So when Tesla's $35k car becomes a mainstream hit in 2018, I have no doubt big auto will react with compelling competitive vehicles. The problem is they won't have the battery infrastructure in place to sell more than 50,000 units, and it'll take them several years to catch up to Tesla's production volumes!
That or purchase their packs from Tesla.
BMW has an i3 that is basically an Onion article parody version of an electric car. If you had to draw a comic of an electric car, that's what you'd draw.
They also have an absolutely ridiculous "electric" i8 that has a lawnmower engine shoehorned in it somewhere and you can listen to that fire off every now and then while you drive your luxury car around. And oh, yeah, it goes 0-60 in 4.4 seconds and they actually advertise that fact.
Mercedes also has a lame little clown car (the B-class, or whatever it is) and a bunch of "luxury" models with little chainsaw engines hidden somewhere inside. Good thing they do all that sound dampening since who wants to hear a chuggy little 3 or 4-banger fire up at every stoplight.
It's stupefying. It's flabbergasting. It defies all logic.
And it's not like it's 2002 or something and they're all reacting to the prius ... they've all had 15 fucking years to come up with something, anything that doesn't make them a joke. And they have nothing.
I don't particularly like the styling of the model S, and I really don't like the interior, and I really, really don't like a big styling void in the middle of the dash where that 17" monitor sits, but I put down a deposit and am taking delivery.
It is a spite purchase. I refuse to pay an incumbent one more cent for the privilege of enabling their anachronistic product model.
If we take the base Model S, which has a 230 mile range, 315hp, and 0-60mph in 5.5 seconds, it goes for $70k minus $10k in tax subsidies. And compare it to the Nissan Leaf SL which has a 84 miles range, 107hp, and 0-60mph in 10.2 seconds, it goes for $35k - $7.5k in tax subsidies.
So it's exactly half the price, for much less then half the car. The Tesla has the highest safety rating out there. It handles really well. You get free charging station access. I mean, it doesn't even make sense to compare the cars. Even when you account for price, you are still getting way more than twice the car when you get the Tesla.
Progress for me would be Nissan offering a car comparable to the Model S for a comparable price.
The MSRP for the Leaf is $30,585, and average price paid in my area is $25,682.
Edmunds does not account for tax subsidies. I think we can both twiddle the numbers in our favor. So the question is, what are the actual cost of ownership of these cars? I still strongly suspect, the Leaf costs roughly 1/3 of the Tesla and is roughly 1/3 of a car.
On the downside, range is closer to 75 miles in the winter (driving normally for MA, meaning fairly fast) and a pretty regular 90-95 miles in the summer.
Overall, I love it. It's no Tesla and is not a economic winner over a good used car, but it's a damned good car and I think it's one of the most economic of the new cars, even with MA insane cost of electricity.
The Nissan Leaf is intended to be a city (or at least "close in suburb") car. With my 10 mile/20 minute commute, in a city with horrible public transportation, makes the Leaf ideal. Especially since I can afford a Leaf, a Model S not so much.
I agree though, they should really be pushing these electric cars. They're awesome. They're a pleasure to drive. I hate going back to gas, just shifting and the low torque are noticeable and now annoying. Maybe they just suck at advertising (doubtful) or they have other motives.
[1] http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1092315_chrysler-ceo-und...
Even after a large network of charging stations is created, the user experience for long trips is not ideal - up to 1/4 of driving time may be spent charging.
The ownership paradigm may change at some point, but at the moment people like the idea of using their own car to go around town as well as going on vacation / see the parents / etc across the state or nation.
- Disclaimer - I work for GM
I disagree with the 1/4 of the time charging, with a solution like the Tesla's battery swap, it would be far less(I could be completely wrong in this).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/05/12/tes...
But Tesla is also working in a big battery factory, and I read this plant is very green.
But how is the batteries less green than cars producing contamination. (The batteries could be worst, that's is something I haven't even considered)¿?
My read is that their main goal is selling batteries and everything from opening their "patents" (i.e. their custom connectors/battery pack) to the home wall-pack is designed to do that.
[1] http://www.environment.ucla.edu/media/files/BatteryElectricV... (page 7 with relevant graph) Also http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/2190-4715-24-14.pdf (page 10/11)
"Our base case results suggest that a BEV uses the least amount of energy of all the vehicle types analyzed in this study, followed by a hybrid and a CV. The results of the CV lifecycle analysis show that by far the greatest source of energy intensity is the use phase, at 95% of the lifecycle energy. This is due to the amounts of energy required to extract and process the gasoline and the energy intensity of the gasoline itself."
BEVs have a very large upfront footprint due to the battery that needs to be paid off overtime by driving from a renewable source. However in US only 14% of energy comes from renewable sources, so it'll be a very long pay off.
Hybrids are the best way to go until we make significant strides in batteries (20-30 years off?). You rely on your charged battery for most of your trips, and the highly optimized gas engine kicks in when you need the extra range/juice.
Larger battery means a much larger up-front carbon footprint. Unfortunately on an on-going basis due to profile of electricity production in US you are burning a ton of coal [1] to generate that electricity. Coal is far, far worse than gas in the carbon impact as well as extraction footprint.
Because of the much larger initial hole you've dug (due to a very, very large battery) you're not going to crawl your way out of this deficit for a long time.
The logical solution is to minimize the battery to a degree that it would cover most weekday commutes (which isn't 300 some-odd miles). You would have a much smaller, optimized, gas based generator to recharge that battery for the odd time the person needs the longer range.
It gives you the best of both worlds. You would get far greater savings. This is the reason why other manufacturers are making hybrids or if they do make pure EV it has a much smaller battery than Tesla.
[1] http://www.mapawatt.com/2010/11/29/where-does-us-electricity...
http://www.bmwgroup.com/e/0_0_www_bmwgroup_com/investor_rela...
3-4 battery replacements over 20 years isn't anything close to what a Model S will require. Do you have a source for those figures?
I'll update my reply.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/05/12/tes...
Tesla is getting so much, that if any automaker that can deliver a car with half the specs of a model S, and keeping their model's prices as a mass produced car, would deliver a big punch to Tesla, and would greatly move the market forward.
Is it the investment necessary for building a network of charging stations?
I highly doubt it is because Tesla has more money for R&D than any other car maker.
Is getting a Model S, earns you the title of being an early adopter. Because I believe the market already shifted towards this type of vehicles, but I may be polarized, because I already desire an electric car.