https://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/m ... B404729215
Dribbling out performance numbers. I feel like Tesla doesn't trust the car the way we get a little more each time the auto rags get their hands on it. Still no lap times, still no figure 8. Though the acceleration and braking appears to be very good. In some ways, you could think of this as an electric ATS-V, which is pretty awesome, in terms of acceleration and braking performance envelope. But then there is no deal here - this car was $78,700 as tested. The ATS-V as tested prices are or more less the same, and the ATS-V is 277 lbs lighter BUT I guess EVs get to be heavier since the weight is a lot lower.
They are getting closer but not there yet. Given even money, there is no way I'd buy one of these over an ATS-V (or CTS-V). And I much, much, much prefer the interiors of the ATS-V or CTS-V. And it's not even money. The ATS-V and CTS-V can be had as used cars for significantly less than their MSRP. So, again, we need to keep waiting.
I do admit that from a performance standpoint, this car offers everything most people would ever want out of a sedan, which in large part, is drama-free 0-60s that are pretty much guaranteed to beat the guy next to you. It's just that 0-60 is not that relevant in daily situations in my experience, which is why I like 1/4 mile trap. And in that, this car is right there with a gen 6 Camaro (actually a bit slower and minus the awesome noise). But you'll have him in low speed acceleration situations, so there's that.
So again, making progress. It will be interesting to see where this goes. I am nowhere near ready to give up my V8s yet.
M/T: Dual motor AWD Tesla Model 3 announced
Re: M/T: Dual motor AWD Tesla Model 3 announced
My bad, the figure 8 was hidden at the bottom...
24.3 sec @ 0.84 g (avg)
That is quite good. However an ATS-V sedan is 23.7 sec @ 0.88 g (avg) which is actually a lot better, if we are counting.
Actually I'd almost argue they benchmarked the ATS-V except I highly doubt Tesla would look at anything from the Big 3.
ATS-V sedan: 12.1 sec @ 116.2 mph
Tesla 3 dual motor Performance from this article: 11.8 sec @ 115.2 mph
2016 ATS-V sedan as tested was $73,570 which is a bit cheaper even. Base price is also a bit less, because the base price of the Model 3 Dual Motor Performance is $70,200.
2016 CTS-V numbers:
11.9 sec @ 122.0 mph
24.2 sec @ 0.88 g (avg)
1.01 g (avg)
60-0 99 ft
I guess I should do the Model 3 Dual Motor Performance (annoying name).
11.8 sec @ 115.2 mph
24.3 sec @ 0.84 g (avg)
0.94 g (avg)
60-0 99 ft
And 2016 ATS-V sedan auto:
12.1 sec @ 116.2 mph
23.7 sec @ 0.88 g (avg)
1.03 g (avg)
60-0 99 ft
2016 CTS-V base was $85,990 and as tested was $96,585 which is certainly more than $78k. But you can get them used already for much, much less.
Also 122 trap is noticeably faster than 115. Like floor them both from any speed over 25 mph and the CTS-V is going to just pull and keep pulling away.
So today I'd take the ATS-V or CTS-V, no question about it (new or used for the ATS-V and used for the CTS-V). I guess let's see what happens as the dual motor performance drops in price on the used market and see if it becomes a better deal than these used Cadillacs, for comparison.
Right now there are 6 CTS-V3s under $60k for sale with between 45 and 62k miles, and one is even CPO, on auto trader. There is an edge case of one with 17k but it is at that crappy wholesaler in CT. Prices as low as $54,500 if you want to go to an Arizona Volvo dealer.
The numbers in this post were all from Motor Trend.
24.3 sec @ 0.84 g (avg)
That is quite good. However an ATS-V sedan is 23.7 sec @ 0.88 g (avg) which is actually a lot better, if we are counting.
Actually I'd almost argue they benchmarked the ATS-V except I highly doubt Tesla would look at anything from the Big 3.
ATS-V sedan: 12.1 sec @ 116.2 mph
Tesla 3 dual motor Performance from this article: 11.8 sec @ 115.2 mph
2016 ATS-V sedan as tested was $73,570 which is a bit cheaper even. Base price is also a bit less, because the base price of the Model 3 Dual Motor Performance is $70,200.
2016 CTS-V numbers:
11.9 sec @ 122.0 mph
24.2 sec @ 0.88 g (avg)
1.01 g (avg)
60-0 99 ft
I guess I should do the Model 3 Dual Motor Performance (annoying name).
11.8 sec @ 115.2 mph
24.3 sec @ 0.84 g (avg)
0.94 g (avg)
60-0 99 ft
And 2016 ATS-V sedan auto:
12.1 sec @ 116.2 mph
23.7 sec @ 0.88 g (avg)
1.03 g (avg)
60-0 99 ft
2016 CTS-V base was $85,990 and as tested was $96,585 which is certainly more than $78k. But you can get them used already for much, much less.
Also 122 trap is noticeably faster than 115. Like floor them both from any speed over 25 mph and the CTS-V is going to just pull and keep pulling away.
So today I'd take the ATS-V or CTS-V, no question about it (new or used for the ATS-V and used for the CTS-V). I guess let's see what happens as the dual motor performance drops in price on the used market and see if it becomes a better deal than these used Cadillacs, for comparison.
Right now there are 6 CTS-V3s under $60k for sale with between 45 and 62k miles, and one is even CPO, on auto trader. There is an edge case of one with 17k but it is at that crappy wholesaler in CT. Prices as low as $54,500 if you want to go to an Arizona Volvo dealer.
The numbers in this post were all from Motor Trend.
Re: M/T: Dual motor AWD Tesla Model 3 announced
Did a little more digging. It looks like the Model 3 is more of a CTS-sized car on the inside. Not sure about all the individual measurements but the interior volume is identical. For some the ATS is a size too small. So...if you wanted to torture this analogy, with the $70,200 to $78,700 (unless there are further options possible) Model 3 Dual Motor Performance you get:
- Interior size like a CTS-V, bigger than an ATS-V
- Acceleration similar to an ATS-V, slower than a CTS-V (unless you are focusing on 0-60)
- Braking same as both
- Figure 8 worse than both but very close to CTS-V
- Skidpad worse than both
- Price similar or a bit higher than an ATS-V, cheaper than a CTS-V
Not bad overall but I do not see a performance bargain here, at all. I do see a competitive offering for a competitive price that happens to be electric (with a really bad interior). I maintain that even the Model 3 is intended as a luxury product (not by interior standards, though), especially when the top performance version has pricing that is directly in line with some other performance luxury offerings. Problem is I don't think the Model 3 pulls off any kind of luxury, aside from the nameplate.
I also don't like the low belt line and VW Beetle vibe from the front head-on view.
- Interior size like a CTS-V, bigger than an ATS-V
- Acceleration similar to an ATS-V, slower than a CTS-V (unless you are focusing on 0-60)
- Braking same as both
- Figure 8 worse than both but very close to CTS-V
- Skidpad worse than both
- Price similar or a bit higher than an ATS-V, cheaper than a CTS-V
Not bad overall but I do not see a performance bargain here, at all. I do see a competitive offering for a competitive price that happens to be electric (with a really bad interior). I maintain that even the Model 3 is intended as a luxury product (not by interior standards, though), especially when the top performance version has pricing that is directly in line with some other performance luxury offerings. Problem is I don't think the Model 3 pulls off any kind of luxury, aside from the nameplate.
I also don't like the low belt line and VW Beetle vibe from the front head-on view.
Re: M/T: Dual motor AWD Tesla Model 3 announced
For the price part, you are neglecting the cost of ownership of the 3 not using gas, especially premium, and achieving very close, if not more usable street power. Also, you can actually drive the 3 in winter. Today, the cost of gas to electric miles is still way in the electric favor.
Re: M/T: Dual motor AWD Tesla Model 3 announced
It is weird. If you were going to make an argument, I would say it is far more lacking on the interior department, and that is rough to say that GM interior is lightyears past the 3... I guess their most luxurious option is the autonomous driving, which I have no interest in...
Re: M/T: Dual motor AWD Tesla Model 3 announced
Sure.bill25 wrote:For the price part, you are neglecting the cost of ownership of the 3 not using gas, especially premium, and achieving very close, if not more usable street power. Also, you can actually drive the 3 in winter. Today, the cost of gas to electric miles is still way in the electric favor.
Fueleconomy.gov is a place to start.
Shows 29 kWh / 100 miles combined. 2018 CTS-V is 14/21/17 and the ATS-V is 17/25/20. Fueleconomy.gov estimates operating cost based on some kind of average electricity cost and average fuel cost. Those numbers are the following for 15,000 miles/year and 55% city driving:
CTS-V: $3,050
ATS-V: $2,550
Tesla 3 AWD Performance: $550
Now let's take a look using some sample gas prices and electricity prices.
For gas let's go with $3.36 for 93. That is the average for RI for 93 according to a AAA website.
According to some quick math on my last electric bill we are now paying $0.19/kWh. OK.
100 miles of driving the Tesla Model 3 AWD Performance takes 29 kWh which would cost $5.52.
100 miles of driving the ATS-V at a combined 20 on premium would cost $16.80.
100 miles of driving the CTS-V at a combined 17 on premium would cost $19.76.
No doubt that is a huge advantage as it costs 3x more to run the ATS-V and almost 3.6x more to run the CTS-V. Of interest, the Tesla eMPG is 116. If it got 116 mpg on premium, it would cost $2.90 but instead costs $5.52, bringing the equivalent in COST MPG down to 61 MPG which is of course pretty amazing for the performance. But the 116 number is misleading since the variables are all over the place depending on your individual circumstances, which is why the eMPG is energy equivalent, which does not vary with prices. It also means you can never directly compare MPG to eMPG without doing some research and some math.
We can then replace the EPA estimates with more realistic predicted costs based on RI:
CTS-V: $2,964 (close)
ATS-V: $2,520 (damn, almost right on, amazingly enough)
Tesla 3 AWD Performance: $828 (quite a bit higher but still cheap)
$2,136/yr savings over the CTS-V or $1,692/yr savings over the ATS-V is nothing to sneeze at. And it means that over a 5 year ownership period (with the exact same gas prices and electricity costs as this example) you could spend an extra $10k on a Tesla Model 3 AWD Performance over a used CTS-V and break even on fuel costs after 5 years. Or an extra $8,500 one over an ATS-V and still break even on fuel costs after 5 years. So in that respect alone, it doesn't have to be as cheap. And what's a little interesting (because the economy) is that a notional used V3 is $60k let's say (they get a bit cheaper but $60k is a nice round number). Well a brand new base Model 3 AWD Performance is like $10k more than that. So on fuel alone that transaction is fair. The thing is, the V3 a much more appealing car for me, and with the 122 mph trap I'll just try not to run one of those Performance models off a light on Rt 4. Plus I like the looks a lot better (inside and out), while giving up nothing at all except 0-60.
I'd like to find some 30-50 and 50-70 or something to see how the rolling accel goes. I did find a RWD Model 3 test that I forgot to post (I will) and the 5-60 was identical to the 0-60. That is very good and means that I'd probably be very satisfied with the launch feel. Don't know if that holds true for the Performance.
Re: M/T: Dual motor AWD Tesla Model 3 announced
I did not complete my exercise on the ATS-V like I did on the CTS-V. The CTS-V3 bottom of market is basically "upper $50k" is how I would term it. You can even get CPO in that price range.
The ATS-V bottom of market is actually an unbelievable upper $30k range, which makes some sense considering the cars were split about $30k as new vehicles. Here is a very nice CPO sedan example:
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sal ... lCode1=ATS
I don't want to hear that this car is sketchy solely because it is at the bottom of the market pricing. Here is the dealer info:
Anyway, 2016 ATS-V sedan, black, 42k miles. $38,495. So take either car, a CTS-V for upper $50k or this car for upper $30k. I am not going to drop $70-78k on a Model 3 Dual Motor Performance, in the exact same way I wouldn't drop $100k on a new V3 or $70k on a new ATS-V. In the case of the used ATS-V, it would take almost 13 years just to break even on the fuel savings. And if I really had $70k, I'd get a $60k V3 and pay for gas for 5 years with the difference. And by the way, that's if I drove 15k a year. Likely the accrual would be far, far less. At 5k miles/year, that would be a 14 year payback for a $70k the Model 3 Dual Motor Performance vs a $60k V3. And the V3 is the better car.
If the Dual Motor Performance depreciates faster than these competitors, great. First, IS that going to happen? And if so, WHEN is that going to happen? Neither of those answers are my problem and the ATS-V and CTS-V are commonly available, today, right now, on dealer lots. Even CPO in the case of both examples.
The ATS-V bottom of market is actually an unbelievable upper $30k range, which makes some sense considering the cars were split about $30k as new vehicles. Here is a very nice CPO sedan example:
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sal ... lCode1=ATS
I don't want to hear that this car is sketchy solely because it is at the bottom of the market pricing. Here is the dealer info:
I did check the Carfax. One owner in Sarasota, FL, good history. Certified at the Northbrook dealer, so that is a fresh CPO, making it an even better deal.Steve Foley Cadillac Rolls-Royce Bentley Northbrook
100 SKOKIE BLVD NORTHBROOK, IL 60062
Anyway, 2016 ATS-V sedan, black, 42k miles. $38,495. So take either car, a CTS-V for upper $50k or this car for upper $30k. I am not going to drop $70-78k on a Model 3 Dual Motor Performance, in the exact same way I wouldn't drop $100k on a new V3 or $70k on a new ATS-V. In the case of the used ATS-V, it would take almost 13 years just to break even on the fuel savings. And if I really had $70k, I'd get a $60k V3 and pay for gas for 5 years with the difference. And by the way, that's if I drove 15k a year. Likely the accrual would be far, far less. At 5k miles/year, that would be a 14 year payback for a $70k the Model 3 Dual Motor Performance vs a $60k V3. And the V3 is the better car.
If the Dual Motor Performance depreciates faster than these competitors, great. First, IS that going to happen? And if so, WHEN is that going to happen? Neither of those answers are my problem and the ATS-V and CTS-V are commonly available, today, right now, on dealer lots. Even CPO in the case of both examples.
Re: M/T: Dual motor AWD Tesla Model 3 announced
Seems like it makes more sense to concentrate on new to new until the Model 3 has an actual used market price to compare to.
Used is tough in my opinion. I get that you say that that is the market, but the market doesn't always make sense as far as price to performance - like the G8, 4th gen Camaro with lowish miles, etc. There are plenty examples of bad used market price for performance compared with decent price to performance as new, which is all the manufacturer really has control over. In other words, it isn't Tesla's fault if these are stupid expensive used (unless it is because Tesla can't produce enough to support demand, which may happen for a while).
I mean if price for performance used is all that matters, then a used Z06 for 15K is the only car anyone should buy ever. There is more to the equation.
Used is tough in my opinion. I get that you say that that is the market, but the market doesn't always make sense as far as price to performance - like the G8, 4th gen Camaro with lowish miles, etc. There are plenty examples of bad used market price for performance compared with decent price to performance as new, which is all the manufacturer really has control over. In other words, it isn't Tesla's fault if these are stupid expensive used (unless it is because Tesla can't produce enough to support demand, which may happen for a while).
I mean if price for performance used is all that matters, then a used Z06 for 15K is the only car anyone should buy ever. There is more to the equation.
Re: M/T: Dual motor AWD Tesla Model 3 announced
Yeah I mean that 2016 ATS-V was CPO. You can't get any closer to new than that.
There are plenty of reasons someone may not want a used ATS-V. None of them are due to the performance. Interior is a bit meh compared to some of the competition, back seat is cramped, trunk is small, Cadillac badge, etc. But man this kind of compact luxury/performance type sedan, especially in a manual trans is a very special car indeed. Is it the only one left??
Redline Reviews just did a 2018 ATS-V sedan auto. You watch that and tell me he doesn't love driving the car (he liked the manual better even though the auto is faster). And to think - you could be rolling around in one of those for under $40k with a CPO warranty. That said he also reviewed a Dual Motor Performance recently and I am interested to see what he has to say - from the title alone I can tell he likes the performance.
You know why you don't buy a new one? Because after 3 years of driving and 42k, it's only worth $38,495 and obviously even less on trade-in. I don't know what it cost new but MSRP was somewhere between low $60k and mid $70k range or so. With discounts, it is possible a lesser optioned model could have walked off the dealer lot for under $60k, so let's just call it $60k.
If a used one only lost $5k of value over 3 years and 42k, well, that would be a different equation obviously - maybe you spend the extra $5k to get the one optioned the way you want and mileage that is (you assume) all yours. Instead it lost over $20k. Those are the most expensive miles that car will ever see. Fortunately, people with money exist and make financial decisions that seem stupid to us, and we win.
I dunno, I don't focus on new car MSRPs, trying to get them down by begging manufacturers to offer cheaper trims and no options. I think that is the wrong approach if you are an enthusiast. Instead, I swoon over cars like the ATS-V when I read the first reviews in 2015. Some people get mad at me and say "what is wrong with you, you'll never be able to afford a car like that, who cares how good it is?" But here we are, 3 short years later, and under $40k. Nothing mysterious about it at all.
And so it is with the Tesla. I don't care about the mediocre $35k one which isn't going to perform well by all indications on the trends with the more expensive ones. Let's watch the fancy one depreciate. And if it doesn't, well, then it is not a good buy. I don't think a new $75k Performance is a good buy. A $45k-$58k long range is not a good buy. The $35k one won't be a good buy. No different than a $70k ATS-V or a $100k CTS-V not being a good buy. Or a loaded Camaro 2SS 1LE which probably is like $50k.
With the performance trends the way they are, you pretty much don't go faster for cheaper with something newer. It's probably going to be something that was extremely high performance, but came out a few years back. So in my opinion, if something new comes out, I would say, show me the high performance model, let's see how it moves the needle, and now let's watch the price drop. But when some new trims of a car like the Model 3 are worse performance than some other NEW cars, well, that is quite a handicap.
Just to close this out, the whole reason I keep ranting about performance is because you were very adamant that this car was going to deliver exceptional performance, cheaper than gas cars (and you liked the looks also), and otherwise change the whole performance/enthusiast car equation. Aka a Model 3 would be a BETTER buy than some or perhaps all equivalent gas cars. I was skeptical from day 1, and this is why. Nothing I see about any of the new models seems to back any of that up based on my analysis, unless you only look at the 0-60, which is foolish imo.
There are plenty of reasons someone may not want a used ATS-V. None of them are due to the performance. Interior is a bit meh compared to some of the competition, back seat is cramped, trunk is small, Cadillac badge, etc. But man this kind of compact luxury/performance type sedan, especially in a manual trans is a very special car indeed. Is it the only one left??
Redline Reviews just did a 2018 ATS-V sedan auto. You watch that and tell me he doesn't love driving the car (he liked the manual better even though the auto is faster). And to think - you could be rolling around in one of those for under $40k with a CPO warranty. That said he also reviewed a Dual Motor Performance recently and I am interested to see what he has to say - from the title alone I can tell he likes the performance.
You know why you don't buy a new one? Because after 3 years of driving and 42k, it's only worth $38,495 and obviously even less on trade-in. I don't know what it cost new but MSRP was somewhere between low $60k and mid $70k range or so. With discounts, it is possible a lesser optioned model could have walked off the dealer lot for under $60k, so let's just call it $60k.
If a used one only lost $5k of value over 3 years and 42k, well, that would be a different equation obviously - maybe you spend the extra $5k to get the one optioned the way you want and mileage that is (you assume) all yours. Instead it lost over $20k. Those are the most expensive miles that car will ever see. Fortunately, people with money exist and make financial decisions that seem stupid to us, and we win.
I dunno, I don't focus on new car MSRPs, trying to get them down by begging manufacturers to offer cheaper trims and no options. I think that is the wrong approach if you are an enthusiast. Instead, I swoon over cars like the ATS-V when I read the first reviews in 2015. Some people get mad at me and say "what is wrong with you, you'll never be able to afford a car like that, who cares how good it is?" But here we are, 3 short years later, and under $40k. Nothing mysterious about it at all.
And so it is with the Tesla. I don't care about the mediocre $35k one which isn't going to perform well by all indications on the trends with the more expensive ones. Let's watch the fancy one depreciate. And if it doesn't, well, then it is not a good buy. I don't think a new $75k Performance is a good buy. A $45k-$58k long range is not a good buy. The $35k one won't be a good buy. No different than a $70k ATS-V or a $100k CTS-V not being a good buy. Or a loaded Camaro 2SS 1LE which probably is like $50k.
With the performance trends the way they are, you pretty much don't go faster for cheaper with something newer. It's probably going to be something that was extremely high performance, but came out a few years back. So in my opinion, if something new comes out, I would say, show me the high performance model, let's see how it moves the needle, and now let's watch the price drop. But when some new trims of a car like the Model 3 are worse performance than some other NEW cars, well, that is quite a handicap.
Just to close this out, the whole reason I keep ranting about performance is because you were very adamant that this car was going to deliver exceptional performance, cheaper than gas cars (and you liked the looks also), and otherwise change the whole performance/enthusiast car equation. Aka a Model 3 would be a BETTER buy than some or perhaps all equivalent gas cars. I was skeptical from day 1, and this is why. Nothing I see about any of the new models seems to back any of that up based on my analysis, unless you only look at the 0-60, which is foolish imo.
Re: M/T: Dual motor AWD Tesla Model 3 announced
I understand depreciation, and why it is more cost effective to buy used. There is no reason to discuss why a used car is a better value.
That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion of comparing 2 cars by price in an apple to apples way.
New to new removes trying to guess how a car may depreciate and allows you to talk concrete numbers: The price new, the performance envelope. Otherwise the variables are endless. It doesn't matter if you would ever buy a new car.
That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion of comparing 2 cars by price in an apple to apples way.
New to new removes trying to guess how a car may depreciate and allows you to talk concrete numbers: The price new, the performance envelope. Otherwise the variables are endless. It doesn't matter if you would ever buy a new car.