Tesla 60 & 60D Added To Model S Lineup – Pricing Starts At $66,000

JUN 9 2016 BY ERIC LOVEDAY 291

Tesla Motors has just announced that the Model S lineup will be expanded to include two lower-end versions: 60 and 60D.

New 60 And 60D Versions Join Model S Lineup

New 60 And 60D Versions Join Model S Lineup

The new Model S 60 has 210 miles of range and a top speed of 130 MPH. It can zip from 0 to 60 MPH in 5.5 seconds. Pricing for this RWD version of the Model S starts at $66,000.

Tesla will also offer an AWD version. This version, called the 60D, starts at $71,000. Specs for the 60D include range of 218 miles. 0 to 60 MPH in 5.2 seconds. Top speed of 130 MPH.

Both the 60 and 60D actually come fitted with 75 kWh battery packs, which can be unlocked via a software update for $8,500 prior to delivery or $9,000 at any point in time after delivery.

Tesla says that unlocking the extra kWhs will increase range by 19%. So expect range to be around 249 miles for the 60 and 259 miles for the 60D.

75 kWh Range Upgrade Option

75 kWh Range Upgrade Option

The new versions of the Model S are available for ordering starting today.

With the release of the 60 and 60D variants (both upgradeable to 75 kWh), there’s no longer a need for the 70 or 70D models (which were also upgradeable to 75 kWh), according to Tesla, so those two versions of the Model S have been discontinued.

Full press release below:

As you know, Model S is designed to be a great car for every lifestyle, and we continue to make it even better. Last month we introduced design updates to Model S, and through continual software updates we’ve made Model S faster, smarter, safer and more enjoyable to drive. It’s part of Tesla’s relentless commitment to making its products better.

With these improvements, we’ve heard from a number of people who would like to buy a Model S, but can more easily afford it only at a lower price point. To respond to these requests, on Thursday June 9 we’re introducing two new variants of Model S – Model S 60 and 60D, offering a compelling feature set and a great value at a new low price.

The new Model S 60 delivers more than 200 miles of range, a top speed of 130 mph and zero-to-60 acceleration in 5.5 seconds, starting at $66,000. The all-wheel drive option brings even more range and performance, beginning at $71,000. And every Tesla comes equipped with active safety features and Autopilot hardware.

Keep in mind that when comparing the price of any electric vehicle to an internal combustion vehicle, it’s important to compare not just the out-of-pocket price, but also the effective cost of ownership. Factoring in annual fuel savings which typically ranges between $1,000 and $1,500, as well as available tax incentives, the effective cost of owning Model S 60 comes to about $50k.

And there are other advantages to owning a Tesla that add up over time, including:
Less maintenance – Tesla vehicles don’t require regular maintenance like oil changes, fuel filters or smog checks. And our four-year/50,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty and eight-year/infinite mile battery and drive unit warranty come standard with Model S.
Ample charging options – for most Tesla owners, home charging provides plenty of range for daily travel, and with an EPA range of over 200 miles, that’s still the case for Model S 60 and 60D. For long distance travel, there are many convenient Supercharger and Destination Charging locations throughout our network.
New features via free software updates – as with every Model S, the 60 and 60D will receive free over-the-air software updates that add functionality and continue to improve the driving experience for years to come.

To provide customers even more flexibility over time, Model S 60 and 60D owners may later choose to upgrade their vehicles to a 75kWh battery with a software update, should they want to add to their car’s battery capacity in the future.

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

291 Comments on "Tesla 60 & 60D Added To Model S Lineup – Pricing Starts At $66,000"

newest oldest most voted

So for about the same price as the original S60 you also get
– All Wheel Drive traction
– Supercharging included
– Better Warranty
– 10 more miles of range
– Faster acceleration
– Auto parking and blind spot warning
– Active safety technologies
– Autopilot hardware with ability to purchase
– Ability to purchase more battery capacity
– LED headlamps
– Refreshed styling
– Center console
– Other updates like improved seats etc.

I think I just heard the resale values of current S60’s plummet to the ground.

I think I just heard thousands of Model 3 reservations get cancelled, and converted to Model S sales.

Pure Genius.
Especially for those reaching up financially, to be able to add options AFTER the Lease/Sale is done.
Incremental improvements in year 2 make the car more affordable to a vast number of other buyers.

bro1999 said:

“I think I just heard the resale values of current S60’s plummet to the ground.”

Given that almost all the used Tesla cars available from the Tesla CPO program disappeared within a very short time after the Model ≡ reveal — in other words, they’re essentially sold out — I doubt that resale value is going to drop even a tiny bit.

Even the most low-end, earliest production Model S is still a Tesla car!

They didn’t sell out. Tesla removed them, then re-posted them a few weeks later. See http://www.ev-cpo.com/ to track the history of when each S60 was posted and how many times the prices have been adjusted. The oldest one on there has been on there for over a year. Originally posted 7/7/15. Granted that one is an anomaly, but more than half of the S60’s have been on there for 4+ months.

Tesla was short on service loaners, so they took some of their CPO cars and temporarily moved them to service centers for customers to use while their car was being worked on.

That situation is finally being resolved, and many of those CPO cars are finally being put back on the market.

http://www.ev-cpo.com/ tracks by VIN, and doesn’t track when a CPO car was taken off the market and used as a service loaner. So when one of these CPO –> Service loaner –> CPO cars gets relisted, ev-cpo.com lists the original date it was first seen as a CPO.

But that doesn’t mean that the car has been sitting on a lot waiting to be sold since 2015. Quite the opposite. It could have just been put back on the list of CPO cars for sale as early as yesterday. But ev-cpo’s website doesn’t track that.

Thanks for the info and the correction, danzorr and nix!

That makes a lot more sense.

The loaner I got on my recent trip to the service center was an old “legacy” 85 without autopilot. I spent the first part of the day getting use to the reversed stalks on the steering column and “pre Cambrian” panel…….haha

ROTFL! Biology humor isn’t something I expect in an automobile-related forum. What a delight!

Pre-cambrian… I didn’t realize how much the Model S had evolved! 😉

+1 for the pre-Cambrian reference

Don’t forget faster supercharging… almost no time penalty for a range charge compared to the original 60.

Oooh, amazing point.

This 75KWH battery software limited to 60KWH gives you many of the advantages of the 75KWH battery except the extra range. You do get
-A battery that will last longer
-A battery that will charge faster

Also a battery that can deliver the power needed for fast acceleration. The larger the pack the more kW it can source/sink.

Tesla have understated acceleration times in the past. Unless they opt for a weaker inverter (not likely), the 60 should be capable of the best published 75kwh 0-60’s. A consideration against this would be if they “emulate” down the power. This would be similar to how it’s done to let a P90DL driver experience the power loss to a 70D, from the same cockpit.

I would expect “electronically limited” means limited power, not just limited capacity. So I would expect the new S60 to have a longer 0-to-60 time than the S70. It would be a selling point that upgrading the pack to unlock the extra 10 kWh should enable improved acceleration.

But of course, that’s just a logical conclusion, not fact.

the new 60 should be quicker than the 70 unless they limit it purposely

Why would Tesla not limit the available power, just as they limit the available energy?

Seems counter-productive, from a business standpoint, for Teslka to give the S60 an acceleration as good as the S75. Tesla gets a lot of mileage (pun intended) out of advertising its constantly improving 0-60 times. Why wouldn’t they want to make that part of the incentive to upgrade an S60 to an S75?

Just sayin’.

I would presume that it’s both capacity and performance limited – like that feature on the top models that allow you to temporarily limit them to act like a lower-level pack.

on Tesla website it says that the 60’s and the 75’s have the same 0-60 times. If it isn’t so they could be fine for millions ans millions of dollars…

Assuming the capacity limit is implemented by charging to the same level as the s75 in order to top balance, the overall charge acceptance is only slightly more than the old S60.

https://twitter.com/protomech/status/740937048647991296

I would also say thats Obsorne effect. The Chevrolet Bolt is just 5 months away from dealer with 60 kWh goes 208 miles Epa for 37500 $! Sure S & X have some gread features, but 30.000 $ + for features?
And besides this the Tesla demand iN Europe is down, cars don’t fit for European market. This market you sell million of small cars like Renault Zoe size or bit bigger like Golf, biggest best selling cars in Europe is Nissan Roque but sure no big sedands like BMW 7 series or or also 5 series.
Model 3 will be not enough if other manufactures bring cars sliced specific for every market.

You are mixing things, my friend. Let’s for now forget about Tesla, and use different car company with established sales record, just so that we can see how it really works without fluctuations from early start up of sales, ok? What would You say for BMWs? Do they sell high end luxury sedans for 5/7? Sure they do. Are those bringing big profits to the company. Sure they do. Do they sell also smaller “entry” luxury sedans for 50% of the price tag? Sure they do. Are those bringing even bigger volumes and profits. Sure they do. Now what where You saying about Model S and Model 3? Sure, they will follow normal market segment behavior. Bolt & Tesla & Osborne effect in one sentence? Need to read up on that my friend. Osborne effect is when You announce that Your still current product is inferior to Your next product. Nobody likes to buy inferior stuff. (Hence companies try to showcase something in each segment. So that something unique is always the best. Even if its just “cheapest” or “value proposition for the money” 😉 ) So how come Bolt from GM will Osborne Model S from Tesla? Not the… Read more »

Thanks for that, przemo_li. We’re starting to see the term “Osborne Effect” used in InsideEVs comments where the writer clearly does not understand what the term actually means.

For Tesla there is Osborning possible: it’s the only long-range BEV on the market, so some sales may have been gained for that reason.

That’s not”Osborning”.

It’s simple competition. Though basic promise is OK. Some sales will go to smaller cars as not everybody like big ones. Same for price tag.

Simple competition.

