Tesla Will Discontinue RWD Model S 75 Prior To Launch Of Model 3

2 weeks ago by Eric Loveday 73

Tesla Model S 75 To Vanish Soon

Tesla says it will discontinue the cheapest version of its Model S prior to the launch of the Model 3.

It’s still available to order now, for delivery in September, but it won’t be around for long.

We’ve received word that tesla will discontinue the cheapest version of the Model S, the rear wheel drive 75.

This move will put more distance (in terms of price) between the upcoming ~$35,000 Model 3 and the Model S.

The RWD 75 Model S starts at $69,500. Eliminating this version will push the base price of the Model S up to $74,500.

Additionally, by doing away with the RWD 75 Model S, neither the Model S nor the Model X will offer  RWD versions. It’s dual-motor, AWD from here on out for the S and X.

Tesla has a history of discontinuing its cheapest models. Just a few months back, Tesla eliminated the Model S 60 kWh. In just for months or so, the cost for entry into a Model S jumped from ~$66,000 to nearly $75,000 once the RWD 75 disappears.

It’s believed that the initial copies of the Model 3 will be base RWD cars with some forced value-added (see higher MSRP) options, with AWD, larger batteries, and the true $35,000 entry level offering coming at a later date.

We’re now just 5 days away from the big Model 3 reveal event that the world has long been waiting for. We’ll be on the scene to bring you first-hand coverage from the reveal.

Tesla Model 3

Tesla Model 3 SN 1

Source: The Drive, Electrek

Tags: , , , , ,

73 responses to "Tesla Will Discontinue RWD Model S 75 Prior To Launch Of Model 3"

  1. Chris O says:

    Sign of a serious conundrum for Tesla that’s already affecting sales: how to make people pay more than twice the money for a Model S than they would have for a Model 3. The answer appears to be to widen the specification gap, but if that widens the huge price gap at the same time I’m not sure how far that will go to solve Tesla’s conundrum.

    1. bro1999 says:

      Welcome to the big leagues of auto manufacturing, Elon. You ain’t in AAA anymore.

      1. eloder says:

        How is the #1 selling luxury sedan model in the US just now being “welcomed to the big league”?

        They’ve already surpassed and exceeded other automakers on the luxury sedan front. The Model S is the king of the “big leagues”.

        1. theflew says:

          The model S outsells other luxury car makers single model sales. It does not out sell BMW, Mercedes, etc.. luxury car line-up. It just means they offer more variety, so one model isn’t at the top.

          1. Tom says:

            I’ve been critical in that if you plot worldwide model S sales they have been falling steadily and overall Tesla sales have plateaued at about 25,000 a quarter but then someone reminded me the plant only had 100,000 capacity pre-M3 and so they’ve been pumping out at capacity and increasing Model X sales. The only way to increase Model X sales is to sacrifice S sales apparently….or I presume. And if the overall fall in Model S sales is for that reason then this is for the exact reason that the X is higher priced and almost certainly better margin. Similarly if you have to restrict build of the S, then wouldn’t it be logical to progressively remove the lowest priced ones from the list and only sell higher margin vehicles? Basically my point is worldwide sales of Tesla have been flat for a year or more and that meanwhile sales of S have fallen off. But this might very well be a direct function of capped capacity. And it wouldn’t make sense for Tesla to increase capacity of X or S frankly because as others have pointed out they’ve penetrated pretty heavily into that luxury market and they are probably near where the peak market for a $130,000 SUV might be. Better to sell every one you can make than blow a bunch of money on capacity that won’t be needed in the long term. Also yes obviously the top end M3 is going to come in around $60,000. BMW perfected this upsell stuff with a dizzying selection of options that double the price and it seems to be the one thing Tesla is copying.

    2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      Who makes you think that it will be “twice”? More likely it will be dangerously close in practice to cheapest Model S, so they need to get ready by increasing price on it.

      1. FISHEV says:

        Tesla will likely make more profit on a fully optioned $60K Model 3 than a basic Model S at $76K. So you’d think Tesla would be pushing the loaded Model 3 and fair to say making the stripped Model S $16K higher should do that.

