Tesla Model S priced just under $50K, rest of car still shrouded in mystery

While much of the Tesla Model S is still a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in an inconvenient white cloth, the company has revealed the EV will list for $57,400, which after the $7,500 federal tax credit puts the final price at just a Benjamin under $50,000. That's almost $40,000 less than the Fisher Karma and $10,000 more than the estimated price of Chevy Volt. Of course, we still haven't actually seen the thing, but at least we won't have to wait much longer for that -- the grand unveiling is set for this Thursday at Tesla's design studio.

[Via NPR; thanks, mitchell]

[kccboy2004 @ Mar 24th 2009 8:06AM]

I'll take two of them

[Quantumphysics @ Mar 24th 2009 9:37AM]

People are gonna find out the hard way that these EV's are not as efficient or as "green" as a regular I4 with fuel efficiency technology that gets high MPG.

Its good to be pushing the economy in a direction but Electric plug in isn't the way to go. We should focus on Hydrogen production because refueling is quicker and the liquid hydrogen infrastructure is similar to the oil infrastructure which means we won't have the drastic lifestyle change.

We need to focus on using perpetual energy to produce electricty. Gravitational potential energy gives us all the power we'd need through ocean waves and hydroelectricity. We just have to build it.

[elBravo @ Mar 24th 2009 10:40AM]

The green movement for these cars is going to be all about "out of sight, out of mind". Sure, EV's are just moving the engine from under the hood to your local (most likely, depending where you live) coal fired power plant. Sure, these are going to create a huge market for huge batteries with some really nasty shit inside. Sure, this will place a strain on an already shitty power grid. But all of the "bad" shit that makes cars go will be out of sight, and out of mind. The sad fact of the matter is, for the average person, they have no idea what the hell energy is and how it magically arrives to them.

EV's don't run on rainbows and pixie dust, people! They run on coal, uranium, natural gas, or for a select few, wind and hydro. After over 100 years of engine evolutions and revolutions, the direct chemical to mechanical conversion efficiency taking place your everyday 35mpg car is going to trump EV's.
Combustion Engine: Fuel -> heat -> mechanical power.
EV: [Fuel -> heat -> moderate voltage current -> high voltage current]power plant -> shit load of power lines -> low voltage current -> [battery potential -> current -> mechanical power]car.
As with any thermodynamic conversion, there are inefficiencies inherent in the process. Once it is all said and done, there doesn't seem much to gain, if anything. EV's seem to be more PR than engineering.

Although 1 plus to EV's/Hybrids is the ability to reclaim some of the energy that would otherwise be wasted on your break pads.

[Mugen @ Mar 24th 2009 10:46AM]

@ Quantumphysics

Unfortunately, hydroelectric energy is already exploited with very few sites left that would produce any meaningful reduction in dependencies on fossil fuels. Tidal and wave power are certainly getting attention at the moment but we are still a long way off high output prototypes never mind large scale sites connected to the grid.

Sure, hydrogen power sounds like the solution, but research into fully electric vehicles is also important in order to produce breakthroughs in battery technology and efficient regenerative braking. These technologies can easily be fitted to a hydrogen based car and could in theory improve the mileage of the vehicle (all down to weight really).

Breakthroughs in fully electric vehicles could also spawn new city only vehicles (think G-wiz, but manlier hopefully), where mileage and top speed are redundant compared to emissions and efficiency (I admit that I have no idea which wastes more energy, charging a battery of creating hydrogen)

[Tohe @ Mar 24th 2009 11:24AM]

@Quantumphysics && Mugen


Hydrogen is nothing but a waste of time and resources. It is less efficient than EV (more steps involved in its production than simply plugging to the grid). Besides, I don't think a people in general are going to be fine with the idea of driving around with a highly compressed explosive behind their seats. I just wish hydrogen would die already.

[oskarom @ Mar 27th 2009 10:01AM]

@elBravo

Thats a good point and I totaly agree about full EV's

As I see it it should always be an hybrid. Electronic plus (insert powergenerator). this would eliminate most of the power regulating, converting, lines loss.

