May 11, 2012
joefee Look at these links if you answered "no"
100,000 Dollar Sport Coupes - SportsCarForums.com
best cars under $100,000�
May 11, 2012
ferrarimanf355 Can it run with a BMW M5?
Does a bear poop in the woods?�
May 11, 2012
SigS905 At the Newport Beach Fashion Island event, I wandered around after visiting the Tesla event and ran into three Maseratti's on display. The low end was ~$140,000 with 0-60 in 5.8s, mid range was ~$180,000 with 0-60 in 5.2s and high end was $??? with 0-60 in 4.6s. Rear seat room was minimal at best.�
May 12, 2012
AnOutsider Heck yeah. It just about matches my r8's performance and is tens of thousands cheaper and far more useful. It's a bit over the GTR, but again, far more useful and also attractive,�
May 12, 2012
artsci And the bonus? All of those cars are poison to the environment.�
May 12, 2012
MarkR I get the point that the price/performance ratio is excellent(and I wish that I could justify the cost), but the idea of a $90k "steal" is kinda goofy.�
May 12, 2012
jerry33 I think the "steal" is what you have to do to pay for it.�
May 12, 2012
AnOutsider Everything is relative. Look at what Roadster sport owners paid (over a base 2.5) and the improvement they got. Now look at what a Model S buyer can pay (over a base 85kwh) and then look at the performance difference there. Still a chunk of change, but relatively speaking, a bargain for sure.�
May 12, 2012
ckessel A steal? I voted no. I do think it's well priced relative to the Model S cost overall though, which is a good sign. Tesla wants to be just under the typical buyer's price/value tipping point. Too high and they lose buyers, too low and they're giving up profit. The fact it's at that tipping point for me leads me to think it's well priced.
Now, priorities and incomes vary of course, so my tipping point doesn't match that of others, but based on all the polls for income/age/etc, I seem to be pretty much dead center in the averages so I suspect I'm reasonably near the "typical buyer".�
May 12, 2012
Jason S 12 more new cars worth waiting for - Yahoo! Autos
... I admit I was disappointed that the Model S wasn't in there. Kept thinking of things like "$60000, 5.9s 0-60, seats 4 and looks great. WTF do they want?" ... Oh, apparently they want it to be made by GM.
�
May 13, 2012
GSP A bunch of boring ICEs. I would not say that it is a GM oriented list however, just about all the ICE makers are on it.
I liked the Corvette C7 best, least boring of the lot.
GSP�
May 13, 2012
Johann Koeber Lets see what the final quality is in production.
It is expensive, but it ought to be, considering how rare the car will be and how many innovations are included. Just wait and see the specs of the upcoming i3 by BMW, for example.�
May 13, 2012
Johann Koeber Is everbody aware of the Anagram TESLA STEAL ?�
May 13, 2012
PV4EV I live in the UK, and this place is a rip off for buying and running anything interesting with 4 wheels.
However, I put together a sizeable spreadsheet of the likely running costs difference of a Model S Vs an equivalent luxury 'sports' sedan, and weighted up all the main costs.
ICE examples typically would be a Maserati Quattroporte, 7 Series BMW, Merc AMG etc. I've owned something like 40+ cars over the years including some exotica and have been fleeced senseless by the likes of Ferrari, so I am painfully familiar with the real-world costs of running certain high-end cars.
Below I summarise the various financial and numerical assumptions built into my spreadsheet, and the summary results.
I accept that this works in UK, and is probably similar for most of Europe, and that running costs in the USA are significantly less primarily due to gas being 1/3rd the cost.
ASSUMPTIONS:-
EV to be a top spec Model S, 85kWh pack, energy usage averaging around 250 miles per charge, or about 340 watts / mile. Likely UK purchase price probably around �80k'ish.
ICE to be a typical 4 door 'luxury' spec Italian or German sedan with 4 to 5 litre engine, doing an average of 18mpg. Likely purchase price around �80k'ish.
