Home› General

General

$500 per month ???

mike_20016mike_20016
edited November -1 in General
I personally love TSLA, Model S, Roadster and everything else this great, upcoming company is doing, but I really wish they would remove the text that says $500/month on their home page. This is highly misleading and plays us for idiots (somewhat). At the end of the day, buyers still need to pay $950-$1,400/month in real terms, not effective terms. Any thoughts?

Comments

  • Noah.SNoah.S
    edited November -1
    I don't mind if they include gas savings in there, that's a real measurable number.
    The 'value of your time' questions, and some of the others are really pushing it.
    Makes Tesla look dishonest.
  • TiebreakerTiebreaker
    edited November -1
    Even the gas savings number is iffy, it should be fixed at 12,000 mi/year, as any additional mile comes with a $0.25 depreciation penalty.
  • PorfirioRPorfirioR
    edited November -1
    I would prefer at least a bottom-line up-front approach. The "base" payment should be at the top, then subtract from the number based on the benefits of EV ownership. Something like:
    $1,100/month base
    -$ 300 (fuel savings)
    -$ 100 (incentives)
    $ 800

    Which is much more transparent. I did notice that the defaults have been somewhat adjusted (e.g. $50/hr for time spent fueling).
  • mike_20016mike_20016
    edited November -1
    @PorfirioR - Well said. Your approach would be a lot more transparent. I hope someone from TSLA is reading these posts.
  • VawlkusVawlkus
    edited November -1
    Transparency in advertising????????? What an outlandish concept!

    And people wonder why 99.9999999% of ads are regarded with hostility.
  • mike_20016mike_20016
    edited November -1
    @Vawlkus - I would expect this sort of "marketing" tactic from nearly any other company, but not Tesla. Disappointing.
  • frmercadofrmercado
    edited November -1
    Agree on the transparency point. When they first made the announcement I actually thought for a second there that I'd be able to "lease" a Tesla. 15 minutes of pure joy! :( I'll just have to wait for the gen III like the rest of the mere mortals out there.
  • olanmillsolanmills
    edited November -1
    Agreed. The math is way to creative.
  • danielcccdanielccc
    edited November -1
    Yup. With Tesla, I don't worry about the car. I am confident they will fix any issues, even years from now.

    I don't worry about the naysayers. John Petersen can go fly a kite.

    I don't worry about "range anxiety". Even the term is bogus. You are low on juice, you charge.

    I don't worry about the financial viability of the company.

    I don't worry about future designs. I am sure they will be best of breed.

    But I worry about one thing, Musk drinking too much of his own hyper-optimistic koolaid.

    Clearly, to do what he is doing he needs to generously consume the fluid. But there is a limit. What's too much? Claiming a $500 a month cost, that's too much. The problem is that, to the untrained eye, it does not look wildly optimistic. It looks sleazy. And that's bad for any brand, but especially a high-end brand.

    PorfirioR's way of presenting would be much more credible.
  • Mark22Mark22
    edited November -1
    Agreed the $500/month uses a lot of fuzzy math. I have been treated much better than this by Tesla in the past and expect much more from them.
    The business use deduction is valid for some, but certainly not all. The gas savings in my case are completely off base as I would be replacing either an EV or PHEV.

    On the flip side, I applaud their easy to use true cost calculator as it is important to show people where the POTENTIAL savings are and how much they can add up.
  • joshnd03joshnd03
    edited November -1
    I honestly think the $500/month number is really just a PR ploy. Anyone who is really going to buy a current Tesla is most likely not in a position to have to worry about the difference between $500 and $1100 per month.

    As of now, this isn't a car for the common man, and there's nothing wrong with that. Let those with high income continue to subsidize the cost of R&D until the tech comes about that will enable them to drop the cost to a level that middle class american families can afford.

    When that comes about, it is important to not have to fight the public perception that this is a car company only for the wealthy. This $500 number is simply the first salvo in creating the correct perception. Tesla is "digging their well" now.
  • TeslaWestCoastTeslaWestCoast
    edited November -1
    Like most of you so far, I am in total agreement with PorfirioR. The "value of my time" at the gas station is a pushing it, even for a Tesla fan such as myself and most of the users on these forums.

    This was very disappointing and a bit sleazy to see $500/month on the Tesla home page...hopefully they will remove this misleading figure as soon as possible.
  • olanmillsolanmills
    edited November -1
    @joshnd03 The problem is that Tesla's PR on this is, though not directly, trying to claim that this can be workable for someone who would worry about the difference between $500 and $1100 a month.
  • sometimelatersometimelater
    edited November -1
    in marketing tesla is no different than anyone else. $55,000, yea right. 300 mile range, yea right. 98 MPG, yea right. their photography is misleading. their marketing is misleading. if you want to really know what's going on with tesla talk to someone who works at one of the service centers, they're generally in a state of panic.
  • tdelta1000tdelta1000
    edited November -1
    call me but I think Tesla should offer an $850 dollar lease plan with Maintenance realistically.
  • FLsportscarenthusiastFLsportscarenthusiast
    edited November -1
    Well TSLA could have used a range like $800 to as low as $500 in the main announcement. I am VERY optimistic about the car but would be cautious about using numbers like they did.

    In my view this is a car you buy and keep for at least 12 years (even people that replace their car more frequently will keep the Model S longer due to the update features) and with the amount that I drive, the car will pay for itself in fuel saving alone over the years I drive it - this car is the most prudent financial choice, despite its high initial price. Barring a total collision I see no reason why I could not drive the car for 20 years and for 400k miles or more (yeah will need to replace battery but still will come out ahead...) For those who doubt my analysis I point out that Mercedes and Volvos ICE cars 'survive' an average of 22 years. With no rusting to destroy the body and a long lasting electric motor the model S will last longer and cost less to maintain. My only real worry is the ruggedness of the touch screen and changing tyres. With free supercharging it seals the deal, Model S WILL be my next vehicle.

    A longer 'lease' would make a better offer but this is a good start.
Sign In or Register to comment.