Also if using some small efficient petrol or diesel engine it would be possible to minimize transmission and drive loss sine this would only be a compact powerhouse that delivers desired voltage to the battery's that will run the electric motors of the car.

Since petrol and diesel do store alot of power this could get you far with much smaller battery's making you're ride lighter and saveing on battery cost and all the non-green stuff that follows batterys


This would give you most of the good parts of both world and probably give you very green car.


regards
Oskar

[Noel @ Mar 24th 2009 12:10PM]

"People are gonna find out the hard way that these EV's are not as efficient or as "green" as a regular I4 with fuel efficiency technology that gets high MPG."

Rubbish, Electric motors are far more efficient.

"Its good to be pushing the economy in a direction but Electric plug in isn't the way to go. We should focus on Hydrogen production because refueling is quicker and the liquid hydrogen infrastructure is similar to the oil infrastructure which means we won't have the drastic lifestyle change."

Hydrogen is a pipe dream. It's still mainly produced using natural gas. It probably will eventually be used for aircraft and some heavy
goods vehicles. But electric vehicle tech hasent seen much development or investment in the past hundred years, we havent even
scratched the surface in improving battery & motor technology.

My Key EV Points:
1. Lithium Titanate batteries now coming on stream for EVs charge to 80% in 3 minutes and fully charge within 6.
2. Most Petrol Stations have Three-Phase Power suitable for vehicle charging.
3. 250 to 300 KM Range is possible with current battery technology.
4. Electric motors can achieve 90% energy conversion efficiency higher reliability than combustion engines.
5. Electric motors give high torque at all speeds and can be precisely controlled.
6. Electricity production using Fossil Fuels at power stations is several times more efficient than in combustion engines and that's
not counting the cost of distributing & dispensing the fuel.
7. When energy production is centralized new fuel-saving technologies can more easily be applied.
8. Here in the EU the target is 20% of all electricity production by 2020 will be from renewables. In Ireland & Iceland where renewable
energy is more readily exploitable than most countries the target is 100% by 2025 & 2030 respectively.

Anyone waiting for hydrogen to magically become viable is an idiot. Noone has even figured out how to produce the stuff commercially
in the kind of quantities needed. The "Hydrogen Economy" has been sold as 25 years away to dumb fat Americans FOR 25 years.
Wake Up!!!

[willyolio @ Mar 24th 2009 1:11PM]

@ elbravo:
"EV's are just moving the engine from under the hood to your local (most likely, depending where you live) coal fired power plant"

translation: EV's are just switching from a small, inefficient engine to a large, efficient generator.

"After over 100 years of engine evolutions and revolutions, the direct chemical to mechanical conversion efficiency taking place your everyday 35mpg car is going to trump EV's."

WRONG. an EV, even running on electricity generated at a gasoline-fired power plant, gets the equivalent of about 100mpg or more. after over 100 years of engine development, car engines are still lucky to be 25% efficient because they are, and always will be, constrained by size, weight, and the need to run at constantly varying speeds. we're already hitting the limits. power plants burn their gasoline at 90% efficiency and above.

the combined total of converting gas -> electricity -> transmitting down power lines -> battery -> electric motor is still well above 80%, something that a gasoline engine could never hope to achieve.

and i agree with the people above- hydrogen is also stupid. instead of just sending electricity down power lines (roughly a 99% efficient process) you convert it to hydrogen, then convert it back to electricity (roughly a 25% efficient process, if technology improves). that's even before the fact that we need to build thousands of hydrogen pumping stations just to get started.

[Chavez @ Mar 24th 2009 1:24PM]

"Electricity production using Fossil Fuels at power stations is several times more efficient than in combustion engines and that's
not counting the cost of distributing & dispensing the fuel."

Thank you for posting this Noel. Most people in arguments over EV's don't seem to realize this, but this is the most important point of the green-EV argument.

On a side note, I am guessing that Obama's stimulus package for the EV industry is leading up to a revamp of the US power grid. If not, this whole stimulus bill is pointless because I don't think it alone will make EV's catch on. However, if that is in fact his plan, it is quite a shrewd move. He reduces dependence on foreign oil, gives a place for some of those laid off from GM and the like to go, and cuts pollution across the US substantially.

[Jon @ Mar 24th 2009 1:50PM]

You guys are looking at this the wrong way. Get these cars to production and THEN worry about the how you want to fuel them in the future. It doesn't matter if you fuel them with electricity generated from coal for 3 years while researchers perfect hydrogen or whatever electricity producing option you want. The point is you won't be held hostage to oil any longer and when oil is $300/barrel and gas is $10+/gallon you won't care.

[jake @ Mar 24th 2009 3:50PM]

@Quantumphysics
I've about had it with you people talking about hydrogen as if it's the holy grail. EVs aren't either, but it's at least better than hydrogen on the efficiency front. Think about it, you lose at least 40% of your energy in the fuel cell (best is 60% efficient). The rest of the powertrain is exactly the same as an EV (it has a smaller battery pack or ultra-capacitor bank but everything else is the same) Given the current cheapest hydrogen stations use electrolysis, then in the end you lose at least 40% efficiency compared to an EV. Natural gas reformation is where hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are marginally better than an EV running on a standard natural gas plant, but factor in that the new natural gas plants use a combined cycle or in the best case use combined heat and power, then the EV still wins in the end.
And have you seen how much a typical hydrogen fuel cell vehicle costs? It's in the millions. Even with mass production it's estimated to cost in the 100s of 1000s. You can get a Tesla Roadster already at 100k without mass production.

@elBravo
How are EVs not about engineering? If you haven't done the calculations or looked at the numbers, then don't pretend you know what you are taking about. Let's look at some numbers for the RAV4EV (only EV out there that can be compared directly to an existing gasoline equivalent).
The most efficient 2003 RAV4 got 27mpg combined (pre-2008 EPA rating).
A 2003 (last year made) RAV4 EV got around 30kWh/100miles combined (pre-2008 EPA rating).
Let's start with 100% coal, the worst case.
Powered on 100% coal (2.117lbsCO2/kWh) a RAV4EV has carbon footprint = 31mpg car.
Powered on the average US grid (1.329lbs/kWh) = 49mpg car.
Powered on my CA utility (0.724lbs/kWh) = 89mpg car.
Powered by a solar panel, you don't omit any emissions.

Just for the heck of it, let's look at a 2007 Ford Escape hybrid (pre-2008 EPA rating again to compare apples to apples): 34mpg combined.

Sources:
Efficiency numbers:
fueleconomy.gov
Coal Emissions:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html
Utility emissions:
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html
Gasoline emissions (19.4lbsCO2 per gallon gasoline burned):
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm

Even in the worst case, the EV is better than an equivalent gas model and close to a hybrid. Every way I look at it, EVs make a lot of sense. The engineers won't be researching and supporting EVs and the government won't be giving grants to fund battery & EV research if they are significantly worst than other alternatives. They don't make as much sense with 100% coal, especially factoring in sulfur & mercury emissions, but luckily very few areas in the world have close to 100% coal generation. Factoring that EVs also eliminate direct pollution, they make even more sense, especially in urban areas. For areas with average utilities they make good sense; in places as clean as California (& where local air pollution is still a significant problem), they make a LOT of sense (which is why our state is pushing so strongly for EVs). And we are moving to clean up our existing grid, so as the years pass, EVs are only going to get cleaner and cleaner.

[staniel11 @ Mar 24th 2009 8:08AM]

So what, the volt won't get the $7,500 tax credit?

That would put this at $17,500 more than the volt (if it winds up being $40,000 before tax credits)

[tom @ Mar 24th 2009 8:23AM]

AFAIK, not that much because it is not a full EV

[OneLove @ Mar 24th 2009 10:18AM]

These guys will use the tax credit as an excuse to add $7,500 to the price of their cars and then tell you that you get $7,500 tax credit for buying one. :)

[KC @ Mar 24th 2009 11:42AM]

The Volt will indeed be eligible for the full 7500. The credit is actually for plug-in hybrid vehicles that store at least 4 kWh, with each additional kWh above 4 being worth $417. The volt can store 16 kWh.