        $36,200 Basic
        $10,000 70kWh battery
        $ 5,000 AWD
        $ 8,000 Autonomous/AutoPilot
        $ 1,200 Paint
        $ $750 Cold weather

        1. BenG says:

          Yep, and a Performance package option for another $25,000 to compete with the BMW M3.

        2. Rob Stark says:

          Options are unlikely to be the exact same price on Model 3 as they are on Model S.

          Other manufactures don’t do this either.

          1. FISHEV says:

            They do actually. For example, you’ll find the Eyesight package on Subaru’s (equivalent to Tesla’s AutoPilot) is priced about the same across models.

            Price per kWh of battery will likely be the same for Tesla’s also.

            AWD, like close to the same.

            Even if all the options were 20% less it’s still ~$60K for loaded Model 3 vs. the stripped down Model S for $75K.

            I think Tesla strategy is to sell fully loaded $60K Model 3’s with high profit ratio.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Your entire argument is fallacious.

              Cars made in larger numbers have lower per-unit costs for parts, and thus can be profitably sold at lower prices.

              Now, there will be exceptions, such as software. That has essentially zero unit cost, so it may be that Tesla will charge the same for that in the M3 as in the MS/MX.

              But any hardware options in the M3 should have a lower manufacturing cost than identical options in the MS/MX, and therefore at least potentially a lower cost.

              As a rule of thumb, Rob Stark is correct: Other manufacturers don’t do this either. Just because you can find a few exceptions doesn’t invalidate the rule; it merely means there are some exceptions to that rule.

              1. Tom says:

                In the first semester of economics they teach you that the price of a product is a function of what the market will bear not production cost. The market will bear a $60,000 hopped up M3 and that’s why it’s going to exist. The whole point of selling options is to increase profit not give a better deal. I’ll bring the 60 down just barely and say $55,000 but this list of options already listed doesn’t even include $2500 fancy rims and tires (see the article on the foam lined tires) and other such niceties. It might take a year to get up to this stuff but it will come.

              2. Steven says:

                Software has zero per unit cost?

                Really?

                And how many pirated copies of Microsoft products are running at your company?

      2. Asak says:

        They’re not going to sell the numbers being bandied about unless the price is close to the $35K mark. People can swoon over features all they want, it doesn’t make a $50K car affordable for the vast majority. If the Model 3 really comes out and defacto ends up replacing the discontinued lower end Model S then that counts as a fail in my book.

        However, even assuming the Model 3 came in at $50K, I still don’t understand the point of discontinuing the cheaper Model S. It seems like the Model S would be an easy upsell at that point. Maybe it comes down to the profit margin on each vehicle, and they’re moving the S up to get it into line with the what’s expected from the 3?

    3. Jeff Songster says:

      If they are as clever as they seem… they might also adjust the prices of the S and X to make a smooth transition from the loss leader Model 3 to the higher margined S or X models. You want to be able to give a small bump from upper priced 3 to lowest S or X.

  2. Roy_H says:

    Looks like to me that this raises the ceiling for fully-optioned M3. Don’t want it to come too close to their flagship products.

  3. Andrew S says:

    Honestly, this makes me worried about pricing for the model 3. Why make the model S MORE expensive if the model 3 starts at $35k? How expensive will the model 3 become? If they’re expecting it to top out at $65k, how is the model 3 a car for the masses?

    1. Chris O says:

      That thought occurred to me too but it seems to me that Tesla can either aim for 500K model3s per year or let it start at a higher price point but hardly both.

      There will no doubt be specced out versions of Model 3 though to bridge that (now even bigger…) price gap with Model S but apparently not the other way around, quite the contrary.

    2. David Murray says:

      That’s sort of what I was thinking. I was thinking they would need to lower the price of the model-S to keep it competitive.. but apparently not.

    3. eloder says:

      Just because a base 55(?) kwh Model 3 without options costs $35k, doesn’t mean that a ludicrous+ 75(?) kwh 0-60 in 2.4s AWD model won’t cost $70k.

      The Model S has price ranges from the $70k range to the $140k range. Why would it be wrong for a Model 3 to have a price range from the $35k range to the $70k range?

