Tesla Model X Sig Series: 250 Miles Range, 60 in 3.8 seconds, $132,000 (Update)

2 years ago by Jay Cole 200

Tesla Model X Signature Series

Tesla Model X Signature Series

The Tesla Model X design studio opened today for early Signature reservation holders.  And with it, a good bulk of the unknown information surrounding the X was revealed.

For now, there is a single option, 90 kWh Tesla X, that has an estimated 240 miles (EPA) range, that will zip to 60 mph in 3.8 seconds and has a top speed of 155 mph.

Update:  The range of the 90D Model X is now 257 miles, and 250 miles for the P90D – details

A new Signature series Model X will set owners back anywhere from $132,000 (+1,200 DOC) to $144,000.  A Signature Model X required a $40,000 deposit, as opposed to a $5,000 security for a ‘regular’ X.

Tesla has said  that the early founder series Model X comes with about a $25,000 premium (as per “free Model X” referral program for first customers to refer 10 Model S sales), the Signature series also carries a premium over similar non-exclusive editions.  As a point of comparison, a ‘base’ P90D will set you back $108,000.

UPDATE:  Tesla CEO Elon Musk says to expect a $5,000 premium over similar Model S options:

Tesla CEO Musk On Model X Pricing (via Twitter of course)

Tesla CEO Musk On Model X Pricing (via Twitter of course)

First deliveries of the Model X start on September 29th!

First Model X Deliveries Announced By Tesla CEO Elon Musk

First Model X Deliveries Announced By Tesla CEO Elon Musk


Introducing The Tesla Model S Signature Series

Introducing The Tesla Model S Signature Series

As for the “extra” things the Model X can do – namely towing, Tesla offers an optional towing package for the utility vehicle that is rated for up to 5,000 lbs.

An option that will set you back $750.

Tesla Model X Towing Package

Tesla Model X Towing Package

As this is a Signature Model X, additional options are few.

The “Ludicrous” package is still an additional $10,000 but drops the 0-60 a more significant .6 seconds to 3.2 seconds total.

Tesla Model X Signature - Ludicrous Option

Tesla Model X Signature – Ludicrous Option

Also there is a “Subzero Weather” package priced at $1,000 adds a heated steering wheel, as well as heated seats in the 2nd and 3rd row.

Tesla Model X Subzero Package

Tesla Model X Subzero Package

Tesla Model X Standard Equipment + Signature Series

Tesla Model X Standard Equipment + Signature Series

Update:  Mark Z (via the Tesla Motors Club) has uploaded a nifty interior configurator shot.

There is also a fairly lively thread in progress on the subject that we encourage everyone interested to get involved with and check out at TMC.

Tesla Model X Signature Interior (via Tesla Motors Club)

Tesla Model X Signature Interior (via Tesla Motors Club)

Hat tip to Jamie H!

Tags: , , , ,

200 responses to "Tesla Model X Sig Series: 250 Miles Range, 60 in 3.8 seconds, $132,000 (Update)"

  1. Benz says:

    Tell me more about the second row seats. What makes them so special?

    1. Speculawyer says:

      Nothing? They are next to a funky falcon-wing door.

      1. Anon says:

        Naw, the spy photo I saw, showed middle seat moved back with someone sitting in it.

        It looks like just a bench in the photo above, but the text in the configurator is saying ALL THREE SEATS are independently adjustable.

        1. Michael Will says:

          So exciting !

          Can’t wait to see it in action – they include the new autopilot feature self parking and lane keeping in addition to adaptive cruise control that was already super awesome when I tried it in commute traffic. Automatic retracting spoiler ? Falcon doors ? Drooling now…

    2. Pytt says:

      First thing I noticed was that the seatbelt is built in to the seat which requires the seat’s structure to be exceptionally strong compared to other cars.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        That’s possibly a clue to why Musk said that getting the 2nd row seats to work right was harder than the falcon wing doors. I thought perhaps they’d do something fancy like fold up and move out of the way so third row passengers could enter and exit easily. But perhaps it has nothing to do with that.

        Then again, I can see that Tesla could have a control that would slide forward, as far as possible, all the 2nd row seats which didn’t have anyone sitting in them, to allow easier 3rd row entry and exit. Folding them up may not be needed.

        1. Brian mize says:

          Falcon door serve duel perpous: 1 Main reason: SUVs are family cars, have you ever tried loading a child into a cat seat in van or suv, most parents strain their backs twisting and placing child into seat correctly. Falcon door make for no acward twisting action. It’s just plain easier on parents.
          2: Extra attention. People talk about the doors alot, alot of word of mouth awareness. No need to advertise.

      2. Matthias says:

        well .. my bmw convertible has them integrated into the seats too 🙂

        that said .. love what i see, only worried about not being able to put all seats down and thus not being able to use for occasional ikea transport trips … maybe the seats can be removed like in some mini-vans…

        1. Heisenberght says:

          “maybe the seats can be removed like in some mini-vans…”

          I don’t think that such a cool thing like removable seets would not have made it to the news directly. Removable seat rule! Really! Maybe they can include them in the Model X 2.0 …

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “…maybe the seats can be removed like in some mini-vans…”

          Note there will be two types of second rows; the ones being talked about are a “premium” option. I’m not sure if the lower-priced option is available in the Signature edition of the Model X.

          Removable seats would be a way to allow the rear of the Model X to be used for hauling cargo. It looks like these power seats were not designed to fold up. And having the seat belts integrated into the seat itself would certainly make it easier to remove and re-install the seats.

          This is all much, much more likely than the crazy ideas which have been heavily… massively… discussed on the Tesla Motors Club discussion thread which the article links to.

    3. Kaiser says:

      I think it’s pretty clear that the second row seats slide forward and under the first row seats, allowing them to go further forward than normal. The rail lowers them as they are brought forward.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Interesting thought experiment in topology. 🙂

        But in real-world engineering, seats don’t slide under other seats when there isn’t enough vertical room for them to fit.

  2. ELROY says:

    3.2 sec, 11.7 qtr mile matches the current P85D, not bad!

  3. Andrew says:

    That front windshield seems to extend pretty damn far into the roof! Reminds me of all of those super cool french cars that we’ve never been able to get stateside.

    1. Anon says:

      It’s a Windoof. 😉

  4. Doug B says:

    So standard equip includes a rear accessory hitch, but tow package is extra. So is that a 1 1/4 hitch standard with no harness?

  5. CDAVIS says:

    Welcome to Earth’s most advanced SUV!

    1. ClarksonCote says:

      And expensive, yikes. Looks like an awesome car though, but I’m not sure about how those falcon wing doors will behave with snow.

      1. Jt says:

        RE: how will the falcon wing doors operate in bad weather?

        Who cares its a damn falcon wing!

        And yes, better then a normal door.

  6. Neo says:

    Kind of a copycat of the 5 Series GT! And that is not the most beautiful car out there to say the least…
    Rear doors: useless and hot spots for potential problems (leaks, noises, adjustments), not to mention their uncertain roll-crash resistance…
    Again: Tesla = Good Marketing

    1. Tim says:

      Universal praise for the Model S versus anonymous Internet poster. Who wins that argument?

