Repair-It

There is a hierarchy to this. And yes there are a lot of variables. I don't like oversimplification.

Tier 1. Comparing new car MSRPs to each other, for the same model year
Tier 1a. Comparing new car MSRPs to each other, for different model years
Tier 2. Comparing new car transaction prices informed by additional information like heavy discounts (happens) or ADM (additional dealer markup - also happens). Turns out one MSRP is not necessarily equal to another. If you have this information it should be used.
Tier 3. Comparing new car MSRP to used car asking prices.
Tier 3a. Comparing new car transition prices (same as above) to used car asking prices (i.e. some dealers were selling a Chevy SS for under $40k or something, at various times). This is key because you may have a $32k used car compared to a $47k new car but that new car is really $38k with discounts which is a significant change to the equation.

Obviously there are other ways to compare prices and you are free to compare them however you like, but I guess I'd argue that sticking up in the Tier 1 region is only useful if those are the only data points you have, mostly because it is the least representative of real life.

Going back to new vs used, I believe it is valid at least within reason and if we are talking about performance. Why? Because it actually does have a limit which is defined by the market (the previous market). Let's take one of my more incessant ones, the C5 Z06. I have long claimed it is on par (in trap speed and therefore power to weight) with a gen 6 Camaro SS.
Starting with the Camaro SS for $45k or $40k or even a discounted new 1SS for $35k or less. Pick a number.
Ok so now we both kind of agree that a couple year old gen 6 SS is available for less than $30k but definitely for $30k. Decent buy, but...
Then I butt in annoyingly and insist "but the C5 Z06 will basically run with that for $20k, $15k, or even less for higher mileage examples."
You would then be tempted to say, that's stupid, I can find an even better deal than the C5 Z06 if you are going to look at used cars.
Ah, but can you? There is a peak. What is older and/or cheaper than a C5 Z06 that offers the same performance? It doesn't exist. That's because I try to aim my sights at vehicles on the Pareto front of used car values, and I do that on purpose, and yes I do tend to focus on performance and features per dollar as my main criteria.

You kind of have to walk through the whole thing to get the big picture, not rigidly comparing the MSRP of two new vehicles and trying to draw some kind of conclusion. Actually, that is kind of the whole point. What kind of conclusion would you possibly draw by comparing the $70k Dual Motor Performance to a $70k ATS-V? I mean I already did the comparison earlier. If I was restricted to new vehicles, you could trade off some things between the two cars and that's fine. But that is a false dichotomy. Those are not your only two choices. Real life is not always two variables and two equations. GM offered the ATS-V in 2016. It is the burden of the seller to provide value. If in 2020 the Model 3 Ludicrous comes out and it now matches CTS-V performance (let's say the V3 is still offered in 2020), and that Ludicrous model is $90k and the V3 is like $100k or something, there is just one problem. It is 2020 and the V3 has been out since 2016. It would be an old model, and quite possibly available at a bigger MSRP discount than it would have been earlier in the generation. And the used market for the V3 would probably be down to $45k or something. Used Hellcats would be fairly available. Used Gen 6 ZL1s. A bunch of stuff.

I dunno, I know I like to buy cars with a decent amount of mileage that makes some people uncomfortable. Fine. But if there is a lightly used example of some cars with 35-55k, some certified, and they offer a similar experience for less (often significantly less), then the new car is just not a good value.

Cars like the Charger Scat Pack do a pretty good job here because even with the usual suspect of cars I'd throw at that, it comes out looking pretty good. With new around $42k before options (but I hear new can be had under $40k), and used in the $30k range, I would be hard pressed to do a lot better than that for the performance it offers at that price. Throw a V2 at it. OK, maybe $25k vs $30k when the mileage is in the same ballpark. V2 offers much better handling at the expensive of a smaller interior. That's a more even trade. I'd prefer the SS for $30k but again in trading a little speed for handling. Even trade again. Why? Because these cars are on the Pareto front. So other than an 09 V2 or a 2014 Chevy SS, there isn't much that is going to make a better case for sedan value over a Charger Scat Pack, to use that as an example. There is no similar used ATS-V or used CTS-V vs new Dual Motor Performance comparison where you have $10k, $20k or more between the two cars, and other large gaps. I am calling it how I see it.

