There is some people that will not be convinced until they find them self on display in an historical museum
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
You can get M-suspension setting (lower/stiffer) but not actual M3 suspension. Big difference.
Base 3-series is 33k€, base M3 is 74k€. Let's compare apples to apples. Still, M3 base has more options than base 3-series. Somewhat true with Tesla (P has air suspension as standard).
Battery. I already mentioned it and somebody else said the same. There will be no 2.x acceleration with battery that is suitable for normal Model3-s. 2.x acceleration requires much bigger battery than 70kWh. That has other requirements that cost money nobody actually want to pay.
We can't compare ICE to EV that easily. M3 fuel tank is the same as base version. And M3 engine is around the same weight as any other R6 engine offered to 3-series.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Many modern Li-Ion batteries are capable of 10 C discharge rates. If this is possible with '2170's then it could deliver 700 kW of power. This is more than enough for 2.x sec 0-60 times.
We already know the 18650s Tesla is using are doing around 5.5 - 6 C with the P100D delivering 567 kW. At an 8 C discharge rate a 70 kWh battery could deliver 560 kW and due to the lighter weight body and battery, will out accelerate a P100D.
strider
Active Member
At the end of the day, as long as Tesla can deliver the base 200-mile car for $35k who cares if they over-engineer it to support the mid and upper performance models? We have to trust Tesla here and stop armchair quarterbacking. They've said they're doing a 3PDL so that discussion is moot. We have to assume they did the cost-benefit analysis of offering it and they decided it made sense.
You are correct in that at some point the cost benefit analysis crosses over and making the car faster beyond some point. NO ONE on this board knows that crossover point for the 3PDL. Now we ARE speculating at how quick it will be and how much it will cost which hints at the above crossover but it's just that, speculation.
You are correct in that at some point the cost benefit analysis crosses over and making the car faster beyond some point. NO ONE on this board knows that crossover point for the 3PDL. Now we ARE speculating at how quick it will be and how much it will cost which hints at the above crossover but it's just that, speculation.
Form factor doesn't change discharge ratio directly (worse cooling on bigger cells, not better).
Let's assume no drastic advances with modest form factor difference.
If 100 pack gives us 567kW, 70pack would give 400kW. And don't expect more from vehicle that has half the wiring harness length.
Actually, with tighter volumetric situation, I expect less.
I don't understand why people assume bigger cells are better performers in every possible ways. Leaf and Bolt have humongous cells. Nothing interesting happening. Actually thermally inferior.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
It certainly doesn't however Jeff Dahn has been working with Tesla. Here's a quote:
In addition, here's another quote from Elon on twitter:
Elon Musk on Twitter
You are also neglecting that these new battery packs are designed with the '2170's in mind. Cooling will be adequate. The Elon quote and any longevity improvements by Jeff Dahn lead me to believe they are going to be pushing these '2170's more than they pushed the 18650s for both charging and discharging.
This is not true, you even contradicted it. Both use prismatic cells with a higher SA to volume ratio than even 18650s. The cells themselves are not thermally inferior... the battery pack implementations on the other hand are a different story.
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I don't know where you get 70kWh as the max possible. From the known specs of the Model 3 compared to known Model S pack specs, it can fit up to 85-95 kWh.
How many kWh can they squeeze into the Model 3...?
How many kWh can they squeeze into the Model 3...?
The max battery will be shared with the non-performance version (100D shares the same battery as the P100D), just as the M3 engine being similar weight to other I6 engines.
As for BMW engine weights, the base B48 probably weighs around 138 kg (using N20 specs since I couldn't find B48), S55 M3 engine weighs 205 kg. Roughly 150 lb difference.
Engine weight of the S55?
BMW’s N20 Engine Raises 4-Cyl. Bar
The vehicle weights: 320i 3,252 lbs, M3 3,540 lbs. 288 lb difference, so even with weight saving parts in M3, something else is making it heavier (transmission?)
The heaviest 3-series (excluding GT body-style) is the 330e at 3900 lbs. 648 lb difference (16.6%).
Model S curb weights: New S60 (75kWh pack) 4469 lbs, P100D 4941 lbs, difference 472 lb (9.6%)
https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/model_s_owners_manual_north_america_en_us.pdf
Even if you take Old S60 4323 lbs, P100D 4941 lbs, difference 618 lb (12.5%)
Tesla Model S - Wikipedia
So the BMW 3 series chassis has to handle a larger weight spread than the Model S does (both in absolute and relative terms), even factoring in the batteries. So again, I'm not buying the premise the battery pack changes anything in the comparison.
Last edited:
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
@JeffK & @stopcrazypp -- +42! The Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything about, "How Will the Tesla Model ≡ P90D Blow the Doors Off All Comers?"
Lmao, this is for all of you who think Model 3 is going to be faster than Model S:
igotzzoom
Active Member
I had zero expectations that the Model 3 would be quicker than an S. However, I expect it to be very competitive and competent for its price point. Still keeping my reservation.
And all you who think Model 3 (top version) will have longer range than S flagship.
