Tesla Model X 60 kWh Now Available – Starting Price Is $74,000


Tesla Model X

Tesla Model X

Tesla now offers an entry-level version of the Model X. With a 60 kWh battery pack, this version starts at only $74,000.

Just like with the S, Tesla software limits the 60 kWh Model X. The 60 kWh X comes fitted with a 75 kWh battery pack, but in order to enable to extra capacity, the buyer must either opt for it up front (by purchasing a 75D for now, though we suspect this version will be discontinued soon), or pay at any point in time later down the road.

Unlocking the additional kWh costs basically the same as it does for the 60 kWh version of the S. The cost to unlock upfront is $9,000 (the cost to upgrade for the S is $8,500 up front, or $9,000 after the fact).

Range for the 60 kWh X is listed at 200 miles per charge, or 37 less than the 75D version of the X.

The 60 kWh version of the Model X is still a dual-motor, AWD electric SUV, just like its more expensive versions.

All 4 versions of the X list “Late September” for delivery.

Tesla issued a press release on the 60D Model X. The release is posted below:

We’ve just introduced a new option for Model X on our website – Model X 60D.

Model X is the safest, quickest and most capable sport utility vehicle in history, and existing Model X owners are loving their cars. Following on the success of Model S 60 and 60D and in order to bring the benefits of Tesla ownership to even more people, today we’re introducing Model X 60D at a starting price of $74,000 – giving customers the flexibility to choose the Tesla model, price point and range that best fits their lifestyle. Our versatile product platform and efficient manufacturing processes make it possible to seamlessly extend these types of compelling offerings to customers.

The new Model X 60D delivers up to 200 miles of range (EPA est.), a top speed of 130 mph, zero-to-60 acceleration in 6.0 seconds, and all-wheel drive performance, starting at $74,000. Customers can check out Model X at select tour stops across the US this summer.

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

73 Comments on "Tesla Model X 60 kWh Now Available – Starting Price Is $74,000"

newest oldest most voted

” The cost to unlock upfront is and after the fact is $9,000 (the cost to upgrade for the S is $8,500 up front, or $9,000 after the fact).”

Some things missing in that sentence… like another $9000. Interesting that the cost up front and thereafter is the same for the X but not the S, is this true?

I think they should strip these down, put sliding doors on it, and sell them to the post office.

That would then be a Model P or would it be a Model K?
(P = Postal, K = Kartage, KiloWatt, or like their old Grumman – KurbWatt!)

Funny. Lets remember that the post office requires people to join 1 of 2 unions, one for inside clerks and others for carriers. So the post office version of a Tesla would have to cost double, once they forced it to be reassembled in a union shop in Detroit.

Just joking (Hope I get my mail delivered after this. 😉

The postal service employs a large number of veterans.

We should let them keep their union so they can have a quality middle class life.

As a fellow veteran, +1000

I want to do everything to help veterans, but I disagree with you on this. Public sector unions represent a huge conflict of interest and do not serve the public. They represent workers whose pay comes from tax revenue, and lobby the politicians to provide more pay, better benefits, etc for the workers. The politicians want those contributions for their campaigns, so they accept them and then help pass wage and benefit increases for the public sector workers which costs all of us (at least those of us who pay taxes) more money. Unlike a traditional union negotiating with management of a for-profit company, there are no competing interests. The union gives donations to politicians who then increase wages to the union employees and simply raise taxes to cover it.
Now, if we were to privatize the USPS completely then I would have no problem with them being unionized.

