Toyota Camry cheaper to fuel than a Tesla Model 3?
seekingalpha.com
seekingalpha.com
> First of all, this article deals with the large group of people who don’t have any ability to charge at home. For them, talking about charging at home is as irrelevant as a vegan cook book serving up a steak recipe. It just isn’t relevant to them. Yes, some people live in houses and can charge at home. Most people in this world can’t. So, Supercharging it is.
According to the Department of Energy [1], 63% of residential units have a garage or carport, including 37% of rental units.
(There's also a complaint here about the Tesla just being substantially more expensive, which, true enough.)
[1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-958-january-2-2017...
> For the average American who drives 1,000 miles per month, $0.05 per mile is $50 per month, or $600 per year. Divide $11,805 with $600 and you get almost 20 years.
Read the whole article.
Residential electricity is significantly cheaper, and even cheaper if you have solar.
(I pay about 4-5 cents per kwh, not 28 cents as the article assumes.)
It really isn't misleading. They demonstrate that it takes a 20-year service life for Tesla Model 3 owners to recover their expense when compared to Toyota Camry owners of they charged at hime, and demonstrated that the problem would be worse if they used superchargers.
Thus they covered both extreme cases, which bound any real-world example, and showed that the Camry would be cheaper even when compared with Tesla's most favourable scenario.
Your personal assertion is not correct, and you're trying to force your assertion by ignoring the data presented in the article. You can't simultaneously assert that an article is wrong and ignore everything stated in the article, from data to conclusions drawn from the data.
However, if you really feel strongly about the subject then you're more than welcomed to write a blog post where you write down your personal assertions and try to make your case.
> It doesn't pay back fast enough to make up for the price difference, but that's a very different claim.
That's a secondary claim, which was only made to drive home the fact that Tesla Model 3s are more expensive to own and operate than a Ford Camry even with the unrealistic assumption that Tesla owners benefit from a perpetual source of free energy.
Given the weird assumption that the calculation is based off of, I feel no need to write a full blog post on the subject; that flaw alone means this analysis is off by a factor of 2-3x (2x going by average 13¢/kWh US-wide utility price of electricity, 3x if the consumer lives in an area with demand-smoothing incentives that give lower electricity prices at night).
Either that or, I don't know, common sense after looking at the gas pump every time you fill up and recognizing that $50 every week or two (or whatever) isn't a huge chunk of change, and likely won't be offset by buying an expensive new EV.
If my only option for recharging was a Tesla station, I wouldn't buy a Tesla. It takes too long and isn't close to my house, so it's a deal breaker.
Also, the article claims that free electricity would still take X years to clear the premium paid for it, which isn't particularly fair because it's not accounting for other differences in the total cost of ownership there Tesla likely has advantages (e g maintenance).
There's a good chance that a Model 3 is more expensive to own than a Camry, but this article isn't making that claim, yet it kind of tries to shoe horn it in.
I'm not in the car market but think I'll happily pay an extra 240 bucks per year for the opportunity to "fuel" my vehicle with electricity, because that can be generated from renewables or from nuclear, etc. Maybe I live in a sunny part of the world and can charge my car with solar?
The article doesn't even mention which model 3. Or what features are in the Camry vs. the Tesla. Even the cheapest Tesla has a lot of "luxury" features that are rare or don't exist in other cars, which heightens the silliness of including an outright price comparison and really shows the author's biases.
I would be fine if there were a purely fuel cost vs. electricity cost article looking at the efficiency of the two vehicles since comparing their prices, given that they are different size and segment vehicles is absurd.
Then the author throws out a really expensive price for solar panels, which are proven to basically pay for themselves over the long term at current efficiency rates, so, yes, in fact, for the average solar installation, over 10 years, the energy is 'free'. It is increasingly clear to me that the author did very little research and is trying to extrapolate some general trend for his lifestyle and apply it to the vast majority of use cases which is dumb.
