You Have Until Sunday To Order A RWD Model S

I am sure also give the room needed for pricing on the Tesla 3. Be interesting to see the used car market and how it goes.

The question is, is the slicing off of the bottom S models indicative of a steady march upward on the Model 3 price?

We already know there's no profit at the $35K level... maybe not at $40K. If the 3 is meant to save the company, will it have to primarily be $45-55K or more?

Im not allowed to order Rwd anything anyway...

We don't really know where Tesla's profit point is at.   If the Model 3 gets the company profitable look out.  And another thing to consider is Tesla has the badge not he front to get people to buy their cars.  This is something that Nissan, Chevy, Ford, VW, etc don't have.  A car that costs $40k to build, Chevy would have to sell at $40k, Tesla could sell that same car for $50k because it says Tesla on the front, and Tesla is the gotta have product to use a Bob Lutz term.

44 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

We don't really know where Tesla's profit point is at.   If the Model 3 gets the company profitable look out.  And another thing to consider is Tesla has the badge not he front to get people to buy their cars.  This is something that Nissan, Chevy, Ford, VW, etc don't have.  A car that costs $40k to build, Chevy would have to sell at $40k, Tesla could sell that same car for $50k because it says Tesla on the front, and Tesla is the gotta have product to use a Bob Lutz term.

Guess I have to disagree as Tesla to me is not a Gotta Have it Item. Exterior is boring, Interior is just as boring. They do nothing to make me want to have their products. 

Technology is cool and I love it, but I will wait to some other company builds an EV that I gotta have.

I find the Bollinger B1 SUV a better EV SUV than Tesla. That is probably due to the more brick offroad look and functionality than the Tesla.

Tesla's profit point is difficult to pinpoint, yes. But obviously it's well above the current scenario of losing three-quarters of a billion /yr. Adding a much lower priced model with a margin so thin they company decided to bar selling at the advertised base price for the short term is NOT a good sign. Further, continued development on other vehicles (Model Y, semi, small truck) will just continue to suck capital.

A car that costs $40k to build, Chevy would have to sell at $40k

Where did you get this 'information'?

He's making a case for name brand value is all. Telsa sells on it's name, Chevy, except for Corvette and Tahoe/Suburban, can't do that.

I've never been all that interested in the looks of Tesla, but I like the technology. When I do go to a plug in of some sort, it probably won't be Tesla unless they really change up the styling. Volvo is my first choice as the moment.

I like the look of the Model S. The re-freshed one  with the new nose. The older front end has gotten stale and out-dated.

The silhouette is still slippery and sleek.  Despite the design being on sale now for 5 years, it holds its own in sexiness.

Its got that fast-back look that says "speed"!

Albeit Id prefer if Tesla would re-freshen the back end as they did with the front end just a tad just for change's sake.

Honestly...there arent any pure 100% EVs out there to truly compare it to in looks still in 2017...(in its price range and EV range and position in the market place...a Chevy Bolt perhaps...but a Chevy Bolt is not a sports sedan in the high end of the luxury world of cars...

No...it does not have jelly bean looks...

The car is rounded, yes...cars have NOT been square since the 1980s...and even then, rounded cars were starting then...Ford Taurus anyone...

The 1990s Caprice was a jelly bean...the Taurus had 2-3 generations of jellybean-ess to them......the 1992 Pontiac Grand Am was totally jellybean...today's cars...not so much...

Hell...Id argue...if we gonna go down the jellybean road...that the GM GMT360 SUV is jellybean...

(yes...these are Oldsmobile Bravadas in reality...the Chevy version hides the rounded areas, unlike the Oldsmobile versions where Oldsmobile, Buick and SAAB embrace the curves)

Actually...the Model S sedan kinda reminds me of the late 1960s GM A-Body fastback muscle car coupes both in silhouette and 3/4 view fastback styling. Obviously I am not trying to say that both cars are the same...but in style, purpose, sleekness the share the same qualities

Both even have above the rear wheels, accented fenders...

The Olds442 is rounded all around...but NOBODY DARES call the Olds a jellybean shape though...

12 hours ago, smk4565 said:

We don't really know where Tesla's profit point is at.   If the Model 3 gets the company profitable look out.  And another thing to consider is Tesla has the badge not he front to get people to buy their cars.  This is something that Nissan, Chevy, Ford, VW, etc don't have.  A car that costs $40k to build, Chevy would have to sell at $40k, Tesla could sell that same car for $50k because it says Tesla on the front, and Tesla is the gotta have product to use a Bob Lutz term.

