars made since ~June 2016 to 75’s.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “…we can assume that upgrade costs to max pack [on the Model 3] is going to be 2k or less.”

      That assumption would be very mistaken. The low, low price to upgrade the electronically limited S60 to an S75 is a marketing ploy, not a reflection of Tesla’s actual per-kWh costs for its battery packs.

      1. buu says:

        completely agree.
        it shows you cant extract money from software limited pack, because it makes sense only for few people to get 100% pack.
        BTW some people and article author makes mistake saying its 15 kWh upgrade as wk057 showed its 10,2 kWh actual difference

  6. Bill Thomson says:

    Wow. This will probably put some downward pressure on CPO model S.

    1. William says:

      Air suspension and 72-amp charger, along with free Tesla fast charge for life, can be a powerful incentive still, for the CPO Tesla shopper. Maybe not an additional $7,500 value, but certainly more than 50% of that savings.

  7. Daniel Cardenas says:

    How much does it cost to upgrade from 40 to 60?

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      From the discussion thread linked below, it looks like the cost was $10,000 back in the day. Dunno if Tesla would charge the same now, or if there are still any S40s out there which haven’t been upgraded to S60s. Rather few S40s were ever sold, because Tesla tried hard (offered incentives) to get every one who ordered an S40 to upgrade to an S60.

      https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/40-pk-upgrade

  8. georgeS says:

    “Deletions include the previously-optional smart air suspension and optional 72-amp charger. These options are now reserved for higher-line Teslas.”

    This rings true with an earlier article we had that speculated Tesla’s 1st Model 3’s will be more “cookie cutter”. ie they come with a fixed set of options with little variance.

    That makes sense to do if you want to get cars on the road ASAP.

    The key question is which options can you get and which can’t you get.

    I’m wondering if the pack size might be fixed on the first cars.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “I’m wondering if the pack size might be fixed on the first cars.”

      We’ve already seen reports that Tesla will be offering only the base pack size for initial Model 3 production, not the larger one.

      1. georgeS says:

        OK thx pmpu
        do you have a link? I must have missed that

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Hmmm, better take that with a few grains of salt, George. My Google-fu has failed to find the reference, and my memory isn’t infallible by any means.

          Maybe it was just a rumor. If so, my apologies for spreading a bad meme.

          1. georgeS says:

            Seems like the big pack would be a good required option in the first cars for Tesla. It would help get the price up on the first cars and be a great sales tool….wow look at all the range.

            Also I bet AP is a required option on the first cars.

          2. bro1999 says:

            Elon said 75s would be produced first, with base pack models coming……someday.

            1. georgeS says:

              Bro ,
              do you have a link to that??

              1. Kdawg says:

                I was under the impression the smaller (60kwh?) packs were coming first, then the performance models and bigger packs (75kWh max) were coming later (1 year out).

            2. Rich says:

              I’ve never seen any info coming from Tesla regarding which pack size would be available first … if that is even a real thing. People are assuming that only 1 pack size will be available. Again, I’ve seen no info from Tesla stating this. If you have a reference from Tesla, please share.

              1. Nix says:

                ^^What Rich said.

                We’ve heard about RWD being first, then AWD coming later, but I can’t find anything about what battery size or sizes will be available in the initial builds.

                With that said, if I were to take a wild guess without any facts to back me up, I’m biased to believe that Tesla would start with the biggest pack first, because that is how they did both the Model S and Model X…

    2. MTN Ranger says:

      Yes. I think that air suspension is definitely not in the cards as an option in the Model 3.

      No option for a metal roof is odd in the S75. You would have thought they would have done the opposite.

      BTW, in the Tesla configurator, metal roof is not an option on S 75(D), S 90D, S 100D, or S P100D.

  9. Four Electrics says:

    It’s curious that there is no corresponding drop on the X 75, which is $84K. I can only assume that the X is selling like hotcakes.

    1. Four Electrics says:

      Or, more optimistically, this could fortell a really cheap 75 kWh pack standard on the 3!

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      The Model X is a newer car, so presumably has more market potential left than the MS. Also, the MX is Tesla’s halo car, so I for one don’t find it at all surprising that they’re not lowering the price.

      I was surprised when Tesla offered an electronically-limited X60 at a lower price, but that was only offered on a temporary basis, and Tesla phased the X60 out before they phased the new S60 out.

  10. pjwood1 says:

    My take,
    -Air suspension bits go, AP stays. They save by deleting complicated to make parts, where sensors and AP hardware, like computers, are cheap to install even if never activated. There are a lot of SAS parts that I believe remained on coil cars, as sunk costs. Beyond this, I’d be pretty confident that the “$2,500” option never covered the actual (4) air strut costs by much. So, why not simplify?
    -Defining air as premium (which it isn’t) means Model 3 will initiate as coil.
    -Battery price drop was a long-time coming, along with “cost” to supply
    -Surprised no change to $5k, or $8k AP/Full AP pricing. It’s a lot of money for augmented auto-steer, and adaptive cruise. A true sign of demand for superior car technology, which at this league is only offered on Tesla (whether or not others have it on the shelf).

