[dancesdrunk]

The only thing that irks me here is how the cost of fuel is deducted from the cost of the lease:-

If I'm paying $1200/mo for a lease, and any fuel / maintenance costs are on top of that amount. If I get an S-Class for $1200/mo, the fuel would be (for example) $200/mo on top, the total being $1400/mo. Increment accordingly for maintenance.

Tesla S is $1200/mo. I don't need fuel, hence I don't pay anything on top. It doesn't magically become $1200 - $200 = $1000/mo. You're still paying $1200/mo. Plus the cost of maintenance and electricity.

Talk about manipulating numbers.

[majormajor]

A manipulation that I don't see the point of, at that. Tell a people who can only afford a $600/mo payment that the TCO is under that, and it might get them to come into the dealership, but the real monthly cost will come out before the car could be sold.

If they pitched the calculator on the "true cost of ownership" page as a "here's a way to estimate the hidden costs of a gasoline car that make the Tesla more competitive than you'd think" they could make the same pitch but without the smell of a bait and switch. But even at that, it's not apples to apples (if you buy an S Class, nobody has to guarantee that there will be a market for reselling it in three years).

[ErrantX]

> Tell a people who can only afford a $600/mo payment that the TCO is under that, and it might get them to come into the dealership, but the real monthly cost will come out before the car could be sold.

Once you have them through the door you have the chance to pitch them the concept, which in sales is a big thing. And the whole point of a salesman's job is to close the deal.

(I don't disagree, just pointing out why they are doing a bait and switch)

[Ntrails]

The issue with getting them through the door is the reputational risk from everyone who walked into a showroom to be told the actual monthly cost was 1200 bucks, only to bring it up with all their friends as a misleading marketing gambit.

For a company that needs every ounce of credibility to make its product mainstream, this seems like a silly ad to place.

[kamaal]

How is the fuel for an electric car free?

I mean is electricity free in the US?

[dangrossman]

He said "plus the cost of maintenance and electricity".

For equivalent range, a Model S would cost me $8 per "fill-up" instead of $74. The difference would be bigger if I drove a sportier car with worse gas mileage.

For many owners, it actually is free. A lot of these cars are being bought by Californians working at companies with their own electric car discounts and charging stations at the workplace. The car comes with free recharges at Tesla's superchargers for life as well.

[nknighthb]

> I mean is electricity free in the US?

No, but it's a lot cheaper than gasoline.

The average cost of a kilowatt-hour is something like $0.11-$0.12 in the US (some places are much higher, some are lower).

The highest-capacity model with an estimated 300-mile range holds 85kWh. Tesla claims >90% charging efficiency, but let's just say 95kWh to charge.

95kwh * $0.12 = ~$11.40 per 300 miles.

Right now, a gallon of regular gasoline in the US averages $3.601.

300 / 50mpg = 6 * 3.6 = $21.60

300 / 40mpg = 7.5 * 3.6 = $27.00

300 / 30mpg = 10 * 3.6 = $36.00

300 / 20mpg = 15 * 3.6 = $54.00

300 / 10mpg = 30 * 3.6 = $108.00

As a point of troubling comparison, the Model S gets compared to a BMW M5 a lot, which apparently has a 16mpg/24mpg city/highway rating.

Another useful comparison is to a basic Prius, which has a 51/48 rating, but is substantially smaller, lighter, and less performant than the Model S and M5, but the Model S still beats it by a large margin.

When Tesla gets around to a Prius-like EV, the numbers are going to be even more ridiculous. The "fuel cost" of commuter EVs will simply be noise in the typical family budget.

[cube13]

>When Tesla gets around to a Prius-like EV, the numbers are going to be even more ridiculous. The "fuel cost" of commuter EVs will simply be noise in the typical family budget.

Or some of the European diesels, some of which are pushing 100 MPG.

[fancyketchup]

>Or some of the European diesels, some of which are pushing 100 MPG.

Unless I'm terribly mistaken, you are thinking of vehicles that were tested on a different driving cycle with a larger gallon (imperial vs US). If compared on an EPA cycle with US gallons, those cars get closer to 50 mpg.

[nknighthb]

> If compared on an EPA cycle with US gallons, those cars get closer to 50 mpg.

It's worse than that. Diesel fuel has a higher energy density than gasoline, and is more expensive. Anyone trying to directly compare the two in terms of miles per gallon and cost without the appropriate adjustments is simply speaking nonsense.

[GFischer]

A standard Japanese or European subcompact does 50 MPG easily, no need to do diesel.

[dntrkv]

Can you provide an example of a diesel that is pushing 100 MPG?

[patrickk]

It's a pity Tesla didn't lay out the costs in a calculator as you have above. Would've been far more honest ("am I really paying that much on fuel every month?"), and this whole silly debate would've been avoided.

[samstave]

There are other costs to consider as well, not just fuel: add in the monthly insurance cost as well as the daily commute cost - depending on where you live, you may be paying $5 per day in commute tolls and several hundred per month for insurance.

[nknighthb]

I know no safe driver with a monthly insurance premium in the "several hundred per month" range. Even fairly expensive cars rarely go much above $2k/year for full coverage.

[gcb0]

Your math is wrong. The s class would cost $1000 as well ($1200 - $200 electricity for entering new high usage rates)

[nwzpaperman]

Don't forget that other financial product: insurance!