Autoblog: The Tesla Model X Was a Mistake

[El Kabong]

The shortcomings of rookies building cars, laid bare:

"Tesla, like most Silicon Valley companies, uses most of its revenue to finance research and development for new products. Rolling out new products with minimal required development is crucial to this strategy, and the Model X began its development as a taller version of the Model S. The shared platform would allow Tesla to conquer new markets without having to develop a complicated, new vehicle.

"Then, because Elon Musk doesn't know how to just phone it in, he turned the Model X into a complicated, new vehicle.

"Now Tesla is saddled with a very expensive project that wasn't exactly, um, planned. Development took two years longer than initially expected, as the platform changed and new technology was added. Speaking candidly about the Model X's development, Musk said, 'If we had known the true engineering costs and the amount of complexity associated with it I think we would have probably done fewer new things.'

"The result is a car that's impressive in almost every way, but entirely inconsistent with Tesla's stated mission. Instead of moving downmarket, the Model X is even costlier than the Model S, with a base price of $80,000. It also loses the range and efficiency competitions to the Model S, thanks to its bulk. CUVs are a growing segment, but wouldn't a smaller car... fit more nicely between the Model 3 and the Model S?"

More at the link:

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/02/05/tesla-model-x-mistake-opinion/

Edited February 5, 2016 by El Kabong

[FAPTurbo]

tl:dr

 

Peanut Gallery:

 

2012: WHY DOESN'T TESLA HAVE A CUV?!

 

2016: WHY DOES TESLA HAVE A CUV?!

[El Kabong]

tl:dr

 

Peanut Gallery:

 

2012: WHY DOESN'T TESLA HAVE A CUV?!

 

2016: WHY DOES TESLA HAVE A CUV?!

That's why smart CEO's listen to the financial guys before they listen to the peanut gallery. It's easy to be Bob Lutz when it's other people's money you're spending.

[Suaviloquent]

What is it with your incessant campaign against Tesla?

 

Are you on the payroll of a signficant make, and this is all you scheme to do? Because we've had that happen here before, and it isn't something that's new nor is it refreshing.

[El Kabong]

What is it with your incessant campaign against Tesla?

 

Are you on the payroll of a signficant make, and this is all you scheme to do? Because we've had that happen here before, and it isn't something that's new nor is it refreshing.

So stop playing the role of wings and READ THE ARTICLE.

[FAPTurbo]

If the Model X was phoned in, the author would complain it's phoned in.

 

If Tesla built a small sedan instead, the author would complain Tesla's missing out on the massive CUV market. 

 

If Tesla built a clone of Christ, the author would complain the wine it dispensed wasn't a merlot. 

[Suaviloquent]

 

What is it with your incessant campaign against Tesla?

 

Are you on the payroll of a signficant make, and this is all you scheme to do? Because we've had that happen here before, and it isn't something that's new nor is it refreshing.

So stop playing the role of wings and READ THE ARTICLE.

 

 

I read the article, and it presents some nice points.

 

But Musk himself is always frank and blunt. That's also how he's different.

 

The thing is, all is done and now they're stuck to it. You're asking an all-new automaker to be perfect.

 

The closest they can get to that is winning awards all over and getting car of the year type accolades. They've done that, so they're not lacking in product, and they still don't carry the baggage of the incumbent brands.

[El Kabong]

If the Model X was phoned in, the author would complain it's phoned in.

 

If Tesla built a small sedan instead, the author would complain Tesla's missing out on the massive CUV market. 

 

If Tesla built a clone of Christ, the author would complain the wine it dispensed wasn't a merlot.

"Follow the money."

-Mark Felt

[El Kabong]

What is it with your incessant campaign against Tesla?

 

Are you on the payroll of a signficant make, and this is all you scheme to do? Because we've had that happen here before, and it isn't something that's new nor is it refreshing.

So stop playing the role of wings and READ THE ARTICLE.

 

I read the article, and it presents some nice points.

 

But Musk himself is always frank and blunt. That's also how he's different.