    1. georgeS says:

      pj
      “Air suspension bits go, AP stays”

      Agreed. I bet the first cars have AP as standard and it must be activated and it costs roughly 5k$.

  11. Bon Bon says:

    Why is 75D $5K more expensive? Is that for only the dual motor? Or does it have anything else that can justify the additonal cost.

    1. leafowner says:

      did you really ask that question? Do you think other auto makers up-charge from 2WD to 4WD?

      1. Bon Bon says:

        Do you really have to reply if you don’t add anything to post? Especially if you don’t understand the question?

        1. David Cary says:

          Well it has been $5k since it came out. It is another motor and profit is nice to have…

          We are 2.5 years into the D and it has always been $5k

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Don’t forget that the second motor requires its own PEM (Power Electronics Module), including its own inverter.

      But if you can find another top-reviewed 200+ mile BEV which offers the option of a second drive motor for less than $5000, then by all means buy that one instead. 😉

      1. Bon Bon says:

        I was just asking if there was *anything* else besides the motor. I don’t see any need to get worked up. So looks like the AWD version is about $5K more. Sometimes manufacturers throw in other stuff besides just AWD in that upcharge. In case of Tesla, looks like there is nothing else except the extra motor. I am not questioning the cost of adding the motor. I am sure its complicated and probably deserves the additional $$. But I was hoping against hope that there might be some other features in addition to that. Oh Well.

        1. Nix says:

          You also get additional range with the AWD.

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            And performance, better 0-60mph times.

            1. Nix says:

              Yup. Adding AWD in the Model S is like adding AWD and upgrading the engine to a slightly more powerful, slightly more fuel efficient engine in an ICE car.

              Usually in an ICE car it is the other way around. When you add AWD to an ICE car, you usually lose acceleration, or MPG (or both). Not with the Model S. It makes the AWD upgrade more valuable than an AWD upgrade in typical ICE cars.

    3. DJ says:

      That and the extra badging. Probably most of the cost is in the badging… 😉

      Good to see the price drop. The $2k cost to unlock the 15kWh is really more where it should have been to begin with. It was what, $10k? I’m all for Tesla making some $ but that was just ripping off their customers plain and simple.

    4. unlucky says:

      As mentioned in the other reply, car companies charge more for better features. Even if the cost increase doesn’t line up.

  12. leafowner says:

    “just $70k”

    Still hard for the everyday folk to swallow…

    1. KS says:

      Yeah, just $70K seems like it needs to come down another 20-30k before my interest is peaked. The inconvenience of stopping to charge for trips just does not cut it for me. Still looking at 2020 before even thinking about electric.

    2. Bon Bon says:

      Its unclear to me how folks here on this website behave as if $70K means nothing. That plus transaction costs like sales tax, yearly town tax and what not, makes the car very very expensive for some of us. Unfortunately, I *still* cannot afford this car. If I had that kind of money, I would rather invest in a diversified portfolio than spend it on a car.

      1. Nix says:

        That’s because everybody here understands that the Model 3 is Tesla’s lower priced vehicle.

  13. unlucky says:

    Great. I’m glad to see it.

    This is I believe only the 2nd real price drop Tesla has ever rolled out. The 75 is the best-priced it’s ever been.

    The base Model of the S was supposed to be $57,400 though. We’re still not particularly close to that.

    1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      As long as there are features a customer can add on, that price will never appear.

      Tesla should do a bare bones build of a few hundred (similar to what they are doing with the “Model à trois”) at that price. That way they can silence all the idiots that say base price is too high without ever mentioning that the customers piled on features.

      1. unlucky says:

        This has little to do with options prices. The base model was supposed to be that price.

        Making a few at a loss will never silence those who suggest that Tesla is never realistic about their price projections. Just because you have money to lose on a few units doesn’t mean you did your job right when projecting the pricing you will need to charge when operating normally.

    2. Nix says:

      Unlucky, that base price of $57,400 was first announced in spring of 2009, 8 years ago.

      Since then, this little thing called inflation has happened. You’ve heard of that, right?

      According to this inflation calculator, the cumulative inflation over the last 8 years has been 13.6%, for an inflation adjusted price of $65,229.67.

      http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

      Tesla is selling the 75 for roughly $5,000 dollars more than the 40, and you are COMPLAINING?!?!?

      Damn, you just can’t make some people happy.

      1. unlucky says:

        Yes, inflation has happened. Very little, but it has happened.

        Meanwhile other electric cars got cheaper over this time period. Things typically get cheaper as technology is first developing. Look at solar. Look at other EVs. Heck, look at Tesla. The Model S is cheaper than the Roadster was and yet is much nicer.

