Attempting to price out options for Model 3 (Part 2!)

[alseTrick]

For me...and I know I am in the minority and that's ok...Auto Pilot and full autonomy are priority number one. I will get it above all other options, regardless of price.

Dan

I think Tesla needs to offer some sort of bare bones binnacle or some type of HUD as standard in the 3. I don't think it will (or should) have any impact on anyones' ability to purchase other options.

 

[ricardocabesa]

They might drop the price on the full self-driving for the Model S/X once the Model 3 is out, and has full self-driving at a lower price. They also might not. There's nothing unusual about having a different price for the same functionality/part on different cars. If you need a part for a VW or an Audi at a VW/Audi dealer, the same exact part, plucked out of the same parts bin at the dealer, you will often/usually have to pay more if it's an Audi.

And looking at my other suggested option prices, pretty much every option listed is more expensive on a Model S: Attempting to price out options for Model 3 (Part 2!)

- Metallic paint, why should it cost 750 USD on a Model 3, but 1000 USD on a Model S? It's the same paint, applied in the same paint shop, in basically the same quantities!
- High amp charger, why should it be 1000 USD on the Model 3, but 1500 USD on a Model S? I'm working on the assumption that the Model S and Model 3 will have the exact same charger!

The fact is that something is worth what people are willing to pay. On a higher priced car, people are willing to pay more for options, therefore the same options are worth more. The question for Tesla is if they can still make money on selling the full self-driving tech at a lower price on the Model 3, and I think they can.
That's quite unlikely. They're already selling full self-driving. What's beyond that?

For 1 thing,the Model 3 IS smaller,so less paint and less time to paint.

 

[Yggdrasill]

For 1 thing,the Model 3 IS smaller,so less paint and less time to paint.

Not that much smaller. ~6% shorter, ~4% narrower and the same height. The paint used should be in the area of 6% less. So, with $1000 USD for metallic paint for the Model S, the price for the Model 3 should be $940.

I expect it to be less than that, maybe $750 or less.

 

[Matt125]

I hope to get as close to a base model as possible, maybe only EAP. I hope to save enough to get my wife a Model Y in three years or so.

Same! Getting the AWD would be nice, mainly to alleviate tyre wear on the back wheels, but I expect AWD will cost significantly more than the base RWD model and like you, I want EAP.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Not that much smaller. ~6% shorter, ~4% narrower and the same height. The paint used should be in the area of 6% less. So, with $1000 USD for metallic paint for the Model S, the price for the Model 3 should be $940.

I expect it to be less than that, maybe $750 or less.

That seems reasonable, because not only will each car use ~6% less paint, they will be dealing in larger quantities than the ever have in the past.

 

[dsvick]

Same! Getting the AWD would be nice, mainly to alleviate tyre wear on the back wheels, but I expect AWD will cost significantly more than the base RWD model and like you, I want EAP.

Depends on what you consider "significant". Elon, at one point, said that dual motors on the Model 3 will cost less than dual motors on the Model S, so it should be less than $5K.

 

[dsvick]

That seems reasonable, because not only will each car use ~6% less paint, they will be dealing in larger quantities than the ever have in the past.

Using that logic though the cost should go down for the S and X as well since they use the same paint shop and should also benefit from economies of scale. Assuming most of the paint colors are the same.

 

[Matt125]

Depends on what you consider "significant". Elon, at one point, said that dual motors on the Model 3 will cost less than dual motors on the Model S, so it should be less than $5K.

That would be nice and maybe I'd be able to afford it.. I actually think if I had to pick between AWD and EAP, I'd pick AWD. EAP can be retrofitted later, but AWD can't.

 

[pinski]

Lots of interesting conjecture here. I really have no idea how pricing is going to stack up, but my budget will probably top out around $45k. For that, I'd like an upgraded battery, the D, AP, pano roof, paint and a wheel option. If the base battery comes with 250 miles of range, I doubt I'd upgrade there, which would probably make my list a little more plausible.

 

[Red Sage]

Wishful thinking ... dream on

I'm pretty sure that if it were to host Porsche badges, you would be welcome to add an additional $150,000 to the MSRP at each level.

 

[Red Sage]

Added [some] predictions about specs:

View attachment 209643

Hmmm... So, effectively, seven different trim levels? That is, when considering drivetrain and battery pack capacity. I really don't believe it will be that extensive. Tesla may very well go with only two battery pack capacities. In my own estimate, I thought it was stretching somewhat to even consider there might be three, with the smallest being software limited. But four different battery pack capacities?

And... Why exactly do you make all of them so... slow? The first three battery pack options have a 0-60 MPH rating over a full second slower than the original Tesla Model S P85/Signature.... And you list them as going even slower with added capacity. This makes no sense to me, especially when it falls so far behind the competition from BMW, AUDI, Mercedes-Benz, Infiniti, and Lexus at the price range. 5.8 seconds to 60 MPH, with an 80 kWh battery pack? REALLY?

 

[boiler81]

Lots of interesting conjecture here. I really have no idea how pricing is going to stack up, but my budget will probably top out around $45k. For that, I'd like an upgraded battery, the D, AP, pano roof, paint and a wheel option. If the base battery comes with 250 miles of range, I doubt I'd upgrade there, which would probably make my list a little more plausible.

I hope we could get this for $45K, cause I'd like that configuration too. Unfortunately I'd guess we're probably going to need to pony up at least $20K over base, to get all those options.

 

[Red Sage]

Current Model S prices for comparison ... the range is huge with the performance model priced at 2.5X the base cost

View attachment 209665

View attachment 209666

OK, I see you, and raise one or two POS Panameras...
Let's see... $263,900 divided by $85,000 comes to... 3.1X the base cost!

[FLOG] a Porsche! C'mon, MAN!

 

[Canuck]

Think of us in Canada. When I bought my S three years ago we were just under par, after being over par for a time while your economy was in tatters. Now we have to add 30% to US prices. Hurry up Trump, cut those taxes on the wealthy, get rid of the financial regulations, and repeat the Bush era policies so hopefully we will be back near par by the time the Model 3 comes to Canada. Obama has strengthened your dollar way too much!

 

[Red Sage]

Furthermore, Musk has said the ASP for the Model 3 would be 42k USD. I don't think this is realistic, he must mean the ASP for the base Model 3, or some such.

In most of my predictions, I have presumed that people would be able to add as much as $15,000 in options to any trim level of the Model ☰. I believe that Elon was simply noting his belief that people will tend to find about $7,000 of options to add to their cars, on average. It's the 'don't think' part that can get us into trouble and stuff. I'm told that reality is a highly overrated concept. Mostly because it obscures the possibilities afforded by optimism behind a thick dark shade of pessimism.

 

[ricardocabesa]

Not that much smaller. ~6% shorter, ~4% narrower and the same height. The paint used should be in the area of 6% less. So, with $1000 USD for metallic paint for the Model S, the price for the Model 3 should be $940.

I expect it to be less than that, maybe $750 or less.

I'm OK with $750 or less.

 

[Red Sage]

With all that said with the quantities that Tesla plans on building, will they be decreasing the cost of the options (even autopilot)? I sure hope so. The quantities should allow them to decrease the cost.

I agree with this statement. The Model 3 will be sold in higher quantities. Therefore the price of things like paint should be decreased as Tesla buys in higher quantities.

There is also the fact that in a direct comparison with option pricing for competitors, it would be undue for Tesla to charge significantly more than the Model ☰'s contemporary rivals. Especially since I expect the Model ☰ will be far more popular than 3-Series, A4, ATS, C-Class, Giulia, IS, Q50, TLX, and XE.

I don't think it is valid to say if they decrease the cost on the Model 3 they should decrease the cost on a Model S. That isn't how marketing works. They need to price each car independent based on what the market will [bear].

I somewhat disagree with this statement. Again buying in larger quantities will drive the price that Tesla pays down. Now will Tesla reflect that in a price decrease for the Model S/X as well, we shall see. You are right the price will reflect what the market will [bear], but I predict it will drive the prices down. When potential Model S/X buyers complain that the price of premium paint or autopilot is more expensive than on the Model 3 it might force Tesla to make all options on all models equally priced.

