By on June 4, 2016

press03-model-x-front-three-quarter-with-doors-open

Tesla Model X owners might want to double check their insurance coverage before hitting those rural highways in search of ecologically sensitive adventure.

Now that the electric SUV is rolling out of Fremont in bigger numbers, owners are starting to experience the normal headaches that come with vehicle ownership. One nagging issue owners are discovering is the cost of replacing the acres and acres of glass that make up the vehicle’s panoramic windshield. (Which happens to be the biggest in the industry.)

Not surprisingly, big glass equals a big repair bill when the Model X encounters wayward pebbles. One St. Paul man took to the Tesla Motors online forum after his vehicle suffered a windshield crack during a Grand Canyon road trip with his family.

The replacement cost? Just shy of $2,300, before tax. “Ouch,” was the general response from forum dwellers.

Depending on where an owner lives, and what coverage their insurance provider offers, that crack could be a very costly one. Some states require mandatory coverage for windshield damage. One forum poster living in Toronto, Canada said his policy covers windshield repair, but the high cost of the replacement is still less than the minimum deductible quoted for a Tesla ($5,000).

No help there.

Of course, there are many who’ll say the owners made their Model X bed, and should lie in it. Hardware comes with a cost, no one needs an electric SUV, etc, etc. Think it all you like, but that isn’t the point here. Who really thinks about their windshield (and what it might cost to replace) when purchasing a vehicle?

[Source: Elektrek]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

108 Comments on “See the World from a Tesla Model X, Pay a Really Big Windshield Replacement Bill...”


  • avatar

    I’d be more worried about those damn doors. But north of two grand for a windshield… Of course, if I had the extra cash for a model X, replacing that windshield really wouldn’t be a big deal.

    • 0 avatar
      RWD_by_the_Sea

      Agreed for Model X owners, but those who get their Model 3s with a similarly-long windshield might be in for quite a surprise the first time an errant rock gets thrown on our ever-deteriorating highways.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        My insurance has 100% coverage for glass. My current windows runs around 36 inches, so maybe another 10 inches back in the Model 3? I’m sure the insurance rate would be higher, but I’d still have the zero deductible.

        • 0 avatar
          JustPassinThru

          And your insurance rates will reflect that. To the point that just INSURING the thing will be a daunting financial task.

          This, I can see, is going to be one of those so-expensive-to-repair vehicles that little things, a cracked windshield or similar, will lead owners to scrap it. There will be little interest in these things as used cars – because used-car buyers, with used-car budgets, will be scared off. So…low resale and pricey parts? Just as with clean BMWs and M-B units, these will head for the Crusher quite early.

          I would posit that Mister Musk needs to spend less time re-inventing the automobile and more time studying what works and what does not; and why. Toyotas with 150,000 miles on the clock have insanely-high resale value. Volkswagens with much less use, do not.

          And if there is not an affordable parts stream, these will become rich-man’s toys…and the number of rich men who want to spend this kind of money on status and playthings, will be quickly sated.

          And Elon Musk will have to go on to his next government-subsidy scheme.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            >> And Elon Musk will have to go on to his next government-subsidy scheme.

            Government subsidy scheme? I’m assuming you are referring to SpaceX. You might want to read the “What this means to investors” section in the Motley Fool article below. SpaceX is saving us money. If it hasn’t already, I’m sure that eventually the savings will exceed any of the EV money Tesla has benefitted.

            http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/04/spacex-to-boeing-thanks-for-all-the-free-money.aspx

          • 0 avatar
            orenwolf

            +1 I’m sure SCEtoAUX could opine on this better than I, but SpaceX (and orbital ATK) are the only space ventures not involved in “cost-plus) contracts for flights.

            That’s right – every other space company charges for the flight itself (which in most cases is at least double the SpaceX rate) AND a separate budget for R&D, which taxpayers ALSO pay for.

            Every SpaceX launch for NASA or the DoD literally saved from tend to hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars versus any other launch partner.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Surely this means that when you aren’t spewing your SJW BS here, you’re advocating for privatizing more government functions elsewhere.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            I feel bad for ToddAtlas. He’s one of these “principled” conservatives who believes that the federal government should do only what’s mandated precisely in the Constitution.

            It must really burn him up to know that in order to post his drivel, he has to use the internet, which was created by the federal government, outside what is constitutionally directed.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I would suggest that some of you type “Alexander Hamilton Report on Manufactures” into a search engine, but the big words would probably confuse you.

            The bottom line is the most financially innovative of the founders was all in favor of subsidizing American industry, particularly for innovative technologies.

            Most of you who yammer on about American history and the Constitution don’t know jack about either one of them. Type less and read more.

            (I don’t personally support subsidies for Tesla, but I don’t base my position on bogus distortions of reality.)

          • 0 avatar

            @PCH

            +1

          • 0 avatar
            JustPassinThru

            “I would suggest that some of you type “Alexander Hamilton Report on Manufactures” into a search engine, but the big words would probably confuse you.”