      Seriously. if you’re gonna call Tesla out for something it doesn’t seem rational to challenge them on the safety in the designs of their cars.

      1. Anon says:

        Please take this as a compliment– but I read your reply with the voice of “Rick” from “Rick and Morty”, in my mind.

        God, I LOVE that show… 🙂

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Tim said:

        “Seriously. if you’re gonna call Tesla out for something it doesn’t seem rational to challenge them on the safety in the designs of their cars.”

        Indeed. No car is perfect, but it’s pretty clueless to carp about Tesla’s ability to design and built safe cars. I don’t know that the Model S is absolutely the safest production passenger car ever built, but it’s certainly a contender.

    2. Neoisawanker says:

      The Falcon Wing doors don’t really pose that much more potential for problems than large rear hatches or panoramic sunroofs which are commonplace in most cars these days. Aside from that the Falcon Wing doors are likely to have charges in place that shear the entire hinge so that the door can be easily pulled away from the car in a rollover. Oh, and funny that you give Tesla accolades for great marketing when they do ZERO marketing at all. Have fun in your Geo Metro.

      1. ClarksonCote says:

        “Oh, and funny that you give Tesla accolades for great marketing when they do ZERO marketing at all.”

        It sounds like you’ve conflated marketing with advertising.

        While Tesla does zero advertising, they are always busy with marketing. Elon’s Twitter account is but one small example.

        1. Heisenberght says:

          This site is yet another example. Lot’s of people praising Tesla! Me too 😉 Really they must have brainwashed me. I never was into cars at all. But Tesla made me look for news on them on a regular basis…

      2. sven says:

        No charges required in case of a rollover, falcon-wing doors have two hinges vs. a gull-wing door with only one hinge.

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Neoisawanker said:

        “The Falcon Wing doors don’t really pose that much more potential for problems than large rear hatches or panoramic sunroofs which are commonplace in most cars these days.”

        Why do people keep saying this, when it’s so obviously not true? Hatches and sunroofs need only one servo motor to move them; hatches need only one set of hinges.

        The falcon wing doors need two sets of hinges, and if they don’t have two servos apiece, then they at least need a systems of levers or cables to allow one servo motor to control two door sections.

        In addition, the sensor system to detect and control opening in a limited space obviously adds a lot of complexity, and a lot of potential for problems to arise.

        Now, all that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Model X’s falcon wing doors will prove problematic. We can hope that the doors will prove no more troublesome than the Volt’s complex drivetrain system, which has not proven to break down or need maintenance more than a typical gas guzzler.

        But the potential for problems is certainly there.

    3. Jt says:

      Maybe you missed the consumer reports testing of the Model S as the safest car on the road…and as fast a supercar for 1/3 the price 3x the seating.
      That aint marketing just the cold hard facts for someone who clearly drinks saudi gas for breakfast

      1. Raymondjram says:

        There is a supercar that may not seat as many but cost less: The 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray.

        1. chris says:

          The vette us cool but it’s a pointless gas guzzler, irrelevant like all the other ICE vehicles still being sold

  7. Teslaliving says:

    Bigger battery, but less range. You need to really want to tow or haul people to get this over the Model S.

    1. pjwood1 says:

      Well, it may also be time to re-check your local supercharging options. The station build out has made range much less of an issue, for many. Supercharge.info

      1. When Model X needs to charge more often than Model S, Superchargers will be much more overcrowded. Skipping one Supercharger and drive straight to the next will be more difficult, if you haven’t charged over 80% and that will take even more time at the Superchargers.

        1. przemo_li says:

          That is theoretical problem.

          However since Tesla do have usage data, and reservations data…

          They have (almost) complete picture of demand. They will double charging stations in 2015! So they are preparing for X model.

          Having said that, their navigation system should just take into account occupancy status of chargers (and of number of people around it who have long range route planed there).

          Also You do NOT need to load up to 80% to get to next SC …

          So if You need to take stop at each one, why waste time to top off each time? And why assume that such short trip will eat Your whole battery each time?

        2. pjwood1 says:

          Nice try. I was at the Paramus, NJ, SC yesterday, at 5PM sharp. Just us. 5 other visits, at 4 other SCs over the weekend, and at 8-stall stations we were either the only, or with one other.

          As to Model X swamping, first, it will be good for 200 miles in snow country. Second, see posts below about pricing.

          Over-crowding stands to be a Model 3 issue, unless you are into sensationalizing what has seldom happened in Denmark, or California. Owners, who supercharge, know that 25-30 minute 100+ mile fills about double the time you’d spend spraying gas.

          My advice. If you routinely drive 500-1000 miles in a day, than don’t get a Tesla 😉

          1. Anon says:

            Ah, only commercial truckers typically do that. Your cited problem, isn’t an actual problem. Nice try. 😀

  8. Anton Wahlman says:

    Starts at $132,000… just what every soccer mom is looking to buy.

    1. Tech01x says:

      Looks like the pricing is closer to Model S pricing than expected.

    2. Jason says:

      Sig version…

    3. Speculawyer says:

      This is the Signature Edition. An extra high priced version for the super wealthy that want to be first and contains some extra perks.

      That said, I expect the Model X to cost slightly more than a Model S with the same battery size.

    4. philip d says:

      That’s the signature version. Regular version will probably start around $107,000. Still not in the ballpark for me.

      1. Robb Stark says:

        The X70 with AWD will likely start at $80k-$85k.

        Not for every soccer mom.

        Just ones with household incomes of $125k plus.

        The Tesla vehicle for the average soccer mom is the Model 3 CUV.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Robb Stark said:

          “The X70 with AWD will likely start at $80k-$85k”

          That’s probably a good guess for the entry level Model X. We’ve seen a lot of informed opinions that the base price won’t be that much higher than the Model S’s, so philip d’s guess of a base price of $107,000 doesn’t seem to be realistic, even for the 90 kWh version.

        2. Raymondjram says:

          “The Tesla vehicle for the average soccer mom is the Model 3 CUV”. That doesn’t exist and will not be sold until 2020 or later as Tesla’s timetable has shown.

    5. przemo_li says:

      Name any SUV that for similar specs to Sedan from same brand is priced lower…

      SUV is extra. Extra size, extra space, extra $ to buy.

      Every SUV.

      1. PVH says:

        It all depends on how many you want to sell. If about 40K units per year worldwide, that price range ($100K to $130K) should hopefully be OK. About “same specs”, I just hope not too many irritated soccer moms will use “insane mode” in front of primary schools…

        1. Per: “I just hope not too many irritated soccer moms will use “insane mode” in front of primary schools” – Wait – Isn’t that what the Adaptive Cruise Control and Autopilot Functions are for – so you don’t end up speeding silently along? I mean – my friends Model S 85 – auto slows in School zones as it is!

          1. PVH says:

            Geez…that is indeed good marketing. You first sell the performances at a high price, then you add some $$ to the price tag with a devise which restrict you from using them 🙂 🙂

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          PVH said:

          “…I just hope not too many irritated soccer moms will use ‘insane mode’ in front of primary schools…”

          LOL! Insane™ mode will get you up to the 25 MPH school zone speed limit pretty quickly indeed. 🙂

  9. GeorgeS says:

    Pricey little devil. Is it more than an equivalent S?

