By on July 13, 2016

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

Just as it did recently with the Model S, Tesla just took its Model X SUV in for a battery and price haircut, resulting in a new base model.

The automaker’s website now shows the availability of a 60D version of the all-wheel-drive utility, meaning a 60 kilowatt battery and an EPA estimated 200 miles of range. The battery shrinkage makes the new model the shortest-ranged Tesla in the stable, but it also undercuts the price of the formerly base 75D by $9,000. 

$76,500 (minus a $7,500 federal tax credit) is steep for any non-military vehicle, however, like the Model S 60, the slightly lower price broadens the pool of potential customers for Tesla’s flagship.

The smaller battery means less low-end grunt, though Tesla claims the Model X 60D will still match the 75D’s six second 0–60 mile per hour time. That’s with 325 pounds-fee of torque on tap, instead of the 75D’s 387 lb-ft. Top speed is listed as 140 mph.

As with all Model X variants, the 60D comes with seating for five and a long list of options — including Autopilot — for those wanting to boost the comfort level (and price).

The automaker hasn’t said if extra battery capacity can be unlocked for a fee, which was an option available to Model S 70 owners.

[Image: Tesla Motors]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

51 Comments on “Tesla Quietly Adds a New Model X — Now With Less Range!...”


  • avatar
    RHD

    It comes with a built-in Lyft moustache…

    • 0 avatar
      James2

      I saw an X for the first time the other day and it looks incomplete without a grille. But, the S’ full-size grille is too much and unnecessary. Tesla needs something in-between.

  • avatar
    VoGo

    C&D just tested a mediocre new $64K Cadillac XT5. After rebates, this is in the same price category, and superior in so many ways.

    Also, there’s a typo in the article – the option to upgrade the Model S battery is on the 60, not the 70.

    • 0 avatar
      Adam Tonge (bball40dtw)

      GM makes a $64K XT5?

      *builds an XT5 on the Cadillac site*

      Holy $hit, they make a $68K XT5 with the 3.6L V6. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        For a model that starts under $39K…

        What are they putting in the coffee at Caddy’s SoHo coffee bar?

        (Just looked at “compare trims side by side” – the price ladder is pretty steep for not a much more equipment between trims.)

        • 0 avatar
          Adam Tonge (bball40dtw)

          AWD adds $9000!!!!

        • 0 avatar
          bd2

          Load up on options (esp. tech/safety) and can easily add 30-35% to the base price these days.

          Also, C&D rated the “mediocre” being better than the RX, RDX, MKX and Discovery Sport – so what does it make them?

          C&D places too much emphasis on “sport” and handling for models which clearly were meant for a different type of buyer.

          A buyer for the XT5, RX, MKX, etc. is not looking for the same thing as a buyer of the Macan, F-Pace, etc.

          Really don’t see the point in the Model X.

          Due to its roofline, it really doesn’t offer any benefits of being a crossover over the Model S and looks ungainly compared to the sleek Model S.

          Also, those Falcon doors are just something expensive that is just waiting to malfunction or break.

      • 0 avatar
        Hydromatic

        Seriously, Tesla is what Cadillac should have been doing if it really wanted to stand out from the rest of the pack.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      I would get the Model X a thousand times over the XT5. “Better than a Cadillac!” isn’t much of a tagline though.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      You can always make unflattering price comparisons between loaded-to-the-gunwales and stripper cars. These really aren’t competing in the same price class.

      • 0 avatar
        Adam Tonge (bball40dtw)

        The MKX the the 2.7TT and every option I could find is basically $10K cheaper than a similar XT5. The XT5 is way overpriced.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          Which is more or less the same between the Continental and the CT6. Looks like Ford is taking the smart track of “we’re not going to embarrass ourselves on price.”

          • 0 avatar
            Adam Tonge (bball40dtw)

            I don’t think GM recognizes where the Cadillac brand actually is among its peers.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            I put Cadillac prestige down with Volvo, and 6-cylinder Subaru models.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            “I put Cadillac prestige down with Volvo, and 6-cylinder Subaru models.”

            Hey man those H6 Subarus serve a function, somebody has to build a poor man’s Audi. Now if only Cadillac seats were as comfortable as Volvo.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            They need to get that H6 into like, 2005 at least. It’s stuck around 1996.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            Yeah even 25 more hp would be less embarrassing.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            And 19.6MPG on a CVT in a Legacy is… unacceptable to be generous.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            Jesus tap dancing Christ…

            I get real world 22-23 mpg in a 2010 V6 Highlander 4WD and I can carry 7 people and have 8 inches of ground clearance.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Those were Tim’s reported numbers, driving as a conservative Canadian!