� Costs based on 100,000 miles spread over a 10 term of ownership
� RPI at 3% straight line, and applied to road tax, servicing costs and Feed-In-Tariff payments for Solar PV
� Historical Fuel Inflation assumed at 6% straight line
� EV Charging at night time electricity rates
� 85kWh pack, needing 85kWh to charge not accounting for temperature
� EV's have no road tax in UK, saving �5k+ over 10 yrs
� ICE servicing (based on direct experiences) �1,500 p.a (at least ..)
� EV needing minimal servicing of �500 pa / $800
� PV option priced in at the generous 44p / kWh Feed-in-tariff rates, but only taken account of FITS for the cars usage.
� there's some really amazing TAX benefits for running an EV as company car, equivalent to a 28% discount on the price, or about - �25,000 � !!!
� no account of depreciation, insurance or tyre cost (assume for now it cancels out between ICE and EV)
� If you commute into a city like London with congestion tax, there is an additional �20,000 charge loaded onto the ICE over the term (but not taken into account here as its getting messy)
SUMMARY COSTS OVER 10YRS / 100K MILES �
Basically, the ICE car will cost in total at least �160,000+ over the 10 yrs, including initial cost of car, and nearly �50,000 in petrol alone�
Whereas the EV costs vary depending tax status, and if you have PV. Without PV the electricity charge costs will be approx �2,800.
-> EV with no corp tax benefits, and no PV, total cost �98,000 over 10 yrs, including initial cost of car. Saving compared to ICE = �62k better off.
-> EV with tax benefits/deductions, total cost �73,000, including cost of car. Saving = � 87k better off.
-> EV with tax benefits, AND PV payments, total is �56,000, including cost of car. Saving compared to ICE = �104k better off.
So in other words, if you run a Model S over 10 yrs, through a company, and have PV on your roof, you'll be over � 104,000 better off at the end of it, and still own the car...
Plus you'll have a lot of fun, a green conscience and save masses of CO2 etc
A saving of �104k is about $168,000 � If you invested your annual ICE/EV savings into Tesla stock, over 10 yrs, the results could just be staggering !�
May 13, 2012
Trnsl8r I voted no. I'm not saying its overpriced or not worth it, but calling any car a "steal" because it's not in the six figures is ludicrous.
My two cents, also <$100k btw...�
May 13, 2012
spatterso911 Well, I don't read it so literally. I translate (excuse the pun) it to be a "steal" if it is cheaper, relative to comparable cars, based upon performance. It is the same as if you compared properties, education, insurance, and so on. So, I voted yes, because in comparison to the car I am replacing, and the car I would have bought instead of the Model S, it is substantially cheaper, while offering similar performance and satisfaction. Ask yourself this question, in replacing the Model S Performance, matching features, style, performance, is the car you end up buying going to be cheaper or more expensive?�
May 13, 2012
jerry33 I didn't vote because I think there needs to be a third choice in line with Trnsl8r's "Six figures. Whoa!"�
May 13, 2012
vfx Bargain is a better word. Yea it is. Just like the Roadster had the quickness of car costing twice as much and an all Carbon Fiber body. The next cheapest car with an all CF shell is $250K. Yes, a steal.�
May 14, 2012
AndrewBissell
Hi from someone else in the UK who used the tax advantages on the purchase of a Roadster. (Led to a big fight woth the tax man but we won. I would factor tax investigation insurance into the cost base because they do not like paying back large amounts!)
Impressive level of analysis, and I like the link to PV though some might argue that they are independent. I have a few questions:
1. Did you take account of the planned changes in BIK tax in 2015 (after which the Benefit In Kind tax on a model S will jump from 0% to 15% ie same as the best petrol cars)?
2. What is the scenario like now for someone getting PV today at 21 p FIT?
3. Is the spreadsheet available?
Thanks
Andrew�
May 14, 2012
PV4EV I'm intrigued .. can you allude to what it was about? I know my accountant looked into claiming VAT back under very specific circumstances, and running the car as a 'research vehicle' which has some esoteric benefits.
(1) nope, because the whole BIK mess is something of a black art (and I am no accountant) and I believe is of relatively marginal benefit when compared to the point I was trying to make that running an EV for 10 yrs is broadly speaking going to be far more beneficial when compared to an ICE car.
