balthazar

I want to know why I haven't heard complaints about the Model S's door handles- the metal face of them is usually quite wavy and being chrome; quite noticeable.

I should scan pieces out of my 6500-count ad collection. Problem is, I don't know where to start.

I am suspicious the real reason is 'buyer confusion', as Musk claims. I tend to think Tesla buyers are solidly on the high side of average consumer knowledge- anything markedly different (as Tesla is WRT being an EV) fairly begs a high level of involvement. What I do believe is more likely is that the Model 3 is cannibalizing the S already, because it's on the threshold of passing from vaporware to reality. ESPECIALLY if a vast swath of buyers are indicating they'll spend $45-55K for a "$35K" car... no doubt some potential S buyers are deciding they can live just fine with a 12-in shorter 'Model S Mini'. My prediction is that the S is going to fall farther once the 3 is on the dealership floor... to the point that the assumed sales addition of the 3 is going to be a net lower. Couple that with the inevitable production delays of the 3 and Tesla will be way off their claim of 500K units in 2018. - - - - - However, if Tesla can get the bulk of 3 buyers in at $50K, perhaps the volume will provide economies of scale and a profit. Next; probably should fast-track the next gen Model S, then worry about the Model Y after that.

Maybe that piece was a year old then, and was referring to 2017? - - - - - ~ https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-apos-model-3-heads-221715416.html I lend far more credibility to the possibility, not that Tesla consumers are easily confused, but that this cannibalization is due to the lower PRICE of the 3. If you have a 300 mile range upgrade and autopilot available on the 3, what's the draw to spend $30-60K more on a much older S- just the size? Is that 12 inches worth that much?

its interesting that a subjective feature can be as easily "competitive" as it can be "trendy (in a negative way)".

I don't think 3 years is long enough to establish a trend on yearly (at best) styling changes.

As Drew said above- Tesla is not going to build (anywhere near) 190K Model 3s next year. Take special note from anabove post : That implies Model 3 won't start production until mid 2018. If that's true, I would hazard to guess Tesla would be lucky to deliver 50K Model 3s... which means closer to 150K units in 2018, than 500K. It would be double 2016, so not bad, but as usual, Musk's mouth is bigger than his stomach (ability to deliver).

i-MiEV is a $11K compact that's been electrified and the price tag doubled to $23K. If they took a Lancer and EV'ed it, the price would go from $18K to AT LEAST $35K. There is no scenario where an EV Lancer would be $25K.

But other than the removal of capital, stock holders still don't "approve" future product plans. Stock holding doesn't give an investor access to planning meetings.

Sure, some of them are. And if they're willing to spend $42K, or $50K or $55K, more power to 'em. But how many of the 400K pre-orders will not? Without a doubt, some will balk and back out, those would have been 'deal-broken'. Time will tell... if Tesla does. - - - - - Mitsu should fold up operations. When they got caught thrice lying openly about injurious & fatal defects, I thought for sure they'd be forced to leave the U.S. market, but they're hanging around like a lingering fart.

It's the Edsel of the 21st Century. But FAR worse.

Tesla Model 3 average sale price and budget to be closer to $50,000 based on latest data from reservation holders That's 15 thousand. Another question no one seems to be pondering- what degree of cannabalizing will the Model 3 do to the Model S, especially if a 300 mile range upgrade and most all the associated gee-whiz options are available on the M3?

>Well, there are board meetings for shareholders.... Unless any of us have attended any of them concerning Tesla, we will never know what shareholders want from Tesla...< Shareholder want a return on their investment. Everybody knows that. >Yup...Investors must have agreed to greenlight this! < Investors don't have input into future product. >The price may move, what? 1 thousand? 2 thousand? 5 thousand? Or it may not move at all.< Teslacentral.com claims "the average cost once options are factored in is expected to be around $42,000". For the record, that's 7 thousand. But also do not forget the pro-rated demise of Tesla's EV credit... which WILL hit the Model 3's delivery fairly early (depending on when it arrives). I don't wish anything RE the Model 3's pricing, just stating what I've read. I have stated it before and will here again; I like Tesla, I hope they continue into the future and they've made great strides, but I will not overlook the pitfalls around the company that Teslafanatics are willing to. It's not pessimism, it's reality.