            Smug condescention aside, Hamilton was not the author of the Constitution. He is not a prophet; he was not the arbiter of what was intended.

            The Constitution spells out the Federal government’s powers and subsidization of industry is NOT one of them.

            Moreover, there remains that sticky little issue – IT DOES NOT WORK.

            Not with Fisker; not with the Synthetic Fuels Corporation (Google it); not with these stupid windmills. Not with RAILROADS subsidized 150 years ago…the subsidized ones always had one foot in bankruptcy court. The ones privately built, mostly prospered. Compare the Union Pacific debacle with the Great Northern Railway, or the assembly of the New York Central system. The reason Corneilus Vanderbuilt was so hated, for bringing cheaper goods into New York City, was that he made the political incompetents on the Transcontinental Railway and other State-subsidized boondoggles look like the fools they were.

            A subsidized product, is BY DEFINITION, a product nobody wants to pay the cost of. So, political cronies use the force of law to steal from taxpayers, who have no defense, to pay for what it is that isn’t wanted.

            Like, say, ethanol; which costs about $10 a gallon for a lower-yield fuel.

            Not everything you read on political websites is honest, or correct, or in context.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Not only did Hamilton participate in the writing of the Constitution, but he also wrote a majority of the Federalist Papers that we use to interpret the Constitution.

            I guess that some folks just passed through high school without being able to get a diploma.

          • 0 avatar

            @justpassingtrhu

            Some innovations are worth fostering, be that through subsidy or other incentives.

            The US has a golden opportunity to reverse a trade deficit in oil into a trade surplus in ELectric vehicle technology products and know how.

            Allowing the market to decide sounds very fair, but the world markets we trade in are not fair. If we allow other nations to become exporters to us of EV’s we simply trade oil imports for EV/battery imports. There is so much at stake, a few incentives are worth their weight in gold.

            My concern is we are not doing enough. While the US EV market has stalled, Asia and Europe are growing at a rapid pace. We will soon be caught up and overtaken if we are not mindful.

            Tesla is a US company. We should try and make sure they succeed so they can export their vehicles in large numbers. It boggles my mind so many people are against American manufacturing startups when so many manufacturing jobs are going overseas.

          • 0 avatar
            JustPassinThru

            @JPWhite

            The market is the place for these decisions to be made. Else we wind up with boondoggles like Ethanol Mandates, which no user of gasoline wants but which is making a few small groups very, very rich off tax subsidies.

            Else we wind up with another NGO like the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, which wasted a billion 1980 dollars – close to five billion today. Which, by today’s standards, is still small potatoes; but back then there were people who had scruples against just printing up devalued dollars.

            Government subsidies distort the market; and once groups get onto the subsidy gravy-train, they spend much, sometims ALL of their time trying to leverage MORE subsidies.

            Hence my comment of the public-trough huckster, Musk. This is not his first go-round looting the public coffers.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Hamilton’s Treasury Department was essentially the founder of Paterson, New Jersey, using a public-private partnership to launch the area’s mill industry.

          https://www.nps.gov/pagr/learn/historyculture/the-birthplace-of-the-american-industrial-revolution.htm

          Of course, I wouldn’t expect a guy who had no idea that Hamilton played a key role in the nation’s founding to know any of this.

          • 0 avatar
            JustPassinThru

            Yah? Where’d you learn all this about Hamilton? The Daily Show? The Daily Kos?

            There were some who were cautiously open to government subsidies as a policy. Wiser heads mostly prevailed, for the first hundred years.

            Now, with crony looting of the tax coffers, political campaigns for subsidies is not only an accepted way of doing business – it’s the only way.

            When you finish reading the bastardized history of Hamilton, you might try reading some Frederic Bastiat, who was a French admirer of the American Revolution, writing sixty years later.

            He had tremendous insight into economics as it touches politics.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat

            http://mises.org/system/tdf/The%20Bastiat%20Collection_4.pdf?file=1&type=document

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You claimed that Hamilton didn’t write the Constitution, which is clearly false. You get an “F” in American history for a blunder that bad.

            You manage to use a lot of words while saying nothing of value. I’m sorry, but your real-life inferiority complex can’t be fixed with your babbling on the internet. (Ironic, given the US government’s role in inventing the web.)

          • 0 avatar
            JustPassinThru

            “You claimed that Hamilton didn’t write the Constitution, which is clearly false. You get an “F” in American history for a blunder that bad.”

            James Madison was the primary author. Borrowing from John Locke and Charles De Montesquieu, both Enlightenment political philosophers.

            Which changes nothing of my point, which is that you’re misinformed about Hamilton. However much Hamilton contributed, he “forgot” to spell out BUSINESS SUBSIDIES as part of the Federal functions.

            I suggest you read the Federalist Papers – rather than Daily Kos.

            “You manage to use a lot of words while saying nothing of value. I’m sorry, but your real-life inferiority complex can’t be fixed with your babbling on the internet. (Ironic, given the US government’s role in inventing the web.)”

            Meaning, I’m not passing back your liberal shibboleths – the buzzwords that right-minded liberals throw back at forth like passwords, to establish they’re both One With The Struggle. You don’t think Bastiat is worth discussion? You don’t think past and present subsidy boondoggles are worth examination? You don’t think the CONCEPT of taking money from taxpayers and giving to a fast-talking huckster like Musk is worth considering?

            Congratulations. You’ve proved your own worth, or lack thereof, in this sort of discussion.

          • 0 avatar

            @passing thru

            It’s easy to find govt boondoggles. Sometimes it makes sense for govt support. I believe EV tech is a strategic opportunity not to be missed.

            You are correct, left to its own devices the market will decide. In this case the market may choose another economy to be the benefactor of EV technology. We are in a global marketplace. It’s imperative the US dominate.

  • avatar
    Kenmore

    “in search of ecologically sensitive adventure”

    Tiresome stereotyping and likely dead wrong. My take is that Teslites are mostly tech junkies and torque freaks.

    I can see why the level of gratuitous background derision in TTAC articles irks them.

  • avatar
    Robert Fahey

    I expected it to cost much more than that.

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      So did I. It’s not an outrageous price for a new, very rare luxury car. Prices should go down a bit once parts supply catches-up.

      Heck, a heated windshield for a mid-90’s Lincoln Continental is almost as much, and they sold lots of those.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

        You also had the option of putting a normal windshield back in a Taurus, Sable or Continental if you couldn’t afford (or didn’t care to afford) the replacement InstaClear. The car still had a normal windshield defogger/defroster as any other model without the option.

        In the Model X, you have no such choice.

    • 0 avatar
      baconator

      Yup. Replacement cost for a Panoramic sunroof on a Mercedes is more than that.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

        Perhaps, but a cracked windshield is far more common, wouldn’t you say?

        • 0 avatar
          sco

          When the iPhone came out with a glass (glass!) screen, people screamed- it will scratch, it will get broken. And guess what, it does. And when it breaks you gotta buy a new a totally new phone. So if people put up with that nonsense they will definitely put up with a windshield that costs a little bit more to fix. No questions as asked, just the cost of owning something desirable.

        • 0 avatar

          @John Taurus.
          Maybe. I’ve learned it depends on the height and angle of the glass. My 3 series is on the third windshield-each one was very pitted prior to some rock taking out a big star-I go through one every 100k or so. Meanwhile, my truck has a perfect window at 100k-no pits, no stars… I had a Saab that ate windshields, but the near vertical angle probably meant that rocks didn’t bounce off…the force of the rock was totally expended on the windshield.

          The Tesla glass is expensive simply because there is ONE supplier. Every single car maker will royally screw you if there is no aftermarket..$1,500 headlights anyone (I have two) ?

          Tesla may be a financial question, but he did get a nameplate on the road in today’s business world…and the car doesn’t suck. Overpriced replacement parts aren’t news. Ford once famously said he’d GIVE them the car if he could be assured of every replacement part sale over the life of the car. Consumer Reports took apart a $4k Pinto and the parts were $16k a la carte.

    • 0 avatar
      VenomV12

      I replaced the windshield on one of my cars last year which is heated on the windshield wiper area plus cost extra because it has some defogging sensor and that cost around $400 and I just ran a quote on it again from Safelite just to be sure and it is now $300 or so, so yeah, $2,300 is goddamn insane.

  • avatar
    Mackie

    Waaah… cry me a river. If you have the money to buy a Tesla then you should have the money to pay for the upkeep.

    • 0 avatar
      JustPassinThru

      The original owners probably do have it.

      They will probably not want to spend this money on a TEN YEAR OLD unit when a windshield cracks.

      Nor will secondhand owners; all successively poorer as the car slowly moves its way down the economic stratum.

      And the price for a windshield will stay high. Which means that this allegedly-eco-friendly car will be scrapped EARLY – and with all its toxic battery matter.

      It also means that because of the realities of the parts pricing, it will lose its value in the used-car market faster.

      • 0 avatar

        There will most likely be an aftermarket solution by then. Even my plebian 3 has choices (granted there are a zillion of them) but the insurance company will only pay the lowest one. Want that OE glass, they’ll cut you a check for the cheap one.

        The insurance companies have taken all the profit out of glass replacement. The guy who did my last window came to the house, popped it in, and was gone in under an hour. He did a decent job, but clearly, his job was done over by accountants and MBA, so he was in perpetual sprint for $40 per window.

  • avatar
    b787

    TTAC’s bias against Tesla is just as annoying as Tesla worshiping on other sites (for example Autoblog, which is especially bad).

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

      Reporting a $2,300 windshield for the new XTS, Cayman or X5 would still take place.

      In fact, competitor’s windshield costs would’ve been a good addition to the story..

      • 0 avatar
        HotPotato

        Yes, including competitors’ windshield costs — like the $5500 wholesale cost for the Flying Spur windshield cited below — would have made the story more interesting and useful. Instead it’s just the TTAC Blue Plate Special: a lame grasp for anything at all to bash Tesla over the head with.

  • avatar
    Fred

    I had to pay $1000 to replace the windshield in my Acura.

  • avatar
    orenwolf

    What the heck crappy Ontario insurance does the guy have with a $5k deductible? I have a $1k deductible here, mainly because it saves me about 25% on my premiums and I’ve needed a claim on it once ever (so why pay more for $0?).

    But $5k? No thanks, unless it lowers his premiums to peanuts.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      It’s basically insuring an exotic. Still, insurance is the biggest ripoff anywhere.

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        There is pretty much no reasonable expense on a Tesla that should exceed 5K except a battery replacement at full cost. It’s kind of crazy to pay for insurance like that.

        Insuring a Ferrari is far different than a Tesla. Tesla is more akin to insuring a high-end S-Class/A8/7-Series. The roadster is more likely to fall into an ‘exotic’ category but this is a plain old sedan.

    • 0 avatar
      Joss

      Canadians need to catch up. Their border dates back to unfortunate British Empire days. Now it is doing little more than protecting banking & insurance.

    • 0 avatar
      tekdemon

      I’ve never heard of having to get a 5K deductible just because you drive a Tesla either, but in Canada they have different insurance regulations and also government provided auto insurance in some provinces so who knows. I’m pretty sure most American auto plans have much lower deductibles and in addition to that they also often have no deductible on glass.

      • 0 avatar
        SkiD666

        In Alberta, my deductible is 5% of the initial purchase price for my Tesla, roughly $7000.

        Can’t get ‘extra’ insurance on windshield because car classified as ‘exotic’.

  • avatar

    GM HUD cars have special film in them and they run $5-600 IIRC.

    $2300 **RETAIL** for an extra-large piece of awkwardly-shaped glass in a 9-month-old low-volume high-end luxury car is not that out of line. Also, you state that amount is ‘replacement cost,’ so does that include labor? If so, not bad.

    Windshield cost on an ’08 Flying Spur sedan? $5500…MY cost…for the GLASS and MOLDINGS alone…NOT installed. THAT is out of line.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      Here’s a 328i with a $2,100 HUD replacement cost:

      http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=654301

      This sort of information could have been included in the original story, but that would have required actual work to research it.

  • avatar
    sorka

    The windshield and the door are exactly why I didn’t order an X. That said, $2300 is not bad. The S glass was close to that for the first year or so. Now the S can be replaced for $1200. Once there are aftermarket alternatives, the S will be 1/3 that cost and the X will won’t be much more than $600 for after market, but it will take at least 4 years to get volume to the point where it’s worth it for another glass company to start making them.

    • 0 avatar

      It’s wishful thinking that the cost of Tesla X glass will ever go down. It’s more likely to go up.

      Tesla sold only about 50,000 cars worldwide last year. Worldwide. That’s counting everything they sell. This is a niche car and is going to remain a niche car. You will always be at the mercy of the dealer for parts.

      If he can get them.

      Aftermarket doesn’t do niche cars.

      • 0 avatar
        threeer

        And I actually saw one out in the wild last week while I was up in Newark, DE. Kind of underwhelming when seen up close. Granted, the rear doors weren’t open, but in a sea of SUVs (parked next to mine, admittedly), the X looked like just another crossover. I guess those that know might well be impressed to see one, but most folks would probably just walk past it.

  • avatar
    gasser

    Why is this so amazing when owners of less expensive cars suddenly discover that their 18″ or 19″ wheeled chariot with V rated rubber needs $1300 for tires?? Or that their great AWD SUV needs to have all 4 tires replaced at the same time after a flat on only one wheel? These moments are even more common than glass replacement. Lest you think you have a choice in tire replacement, remember that about half of cars are leases and must be returned with similar, serviceable and 4 wheel, matching, rubber. Unexpected costs are part of the deal of auto ownership/leasehold.

  • avatar

    “One nagging issue owners are discovering is the cost of replacing the acres and acres of glass that make up the vehicle’s panoramic windshield.”

    I am going to call “acres and acres” an exaggeration. Large would be a better adjective.

    Exaggeration on this scale indicates a biased mindset.

  • avatar
    energetik9

    I’m not really sure what the issue is?

    In my lifetime and the double digit cars I’ve owned, I think I have only replaced two windshields, and isn’t that what insurance is for? Surely this is NOT the only car out there with a big windshield.

  • avatar
    Carfan94

    The Citroen C4 Picasso also has quite a large windshield.

    http://images.cdn.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar.co.uk/files/styles/gallery_slide/public/Citreon-c4-22-8.jpg?itok=36kuXXoC

    I also find the Citroen much more attractive than the Model X.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    One must pay to play, don’t they?

  • avatar
    jmo

    Expensive cars use expensive parts? I’m shocked!

  • avatar
    Xeranar

    I remember back in ’06 having a windshield replaced in the Grand Marquis (Panther Love!) and without insurance it was an $800 job. According to CPI it would be a $950 job today ($1075 if we’re using textbook inflation). So no, doubling the cost for something far more complex both in terms of size and curve isn’t really outrageous and actually cheaper in a per-unit price given that the price is little more double the replacement glass while the unit cost is nearly triple.

  • avatar
    nickoo

    As I have said before and I’ll say again now. Tesla model S was built by industry pros who were brought on for development and have long since departed Tesla. All that is left is Lord Musk and his Galactus world-eater appetite sized ego that he must constantly feed with unmitigated BS. All Tesla Motors had to do was build a slightly better battery and a slightly taller model S and wham-o! model X. All Tesla Motors had to do was build a slightly smaller model S with a slightly smaller battery and wham-o! model III.

    Instead we have a huge debacle in the model X with those ego feeding problematic doors and useless-nonvalue added single piece windshield and what will undoubtedly be a huge debacle in the model III judging by the pre-release model dash, trunklid, and glass roof.

    Lord and Savior Musk will then bail and not claim responsibility after Tesla goes under as a direct result of his incompetence. The larger auto industry as a whole will go back to business-as-usual while the EV movement is set back 15 years.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      nickoo,
      Elon Melon can not survive without the welfare he receives and the special handout the customer gets when stepping into one of his products.

      What I find odd is the pricing for most any EV is in the territory for the haves. The “have nots” subsidise the wealthy enough. Again we will have the selfish ones stating that the “poor” pay no tax. But, do they buy fuel? Do they pay state taxes, remembering it is the states that mainly subsidise at the point of retail.

      I do believe the day will come when Elon Melon will find it tough to survive in the auto industry. I’d bet may gonads that Elon Melon businesses will only consist of subsidised space business, battery manufacturer, mainly for housing, etc.

      EVs are a waste of resources. The all the squandered subsidisesation money should be spent on improving homes and industry, all in society will profit, not just the wealthy enough.

      • 0 avatar
        HotPotato

        Big Al, it’s not an either-or. You can do both.

        Subsidies don’t have to benefit the rich–California restructured theirs to benefit lower-income people the most. Today, if you want to buy a Model S, then you go right ahead and do that with your own money. Instead, families scrambling to get into the meatier part of the middle class can lease a new Ford EV for peanuts instead of being reamed by a buy-here-pay-here loan shark. No more losing jobs because the damn car keeps breaking down.

        And EVs need not be expensive. Thanks to the market flooding with subsidized EVs over the past few years, a used Nissan Leaf is a four-figure proposition for anyone at any income level who wants to own outright.

        More importantly, the argument over the cost of subsidies is complete horsesh!t and always has been. The subsidies are not expensive. Know what was expensive? The Iraq war was expensive. The Libya war was expensive. Do you think those were about anything other than oil? Do you believe that EV subsidies are anything more than a rounding error compared to the amount of public treasure squandered worldwide to keep the world safe for ExxonMobil? If so, then I’d like to sign you up for an amazing income opportunity selling Amway products.

        • 0 avatar
          nickoo

          HotPotato. Thank-you. As a veteran of Bush’s crusade for oil, it pains me to point out the trillions of dollars we wasted in the last 15 years alone, along with the world-wide instabilities we caused, to people who take it upon themselves to feel righteous indignation that a citizen who chose to not participate in the oil market happened to get a break on his taxes for it, so I generally pass on pointing it out, I can get pretty worked up about it.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            HotPotato,
            Yes, but what special deals and handouts do the manufacturers of EVs also have??

            It’s not just EVs, I believe the whole auto industry requires a shake up to reduce the amount of taxpayer money being dumped into it.

            I don’t believe anything should be subsidised until it reaches break even point.

            How many businesses wish they had this form of insurance? Again, it’s our money and the money could be better spent.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          HotPotato,
          I don’t disagree about the costs of war. But the reality is the US is protecting it’s economic position. Whether we like it or not all are greedy. That’s why subsidisation is there, to sate greed. We call it protection in self interest.

          If people were that interested in EVs they would sell on their own with no handouts.

          I see handouts this way; Currently in Australia our retail industry turnover is 80% controlled by two major retailers. Woolworths and Westfarmers.

          Woolworth “subsidises” it’s customers with loylaty rewards. Spend X amount and you can get up to 8c a litre off of fuel purchases, reward points. Special discounts on certain products at certain times. Westfarmers is similar.

          Along come Aldi with no reward or customer loyalty schemes and they can retail 25% cheaper than the other two. The measure is based on a basket of products with hundreds of consumer items.

          This is the same as the EV industry. It is based on false pretenses. It is false to believe the prices of EVs will drop significantly. The prices would drop without the subsidies and handouts.

          Again, here in Australia the Federal Government pushed for LPG vehicle conversions. The government had an $1 800 rebate on any conversion. Guess what the price of conversions went up $1 800! It went from just over $2 000 to around $4 000, with poorer quality work.

          This is evident in most any situation regarding handouts.

          EVs will not be the domain of the “West” we will produce EVs in the future, but the main supplier of EVs in the future will be Asia, in particular China. So, all of this protection and development will transfer straight across the Pacific. And there will be little that can be done to slow it down. Unless a “Chicken Tax” is placed on EVs.

          It’s a waste. Why not spend the money on improving home insulation, natural gas, solar power generation.

          I watched a very interesting TV interview the other day. Some guy from California came to Australia to look at our solar industry, especially how solar is being used in the home.

          We he stated was Australia has the best model for the use of batteries in conjunction with solar energy. We can store energy and put energy back into the system during peak load periods.

          The US this isn’t as viable due to the way in which solar energy is paid back to the consumer. In California you meter just runs bacwards, whereas here in Australia the person is paid money. So, during the day when peak power demand is lower we store our electricity and release it back into the grid when the demand is higher and the value of the energy sold is higher.

          This is how batteries should be used, not in cars ……… yet. First lets resolve the easier problems to reduce climate change, not this airy fairy crap of EVs.

          If you want an EV by all means invest in one, but without any form of subsidy. Subsidies and protectionism promote waste and limit progress.

          I am not against EVs, gasoline, diesel, LNG, LPG, etc. But don’t use my money or taxpayers money.

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            Big Al,

            Georgia removed its EV subsidy, and Nissan didn’t drop the Leaf’s price by a like amount.

            What *does* make prices drop is when a product reaches the tipping point in terms of sales volume and technology. Subsidies help it get there faster, and terminate once a vehicle model has sold a certain number of units.

            EVs aren’t inevitably made in Asia any more than any other vehicle. Nissan started out making Leafs in Japan, and now they make them in the USA.

            Agreed, solar is effective and incredibly cheap. You can thank subsidies, which built the consumer market and funded the R&D for solar, going all the way back to the 1970s. At the time I thought it was a huge waste of tax money. I was wrong.

            Solar and EVs are two parts of a larger overall realignment of energy production and use. Government sees huge potential long-term payoffs for public health, public budgets, and national security, and they are investing appropriately.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            HotPotato,
            My response to you is above.

            Sorry mate.

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      “All Tesla Motors had to do was build a slightly smaller model S with a slightly smaller battery and wham-o! model III.”

      nickoo, you could say that of any make. The 3 Series is just a slightly smaller 7 Series, and the C Class is a slightly smaller S Class, right? That’s what it says in the brochure, so it must be true.

      I think if you dig deeper, you’ll find out that things aren’t that simple. It’s a lot easier to design and build an expensive niche car than it is to design and build a high-volume mid-market car. That’s part of what makes the Model 3 so interesting. It’s not a refresh, or even a GM-style “lets do what everybody else was doing 5 years ago” thing.

      It really doesn’t matter if you like them or not (and I’m guessing from your tone that you don’t), Tesla will come-up with a mid-market car that’s unlike anything else. It’s worth following them just for that.

      • 0 avatar
        nickoo

        I wanted to like the model III. However, I am now seriously considering a used model S when it comes time to buy a new car. If model III had been what the new audi A4/S4 is, then I would have already put down my deposit. I love that car. If they make an electric one, I will buy it.

        Instead, the model III has a useless trunk, ridiculous prius like cost cutting dash, and expensive gimmicky windscreen/roof/back glass, none of which impresses me.

        It’s bad enough Tesla failed in building a 2 speed reduction gear for their roadsters, which I could easily have designed (It is part of what I do for a living), but in the model S, they can’t even build a regular reduction gear that holds up to the model S torque so if I buy a model S, I’d probably be stuck paying for gear change-outs every 30-50,000 miles.

        They are not equipped to build cars, as you rightly stated, they are a “tech” company that will get their rear ends handed to them if one of the majors decides they want to actually invest in EVs. Tesla is winning, and I applaud them for it, in the EV race, only because no one else has been willing to take it on like they have.

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      Considering that Musk moved the EV industry *forward* by 40 years in 10, he could screw up his company royally without “setting back the industry.” Look at the EV stuff on the internet dating from 2000-2010. It is the absolute dark ages–people converting Fieros with lead-acid batteries to get 30 miles of range and 50 mph top speed. Dude’s ego is more than justified. He’s always said his main goal is to get more electric cars on the road, whether he’s building them or not–that’s why he gives away his patents for free. To argue that there’s even a possible scenario in which he sets back the industry is just goofy.

      • 0 avatar
        nickoo

        Fair enough. You could say that I have concerns based on every other manufacturer not really taking EVs seriously with the exception of maybe GM (and even they aren’t really taking the niche seriously without addressing the charging issue) that if Tesla fails, EVs will go back to being short range second cars for the city commuter.

  • avatar
    Mr. Orange

    I’m looking at a banner ad for Safelite auto glass. Coincidence?

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Why not just subsidise the EV windscreen/shields?

    Subsidisation is there when purchasing an EV.

    This should alot the cost to all. This is how all free economies should function.

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      “Why not just subsidise the EV windscreen/shields?”

      Glad you brought this up – it really p!$$es me off that my insurance rates help pay for $2300 windshield replacements.

      And all of those people whose cars were washed away in the historic flooding in Texas – I gotta pay for that, too.

      This “shared cost” model just has to go. If you can’t afford to pay for a replacement vehicle, don’t buy one.

      This “welfare” has to stop.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        Insurance is ‘socialized’ via actuarial tables.

        If you don’t like that, drop your insurance and simply self-insure.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          ” drop your insurance and simply self-insure.”

          There is another option besides “self-insure”. You can take minimum required liability insurance for your state through a commercial insurer, if you own the car outright.

          That’s what I’ve done on all my cars, even when brand new. When we go on an extended trip to a high-risk area, I upgrade the coverage to full-coverage and full-comprehensive, and then cancel all that when I get back from my trip.

          If you finance a vehicle through a lender, and the lender requires a certain coverage and deductible, the self-insure bond often costs more than a regular insurance policy.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          SCE to AUX,
          Insurance is not ‘socialised’.

          It’s a free market transaction.

          Because I insure doesn’t mean all have the same deal. Insurance is based on me and how much I want to pay for the coverage that suits me.

          I’m not forced to pay taxes to insure. I’m paying taxes to insure others through welfare, including industry. The industry part I don’t like.

          • 0 avatar
            orenwolf

            “socialized” In the sense that your rate is based on those of others like you, not “socialized” in the sense of socialist policy. You may decide whether or not you want insurance, but your rate is “social” in the sense that it’s the behaviour of others, via actuarial tables, that determine your rate, not just you.

            I actually wasn’t aware you could choose to self-insure. I’m not sure if that’s legal up here or not. Makes sense though, if you can put up the $500k or whatever it is legally mandated minimum liability amount.

          • 0 avatar

            Most states require car owners to carry insurance. The only choice u have is the amount of coverage and who to insure with. To that extent it’s socialized, of course some choose to flout the legal requirement so we can choose uninsured motorist coverage to cover that eventuality.

      • 0 avatar
        Dave M.

        Social Security, SNAP, agricultural subsidies and Head Start piss me off. How do I get them to stop using my money?

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        That’s the silliest thing I think I’ve ever heard.

        The amount your insurance increased because of Tesla owners is, if it happened at all, statistically insignificant. Based on other comments here, it sounds like insurance companies are making Tesla owners pay exorbitant premiums, so they’re footing the bill themselves. Also, it isn’t “welfare” when an insurance company bases your rates on the relative risk of insuring you. If you live in a flood-prone area of Texas, you *should* be charged a bit more.

        You would have a better argument if you were upset at people who, say, commit insurance fraud, because they tend to raise rates across the board. But this? You’ve got to be kidding.

  • avatar
    LS1Fan

    This is like taking a supermodel out on a date and complaining about the bar tab.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      LSIFan,
      But, if your supermodel friends paid or a large chunk of the date it would be a little different.

      You would not of dated the supermodel without the handouts from your/her friends.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        >>> But, if your supermodel friends paid or a large chunk of the date it would be a little different.

        >> You would not of dated the supermodel without the handouts from your/her friends.

        I know a supermodel personally and she’s actually really low maintenance. Likes smartwater for a drink and that’s about it. She’s into healthy food, so fast food is out.

        The ones to stay away from are investment bankers. Went through several rounds of $2000 bottles of wine with some at Smith and Wolensky in NYC. You know what an investment bankers is right – you know, the guys that got bailed out financially in 2009 along with a couple of ICE car makers. You remember, right? Oh yeah, you’re memory doesn’t go back that far.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        I wouldn’t say a $7500 subsidy on an $80-140k car is a ‘latge chunk’.

  • avatar
    jpolicke

    Model X glass is large to be sure, but not that much more than some other cars, minivans. The major cost driver here is probably that Tesla controls the supply and the car is not popular enough for the aftermarket to take an interest. So the rates for comp/collision or glass coverage will be priced accordingly; just one more hole in the economic argument for a Tesla.

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      “just one more hole in the economic argument for a Tesla.”

      The Model X is a $100,000+ car. Do you seriously think people buy them to save money?

      • 0 avatar
        jpolicke

        Somebody must be; I didn’t put the “miles charged – gas money saved” calculator on their website. If fuel cost wasn’t an issue there would have been no need for Tesla to do the whole voodoo accounting “real cost” song and dance.

