Hacker News Reader

Comment by di | Hacker News Reader

> $132,000 for the P90D Signature and $142,000 for the P90D Founder edition [0]

[0]: http://www.engadget.com/2015/09/30/tesla-model-x-electric-su...

That is pretty amazing pricing. Most premium families would be looking to the Land Rover Evoque ($41K), BMW X5 ($54K) etc But Tesla is pricing it not to compete with the baseline Porsche Cayenne ($58K) but around the Cayenne Turbo S level ($157K). I guess they aren't planning on building a lot of them.

> premium families

For a second I thought you are referring to 'premium family' as some kind of a social category.

Isn't he though?

Of course he is, where I live in the US 142k could buy you a nice 1400 square foot house.

I wish I could buy a nice 1400 square foot house where I live.

In central London that buys you .. a garage.

For a car that you never use because choosing to driving in London is a questionable choice.

It wouldn't buy you a fifth of a garage: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2813958/Tiny-shed-pa...

Mine is 1400 square feet in a major city and I only paid 130k. You're getting ripped off!

Now I see Tesla's fatal strategic mistake for the Model X - it didn't make a Rose-Gold one.

See the Model S, which also competes with many, quality sedans from Mercedes, BMW etc.

If you look at pricing the Model S is more competing with the likes of Aston Martin.

Mercedes, BMW are targeting the premium middle class market especially with the new A and 1 series respectively.

That's one way to look at it. Another way is that they've been serving the upper-class automobile market for decades and have been recently introducing cheaper models.

A C-class with options will run you $50k now, and $65k on an E which has long been their bread and butter car.

I'm less familiar w/ the BMW family but I'm sure it's similar.

So I think Tesla is absolutely competing with Mercedes and BMW, though certainly their most high-end models are competing with world class cars of any nameplate.

I spend a lot of time in a little ski town near me (Park City) that is absolutely covered in Porsche Cayenne Turbos. It's the perfect SUV for your family + ski gear + showing off just a little bit that you're really wealthy.

I have zero doubt the parking lots next to the ski slopes will be covered in Model X's in a couple of years.

"It's the perfect SUV for your family + ski gear + showing off just a little bit that you're really wealthy."

Gull-wing doors seem less than perfect for transporting ski gear.

Your ski gear goes on a rack on top of or behind the car, both in the Cayenne or in the Model X (http://www.teslamotors.com/tesla_theme/assets/img/modelx/sec...)

Wonder how rear-mounting compares to top-mounting for overall drag. Anyway, for most users, I imagine you're not driving around with ski gear on your car 99% of the time, so it's a reasonable design decision.

Rear mounting is drastically more efficient.

I was going to cite this article as a source, but I see that there aren't any numbers: https://www.google.com/search?q=mr+money+mustache+road+tripp...

Linked anyway for your interest.

Rear mounting is not going to work very well for people who don't like road grime getting all over their gear. I'd much rather have a roof box. The model X is really appealing to me other than that detail.

It's not going on top of the Model X unless you don't want to open the doors.

Hmm, what about the batteries though. The Tesla will have to expend energy to keep them warm right?

Not while parked. While driving, you do lose range because of that, but it's not catastrophic.

The Model S is one of the most popular cars in Norway, so their cold weather capabilities are clearly pretty decent.

Surprisingly, it doesn't get very cold in the populated parts of Norway. The average winter temperature in Oslo is 23 degrees Fahrenheit (-4C).

It looks like Oslo's averages are a couple degrees above Chicago's. I'd call that very cold.

AFAIK the prices announced so far are only for the special editions. Actual pricing will be a bit lower.

That said, the P90D is faster at 0-60 (with Ludicrous mode) than the Cayenne Turbo S. So there is that.

It accelerates faster (3.2 to 4.1). It has a lower top speed (155mph to 176mph).

You do 0-60 -- or more realistically, 5-65 -- at every highway on-ramp in the country.

When do you go faster than 100 mph?

You floor the car each time you get on the highway? Also if we are talking about rolling start Tesla's advantage over the Turbo S would practically melt away.

Since Teslas don't make a super-annoying noise when floored, yes, it does appear that Tesla owners frequently floor it, from stoplights, stop signs, and on highway ramps.

Yes, a rolling start is a big help on highway ramps. Doesn't help much at stop signs and lights.

Unless you live in Germany you're not really ever going to hit that top speed. You will however have ample chance to take advantage of the acceleration.

