[b0bab0i]

Originally Posted by Kayani_1

A well rounded performance car for me would not weigh in close to 4785 lbs. That is a first. Because that extra weight would show up on track or off track in handling trade off.

If the cost was over 90K-130K for a performance sedan. Then it better be able to put up acceleration numbers that match up with cars in its class. A quarter mile time of 13.3 sec @ 104mph and top speed of 137 mph. Yeah that definitely sounds like on par with M5.

I would expect more form a well rounded sports car costing 90-130K. But maybe it is more your cup of tea.

Also, I am pretty sure you have driven all of those side by side on track and off track. If not....... then how do you know if it is as well rounded and can be on par with cars like M5, E AMG, and CTS-V while costing more then them.

M5 & E63 weight isn't much better at ~4300lb and ~4400lb respectively.

P85+'s 1/4 mile times are in the 12's
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showt...Midnight-Drags

I haven't driven all of the cars on the list to compare, but I've driven and sat in a Model S extensively and it's handling feels like a car with much less weight than it actually has.

[son_of_siggy]

Kayani you're talking about enjoying the track-oriented performance of a car off the track, but how often are you blazing past 100mph during normal, spirited driving. Not all that often I'd imagine (at least I wasn't). I'd rather have a car that can out-accelerate others to 100mph than something that can do it from 60-140.

[Sedoy]

Here is another nice one

Originally Posted by gonzo

Nice. Few more pics?

Did not mean to rag on people in general that are buying these.
Still a free country...for now.
I just pictured that Ashton fella in one with a cap on sideways.

[Kayani_1]

You guys are acting like Tesla S P85+ is posting numbers on par with M5, AMG E or CTS-V.

The P85+ costing (113K) has 1/4th mile time of 12.7 sec @ 107.8 mph Vs M5 12 sec @ 122 mph......how is this even a comparison

I mean there is no comparison. After 100 mph the Tesla falls flat on its face it traps no better then a 300hp 335i.

As for 4300lbs Vs 4785lbs that is 485lbs. You don't think nearly 500 lbs is a big deal?

Lets be fair it is no performance sedan on par with CTS-V, AMG E or M5. It is an over priced, range anxiety causing, fat 4785lbs, nice looking eco-friendly car with non-existent dealer network.

In just short few years you will see GM, BMW, and Toyota offer cars for far lower price, no range anxiety, and with much better dealer network. My advice to some is that get your money out while you can from Tesla stocks.

Originally Posted by b0bab0i

M5 & E63 weight isn't much better at ~4300lb and ~4400lb respectively.

P85+'s 1/4 mile times are in the 12's
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showt...Midnight-Drags

I haven't driven all of the cars on the list to compare, but I've driven and sat in a Model S extensively and it's handling feels like a car with much less weight than it actually has.

[Kayani_1]

A spirited driving means you are pushing the car well above normal situations. So yes when I do it I get near or above those limits frequently.

Also, I don't think you are getting what I am saying. It is not that Tesla S is awesome all the way to 100 mph and then all of sudden it slows down. It has an initial jump then it is constantly slowing down compared to M5...... which in comparison is constantly ever increasing in comparison. The trap speeds indicate that M5 is on a different level.

Anyways, it is pointless you think a car that traps 103 mph is on par with a car that traps at 122 mph in 1/4th mile. Even though it is apparent as day and night which car would be faster in 1 minutes constant bursts of speed such as M5 vs 20 seconds for Tesla S.

Originally Posted by son_of_siggy

Kayani you're talking about enjoying the track-oriented performance of a car off the track, but how often are you blazing past 100mph during normal, spirited driving. Not all that often I'd imagine (at least I wasn't). I'd rather have a car that can out-accelerate others to 100mph than something that can do it from 60-140.

[b0bab0i]

Originally Posted by Kayani_1

You guys are acting like Tesla S P85+ is posting numbers on par with M5, AMG E or CTS-V.

The P85+ costing (113K) has 1/4th mile time of 12.7 sec @ 107.8 mph Vs M5 12 sec @ 122 mph......how is this even a comparison

I mean there is no comparison. After 100 mph the Tesla falls flat on its face it traps no better then a 300hp 335i.

As for 4300lbs Vs 4785lbs that is 485lbs. You don't think nearly 500 lbs is a big deal?

Lets be fair it is no performance sedan on par with CTS-V, AMG E or M5. It is an over priced, range anxiety causing, fat 4785lbs, nice looking eco-friendly car with non-existent dealer network.

In just short few years you will see GM, BMW, and Toyota offer cars for far lower price, no range anxiety, and with much better dealer network. My advice to some is that get your money out while you can from Tesla stocks.

You know M5's with Competition pack, executive pack, and other options go for like $120k+ right? Compare this to the M6 Gran Coupe and that car is $135k+.

I guess range anxiety and car buying may be a problem for you in Texas, but on the West Coast & all of California, there so many service centers and superchargers that we don't have those problems.

[Kabrich]

Originally Posted by son_of_siggy

I'd like to see one around a track with its magnetic suspension and low center of gravity. May not handle as well as an M5, but man, it sure accelerates like one . . .

This why I disagree about the Tesla S NOT being a performance sedan. I believe it is.

Originally Posted by Longboarder

It's not for a driving enthusiast. 0-60 in 4.X seconds who cares. That's weak compared to the new offerings from Merc, BMW and Audi. And how many end up at the track?

It's for soccer moms that want something different and guys that were tricked into thinking it's fast.

Considering what it does to the M5, sounds like you and your M3 are jealous.

Originally Posted by Kayani_1

I mean there is no comparison. After 100 mph the Tesla falls flat on its face it traps no better then a 300hp 335i.

Yep, driving over 100 mph is what everyone here does every day......

[Kayani_1]

You are aware that right now 2013 M5's can be had for 12-15K below MSRP right?

Even a standard M5 without comp pkg or executive pkg is still very well equipped and comes with same acceleration numbers and 560hp and DCT tranny.

Also, why would I compare it against M6 grancoupe which is more style over substance and just came out. In 2 yrs time they will be knocking off 15K off its MSRP. Never buy a car when it is just released you will over pay for all the hype.

As for charge anxiety yes if you are in California the Tesla S is bearable. Other then that you are stuck like chuck with non-existent dealer network and charge anxiety.

I am guessing people who buy Tesla S never go on any cross country road trips? Because if they do they better not go too far from a charge station.

Originally Posted by b0bab0i

You know M5's with Competition pack, executive pack, and other options go for like $120k+ right? Compare this to the M6 Gran Coupe and that car is $135k+.

I guess range anxiety and car buying may be a problem for you in Texas, but on the West Coast & all of California, there so many service centers and superchargers that we don't have those problems.

[F32]

People on this forum never cease to amaze me with their stupidity...

[gonzo]

Some demographic tidbits


http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmul...est-zip-codes/

[Efthreeoh]

About 4 months ago I looked at the Tesla S for a total life operating cost as a replacement for my 3-series. Total life cycle cost includes every cost related to owing the car; purchase cost (including taxes and loan costs), repairs, maintenance (fluid changes, tires, etc.) and fuel cost. The 60 kWh Tesla averages about 200 miles per charge for my commute based on Tesla's website range calculator. I drive about 175 miles a day in my commute. The Tesla was about $20K more in total life cycle cost than my E90 was through 194,000 miles of use.

