Towing with Tesla Model X

[BlkGS]

Few thoughts on the silverado EV.

Comittingnto beat Ford in every way was smart.

Pricing... They're fucking nuts. 105k for a fully loaded truck is bonkers, and will be really tough to sell when that's a 50k gas truck. You can buy a LOT of gas for 50 grand.

Styling, overall I like. I hate the solid grille. I will never warm up to it. I get why they do it for aero, but at least paint it black so it's not so awkward looking.

Midgates solve many issues. I will never say a bad word about a midgate.

Long term... I just don't see it honestly. 40k for a work truck that maybe lasts all day for your employee? 100k for a truck is a ton of money. Maybe I'm just poor, bu mane, that's a HUGE payment. That's legit 20k a year for 5 years, notncouninter interest, tax, etc. That's gonna be 1800 bucks a month in payment, and that buys a LOT of gas.

 

[2kwik4u]

Few thoughts on the silverado EV.

Comittingnto beat Ford in every way was smart.

Pricing... They're fucking nuts. 105k for a fully loaded truck is bonkers, and will be really tough to sell when that's a 50k gas truck. You can buy a LOT of gas for 50 grand.

Styling, overall I like. I hate the solid grille. I will never warm up to it. I get why they do it for aero, but at least paint it black so it's not so awkward looking.

Midgates solve many issues. I will never say a bad word about a midgate.

Long term... I just don't see it honestly. 40k for a work truck that maybe lasts all day for your employee? 100k for a truck is a ton of money. Maybe I'm just poor, bu mane, that's a HUGE payment. That's legit 20k a year for 5 years, notncouninter interest, tax, etc. That's gonna be 1800 bucks a month in payment, and that buys a LOT of gas.

100% agree that this beats the pants off the lightening. Quoted specs are better. Has a really good mix of Rivians "new cool shit" and the Lightnings "It's still just a truck" attitudes. No gear tunnel, or dynamic load bar attachment, or gear security stuff that the Rivian has, but the home generator/power source, and multitude of plugs from the Lightning. I think Chevy waited an appropriate amount of time to see what the market really looked like, and made the appropriate moves here.

$105k will be for the Top of the Line RST. I suspect other trim packages will come along that will be lower. I would guess an LTZ time level will be in the $80-$90k range. I just priced an LTZ gasser with the 6.2L and a few options. It was $63k. Throw the $12.5k rebate (if the new bill passes, which is 50/50 at this point IMO) in there, and that $90k drops to $77.5k. 23% increase for the EV over the gasser, or ~4.5 years worth of fuel (at $3.50/gal, 15k mi/yr and 16mpg). I think "fucking nuts" is a little bit of an overstatement, but you're not wrong in that it doesn't make much fiscal sense. Leasing shows some better value here to be honest, but if you already don't like a 23% sticker increase, my bet is you won't like leasing any better.

I'm with you on the solid grill. I get it, but it still doesn't quite feel right from a "car guy" perspective. It's just different than what we've seen our whole lives. Not really bad, just different. Styling overall is pretty subjective. I'm not sure why the belt line is quite so high. Feels like they could have brought the belt line and overall height down a shade and been OK. No need for all that height IMO. The front fender to hood distance feels large for what it is. Kinda "bull dog" front loaded a bit.

Love the midgate. Love it. I looked hard at Avalanches before I bought my Sierra. Decided I wanted the newer interior of the '14+ fullsize pickups, and of course they discontinued the Avalanche in '13 (I think). Honestly, if they offered this platform in a gas truck I would trade the Audi TODAY. It's honestly not just about the EV side of things for me, I think this is a genuinely sharp looking truck that has some features that I really want. I can't find a fullsize pickup right now with air suspension, 4WS, column shift, midgate, Driver assistance (SuperCruise, or whatever they call it) and front trunk. Like, those checkboxes are the laundry list of items I would buy TODAY in a gasser. They just aren't available, and would be exceptionally difficult to integrate into anything existing. I mean I might be able to get some of it into an existing Avalanche, but the driver aids, front trunk, and 4WS would be exceptionally hard to do......I am really not pleased with the inability to open the sunroof or drive without the back glass in

Long term, I suspect to see a LOT of customized WT's on the road. $40k for a commuter truck isn't bad, and would cover a good number of peoples needs/wants. Look at your average pickup owner, and you'll find less LTZ and High Country trims, and more mid-option Customs and LT's floating around. Cloth seats, vinyl floors, basic stereos, etc are more the norm than the exception. I suspect a multi-trim EV pickup like this will catch on quickly. Get a WT in a good color, throw some wheels and window tint on it, and you're in a nice looking, very capable pickup that will make Home Depot and Kroger runs after work just as well as a gasser. The top trims will still exist, and will still have a high take rate. Honestly you and I are probably NOT the intended audience for those. There are some other guys on the forums here that have the kind of expendable income to make this happen with 50%+ down payments, or full cash buys, and we're just a small segment of the overall customer base.

I also suspect that us early adopters will pay for the tech, and it will eventually come down in price thanks to economies of scale. Think of it this way. The GMC Typhoon retailed for $29,970. That's $59,373 in 2022 dollars. Your TBSS retailed for $38,470 in 2006 that's $53,038 in 2022 dollars. Similar performance numbers, with newer tech, and newer manufacturing tech. EV's will have similar "sticker shock" initially (can you imagine a $30k SUV that you can't offroad or tow with in 1992?!?!), but will continue to sell, and continue to come down in cost.

I'll let you know if this all holds true in a couple years when I finally get one

 

[Peelz]

RST price maxes out at an eye watering 105k.

yep theyre watering

 

[BlkGS]

I'm way less than 50/50 on the rebates. I'm like 25% it happens, 75% it won't . I don't think smart politicians will sign up for more spending with inflation running wild.

The economies of scale thing is a good argument, but it's not like you see Tesla dropping prices on their cars as they ramp up volume... I think it more likely that increased material acquisition costs even out with economies of scale and they stay roughly equally expensive.

I dunno about whee you live, but work trucks aren't 40k where I live, lol the average new vehicle is like 30 grand now, I think expecting to see modded work trucks running around at 40k plus grand (let alone the dealer mark ups) is a bit far fetched.

Admittedly, I didn't see the whole model lineup, is the RST supposed to be their top trim now? No premier or high country or any of those other fancier ones? The premier replaced the ltz trim on regular SUVs, and it slots above RST currently. If they didn't change the lineup hierarchy, that'd imply that there will be models that are way over 100k...

 

[Jim_in_Delaware]

Personally, I thing we will see the rebates. May not be in the BBB program, but they may happen elsewhere. The rebates are what it is going to take to mainstream the purchase of EV's. We won't see a demand for more charging stations until there is more demand for EV's. There are a lot of new EV's coming out in 2023. We will likely purchase one ourselves, for my wife to drive, if three are rebates and we can get a nice compact crossover SUV for 40ish. (We would keep my RAM are our tow vehicle.)

Jim

 

[Tyguy]

The EV Silverado order page showed the RST Launch Edition as their top trim, but the dealer I spoke with after I put in a reservation mentioned there would likely be some shifting of trims before release. Wouldn't surprise me. There's too large of a spread between a $40K WT and $105K RST.

Tesla actually did dramatically lower the prices of the Model 3 as production ramped up and government incentives went away and ticked off more than a few owners in the process. But they were ramping up to significant volumes as a manufacturer for the first time. The Model Y didn't go through that evolution and now all the models (S3XY) have become more expensive with inflation, high demand, and hard-to-find components.

Most of my truck-owner friends are spending $60K+ on their newest acquisitions. Those with diesels are getting into the $70K territory. It's hard to swallow but in September the average cost of a vehicle nationwide hit $45,031.

It's harder to compare purchase price of an electric against an ICE than it is comparing two different ICE vehicles. You have to do a bit more homework, like factoring in costs of charging vs fuel and very different maintenance requirements. When I did the math on the Model 3 against something like a loaded Accord or Camry, the Tesla became the better value at something like year 5. I don't have the figures in front of me anymore but that number sticks in my mind. With the Ford's numbers now published we could do a pretty similar comparison on the F150 ICE vs EV. Could be a fun exercise when I have a bit of time.

