The headline is based off of a big assumption: that the Tesla cannot be charged off of home power, but instead has to always be charged at a supercharger at about double the average residential electricity rate.
> 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.)
> In that scenario, the cost of charging your Tesla Model 3 is therefore zero. In the Toyota Camry LE hybrid it’s $0.05 per mile. How long would it take you to make up for the Toyota’s $11,805 up-front price advantage?
> 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.
The headline was the controversial bit. The bit at the end is the "water is wet" news that a more expensive to purchase car is in fact more expensive to purchase. If you've ever added up your fuel costs for a year, this conclusion is self-evident.
You don't need a Seeking Alpha article for that. You only need Tesla's own silly "with gas savings included" price estimator to understand it will take awhile to pay back vs a cheaper car.
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.
I did read the whole article. The headline is the clickbaity and misleading part. The end of the article is... well, true? The Model 3 is a somewhat-higher-end car. Note that I mentioned the price complaint in my original comment, which is at the end of the article.
> The headline is the clickbaity and misleading part.
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.
The headline is "cheaper to fuel", and under the realistic assumption of paying home utility rates it's not. It doesn't pay back fast enough to make up for the price difference, but that's a very different claim.
> The headline is "cheaper to fuel", and under the realistic assumption of paying home utility rates it's not.
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.
There is no data presented to back the claim that supercharger-only charging is the norm, and I have cited a source to indicate that most consumers are capable of parking next to an electrical hookup. See link in my original comment.
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).
And some people work at places with electric charging ports, so even if you don't have a garage or carport, you may still be able to charge without going to a Tesla charging station.
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 don't trust these types of analyses on primarily trading/stock based financial sites. Tesla has had so many short positions on it that it is a little ridiculous and it just makes me mistrust the whole financial community a bit regarding Tesla. The headline is extremely click-baity.
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).
FTA, the average American can expect to save a mere $2400 per decade by driving the Camry Hybrid.
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?
Tesla recommends against using superchargers as your only charging source (or at least they used to). I bought my Model 3 without having a place to charge at home and I don't have a problem finding free charging alternatives. I use a supercharger maybe once a month excluding trips.
Considering how many electrek.co articles are shared on here about Tesla (and how biased those are), is this really a hill people want to die on?
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.
I bought my 2003 mazda for 2300. Lets see how many years will it take for a Model 3's fuel savings to make up that...oh never. It will never happen. Nobody on this website needs to be told this, and this article is just another battleground in a completely pointless debate between tesla lovers and haters. It is stupid and it demeans hacker news. So do electrek.co articles, although their average quality does appear to be significantly higher than this site.
The article is comparing two new cars and their relative fuels and costs over a lifetime.
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.
Yeah, I can buy a couple year-old Hellcat (or Porsche, if you're the Euroweenie type) for less, it will hold its value far better than the Tesla, and it naturally increases testosterone, too... (See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=962046 ) I'm pretty sure no Tesla is cheaper to own over the long haul than a Ferrari - I owned one for 25 years, and it's actually one of the cheapest-to-own cars I've ever had (worth more when sold than when bought!), despite the fact that it got 12 MPG no matter how you drove it.
"...difficult to dispute numbers..."
This article compares car and fuel cost, but leaves out periodic maintenance costs. How many oil changes or timing belt does a Tesla have to do in a lifetime? How many did he include in the analysis?
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.
I think you are not being intellectually honest here.
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.
Sure. Math is pretty simple: You dont buy Tesla because its cheaper. You buy it because its a Tesla, accelerates 2x faster, and doesnt stop acceleration this fast until you reach speed limit.
Because you disagree with their politics, you want to silence them. Typical PC (Politically Correct or Progressive Communist, your choice) imposition of "cancel culture". I saw nothing seriously wrong with their analysis - so your position is clearly that they can't be tolerated just because they dared to speak a non-PC opinion on electric cars...
"Let’s further assume that I live like most people do in the world today, in an apartment, and I park on the street."
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.
Why would the author include that when it's not in their best interests? In the disclosures they clearly state they are financially biased towards TSLA's failure. It's little more than a hit piece intended to influence their stock price downwards so the author will make money.
> For fuel prices, I'm using today’s nationwide average gasoline price of $2.59 per gallon and $0.28 per kWh that Tesla charges at its Supercharger stations.
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
> In that scenario, the cost of charging your Tesla Model 3 is therefore zero. In the Toyota Camry LE hybrid it’s $0.05 per mile. How long would it take you to make up for the Toyota’s $11,805 up-front price advantage?
> 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.
AFAICT, the 0.05/mile for the Camry doesn't include any costs other than the fuel. Teslas are insanely low maintenance, and while Toyotas tend to be low maintenance as well, there WILL be fluid changes and others (belts, plugs, etc) that the Tesla won't. Source: I have a Tesla and 2 Toyotas. :-)
Yes. I'm not saying the articles conclusion (that fuel costs are why electric vehicle market share is growing slowly) is accurate. Just that an argument only about the cost of electricity isn't really sufficient to dispel the premise.
Total cost of ownership is a lot more than purchase price and fuel cost. You and I agree on that.
Sort of, but if they're going to drag in purchase price differential, they need to add in other total cost of ownership figures, like repairs, as well as list the feature delta. Most of that cost difference is in the features included in the car other than the EV portion, so it's disingenuous to use the full value in comparing fuel costs.
I doubt people are buying a Tesla because they think it's cheaper long term, but fuel cost is part of that decision.
Comparing the price of the cars and then talking about payback periods for "fueling" only makes sense if the _only_ difference between the cars is the source of power. That's obviously not the case, so the comparison is meaningless.
It's meaningless depending on what you're trying to predict.
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.
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.)
He specifically addresses that point when he says most people live in apartments without dedicated superchargers. I'm not sure how accurate that statement is but it makes sense to me. I haven't seen very many apartment buildings with electric chargers in my area, if any.
This is a ridiculous assumption. In the US, 63% of units (including rental units) include a garage or carport, and the majority of Americans live in a detached unit. That's an environmental problem of its own, but reduces the friction associated with this kind of last-meter infrastructure.
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.
A carport by definition doesn't have a door - it's a zero- to three-wall structure, usually adjacent to a house, that protects a car from rain and snow, but that's it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carport
Technically he says a large #, not most. But I think its still a problem with the article, as what is a "large #"? And even within that subset, there are interesting variations. Some of the local apartments have "free" charging as part of the lease with quite a few charging locations available. If I were planning an electric car purchase and needed an apartment, it'd be pretty easy for me to self-select one of those, even though they are the minority right now.
Why are we talking about "most people" instead of "most car owners" (since the car ownership rate for urban apartment dwellers is much lower than that of suburban home owners). Seems like the author is just trying to justify a tenuous assumption.
My house gets on- and off-peak usage rates, so if I charge at night I get a better rate. My last bill had an on-peak rate of $.0886, but the off-peak rate was $.0327. So it's even better if I set the timer and only charge after a certain time.
The Tesla lets you set a preferred charging time, so you can just plug in and it will charge off peak in the normal case. You can then override that if you need to charge now.
The number of cars that beat the Camry on cool-points, but sell a lot less each year is a very long list. At least the Model 3 sales are growing and could very well overtake the Camry at some point.
(Camry sold about twice the Model 3 in the US last year.)
I'm skeptical of the resale estimate 5 years into the future. What percentage of Teslas are older than 5 years? Like 1%? What's the oldest model 3? Like 3 years?
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.
It just costs less to fuel in a narrow scenario (always charging on the road). For traveling salesmen, this might matter somewhat, although there aren’t that many of those left. The TCO of the Tesla is still lower. I’m not even a Tesla fanboy, but on a typical car, maintenance is ~$500 per year over the life of the car.
Indeed, that’s a good point. The sporadic repairs that folks have reported (infotainment motherboard replacement for failing flash memory) have been rather costly. It’s hard to tell how frequent those are, Tesla isn’t releasing numbers and there are no third-party facilities that service Teslas who may have such numbers. It is quite hard to tell.
I disagree on any comparison where the cost difference between the vehicles is one of the big arguments.
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.
I find this analysis hard to take seriously. The majority of Tesla owners aren't average Americans, most have homes.
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.
If you don't take into account the cost of burning gas for the future generations, sure. Also, in Europe we're closer to $6 a gallon than $2.59 a gallon
You can only make sense of this article if you have never sat in a Tesla Model 3 and a Toyota Camry. This is worse than comparing oranges to apples!
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.
Interesting point of view. I assume you never sat in the recent model of Camry. I have opportunity to sat in two Tesla S, they are much more like Korean cars 10+ years ago. Beside fancy screens, cheap and shoddy inside, unacceptable for the price. Something that can't be compared to european or japanese mid-size cars. Or even recent korean models. I never sat in Model 3, and I'm comparing to european version of Camry, maybe US version made locally is "cheaper" inside, as we here in Europe pay much more attention to this.
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.
I have to admit, I’m quite impressed by the performance of the Camry Hybrid here!
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.
He's not comparing apples to apples. $0.28 per kWh is the most expensive way possible to recharge a Tesla, while $2.59 per gallon is NOT the most expensive way possible to refuel a Camry.
The inconvenience factor of running out of fuel is a pretty big difference too, a quick ride to the gas station and back for a gallon of gas versus a tow and recharge time.
the article seems to take a stab at cost of ownership which is hardly why people buy a Tesla. If we are being pragmatic the lifespan of the battery itself is to be considered as well. after 8-10 years some are reporting range losses close to 100 miles.
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.
It is not a serious article about cost of ownership. It cherry picks and conveniently creates scenarios that make the case that the author wants to prove. For cost of ownership the author had to include the cost of a lot of oil changes, timing belt changes, spark plugs changes and several other costly mechanical maintenance that you have to do to ICE cars that you don't do to electric cars. That, of course, is not included.
Or just customize the number here to compare different models, even using its supercharger usage (which is probably not the norm) and cheap gas TM3 still come cheaper :
Teslas are a status symbol. If they were cheaper than a Camry, no one would buy a Camry, and the people who do buy Teslas would look for something else to signal their wealth.
Of course the Tesla costs more? Why is the $10k difference even a matter, it should just be about the fuel. That part seems to indict this article is biased.
Why are you sure of that? How much do batteries cost to replace? What is the mark up on a Tesla shop for parts and labor and how does that compare to a Toyota dealer?
They have 4 wheel disc iirc. The only positive is that with regen, they use them less, but still more than I do engine braking with a manual transmission.
Tesla regen is far more powerful and useful than engine braking no matter how much downshifting one does. With the new "Hold" mode it is possible to drive a Model 3 for days without ever touching the brake pedal.
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.
Having previously driven a Prius and now a Fiat 500e, I definitely see that brakes undergo much, much less wear when regenerative braking is in play. Still, brakes requiring maintenance less often doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the list that doesn't require maintenance ever.
Since you don't like my reference to the "one of these things just doesn't belong" song, consider this: My Toyota Prius put as much wear on the brakes as a Tesla or my Fiat 500e, despite being a car with an ICE. There are many, many, many hybrids on the road that similarly us regenerative braking despite burning gasoline. So in every sense, the reference to brakes does not belong in that list.
That's fair. On the other hand, it now means electric cars are being compared against hybrids, not pure IC engine cars. Hybrids may be more expensive than the latter, as they have more components.
> 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...