There are 2 issues I see with comparing new to used.
1. You are holding age as a negligible variable, which I disagree with
2. You can pick any new car, period, and find a better used car deal, so what is the point of this?

The whole question in the beginning was: Have electric cars gotten to be as good as gas car counterparts? To me, the level playing field is actual sales price new, same model years. Not: Are new electric cars as good as an older cheaper discount supercars?

The new car has to exceed the performance available of older cars if we are to declare a performance victory. Put yourself in 1994. I bet a lot of people were pissed that a brand new SN95 Mustang with 215 hp was no faster than an 88 GT with 225 hp that could be had for a significant discount. That was a fail. To make matters worse, they got a BRAND NEW engine for 96 (which had been in production since 1992!!), the 4.6L and it had....215 hp. They finally got it back up to 225 hp in 98, exactly the same as 10 years prior. Meanwhile GM offered the new 275 hp LT1 in their F-body in 93 (and 285 hp for 96 and the 305 hp LS1 for 98) and that was a clear advantage over the 3rd Gen so paying extra for a new one gave you better performance than basically any other used car (aside from maybe an older C4, no idea what used car prices were then). This is why I do the comparison. It isn't always a win for the used car.

I looked up the 93 Camaro Z28. 14.0 @ 100. What used car was available in 1993 that was as cheap or cheaper than a new 93 Camaro Z28 ($18k to $21k or so) that ran a 14.0 @ 100? It was a step change and played a large part in ushering in mainstream performance after basically a 20 year absence. It also provided a legitimate reason to buy a new one: performance value, new or used. I do not see the same argument for the Dual Motor Performance or the RWD Long Range model. And to be honest, that kind of thing is actually pretty rare.

And just in case people don't remember how fast 14.0 @ 100 was in 1993, the 1987 Buick Grand National ran 14.7 sec @ 95.1 mph, though it varied a bit, but never 14.0 @ 100. Which is one more reason I don't like to compare 0-60s. It is very misleading.

C&D also clocked 13.6 @ 104 for a 92 Corvette which is approaching LS1 F-body performance, but in 1992. This was at least very competitive with those twin turbo machines coming out of Japan, and again, being available in 1992, what did a used one cost in 1998 when the LS1 hit the F-body? And what used car in 92 could match a 13.6 @ 104? A Ferrari Testarossa? Well, a 1985 Testarossa ran 13.3 sec @ 107 mph and cost nearly $100k, for reference.

That's faster so it doesn't count you say? OK, a 1990 Corvette ZR-1 was $51,500 according to C&D (but $58,995 according to NADA) and ran 12.8 @ 111, a performance that even today is considered pretty quick, so it is hard to over exaggerate how fast that was in 1990 - the LT5 was no slouch, revving to 7,200 glorious RPM. Good luck finding a cheaper used car that runs that in 1990. And that was the 375 hp version. In 93 it got a boost to 405 hp and went even quicker. Here is how significant the 1990 ZR-1 was:

As evidence of this, a stock ZR-1 set seven international and world records at a test track in Fort Stockton, Texas on March 1, 1990, verified by the FIA (Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile) for the group II, class 11 category:[11][12]
100 miles (160 km) at 175.600 mph (282.601 km/h)
500 miles (800 km) at 175.503 mph (282.445 km/h)
1,000 miles (1,600 km) at 174.428 mph (280.715 km/h)
5,000 km (3,100 mi) at 175.710 mph (282.778 km/h) (World Record)
5,000 miles (8,000 km) at 173.791 mph (279.690 km/h) (World Record)
12 Hours Endurance at 175.523 mph (282.477 km/h)
24 Hours Endurance at 175.885 mph (283.059 km/h) for 4,221.256 miles (6,793.453 km) (World Record)

That's what happens when you build a car engine to marine standards. But I digress.

