Most AC compressors in cars I know are over 3kW.
New inverter AC must be a lot more efficient and as Jeff pointed out - duty cycle would be lower to maintain the temp - glad to be wrong about that.
What is your power usage when heating?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Most AC compressors in cars I know are over 3kW.
New inverter AC must be a lot more efficient and as Jeff pointed out - duty cycle would be lower to maintain the temp - glad to be wrong about that.
What is your power usage when heating?
What I wonder is the 2019 estimate delivery date. Are they going to surprise us with a higher range capacity or some options that is not available now.
I have two reservations both at the same time. One deliver 2017-2018 and the other 2018--2019
I have two reservations both at the same time. One deliver 2017-2018 and the other 2018--2019
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
100 miles one way, you'd need the extended range, 100 miles round trip you can easily do with the 220 when it's new.
But that answer might change in a few years. If 220 degrades you have less margin. If you can charge at work you have more margin.
I think it's more what the 220-mile car was going to have at $35k.
Elon also said "the best car for 35k, even with no options." Really? $35k gets you a black car with aero wheel covers (what happen to "no weird-mobiles"?), no power nor heated seats, and a center console without a top. Was he talking about the best electric car for $35k, perhaps?
The Audi A4 is just as fast with many more base features at $36,000 (12-way power driver seat, leather heated seats, sunroof, LED lighting, Android Auto/Apple Car Play, etc . in the base). And, hey. We've been complaining for months--you can't say we just started griping now.
IMO, Elon brought this on himself. He didn't need to say "best 35k car, even with no options" and he certainly did not need to compare the Model 3 to the Audi A4. I pin this on him.
Battery upgrades and EAP/FSD pricing: I fully expected and predicted these. But the options: ugh, what a crapshoot. Everyone line up to please pay your required 20% margin to the investors,
You realize they're charging more for white paint than Mercedes, Audi, and BMW? Is Tesla paint that great? No. This is margin recouperation time.
alseTrick
Active Member
EV Trip Planner, on a Miami to Dayton, OH trip, using the base specifications on an S 60 with 19" wheels, has a shorter trip by nearly an hour and a half when driving with speed multiplier 1.1 versus .9.
Is it not worth it to drive faster? Does driving faster saves more driving time than driving slower saves charging time?
chronopc
Active Member
If people compare the Model 3 with the BMW i3 or the Chevy Bolt, they will see that $44k for with 310 miles range is a steal. The Chevy Bolt is $37k and it doesn't have things like power seat, leather heated seats, sunroof, etc. standard.I think it's more what the 220-mile car was going to have at $35k.
Elon also said "the best car for 35k, even with no options." Really? $35k gets you a black car with aero wheel covers (what happen to "no weird-mobiles"?), no power nor heated seats, and a center console without a top. Was he talking about the best electric car for $35k, perhaps?
The Audi A4 is just as fast with many more base features at $36,000 (12-way power driver seat, leather heated seats, sunroof, LED lighting, Android Auto/Apple Car Play, etc . in the base). And, hey. We've been complaining for months--you can't say we just started griping now.
IMO, Elon brought this on himself. He didn't need to say "best 35k car, even with no options" and he certainly did not need to compare the Model 3 to the Audi A4. I pin this on him.
Battery upgrades and EAP/FSD pricing: I fully expected and predicted these. But the options: ugh, what a crapshoot. Everyone line up to please pay your required 20% margin to the investors,
You realize they're charging more for white paint than Mercedes, Audi, and BMW? Is Tesla paint that great? No. This is margin recouperation time.
I agree the paint is expensive. BMW charges $700 vs. $1000 that Tesla charges. However, Tesla is still a low volume producer, so they have to get more profit per car than a competitor brand that is already established.
What people who complain doesn't understand is that EV is a new technology so you will have to pay more for it while companies are figuring it out. When you think about it, you get a lot more for your money buying a Tesla EV than any other EV. I'll take the largest supercharger network, 310+ range, and auto pilot feature over power seats and a hubcap.
alseTrick
Active Member
Tesla is charging $1k for white paint when MB and BMW offer white paint for $0. Didn't bother looking up Audi.
Why?
I've lived off of my 80-ish mile range on my Leaf for the past two years, including snow, ice, and sub-zero temperatures. I use things like heat and AC.
People vastly over-estimate how much range they need for day-to-day driving. The higher battery is only useful if A) You want the faster charge times, B) You take multiple mid-range trips where the higher range will save you from charging away from home, C) You have an insanely long commute (<5% of all American commutes approximately), D) You appreciate the faster 0-60 time.
$9k covers a huge amount of rental car days, assuming you just possibly couldn't live without your faster charge times for a few road trips. I guarantee the vast majority of people can easily make do with the lower range Model 3.
In the end though, a $44k base 310 mile range EV is still extremely impressive for those who can afford it.
The only people who don't believe this are the ones who have never driven EVs.