IDK, I have read a lot of overly enthusiastic pieces about Tesla and the Model 3 and I have read a lot of hit pieces. This reads more like the typical hit piece I see. The value proposition of the LE Hybrid is certainly interesting, but if you are trying to save the most money, just by a car that costs 15,000 and your fuel costs over 5 years will never catch up to the price of the Camry anyway.
Also at the end the author states sales were basically flat in 2019 providing a number of units sold at: 192,250 yet Tesla sold 360K plus units (the author is only looking at US figures for some reason...., despite the overall performance of Tesla being that they sold more cars in 2019 than in 2017 and 2018 combined.
(p.s. I read the fine print after writing this post.... "Disclosure: I am/we are short TSLA. "). Okay then.
(Full disclosure: I own a Model 3, and don't own any Tesla stock that I am aware of).
>a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive...
The headline is "Electricity Shock: Toyota Camry Cheaper To Fuel Than A Tesla Model 3".
Then the author assumes the Tesla will always be charged at an (expensive) supercharger.
The math checks out (as in: I assume the simple calculations are not incorrect). The author's assumptions/conclusions do not check out. And do not back up the sensationalist (and incorrect) headline.
My comment was not ad hominem. Not only because I did not attack a human.
Plus the article is using difficult to dispute numbers (average cost of gas, cost of electricity Tesla charges, and cost of both vehicle). So I guess when you run out of answers to the critique, just critique the messenger themselves instead, that way you never really have to address the point made.
Their analogy is a lot more apt than contrasting a new Tesla with a 2003 used vehicle. I don't think a contrived analogy nobody was making is a good argument for why the article's comparison shouldn't be made or discussed.
As to electrek, I strongly disagree their quality is "significantly higher." It isn't a good quality publication and is heavily biased.
Look, I like Toyota Hybrid technology. I had a Prius. But I can see when you leave out information that could potentially hurt your thesis. I don't know the maintenance costs of the Tesla vs the Toyota. But this certainly looks fishy to me. I wouldn't place my hands on fire for this guy as you do.
That's quite an assumption. I have to park on the street. I would not choose an EV as long as this is true. Duh.
The article also factors in the price of the vehicle, which doesn't make sense. Yes my used Honda is cheaper than a Tesla vehicle overall. I'm also not driving as nice a car.
- supercharger station electricity costs - national average electricity costs - national average, amortized home solar costs
And then compare the fuel cost difference for each vs the price difference of each to help people decide whether the premium for an EV is worth it.
I get that they have a motive to slam Tesla, but shoddy articles don't install confidence in their brand.
OK, but you could use a more accurate number, the price people pay at their homes (Most rarely supercharge). A quick google shows thats 12c per hour in the US (I pay 8 cents.)
Starting with "incorrect" (biased) assumptions will get you to the wrong place
> For the average American who drives 1,000 miles per month, $0.05 per mile is $50 per month, or $600 per year. Divide $11,805 with $600 and you get almost 20 years.
At least the article offers a generous alternative for comparison.
https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2019-us-vehicle-sales-figures-...
The average American probably drives a fill-sized half-ton, pickup truck or small/medium SUV, or a relatively vanilla sedan from Toyota or Honda (including the Camry.)
In this case, no doubt they want to "predict" that the market for expensive electric cars will be limited. Of course the current owners of a Tesla are homeowners with garages that care more about having a fancy car than about the total cost of ownership.
But at least in the sedan market, the top 4 sellers (in the U.S.) are the Toyota Camry, Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla, and Honda Accord. More people want pickup trucks and SUVs, but for those that just prefer a sedan, they just want something that works and is affordable.
Given all that, the total cost of ownership is a better tool for comparison, but obviously this article only looks at fuel costs and opportunity costs, without including other relevant variables.
Total cost of ownership is a lot more than purchase price and fuel cost. You and I agree on that.
I doubt people are buying a Tesla because they think it's cheaper long term, but fuel cost is part of that decision.