Also, I personally expect to be able to use up all of corporation tax allowances before 2015.
(2) The spreadsheet was put together last year with the original 44p kWh generation rate (for <4kWh rated systems) and didn�t take into account the cost of the PV installation etc. In the next 6 months that generation rate is reduced to 21p, and even less looking further out. But the installers have had to reduce their 400% margins to make PV still look like an attractive ROI proposition. Quality PV can be bought as low as 60p/watt at trade prices in the UK, which begs the question as to why are 4kwp systems are still being priced at �10k for 1.5days installation work �
If the 21p rate is used instead of 44p, the overall 10 yr FITS benefit reduces from approx �17k to �8.5k, or a difference of �8.5k.
(3) It�s a mess ! Its fairly simple to creat a similar one, but mine wasn�t really put together for presentation to other humans and I've often been accused as coming from another planet
A more precise spreadsheet drawn up by an fully qualified bean counter could undoubtedly incorporate numerous other minor benefits or costs, such as writing down partial running costs and vehicle depreciation against gross profits; variations in RPI that would effect assumptions on PV benefits; and the gain to be had by investing the running costs savings .. and then the marginal tax on the gains etc etc etc !! I also did not add in the savings due to not having to paying congestions charges (which would be a huge �20,000 over 10yrs) or free EV parking fees.
Bear in mind that my overall intention was to illustrate the scale of the financial benefits of running an EV for 10 yrs VS a similar spec ICE, and could easily be +/- 10% inaccurate over such a period.
The bottom line is that by far the biggest cost savings to be had are from not buying petrol, not paying gas-guzzler road taxes and not being fleeced senseless by ICE maintenance dealers. Basically, no matter which way you look at it, running a $100k EV instead of a $100k ICE car � is a no-brainer over a 10 yr period !!!
(even my accountant resorted to the term 'no-brainer', which is most unusual for him �)�
May 14, 2012
daniel The cost comparisons above for Model S vs. luxury sedan are only valid if you buy the S because it's a luxury car. I didn't buy my Roadster for being a high-performance sports car, though I enjoy that aspect of it. I bought it for being electric. It's going to cost me $1,200 per year for maintenance + ranger fee. I don't drive a lot, so assuming 5,000 miles per year at 2.5 cents per mile for the electricity, fuel is $125 per year. My other car is a Prius. Maintenance is one oil change per year at about $75. Assuming $4 gas, and 45 mpg, 5,000 miles is $444 for fuel. If I needed a new sedan, my choice would not be Model S vs. BMW, it would be Model S vs. Prius. The Prius is about half the cost of a base 85 kWh Model S.
I would not save money on the S. I would choose the S because it's electric and I don't like gas.
But I'd still have to keep the Prius for road trips until such time as there is a reliably available super charger network where I want to drive, and that is not likely to be any time soon.
So the Model S is not a "steal" by any definition. It's not overpriced for what it is, but it would not save me any money.�
May 14, 2012
mnx It's definitely not a steal. But I don't think it's overpriced either...
Here's a list of cars that might be considered steals however (at just over half the price of a perf S )
The List: 5 Under $50,000 That Go from 0-60 mph in Less Than 5 Seconds�
May 14, 2012
AnOutsider Well-spotted.
I guess it also depends on your buying range... If you typically shop for luxury performance vehicles, chances are, you're not looking at any brand on that list (though the Chryslers have definitely stepped it up in interior quality if what I saw @ CES is any indication). Though, in that range, you could still come in under the S Perf. In that range, you might be looking a tad north of there, to something like the CTS-V at the low end (about 63k but does the same 0-60 as the S). Further up the chain, you'd probably find things on this list: Luxury Sport Sedan Comparison - Acura RL vs Audi A6 vs BMW 535i vs Cadillac CTS vs Infiniti M35 vs Jaguar XF vs Lexus GS 350 vs Mercedes-Benz E350 - Motor Trend
- which ranges from 50-60k (though none of their 0-60s come close to the S Perf). For that, you'd have to travel further up the lines (into the AMGs and RSs for example)�
May 14, 2012
PV4EV I agree !