Electric drivetrain is the single most valuable luxury feature in any car, period. Having to pull a lever to move your seat a few times a year (or maybe once a trip at most) instead of pushing a button, having to sit on a comfy cloth seat instead of a comfy leather seat, having to spend $10 on an aftermarket center console cover solution--these do NOT come close to an electric drivetrain.
Similarly, your gas-centric mindset is showing hardcore here. Heated seats are not that important when your car can pre-warm itself in your garage without causing co2 poisoning. They are not important when the car you get into is always warm. You live in a world where every car you get into is absolutely frigid and miserable; I live in a world where I climb into a comfortable car at all times.
It is your loss if you go with a gas car. Elon was right.
Last edited:
Did you do the calculation on the numbers? 52kwh and 220 miles is too efficient. Not saying it is tesla can't do it but it would require a lot of optimization.
52kwh usable at 220 miles is 236wh/miles. This is more efficient than the Hyundai ioniq ev which is lighter and slower car with quite a bit of optimization already.
It any case someone will reveal the numbers soon enough. If not epa will.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
You can compare to Press Kit | Tesla which is US dollars, if the same on your link its still US dollars. Hint they are the same at this time.
But you forgot to factor potential tax saving and average gas saving of $300 per monthI think it's more what the 220-mile car was going to have at $35k.
Elon also said "the best car for 35k, even with no options." Really? $35k gets you a black car with aero wheel covers (what happen to "no weird-mobiles"?), no power nor heated seats, and a center console without a top. Was he talking about the best electric car for $35k, perhaps?
The Audi A4 is just as fast with many more base features at $36,000 (12-way power driver seat, leather heated seats, sunroof, LED lighting, Android Auto/Apple Car Play, etc . in the base). And, hey. We've been complaining for months--you can't say we just started griping now.
IMO, Elon brought this on himself. He didn't need to say "best 35k car, even with no options" and he certainly did not need to compare the Model 3 to the Audi A4. I pin this on him.
Battery upgrades and EAP/FSD pricing: I fully expected and predicted these. But the options: ugh, what a crapshoot. Everyone line up to please pay your required 20% margin to the investors,
You realize they're charging more for white paint than Mercedes, Audi, and BMW? Is Tesla paint that great? No. This is margin recouperation time.
Just like Leaf found people like you, M3 will find people who are fine with 220 range. M3 is a great car and increased range opens up larger addressable market - something that Tesla does not need to worry about right now. Personally I think I would be the most comfortable with >260 miles of range.
contaygious
Active Member
This thing knocks the socks off of an audi a4. No comparison plus the s4 tops out st 55k. Have you read the driving reviews of m3 I gustantee it will be regarded as a nicer car in most respects. Also, the 310 battery for 44k is amazing. My s was over 100k. My bmw x1 was 44k as well so that is nuts.
Entry Level Model S
Price*...........................................$69,500 ................................................ $69,500
EPA Range ..................................218 miles ..............................................249 miles
0-60 mph* ...................................5.5 seconds ..........................................4.3 seconds
Smart Air Suspension ............... option ($thousands) ............................ Included
Power Liftgate .............................option package items ......................... Included
Ambient Interior Lighting ........... part of a total package**
Nav w/real time traffic ............... cost ~$4.5K
HomeLink
Center Console ............................option ~$1K ........................................ Included
Active Safety Tech
-Collision Avoidance ........................all............................................................all
-Auto. Emergency Braking ..........unavailable........................................... Included
-other a.s.t.
Side Mirrors
-Power folding .................................all ..........................................................all
-auto dimming ........................... unavailable ........................................... Included
-heated
LED turning lights ..................... available (?) ......................................... Included
LED Fog Lights ......................... option.................................................... Included
Here's my point, limits to my TMC chart-making skills notwithstanding,
I was hoping for more range on the base model myself, but, I don't see Tesla's strategy as trying to game the public by offering as little as possible for as much as possible. Consider all the value added to the entry Model S over the past 4 years was without ANY competing long range EVs reaching the market in the Model S' class to date. That is, Tesla enhanced value by adding many many features, battery size, and improving performance for the same price, not because the market place required them to, but because with the passage of time, Tesla was able to add more capability to the Model S for less cost.
Similarly, in time, with the GF and Fremont reaching volume production (which means markedly lower costs for Tesla to produce the Model 3), it is all but certain that Tesla will offer more value because they will be able to. Producing an affordable EV that is compelling to as much of the market as possible is an ongoing process, and the tax incentives are there to help accelerate the process (yes, I realize not everyone qualifies for them, they are not perfect).
As I said, I was hoping myself for something like 240 miles of range for $35K, so I "feel that pain" some myself. If these specs are a deal breaker for anyone, that's their own call. Maybe you buy another car, or maybe you wait to see what kind of value Tesla will offer you in a couple of years. That said, I strongly sense that this is simply about the path to producing compelling mass market EVs being challenging, rather than Tesla trying to offer as little as possible for as much as possible.
* a few of these numbers on the 2013 Model S 60 are based off memory and may be slightly off.
** I'm not sure if all the parts of the original total package are now all included in the base vehicle.
2013 .................................................... Today
Price*...........................................$69,500 ................................................ $69,500
EPA Range ..................................218 miles ..............................................249 miles
0-60 mph* ...................................5.5 seconds ..........................................4.3 seconds
Smart Air Suspension ............... option ($thousands) ............................ Included
Power Liftgate .............................option package items ......................... Included
Ambient Interior Lighting ........... part of a total package**
Nav w/real time traffic ............... cost ~$4.5K
HomeLink
Center Console ............................option ~$1K ........................................ Included
Active Safety Tech
-Collision Avoidance ........................all............................................................all
-Auto. Emergency Braking ..........unavailable........................................... Included
-other a.s.t.
Side Mirrors
-Power folding .................................all ..........................................................all
-auto dimming ........................... unavailable ........................................... Included
-heated
LED turning lights ..................... available (?) ......................................... Included
LED Fog Lights ......................... option.................................................... Included
Here's my point, limits to my TMC chart-making skills notwithstanding,
I was hoping for more range on the base model myself, but, I don't see Tesla's strategy as trying to game the public by offering as little as possible for as much as possible. Consider all the value added to the entry Model S over the past 4 years was without ANY competing long range EVs reaching the market in the Model S' class to date. That is, Tesla enhanced value by adding many many features, battery size, and improving performance for the same price, not because the market place required them to, but because with the passage of time, Tesla was able to add more capability to the Model S for less cost.
Similarly, in time, with the GF and Fremont reaching volume production (which means markedly lower costs for Tesla to produce the Model 3), it is all but certain that Tesla will offer more value because they will be able to. Producing an affordable EV that is compelling to as much of the market as possible is an ongoing process, and the tax incentives are there to help accelerate the process (yes, I realize not everyone qualifies for them, they are not perfect).
As I said, I was hoping myself for something like 240 miles of range for $35K, so I "feel that pain" some myself. If these specs are a deal breaker for anyone, that's their own call. Maybe you buy another car, or maybe you wait to see what kind of value Tesla will offer you in a couple of years. That said, I strongly sense that this is simply about the path to producing compelling mass market EVs being challenging, rather than Tesla trying to offer as little as possible for as much as possible.
* a few of these numbers on the 2013 Model S 60 are based off memory and may be slightly off.
** I'm not sure if all the parts of the original total package are now all included in the base vehicle.
Last edited:
Well, Elon said the max battery the 3's size could accommodate would be 75 kWh. Assuming a usable capacity of 72 kWh to make sure the battery doesn't brick if someone forgets to charge, then you get about 4.3 miles per kWh which should give you 232 wh/mile.
Yes! And doing it with the windows open so the dog can hang his head out. THAT is living large in an EV.
None of this "200 mile range is enough" nonsense. Leave that for the car hating Europeans.
I'll probably even turn on the heated seats so I can turn up the AC..........
The evidence so far comes from:
1. JavaScript buried in a Tesla web page that implies the Model 3 uses 237 Wh per mile.
2. Tesla says the standard battery Model 3 adds 30 miles per hour of charging at 32A and 240V. Under the same conditions, GM says the Bolt EV adds 25 miles.
Both of these suggest the Model 3 is 15-20% more efficient than the Bolt EV which is EPA rated at 110 MPGe highway, 128 MPGe city, and 119 MPGe combined.
Oh, I thought this was the disappointed in the battery thread, as the title indicated, so I guess general disappointment is something else.
As for general car for 35k disappointment: for what it's worth, I'd much rather have a base Model 3 than any other comparably priced car. I think Tesla spent the money on the right things, such as: double wishbone front suspension, rear multi-link, rear wheel drive, autopilot hardware and auto emergency braking standard, streaming internet radio, etc. vs power/heated seats. Center console has a top, not sure where that came from.
Glad they spent the money on what they did. The Bolt for example, and I think the 3 series bmw and audi a4 use cheaper McPherson struts up front, and the Bolt has a torsion beam rear suspension! Simply not in the same league as the Tesla. Bolt and base A4 are front wheel drive, ugh. No power seats on any trim level for the Bolt. All the other cars FCW and AEB are extra $$$ cost.
If you don't value driving dynamics (and many people don't) then the value is less apparent. If you don't value electric drive (which is amazing) then the value is less apparent. But Tesla has always made fun-to-drive performance vehicles. They put a lot of their value into the performance of the car, and it really shows when you drive. Plus you have the reduced pollution, safety, tech, etc. Big picture is difficult for anything else to come close, IMO, but I guess it depends on what you value in a car.
alseTrick
Active Member
Similar threads
