Official Tesla Model 3 thread

[GRA]

Not only does Tesla view 30% cost cuts to its batteries as conservative, but Musk said during the second-quarter call that he would be "disappointed if it took us 10 years to get to $100 a kilowatt-hour pack."

I'm "disappointed" that Tesla has failed to meet their own announced schedules for the Roadster, Model S, Model X, CHAdeMO adapter, battery swapping and the SC infrastructure. Tesla being conservative in making a prediction? Now that would shock me.

 

[evnow]

Math is simple: 200 mile car needs 50 kWh battery. At 100 bucks per kW that means 5 grand. 200 bucks per kWh is 10 grand.

Just as you don't get 100 EPA miles with 25 kWh, you don't get 200 miles with 50 kWh. 3 battery will be closer to 60 kWh than 50.

The price is also closer to $200 (probably $250). This means the Battery will cost about $12k to $15k.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

Math is simple: 200 mile car needs 50 kWh battery.

Not necessarily, if the car is lower aero drag, the consumption drops. The Illuminati Motor Works 'Seven' car has gone 220 miles (at 60-70MPH) on a 32kWh pack, and it had ~10% charge left. 'Seven' seats 4 people and has very efficient drivetrain and low aero drag.

 

[smkettner]

I hope there are optional battery sizes so we can get what suites us best for individual needs.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

I hope there are optional battery sizes so we can get what suites us best for individual needs.

I would be surprised if Tesla of all companies didn't offer battery options. However, I fully expect the minimum battery to have 200 mile EPA range.

 

[eloder]

This isn't an ICE. Other than the battery packs EVs are much, much cheaper to manufacture than ICEs, and I could very easily see Musk getting 200 miles of range on a $4-5k battery pack.

LOL. You have drunk the Kool-Aid.

$250/kwh is what they're taking orders for right now, pre-gigafactory, for utility-level battery packs for Tesla Energy.

So by your logic, the Leaf's range doubling in two years is realistic, but Tesla getting a Model 3 out with 50 additional miles for $7k above the Leaf's price is unrealistic? Even the Leaf's math makes it work plenty of room to spare. $7k more of battery at today's prices is a lot more than 50 additional miles. Take the 2012 Model S battery cost, apply 5-6 years of non-gigafactory price decreases, add in ~20-30% more efficiency to be closer to that of lighter EVs, and boom--you have yourself Model 3 battery.

They will have zero problems reaching their price point. The bulk of their deliberation will be "how many features from the Model S can we fit into this car" and "how will we handle Supercharging on the Model 3", rather than how to make 200 EPA miles possible in a $35k car.

Still waiting on how other competitors are planning to build out a nationwide 120kw charging network to enable longer road trips, too!

 

[dgpcolorado]

There has been some speculation in Tesla forum threads about whether or not the Model 3 would be dual motor (AWD). That was answered by Elon Musk at yesterday's Tesla annual meeting:

...But I think in order to keep the car as affordable as possible, the standard version of the car would have a single motor but we would offer a dual motor as an option.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3248116-tesla-motorss-tsla-ceo-elon-musk-hosts-2015-annual-shareholder-meeting-transcript?page=7&p=qanda&l=last" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[lorenfb]

There has been some speculation in Tesla forum threads about whether or not the Model 3 would be dual motor (AWD). That was answered by Elon Musk at yesterday's Tesla annual meeting:

Of a more realistic concern would be whether and when the Model 3 arrives, i.e. given the delays with Model X.
The Model X is basically just a body change versus the Model 3 which MUST meet key market variables,
i.e. cost and range targets, which is not the case for the Model X.

 

[mbender]

Then again, additional constraints could very well expedite decision making and the entire process.

There has been some speculation in Tesla forum threads about whether or not the Model 3 would be dual motor (AWD). That was answered by Elon Musk at yesterday's Tesla annual meeting:

Of a more realistic concern would be whether and when the Model 3 arrives, i.e. given the delays with Model X.
The Model X is basically just a body change versus the Model 3 which MUST meet key market variables,
i.e. cost and range targets, which is not the case for the Model X.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

There has been some speculation in Tesla forum threads about whether or not the Model 3 would be dual motor (AWD). That was answered by Elon Musk at yesterday's Tesla annual meeting:

Of a more realistic concern would be whether and when the Model 3 arrives, i.e. given the delays with Model X.
The Model X is basically just a body change versus the Model 3 which MUST meet key market variables,
i.e. cost and range targets, which is not the case for the Model X.