Public employees are human beings, as well, and need protection from their employer and negotiating power equal to their employer, just like everyone should have (but many don’t, most unfortunately). “Public servant” does not mean “second-class citizen”. There is no conflict of interest here. If we want prompt, reliable service and watchdog capabilities, then it costs. Additionally, since a private sector counterpart makes anywhere from 10% to 50% more money than the public employee for over 90% of all gov’t jobs, I’d say your presumptive dynamic doesn’t actually happen. Furthermore, if you’ll notice, Congress is always loathe to increase any spending on public employees. Their computer systems are outdated because Congress drags their feet to keep any agency other than the military or intelligence agencies up-to-date technologically. And we, the public, suffer because a given agency can’t keep up or interface with new tech. Also, in the case of the USPS, they run on their own fees…until recent years, when the internet came of age (fewer letters) and private parcel companies grew. You need to pay attention to facts, which includes ignoring FoxNews. Besides, once a law is passed to try to overturn the Citizens United decision, then no organized… Read more »

Go look at one up close. It would be really hard to put sliding doors on it because there is not enough space & structure.

When you see one up close, you kinda understand why they did those crazy doors. Between re-using the Model S Chassis and trying to make it very aerodynamic, it would have been hard to normal doors and be able to get into the back seat. Heck, it is hard to get into the back seat even with those huge Falcon wing doors.

speculawyer said:

“It would be really hard to put sliding doors on it because there is not enough space & structure. ”

If the French can put minivan-style sliding doors on the two-door Peugeot 1007, and if Mercedes Benz can put them on their F800 Concept, then I think Tesla is capable of engineering something similar.

Heck, the U.S. Post Office even has sliding doors on their mail delivery jeeps.

I am not too sure Tesla would want the rear door to protrude this far out. It kind of defeat the purpose of able to get to third-row with the second-row car seat in place.

Mercedes concept is somewhat closer to Model X, but: 1. It is just a concept. 2. If you look closer, Model X doesn’t have that much space in the back to slide full back door there.

Gull wings is the best possible choice for Model X if you must use its body design as it is now. I’m not claiming that it is good choice and implementation, or that they will work perfectly for Tesla, but really you can’t make anything better without changing X to something completely different. DeLorean had working gull wings and every small commercial aircraft had them for many decades and they work just fine when done properly.

For anyone wondering why Tesla only offers models with 200+ miles of range now, 200+ EV range vehicles qualify for an extra CARB ZEV credit (4), while <200 mile EVs only qualify for 3. That's why you'll probably never see a <200 mile range vehicle from Tesla ever again.

A 200 mile range also gives you a comfortable cushion between most Superchargers.

You’ll have to be careful . . . if you have a full load and a bike rack that hurts aerodynamics . . . better drive slowly.

But I think it is great they added this. Most of these types of vehicles are just used to drive the kids to school so 200 miles is more than enough.

It will be interesting to see the verified range of the Model X 60.

Model S 60 doesn’t go much farther than 200 miles EPA, so Model X will be a close call…

I don’t know why they introduced this low-end version for the heavy SUV,X sales must be getting desperate…

Perhaps, taking a leaf out of the VW book, it will “leak” as much power out of the 15KWH buffer as needed to pass the 200 mile mark. I wish my Leaf had come with a 30KWH pack with only 24 visible, cos now I have only 16KWH visible I could pay for more without having to swap the pack. This is taking something out of the Volt book I believe, having capacity to “top up” a battery as it flags.

And the same ground rules of better battery life (shorter cycles on the 75kwh), and now disclosed identical performance applies.

This is great deal, if the range fits peoples needs. The X offers the same form fitting seat, in textile, where MS keeps the often criticized older/wider version. -saves $2,500.

Beware: 5-seat version still says “available late 2016 for new orders”. Not a single base 75kwh version has yet been delivered, AFAIK (as far as I know). To accelerate, Model X buyers have been “up sold” air suspensions, and told they can’t get the 6, or 7 seat versions (that everybody wants) unless they ultimately spend $5,500-6,500 more.

I’ve seen the manual for MS air suspension, and it is incredibly involved, beyond the ~$3,500ea dampers. Lots of locations, modules, electronics away from the wheel housings. My guess is they can’t take those out on the line, costs are sunk and, I’m going to say it, the service revenue on SAS could potentially be sustaining for Tesla. Somebody’s got to know the service life of the Mercedes units. These are same, AFAIK. Not many problems…yet.

The new 60D has 10 more miles of range than the old 60 and the D version allows for better highway range.

