Official Tesla Model 3 thread

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I believe Elon Musk has indicated that Tesla will try to maximize the number of US cars eligible for the $7500 tax credit. It would be counterproductive for Tesla to reach 200,000 US cars sold near the end of Q4 2017. It'll make far more sense to reach that limit at the beginning of a quarter (perhaps Q1 2018) and deliver US cars like mad for the remainder of that quarter and the following quarter, during which time all cars will remain eligible for the full credit.

Arguably, Tesla should try to avoid hitting 200,000 US cars delivered until their production rate is as high as possible. In Q1 2018, production will still be ramping up. So why not make a bunch of Canadian buyers happy, and postpone the 200,000th US car to the beginning of Q2 2018?

In any case, as much as we'd appreciate the full tax credit, I think the smart thing for us to do is wait however long it takes for AWD. We wouldn't mind owning a Model X 100 kWh (or 90), but they're so very expensive, even used.

On the other hand, if we lived in Massachusetts like jlv (or anywhere outside CA or WA for that matter), we'd probably go for RWD and just buy a good set of snow tires.
 
abasile said:
<snip>
In any case, as much as we'd appreciate the full tax credit, I think the smart thing for us to do is wait however long it takes for AWD. We wouldn't mind owning a Model X 100 kWh (or 90), but they're so very expensive, even used.

On the other hand, if we lived in Massachusetts like jlv (or anywhere outside CA or WA for that matter), we'd probably go for RWD and just buy a good set of snow tires.
Ain't that the truth. The only reason I have an AWD car is because California usually skips right past R1, "Chains or Snow tires OK" and goes right to R2, "Chains or AWD with Snow Tires OK", which in practice means M+S rated tires with AWD/4WD are fine. I don't mind putting chains on when I really need them, but I've got better things to do than put them on just because the CHP is applying "Better safe than sorry" on the lowest common denominator principle, people who've rarely or never driven on snow/ice.
 
GRA said:
The only reason I have an AWD car is because California usually skips right past R1, "Chains or Snow tires OK" and goes right to R2, "Chains or AWD with Snow Tires OK", which in practice means M+S rated tires with AWD/4WD are fine. I don't mind putting chains on when I really need them, but I've got better things to do than put them on just because the CHP is applying "Better safe than sorry" on the lowest common denominator principle, people who've rarely or never driven on snow/ice.
Yes, for those who live in or regularly enjoy California's mountains during the winter, the "AWD tax" can be significant in terms of increased vehicle costs, lower fuel mileage, and higher emissions.

Thankfully, with Tesla dual motor EVs, this "tax" is significantly less onerous. The only real cost (aside from the one-time issue of missing part of the EV tax credit) is $5000 (or possibly less for the Model 3) up front for the dual motor option. That buys you a vehicle that's actually more efficient overall than 2WD. That is truly revolutionary!
 
edatoakrun said:
https://www.wired.com/story/canceling-your-model-3-deposit-dont-count-on-a-timely-refund/

But the fact that it is returning 3 (and other) deposits now does not mean TSLA deposits are zero risk .

On Wednesday TSLA reports quarterly earnings, and we will have a better idea of how quickly its cash position is deteriorating.

Anyone considering placing a deposit for any BEV with TSLA should consider how those financials would look without the over- $half-billion in interest-free-cash TSLA has to play with, as a result of customer deposits.

I've never seen a post from you that has anything positive about Tesla. Have they done anything in the past 10 years that meets your approval or is it all just a scam and your counting the days before they disappear as a company. I'd love to see a reply with some positive comments if you have some.
 
jlv said:
AP2 works remarkably well on side roads here - at those that are lined.
Lots of dirt roads and unlined paved roads here. And why would I want to use AP on curvy mountain roads? Those are what make driving a Tesla fun! [Also, what does AP do about rocks on the road? Swerve, straddle, or panic stop? Curious about that.]

