0-60 ludicrous model 3 - How much will you pay and How fast should it be?

[arnis]

Ok, maybe A8/7-series was too far. Maybe A6/5-series? My dad has a 5 series and it is no more luxurious than a Model S (unless you equate having 1,000 buttons with cryptic icons on them with luxury). Per your post size doesn't matter so then why do the A6 and 5-series exist? For your money you're pretty much only getting a larger vehicle. Very recently the mid-size cars are a bit quicker than the smaller ones but that hasn't been true in the past yet the mid-size cars have been around for awhile.

Model S is not not competitor for 7-series/A8. Those vehicles come standard with lots of features but the main reason is backseat.
5-series can be spec'd to be pretty much identical to 7-series (except rear seat comfort, champagne refrigerator, reclining multi-adjustable electric seats with footrest etc, monitors, remote, 4-zone climate, curtains etc etc etc.
But 5-series standard equipment is much less than Model S standard equipment. This is also why 5-series costs less. Yes it has automatic and yes it has dual climate control, but not electric seats nor navigation. No adaptive cruise control and no keyless entry. This makes 5-series base model more mid-class friendly.
Model S standard equipment is way more than 5-series base model. If we spec up 5-series to base Model S, 5-series will cost more.
Performance is only one specification when people choose vehicles. And there is a sweet spot. For BMW-s they set it to around *30* model (number before for series and letters after for engine/drivetrain, for example 530xd as 5-series with AWD, diesel). This is the sweetest spot. If we look at the numbers, that's around 6-second acceleration. Anything more is not really important for good driving dynamics.

For smaller series (1,2,3,4) Sweet spot goes down from *30* down to *20*. Most popular 3-series vehicles are 320d and 320i (this is EU specific, in US range of models is absurdly limited, CH also). This is around 7-second acceleration. Majority is not ready to pay more for more performance. And this is reasonable. Otherwise people tend to prefer higher series (330* costs more than 520*, 520* has around 8-second acceleration). This is why people don't buy Camrys and Corollas with V8 engines.

And this also mirrors for all other car manufacturers in the world. There is a sweet spot for passenger vehicles. The cheaper the vehicle the less performance is expected and preferred on average.
Therefore this preference will also continue in EV world. That includes Tesla Model 3.
Most people will not pay significantly more for performance if it is below 7-seconds.
And, as we already know, Model 3 base model will have much better results than 7-seconds.
Therefore very very FEW will consider higher battery capacity model due to performance.
And even less will consider highest performer. Less than on Tesla Model S and X (as those are bigger, more expensive vehicles, on average, people expect more performance out of it, this is why 85-90D models are very common, while P**D models are not).
Model 3 will have more customers on the low spec range, opposite what happens with Model X. This is why very weak Model X models are not even offered. Model S is slightly more distributed, with some choosing 60 models (as there is no real competition to fill the BMW 3-series sized EV demand, aka Model3). Model S 60 models will be less popular next year. Tesla is already ready today (they don't offer 60 packs any more). Damn they are smart.

 

[strider]

Most people will not pay significantly more for performance if it is below 7-seconds.
And, as we already know, Model 3 base model will have much better results than 7-seconds.
Therefore very very FEW will consider higher battery capacity model due to performance.

I agree, however, performance cars like the S4, M3, AMG, Hellcat, Z06 Corvette, Camaro ZL1, etc generate foot traffic into dealerships and get ink in magazines. When you need to get the brand more widely known it helps to have your car mentioned in the car magazines. Just about every Car and Driver review of a large performance sedan says something like, "XYZ car is one of the quickest sedans ever after the Tesla P100DL" so Tesla's performance is getting them mentions in articles that aren't even about them. They should keep this up.

In every article about the S4, M3, AMG C63S, etc Tesla should strive for a similar mention of the 3PDL.

 

[arnis]

We pretty much know that P370DL will be faster than BMW M3 (any number below 4 is going to tick that box). Making it P375DL or P380DL will not make it more faster in the eyes of regular people (regular people don't even know what is Tesla). If it is faster then it is faster, check mark ticked.