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        “You can always make unflattering price comparisons between loaded-to-the-gunwales and stripper cars. These really aren’t competing in the same price class.”

        ‘s why I bristle when people look solely at price. Like when someone says “Why would I pay $23k for a Focus when I can get a Fusion for the same price?”

        Uh, because the Focus is a loaded Titanium, and the same-price Fusion is a rental-grade penalty box S.

        • 0 avatar
          Lorenzo

          You can’t rent a rental-grade Fusion, and would have a hard time finding one to buy. It’s just the vehicle that allows dealers to advertise “Prices starting at…”.

          The rental fleets – the major ones, anyway – don’t buy stripper models anymore, because they’re in the used car biz too and “popular options” help them sell their low mileage rentals at decent capital recovery prices.

          The big car rental companies that sell also have some skin in the financing biz through “partners”, and their sold cars need to keep some repo value. The strippers are incompatible with the rent, resell, and finance business model.

    • 0 avatar
      MrGreenMan

      I saw one of those Cadillacs today. The only thought in my mind:

      If they had simply stopped after the passenger row and put on a trunk, they would have an incredibly nice Cadillac car.

      Of course, I always thought they should have abandoned the idea of stretching Epsilon II to make the Impala and instead put a trunk on a Traverse, that would have been a great Impala, too.

      I don’t think the XT5 or Cadillac is in Tesla’s league. Tesla is where Mercedes had hoped to put Maybach – not quite Bentley, but very high up the chain.

      Edit: I’m aware my statement means that I think Tesla could go higher on the price; they have to establish some volume on that battery plant, but I think they are discounting things now to get some volume and some products out the door. They’ll raise prices.

    • 0 avatar
      LS1Fan

      Cadillac is about the same as VW in prestige.

      Post Dieselgate,that is .

      GM unfortunately doesn’t realize this fact.

  • avatar

    More interior space and cargo capacity than an S-class with no point-emissions, no gasoline and HOV compliance.

    This will be the future of city transportation.

    If I could replace my small Uber fleet with these, it would be far more cost efficient than CT6es and S-classes.

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    “extra battery capacity can be unlocked for a fee, which was an option available to Model S 70 owners”

    Does this entail a new battery or a simple ECU reprogram?

    If its the latter, I appreciate Musks pov on his customers. Teslas are just making me think of how modern videogames are made (beta testing customers, releasing half finished stuff, what may as well be on disc DLC).

    How long until Teslas come with “achievements”?

    • 0 avatar
      orenwolf

      At least it gives you something to grow into, I suppose. I was wondering who the target market would be for that option – I guess if you’re not sure how much range you want and want the “insurance” option of expanding it if you decide you need it, it’s there?

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        In places where they base your annual excise tax on the MSRP, it might be an interesting option. Buy the 60, pay the tax, then perform the upgrade. Sales tax might be affected too. Buy the car, pay sales tax, then upgrade over the internet.

      • 0 avatar
        Ryoku75

        If its an ECU kinda deal it should be there from the getgo unless if it entails the battery being capable of draining itself beyond a safe amount, then I can understand it being an option.

        I dunno if Tesla still does this, but I recall older Model S’s allowing full (or at least a dangerous amount)battery drains for extra range, at the expense of battery life.

  • avatar
    JimZ

    $20k cheaper than the 90D but still 200 miles range ain’t a bad deal.

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      But…I wonder what my image sensitive brother will feel that somebody will be driving around the very same Santa Monica streets with a car that cost 60K less than his…and nobody will know the difference.
      This image thing is kinda special for the Tesla buyer.

  • avatar
    tsoden

    i wonder if this lower priced unit will more than satisfy some of the people with Model 3 reservations?

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      it’s still nearly double the projected price of the Model 3.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        The net difference isn’t that big. The $7,500 Federal (and in my case $2,500 state) tax incentives will go away by the time Tesla builds my Model 3. So that’s $10K. And presumably the Model 3 will be pretty bare bones at $35K, so that’s at least another $5-10k.

        We are probably looking at a net cost of $50K for a well optioned Model 3 vs. buying a Model S today at say $65K, net of incentives.

        Tempting.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          y’know, I’ve never looked into how the tax credit actually works. is it just lopped off of your taxable income? Or can you use it as a deduction (in place of your standard deduction?)