My impression, from comments by many who have it, is that AP is wonderful for people driving on multi-lane highways — none of those here — in heavy traffic conditions, because it reduces commuting stress. I have a one-day-a-week commute to a volunteer job in Ouray ("you ray") and it is one of the most relaxing drives I can do because it is gorgeous and I haven't tired of it despite having done it many hundreds of times over the last decade. It is the opposite of stressful — except when driving at "deer o'clock," which I try to avoid — rather, it is a pleasure that I look forward to, no AP needed.

Although "traffic," in the sense that most people think of the term, doesn't exist here, it would be nice to have TACC for occasions when I am following other cars, especially if they aren't holding a steady speed, as often happens with tourists, who have to slow down a bit every time they see a curve in the road. But TACC isn't worth $5000 to me.

31025103900_9c92799393_z.jpg


^ City of Ouray, as seen from a trail to the Chief Ouray mine, elevation 10,000 feet.
 
palmermd said:
edatoakrun said:
https://www.wired.com/story/canceling-your-model-3-deposit-dont-count-on-a-timely-refund/

But the fact that it is returning 3 (and other) deposits now does not mean TSLA deposits are zero risk .

On Wednesday TSLA reports quarterly earnings, and we will have a better idea of how quickly its cash position is deteriorating.

Anyone considering placing a deposit for any BEV with TSLA should consider how those financials would look without the over- $half-billion in interest-free-cash TSLA has to play with, as a result of customer deposits.

I've never seen a post from you that has anything positive about Tesla. Have they done anything in the past 10 years that meets your approval or is it all just a scam and your counting the days before they disappear as a company. I'd love to see a reply with some positive comments if you have some.
Posted this AM:

edatoakrun said:
dgpcolorado said:
GRA said:
Question for dgpcolorado. One of the points mentioned in one of the articles, I think the Motor Trend one, was that the rear seats in the Model 3 do fold 60/40, as well as the trunk opening being enlarged, and that a bike would fit in the back (and so presumably a person could also lie down)...
I would expect that the 3 is much too small to sleep in as I've done with my S (stretched out diagonally) but even with the S, the low roof makes me prefer the space of my tent, where I can sit up easily. The 3 is just too small to even consider sleeping in it...
Driving Tesla’s Model 3 Changes Everything

...With the new Model 3, there’s great news for those Tesla campers and others who like to haul long cargo. The seats of the Model 3 fold completely flat, and with the front seats in their most forward position, the back bed measures an impressive 6 feet 9 inches long (206 cm). This is a car that’s dying to be slept in...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-31/driving-tesla-s-model-3-changes-everything

But I would certainly agree with you that most of my comments RE TSLA are critical, if that is your point.

In both my posts above, and in many of my others, I often try to provide accurate answers to questions which arise, or provide the sources that contradict misinformation posted. That is why I replied to other posts (which you edited out of your quote posted above) which brought up reported problems with TSLA deposit refunds, and incorrectly claimed TSLA deposits are "zero risk".

Since TSLA, IMO, is the probably the single subject of the most misinformation among all BEV topics, it does get quite a few posts from me.

Back on-topic, RE my opinion of the model 3...and also positive!

I think the 3 is the best-looking Tesla yet.
 
edatoakrun said:
Back on-topic, RE my opinion of the model 3...and also positive!

I think the 3 is the best-looking Tesla yet.

thanks, its nice to hear something positive once in a while instead of just a stream of negativity.
 
lpickup said:
but they were probably close enough that it would make sense to forge ahead and cross 200K in the first few weeks of January.

Dream On (cross 200K 1/2018)!

lpickup said:
Now the production 'S' curve Elon showed at the handover event showed them hitting 5K/week only in the final week of December. I realize this is not a real actual chart, but I think the story it tells is that probably best case they will hit the 5K/week run rate at the very end of December...this probably means more like 10K cars in December max, and with delivery lag we're probably only talking 7500 or so actual deliveries in December.

