Saying "everyone" is a gross exaggeration. I would say only a small percentage of Model S are able to afford to upgrade. Not everyone can afford to, or are willing to, take a major depreciation hit just a year or two after buying their S.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla S - Depreciation and projected resale value after 2 years?
- Thread starter ElectricAutos
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Australia New Zealand
Saying "everyone" is a gross exaggeration. I would say only a small percentage of Model S are able to afford to upgrade. Not everyone can afford to, or are willing to, take a major depreciation hit just a year or two after buying their S.
My Model S85 will be hitting the two year mark in February. We are retired and don't drive that much, so we only have about 15,000 miles on the car, maybe 16,000 or so by February. It has most all of the extras that were available including the rear child seats when we bought the car and we only added aftermarket parking sensors and Opticoat Pro. Our sticker was just under US$94K plus tax and then we got $10K in federal and state rebates, or a net of $84K. I am guessing that we should be able to get more than US$42K used if we sold it in February. If we got US$60K, that would be about 29% off our net price of $84K.
I really think the Model S depreciation will be different than a "normal" car. I think there's very few people in the $110K new car market who would be able to or be interested in paying $80-90K for a 2 year old car so the Merc's and the BMW's crash on price. But the Tesla is different and especially the Tesla in Australia. We're paying $110K plus here for new and mostly I would say $130K average. There's not a lot of them around and won't be for a couple of years and the people buying them probably won't be selling them in a couple of years. There's hardly any second hand electric vehicles on the market here in Oz. I know I looked for ages. There's some demonstrators around for cheaper than new retail price but people just don't seem to sell EVs like "normal" cars.
I agree with an earlier poster about the model 3 being 2018 even though I hope it's not. So my plan is to drive my current EV for a couple of years and then replace my fuel burner with a second hand model S (can't afford new). Seriously though you can stop talking about $100K cars losing 50% in 2 years. This won't apply to a Tesla. If I can find an Aussie Model S in two years time for 50% of the retail I'll buy as many of them as I can!
Seriously if you want to sell to me in 2 years time I'll pay 70% of the RRP without missing a beat. I wouldn't pay it for a fuel $110K car.
I agree with an earlier poster about the model 3 being 2018 even though I hope it's not. So my plan is to drive my current EV for a couple of years and then replace my fuel burner with a second hand model S (can't afford new). Seriously though you can stop talking about $100K cars losing 50% in 2 years. This won't apply to a Tesla. If I can find an Aussie Model S in two years time for 50% of the retail I'll buy as many of them as I can!
Seriously if you want to sell to me in 2 years time I'll pay 70% of the RRP without missing a beat. I wouldn't pay it for a fuel $110K car.
PokerBroker
Member
Part of the problem is that owners insist on measuring depreciation from the gross new price rather than their net new price after rebates
Mark E
Member
Dborn
Confirmed
doctorwho
Active Member
We have a Government that thinks that 'coal is good for humanity':cursing:No rebates here in Australia.
Mark E
Member
They believe what they are paid to believe, and are typical crony capitalists - i.e. They pretend to be in favour of free trade etc but in reality just look after LNP supporters - donors.
Both major parties have been corrupted by donations however I have never seen a government as out of touch, short sighted or patently bad as this one. We need a federal version of ICAC, and a double dissolution. Tony won't do it though as he knows it would be a landslide.
We have very little chance of any support for EVs while these morons are in charge - ironic since they'd be predominantly run on coal in Vic!
More annoying than anything is that all of this mining etc has been sold to foreign companies, who avoid taxes so we get bugger all from the exports.
Dborn
Confirmed
Trouble is, Labor only knows how to tax and spend - like drunken sailors last time and put us deep in the doo doo. God help us if Labor gets in and as for Greens- beyond the pale.... Wish they would do what they are paid to do - hug trees and leave everything else alone. Everyone loves a handout. Labor was fantastic with that, but we really can't afford it or them. As for Shorten - that self serving Pr...ck was a disaster going back to the Tasmanian mine disaster.
The Libs are actually doing a very good international job, and their problems locally is because idiot voters gave them an unworkable senate. The country is deep in debt. EV subsidies and renewables subsidies are a luxury we can't afford.
I mean this Liberal Democrat only got in because idiot voters saw the word "liberal" and not "democrat".
The Libs are actually doing a very good international job, and their problems locally is because idiot voters gave them an unworkable senate. The country is deep in debt. EV subsidies and renewables subsidies are a luxury we can't afford.
I mean this Liberal Democrat only got in because idiot voters saw the word "liberal" and not "democrat".
doctorwho
Active Member
MangroveMike
Member
As much as I'd love to jump into this discussion, maybe we should stay on topic or this will turn into a political opinion free-for-all where we'll all either nod knowingly or get pissed off with each other (especially those who are talking rubbish ).
).
JOH
Member
I'm unsure why folks are trying to position EV's against coal. ICE cars neither use nor support coal. Coal is a major source of electricity generation - especially in Australia. Rather than position EV's against such an important part of our electricity supply chain might it make sense to position EV's as supporting, or at least complimentary to the coal industry? Given Tesla's powerful battery and range, they seem uniquely positioned to require more electricity than other EV's. I have solar at home, but still depend on grid power being there. If the coal interests get behind supporting Tesla - including buying them, then we might see more investment and faster network implementation. I'm guessing most of us would want that!
no politics / party talk here. Just would like to see more Teslas (and EV's in general) on our roads.
