Model S Performance price question

Model S Performance price question

It says, "$79,900 plus additional standard equipment". Then lower it says, "additional standard equipment $5000". Does this mean that the base price is really $84,900? If so, why didn't they just say that, and say, "includes the following standard equipment..."?

Brant | 21 december 2011

$84,900. That's the way I read it. A shame because I would probably go for it if it were not for the 21" wheels with performance tires being required. Seems I could opt out but then I'm down another $3500 for nothing.

Lightning Jeff | 21 december 2011

I disagree. If you have to pay $5k for the additional equipment, it's not "standard" in my mind. I read this to say the price is $79,900, and for that you get not only the performance boost, but equipment included as standard, not options you have to pay for. But it is ambiguous and needs to be clarified. If you're right and it's really a $15k bump over the standard 300-mile model, my view of the value of the Performance model just went down significantly.

mscottring | 21 december 2011

At the very least it seems that as it's written it's a bit confusing.

mscottring | 21 december 2011

I've emailed Tesla for clarification on this.

rdgreene | 21 december 2011

My read was $84,900 too, it says the price is PLUS additional standard equipment, and then says what that PLUS is... The Signature (which also has "additional standard equipment") doesn't have that PLUS verbiage on its price.

mscottring | 21 december 2011

That's how I read it. It doesn't make much sense though, does it? If it's "additional standard equipment" that's required in the purchase price, then it should be listed as one total price, right at the top, then a list of items included in that price. This makes it look like you're being forced to purchase "standard equipment", which makes no sense at all, what with it being standard and all.

XrstalLens | 21 december 2011

If the price is $84,900 then they need to fess up and just put that as the price. Saying it's $79,900 but "oh - there's another $5000 of required options you need to purchase as well" is just handwaving and does not come across well at all. They obviously couldn't keep it below $80K, so they should stop trying to pretend they could.

mscottring | 21 december 2011

I'm hoping to have it cleared up soon. I sent them an email a while ago about this issue. As soon as I receive their response I will post it for everyone.

I think this is important, because frankly the performance version is a pretty good deal at that base price. IF the additional standard items are included in that price! The key word here is "standard". And the industry standard for "standard" has been "included" for, well, decades now. So, we'll see.

engle | 21 december 2011

I agree it appears confusing and/or misleading, since the $79,900 is in the row labelled "STARTING PRICE".

That said, I think they did it that way to show there is $5,000 worth of "Additional Standard Equipment".

Otherwise, it would say $84,900 "starting price", and appear on first glance you are paying $15,000 just to shave 1.2 seconds off the 0 to 60 mph time. One would have to calculate what the additional standard equipment normally costs al a carte.

In reality, you may need performance wheels and Z-rated tires to do 0 to 60 mph in 4.4 seconds effectively, and the Active Air Suspension would be very useful, too. Of course, the $1,500 Nappa leather has nothing to do with "performance".

mscottring | 21 december 2011

Engle - I'm confused though. Do you think they are saying it's 79.9 + 5k, or are they saying it's 79.9?

In my mind they should just clearly state the price, then have a list of options available.

adurstewitz | 21 december 2011

I interpreted "additional standard equipment $5,000" to mean that there was 5k in additional features thrown in. If that's not the case then I moving down to the standard 85kW.

adurstewitz | 21 december 2011

Well crap, I just noticed 79,900 plus additional standard equipment. That means, the friggen thing is 84,900 to start. WTF.

XrstalLens | 21 december 2011

I'm not hopeful that the $5,000 is just to show the value of what's being thrown in, because if you add up the value of those options they come to $6,500 not $5,000.

I'm waiting for @mscottring to get his answer and crossing my fingers that I'm wrong. The added value of what you get with the perf model versus the price increase is not worth it to me if the $5,000 is added on to the base price.

brianman | 21 december 2011

I'll throw my hat into the analysis/guessing ring.

I think they meant to make the Performance upgrade for both Base and Signature a straight $10K bump. If you compare the 1st/2nd and 3rd/4th columns, the delta in the Highlights section is identical for those pairings except for "Active Air Suspension".

Editorial suggestions:

1. In the Starting Price row, they should have positioned the price tag above the "85 kWh" battery icon. Also, adding a gap below the price would visually pair the "Plus Additional Standard Equipment" text with the battery icon to indicate that is what the Starting Price is buying.

2. In the 2nd column Highlights, when they say "Additional Standard Equipment $5,000" they should have said "Additional Standard Equipment included, valued at $5,000".

Options suggestion:

3. Because the $10K differential buys you less for Signature than it does for Base, they should consider adding an additional optional Signature Performance interior or exterior option. Something that doesn't cost significanlty more to manufacture, but enhances the "Signature Performance" offering aesthetically.

Andrew18 | 21 december 2011

I spoke with sales today. It is an additional 5k added to the 79 k price. She said they will clarify this on the website based on complaints. The 5k is not " included"

mscottring | 21 december 2011

Well frick!

discoducky | 21 december 2011

5.6 is fast enough for my taste. I'm betting the other guys don't know how to shift or have the cajones to put their foot to floor off the line anyway. enough said...

mcornwell | 21 december 2011

Add me to the list of those that were going to get the performance model, but probably won't now that it's been announced that you need to spend 15k more to get it. I really don't need the 300 mile battery either, so with the 230 mile one, I'll essentially be spending 25k less on the car.

adurstewitz | 22 december 2011

Frick is right, I guess 5.6 seconds it is.

David M. | 22 december 2011

I'm not confused at all. $15K upgrade for Performance S. Marketing mistake to not say so in the first place. There must be a lot of yelling going on in Fremont right now.

mscottring | 22 december 2011

David - It would seem so. And I'm less than pleased that after about 24 hours they still haven't responded to my question about this issue.

stevenmaifert | 22 december 2011

What a goofy way to market the Performance S! They really need to clarify if the Additional Standard Equipment is a mandatory add-on to the $79,900 base price. If so, then I guess we’re supposed to feel good about getting an extra $6500 worth of stuff for only $5000.

Mycroft | 22 december 2011

Yeah, I don't know who they have writing their copy, but they are the wrong person for the job.

mscottring | 22 december 2011

I actually predicted (to myself mind you) that this issue would have been corrected by now. But I checked their site a little while ago and it still shows this bit of confusion (or not confusion, however you want to look at it).

Lightning Jeff | 22 december 2011

I did a "value" analysis in another thread, comparing the "standard" 85 kw model and the Performance against the cost of my 2010 Jag XF Supercharged (expanded upon here. I'm holding off to see formal correction of this misleading information, but if/when it comes, I'll have to revise my analysis and conclude that the Performance model really is not "in the ballpark," and is not a good value compared to the XF and other luxury sedans in the market. Too bad, and the mealy-mouthed marketing used here leaves a poor taste.

mscottring | 22 december 2011

This is the official answer I just received from Tesla via email:

"You are correct, the Price of the Model S Performance comes out to $84,900 with the required packaging."

XrstalLens | 12 januari 2012

Looks like they just updated the "Options and Pricing" page to show the correct base price for the Performance model. Now it's _really_ official...

brianman | 12 januari 2012

Good catch, Lyle!

Time to scan the rest of the page to see what else changed in the matrix...

Volker.Berlin | 13 januari 2012

That's a notable improvement. After a quick review, I don't think that any stated facts changed, but they considerably cleaned up the page with a more consistent table layout, and they did away with the red "Signature" tab that you had to click to reveal Signature options.

Robert.Boston | 13 januari 2012

The only significant change I noticed (and thanks to brianman for his detailed post) is that the HPC price went up by $300, to $1,500.

ggr | 13 januari 2012

And the HPC just went back down again, to $1200. They really shouldn't do live edits...

brianman | 13 januari 2012

@Robert - The other significant change was more options for Sig interiors. But that was reverted as well.