 

The thing is, all is done and now they're stuck to it. You're asking an all-new automaker to be perfect.

 

The closest they can get to that is winning awards all over and getting car of the year type accolades. They've done that, so they're not lacking in product, and they still don't carry the baggage of the incumbent brands.

Wrong.

I'M not the one demanding Tesla gets it right 100% of the time. The financial model they operate on demands that.

I have no hate-on for Elon Musk. I just know that he's bitten off more than he can chew. And he has. Simple as that.

[Suaviloquent]

You know why I don't like these dumb Opinion Editorials?

 

Because they're not vetted, and they're meant to peddle paper sales or be click-bait.

 

This person hasn't done the real research. They only scratch at the surface. 

 

The Model X eschews a lower entry price point for excellence of engineering that justify its high price. 

 

There's a quite a few brands that we wish would do so, but they fail - because they cannot address the most pertinent needs of their customers.

 

It's one thing to post an article for discussion and it's another to just propagate a targeted agenda which just draws more questions of the real motive of the OP.

 

You clearly have demonstrated a real brand bias. Okay. Most of my academic textbooks rip on GM as an automaker the most, and they have financial information - market strategy - organizational behaviour, you name it, problems left and right even past BK plastered all over. And I take all of it with a mighty grain of salt.

[Robert Hall]

If they had simply done a CUV off the Model S they probably could have had it to market a year after the Model S..but they dicked around for years with those stupid 'falcon doors'...pointless gimmick nonsense that adds nothing to the vehicle.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Suaviloquent]

 

 

 

What is it with your incessant campaign against Tesla?

 

Are you on the payroll of a signficant make, and this is all you scheme to do? Because we've had that happen here before, and it isn't something that's new nor is it refreshing.

So stop playing the role of wings and READ THE ARTICLE.

 

I read the article, and it presents some nice points.

 

But Musk himself is always frank and blunt. That's also how he's different.

 

The thing is, all is done and now they're stuck to it. You're asking an all-new automaker to be perfect.

 

The closest they can get to that is winning awards all over and getting car of the year type accolades. They've done that, so they're not lacking in product, and they still don't carry the baggage of the incumbent brands.

Wrong.

I'M not the one demanding Tesla gets it right 100% of the time. The financial model they operate on demands that.

I have no hate-on for Elon Musk. I just know that he's bitten off more than he can chew. And he has. Simple as that.

 

 

Oh, so other automakers don't do that? They don't aim for grandeur? They don't do escalation of commitment?

 

Your argument is so untenable I'm just going to say that you've just phoned it in.

If they had simply done a CUV off the Model S they probably could have had it to market a year after the Model S..but they dicked around for years with those stupid 'falcon doors'...pointless junk that adds nothing to the vehicle.

 

Glad to know you're never going to buy one.

 

Now, if the Lamborghini Urus comes out with scissor doors...

[Suaviloquent]

Really what the author should have said is that the development time and the falcon doors are burdens, and lengthened the development time.

 

But the way the title is stated, it's writing off potentially the most technologically advanced SUV in the world.

 

The biggest threats to Tesla actually have nothing to with the vehicle itself.

 

It's more to do with the company's potential margins on the Model 3, and low oil prices which affect every player that will sell the affordable EVs.

 

Crossovers are crazy sellers. And like Cadillac has proven, it's never too late to join the party or sell exuberant and expensive behemoths. 

[William Maley]

My head hurts from reading this.

 

 

All is not well at Tesla. On Thursday, its stock price fell to $166.99, its lowest since January, 2014. After Elon Musk silenced skeptics by delivering a new quarterly record and reaching the company's target of 50,000 EV sales in 2015, this drop may come as a shock to investors.

 

How is this not doing well? I'm sure there is a lot of OEMs who will kill to have a stock price like this. Also, I'm sure there are other factors as to why the stock dropped - the direct sales battle for one.

 

 

Speaking candidly about the Model X's development, Musk said, "If we had known the true engineering costs and the amount of complexity associated with it I think we would have probably done fewer new things."