And Tesla already has "Did you know that Tesla is the fastest car in the world?" rumors happening - less people care which specific model (with or without sunroof etc), the most important for regular people is the fact, that it is Tesla. (example, If I ask regular people (not BMW fans but lets say car guys in general): "Which is faster, BMW M1, M3 or M5?" They don't have a slightest idea. But they know that BMW is faster that Toyota).

Sharing something like "Did you know that cheapest Tesla is actually slower than BMW 5-series (or anything else reasonable)?" Even a 15 year old would look at you with a big "WTF" face"

I do want Tesla Model3 to get below 4 seconds to beat most competitors in the same league. It's easy to do with tech they already have. They don't have to repeat Model S specifications. Doing that is expensive. More than 90% of Model3 customers don't want to add even 1% to their vehicle price due to some Ludicrous variation specific requirements.
Base price talks, ultra-ludicrous walks (in case of mass market vehicle segment)

 

[Sonny Daze]

The Model S is marketed very heavily as a powerful performance sedan. There is absolutely zero chance any iteration of the Model 3 outperforms a top-of-the-line Model S. I know many of you will have opinions on this, but as far as we've seen or heard, the Model 3 is not being marketed as a performance car, but rather a mass-market EV designed to accelerate EV adoption.

I haven't seen any marketing. I think people see these cars as they want to see them.

Model 3 will not be designed around performance. It will be designed around needs (like headroom in the rear).

Hope you are wrong, especially since I don't need rear headroom, but I fear you are correct.

Once it's revealed that the 3 is slower than the S, there's not much reason one would prefer a 3 to an S if they had the means to choose comfortably between the two. And no, I'm not accepting "the S is too big" as an answer, because a few extra inches here and there are not valid reasons to completely eliminate a car choice. I'll accept that answer if your garage won't physically fit an S though.

Even if the performance is close I would not pay twice the price, especially because S is a bigger car.

 

[JeffK]

One has to realize, for many of us, the P100D might as well be a million dollar supercar because it's equally unobtainable.

We want ludicrous performance, but with something we can actually afford. These are very different market segments. Physically there's is zero reason a performance version of the Model 3 shouldn't be able to outperform the Model S. If they handicap Model 3 for no reason it's not going to drive people into buying the performance version of the Model S. If they don't have money for it now, they're not magically going to have money for it later.

The closest thing you'd do is drive people from a high profit margin, highly optioned Model 3 to a low profit margin, base model Model S. The very idea doesn't make business sense.

 

[S3XY]

We pretty much know that P370DL will be faster than BMW M3 (any number below 4 is going to tick that box). Making it P375DL or P380DL will not make it more faster in the eyes of regular people (regular people don't even know what is Tesla). If it is faster then it is faster, check mark ticked.
...

More than 90% of Model3 customers don't want to add even 1% to their vehicle price due to some Ludicrous variation specific requirements.
Base price talks, ultra-ludicrous walks (in case of mass market vehicle segment)

Sure, but a portion of that other 10% would be willing to pay big bucks for Ludicrous and that pads profits for Tesla.

 

[zenmaster]

If possible, I'd rather have Tesla improve the cooling tech so car averages an ICE-comparable faster acceleration over miles of driving, than be able to do a one-shot sub 3-sec. All that power currently can't be sustained for long under load due to inability to handle the incredible amount of waste heat generated.

 

[JeffK]

If possible, I'd rather have Tesla improve the cooling tech so car averages an ICE-comparable faster acceleration over miles of driving, than be able to do a one-shot sub 3-sec. All that power currently can't be sustained for long under load due to inability to handle the incredible amount of waste heat generated.

By ICEs do you mean like race cars that have their engines rebuilt after every race or like 4 million dollar lamborghinis that catch fire?

Don't forget that the Model 3 is not a race car nor meant to be full throttle all the time. There are no indications that the Model 3 (or the Model S for that matter) will have heat related issues with normal driving.

Electric GT has been working with Tesla and they were working together on stator cooling.

 

[Bobfitz1]

More than 90% of Model3 customers don't want to add even 1% to their vehicle price due to some Ludicrous variation specific requirements.

Sure, but a portion of that other 10% would be willing to pay big bucks for Ludicrous and that pads profits for Tesla.

I think there will be plenty of Model 3 customers who will purchase upscale to get what they see as the best combination of features, acceleration, range, etc. Many of the first two years customers have experienced Model S type acceleration well short of Ludicrous mode and love it. Quite a few will pay an extra 10K for 4 sec 0 - 60 and having more reserve when traveling longer distances.
Most following after those already reserved will know very well that big daily fun is another option and will test drive faster than base models.
I'd bet only 10 - 20% are going to choose low cost base variants, if the economy hasn't tanked by then.

 

[arnis]

Sure, but a portion of that other 10% would be willing to pay big bucks for Ludicrous and that pads profits for Tesla.

10 000$ option is not going to skyrocket Tesla's profits. "Portion" is actually very little. Same with Model S ludicrous - we see them a lot in reviews but on the streets - not so many. Way less than 5% are ludicrous.
Like I have said multiple times, even a smallest requirement for Ludicrous that must be in every Model 3 will heavily reduce profits. Tesla is not planning to make those cars in tens of thousands. 200$ additional stuff on every Model 3 due to Ludicrous requirements is definitely NO GO. That is not true for Model S/X.
And ludicrous only hardware actually costs money. So maybe only 30-50% out of 10 000$ option is for profits.

Topic name suggests egocentric approach. From Tesla's perspective its not about few people who can afford 5-15k$ option. It's about the whole fleet of Model 3's - their long term reliability and overall company profitability. Worst thing that can happen is pushing Model 3 too far. We don't want FCA reliability figures.

 

[JeffK]

10 000$ option is not going to skyrocket Tesla's profits. ...

• Like I have said multiple times, even a smallest requirement for Ludicrous that must be in every Model 3 will heavily reduce profits.
• Tesla is not planning to make those cars in tens of thousands.
• 200$ additional stuff on every Model 3 due to Ludicrous requirements is definitely NO GO. That is not true for Model S/X.
• And ludicrous only hardware actually costs money. So maybe only 30-50% out of 10 000$ option is for profits.

No on pretty much everything you've said.
Options usually have higher profit margins than the base car. Gross profit margins are: (revenue - cost) / revenue
The customer pays for the entire cost AND the margin. Having highly optioned cars does not cost Tesla more money at all, in fact Tesla makes more money by selling these options. It's in their best interest to make these options desireable and sell them.

You're saying Tesla is not planning to make those cars in the tens of thousands... mark my words, if that model is $60-70k and not handicapped in any way, then Tesla is going to sell far more than tens of thousands per year.

You're saying you don't see the performance Model S/X on the streets a lot... but you do see Teslas and if the cheapest model S is around the same price as the top Model 3, then you're going to see more sales of the top Model 3. Both the customer and Tesla benefit in this scenario.

The last sentence of what I quoted is the only one that makes sense and proves the point, the profit margins are higher with highly optioned cars. 30-50% is higher than the base profit margins expected to be 20-25%.

Many people are going to at least opt for dual motors, the glass roof, and any kind of winter package they offer. Every customer who can afford a base Model S Tesla today will be considering the top end Model 3, where Tesla is going to make even more money than if that customer bought a base Model S.

It's better to think in terms of percentages than in actual dollar amounts. Profit in dollar amounts might be lower per car compared to P100D, but Model 3 will be much greater volume. Therefore, Model 3 will be far more profitable than Model S ever was.

 

[aronth5]

Compared to my Prius V any configured Model 3 will be light years faster so as far as paying extra for performance no thanks.
If I want speed I'll just ride my Cannondale bicycle down any good size hill at 40+ mph

 

[arnis]

I think you are missing my point. And also it is not reasonable to say Tesla is a regular company.
Tesla is not planning to sell Model 3-s in tens of thousands (all together). It's a sarcastic piece of information. We all know that they will make them in hundreds of thousands annually.

My point is based on engineering. There are at least few dozens requirements for 3 or less second acceleration (excluding drivetrain unit).
Somehow people (random people who have a different educational base) think that I'm wrong with no actual arguments for the problems I brought up. Only reasons why Tesla should/could put a 80-100kWh pack with 2-second acceleration.
I'm tired of repeating that over and over again.
Start with brackets for drive unit mounting and ends with different front bumper design which will heavily impact Cd. There are just too many things.
There is no point to list them. Regular people (and regular reservation holders) don't understand why and explaining that will take at least 3-4 hours.

I tried to explain curb weight and crash structure problems but NO. THERE WILL BE 90KWH PACK BECAUSE 20-40k customers annually will have resources to pay for that and Mr Musk is God who can ignore laws of physics. What is the point to argue if people, who don't know, will also not listen.

Best answer that at least makes some sense is the fact that there is no engine in the front. But that is not enough. There are A-pillars and lack of ICE has nothing to do with that.

I trust Mr Musk. He promised not to over-engineer Model 3, I hope he is consistent with his promises.

 

[strider]

I think you are missing my point.

You are correct. I don't understand what you are trying to say. I do not see this as a zero sum game. Why can't there be a $35k 6-second car and a $100k 2.x-second car? They've already shown it's possible with Model S. The main chassis has supported everything from the S40 to P100DL. Of course the chassis is over-engineered for the 40 and based on the launch counter fiasco Tesla is worried it's under-engineered for the P100DL. But that is a massive spread of capabilities from the same chassis. This is also common in the ICE world with car makers using global chassis to support a very wide range of vehicles. I think it's safe to say that the issues are well known by now.

If you're worried about delays then...well....there will be massive delays because... Tesla. Everything they've ever done has been colossally late. Sorry to tell you but Model 3 will not be different. They will not ship cars in any number in 2017. They will do their standard 5 hand-built Founders cars on 12/31, call them customer cars (since they pay for them), and declare customer cars were delivered in 2017 to Wall Street. Model 3 will not be produced in volume until Spring 2018. I also contend that the delays will be on the Production/factory side not the Engineering side so a few extra weeks to design beefier suspension and motor mounts is minor in my opinion.

Nothing I've said in this thread is an attack on the base model or an argument that the base model should be more expensive. Personally I would like an over-engineered car as it should last longer that way. I don't know why everyone's getting so spun up. Some of us like to dream about a high performance car (this is the Model 3 Ludicrous thread after all). In NO WAY am I trying to take away from your dream of a long range reasonably priced car. I want Tesla to appeal to the largest number of buyers.

 

[sitter_k]

My budget is 55k USD, if that only buys me a m3 xxD then so be it. If it gets me PxxD then bonus.

 

[EXOTIC1]

Currently you can buy Ludicrous model S P85d cars for 80k with low miles (get's you under 3 sec 0-60)
by the end of the year these should be in the low 70's. Would you choose a used P85D ludicrous over a brand new 75-80k loaded model 3?
You won't have autopilot 2 avail on the S but other than that might be a tough decision for some.

 

[jgillispie]

I'm expecting 3.5-3.7. Still really fast but a step below the S and X.

 

[arnis]

Why can't there be a $35k 6-second car and a $100k 2.x-second car? They've already shown it's possible with Model S.

Because 35k vehicle doesn't have so much play room as vehicle that costs 70k. The only way to reduce price is not to over-engineer it.
JeffK said, that those who buy the P-model will pay for everything, not only their own car engineering, but the whole fleet additionally wasted resources (as I understood that). That might be the case for Model S, but not for Model 3. Because.....

P will require rubber mounts for rear axle that are capable to withstand enormous torque. Need to design beefier hooks or those rubber mounts will not stay where they have to. 1kg weight addition to all Model3's, price: 15€. P model will require more capable coolant loop to the rear axle, hose diameter +20%, heat exchanger that is appropriate for at least some accelerations: 15€+20€. More airflow required through front bumper: Cd -0,02 for all vehicles, cost 5€, range worse on all models. P model for 100k will have 80kWh pack. Curb weight increase (battery price only added to those who opted). Frame/body structure needs to be modified to be appropriate for 80kWh pack weight. Weight increase +10kg on all models (compared to 70kWh battery weight). Manufacturing costs: +150€ for all Model3s. Range reduction. Need suspension parts that are suitable for higher gross vehicle weight. +5kg weight for all models. Range reduction for all models. Higher running costs (all versions). Beefier wheels required (applies to only P version). Frontal crash structure on all models must be suitable (5-star rating) for the new gross vehicle weight (near Model S weight). Weight increase: +20kg. Cost: +70€. range reduction on all models. I believe I was able to count only 10-20% of requirements with their own negative side effects.