          • 0 avatar
            Quentin

            Tax credit takes the taxes you owe to the fed and slashes it by $7500 (or whatever it is relative to the battery size equation). Not a deduction… a credit.

          • 0 avatar
            bunkie

            The great thing about tax credits, as opposed to deductions from income is that they are figured against your tax bill and, as such, aren’t limited by the $#&%$% AMT.

        • 0 avatar
          SCE to AUX

          *My* Model 3 will still receive the Federal incentive, since I ordered so early. Tesla won’t hit 200k sales by then, I hope.

  • avatar
    PeriSoft

    “$76,500 (minus a $7,500 federal tax credit) is steep for any non-military vehicle”

    Unless it’s a German mid-size sedan or compact CUV optioned well enough to include non-vinyl seats and a backup camera. Then it’s totally fine.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    I would guess that most who are interested in buying one of these are doing so for the added seat capacity they can provide.

    To get the 7 seat version, the cost goes from 76.5k to 80.5k, as Tesla requires the air suspension be purchased with the added seats.

    Pricey leasing as well: $6665 down payment and $970/mo.

    A Mercedes GL450 lease is $6500 down and $750/mo.

    Bake in the Fed refund (not really sure how that works if you lease a Tesla) and it may be these are comparably pricey.

    Then it becomes what’s more important – a star on the hood and more range and a better interior, or electric driving and the fun of instant torque.

    • 0 avatar

      The tax credit goes to the buyer of the car. If you are leasing,if the assorted tax credits can go to a company,the company gets the tax credits and you can negotiate the lease from there.(Co-worker leased a Prius and the Ca State tax credits went to dealer,who applied them to lease price.)

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    “Quietly” = Tesla Bad and Sneaky, of course.

  • avatar
    Kenmore

    What the hell difference would 9K make to the average X buyer/leasee?

    As sensitive an issue as is range, how attractive could this ploy be?

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Well, it’s a 12% bump over the base price of this trim level – that’s not insignificant.

      There’s a reason someone would buy the 60 kWh Model X for $74500 rather than the fully-pimped $140k version – they’re trying to save some money while getting the same basic car.

      It’s the same decision a Kia buyer makes when they’re choosing between the EX and SX trim levels, only scaled up.

  • avatar
    gasser

    I realize that the engineering and tooling on the model X was long since completed, but how much would normal doors and a normal roof save in the production?? Probably a few pounds and a few dollars which could go toward a larger battery or a few more standard amenities. I think those gull wing doors, for the BACK doors, are idiocy.
    The electric drive train is the “gee whiz” factor in the model X SUV. Those back doors are just a stupid afterthought that will be cursed everytime you try to get your kid in or out of the Model X when you are parked in a narrow, urban spaced parking lot.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      They’re called “falcon wing” doors – not gull wing doors – because they articulate with a double hinge in each one.

      Here is a video of a situation like the ‘narrow, urban spaced parking lot’ you mention:
      “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iWWkVWUxis”

      I’d worry more about the doors of the adjacent cars striking the X.

      “Normal” doors would have been better, of course, but we’ll probably never see them in the X. The X is designed around them, and you’d have to re-engineer the entire car to eliminate them, then re-certify for crash testing, etc. It just won’t happen.

      Those doors certainly were not an afterthought; the entire Model X was designed around them necessarily because of Musk’s insistence that they be there to begin with. He has humbly confessed to this ‘hubris’ many times.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    I am guessing this means that sales are softer than expected for the pricier models – so lets roll out the cheaper version. I also wonder if the rear doors aren’t limiting demand – almost everyone that buys a wagon/SUV wants the capability of putting a rack on the roof for bikes, ski boxes, etc. and the stupid doors prevent the installation of a rack. Would have been smarter to put in sliding rear door – but I guess that wouldn’t be very sexy – too much like mom’s minivan.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • ToolGuy: Federal Communications Commission stopped tracking the cost of long-distance calls in 2006....
  • Dave M.: Unless Subaru “hybridizes” the Outback in the next 18 months, the Maverick hybrid is on my very...
  • Lie2me: We about ready to do the same, fortunately my 92 year old mother still drives, but she’ll only drive...
  • Lie2me: I think redapple was addressing quality over efficiency or sales model
  • jmo2: “ You don’t think quality definitely matters in the luxury segment? ” And the quality of Tesla’s tech is...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber