Now that we have the pricing let's make some assumptions about what the monthly payments will be on a Model 3. If you take a base price of a $35K loan (not lease), at 1.5% for five years (60 mo). Ignoring down payment, deposit, delivery fee and DMV fees for now. Also ignoring Full Self-Driving (FSD) since it doesn't exist yet. And skipping tax credit for the moment since it is a wild card. Using an online auto loan calculator you get:
Base price: $35,000 = $606 /month
Options (non cumulative)
Non-black paint: add $1,000 for a total of $36,000 = $623 /month (or $17)
19" wheels: add $1,500 for a total of $36,500 = $632 /month (or $26)
Premium Upgrade Package: add $5,000 for a total of $40,000 = $692 /month (or $86)
Enhanced Autopilot: add $5,000 for a total of $40,000 = $692 /month (or $86)
Long range battery: add $9,000 for a total of $44,000 = $762 /month (or $156)
Add everything: $59,500 = $975 /month (or $369)
I'm penning this section because in my view most everything in the reveal was somewhere in the range of reasonability... except for the options bundling (and the paint and wheel choices). Whether it be for maximizing production speed, maximizing profits, or part of the anti-sell, having to buy 'B', 'C', and 'D' just to get 'A', none of the aforementioned reasons may justify the strategy.
Everyone bundles of course. Tesla does it with existing models. Chevy did it with the Bolt. To simply get the cool camera rearview mirror you had to shell out thousands for the premium package.
But does that make it right. Is it an optimal policy for both parties? Would it slow down the production line that much to give buyers more flexibility in options choices? Would Tesla really make less profit per car if they went a la carte (see below)? Are we going to have to pay $5000 to get any form of cruise control? And while we're at it does a white paint job really cost an extra $1000 over black? Couldn't we have a cooler looking silver wheel without having to pay for the 19" wheel option?
When "bundling" occurs in law making they call it 'pork barrel' spending; Forcing 'B' into a bill when all that's wanted is 'A'. "You take B, or you don't get A!". I've always felt a bit victimized by that strategy.
For myself, I'm tempted to say thanks but no thanks on options as they are currently bundled. The message being "Look please, I'm just not going for this $5k options package. You'll make a higher profit on the sale of a Model 3 to me if you let me get the Pano roof and the premium sound system, but not the electric seats or the special side mirrors. Offer me silver 18" wheels for $500 premium (or whatever) and I may jump on that too. And maybe not make paint color a profit center.
I'm stating this publicly not to start an argument. Rather, if such opinions are not expressed Tesla will not know as well what people are thinking. I know other reservists don't mind the way the options are configured. Perfect for whoever thinks that. It was pointed out Saturday that it was assumed some time ago a fully optioned Model 3 (including AWD and maybe FSD), could come in at about double the base price of the car. Pretty close. But on the other hand, would it hurt any Model 3 purchaser to have more rather than fewer choices? And isn't possible that with the Model 3 breaking through to a new economic strata that perhaps more options will be sold to folks who maybe can't swing several hundred dollars over that $600 base monthly, but perhaps can come up with just a little more?
Not to mention insurance.