    Best I could do is a 70 or a plain 85S.

  10. Taser54 says:

    Pricy. I hope that for this money, the bugs have been worked out (learned from model S intro).

    While this is not for me, I wish Tesla success.

  11. Gaura Ellingsen says:

    I do not see any of this on the Tesla Motors web-site, neither has the author provided a link. So how can this article be for real?

    1. Andrew says:

      I would re-read the very first sentence of the article….

      “The Tesla Model X design studio opened today for early Signature reservation holders”

      If you don’t have a Signature Series Reservation, you will not be able to access the configurator.

      1. Gaura Ellingsen says:

        I do not see an option for a “Signature Series Reservation” for $40.000 on their web-site either, only the ‘regular’ Model X $5000 reservation.

        1. Andrew says:

          You wouldn’t… Signature Series Reservations closed in 2013…

  12. Anthony says:

    So a 70kWh battery pack would be about 185 miles of range. Will they offer it?

    1. bro1999 says:

      I doubt Tesla will ever offer a future vehicle with <200 mile range.

    2. Sublime says:

      Keep in mind this will have the grippier sport tires. So you’d need to compare its range to a P90D to get a fair assessment of how much the added weight/size affects the range. If you do that, an X gets 89.5% of the equivalent model S range. Based on that an 70D X should get an EPA range of 215 miles.

  13. Warren says:

    90 kWh to go 240 miles. Planet saved. On to Mars.

    1. kubel says:

      Now let’s see if they can make a 200-mile car for 1/4th the cost. That’s world-saving-on-to-mars leadership.

      1. przemo_li says:

        Let me see:

        132 000 * 1/4 = 33 000.

        Model 3 lowest trim (without any incentives) will start at ~35 000

        No they can not do it.

        Earth is lost. ;P

    2. Speculawyer says:

      Well, that’s what happens when you build a bigger & heavier car. The laws of physics apply to everyone equally.

      1. Mapper says:

        Elon is working on that. They may have a beta that address three unrelated laws of physics using off-the-shelf technology.

    3. ffbj says:

      About the only interaction any of us will ever have with Mars is looking at it, or perhaps by eating a candy bar.

      1. Anon says:

        We rise and fall in a sea of frothing biomass on the surface of a moist ball of dirt. The important thing is to have enough will (be it cultural, political or financial) to colonize other planets; long before this once comfy Petri Dish is used up and dead…

        That’s why Mars. And beyond.

        1. Speculawyer says:

          Indeed. That should be a goal of mankind.

          But sadly, we are still mired in stupid wars over who’s god is best. 🙁

        2. ffbj says:

          Used up and dead? Are you talking about Mars?
          I agree with the sentiment of colonization, I only question the technical prowess to achieve such.

          1. Anon says:

            There will never be “Technical Prowess” in teraforming Mars, UNLESS WE WORK TWARDS IT.

            Mars scares me though. It may have some ingenious subterranean methane-farting microbes that might just LOVE to gnaw on warm, “mostly bags of water”, like us. That would be bad…

            But essentially, Elon want to “Backup the Biosphere”, and to do that, will be part of an epic chapter in human history. But someone has to make the first move, for our species to avalanche twards such a goal.

      2. kdawg says:

        Unless we are actually Martians. If that’s the case, we are just going back home 🙂


    4. Warren says:

      OMG! I can’t believe how many people thought I was serious. This thing is a pointless waste of time, as are plans for moving to Mars.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        I see… so not only do you think we should all go back to living like our distant caveman ancestors, huddling naked and cold in dank caves without any use of technology such as electricity or fire. You also want us to abandon the dream of spreading our species to other worlds so all our genetic eggs are not in one basket.

        Reminds me of the Robert Heinlein quote: “The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us will go to the stars.”

        1. Warren says:

          The idea is to prevent us from going back to cave dwelling, which is where we are headed with our crack ho lifestyles.

          Talk of colonizing space always reminds me of this knee-slapper. 🙂


  14. Boris says:

    Wow, X70D will barely get 200 miles range…

    1. Speculawyer says:

      And now you know why the Model S is so low profile and shapely. Aerodynamics really do matter. Especially when your car is dependent on batteries that cost hundreds of dollars to store each 12 cents of electricity.

  15. Neo says:

    +1. Efficiency is not in the priority list of Tesla and it never was, but they brag about being green… This lack of coherency gets on my nerves..

    1. Koenigsegg says:

      Right, because what’s efficient about any gas guzzling SUV?

      Model X is a million times more efficient than anything in its class.

    2. Tech01x says:

      How is efficiency not on Tesla’s priority list? The Model S has 0.24 Cd, almost all aluminum construction, and so forth. Within the limits of fitting 60-90 kWh of NCA batteries, what efficiency do you expect to obtain?

      A Model S 90D gets 106 MPGe on the highway, using 32 kWh for 100 miles. The “leader” in BEV efficiency is the BMW i3 BEV (no rex) which gets 111 MPGe on the highway with 27 kWh for 100 miles. If the Model X comes in at 94 MPGe on the highway, then to move 7 people, the Model X gets 94 MPGe versus 56 MPGe for 2 x BMW i3’s.

      1. Steve says:

        Wow load your stats much? What percentage of trips are in a city vs on a highway? What percentage of trips will require SEVEN passengers?

        I mean give credit where credit is due but cherry picking stats like this is what makes Tesla’s uber-fans insufferable.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Steve said:

          “Wow load your stats much?…

          “I mean give credit where credit is due but cherry picking stats like this is what makes Tesla’s uber-fans insufferable.”

          Wow, practice Tesla-bashing FUD much, Steve?

          There was absolutely no cherry-picking of facts in Tech01x’s post. Now, if he had cited figures for energy consumption per passenger, then you’d have a point, because the Model X won’t usually be carrying seven passengers. But he didn’t, and you don’t.

          Steven Colbert said “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” Similarly, we can say: Actual facts have a well-established pro-Tesla bias. 🙂

    3. protomech says:

      Assuming the vehicle is rated at 240 miles of range on the EPA test, this is approximately 89% of the range of the P90D (12% higher energy consumption).

      A 7 seat 5000+ pound SUV is not going to be terribly efficient on any metric for carrying a single passenger. However, if you do frequently need to haul lots of people or things, these can be a good choice .. and the Tesla is the most efficient to date.

      BMW x5 xDrive50i is rated at 17 mpg combined (516 g CO2/mile direct emissions).

      Tesla Model S P90D is rated at 36 kWh/100 miles; Tesla Model X would be rated at approximately 40 kWh/100 miles.

      Non-baseload emissions average in the US is 0.69 kg/kWh, add approximately 7% loss for transmission. The Model X at average GHG emission rates is then responsible for approximately 298 g CO2/mile indirectly, far less in many regions where Tesla enjoys their highest sales.

    4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Neo said:

      “Efficiency is not in the priority list of Tesla and it never was, but they brag about being green… This lack of coherency gets on my nerves..”


      The Model S is extremely energy efficient for its size and weight. When compared to the Leaf, it gets almost precisely the same number of miles per kWh, when the same EPA test cycle is used.

      And that’s not even getting into how very energy-efficient it is compared to any gasmobile.

      If you want something considerably more energy-efficient than the Model S, get a bicycle. You’re certainly not going to see a full-sized, highway-capable EV with significantly better energy efficiency.

    5. Jt says:

      NEO is a Tesla hating troll. Look at all his posts. He is not looking to engage in any serious factual, intelligent discussion. Go back to Exxon or BP or Detroit.

  16. George Parrott says:

    Ventilated seats are a big plus IMHO, and one of the missing features in even a “loaded” P85D as of my ordering time. Kind of painful to pay over $125,000 and NOT have that feature in the Model S series….

  17. Jenean says:

    OMG. I about had a heart attack when I saw the price. After I read on I saw that this is for a signature Model X. I put $5K down earlier this year and already have a killer license plate for it. Does anyone have any good information about the price range of the regular Model X?

  18. Speculawyer says:

    Pricey. Well, good. Charge those super-wealthy people a large amount for getting the first Model X cars with special features. That helps cover costs.

    1. ffbj says:

      It is certainly true the Tesla knows how to milk the be the ‘first one on your block’ to own one mentality. Movie and sports celebrities will be driving around in them soon. Sons of bankers, sons of lawyers..etc…

  19. PVH says:

    $132K… Wow !!! This is maybe a side result of having a billionaire doing micro management (“What ? you mean $132K is too expensive ? every soccer mom I know has $132K to spend for a car…”).Now it may be good for Tesla, for example L’Oreal improved their sales in China by doubling their prices (making it more of a luxury brand)…then again nail polish will never reach $132K.

    1. “then again nail polish will never reach $132K.” Sure it will – when loaded with Gold Dust or Diamond Dust integrated into the Polish! (And included in the Bathroom of your Gold Plated Faucet configured Personal Jet!)

      Or just – “Gold Rush Couture Nail Polish by Models Own” – at $130,000 – “This was considered the costliest nail paint till Azature came along. This one boasts of making your nails glitter like diamonds placed on a plate of gold. With a bottle that has a lid made of solid gold and studded with 1118 diamonds, this one goes for 130000 dollars and the stars love it.” – http://www.inkyournail.com/most-expensive-nail-polishes-in-the-world/

      Others listed at only $55,000!
      So just when you thought the Tesla Was Expensive….Along Comes reality – There are (In Toronto, ON, Alone, over 100,000 Millionaires)! So they will have a lot of potential buyers – to keep the Money flowing to get them to the Model 3!

      “Cities with the most millionaires per capita” – http://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/22/cities-with-the-most-millionaires-per-capita.html

      And – there are a few Billionaires out there too: “New York To Hong Kong: Cities With The Most Billionaires In 2015” – http://www.forbes.com/sites/liyanchen/2015/03/04/billionaire-havens-where-the-worlds-richest-live-in-2015/

      Since These folks can just about buy what ever car they want – I am sure Tesla Motors is building vehicles that are compelling for folks like this to buy – so they can get to the Model 3 for the ‘Slightly above Average’ income earners!

      Since the $35,000 Price Tag of the Model 3 is the base target, and for Volume Production by 2020; I expect that by then – we will be hearing about an even better and lower cost car from Elon, while he is preparing for production of his Roadster Replacement (the one with Maximum Plaid Acceleration/Speed!) We might even have a Ranger Sized Pick in the conversation by him by then, if not his desire – an ‘F150 Beater!’

      1. PVH says:

        Maybe, we will soon know.

      2. QCO says:

        Not sure Toronto counts… All their money is tied up in overvalued real estate. There are lots of articles about how people in Toronto are “house poor”.

        1. PVH says:

          This is exactly my situation, house poor by living in a country in top 2 world highest average income per capita (Luxembourg) thus with real estate prices that goes along. Not to mention that high spending newly rich is perhaps more of a US situation than a global situation. At least among “old money”, spending more than 1% of your net worth in a car is often considered bad taste…

  20. Anon says:

    Ah, slightly FASTER 0 – 60 times as reported earlier, and specialized “Tow Mode” Software. Nice. 🙂

    For what’s essentially a mini-van that carries 7 people– it’s amazingly sleek and futuristic. 🙂

    A Model III CUV would be sweet. 🙂

    1. scottf200 says:

      Tow Mode – monitors for trailer sway adjust for it! Any other vehicles do that?!?

      1. 13Volt says:

        I believe all the current pickups sold today do. I know for a fact my F 150 does.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Kewl. I didn’t realize that feature was already available from other auto makers.

          1. TomArt says:

            Yep, Ford added a feature like that on their tow package for the Flex, as well.

    2. Speculawyer says:

      I really hope they make another version of Model X but without the Falcon wing doors and costing a little bit less.

      1. Anon says:

        Probably not likely. Too much R&D went into it, and Tesla is still a small (but growing) company with limited resources.

        As someone who’s been waiting for a Model III, seeing Model X **FINALLY** out the door, makes me VERY VERY HAPPY.

        From now on, most of Tesla’s resources will be focused on M3, and it’s FULL STEAM AHEAD until 2017. 😀

        1. PVH says:

          Sure, however going from $100K per car down to $35K will be a very painful process for Elon. Curious how he would manage that. Maybe it is time to hand over this company management to “down to hearth” efficient middle managers. That would give this company better level of execution and a line of products better fitted to compete with “Big Car”. Before that it may remain a loss making niche car maker for years to come.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Nobody ever claimed that $35k was going to be the average sales price for the Model ≡. That’s what the media keep reporting the entry-level price to be, but actually Tesla spokesmen almost always say $35k-40k for the approximate MSRP price.

            And perhaps you don’t understand that the Model X is a development off the Model S platform… or at least, that’s what the original intent was. Apparently the production version doesn’t actually share that many parts with the Model S.

            Anyway, the Model ≡ will be an entirely new design, it won’t be merely a trimmed-down version of the Model S.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Update: Elon tweeted, just within the last day or two, that the Model ≡ price will be $35k. Okay, so we should hold him to that. But I expect it to be a bit more.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Speculawyer said:

        “I really hope they make another version of Model X but without the Falcon wing doors and costing a little bit less.”

        All those people complaining about not being able to put a normal ski rack or bicycle rack on top of the car likely agree with you.

        We’ll have to see. It certainly seems that if there is a lot of demand for it, then Tesla will eventually offer it as an option. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, they could use sliding minivan type doors to achieve more or less the same purpose, altho you won’t be able to step into the third row seats without bending over, as I guess you can with the falcon wing doors.

        But don’t expect it soon. For one thing, redesigning the body like that would require a new set of crash tests.

        1. Anon says:

          Elon trash-talked sliding van doors when introducing the X, years ago. Pretty confident you won’t find them on any Tesla Vehicle while he’s CEO.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Someone posted a comment to InsideEVs saying that probably Musk’s objection to sliding doors is that it would cause the Model X to be viewed as a minivan rather than a CUV.