 

This might the only part I agree with this piece. There comes a point in building a vehicle that you just need to say 'We need to get this vehicle out. Hopefully, there isn't any massive issues that could screw this up.' 

 

 

The result is a car that's impressive in almost every way, but entirely inconsistent with Tesla's stated mission. Instead of moving downmarket, the Model X is even costlier than the Model S, with a base price of $80,000.

 

How is the Model X inconsistent with the stated mission? The author realizes that mission statements can change for various reasons, right??

 

Last I checked, the Model X wasn't going to be a downmarket vehicle. Also, stating the obvious (marked in bold).

 

 

None of this would matter if Model X sales were up, but a variety of delays have kept it from hitting the showroom floor, and only 208 delivered before the end of 2015.

 

Wait, what?! This sentence doesn't make sense. How could sales of the Model X be up if it just went on sale late last year?!

[ccap41]

If they had simply done a CUV off the Model S they probably could have had it to market a year after the Model S..but they dicked around for years with those stupid 'falcon doors'...pointless gimmick nonsense that adds nothing to the vehicle.

They get people to talk about them and write articles about them. The general public likes things like that and Musk knows it. It's a gimmick that no other vehicle has. 

[Suaviloquent]

There's some real mismanaged companies such as (clears throat) a certain Italian company that delays profitable (like really just clear shoo-ins as far as vehicles go) models for the explicit purpose of bringing niche, tiny volume, unprofitable vehicles to market. And I hear they've delayed the their "Grandest" of wagons by 2 years or more, ever since they first announced it.

 

And last but not least ALAS Tesla does not have showrooms. You can't buy the Teslas at their stores, and just drive them off the lot.

 

The stupid thing that the editorials do is compare Tesla to the biggest and most successful automakers.

 

Here's a fact, there's more automotive losers out there than those specific winners, who if I recall correctly, were even bigger losers, and not too long ago either.

 

Compare Tesla to a REAL competitor - and they simply don't exist. And they still don't. Last I heard, the Bolt is going on sale effectively this time next year. Just a waste of breath. That's what the article really is.

[Robert Hall]

 

If they had simply done a CUV off the Model S they probably could have had it to market a year after the Model S..but they dicked around for years with those stupid 'falcon doors'...pointless gimmick nonsense that adds nothing to the vehicle.

They get people to talk about them and write articles about them. The general public likes things like that and Musk knows it. It's a gimmick that no other vehicle has. 

 

I don't think the 'general public' will be buying very many $100k novelty CUVs.    

[Suaviloquent]

The general public disagrees.

 

Due to just how lucrative that market segment is, and its continued momentum, Jeep of all makes is going there. Ford is going there. Cadillac and Lincoln are almost already there, not to mention the bounty of German makes already there.

 

Whether we like to or not, a Model X had to exist. 

 

The general public also doesn't buy many alternative vehicles.

 

If Tesla can capture all of the premium EV segment at this early stage, they will have continual superior returns while other automakers juggle their electrification programs by using their future legacy and defunct conventional cars to fund the growth of those same segments.

[Robert Hall]

I see nothing about the Model X that would make it a compelling buy over the Porsche Cayenne, for example.  For a luxury SUV the Porsche is larger inside, has a better range, etc.   And has normal doors, not gimmick doors. 

[surreal1272]

Sorry but I am not going to put too much weight into a pure opinion piece from a publication that has never shown much love to Tesla begin with.

 

Like Suave said, there are some good points but most everything in their purely opinion and typical short sighted speculation.

[El Kabong]

IMO the article does a very good job of analyzing the underlying issues with Tesla and their business model. Nobody can deny that the Model X has been a royal pain to get to market, nor can they reasonably say that it hasn't hurt development of the Model 3. And the Model 3 is, realistically, the car that will make or break them as a viable mainstream automaker. Every moment they waste to larger manufacturers with more sophisticated dealer networks (and if they're cynical enough, a "profits come later" pricing scheme) is critical.

[David]

If the Model X was phoned in, the author would complain it's phoned in.