Thanks, website currently is saying Model S 60D gains 8, on the RWD 60, for a total of “218”. So, if that’s reasonable the base 60D SUV may not lose all 18 miles of that extra range.

We’re all still puzzled, I think, at how Tesla’s 75 is only ~20 miles shy of the full 90kwh battery. As said, “60kwh” may be the marketing, but reality may be even sweeter.

That’s why I said “old 60”. The old 60 had a rated range of 208.

All Model Xs are dual motor and that improves efficiency and boosts the range. And although it is a SUV/CUV, the Model X is still extremely aerodynamic compared to a typical blocky SUV. But yeah, it is not quite as aerodynamic as the low slung Model S.

They want to bring the percieved price points down before the III so they can get as many folks as possible to buy now rather than waiting. Old world sales… sell what you’ve got first… There will be some folks for whom a 60 is plenty.

Isn’t that changing to 3 ZEV credits in the next year?

In 2018, the max ZEV credits any ZEV can receive is 3 credits, even a fool cell. Fools cells currently get 9 credits. That’s probably why Toyota (and Hyundai) released their fool cells despite an almost non-existent refueling network….they are ZEV credit gold!

The current penalty for being short 1 ZEV credit is $5k….so you can probably figure the value of 1 credit on the market is somewhere between $3,500-$4k. So a Mirai is potentially worth as much as $36,000 in ZEV credits to Toyota.

Same reason why GM probably fast-tracked the Bolt. It wasn’t just to beat Tesla to the <$40k, 200+ EV mile market, but also to rake in the ZEV credits before the max credits per vehicle get capped at 3. Bolt will qualify for 4 ZEV credits, which could be worth as much as $16k per sale to GM.

However, GM (and every other manufacturer) only receives ZEV credits for vehicles sold to CARB state residents. A Bolt EV sold to someone in Florida? 0 ZEV credits (so ~$16k lost in ZEV credit value), so guess where GM will focus their Bolt EV sales initially?

Don’t underestimate the ability of both Toyota and the hydrogen lobby groups to extend seven or nine ZEV credits past 2017. Yes, the Electric Vehicles will be absolutely capped at three credits, no doubt. The hydrogen lobby is on a great path, locked in through 2025, since CARB has granted them: 1) exemption from traveling provision (sell only in California if they want to, even though they may sell a few in the several northeast CARB-ZEV states) 2) 9 credits per car, versus 4 credits for a Tesla or other 200 mile EV. This is supposed to drop to 7 credits in 2018, but I have my doubts, or three credits (doubtful) 3) the state of California is locked into $200 million ($20 million per year) for hydrogen infrastructure 4) the strong hydrogen lobby will get far more than their fair share from the VW scandal, where VW will pay our state $200 million every 30 months for 10 years ($800 million total) Let’s be honest; the hydrogen lobby fights well above their weight class. Electric vehicle seemingly must earn everything they receive, were hydrogen can continue to be the energy of the future and always will be (as long… Read more »

It sounds very silly. Hydrogen cars are sold in hundreds only so far. All these credits for few hundred cars are irrelevant to most profitable world automakers like Toyota. They don’t even register on radar. Automakers do these cars because they can provide drop in replacement for gas cars at full product range, and scale up to millions and eventually be profitable without any subsidies that are inevitably going to expire going beyond niche market. You can make 100k, 200k, 300k cars for subsidies but then you are on your own to make profit. Battery cars are not even direct competitors to them.

I suspect that it was Tesla and GM who lobbied to have that put in place rather than them reacting to it. Why help the Kia soul, BMW i3, Nissan 30 kWh and others get a foot hold in their back yard.

No, it’s market forces plus image. In the market, 200 miles has been the big psychological sales difference. The S40 was only estimated at 160 miles, and it only had 4% of reservations, so they dropped it before any were produced.

For image, to be the best, you need to produce the best. Musk will not settle for a vehicle less than about 200 miles EPA at any price point. You have to distinguish yourself from the competition.

