Cars & Motorbikes Calculating the costs to run a Tesla model 3

I am trying to calculate the cost to run a Tesla vs my Mazda CX5 TTD.

The CX5 uses 5.6 L/100 on my trip to work. Diesel here costs $1.485 per litre so this is $8.32 per 100 k's

A model 3 has a capacity of 75 kWh and does 386 KM (240 Miles)

Electricity costs me 0.2772 per kWh so a full charge would be 75 * 0.2772 = $20.79

Divide this by the 386 K's and multiply by 100 to get the cost per 100 k's = $5.39

This really surprised me, I thought the difference would be massive.

Of course this doesn't consider the maintenance of an ICE engine which would be vastly more than that of a Tesla but for the sake of comparison km to km I am surprised.

The reason I was doing this calculation was to work out how long it would take to break even on the higher purchase price of a Tesla over something like the CX5.

The CX5 is $42,090 and the Tesla Model 3 is $67,900 (both are base model). This is a difference of $25,810, With the difference per hundred k's being $2.93 that means I would need to cover 880,887 k's to break even. This was (25,810 / 2.93) * 100.

This doesn't look right to me, have I made a mistake in the mathematics of this somewhere?

 

When it comes to the cost of ownership of a vehicle... fuel economy is false economy.

Depreciation is the biggest line item expense.

 

And depreciation is much less if your car gets regular updates over wifi making it always the latest model.

 

It does help - software is only one part of the vehicle though. Normal manufacturers have been doing this for years via the servicing process with engine management updates, in car entertainment, etc.

The physical stuff - particularly when battery tech is moving so quickly is going to be more important. And regardless the old wear & tear is always a factor in both the interiors, exteriors and the chassis itself (thanks in kind to Australia's third world road quality).

Case in point priced into the market already when a 2015 model S is $77K when a new model is $150K+

 

b4 you buy a Tesla, the reason they are "faster" and have better "mileage" than another manufacturer is they don't have inferior thermal management and its hardware is used at 100% capacity while others are capped for longevity.

other "old" school manufacturer has a reputation to maintain so they need to as much as they can make sure the vehicle last a "lifetime"

tesla dont give a **** about their reputation as long as Elon is at the helm.


This is why you see tesla always has the best mileage and faster everything even against the Porsche,

as long as you are aware of what you are paying for, go ahead.

the software update is also a losing economy

Like your computer and phone,

how many updates before you chuck the whole thing, are you going to replace parts of a depreciating part?
nop?

Telsa is banking on it.

is tesla a software company or a car manufacturing company?

 

Not worth it based on operating costs and purchase price versus the CX-5.
Many people wont consider that though.
Ive never bought a car based on that - just aesthetics and want, plus the need of design to fulfil lifestyle at that moment, and my personal budget at that time.
From an opportunity cost perspective; buying less expensive cars mean more dollars available for investing.

 

Just realised I also didn't factor in the LCT on the Tesla so that would be another $6,500 or another 22,000 K's taking the break even to just over 900,000 k's

 

I never considered operating costs before but now that my work is 45 k's each way for 1 site or 70 each way for the other, I look at it quite closely, having the Mazda TTD which sits at 5.6 l/100 is much better than a gas guzzler, my Audi was around 7 l/100 (1.8 low pressure turbo) for petrol and the Subaru used to sit around 10 (2.5 high pressure turbo boxer), it's all about getting more out of my fuel these days .

 

If its all about the cost of the work commute; would you not consider one of the smaller turbo-deisel cars like a VW Golf?
They are extremely economical.
An ex-demo or very recent second hand one of these would be quite inexpensive to buy as well, I would think?

 

Factor in $0 servicing per year vs say $1500 per year?

 

Good point.
I guess the possible only ongoing cost with the Teslar would be batteries and tyres?
What is the expected lifespan and cost of their batteries?

 

Tyres probably about the same - more usage from quicker acceleration than other cars, but less usage from being dual motor and having torque controlled independently front and back.

This Tesla that has a million km on the clock https://ww.electrek.co/2019/11/30/tesla-model-s-1-million-km/ has changed battery, their current battery is at 500k km with very little degradation. If its needed within first 8 years it actually gets replaced under warranty.

And brakes waaay less usage due to kinetic energy rather than frictional.

 

Dan, Teslas use approximately 3% of their "fuel tank" every 24 hours whilst in the garage. This is called leakage, ring up Tesla and ask them how long you can leave a model 3 off charge before it goes flat and they will say about 30 days. IE about 3% per day. So add another 12 tanks per annum to your bill. Mazda also does fixed price servicing so allow about $300 pa for services not $1500. You will also have to pay for a premium Roadside membership to get your car towed in case you get a flat. If you're a tech head you will love your Tesla and forget about the extra cost and little teething problems. If you hate being stuck without a spare and the lower build quality buy the Mazda.

 

This person says he gets about 2% per week

 

Have to get towed if you get a flat?
Deal breaker, right there.

 

Im still in my decision phase at the moment (leading more towards for than against) gotta weigh up all the pros and cons, but its tricky since there's so many misconceptions around such as the ones in this very thread.

The above bit about needing to be towed might be true however the likelihood is near zero. How often have you ran out of petrol in your normal car? I think i have once in my life.

With chargers available in every house and public ones widely available i just cant see it happening. Especially with the accuracy of the range compared to your standard petrol needle.

I asssume / hope in future there'll be handheld powerbank type options plus even more widespread deployment of public chargers.

 

I was just running figures out of curiosity (piqued by a thread a month or two ago), we own the Mazda outright already and it's only a 2016 model so won't be replacing, I was just wondering how well the numbers stacked up in order to make it cost efficient against an ICE vehicle but from the looks of things we are on the right path but still a number of years off yet.

The Mazda was my missus' car when we had two cars but it only has 20,000 k's on it and that's with me using it for 4 months already. so we are happy to just stay as a one car family and I use that for work.

 

Ah! sorry - I was referring to a flat tyre.
Yes; the flat battery is something that can be managed; punctures cant.
I've run out of petrol twice in 40 years of licenced driving. One of them I had to get a friend to come over and I siphoned a bit from his tank to get it going to the petrol station - sucked on a piece of hose until the fuel came up. Tasted so bad - I was burping petrol smells for days.

 

Sorry i thought you meant flat battery. Nothing special required for flat tyre, just swap another one on like a normal car. It doesnt come with a spare though which kinda sucks but not a biggy.