 

If Tesla built a small sedan instead, the author would complain Tesla's missing out on the massive CUV market. 

 

If Tesla built a clone of Christ, the author would complain the wine it dispensed wasn't a merlot. 

WHAT? The Wine Was Not Merlot? 

[Robert Hall]

 

If the Model X was phoned in, the author would complain it's phoned in.

 

If Tesla built a small sedan instead, the author would complain Tesla's missing out on the massive CUV market. 

 

If Tesla built a clone of Christ, the author would complain the wine it dispensed wasn't a merlot. 

WHAT? The Wine Was Not Merlot? 

 

I'd rather have a pinot noir or malbec..

[David]

I see nothing about the Model X that would make it a compelling buy over the Porsche Cayenne, for example.  For a luxury SUV the Porsche is larger inside, has a better range, etc.   And has normal doors, not gimmick doors. 

 

I would pass on both as neither overs real value for the dollar. The best bang for buck Luxury SUV out there is the Escalade!

 

 

If the Model X was phoned in, the author would complain it's phoned in.

 

If Tesla built a small sedan instead, the author would complain Tesla's missing out on the massive CUV market. 

 

If Tesla built a clone of Christ, the author would complain the wine it dispensed wasn't a merlot. 

WHAT? The Wine Was Not Merlot? 

 

I'd rather have a pinot noir or malbec..

 

+1 for two awesome Wines, can I get some Dark Chocolate with that please!

[ccap41]

If they had simply done a CUV off the Model S they probably could have had it to market a year after the Model S..but they dicked around for years with those stupid 'falcon doors'...pointless gimmick nonsense that adds nothing to the vehicle.

They get people to talk about them and write articles about them. The general public likes things like that and Musk knows it. It's a gimmick that no other vehicle has.

I don't think the 'general public' will be buying very many $100k novelty CUVs.

But the general public is who talks about its quirky gimmicks. The more people talk about it in a positive manner the more it will get people to want their lesser models when they eventually come to fruition. I completely agree that the general public isn't buying anything other than a house at or above even 80k(starting price if I remember correctly?). But it does help "some" with the fuel costs and EV tax breaks. Not trying to say that all of a sudden people that make 50-70k will be forking out 100k on a car or anything but every little helps..

[Suaviloquent]

Dealer channels are not superior for smaller automakers if they want to differentiate themselves in the marketplace.

 

For one, most dealers don't pay list price. Automakers bend over their backs to deliver competitive discounts, waiving freight, and other pricing mechanisms because the dealers commoditize the car market in many instances. 

 

In hindsight, any automaker could fix any mistake if only they could go back in time (which oddly enough SpaceX might just achieve in a millennium near you).

 

What Tesla has to do is to continually build off of the fact that there is a ever increasing segment of customers that are perpetually tired of the incumbents or their distribution channels.

 

They don't want the value of their dollar eroded by the chance one dealer could offer the same vehicle at a lower price. I think it's just brilliant how all customers pay the same price, which means customers are sure that that atleast the price is fair in the sense everyone pays the same, less available local and federal tax credits. Which are really more required for the incoming affordable EVs, not the top-end that Tesla currently caters to.

 

And ultimately, by removing the middle-person Tesla gains valuable insights about its customers. 

 

What does this all mean? You know, Tesla already broke many rules that other automakers do to stay viable. Tesla released most of their EV patents for free and unrestricted use. 

 

Of course the company is using it for some kind of marketing strategy advantage, no doubt.

 

But I firmly believe, even if the company folds in the next 5-6 years, when the real hurdles start to bear on the firm, they'll have done what they've always wanted - to jumpstart the electric car, and make it relevant for automobile consumer.

 

And that's why people who want them to fail, over-look everything the company has done. Get out of your product silos. Look at the customer experiences. They have a massive charging network, easily the superior choice for people who actually want to use their Teslas for travel on the major Interstate and highway corridors. Their buyers are thus constantly bombarded with the stories of other buyers, and they're always surrounded by Teslas. Brilliant.