I bought the Roadster instead of something else of equivalent performance because of what it is and all that it represents - an Electric supercar capable of running on power from sunlight that also gives me independance from oil. For the past 20+ yrs I've nearly always had at least one 'sports' car for fun, as well as a more practical older day to day car. I was also attracted to all the generous tax benefits and other incentives, and I would rather have fun with a Tesla than pay the money to the taxman.
The whole point of my previous posts was to shown that IF someone wanted to buy into a performance sedan and commit to that level of purchase, then there are significant reasons for choosing the Model S over ICE for many reasons, including greenness / environmental / financial / early adopter tendencies / etc.
But if someone wanted to just 'save money' they would not buy something as expensive as a Model S, and instead they'd be looking at a 5 to 10 yr old diesel and just run it into the ground. We have a family car in the form of a 10 yr old Audi A6 estate with an intergalactic 190,000 miles on it. I bought it at 90,000 for a very modest fee because the seller thought it was high mileage. It still feels like its 3 yrs old and does 50-55 mpg all day long, and if/when I sell it, I'll not loose anything significant on the capital cost. So far its barely cost anything to service and (touch wood) has been 100% reliable in all that time.
Its also a debatable point that running an older car is good for the environment overall instead of using up planetary resources buying a brand new car and doing the same mileage. I've often read that the energy consumed in manufacturing a car is as much as ten times the total fuel energy it will use in its entire lifetime. I certainly get that point, but calculating the actual ratio is probably somewhat difficult.�
May 14, 2012
ElSupreme Believe it or not I cross shopped the Subaru Impreza STI against the Model S. I think my 40kWh Model S will cost the same as the STI over 5 years ~100,000 miles. The fact that my car will never have to go to a gas station, I always have a full tank, it is much bigger, it is much nicer, it is much quieter, it doesn't have horrible turbo lag, all make it a 'better' choice in my book. But hardly a steal.
I really don't think having a 0-60 in less that 6 seconds is really worth it. I have a car that can't even do that and when I do a 0-60 run it seems dangerously quick.
That being said I have convinced my mom (after she saw the Houston Beta) to get one. I am pretty sure she thinks the Performance is a steal, so I really think it depends on income/affluence level.
EDIT: I also cross shopped the Mitsubishi EVO (only because the Subaru dealer was also a Mitsubishi dealer) but didn't even up driving it. That car is SO cheap on the inside and really small too. I couldn't spend ~20,000 miles a year in there.�
May 14, 2012
dsm363 Once battery costs come down and they improve the interior to more people's liking (I'm fine with it though), I think it could be considered a steal compared to other luxury sedans in that price and performance range. Of course a steal doesn't mean a bargain when you're talking about this much money.�
May 14, 2012
tdelta1000 I second this....�
May 14, 2012
spatterso911 Daniel,
The original question does not relate to the Model S production or even the standard sigs for that matter. It addresses a query into why people are choosing the performance version. I would say that given the robust performance of the 85 kWh pack, that if you decided to take the extra step of purchasing the perf. then you are purely interested in the power benefits. There are some who want to go performance for the interior benefits, and will "gladly take" the added benefit of the extra power, but let's face it. If you're in the market for a fast car, the Prius will never be on your list, no matter what it's mileage is. Now, you have to compare cars of similar size and power, interior quality. Then ask the question again.
I think the topic gets derailed when we forget that we are only talking about the performance variant.�
May 14, 2012
Jason S I have problems seriously considering top speed and 1/4 mile times as something germane to legal driving. The instant on power and traction control are the big selling points for the Tesla electrics and those features are also what I'd use most often. I'll prolly use the cornering fast pretty often (my wife habitually grabs the the door handle for some reason...) and the breaking much less often.