Gabz
Member
Tesla is good for coal is certainly true, most EVs are charged overnight, increased demand during low NEM prices will be a win for generators.
unless you have a off gird solar system and don't publicly charge you really can't avoid put coal generated electricity into your Tesla.
obviously drivers can make a difference by investing in green power either by purchasing green power certificates to offset or purchasing their own solar panels. (or other green power generating facility)
unless you have a off gird solar system and don't publicly charge you really can't avoid put coal generated electricity into your Tesla.
obviously drivers can make a difference by investing in green power either by purchasing green power certificates to offset or purchasing their own solar panels. (or other green power generating facility)
doctorwho
Active Member
Nobody knows how each grid supplied electron has been generated, but you can purchase green power from most electricity retailers and this will put an equivalent amount of renewable power back into the grid irrespective of where the power you draw was actually generated.
gizmonty
Member
I had a close look at my power bill the other day and noticed that my 100% renewable hydro power plan had led to the generation of 1.42 tonnes of CO2! I queried this with my power company (Momentum) and got the following response;
Thank you for your email.
Momentum Energy is owned by Hydro Tasmania – the largest clean energy producer in Australia: The hydro-electric power plants of Hydro Tasmania generate electricity, which is distributed via the National Electricity Market (this includes electrical infrastructure such as power poles, power lines and substation are owned and operated by different distribution companies across Australia in different regions).
The electricity supplied to your specific premise directly, comes from and is transported by the National Electricity Market and related infrastructure. The electricity in this “pool” is comprised of energy generated from all power sources, both renewable and non-renewable (i.e. all power generation methods, including power stations, solar farms and Hydro-Tasmania’s hydro-plants). As such, you do not receive exclusively hydro-generated electricity to your property.
The equivalent amount of renewable energy matching the exact electricity consumption for your premise is retrospectively fed into the National Electricity Market by Hydro Tasmania, within the same calendar year that you are billed for your purchase of Smile Power.
The more customers who join Momentum Energy on Smile Power means more clean energy gets fed into our power network, and less coal-generated power is required. Since the actual power you are using cannot be traced to a particular generator (as above, your power comes from a combination of generators, and is all transported by the same distribution infrastructure), there are still emissions produced from your power use – regulation requires we provide you with this information on your invoices. Hence, this is why you can see greenhouse gas emissions on your invoice.
This is similar to “Green Power” – the government accredited product, where customers can elect to pay an additional cost (usually cents per kwh) so that a % of your consumption is “matched” by renewable energy generated by wind and/or solar sources. This works in exactly the same way, with the renewable energy retrospectively replaced into the electricity pool.
I thought that this was a pretty good honest account of the issue. I don't particularly want my car to support the coal industry though - even indirectly.
My immediate plan is to charge my car with solar as much as possible. Days when I am home or when I ride my bike to work are when I will charge the car. I will limit it to 10A so it doesn't start drawing from the grid (I have a 5kW solar system). Obviously if I start using a lot of appliances at home I will inevitably draw some power from the grid. Also, there will be days/weeks when this isn't particularly feasible because of the weather. I don't drive a huge amount, but I'm not sure whether this will provide adequate power to keep the car charged. I'm also not sure how well I will tolerate having the car not fully charged while I wait for the sun. If nothing else, it will be an interesting experiment.
In the medium to longer term I plan to get on-site battery storage so I can really maximise the value of my solar panels. If batteries really do come down to the $100/kWh range then a 20, 30 or even 50 kWh battery would be well within my means. This would let me provide the vast majority of my home and car electricity by solar (I'd have to crunch some numbers to see what capacity I actually need - and I probably can't do that until I have a bit more experience with the car).
My motivations for doing this are more environmental than financial, although I did enjoy getting my most recent electricity bill; $140 for 3 months! I do use a fair bit of gas for heating, hot water and cooking but I plan to switch to electric heat-pump for hot water and for hydronic heating. I don't think I'll be able to bring myself to give up gas for cooking though - just like I can't stop myself taking flights to Sydney for questionable purposes...
This is a long way from the original topic isn't it?
MDK
Aussie Member
Considering we won't know the answer to the original topic for another 2 years, it's not surprising it has wandered a little...
Another thread I just posted in reminded me of this one. Now it's 2 years later and I can say I told you so!
The cheapest Model s to hit carsales so far has been $102,500 and it sold quickly. The previous fast seller was one for $115,000. Others are sitting around $120,000 plus and they sit for a while so I don't know whether they are taking a while to sell or the owners pull them off. But the results are in - there's no way the cars lose 50% of their value.
Now maybe some of the incredibly high spec'd ones I.e. Over $200,000 may have fallen more than a base spec but there's no way a $200K Tesla has dropped to $100K.
If any of even the earliest Tesla's i.e. 2014 models pop up for sale for even 60 or 70% of their purchase price I am your first call right?!