            While I agree, I don’t think it’s gonna make that much difference. Personally, I don’t see much functional difference between the two types of cars, except the minivan has even more storage capacity in the back.

            However, image is very important in the highly competitive new car business, so I understand why Musk would very likely oppose anything which would appeared likely to cause the Tesla brand to lose its “sex appeal”.

            Anyway… you have a good argument and you may well be right. But I still hope it doesn’t turn out that way.

        2. Speculawyer says:

          Bikes & skis can be handled with a rack that uses the towing system. But canoes & kayaks are hard to do with the falcon wing doors.

          But the main reason to have normal doors is just to lower cost & complexity. Sliding back doors seem like a decent solution too.

          1. sven says:

            A hitch rack for skis and snowboards sucks when it is snowing and you’re driving. All the salt spray and road grime gets on the skis/boards and into the ski bindings. I don’t think there is an enclosed ski carrier for a hitch rack.

            Yakima sells a light-weight aluminum trailer for kayaks and canoes that folds up for storage against a garage wall. But it is pricey and you have to pay much higher tolls on highways and bridges because of the trailer or third axle.


            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              sven said:

              “A hitch rack for skis and snowboards sucks when it is snowing and you’re driving. All the salt spray and road grime gets on the skis/boards and into the ski bindings. I don’t think there is an enclosed ski carrier for a hitch rack.”

              That seems to be going rather far out of your way to find something to complain about. If it’s really an issue, then just put a cover on them. If just wrapping them in garbage bags isn’t good enough for you, then you can certainly spend money on a nice-looking, specially designed hard case. Googling “ski carrying case” gets 1.4 million hits.

              1. sven says:

                You’re obviously not a skier. A hitch-mounted ski rack isn’t designed to and can’t hold a “ski carrying hard case.” With a decent pair of skis costing well in excess of $1,000, most people want a little more protection for their equipment than a garbage bag affords. There are cargo cases for roof racks, but not for trailer mounted hitch racks.

                The increasing use of calcium chloride, sodium chloride, and magnesium chloride in addition to or in lieu of rock salt really makes an enclosed carrier a necessity if it’s snowing when you’re driving to the mountain and you have too many people in the vehicle to put the skis and boards inside. All the above chloride road treatments are multitudes more corrosive than plain old rock salt. The bare metal edges on your skies and snow boards will indeed be rusting by the time you get home, and you’ll need to file them down to remove the rust and sharpen your edges. You can put a coat of wax on your edges before the return trip home to minimize the problem, but the real issue is getting chlorides or rock salt into the ski binding release mechanism and having them not release in a fall and causing a bad knee injury.

                1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  Seriously? You’re bragging about using $1000 skis, but you won’t spring for some sort of aftermarket bracket or clamp that lets you securely attach a hard-shelled ski carrying case to a standard ski carrier? Most people are willing to put a bit more effort (and money) into their hobbies.

                  Heck, dude… just use a few bungee cords, if you can’t be bothered. I’ll skip the rant about the self-entitlement of the 1%.

      3. Jt says:

        Re: “I really hope…”

        …you should sh*t in one hand and wait in the other and see which one gets filled first.

        Your comment makes you sound so dumb

  21. Braben says:

    “Falcon Wing rear doors with built in sensors for opening in garages of any height”

    So, what happens if the roof is too low to allow the doors to fully open? Do they stop half-way and the rear-seat passengers get some Yoga exercise?

    What a stupid idea these doors are …

    1. Braben says “So, what happens if the roof is too low to allow the doors to fully open? Do they stop half-way and the rear-seat passengers get some Yoga exercise?

      What a stupid idea these doors are …”

      Actually – I don’t think buyers of the Model X will be having tiny, single vehicle garages, with low ceilings, based on the Price Range of the vehicle! I could be wrong, but I doubt it a lot!

      And – it seems you car preferring that the vehicle just open the doors fully – even if it might hit a Light or something? (At your Aunt Milie’s Garage!)

      1. Braben says:

        Well, my garage’s ceiling is not very low, but the Falcon doors would certainly hit the rail of the motorized door opener. I have also seen many public garages with low-hanging pipes or other features.

        Together with the impossibility to mount a roof carrier, and the potential mess when the roof is covered in snow, these doors indeed seem like a stupid marketing gimmick to me …

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Braben said:

          “Well, my garage’s ceiling is not very low, but the Falcon doors would certainly hit the rail of the motorized door opener.”

          Not unless your garage door isn’t as high as either of the two standard sizes. Let us please recognize that Tesla is capable of designing a car to fit into a standard garage.

        2. Jt says:

          “…marketing gimic…”

          Is that really the only ammo you have against a car the destroys the competition against any in its class on speed, safety, storage space and technology…not to mention the free supercharging

          Mabe you should use a dictionary before you use grown up words

          1. Steve says:

            I’ve noticed that no one has bothered responding to multiple questions around “what about snow?”

            Why is that?

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Because at best this complaint is silly; at worst, it’s outright FUD.

              The open falcon wing door will act as a canopy to keep snow out of the interior, so common sense says these should be better at keeping falling snow out of a large vehicle than standard sliding minivan doors.

              I think it shouldn’t be necessary to point out something so obvious.

    2. Anon says:

      I suggest you wait for the official reveal, where that stuff is likely to be demo’ed. I predict the range of motion and “Smarts” the doors have been imbued with, will impress even the most jaded of critics.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Braben said:

      “So, what happens if the roof is too low to allow the doors to fully open? Do they stop half-way and the rear-seat passengers get some Yoga exercise?

      “What a stupid idea these doors are…”

      Don’t you think you should wait until you’ve actually been bitten before you start yelling? We don’t know just how the falcon wing doors will operate in restricted spaces. And until we do, complaints are premature. For all we know, the lower portion of the door can swing out independently of the upper portion.

      At worst, the driver may have to let passengers out before pulling into the parking spot, whether it’s in a garage or a parking lot. If so, that won’t be a major inconvenience.

      I have no doubt there will be unexpected problems arise from the unusual door design. But let’s wait until we see how they work in real-world conditions before we start asserting Tesla screwed up.

  22. PVH says:

    Then, let’s imagine a soccer mom with 2 kids buying this car. Would her environmental foot print be smaller or bigger if she decides after all to buy a ICE Fiat 500 instead ? (considering typical soccer mom average nr of miles driven in a year, which is quite low).

    1. PVH says:

      …just another idea, the soccer mom buys the Fiat 500 ICE and plants 5000 trees with the price difference. How would THAT impact her family environmental footprint as compared to the purchase of Model X ?

    2. przemo_li says:

      If she is in the market for SUV…

      Good luck convincing her to buy small city car! 😛

      Also since she can afford X.. then she can afford electric version of 500 too! 🙂

      1. PVH says:

        …It was just to emphasize that no super heavy $100K+ car will ever make a difference on an environmental point of view. Typical Euro family that consumes about 50% less Kwh of electricity per year as compared to a North american Tesla driver (same with water consumption) will always be “greener”, no matter what they drive. Now, that one likes the car for the way it drives and it looks, sure !!