EDIT: regarding apartment buildings, in California, if a lease includes a parking spot the landlord is legally required to allow the tenant to install a car charging station at their spot.
I don't think fuel economy is the reason people purchase a Tesla. The Model 3 beats the Camry on cool-points alone.
(Camry sold about twice the Model 3 in the US last year.)
In fact, I can't imagine many car purchase decisions boil down to "Camry vs Model 3".
I'm sure there's enough car sales that even with a small-ish sample size they can make pretty good predictions, even for a new make & model.
But I'll be surprised if the Model 3 estimate turns out to be as accurate as the Camry.
This same argument applied to the Prius, but it completely ignores how the majority of people actually buy cars. Very few people will cross shop these cars, regardless of cost savings, because they were already planning on buying a 35k+ car. So if they start looking towards other cars, it will almost certainly be other cars in that price range.
Taken to an extreme I can compare the Tesla with a electric moped, but that doesn’t benefit anyone. The model 3 is targeting the entry level Bmw, Mercedes, Audi crowd, the high end American sedan crowd, and the low-mid Asian luxury sedans. Compare against those cars as that’s what the perspective buyers are comparing against.
If Tesla makes a truly budget sedan in the 20k range, then it’s a different comparison.
Secondly Tesla has positioned itself as a luxury car manufacturer, a better comparison would be the Lexus ES Hybrid($42k base) vs the model 3($39k base), Or comparing the Camry hybrid ($28k base) to a Chevrolet Bolt($37k base), or even the Nissan Leaf EV ($29k before tax credit, $22k after)
I do however agree the average American who lives in an apartment isn't getting the best deal with a full EV at the moment. I'd be pushing for PHEV vehicles like the Volt or Prius Prime to those who want to be able to charge but don't always have the opportunity.
Tesla's build quality is more like BMW, Lexus and Mercedes than Toyota. Comparing to those cars you won't have that $11k advantage, fuel will cost more because you have to use premium petrol and cost of maintenance will be vastly different in the long run.
Regarding fuel, I'm not an expert for US market, but again in Europe standard fuel (95 octanes) is sufficient enough for every car, even top performance engines like Ferrari. You can buy premium petrol, 98 or even over 100 octanes, but it's not required.
Tesla is expensive brand, but I don't think it's considered premium on this side of the pond. Especially with terrible reputations about the customer service. I think it would be fair to compare it with Camry - or in case someone need little more luxury, there's Lexus ES - basically Toyota Camry with premium touch - still noticeably cheaper than Lexus ES.
In the long run, I suspect gas price will keep going up. I live in Los Angeles and pay around $4/gallon, at this rate it will become extremely hard for gasoline vehicles to compete against electric vehicles.
https://undecidedmf.com/episodes/2019/10/29/how-long-does-a-...
a 10 year old camry, well maintained if anything, will stay level in range as cam lobes and valves seat, and piston rings set into the grooves of the cylinder wall.
if you really wanted to trump the fueling cost of a Tesla, you might consider just buying an older Honda. with lighter weight and lower horsepower they will likely be cheaper to "fuel" than a new Tesla 3. walking and public transportation are also cheaper than Tesla ownership. Then again owning a tesla is rarely about the cost of ownership.
He got $0.0206 per mile. Much lower than the article's estimates.
Besides, I'm sure the maintenance on a Camry costs much more than the maintenance on a Tesla.
Let's talk about the cost of oil changes, engine tuneups, spark plugs, mufflers/exhaust, brake pads and rotors.
It is also possible to drive down a 20% hill (Marin in Berkeley) without using the brakes or gaining speed. My stick shift Accord would gain speed in first gear all the way to redline within a couple blocks.
On my Spark EV which also has better than gas engine/manual regen (but less than the Tesla) I expect the brake pads and rotors to last at least ten years based on wear three years in.
Your tesla has brakes, I hope.
Because there are about 17 moving parts in a Tesla:
https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/model-s-vs-ice-how-man...
Edit: Including the brakes.