Model S vs BMW 5 Series

[smorgasbord]

I drive a BMW 535 X-drive Sportswagon (2010).

Nice comparison. We have a 2005 X5 4.4i. My wife loves this car, except for the gas consumption. Along the same comparison lines then:

- Front "Comfort" seats on X5 are more adjustable (back has a pivot point so that shoulders are adjustable separately from back angle). For short drives, we were comfortable in Model S, but obviously don't know about long drives. Some seat positions on Model S have the driver's head too close to the headliner, which is a really claustrophobic feeling.
- Rear seat on Model S is too low so your knees stick up uncomfortably even on short drives; headroom is marginally OK. Agree with Robert that center seat in Model S is better than center in BMW, but that's the least used seat of all.
- Rear of X5 has slide out cupholders for passengers. Model S has none.
- All 4 doors of X5 have deep, very usable pockets. Model S has none.
- It's shocking that the gas car has more power ports than the electric car. Tesla should be ashamed. There is no excuse for Model S not having 110 volt outlets in the back, and there should be power available in the frunk and/or rear cargo area to run a cooler.
- X5 has a true panoramic sunroof that makes Tesla's claims about Model S's laughable. And the X5 shade is powered. And vent mode pops rear of both glass plates.
- Rear cargo on Model S is better than X5. Frunk is huge bonus.
- Suspension & driving: Model S wins big (the most important aspect for many).
- Maintenance: This is our second X5. Our first had some weird engine (6 cyl 3.0L) problem that BMW couldn't solve. Heard that BMW was going iDrive, so when we got a good price for it we ordered the 8 cyl version (last without iDrive) with the specific options we wanted to replace it. The new one had software transmission issues that took BMW months to solve. It's still a little jerky if the road slope and car speed are just so. Unknown what Model S will be. I have some concern over PEM repair costs years down the road.
- Options: When we got our second X5, we optioned it exactly as we wanted. Heated steering wheel & rear seats. Dark headliner, burl wood and black leather. Sport suspension & steering wheel, but with Comfort seats. The interior is subtle and comfortable and is high quality (has held up very well over 7 years and 105K miles) without feeling overly luxurious, if you know what I mean. My wife loves this car and feels extremely comfortable driving it, including its high driver position to see over traffic.
- Model S is going to be a mixed bag with options/technology/luxury: The touchscreen is outstanding and revolutionary, it has a rear view camera whose view is large enough to actually use, yet it lacks rudimentary park distance sensors and for such a wide car to not have electric folding mirrors is going to be a little scary at times. I appreciate the spartan, open interior of Model S, but on the test drive my wife insisted on putting her big pursebag in the back seat, even after I suggested otherwise! That you can only get the headliner in beige is disappointing, especially with the black bar across the sunroof, which ruins the effect for rear passengers. I'd rather save money and just have a normal sunroof that slides inside the roof so has less drag, less exposure when open. Tech package has some cool things, the ambient lighting inside should be very nice during night drives, but the exterior handles are just silly and impractical. Hopefully the tech package will make them not annoying, but this is an area of concern for us.
- Steering wheel & controls. The BMW just nails it here. The Mercedes-derived Model S controls are lame in comparison and swapped turn/cruise control stalks are simply inexcusable: I used to think Mercedes drivers were not courteous, but now I know it's that they've given up trying to find the turn stalk.

It's fair to say that if Model S wasn't electric, we wouldn't be buying it. Tesla's electric drive and air suspension are huge pluses, and are the reason we're willing to overlook its shortcomings in other areas, but to be honest, the decision to buy/not buy in the end was close (I started a thread on Second Thoughts to explore it). If we needed rear seats on a regular basis for adults we would have cancelled/change to Model X. I do expect Tesla to continuously improve Model S. We are likely to either retrofit whatever new things are available and/or trade in for V2 when it comes out (like some Roadster owners did with their 1.5s when 2.5 came out). I agree with Tesla's decision to concentrate on the drivetrain, since that has to be right for them to be successful (look at Fisker's decision the other way for comparison), but that doesn't mean I'm going to cut them continual slack on making MSP worth $100K or Musk's claim that it's the best sedan in the world.

While I'm on the soapbox, Tesla needs to think about what is the best form factor for electric cars. Making cars that look like they have engines up front may be what people want today, but that's like early automobiles looking like carriages without the horse - something that won't last. Tesla needs to think about what losing 5-6" of height to batteries in the chassis does to occupant comfort. My personal view is that they should have laid the batteries on their side in the chassis so that the height loss might only be an inch instead of 4-5, and for the batteries that wouldn't fit they could put some in the back part of the frunk and the rest in a normal center console.

