The Tesla Model 3 Pushes The Envelope For Range Vs. Price

Tesla Model 3

AUG 18 2017 BY EVANNEX 106

Tesla Model 3

Tesla Model 3


Tesla’s Model 3 has finally hit the streets, but details about the historic vehicle are still trickling in. Tesla has released some specs, but is keeping others vague for now. Most reviewers haven’t had more than a short test drive at the launch event, although that hasn’t stopped them from penning rave reviews.

Bloomberg found Model 3 to be “elegant inside and out, in ways that are difficult to appreciate from the photos.” In other words, you have to drive it for yourself.

We know that the 3 has a number of groundbreaking features, including a sleek dashboard that has no need for a traditional instrument panel, and a climate control system that consists of a single long vent spanning the entire front seating area. However, we may have to wait until deliveries start in volume before we get a truly comprehensive description of this enticing new ride.

As wonderful as these innovative features – and others as yet undiscovered by the motoring masses – surely are, the attribute that makes this a true milestone in automotive history, the achievement that Tesla has been hyping as the culmination of its Master Plan since the company’s founding, is a feature that you can’t see or touch. In fact, it’s a pair of numbers.

*This article comes to us courtesy of EVANNEX (which also makes aftermarket Tesla accessories). Authored by Charles Morris.

Tesla Model 3

Model 3 has greater long-distance driving capability due to Tesla’s vast Supercharger network

Since modern EVs started to hit the market a few years ago, it has been an accepted truth that they would never really catch on until their ranges went up and their prices went down. Somewhere along the way, someone decided that the magic numbers would be a range of over 200 miles at a price of $35,000, which is around the median price of new cars in the US.

So far, two vehicles – the Chevy Bolt and the Tesla Model 3 – have surpassed that tipping point, and one more – the next-generation Nissan LEAF – is expected to do so by the end of the year.

For millions of car buyers, 200 miles should be plenty (according to a 2015 study by AAA, the average American drives 29 miles per day). However, those who need more range can have it, for a price. Model 3, like Tesla’s other vehicles, is available in more than one battery configuration.

The Standard variant has an EPA-estimated range of 220 miles at a price of $35,000. The Long Range variant offers 310 miles for $44,000. Tesla has dropped the numerical badging system that it uses for Models S and X, and has been cagey about the exact size of Model 3’s battery packs. However Elon Musk recently revealed that the Standard pack has a capacity of “just over 50 kWh,” and the Long Range pack has about 75 kWh. So, just how much does a mile of blissful electric driving cost, and how does Model 3’s range/price offering compare to that of other EVs?

Tesla Model 3

Comparing price-per-mile of electric vehicle range; Note: figures estimated before Elon Musk’s recent statements on battery pack size – updated numbers follow below (Source: Bloomberg)

Doing the math gives us $159 per mile for the Standard and $142 for the Long Range (of course, these are only rough figures, because your actual range will vary, and so will the price you pay after taxes, delivery charges, incentives, etc.).

The only other member of the “200 for 35” club at the moment is the Chevy Bolt, which has an official range of 238 miles and starts at $36,620 (the Bolt comes in only one battery configuration). Its “price per mile” figure comes out to $154 – for all practical purposes equal to that of Model 3. However, the base version does not include DC fast charging capability, so if you’re a road-tripper, you’ll probably want to include the $750 cost of that option in your calculations.

Which vehicle is the better buy? That’s a question you’ll have to answer for yourself. Do you want a sport sedan or a conservative hatchback? Do you value the coolness of trendy Tesla, or the track record of giant GM? Are you willing to wait a year, or must you drive one off the lot tomorrow? Or are you willing to wait a couple of months and see what Nissan brings to the electric table?

Above: Jason Calacanis says his new founder’s edition Tesla Model 3 “drives like a Porsche, costs the same price as a Prius” (Youtube: This Week In Startups)

We know which vehicle Elon Musk recommends. “I’m really confident this will be the best car in this price range, hands down,” he said at the launch. “Judge for yourself.”

Lovers of long drives should note that Model 3 is not the only vehicle that offers more than 300 miles of range – just the only one anywhere near its price range. The Model S 100D is rated at 335 miles – and goes for $97,500. The Roadster with the 3.0 upgrade package, which boosts battery pack capacity from 53 kWh to around 70, claims a range of 340 miles, and Tesla says that, given the right “set of speeds and driving conditions,” you could get over 400 miles. Of course, the Roadster is now a coveted collector’s car, and the upgrade package goes for $29,000, so what you’d pay for the longest-range EV on the planet is anybody’s guess.

*Editor’s Note: EVANNEX, which also sells aftermarket gear for Teslas, has kindly allowed us to share some of its content with our readers. Our thanks go out to EVANNEX, Check out the site here.

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

106 Comments on "The Tesla Model 3 Pushes The Envelope For Range Vs. Price"

newest oldest most voted

Seems like Tesla msrp does not include destination but bolt does?