Today we learned:
1. Very likely no HUD. Just the one screen, despite Elon previously mentioning "spaceship-like controls". Updated version is "nothing majorly new that a consumer would notice"
2. Max possible battery size is 75kWh
3. The Model 3 will NOT run a sub-11s 1/4 mile. Need to buy an S for the best performance.
4. S will have best range.
5. AWD won't ship for another 6-9 months.
6. Performance versions won't ship until even later than that.
7. We now realize why there will be no exotic "final reveal" -- there's nothing new to show.
And, amongst my disappointment (I was planning on a loaded 3), I'm wondering what our good friend @Red Sage, who was formerly the lead prosecutor in the League of Lowered Expectations™ police force, making citizen's arrests of many innocents who questioned 2s 0-60 times and 100kWh battery predictions, now thinks about today's news and whether or not he's ready to crown Elon as the new president of said organization?
Personally, I'm deeply disappointed in today's news for a number of reasons. The new AWD timeline doesn't affect me all that much, although the P delay will hurt. I think I'm perhaps most disappointed/concerned with the about-face on Elon's description of the interior. Either Elon was greatly exaggerating or they secretly jettisoned some features (HUD/spaceship controls) to achieve mass production. On the bright side, my 3 is now at least a year away so I'll be able to stop obsessing over it.
1. Very likely no HUD. Just the one screen, despite Elon previously mentioning "spaceship-like controls". Updated version is "nothing majorly new that a consumer would notice"
2. Max possible battery size is 75kWh
3. The Model 3 will NOT run a sub-11s 1/4 mile. Need to buy an S for the best performance.
4. S will have best range.
5. AWD won't ship for another 6-9 months.
6. Performance versions won't ship until even later than that.
7. We now realize why there will be no exotic "final reveal" -- there's nothing new to show.
And, amongst my disappointment (I was planning on a loaded 3), I'm wondering what our good friend @Red Sage, who was formerly the lead prosecutor in the League of Lowered Expectations™ police force, making citizen's arrests of many innocents who questioned 2s 0-60 times and 100kWh battery predictions, now thinks about today's news and whether or not he's ready to crown Elon as the new president of said organization?
Personally, I'm deeply disappointed in today's news for a number of reasons. The new AWD timeline doesn't affect me all that much, although the P delay will hurt. I think I'm perhaps most disappointed/concerned with the about-face on Elon's description of the interior. Either Elon was greatly exaggerating or they secretly jettisoned some features (HUD/spaceship controls) to achieve mass production. On the bright side, my 3 is now at least a year away so I'll be able to stop obsessing over it.
Last edited:
Bangor Bob
Member
Meh, I still want to see what a P3DL will do after wk057 gets to tinker with one for a bit.
Since the 3 will be a low-optioned mass produced platform, there will be significant incentive for the aftermarket to provide various upgrades and styling mods which would be unavailable from factory or service center.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
He didn't say it won't be faster, just that it will have less power (Model S maxes out at 573 kW with Ludicrous+). That's a subtle but important difference given the projected weight difference of the Model 3.
The range point is actually more significant. The Model S maxes out at 335 miles EPA with the 100D. If Elon means that to be a long term policy (not just the launch day Model 3 configurations), then that puts a limiter on the max battery size the Model 3 will have (it will always be proportionally less than the Model S).
wallet.dat
Member
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
Elon Musk has a job to do. It requires quite a bit of balance. I have warned Tesla Enthusiasts since at least mid-2014 about two points: 1) you should not underestimate the heights that Tesla will achieve with electric vehicle technology; and 2) keep in mind that Elon Musk and JB Straubel are very interested in people becoming satisfied with 'enough' Range and Performance.
Part of the reason why I put forth projections that are much higher than others would is because I perceive others aiming too low. There have been those who have over the years suggested with a straight face that Model 3 should not surpass the Performance profile of a Camry or Accord. Others have aimed to lower expectations even further, suggesting Model 3 would be crafted as an econobox to rival a Focus or Golf in styling. Still more have insisted that Tesla's focus on long range and 'big batteries' for Premium cars was a mistake, saying Tesla should instead release more 'cheap cars' that 'anyone' could afford -- short range micro commuter cars no larger than a VERSA or Fiesta.
Those have been the repeatedly stated goals of the League of Lowered Expectations. Each has been whittled away with the unveiling of Model 3. It will not be a slow car in any configuration. It will not be a penalty box hatchback like the BOLT. It will not be an empty, tin can, substandard fully electric modern day rendition of the 1984 CHEVETTE.
Elon has consistently pointed out that the Model S would be 'a better car' than Model 3. He remains consistent on that point. That makes sense, for the same reason the Cadillac CTS is 'a better car' than the Chevrolet MALIBU... Or BMW 7-Series is a 'better car' than 3-Series... Or Mercedes-Benz S-Class is 'a better car' than C-Class. None of that means the Model 3 will NOT be good enough to be 'a better car' than those it competes directly against.
No. Elon Musk is not by any means the 'President of the League of Lowered Expectations' for electric vehicles. Perhaps that is Mary Barra, who released an expensive 200+ mile range econobox without a plan for long distance travel between population centers... Or Sergio Marchionne, who claims he loses $14,000 on every Fiat 500e sold... Elon is moving forward toward a world where the compromises and excuses levied by traditional automobile manufacturers against electric vehicles are proven false.
Similar threads