2016 deliveries : 76,230. I'm not saying that's bad for 2 EV models... but the Model S is getting long in the tooth at this point and there's not much growth potentional in the Model X's price tier. I've seen more XT5s than Model Xs by me, if that means anything. But it's going to take a number of model years to pump out those 400K units- Tesla cannot produce them in 1 year's time. SO while the company is progressing, it still had major hurdles to overcome. Don't forget, in addition to the 'sketch' that garnered those 400K pre-orders was also the number "$35K". Time will tell.

Mitsu is not going to draw buyers of consequence with a $25K compact with a mere 150 mile range against a far nicer Bolt with 240 mile range, nevermind a profit.

No, I don't believe "most" are overpriced. There are analytical metrics to evaluate a company's performance vs. stock price, but -much like the car market- Tesla is operating outside the 'normal' metrics. But unless some folk are buying Tesla stock as a charity gesture... one assumes all the other investors are expecting a ROI. GM & FMC are a lifetime away from their IPOs (1916 and 1956).

Dear God.

Tesla makes zero profit. Mitsu,,, actually I have no idea if they make a profit or not, but the billions it would take to develop EVs priced like EVs already here (or will be before mitsu gets off it's ass) would just accelerate mitsu's losses. And newsflash- "$35K" isn't "cheap".

Interesting pics for me: • Was just looking at a '55 T-bird, black, mint, hiding away in a garage for at least 15 years, I could roll a 1st gen T-bird... but the Sunliner is a 'meh'. • I DO need a new truck- and I've had good luck with Ford trucks. I'd probably be happy in an F-350. • The Canadian Pontiac is a no-go for me, a bastardization in my book. I'd happily take a '67 2+2 428 car tho. • The '49 is nice, tho graft a roof onto it and nix the yellow.

1. Haven't been in enough newer stuff to get a strong pull here. Nothing really grabs me- I would like to see one of those Bonne GXPs up close; they were sleek. 2. Ford F-series RC/LB, could do anything from early '60s thru early 90s (kinda miss my '94). Then again, I've gotten pretty used to the utility of a CC. 3. '60s Pontiac Safari, upgrade to OD, tighten up the suspension a bit. Would prefer '62-64, but saw an intriguing '70 yesterday. 4. Still liking my '59 Invicta coupe for road/track car. Purchase price can easily be under the cap, but as-I'm-building-it is easily over that. 470CI/ 4L80E/ Dana 60, 550 HP.

The auto industry is not a short term platform.

Eldo may make up for it via optional equipment, no? And the 249 V8 does have iron heads. For your consideration ~ 1982 Seville Elegante, 4.1L V8, curb weight : 3814 1981 Seville, 5.7L diesel V8, curb weight : 4255 HEY!! We're muckin' up my thread with this O/T crap!

I'm surprised your era E-Bodies are that light. I checked a '83 Riviera T-Type road test I have, 3.8LT : curb weight 3675. An '83 Eldorado TC was 3830. Clearly plastics are heavier than steel.

A small one, yes. my I6 F-150 from '94 (regular cab long bed, 2x4) was 3980 lbs.

My truck idles about 450, charges about 900. Current pulley is about 3", would have to be less than 1.5" to double the generator speed - nothing like that available. Old Fords also use wider belts (wider than post-war); would have to swap out all pulleys if using a modern-sized substitution. Not feasible. In normal operation, generator-equipped vehicles do just fine as far as charging, even the big delivery trucks seem to do fine, esp if one doesn't have a lot of auxiliary equipment/lights to power. Generator shop told me you could drive a low-load vehicle with a charged battery & no feed from the generator for a day or 2. I'm not sure what (theoretically) changing the pulley size would do- voltage regulator is likewise involved... I don't care for manuals. I'd don't find them enjoyable in general- I like the mysterious magical nature of the hydraulic automatic. In other words; I prefer to shift it & mash it. I can objectively tell you this; so far I'm doing better than my one buddy who drove it, who talks fondly about his old manual Celica, and better than my other friend who'd driven probably 5000 vehicles. Buddy 1 kept loosing steam and having to re-downshift, buddy 2 ground the gears mercilessly. I'm fine on the upshift, just need to acclimate to the proper downshifting procedure. It would help on my truck if one didn't have to yank on that 18" steering wheel like Popeye to pilot the thing at low speed. RE the brakes, it has 14-in & 15-in drums with ample pads, it was engineered for up to 28K lbs and according to 1941 Ford lit, my truck [134" WB COE with dually rear & auxiliary springs] only weighs 3850. Seems hard to believe standing in front of it.