 

[BlkGS]

Personally, I thing we will see the rebates. May not be in the BBB program, but they may happen elsewhere. The rebates are what it is going to take to mainstream the purchase of EV's. We won't see a demand for more charging stations until there is more demand for EV's. There are a lot of new EV's coming out in 2023. We will likely purchase one ourselves, for my wife to drive, if three are rebates and we can get a nice compact crossover SUV for 40ish. (We would keep my RAM are our tow vehicle.)

Jim

I think the issue is going to be what incentives actually end up coming out.

A sensible rebate would be open only to people up to 75k income, 150k for a family. Above that, you don't need the money to buy it, it's just a handout to "the rich". Below that, you're probably not buying a brand new expensive vehicle. So any sort of rebate will either be a very sticky sell if it mainly goes to the rich (like the previous ones did), or it doesn't get used because they're still too expensive.

Personally, I think the way that the automakers will do this is hide behind "supply chain" issues. They'll have no inventory and long waits for ICE vehicles but magically have EVs ready to go, on the lot. Then their stans will say "well EVs use a newer generation of chip it's nothing nefarious" and in the end people will just keep driving their old gas burners.

 

[BlkGS]

The EV Silverado order page showed the RST Launch Edition as their top trim, but the dealer I spoke with after I put in a reservation mentioned there would likely be some shifting of trims before release. Wouldn't surprise me. There's too large of a spread between a $40K WT and $105K RST.

Tesla actually did dramatically lower the prices of the Model 3 as production ramped up and government incentives went away and ticked off more than a few owners in the process. But they were ramping up to significant volumes as a manufacturer for the first time. The Model Y didn't go through that evolution and now all the models (S3XY) have become more expensive with inflation, high demand, and hard-to-find components.

Most of my truck-owner friends are spending $60K+ on their newest acquisitions. Those with diesels are getting into the $70K territory. It's hard to swallow but in September the average cost of a vehicle nationwide hit $45,031.

It's harder to compare purchase price of an electric against an ICE than it is comparing two different ICE vehicles. You have to do a bit more homework, like factoring in costs of charging vs fuel and very different maintenance requirements. When I did the math on the Model 3 against something like a loaded Accord or Camry, the Tesla became the better value at something like year 5. I don't have the figures in front of me anymore but that number sticks in my mind. With the Ford's numbers now published we could do a pretty similar comparison on the F150 ICE vs EV. Could be a fun exercise when I have a bit of time.

I don't feel like the guy buying a diesel 2500 is gonna be suddenly an EV buyer. Maybe a handful that see it as the "more better" truck, but I feel like the majority of 2500 buyers do major towing. Which EVs lose a LOT of range doing.

There's definitely situations where an EV makes sense, but usually it requires a ton of miles. A lot of people are talking 15k miles per year. I've put 5 or 6k miles on my daily over the last year.. My wife's car we've put less Than that on it, and 80% of that mileage was a trip from FL to NY, and FL to NC (long trips that'd be miserable if we had to recharge a car). When you're doing 5k miles a year and you live in a place with inexpensive fuel, it's tough to make the ev work based on dollars. I tried, because the idea of the Ford EV in a GT Perf trim was feasible.

 

[2kwik4u]

Just priced a new Silverado for my Dad the other day. Cheapest we could get it with exceptionally modest options (4wd, and the shortest length config we could muster) and configuration was $36k. At this point the EV WT is more of what he wants (basic work truck) for $1k less than he was prepared to spend. You literally can't buy a cheaper 4wd Silverado at this point. The days of a $30k truck are gone. It's not far fetched.......it's here, now. If you want a new Silverado, you're not getting one under $35k

Best I can tell now, the RST is the top of the line. I doubt it stays that way. Who knows.

Next door neighbor owned a 2500 pickup, moved to a 1500 and is ready to go back to HD class pickup. Here's his thoughts from last week:

I think if they make a 2500 class EV, they'll get plenty of sales from it. Honestly 10k towing is 2500 territory from a decade ago anyway. The current 1500 class EV's aren't doing bad in that regard.

I think the financial "make it make sense" isn't the only reason people will or won't move to an EV. They want quiet driving, they want instant torque, they want sophisticated driving aids, they want to say they're helping reduce carbon footprint. They want the newest drivetrain tech. They want to tell their buddies they have an EV. Whole myriad of reasons to get one that aren't "it's cheaper". All these things that are currently only available in EV's. Add on to that, I'll go on a limb and say MOST people don't pay that close attention to total cost of ownership. You show them a payment that is $100/mo more, and then tell them "You never have to buy gas again", and they're in. I do think there is a certain level of savings that come from reduce maintenance items, however I don't think that will get us far enough to make it a shorter term payback. Might move the needle a few months, but not years.

I'll be curious to see who insurance rates adjust. I know the rates DROPPED when I moved from my Sierra to my Q7. The extra driver aids, and the demographics changed enough to save me a good chunk of money. I've never really looked into that on the Tesla/Audi/Bolt side of things, but that could swing the total cost of ownership as well.

I do agree, the rebate should be income capped at some level. Not sure where that is, but the 75k/150k seems to work well for the other handouts we've had recently.

 

[Jim_in_Delaware]

I am going to disagree on the rebates. You offer EV rebates to make EV vehicle cost more comparable to an ICE, to push people to buy an EV instead of an ICE vehicle.

When we buy our next car (for my wife) if we can get a nice compact crossover ICE SUV for $40K, and a nice compact crossover EV SUV is $55K, we are going to buy an ICE SUV. If there is a $10K incentive on the $55K EV SUV, we will strongly consider the EV SUV, even if it is price slightly more ($45K).

Most folks posting on this thread are EV enthusiasts, which makes this thread such an interesting read. However, most folks (average Joes) are probably just sitting on the sidelines with a casual interest. For my wife and I, the coolness factor of an EV is not a driving source to purchase. For us, the driving force is does this purchase make financial sense, given that our next vehicle will probably only see 5K miles a year. And, although we generally keep vehicles for the longer term, I'm not going to look for the 5 - 10 year break-even point on the EV. We will keep the car long-term if we like it and sell it short term if we don't.

Jim

 

[BlkGS]

Is the base WT silverado supposed to be a 4x4?

I've heard and read that EVs cost significantly more to insure than an Ice. I wouldn't know, all my stuff is expensive to insure because apparently "fast things should cost more to insure".

I think there's probably an equal number of people, or larger number of people who will have the same strongly held beliefs about not wanting an EV as wanting. I think the number of people that are like, sway able in the middle are lower, and of those, I think cost will keep many of them out. We talk a lot about the average price of a new car, but very little about the reality that the people buying new cars is a drop in the bucket vs people who will only buy used due to cost.

I think EVs will hit an adoption wall well before the industry has hit its goals.. I think they'll find there's a limit to the EV buyer market, and there's not enough room for all of them in that pool, especially not to go all electric. What that looks like in terms of market share, no idea. It could be 5%, it could be 10%, it could be 50%, it could be 80%. I suspect that the vast majority of people will get sticker shock when they get told they're looking at a huge purchase price or payment. You can tell people they won't pay for gas, but I think most people outside of heavy commuters don't dollaroze gas costs as high as you'd think. With the rise of wfh and stuff like that (especially in the incomes that can afford to buy a new car) it gets even tougher to convince someone they're making the right choice.

Time will tell, but personally I think it will take HEAVY government intervention to get EVs to truly succeed, beyond what they've already done. On the flipside, I could easily see a non EV friendly government taking over and ending the carbon market, slashing the EPa's authority and CAFE requirements, and similar things and absolutely wrecking the whole EV industry. And what happens when the bloom is off the rose for the EV stock prices? They're already valued on their "growth merits" at far more money than they could ever actually be worth. Will people lose faith when they hear that the EV brands are sliding in stock prices and it's no longer cool? I dunno.

 

[BlkGS]

I am going to disagree on the rebates. You offer EV rebates to make EV vehicle cost more comparable to an ICE, to push people to buy an EV instead of an ICE vehicle.

When we buy our next car (for my wife) if we can get a nice compact crossover ICE SUV for $40K, and a nice compact crossover EV SUV is $55K, we are going to buy an ICE SUV. If there is a $10K incentive on the $55K EV SUV, we will strongly consider the EV SUV, even if it is price slightly more ($45K).

Most folks posting on this thread are EV enthusiasts, which makes this thread such an interesting read. However, most folks (average Joes) are probably just sitting on the sidelines with a casual interest. For my wife and I, the coolness factor of an EV is not a driving source to purchase. For us, the driving force is does this purchase make financial sense, given that our next vehicle will probably only see 5K miles a year. And, although we generally keep vehicles for the longer term, I'm not going to look for the 5 - 10 year break-even point on the EV. We will keep the car long-term if we like it and sell it short term if we don't.

Jim

I agree with this, but the danger of the rebates is giving them to "the rich". Give them to people that make too much and it's a ha dout to the rich. Leave it at the point where people with semi normal incomes are and it doesn't help because they're still not able to afford an expensive brand new car.

People who keep a car 5 to 10 plus years also have battery degradation to worry about. That will affect resale and all that too, whereas an Ice doesn't really lose much power, range, efficiency, etc over its lifetime anymore.

 

[Peelz]

yeah the last time I priced a regular NEW truck was a 2020 F150 Crew and it was sneaking up into the $60k's to get what I needed for towing and a few things I wanted.

And while i was in there, they were advertising 96 month loans to get rid of Dodge Rams. Stickers all in the 70's. Crazy..

Couldn't get excited.

$105k isnt happening-no way no how. lol

 

[tabbibus]

I agree with this, but the danger of the rebates is giving them to "the rich". Give them to people that make too much and it's a ha dout to the rich. Leave it at the point where people with semi normal incomes are and it doesn't help because they're still not able to afford an expensive brand new car.

People who keep a car 5 to 10 plus years also have battery degradation to worry about. That will affect resale and all that too, whereas an Ice doesn't really lose much power, range, efficiency, etc over its lifetime anymore.

For what it's worth, my 2017 Model S hasn't lost an inch to battery degradation yet.

 

[Beachbummer]

I agree with this, but the danger of the rebates is giving them to "the rich". Give them to people that make too much and it's a ha dout to the rich. Leave it at the point where people with semi normal incomes are and it doesn't help because they're still not able to afford an expensive brand new car.

People who keep a car 5 to 10 plus years also have battery degradation to worry about. That will affect resale and all that too, whereas an Ice doesn't really lose much power, range, efficiency, etc over its lifetime anymore.

There's always richer and poorer. Not many poor folks buying electric cars now. To be economically effective EV owners need a place to charge inexpensively. Unless you get free charging from your employer, the only way that's happening is in your home's garage. Not a lot of poor with their own garage to add EV charging to.

The purpose of the rebates is to make the EVs more competitive while they are quite more expensive than the alternative. No reason to exclude the rich from rebates if they meet the criteria, they will still push the volume up., and might still pick a gas car instead when otherwise interested, defeating the purpose of the rebate. I think we are only 5-10 years away from cost parity, at that time the rebates will not be needed any more. I'm not a fan of excluding any particular group as long as the goal is achieved. more EVs.

 

[Jim_in_Delaware]

When we start talking about income levels and if somone is "rich" it is all relative. For the last two years, we have taken cash from an IRA account to build our retirement home. Because the IRA dispursements count as income in the year withdrawn, we got zero stimulus checks, because we were too "rich". I would also offer that while $75K/$150K may be a lot of money in some parts of the country, in others, it is not.

 

[BlkGS]

When we start talking about income levels and if somone is "rich" it is all relative. For the last two years, we have taken cash from an IRA account to build our retirement home. Because the IRA dispursements count as income in the year withdrawn, we got zero stimulus checks, because we were too "rich". I would also offer that while $75K/$150K may be a lot of money in some parts of the country, in others, it is not.

Get it and agree. But if you're dumb enough to live somewhere where 150k isn't comfortable for a family, we'll, you'll get no sympathy from me. There's also no reason for the Federal government to base its numbers off including microcosm of hell like bay area, DC, etc. If THOSE CITIES want to cough up the money to give more people a tax credit, by all means, have at it. But any sort of ince tive from the federal government should be based around the average cost of living in the country, and honestly, I don't see a reason for the middle class to pay for an incentive for the rich to buy an electric for one of their vehicles.

Incentivize EVs with an MSRP of 35k or less, if you want to bring the price down, giving people who can afford it already a handout of money that we are paying for doesn't make any sense.