Yep, they conveniently leave off the $1k+ destination fee for the Model 3. Just sloppy reporting (Bloomberg in this instance)

Tesla comes with supercharging ability, Bolt is $750 option.

Base Bolt w/DCFC: $34,495 BEFORE any haggling/additional rebates. Can be bought today.

$35k Model 3? Can be bought……hold on, let me get my sun dial…

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

“BEFORE any haggling”

Boy that what ~everybody~ really wants to do when they go into a Stealership to buy a car.

The before-haggle price is still cheaper than a base Model 3….by $500.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Dunno where you get the price from but….

Also include destination charges on top of this.

I posted a link to a Bolt at Rydell listed at $34,495 before any addtional negotiation, one of the largest Bolt dealers in the country (and where I long-distance bought my Bolt).

For anybody about to run out and lease this car, make sure to check the lease payment terms very closely.

GM has been keeping the lion’s share of your $7500 federal tax incentive and not passing much on to the person leasing the car.

So you could lease at this much of a discount off of MSRP, only to find they kept much more of your $7500 federal incentive than they “discounted” off of the price.

I can lease the Bolt for $150 a month. What is the Model 3 lease price? Oh wait, you won’t know that for a year!

After $480 dealer doc/additional profit fee from Rydell, it is $20 bucks cheaper….


and that’s IF the buyer manages to stay clear of all the “cheap” recommended “dealership” extras

You mean like the maintenance plans Telsa pretty much forces you to buy?


Not this lie again. You aren’t even required to service your Tesla at all:

“If I choose not to service my Tesla vehicle, will this void my warranty or Resale Value Guarantee?

It is highly recommended that you service your Tesla vehicle every 12 months or every 12,500 miles, whichever occurs first. If you do not follow this recommendation, your New Vehicle Limited Warranty or Pre-Owned Vehicle Limited Warranty will not be affected.”

What part of “will NOT be affected” don’t people understand? This is actually a plus for the Tesla compared to ICE cars where if you came in after 3 years 40K miles without ever changing the oil, and asked for a warranty engine repair, they would laugh you out of the shop.

Do you guys ever get tired of making fools of yourselves by completely making up BS that can be debunked in seconds?

Just like the lie about dealer add-ons? Of course they want to sell extras, just like Tesla wants to sell service plans. But, in either case, a smart person doesn’t pay for them. So, no point brining them up in a discussion about true cost to buy either the Bolt or M3.

The Bolt is less expensive out-the-door. There are other areas where the M3 is better (looks, supercharging), but the Bolt has it beat on actual sale price.

CCIE — no, it is not comparable, because Tesla doen’t offer any of those junk add-ons, and they especially don’t “install” them onto cars already on the lot. Forcing you to negotiate them off the price.

It is almost like you haven’t set a foot on a new car lot since the 1950’s. Do you even have any clue what goes on at new car lots in the last 50 years?

How do you like that truecoat on your car CCIE?

I wasn’t alive in the 50s, 60s, or 70s. So, my dealer experiences are all contemporary.

Fools gets taken by dealer BS. Anyone with half a brain realizes the buyer has the power and gets a good deal.

Your comment that only fools fall for the tricks that dealerships use to screw people, is you admitting that dealerships use those tactics to screw people.

The fact that you focus on the victims of dealership dirty tricks, for the dealers doing their dirty tricks doesn’t mean the dealers don’t do their dirty tricks. In fact it is just the opposite.

You won’t be able to work that out and realize the implications…

Of course car dealers screw people. Real estate agents and car dealers are the lowest form of humanity.

I’m just saying that a smart person can make a good deal on a Bolt and easily get it for a price below the M3 price.

I don’t see why this bothers you so much, since the M3 is supposed to be competing against yuppie cars, not a Chevy.

That price does not include Rydell’s $480 doc/dealer fee/dealer additional profit.

Rydell is also notorious for putting junk products like pinstripes, paint sealant, etc.

Doc fee is only $80 (I know since I bought a car from them). Also came with 0 fluff dealer options. I think you may be thinking of Keyes, their cross-town rival.

Not sure where you are getting this other $400 in fees from, unless you are talking about registration fees that EVERY new car buyer pays in CA.

bro — Both Keyes and Rydell put junk add-on’s like VIN etching on as many cars as they can. Some are stocked with these already added, some are not. As a consumer you have to deal with that. $80 is CA state mandated doc fee. The $400 (399) is Rydell’s dealer fee/ additional profit. Yes, people like you can refuse to pay it in negotiations, and they will move it to the other side of the line and hide it in their bottom line price. If you are not educated in the various fees that new car dealerships TYPICALLY add on, here are some starting places for you to learn: _________________________________________ But folks should understand when talking about Keyes and Rydell is that they are a couple of GM’s top volume Volt/Bolt dealerships, and they represent some of the BEST deals you can find on Volt/Bolt prices. It is false to pretend that this is the norm that people should expect at their local dealership. Details of your personal deal does not represent all deals. Sure, anybody can buy from these California dealers and have it shipped to them. But they either have to pay shipping charges to… Read more »

bro1999 claimed:

“Doc fee is only $80 (I know since I bought a car from them).”