Yet Tesla’s profits have been what since their inception? That’s a trick question btw as they have not yet made a profit worth noting.

2 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

Yet Tesla’s profits have been what since their inception? That’s a trick question btw as they have not yet made a profit worth noting.

Right, they lose money now, but we don't know how many Model 3's they have to sell to turn a profit.  

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

Right, they lose money now, but we don't know how many Model 3's they have to sell to turn a profit.  

Well since we don’t use imaginary crystal balls to assume profit on a yet to be produced product, all we have is the present and at present, Tesla has not made a profit. 

Also, like others have pointed out, this pretty much solidifies the fact that the 3 is going to be priced higher than originally advertised. 

47 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Well since we don’t use imaginary crystal balls to assume profit on a yet to be produced product, all we have is the present and at present, Tesla has not made a profit. 

 

Also, like others have pointed out, this pretty much solidifies the fact that the 3 is going to be priced higher than originally advertised. 

The price of the Model 3 I don't think will slow down sales at all.  They will sell as fast as they can make them, actually they sell faster than they can make them since you have to order your car up front from Tesla, there is no dealer supply of 100 days sitting on lots.

What is funny though is that if I mention the Cadillac XT5 starts at $39,395, GM fans quickly point out that they usually sell over $50,000 or even $60,000 in Platinum Super Trim.  But if the Model 3 starts at $35,00 and transacts at $45-50k, that is a bad thing.

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

The price of the Model 3 I don't think will slow down sales at all.  They will sell as fast as they can make them, actually they sell faster than they can make them since you have to order your car up front from Tesla, there is no dealer supply of 100 days sitting on lots.

 

What is funny though is that if I mention the Cadillac XT5 starts at $39,395, GM fans quickly point out that they usually sell over $50,000 or even $60,000 in Platinum Super Trim.  But if the Model 3 starts at $35,00 and transacts at $45-50k, that is a bad thing.

Except the 3 will not start at that price at all while the XT5 DOES start at $39K. That’s what they’ve been saying so big difference in your apples to oranges comparison. The 3 is also competing with a car that is $35K further making your XT5 reference completely irrelevant. 

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

What is funny though is that if I mention the Cadillac XT5 starts at $39,395, GM fans quickly point out that they usually sell over $50,000 or even $60,000 in Platinum Super Trim.  But if the Model 3 starts at $35,00 and transacts at $45-50k, that is a bad thing.

Common sense tells you cars start at all different prices. Point is not the base price, but from the standpoint of the business side; why a company would not build a base MSRP entry level model until sometime later, esp when that is how the brand got the bulk of it's pre-orders (when a car wasn't shown until much later after orders were opened up). Even if an OEM 'front-loads' higher priced models to take advantage of the 'Gotta Have Nows', the point is still if the the company is taking advantage of consumer activity or is dependent on it for survival.

We all know Cadillac is profitable whereas Tesla never has been.

26 minutes ago, balthazar said:

the point is still if the the company is taking advantage of consumer activity or is dependent on it for survival.

Can the same thing be said about Ford when Ford did the same thing upon the release of the 2013 Ford Fusion?

They offered the base 2.5 liter engine choice but limited those to fleet sales and pushed the 1.6 ecoboost upon the consumers...which obviously the 1.6 ecoboost had a higher price tag than the 2.5...

We know that the 1.6 liter ecoboost is not a 'gotta have now' engine choice...so we could conclude Ford wanted to push the ecoboost moniker...

We also know that with the Mustang...the tried and true V6 was also offered but limited to fleet sales and pushed ecoboost upon the consumers...up until finally Ford just recently killed the V6 altogether.

We know with Lincoln ditching the Twin Force moniker and keeping the same ecoboost  moniker and with the arrival of the Ford GT that Ford put all their eggs in the ecoboost basket...

Ecoboost...even with the might of the Ford GT engineering behind it....aint a 'gotta have now' technology.

Maybe Ford is not as dependent on ecoboost to survive as Tesla is on the Model 3...I dont see this as a negative for Tesla if it aint a negative for Ford...

And to my best knowledge...ALL HIGH END GERMAN makes do the same thing as Tesla just did...reminiscent of nickeling and diming tactics...

