Opinion on value of 1.5 vs non-sport 2.0

I'd say at least $15K - here's a list of differences between 1.5 and 2.0

Updated firmware
New Motor design - quieter and more powerful
New PEM design - less prone to overheating
Glove box - tray only in 1.5
VDS moved from left to center console
Push button shifting replaced lever shift knob - carbon fiber in 1.5 vs plastic in 2.0
Replaced tach meter with kW power meter.
Seats more bolstered in 2.0

The new motor/PEM is the primary reason to get the 2.0 - I would say if you plan to use your car a lot the 2.0 is the way to go.
Maybe the signatures would be a collector's item someday!

thefortunes said:

Assuming everything else is equal (NO upgrades, options, warranty, etc... and similar mileage) what is your opinion of a value difference between a 1.5 and non-sport 2.0.

Anything you really LIKE better about a 1.5 or a 2.0, or is the value differential just due to the newer vehicle?

What about a signature? ANY difference from a 1.5 (other than the cosmetic seats, sills, plaque, etc...)?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

There are two trends going on. The first is some serious decontenting as they needed to drop manufacturing costs 20+%. The second is genuine improvements as they refined the car. So here are things I am aware of:

Advantages of the 1.5
* high quality power connections.
* carbon fiber interior
* very solid PEM with high level cooling fan, less dirt and junk
* Lower seats more head room
* No 12v battery (more reliable)
* Seats have adjustable lumbar support.
* No need to go into performance mode for full power (i have raced a 2.0 several times and speed is the same. I won 2 he won 2 and neither won by more than a car lenght in 1/4 mile.


Things better in a 2.0
* Sound deadening kit
* Seats have thicker padding
* useful KW meter replaces usless tach
* Stronger HVAC

Things just different
* VDS moved to center, nice for passinger to see but then can't easily check charge rate and time without climbing inside
* 2.0 has glove box which is nice to hide things but it is TINY. The 1.5 tray is far larger
* drive/reverse chaned from stick to pushbutton.

I am sure i have missed many things.

Since I own a 1.5 and now borrowing a 2.0 from Tesla I see and feel some differences. I don't think there was any power differences between the two, my understanding that only came with the hand-wound sport edition.

The 2.0 seats are more padded and grip your body better, but they do sit higher. Some may like the higher seating... I personally don't since I'm 6' tall so an instrument cluster I use to see clearly is now blocked by the upper part of the steering wheel. I also like sitting lower since it feels my center / cars center of gravity is lower now. It is easier to get in/out of the 2.0 from the higher seat design.

The 2.0 does appear to be quieter and there's less whine of the motor that's heard in the cabin but I personally like the whine... others may not.

I personally like the carbon fiber center console, a real shifter over push button select shifting. The 2.0 console seems in my own opinion cheaper... it shakes, moves, and I can get the VDS display to move all the time within the center console housing which doesn't seem right.

The PEM is allot wider than the 2.0 PEM. So it looks like something is missing when coming from the 1.5.... I do see that the PEM run's allot cooler in the 2.0 which is nice... means your electronics will like you for that. But many Tesla Rangers love the 1.5 PEM since its built like a tank and has aircraft quality connectors.

I actually prefer the tray over the glove-box. I just toss things on that tray and they're easier to access. I bought two tray dividers that fit the look well and keep things from sliding as well as keeping it organized.

One thing nice about the pushbutton drive selector is that when you turn off the car, it automatically goes into park... so one less step. It did yell at me today moving from drive to reverse... saying I made an "unsafe" gear select. I never get that in my real shifter on the 1.5... I wasn't rolling that fast, slightly at most forward.

I do feel some oddness with the traction control... seems more sensitive on the 2.0 than my 1.5. I can usually push hard in a turn without having TC kicking in on my 1.5... the 2.0 on the same turn and speeds I feel its shutting down the accelerator on me. Also there's a bump / drop in the Road that I go over with both these cars on my way to work... My 1.5 doesn't get affected all that much, I can accelerate fully without feeling TC kick in... the 2.0 is limiting my acceleration and there's definitely a delay in there when comparing the two.

The 1.5 has "bullet proof" race type of TPMS (tire monitors), the 2.x's have ones that are not as good and need to be reset lots of the time.

The 2.0 has noisier fans and water pumps than my 1.5. When charging the 2.0 is louder due to the fans and pump.

2.0 has an auxillary 12v battery for the lights and backup system, the 1.5 has it built in and uses sheet 1 and possibly 2 for that. So if anything goes bad with your aux. battery system the pack will have to be pulled to diagnose and repair in the 1.5....

No differences in the Signature series, they're just the earlier editions with emblems to show it. They may later be worth more since there's only a limited amount of those around but time will tell.
One thing is that whichever one you end up buying you'll love it to death, definitely becomes a personal part of you and the family.

I was talking to my tech during the annual service, mostly debating if I should go with extended warranty and if so, which one (battery vs. everything else).

From my conversation, it appears that 1.5's are more reliable, especially with the PEM. From his description to me, the 2.0 and 2.5 PEM fans are bottom mounted and blows up a bunch of junk and debris. If you don't clean that annually, its almost certain that it'll fail not long after. So my preference is actually with 1.5

I've heard the 40amp UMC is rather flimsy whereas the 30amp MC240 (rather ugly) is absolutely rock solid.

The differences listed by other posters of course, are all true.

