Why the LEAF Gen 2 and not the 220 miles Tesla Model 3?

[EVDRIVER]

The delivery estimate given to me by Tesla currently is that I should expect delivery of my Model 3 in June-July of 2018 if I elect for the $35,000 model. If I go for the $49,000 model, I can get it in April or May.



One plus on the extended range may be, depending on when it comes out, the ability to get full federal vs only half if that starts to age out. If I could get extended range for $5k I would. Otherwise 220 for me.

One big plus on the larger pack is faster Supercharging. being able to charge faster before the pack tapers is a big advantage.

 

[GRA]

Just to answer an earlier question, Tesla elected to use NCA chemistry because of its higher energy densities (both volumetric and gravimetric) than LFP or LMO (NMC started to replace LMO later), knowing that it was more susceptible to thermal runaway than the others, but accepting that and providing thermal protection for the cells to achieve longer range and higher performance than anyone else. The established automakers weren't willing to accept this risk because they had more to lose - Tesla had to go for a moon shot to make their cars compelling to people who weren't willing to drive boring cars, and they succeeded admirably.

The shield was added after a single incident of road debris-caused fire, and while there've been a few other cases of Tesla batteries burning (including some video after a crash where you can see individual cells popping off), I'd say the risk they took has been justified by events. The rate of fires is no more and (guessing) probably considerably less than is the case for gas/diesel cars, and anyone who's been willing to accept the risks of one of those for the past century* shouldn't have any trouble feeling comfortable in a car using NCA (when protected as Tesla has done).


*One of the early electric car advocates (late 1890s or early 1900s) used to argue for BEVs over ICEs by saying that most people wouldn't be willing to sit on top of a bunch of continuous explosions. Turned out they were not only willing, they were eager to do so, given all the other advantages of ICEs over BEVs.

 

[internalaudit]

^ So what battery type is LG using in the Bolt that it provides plenty of acceleration and range, nothing short of what Tesla employs in the Model 3 Short Range? 7.1 seconds 0-60 is pretty decent and the driving range approximates that of the SR (55 kWh pack I believe) if we look at miles/kWh.

And are you saying with a lot less risk? I am willing to go 3 seconds slower if the battery pack is deemed much safer by a huge margin.

 

[GRA]

^ So what battery type is LG using in the Bolt that it provides plenty of acceleration and range, nothing short of what Tesla employs in the Model 3 Short Range? 7.1 seconds 0-60 is pretty decent and the driving range approximates that of the SR (55 kWh pack I believe) if we look at miles/kWh.

And are you saying with a lot less risk? I am willing to go 3 seconds slower if the battery pack is deemed much safer by a huge margin.

LG Chem's using NMC chemistry in the Bolt. It has higher energy densities than LFP or LMO, lower than NCA, but is inherently somewhat safer. LFP (especially combined with an LTO anode) is the safest of all for thermal stability, but also has by far the lowest energy density. Tesla used Li-cobalt-oxide cells in the Roadster battery, which had about the same thermal runaway issues as NCA.

As for accel, that's a matter of specific power, not specific energy, and NCA is generally superior to NMC for that, which is one possible reason why the small battery Model 3 is credited with 0-60 in 5.6 seconds versus the Bolt's ca. 6.5 sec. with roughly the same size battery. There can be many other reasons for the difference, but AOTBE you can pull higher current out of the same capacity NCA battery than you can an NMC one, which allows you to drive a more powerful motor (however briefly).

See http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion for descriptions and comparisons of the various Li-ion chemistries. As to how much safer, you'd have to read books and articles that are a lot more technical, and since the actual values vary with quite small changes in the % of the various elements, much of which info is proprietary, you're often limited to generalizations like Battery University's. And developments are always occurring - I've got two technical sources written a few years apart which swap the relative safety or other characteristics of a couple of different chemistries.

 

[internalaudit]

^ Thanks so much. Surprised this forum doesn't allow us to thank or rate posts.

 

[Durandal]

<span>

One plus on the extended range may be, depending on when it comes out, the ability to get full federal vs only half if that starts to age out. If I could get extended range for $5k I would. Otherwise 220 for me.

One big plus on the larger pack is faster Supercharging. being able to charge faster before the pack tapers is a big advantage.

Great point regarding faster supercharging.... I do hope to take the Model 3 on road trips, so possibly I should elect for the larger battery without the premium upgrade package.