BMW to Mercedes to Audi...

Porsche takes this to a HIGHER level...not only do they nickel and dime the consumer, but they also charge even HIGHER prices for DE-CONTENTING  options and ELIMINATING materials for lesser weight all in the name of selling you a "light, raw, back-to-basics" performance machine...

What is good for the goose MUST be good for the gander...

If this tactic will help Tesla be profitable and put some distance between the Model S and 3 and possibly make the Tesla sheeple fall head over heels even MORE for Tesla products...I say what the hell???!!! Good luck to Tesla!!!

1 hour ago, oldshurst442 said:

Can the same thing be said about Ford when Ford did the same thing upon the release of the 2013 Ford Fusion?

FoMoCo made $10 billion pre-tax profit in 2016 and miscroscopic Tesla lost three-quarters of billion. You tell me if the same pressures are in play.
 

2 hours ago, balthazar said:

Common sense tells you cars start at all different prices. Point is not the base price, but from the standpoint of the business side; why a company would not build a base MSRP entry level model until sometime later, esp when that is how the brand got the bulk of it's pre-orders (when a car wasn't shown until much later after orders were opened up). Even if an OEM 'front-loads' higher priced models to take advantage of the 'Gotta Have Nows', the point is still if the the company is taking advantage of consumer activity or is dependent on it for survival.

We all know Cadillac is profitable whereas Tesla never has been.

Companies all the time put out higher trim or at least mostly middle trim first.  The first year the Buick Envision was on sale it was only the premium trim with a base around $42k.  Now they have one for $34k or whatever the base car is.  Tesla is doing nothing different, year one they build all technology pack or extended range cars, and year 2 they will have the base.

Would like to see the link to the Corporate PR showing there were no base or near base MSRP Envisions at production start-up. And how many pre-orders did Buick take on the announced MSRP of the Envision before showing the vehicle?

22 minutes ago, balthazar said:

FoMoCo made $10 billion pre-tax profit in 2016 and miscroscopic Tesla lost three-quarters of billion. You tell me if the same pressures are in play.
 

Well..

Id say Ford has the bigger pressures!

Mark Fields was responsible for some of the most profitable years in Ford's history actually.

But...Fields was fired...

Fields traveled to Silicon Valley to see what is happening there to at least emulate Silicon Valley thoughts over at Dearborn, even acquired or partnered up with Silicon Valley companies to not fall behind Silicon Valley thoughts...even recruited Silicon Valley philosophers...yet got fired because New York Wallstreet sharks have no trust in the Detroit boys what so ever.

Tesla is a Silicon Valley giant...investors dont ask questions...honestly...I dont think they ever will ask questions in the same way those same investors never asked questions on Detroit when Detroit was King of the Technology hill in America once upon a time ago pre-2008!!!

3 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Would like to see the link to the Corporate PR showing there were no base or near base MSRP Envisions at production start-up.

The 2016 Buick Envision had a base price of $42,070, you can google it.  A 2016 Enclave was $39,065.  So when Buick said they were going to release an SUV in between Encore and Enclave, that wasn't really true, Envision was priced above Enclave for 1 year before other trim levels arrived. 

The 2017 Buick envision has a base price of $34,065.  At least Tesla isn't pricing the Model 3 above the Model S for a year.

7 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Well..

Id say Ford has the bigger pressures!

Mark Fields was responsible for some of the most profitable years in Ford's history actually.

But...Fields was fired...

Fields traveled to Silicon Valley to see what is happening there to at least emulate Silicon Valley thoughts over at Dearborn, even acquired or partnered up with Silicon Valley companies to not fall behind Silicon Valley thoughts...even recruited Silicon Valley philosophers...yet got fired because New York Wallstreet sharks have no trust in the Detroit boys what so ever.

Tesla is a Silicon Valley giant...investors dont ask questions...honestly...I dont think they ever will ask questions in the same way those same investors never asked questions on Detroit when Detroit was King of the Technology hill in America!!!

 

Though, I don't think it is likely, it is possible that Tesla could buy GM or Ford in about 15 years time.  If EV's really catch on and Tesla starts bank rolling money while GM and Ford go into sales decline, Tesla could take them over.   And everyone will say that is nuts, but Apple was near bankrupt and losing money 20 years ago, now they are the most valuable company in the world.  Amazon was a start up that lost money, now Sears, JCP, Toys R Us, Kohls, Target, Macy's and half the other retailers are all tanking and none of them have an answer. 