FWIW, that "just a body change" involved those infamous falcon doors. I have no inside information, but there are consistent rumors that the doors are a major source of the hold up.

I would personally be happy if the base Model 3 has:
2WD (either FWD or RWD is fine, but FWD is preferable in the snow)
200 mile EPA range
7kW onboard charging
<$40k price (before incentives)
+$2500 option for supercharger access
+option for things like nav or even telematics

 

[dgpcolorado]

...I would personally be happy if the base Model 3 has:
2WD (either FWD or RWD is fine, but FWD is preferable in the snow)
200 mile EPA range
7kW onboard charging
<$40k price (before incentives)
+$2500 option for supercharger access
+option for things like nav or even telematics

It seems clear that the 2WD will be RWD. While I also prefer FWD on snow, the RWD Model S is reported to be a very good snow performer, thanks to modern traction control systems and software.

WRT range, Musk has said quite explicitly that it would be 200 miles of "real world" range. I'm guessing something like 220-240 miles of EPA range for the base Model 3. It seems likely that there will be an option for a larger battery pack. The dual motor AWD version would have a slightly better range than the 2WD version with the same size battery, as is the case with the Model S.

I suppose that Supercharger access will be an extra cost option to keep the price of the base model down. But I'll guess that it will be the same $2000 that it was on the S60, before Supercharger access became standard on all S (and X) cars. Might even be less than that.

I presume that Nav will be standard on any car with Supercharger access; it is a necessary part of the package. I'd be pretty surprised if Nav isn't standard on all Model 3s; a $35k car isn't the same as a $15k econobox. Other tech stuff does figure to be part of a "tech package" though.

It seems clear that Musk wants even the mass market (goal = 500,000/year by 2020) Model 3 to stand out as a superior car compared to others in its class. The base Model 3 ought to be fairly full-featured to meet that objective. I guess we will know more in another year or two. I'm hoping that the reservation queue will open up next summer.

 

[mbender]

I'd like to see a base Model 3 offered with a "mere" 35kWh battery, but expandable by one or two more 25-35kWh packs, when necessary, for regional or national travel. Think about RAM modules back in the day (LOL). The additional packs could be rented for short periods of time, and would come with supercharger access. You would not "swap" your existing battery, but just temporarily add capacity. 35kWh of Tesla batteries in the smaller/lighter Model 3 would fill most people's needs, most of the time, providing "real world" 100-mile range for many, many years.

Has anyone seen this discussed anywhere? (And sorry if the answer is, "Yes, here." I haven't gone through the whole thread.) It would bring down the weight, price and expense of the base model quite a bit, making it even more attractive and affordable "to the masses". But perhaps the headache of running such a system might make it not worth it, especially since Tesla will not be "demand constrained" for quite a while.

 

[minispeed]

There has been some speculation in Tesla forum threads about whether or not the Model 3 would be dual motor (AWD). That was answered by Elon Musk at yesterday's Tesla annual meeting:

Of a more realistic concern would be whether and when the Model 3 arrives, i.e. given the delays with Model X.
The Model X is basically just a body change versus the Model 3 which MUST meet key market variables,
i.e. cost and range targets, which is not the case for the Model X.

FWIW, that "just a body change" involved those infamous falcon doors. I have no inside information, but there are consistent rumors that the doors are a major source of the hold up.

I would personally be happy if the base Model 3 has:
2WD (either FWD or RWD is fine, but FWD is preferable in the snow)
200 mile EPA range
7kW onboard charging
<$40k price (before incentives)
+$2500 option for supercharger access
+option for things like nav or even telematics

I think the hold ups in the model X will mean we won't see the model 3 as a concept until it's very nearly ready for production. They can play with a lot more things and give them up before they've been promised if they run into delays.

As far as options I think we'd probably see the 10kW onboard charger. There's the cost savings of keeping the same part as well as the extra sales of the HPWC. Since there are any number of cheaper J1772 that will do 7kW or very close to it there's not nearly as many that can give a 10kW charger it's full power. This doesn't only apply for the home market but also the business/work market. The at work market also might multiply sales. Say for example the first EV driver at your work gets them to install a Tesla HPWC and then you look at an EV. If you want to charge at work you're only choice (unless you know about the pending adapter out) is to also buy a Tesla.