      1. unlucky says:

        Ludicrous ones will be AWD. Is a Model S 75 non-D something a person would cross-shop or otherwise compare with a ludicrous Model 3? Anyone comparing a ludicrous 3 would compare it to the AWD S (at least) and this doesn’t change the price of an AWDs.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        eloder said:

        “The Model S has price ranges from the $70k range to the $140k range. Why would it be wrong for a Model 3 to have a price range from the $35k range to the $70k range?”

        ^^ this.

        Tesla bashers like to post FUD, wildly exaggerating both the average and the highest trim level prices for the Model 3. But twice the base price for the highest trim level seems to me entirely possible, or even likely.

        Let’s remember that Elon estimated the average Model 3 selling price at $42k. That likely won’t match the average price in early months of production, since Tesla will offer just a few packages rather than individual options. But over time, as production ramps up and options are gradually increased, I expect the average selling price to creep closer to that $42k.

        1. unlucky says:

          The problem with that kind of pricing is it would undercut what the Model 3 is supposed to be.

          The Model 3 is supposed to be the Model T of EVs. The Accord of EVs. And Accords aren’t priced that way. Luxury cars are priced that way.

          And looking at the car it’s clearly not a luxury car. It is no more a luxury car just because of who made it than a Hyundai Elantra is a luxury car because the maker of the Genesis made it.

          It is an Accord. Yes, it’s a bit more than an Accord but EVs do cost a bit more than comparable ICE cars. We all know that, it’s why there is a $7500 rebate. But its price no more means it is a luxury car than its maker does.

          If an Accord cost $25K-$50K we’d think it odd, right? If a Buick cost $25K to $50K we’d think it odd, wouldn’t we?

          So yeah, if the Model 3 costs $35K-$70K it will be odd. And it’ll mean it is less than the Model T of EVs that it has sometimes been referred to as. Even if we cut off $8K from the top because autopilot is (as of now) a somewhat unique feature, costing $35K-$62K still means it is less than the Model T of EVs. It’ll be the Oldsmobile Limited (perhaps) of EVs.

          1. unlucky says:

            I mean costing $35K-$62K disregarding the $8K of autopilot. Since we might want to make some sort of allowance for the cost of a kind of feature an Accord (Camry, Fusion, etc.) doesn’t have.

            1. Tom says:

              The VW Golf has versions from under $20,000 to over $40,000. Yes a factor of two. And a 3 series BMW (the M3’s biggest competitor in my opinion) can just about get to a factor of 2. VW, BMW, and Tesla aren’t Buick. They start with a performance chassis vehicle and build around it many levels that suit multiple interests.

              1. unlucky says:

                A Model 3 is in no way comparable to a 3 series BMW.

                Just because it’s expensive doesn’t make a Model 3 a luxury car. A 3 series is. Just look at the interiors. A Model 3 looks like a Paseo inside, not like a BMW 3 series.

                As to the Golf, yeah, you’re right, there are versions from $20K to $40K (before options even). But VW markets those as different cars, not just option lists. They don’t even put the Golf badge on the GTI (but I think they do the R).

                So I guess you could be right, based upon the Golf example.

    4. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      “how is the model 3 a car for the masses?”

      It is promised as BMW 3 series competitor in entry level luxury sedan market, what masses? Cool-Aid too much.

      1. Brian says:

        If you want to troll someone, spell Kool-Aid correctly.

        Pretty much EVERY headline calls the M3 a “for the masses” car. A simple google search will confirm that, thanks.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          And every headline that calls the Model 3 “a car for the masses” is wrong. It’s semi-affordable, not “affordable”. The best-selling cars (not light trucks) are all under $29,000, or at least were when I checked last year.

          1. Chris O says:

            What I could find average car sales prices are now at $35,368 including local sales taxes. That does include trucks but it looks like Model 3 starts right at what people would on average be willing to spend on a vehicle.

            1. William Edwards says:

              I tend to lump cars with trucks too, because only one out of like 20 people I know use a truck as a truck. So, if only moves 4 people it is pretty much the same things as a car, but REALLY expensive and profitable for the mfg.

            2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              “What I could find average car sales prices are now at $35,368 including local sales taxes. That does include trucks but it looks like Model 3 starts right at what people would on average be willing to spend on a vehicle.”

