They are calling it the Cruze AV but it is pretty clearly a Bolt with more (and less!) hardware.
sigh
it’s “Cruise AV” because Cruise is the name of the startup GM bought to work on their autonomous programs. The Cruze is a different car which has nothing to do with this discussion.
Ah, quite right. I appreciate the correction. The homophone threw me off. I regret trying your patience, and apologize for the aggravation I have caused you.
NM
I hope your “sigh” is directed GM and not the people who find their naming policy confusing. Can’t wait for their crew cab Cruze truck line with the Cruise AV system.
Magiver, seriously, don’t blame GM for your not reading the headline of the article, the caption of the picture, or pretty much any of the words in it other than the word “Cruise.”
The autonomous Bolt vehicle developed with technology from the acquired company Cruise is not being marketed to the public. These will be sold as fleets to the likes of Uber and Lyft and/or kept by GM to launch their own ride haling service. Cruze/Cruise? Not a confusion any of those entities will have or care about.
Seriously, I’m not blaming GM for the headline of the article. I’m blaming them for naming a car and a technology the same thing only with different spellings.
I made the same error of course. This may be the most confusing branding since the infamous Mountain Dew/Mount Han, Do! soda debacle that conincided with the release of The Empire Strikes Back.
RoadandTrack review:
Other Highlights:
[ul]
[li]A few quality defects: “gaping and inconsistent” panel gaps, paint issues[/li][li]R&T compared with a Tesla model S P100D - Model 3 appears to be the better car in terms of road noise, forward vision, steering & handling. [/li][li]Center display slightly distracting[/li][/ul]
maybe someone posted this but I read a review that said the model 3 most people want is more like $50k than $35k when you add options. But maybe that is just one guys 2 cents.
My son works for the solar part of Tesla so he could get one early on but he has no interest.
they’re only building high-option Model 3s right now.
The only version of the Model 3 available at the moment includes the long range ($9000) and premium ($5000) options, so the current base prices is $49,000 instead of $35,000. The long range option is pretty clear, as it’s a bigger battery for a 310 mile range, instead of 220. I’m less sure about the premium option, because I’ve seen multiple contradictory lists of what it includes. It most likely adds the glass roof, premium sound system, fake leather seats, and rear heated seats. Depending on the list, it might also add some of the following: rear USB charging ports, front USB charging ports, heated front seats, and other things I’m not remembering.
from what I’ve seen on other cars these add on packages are way overpriced but people must be willing to pay that cost. I guess I have not followed the car closely so the $49k number is a surprise to me. I guess 220 vs. 310 miles depends on how many out of town trips you take since 220 is plenty for around town.
Saw a Model 3 for the first time today. It was in downtown Boulder, so I’m going to assume it was Kimbal Musk’s. It was blue and dirty. It took in other cars’ exhaust and emitted unicorn fart rainbows.
Well, like I said earlier in this thread, you can buy a bottom line Ford Fusion for $17k or a top of the line for more than twice that. No part of this is unique to Tesla.
I just checked craigslist. I can get a 2001 Taurus for $1200. What’s your point?
The point was the “complaint” that a Tesla 3 with more options costs more than the base advertised price.
no, the “complaint” is that they spent so much time talking up their “$35,000 EV” but aren’t actually making any at that price point yet.
To be clear, the $49k comes from:
$35k base cost
+$9k long-range battery
+$5k premium package
Whether the premium pack is worth it depends on how you value the features–the “leather” seats and the glass roof in particular. It doesn’t seem like a bad price to me, but then, I really like the glass roof. Sunroofs are generally at least a couple grand and the glass roof is a significant upgrade from that.
The battery is definitely “overpriced” in the sense that Tesla makes a huge profit margin on it. The pack size difference is roughly 25 kWh (55 vs. 80). That’s $360/kWh. But Tesla is probably paying around $150/kWh for the cells, and pack assembly costs shouldn’t be all that different between the two. It’s almost certainly >50% profit margin for them.
The big battery has benefits aside from range. The car is faster for one. It also charges faster (in miles charged/hour). Some people are seeing some really impressive charge rates. That’s 125 miles in 15 min, 215 miles in 30 min, 265 miles in 45 min, and 267 in an hour. For short bursts, that’s a charge rate of over 500 mph! And the 215 mi in 30 min is significantly better than the 170 mi that was estimated earlier. This is faster than any other (production) EV, Tesla or no.
The small battery won’t hit these charge rates–it’ll likely take around 50% longer (scales with battery capacity). Still much better than any non-Tesla EV, though.
Something is not right here. The January estimates are in and it’s 1875 cars.