Will Tesla accept the 2024 EV tax credit off the purchase price?

[Startreknerd]

there is no quad

And they’ll be shipping mostly duals early on

(though there may be an unusually high % of tri’s in the first couple of delivery batches, in the months following that tri’s will be relatively rare)

I forgot to ask, why you guess Duals will be before Tri?

And since I've never seen any evidence, that is your guess.

Sponsored

 

[PilotPete]

And they probably won't have a performance of a Cybertruck out first either.

Anyone's guesses are certainly valid.

But the CT is delayed for a reason. It's likely because Musk can't let Rivian and GM have quads running around without Tesla. Then the 4 wheel steering came up, so it's delayed again. The CT will be the best and the best will be out first. That's the Quad with the highest range.

Imagine this if you will. The CT Tri-Performance (which EM has said he has driven) smokes everyone else’s quad. Where is the shame there? He built a freaking SEMI that isn’t a quad. The S Plaid ain’t a quad, yet it smokes them all.

And if you read back on this forum, I think you might find that some of the people telling you there is no quad have some insider intel (not me!) We have seen pictures of confirmed duals (on the vin sticker) and at least one reported tri. Since the single EM tweet about a possible quad, there has been zero intel on a quad. But we have a ton on the others. And as they ramp up CyberCell production, a dual as the majority of the first few months of production and just a few tri CTs allows maximization of battery inventory/production.

I hope you don’t have money in Vegas on a quad…

 

[cvalue13]

Optics wise, if the tri motor falls significantly short of the 500mi target, they'd be better off not selling any and just saying it will be "coming soon".

remember Musk called his tri the ‘performance’ model?

he didn’t call it the ‘long range’ model

same and framing as the Model S plaid

Though if that were the case there would be no reason to limit tri production? Given the fact it would have the same pack size as a dual.

was my initial impression as well

but seems it’s a matter of volume, price-point, and exclusivity

Similarly, the initial impression would mean there’s also no reason to not make as many Model S Plaid as regular line Model S

One might be tempted to respond to the above with eg ‘but the waiting list is so long, they could sell as many tri’s as they can make’

but if you think back to the combination of both of your comments above: if the dual and tri have relatively similar range (even perhaps the tri is a little less, like the Model S Plaid), then how many people are going to opt for the more expensive ‘performance’ model?

so now you’re squarely in the zone of the above-mentioned prioritizing of volume, price point, and exclusivity (eg the certain type of buyer who will pay a premium to have the ‘performance’ model, with essentially similar range - again, like the Model S Plaid buyer)

 

[Startreknerd]

Imagine this if you will. The CT Tri-Performance (which EM has said he has driven) smokes everyone else’s quad. Where is the shame there? He built a freaking SEMI that isn’t a quad. The S Plaid ain’t a quad, yet it smokes them all.

And if you read back on this forum, I think you might find that some of the people telling you there is no quad have some insider intel (not me!) We have seen pictures of confirmed duals (on the vin sticker) and at least one reported tri. Since the single EM tweet about a possible quad, there has been zero intel on a quad. But we have a ton on the others. And as they ramp up CyberCell production, a dual as the majority of the first few months of production and just a few tri CTs allows maximization of battery inventory/production.

I hope you don’t have money in Vegas on a quad…

Ok forget the Quad for a moment.

Imagine the Tri (supposed to be $69k) is now $15k more @ $84,990 or somewhere there about. That doesn't qualify for the credit, which is all I was saying, if the Quad exists it certainly would cost more than the Tri and won't qualify either, whatever, case closed.

Now, I'm hopeful Tesla keeps the price less than $10999 more than the original price in 2019 of $69k. Because then it would be $79,999, and everyone's happy. Could they squeeze it in? Who knows.

So remove the quad from existence and my original statement is still feasible.

 

[PilotPete]

Devin,

Please don’t get me wrong. I WANT there to be a quad, with the CF plaid motors and 500 miles of range, and SbW, and dual .50 cals in the frunk, and a 0-60 time below 2 seconds, and a 200+ mph top speed, and a skid pad of over 1.0, and a price below $80k, and delivery this year, and…

But at some point I have to accept I ain’t getting most or maybe any of it.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

what’s going to real sour your grapes is if the tri doesn’t have more range and is instead a ‘performance’ model like the Model S Plaid (which has a touch *less* range)

You are absolutely correct, but you keep talking about what I want as though anyone but me cares, when what I have been talking about is what the ‘majority’ have already said that they want. Range. Elon can ignore that but it won’t go well for Tesla any more than it did for Ford, GM, or others that claim that range isn’t important.

 

[PilotPete]

Ok forget the Quad for a moment.

Imagine the Tri (supposed to be $69k) is now $15k more @ $84,990 or somewhere there about. That doesn't qualify for the credit, which is all I was saying, if the Quad exists it certainly would cost more than the Tri and won't qualify either, whatever, case closed.

Now, I'm hopeful Tesla keeps the price less than $10999 more than the original price in 2019 of $69k. Because then it would be $79,999, and everyone's happy. Could they squeeze it in? Who knows.

So remove the quad from existence and my original statement is still feasible.

I think you’ll find the pricing on the release to be “acceptable”. I think everyone will be happy. And I think the top trim “Performance” or whatever they call it will eat everyone else for lunch. But I have very little direct intel on this.

I used to work for a company that the boss was as well known as EM. He used to say stuff that he didn’t actually believe, but he knew it would move a company or the market where he wanted them to go. And so he said stuff. I can see EM doing the same things at times. It’s just business.

 

[Startreknerd]

Devin,

Please don’t get me wrong. I WANT there to be a quad, with the CF plaid motors and 500 miles of range, and SbW, and dual .50 cals in the frunk, and a 0-60 time below 2 seconds, and a 200+ mph top speed, and a skid pad of over 1.0, and a price below $80k, and delivery this year, and…

But at some point I have to accept I ain’t getting most or maybe any of it.

Well, I don't care for any of that. I reserved a Dual.

I'm just confused why everyone @ me about the quad when my original statement was that the Tri and up (including the Quad which apparently is a trigger for everyone on this forum) will likely be $80k+ and not credit worthy. That was my original statement. Which it's going to be hard to tell me the Tri won't be less than $10,999 more than the original.

It would also be hard to say the Dual won't be something like $7-10k more than the original price. I'm expecting about $15k worst case at $65k, which would put it still cheaper than the R1T Dual 270 mile. Beating Rivian by 30 miles more and $8k less.

 

[PilotPete]

Well, I don't care for any of that. I reserved a Dual.

I'm just confused why everyone @ me about the quad when my original statement was that the Tri and up (including the Quad which apparently is a trigger for everyone on this forum) will likely be $80k+ and not credit worthy. That was my original statement. Which it's going to be hard to tell me the Tri won't be less than $10,999 more than the original.

We are getting down to the wire. There is a lot of misinformation out there. Some people here try to tamp down the misinformation so that it doesn’t spread. Especially when we have people with insider information. Don’t take it personally,

 

[Startreknerd]

We are getting down to the wire. There is a lot of misinformation out there. Some people here try to tamp down the misinformation so that it doesn’t spread. Especially when we have people with insider information. Don’t take it personally,

So, again I don't see the dual receding the try and I don't see them debuting both at the same time. They are a business and offering the Tri first before the Dual would ensure maximum profit.

And that, the Tri for $79,999 or less would be extremely hard to see.

 

[Crissa]

The Quad will be first, there's no reason why it won't.

Stating one fact in a list of non-facts doesn't increase the reliability of the other non-facts.

That's my entire point.

??‍

-Crissa

PS, you don't need to reply to each reply. No offense taken if you don't ^-^

 

[Startreknerd]

Stating one fact in a list of non-facts doesn't increase the reliability of the other non-facts.

-Crissa

I don't care anymore. Not like I reserved a quad or anything.

 

[CYBR117]

I wish Elon would do us all a solid and give a fully spec’ed CyberTruck for $1 under the tax credit requirement. Just do a cheeky move for a “launch edition”

 

[cvalue13]

You are absolutely correct, but you keep talking about what I want as though anyone but me cares, when what I have been talking about is what the ‘majority’ have already said that they want. Range. Elon can ignore that but it won’t go well for Tesla any more than it did for Ford, GM, or others that claim that range isn’t important.

No, sorry - on the contrary, I see our exchanges entirely different.

Less so that I’m talking about what you want as though you’re the only one, and more so that you keep talking like what you (and others) might want today is what Tesla should base their decision-making on.

Seems to me, respectfully, like you’re displacing onto me the frustrations you have with Tesla’s decision making.

Far as I’m concerned, you may be right that their decision making gets blow-back. I’m just also assuming that the blow-back you’re describing is pretty obvious to Tesla (it is to even us), Tesla has weighed it in their calculus, and that they have when tallied either (A) a different view of the all-in net benefits, or (B) have been painted into this corner somehow, and they’re gritting their teeth alongside you.

Could also be a mix of (A) and (B), since these things tend to be multi-faceted.

Im hoping it’s all (A), and that Tesla is right and that you’ve just not appreciated their (current) aspirations (as opposed to 2019).

PS: Tesla has sort of been the leader of the ‘range isnt important’ after a point bandwagon - with the only difference to Ford/GM being that Tesla’s stated solution - charging infrastructure - is something Tesla is actually executing on.

I’m not saying that’s the only or main reason Tesla may have made some of its decisions - hell, battery constraints may be the main reason for all I know - but either way Tesla has since well before even the 2019 changed it’s tone RE how it thinks about range (possibly lowering the importance they see in the battery constraint).

 

[Gurule92]

Yes it will qualify (price wise). Yes Tesla is a dealer by tax standards. Yes Tesla will try their darndiddlyarndest to get it off at point of sale.

Sponsored