[contaygious]

I agree with some of that feedback, but not sure it's fair to compare an SUV to the S. A much better comparison would be the X5 to the X. I personally am not a fan of the X5 in terms of how it drives and it doesn't really have a lot more room for how big it is on the outside. I think everything the S offers in terms of performance and innovation easily make up for it's shortcomings in convenience when compared to family SUVs; yet it's not really a fair comparison either way anyhow.

[Norbert]

My personal view is that they should have laid the batteries on their side in the chassis so that the height loss might only be an inch instead of 4-5, and for the batteries that wouldn't fit they could put some in the back part of the frunk and the rest in a normal center console.

That would make for a worse center of gravity, and mess with cargo and other space. So I think that would be a bad move. I think you are too much speaking from a very specific X5-fan (even a SUV) angle. It seems there are quite a few here who have reservations about the Mercedes steering wheel stalks, but Mercedes is in general considered among the best in class (even if not by BMW fans), (and their sales are similar), so even if you consider that a mistake, it's still a mistake also made by the best in class. Besides the "best sedan" rhetoric is getting old. They didn't claim to have everything the best, including the best cupholders, or so. Take a step back and take a look at the larger picture

[smorgasbord]

That would make for a worse center of gravity, and mess with cargo and other space. So I think that would be a bad move.

I guess it depends on whether you want more room for people or more room for stuff. Right now, Model S has too much cargo space and not enough people space.

As for center of gravity, I'm not talking about putting batteries in the roof. Putting them in the back of the frunk or in a center console will not raise the COG very much, yet result in a much more people accommodating environment. So, even if handling at the hairy edge isn't as good it's a better tradeoff for how the vast majority of people will use and drive the car.

The Mercedes stalks are a poor design, and everyone knows it. You'd have an easier time defending Apple's dragging of disks to the trash to eject them, not to erase them - and that's pretty indefensible.

[JRP3]

The new one had software transmission issues that took BMW months to solve. It's still a little jerky if the road slope and car speed are just so. Unknown what Model S will be. I have some concern over PEM repair costs years down the road.

Not sure of the comparison here. The Tesla has no transmission, just a gear reduction, so there will be no shifting issues, and the PEM is not equivalent to a transmission, it's electronics with no moving parts, which if properly designed and cooled, should last the life of the vehicle.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess it depends on whether you want more room for people or more room for stuff. Right now, Model S has too much cargo space and not enough people space.

For you.

As for center of gravity, I'm not talking about putting batteries in the roof. Putting them in the back of the frunk or in a center console will not raise the COG very much, yet result in a much more people accommodating environment. So, even if handling at the hairy edge isn't as good it's a better tradeoff for how the vast majority of people will use and drive the car.

The vast majority of people use a car with a single or maybe two people in it most of the time. Having a monolithic pack under the floor makes design and temperature management much easier. Also it seems to me that building modules with vertical cells is a better design than laying them end to end from a structural and assembly standpoint.

[smorgasbord]

... the PEM is not equivalent to a transmission, it's electronics with no moving parts, which if properly designed and cooled, should last the life of the vehicle.

Then Tes;a should warranty it for the life of the vehicle. We've read about PEM failures in Roadster, and while Model S might be better due to newer technology and better cooling, it's also something that when it fails will be expensive to fix. Do you want to sell me a 10 year PEM warranty?

.Also it seems to me that building modules with vertical cells is a better design than laying them end to end from a structural and assembly standpoint.

Indeed, everything gets the optimal space it needs on Model S - except the passengers.

[Norbert]

I guess it depends on whether you want more room for people or more room for stuff. Right now, Model S has too much cargo space and not enough people space.

By which measure? That's a question of preferences.

As for center of gravity, I'm not talking about putting batteries in the roof. Putting them in the back of the frunk or in a center console will not raise the COG very much, yet result in a much more people accommodating environment. So, even if handling at the hairy edge isn't as good it's a better tradeoff for how the vast majority of people will use and drive the car.

I felt more than comfortable enough in the second row, and I'm above 6 feet.

The Mercedes stalks are a poor design, and everyone knows it. You'd have an easier time defending Apple's dragging of disks to the trash to eject them, not to erase them - and that's pretty indefensible.

I didn't defend it, I just pointed out that this is would be a difference among the best in class (BMW and Mercedes). I didn't test drive yet myself, but I heard that most are quite OK with the steering and got used to the turn signal position quickly. However I'd expect that sooner or later Tesla will have its own steering wheel and stalks, yet not this year.

[Jeeps17]

It's shocking that the gas car has more power ports than the electric car. Tesla should be ashamed. There is no excuse for Model S not having 110 volt outlets in the back, and there should be power available in the frunk and/or rear cargo area to run a cooler.

While I agree that the comparison to a large SUV is not ideal, this point has irked me for a while, and was made worse by the loss of the rear USB ports.