        1. Rick Danger says:

          “no super heavy $100K+ car will ever make a difference on an environmental point of view.”

          Sure it will. Lock yourself in a garage with a normal ICE SUV running and see how long it takes to kill you. Then try it with a Model X.

          NM, someone else will have to try the Model X, you’ll be dead.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          PVH said:

          “…It was just to emphasize that no super heavy $100K+ car will ever make a difference on an environmental point of view.”

          And if you repeat that enough times, it will magically become true???

          If everyone who was planning to buy a gasmobile CUV/SUV would instead buy a BEV SUV/CUV or a PHEV SUV/CUV with electric range of 60+ miles, it most certainly would result in a significant improvement in the carbon footprint of those consumers.

          Let us not make yet another case of “The perfect driving out the good.”

    3. Someone out there says:

      FIAT 500 is not a competitor to this car. They are completely different markets.
      This is a car for a well off suburban family with several kids, the FIAT 500 is a single city dweller’s car.

    4. Jt says:

      “Lets imagine a soccer mom…”

      …she and her two kids will be dead, because the crash rating on that car is terrible.
      Get a clue

    5. Raymondjram says:

      A soccer Mom with just two kids doesn’t need a Model X or even a Model S. The Volt will do.

      1. PVH says:

        In a sustainable world, no soccer mom would ever need a 5,000 lbs car to carry kids around and make groceries. World some are referring to where soccer mon do need this is dying fast. On the other hand this can probably be a good but expensive family car however with reduced practicality as compared to a Mitsu Outlander PHEV for example.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        I thought the implication of the term “soccer mom” was that occasionally she has to play chauffeur for the soccer team, not just her own kids. If so, then a typical four-door sedan won’t have sufficient passenger room.

        Now, that’s not to say that the typical person driving an SUV really needs a car that big. I think the majority of them don’t. But auto makers refusing to offer CUV/SUV plug-in EVs isn’t going to force people to buy smaller PEVs. It’s just going to cause them to stick to gasmobiles.

  23. Three Electrics says:

    I wonder if a special ski compartment will be designed into this car. Towing skis is not an option given the space constraints of ski resort parking lots.

    1. Lindsay Patten says:

      There are references to “bike and ski carriers” in the article so I’m guessing skis will be in a hitch mounted carrier.

  24. For all the things this vehicle Can’t do – Which it sounds like for some = A Lot, I expect other Non-Tesla PHEV’s can be purchased for those needs, either in addition to – or more likely – instead of the Model X!

    It seems that the number of Reservation holders at present – is definitely enough to get the production underway and start accelerating the output of these as it is!

    Since there are 24,000 Reservations in the Pipe, I think they are OK to start: http://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/02/tesla-model-x-reservations-24000-twice-model-s-reservations-before-production/ – “Elon Musk stated in a conference call several months ago that Tesla wouldn’t be unveiling the Model X until deliveries began… because of special features that they apparently want to hold as a surprise.”

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Well, any such “surprises” will have to be standard equipment on the Model X P90S, because anything that’s an option will have to be on the website order screens, and you can be sure any such info will be leaked very quickly… if it hasn’t already been!

  25. Bloggin says:

    Was wondering if the winged doors and hatch can be opened at the same time. And the answer is yes.

    1. Anon says:

      I’m not sure why people take such an automatically negative view of the Falcon Doors. I can see why other automakers never took the idea of gull wings further, with this kind of mental bias against something so new / radical in design.

      But come on, why would anyone think you couldn’t open ALL the doors at once? The obvious intent of the design is to improve the usability of the vehicle– not cripple it. 😛 The obvious utility stuff with the doors, has long been solved.

      1. Stuart22 says:

        No, the stated intent of the design was to look cool. And that’s the primary raison d’etre for these hatches. Every time the doors open, it will be an advertisement for Tesla. And a ‘I am so cool!’ opportunity for the narcissist segment of MX buyers. Yuk….

      2. Steve says:

        How had the snow and ice problem been solved? Only drive in sunny SoCal?

    2. Sam says:

      Check out the Black Model X video from last week.

  26. andre says:

    lot,s of never happy,Negative people there…..It is a beautiful car,great design,great performance.If you don,t like it:there are many heavy polluting SUVs,Crossovers ,even not very cheap Range Rovers,MercedesPorsche etc.etc. there!!!!

    1. PVH says:

      Of course it is a great car, no question about that, it is just that not long ago someone from Tesla said they were not a luxury car maker. Also things said about saving the planet. Great company & good products, it is just that one could never stop making farcical comedies just using their PR as an inspiration…;-)

      1. See Through says:

        Not to mention that tax payers like you and me will be subsidizing these frivolous purchases of the super rich.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          The EV tax rebate will run out for Tesla, probably within a couple of years. The much more massive indirect subsidy of gasmobiles, by using the U.S. military to protect “cheap” oil supply, unfortunately will continue indefinitely.

          But hey, “See Through”, thanks for helping fund Tesla’s growth by continuing to short Tesla’s stock. Your donations, every time you’ve been caught in a “short squeeze”, are appreciated… even though they weren’t voluntary. 😀

        2. jelloslug says:

          How is someone getting to keep some of their own income “you and me subsidizing” their purchase? Are you one of those guys that thinks the government has the right to as much of your income as possible “for the good of the people”?

        3. Speculawyer says:

          You are not subsidizing a toy for the rich. That is just a side-effect. You are subsidizing the development of cheap Li-Ion batteries that are revolutionizing the transportation industry.

          The $7500 tax-credit has succeeded in helping build a growing market of plug-in cars. Automotive Li-Ions have been driven down from more than $1000/KWH to below $250/KWH. And the Gigafactory (which is being helped by that $7500 tax-credit) will push battery prices down even lower.

          So yeah, the rich get the neat toys first. But that super-expensive brick cellphone from the 80’s used by Wall Street millionaires enabled you to eventually own that amazing smartphone in your pocket. And with EVs, EVERYONE benefits from the cleaner local air due to less car pollution.

        4. Anonymous says:

          The Volt and LEAF qualify for the $7500 PLUS the CARB rebates.
          Are those for the “Super Rich”?

          super idiot.

      2. Koenigsegg says:

        How dumb are you? They have to generate money to make affordable products.

        Expensive products now mean less expensive in the near future and they are still developing and refining the technology.

        I think you have a brain ….. so use it.

    2. Nonda Trimis says:

      You guys and the falcon doors comments are driving me crazy – LET IT GO!!

    3. Steve says:

      It is many of those things but beautiful is not one of them.

  27. Bloggin says:

    I wonder if Tesla will offer a model X with standard doors on the back, so we can add a roof rack for bikes, skies, luggage, to make the SUV more useful. Otherwise we would still need the Range Rover Sport for trips to the mountains for skiing or biking. Or just get the Model S sedan that can handle a roof rack. Sort of a reversal of purpose for the vehicles.