^ Thanks so much. Surprised this forum doesn't allow us to thank or rate posts.

I agree, the forum most certainly does need a way to thank or rate posts without replying... That's probably a mod that could be added to the board software.

 

[EVDRIVER]

There will be a big speed difference on road trips with the larger pack and also you can come in at higher SOC at a higher KW rate.

 

[IssacZachary]

There will be a big speed difference on road trips with the larger pack and also you can come in at higher SOC at a higher KW rate.

$35,000 to $50,000 can sure buy a lot of airplane tickets though... Of course that would take the fun out of having a "road" trip.

For me, part of the reason I bought the Leaf because I'm sick of driving long distances. I think 60 miles is just about right to have to get out and stretch the ol' legs. I know that some are optimistic about this auto-pilot Tesla has to offer as another way to avoid having to drive hours on end. But I don't think that it's going to be of much help here in Colorado where most of my road trips involve dirt or snow covered roads or roads that have all their paint scraped off due to previous snow plowing. For an example, I'm planning a trip over Kebler Pass, which is all dirt. And letting a computer decide how to take corners going over a winding mountain pass doesn't quite convince me yet.

Is there anyone here who has had experience with this Tesla technology yet? I'd be interested to hear how well it works. How does the thing do when you're going down a 40mph section and you come up to a 25mph curve? I hate it when I'm with someone who thinks that those advisory speed signs mean nothing and take the curve at 40mph. If there's just a bit of ice or sand on the road then we're flipped over in the ditch, or off the side of the pass down a 100ft drop. And if not, I usually am car sick by that point and need to throw up.

 

[EVDRIVER]

Extended range is 9k. Autopilot does slow for curves and you can regulate on the fly your speed. Is great on the highway. Full autonomous is a ways out.

 

[Stoaty]

I opted for Tesla CPO Model S85 as did abasile. Took me a bit to get used to where stuff is on the touchscreen and figure out how to customize the buttons on the steering wheel. Now that I have a solution for the uncomfortable (for me) seats I would never want to go back to the Leaf. I don't trust Nissan after losing more than 30% battery capacity in 6 years; my model S has rated range of 250 miles on a full charge and with superchargers I can pretty much go where I want. So far the only issue I have had is the delivery specialist forgot to fill out a "VIN verification" form for the DMV. They asked me to bring my car to the delivery center, a 25-30 minute drive one way. When I asked to go to a closer service center they opted instead to send a guy to my house to get the info they needed. He showed up at the exact time promised. Pretty good customer service. Model 3 not of interest to me due to lack of instrument cluster in front of the driver.

 

[2011RedLeaf]

Supercharger Network will play a major role in my decision. I live in Albuquerque - the EVSE maps I've been able to find suggest the only way to travel all-electric to Denver, Flagstaff/Las Vegas, El Paso or Amarillo (North, South, East, or West) is to either use Super Chargers, or Hope I can make it from one Level 2 to the next. (Might need to bring a gasoline generator for confidence.)

 

[GRA]

I'm sure TSLA will eventually deliver at least a few 3's at the ~$36,000 price, and maybe you'll get one.

But I also expect them to be about as rare as "$50,000" model Ss were, and for the same reason.

I agree that the majority of Model 3 buyers will probably go for the Premium Upgrades Package for an additional $5000.

However, the "$50,000" Model S of which you speak, the Model S 40, had only about 160 miles of range as I recall, and the vast majority of early buyers wanted more range. <snip>

Actually, It was 140 miles, so about the same range as the RAV4 had for about the same price. But Model S buyers could afford to pay more for more useful range, and almost all did, so they discontinued it. IIRC, Tesla said only about 4% of reservation holders opted for the S40, so they dropped it. Made sense to me - why buy such a big, roomy car and then skimp on the range?

 

[IssacZachary]

Supercharger Network will play a major role in my decision. I live in Albuquerque - the EVSE maps I've been able to find suggest the only way to travel all-electric to Denver, Flagstaff/Las Vegas, El Paso or Amarillo (North, South, East, or West) is to either use Super Chargers, or Hope I can make it from one Level 2 to the next. (Might need to bring a gasoline generator for confidence.)

I've been contemplating on taking my Leaf from Colorado to El Paso, TX and back. But the charging infrastructure is a bit sparse between here and there.

 

[GRA]

^ Thanks so much. Surprised this forum doesn't allow us to thank or rate posts.

You're welcome. It would save a lot of extra posts if we could do that.

 

[jlv]

I'm sure TSLA will eventually deliver at least a few 3's at the ~$36,000 price, and maybe you'll get one.

But I also expect them to be about as rare as "$50,000" model Ss were, and for the same reason.

I agree that the majority of Model 3 buyers will probably go for the Premium Upgrades Package for an additional $5000.

However, the "$50,000" Model S of which you speak, the Model S 40, had only about 160 miles of range as I recall.

The S40 wasn't "$50,000" but actually originally $57,400.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

What this means is that Tesla is able to offer additional value to the customer, and get paid for it. That's what successful businesses do!

I know you didn't mean this - but just a fun fact.

Nissan-Renault is now the world's largest automaker, beating VW & Toyota for the first 6 months of this year.

http://fortune.com/2017/07/28/renault-nissan-largest-automaker/

In other news - there is a lot of griping by Model 3 reservation holders that the options on 3 are too expensive and this the uptake will be lower.

Another thing with the Tesla Model 3 is that aside from the $1k reservation deposit, another $2,500 is required to secure a delivery date. The issue I find is Tesla's financing department (partnership with FI's and not in-house) will not pre-approve a borrower until 30 days before delivery. It would be better if credit check is done before that $2,500 deposit is placed and if the financial circumstances and employment situation don't change much, then at least the borrower will feel at ease that he will be approved just prior to delivery.

Tesla is offering 2.5% 8-year financing here in Canada and I think that's a pretty good deal but auto loans from other FI's will be at least 6% per annum. Car makers' financing/leasing arms provide subsidy and I guess with Tesla, the Model S and X buyers are generally the well to do to affluent households.

My wife and I have good credit and above median household income but of course we do have sizable mortgage, some loans (backed by investments) and a RAV4 loan that will have around 18 months left. We usually financed between 3 and 4 years but if the rate stays the same from the 4th to the 8th year, I might as well take the offer especially when we are going to pay MSRP anyway.

I'm just being pragmatic because no way am I going to pay 6%/year to finance a vehicle, not even a Tesla, if we're not approved for financing.

Many reservation holders will be in a similar boat. This could come as a surprise if they get rejected by Tesla Financing and will need to pay a higher interest rate than they expected.

I've raised the issue on TMC but hey, the fans just told me to have a back up auto loan ready. In Canada, the FI's work as an oligopoly so 6% is the minimum for auto loans, even to excellent paying borrowers.

your financial options seems cracked. I have to think that you know your options better than most but has Tesla really been that strict about loans? Is there anything on your side that could be used against you in this determination? Hard for me to believe in this day and age that you couldn't have a good idea of whether you will get that loan or not?

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

^ Thanks so much. Surprised this forum doesn't allow us to thank or rate posts.

I think the forum owner is paid for page views making a simple click of a "thanks" or "like" button a decrease in revenue.

 

[GRA]

I'm sure TSLA will eventually deliver at least a few 3's at the ~$36,000 price, and maybe you'll get one.

But I also expect them to be about as rare as "$50,000" model Ss were, and for the same reason.

I agree that the majority of Model 3 buyers will probably go for the Premium Upgrades Package for an additional $5000.

However, the "$50,000" Model S of which you speak, the Model S 40, had only about 160 miles of range as I recall.

The S40 wasn't "$50,000" but actually originally $57,400.

Doh! You're right, I forgot the $50k was after the tax credit.

 

[evnow]

But Model S buyers could afford to pay more for more useful range, and almost all did, so they discontinued it. IIRC, Tesla said only about 4% of reservation holders opted for the S40, so they dropped it. Made sense to me - why buy such a big, roomy car and then skimp on the range?

That's somewhat revisionist.

Tesla severely handicapped Model S 40 by not allowing supercharging. This made it "super" unattractive to a lot of us who wanted to get the S 40. They even lied saying the battery would be too small to take supercharging (IIRC it was Tesla and not the forum folks defending Tesla).

PS : Looking back - I think the reason they didn't want to give super charging was, they didn't want to install superchargers at the interval needed for a 140 mile EV. This makes some sense, but not the logic offered at that time.

 

[alozzy]

Why the Model 3 when you can get a 3 year old S 60 for around $40K?