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).

How is the title incorrect?

"Toyota Camry cheaper to fuel than a Tesla Model 3", only under the unrealistic assumptions I mentioned above.

Because it assumes you only charge at a Supercharger.

Residential electricity is significantly cheaper, and even cheaper if you have solar.

(I pay about 4-5 cents per kwh, not 28 cents as the article assumes.)

My residential power costs just about that $0.28/kWh, though, so maybe the article is somewhat realistic

And that's not even considering the opportunity costs of foregoing investment returns on the $11.8k.