The other parts of performance not so much. So that's why a Perf S makes more sense to me than a Roadster, even though a low mileage used Roadster is prolly a better buy at this point.�
May 15, 2012
stopcrazypp It depends on if you are looking purely at performance (if so, it's very unlikely a premium sedan like the Model S will be a performance bargain), or are you also looking at a sedan that's at least considered "premium" (none of the cars in the $50k list can be considered premium, and in my opinion all of them besides from the 300 looks a bit too flashy/boy racer).
Model S is $85k, 0-60 4.4.
In terms of a pure premium performance sedan bargain, the CTS-V is almost unbeatable starting at $65k, 0-60 3.9.
Otherwise you have to look at the 2012 Audi S6 (~$80k, 0-62 4.8s), 2012 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG ($89k, 0-60 4.2), 2013 BMW M5 ($91k, 0-60 4.4), Jaguar XF-R ($82k, 0-60 4.7)
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1108_2012_audi_s6_s7_s8_first_look/viewall.html
It's better than Mercedes and BMW in terms of pricing, but not necessarily smaller brands like Audi and Jaguar (although it performs a bit better). I'm not going to bother looking for 1/4 mile numbers, since manufacturers rarely give those out.�
May 15, 2012
Dan5 I would say it's on par or a tad of a bargain compared to comparably luxury sedans with similar performance. Personally for myself, it's a good deal. If I was NOT getting this car, I would have to buy a Lincoln AND a toy car + have the maintenance/insurance associated with each, so the Model S is a bargain for me.�
May 15, 2012
joefee Not to rehash past discussions ... but don't forget the "total cost of operation" i.e., buying an S is like buying a 25K pre-paided gas card. When the CTS or M6 fills up for $75 you recharge for $7.50 plus no tune-ups, no oil changes, etc. etc. etc. That's why the Perf S is a steal (in the long run)!�
May 15, 2012
stopcrazypp The other point is you can brag about being more efficient than even a Prius (have one's cake and eat it too). And charging on the average US grid, you will have low carbon emissions rivaling a hybrid (plus zero tailpipe emissions). You can't say the same with any of the other options mentioned.�
May 16, 2012
daniel I misunderstood the thrust of your question. I read it as just the car itself. I.e. compared to the entire universe of cars. Of course, it depends on what you want. If performance is what you want, there is value in the Perf S compared to the 85 kWh non-Perf. In my case, I could have bought a sport Roadster, but the extra performance was of no interest to me. So for me, if I was buying an S, the Perf would not be a steal. It would be money spent to little purpose.
The original question could be interpreted as the Perf S vs. the non-Perf, or vs. a gasoline car. Since I hate gasoline, the latter is apples to oranges. A Corvette is a beautiful car and has great performance, but I would not have considered it even at 1/4 the cost of my Roadster because it is loud and burns gas.
No matter how the question was intended, the answer is purely subjective. For me, and for what matters to me, the Perf S is not a steal. But that's just me.
I drove a Honda Civic until I bought my Prius. To me, the Prius was really fast. :wink: It's not as comfortable as most other cars, and not as fast as performance cars, but when I must burn gas, it burns less, so for me it's the best value out there for gas cars. Of course, now that the Roadster is my daily driver, the Prius seems really slow. :biggrin:�
May 16, 2012
daniel According to THIS post in Google Answers, it's the other way around: The energy cost of manufacturing the average car is about one-tenth the energy it takes to run the car for its lifetime. Of course, an EV is much more efficient, so it will use even less energy to operate, compared with manufacturing energy.