Tesla has already sold eleven years' worth of the Model S in only 4-1/2 years. There is no way in [HECK] the car hasn't already paid for itself in spades. It is barely halfway through its eight-year product cycle. That's why it got a facelift in 2016. Every dime Tesla makes on the Model S from now on goes straight to profit margin and available revenue. It is pure gravy gushing in fountains and overflowing rivers and cascading waterfalls with the resounding chorus of success. That is a GOOD thing.

But did the Model S price go down on January 1, 2017? No. Of course not. At this point, Tesla surely could afford to do so. But they haven't, and they won't, because that would be DUMB. The Model S has outsold all comers cumulatively in the U.S. among flagship vehicles from ICE manufacturers for FOUR CALENDAR YEARS STRAIGHT (2013-2016). Apparently their Customers have no problem at all with their pricing. Just as Mercedes-Benz has never chosen to reduce the price of the S-Class to that of the C-Class. Because that would be DUMB. Think about it: Model S owners have complained when the 'D' and Autopilot were first placed on cars, saying it was 'a stab in the back' or that their cars suddenly 'lost value' because a better version was released.

Guys around here are always talking about starting a class action lawsuit of one kind or another over some idiotic notion that their 'residual value' for their cars has gone belly up due to Tesla's constant advancements, improvements, and announcements. How exactly would such well meaning, perfectly reasonable, and completely logical individuals respond if, as someone elsewhere suggested, the base price of the Model S were cut to below that of the BMW 5-Series? Precisely! They would lose their friggin' minds. The forum would be filled with scythes, and pitchforks, and pickaxes, and torches. Dogs and cats living together -- pandemonium!

So please, pretty please, with sugar on top... Let's avoid that problem entirely. Let Tesla continue to charge what the market can bear. They'll be fine. Because if Porsche has the unmitigated gall to still ask for $263,900 for the BASE configuration of a trim level for one of their Panamera stable? Then everyone who buys a Model S from Tesla is getting a BARGAIN.

Enjoy the Chill Pill.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Hmmm... So, effectively, seven different trim levels? That is, when considering drivetrain and battery pack capacity. I really don't believe it will be that extensive. Tesla may very well go with only two battery pack capacities. In my own estimate, I thought it was stretching somewhat to even consider there might be three, with the smallest being software limited. But four different battery pack capacities?

Maybe three different pack capacities. 55 kWh, 70 kWh and 80 kWh with inconel contactors and programmable fuses. But could be that they have two versions of the larger capacity pack, one with Ludicrous and one without. Battery packs are the easiest thing to swap around, so I don't think this will add a production challenge.

And... Why exactly do you make all of them so... slow? The first three battery pack options have a 0-60 MPH rating over a full second slower than the original Tesla Model S P85/Signature.... And you list them as going even slower with added capacity. This makes no sense to me, especially when it falls so far behind the competition from BMW, AUDI, Mercedes-Benz, Infiniti, and Lexus at the price range. 5.8 seconds to 60 MPH, with an 80 kWh battery pack? REALLY?

I'm assuming the RWD versions are limited by the drive units, not the battery pack. At a restrained 4C, the 55 kWh pack could output 220 kW, the 70 kWh pack could output 280 kW and the 80 kWh pack could output 320 kW. All three options would be equally capable of supplying the assumed 200 kW rear DU with power, the larger packs are just heavier. (I don't think Tesla would advertize that the larger capacity packs would be slower, though. They'd just say all three were 5.8 seconds.)

Once you add another ~200 kW drive unit at the front, then you are limited by the battery, and the larger packs will increase performance. Adding performance would increase it still, and Ludicrous would bring the 0-60 down to around 2.6 seconds.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Okay, I looked again at the options, playing around with the specs a bit, and I arrived as this as a more probable arrangement:

The battery pack has been reduced by 5 kWh, allowing for two increments of 15 kWh. It should still be within the primised range on the low spec, and the top spec is unchanged. (Except for a slight adjustment due to a larger DU.) Having the 300 kW motor at the rear standard means you only have one rear drive unit configuration, simplifying production. And performance can then increase with battery size, as buyers would expect.

