-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Barebone $35,000 Features
- Thread starter Tam
- Start date
In an earlier post I read where the Model ≡ will have the 60Kwh battery and will get ~230 to 250 miles per charge. I concur, Tesla will be much better off putting a 60Kwh battery then the M ≡ will easily make the magical 200 miles per charge.
In my opinion the car needs to be Supercharger ready and have all the sensors needed for Auto Pilot, even if the first owner does not want to enable these the second owner can and I think this is where Tesla can distinguish itself from its competitors.
The car should be easily competitive with BMW 3 and Audi A4 as a base model for base model.
In my opinion the car needs to be Supercharger ready and have all the sensors needed for Auto Pilot, even if the first owner does not want to enable these the second owner can and I think this is where Tesla can distinguish itself from its competitors.
The car should be easily competitive with BMW 3 and Audi A4 as a base model for base model.
Last edited:
1. The ICE drivetrain has years of manufacturing expertise driving down its cost. EVs have a ways to go to match that refinement. You are also disregarding the costs of the inverter and charger that have costly electronic components. Additionally many of the cheap accessories are powered by the ICE (water pump, fan, alternator, AC, power assist steering/braking, free heat) that now need more expensive replacements.
2. They may have a cost saving here, but its not free to run your own sales/service/refueling stations.
So at this point in EV production I maintain that ($ ICE Components = $ EV Components - $ Battery) is a good approximation. I do believe over the next decade the tides will turn and EVs will be cheaper to produce in total than an equivalent ICE, but we are not there yet.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
My feeling is that a complete Tesla Model ≡ with everything except the battery pack, will cost the same, or slightly less than a BMW 3-Series without motor, transmission, or exhaust installed. Hence, why Tesla Motors' focus is, and should be, on lowering the cost of the battery pack. Because, if the complete cost of a Model ≡ with a 60 kWh battery pack is equivalent to the build cost of a BMW 320i, the entire ICE world is in serious trouble.
The cost of M3 in 2017 will be above the production cost of b3.
During production there is always some optimization and tesla would sure shoot themselves in the foot by forcing production cost to be that low in '17 already. M3 production will run for 7 years. Battery cost will start somewhere around $150/kWh and end around 100 or below.
Expect to be blown out of the water. Anything less is sure sign of tesla end.
JoRey
Current Volt Owner, Aspiring Model III Owner
My bet is that the Model III with come as standard with, heated seats, supercharger (built in), Auto-pilot (built in), AC and infotainment system ala Tesla. Navigation is likely to be optional (even tough the hardware is there) and the base car will come with alloy wheels. Personally since im buying on a budget, if i can activate supercharging and autopilot at a later time i'll go that direction. The Model III will have a 60KWh battery, for the simple reason that the Bolt has a 60Kwh battery. As for telecommunications, i hope they use the same system they have in the current Model S. A simple LTE gsm modem, that you can swap out the sim card. With said system the car can have it's own telephone number, allowing for text, calls and data communication. My current tablet plan from T-mobile cost me 10 and has 3 gigs + unlimited music and video streaming.
I agree with most of what you said, but I can almost guarantee that Auto-Pilot will be an extra cost option and navigation will be standard, like it is on the Model S/X. (The Auto-Pilot hardware will be installed for AEB, but you won't get to use TACC or AutoSteer without paying.) Navigation will be standard because it, and the trip planner function, is part of their plan to help eliminate range anxiety.
I highly doubt that they will make the SIM swappable, and the car won't get a phone number that you can call. That is all supposed to be handled by your phone linking to the car via BT.
Last edited:
The car will as barebones as they can make it. Not so much because they it would save them so much money, but because car manufactures make the most killing on the options (the profit margins are insane). The base car will be bad enough to force most people to spend at least 5k more to make it good enough. At 35k they just won't make money from the car.
And about the battery don't expect the base car to have more than 50kwh. Not only will the bigger battery cost more, but the call will get heavier, therefore require larger brakes, tires, stronger suspension, etc. It all adds up. I would guess that the base car will have ~50kwh battery with around 220mile EPA range, and they will offer a ~70kwh for 8-10k more.
And about the battery don't expect the base car to have more than 50kwh. Not only will the bigger battery cost more, but the call will get heavier, therefore require larger brakes, tires, stronger suspension, etc. It all adds up. I would guess that the base car will have ~50kwh battery with around 220mile EPA range, and they will offer a ~70kwh for 8-10k more.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
It won't scale linearly, since the weight will go up, most likely the pricier versions will have wider tires and/or stickier compound. But i expect that for around 50k $ you will be able to get a Model 3 with range that tops any current model s variant.
Historically, some owners reported that Navigation was not upgrade-able if you didn't choose the factory option.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
Considering that to go from RWD 70 (lowest range S currently available for sale, as of last week) up to AWD 90D (max range), it costs $18000, I would think that the production cost of batteries at the Gigafactory, as well as an economy of scale Tesla has never before experienced, will make the difference between minimum range and maximum range configurations around $13000-15000. So, aside from any other optional equipment, you should be able to get max range for around $48-50K
Last edited:
It's possible that Garmin software company charged for each installation and Tesla didn't want the hassle to retroactively push that software in for those early Model S owners who wanted to pay for the option after delivery.
It's possible that Garmin Navigation software is cheap enough to be standard for Model ≡ .
With the early buyers Tesla won't care about range anxiety. The probably will have sold out production for 1-2 years.
Having Navigation as an option is and easy way to get another $1-3k on top of the 35k car.
Same with heated seats. Exactly because they are great on electric cars they make a great option.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
Google Maps is a much cheaper option, which is why Audi/VW and a few others have turned to them in their cars. Tesla will offer Nav because of "range anxiety" and the Trip Planner. Of course, if they make Supercharging an option you pay for, they could bundle Nav/Trip Planner in with Supercharging.
Front heated seats will be standard. As has been discussed in this thread and others, for efficiency's sake, it's easier to warm the front seat passengers w/seat warmers than HVAC, and it's a smaller draw from your battery pack. Remember, Musk has to beat the Bolt at all costs. If he has to eat the cost of 2 heat coils in every single Model S made, he'll get that money back in volume, and of course, nickel-and-diming us on other options.
You don't get the point. It's not just about the cost for Tesla, it about how they make money.
And if the Model 3 is going to compete with a 3-Series in quality and premium factor it won't beat the Bolt on options at the same price point. That's simply not possible.