Right. The “Osborne Effect” refers only to a company sabotaging its own sales by announcing a near-future release of a better product.

It does not refer to competition from other companies.

* * * * *

Quoting from Wikipedia:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Osborne effect is a term referring to the unintended consequences of a company pre-announcement made either unaware of the risks involved or when the timing is misjudged, which ends up having a negative impact on the sales of the current product. This is often the case when a product is announced too long before its actual availability. This has the immediate effect of customers canceling or deferring orders for the current product, knowing that it will soon be obsolete, and any unexpected delays often means the new product comes to be perceived as vaporware, damaging the company’s credibility and profitability.

The term was coined after the Osborne Computer Corporation, in which the company took more than a year to make its next product available and eventually ran out of cash and went bankrupt in 1985.

LOL.
The BOLT? is nowhere near the league of a Model 3.

Now, the Bolt is going to trounce the Leaf, but it will take ZERO sales away from the Model 3.
-A real suspension, better brakes, better AI, better cruise control, 5 real passengers ( vs. 4 ), better ride, better aerodynamics, better high speed highway driving.

The Bolt is Vastly outclassed by the Model 3.

The Bolt will “steal” sales from the Model ≡ in at least three cases:

1. Where someone isn’t willing to wait for a Model ≡, but can buy a Bolt sooner

2. Where someone wants better cargo access, using the Bolt’s rear hatch rather than the Model ≡’s rather small trunk opening

3. Where someone wants a car built by well-established auto maker GM rather than a newish brand like Tesla

Now, that’s not at all to say the Bolt will outsell the Model ≡. Tesla is planning to ramp up production of the M≡ as soon as it can, while GM very clearly doesn’t plan to produce a lot of Bolts, and due to limited battery supply couldn’t even if they wanted to.

4. Where someone doesn’t want dealership service/support that is 200 miles away.

and where on a long trip will the Bolt recharge???

While 3rd is OK. It’s matter of perception. Right now it’s GM who have zero experience in building longer range EVs 😉

Nor will GM be market leader when both cars will debute. GM simply lack production capacity.

Model 3 will loose sales, but it’s jet to be seen weather upstart GM can even approach same production levels 😉

Panasonic is like twice bigger then LG. It will show.

Regarding a preference for GM cars over Tesla cars, przemo_li said:

“It’s a matter of perception.”

Oh, sure. And the same for a preference for Tesla cars over GM cars.

There are plenty of people posting to InsideEVs who swear they’ll never buy another GM car. But name any auto maker, and you can say the same. Even Tesla; the company has an astonishingly high 98% customer satisfaction rating, but that means 2% of Tesla car owners aren’t happy with their car.

Diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks, and one size does not fit all. If it did, there would only be one auto maker and only one model of car.

Can you please stop with the “Model ≡” business?!?

You write with concern about people misusing the Osborn effect, but you keep misusing this character which ISN’T a Model 3 logo. It’s just a sign vaguely resembling the logo. Even Tesla themselves, at their own website, NEVER use this sign and consistently describe the car as “Model 3” in textual representation. They do of course use the logo in GRAPHICS, just like they use the stylized Tesla logo rather than the text “Tesla”…

Terawatt:

Tell you what, I’ll step back and let you argue with the InsideEVs writer who used some sort of Unicode symbol which is even closer to the actual Model ≡ logo than the one I’m using; used that symbol in the actual title of an InsideEVs article.

Better yet, why don’t you find that article and figure out how I can use that symbol? ‘Cuz I tried to use the suggested “Alt code” for typing that, but for some reason it doesn’t work on my computer.

If you can find a way for me to use that, then I’ll be happy to quit using “≡” when spelling out “Model ≡”, and thank you for it!

😉

Now, to quote W.C. Fields: “Go away kid, ya bother me.”

It’s better than people using “M3” which I always think of as BMW M3 instead of Tesla Model 3.

if often writhe M3 and for a simple reason were speaking about Tesla here not BMW

5. Where someone doesn’t want to wait 4 ~ 6 months for Tesla body repair parts.

Give us a name of someone who that happen…

I’d take the Bolt’s brakes. The Bolt and the Model 3 both seat five people, and the Bolt has more room. The Model 3 will win on aerodynamics and probably high speed driving and AI. The other areas are still not known.

The Bolt is smaller than the Leaf. How did you decide that it’s bigger than the Model 3? As far as i can tell, neither car is out yet. But the specs listed for the Bolt show it smaller than a Leaf.

Bolt has more interior passenger volume than both the LEAF and Model S.

Unless Model 3 will have larger interior passenger volume, Bolt will be larger in interior passenger volume than LEAF, Model S and Model 3.

In fact, even Model X is only listed at 94 cu ft of interior passenger volume (5 seat version) which is smaller than Bolt’s 94.4 cu ft of interior passenger volume.

Your numbers for Model S Interior Passenger Volume are incorrect.

Tesla Communications shows 95.1 cubic feet of interior passenger volume, plus 58.1 cu ft of rear load-bay volume. Since the Model S can be optioned to seat SEVEN, you add the rear cargo area to the passenger volume, which is 153.2 cu feet to accommodate significantly more passengers than the Bolt.

And you STILL have a frunk that is about 5 CU of additional cargo volume. Model S beats the Tiny Bolt at passenger and cargo space.

I haven’t seen a direct comparison of actual measurements of head room, leg room, hip room, and shoulder room of the Model ≡ vs the Bolt, but just looking at the cars, it seems pretty clear the Bolt devoted more of its volume to passenger space. Of course, Tesla fans would point out the longer nose of the M≡ gives it a better crumple zone, so it should be safer, but that doesn’t alter the near-certainty that the Bolt will feel more roomy inside. The Bolt’s higher head room in back does come at the expense of worse streamlining, making the M≡ more efficient at using the battery pack’s energy.

Whether you prefer the Model ≡ or the Bolt, either way it’s a tradeoff.

I think just heard BMW i3 will be phase out and trouble for Bolt.

I think this is preping people for a Model E that is a lot simpler and has much less functionality than the new S60.
Guessing the the E when fully optioned will come in very close to this price ~$5-10k less.

The Tesla “Model E” has been renamed the Model 3, or “Model ≡”.

We all know that, but its also still the E.

It’s whitestar, by that token. But if we stuck to the official names – such as Model 3, and never ever “Model ≡” – everything would stand a better chance of making sense.

With the ability to unlock to a 75 later the new 60 looks like a really good move for them.

Yep…”The electric car will have a 75 kWh battery pack, so customers who want more range can pay for a software update that will unlock more power. The price of the update is yet to be disclosed.” The Street.

$8,500 at delivery and $9,000 to enable after delivery. That works out to $567 per kWh at delivery ($8,500/15kWh).

Sure. Thanks. I was just quoting “The Street.” That seems sort of spendy too me.

I’d like to know how smart their software is.

When the battery is not unlocked, does the SOC vary from 0% to, say, 60%, or are they smart and move the window to something more like 20%-80% like Chevy does with the Volt?

Heisenberghtbacktotheroots

I don’t think that it’s stupid.

Heisenberghtbacktotheroots

Oops I better put it the other way around to not be misunderstood…

I bet it is smart.

the problem is if you don’t upgrade, which is expensive for only 15 kWh more, you carry more weight with less power so I don’t believe when they say it’s the same 0-60 for either the 60 or 75

Or keep it at 60 and likely never loose any range over its lifetime?

A good deal for Tesla; a rip off for the customer. You’ve already paid for the full battery but have to give Tesla more money to use it.

Imagine if you bought a car where the maximum speed was limited to 55 mph. But for an additional $8500, the manufacturer will update the software so you can drive 70. Does that sound like a good value?

Eh? The are lots of cars like that, people have been chipping golf’s since the 1990’s. The are companies like amg who alter software (and hardware) to make a stock car go faster

you havent paid for it at 66k. thats why they charge you to unlock the rest, thats when you pay for it. You do pay for the extra weight but that should pan out easily with the faster charging ability and longer lasting battery.

DHouk said:

“You’ve already paid for the full battery but have to give Tesla more money to use it.”

Nope. If you paid for the full battery, then you’d get an S75.

“Imagine if you bought a car where the maximum speed was limited to 55 mph. But for an additional $8500, the manufacturer will update the software so you can drive 70. Does that sound like a good value?”

I “imagine” that’s not a valid analogy. A car with a top speed of only 55 MPH is too limited to be called a true highway-capable vehicle. The Model S60 has much better capability than that.

A better analogy would be the difference between a 4-cylinder engine and a 6-cylinder in the same gasmobile model. The 4-cylinder gives adequate performance; the 6-cylinder gives better acceleration.

I don’t think several people who replied to your comment understand what you mean. I think they may have their Tesla goggles on and forgot about economics Unless Tesla is willing to sell that car with a 75 kilowatt hour battery pack installed at a loss then yes you have paid enough to pay for that 75 kilowatt hour pack already. I understand perfectly and I think you are correct. The cost of the 75 kilowatt pack has to be included in the base price of the vehicle at a profit so to pay additional money to be able to use it does not seem right to me

Great, then don’t buy one. I understood what he meant, I just disagree. I find it perfectly acceptable for Tesla to sell me a 60 that is then later upgradable to a 75 at a reasonable cost. I can either pay it or not, my choice.

Daniel said:

“The cost of the 75 kilowatt pack has to be included in the base price of the vehicle at a profit so to pay additional money to be able to use it does not seem right to me”

Tesla has every right to market whatever they please (within certain regulatory and/or safety constraints). And you have every right to buy it, or not, as you please.

What you don’t have a right to do, is to state or suggest that it’s somehow wrong for Tesla to equip their cars, and price their cars, however they want… to suggest Tesla doesn’t have the right to do that.