    1. Stephen Pace says:

      @Bloggin: No, Tesla will not offer standard doors as an option. The car comes standard with a towhitch mounted ski and bike holder and it is much more efficient to carry those items behind than on top. If you want to carry a canoe, tow a trailer or buy another vehicle (although I have seen mockups of how you could do that on top of a Model X if you really wanted to).

    2. Stuart22 says:

      Go ahead with the racks and canoes – just don’t carry any passengers in the back seats.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        My guess is it won’t be long before some aftermarket supplier starts making a rooftop rack for the Model X which can be configured to ride above only the left or the right rear door, leaving the other door for back seat passengers to enter and exit.

        A compromise solution, of course, and therefore fully satisfying no one. But there are a lot of people complaining very loudly about the inability to use a rooftop carrier for skis or bicycles, and that would at least work for some.

        1. Stuart22 says:

          Maybe – but there are other things that could add to the impossibility of aftermarket fixes, such as windshield glass that continues back to the front edge of the falcon door, and the sloping roof itself. Aside from the falcon doors, I think one of the biggest mistakes with the design was to not have a flatter, higher in the back roof design. They tried to keep the lines as close to the Model S as they could which ended up making the X look like a frumpy, plumpy S instead of a sleek, purposeful crossover.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Stuart22 said:

            “…there are other things that could add to the impossibility of aftermarket fixes, such as windshield glass that continues back to the front edge of the falcon door, and the sloping roof itself.”

            I was thinking of an aftermarket rooftop carrier specifically made for the Model X, so the sloping roof would be handled by longer brackets on the back than the front.

            And it’s not true that the glass roof goes all the way back to the falcon wing doors. There is a section of maybe 6 or 8 inches in between; call it a built-in rollbar.

            “Aside from the falcon doors, I think one of the biggest mistakes with the design was to not have a flatter, higher in the back roof design. They tried to keep the lines as close to the Model S as they could which ended up making the X look like a frumpy, plumpy S instead of a sleek, purposeful crossover.”

            I certainly agree that for utilitarian design, cargo carrying, and for rear-seat head room, it would have been better to have a flat roof behind the front seats, as most SUVs have. But apparently Tesla thought lower wind resistance (and therefore better efficiency and range) were more important.

            As far as whether the MX is beautiful or ugly… heck, I think all production CUVs and SUVs are utterly lacking in “sex appeal”. In fact, the design approach of such cars is to make them look “tough”, not sexy.

            I find it bizarre that anyone actually expected the MX to look as “sexy” as the MS, or that anyone would be disappointed it’s not.

  28. ffbj says:

    According to some sources various problems evoked above have been addressed:
    “This is an important step for Tesla to show its not a one-trick show when it comes to developing a car from start to finish,” said Ben Kallo, an analyst with Robert W. Baird & Co. “It will also be great for brand awareness to have two cars on the road. Good to see there will be a ski and bike rack hitch solution as well as sensors to allow the falcon wing doors to open in garages.”

  29. jelloslug says:

    240 mile range is not bad at all considering that it the P90D version. The Model S version of that drivetrain is rated for 253. I would imagine that the X 90D will get closer to 250 or 260.

    1. BillL says:

      Even though the Model S P90D has the same EPA rated range as the P85D it actually has a 6% higher range putting it “unofficially” at 268 miles.

  30. Scramjett says:

    “Tesla offers an optional towing package for the utility vehicle that is rated for up to 5,000 lbs.”

    Curious. I wonder what the range would be for towing, say, a pair of jet ski’s, a boat or a U-Haul trailer? I assume most campers are probably too heavy?

    Given the huge gas mileage penalty most trucks and SUVs see when hauling trailers, I expect a huge range penalty. Maybe 120 miles?

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Keep in mind that driving slower gives you more highway range in a BEV. Some states, if not all, have a lower highway speed limit when towing. So it may not actually reduce the range all that much, unless you’re pulling something large with high wind resistance, like a camper. The 5000 lb. towing limit won’t let the car tow large campers, but surely it will be able to handle some small ones, especially the pop-up variety.

      1. Scramjett says:

        That’s a good point. California has a 55 MPH speed limit for trailers (not that anyone ever follows that). I’d still like to know what the range would be at max towing capacity. Maybe Tesla will upgrade their “range estimator” for the Model X?

        Yeah, I thought of the pop-up campers after my post. I don’t see those very often though. The two dominate campers I see more than anything else are the large hitch variety (the most) and the 5th wheel variety (second most) which the Tesla (or any SUV for that matter) cannot pull.

        1. Scramjett says:

          Allow me to fully complete my thought:

          Maybe Tesla will upgrade their “range estimator” for the Model X and include a “check box” for pulling a trailer?

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            A check box for pulling a trailer wouldn’t be sufficient. The range calculator would need to know how much air resistance the trailer has, and how heavy it is, to be able to properly account for that.

            1. Heisenberght says:

              Maybe the software could determine that from the data it has. They could calculate how strong acceleration deviates from “usual” values at different speeds and estimate what type of trailer you are pulling. Should be possible…

              A funny gimmick would be if there would appear a customized message on the dashboard something like: “TESLA wishes you a great camping experience” or “TESLA wishes you a nice boat trip” or “What the hell are you pulling???”

  31. andre says:

    scramjett:you forgot the 2 stories,2 bathroom luxury motorhome too!!!

  32. Nichen says:

    I would like to know if it’s possible to put it in a higher clearance mode when yo do want to go offroad with it or if you need to go into forrest-roads with it. Then it sure would be the most versatile and practical car on the planet 🙂

    1. Anon says:

      The Model S has computerized air suspension as an option. I would venture something similar for X is likely available. We’ll see its capabilities, when they do a public demo.

  33. Bill Howland says:

    ****BREAKING NEWS*****

    New Roadster 3.0 battery: $29,000 installed.

    Must call local service center to schedule upgrades… Supposedly 2 to 3 a week.

    1. jelloslug says:


    2. Mikael says:

      No hope for roadster owners to ever use the supercharging network?

      Well, without owning another Tesla or waiting for the Model R that is.

    3. Anon says:

      Oh, great that’s finally out, too! 😀

  34. james says:

    I don’t understand what is more compelling about this car? A bit more headroom and a little higher off the ground? Too much of a range hit vs the S.

    1. Phatcat73 says:

      It’s compelling when you’re too tall to fit in an S. Looking forward to interior specs and comparing against the S. In the meantime the Rav4 EV is holding up well!

    2. Josh says:

      It does seat 7 adults, unlike 5 for Model S.

      The same statement could be said for many other sedans vs SUVs. The higher ride height is a big deal for some buyers (like my wife).

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      It’s a car for those who need… or think they need… to be able to haul several passengers or lots of cargo; more than a normal car can.

      It’s also a car for those who want to drive something tough-looking, and surprisingly that includes a lot of women. Since fear of driving plays into the American culture of fear (and I speak as an American), it’s not surprising that “tough looking” cars like SUVs and pickups are so popular here.

      Of course, you won’t find any auto maker who will admit to playing to its customers’ fears. But I found it rather telling to read about a focus group of women who were potential new car buyers — and this was even before 9/11 — whose primary concern was about how dangerous the roads were and how they need a vehicle which can protect them.