 

[N952JL]

I'd like to see a base Model 3 offered with a "mere" 35kWh battery, but expandable by one or two more 25-35kWh packs, when necessary, for regional or national travel. Think about RAM modules back in the day (LOL). The additional packs could be rented for short periods of time, and would come with supercharger access. You would not "swap" your existing battery, but just temporarily add capacity. 35kWh of Tesla batteries in the smaller/lighter Model 3 would fill most people's needs, most of the time, providing "real world" 100-mile range for many, many years.

Has anyone seen this discussed anywhere? (And sorry if the answer is, "Yes, here." I haven't gone through the whole thread.) It would bring down the weight, price and expense of the base model quite a bit, making it even more attractive and affordable "to the masses". But perhaps the headache of running such a system might make it not worth it, especially since Tesla will not be "demand constrained" for quite a while.

I do not feel they will ever offer a 100 mile range version as it just will not sell. Do you remember what happened to the 40kwh model S? For the car to become mass market it needs between 200/300 real world mile range. It is that simple. People who only buy one car cannot live with a 100 mile range. If you want the car to ever replace ICE they have to have the range. Now superchanger can solve part of that problem, but who wants a road trip where they have to stop every hour and a half for half and hour to recharge. You need a three hr interstate range per half hour recharge time. And that means a 210 mile real world interstate range. Do you need more than a 100 everyday range, no. I have the first leaf in middle GA for the last four years come Dec. I've never run out of a charge. But I also must have an ICE to get me to the airport for a flight as that is beyond Leaf range.

 

[evnow]

Not necessarily, if the car is lower aero drag, the consumption drops. The Illuminati Motor Works 'Seven' car has gone 220 miles (at 60-70MPH) on a 32kWh pack, and it had ~10% charge left. 'Seven' seats 4 people and has very efficient drivetrain and low aero drag.

You can't compare a hand built - not for sale car to a commercial vehicle.

 

[mbender]

I'd like to see a base Model 3 offered with a "mere" 35kWh battery, but expandable by one or two more 25-35kWh packs, when necessary, for regional or national travel. Think about RAM modules back in the day (LOL). The additional packs could be rented for short periods of time, and would come with supercharger access. You would not "swap" your existing battery, but just temporarily add capacity. 35kWh of Tesla batteries in the smaller/lighter Model 3 would fill most people's needs, most of the time, providing "real world" 100-mile range for many, many years.

I do not feel they will ever offer a 100 mile range version as it just will not sell.

I feel quite confident that a 35kWh Tesla Model 3 would sell, especially for $5-10,000 less and if you could easily add 50kWh when needed for longer trips. (I'm not sure you read or understood what I'm proposing above.) Also, it's silly to say that a 100-mile-range car "just will not sell". Even with 84 or whatever it is now, the Leaf is 'living proof' that that assertion is false. Plus, a 35kWh Tesla 3 would be a 140-mile-range car @4.0mi/kWh when new, maybe 120 "real world", and maybe 100 after 5-10 years. I'd love that car, especially (again) if I could temporarily rent extra kWh with supercharger access for occasional longer trips.

Do you remember what happened to the 40kwh model S?

Part of the reason it didn't sell is because most of the early Tesla/Model S adopters were not at all "cash constrained", as Model 3 buyers in the 'mass market' will be. But the other reason is because buying 40 limited you to 40 "permanently". If potential buyers knew they could easily add capacity (temporarily) for longer trips, I suspect there would have been more interest in the 40.

For the car to become mass market it needs between 200/300 real world mile range. It is that simple.

Again, not that simple, especially if you accept my "premise" that you can up the range to 200-300 miles when needed.

Now superchanger can solve part of that problem, but who wants a road trip where they have to stop every hour and a half for half and hour to recharge.

Again, I don't think you "grok" what I am proposing. So be (or re-read) it.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

Not necessarily, if the car is lower aero drag, the consumption drops. The Illuminati Motor Works 'Seven' car has gone 220 miles (at 60-70MPH) on a 32kWh pack, and it had ~10% charge left. 'Seven' seats 4 people and has very efficient drivetrain and low aero drag.

You can't compare a hand built - not for sale car to a commercial vehicle.

Of course we can compare any two cars. The Cd of any car is a product of its design, and my point is the efficiency of the car itself is at least HALF of the range equation.

Lowering the Cd is by far the best way of making an EV longer range. It saves weight and it saves money.

 

[dgpcolorado]

Not necessarily, if the car is lower aero drag, the consumption drops. The Illuminati Motor Works 'Seven' car has gone 220 miles (at 60-70MPH) on a 32kWh pack, and it had ~10% charge left. 'Seven' seats 4 people and has very efficient drivetrain and low aero drag.

You can't compare a hand built - not for sale car to a commercial vehicle.

Of course we can compare any two cars. The Cd of any car is a product of its design, and my point is the efficiency of the car itself is at least HALF of the range equation.

Lowering the Cd is by far the best way of making an EV longer range. It saves weight and it saves money.

But is it crash-worthy? Some lowering of CdA should be possible and practical but eventually it comes at the expense of utility. If the LEAF was a subcompact, as opposed to mid-sized, it would (likely) have a lower CdA but also greatly reduced utility for many of us. The Chevy Volt was a good example of push-back from car buyers since it only seated four. So now the new Volt will, sort-of, seat five. And the current Volt is downright cramped compared to the LEAF (I've driven both for extended distances).

While I agree that reduced Cd is the low-hanging fruit for current EVs, especially the LEAF, if Cd or CdA gets too low the car loses its function for many of us. You may be perfectly comfortable driving a "science project" car that compromises absolutely everything in the name of efficiency. I am not. With luck, there will be a happy medium in future EVs.

 

[dgpcolorado]

...As far as options I think we'd probably see the 10kW onboard charger. There's the cost savings of keeping the same part as well as the extra sales of the HPWC. Since there are any number of cheaper J1772 that will do 7kW or very close to it there's not nearly as many that can give a 10kW charger it's full power. This doesn't only apply for the home market but also the business/work market. The at work market also might multiply sales. Say for example the first EV driver at your work gets them to install a Tesla HPWC and then you look at an EV. If you want to charge at work you're only choice (unless you know about the pending adapter out) is to also buy a Tesla.

Since I'm planning to switch to the Model 3 in a few years, assuming it comes close on planned price and specs, I've been looking into Tesla charging. What immediately became clear is that you don't need a J1772 EVSE at all because the "Mobile Connector" that comes with the car just plugs-in to a standard 14-50 outlet (or 10-30 outlet, if 30 amps is all that's practical). That's good for me because my current 2012 model EVSE Upgrade won't work with Teslas. But it is downright trivial for me to switch out the L6-20 outlet and breaker for a 14-50 outlet and breaker (with increased wire size, of course).

I don't really get the attraction of HPWC for home use. 9.6 kW isn't enough? Why? How many people are going to drain the car everyday and need to turn around and use it again in a few hours? Those seem like edge cases to me; surely the vast majority of people don't need very fast charging at home (or work). For destination charging at hotels and the like, sure. Otherwise I just don't get it.

In addition, since the range of a Tesla is 200+ miles, there is no reason to carry the portable EVSE for local driving. That means that unplugging it from the wall and taking it on the occasional road trip isn't much of a hassle. And if the portable EVSE is needed in the car regularly, you can buy a second one quite easily.

 

[minispeed]

...As far as options I think we'd probably see the 10kW onboard charger. There's the cost savings of keeping the same part as well as the extra sales of the HPWC. Since there are any number of cheaper J1772 that will do 7kW or very close to it there's not nearly as many that can give a 10kW charger it's full power. This doesn't only apply for the home market but also the business/work market. The at work market also might multiply sales. Say for example the first EV driver at your work gets them to install a Tesla HPWC and then you look at an EV. If you want to charge at work you're only choice (unless you know about the pending adapter out) is to also buy a Tesla.

Since I'm planning to switch to the Model 3 in a few years, assuming it comes close on planned price and specs, I've been looking into Tesla charging. What immediately became clear is that you don't need a J1772 EVSE at all because the "Mobile Connector" that comes with the car just plugs-in to a standard 14-50 outlet (or 10-30 outlet, if 30 amps is all that's practical). That's good for me because my current 2012 model EVSE Upgrade won't work with Teslas. But it is downright trivial for me to switch out the L6-20 outlet and breaker for a 14-50 outlet and breaker (with increased wire size, of course).

I don't really get the attraction of HPWC for home use. 9.6 kW isn't enough? Why? How many people are going to drain the car everyday and need to turn around and use it again in a few hours? Those seem like edge cases to me; surely the vast majority of people don't need very fast charging at home (or work). For destination charging at hotels and the like, sure. Otherwise I just don't get it.

In addition, since the range of a Tesla is 200+ miles, there is no reason to carry the portable EVSE for local driving. That means that unplugging it from the wall and taking it on the occasional road trip isn't much of a hassle. And if the portable EVSE is needed in the car regularly, you can buy a second one quite easily.

Oh I totally agree with you, but we're both smart EV buyers with experience who have done research. Personally when I got the electrician to put in my EVSE (which is only a 20 amp unit to my cars 6.6kW charger) I also got a plug with a 50 amp breaker that has the outlet for the Tesla connector that comes with the car and when/if I get a Tesla I will be planning on never having the cord with the car unless I'm going on a road trip. Not everyone thinks like that though, many on their first EV will still feel the need to carry a back up cord with them and want the fastest charge possible.

I'd like to see a base Model 3 offered with a "mere" 35kWh battery, but expandable by one or two more 25-35kWh packs, when necessary, for regional or national travel. Think about RAM modules back in the day (LOL). The additional packs could be rented for short periods of time, and would come with supercharger access. You would not "swap" your existing battery, but just temporarily add capacity. 35kWh of Tesla batteries in the smaller/lighter Model 3 would fill most people's needs, most of the time, providing "real world" 100-mile range for many, many years.

I do not feel they will ever offer a 100 mile range version as it just will not sell.

I feel quite confident that a 35kWh Tesla Model 3 would sell, especially for $5-10,000 less and if you could easily add 50kWh when needed for longer trips. (I'm not sure you read or understood what I'm proposing above.) Also, it's silly to say that a 100-mile-range car "just will not sell". Even with 84 or whatever it is now, the Leaf is 'living proof' that that assertion is false. Plus, a 35kWh Tesla 3 would be a 140-mile-range car @4.0mi/kWh when new, maybe 120 "real world", and maybe 100 after 5-10 years. I'd love that car, especially (again) if I could temporarily rent extra kWh with supercharger access for occasional longer trips.

I get what you're saying with adding packs for long trips but I think with the suggested death of battery swaps that idea will never catch on. They are very close in principle and if the one didn't catch on I don't think they'll try the other. Personally since I doubt I'd ever be in the Tesla model 3 market as a primary car since I love the larger Model S and will be looking at used ones after my leaf lease. I would like to see more of a cheaper second car option available on the 3, ie 150 miles range no supercharging. I don't think it won't be the initial market they are trying to push in to but it will be a market that exists and maybe something we'll see within a year or 2 or at a mid model refresh. After all I worked at BMW for a bit and there were a few families with 5s or 7s that also had 3s or minis. I guess the big question is will a sub compact come out before a stripped version of the model 3?

Do you remember what happened to the 40kwh model S?

Part of the reason it didn't sell is because most of the early Tesla/Model S adopters were not at all "cash constrained", as Model 3 buyers in the 'mass market' will be. But the other reason is because buying 40 limited you to 40 "permanently". If potential buyers knew they could easily add capacity (temporarily) for longer trips, I suspect there would have been more interest in the 40.

It's also probably due to the fact that the car was very much un proven at that time. The people who would be in the market for a 40 that couldn't afford an 85/60 or may just not want to pay the extra for a 60 would have had very little stomach for taking a risk with that amount of cash. Look what's happened to Fisker buyers! If the car had proven to be a reliability nightmare I would think it would be a good assumption that most of the 85 pre order people could take a substantial loss on the car (maybe even more than the whole 40 purchase price) and have it affect them less than if 40 owners lost half the value of the car in one year and had to sell it. Since they never sold 40s after pre order we don't know how many people might have been on the fence 40 buyers. If there was a 40 available I don't think I would have got my leaf I would have waited and saved up.

Also I'd like to point out that the 40 advertised specs were also slower and since the 60 does 5.9 0-60 in the luxury large car class that isn't considered quick but just average.