Tesla hopes for $250 million in funding for electric sedans

Remember that elusive WhiteStar we first got wind of earlier this month? Apparently, Tesla Motors is doing its best to round up a quarter-billion dollars over the next two years in order to produce the aforementioned electric sedan. Reportedly, the firm is deciding between Albuquerque, New Mexico or the East Bay area in California to construct its plant, and if all goes to plan, it'll use that facility to crank out the 2010 luxury sports sedan. As expected, concrete details are scant at the moment, but we are hearing that it hopes to launch the WhiteStar for around "half the price of its roadster," which currently retails in the US for a shade under $100,000.

[ZeroCorpse @ Feb 19th 2008 4:55AM]

$50,000 is STILL too much, and this is coming from a guy who rides an electric bicycle 3/4 of the year! I wouldn't (and couldn't) pay $50,000 for a car.

Tesla needs to aim lower. MUCH lower. They need to make a small, compact commuter car for in-town driving, and they need to make it cost $22,999 or less. That's the sweet spot to get EVs into consumer hands. This $50,000 to $100,000 bull is just going to make people say, "See? It's a niche product. Nobody wants one!"

If someone gets an electric car on the market and prices it competitively with the other vehicles aimed at younger buyers (especially those buying their first new car), they'll make a killing and cement themselves as the ones who made EVs commonplace and acceptable.

Really, they should be making 2-person vehicles with a small amount of cargo space, and charging less than $10,000 for them. Most people do not need a full-sized sedan or SUV for their daily commute or trips to the grocery store, movie theater, park, or wherever else within town. They're driving less than 20 miles a day, and a small, inexpensive car that could handle that duty most of the time would be ideal. They can still get a bigger gas-drinker, but that would be reserved for longer trips, or bigger carpools.

Like I said, I get by on a *bike* for 3/4 of the year (I'd do it all year, but winter in Michigan sucks). Most of the time, I just need transportation to get to work, or run to the grocery store to pick up a few things, and the electric bike is ideal for that. I have enough cargo space for a few bags of groceries, or a few small parcels, or one big parcel.

I also get around faster on the bike. No looking for parking, or dealing with rush traffic. On long treks, I'll fall behind the cars, but on short trips (5 miles or less) I can usually beat them within the city.

But for an electric car to be $50,000 -- That's ridiculous. I love EVs, but this is insulting.

[N30 G30 @ Feb 19th 2008 6:12AM]

Tesla isn't exactly Honda. I'm suprised it's actually going to be this cheap compared to their Roadster. Also, how else are they going to make up the cash they're investing?

If all else, it's a step in the right direction.

[Reid @ Feb 19th 2008 9:19AM]

I have an Onion article for you, "Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television"

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694

Honestly, we're proud of you for not owning a car. You have enlightened the rest of us fools as to the advantages of commuting by bicycle.

Unfortunately, your grasp on economics is a bit weaker. If anybody could make a $10k electric car, it would already be on the market! As the rest of the world knows, Tesla's plan has always been to introduce their premium roadster, sell it to the rich, and use the proceeds to help fund a passenger sedan. As volumes increase, economies of scale will too, and they'll be able to make cheaper and cheaper cars.

Frankly, $50k is not that much for a modern car -- hell, I work almost next door to Tesla's factory, and there are very few cars on the roads around here that cost less than $50k new. They'll sell like gangbusters.

Maybe by 2030 they'll make that $10k electric car and you can buy one then.

[realscience @ Mar 7th 2008 10:50AM]

All of the electric car technology, as well as the bio's have been rendered moot by something far better....stay tuned for news. Anything that plugs-in is not better technology; it only shifts the emissions to a power plant somewhere. An actual solution will not use a plug-in power source. Plug-ins have been around for decades. The enormous ill-directed investments bother me a lot.

[ZeroCorpse @ Mar 7th 2008 1:23PM]

@Reid

Who said I don't own a car? I do indeed make monthly payments on a 2004 Chevrolet which I purchased new that year. I just don't drive it all the time because it's not necessary to waste the fuel for a ride to the corner market or someplace else nearby without the need to carry a passenger. Thanks for attempting to be snarky and condescending without knowing the whole story. I wasn't being smug; I was merely relating my experience with electric vehicles, seeing as there probably aren't a lot of EV owners on Engadget. If that offends you somehow, then you can bite me. I didn't ask for your approval and I didn't judge your way of life.

There ARE electric cars that are around $10k but they aren't available in the U.S. market. Electric vehicles are fairly popular in Asia, and companies like ZAP! are in the process of attempting to get these smaller commuter cars into the United States for an affordable price. The ZAP! Xebra MSRP is $11,200 and there are others in the Asian market that come in under the $10k mark. So YOUR grasp of economics is the one that's weak. You say "if it were possible it would be on the market" --- Well, it is. That's why I find Tesla's pricing to be so abhorrent and unwarranted. They're milking American investors and consumers on the "hot new" technology, when the ability to do it in a cost-effective way has been around for quite a long time, now. I sincerely doubt that they'll drop their price if they can keep selling at a premium.

Again, your economics are weak: Making more doesn't mean they'll eventually be less expensive. If that were the case, SUVs would be about $8,000 right now, considering how many of them they crank out a year. They set the precedent with the first batch of cars, and they'll stick to it if they can continue to profit wildly from it.

Yes, $50k is too much for a modern car. My Chevy cost $12k new. Granted, I don't go in for luxury junk like heated seats and voice-activated stereos, but my car has been reliable and gets me where I'm going. I would never, EVER spend $50k on a car, even if I were rich. That's just throwing money into a status symbol. The only sedan, coupe or hatchbacks on the market right now that come close to $50k are luxury vehicles and sports cars. The only car in Chevy's 2008 lineup that costs near $50,000 is the Corvette. Please, tell me which non-luxury, non-sports sedan, coupe, or hatchback costs $50,000 if you can. I doubt you'll find one.

Waiting until 2030 isn't necessary. If I wanted to pay the import fees, and deal with the hassle of getting my state government to allow it on the road, I could get a 10k electric car from overseas. However, the process of getting a car from overseas is costly, and there's no guarantee I would be allowed to drive it on American roads. All I'm saying is that the proof of concept has already been out there, and that a company trying to build electric cars for the American market needs to be competitive and introduce their vehicle at a *reasonable* price. $50,000 for a Tesla sedan is ridiculous. $30,000 for the same sedan is at least in competition with other American vehicles.


@realscience:

The actual power source for an electric car can vary. The electric vehicle's motor is what matters. You don't have to produce that electricity with fossil fuels. You can produce the electricity with hydro-power, wind power, solar power, nuclear, hydrogen, or a bunch of convicts running in a treadmill. Whatever "great new technology" you're talking about in oh-so-vague terms is likely no more than another way to generate energy, and thus can generate electricity (which is what we use to power just about everything in our society). If it generates electricity, then it can be used to power electric vehicles.

Unless you're talking about the air-powered car, which is pretty cool. I doubt we'll see that one mass-marketed because there's just no profit in it for some secondary suppliers. We could make a few different kinds of cars that don't require buying fuel from some company, but these wonderful fantasy vehicles never get past concept cars, because the oil companies, electric companies, and other car companies squash them.

The only road-worthy vehicles that will ever be mass-produced in America are vehicles that have a secondary fuel requirement-- You'll have to pay someone to keep your vehicle moving on the road, somewhere along the line. The big corporations won't LET it be any other way.

You assume that in my area, our electric companies burn coal. I used to live near a nuclear power plant at one point, and a hydroelectric plant at another. The way they generate the electricity for my EV changes, but the vehicle itself doesn't need a different motor to take advantage of the end product.

[B.C. @ Feb 19th 2008 5:48AM]

Sounds good to me. People pay 50 G's for luxury sedans all the time. This is a good way to get the high technology one step closer to average buyers range.

Maybe by the time this starts selling the costs of EV technology will lower and they'll bring out an econo EV. Right now the majority of that $50,000 is paying directly for their cutting edge technology.

Also Zero Corpse. I agree on the 2 seater idea, I drive one, but people avoid them like the plague, also for 10G's... their costs would likely be more than that.

[Marty K. @ Feb 19th 2008 6:31AM]

You guys are acting like this post is news, including the author. I've known about the existence of Whitestar and the ~$50,000 pricetag for about a year now. Its been reported on Tesla's site and various car/technology blogs.

[jake @ Feb 20th 2008 10:20PM]

It's just news that they are pursuing independent funding to the tune of 250 million and not partnering with a bigger automobile manufacterer. They were considering doing it in a partnership but they felt it might compromise some of their proprietary tech so they decided to do it independently. Their next car, the $30k Bluestar might be a partnership.

[Marty K. @ Feb 20th 2008 11:06PM]

Well, it seemed to me as if the author attempted to pawn off old news as new news, alongside the new information regarding the $250 million funding. I simply objected to that, given that the incredible hype attached to Tesla Motors makes news of the Whitestar old hat to most readers.

[brian @ Feb 19th 2008 7:47AM]

they will make them cheaper. its called bluestar. $30,000. it suppose to be out in 2012

[kingu @ Feb 19th 2008 8:40AM]

Norwegians can import this without paying anything in addition of the cost of the car+shipping. There is a small registration fee, but nothing compared to combustion engine imports.

Catch electric, now.

[Nick @ Feb 19th 2008 10:50AM]

umm dont they mean Coupe? Sedan implies that it seats at least 4 passengers.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sedan

The point of the roadster was to prove that pure electric can perform just as well as a gas engine. Next move should have been to release a family oriented sedan and bring it to the masses. Not some luxury sports coupe and hide behind the misuse of "sedan". If they want to change the industry then they need to be bold.

[mike @ Feb 19th 2008 11:31AM]

Wrong picture up top. That is a pic of the roadster...

[Frankenstein Black @ Feb 19th 2008 10:58AM]

50k is peanuts if they added integrated solar roof, hood, and trunk cells in the white star. Going well beyond Fisker’s implementation (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/fisker-karma-1/583326/) which is simply used to supplement certain vehicle systems power requirements. Integrated solar cells in the WhiteStar’s body is now not future tech. Imagine, a true “energy positive” vehicle (i.e. produces more power than it uses) that takes after its namesake. A 50k WhitStar, should, well, ACT LIKE WHITESTAR!

[Speeddemon2008 @ Feb 19th 2008 6:32PM]

Is not what you are describing essentially a perpetual motion device, the likes of which aren't possible, or at least not yet. And sure solar panels are great, but what about those that live in not so sunny places?

[skulldriveshaft @ Feb 19th 2008 7:22PM]

I'm kinda wondering why nobody makes an all electric or hybrid VAN.

If they can make stow'n'go systems for seats, it would be great to use that space for batteries and electric motors.

[Jose Ortiz @ Apr 4th 2008 3:21PM]

With all the pollution from combustion engines have caused problems in our environment. I rather have 1000 coal plants operating than 10 million cars operating with exhaust blowing. It may not solve the pollution problems entirely but it will definitely and substantially reduce the bad air quality by 40%. At least were heading to the right direction. If the US hadn't shy away from nuclear power we wouldn’t have been dependent on coal for electricity. With new technology presently, nuclear plants operated more efficiently and cleaner, nuclear waste can be re-used now over and over. France is a perfect example that nuclear power works safely with safeguards in place to protect the environment. France uses no coal plants so they are leading the world in nuclear power. What happened to America scared by the Three Mile Island nuclear incident in 1976. I know I live 10 miles from the location. GM made terrible mistake of destroying all EV1's they had a perfect opportunity to be forerunner in the world and show the world that American engineering is the best in the world. They failed us again due to the oil companies’ power. Electric is the way to go now until something in the future is created like a car powered by solar power or water only.

[Chris @ Apr 27th 2008 4:48PM]

@ Jose

I totally agree it amazes me how people forgot about the EV1 thats GM made even Ho da, ford and toyota had an EV but the American public were not accepting to these vehicles they out rumours like they dont go far and also with oil companies putting pressure they scrapped the technology. Electric Vehicles would be mainstream today and almost everyone would own one imo if gm didn't scrap there perfect vehicle!