 

The company is building a very high capacity for vertical integration. It's almost like Fordism... which is weird. No doubt you know, they are taking advantage of tax incentives in the states of Nevada for example. But which competitive automaker isn't finding ways to get some kind of break? Or making decisions in the same vein.

 

Amazon, a huge a retailer didn't record a single profit for about a decade since its launch. Could anyone have thought that now that same company is a real threat to brick and mortars Wal Mart?

 

Obviously, that example has little to do with Tesla and other automakers. But what it does say is that as long as Tesla can capture the value it wants to give to customers through its products, remember it's the experiences, not just the box on four wheels - it can survive long enough for things to turn around, and become very profitable. 

 

Now please, someone do the informed thing and do some bloody research on this topic instead of plucking opinion editorials from here and there. And real research means looking into the entire history of the company not just its recent past or projected recent future.

[Suaviloquent]

And you know what?

 

While I agree that powered Falcon doors is certainly over the top...

 

You're seeing powered this - powered that, you get trunks and tailgates that are hands-free and minivans already have power doors. Something that Ford's CEO, Mark Fields actually mentioned that is because of aging populations in most of the lucrative and even growing car markets, mobility concerns are becoming real.

 

People who want to operate their own automobile (but have arthritis or are disabled for example) have their lives enhanced by all these power functions.

 

You're not going to see power operated car entry and egress functions reduced, actually they're going to penetrate even lower price points in the coming future.

 

So the thing is, while the implementation of those features may be to a person's taste, because of changing consumer preferences, and needs of mobility being articulated, it's beyond doubt that the future that the real cutting edge is what the Model X is a peek into.

[ocnblu]

But... the electric car is not relevant.  Even if Obama's criminal $10/barrel oil tax comes to fruition.  How advantageous it is for oil prices to be down for those who refuse to see the truth... let's tax the $h! out of it now and USE the people's money to force them into something they do not want!

[Drew Dowdell]

The Model-X wasn't a mistake.  The excessively expensive frills they put on it were a mistake.  It would have sold just as well, if not even a little better due to potentially lower price, with normal doors. Having normal doors could have knocked up to $10k (my personal estimate) off the price and allowed the vehicle to launch sooner changing nothing else about the vehicle. People buy $70k - $80k SUVs all day every day, and it would have been a hit.

 

But the Model-X wasn't a mistake... it was a necessity. 

[Suaviloquent]

You know what, they'll probably turn the Model X into their halo SUV while their underling below it, like a Model C whatever they call the lower one will have conventional doors.

[Drew Dowdell]

But... the electric car is not relevant.  Even if Obama's criminal $10/barrel oil tax comes to fruition.  How advantageous it is for oil prices to be down for those who refuse to see the truth... let's tax the $h! out of it now and USE the people's money to force them into something they do not want!

 

Criminal?  How do you expect roads to get built or repaired? The gas tax hasn't been raised in over 2 decades while fuel economy overall has improved... meaning you get much more miles of travel per tax paid than ever before.  In your new truck, you pay about 0.7 cents per mile in fed gas taxes... if this $10 per barrel tax goes through, it would increase to 1.7 cents per mile. Driving my Buick, I pay about 0.6 cents a mile and in my Toronado, its about 1.7 cents a mile. Those would rise to 1.3 cents and 3.0 cents per mild respectively. Still a tiny price to pay for bridges that don't fall down.

 

 Now is exactly the time to raise the tax when prices are super cheap.  I just paid $1.30 a gallon last week in Tulsa... I would still think $1.55 a gallon is dirt cheap.

 

Our infrastructure is beyond terrible for a developed country.  We get a D+ grade.  Here in Pittsburgh, since there was no federal money to replace a bridge that was falling down over an interstate, they built another bridge below it to catch the pieces that were falling on the interstate below.  They imploded it... finally... back in December. 

 

I get that people want lower taxes and all... but eventually you just have to admit that you're a cheapskate who thinks that everything should be handed to you for free.  Making America great again means rebuilding those things that made us great in the first place... but we can't do it without paying for it.