Forgotten the Model X actual production ramp versus Elon's 'Curve' ?

lpickup said:
So that may make me rethink what Tesla plans to do. Now it still means they could potentially hit car #200K in early February, but the question is does Elon "do the right thing" and postpone shipments of Model 3 for 2 whole months (and divert Model S and X deliveries abroad) to hit #200K on April 1. Two months is a long time and customers would be furious for additional delay, but if the ramp up does not go quite as expected and we look at another 2-3 week lag, well then, we only have about a 6 week delay, and that might be somewhat more palatable a situation to hold back deliveries. And of course AWD customers would be completely thrilled, so there might be a case to be made for this approach.

That insight may warrant an email to Elon. Your optimism is effusive!
 
abasile said:
I believe Elon Musk has indicated that Tesla will try to maximize the number of US cars eligible for the $7500 tax credit. It would be counterproductive for Tesla to reach 200,000 US cars sold near the end of Q4 2017. It'll make far more sense to reach that limit at the beginning of a quarter (perhaps Q1 2018) and deliver US cars like mad for the remainder of that quarter and the following quarter, during which time all cars will remain eligible for the full credit.

Arguably, Tesla should try to avoid hitting 200,000 US cars delivered until their production rate is as high as possible. In Q1 2018, production will still be ramping up. So why not make a bunch of Canadian buyers happy, and postpone the 200,000th US car to the beginning of Q2 2018?

In any case, as much as we'd appreciate the full tax credit, I think the smart thing for us to do is wait however long it takes for AWD. We wouldn't mind owning a Model X 100 kWh (or 90), but they're so very expensive, even used.

On the other hand, if we lived in Massachusetts like jlv (or anywhere outside CA or WA for that matter), we'd probably go for RWD and just buy a good set of snow tires.
Below from Jan 2017 but likely still true for USA sales (move some international). Certainly all manufacturers will make adjustments to maximize the tax credits. Tesla has various options on where to sell cars now. GM may have some challenges ahead. The LEAF 2 may take away Bolt sales.

http://insideevs.com/us-federal-7500-ev-credit-expiry-date-by-automaker-estimates/
WCL1qkD.jpg
 
scottf200 said:
abasile said:
I believe Elon Musk has indicated that Tesla will try to maximize the number of US cars eligible for the $7500 tax credit. It would be counterproductive for Tesla to reach 200,000 US cars sold near the end of Q4 2017. It'll make far more sense to reach that limit at the beginning of a quarter (perhaps Q1 2018) and deliver US cars like mad for the remainder of that quarter and the following quarter, during which time all cars will remain eligible for the full credit.

Arguably, Tesla should try to avoid hitting 200,000 US cars delivered until their production rate is as high as possible. In Q1 2018, production will still be ramping up. So why not make a bunch of Canadian buyers happy, and postpone the 200,000th US car to the beginning of Q2 2018?

In any case, as much as we'd appreciate the full tax credit, I think the smart thing for us to do is wait however long it takes for AWD. We wouldn't mind owning a Model X 100 kWh (or 90), but they're so very expensive, even used.

On the other hand, if we lived in Massachusetts like jlv (or anywhere outside CA or WA for that matter), we'd probably go for RWD and just buy a good set of snow tires.
Below from Jan 2017 but likely still true for USA sales (move some international). Certainly all manufacturers will make adjustments to maximize the tax credits. Tesla has various options on where to sell cars now. GM may have some challenges ahead. The LEAF 2 may take away Bolt sales.

http://insideevs.com/us-federal-7500-ev-credit-expiry-date-by-automaker-estimates/
WCL1qkD.jpg

Better info here;
https://forums.tesla.com/forum/foru...-phase-out-updated-070317-after-ems-tweets-m3

Q4-2017 : 19,300 / 176,875 (+35,000 Model 3's = 211,875) hits 200,000 US deliveries during quarter unless M3 estimate is too rosy, 12000 M3's are stockpiled or sold overseas, and/or much lower sales of MS's and MX's than projected
 
abasile said:
On the other hand, if we lived in Massachusetts like jlv (or anywhere outside CA or WA for that matter), we'd probably go for RWD and just buy a good set of snow tires.
Actually, I need the AWD just to get up the driveway in the winter. The rest of my driving would be fine with just snow tires.
 