Credits are a footnote for Tesla Motors, now, anyway. They don’t have to worry about needing credits because their entire lineup is electric – there is nothing to count against them. The sales of credit to other automakers has dropped to very small levels. Musk said two years ago that credit sales were projected to be so low going forward that they were not factored into their internal growth outlooks and financial planning.

In 1Q 2015 Tesla sold credits for $66 mln, or 7% of revenue. I think it was $168.7 million for the whole year. Not a huge sum, but still important for a company financed by regular stock sales. They were protesting very load when CARB recently suggested capping credit trade to force automakers to produce something themselves instead of buying inflated credits for cheap.

2 Bolts or a Model X, this will be a hard decision when the leaves turn this Fall. I hope they ditch the falcon wing doors on a stripper version of the Model X, so they can shave another $5 K on the price. Just getting in the $60 K range out the door, would get a lot more potential buyers interested. Tesla needs to move product before the upcoming Bolt delivery threshold is crossed by the end of the year. Just sell a non premium SUV vehicle already that can be had on lease for under $1K a month. That will juice up deliveries by year end!

I doubt it would be cost effective at this point to change the doors

“…stripper version of the Model X, so they can shave another $5 K on the price.”

They should have taken that decision back in 2014. You can’t redesign this car part in a few weeks or even months, too late.

Maybe in late 2017 or 2018.

The FWD design is a huge albatross for the X and its margins.

Clearly another flare up of tftf’s chronic TES*.

You know, tftf, you can quit losing money on your Tesla “short” stock investment at any time, by just getting out and staying out.

*Tesla Envy Syndrome

Agreed. How about just regular door if sliding doors don’t work. People would like it better, would cost less and look more like an SUV which is the style people prefer.

It is true that switching to a common variety of door would require a complete structural re-design of the upper part of the vehicle frame, and would need its own round of crash tests, etc. Not cost-effective.

However, since manufacturing is still in a huge ramp stage, it is far too soon to determine whether the Falcon Wings are/will compromise manufacturing margins or sales.

Just get a used S.

This is interesting. But I can’t tell from the Tesla website if the middle row on the 5 seat version folds flat, does anyone know about that? 7 seater the middle row definitely does not fold flat, but perhaps in the 5 seater it might. The X does have back seat cup holders, so at least they corrected that glaring issue with the S! 🙂

There have not been any 5 seaters built yet, but the official line from Tesla is they are the exact same second row seats as the 7 seat version. We won’t know for sure until they start to deliver late this year.

I’d almost put money that with the re-design on the 5 seat/coil (that is pushing deliveries into late 2016/early 2017 on the option – and is causing Tesla to try to pull X customers shead into 6/7s now) that they will ultimately come fold-flat.

I know they weren’t originally/currently billed as such, but it just ‘feels‘ like that is what is happening.

But things like this are one of those small bits of Tesla production minutiae that I really enjoy watching/discussing…glad you brought it up

I have to imagine that it would be a serious re-design…those seats are safe and stable and move because of rigid attachments. If you provide hinges and latches to make them fold in any way, then it’s back to the drawing board.

Yes, for sure…agree on all points. Again, on this one, I have zerp hard evidence/basis for my opinion. Purely my gut from watching the “seating saga” and past happenings at Tesla. Could be totally off my rocker on this one, (=

Tesla is really pushing hard to meet production expectations. It will be interesting to see if this short range Model X gets many takers.

It appears that the new Model S 60 & 60D have been very popular so far. I think a Model X 60D will find lots of buyers that though that the 75D was a bit out of their price range.

You can get a sexy CPO P85 or 85 for way under $74,000 verses the tall strange egg shaped looking X

Anyone that would get the X over an S in this situation is dumb honestly

paying more for a vehicle thats uglier, slower and has less range.

Well the X can clearly hold more people comfortably and for some I am sure that is a deciding factor.

That still translate to 87800 € or 97458 $ in Brussels. Ouch!

Telsa needs to drop the SolarCity idea and just focus on Tesla.

Give me a $69k RWD version and I might be there.

AWD is great – I have it for my S – but my wife doesn’t need it. Doesn’t drive aggressively enough and won’t drive in the snow – period, end of story.

So Elon – give us a 60X RWD.

“Tesla cuts prices again as sales miss targets”

Gotta love the media.

At the risk of sounding like one of our resident perpetual Tesla bashers… Are we sure there’s no truth to that?

I thought the Model X would function as Tesla’s halo car. Auto makers don’t offer lower-priced versions of their halo cars; it’s contrary to the purpose of a halo car.

Of course, this could be just one more indication that Tesla “ain’t your grandfather’s automobile manufacturer”, but with the cut-rate offering of the Model S60 and now the X60, it certainly looks from the outside like Tesla is getting desperate to generate more demand.

Maybe it looks different from inside Tesla Motors. If anyone can suggest a reasonable alternative scenario, I’d certainly be interested to read it.

The other potential explanation is that Tesla’s manufacturing has improved to the point where they can put out a lot of cars at very high quality. In that world, there’s an incentive to sell a cheaper car, as the production of those cars is not going to potentially displace production of higher priced models. The cheaper car opens up another market without, hopefully, cannibalizing sales of the higher end models. Since most people want as much range as they can afford, I don’t think cannibalization will happen.

The simple truth is that it looks S/X sales hit the wall as fans seriously believe they will be getting $35k Model 3 next year :/// And even former die hard fanboys from Consumer Reports have serious doubts about S/X safety and reliability now.

What else can you do but cut the price then.

Well, they did miss sales targets, but for manufacturing reasons. So the headline is definitely FUD.

However, both P2 and 4E make good points.

It is also possible that they are trying to:
1) reduce demand for Model 3; or
2) get sales sooner rather than wait for all those (cheaper) Model 3 sales to materialize.

Someone like myself could take a Spartan approach to my finances and have a brand-new S90D a year from now with a manageable payment.

I’m not going to do that, because I decided to enjoy my mochas and put down $1k on a Model 3 reservation. A vehicle that, after upgrading battery pack, adding dual motors and auto-pilot and winter package and supercharger usage…would be less than $50k, rather than over $90k.

Hmmmm so $74K for a car with less range than a base Model 3, door that will likely break and cost me god knows how much after the warranty expires, and also a battery with unused capacity that can only be unlocked with thousands more dollars? It’s like buying a 4 bedroom house with one room locked and having to pay the real estate agent later to open up the room for you.

Oh and its ugly. I’ll hold tight and wait for my model 3.

Jonathan said:

“It’s like buying a 4 bedroom house with one room locked and having to pay the real estate agent later to open up the room for you.”

Hmmm, no. It’s like paying a 3-bedroom price for a new 4-bedroom house, with one bedroom that’s locked and you can’t use it unless, at some later time, you decide you need that 4th bedroom and are willing to pay the house builder for it. (But in the meantime, you can still use the storage closet for that room.)

Nothing on InsideEVs has astonished me more than people expressing resentment and even anger at Tesla offering buyers more choices.

Truly bizarre.

I love the idea of offering the software-limited 60kWh battery. If I were to buy a Model S/ Model X right now, it would be a no brainer to get the 60kWh model for $66k/74k. When my federal tax credit comes in the following year, I would use that money to upgrade to 75kWh, or keep it as a rainy day fund until my car was paid off, then upgrade the battery to 75kWh. I look at it as getting the federal tax credit up front at the cost of limiting part of the battery until taxes are finished the following year, or a significant discount if you don’t need the additional range.