But since you have established a reputation for frequently and consistently posting Tesla-bashing FUD, most of which simply isn’t true, there’s no reason to believe this claim of yours either.

This little boy has cried “Wolf!” waaaaaay more than three times!

Well, he blogged about his purchase (quite the exciting story)

here is his actual deal for the car he bought:

It doesn’t include the “$775 (open transport) via Ship a Car Direct for transport from CA to MD. ” (minus $30 gift card) for shipping.

The other interesting thing is the $387 in what the dealer marked as “Gov’t fees” (which is sometimes actually a fee from the gov’t, and sometimes is a dealer fee that they claim is to pay for gov’t compliance but is actually not an actual gov’t fee paid to the gov’t).

Otherwise his documentation covers everything.

$42,977 + $745 shipping puts him at $43,722 all-in. That’s about $1,200 less than a black TM3 310 without luxury package and base wheels. Without the $1K discount from the dealer, he would have only saved $200 vs the stripper TM3 310, so the discount helped.

Supercharging ability is optional. Destination charge is not.

If you’re comparing non equivalent cars, why even stop at fast charging? IoniqEV is $7.5K cheaper than Bolt.

Bolt comes with driver side gauges. TM3 comes with, oh it isn’t even an option. Bolt comes with a center console cover. TM3 makes you get the $5k option to get a cover.

I don’t know why you feel the need to try and add options. Cars are always going to be different and have different options.

They always do in these Tesla puff pieces. That and they conveniently forget to mention that nobody pays MSRP for a Bolt these days…

At advertised prices in this weeks LA Times the Bolt is cheaper per mile but that wouldnt fit EVANNEXs version of reality so it isn’t mentioned.

They are all pretty close which is a good thing though. If only Tesla didn’t gouge their customers on the long range version. They would likely have been the clear winner in this metric, even at prices you can actually get a Bolt for.

Yeah, it’s a bit disingenuous to quote the Bolt with a destination fee and a Tesla without one, for sure.

Not to mention the Tesla MSRP will have no discounts and Bolt EV’s MSRP will.

Both of those facts inaccurately slant the price/range in favor of a Tesla.

yes, both should be quoted with destination fees included since everybody has to pay these.
But this is missing the Big point.

the SC network remains a BIG PLUS of a tesla vs any bolt/leaf/i3, all other things being equal (they’re not). Shame on GM/Ford/Nissan for not doubling down with their own SC, they could Easily afford to build one if they indeed wanted to sell EVs.

There’s a lot of value in the SC network. Conversely, there’s also a lot of value in the reliability a major OEM.

Point being, each has their strengths, but if the metric is range/price, let’s compare apples to apples and move on.

AS to the “Shame on GM” piece, we won’t be in agreement there. I don’t expect cellphone makers to put up cellphone towers, and I won’t expect automakers to put in charging stations.

If a particular one wants to do so to set themselves apart from the field, great, but there is no “shame” in doing what a company feels is financially in the best interest of its shareholders. Companies exist for that reason alone.

I actually view it as a disadvantage. I wouldn’t ever use it so why should I be forced to pay extra for it? Tesla isn’t providing them for free. Their cost is baked in to the car, even those who have to pay for SCing are paying more for it in the price of their car.

Now many people see it differently and will gladly pay for it. For people like me though we are very thankful to not have to pay extra for something we wouldn’t use…

Diff strokes for diff folks and all 🙂

Whatever savings you might have for not having Supercharger access, you are likely to lose in resale value. Possibly more. Faster charging cars will likely have better value in the future than slower charging cars to the typical used EV buyer. Especially when even newer cars charge even faster in the future, making slower charging cars look even worse.

The down-side of being against the tide and “each their own” is that the used car market punishes you for being different in a way that isn’t popular with buyers.

That is the problem with ‘excessively analyzing’ these Puff Pieces. Brian reminded me this afternoon, that my Roadster had an EPA rating of 244 miles, whereas the BOLT ev is only 238. I only twice in 4 years got more than 244 miles in the roadster – that was with alot of city driving, and switching to LRR (Low Rolling Resistance) tires. But the BOLT ev EASILY exceeds its EPA rating. IN fact I matched the EPA rating coming home from Liverpool today by driving (for me) extremely agressively since I wanted to get home. Driving more conservatively, the saturday before last, I got 279 miles (with a few miles estimated to spare). No way would a roadster accomplish this. I asked Pushi to come up with some demonstrable proof that his 80% charging CR claim is based on something other than his fantasizing about it. ALL my range experiences with the ROADSTER were with absolutely full 100% charges. If I didn’t need the range I didn’t do full charges, since degradation with the Roadster was a known issue. So, the fact that their Purchased BOLT ev has more practical range than either of their purchased Teslas (I thought they… Read more »

“They always do in these Tesla puff pieces. That and they conveniently forget to mention that nobody pays MSRP for a Bolt these days…”

It’s standard for media coverage of new cars to use the MSRP to compare prices, because that’s the manufacturer’s advertised price.