The above poster is drawing a distinction between faster (top speed) and quicker (acceleration). Auto-journalism usually uses this language. In everyday speech, "faster" is ambiguous.

The origina posted qualified it with 0-60, which lets you know he means acceleration. A car can't have a "faster" 60mph than another.

Sure you can, just take it to a track day at local race track.

Sure, but I start my car from a standstill many times a day. I take my car to a test track -- once every five years?

Do you accelerate at 100% each time though? I dont think I ever floor my car "off the line", I think I only use maximum power to go from 60-80 on the motorway.

Not all the time but sometimes for fun. I would do it a lot more in an electric because the "gas" is "free" (assuming it is charged with solar). At least it is something I can legally do, as opposed to going 155mph.

Oddly enough accelerating like that isn't always "legal". Where I'm from it could be classed as dangerous driving, and I believe in the USA it could fall under "Exhibition of Speed".

By and large it is more efficient to accelerate at full power, assuming your goal is to reach a certain top speed regardless, so if you were _really_ concerned about conserving petrol then you should be going full blast off the line. That said I expect the fuel usage such a situation to be negligible anyway, especially to someone who can afford/justify a car that does it in 4 seconds.

My car isn't that fast, or particularly economical, but I know I've never thought "I'd love to accelerate at full power here to show how fast my car is, but I just can't justify the pennies it will cost me"! Outside of hyper-milers I wonder how many people do actually think about it.

Huh, I just looked up my state's statute on this and it contained verbiage like "Includes, but not limited to". How the heck can they get away with defining a law so vaguely? I guess I wrongly assumed that a law had to actually define what it was making illegal.

i wouldn't be bringing a 2.5 ton car onto a track, but i also can't afford it, so my opinion probably doesn't matter anyway.

Raced a Porsche Cayenne Turbo on the 101N in Palo Alto, kept up till around 140mph, at which point my transmission ran out of gearing and he kept going. I was impressed.

Additionally, the Model X appears to be significantly faster than the similarly-priced Cayenne Turbo S.

Cayenne Turbo S (the fastest Cayenne model) does 0-60 in 3.8 seconds. [1] The Model X P90D also does it in 3.8 seconds, or 3.2 with the speed upgrade, which costs $10k on other Tesla models, [2] bringing the total Model X price to $152k to the Porsche's $157k.

[1] http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/cayenne/cayenne-turbo-s/ [2] http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/three-dog-day

Do you mean the Model X dos 0-60 in 2.8/2.2 seconds?

How long can an electric car like a Tesla maintain heavy acceleration? I doubt it could complete a lap around a track. Meanwhile a Porsche Cayenne will have no problem with that.

According to the link it can do a quarter mile in 10.9 secs, so I suppose it depends on what size/type of track you're talking about. Though obviously it wouldn't be able to sustain this for an incredibly long time, I imagine your distance per charge drops significantly at full acceleration.

The Land Rover Evoque, BMW X5 and Porsche Cayenne are all 5 person SUVs that aren't in the same class as the Model X (7 person).

I assure you that not every Model X owner will have 5 children.

Also (a) the Model X will ship as standard with 6 seats and (b) the X5 has a 7 seat option.

The Volvo XC90 has 7 seats.

There's a huge, growing market for premium products in China. And the bioweapon filter feature wouldn't hurt with their pollution levels.

I think the point was affordability. There aren't a lot of people who will spend 150K+ on a car, where merely owning home(with no mortgage) is a luxury these days.

Sure, but my point is that the market for premium goods is growing and even a small sector within a massive country is a lot of potential customers.

Obviously their next car will be the one that is accessibly priced and sells in huge volume.

Pricing for standard models was noted to be only 5k more than Model S equivalent.

Which is a little bit misleading, as the Model S starts at $70,000, but the cheapest Model S that's "equivalent" to a Model X (third-row seats, 90kWh battery, etc.) is over $90,000. So that phrasing might lead one to think that the Model X starts at $75,000, while it's probably $95,000 or more depending on just which features they consider to be equivalent.

There will be a Model X 75D or 80D at some point

True, I didn't think about that. They haven't announced any, but that doesn't mean they won't.

It's on Elons Twitter account (future expected X battery capacities).

Wasn't the Model X originally supposed to cost a lot less than an S?

You're thinking of the next car, the Model 3.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com