        The reason I’m disappointed in this is because Tesla perpetually makes claims they cannot meet on price and delivery date. If the Roadster, S and X all follow the pattern (they do), then we can make a case the 3 will. And since the 3 isn’t out yet we have to make our best guess as to what it will cost to try to compare it to other offerings and decide if we want to wait or whatever.

  14. Jonathan B says:

    I love being right! I called this months ago. It’s like Elon reads these comments. I said that the S60 would go away because he’s already putting the 75kwh pack in and nearly nobody will pay to unlock capacity. So now he’s selling the S75 for roughly the same price as he was the S60.

    My next prediction was that he’d discount it even further just before model 3 release, or offer an extra incentive to those on the waiting list to jump over to Model S. I’m still hoping that this one is true. If the S75 were to drop just a little further… say $64K per-rebates, I may walk away from my Model 3 order… hint hint Elon.

  15. Anthony says:

    Bumping the 70k model to 75kWh is a great deal. I’m curious now what the forecasted Gross Margins will be for Q2 with this new pricing model. Hopefully lower battery prices will cancel out the reduced prices and we see no material impact on the GM.

    We’ll find out in a few weeks when the Q1 numbers are announced.

  16. Warren says:

    Come on down to Krazy Elon’s Motors. “I’d give ’em away, but my ex-wives won’t let me.” 🙂

  17. Big Solar says:

    i totally understand the hi amp charger but not the air suspension.

    1. pjwood1 says:

      If you saw the repair manual’s section, for air suspension, you’d understand better why they made the choice.

  18. Andrew says:

    So you get a glass roof or a glass roof that opens, but still no God damn sunshade?!? Not everyone wants sun on them all the time regardless of how good that glass is at blocking UV rays.

    1. unlucky says:

      Unfortunately the headroom in the car is very scant (in the back especially) without a glass roof of some form.

      So I think killing the metal roof probably makes sense for this model. However I do agree about the need for a sunshade.

  19. Jason says:

    In Canada the base 75kwh is now CAD$94,650. Plus CAD$1300 destination fee. I believe the 60kwh base was CAD$92,500 plus the destination fee. So all things considered that’s not bad.

  20. Chris O says:

    Looks like Tesla’s response to he much dreaded Osborne effect. The prospect of Model 3 that’s basically an 80% Model S at 50% of the price has got to affect demand for Model S. There was just too big a gap between the two models and this price cut only partially fixes it.

    Longer term another threat to Model S sales could be Porsche’s Mission E *if* Porsche delivers on the specs and *if* it’s priced at Model S money as Porsche suggested. Another -less likely- threat could be Lucid Motor’s Lucid Air *if* it’s priced from $60K as announced and *if* they ever manage to get it into production.

    All in all it looks like Tesla needs to get Model S production cost down because further price cuts will be necessary to keep demand up.

    1. pjwood1 says:

      They took the dash away. IMO, That was a heaping spoonful of Osborne prevention.

      1. Chris O says:

        Elon Musk keeps stressing how one extra $50 display warrants the extra money for a Model S.

        Hmmm….

  21. speculawyer says:

    Nice. Looking to tempt Model 3 reservation holders into jumping in now.

  22. speculawyer says:

    “Additionally, battery upgrades to 75 kWh (unlockable via OTA software update) for the 60-kWh Model S and 70-kWh Model S are priced from only $2,00 and $500, respectively.”

    I assume that is $2,000. I knew they would eventually go on sale.

  23. Hank S. says:

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the Bolt’s 238 mile range was one of the factors for ditching the S60. Especially since so called “automotive journalists” often quote numbers from the base models. As it is, many of those writers/journalists have written that the Bolt’s 238 range beats the Model 3’s 215 miles. Of course, those are often the same people who will say the Bolt is $30,000 after tax incentives compared to the Model 3 at $35,000.

    1. Rick Bronson says:

      Yes, the entire media is biased against Tesla and that’s why they support Bolt.

      And they know that Bolt will be sold in lower volumes. If its sold in higher volume like Tesla, then the same media will turn against Bolt as well.

  24. Don Zenga says:

    Sweet news.

    This price decrease could be because of
    Cheaper battery from Gigafactory
    Lower cost of Motor, Invertor, Power control components because of volume production
    Or Both.

    With this, Tesla has sent a clear message to the prospective buyers that they are after sales and not fat profits.

    Good job. Eager to see an uptick in sales in the coming months.

    So now Model-S has 4 trims with 4 Wheel Drive and only one – 75 KWh with 2 Wheel Drive.

    This also makes the Model-S cheaper than the full size sedans from the German Trio.

  25. Rick Bronson says:

    Tesla slashed the price fearing competition from Cadillac CT6-Plugin (AKA Tesla Killer).

    *** LOL ***

    1. leafowner says:

      LOL – Tesla is shaking in their boots — fear the CT6

Leave a Reply