I understand they can market as they like, and I can purchase as I like. I think you missed the caveat in my statement where I said “It does not seem right to me” I never suggested they are running afoul or in some way being deceptive or it is “wrong” for them to do this. Just that I find it a bit “off color” which is an opinion I’m entitled to. No need to bash or flame, ( I also posted the following over on the Volt forums ) “While not new in the computer industry, it is relatively new in the automotive sector (to market pre-installed capability as upgradable for $$$ ). The latest advances in cars (BEV’s) are blurring the line between a Desktop computer and the new (On Highway) computer. From my view it seems if the capability is already in the car, then I must have paid for the hardware in the purchase price and therefore should have access to it, (unless they are selling it at a loss) and gambling there will be enough takers to reach at least break even. The automotive buying public at large might not take kindly to purchasing “hobbled”… Read more »

Daniel said:

“From my view it seems if the capability is already in the car, then I must have paid for the hardware in the purchase price and therefore should have access to it…”

Thanks for clarifying your point. Sure, that’s a reasonable viewpoint.

But I still think Tesla should do whatever it thinks is best to make compelling cars, and make a profit.

But you pay a lot less, at least in USA, for the 60 than you used with the 70’s

Tightening the gap in price between better equipped Model 3’s, and base Model S is a good thing!

More cohesive and less room for the competition which does not yet exist.

Yeah. Enticing those who don’t want to wait for the Model ≡ to upgrade to a lower-priced Model S, and expanding the price range, to making the Model S more competitive against other brands of BEVs.

Brilliant business move, Tesla! If this plan came from Tesla’s new CFO, then he deserves a raise.

I don’t know if he is working on a plan for Europe too because in Brussels the Model S 60 is at 88140 $ instead of 66000 $, that is 34 % more. VAT differences can explain part of it but nevertheless that’s still huge. If the Model 3 comes in with a similar ratio it will not be at 35000 $ but at 46900 $. That is a real problem for faster electrification because it is simply to high for a base model with no option even it is already a fantastic car. Something has to be done to reduce that price difference. Local production, TTIP agreement, whatever but it can’t go on that a same car is so differently priced on each side of the pound when shipping cost is less than 500 $.

CEOs Atlantic market deals have zero chance of success.

Old formula where negotiations are kept secret and then the deal is fast forwarded through legislation are not acceptable to public in EU.

On top of that there quite some differences in how things are done across Atlantic.

Last but not least, those deals are written by mega corps. As such they are uglier and stri tier then any of the systems, ’cause corps want to force their goals, regardless of current status.

Let’s not bet future of our planet on that. Ok?

Also VAT in EU is 22%. So the rest is destination and tariffs and exchange rate.

Nothing new actually. Haven’t killed Ford won’t kill Tesla.

Actually Tesla is already beating Mercedes-Benzs in luxury segment.

Priusmaniac said:

“I don’t know if he is working on a plan for Europe too because in Brussels the Model S 60 is at 88140 $ instead of 66000 $, that is 34 % more. VAT differences can explain part of it but nevertheless that’s still huge.”

InsideEVs’ Jay Cole has written at length about how Tesla — unlike other auto makers — prices its cars differently in different countries based on the currency exchange rate. According to Jay, other auto makers simply average out their profit margin across all countries. (Unfortunately, Jay has written about this only in comments… I wish he’d write an op-ed article about it!)

On the other hand, this may mean certain cars simply aren’t offered in certain countries, because of the balance of trade issue. For example, the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV which has been noticeably absent from the U.S./Canadian market, and I’m guessing the main reason for that is the currently* unfavorable currency exchange rate between the U.S. and Japan.

Not saying it’s either good or bad that Tesla refuses to ignore the currency exchange rate issue. I’m just saying, that would appear to be the difference you’re talking about.

*pun seemingly unavoidable

More importantly in Germany where the incentive system was specifically designed to exclude tesla by having a 60,000 euro before tax limit, this new price now conveniently comes in a few grand below that. Teslamotors.de model s base price is 66,000 usd and the usd value of 60,000 euro is above that.

Well done tesla.

Nope… The base Model S60 in Germany starts at €76.600 now. So it’s still not below the limit and Tesla won’t be until the Model 3 arrives.

Based on Dutch pricing, this is the real situation:

The NL price in dollars is 88,000 including 21% VAT. US prices are always excluding VAT.

Subtract the 21% VAT and you get ~73,000. That is only 10.6% more than 66,000.

“VAT differences can explain part of it but nevertheless that’s still huge”

Wrong, VAT explains almost ALL of it, and the remaining difference is understandable. Included in EU prices is the cost of shipping the car across the US and Atlantic and post-production in the Tilburg plant to bring it to EU specs. $7000 for this seems like a reasonable amount.

So stop complaining and start working on your math and geography skills. 😉

I checked on New-York, they have a 7% VAT. So the final price there would not be 66000 $ but 70620 $.

Compared to 88000 $, that’s still a huge difference no matter what.

Clever, too, because I’m guessing that paying to unlock the remaining 15kWh would not be subject to VAT – would that be the case?

Price in Europe should be less than in US since the euro is worth more than is american counterpart. Here in Canada we get slammed with the exchange rate and I guessed the Model3 will be at about 46K as a starting point before any taxes to apply 🙁

Brilliant! This also tells me that battery prices must be really down now if they can implement additional 15 kWh in case someone wants an upgrade.

Plus when these new S60’s eventually get traded back in to Tesla, they can just “flip the switch” and offer a 75 kWh version for more money. Pretty smart.

Right. With Tesla’s CPO program, they can update older cars to have all the options the newest ones have. Or not, as Tesla chooses.

Less then 3 000$. Cost of those kWh’s for Tesla. (And then some for putting that in the car, but here, it may be cheaper then all the changes Tesla would need for real 60kWh).

They’ve done this to relieve pressure on Model 3 production. Those who would go for a high end M3 might be tempted to now go for a lower end model S

+1

exactly my case…

Since the Model 3 will be a year or two behind the Bolt, perhaps this is an attempt to skim off some Bolt customers.

+1

And a few Leaf 2.0 ?

What Leaf 2?

It’s been crickets all the way down.

(yes I meant to mix my metafores)

He might mean the Leaf 1.5 that is currently for sale (longer range, but still not 200 miles like the Bolt).

Or he might mean the true Leaf 2.0 that is rumored to have a 200 mile range that is supposed to come in the future?

It would be naive to think that Nissan is not working their butts off to complete the Leaf 2.0 by the time the Bolt arrives to market. The IDS concept was a huge wink wink that Leaf 2.0 will have a 60 kWh battery. Currently the only 200+ mile range EVs on the market are the Model S and the Model X. If Nissan announced the Leaf 2.0 all sales of the Leaf 1.5 would be gone instantly.

Yes, a correct use case for “Osborne Effect”.

Nissan must remain mum until;

1) worldwide LEAF 1.5 cars have been mostly depleted from inventory

2) they are ready to release cars.

Neither GM nor Tesla have this problem (no, the Spark EV sold in 3 states hardly counts).

Certainly part of their calculations. +1

The only thing the Bolt has that’s like the Model 3 is the range, and NOTHING ELSE.

One’s designed as an expensive econo box, the other is the Model 3.

I would argue the Model 3 looks an awful like the Mazda 3 which starts at ~$18k. The Bolt is closer to a Trax/Encore in size even though the Bolt’s wheelbase is a few inches longer.

And a car you actually purchase this year 😉

Do we know for certain that the original 60kWh battery wasn’t bigger and some of the capacity had been locked ?

I’m willing to say that no, the old 60 does not have extra capacity.

The easy way to check is to look at the weight. If it is lighter its got less batteries in it.

Pretty sure the old S60 had fewer battery cells. The curb weight was about 200 lbs lighter.

OTOH the few S40s which were actually sold (pre-orders for which the buyer resisted all enticements to upgrade) were actually S60s with the battery pack electronically limited to 40 kWh usable capacity.

That’s is exactly why I asked the question, I thought in the back of my mind that’s what happened to those 40kWh packs.

I called last week about unlocking a 40 KWh Model S and they told me it was $11,000! Maybe the price will come down now to be even with the 75KWh?

Someone can get the new S60 unlocked to an S75 for $9000 after delivery; that’s $600/kWh.

You say you can get your S40 unlocked to an S60 for $11,000 now; that’s $550/kWh.

Seems to me you should be thanking Tesla for offering you a bargain, not complaining about the price!

The old 60 and the 70 and 75 have fewer cells than the 85 and 90. However, I think the 60/70/75 all have the same number of cells as each other.

Tesla 85kWh – 90kWh battery specs 3100mah to 3400mah Panasonic 18650 cells 7104 total cells = 74 * (6 * 16), or 74 * 96 cells in series 16 battery modules are connected in series. There are 6 sections in one module also in series, and each section of 74 cells is connected in parallel. 74 cells in parallel at 4.2 volts each in parallel * 6 * 16 = 403.2 volts pack voltage (max charge / regen) 74 cells in parallel at 4.15 volts each in parallel * 6 * 16 = 398 volts pack voltage (max resting) 74 cells in parallel at 4.1 volts each in parallel * 6 * 16 = 393.6 volts pack voltage (normal charge) ****** 70kWh pack – 6216 total cells = 74 * (6 * 14), or 84 cells in series 14 battery modules are connected in series. There are 6 sections in one module also in series, and each section of 74 cells is connected in parallel. 74 cells in parallel at 4.2 volts each in parallel * 6 * 14 = 352.8 volts pack voltage (max charge / regen) 74 cells in parallel at 4.15 volts each in parallel * 6… Read more »

The Osborne effect at work.

If you promise a $35k EV at over 200 miles for next CY with all sorts of gadgets like a HUD and hint at autonomous driving etc. (likely over-promise, but first timers don’t realize) you get lower Model S sales.

Now Tesla tries to save what it can (the Model3 unveil can’t be undone) with this 60 version.