Caveat: I have no idea if the information in the link is correct. And manufacturing energy will vary a great deal between car models, as does FE.�
May 16, 2012
Lloyd I have a 93 Chevy truck I have owned since new. 210,000 miles. 16 miles per gallon, thats 13,125 gallons, @ $4 per gallon thats $52,500 for fuel. Thats 2X what I spent to buy the truck originally!�
May 16, 2012
ElSupreme Yeah I always point to cost when people talk about the amount of power involved in producing something. It doesn't take much power to produce something that costs $2. It can't or it wouldn't cost $2. Being that I work in manufacturing it comes up a decent amount.�
May 16, 2012
vfx How much was gasoline in 93?�
May 16, 2012
mcornwell About $1.20 in 1993:
Link
And what kind of Chevy truck cost over $26K 20 years ago? My pretty well optioned Toyota Tacoma cost less in 2006.�
May 16, 2012
Lloyd Yes the truck was about $21,000 tax and license out the door in 1993. My point is that you will spend more on fuel, than the cost of the vehicle!�
May 16, 2012
onlinespending which also proves the point that fuel costs are much larger than the energy cost to manufacture the car (they certainly wouldn't spend more on energy, not to mention all the other costs, than the price of the car itself!)�
May 16, 2012
stopcrazypp I noticed that too, but didn't really point it out. There's two possible interpretations of the question:
Is the $15k premium for the Performance to go from 0-60 of 5.6 to 4.4 a bargain?
Is the $85k price of the Performance S a bargain?�
May 16, 2012
spatterso911 @Daniel, the question relates purely to the Performance S. Not the production or sig (non performance). When you compare the performance S to other cars that offer similar performance, does it seem like a value. We can certain extend the question to other versions of the Model S, but I think the value may drop when you compare a 40 kWh Model S to an Altima, Accord or Camry, Fusion or Malibu. That is, unless you factor in things that automatically wipe other vehicles out of the running, such as environmental impact and "fuel" costs.�
May 16, 2012
spatterso911 I still say the answer is yes. Why? Because inherently choosing the performance means that you are holding the extra power as a goal for the vehicle and therefore other vehicles that do not offer that power are not in the same class. Your question is the same as asking if the AMG version or BMW M version is a bargain compared to the E350, E55, 528i, 535i, or 550i.�
May 16, 2012
Norbert That's more like saying you don't have an opinion on the matter (meaning, in this case, you wouldn't vote). The question relates more to the value offered vs. its cost, not whether the value is of use for you personally. Let's say the Performance version would have a slightly higher energy consumption, even when driven at the same speed/style, so that you wouldn't want it even if it was the same price. But you could still acknowledge that it would be a steel if it came at the same price, for someone who is interested in the value it offers.�
May 17, 2012
daniel "Value" is still subjective. For some people the added performance has great value. For others, it has little value. And since the Model S is unique, and probably will be for some time to come, there's really nothing to compare it to. The OP's question is legitimate, but it's asking for an opinion. The value of the added performance depends on what matters to you. For me, the Perf is not a steal. But some folks want the most performance they can get, and consider the price difference worth it, not worth it, or worth far more. In the latter case, they'll consider it a steal.�
May 19, 2012
Norbert Yes, it has subjective components, but also objective components, such as going from 5.6 sec 0-60 to 4.4 sec. The upgrade price includes some options with known price. So you could compare the complete price to other cars with 4.4 sec and otherwise similar features (except for the electric drive train), or compare it to what it costs to upgrade other cars by such a factor, since for "premium" cars it is quite common to have performance upgrades available as options. But if you don't care about the performance difference, then the question simply doesn't apply to you.�
May 20, 2012
jerry33 However, if we knew something like "The performance version has a more robust inverter and heavier wiring which should add X (miles or years) to the life of the car", it would be more objective. For me, the 0-60 number, as long at it's "yes" and not "no", is not important. Longer life would be.�
May 20, 2012
spatterso911 Again, it still only an question that applies to someone in the market for that level of performance. You are really only in the market if you actually CARE about that number and were it not for the Model S, would have gone for the performance variant of some other make. People who chose the Roadster sport did not shell out the cash because they thought it might last longer. They wanted the extra thrill of 3.7 vs 3.9.
With that, I'm not so sure the results of this survey has any meaning whatsoever.�
May 20, 2012
jerry33 That's true, unless there is some other aspect of the performance version that would make it appeal to a different group.
That is certainly true.
I'll buy that.�
May 20, 2012
daniel Can you actually tell the difference? The one I test drove was a sport. The one I bought is not. I've never driven either in Performance mode, but in Standard mode I don't think I could tell the difference.
'Course, the car I drove before the Roadster had a top speed on level ground of 35 mph and took half a minute to reach that. :biggrin:�
May 20, 2012
spatterso911 I think that few people can really tell the difference when hammering the throttle on an isolated road (or powering onto a freeway onramp for that matter), but when you are on a track lined up against another vehicle with similar capabilities, that .2 seconds may as well be 30 seconds difference.
Yeah, the Xebra was no stallion, but what it did, it apparently did well.:biggrin:�
May 20, 2012
Doug_G When I first got my Roadster, I could not "feel" the difference between Standard and Performance mode. After a month I tried it again, and I could tell. I had gotten used to the Standard acceleration.
I had a chance to drive a Sport a while back. I could easily tell the difference between my base Roadster and the Sport. It has more oomph off the line, during the first second of acceleration. After that it feels about the same.
I really doubt I could have told the difference two years ago, before becoming intimately familiar with the base Roadster's acceleration.�
May 20, 2012
vfx Scott451 has thoughts on his old 1.5 and his new 2.5�
May 21, 2012
Robert.Boston One "value" of the Performance that we all benefit from is a halo effect. I was talking to a senior officer of a New England utility, who I spotted driving a plug-in-converted Prius, and I mentioned that I was getting a Model S soon. His immediate reply: whoa, that's the 4.4 second car, right? So, the brand is getting cred (and helping us indirectly), so I benefit without buying.�
May 21, 2012
daniel Did someone once say the acceleration curve is different, or something? I remember seeing a comment, but I don't remember what it was.�
May 22, 2012
DaveVa Agreed - but I also didn't want to keep telling people that there is a "faster" one - so I went for the performance (Signature Performance). Plus my son bought an Infiniti M 56S and it would just be wrong for him to have a faster car�
May 22, 2012
daniel There's always going to be faster cars. I brag about clean, quiet, and the use of a domestic, renewable fuel (hydro, where I live, and the ability to use solar or wind elsewhere).�
Oct 26, 2012
smorgasbord 2013 Audi S6 is now available. Still about $80K fully loaded (heads-up display, adaptive cruise control, collision avoidance, night vision, air suspension, Bose stereo, carbon fiber interior trim, power sunroof, Nav, 20" 35 aspect wheels, power folding side mirrors, etc.)
And 0-60 is 3.7 seconds. That's Roadster Sport territory.
I made the mistake of test driving one with my wife today.�
Oct 26, 2012
contaygious Holy crap that's fast!�
Oct 26, 2012
smorgasbord Yes, but to be honest, that's a Launch Control time. In normal driving there's a small lag from standstill, or at least some fuss going on. I couldn't tell on the test drive whether it was turbo lag or traction control engaging or shifting abruptness, but it wasn't very smooth on take-off - but it did accelerate well. Tesla drivetrain is definitely better and smoother. I stomp on my Roadster's accelerator all the time because it's quiet. The S6 isn't super loud, but I felt self-conscious stomping on the pedal, so probably wouldn't do it as much.
However, the S6 handles really well, has 4 settings for comfort/sportiness that affect steering, air suspension, transmission, etc. The speed sensitive steering was really nice with huge assist at really low speeds for parking, but only slight assist on the freeway. Brakes were very good, visibility good all around, including out the back window. Headroom is way better than Model S, and overall width is better (aka narrower). Huge trunk. LED headlights, backup camera with path guides, and all the other techy goodies that Model S doesn't have, not to mention simple things like a heated steering wheel and exterior door handles that don't need an instruction manual nor debugging to work right.
Backseat is some better/some worse. Model S has a flatter back seat that lets tall people sit sideways if they're alone and has more front to back space. However, rear seat headroom on Model S is way less, and the low seat/high floor in Model S makes normal sitting back there less comfortable for normal positions.
A Tesla drivetrain in an S6 chassis/body would be killer in my view. I wonder if Mercedes will put a Tesla drivetrain into their E63 AMG, even though that's not my favorite chassis nor body.�
Oct 27, 2012
Brian H Amazing difference. The car is basically free over 10 yrs., and the free car still has far lower operating costs than the ICE.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét