Tesla Model 3

Idbatterim

the M3 is way cheaper in the states and so is the fuel! They are cool cars for different reasons!

Thank god for Musk and pushing electric with these massive strides, our government couldnt care less about climate change. These electric cars are massive winners all round, whether you currently drive electric or not!

TCP/IP

kceire wrote: »

Based on your comment that 99% of users here wouldn’t get that.

You seem To think that EV drivers here are little old men with tartan blankets and driving gloves.

Silly and condescending comment in my opinion.

Ah get you. Not the tartan blanket brigade at all just the cost consensus brigade.

TCP/IP

Idbatterim wrote: »

the M3 is way cheaper in the states and so is the fuel! They are cool cars for different reasons!

Thank god for Musk and pushing electric with these massive strides, our government couldnt care less about climate change. These electric cars are massive winners all round, whether you currently drive electric or not!

Climate change another excuse for governments to tax the general public but that’s another story for a different thread.

Gumbo

TCP/IP wrote: »

Ah get you. Not the tartan blanket brigade at all just the cost consensus brigade.

Cant speak for everyone, but if I was cost conscious, I don't think I would have spent 22k on an I3

22k gets me loads of M3 and fuel, maybe just a little bit of tax and insurance

Gumbo

TCP/IP wrote: »

Climate change another excuse for governments to tax the general public but that’s another story for a different thread.

That's it, the government is essentially taxing climate change. The people see this and it turns them off change and adaption to climate change behavior.

The government should be promoting more to help fight climate change and to change peoples general behavior. The kids in schools now are talking about it and are more aware of climate change than I was at my sons age.

Lumen

kceire wrote: »

That's it, the government is essentially taxing climate change. The people see this and it turns them off change and adaption to climate change behavior.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Governments are heavily taxing one form of private transport and heavily subsidizing another, to shift demand (and investment) towards a new technology until that becomes sufficiently developed to compete without the incentives.

And the behaviour change works, as evidenced by the history of VRT and road tax. Prior to 2008 there were few large diesels around (I know, cos I had to import one) and then petrols largely disappeared, and now both petrol and diesel cars are going to disappear.

Whether or not this is enough to avert catastrophic climate change is another issue. Personally, I don't see it, but even if we lose half the habitable landmass being able to move around the remaining half without destroying that too is a worthy goal.

Gumbo

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean.

Governments are heavily taxing one form of private transport and heavily subsidizing another, to shift demand (and investment) towards a new technology until that becomes sufficiently developed to compete without the incentives.

And the behaviour change works, as evidenced by the history of VRT and road tax. Prior to 2008 there were few large diesels around (I know, cos I had to import one) and then petrols largely disappeared, and now both petrol and diesel cars are going to disappear.

Whether or not this is enough to avert catastrophic climate change is another issue. Personally, I don't see it, but even if we lose half the habitable landmass being able to move around the remaining half without destroying that too is a worthy goal.

My thoughts are that, even though there are incentives for changing, the big headlines are still carbon tax, tax on fuel, tax on coal.......tax, tax, tax

Never good headlines on incentives and grants. Promote the change for a few years, give people time to want to change, then heavily tax once adaption to change has been set into peoples minds.

ted1

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean.

Governments are heavily taxing one form of private transport and heavily subsidizing another, to shift demand (and investment) towards a new technology until that becomes sufficiently developed to compete without the incentives.

And the behaviour change works, as evidenced by the history of VRT and road tax. Prior to 2008 there were few large diesels around (I know, cos I had to import one) and then petrols largely disappeared, and now both petrol and diesel cars are going to disappear.

Whether or not this is enough to avert catastrophic climate change is another issue. Personally, I don't see it, but even if we lose half the habitable landmass being able to move around the remaining half without destroying that too is a worthy goal.

They are not subsidising anything. A subsidy involves contributing to the cost.

They are giving a tax break on a tax that probably would not have been realised anyway.

cnocbui

ted1 wrote: »

They are not subsidising anything. A subsidy involves contributing to the cost.

They are giving a tax break on a tax that probably would not have been realised anyway.

Tax on petrol was increased to subsidise the lowering of tax on diesel. Same for CO2 based car registration costs.

The Irish government has been very foolish with taxation of transport. They have got themselves into a hole where 10% of all government revenues comes from road transport taxes.

Lumen

ted1 wrote: »

They are not subsidising anything. A subsidy involves contributing to the cost.

They are giving a tax break on a tax that probably would not have been realised anyway.

Well, OK. That feels a bit like semantics. The effect of people switching to EVs is a large hole in the exchequer finances, which is the same effect as a subsidy.

FWIW I'm sticking with oil heating because I'm betting that electricity taxes will go up faster than oil taxes.

USSCork

ted1 wrote: »

They are not subsidising anything. A subsidy involves contributing to the cost.

They are giving a tax break on a tax that probably would not have been realised anyway.

Very much agree. I think Ireland is the only country that charges VRT in the first place... Bloody criminal in a country where cars are so necessary due to the lack of 'good' public transport. Of course, I'm happier getting most of it back with the €5k VRT rebate on Electric Vehicles, but it shouldn't exist in the first place! SCRAP VRT!!! (Or at least SCRAP VRT FOR EV's!)

Then there is VAT, which is charges at a higher rate then the EU average.... adding nearly a quarter to the cost of the vehicle. There would be a great opportunity here to drop the VAT rate on EVs to the Lower rate. Even just dropped to 13.5% would reduce the cost of the entry level Model 3 by about €4,000. That's a significant saving that might actually bring more people into the EV space.

Lastly, you have Road Tax... and to be honest, I don't have too much to give out about here. The new 2008 rates dropped the tax payable on a typical 2L ICE car from €710 per annum to something like €280. I think annual road tax for EVs is something like €130, which is very good in the grand scheme. (Though watch out for much higher Electrical Bills for everyone in the future...either through Tax or just market forces!!)

Thanks..

P.s. I think exclusively facing Tesla ATM due to the fact that all their manufacturing is done in the US, is the EU's 10% US Import Duty... but I can't really blame this on the Irish Government.

kev22185

USSCork wrote: »

Very much agree. I think Ireland is the only country that charges VRT in the first place... Bloody criminal in a country where cars are so necessary due to the lack of 'good' public transport. Of course, I'm happier getting most of it back with the €5k VRT rebate on Electric Vehicles, but it shouldn't exist in the first place! SCRAP VRT!!! (Or at least SCRAP VRT FOR EV's!)

Some other countries do have registration tax and like Ireland the amount due is based on co2 emissions. Portugal's ISV for example (I think that's what its called) however - EV's = 0 emissions and are exempt from the registration tax in Portugal. It would be nice if that was the same here.

Lumen

kev22185 wrote: »

Some other countries do have registration tax and like Ireland the amount due is based on co2 emissions. Portugal's ISV for example (I think that's what its called) however - EV's = 0 emissions and are exempt from the registration tax in Portugal. It would be nice if that was the same here.

In Netherlands it's BPM apparently.

https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontenten/belastingdienst/individuals/cars/bpm/calculate_and_pay_bpm/calculate-and-pay-bpm

And in Denmark it's just Registration Tax.

https://skat.dk/skat.aspx?oid=2244599

"Cars: 85% of the taxable value up to DKK 185,100 in 2017 and 150% of the rest."

There may be other examples but I lost interest....

kev22185

Lumen wrote: »

In Netherlands it's BPM apparently.

https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontenten/belastingdienst/individuals/cars/bpm/calculate_and_pay_bpm/calculate-and-pay-bpm

And in Denmark it's just Registration Tax.

https://skat.dk/skat.aspx?oid=2244599

"Cars: 85% of the taxable value up to DKK 185,100 in 2017 and 150% of the rest."

There may be other examples but I lost interest....

Model 3 is exempt from registration tax in the Netherlands and Denmark...

From the danish configurator

Incl. VAT of approx. 75.304
Includes delivery and document fee of DKK 7,520
Includes registration fee of DKK 0

From the Dutch configurator

Model 3 is exempt from purchase tax (BPM) and motor vehicle tax (MRB) up to and including 2020....

ForestFire

USSCork wrote: »

Very much agree. I think Ireland is the only country that charges VRT in the first place... Bloody criminal in a country where cars are so necessary due to the lack of 'good' public transport. Of course, I'm happier getting most of it back with the €5k VRT rebate on Electric Vehicles, but it shouldn't exist in the first place! SCRAP VRT!!! (Or at least SCRAP VRT FOR EV's!)

EV's are mostly a viable option for the reasonably wealthy at the moment and you admit you are already getting a grant towards the cost for you...The Rich persons grant for new toys, I'll call it.