[CapitalistOppressor]

Hi folks. I read most of this thread on the M5 specific one. I have an E60 M5 (among other guzzlers) and have struggled with whether to go for a Model S Perf or the new F10 M5. I really wanted to go for the Model S, by I ultimately decided to get one more ICE performance sedan, and ordered an M5. The issues discussed here were all on my mind.

In terms of TCO, I worried about three main issues:

1. Viability risk. For Roadster buyers, the Company's survival must feel like a "sure thing," but it really isn't. Even Elon speaks frequently about the multiple ways that they might fail. What will an X% of a Y% step-function decline in value do to your TCO if the company goes bust? (Hint: X%*Y%*Price).

2. Beta tester hassle/risk. We don't know what we don't know. Assembly line production models are not hand-built prototypes. We should expect numerous design and manufacturing defects to reveal themselves in the coming months/years. Most will be merely annoying, but some may be significant. How many trips to the dealer do you expect in the first three years? Seeing this, what will the next guy want to pay for the car (warranty or not)?

3. Obsolescence risk. The depreciation curve could accelerate if future technology / scale economies reduce reduce the relative value of the Model S.

I am not saying that any of these by itself is a decisive factor or that, collectively, they should sway early adopters (God bless them), but the OP's TOC calculations and analysis disregard these factors entirely. Even if you think the chance of serious issues is <30% and, therefore, you ignore the risk, doesn't mean that it doesn't "cost" you to bear the risk. It's like life insurance or fire insurance. You still get full value even if, in a given month, you don't die and your house doesn't burn down.

As an aside, my DD is a Chevy Volt that I charge off of solar panels, so don't think I am anti-EV or am ignoring consumables.

I ignore a lot of relevant factors in the TCO numbers I posted. Frankly, I welcome discussion and debate on them because even putting aside the other risks you mentioned (like Tesla dying) the economics of TCO for an electric vehicle just aren't fully understood at this point.

But in terms of whether Tesla will exist in a few years, I don't know of any way to easily model that without making arbitrary assumptions. It seems to me that a large portion of that risk will be retired in the next few months when Tesla either succeeds or fails in ramping up production and increasing their gross margins. There will be relatively few Model S's on the road by then and many of them have already signed their contracts and are beyond caring about comparisons with other cars.

If Tesla manages to get through the next year or so and hits the benchmarks they say they are going to hit, I personally am much less concerned about their long term prospects. But again, I don't see a way to model that in TCO, and considering that we are just 3 years removed from a near liquidation of GM and Chrysler, I don't feel a burning desire to sell Tesla short with unjustified unfavorable comparisons.

In terms of the #2 beta test risk, again I don't see a way to model that for TCO. Unlike Fisker, Tesla actually has millions of miles of experience with the basic (albeit less advanced) drivetrain of the Roadster. Model S is certainly a riskier proposition than a BMW in terms of recall risk, but I again don't see a way to easily price that risk without making unjustified assumptions. It's possible that Model S can be riddled with problems and it's possible that it is nearly perfect. I tend towards thinking it will fall somewhere in the middle, but that's a judgement call and if most problems are fixed in recalls and under the warranty then I'm not even sure it will substantially impact cost of ownership.

#3 is certainly a risk in the long term. I'm not certain it is in the short or medium term. The vast majority of the market is dominated by ICE vehicles right now. And at the moment at least, Model S isn't much more expensive than equivalent cars even on an MSRP basis. That would tend to put a floor under how much new technology can undercut Model S, because future Model S's wont be much cheaper or cost much less to operate.

They'll weigh slightly less and have a longer range for the entry level cars. But I don't see anyone mass-producing 500 mile cars because there just wont be demand for that. 300 miles is fine if you have access to a decent SuperCharger network for the occasional long trip. Even in 10-15 years a degraded 85kWh pack will probably get you 200+ miles which is still enough to be a primary car (again assuming SuperChargers). Like any car, the number of miles driven will dominate value calculations because the number of charge cycles is likely more important than battery age in terms of degradation.

Bottom line, in 10 years it's likely that the $50,000 Model S will be a 300 mile car, but by then most of the value of a current Model S is eroded anyways and probably isn't much affected. You'll be able to buy an old luxury car for cheap, and unlike an old ICE car it will cost almost nothing to operate. My suspicion is that the lower cost to operate will dominate and tend to leave old Model S's with a higher resale value than an old ICE vehicle.

[CapitalistOppressor]

Timing is everything. There's early adopters and bleeding edge adopters. The Model S is the "bet the company" product. And people buying the Model S in the first 9 months are bleeding edge. People buying now are taking a real risk although I think it's good one. People buying 9 months now should have a much clearer view into the crystal ball.