So now, every non-P model will be 40kg heavier due to changes that are only required to go from 3.5sec to 2.5sec. And base model will be less efficient do to worse Cd, higher weight. JeffK said, that P buyers will not only pay for hardware but also all other expenses Tesla will have due to extreme P performance. Ok, lets say that the price of the base model will suffer only 300€. Multiply this with 475 000 vehicles that have performance between 6 and 4 seconds. This is 142 million Euros. This sum must be embedded in P-price. We sell 25 000 P models. 570€ additional cost to P model option due to fleet-wide modifications. This is direct cost. Indirect cost must also take into account -15mile range on all models. And either bigger pack for everybody to compensate that or more aluminum used (or other material). How much will that cost. How much will every non-P Model3 will lose value due to extra energy requirement per distance traveled? This are questions that I can not even estimate. Very complex. But at least I brought up basic chain reaction that is required for more capable top Model3 version.

Let's mirror that to Model S. 30 000 vehicles. 1500 ludicrous annually. Additional cost per every Model S (aka over engineered 60 70 models). 1000€ (much more than Model 3). 1000*30000=30 000 000€. Ludicrous option additional cost 20 000€ for everyone who wants that (go check out price difference between 100D and P100D). Possible to sell with that price and with profit? Yes.


Yes I know, my numbers are made up. I gave my best estimations. But it works like that. Whoever wants to dispute should give more precise estimations.
Some may say, that P-variant requirements are only applied for P models. Yea sure. Some. maybe they have different part number for the whole rear axle but one thing is absolutely sure. They will not have different body design according to models. And they will not have different coolant hoses/clamps, pumps, heat exchangers, front bumpers and all those "small things" all different.

Did I at least convince SOMEBODY that having 55kWh and 90kWh battery pack on the same body is not going to cost near-nothing for non-90kWh versions?

Of course the chassis is over-engineered for the 40

Actually AFAIK, it wasn't 40kWh, it was software limited 60kWh.


There are reasons why Model S60 weights 400kg/880lbs more than Bolt 60kWh. Empty huge frunk/trunk doesn't actually add to weight. Bolt will not handle 75kWh pack (even though it is possible to fit it) and same carrying capacity (5 seater). Model S will. And it also works with 90kWh pack. And even 100kWh pack. And second drive unit. But that should be it. Now put that on Model 3 and we get Model S again. Making nose shorter and vehicle more aerodynamic and tires 1" smaller will not make noticeable difference.

 

[JeffK]

Because 35k vehicle doesn't have so much play room as vehicle that costs 70k. The only way to reduce price is not to over-engineer it...

You are forgetting one important fact. We already know the Model 3 will have a ludicrous option. The Model 3 was already engineered for it.
In addition, the Model 3 was designed to have an optional tow hitch meaning the rear axle can take additional weight (on all models). Just an FYI, but extra weight has zero bearing on coefficient of drag.

Adding additional support to make the heaviest version of the car achieve top safety ratings only increases the safety for the lighter versions of the car. The strongest supports will likely use steel to save on costs. (This benefits everyone and the costs would be built into the base price of the car). Consider this, the Motor Trend reports that the 2017 Audi A4 Prestige 2.0 Quattro (a direct competitor to Model 3) can hit 0-60 in 5.4 seconds. The Audi A4 also has a higher roof strength-to-weight ratio than every version of the Tesla Model S.

At Tesla they've hired some pretty bright engineers and the Model 3 was designed to reduce weight, costs, and manufacturing difficulty. Trust the engineers.

 

[Nev&Co]

Thanks all for the great inputs and I learnt so much about car manufacturing in such a small amount of time