Suggesting that Evannex is somehow wrong or biased because they’re using the MSRP reporting standard, is just another troll claim from a serial anti-Tesla FUDster.

Well perhaps then with Tesla being this new company who does all this cool,stuff differently that you fanboys are so proud of things need to change?

And par of my initial post was how they always seem to include the destination and doc fee in the Bolt but not the Model 3. So ya it is totally disingenuous on many levels 🙂

But hey don’t let that stop you from name calling like a 3rd grade twirp who has no friends 🙁

DJ — Tesla hasn’t announce the Destination and Doc fee for the Model 3 yet.

What number EXACTLY do you think they should have used?

The $1,200 fee that Tesla uses for the Model S/X? That’s a bad choice, because we’ve already seen screen shots of the fee for the Model 3 being $200 lower, at $1,000.

The $1,000 fee that appears in leaked docs that Tesla hasn’t officially confirmed yet? That certainly doesn’t meet journalistic standards. An unconfirmed source with a photo on the internet? Nope. That’s a bad choice too.

So without any good choice, and no official info to use from Tesla, they used the ONLY known good 100% accurate data they could use. That’s the $35K and $44K.

Tesla has not actually officially announced the Destination and Doc fee for the Model 3. We know the Model S and X fee, but the only info we have on the Model S is a number of unofficial screen shots from the configuration app that shows $1,000 for TM3 delivery.

Given that ambiguity, I understand why the authors would stay out of that.

Just a tiny point: it’s not an MSRP; it’s “the price.” Tesla’s prices are listed plain-as-day on the website and there’s no need to haggle. You either like it and pay or you find another brand. “Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price” is a vague concept franchise dealers came up with so they can find crafty ways of gouging the customer while letting them think they “got a good deal.”

Do you see the bias in your statement though? What you say starts with the notion of a fact but then quickly changes to one of opinion. There is no proof of “gouging” at dealers, and your idea of gouging is actually assuming that a person pays the sticker price, something you’ve already decided is completely okay for Tesla (who, it turns out, also wants to make money).

Opposing your own opinion, I can say that Tesla’s Price will never be negotiable, and GM’s price will be.

In reality, the devil is in the details. You are assuming that GM and other automakers are marking up their prices to gouge you with dealers. You are assuming that Tesla is not trying to maximize profit margin on all their sales (their investor calls would say otherwise, I’ve never heard them say they’re trying to minimize profit margin).

It’s equally possible that having dealers is actually a way for GM to minimize costs of their vehicles, since they know how to MAKE them well, and there is a lot of overhead and capital, and different skills to having places to SELL them efficiently.

There has been plenty of evidence of GM dealerships gouging at every opportunity they can, like this thread on the $10,000+ dollar gouging done on the Volt by dealerships:

When it comes to Bolt gouging, that is coming on the back end of leases. They are making you feel good with GM’s $3,250 buying incentive for CARB states, but then they are keeping the lion’s share of your $7500 federal incentive on the back end.

GM can end up actually collecting MORE than MSRP between what they get from you when you lease, and the thousands of dollars of your $7500 fed tax incentive that they are also pocketing.

I can’t think of anything that fits the definition of gouging than telling you to your face that you are getting thousands in discounts, and then quietly pocketing MORE THAN MSRP from your fed incentive that is hidden in the lease terms.

“There is no proof of ‘gouging’ at dealers…”

Seriously, dude? The evidence is overwhelming, certainly putting the issue beyond any reasonable doubt.

There is far more than enough evidence to constitute “proof” in a court of law. In fact, it’s hard to imagine what standard of evidence you could pick which would cause the mountains of evidence not to rise to the level of what any reasonable person would call “proof”.

Furthermore, these days the MSRP itself is an inflated price, because both auto makers and dealers know that most shoppers will look up that info before setting foot in the dealer’s showroom.

For example, there’s the issue of “dealer holdback”. says:

With the introduction of holdbacks some years ago, most manufacturers inflated the invoice prices for every vehicle by a predetermined amount (2-3 percent of MSRP is typical). The dealer pays that inflated amount when it buys the car from the manufacturer. But later, at predetermined times (usually quarterly), the manufacturer reimburses the dealer for the excess amount. This is the “holdback,” so named because funds are “held back” by the manufacturer and released only after the vehicle is invoiced to the dealership.

Citation for that quote:

“Seems like Tesla msrp does not include destination but bolt does?”

Seems like GM Bolt EV destination fee does not include dealer prep, but for the Tesla TM3 it does?

Once you get down into the weeds of added fees, taxes, and incentives, any pretense of comparison on a level playing field vanishes.

We should compare MSRPs only, without cherry-picking which added fees, taxes, and incentives we want to include in that price.