Viability: In 9 months, we should know if Telsa can ramp production. We'll also know a lot more about the Model S (extended reviews and quality) and should have some insight into whether the demand will sustain itself. Given all that, we should be able to guage whether Tesla will survive in the short-run (a year or two) and have some insight into their odds of surviving in the long run. It looks like Telsa can be profitable if the Model S does even reasonably well. So as long as they manage the financials so that future vehicles don't turn into "bet the company" investments, things should be ok for at least a few years.

Quality: In 9 months, we should know about most if not all the serious bugs that don't show up until you scale up production including stuff that triggers recalls.

Obsolescence: the question is will market forces and technology trends will drive the cost of a Model-S-like car down to the point where the S has near zero resale value? Think computers.

This is where it gets complicated because you've got market forces, technology trends and have to think mid-term (2-3 years) and long-term. Long-term is all about technology trends. Short/mid-term is all about competition (market forces).

From a competitive standpoint, I don't think anyone is going to bring a Model S-like car out in 2-3 years at competitive prices. They can't do it without battery management tech like Telsa has. And if they had that, we'd be hearing about it.

From a technology trends standpoint, the major thing that can change in EV-space is battery and battery management technology (charging, etc.).

What is very very unlikely to change significantly is the chassis design fundamentals, manufacturing with aluminum, electric motor technology, brakes, tires, wheels, etc. In other words, almost everything else about the car.

Elon says that battery density is improving at 7% a year. In 5 years, that means batteries will be 40% more energy-dense than they are today. So 5 years from now, I'm expecting that EVs will have 40% more range at today's cost. In 3 years, that number would be 23%.

That doesn't sound like a game-changer to me. It should cause Model S to lose some of its value faster than normal. On the other hand, the Model S could hold value better than normal because of the fewer # of moving parts that can wear out. Who knows? Take your best guess.

However, the 40KwH model will be most vulnerable to this over the next 3 years because a 23% increase in battery density could increase the range of non-Tesla EV's to be roughly comparable to the Model S. But I don't see anyone matching the range of the 85KwH model in <3 years. Except Tesla. And I expect Tesla will use the density improvements to drive cost down on the GenIII first before they increase range above the current Model S. But again, who knows? That all depends on how successful Tesla is at holding down costs everywhere else in the GenIII.

How well will the Model S hold value over 5 years? Beats me. The car itself will not be obsolete. The battery tech could be outdated enough to drive value down. On the other hand, if Tesla is still around and viable, a Model S owner (or used car buyer) could just wait until batteries get "cheap enough" and buy a new pack. That gives you an N year car with battery density and cost to the new cars at that time. With far fewer mechanical systems that are aging and have to be repaired/replaced. Not as good as new but lots better than buying say, an 8 year old conventional car.

The tech trend that could wipe out Tesla's current technology advantage is if future batteries don't need significant management. Or someone develops another compelling power source for cars. We're probably at least 5 years away from that assuming it ever happens at all. And if Tesla is still around when that happens, hopefully they'll have developed enough other advantages that they can stay in business.

Summary: if you're locking in now, yes, you're a bleeding edge adopter taking a significant risk. That's why you have the option of choosing "Signature Red" . If you can wait a while longer (or have no choice because you have a >9000 P#), you'll still be an early adopter but I think we'll have a pretty good view into what kind of car the Model S truly is and Tesla's viability over the next few years.

Disclaimer: in addition to being in line for a Model S, after I did the above analysis and thought hard about Elon's track record, I went long on Tesla.

I fully expect Tesla to eliminate the 40kWh option in the next 5 years and make the 60kWh option standard. But in terms of longer range, I don't see a huge market for 500 mile cars if you can reliably recharge 300 miles (i.e. reliably have chargers available) in an hour. That's longer than what an ICE vehicle takes to refuel, but with an electric car it's only relevant on 300 mile trips, which are fairly rare in real life. Not many people are going to spend thousands of dollars more to save an hour a few times a year.

As a result, I think that the vast majority of EV's will top out between 200-300 miles until battery costs are an order of magnitude smaller. The real sweet spot is a 200-300 mile EV with an easily accessed charging network that can charge it in under an hour. With MS60 and MS85 Tesla is already in the sweet spot and the missing ingredient is building out their charging network.

Personally, I expect improved batteries in the next few years to be used to reduce the weight of Model S. This will marginally improve range and performance all by itself, while also somewhat reducing cost. But I actually expect Tesla to capture a larger portion of the reductions and increase their margins on the product.

Even at the current $70k it's not terribly more expensive than equivalent cars, so why should it drive the MSRP much lower when it's customers will experience five figure reductions in gas costs alone over 5 years? I think Tesla will position itself as a premium product with clear value advantages over its competitors and just become more profitable as the cost of its batteries fall. At some point viable EV competitors will emerge which will force Tesla to include more features or create downmarket versions, but the basic price points we see now won't fall much in the next 5 years.