[Robert Hall]

You know what, they'll probably turn the Model X into their halo SUV while their underling below it, like a Model C whatever they call the lower one will have conventional doors.

Yeah, a CUV companion for the Model 3 is inevitable, since the compact luxury CUV market is pretty hot now...I've heard the name 'Model Y' mentioned somewhere..

Edited February 6, 2016 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[regfootball]

But... the electric car is not relevant. Even if Obama's criminal $10/barrel oil tax comes to fruition. How advantageous it is for oil prices to be down for those who refuse to see the truth... let's tax the $h! out of it now and USE the people's money to force them into something they do not want!

It's not up to the president to set taxes. That is congress' job.

Opportunistic to pine for the tax increase when gas is low but it will go up soon and then it's close to 5 bucks because no tax ever goes away.

What should occur is a programmed gas tax increase that mildly steps over time. A penny this year, then next year etc. sharp increases at once jar the economy and cause inflation. It could be argued that cheap gas right now is what has helped makes the economy somewhat stable again.

Any gas tax increase should be for roads and bridges for cars. If they want money for mass transit projects that should be separate funding.

If they hadn't forced cafe and the lower gas consumption, the tax collection wouldn't be less. In that regard, CAFE is a debilitating law in addition to stifling the market choices.

Regarding tesla, the piece really just states what is obvious. They don't have the chops to be an automaker, even if they display some innovation in technology and marketing. They don't have the discipline or the smarts of an automaker that would need to survive or at a minimum be responsive in a timely fashion to a realistic customer base. So then, an upstart Silicon Valley tech company on wheels.

Gm etc would be dead meat if they kept delaying vital products and couldn't get them to market, or serve emerging segments. Model X only needed to be a taller model s. Model 3 needed to be here 2 years ago at 40 grand.

Tesla is on the borderline of fail.

Edited February 6, 2016 by regfootball

[balthazar]

Drewster~ >>The Model-X wasn't a mistake.  The excessively expensive frills they put on it were a mistake.  It would have sold just as well, if not even a little better due to potentially lower price, with normal doors. Having normal doors could have knocked up to $10k (my personal estimate) off the price and allowed the vehicle to launch sooner changing nothing else about the vehicle. People buy $70k - $80k SUVs all day every day, and it would have been a hit. But the Model-X wasn't a mistake... it was a necessity.<< 

 

Model S, a far more upscale product than the Model X, starts @ $70K.
Model X MSRP is not yet official, but sources are saying it'll start @ $132K.

By that token, I can't imagine how a conventional-doored Model X would be $52K MORE ($132K - your $10K estimate for the doors) the vehicle than the Model S is. Or are the doors 'worth' closer to $50K, somehow?

At the very least, mistake or not argument aside, the Model X is grossly overpriced for what it is. Or is Tesla trying to say the Model S has just been demoted to 2nd class & the X is the flagship? Model X is a necessary expansion of a 1-vehicle catalog, but it's wide of the mark on a number of factors, where the Model S got it right.

 

 

Drewster~ >>The gas tax hasn't been raised in over 2 decades while fuel economy overall has improved... meaning you get much more miles of travel per tax paid than ever before.  In your new truck, you pay about 0.7 cents per mile in fed gas taxes...<<

 

Annual U.S. mileage has been constant over the last few years, about 3 trillion. But the state/local fuel tax rate was hugely adjusted in 2009, reducing what had been averaging $38B/yr, down to only $9B since 2009. Also, the federal mileage allowance for businesses, which was .36/mile in 2003, was raised to .55 in 2009 in answer to gas prices being solidly over $4/gal. However, tho gas prices now are lower than they've been in decades, the 2015 mileage allowance is higher than ever : .575/mile. Sure that helps the little guy (and major companies), but the flip side is Gov't is losing billions in revenue because they just can't react with any sort of timeliness.

Edited February 6, 2016 by balthazar

[Suaviloquent]

The Model X starrs right at around $80,000 with the base 70 dual motor that has 200 miles of range.