Anything else just gives an excuse for serial anti-Tesla trolls like bro1999 to post more FUD.

I called up some Bolt dealers and asked for bottom line prices. Every single one was thousands off of list price, with the guarantee that the federal tax credit would be there for me.

Tesla fan news. No 310 miles model 3 cost as much as prius

Yeah that is what I don’t get. M3 seems cool. I’m an early reservation holder, however the only version I can get before Q3 2018 is $49k.

$49k is not an affordable car. Period. Maybe next year it will be less affordable but the $7.5k tax credit will be expired.

At this moment the $35k M3 is vaporware. Maybe next year it won’t be. However somehow everyone is reporting it as if it exists right now.

This has to be the best car marketing trick in all of history.

I meant “maybe by next year it will be less unaffordable” — typo.

Hans, do you live outside the United States? Because otherwise you either haven’t logged in and checked your reservation lately, or you don’t actually have a reservation.

“I’m an early reservation holder, however the only version I can get before Q3 2018 is $49k.”

This is in direct contradiction with the information that a multitude of early US reservation holders have posted. That sounds more like the AWD version availability. We’ve seen a ton of screen shots showing estimated availability in late Q4 2017 to Q1 2018 for TM3 220 availability. The TM3 220 is scheduled for production in Q4 2017 for the US market.

Fascinating — your reply prompted me to log back in and check; it no longer even gives a delivery estimate anymore; it simply says:

“You’ll be invited to configure based on the date of your reservation.”

Perhaps because I’m on the East Coast.

There should be a “Delivery Estimator” link. Try that.

With a first day reservation, Mytesla say’s I can have one Jan-Mar for $35k and with a State and Fed credit of $10k (seems expected), that makes it pretty sweet $25k vaporware 6 months away. This Prius costs $30k, 2017 Toyota Prius Four Touring Hatchback.

Vaporware is way too strong a word. Some people will be receiving it in November or December of this year. I’ll be receiving it sometime between January and March of next year.

Vaporware is something that never comes. You could say that the $49K Model S is vaporware (Tesla delivered around 500 of them. They were only ever available to early deposit holders – nobody else was ever allowed to buy one. And Tesla never actually bothered making a 40 kWh battery pack for them – they just put in 60 kWh battery packs that were software limited.)

Thank you.

The word “vaporware” is getting overused and misused entirely too much these days. A product isn’t “vaporware” simply because it costs more than expected.

It looks like Hans is a “vapor-buyer”, like so many trolls pretending to have a reservation in an attempt to lend legitimacy to whatever BS they make up.

He certainly disappeared from here like a cloud of vapor….

Because I raised the point that the $35k M3 is reported on as if it is shipping today I must be a troll; because what I said was entirely untrue, right?

Heck, I might as well be a short seller, too, right (I don’t have any stock)?

Or perhaps I do want to see Tesla succeed but feel that everyone is better served when we tell it like it is.

Remember the over-hype on the first Mac? It was going to change the world and be the usable PC for the common person. . .it was a great product but it was too over-hyped and priced much higher then expected and WAY under-sold compared to pretty solid expectations. Nearly collapsed the company.

Apple did win eventually. . .but it took nearly 15 more years to get their footing.

I don’t want to see the same thing for Tesla; if they fail spectacularly it will set back EVs for another decade.

No, my comment was based upon how out of touch you seem to be, with how much information is publicly available.

From what I understand, this link will work for everybody with a reservation to log into their account and show your personal delivery estimate.

Try it and then correct your prior post.

What the masses need is a Ford model t electric car, in the sense that have to be affordable for all the masses. Once they get hook, then you build your brand around the tech and style . Tesla is like GM of 1900s building cars that are not afforable and bleeding money.

I forget, what years was GM growing at the same growth rate as Tesla?

Oh, right. Never.

Call me when you have a comparison of an equivalent ICE car company growing at the same rate as Tesla year after year…

It’s easy to grow when you start from scratch and use other people’s money to do it. Tesla is “growing” by losing $400 million per quarter.

Growing by using other people’s money? Is that supposed to somehow be bad?

It’s called capitalism. Do you not understand that that is exactly what every single publicly traded company in the entire world does? They take other people’s money, give them stocks, and then grow their company?


I didn’t say it was bad but it makes the comparison between GM and Tesla useless.

While Tesla burned $400K last quarter, Total Assets grew by $1 Billion dollars:

Total Assets as of 6/30/2017 $26,043,705
Total Assets as of 3/31/2017 $25,053,726

So yes, they burned cash, but they are now building the company FASTER than they are burning cash.

And that is before they even sell their first thousand TM3’s. That investment made now will pay off for years over the generational live span of the TM3 (first generation should last 5 years give or take).

Their investment in the TM3 is projected to GROSS $30 Billion dollars on NET sales of $120 Billion dollars on first gen TM3 sales.