Or increase production on the current factory assembly line. That’s genius. Especially as it moves more sales up to the current year, and makes it harder on the competition.

Meaning, they also will have to move up plans, to successfully compete.

I’m looking at You BMW with the 330e with just 18 miles of EPA range.

tftf showed his Tesla short-selling desperation:

“If you promise a $35k EV at over 200 miles for next CY with aöll sorts of gadgets… you get lower Model S sales…”

LOL!
😀 😀 D:

tftf, your FUD is very dependable; as usual it’s 100% wrong!

The publicity over the Model ≡ Reveal resulted in an upward spike in Model S orders.

This doesn’t make sense. When they cancelled the 40KWH version of the Model-S, they did the same thing. But that was only because people had already ordered it. I do not see the advantage of putting a 75Kwh pack in the car and selling it cheaper as a 60Kwh. How does that reduce the manufacturing cost of the car? It doesn’t.

Fewer versions of the HV battery pack must surely decrease production costs at least a little.

I’m sure they ran the numbers and figured the # of people deciding to pay a premium and “upgrade” to 75 kWh would offset the initial costs of putting a larger battery in the cars. And think of the CPO side….Tesla will be able to flip a switch on traded in S60s and then sell them as 75s for more money.

At the worst, this seems to be a revenue neutral move.

It doesn’t reduce costs as most of those are already sunk, reducing profit a little in order to stop someone buying a spec’d Bolt instead could be a smart move though ?

NOONE is going to buy a Bolt over a Model 3.
Respectfully, but are you blind?

Not everyone wants to wait 2 more years for a car !

It’s not only about wait less.

It’s also about charging (having a long distance car) it’s about looks , performance, and last but not least distrust of GM who for one are acting like bullies not competitors but bullies against tesla and the “ignition switch” thing (disregard for human lives) which too me it’s like a big moral drawback. Let alone the bankruptcy/taxpayer bailout point (I don’t care that much about this one, but for some it is important).

probably but not at the point of buying a Bolt…

You can lease a Bolt for 2-3 years while you wait for your Model 3. By that time the $7500 tax rebate will be long gone.

What Tom said. If you don’t already have a Model 3 reservation, you might as well get a 2 or 3 year lease on a Bolt while you wait your turn.

I hate the form factor of sedans and big SUV’s. I would buy a moldel 3 station wagon in a hard beat. Unless that happens, it will be a Bolt.

What?

It’s luxury segment, and Tesla have 25-30% markup on Tesla S.

That means almost 18 000$ profit on single S 60.

They can spare those 3 000$ for the battery if they will get some of it in battery upgrades (and why not, if You buy such a car You can spare those few more thousands year letter for the upgrade!).

And if that makes life of Bolt harder… 😉

I think that is a bad assumption, they don’t make 25-30% on the lowest spec models. That number is an average, they make much more of their margins on the highly optioned cars.

I would expect much lower margins on this new model. I expect Tesla partially did this in order to meet their production guidance for the year. They are quite behind the pace they will need to hit even the lower end of their guidance.

Paul, you are correct, and yet you still missed the point.

The point is that whether it is $18K per car or not, it is certainly above $3K, so Tesla won’t be losing money. They will just be selling at a tighter margin, much like they have already announced they are planning to sell the Model 3 at a tighter margin.

This is business as usual in the automotive industry. Small inexpensive cars are sold at very low margins in order to get customers into seats of a brand’s cars. From there, car makers hope to gain brand loyalty so that you move up and buy their more expensive car the next time you buy.

In the car world, it costs more in advertising and sales discounts to get conquest sales than it costs to retain customers who already have strong brand loyalty.

It completely makes sense to sell lower priced cars at a thinner margin, especially when some percent of 60 owners will still bring in future revenue unlocking the battery to the full 75.

Thanks, Nix. I wish there were more people posting here who were as knowledgeable as you, and took the time to write detailed posts as you often do.

I didn’t miss the point, I was trying to correct misleading information in my first point. I never said it didn’t make business sense.

My second point was just that Tesla is behind on it’s deliveries for the year, we are nearly half way through the year and they are quite short of the 35,000 vehicles they would have needed to sell to reach the lower end of their 70-80k guidance for the year.

We only have Q1 data. That is not 50% of a year. That’s 25%. Everything else is estimation.

Nor Tesla “need” 35k sales in H1. 30/45 will do just fine, and is how historically Tesla grew capacity. Throughout while year. Not just In January 1st, and then constant sales all 12 months…

I understand we are working from estimates for the first five months. They may be able to increase production enough to make enough vehicles, but this latest move could, and I stress could, indicate softening demand.

If softening demand is the reason for this move I actually think it’s a good play on their part. Depending on how impact pricing is affecting their demand this could make a big impact.

What impact rather than how impact.

It doesn’t . therefore the price must be ridiculously inflated to begin with.

I think Tesla’s prices now are kind of over bloated to begin with. Such as every time they up the range of the car by 5 or 15 kilowatts they jack the price up $5000 or $10,000.

This new cheaper Tesla Model S is the first time I have seen Tesla try to go in the other direction back down towards affordability. This car is also going to get a lot more profitable when the Giga factory gets started.

Ocean Railroader said:

“…as every time they up the range of the car by 5 or 15 kilowatts they jack the price up $5000 or $10,000.”

You’re ignoring the fact that every time Tesla “jacks up” the price on the Model S, as you term it, they also add a bunch of new features as standard equipment, some of which you previously had to pay for as options.

You’re also ignoring the fact that Tesla keeps adding features to their lower trim level cars without increasing the price at all.

Ocean Railroader is on the spot when he said Tesla hikes the price. They jack the price to often. Over 30% price difference between Canada and the US is ridiculous. You don’t see that with the Big 3…

First, since yesterday’s base 75 rear-drive car was $71k, Tesla is only losing $5k not 8.5k for those not upgrading from 66k. As has happened in the past, such as with 90D starting price up to 88k, Tesla effectively raised the price for getting up to everything else at the same time they lowered the “bare bones” entry point. There’s so much demand elasticity for Teslas, at lower prices. I think Bill Howland summed it up, below. They may not get enough takers for the range option (though I suspect some in cold climes could go the 9k, afterward.) So, it is possible the move comes at a cost, but then there’s: -the micro-economics of higher sales volumes, at lower margins -Ordinary (high) profit on options -As mentioned, they’ll be earning $3,500 more, per 75kwh car, than they were yesterday. So, higher margin there too. Tesla is probably under more stock market pressure to deliver units, since they just sold any hope of profits down a fast moving river (expensing some Model 3 tooling earlier, yada, yada). Personally, I think model X volumes might disappoint. Model 3 development acceleration and Model S price drop jive with this theory. The Model… Read more »

I agree that this is an indication that Model X orders are going to disappoint. It appears to me the design/manufacturing issues, reliability issues, and concern about the falcon wing doors are causing some who are on the Model X waiting list to delay their orders till at least the issues are worked out and maybe till the door is redesigned and the second row seats fold down (it is hard to believe that the S has a larger uninterrupted cargo area than the the SUV version of the car!)

Then an article comes along saying that Model X is going to be sold in China earlier than previously proposed. This is further corroboration of likely Model X sales problems.

Elon has clearly stated that the monies received from the sales of X and S make the Model 3 possible. If Model X is hurting, where else can he make up the lost funds? Making the S less expensive to dip into Model 3 orders, and broadening Model X distribution more quickly are the most obvious ways of achieving that.

I agree about the cargo area. My son has a Model X and I asked him to fold the middle row of seats down and I couldn’t believe he couldn’t do it. My 2000 expedition seats folded down. My Focus electric seats fold. They need to make a disappearing rear seats also.

I agree with Bob but if E.Musk keep on his promise to sell the MX at only 5K more than the MS model X would sell better.

Can someone explain what business benefit there is to equipping a Model S with a 75kWh pack but software limiting it to 60kWh and losing $8500 in potential profit? Does this indicate that they feel the high end market is now saturated, and so they are trying to convince the Model 3 folks to pull the trigger?

I think they realized there are a lot of 3 reservation holders that would be enticed to pick up a new S60 now…and potentially still buy a 3 anyways.

This will also surely boost sales in the interim until the Model 3 is released.

More butts in seats.

I imagine that is exactly what they are thinking !

Learn meaning of the word profit, and everything will be ok.

Then You would be that from those 9k $ Tesla’s profit is just 3k $.
Yes they can limit themselves to just 18k $ of profit as opposed to 21k $.
Since its luxury market most of “missed” revenue will end up on Tesla account anyway.

Revenue -> Total cash influx.
Profit -> Revenue minus costs and taxes.

Tesla still makes profit on these, just less profit.

They’re effectively betting that they will gain more sales with a lower cost offering than they will lose with people moving from the high cost offering to the lower cost offering.

A couple examples:
1) If everyone who buys a 60 was going to buy an 80, they’ve lost a lot of profit.

2) If everyone who buys a 60 was never going to buy an 80, they gain a lot of profit.

3) Somewhere in the middle is the break-even point depending on their actual profit structure.

I think Tesla using electronic oppression is them being jerks. In that they should leave the cheap model S a 75 kilowatt considering they are dumping the same battery into it.

Tesla could always come out with a 110 kilowatt battery for the high end cars.

its a for profit company

Ocean Railroader said:

“I think Tesla using electronic oppression is them being jerks.”

Wow, so you think Tesla offering a lower-priced entry model for the Model S makes them “jerks”? So if they hadn’t offered customers more choices, then in your view they wouldn’t be jerks?

As they say: “Opinions are like a**holes; everyone has one.”

Isn’t that what these comment sections are for? 🙂

Tesla will have to understand that if you want to compete with cars like BMW 7 series or MB S class leather seats has to be standard not a 3K extra

Selling a few more Model S’s this year might just help them make the sales for this year look a little sweeter so the stock should do well !

Is like to know how the pack is managed as the battery ages. Will tesla let you have “210 miles range” for as long as possible?

And who’s to say that after a few years with battery prices falling that they won’t charge a lot less to unlock the other 15kWh ?

Yes. You are better off with a mock-60, that is actually 75kwh, than you are with a 60.

I don’t have backup, but believe Volt works the same way, with its conservative ~70% depth of discharge (DOD) window. I understand GM unlocks more of it, as it ages.

Even if Tesla weren’t to unlock aging batteries for a consistent 210 miles over time, buyers will be cycling their batteries less. This is because they’ll be kept from the more harmful full-charge/discharge zone.

One last benefit is these 60’s will have supercharger capacity which is faster than true 60kwh batteries, since there are more cells on board, to soak up the watts.

We don’t get too technical, anymore, but I suppose Range Charging this new “60” will also be less harmful. So, there’s a number of “benny’s” to this new Tesla option.

Yep, all of the above. If you like to keep your cars for a long time, it’s important,… and even if you don’t it should hold resale value up.

So, it’s still a “better battery” either way. But, of course, the really big bonus is the “continually opening as the battery ages” for the original 210 miles.

I could see this being the “overwhelming enticement” to get Model 3 reservation holders to pull the S trigger and buy now.

I asked this above, but this depends somewhat on how Tesla implements the software limitation.

If a 60kWh implementation has buffers on the low end and the high end, then sure, it saves a ton. But if they do something simplistic like an empty 60kWh battery is still 0% SOC, then it may not help with battery life as much. At least the high charging extreme is still avoided though.

The BMS will always protect the low end.

All the advantages are on the high end. As the Tesla battery guru has stated, you don’t want the batteries at the upper voltage end (when it’s nearly topped off) for any length of time,… and you really don’t want it topped off and hot.

… add,

I don’t expect Tesla to continually allow the 210 mi range.

I expect the programming will monitor the overall health of the 75 kwh pack and adjust your 65 kwhs accordingly. … i.e. after a couple of years if the whole (75 kwh) pack has lost 5% of its capacity, then you are going to lose 5% of your 210 mile range.

I hope I’m wrong, but I’d say that’s the most likely scenario as it would protect Tesla’s ability to sell the “unleashed pack” to you (or a resale buyer) at a later date.

ClarksonCote said:

“…if they do something simplistic like an empty 60kWh battery is still 0% SOC, then it may not help with battery life as much.”

Tesla would never allow the battery to actually reach 0% state of charge in normal use, even if the car’s display reads 0%. Nor would any other plug-in EV maker. Tesla doesn’t even allow the car to charge the pack more than 95% of full capacity. This prevents the sort of premature aging that you get if you actually charge li-ion cells to 100% of rated voltage and discharge them completely to 0%, when cycling.

Tesla also reserves a few percent on the bottom, but I’m not sure how much.

Some people want to argue with me when I say this, and insist that when the car’s display says 0% or 100%, that’s actually either 0% or 100% of the pack’s entire capacity. It’s not; it’s just the percentage of the usable capacity.

Unfortunately, I can’t answer your question about how much of the full capacity Tesla will unlock over time, with an S60 that actually has an electronically limited 75 kWh pack.

My question isn’t to suggest they’d actually let it get to 0%. Let’s say Tesla has their SOC read “0%” at 10% actual SOC. My question is, with the 60kWh software, would they bump that lower limit up to something like 20% actual SOC instead?

Batteries don’t like to be fully charged OR fully discharged, so this subtle feature would further protect their 60kWh Model S batteries.

That’s what I was thinking, that the maximal discharge/charge window Tesla allows is something like 5% – 95%. 95-5= 90% DOD?

The B-class Mercedes had a range button, which did similar with Tesla’s supplied ~36kwh battery. Also like Tesla, the car was meant not to be charged to the maximum allowable, all the time.

Anyone wishing to avail themselves, can see Pushmi’s point in battery cycle-life as a function of repeated DOD’s. At full 100, to 0, cycle-life is low, but it goes up a lot the more you stay away from full charge/discharge. This is the best representation I could find, and its y-axis is logarithmic. Looks like repeated 50%, in this case doubles life versus 90% (like Range Charge).

http://www.mpoweruk.com/images/dod.gif

I’m in favor of lower prices – so this is a good thing.

Not sure I understand about the 60/75 battery though.

Seems the best thing to do for the value conscious is to take the 60 and NOT give tesla the extra $8500 – then the battery should last much longer since it won’t be pushed nearly as hard as it would if it were a ’75’.

So I guess its a bit of a marketing gamble for tesla – they obviously want everyone to take the $8500 option since the markup on it is infinite. In fact, there obviously is a ‘cost’ to hobbling the ’60’ so in that sense, the ’60’ is more expensive than the ’75’.

The telephone company I worked for did these kinds of things all the time with features – cost more to implement, but they were profitable as long as you had a high percentage of ‘Takers’.

Sometimes they won, and alot of times, they lost.

Bill Howland said:

“In fact, there obviously is a ‘cost’ to hobbling the ’60’ so in that sense, the ’60’ is more expensive than the ’75’.”

But the extra capacity can be locked or unlocked by using a software “switch”. So the only cost is the cost of developing the software, which is spread out over all units sold. There’s no cost for hardware or materials at all, and I presume very little labor cost for handling the locking and unlocking.

@Pushmi…there is a cost more than just software. Putting more batteries that may never be buy by the 60’s owner…

This is a great option for the Model 3 deposit holders worried that the $7500 Federal Tax Incentive will expire before they take delivery of their 3. They can now buy a lower priced Model S and receive the tax incentive. Smart move by Tesla.

Exactly, and there’s more chance of getting that $7.5k FTC if you go for a higher spec M3 which then takes you into base Model S territory so now is the time to beat the gold rush !

Bolt sales will explode I think, 100.000 are possible in first year if GM can produce enough.
Today everybody wants range MUST buy a Tesla. You see it 50 % of Tesla drivers drive a Leaf, Volt or Renault Zoe before they bought a Model S. And just before they drove an economy car like a Prius, so if there comes alternatives S and X sales will go to a lower level.

Bolt sales are not going to explode. GM doesn’t want them to explode. GM is perfectly happy selling 2500 a month or so. As nice as the Bolt is it is way over priced ….almost 40K for a compact? Not that many people are going to bite on that…….but like I said that’s OK because GM doesn’t WANT to sell that many.

GM wants to sell gas cars. That’s where they make their money. They are in business to make a profit and profits are maximized by selling high margin gas vehicles. Not low margin electric ones.

George is absolutely correct. It’s funny when some folks assume car companies want to build electrified cars. They are forced into it by federal and international mandates. ( C.A.F.E. and C.A.R.B. ). Suzuki and Mitsubishi are the most current car companies outed for faking MPG numbers. The larger car companies’ scams ( VW, Ford ) seem much more choreographed – as in literal engineering done to fool regulators. This indicates the levels of duress these firms feel with pressure to meet the mandates by the current dates extant. This is why I remind often that Tesla alone is driving an electrified personal transportation revolution, and nobody else. Those with their heads in the clouds and no understanding about how legacy auto companies make big profits call me a “Tesla fanboy”, assuming their favorite carmaker is innovating and searching for new markets. They don’t understand that there are no profits in EVs and PHEVs comparable to the large margins of conventional gas cars. Not to mention the parts and service industries that support them. Laws allowing car companies to police themselves and provide their own data to regulators is a joke – a kind of backdoor gift to them provided by… Read more »

You guys are crazy sometimes with the anti-GM sentiment.

Myth: GM is making the Bolt for CARB and CAFE.

Fact: GM has more than enough CARB credits with the Spark EV sales through 2015, to last them well past 2020.

Myth: The Bolt is too small for a $30k price.

Fact: Many estimates put the Bolt at having more room than the Model 3, and the Model 3 will have a higher average selling price.

@Clarkson C. you may be right but over 373K reservation is a sign of something. I’d like to know the numbers of reservation Bolt will get when they opened up the lines…

If you look into Opel and Fiat, you will find, that they are/were doing exactly, what VW has been doing with emissions.

@James: Thank you for your masterful summary of the harsh reality of the situation. It gets a bit tiresome being treated as some sort of wild-eyed fanatic because I’m a fan of Tesla Motors. I’m a fan because Tesla, unlike virtually all other auto makers (BYD excepted), is actually trying to push forward the EV revolution. Legacy auto makers simply aren’t. Not even GM, despite its development of the superior Voltec technology. And not Nissan, which deserves kudos for marketing the first truly mass produced BEV, yet they have sat on their hands since then and haven’t significantly improved the Leaf’s EV tech. Am I a Tesla “fanboy”, or “fanboi” if you prefer? Yeah, I am. I am because Tesla is doing what other auto makers aren’t. I’m a fan of Tesla because they have earned my respect and admiration. If one or more of those other auto makers start pushing the EV revolution forward in a consistent way, then I’ll be a fan of them too. * * * * * “Until we see Audi, Mercedes, VW, Toyota, GM, Ford deliver a BEV that similarly dusts their own top-of-line ICE product in performance AND value for money, there will… Read more »

Very succinct quote, thanks.

Georges said “GM wants to sell gas cars”

Correction: “GM wants to sell gas trucks and SUV’s”

Straight out of the “Risk Factors” section of GM’s SEC filings:

“Our profitability is dependent upon the success of full-size pick-up trucks and SUVs”

I don’t believe it’s a matter of “want” but of “need”.

GM needs to sell gas trucks and SUVs to remain profitable, all of the complaining and foot stomping in the world won’t change that in the short term.

Does that mean I think they shouldn’t be moving more aggressively, no. But this idea that GM is in the position to abandon the market segments that allow them to be profitable is unrealistic.

When California decide to impose a heavy tax on trucks we’ll see if other states will follow. I have nothing against trucks but only if you really need one for work. Ford and Ram make me laugh when they speak about how good their trucks are about fuel economy…

GM don’t want to sell plenty of Bolt so forget about GM building series of superchargers of their own…

Peter said:

“Bolt sales will explode I think, 100.000 are possible in first year if GM can produce enough.”

In the first place, GM doesn’t want to sell that many. GM signaled pretty strongly that this is to be a limited production car, by outsourcing the entire EV powertrain to LG Chem & LG Electronics. That’s what Toyota did with the RAV4 EV, outsourcing the EV powertrain to Tesla, to limit development costs on a limited production “test market” (or “California compliance”) EV. If GM decided in the future to make the Bolt a high-volume car, then they’ll bring a lot of the powertrain production in-house.

In the second place: Even if GM wanted to ramp up production, they couldn’t past what one GM spokesman estimated at 50k units. To buy batteries in bulk from LG, you have to contract two years in advance. So there simply wouldn’t be enough batteries available to supply 100k units in the first year of production, even if GM could get all of the other suppliers to ramp up that fast.

Yes, I also think the Bolt will sell really well. First of all, I doubt Tesla will be able to pull off their 500k cars by 2018 plan, so it will take a long time to deliver the cars already pre-ordered.
Second, Tesla is having quality issues right now which might bite them hard further on. If they really did manage to push the model 3 these issues will be even worse rendering many unhappy Tesla customers although it’s likely that many will cancel their preorders once the first model 3’s are out and reviewed.
Third, I think the Bolt will sell especially well in Europe. It looks more European than American and the CCS charging infrastructure is already well underway here.
As things stand right now, I’d rather go for the Bolt than the model 3 but of course Tesla might still surprise me.

I have to hand it to Tesla. They do manage to keep those prices up there. Did anyone notice there’s never any used 85’s on the CPO site anymore?

There used to be but one day they just went poof and disappeared. I’ll bet Tesla bot them up and took them all off the market to keep prices up.

About all you see on the CPO site are a bunch of used 60’s followed by leases on a bunch of 2016’s.

Best price on a used 60 is 51K for a 2013 with 23,000 miles.

After the tax break the new 60’s are 59 so you could save maybe 8K$ getting a used one. Meh I won’t bite on that one.

If you don’t want a CPO then you can find a used 85 for around 58. but then you don’t get the CPO warranty.

So prices are still high. Like MarkZ says: be patient and wait.

Tesla had a shortage of service loaners, and solved the problem by taking CPO cars off the market, and started using them as loaners.

Now that they are getting enough service loaners, they are starting to put those CPO cars back on the market.

No conspiracy.

@Nix
interesting, makes sense but even today no 85s on the cpo site but perhaps soon.

I bet this market strategy only lives through the end of the year – after that you’ll be able to buy TWO Bolts (with $15,000 fed tax credit) for the price of one ‘low-cost’ S.

The fact the Bolt is a bit of an Ugly Duckling compared to the “S” is not so much of a disadvantage since they are, by some people’s measurement, equivalently sized. And for the price, both give you 60 kwh batteries and more or less the same range (though I expect the BOLT to go actually a bit further in a head-to-head test)

What are you saying Bill?: GM is going to drop the price on the Bolt? $37500 is pretty high for a compact IMO.

Georges I am saying that the BOLT has the intrinsic advantage of being roughly half the price of the “60S” after $7500/ per car federal tax credit we get here in the states.

The bolt has the ‘advantage’ that TWO of them generate $15,000 free money vs ONE Tesla at $7500.

Far from being a compact, the interior space of the Bolt I am told is actually a bit larger than the “S”, and, being classified by the US as a “Mid-Sized Station Wagon” it is easier to transport large objects.

Bill, you make the common assumption ( by EV geeks ) that people buy EVs primarily for their range and utility. Sure, early adopters have and will. But Tesla appeals to people who want the best gadget, the coolest thing…And they can afford it. This is why Tesla does not have to advertise. As soon as the word got out that Teslas were quick and fast – the videos multiplied like rabbits. It’s “excitement” and exclusivity that drive Tesla sales, not electric range. To your mind – and others here today comparing Bolt EV to a Tesla…They only see through that range lense. Do you really think the common iPhone buyer will buy the cheaper Chinese flip phone because they both have the same service contract price?! They are two different and distinct buyers, Bill. Bolt EV is a Honda Fit-sized compact. It carries with it no exciting brand name, no eccentric billionaire visionary leader, it doesn’t look like a sexy Jaguar sports car stretched into a sedan, and it sure as hell doesn’t go from zero mph to sixty in five seconds now, does it? Many also think lots of people buy Teslas to be “green”. Just watch the… Read more »

Just so I know where you are coming from, how many Teslas have you purchased, and/or risked your own money on?

I’m am not an EV geek, yet early on I decided to put down a deposit on a Tesla Vehicle.

Most big Tesla experts have no experience with neither the company, nor the vehicle.

One self-appointed expert here won’t even purchase any kind of EV.

That said, I have a much greater opinion of people such as Elon Musk than the self appointed experts here. He thanked me for my Roadster purchase, making all future vehicles possible. I’ve never received any thanks from the self-appointed experts.

@James…RIGHT ON James!

Bill, very few people who actually make enough money to qualify for $15,000 in Federal income tax credits will care about the price difference between a Bolt and a Model S 60.

Except for rare cases the median taxpayer would need to be in the 90th percentile of top earned income wage earners in order to have $15,000 in owed federal income taxes in a single year.

Those folks are more likely to be deciding what option they prefer on their Model S 90, not trying to decide whether to buy a 60 vs. 2 Bolts with $15K in tax incentives.

Wrong.. They can buy one in Dec and one in Jan.

Or they can just buy 1 BOLT for half price.

66k is not good price for someone who want to buy around 35k. say you add, super charger and longer range and dual motor for 30k more. you will get similar/better performance, but a longer range than 210 miles. i don’t see how it will convince someone waiting on model 3 to jump up to model s.

Subtract the tax credit that you may or may not get by waiting and the price is much closer.

35 is base without federal . if i add longer ranger(10k), super charger(2k) and dual motor (4k) it will be 51k. i will get a better car with longer ranger. 58.5k for s60 including federal only gives you 210 miles.

got it. get the base , get the credit, then activate 75 by paying 9k usd later.

Yes, but the $66,000 entry level Model S isn’t aimed at the market segment for those who can barely afford an entry level, nominally $35,000 Model ≡. Elon estimated the average sale price of a M≡ will be $42k, and that’s a heck of a lot closer to $66k.

As others have pointed out, a fully-optioned M≡ might approach or even equal the price of an entry level Model S. That’s doubly true now, with the new lower-priced Model S60. For those customers, why should they wait? Might as well upgrade to a Model S now, and not have to wait for years to get a M≡!

Take the $1000 referral discount and it drops even more.

https://www.teslamotors.com/referral/michael5144

Why are they doing this?
A lot of people will actually buy this S60, realize that they are OK with a 60Kw battery and never upgrade. Tesla will waste a lot of batteries in those cars…

If they sell lots more of them they will make up the reduction in profit with an uptick in stock price !

Tesla’s reducing current price of the S60, knowing that some will convert to 75kWh later. Helpful for buyers uncertain on their real-world needs.

Having the 75kWh will also help resale value because the extra capacity means it Supercharges faster than a real 60kWh, and the battery won’t be worked as hard as a 60kWh battery in normal driving.

This reduces the base price quoted by the media.
It is wierd that you can no longer select the 70 models directly. I think this is confusing. You read a review and decide a 75D is right for you, go to website and 75D is not there at first look.

Wow! A base 60 plus the full federal tax incentive, would put the car near what the original 40s were priced at!

…except the original 40’s also had the full federal tax incentive, so… ???

Except this car’s toting around a 75kwh battery. A lot more potential mileage.

with 15kw overhead, you can charge an S 60 to 100% all the time without worry of battery degradation?

Yep

Since a 100% charge would really only be charging to 80% (60/75).

@ phatcat

interesting thought

@ bro hmm I wonder if it works that way but now that I think about it that makes more sense than taking 15kwh out of service since the batts would not age equally.

Yeah, Tesla can’t just shut off those extra cells in the pack, because not cycling those cells would make the pack go out of balance, and further out of balance over time. It would make it impractical to unlock the extra capacity, since an out of balance pack ages very rapidly, and also loses access to some of the capacity. So Tesla must have engineered the pack to cycle all the cells, even if they only allow you to charge it to 60 kWh (or maybe just 95% of that, which is 57 kWh.)

They will very simply just limit the maximum charge to whatever percent gives “60kWh”. That’s it.

I bet all the recent orders were for the 70 and no one was upgrading to 75. This makes the upgrade to 75 a bit more worthwhile for those who can afford it. I like how they are able to offer a lower entry point for those who don’t need so much range. Bad news for M3 reservation holders who think they might get the full tax credit. Model S orders will stay strong then spike when we near the 200k mark. Anyone who does not have a current reservation has a choice of MS with full credit or M3 with likely no credit and a 2+ year wait.

I think we’re over-estimating impact. This was a $5,000 price cut, with a loss of 15kwh. Having to pay $8,500 to get it back could have the opposite effect. A real bummer for those who were on the “75” fence, yesterday. They’re out another $3,500.

IMO, 75 is a good sweet spot even in the north. 60, while supercharge.info offers many more options for most, it still invites a chunk of hassle for some.

If this true it looks like a sneaky way to hide a price increase for the 75

ah, correction. The +$3,000 still applied and these prices were for 70kwh. So for 75kwh, 71.5 + 3 = no change in 75kwh price. It was 74.5 yesterday, and today. My bad.

Rick (no, not that Rick)

Am I understanding this right? They are offering the car with a 60kwh battery, which can be updated to 75 kwh with a software update. Doesn’t that mean the car has a 75 kwh battery in it that’s throttled back to 60? Unless somebody can explain it to me, I don’t see that as brilliant, I see that as being wasteful. Why would I pay for something I can’t use?

Rick —

1) You aren’t paying for it.
2) Even if you aren’t using the full capacity of the battery, you very much are using the full battery. It will be faster to push 150 miles worth of range into the 75 than the 60. This means faster supercharging.
3) Some number of customers *will* pay for the extra battery sometime after they buy it, buy unlocking the extra battery capacity for a fee. This will bring back up Tesla’s average per unit profit margin.

I could see myself buying the new S60 instead of the Model 3, keeping the tax incentives in the bank as rainy day funds, and use them to upgrade the battery to 75kWh once my loan is paid off.

Is this a reaction to the German incentives that only is available for cars up to 60000€?
Or is this model only for sale in the US?

That’s what I was thinking.
Good move then.
I like to see the price in Euro on Tesla’s website. Needs to be <60,000€ (base price).

It’s not. 🙁

Starts at 76,600€. D’oh! No soup* for you!

Source: https://www.teslamotors.com/de_DE/models/design

*4,000 € incentives, that is.

@Cerio…False 57,800e excluding TVA

I don’t see where is includes SC option active at no extra cost. It only said QUOT)(For long distance travel, there are many convenient Supercharger and Destination Charging locations throughout our network).

Are you sure about free SC?

As I understand it, all Model S’s now come with free-for-life Supercharging as part of the price. In other words, what was formerly priced as a $2000 option is now baked into the price of the car.

@PMPU
Are you sure 66K$ includes SC access?

Another question:

EPA range (est) is 210 miles posted on the Tesla site. Is that for a 100% range charge?

georges asked: “@PMPU Are you sure 66K$ includes SC access?” I’m glad I started the comment you’re responding to with “My understanding is…” because it looks like I was wrong. Quoting from the Tesla website: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Supercharging is already enabled on every 70 kWh, 85 kWh, and 90 kWh Model S… Available on 60 kWh only. Not available on 40 kWh cars ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [end quote] So unless they just haven’t updated that page yet, looks like it’s a $2500 option for the new S60. (I thought it was formerly a $2000 option. Am I remembering wrongly, or did Tesla raise the price?) Source: http://shop.teslamotors.com/products/enable-supercharging * * * * * “Another question: “EPA range (est) is 210 miles posted on the Tesla site. Is that for a 100% range charge?” You can be sure that if Tesla cites a range in miles, it’s for what they call a “100% range charge”. As I’ve noted in another post in this thread, that’s 100% of usable capacity for the S85, but only ~95% of the pack’s full capacity. I presume a similar percentage applies to other pack sizes, because you never want to charge li-ion batteries to full capacity if you want to… Read more »

I believe supercharging is included with the S60. In the design studio it says:

“Every Model S includes free long distance travel using Tesla’s Supercharger network and an eight year, infinite mile battery and drive warranty.”

And then proceeds to list all of the configurations including the S60 and S60D.

Well, it seems that either way, I’ve posted something wrong on this point. 😉

Anyway, this appears to be something Tesla needs to officially clarify. Maybe the web page I pointed to is long outdated, in which case Tesla needs to either update it or mark it as an archive.

This tells me that Tesla is having a hard time making their sales numbers. We shall see.

It could also mean:

1. They’ve got full order sheets for the X
and
2. The Model S has ceded its flagship status to the X, thus making lower priced, higher volume sales of the S acceptable to the Tesla brand.

@Carcus…don’t forget the S and X are built on the same line

Or it could mean that Tesla plans to do interim increases of its production capacity, rather than wait to do it all at once when they start production of the Model ≡, and they need something to increase current demand for the Model S, so that extra production capacity — and the employees hired to run it — don’t sit around idle.

Or it could be a marketing ploy to entice would-be Bolt or Leaf 2.0 buyers to buy a Tesla car instead.

Or it could be a marketing ploy to get some of the Model ≡ reservation holders to upgrade to a lower-priced Model S.

It could be a lot of things, including a combination of any or all of the above possibilities listed by carcus and me, “Four Electrics”. Only a serial Tesla basher like you would suggest that the cause must be Tesla having problems, rather than moving to expand its market.

BTW — how is that imaginary Tesla Model S which you pretend to own, running these days? 😉

Nice…So at around $50k(after incentives/rebates) you can get a 200+ mile 2016 Model S, with the option to upgrade for about 50 more miles for $9k in the future.

Clearly this won’t impact Model 3, starting at $35k or about $25k after incentives/rebates. But can help boost sales for those wanting an S that just got about $10k cheaper.

Wonder if Tesla will do the same with the Model X?

Probably not soon, if ever. To me this suggests that Tesla is confident enough in the Model S production continuing to run smoothly that they’re willing to sacrifice some profit margin in favor of higher volume.

The Model X is still in the trouble-prone early stages of production, and far from being ready for that sort of thing.

Furthermore, the Model X is the “halo car” of the Tesla line. Auto makers typically don’t water down the perceived value of their halo cars by offering a lower-priced version.

Of course, all that is just the opinion of one industry watcher with no access to inside info.

for the X I don’t think they can. That SUV is heavy and need all the 75’s batteries it can get!

Is Germány the reason? A Tesla under the limit of the new Germán subside barrier?

DING!! We have a winner. Germany set a price limit of 60k euros specifically to exclude Tesla. This is Tesla’s response.

Thanks for figuring this one out.

is the price limit on base price, not the total price?

got it. get the base , get the credit, then activate 75 by paying 9k usd later.

I really wonder how Model E reservations they just lost. I already know of one 🙂

Great move by Tesla actually I have to say.

Zero I would imagine, Model E is a Ford.

I guess they’re no longer “production limited”.

Certainly looks like production currently isn’t limited by battery supply, at any rate.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t be next month, or next quarter. However, when the Gigafactory finally starts producing in capacity — I think that is slated for this fall? — that should permanently end.

Want one at this price. Pretty dam good deal. Used Model S for 55k not such a deal anymore.

Yeah, it’s got me thinking.

I would expect any of the pre-autopilot S’s values will take a hit from this. So, if you’re willing to go without the autopilot, (I’m not) this could be good news for used Model S bargain hunters.

Now I have to think over should I wait for the Model 3. The S 60 is tempting.

IMHO, I’d still wait for the Model ≡.

The model 3 will have some definite benefits (better aero, more advanced autonomy, lower initial cost) ,.. but my fear is the option to pay a one time “reasonable” upfront cost for supercharging and autopilot will probably run out.

I expect there will (eventually) be a base monthly subscription charge for each, plus a $/kwh charge on the supercharger.

Every company desires a monthly subscription income flow (it’s guaranteed recurring revenue and protects the company from inflation) … Tesla will be no different.

/another one of those “I’d like to be wrong” scenarios, but that’s the way I see it going.

I am not a lawyer, but…

Since Tesla consistently describes in its advertising that Supercharger access is “Free for life” after paying an upfront lifetime access fee, and apparently they are still gonna charge new Model S60 owners a $2500 access fee, then wouldn’t Tesla be just begging for a class-action lawsuit if they renege on that promise and make all Supercharger access subscription-based?

Seems to me that Tesla would have to “grandfather in” all owners of Tesla cars who bought them with unlimited Supercharger access, allowing them to continue using Superchargers with no additional fees, if at some future time Tesla moves to impose limitations on Supercharger access.

Personally, I hope Tesla will impose some sort of terms of use on Supercharger access for Model ≡ owners, and do so before they start selling the Model ≡. It will be far better for Tesla’s public relations if it makes that change before people start buying Model ≡’s, than after.

@Pushmi…nowhere can we see that there is a 2500K fee for SC for the new ’60s,especially not on Tesla website. And if they ask (and they will) for a fee with the Model 3 of course it will be an option that you can take it or leave it before sign any paper.

Tesla fanbois are so entertaining. Everything Tesla does is always so brilliant. No one can ever compete with them.

All that’s happened here is that Tesla has dropped the entry price of the Model S in order to stimulate demand. This is not something that a “production constrained” company does.

Finally, Tesla is doing what other automakers including GM, Nissan and Ford have been doing with their EVs for years: lowering the price as they become more affordable to build.

Welcome, Tesla. Seriously.

Nope. There’s a big difference.

The model S competition lies (from the low end) BMW 7 series to (the high end) Mercedes S class. This latest S now undercuts the competition in price by quite a bit to a whole lot.

GM, Nissan and Ford EV’s … all relative to the same class of car that ‘they’ are competing against are significantly overpriced.

So I look forward to the day when we can welcome GM, Nissan, and Ford to the club.

S series is different world. Did you ever seen it? It is a bigger car and it is luxury not just by price. You head doesn’t bump to the roof in S series like in the back of Model S.

Yes. I’ve driven one. They are big cars.

Regardless, it’s well known that Tesla Model S sales are chewing up Mercedes S class sales.

Carcus is correct. Quite a few MB owners are downsizing into the smaller Model S.

@Carcus…I don’t believe the new ’60s compete with the MB S class. Not in price and not on luxury. Tesla win on performance but I don’t see MB S class really interested in that but more on luxury. You will never ever see a MB S class without leather seat…

“All that’s happened here is that Tesla has dropped the entry price of the Model S in order to stimulate demand.”

And they also offer more battery capacity and Dual motors.
The rest are still not in that club. Can you get a Bolt with more battery? How about a Volt? Or LEAF today? Or i3 today? or Dual motor on any of them? Ford doesn’t have crap!

Yes, I also see this as a sign that Tesla is growing. That’s great! Maybe Tesla still isn’t quite ready for “big boy” pants, but perhaps they have at least graduated from short pants to knickerbockers. 😉

And it puzzles me that you have chosen to write about this in a negative way.

Go Tesla!

am i the only one thinking that someone needs to hack these cars that have bigger batteries and unlock the extra capacity at no cost ? if this is software locked there must be a way of doing it …

You can think about it ,.. but doooon’t do it.

If you do (my guess) say goodbye to:
1. Your warranty
2. Autopilot
3. Resale value

/These cars are networked and talk to Tesla all the time. It’s possible that they could just shut the car down (?) …. welcome to the new age.

They cannot shut them down but they WILL lock you out of everything with a Tesla logo on it.

It is this fact, that has me a bit turned off at the idea of buying a Tesla at any point in the future. If I buy a vehicle I should OWN the vehicle, I should be able to prevent them from forcing non security related updates to the vehicle. I should have to worry about them interfering with a vehicle I own.

It may be clever to provide this sort of battery unlocking, but it doesn’t sit well with me, it really demeans the meaning of ownership.

At least with a GM vehicle you can always choose to disable Onstar.

Note, I am not advocating hacking the car to get the extra battery capacity. I just don’t at all like the idea of a third party having the ability to disable something I own.

Wouldn’t it be as simple as not allowing your car onto your wifi network?

A very good reason, not to buy a Tesla. You never really own it, i.e. can do whatever the heck you want.

With the amount of software going into cars, if manufactures insist on trying to limit what can be done with a vehicle that a person owns I expect that at some point the open source community may have to get involved to come up with open software for vehicles as well.

Just remove SIM card from Big Brother device before trying to fiddle anything with it :/ Probably WiFi antenna too. And remember superchargers are Big Brothers too once you plug in and your VIN is transmitted :/ Other than that, if the mod will no be visible to headquarters, you may get away. But I would think about more meaningful waste of my time 😉

Sure, if you want to void the warranty.

And I wouldn’t be surprised if authorized Tesla service centers would refuse to work on your car, either. Can you say “blacklisted”?

All the fancy electronic gadgets on modern cars are a two-edged sword. Sure, they give the cars more capability. But they also make it virtually impossible for anyone to properly diagnose and fix them without access to the proprietary software.

Model S > Model 3

Supercharger included? Nice!

I assume the Model 3 will also follow this ‘model’. One battery with a set fee to upgrade in the future. Makes it easier to mass produce that way and more ‘affordable’. Unlock and upgrade to a bigger battery later and also add AP and SC when you can afford it.

I wouldn’t make any such assumption. Tesla has apparently calculated it will make money overall on this offering, by shaving off some of the ~22-25% gross profit margin on the Model S. The Model ≡ is projected to have only a 15% profit margin, so there’s much less room there for shaving the price down. There’s also the question of what percentage of Model S60 owners will chose to upgrade to S75. The Model S is in a price range where buyers are relatively indifferent to a few thousand dollars’ difference in price. Contrariwise, the Model ≡, with a projected average sales price of $42k, which is less than half the average Model S sale price of ~$95, is in a market where buyers are much more sensitive to a price difference of a few thousand dollars. So, it’s reasonable to expect that a smaller percentage would pay to later upgrade to the larger pack size. Bottom line: I will be very surprised if the Model ≡ isn’t initially offered with two pack sizes actually representing hardware differences, as the Model S was originally offered with pack sizes of 85 and 60 kWh… which did represent hardware differences, not just… Read more »

Tesla European sales for Model S are actually down in Europe through April 2016. In 2015 4606 Model S were shifted in EU. So far in 2016 Tesla has only sold 4315 through April.

U.S. sales through May 2016 were 8390 Model S. In 2015 there were 8800 sold for the same period.

The bottom line is that Model S sales in both Europe & the U.S. are down.

Widening the customer demographic by reducing prices may be just what Tesla needs to do to keep up sales and market share. Just opening new markets like Australia, China doesn’t stimulate sales in the older, mature markets where we are seeing increased competition for sales from other EVs and where the market may be saturated. After all, there really is just a limited number of wealthy fat cats out there. Lowering the price should stimulate sales making the car affordable for a wider segment of the population. Many who would love to have a Tesla but just couldn’t afford it in the past. Maybe this will get some mid-management types to finally pull the trigger.

* U.S. figures from Inside EVs
* EU sales via EV Sales Blogspot

jmac:

“U.S. sales through May 2016 were 8390 Model S. In 2015 there were 8800 sold for the same period.”

You’re ignoring the fact that (according to InsideEVs’ Monthly Plug-in Sales Scorecard) the Model X actually outsold the Model S during the last two months, in the U.S./Canadian market.

If the higher-priced Model X is “cannibalizing” sales of the Model S, then I doubt Tesla is crying about it! Or rather, they’re crying all the way to the bank.

I think this will be my next car. I love the underutilized battery. That is great news for longevity of the battery. It is the same thing as my Gen 1 Volt. It will be good to get rid of the ICE completely.

I think you get a LOT of benefits from the large battery . . . all except the range. The benefits include:
-Longer life
-More performance driving
-Faster charging.

Yea I’m with Rick (No not that Rick) on this one. If I’m buying a Model s with a 75kWh battery, but it’s been hobbled to 60 then didn’t Tesla just spend what it would cost to build a 75kWh battery? If it’s only a software update and maybe some hardware then I’m not at all sure what is going on here

SparkFiatOwner-M3reserved

Ease of construction. Less inventory and space to run separate battery pack.

That’s actually good news to know that battery costs are down enough to do this.

Really puts the question — loaded Model 3 in hopes of rebate vs Base Model S with guaranteed rebate.

I just HOPE this is being done because they have pushed down costs and this will expand their market share. (And that this is NOT due to decreasing sales.)

@ Speculawyer

Sales of Model S are down so far this year in both Europe and the U.S. Sure seems to me like this is an obvious reaction to sales decreases in both the EU & the U.S.

Tesla is releasing the Model X early in China for that reason and is offering the 60 Kwhr Model S battery option also for that reason.

Doesn’t appeal to me at all.

I still want the Model 3 I reserved early.

I don’t want AWD, overpriced options, or a very large car that won’t even fit in my garage. And I don’t want to pay $30k MORE for the same range.

Never understood why EV makers don’t make more modular platforms. Tesla already experimented with battery swapping. Imagine 15kWh battery modules that can be added/replaced at any time. A car could have space for 90kWh and the customer can just buy what they want. Add more later too. Good option to refresh batteries in future too. Maybe in 5 years, they pack 20-25kWh into same module space.

Another idea… Imagine a OnCall type experience.
Me: “Hello, I am a putz and ran out of juice 20 miles from nearest charging location.”
Tesla: “No problem. We can send a service tech to give you a quick charge. Takes about an hour. Or, we can unlock the extra capacity of your car for a 24 hour period. There is a nominal $50 charge but should get you an extra 50 miles of range and is instant.”

Well, it wouldn’t be an instant availability of 50 more miles of estimated range based on what should be left in the pack, even if we optimistically assume the extra capacity is evenly split between top and bottom. It would be something closer to 25 miles. (I think it’s entirely possible all the unused capacity would be on the top end, which wouldn’t give you any more range available to instantly “unlock”.)

But yeah, I can easily see that in that scenario, most people would be willing to pay a rather stiff “convenience fee” for some extra range in the rare case that they are left stranded at the side of the road. $50 would still be cheaper than calling a tow truck… and they wouldn’t have to wait!

Love it.

A Better looking car that is potentially safer, more spacious than the upcoming Model 3 with similar battery size, performance and SC.

I think the difference will be $48K vs. $55K. Assuming that Model 3 doesn’t get any more incentives and the S60D does.

But that is also a bad sign for MOdel 3 buyers. The more S60 Tesla sells in the US, the less likely any Model 3 will qualify for tax incentives…

I know nothing about marketing, pricing or selling things in general but if there is one company in the world that does it’s Tesla. My feeling is that this is a way of expanding the market which is probably necessary now as production capacity increases. I am sure there are a lot more customers with $65k than $70k+. I can’t imagine that by doing this Tesla will affect their high end sales and it could start to open up a larger lower priced market. I also wonder if it is a response to the beginning of some competition from BMW and Volvo. The 330e, X5e and the XC90e aren’t really much trouble for Tesla yet but people who are looking at these cars might just switch to a lower trim Tesla. Especially a 3 series driver who might want something sporty (like a 3 series) but perhaps a bit bigger like a 5 series, as there is no BMW rival in this space at the moment. I guess the other thing to keep in mind is that Tesla is now a global car company. So dropping the list price might have all sorts of crazy affects. I am mainly thinking… Read more »

I think we see a few components of the Secret EV Master Strategy:

Increase size of battery, reduce usable capacity. This gets you:
– MORE POWER.
– INFINITE BATTERY LIFE (and 2nd life on grid)
– FASTER CHARGING. When you’re locked under 80%, you never experience a slow 100% top-off speed.

You see, one day when batteries are at 200kwhr, but you’re limited to 100kwhr, you REALLY WILL get a full charge in about 10 minutes. And you will accelerate at full 200-kwhr-battery-like ridiculous speeds.

BTW if you buy a company car in the UK a model S60 is cheaper than a BMW 5 series after 3 years:

Model S60 – 45k (list price) + 9.5k (7% BIK tax each year) = 54.5k

BMW 5 series – 34k (list price) + 21.4k (21% BIK tax each year) = 55.4k

And then add in the HUGE amount you will save on petrol and congestion fee charges.

The U.K. Tax law for executive company cars really favours ev’s, I wonder who’s helping them form their policies and advising them on ev’s……. Oh yes staint musk. Thank god we finally got somebody who knows the system well enough not to get stuffed at every corner.

The Bad News . . . this will eat up tax-credits faster. :-/