Understanding the price component of the evaluation using a 2006 3-series is not a fair comparison to a $70K Tesla, I decided to substitute a F10 5-series as the vehicle to compare the Tesla to and I normalized my E90's repair, fuel and maintenance costs to 100,000 miles as the data for the F10 (assuming the same level of maintenance and repair as my car had). I used $55K for the price (cost) of the F10 and used a 60kWh Tesla S for about $63K after tax rebate. I used the same estimated tire costs for both cars just to keep it even. Quick and dirty numbers still show the Tesla S costs about $7,500 more to own than a F10 for 100,000 miles (8 years of ownership). I chose 100,000 miles since that is the battery warranty of the Tesla (it might be 120,000 now). What the fine print on the Tesla website tells you is there is a $600-per 12,500 mile inspection required for the Tesla S; no review I’ve read of the Tesla S reports this need to pay $600 a year (assuming 12,500 annual miles driven) inspection cost; Tesla even offers a pre-paid package for the inspection that reduces the per-instance cost. Also, my numbers don’t consider degradation of the battery over time and the reduced level of range (efficiency) it may offer for the same amount of cost to charge it. And my numbers don’t account for routine maintenance items such as brakes (I’m not sure they are included in the $600 inspection), but again I’d wonder even if you’d ever need to replace the brakes considering the regenerative brake system.

Look past 100,000 miles though, which helps amortize the initial purchase price of either car, and if a battery replacement is needed for the Tesla, the numbers further skew toward the gas-powered F10. Tesla offers an upfront financing purchase (i.e. it’s wrapped into the car payment) of a replacement battery at 100,000 miles, meaning if the battery depletes past the warranty period, you can have the replacement battery installed for no additional cost when the original one wears out. This is obviously a ploy to prevent sticker shock of a new $10K battery once the original one is depleted, because you’ve already paid for it in the monthly car payment.

So my evaluation of the Tesla offering is that there are some smoke and mirrors to it. You can help finance the company by upfront purchase of an inspection package and upfront pre-purchase of a replacement battery; money Tesla gets to use for financial purposes and you don’t (maybe buying the company stock would help offset this). And the battery question is still the wild card here. It seems there is a lot of good data on longevity of batteries used in hybrid vehicles, but even Tesla caveats their range estimates are for a new, healthy, young battery, which to me tells that an owner can expect some degradation in range as the battery ages.

I’d rather see all this R&D money spent on increasing the efficiency of the combustion process of the internal combustion engine, since I don’t think it will ever be possible to get the level of energy density of fossil fuel out of a chemical battery. And I'd just like to add, talking about performance numbers of an Electric car vs. an ICE-power car is a bit of an oxymoron; run a Tesla S at the performance levels it is capable of against an M5 and you'll soon be on the side of the road with a depleted battery, or limping to a charge station somewhere in So Cal/San Fran (hopefully they have one close to Pomona or Monterey) for a good hour's worth of juice.

Just my two cents.

[F32]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Some demographic tidbits


http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmul...est-zip-codes/

This.

If you don't live in SF or Silicon Valley, then you don't know enough Tesla owner to make any meaningful judgement. What you end up with are moronic thoughts like we see above.

No one buys a Tesla to save money on gas. No one buys a Tesla for its performance. And, in fact, no one who has a Tesla really cross-shopped it with anything else. People buy them because they're just fucking cool. If you're a mid-level manager or above at any tech company in the valley, there is no car that is more fitting.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by F32

This.

If you don't live in SF or Silicon Valley, then you don't know enough Tesla owner to make any meaningful judgement. What you end up with are moronic thoughts like we see above.

No one buys a Tesla to save money on gas. No one buys a Tesla for its performance. And, in fact, no one who has a Tesla really cross-shopped it with anything else. People buy them because they're just fucking cool. If you're a mid-level manager or above at any tech company in the valley, there is no car that is more fitting.

So it's a car designed and built just for mid-level managers at tech companies in the valley? Wow that's a great business model.

[F32]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

So it's a car designed and built just for mid-level managers at tech companies in the valley? Wow that's a great business model.

Correct. That's exactly what I said.

[chumley]

Originally Posted by Kayani_1

As for charge anxiety yes if you are in California the Tesla S is bearable. Other then that you are stuck like chuck with non-existent dealer network and charge anxiety.

I am guessing people who buy Tesla S never go on any cross country road trips? Because if they do they better not go too far from a charge station.

This is a popular but weak argument. Even Tesla execs would conceded that at this time there are certainly people whose driving habits do not necessarily fit to this category of vehicle.

Having said that, I grew up taking long family trips ala The Griswold's but I don't know a single person who does this anymore. Obviously people do but I'm guessing they don't expect to do it in a Model S. It's not like the interstates are clogged with families who load the kids and dog in their M5's to drive cross country.

I doubt I'd buy one but I'd be a perfect candidate. 5 miles each way to work, maybe 25-50 miles of errands on the weekends and haven't ever left the state in my car. Anything over 3-4 hours in a car and I'm flying!

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by F32

Correct. That's exactly what I said.

Hopefully you are not a stock portfolio manager. If you are, please tell us which one so we can shy away from it.

[Red Bread]

I see plenty of Teslas here in Dallas. Keep in mind that we still have to mail order them from CA, you can't actually buy one in TX, and it gets shipped to you. Seems plenty of people want them.

I followed one from Dallas to Austin last weekend, the driver didn't look too freaked out about what a bunch of arm chair quarterbacks perceive as range anxiety.

When I lived in SoCal, one of my neighbors had a Roadster, he drove the snot out of that thing and it certainly didn't seem to be losing any performance, as he liked to prove to my poor M Coupe frequently that it was quicker, at least at speeds that actual people drive.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

So it's a car designed and built just for mid-level managers at tech companies in the valley? Wow that's a great business model.

He didn't say that. He said there is no car more fitting, NOT that it is built specifically with them in mind. The two are very different.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

I see plenty of Teslas here in Dallas. Keep in mind that we still have to mail order them from CA, you can't actually buy one in TX, and it gets shipped to you. Seems plenty of people want them.

I followed one from Dallas to Austin last weekend, the driver didn't look too freaked out about what a bunch of arm chair quarterbacks perceive as range anxiety.

When I lived in SoCal, one of my neighbors had a Roadster, he drove the snot out of that thing and it certainly didn't seem to be losing any performance, as he liked to prove to my poor M Coupe frequently that it was quicker, at least at speeds that actual people drive.

Jerry Jones is having one custom painted in scalpel silver.

SWIDT...

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Jerry Jones is having one custom painted in scalpel silver.

SWIDT...

Hopefully it's not like Bieber having a chrome Fisker. But a convenient fire in his might mean we get a decent team back.

[son_of_siggy]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

. The Tesla was about $20K more in total life cycle cost than my E90 was through 194,000 miles of use.

Other than the initial purchase price of the cars being quite a bit different, I don't see how this spread is possible, unless your electricity rates are much greater than the national average, or your E90 gets much better mileage than I'm estimating.

25mpg at 3.70 per gallon for 194k would be around $28,712 in gas.

194k miles at 12 cents per KWh would be around $5,321 in electricity.

That's a $23,391 difference. Figure in the $600 checkups (which I too never heard of) and the difference shrinks to $14,097.

So I guess if you're shopping in price ranges of cars that vary that greatly then I can see why it wouldn't make sense. But even packing in there a battery replacement at 10k, you're still 4k in the black with the Tesla, again assuming the cost to purchase is roughly the same.

Maintenance on the Tesla should be rather minimal. Hell on my Volt the first thing I need to do that isn't related to the gas generator is to replace the battery cooling fluid at 150k miles.

If we're talking different purchase costs, then that argument can be made about any two cars that essentially perform the same function. Why an E90 of a Prius?

I guess I'd be curious to see how you came to your numbers, as I'm not seeing it, which isn't to say there is logic I missed.

[Red Bread]

F30 has arguments against anything but his E90. Prepare for comically high quoted electricity rates in "Marland".