        • 0 avatar
          heavy handle

          jpolicke,

          That’s gas money saved compared to an S Class or A8. That sort of information can be useful to someone who is writing-off a Model S as a business expense.

          It’s entirely different from a family trying to coax an old minivan through the winter, hoping to have enough of a down payment for a much-needed replacement.

      • 0 avatar
        shaker

        “The Model X is a $100,000+ car. Do you seriously think people buy them to save money?”

        I just hope that these people go “all-in” and put solar in to juice up the grid (where possible).

      • 0 avatar
        JGlanton

        + $30K gifted by the taxpayers

  • avatar
    Joss

    I see a day when a techno forgets to buckle in their sex robot and it goes out through the Tesla shield. They’ll get off on the indecency charge as a nude bot isn’t a public exposure…

  • avatar
    baggins

    2300 doesnt seem out of line,given the rarity of the car and the size of the windshield

    At this point, isnt the average Model X going out the door for 120K or so?

    Really dont think this matters.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    I for one am shocked.
    I assumed Elon equipped these with a force field to prevent this type of incident.

    (this makes the 150 bucks I paid for the windshield for my 67 Camaro a few years ago seem like a screaming deal)

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    Nine years ago, when I test drove a Cayman at the local Porsche dealer, they had a damaged 911 wheel. Replacement cost with a new tire was just shy of $2,000. Tesla isn’t the only expensive ride.

  • avatar
    nlinesk8s

    What’s more interests Ng to me is the big gravel trucks with the “not responsible for objects thrown from road” CYA signs. I’ve lost two windshields to these.

  • avatar
    z9

    The cost of repair on any Tesla is partially driven by the company’s practice of selling collision parts only to shops it has certified. These places mark up their prices accordingly. A $20,000+ repair when a rear quarter panel on a Model S is damaged is typical. Within a year or two this may be about the resale value of a vintage Model S so a fair number of these cars may be totaled for fairly minor accidents.

    I’m not sure what the point of this practice is at this point. Is there some sort of investment in special tools or training that a body shop needs to make in order to repair “exotic” models? Or is it more likely the customer who spends a lot on a car to begin with is more likely to feel comfortable with the concept of a certified body shop?

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      You’re right, and I’m not sure why Tesla does that. Certainly exotic cars like the Ferrari Enzo or anything made from carbon fiber require specialists, but for the most part, the main thing an exotic car (like, say, an Aston Martin) has that a normal car doesn’t is aluminum construction. Aluminum is easily contaminated, so it requires a special area in the repair shop and different tools. But there are lots of aluminum cars that are less than exotic, such as the Jaguar XJ, the Audi A8, and the F-150. As of the C7, all Corvettes have aluminum spaceframes, too.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    Again, while there are many who appreciate Tesla’s gee-whiz features, I think there are just as many people who would have preferred a set of more-conventional vehicles with lightweight construction and Tesla’s electric powertrain. The Model 3, which is supposed to come in at a more-palatable price, is a good example for Tesla to build that kind of product…but it will probably get delayed because of some unnecessary feature or another.

  • avatar
    JGlanton

    I was put out when the dealer told me my BMW 650 windshield (with HUD) would cost $1600 to replace. Not shocked, but annoyed, and pissed at the cement truck that bounced a gravel rock into my glass. I called one of those windshield repair places and they came to my work and replaced it for $850.

    The after-market windshield’s HUD image is not as sharp as the factory glass, though.

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    When the new Chevy and GMC C/K pickups debuted in 1988, there was sticker shock over the glued-in front and rear glass (something like $1,000 for a front windshield, IIRC), but that price dropped after a while, as aftermarket windshields hit the market. I expect that the aftermarket will respond here as well. Glass coverage on insurance policies for these will be expensive until aftermarket glass becomes available – and insurance companies don’t like to pay for OEM parts if an aftermarket alternative exists.

  • avatar
    PandaBear

    Yes, it is ridiculous, but then again, $400 to get yourself a computer chipped key programmed to your ECU ($200 part and $200 labor) by the dealer is just as ridiculous.

    And consumers still pay for it.

  • avatar
    lot9

    I have a non-constitution inquiry, if permitted.

    It is a windshield question…..
    When did the one piece windshield come into being standard in autos?
    Most likely different years for different models.

    I am unable to find it on the web. And any information on the old grilles of autos say in the 20′ 30′ and 40s. of the different models and years that they changed.

    Thanks

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • bullnuke: They’re built in the mother country (Japan).
  • millerluke: I have a 2019 Camry with the 2.5L. It’s rated for around 7.2 L/100km, and I routinely get around...
  • slap: I started college the year this generation of GM intermediate cars came out. The previous generation had some...
  • msquare: This was indeed the spiritual successor to the Grand Am, which was dropped about the same time the Chevelle...
  • Peter Gazis: Trump is sitting on over 8000 ventilators. While his home state of New York is putting 2 people on...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Timothy Cain
  • Matthew Guy
  • Ronnie Schreiber
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth