2021 Model 3 2021 Fsd Autopilot Nav Pano Blind Camera on 2040-cars
Vehicle Title:Clean
Body Type:Sedan
Engine:Electric 201hp 258ft. lbs.
Transmission:Automatic
VIN (Vehicle Identification Number): 5YJ3E1EA8MF996127
Mileage: 11755
Warranty: No
Model: Model 3
Fuel: Electric
Drivetrain: RWD
Sub Model: 2021 FSD AUTOPILOT NAV PANO BLIND CAMERA
Trim: 2021 FSD AUTOPILOT NAV PANO BLIND CAMERA
Doors: 4
Exterior Color: Pearl White Multi-Coat
Interior Color: Black
Make: Tesla
Tesla Model 3 for Sale
2019 model 3 2019 fsd autopilot nav pano blind 35k(US $24,995.00)
2019 model 3 2019 full self drive autopilot nav pano camera 51k(US $23,995.00)
2019 model 3 2019 fsd autopilot nav pano blind(US $23,995.00)
2021 model 3 2021 fsd autopilot nav pano blind 19k(US $26,495.00)
2018 model 3 2018 long range fsd autopilot nav pano blind 52k(US $23,995.00)
2021 model 3 2021 fsd autopilot nav pano blind 19k(US $26,495.00)
Auto blog
Hertz adds Tesla Model S to Dream Cars fleet
Thu, 26 Sep 2013The Tesla Model S is slowly infiltrating our rental car and chauffeured lives, having already gone to Las Vegas with Zappos as a taxi and San Francisco with car-sharing service Get Around. Now a lot more people will have the chance to get into one with its inclusion in the Hertz Dream Cars fleet, joining 19 petrol-powered rockets like the Aston Martin V8 Vantage, Mercedes SLS AMG and SRT Viper. What's more, in case you missed it when it was new, the Tesla Roadster will join its sibling in the Dream Cars corral.
Although the Dream Cars are available in 35 markets, the Teslas will only come to two: San Francisco and Los Angeles airports. The rental Model S gets the 85-kWh battery with a range of 265 miles, and appears to be the P85 Performance model since Hertz lists a 0-to-60 mile per hour time of 4.2 seconds.
You can read more about it in the press release below, and if your vacation plans include California, this could give you a chance to get into a Model S faster than someone who buys one.
Tesla staring down California dealer ad probe request
Wed, 18 Sep 2013Months after the confusing announcement of Tesla's lease-like financing program, the electric vehicle maker could face an advertisement probe that has been requested by the California New Car Dealers Association, Automotive News reports, which claims that consumers are being mislead by advertised monthly payments that are lower than what most people would experience.
The ordeal can be traced back to April 2, when Tesla made an announcement specifying tiered monthly payments for the three versions of the Model S assuming a 66-month term. But then Tesla revised the numbers upward overnight because, it claimed, it meant to say it offered a 63-month finance term, not a 66-month term. The automaker also claimed that factoring in the "true cost of ownership" of a Model S compared to a conventional fuel-burning car could drive monthly costs to below $500.
In May, it added an available finance term of 72 months, which, factoring in only gasoline savings, the company said could lower monthly payments to $580. But the underlying issue at hand is that the means which can potentially lower monthly payments from $1,000+ dollars (depending on the model) to under $600 can't be realized by the majority of Americans, the CNCDA says.
New Jersey Becomes Third State To Ban Tesla Sales
Wed, Mar 12 2014State motor vehicle officials have approved a regulation that would require all new car dealers to obtain franchise agreements to receive state licenses, a move critics say will hurt the electric-car industry's attempts to expand. The regulation, adopted Tuesday by the state's Motor Vehicle Commission by a 6-0 vote, effectively prohibits companies from using a direct-sales model, which cuts out the middleman and takes vehicles directly to customers through smaller retail establishments. It will take effect April 1. The regulation was supported by the New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers, which has noted that state law has long required automakers to sell their vehicles through dealers. But Palo Alto, Calif.-based Tesla Motors, one of the electric-car companies that would be affected by it, called it "an affront to the very concept of a free market." Tesla said in a statement posted on its corporate website that it has been "working constructively" with the commission and Republican Gov. Chris Christie's administration since last year to delay the proposal so it could be handled through "a fair process" in the state Legislature. The company said the commission and the Christie administration went "beyond their authority to implement the state's laws at the behest of a special interest group looking to protect its monopoly at the expense of New Jersey consumers." Administration officials disputed Tesla's claims. "Since Tesla first began operating in New Jersey one year ago, it was made clear that the company would need to engage the Legislature on a bill to establish their new direct-sales operations under New Jersey law," spokesman Kevin Roberts said. "This administration does not find it appropriate to unilaterally change the way cars are sold in New Jersey without legislation, and Tesla has been aware of this position since the beginning." Tesla has two retail locations in New Jersey and has planned to expand in the state in an effort to sell its electric cars, which retail for around $60,000 before incentives. Related Gallery Electric Cars And Hybrids Don't Have To Be Frumpy By the Numbers Tesla Car Dealers