So what again is the problem with Tesla spending money in order to make money and build assets? Again, that’s called capitalism.

“Tesla is ‘growing’ by losing $400 million per quarter.”

Dang, Tesla should get a bloodhound to track down all that money it’s “losing”! 🙄

Most people call that “investing”. Nothing is being lost when Tesla spends money on ramping up production, despite the constant drumbeat of FUD from Tesla bashers.

If you spend money on something but can’t sell it for what you paid for it, you’ve taken a loss. If you spend too much money on people and services, you’ve taken a loss. You can hope to use these things for make future profits, but pie in the sky promises don’t mix with standard accounting.

Maybe you should teach Tesla how to do their books. After all it’s Tesla themselves that say they are losing hundreds of millions of dollars every quarter in their financial reports.

Those figures are without tax credit. Everyone buying EV today is eligible for tax credit, and they take them. Then these are the results, $/mi. SparkEV was the former king of $/mi after subsidy was taken into account.

Tesla 3 LR 118
Tesla 3 base 125
Bolt 126
IoniqEV 177
SparkEV 226

If you consider additional $2.5K CA rebate, below is the result.

Tesla 3 LR 110
Tesla 3 base 114
Bolt 116
IoniqEV 157
SparkEV 195

Thanks, those are the numbers that most folks actually care about. Folks in Colorado with their $5K state incentive see even better numbers across the board.

So bloomberg compares a car not available for at least 12 months, with one that is currently available on the sales floor.
In that time do we really not expect GM/Nissan etc to reduce the price of their vehicles, and Tesla to not adjust their prices.
Really, can we just compare one available vehicles to another you can purchase.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

I thought they compared a car that someone already has and is driving it now on the streets?

I like how so many like to qualify things by numbers as being available. All we know is there were 30 delivered but I guess that means nothing.

The big northern Virginia dealer, where we bought our Bolt, has sold two more in a month…10% of their inventory. The “people” are not rushing to buy any EV not branded Tesla. Many of the fanboys, with reservations, have never driven an EV, and have convinced themselves they will be getting a 2/3 scale Model S for 1/3 the price. In a year, when they actually get to drive a base Model 3, many will be throwing rocks at the messiah.

“In that time do we really not expect GM/Nissan etc to reduce the price of their vehicles, and Tesla to not adjust their prices.”

Well *I*, for one, certainly expect Tesla to “not adjust” prices for the TM3 in the near term, and in the long term to “adjust” them downward.

Certainly Tesla has raised its prices on its more expensive models, where a few thousand dollars difference has little effect on demand.

Tesla isn’t clueless enough to think that a similar price hike in this less expensive market segment would have a similarly insignificant effect. Tesla is well aware that raising the price of the TM3 would have a serious impact on sales, which would result in lower demand, which in turn would increase the unit cost per car. In other words, raising the TM3 price would have a good chance of resulting in less income for Tesla, not more.

I’m not sure about an actual dollar price drop, like from $36K down to $33K. I would guess that instead we will see effective price drops instead. For example, adding more standard content to the base model. Either by moving features out of the premium package, or by adding completely new standard features not currently offered at all with any trim level. The other way would likely be simply not raising the price to keep up with inflation and the declining value of the USD. For example, the $35,000 price announced in March 2016, adjusted for inflation, would actually be $35,977.99 in inflation adjusted dollars by today. So the price of the base TM3 220 has actually gone DOWN $977.99 in real dollars since the original reveal party. (source CPI Inflation Calculator) They expect to hit 25% margins in 2018 a number of months after they reach the 5K/week production rate, and in mid-2018 they want to go from alien dreadnought V0.5 to V1.0 and 10K/week numbers by the end of 2018. So Q4 2018 numbers will be the first to show where they really are on price. (Whether they priced it correctly when they announced 35K a number of… Read more »

It has a higher $/mile number but I’d say that the base black Model 3 is best economic value for an EV on the market, IMHO. There are cheaper EVs but with much less range such that they are not as useful and none other can access the Supercharger network.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

““drives like a Porsche, costs the same price as a Prius””

Someone smokin da good shizzzz……..

Sigh. When can we expect people who make a living writing about EVs to have a minimum of a clue, to have thought about, and be familiar with, the most fundamental issues involved?!? Clearly not yet, at least not when Evannex is the source!

> For millions of car buyers, 200 miles should be plenty (according to a 2015 study by AAA, the average American drives 29 miles per day).

While I believe two hundred miles a charge is plenty for nearly everyone, the average daily distance has literally NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

In case someone reads this who hasn’t ever thought about it, consider if you were subject to a spending limit instead of six times your average daily expenditure. You could perhaps manage to buy some new clothes, but probably not a washing machine, certainly not a car nevermind a house!

Range is about the maximum, not the average. And an average says absolutely nothing at all about the maximum. So don’t drag it into it…

Depends. Millions of families have more than one car. So, as long as it can get one to work and back each day, it is fine. When we need to go further than the Leaf can take us, we take our Volt. Since market share of EVs is only 1 – 2% now, there are ample families who would be COMPLETELY satisfied with 200 mile range.