Ford has bigger pressure to maintain $10B in profit than Tesla has to SHOW any sort of profit at all??

Investors buy stock for 1 basic reason- to earn a return. Returns are garnered 2 ways- selling at a profit and earning dividends beforehand. Tesla dividend : $0.00. Now, I'm well aware of Tesla's stock chart, frankly it's amazing.... but it's amazing not so much for the price (today: $351), but for the disconnect between it and the company's financial condition.

Model X and S are high priced and of small volume. Model 3 is the 'everyman's Tesla'- it's how orders have reached a volume representing nearly 5 years of current Tesla volume- the advertised MSRP. Reasonably achieving a timely filling of those orders in a solid product launch will potentially realize a economy of scale that could turn the blood loss tide into the black. Potentially. If the Model 3 provides the revenue and profit to make the company solid, the stock may double or more. If it does not, and financially the Model 3 is yet another Model S/X... who knows but IMO a lot of the 'positive mojo' may evaporate.

2 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Though, I don't think it is likely, it is possible that Tesla could buy GM or Ford in about 15 years time.  If EV's really catch on and Tesla starts bank rolling money while GM and Ford go into sales decline, Tesla could take them over.   And everyone will say that is nuts, but Apple was near bankrupt and losing money 20 years ago, now they are the most valuable company in the world.  Amazon was a start up that lost money, now Sears, JCP, Toys R Us, Kohls, Target, Macy's and half the other retailers are all tanking and none of them have an answer.

Tesla has no cash for a take over. Tesla also doesn't WANT to buy Ford or GM- it goes against their proclaimed mantra.

And GM HAS answers already on the market. Bolt has a solid chance at being the #1 selling EV in 2017- a stat I know means everything to you.

Well...

Tesla's, Ford's and GM's stock worth aint really representative of their respective profits...

Mark Fields was fired...

Investors are questioning Ford and GM's future and both companies are full line car makers...

Tesla's Musk gives those investors vapor ware...they applaud...

  'Positive mojo' may evaporate. Or it may not...

As of now...in the short term at least...Ford NEEDS to get a 100% EV out there....ecoboost is not setting Wallstreet in fire....

At least GM has the Bolt...

So...yeah...even with all that profit that the F-150 generates...if the Model 3 makes Tesla profit and then the  consequent affordable CUV...Ford maybe need of a Tesla take-over as SMK suggested...

Just playing Devil's advocate because I dont believe all the bolded part that I wrote in this last post!!! The other stuff is plain reality of what is going on...

If ride sharing becomes a big thing, then annual car sales could go under 10 million, one study showed 5 million compared to about 17 million today.  GM and Ford aren't sustainable at 10 million annual sales, that is what happened in 2009.  They will have to quickly learn how to make money with car sharing services.

Teslas just seems better equipped for the EV-ride sharing-self driving car future that is going to happen.   And one day Tesla will have a pickup truck with more torque, more horsepower, and lower operating cost than an F150, then Ford is in trouble.  One thing about Ford and GM, they are both short sighted companies, what matters most is the quarterly profit number, their dividend and stock price.  Tesla doesn't care about any of that, they care about the future.  Ford would not take their $10 billion profit and put it into making an Electric F150, they will milk out the Ecoboost V6 until it is well past it's prime like GM did with the 3800 V6 and Dodge/Chrysler is doing with their whole line up.

56 minutes ago, balthazar said:

 

And GM HAS answers already on the market. Bolt has a solid chance at being the #1 selling EV in 2017- a stat I know means everything to you.

1 EV.  And GM doesn't make their own batteries either.  GM should have 10 EVs for sale by 2025.  Maybe they will, but I doubt it.

Ride sharing will never be a thing...

Just a glimpse of that ride sharing future...UBER's license to operate in London, England was revoked a couple of days ago on the account that

Quote

Uber isn’t “fit and proper to hold a private hire operator license.” The agency cited a failure to do proper background checks on drivers, report crimes and a program called “Greyball” used to avoid regulators.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-22/london-authority-revokes-uber-s-private-hire-license

Any ride sharing company risks of getting their asses handed to them if they dont co-operate...