The average person cannot afford these types of cars, even considering the Leafs, which are above the average family's budget and the second hand market is non-existent.

On top of this, as one of your options, you now want to remove VRT only for EV's only (Remember the rich peoples toys) and keep screwing the average person....How many discounts do you want!!

Also, if VRT was removed the government would still need to raise the VRT shortfall in some other way (General taxation) and the car companies would most likely increase their base prices due to the opportunity to hide any VRT decrease and keep their prices in line with other countries.

(Sarcasm warning and some poetic licence for dramatic effect)
If you want a luxury EV (model 3 Thread) with high performance, made with heavily mined rare and dangerous metals for unsustainable batteries, charged with electricity produce by burning the emblems of compressed dinosaurs..... pay for it yourself....:o

KCross

Lumen wrote: »

FWIW I'm sticking with oil heating because I'm betting that electricity taxes will go up faster than oil taxes.

Fatal flaw in that logic is that it takes alot less energy to heat with a HP than with oil.

Mike9832

KCross wrote: »

Fatal flaw in that logic is that it takes alot less energy to heat with a HP than with oil.

Interesting topic

Why isn't electric heating more popular if its 99% efficient and cheaper than oil

Why is it cost effective in cars and not home heating

Oil is 70c a litre, electricity can be had for 10c/kWh

Is it cuase oil per litre is very energy dense at like 5kWh a litre after efficiency loses?

catharsis

samih wrote: »

Yes. I still think that it's mad that we are comparing a four door family car (ok a hot version of it) to a BMW M3 as a track weapon. Things are changing and this is just the step one while waiting for batteries that don't need complex cooling and heating systems. But these comparisons show that the BEVs are almost there even for the edge cases.

I thought we were comparing the 'performance version of a 4 door family car with the performance version of another 4 door family car? - did someone remove two doors from the M3 while I was not looking?

I find it amazing that the Model 3 got so close to the M3 and would note that it represents an absolute triumph for tesla in terms of chassis and handling.

On the other hand I do not for a second believe that the Model 3 is a better track day weapon than an M3. Anyone seriously suggesting that on the basis if the TG review is missing the point somewhat.

What is important is how close it got - so close in fact that it can even win over a single lap from a standing start.

this from a car that (in the UK) costs GBP59K for the M3 and GBP56K for the Model3.

Model 3 will have many options as standard which the M3 does not, but M3 will have many options available which the Model 3 cannot match (e.g. .adaptive lights, which are a massive differentiator once you have owned them)

Build quality, comfort luxury etc in the M3 are orders of magnitude better than the Model3, but then to counteract that you are burning fossil juice, have much higher running costs and a significantly higher (at a guess) Total Cost of Ownership with the M3.

Is the Performance Model 3 startlingly good in chassis and handling? - indubitably.
Is the Model 3 Performance a better buy than an M3? - open question - possibly not.
Is a Tesla Model3 Short Range+ a better buy than a basic BMW 318D - I think so.

at the edge case it's not there yet, but in general I agree that the Tesla in ride and handling is as good as they hype, even if build and other items are still of 'American quality'.

catharsis

Soarer wrote: »

The Model 3 shouldn't be compared to the M3 imo.

The Model 3 is a family saloon that just happens to be ludicrously fast.
The M3 is a performance sports car aimed at a niche market.

The comparison is between the Model3 Performance and the BMW 3-series performance (aka the M3) - which have near-identical cost in the UK market.

I do think they are targetted at different markets, but they are both 4 door family saloons which cost the same so it's not that strange a comparison.

I would agree that a more natural comparison in the standard or long range tesla against a 'normal' 3-series.

Johnboy1951

ForestFire wrote: »

EV's are mostly a viable option for the reasonably wealthy at the moment and you admit you are already getting a grant towards the cost for you...The Rich persons grant for new toys, I'll call it.

The average person cannot afford these types of cars, even considering the Leafs, which are above the average family's budget and the second hand market is non-existent.

On top of this, as one of your options, you now want to remove VRT only for EV's only (Remember the rich peoples toys) and keep screwing the average person....How many discounts do you want!!

Also, if VRT was removed the government would still need to raise the VRT shortfall in some other way (General taxation) and the car companies would most likely increase their base prices due to the opportunity to hide any VRT decrease and keep their prices in line with other countries.

(Sarcasm warning and some poetic licence for dramatic effect)
If you want a luxury EV (model 3 Thread) with high performance, made with heavily mined rare and dangerous metals for unsustainable batteries, charged with electricity produce by burning the emblems of compressed dinosaurs..... pay for it yourself....:o

Maybe in time the gov will phase out the tax breaks for those buying cars with an OMSP higher than 25K or 30K and retain it for others.

I would certainly like to see it go this way, to encourage sale of EVs to those who want cheaper up front cost of ownership.
Give everyone one chance to get on the 'EV ladder' (not applicable to second or subsequent EV purchases) and things might then settle down nicely.

catharsis

Silent Running wrote: »

For me, the saddest thing in motoring is hearing a clattery diesel start up on a car with AMG or M on it.

The saddest thing in the world is the people (or marketing departments) who put an M or AMG 'lite' badge on a car because it has a cosmetic spoiler or bodykit. there are no M nor AMG diesels in existence to my knowledge!

ETA: In case it was not apparent I completely agree with the thrust of your post

Mike9832

Tesla Model 3 P is more like a 335i

Model 3 LR = 330d/330i/330e

Model 3 SR = 325i/325d

BMW M3 is a different monster to M3P

Years of research gone into get every bit of performance out of it

M3P is just a Model 3 with more power in comparison, its like the difference between a 335i and 325i

M3P can't go round the ring without overheating, a proper EV sports car from Porsche etc will have no such problem

ELM327

catharsis wrote: »

The saddest thing in the world is the people (or marketing departments) who put an M or AMG 'lite' badge on a car because it has a cosmetic spoiler or bodykit. there are no M nor AMG diesels in existence to my knowledge!

ETA: In case it was not apparent I completely agree with the thrust of your post

X5 m50d and m550d would disagree.

Silent Running

ELM327 wrote: »

X5 m50d and m550d would disagree.

Wildly off topic, but I was looking at the engine out of a 191 M50d on the workshop floor. It had only covered 2000kms when the engine died in spectacular fashion. The entire contents of the diesel tank were found inside the engine, after causing the same damage that ingesting water will do to a diesel. BMW engineering at it's finest.

Lumen

KCross wrote: »

Fatal flaw in that logic is that it takes alot less energy to heat with a HP than with oil.

Electricity is twice the price of oil per kWh according to SEAI.

Old diesel

The 10 percent tarriff is actually a WTO tarriff not an EU one.

You'd face the same if sending a car the other way.

Old diesel

The 10 percent tarriff is actually a WTO tarriff not an EU one.

You'd face the same if sending a car the other way.

KCross

Lumen wrote: »

Electricity is twice the price of oil per kWh according to SEAI.

It's OT, might be better to continue in the renewable forum but the cost given on the SEAI website is based on full day rate electricity.... HP's do the majority of their work on night rate electricity, which is half that price!

And the key difference is that HP's are 200-500% efficient (depends on which one you buy) whereas oil burners are <100% efficienct.

I'm not saying everyone should rip out their functioning oil burners but the premise that you should pick oil over electricity for heating based on tax increases on electricity being more than oil is flawed.

cnocbui

Mike9832 wrote: »

Interesting topic

Why isn't electric heating more popular if its 99% efficient and cheaper than oil

Why is it cost effective in cars and not home heating

Oil is 70c a litre, electricity can be had for 10c/kWh

Is it cuase oil per litre is very energy dense at like 5kWh a litre after efficiency loses?

Air based heat pumps don't work well at or below freezing, so you really need ground buried loops. They also produce only a low thermal output so are best suited to underfloor heating that's on all or most of the time.

In milder climates like NZ, heat pumps - otherwise known as reverse cycle airconditioning, are air based and don't require all the palaver needed in this country and they can be easily retrofitted to existing buildings in a couple of hours and are also a lot cheaper.

I had a reverse cycle airconditioner in the last house I lived in Oz. A bit noisy, but it worked well and was comparatively cheap to run. In this climate the external evaporator would have just iced up and stopped working in short order.

Ireland is a bit too cold for human habitation, to be honest.

ted1

Lumen wrote: »

Electricity is twice the price of oil per kWh according to SEAI.

But a heat pump delivers 3 kWh for every 1 it uses. I.e therefore cheaper. That’s before you look at boiler inefficiencies