MSRP is not purchase price. There are discounts and rebates as well as fees. For example in the U.S. the Leaf usually comes with a $10k rebate provided through the local power company.

not usually at all, this is a very limited deal available only in a few counties in California and only recently (runs only for a month too)

The rebates have been available here in Wisconsin for a while. For some reason they are limited to customers of power companies in the state but it is Nissan money.

Did Apple buy Tesla?

Youtube clickbait. Not real. Move along.


This is an incredible achievement. The lowest cost per mile of range and the nicest vehicle on the entire list with the possible exception of the models S & X.

No one smart pays MSRP. So, after the 10% discount you should be getting, the Bolt price is better.

That doesn’t even take into account that you can order a stripped Bolt. Stripped M3 isn’t orderable yet, and likely won’t ever be readily available.

“Stripped M3 isn’t orderable yet, and likely won’t ever be readily available.”

This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this bizarre claim. You are aware, aren’t you, that unlike other auto makers, Tesla makes its cars to order for each individual customer? What, do you think Tesla will refuse to fill certain orders once the base model is available?

Yes, I believe that if a lot of people actually start ordering stripped M3s, Tesla will be forced to do something about it. Otherwise they’ll have a profitability problem. Their profit is all or mostly in the options.

“profit is mostly on the options”

That’s the same throughout the entire automotive industry. Why is this suddenly somehow a problem just for Tesla?

It is actually a WORSE problem for car makers with dealerships, because on top of the car maker’s higher profits on options, DEALERS take an even bigger profit margin on options. Making strippers for essentially every single car other than Tesla an even bigger problem for them than for Tesla.

It is the case industry wide. But, it’s very pronounced with the M3 because Tesla needed to meet that $35k price. So, the stripped car is as unappealing as possible, while the options are extemely overpriced.

$1000 for any color besides black…really?!

Audi A4 (and many Audi’s) – Only free colors are black and white, paints go from $575 up-charge to a $3,900 up-charge.

BMW M4 – The only free color is white. All other colors are either a $550 up-charge, or a $1,950 up-charge. Other models have upcharges in the 600-875 range. Most have only 1 or 2 free options.

It isn’t typical to have a lot of free paint choices in this market sector. And Tesla paint up-charges are in between being a few hundred high, to being one to three thousand cheaper than their competitor’s highest paint up-charges.

Is all your impotent rage really over a few hundred dollars in paint?

“Impotent rage” – That’s a new one.

I really don’t care what tricks Tesla uses to make the M3 look economical. But, no one should be fooled that it’s a $35k car.

I am a bit sad that Tesla resorts to these pricing and decontenting tricks used by the rest of the industry, since they’re supposed to be different.

Oh, and it’s not just the paint, that’s just one of the more blatant cases. Most of the options are ridiculously overpriced.

Main advantage of Tesla Model 3 is access to the supercharger network and the fact that it can charge at 80kw providing 170 miles in 30 minutes, for the long range version. That is something no other 35-45K EV can compete with. Bolt can only charge at 54kw. Hyundai Ioniq can charge at 70kw but only has a 28kwh battery pack which severely limits its useful range as a long distance EV.

Not this lie again. You aren’t even required to service your Tesla at all:

“If I choose not to service my Tesla vehicle, will this void my warranty or Resale Value Guarantee?

It is highly recommended that you service your Tesla vehicle every 12 months or every 12,500 miles, whichever occurs first. If you do not follow this recommendation, your New Vehicle Limited Warranty or Pre-Owned Vehicle Limited Warranty will not be affected.”

What part of “will NOT be affected” don’t people understand? This is actually a plus for the Tesla compared to ICE cars where if you came in after 3 years 40K miles without ever changing the oil, and asked for a warranty engine repair, they would laugh you out of the shop.

Do you guys ever get tired of making fools of yourselves by completely making up BS that can be debunked in seconds?

Duplicate post on my behalf. My bad. I intended to respond to CCIE (above). My mistake.

Don’t want to leave you hanging, so I’ll put my reply here too 🙂

Just like the lie about dealer add-ons? Of course they want to sell extras, just like Tesla wants to sell service plans. But, in either case, a smart person doesn’t pay for them. So, no point bringing them up in a discussion about true cost to buy either the Bolt or M3.

The Bolt is less expensive out-the-door. There are other areas where the M3 is better (looks, supercharging network), but the Bolt has it beat on actual sale price.

Both Tesla and GM dealerships both sell service plans. While only dealerships install stuff like VIN etching and Truecoat paint sealant and scotchguard, and pin striping, and undercoating, etc on cars they have on their lots. Tesla doesn’t do that. No dealers, no lots with cars with junk options already “installed”.

I’m sorry you aren’t familiar with what has been going on with new car dealerships across the United States. If you choose to become informed, feel free to do your research.