 

[Jim_in_Delaware]

Get it and agree. But if you're dumb enough to live somewhere where 150k isn't comfortable for a family, we'll, you'll get no sympathy from me. There's also no reason for the Federal government to base its numbers off including microcosm of hell like bay area, DC, etc. If THOSE CITIES want to cough up the money to give more people a tax credit, by all means, have at it. But any sort of ince tive from the federal government should be based around the average cost of living in the country, and honestly, I don't see a reason for the middle class to pay for an incentive for the rich to buy an electric for one of their vehicles.

Incentivize EVs with an MSRP of 35k or less, if you want to bring the price down, giving people who can afford it already a handout of money that we are paying for doesn't make any sense.

People often live where their families and/or jobs are. I have moved all over the country but its been for job opportunities. As we inch towards retirement, we want to live somewhere within an easy day drive of where our adult daughter lives, and this is one of the reasons we chose to retire in Delaware.

Wages in many parts of the country are based in part on the cost of living in that part of the country. We lived in Maryland (Washington Baltimore metro area) for 30 years and truly enjoyed living there. Personal observation is that our wages in this area are about $18,000/yr higher than if we live in Melbourne, FL, due to the higher cost of living. All things being equal, our standard of living would be about the same in both areas. You know what else I get for that extra $18,000? I get the pleasure of paying $4,000/yr in additional federal income tax. So, am I "richer" because we earn another $18,000 a year?

Jim

 

[BlkGS]

People often live where their families and/or jobs are. I have moved all over the country but its been for job opportunities. As we inch towards retirement, we want to live somewhere within an easy day drive of where our adult daughter lives, and this is one of the reasons we chose to retire in Delaware.

Wages in many parts of the country are based in part on the cost of living in that part of the country. We lived in Maryland (Washington Baltimore metro area) for 30 years and truly enjoyed living there. Personal observation is that our wages in this area are about $18,000/yr higher than if we live in Melbourne, FL, due to the higher cost of living. All things being equal, our standard of living would be about the same in both areas. You know what else I get for that extra $18,000? I get the pleasure of paying $4,000/yr in additional federal income tax. So, am I "richer" because we earn another $18,000 a year?

Jim

Absolutely not, and I'm sure the cost of living is higher in Delaware, the weather is worse, etc.

I've moved all over the country for work too, but I was smart enough to not take jobs in places where I couldn't improve my quality of life. While living in rural NC, I was offered a job as a sales rep in the bay area. Compared to the job I had at the time, it would have been a big leap up. They were willing to pay me like 50% more as well. But when I looked at the cost of living, they were going to need to roughly quadruple my salary for me to afford the modest but comfortable lifestyle I had in NC, the main driver of that cost being a house not 2 or 3 hours away from my work. Obviously I didn't take the job, because despite the raise, it was a net loss.

So here's the thing, say we raise the limit to 250k for a family. A family making 250k a year in NC is living really well, anywhere In the state. They can absolutely afford the cost of any EV, without any incentive. If we give them the credit, now we're asking the tax dollars of a family making 80k a year that can't afford a new car, let alone a 60k one, to use their money to pay for the people who can afford it already to buy an EV. That doesn't make sense.

So like I said, if you limitit to families with an AGI of the median, that's fair, but useless. The only real way to do it "fairly" is to limit it to a modest MSRP, but that's not what the automakers are trying to sell because the tech is expensive.

 

[2kwik4u]

Until this comment I was completely and totally confused on WTF you were saying. I had in my head that you wanted the manufacturers to control the price down, and of course that doesn't work even a little bit in a capitalistic economy. I followed that train into a "what do you think the incentives are doing" by theorizing that a $42.5k EV became a $35k EV. I had the wrong definition of "it" from the statement below.

The only real way to do it "fairly" is to limit it to a modest MSRP

This clears my misconception up a bit, and I think it's an interesting idea. To make sure I have it straight. You're saying let the tax credit be determined NOT by the recipients income, but rather by the MSRP of the car being purchased, right?

Gut reaction is it's biased to benefit the wealthy, but I'm not 100% certain. Gonna have to think on it a bit. Also have some thoughts on purposeful demand creation based on the lower MSRP of the qualified cars, and leading to economies of scale in that arena faster.