Will someone explain to me why TSLA is even building a RWD model 3?

The efficiency penalty on all 2WD BEVs from being limited to only a single axle ratio in propulsion, is compounded by the efficiency limitations in any RWD BEV like the 3, during regenerative braking.

Not to mention the improved handling and performance from AWD.

The marginal cost of adding the second drive axle can only be a few thousand dollars, given the offsetting cost reduction from standardization.

Anyone out there who is willing to pay nearly $60,000 (which is, assuming they all have AP, is the list price for all the model 3s produced so far) and wouldn't be willing to pay a few $k more for AWD?

edatoakrun said:
What took them so long?

Given the modest increase in production cost, and the significant benefits in performance and efficiency, it just doesn't make sense to build 2wd BEVS, other than as low-priced entry-level models.

At ~$75k fully loaded more affordable model 3 will probably cost about the same as the new base model of the affordable S...

Tesla says it will discontinue the cheapest version of its Model S prior to the launch of the Model 3.

It’s still available to order now, for delivery in September, but it won’t be around for long.

We’ve received word that tesla will discontinue the cheapest version of the Model S, the rear wheel drive 75.

This move will put more distance (in terms of price) between the upcoming ~$35,000 Model 3 and the Model S.

The RWD 75 Model S starts at $69,500. Eliminating this version will push the base price of the Model S up to $74,500...
http://insideevs.com/tesla-will-discontinue-rwd-model-s-75-prior-launch-model-3/

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2429&start=3480
 
edatoakrun said:
Will someone explain to me why TSLA is even building a RWD model 3?
Because, while the people getting them now can certainly afford AWD, as they move down the reservation list and eventually out to the non-reservation general public that will increasingly not be the case, and as noted in previous posts, some of us have AWD/4WD solely for regulatory compliance convenience. AWD is nice, and on a BEV more rather than less efficient, but if I didn't travel to the mountains in winter regularly I sure as hell wouldn't have it. It adds to the up-front cost of the car and also adds another component that may need repair/replacement as the car ages or after an accident, boosting insurance costs, plus (at least on the S/X, not sure on the Model 3) it reduces frunk space. Model 3 AWD performance may or may not be better than the 2WD version, but how much is enough? How many people really need a Golf R instead of a GTI? The 2WD Model 3 is getting rave reviews for its performance/handling from car mags as it is. The small gain in range simply isn't worth several thousand dollars to people who don't have some other reason to have it.
 
GRA said:
... AWD is nice, and on a BEV more rather than less efficient, but if I didn't travel to the mountains in winter regularly I sure as hell wouldn't have it...
Which might reflect a rational decision-making process, for an ICEV driver, like you...

But as a BEV driver, AWD makes a lot more sense to me, as the costs are so much lower, and the benefits so much higher, than was the case when I regularly drove 2WD ICEVs.

There is also that pesky reality that a large fraction of the ICEV drivers today irrationally choose to buy AWD ICEVs, even though they benefit only slightly or not at all, never driving them off-pavement or within sight of snow, though they suffer as you do from the much higher costs and lower efficiency.
 
I enjoyed this little vid of the Model 3 HVAC controls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2z2Pa8X00

I guess some will blanch at the loss of legacy vent controls but if, as suggested on Tesla forum, they pair this with the Driver Profiles it will improve the handoff between my wife and I. We have very different ideas about our cooling/heating.
 
edatoakrun said:
GRA said:
... AWD is nice, and on a BEV more rather than less efficient, but if I didn't travel to the mountains in winter regularly I sure as hell wouldn't have it...
Which might reflect a rational decision-making process, for an ICEV driver, like you...

But as a BEV driver, AWD makes a lot more sense to me, as the costs are so much lower, and the benefits so much higher, than was the case when I regularly drove 2WD ICEVs.