              1. To me, the term “affordable” means “less than average price”. Perhaps it means something different to you.

              2. This isn’t the place for a wall-of-text post on statistics and the difference between the median and the mode, but in the case of car prices, higher prices have more effect on the median price than low prices, because there is more variance at the upper end than the lower end. The point here is that citing the “average” or median price isn’t at all the same as saying that’s an “affordable” price. It’s no coincidence that all the best-selling cars (not light trucks) are priced under $25k, at least according to the list William Edwards posted below.

              3. The target market for the Model 3 is the same as gasmobile cars. It’s not the same as the market for gasmobile light trucks. Very few people shopping for a full-sized pickup or a macho SUV are going to wind up buying a mid-sized (or smaller than mid-sized) sedan like the Model 3.

          2. William Edwards says:

            Yes, in the US the average CAR price is much lower than the average VEHICLE price. How much lower, I do not know but Car & Driver show these numbers for 2016 for CARs that were in the top 25 best sellers. Curiously the trucks, which push up the average price are selling hot hotcakes… F150 sold more than 700,000 — double the best selling car, hence while Ford is rolling in the dough!

            Cruze $17,850 171,552
            Sonata $22,935 185,614
            Elantra $17,985 188,763
            Sentra $17,875 197,672
            Malibu $22,555 205,117
            Fusion $23,485 245,708
            Altima $23,385 282,617
            Accord $23,330 311,352
            CRV $24,985 319,557
            Civic $19,615 335,445
            Corolla $19,395 346,999
            Camry $24,885 355,204

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              @William Edwards:

              Thanks for doing my homework!

              I see I could have said “$25,000 or less” rather than “less than $29,000”, and would have been even more accurate.

            2. zll says:

              You also have to consider the fact that many businesses and professionals use the F-150 as a workhorse. Not accurate to lump all F-150 buyers as affluent.

        2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          Brian:
          >>If you want to troll someone, spell Kool-Aid correctly.<> Pretty much EVERY headline calls the M3 a “for the masses” car. A simple google search will confirm that, thanks. <<

          Living by sensationalist headlines is what I would call being drunk from Kool-Aid. How about checking basic numbers how new cars cost? Some even collect statistics. Here it is from last month in the US:
          https://mediaroom.kbb.com/2017-07-03-New-Car-Transaction-Prices-Grow-Less-Than-2-Percent-Year-Over-Year-In-June-2017-According-To-Kelley-Blue-Book

          Note $42k before consumer incentives for "Entry-Level Luxury Car" in the US. It is exactly what Tesla CEO was talking about as Model 3 ASP (average sales price). I guess it will be somewhat higher.

          Lumping all these categories together and comparing Model 3 with Full Size SUVs and declaring it "for masses" doesn't make much sense. It is closer to masses than Model S/X, but it is still not there. Compact size car for masses is $20k. Mid size car for more affluent masses is $25k.
          Especially in the rest of the world, where people tend to drive shorter distances and buy smaller cars for more narrow streets and smaller parking spaces.

    5. bjrosen says:

      Did you really believe that the Model 3 would be a $35K car? Chevy loses money on the Bolt at $37K but Chevy has the luxury of limiting Bolt sales to just the number they need to get their ZEV credits. Tesla doesn’t have that option, the Model 3 has to be profitable or they will go out of business. They promised the world that the Model 3 would start at $35K so they will offer a base model that’s so stripped down that almost everyone will opt for a more expensive version. By pushing the Model S up to $75K they are signaling that a maxed out Model 3 will probably be in the mid 60s. If they can push the middle of the curve to around $50K they will make money on the Model 3. What they won’t do is sell 500,000 of them a year at that price but it’s better for them if they sell 200,000 cars at a profit than 500,000 at a loss.

      1. La Frennia di Mamata says:

        Price gets stupid Hi-?/I’ll go buy elsewhere or not buy at all..BTW That is all …”BS”… They may not make as much Profit But., ..NONE OF THEM LOSE MONEY ON THESE VEHICLES ..Tesla would have had to Pack it in long ago if that were the Case..A company/a business cannot Expand & build A Super Charger Network,Expand it,By Losing Money & Build Build Factories @ the same time ,and so on …IF THEY WERE LOSING MONEY , They would Have Been HISTORY LONG AGO! Let’s Not B e GULLIBLE!!!