One thing that was left out is 2.0 and 2.5 firmware have learn tire feature. Gives you many more options for tires. This is a big deal since you wear out the rears every 7000 miles-ish.

I personally value the 1.5 more than the 2.x's and sure other 1.5 owners would agree... where the 2.x owners feel the opposite

But I think things that govern the price are:
-Improvements / change in design. Some will argue if an improvement is a true improvement / design or possibly a degradation in design.
-Newer model/year which typically increases value. However this can change when cars become collectors for different reasons... usually earlier designs / limited productions / less available can affect collector car prices.

The 2.5 Sport will always be in my opinion be the one that will be really sought out and hold the premium price. Very limited, excellent upgrades that work like the sport suspension and the hand-wound motor that drops the 0-60 times from 3.9sec to 3.7sec... plus its a later model. The 2.0 Sport would be next in line.

FWIW, the NADA guide lists the following (no options included and for my local area in Phoenix, AZ):

2008 Roadster :

For a 2010 non-sport:

and for a 2010 Sport:

Didn't see any mention of it, but I was under the impression that the 2.X cars had some improvements in the air conditioning system too.

thefortunes said:

GREAT info so far...any thoughts dhrivnak, wiztecy or Jackyche on value difference?

Click to expand...

At least for now it appears the market place is valuing the 2.X with a premium. I am a poor predictor of the future so who knows what it holds.

dhrivnak said:

At least for now it appears the market place is valuing the 2.X with a premium. I am a poor predictor of the future so who knows what it holds.

Click to expand...

So I came across the writeup on Wikipedia on the Roadster an HP of the motor. I think they got this wrong, from what I'm seeing they're pointing out that the 2.5 Sport and the 2.5 non-sport had the same motor. From what I understand this is Wrong. Only the sports had the hand-wound motor that gave them the extra HP/Torque boost.

Secondly I'm unclear if the 2.0 Sports had the hand-wound motor or did this only come into effect with the 2.5 Sports? I believe only the 2.5 Sports had that special motor. If the 2.5 Sports had this motor that would make them very unique and limited which would drive the value up a good bit.

Looking closer at the numbers the 2.5 non-sport had 103lbs more torque over the 1.5 and 40 more HP. The 2.5 sport vs non-sport had 22 more lbs of torque but the HP stayed the same. Does anyone know if these specs are true? And from these specs the only thing in the 2.0 sport was just the sport suspension.

From Wiki:

1.5, 2.0 : 248 hp (185 kW), 200·lb·ft/s (270 N·m), 3-phase 4-pole;
2.5 Non-Sport : 288 hp (215 kW), 273·lb·ft (370 N·m), 3-phase 4-pole;
2.5 Sport : 288 hp (215 kW), 295·lb·ft (400 N·m), 3-phase 4-pole
AC induction motor[2]

source: Tesla Roadster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are only two things on on a 2.0 that I wish for my 1.5 (that I can't get aftermarket) are the AC (but in the hottest part of summer) and the tire learning feature. I go though rears every 4000 miles so I am driving less expensive non-stock tires.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh,

And no one has mentioned that the 1.5 has an all carbon fiber trunk. It went plastic (and fractionally bigger) after that.

vfx said:

Oh,

And no one has mentioned that the 1.5 has an all carbon fiber trunk. It went plastic (and fractionally bigger) after that.

Click to expand...

True.

The 1.5 also has the lumbar support and pump for the drivers seat. The 2.0 I'm driving does not.

Many of these 2.0 changes didn't happen immediately. Mine, for example, was one of the first delivered 2.0s. I still have the same seats, the same carbon fiber trunk and some of the same dials and knobs as the 1.5s. It wasn't until cars in the ~700 VIN range did some of those changes happen.

As someone interested in (long-term) scouting a Roadster for purchase, are there any good (TMC?) tables out there that capture all the known feature differences between Roadster flavors?

I'm looking for something like the table in this link but not necessarily with all the distracting colors:
Internet Explorer versions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personally, I wouldn't put any significant premium on 2.0 versus 1.5. There's the usual "newer" car but as far as actual feature sets, I consider it a wash due to reliability tradeoff's. That's just me. And I'm biased.

thefortunes said:

GREAT info so far...any thoughts dhrivnak, wiztecy or Jackyche on value difference?

Click to expand...

One thing I don't like in the 2.x is that the drive selection button leds are way too bright. Only way to deal with the buttons not shining in your face is to use the dimmer switch for the instrument cluster. I had to turn it all the way down to at a brightness setting that I could handle at night. But now the instrument cluster is not in sync and way to dim. The 1.5 has no illumination, its all feel which is my personal preference.

...by the way I can't charge off my MC240 that has no issue with my 1.5. That's my dedicated 1.5 home charger at the moment. I had to use the UMC that was supplied with the loaner... cool thing is that they included a 8' plus... have to measure... UMC pigtail extension cord in the trunk. No issues charging with that, was easier to push that small pigtail thru an unused dryer vent hole to reach my 14-50 receptical.

Will talk to Tesla to understand why the MC240 had problems.... Will provide the error message when I have time.

wiztecy said:

True.

The 1.5 also has the lumbar support and pump for the drivers seat. The 2.0 I'm driving does not.

Click to expand...

My 2.0 ( vin# 587 ) has the carbon fiber trunk and the lumbar support and pump for the drivers seat. So those things changed after 587.