 

Naturally, the first pre-orders being fulfilled as we speak are all fully loaded 90 dual motor models that optioned up to maximum are $130,000 plus.

 

They've already started deliveries. Tesla's biggest problems are capacity and the teething problems facing all affordable electric vehicles.

 

Which means that the Model 3 is the product that should really be looked at. The Model X is completely sold out for 2016. They can't build them fast enough, the sell really quickly.

[ocnblu]

... but eventually you just have to admit that you're a cheapskate who thinks that everything should be handed to you for free.

 

Excuse me Drew Dowdell?

[balthazar]

The Model X starrs right at around $80,000 with the base 70 dual motor that has 200 miles of range. Naturally, the first pre-orders being fulfilled as we speak are all fully loaded 90 dual motor models that optioned up to maximum are $130,000 plus. They've already started deliveries. 

OK- looks like the initial model X's sold were '90's & that's where the "$132K" is coming from.

The online sites I tried (Edmunds, Autotrader, TruCar) are still showing it as a 'future' model (or not at all).

[Suaviloquent]

Yeah, they did say that the 70D would be late availability.

 

So I guess sometime mid year 2016...

 

The real problem is that Tesla is finding it quite difficult to sell the lower battery size models.

 

Everyone wants the 85 or 90 kwh battery models.

[Cory Wolfe]

 

Model S, a far more upscale product than the Model X, starts @ $70K.

 

 

Since the pricing has already been discussed, I just want to focus on the upscale comment. I wouldn't say the Model S is a far more upscale product, by any means. Each vehicle is available with similar performance, features, and luxuriousness. If anything, the Model X will actually be more upscale due to the new features they've engineered for the vehicle, assuming they don't "trickle down" to the Model S. 

 

 

I see nothing about the Model X that would make it a compelling buy over the Porsche Cayenne, for example.  For a luxury SUV the Porsche is larger inside, has a better range, etc.   And has normal doors, not gimmick doors. 

 

Really? You can't find anything about it that could make it more compelling to a prospective buyer over a Cayenne? I certainly could. Performance? The quickest Model X will reach 60 a second faster than the quickest Cayenne. Passenger Space? The Model X has more usable people space, and can hold an extra 2 people. Efficiency? The most expensive to run Model X will cost you half as much annually as the most efficient Cayenne. Compare apples to apples and that margin will grow. Despite the lower range, you will still save money in the long run. Also, Tesla's supercharger network is ever-growing. As far as luggage space, while it might not be quite as practical due the lack of a folding second row of seats, with those slid forward and the third row folded, it looks to be pretty comparable. There is also the frunk to keep in mind, as well. Really, the only areas that the Cayenne would truly trounce the Model X would be in towing and off-road ability. 

 

But... the electric car is not relevant.  Even if Obama's criminal $10/barrel oil tax comes to fruition.  How advantageous it is for oil prices to be down for those who refuse to see the truth... let's tax the &#036;h&#33; out of it now and USE the people's money to force them into something they do not want!

 

Every single person I know who isn't currently living in the dark ages of Amish living either admires Tesla or adores Tesla. It's not until I stumble into C&G that I ever see such hatred for its vehicles. Perhaps, in the good ol' days when an electric car was the equivalent to a back-yard Fiero kit car, they weren't relevant. Hell, even up until vehicles like the EV-1 and newer ones as recent as Tesla's own Roadster or Nissan's Leaf, that may have been true. What Tesla has managed to do, however, is to single-handedly change the game for electric vehicles. They altered the public's perception completely. People aspire to own these electric cars, hence the reason a $70k vehicle is able to outsell a $35k Volt and Leaf. Not only that, without Tesla paving the way for it, there would have been no Bolt. Speaking of the Bolt, I foresee that vehicle being the true bridge to a feasible electric vehicle future. Not relevant? Wake up and smell the roses, the future is coming sooner than you may realise. 