Any more regs forced upon ride sharing companies and they just become a regular taxi service...and ride sharing  companies dont want any regs...so...they continue to operate in that grey zone and London wont be the ONLY city in the world with cojones to stop ANY ride sharing bullshyte!

There has ALWAYS been ride sharing...this aint nothing new...

New York  City is famous for it!

And its just a taxi service..

We all know how popular taxi services are outside of NYC...

Uber undercut taxi prices...THAT is the ONLY way it became popular...not hard to do when no municipal or State government imposes a HUUUUUGE operator's license fee on Uber drivers as it does on a regular taxi service...

Add to that no Uber driver reports income...at least in the beginning...but as governments at any level stop being stupid and naive and blind to false income claims....and will be jailing ride sharing drivers for tax evasion...

And no...an app on a smart phone was not revolutionary....

Speed dial does the same thing...

A phone call at the taxi center followed by a CB communication between driver and center relayed the same approx. pick-up time...

This method still works as I call my food delivery service headquarters and they in turn get info the way I explained...with GPS locations on the truck...but they do call the driver...no the info is not on my smart phone...but yet...this way is how ONSTAR works for destination turn by turn directions, non?

Sorry about the above rant...

I hates the notion of car sharing...and I ALWAYS come up with a new angle of why it will NEVER work.

• Stock price is the ONLY thing keeping Tesla's lights on right now. There is nothing of higher importance to the company- it's a pure revenue generator and the primary one.

• Most OEMs don't make most of their components- outsourcing is the way of the industry today. It's part of how Ford, GM & Daimler turn huge profits.

• 1 EV that just went nation-wide in sales 3 weeks ago. More are coming. Let's see how the Model 3 launch goes.

14 hours ago, smk4565 said:

The 2016 Buick Envision had a base price of $42,070, you can google it.  A 2016 Enclave was $39,065.  So when Buick said they were going to release an SUV in between Encore and Enclave, that wasn't really true, Envision was priced above Enclave for 1 year before other trim levels arrived. 

The 2017 Buick envision has a base price of $34,065.  At least Tesla isn't pricing the Model 3 above the Model S for a year.

Where do you come up with these asinine comparison. That 2016 Envision you speak of was a damn near loaded model and they said, from the get go, that the lower trim model would be introduced later. The fact that was a little higher then a base Enclave is 100% irrelevant based on that simple fact. Hell, a CLA can sot quite a bit more than a Class, in certain trims so unless you really want to go there, you need to just come up with a better argument. Oh, and with a $40K+ price difference, one would expect a 3 to not cost anywhere near an S, so a little $3K difference in the first year Envison is not a big deal and not comparable to what we were discussing regarding the 3. Fact is that they have said that it will be $35K when it is looking more and more likely that it will start out higher than that. What do you not understand about that?

13 hours ago, smk4565 said:

If ride sharing becomes a big thing, then annual car sales could go under 10 million, one study showed 5 million compared to about 17 million today.  GM and Ford aren't sustainable at 10 million annual sales, that is what happened in 2009.  They will have to quickly learn how to make money with car sharing services.

Teslas just seems better equipped for the EV-ride sharing-self driving car future that is going to happen.   And one day Tesla will have a pickup truck with more torque, more horsepower, and lower operating cost than an F150, then Ford is in trouble.  One thing about Ford and GM, they are both short sighted companies, what matters most is the quarterly profit number, their dividend and stock price.  Tesla doesn't care about any of that, they care about the future.  Ford would not take their $10 billion profit and put it into making an Electric F150, they will milk out the Ecoboost V6 until it is well past it's prime like GM did with the 3800 V6 and Dodge/Chrysler is doing with their whole line up.

1 EV.  And GM doesn't make their own batteries either.  GM should have 10 EVs for sale by 2025.  Maybe they will, but I doubt it.

And yet their ONE EV outsells all Benz EV models but I don’t hear talk of Tesla being able to take over them now do I? Everything you have spoken about GM and Ford is pure hyperbole and just pure hypothetical mumbo jumbo. You literally know not one damn thing about how they operate or plan to operate in the future. 

Man, your GM trolling is old, tiring, and just a simple load of BS.

12 hours ago, balthazar said:

• Stock price is the ONLY thing keeping Tesla's lights on right now. There is nothing of higher importance to the company- it's a pure revenue generator and the primary one.

• Most OEMs don't make most of their components- outsourcing is the way of the industry today. It's part of how Ford, GM & Daimler turn huge profits.

• 1 EV that just went nation-wide in sales 3 weeks ago. More are coming. Let's see how the Model 3 launch goes.

And Tesla only makes the battery. Where the hell does SMK think all those other electrical components, like that giant tablet in the dash, comes from? The Tesla fairy? No. It comes from China.

14 hours ago, smk4565 said:

If ride sharing becomes a big thing, then annual car sales could go under 10 million, one study showed 5 million compared to about 17 million today.  GM and Ford aren't sustainable at 10 million annual sales, that is what happened in 2009.  They will have to quickly learn how to make money with car sharing services.

Teslas just seems better equipped for the EV-ride sharing-self driving car future that is going to happen.   And one day Tesla will have a pickup truck with more torque, more horsepower, and lower operating cost than an F150, then Ford is in trouble.  One thing about Ford and GM, they are both short sighted companies, what matters most is the quarterly profit number, their dividend and stock price.  Tesla doesn't care about any of that, they care about the future.  Ford would not take their $10 billion profit and put it into making an Electric F150, they will milk out the Ecoboost V6 until it is well past it's prime like GM did with the 3800 V6 and Dodge/Chrysler is doing with their whole line up.

1 EV.  And GM doesn't make their own batteries either.  GM should have 10 EVs for sale by 2025.  Maybe they will, but I doubt it.

There is a certain, yet typical, irony in your statements about the F-150 and the GM 3800 when Mercedes has been peddling a 40 year old G Wagon to any sucker who is naive enough to buy it. That is why your constant trolling about the domestic makers here is pure folly and utter bull$h!.

1 hour ago, surreal1272 said:

Where do you come up with these asinine comparison. That 2016 Envision you speak of was a damn near loaded model and they said, from the get go, that the lower trim model would be introduced later. The fact that was a little higher then a base Enclave is 100% irrelevant based on that simple fact. Hell, a CLA can sot quite a bit more than a Class, in certain trims so unless you really want to go there, you need to just come up with a better argument. Oh, and with a $40K+ price difference, one would expect a 3 to not cost anywhere near an S, so a little $3K difference in the first year Envison is not a big deal and not comparable to what we were discussing regarding the 3. Fact is that they have said that it will be $35K when it is looking more and more likely that it will start out higher than that. What do you not understand about that?

They already said the Model 3 has a base price of $35,000.  The only thing is they are making well equipped models first.  Buick did the same thing with the Envision.

30 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

There is a certain, yet typical, irony in your statements about the F-150 and the GM 3800 when Mercedes has been peddling a 40 year old G Wagon to any sucker who is naive enough to buy it. That is why your constant trolling about the domestic makers here is pure folly and utter bull$h!.

Mercedes builds what the customer wants. GM has not always done that, which is why market share eroded, rebates went up, and GM filed bankruptcy.  GM is usually a few years behind the trend like crossovers were hit 10 years ago, Cadillac has one, even Infiniti has 4 of them.

19 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

They already said the Model 3 has a base price of $35,000.  The only thing is they are making well equipped models first.  Buick did the same thing with the Envision.

Let me say this for you one more time. They will not start at $35K. Bank on it. 

14 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Mercedes builds what the customer wants. GM has not always done that, which is why market share eroded, rebates went up, and GM filed bankruptcy.  GM is usually a few years behind the trend like crossovers were hit 10 years ago, Cadillac has one, even Infiniti has 4 of them.

GTFO of here and stop trying to move the bar yet again. You used the F-150 as an example of milking tech. Well, I’m pretty sure that a lot of people want those (same for the millions of GM 3800s out there whether you like it or not). The F-150 averages 70,000 a MONTH while bringing huge profits and has changed their powertrains numerous times to go with the times, hence ditching V8s for turbo sixes, just like Benz has been doing. Those are little details that you failed to mention while trying to call them out. 

Oh and GM has more CUVs than any other manufacturer including Benz. More details you leave out while you move that bar around. 

26 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Let me say this for you one more time. They will not start at $35K. Bank on it. 

They will start at 35 000...

How many will be produced to be available to be sold at that price is another thing all together...

The majority of them will be sold at higher than 35 000...sure!  But why would that be a negative?

Part of that would be because not too many 35 000 dollar priced Model 3s will be available....but...I dont think the majority of Tesla buyers gives a shyte how  much the Model 3 ends up costing them...and I think Elon knows this so he  will  milk as much money as he can outta the Tesla sheeple...

The ones that dont want to spend the coin to drive a Tesla and just for the badge do have options...

It is called the Bolt or the Leaf, at the moment as only Chevy and Nissan offer  viable and compelling products as of now that directly compete with the Model 3 somewhat...

Why would any of this be bad?

55 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

They already said the Model 3 has a base price of $35,000.  The only thing is they are making well equipped models first.  Buick did the same thing with the Envision.

Did Buick accept pre-orders on an Envision no one saw based on a falsified base MSRP? I don't think so.

2 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

They will start at 35 000...

How many will be produced to be available to be sold at that price is another thing all together...

The majority of them will be sold at higher than 35 000...sure!  But why would that be a negative?

Part of that would be because not too many 35 000 dollar priced Model 3s will be available....but...I dont think the majority of Tesla buyers gives a shyte how  much the Model 3 ends up costing them...and I think Elon knows this so he  will  milk as much money as he can outta the Tesla sheeple...

The ones that dont want to spend the coin to drive a Tesla and just for the badge do have options...

It is called the Bolt or the Leaf, at the moment as only Chevy and Nissan offer  viable and compelling products as of now that directly compete with the Model 3 somewhat...

Why would any of this be bad?

 

 

Please read what I’m actually saying instead of converting it into some kind of kind winded explanation of something I am not talking about. I have no problem with what the optioned our models will cost. That’s the car business. What I am saying is that it will not start at $35K. Nothing less, nothing more. 

2 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

I dont think the majority of Tesla buyers gives a shyte how  much the Model 3 ends up costing them...and I think Elon knows this so he  will  milk as much money as he can outta the Tesla sheeple...

Would you be willing to put a deposit down on a vehicle you had zero information on beyond 'its a smaller sedan than this one with less MPG, space and features, but it will cost/start at $35K'? If your answer is 'yes', what did you base your decision on?

Just now, surreal1272 said:

Please read what I’m actually saying instead of converting it into some kind of kind winded explanation of something I am not talking about. I have no problem with what the optioned our models will cost. That’s the car business. What I am saying is that it will not start at $35K. Nothing less, nothing more. 

And Im  saying it will start at 35 000!

I am also saying that not too many will be available at that price...

I also said that about Ford...and its ecoboost pushing...

Tesla aint that different than anyboby else is alls Im saying...

Why now...would we be chastising Tesla for an industry wide affair?

Imagine the number of pre-orders for the Model 3 if a $50k price had been announced.  LOL bunch of dopes riding on unicorns looking for a pot-o-gold at the base of the rainbow.  Elon Musk is a shyster now and always.

17 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Would you be willing to put a deposit down on a vehicle you had zero information on beyond 'its a smaller sedan than this one with less MPG, space and features, but it will cost/start at $35K'? If your answer is 'yes', what did you base your decision on?

I am not one of those 400 000 Tesla sheeple!

The ones that were not Tesla sheeple did cancel their orders...

But...when one fool ends up changing their mind, another one takes its place...

Even now after all of Elon's warnings that delivery will take long and not all options will be available right away...Tesla still losing millions...yada yada yada...people are still giving deposits to own sometime in the near future, the Model 3...

Yes...Tesla sheeple get excited when Elon is telling them about possible EV pick-up trucks and 18 wheelers and another CUV yet ignore that their 1000 dollar deposit on their Model 3  that already has been cashed in wont  come to fruition in another 1.5-2 years possibly 3 years...

Buick and Ford and even Mercedes cant afford such buffoonery...

THAT is the difference...

Will THAT ever become old?

15 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

Imagine the number of pre-orders for the Model 3 if a $50k price had been announced.  LOL bunch of dopes riding on unicorns looking for a pot-o-gold at the base of the rainbow.  Elon Musk is a shyster now and always.

As much as a shyster that Durant or Ford ever were....or even Delorean later on.....or any other Detroit personality in the automobile industry since the beginning...minus the few engineers, coach builders and race drivers that made a difference...but the ones involved in the money part....yeah...shysters...stealing, backstabbing, cheating, lying, extorting...

If you gonna hate...at least hate EQUALLY!!!

I for one have not called any of these Company men mentioned here a 'shyster'.

The bait & switch some could argue Tesla is doing on the 3 is indeed what has been seen before... tho at a somewhat higher level (OEM vs. dealer). The difference IMO is announcing the base MSRP, taking 3xxK preorders on that MSRP, then a considerable lapse of time passes before an announcement that a 20-40% price increase is instead what's going to happen... still before sales start. To my knowledge, the product didn't change during that time, and I acknowledge that the OEM has said base priced cars will be available down the line, but things change.

Remember; Tesla once said it would be a profitable company building only 300 cars/year.

My point remains; with no information for a long time on the Model 3 available other than the price, why didn't the 3xxK just order up a Model S that was available immediately? Was the announced 3 price the sole factor or not?

1 hour ago, surreal1272 said:

GTFO of here and stop trying to move the bar yet again. You used the F-150 as an example of milking tech. Well, I’m pretty sure that a lot of people want those (same for the millions of GM 3800s out there whether you like it or not). The F-150 averages 70,000 a MONTH while bringing huge profits and has changed their powertrains numerous times to go with the times, hence ditching V8s for turbo sixes, just like Benz has been doing. Those are little details that you failed to mention while trying to call them out. 

 

Oh and GM has more CUVs than any other manufacturer including Benz. More details you leave out while you move that bar around. 

I do like that Ford went to aluminum and turbo sixes for the F150, and they are going to do a hybrid also.  I applaud them for pushing progress forward.  Ford is the innovator when it comes to pick ups, and has come a long way since 4.6 liter V8s making 210 hp, and that was 15 years ago.

And Tesla's website states $35,000 base price before incentives.

59 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

And Im  saying it will start at 35 000!

I am also saying that not too many will be available at that price...

I also said that about Ford...and its ecoboost pushing...

Tesla aint that different than anyboby else is alls Im saying...

Why now...would we be chastising Tesla for an industry wide affair?

 

But you order your car from Tesla.  If you want to order a base model you can.  There is currently a 12-18 month wait to get it is the only problem.  Tesla has no dealers so you don't have to pick what is on dealer lots.  Anyone that wants the $35k Model 3 can order one.  Most Tesla buyers I imagine will want at least the luxury package for $5,000.  Personally I wouldn't pay $9,000 for the bigger battery pack, as 220 miles is plenty of range for my use, I assume many others will feel the same.

I also want to make it clear that I dont think of the early automobile pioneers as shysters.

Nor do I think Musk is a shyster either.  

The products to be sold are/were always available for the consumer to buy. Yes...the Model 3 will eventually be delivered...a shyster would be if Musk collected the deposit money and skipped town...he obviously has not done that.

And...what Tesla says what their cars will do performance wise...they cars deliver on that promised performance...so there is no shysterism there either.

I just like to even the playing field regarding certain thought processes....that is all!

30 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Was the announced 3 price the sole factor or not?

Why would this bother you?

Obviously the people that listened to Musk's speeches recently regarding price, options and delivery dates and did not agree, already canceled and are in the process of canceling now.

But many did not cancel...the majority...

And others took their place...the Model 3 still has around 400 000 pre-orders give or take.

31 minutes ago, balthazar said:

tho at a somewhat higher level (OEM vs. dealer). The difference IMO is announcing the base MSRP, taking 3xxK preorders on that MSRP, then a considerable lapse of time passes before an announcement that a 20-40% price increase is instead what's going to happen

True...but one buys a  car DIRECTLY from Tesla making Tesla THE dealership...so...same difference IMO.

Its the pre-orders that has you hung up...

Well...this is the game that the rules are played with with 'gotta have it now' products!

9 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Why would this bother you?

It doesn't; I merely posed the question.

14 minutes ago, balthazar said:

It doesn't; I merely posed the question.

Im sorry if I seem forceful. LOL!  I wanted to know why the question so I asked you? Albeit I think my questions to you might seem aggressive... They are not...its cool that we are going back and forth on this!

Curiosity is what you are saying?

Yup...curiosity is just a good reason as any other!

Good question non-the-less. I think that the people that thought they were duped by Elon for whatever reason already  canceled or are gonna cancel. If we could know how many people canceled their Model 3 orders so far...Id say a good percentage of those cancellations are for reasons that they felt duped...

Life does change, life happens.. so there is obviously gonna be cancellations based in unexpected events...so that calculation would be a tad trickier to determine...