There is also that pesky reality that a large fraction of the ICEV drivers today irrationally choose to buy AWD ICEVs, even though they benefit only slightly or not at all, never driving them off-pavement or within sight of snow, though they suffer as you do from the much higher costs and lower efficiency.
Sure, people who have no need of AWD/4WD or high clearance SUVs buy them - I have a friend with a 4Runner who's gone into 4WD precisely once in the 16 years he's owned it, to get out of a muddy parking lot. He's also got steel brushgards front and rear, adding all their extra weight and inertia, despite the fact that the only time he's ever driven it on a wide, graded dirt road (not a jeep road) is on a trip with me. He thinks they look cool. I'm trying to convince him/his wife that a (big battery) Model 3 would be an excellent replacement for her 2003 330i when the time comes, as she often makes the 190 mile drive from the Bay Area to Lemoore via I-580/5 to visit relatives (enroute SCs currently in Dublin, Santa Nella and Harris Ranch), and they take relatively few other long road trips.

Getting him to give up something like a 4Runner may be a lot harder, but I'm working on him :lol: Pointing out that he'd probably spent about $42k on gas for his 4Runner since he's owned it helped, and he does seem fairly receptive to adding solar. Note that neither of them are green, so economic, energy security or emotional reasons have to be convincing to get them to change.

Still, he can afford to waste that kind of cash if it makes him happy, but a large portion of the population will always have to make decisions based on value for the money, and given the choice between AWD and say (an effective and reasonably safe) A/P, many people will opt for the latter. Or do without both, because they don't meet the value equation for them, or they simply can't afford it. Given the choice between AWD & A/P or the bigger battery, I know which option provides the greater value for me, if I were willing and able to afford either. Maybe I'm unusually rational in my car buying, but somehow I doubt that.

Now, if you offer me AWD for say $1,500 to $2k, which IIRR was the price difference between the 2WD and 4WD versions of my '88 Subaru, the calculation may well change. That extra cost plus the slightly higher fuel costs (IIRR 4WD instead of 2WD reduced the mpg by two) and insurance costs were worth it to me for the convenience, and certainly would be given the additional efficiency advantages for a BEV, if I didn't have to do without some other desirable option in exchange. I also saved a little money through not wrecking chains and tires while driving around on dry pavement when chain controls were up. For example, there's a dip on I-80 somewhere between Yuba Gap and Norden/Donner Summit, where under the wrong conditions there's snow at each end but it's dry for 5-10 miles or so in between, giving you the choice of installing and removing your chains twice in each direction, or just leaving them on with the inevitable excessive wear on them and your tires. In Yosemite Valley, they'll sometimes have controls up for the entire Valley loop road, even when there are only two small (ca. 100 yd. each) patches of snow in the entire 14 miles, both easily negotiable without chains by any sentient driver. Sadly, the Park Service apparently believes (probably on good evidence) that there are more than a few non-sentient drivers out there, so the rest of us get penalized. Having 4WD/AWD has also probably saved me a fair amount of money for dental work, through not grinding my teeth while I destroy my chains and tires driving around there :D
 
GRA said:
... plus (at least on the S/X, not sure on the Model 3) [AWD] reduces frunk space.
We really do appreciate the extra large frunk in our "classic" 2WD Model S. I always keep a large collection of charging adapters and extension cords, plus our snow chains, snow brush, and sheets of cardboard (for when I have to get on the ground to install chains) in the microwave-sized "cubby" in the rear of the frunk. Then, for family car camping, I load our somewhat large tent, all of our sleeping bags, a few blankets, and maybe an empty backpack or two in the remainder of the frunk.

With a newer AWD Model S, we'd certainly miss that storage space. That would be one factor pushing us toward the larger Model X if/when we upgrade our "family vehicle" in some number of years (when used Model Xes are available at much lower prices).

However, our family's Model 3 won't be used for applications where storage space is paramount, so getting AWD is a no-brainer. It wouldn't matter to us if there's no frunk at all. The only reason for us to have questioned ordering AWD is the delivery timeline and tax credit status.

I do understand, though, that some will be stretching to afford the base Model 3 at $35K. Even if AWD were only a $2K option, I could see a number of buyers sticking with 2WD just to save money.

One problem with the California system of snow chain requirements is that AWD doesn't automatically turn one into a more competent driver - it really only reduces the likelihood of getting stuck on an uphill and blocking traffic. Using AWD as a "filter" for requiring chains sort of works as long as most snow-naive drivers have 2WD, and AWD is more prevalent among mountain-oriented drivers. If everyone had AWD, then the California authorities would have to come up with some other way of attempting to control clueless flat landers in snow conditions. Personally, I'd prefer to see California offer a snow driving exam (administered annually in a handful of snowy locales) and reward those who pass with a "snow endorsement" on their driver licenses that permits driving snow-tired vehicles (2WD or AWD) without chains. But I digress - autonomous vehicles are likely to be able to drive competently on snow-covered roads before that happens.
 
abasile said:
...One problem with the California system of snow chain requirements is that AWD doesn't automatically turn one into a more competent driver - it really only reduces the likelihood of getting stuck on an uphill and blocking traffic. Using AWD as a "filter" for requiring chains sort of works as long as most snow-naive drivers have 2WD, and AWD is more prevalent among mountain-oriented drivers. If everyone had AWD, then the California authorities would have to come up with some other way of attempting to control clueless flat landers in snow conditions...
Clueless flat-lander here. I agree AWD seems to make us think we are better drivers than we are, and launch confidently into conditions over our pay grade. I have no need for the added weight, cost, bulk, and complexity of AWD. Only attraction is 0-60 times. another extreme I would do best to avoid.
 
KeiJidosha said:
abasile said:
...One problem with the California system of snow chain requirements is that AWD doesn't automatically turn one into a more competent driver - it really only reduces the likelihood of getting stuck on an uphill and blocking traffic. Using AWD as a "filter" for requiring chains sort of works as long as most snow-naive drivers have 2WD, and AWD is more prevalent among mountain-oriented drivers. If everyone had AWD, then the California authorities would have to come up with some other way of attempting to control clueless flat landers in snow conditions...
Clueless flat-lander here. I agree AWD seems to make us think we are better drivers than we are, and launch confidently into conditions over our pay grade. I have no need for the added weight, cost, bulk, and complexity of AWD. Only attraction is 0-60 times. another extreme I would do best to avoid.
Yup, it's just as easy to get into trouble with 4WD/AWD as it is with 2WD, because it doesn't help your traction for braking and not that much for turning. Instead, at first it tends to make you over-confident until you grok that, leading you to gradually drive the car faster than you would with chains on, as there's so much less noise/vibration. If you're lucky you may learn the lesson at no cost - it cost me around $1,300 IIRR, but the damage was all to the car rather than me or anyone else (well, the small, flexible pine I ran over on my off-road excursion was looking a bit worse for wear, but it hurt the car a lot more than the car hurt it). Suitably educated and chastened, I've avoided any repeats in the almost 30 years since, perhaps helped by the ABS and electronic brake force distribution on my current Subie, but mainly through not putting myself in a situation where I'm likely to need them to protect me from my own stupidity.
 
AWD on a Tesla gives some pretty staggering traction and performance under any conditions. In the Model 3 the AWD version will be the same but also be needed for more performance as the 3 motor is PM and pushed much harder, thus any performance version of the 3 will need a second motor unlike the S. They are already are eliminating all 2WD S versions very soon and have improved 0-60 on 2WD S to almost on par with the standard D model. Now the S will have a wider gap on the 3 in performance making it interesting to see how the 3 AWD model will be presented. A performance option or just the AWD? Regardless it should have some jump in 0-60 but likely restricted to not step on the S specs.

The 3 has some interesting refinements besides the new motor, no separate pack heater (inverter used to heat the pack) cell packing, and other changes. The efficiency of the new motor is part of the range boost equation. There are many big changes from the S/X architecture.
 
Back
Top