 

[Red Sage]

Maybe three different pack capacities. 55 kWh, 70 kWh and 80 kWh with inconel contactors and programmable fuses. But could be that they have two versions of the larger capacity pack, one with Ludicrous and one without. Battery packs are the easiest thing to swap around, so I don't think this will add a production challenge.

I'd think more like 55 kWh (software limited, all useable), 70 kWh, and 90 kWh -- or -- 55 kWh, 75 kWh, and 100 kWh would be available battery pack capacities. That way you don't end up with those narrow 10 kWh gaps between trim levels. A 20 kWh for the first step, as it was with Model S 40 to Model S 60; and a 25 kWh second step, similar to Model S 60 to Model S 85; would be sufficient to fit my preference. The highest capacity battery pack would only be available on the Performance version of the car, and yes, that would only be a dual motor configuration. That way, most people would be satisfied to get 'enough' capacity for their needs. I firmly believe a 75 kWh battery pack would do that, whether single or dual motor.

To those who intimate the Model ☰ chassis is too small to accommodate 100 kWh capacity? I say they are wrong. I've said it for years, I'll keep saying it. I fully expect to see something like a Tesla Model ☰ P135D Coupe with Falcon Wing Doors some day. So there! But until that arrives, I'll be perfectly happy with the P90D or P100D versions, thank you very much!

I'm assuming the RWD versions are limited by the drive units, not the battery pack. At a restrained 4C, the 55 kWh pack could output 220 kW, the 70 kWh pack could output 280 kW and the 80 kWh pack could output 320 kW. All three options would be equally capable of supplying the assumed 200 kW rear DU with power, the larger packs are just heavier. (I don't think Tesla would advertize that the larger capacity packs would be slower, though. They'd just say all three were 5.8 seconds.)

I trust that JB Straubel has not been sitting on his hands since 2012. I expect that the battery management system, power control system, and power inverters for the Model ☰ will be vastly superior to what appeared on the Model S P85 Signature. So will the motors attached to them. I believe that to JB, as well as Elon Musk, the term 'Tesla Generation III' actually means something substantial. Not incremental, not marginal, but a fundamental, generational shift in technology. As such, I am not willing to accept notions that lean toward an expectation the Model ☰ will be in any way inferior to the Model S they released nearly five years ago.

220 kW is 295 HP. I say that is kind of low. Because, if it is a software limited 55 kWh battery pack of an actual 70 kWh to 75 kWh capacity, there will be more voltage available for use. 280 kW is 375 HP. 320 kW is 429 HP. I would target the BMW 340i with the base version of the Model ☰. I know, a lot of people think it is 'enough' to just make it past the parameters of the 180 HP BMW 320i. I say that would just send people to the Toyota dealership to get a Camry instead. Because even with the quick PUSH of torque off the line in the first 1.3 seconds, the Model ☰ would not be properly compelling if it were gimped in base form relative to Performance. Thus, something suitably over 300 HP should be the baseline minimum standard bearer for Tesla. I figure 330 HP is a nice round number, so 246 kW would work great as a rear wheel drive motor standard. I'd hope that would allow an official 0-60 MPH of 5.4 seconds, but a test result from third parties of consistently 4.9 to 5.2 seconds instead.

Once you add another ~200 kW drive unit at the front, then you are limited by the battery, and the larger packs will increase performance. Adding performance would increase it still, and Ludicrous would bring the 0-60 down to around 2.6 seconds.

I'd go ahead and use a 225 kW, ~302 HP capable motor at both front and back of the 'regular' dual motor all wheel drive cars, whether the battery was 55 kWh or 75 kWh. Some people would call it a 604 HP car. Let them.

And the top-of-the-line Performance car would get the 320 kW, 429 HP motor at the rear, with the 225 kW, ~302 HP motor at the front. Why? To draw a line firmly in the asphalt to announce the AGE of EVs had arrived. Some would call it a 731 HP car. Let them. All anyone would really care about was the 0-to-60 MPH runs in 2.4 seconds, 1/4 mile time of 9.8 seconds at 145 MPH trap speed, and top speed of 186 MPH in an electric car with a highway range somewhere around 340-to-378 miles. Yup.