These are the kinds of vehicles that are marked with bringing new levels of performance to the mainstream. Not Tesla. At least not yet. The new Roadster seems to offer disruptive levels of performance at least in terms of low speed acceleration. It won't touch those endurance records, though......

I don't even know what we are talking about now...

Have electric cars gotten to be as good as gas car counterparts?

For the money, including operating costs since no gas is a selling point.

not

offer disruptive levels of performance

I am continuing a discussion we started when the Model 3 was first announced or I guess first claimed performance data was announced. I thought your whole deal was the performance per dollar was BETTER than a gas car, so this should be the performance enthusiast's buy. I have proven that is not the case. Then we talked about new vs used and my lengthy previous post talked about how it is actually pretty rare that a new car is so big of a step (perhaps for such an affordable price) that there is no used car available with equivalent performance. And the Tesla stuff being no exception. Those are pretty much the two arguments I thought I was having...

But to this point:

Have electric cars gotten to be as good as gas car counterparts?

Yes, the Dual Motor Performance can be in the same conversation with the ATS-V and CTS-V (two highly rated performance vehicles), for prices in that same ballpark. That is certainly progress but they have a long way to go. The lower versions do not appear to offer performance parity at their price point, based on the data I have analyzed.

For total performance disruption (in terms of the auto enthusiast looking at Tesla for the solution, forget all of the other talking points), they would need to offer something that exceeds CTS-V3 performance and sell it new for like $60k or less, and have it be available right now. Or if we go down market, exceed a Charger Hellcat and sell for less than whatever those sell used for. They are not there yet and I have no expectation that they will achieve that - I never made the claim that the Model 3 was a good performance value.

The Hellcat was disruptive. It offered CTS-V3 acceleration (actually just a shade better) a year before the V3 came out, at an MSRP that V3s are only now falling to. Though in sports car land, a 2006 C6 Z06 offered a very similar acceleration experience, but that's not a family vehicle by any stretch of the imagination.

As I said before, no one was standing around on the Chevy lot in the Fall of 1992 going, yeah I know this 93 Camaro Z28 runs a 14.0 @ 100 but I could just go buy a 3, 6 or 9 year old used car and do the same thing for a fraction of the price. No, you couldn't. That was my whole point. Today, though, there is so much performance that's been available for so many years that you really do need to look around at used car values and the performance of those used cars.

kevm14 wrote:Today, though, there is so much performance that's been available for so many years that you really do need to look around at used car values and the performance of those used cars.

Price check on aisle Hellcat. Here are some bottom of market Chargers for your viewing pleasure.
Here is a red one with 22k for $50k
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sal ... e1=DODCHAR

And here's a white one with 14k for $47k
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sal ... etail=true

And a blue one with 30k for $48,800
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sal ... etail=true

The Hellcats run mid to high 11s @ 125+ for reference. C&D got 11.4 @ 128 for a 2015 Charger Hellcat, in fact. That is damn fast. And you can already buy low mileage ones for upper $40k range now.

A Model 3 variant that offered this performance and sold for under $50k would pretty much be performance value that I would endorse. I guess you could throw some gas money at it so let's round up to under $60k. While we wait around for that to happen, we are surrounded by awesome performance cars that are constantly depreciating, which is why I kind of scoff at breathless Tesla worship, when the plain facts are just a few keystrokes and mouse clicks away.

In fact if you want to trap 125-128, you will need a Model S P100D in Ludicrous mode. But its operation is also kind of ludicrous...

As of March 2017, the P100D variant holds the record for the fastest acceleration of any production vehicle with a NHRA rolling start to 60 mph in Motor Trend tests with 2.28 seconds (0 to 100 km/h in 2.36 seconds) in ludicrous mode,[77] although other independent tests have placed it behind the Porsche 918 Spyder.[78] Due to overheating issues, Tesla limits the amount of times that a driver is able to use ludicrous mode within a certain amount of time, as driving the car in that mode may shorten the battery's lifespan and can cause damage to the car.[79][80] According to Motor Trend, selecting the "Yes, bring it on!" option for maximum acceleration "initiates a process of battery and motor conditioning, wherein the battery temperature is raised slightly and the motors are cooled using the air-conditioning system. It usually takes just a few minutes, longer in extreme ambient temperatures or after repeated runs. You should expect to wait a minimum of 10 minutes in-between runs."[77]

Good lord.

And here's another thing I just uncovered. P85D long term test wrapup.

https://www.caranddriver.com/tesla/model-s

PERFORMANCE: NEW
Zero to 60 mph: 3.3 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 8.6 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 13.4 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 4.1 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 1.9 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 2.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 11.8 sec @ 114 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 160 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 161 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.89 g

PERFORMANCE: 40,000 MILES
Zero to 60 mph: 3.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 9.4 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 14.7 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 3.7 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 1.6 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 2.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.3 sec @ 112 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 160 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 161 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.91 g

There is a very distinct performance fall off there but not sure what the trend would be over the longer term. Speaking of trend, here is another sort of gotcha:
EPA combined/city/hwy: 93/89/98 MPGe
C/D observed: 69 MPGe

69 MPGe is, I guess, equivalent to a combined rating of 48.5 kWh / 100 miles. Which, at 19 cents / kWh (RI), would cost $9.22 to go 100 miles. With premium fuel (equivalent performance vehicles would certainly want premium), at $3.36, $9.22 worth to go 100 miles would be the equivalent of 36.4 mpg. That is shockingly bad if true. Still good but those fuel savings I calculated for the Model 3 are like cut in half with these kind of numbers. Maybe because the P85D weighs 5,010 lbs (no lie).

Though that seems shockingly bad, I challenge you to find any 5000+ lb vehicle that traps 110+ that can get 36.4 MPG combined over 40,000 auto journalist miles.

Yes, I agree.

And while a Vsport is in a similar performance category (minus that eye popping launch), and can probably get upper 20s highway, the journalist mpg would most likely be 20 at best. Maybe more like 18. So the P85D would effectively cost half as much per mile in fuel/energy.

Well would you look at that. C&D did a long term Vsport.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/20 ... -up-review

They averaged 21! So not even twice. Though I admit that below like 70 mph you don't really have any chance in keeping up. To 60, P85D is 24% faster, but to 100 that shrinks to 15% faster. Still, with a superior trap, we know the P85D will at least be ahead until 112 mph. Actually 0-120 the P85D is now only 6% faster.

After that, not totally sure what happens. I suppose that is less relevant for most street situations though anyone knows who has driven a car that traps 110+, it does not take long at all to build those speeds. And I always found the low speed races where the guy in front immediately smacks the hazard lights to be a bit childish/ricerish so I tend to downplay large low speed advantages.

PERFORMANCE: 40,000 MILES
Zero to 60 mph: 4.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 10.8 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 18.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.1 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.5 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.3 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.0 sec @ 110 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 171 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 168 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: N/A

Looking at 70-100, Vsport takes 4.9 seconds. P85D takes 4.7. Now we're getting into the realm where the trap speed differences tell you what you need to know (112 vs 110). And the better ET of the P85D tells you that the lower speed the "race" is, the bigger the advantage, and conversely the higher the speed is, the smaller the advantage.

Now I calculated those by subtracting the time to the lower speed from the higher speed. What that does not take into account is powertrain lag. So in practice, in situations where you both floor it, the Tesla will still have the advantage because the response time is much faster. Example: 30-50 is 2.5 and I believe they actually go 30 then floor it from top gear. The calculated 30-50 if you were already at full power and downshifted at 30 mph is only 1.8. So 0.7 seconds of turbo/throttle/transmission lag. Over in the P85D, the 30-50 is 1.6, but the calculation is 1.2 so only 0.4 seconds of lag or a little more than half.

Visualize this: P85D is just cruising along at a slow 30 mph. Vsport launches and starts running through the gears at WOT. Assuming you can time it so the Vsport just catches up to the P85D the moment both cars are going 30, and at that point the P85D driver floors it, the P85D will STILL get to 50 mph 0.2 seconds faster than the Vsport. So there's that.

Geez, the P85D even beat it in braking at 40k. Well, show me the $24k P85D and I'm sure you would have entertained it, right?