3 ms·

> The equivalent usable capacity of the Tesla battery is unknown, but it's likely to be a similar fraction. It isn't unknown and it's not a similar fraction. I

> The equivalent usable capacity of the Tesla battery is unknown, but it's likely to be a similar fraction. It isn't unknown and it's not a similar fraction. It's 73 kWh usable in the Model Y: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYxTJzZ5sJY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYxTJzZ5sJY A better question is why does Tesla not reveal such a basic detail in its marketing. > When you add up the money you spent on electricity to fill up the battery, then the Model Y goes further per dollar spent on electricity. You aren't going to see much benefit from that. The difference is 6%. The Mustang Mach E is thousands of dollars cheaper than the Model Y with the current incentives that it qualifies for. The California Route 1 trim is cheaper even without incentives and gets even more range because it's rear wheel drive. That's a lot of charging to make up the difference.

simondotau 6y ago
That logic does make sense if we assume that the purchase price of a vehicle is entirely for the battery and all other parts of the car are free. Nonetheless, even if we accept your logic, your point remains a weird one. The vehicle with a 88 kWh "usable" capacity goes a little bit further on the highway compared to the vehicle with a 73 kWh "usable" capacity. Is this supposed to be a surprise to anyone? My point was about efficiency, not range. Range can easily be made higher by putting in a bigger battery, which is precisely what Ford did here. Quoting from your own citation: "Keep in mind that the Tesla Model Y is more efficient than the Mach E but it has a smaller battery." That was my point. You're making another point and I'm not disagreeing with it.
- clouddrover 6y ago
  > Nonetheless, even if we accept your logic, your point remains a weird one. It isn't weird that car buyers consider how much the car will cost them. > Is this supposed to be a surprise to anyone? This has all been a surprise to you. You're not across the detail but that's okay. Now you know more.

simondotau 6y ago

That logic does make sense if we assume that the purchase price of a vehicle is entirely for the battery and all other parts of the car are free. Nonetheless, even if we accept your logic, your point remains a weird one. The vehicle with a 88 kWh "usable" capacity goes a little bit further on the highway compared to the vehicle with a 73 kWh "usable" capacity. Is this supposed to be a surprise to anyone? My point was about efficiency, not range. Range can easily be made higher by putting in a bigger battery, which is precisely what Ford did here. Quoting from your own citation: "Keep in mind that the Tesla Model Y is more efficient than the Mach E but it has a smaller battery." That was my point. You're making another point and I'm not disagreeing with it.

clouddrover 6y ago
> Nonetheless, even if we accept your logic, your point remains a weird one. It isn't weird that car buyers consider how much the car will cost them. > Is this supposed to be a surprise to anyone? This has all been a surprise to you. You're not across the detail but that's okay. Now you know more.