[▀█▀ █ ▀█▀ ▄█▀ @ Mar 24th 2009 8:13AM]

Quite reasonable pricing. However I would only get one as a second car for short range drives, since missing infrastructure prevents me from seeing this as a full replacement for my fleet of Hummers ;)

[Danny @ Mar 24th 2009 8:14AM]

I wonder how big the car will be on the inside and how well it will do on crash test ratings.

[El Capitan @ Mar 24th 2009 9:04AM]

The thought of someone ramming large, fast-moving objects into this car, or ramming it into large, non-moving objects makes me sick. If it looks anything like the roadster, then it is a shame that one has to be wrecked.

[Sarig @ Mar 24th 2009 8:24AM]

Nice car, shame having an electric car as your only car is still not realistic for a lot of us.

[Tohe @ Mar 24th 2009 9:25AM]

Why not? EVs offer enough range (50 - 250mi depending on model) and power (top speeds of 50 - 130mi depending on model) nowadays to compete with their combustion counterparts. The technology will continue to evolve, and as batteries become more efficient you will be able to upgrade the battery pack, and eventually you will get range that will surpass anything a combustion vehicle can offer you with your same original EV (this program is financially backed by our government). Even President Bush, with his atrocious record on environmental issues, met last year with the CEO of A123 to discuss the infrastructure and capacity of the batteries industry. So to and undermine EVs as science fictions, or not capable enough, is delusional.

[JWC @ Mar 24th 2009 2:09PM]

I'm willing to bet that 80% of consumers never drive more than 250mi/day more than once a year. It's a perfectly reasonable option for the typical driver. If you need to make a road trip you may need some planning to find a high-amp outlet on the way. The infrastructure isn't there, but we're still in early-adopter territory here.

[Brian Hall @ Mar 24th 2009 8:24AM]

Is the S the 4-door sedan?

[trab @ Mar 24th 2009 8:33AM]

The S is for serial, thats how the batteries go in :)

[Tohe @ Mar 24th 2009 9:28AM]

this reply was for Sarig.

[techguy @ Mar 24th 2009 8:24AM]

Don't you get more power for your buck with a gas engine anyhow? I mean, if I can spend 50k on a car why am I worry about fuel prices? (environmental concerns aside)

[superhobo @ Mar 24th 2009 8:28AM]

1. Environmental concerns
2. The cost of ownership (cost price + fuel and maintenance costs over it's lifetime) of this car is probably much lower than any gas car.

[Jon @ Mar 24th 2009 1:44PM]

Because when oil goes to $300 a barrel and gas costs $10/gallon you'll be saving around $10,000 a year since you'll still be paying $.08/kWhr from your electric company.

[techguy @ Mar 24th 2009 8:36AM]

superhobo, as for
1. Environmental Concerns

Did you see the part where I said, environmental concerns aside...

Still, if you have 50k to blow on a car, why not get one that has more horsepower?

[pavlindrom @ Mar 24th 2009 8:41AM]

because then you are subscribed to oil shipping about twice or more a week with your monster.

[schmitty338 @ Mar 24th 2009 8:42AM]

you sir, are a moron. It is precisely your type of thinking that has prevented the wide-scale investment in and adoption of alternative fuel infrastructure....

[Scott Equine @ Mar 24th 2009 8:51AM]

techguy - nice comment!

- fortunately its a general trend that the richer people are the more altruistic their mind-set

- implying that you are selfish as well as poor (a truely admirable combo!)

But to answer your question, this will be bought by 1. tree-hugging hippies and 2. folk with so much cash they already have a fleet of cars with far more ho'power.

[kesherz @ Mar 24th 2009 9:13AM]

Do you need the horsepower? Most people don't: they're just driving to work or the grocery store day-in and day-out.

[tripmine @ Mar 24th 2009 10:23AM]

if Tesla's short history as a company has taught us two things they are:
1. This won't come out when they say it's going to come out.
2. It's going to deliver in the performance department.
I expect it to be on par in terms of performance with a BMW 545 or 550

[aughsum @ Mar 24th 2009 2:06PM]

does someone want to explain this whole electric tourque/2phase transmission vs gas car with lots of HP to techguy?

I dont know all of the terminology but whats the point of buying a car based on its HP when its electric counterpart is faster? Besides, who cares how fast it is.