I just feel like the practice is disingenuous. The only objective in it is to artificially lower the price of the car to try to bring the point of entry down, but it makes no sense to limit the range from any other perspective. I feel like I’d be driving around a car with unused potential that was being kept from me just because of a marketing concern. This and the extra 15kwh for $9K is outrageously expensive. That’s almost $1000 per kWh. And before you tell me I did my math wrong there, I do want to point out that the extra $9K doesn’t buy you a full accessible 15kwh of battery, it only buys you about 10kwh, because even with a 75kwh pack, only about 70kwh would be accessible because they need to keep some space at the top and bottom to avoid overcharging the battery. The only benefit that I can see to a 60kwh accessible pack that is really 75kwh is that it may decrease the amount of degradation that you experience over time because you aren’t charging the pack to nearly full compared to the extra space being available, but even on the P85 cars… Read more »

I have my doubts on that 200 miles range.

Either Tesla is very aggressive on the 60D or very conservative on the 90D.

57 miles more range for 50% more battery doesn’t add up to me.

Part of that is weight, part of that is because the 90D is actually a quicker car so I bet that in EPA testing, they drive with a heavier foot and thus use more battery power than typical. I bet a third variable is that what you should be comparing is 60kwh (on a 60D) to 85kwh (on a 90D) the reason being is that they don’t need to leave any extra headspace above and below on the 60D because its actually a 75kwh pack in the car, so the unused capacity in the pack leaves plenty of extra space to avoid over and undercharging the pack. On the other hand, in the 90D, what you have is a 90kwh pack in which only 85kwh is likely accessible, this way they leave some protection above and below to avoid over and undercharging. All these things put together would likely explain the 57mi range variance between the two cars.

Yeah I keep asking the same basic question:

If a 60 kwh battery (just slightly lighter than the 90, and hampered by a faster discharge rate than the 90) can go 200 miles, why should the absolute best model X only go 257 miles? I just don’t understand where the extra losses are…

Also, maybe the big batteries have been around too long, but 257 miles is in the neighborhood of the roadster if u put LRR tires on it.

That was what? 8 years ago?

Shouldn’t the people advocating 1500 kw charging (besides here, now ‘800 volt’ Porsche has gotten in the act) want at least a bit bigger battery?

Maybe 60 buyers will get the full 60 for actual use, since there is still 15 left to protect the battery from damage.

From what I understand 90’s don’t actually provide the full 90 for use, since there still needs to be a reserve to protect the battery.

That would certainly explain the numbers.

These kW numbers are very approximate. Check EPA range for what matters for real.

If a 60 kwh X can go 200 miles, think of how ridiculously conservative the 200+ rating of the BOLT will be? Sounds more like 300.

Bolt aerodynamics are significantly worse than the X.

If you don’t believe that, my 2014 ELR is rated for 35 miles AER. In the summer time with a light pedal I can go 52 1/2 miles. That’s exactly 150% of the rating.

Should also be offering the Model X in Rear Wheel Drive. AWD is simply not required in many places. Perhaps the range hit would take it under 200 miles?

It was a realistic marketing decision (sales of other automakers, considering a buyer’s want, not need), and it is likely that providing the RWD option is an added manufacturing cost that they didn’t want to mess with (despite the S having an RWD option for certain pack sizes).

Here’s a question on how the 60D would act during a supercharger recharge session. Because it really is a 75 KwHr battery, would it still charge to 80% in 40 minutes (60kwh), or would it be artificially constrained to only charge to 48kwh in 40 minutes (being 80% of the artifically reduced 60)?

BTW, I echo the comment about offering a 60 model instead of 60D for $69K. Living on a tropical island, it would make worlds more sense to buy that rather than a 75D.

Just give me a Model X 60, with seat cooling, and I’m there.

Understood, but you could consider it a longevity package. If you’re on an island, and not interested in more range, then you probably don’t have/won’t need to use a supercharger, nor fully charge, nor fully drain, the pack.

With such a gently-used pack, a 75D could last maybe 12-15 years or more before the range would degrade below your needs.

What are the gross margins on these 60 kWh versions? We know the margins are much better on higher end and heavily optioned cars, and overall gross margins are around 20%. Is it reasonable to assume a base 75/75D has a 15% gross margin? And a 60/60D, with the same build cost but >10% lower MSRP has ~5% gross margins?

Decent. Now I only need another $60k dollars to afford the cheap one.