      If you hear an American talk about the “arms race” of larger and larger vehicles on the roads, that’s also part of the culture of fear. The idea that you “must” drive a big, heavy vehicle, in case you get into an accident with another big, heavy vehicle… and you don’t want to be the “loser” in such a battle.

  35. Phr3d says:

    no pictures of the front.. IMHO, “hmm..”

  36. bro1999 says:

    I read parts of the thread on the Tesla motors forum….I haven’t seen that much talk about spooning since….eh, nevermind. :p

  37. RedDotGuy says:

    You guys are missing the biggest negative.. 240 mile range. A Fully loaded X maybe 150 mile range. This really sucks for road trips. No Moores Law for Batteries. I just don’t see Batteries as a replacement for gasoline. Will BMW or other car manufacture do an Apple, crushing Tesla like Blackberry. Maybe Apple will crush Tesla. Hydrogen + fuel cells the only answer. Batteries are heavy, require long charge times. The amount of electricity needed to fully charge a 300 mile battery in under 10 minutes would be huge. Great car but.. CAN YOU SAY BLACKBERRY PART 2

    1. Ambulator says:

      The range should at worst scale with the weight, and at high speed it will almost not change at all. You would only limited to 150 miles towing a trailer (or speeding, whether or not the car is fully loaded).

    2. Speculawyer says:

      Do you think the laws of physics do not apply to BMW & Apple?

  38. ralph says:

    Hmm I bought my Nissan 370Z for $37,800 with everything (sport and touring packages)new off the showroom floor. And the new Tesla is $134,000? No.

    1. Speculawyer says:

      That is for the signature model.

      And how much are you going to spend on gasoline over the next 10 years for that car?

  39. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    RedDotGuy said:

    “You guys are missing the biggest negative.. 240 mile range. A Fully loaded X maybe 150 mile range.”

    The X won’t lose that much range compared to the S, unless it’s towing a large trailer.

    “This really sucks for road trips. No Moores Law for Batteries. I just don’t see Batteries as a replacement for gasoline.”

    Well, no one is gonna put a gun to your head and force you to buy a BEV or a long-range PHEV. Of course, one could argue it would be better for Planet Earth, the American economy, and the 99% of American taxpayers who aren’t super-rich, if someone did.

    “Will BMW or other car manufacture do an Apple, crushing Tesla like Blackberry.”

    LOL! And also crush their own gasmobile sales? Not likely, bub. You might want to look at what happened to Kodak in the digital camera revolution.

    The Blackberry of the EV revolution is Toyota and its Prius… not Tesla.

    “Maybe Apple will crush Tesla.”

    If they want to. But why would Apple want to enter a market with very high capital investment requirements, and low profit margins? They’re doing just fine with their high profit margin profits. Cars are a very poor fit to Apple’s business model.

    “Hydrogen + fuel cells the only answer.”

    Only if the question is “How can we promote a fuel that’s much more expensive and massively less energy-efficient than gasoline, yet even more polluting?”

    RedDotGuy continued:

    “Batteries are heavy, require long charge times. The amount of electricity needed to fully charge a 300 mile battery in under 10 minutes would be huge.”

    No, the amount of electricity needed to charge a battery N number of miles is the same regardless of whether it’s 10 minutes or 100 minutes (well, aside from a slight bit of lost efficiency from forced rapid charging). It’s the power requirement which will be much higher. But it’s not like we don’t know how to do it. Industrial power is a problem which has been solved; it’s just more expensive.

    “Great car but.. CAN YOU SAY BLACKBERRY PART 2”

    No, but I can say that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Edit: Apple is doing just fine with their high profit margin products.

      1. Raymondjram says:

        …and made in China.

  40. Anon says:

    Based on the range numbers from Tesla, the Model X makes a VERY STRONG CASE FOR BATTERY SWAP STATIONS.

    Pulling a 5000 lb. trailer, seating 7 adults, vehicle stuffed to the Frunk with gear, and you’re traveling 1200 miles thru the mountains to get to a vacation destination…

    Different Vehicles with different usage patterns lead to different recharging needs. Battery Swapping for X, makes a lot more sense. I hope Elon takes that into consideration before killing the idea.

    1. Speculawyer says:

      And at the very least, they are going to need to modify their superchargers to allow someone with a trailer to charge up. The current back-in superchargers are useless to a car with a trailer!

  41. Mark Z says:

    Tesla Motors has updated their website. The “White Leather Seats” is now “Ultra White Seats” a synthetic material. The tan and black remain as leather. The seat choices for the Signature X have perforated material for the heated/cooled seats. Buyers who want a “vegan” car should call to request a change to the leather steering wheel.

    I would appreciate feedback on the comfort difference of synthetic .vs. leather with heated/cooled seats.

  42. Fabian says:

    I knew this car was going to be expensive, but 100k+ for a soccer mom SUV? I can’t see any soccer mom’s with these cars. Love you Tesla, but this is rip-off, and a bad looking one at that.

    1. chris says:

      Why not? The cayenne, Q7 and X5 sell like crazy to soccer mom families. The X has about 25000 reserves sight unseen so fairly sure demand is a non issue

  43. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    The article says:

    “There is also a fairly lively thread in progress on the subject that we encourage everyone interested to get involved with and check out at TMC.”

    OMG I can’t believe that 90% of the posts there were speculation, much of it wild and wholly impractical speculation, about how the 2nd row seats might fold or move in some complex fashion to provide more storage space in the back, despite the CGI image of the Model X interior lacking any visible hinge between the seat bottom and back… suggesting the seat back can’t fold either forward or back, altho the pedestal mount might enable the entire seat to tilt forward or back, or both.

    Rather bizarre, or Ludicrous™, to read so many posts suggesting the 2nd row seats being able to move into a “spooning” position behind and underneath the front seats, despite the fact (note: fact, not speculation) that there isn’t nearly enough vertical clearance underneath the front seats to do so. And even aside from that, the engineering required for such contortions, for a seat mounting which needs to be sturdy enough to survive a crash test, seems rather improbable from an engineering standpoint.

    I did think one post had an interesting point that allowing the entire seat to tilt forward would be a way to allow easy 3rd row access without having to go thru the time-consumimg process of removing and then re-installing a child seat in the 2nd row. Since Tesla has made a big point about allowing easy access to 2nd row seats for moms struggling with a child seat, this at least has some plausibility.

    However, as far as any official Tesla info on the point, all anyone showed was an old Tesla ad showing that the 2nd row seats can slide all the way forward against the front seat, to allow easier 3rd row access.

    So why did Musk indicate that the 2nd row seat design was so hard? Perhaps these seats are removable — since they obviously can’t fold into the floor (where the battery pack is) — yet still are independently functioning power seats. Has anyone ever sold a car with removable power seats? I wouldn’t be surprised if the answer is “No”. Could this be what Musk was referring to as a hard engineering challenge?

  44. Sam says:

    Check out the Black Model X video from last week

  45. Warren says:

    If you took up the same amount of space in your car as you do in an airplane, and your car looked like it was actually designed to travel through a fluid, rather than the vacuum of space, imagine how efficient it would be?