      2. Chris O says:

        That’s all based on fantasy numbers. A (slightly)more educated guess from UBS global research group puts break even for Model 3 at $41K, lower than the $42K average sales price Tesla is aiming for.

        1. theflew says:

          Yes let’s use UBS that knows everything about the model 3 and it’s cost structure. Even the Bolt cost seems high, but GM isn’t going to tell how much money they’re making or losing.

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “Chevy loses money on the Bolt at $37K…”

        Just because someone guessed that, and a lot of other people have copied that guess, doesn’t make it a fact. You don’t know if it’s true any more than I do.

        And even if it were true, that would be no evidence that Tesla can’t make a profit on a $35k Model 3. The economics of a large legacy auto maker like GM making the Bolt EV (with a lot of help from LG Electronics) are different in some important ways from the economics of a small but fast-growing auto maker like Tesla to make the Model 3.

    6. Rob Stark says:

      It is a car for the masses because Model 3 is a superior value at $35k than a top spec Camry XSE V6 at $35k.

      That there will be a fully optioned performance ludicrous dual motor all wheel drive version of Model 3 at $75k doesn’t make the base $35k any less compelling for middle class families. If anything it makes it cooler. Because the base Model 3 looks almost exactly like the top spec version.

      The fact that a fully optioned Model S at $170k exist doesn’t make the base $69.5k version any less. In fact it makes it more desirable.

      1. Hank S. says:

        Yeah, I don’t understand how so many people make the argument that it’s really a $42k or $60k car by using average and max prices. If you are worried about price, then don’t get the upgrades.

        That’s true of any car. If you want a $28k Dodge Charger, then you don’t get the Hell Cat, Scat Pack or SRT options. No one would say the Dodge Charger is a $65k car.

        1. unlucky says:

          Except you won’t be able to get the non-optioned car.

          Just as Tesla did with the Model S. They claimed it started at $57,400 but if you tried to order a base model they simply didn’t deliver it. They delayed and delayed and repeatedly called customers who were waiting telling them order a higher-spec car so they can actually receive it. They even cancelled the base model before they delivered any! After a year of pushing people off they finally delivered cars to the final holdouts. They never even engineered the base model! They software limited the mid-model to a lower battery capacity.

          It’s almost the same as they did with the Roadster. They told people who had already placed orders from a price sheet and paid half the price of the car they had to pay more or else they would be sent to the end of the line.

          So if you want a $35K Model 3 rest assured you won’t get it any time soon. And by the time you can get it, who can say if $35K for what you were waiting for will be really any kind of amazing deal?

    7. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

      I don’t believe it indicates anything negative about price.

      It’s natural to expect that Model 3 will have the greatest cannibalizing effect on the low spec Model S, especially where the Model 3 has a functional equivalent to the S.

      Tesla should prefer buyers to buy a high-spec Model 3 instead of a low-spec Model S and initial Model 3 are expected to be 375 RWD.

      375D will not be available at least until the beginning of next year. I would expect that when the Model 375D arrives, Tesla will pull the plug on the Model S75D.

    8. floydboy says:

      Who said they’re expecting it to top out at $65k?

  4. Boris says:

    The article says that it’s believed that Tesla will first sell base Model 3s. Not sure that’s the case. Perhaps they won’t have AWD or large battery, but the rest of the car will be loaded I believe. How else would they get the margin, not from the 35k version of the car.

    1. Jay Cole says:

      Hey Boris,

      Yes, we probably should have made that more clear, that the initial Model 3s are expected to be base RWD/base battery…not that the MSRP with be the base (@$35,000).

      We know the initial wave are pre-spec’d more or less, and we assume there is a lot of “value added” options in there to get the price/margins higher on initial demand…with the true/orderable “$35,000” Model 3 coming sometime later – for an undetermined amount of time.

      Will make that sentiment more clear…apologies on the confusion.

      1. unlucky says:

        I cannot comprehend Tesla selling a configuration that doesn’t include autopilot this year. And that option will be $8K at least.

        I can’t see how the initial versions even sniff at $35K.

        1. Rob Stark says:

          Full Sell Drive will be $8k at most.

          Likelier, it will be significantly less on Model 3.

        2. BenG says:

          I agree, Model 3 won’t sniff $35k this year.

          Initial models will be big battery and have a significant package of luxury options. I expect them to $50,000-55,000 or more.

        3. Doggydogworld says:

          Unlucky, enhanced Autopilot is $5k on the S and X. Full self-drive adds another 3k, but few people order it because Tesla hasn’t even demo’d it yet. Model 3 EAP will probably be less than $5k.

          I agree all Model 3s this year will have EAP but I seriously doubt they’ll force FSD on people.

          1. unlucky says:

            I expect they will force the full $8K package on people.

            Supply and demand.

            Besides how else do you justify no instrument cluster other than “it drives itself anyway”.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Yeah. Of course I don’t know what Tesla will do, but it would seem rather contradictory for Elon to say the M3 is designed for full autonomy in mind, but then sell versions of the car that clearly don’t have that in mind.

              But I suppose they might sell it that way if it can be later upgraded with software to enhanced Autopilot, with no hardware upgrade needed.

              (I personally don’t believe that even Tesla’s “Autopilot Hardware 2.0” is sufficient for full autonomy, but that’s a different argument.)

              1. unlucky says:

                I don’t see how it gets to level 5 (full autonomy) either. Hence why I didn’t use the name the other poster did.

                And that isn’t much against Tesla on the tech/spec front, level 5 isn’t here yet, it’s hard to know what it will take to reach it.

    2. Ziv says:

      Boris, I agree with you on that. I have read a couple times that early III buyers will have a limited amount of choices but all of the choices will have option packs of some sort.
      There were a couple posts trying to figure out how soon you would be able to get a base III outside of California and the most intelligent answer seemed to be, “After November and probably after January 1st of 2018.”
      I kind of see Teslas thinking on this. There won’t be a lot of profit on the base model, so why not harvest the tastiest low hanging fruit first.

  5. MSowner says:

    Let them eat cake…no I mean buy a model 3. Peasants only apply.

  6. unlucky says:

    How much distance do they need? How much is the Model 3 going to cost?

    If the Model 3 is really $35K with reasonable options on top (less than $10K) they shouldn’t need to kill their $70K car to keep the two from seeming the same.

    This is saying to me that the Model 3 will overlap in battery size and range with the Model S and it will come somewhat close to overlapping in price.

    This would be insane for a “$35K” car.

    That that it would surprise me much for a Model 3 to have an available 75kWh pack. I fully expected 55kWh and 70kW packs for the car. They simply will have to have a 70kWh or more pack to match (slightly exceed, as that seems to be Musk’s goal) the Bolt on combined-cycle range in that larger, heavier car with AC inductance motor.

    It also wouldn’t surprise me if the first Model 3s out the door had a 70kWh (to 75kWh) pack.

    But what would surprise me is if the larger pack is the base pack. I cannot see how Tesla can make their price targets if this is the base pack. The only way would be to have unreasonable configurations which force $10K in options *before the price of autopilot*. Well, or if they pretend it’s $35K but then actually only deliver a small number at that price (perhaps even including some which aren’t really sold, they are just loaned to employees, etc.) and then jack the price long before fulfilling the backorder list.

    It is going to be an interesting time coming up, that’s for sure.

  7. Jack H says:

    I have to ask, do any of the moderators of InsideEVs plan on leasing/financing/buying a Model 3?

    I’ve seen a lot of people wanting it from the comments section but never any word on the author and such.

    1. Jay Cole says:

      Without naming names, I know of 3 InsideEVs persons with a Model 3 reservation…with that said, there is perhaps more.

      If you are referring to myself, I really can’t say for sure if I will pull the trigger. I pop around a lot and like to plan on what my next EV is and when I can get it. Not really the clarity one finds with Tesla, lol.

      Without knowing the timing on the M3, and what the options/costs are…well, that has killed many a potential plug-in purchase in the past, as I grow impatient. (see Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV, and more recently the Chrysler Pacfica Hybrid for example).

