Model 3 Lease Available (opens in new tab)

If anyone actually bought the base model this is kind of an upgrade for them TBH. Plus now they have the option to software upgrade their car, which they wouldn't really get - especially with the manually adjusting seats.

Don't forget that when the mythical $35k Model 3 was announced, Tesla purchasers could get the full federal tax credit. That would have put the price below $30k, perhaps even after destination fees.

But since they opted to only sell the higher-tier Model 3s first, the tax credits only ever went to buyers paying much more than $35k.

> This is just the 50 kWh Model S

Musk was upfront about this

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/845279423238590464?lang=...

It's not on the website anymore. Do you have a source?

> so did buyers in the ratio of 6:1

Right, because the choice was between a delivery of the more expensive one within a matter of weeks or paying a large deposit for the cheaper one with an "expected" delivery in months (which all evidence pointed to being many months rather than several months).

That's because they don't start shipping until this weekend.

> If you want electric without autopilot - there are better options than tesla

Please do tell me these better options as I had been considering a Model X but do not want to be forced to buy autopilot. I just looked into Audi eTron after reading this update and it only has 200 miles of range. Everything else about Tesla is the best - range, UI updates, supercharger. What other electric car is a “better option?”

> I don't understand why would you decide to purchase tesla over other electric cars if it was not for autopilot.

Supercharger network? Safety? Performance? Cargo Space?

Because they look better and carry a better brand image. If I were to buy one I will buy one without auto-pilot.

I have a friend who bought a Model X without autopilot, I was stunned because it is probably the single most important feature of my Model S. In fact I think that features of Teslas like traffic aware cruise control, autosteer, radar controlled emergency braking, could be ported to pretty much any modern drive by wire automatic and would be very beneficial. But Mercedes who have had much of the necessary hardware for decades make it a premium option on cars that are already very expensive so it hasn't happened and VW has emergency braking on some models but I think it is still optional.

I want one for its' safety ratings. I would buy it without autopilot.

> (Sandy Munro for instance seems pretty optimistic that a competent manufacturer could profitably make the $35k M3)

Its pretty clear what Sandy Munro is doing however. He's trying to sell his consulting services to Tesla. His whole shtick is pointing out issues with their design and trying to demonstrate that he knows how to save them lots of money.

It doesn't seem like Elon is biting however. Munro's video was about unnecessary welds, and how various shapes could have been made more cheaply. Only IF Tesla implements those changes (and probably the other changes Munro was thinking about) could they save money.

Not that I don't trust the guy, but you gotta keep in mind what pays Munro's bills. He's selling his expertise.

The "standard" internet comment is that Tesla will be bankrupt in 2 weeks. :)

* it's a price increase. "Model 3 Standard Plus used to cost $37,500, plus $3,000 for the Autopilot option. It now costs $39,500, with Autopilot included."*

$37,500 + $3,000 = $40,500. Isn't that a price decrease if the price is now $39,500?

Bait and switch secured.

Sometimes I wonder if the much-ballyhooed short-sellers actually work in the Tesla marketing department :-)

I know that companies get a lot of flak for saying hedged things. But Tesla could really benefit from some hedging. This pronouncement in absolute terms that there will be no lease-end buyout is ridiculous. It depends entirely on future factors unknown today (to us or Tesla), whether they will give customers the option of buying out when the lease and actually arrives, and they know it.

So why not just say so? How about: “Tesla leases do not guarantee the right to buy-out at lease end, because we hope to use some of the after-lease cars for a future ride hailing network.”

Sure, it's a few more words to parse. But it would be one less thing for people to complain about. And it would be true and forthright. It is very good to be seen as true and forthright when asking customers to spend tens of thousands of dollars on something.

It's not like they only have cameras, they also have radar and ultrasonic sensors. Here is a good article on this topic: https://cleantechnica.com/2016/07/29/tesla-google-disagree-l...

> There is no way any of these model 3s end up in an autonomous ride share. Especially with only cameras and no LIDAR. I

They could retrofit hardware at the end of the lease when they reclaim the vehicles.

OTOH, I'm skeptical about Tesla having an autonomous ride sharing network to use them in when they come off lease.

I don’t understand why they refuse to at least add forward-facing LIDAR. Lane paint sabotage, low-contrast lighting situations and construction are just a few risks that make me nervous to trust autopilot at highway speeds. I say this as someone that is bullish on autonomous driving and in awe of Tesla in general.

There's a fine line between "Loss Leader" and "Bait and Switch". Its pretty clear that Tesla sales-reps are going to be VERY strongly trying to upsell their customers away from the $35k model.

I dunno where the line will exactly be drawn for "Bait and Switch", but Tesla is getting closer and closer to that line.

That's what they are saying, but we all know the option will disappear quietly in a few weeks, just like all the low cost Model S options.

This article does a great job of explaining.

https://www.edmunds.com/car-leasing/should-you-make-a-down-p...

In summary, when leasing, put as little down as possible.

When buying(loan) it depends.

Obviously every person has a different financial situation, ( which also determines at which interest rate you are allowed to borrow money), but in general or ceteris paribus , that advice holds in general.

Lots of leases have down payments.

What people are willing to pay for cars amazes me. Esp to rent a car they don't own. $4199 is $1399 more than I paid for (at police surplus) the 2011 car I've had for a few years. It costs me significantly less than $500/mo to operate and repair. The 2007 before, cost less and lasted 5 years before I wrecked it. I have the money, I earn more than $200k/yr, I just the value/cost for new cars is just not worth it.

The only reason “rental” and “lease” aren't the synonyms they usually are in auto land is because “rental” is used when the period is very short term, and “lease” is used for a period, generally, of a few years.

Leasing and renting are synonyms; I've always seen them used interchangeably.

504/mo for 36mo plus 3k down is really about 590/mo.

"Before savings"

No, it wasn't. Thanks for mentioning; I updated my comment.

Everything you said could be used to describe longs as well, with incentives just aligned in the opposite direction.

Lease partners won't give you 100% of the value of the vehicle up front, especially not with vehicles that have uncertain depreciation because the EV space is so new.

So depending on the margin, Tesla could absolutely be in a position where building an SR+ Model 3 and leasing it is cash flow negative (over the first 180 days, so once suppliers are paid).

But it's unlikely to be worse than leaving the factory idle, so if that's the lever they need to pull for the demand to be there, it's a no brainer. And they can always raise more money at their current lofty valuation, so cashflow negative isn't necessarily the end of the world.

It seems like it’s more about making the long-term forecast look better and getting rid of cash on hand which would otherwise be owed to creditors.

Not saying I buy the argument, but that’s how I understand it.