All of my new car purchases have been through dealers. While I agree they are all scum, I’ve never paid for anything I didn’t want. I have had dealers do VIN etching. Told them I wouldn’t pay for it, and they didn’t charge me.

It’s 2017. No one should be buying a car by walking into a dealer and asking them anything. You should know what you want, know what they have, and negotiate via email. Also don’t tell them about any trade-in until the price for the new car is locked.

The point is, if you’re somewhat intelligent, it’s not that hard to get a decent price from a dealer and avoid all of the BS fees.

The Tesla experience may be nice, but I’ll take the process that nets me the lowest price. At the moment that involves negotiating with a dealer.

“I have had dealers do VIN etching. Told them I wouldn’t pay for it, and they didn’t charge me.” You paid for it, they just moved the charge to the other side of the price line and included those charges in their final negotiated price. You are a prime “price point” buyer. They put very high artificial prices on stuff, and then make you FEEL like you negotiated some great deal. They slap an artificially high price on VIN etching, and then make you feel like you got something for nothing while pretending to have “given” you something. Meanwhile they harden their bottom line price and pretend like they’ve already given you something. So it is your turn to bump your opening offer up. It is just one of many games they play to convince you that you are winning when you are losing. The game is rigged to MAKE you feel like you are winning by design. They have been successful when EVERY customer walks away talking about how great a deal they got on their car with their masterful negotiating skills. The goal is to make you feel smart to have just bought a car from them. Like… Read more »

Wow, you must have gotten burned bad by some dealers. I’m sorry you don’t now how to negotiate or shop around.

Bottom line, I’ve never bought a car with less than 10% off the MSRP. And I’ve never paid any extras besides tax/title/registration at the state required rates. No prep, doc, marketing, etc fees. It’s really not that hard, you just refuse to pay.

And yes, only a fool tells them about a trade in advance of locking the new car price. And when the smart person sees that they’re offering wholesale for the trade, they sell it themself. That’s why I’ve never actually traded in a car. Though it often amuses me to see what they offer after I lock the price on the new car.

Did you even read your own source? “The high-yield market has been soft in general over the last few days,” said Gene Tannuzzo, senior portfolio manager at Columbia Threadneedle, with about $467 billion under management. “The catalyst for credit weakness may actually be something non-credit related, such as political drama.” So the entire high-yield market is down because the executive leadership in the US is an idiot, so you think that is somehow something against Tesla? _______________________________ You also completely missed this part of your own source: “The [Tesla] eight-year securities had priced a week ago at a record-low yield for a bond of its rating and maturity … and Tesla had added $300 million to the offering to meet demand.” So instead of demand being low, like you claimed, Tesla actually had to add another 20% to the offering to cover demand — all while the rate of the offering was at “record low”. All of that is great results for Tesla’s bond sale. You claim to own Vanguard High-Yield Corporate Fund Investor Shares (VWEHX) Yup, it’s down too. 6.00 dropped to 5.93. And it is much more diversified and insulated from daily ups and downs than a single… Read more »

I did read it, including the title which is the point of the article. But, if you want to cherry pick quotes, here are a couple:

““The way that it’s traded is showing that portions of the market just weren’t long-term holders at that price,” Gershon Distenfeld, director of credit at AllianceBernstein LP, said in an interview. “I own a Tesla, I love the product. But I think investors recognize that 5.3 percent was probably not the right price.”

“Tesla, which is rated well below investment grade, has told investors it needs years to generate spendable cash, Distenfeld said in a Bloomberg TV interview. The bond “should trade more like 7 or 8 percent,” he said”

“portions of the market just weren’t long-term holders at that price” It is an initial bond offering. The bonds are initially sold ONLY to institutional investors, most of whom are either buying for bond funds, or they are acting as a wholesaler to sell to retail customers. Bonds suffered an exodus due to politics, and of course the banks who went in as a wholesaler aren’t long term holders. The opinion of what Distenfeld says the bond should trade at is meaningless. Just like yo were wrong with your opinion, he is wrong too. If he was right that they should trade at 7-8 percent, these bonds would have traded at 7-8 percent. They are trading nowhere near that, proving he is wrong. It is amazing how after being SO FAR OFF you would continue to buy into his opinion. It is also funny that you focus on the purely opinion, purely subjective parts of the story. The same parts that simply don’t match up to reality. While I focus on the purely factual parts, like the FACT that they had a record low price for the rating, and the FACT that demand caused them to issue 20% more.

Hmmm, I wonder why Bloomberg didn’t quote you since you’re clearly the expert. Very strange.

Anyway, it won’t be long before those bonds are trading at 7-8% as he says.

Kudos to Tesla though for getting people to buy them at such a low yield. I wouldn’t have expecting anyone to be quite that foolish.

Oh, and I own the admiral shares (VWEAX). If you’re going to doubt what I say, at least be accurate. 😉

This range is achievable only by copying the Bolt’s permanent magnet motor. Follow on Tesla—follow on.