      My guess is that it will be a footrace between the Model 3 and the new LEAF (maybe the I-Pace if things go really long on delivery wait times) for my business. Although I am a sucker atm for the smart ED cabrio (maybe some spin-off love for the Renault Twizy which I miss a lot in the US)…so will be getting a next gen/topless smart for tooting around the city/weekends as soon as it is available.

      1. Jack H says:

        Thank you for the insight. Quite a quirky vehicle you have your mind set on. Reminds me of the commentator that likes the Spark EV lol

  8. Viktor says:

    I’m not sure about the price rise, when Tesla said that they would remove the 60 kWh battery everyone talker about how the base price would be about $9k higher, did that happened? No, Tesla lower the price on he 75 and for what we know, Tesla can lower the price on the 75d when this is done.

    1. unlucky says:

      That’s a good point. However in that case it would be odd for Tesla to say they’ll remove the RWD 75 S instead of saying they’ve made AWD standard on the S.

      1. Rob Stark says:

        This is how Tesla transitions.

        To piss off the people a little less that just paid $5k for the Dual Motor AWD option but have not had it delivered.

  9. Alonso Perez says:

    Kind of odd. There is a market for low end Model S cars that is quite different from high end Model 3. Think taxis, fleet buyers, etc. who need a larger car, but without frills.

    There is in reality no need to make sure the low-end S is far in price from the high-end 3. Totally different products that nobody would confuse.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Not saying your logic makes no sense, but obviously auto makers see it rather differently. They don’t like it when one of their models directly competes with another. They like to maintain a clear market separation between models, and that includes distinct price segments.

  10. BenG says:

    For all the people speculating about the price(s) of Model 3, I’d recommend looking at the portfolio of BMW 3 series. Starting at $34,000 and approaching $100,000 with a highly optioned specimen. I.e. Car and Driver’s test M3, a highly optioned 2016 model, was priced at $88,000.

    Base Model 3 will be $35,000 to fulfill promises, but add larger battery , all-wheel drive, and performance package which will include a lot of luxury add-ons, I expect a Model 3 P70D to hit $80,000 or more.

    Also, regarding the initial Model 3s, I expect that the only battery offered will be the larger option of ~70 kwh. I know they are limiting options initially but there’s zero incentive to limit the initial orders to the smaller battery. To buttress this theory, look at the roll-out of Model S: it started with the large battery option.

    1. Hank S. says:

      I agree that the larger battery will likely ship first. People keep saying that the first M3’s will be $55k with nebulous “luxury options” and yet have the smaller battery. That just makes no sense.

    2. Asak says:

      The problem is that if you look at BMW’s sales, you don’t see them topping the lists if cars selling 200,000+ units per year, which is purportedly what Tesla is trying to do. There is a serious mismatch between the two goals the Model 3 seemingly has. Tesla doesn’t have to sell mass market numbers, but then they don’t need to ramp up production capacity as they are claiming.

      Saying you want to create a mass market car and then saying the average price is going to be north of $40K just doesn’t work.

  11. Don Zenga says:

    I know for sure that they will drop the 75KWh RWD sooner leaving the entire Model S/X lineup as an AWD vehicle that boosts the prestige of those who own it and also simplifying their manufacturing line. Now the starting range of Model S is 259 miles.

    But I did not expect it will come so soon. So this means that in next 6 days (2017-07-28), Model S 75 KWh will be dropped.

    Along with this they should have dropped the price of 75 KWh AWD by a few grand and that could have pushed the sales further.

  12. Scott says:

    The Model X and S are the premium models competing with the best out of Germany, Porsche-BMW, and MB. The German brands do not go down in price especially the high performance models, AMG-M version. With German brands it is easy to double their base MSRP with their catalogs full of options !

  13. Scott says:

    The high end luxury end keeps manufacturers alive. If GM did not have its overpriced SUV gas guzzlers with 1970 technology(cab on frame) they could not survive on just car revenue!

    1. Don Zenga says:

      The Crossovers that are eating into the Sedans market share will soon encroach into the SUVs market share as well.

      So GM cannot continue to depend on those for long. Better to get into electric bandwagon.

Leave a Reply