 

Personally speaking, as much as I love internal combustion and all the sounds and vibrations that come with it, I can honestly say that I would not hesitate one bit to jump into electric car ownership with the way this industry is progressing. Tesla and the Bolt are likely just the stepping stones to greater, more attainable things to come. 

[Suaviloquent]

And the thing is to add to Mr. Viper's excellent addition of today's rationale...

 

I do not aspire to own a Tesla. In fact, quite the opposite, I still want some cars like those with big honking V8s to remain in some form - as long as there will be a way to pay fairly for the inefficiency of theirs.

 

Electric cars are so relevant. Many people do not want droning engine noises. Many people do not want to ring out an engine for its power for fear of precipitously deteriorating its components. People want quiet, silent cabins.

 

Lastly, if only people could really imagine life without gasoline stations - without having to pay even $20 to fill up their tanks, if they could see it for themselves like Teslas are able to do today - they'd defect immediately.

 

The car buyer wants these things- these latent needs. When they are articulated by the experiences that define a product, then, truly there is transcendence.

 

Call it whatever you want, but people should be rooting for Tesla, even if they don't want any of their products. Because above all else, Tesla is a small nimble disruptor to the industry that for the sake of its own survival cannot pursue high margins or ridiculous profits at this point because everything it does is to secure a future for itself, which means really just electric vehicles.

 

The worst I've heard here is that some believe they don't build world-class vehicles. Yet they're beating world class companies and their products in quantifiable metrics of performance. They make a hyperbole of fuel efficiency and high performance. They give more value to their customers -as they should in order to entice buyers. 

 

But like Drew said, some people are never satisfied, and Tesla is fine with not serving those people, because they really don't have to. All of their production capacity is already solidly booked. They're just a capital monster at this point, and feeding it will be the life or death of the company. I hope they succeed fully and really continue to do just crazy things.

[balthazar]

RE the "two extra people", I see the Model S's optional jump seats are only usable by kids generally between 35 and 77 lbs. At the upper end, the average kid won't fit back there height-wise. I realize the Model X won't fall under the same headroom limitation for it's 3rd row, but ironically it looks like the ingress/egress is very tight.

 

RE the 'upscale' comment, IMO the Model S is more prestigious due to it already being a perceived top shelf sedan, and it has the looks to back it up.

The Model X doesn't have the slinkiness of the S nor the broad-shouldered athletic look of the Cayenne. IMO it looks vaguely neutered. I just don't see it having the same caliber of appeal as the S, and in that it's price can handily exceed the S, this seems to place it above the S in the hierarchy, and I wonder if that's Tesla's intention or not.

[Robert Hall]

I can't see myself considering an electric car until the range and charging ability is as simple and ubiquitous as going to a gas station, but I definitely like Tesla the company and esp. the Model S...being in the software biz myself, I like Tesla quite a bit as a tech company (and small shareholder--I have a few shares in my investment portfolio, along w/ GM, Ford, Daimler shares as far as car companies go).  

 

The Model X just doesn't appeal to me, but I'm not in that market...  the Model X looks bland compared to the sexy Model S.  The Cayenne, Range Rover Sport, M-B GLS, and Escalade look much more premium and appealing in the premium CUV/SUV market...

 

I want to see them succeed--as a car enthusiast and tech enthusiast, I wouldn't root against an exciting, upstart American tech company that is also an exciting upstart American car company...

 

It's a new premium brand, and for some, that's going to be a hard sell over the established premium brands..

Edited February 7, 2016 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Suaviloquent]

Actually, read all of the first drives of the Model X, and the third row has very decent legroom, and you mention ingress and egress?

 

Each seat in the second row can power forward individually, because they're mounted on sleek posts instead of anchor points, and they also articulate forward, with a small ark, the pivot point being the under the floor, so the entire seat moves forward.

 

They're premium now to be able to sell arguably very expensive technology.

 

Their models is to eventually enter the lower priced segments.

 

Aren't a few people here all up on that top-down approach? Especially a few certain fans of Cadillac and Cadillac-based Chevys? I know I'm one of them, so I by default agree on what Tesla is doing.