[superhobo @ Mar 24th 2009 3:06PM]

Environmental concerns

[Gr1zz @ Mar 24th 2009 8:57AM]

Anyone else see this as a modern day Delorian?

[Scott Equine @ Mar 24th 2009 8:58AM]

...and once those goodly folk have blazed a slightly cleaner environmental trail of compressed hydrogen and no-rust plastics, the bulk of the infrastructure costs and the price of the vehicles themselves will have come down enough to allow even the common people to afford them. So plenty of time for you to save up for one Techguy.

[DJ @ Mar 24th 2009 9:00AM]

Unfortunately, the other thing hiding under that tarp is the truth about the federal tax credit for hybrid and low emmision vehicles. Tesla's target market is higher income folks. Those folks tend to subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax - AMT. As a result, they won't be able to claim much or any of the credit, Even if they aren't subject to AMT, the tax credit shrinks dramatically as your income goes up, again all bu eliminating the credit. Bottom lline? If you want a Tesla for $40K, either wait a year or two, or find a poor person to buy it for you using your money.

[Scott Equine @ Mar 24th 2009 9:05AM]

i think its a great price. My cayenne turbo cost several times more

[Tohe @ Mar 24th 2009 9:05AM]

I'm very excited about this news. That picture of this car could be misleading. Tesla said that Fisker had delivered substandard design, they weren't happy, so they have probably redesigned this car altogether. The price is attractive enough to entice Pure EV enthusiasts. Lastly, this could be the car to change the auto industry as we know it.

[Mike @ Mar 24th 2009 9:07AM]

Uhh, the car is called the Fisker Karma. Not Fisher Karma.

It doesn't care if you catch fish and don't throw them back. Oh, and the designer's name is Henrik Fisker.

[John @ Mar 24th 2009 2:54PM]

Was waiting for someone to catch that. Didn't expect to see it so late in the comments.

[muddyh2o @ Mar 24th 2009 9:14AM]

when the 1 year beta lease on my Mini-E is over, i'll scoop up one of these babies

[Shenanigans @ Mar 24th 2009 9:23AM]

I want a car with hopower!

Why would anyone want a 50k EV sedan instead of a 50k AMG Mercedez? Because they don't want want to drive the same douche car like every other rich, mindless drone.

[muddyh2o @ Mar 24th 2009 9:45AM]

is hopower the ability to attract prostitutes? you want a pimp-mobile? who doesn't?!

[der.king @ Mar 24th 2009 9:28AM]

If you favor an electric car, because you think you are protecting the environment you just suck. You don't know nothing. The only point in building an electric car is because we'll run out of oil someday and people still need something to drive ... In no way it's better for the environment.

[ZombieRace @ Mar 24th 2009 9:44AM]

Care to back up this baseless statement?

[Scott Equine @ Mar 24th 2009 9:45AM]

The use of a double negative in a sentence about "knowing nothing" was hopefully for comic effect?

[muddyh2o @ Mar 24th 2009 9:49AM]

the resources needed to create highly toxic batteries (and the disposal of those batteries) is not good for the environment. there are fewer toxic chemicals in a traditional car.

the coal or nuclear power used to create the electricity has a similar impact on the environment.

of course, if we could effectively recycle the batteries and power the cars with solar (also toxic chemicals required to produce) or wind power (still takes a lot of energy to build solar power stations) then the impact on the environment would begin to shrink,

[rcappo @ Mar 24th 2009 11:45AM]

The batteries and energy generation suck now, sure. Part of it could be because Texaco/Chevron have patents on large capacity batteries and haven't mass produced them. The other part is that there aren't enough electric cars on the road for upstart or existing companies to want to invest lots in R&D, who are they going to sell them to in the next 6-12 months?

There are some radiation batteries that look promising. I would envision it like a microwave oven in reverse. It could help with the nuclear waste disposal problem too. If we generate hydrogen with renewable wind, hydro, solar thermal, and tidal energy sources, and can store it (or convert it to natural gas CH4), then I could see hydrogen working.

There are other ways to produce massive amounts of power, we just have to be willing to fund the experimental science and build some large scale experimental fusion power plants or some other high tech power plant.