-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I noticed those MT numbers also. Those Model 3 estimates seem way too low to me. I think the MT MPGe estimates either aren't intended to be EPA (some pessimistic MT metric) or they aren't credible.
Pearls before swine. I paid twice as much for less range 3 years ago and never regret it for a second.
Nikxice
Active Member
I was thinking about those two mainstream changes last night. Another possibility for dropping kWh might have to do with vehicle badging or the lack thereof. We likely won't ever see a 60, 85, or other battery badge on a Model 3. While presenting the 3 as an everyman vehicle, perhaps Tesla is looking to scale back status comparisons. Also, Tesla gets crucified by newer owners every time there's an increase in battery capacity. This move may put the kibosh on some of that angst.
Earlier today Bloomberg wrote, "Unlike previous cars, Tesla didn’t disclose the size of its two battery packs. All cars will be identical from the outside, with no additional badging indicating battery size or premium options. The plan is for the Model S and X to eventually do the same."
Can probably forget about that future D or L badge too. The aftermarketers are probably already gearing up.
Garlan Garner
Banned
I'm glad they are listing ranges now and not battery sizes.
I'm glad the cars will be badged with range instead of battery size. For example. Who's getting the 310 model 3? lol
I'm glad the cars will be badged with range instead of battery size. For example. Who's getting the 310 model 3? lol
Garlan Garner
Banned
What's funny is someone thought the upgrade from 220 miles to 310 miles should cost less than $9000. Lesser improvements in range in the S cost more than that. Again the unrealistic expectations of some Model 3 reservation holders are astonishing.
That nicely sums up half the Model 3 subforum posts in general.
That seems high to me. I would guess that maintaining steady-state temperatures during long range driving takes closer to 1.5 kW and eats up closer to 5% in most conditions. At least, that's what I see in my Bolt EV.
The car is more than just the battery so I don't think a straight price/range comparision makes sense. Here are the numbers I calculated:
Model S
75D (259mi) - $74,500
100D (335mi) - $97,500
133% capacity, 129% range for 130% of cost
Model 3
220mi - $35,000
310mi - $44,000
140% range for 125% of cost
Do you have source for this?
On my S, that would represent something like a an additional 45-50Wh/mi while at highway speeds. I don't see anything like that. As a matter of fact, once the cabin has chilled down I can barely detect the impact form A/C use, nor see it register on the power usage meter, unlike I can when the heater is drawing that much or more...
Pretty much this. Since I've started driving electric (the Leaf for three years, gen 2 Volt now) I have been leaving my car on with the AC running on hot days when I don't have covered parking, especially when I've bought groceries and have to make a stop or two on the way home. The impact is negligible, even on the smaller batteries.
What? Maybe the energy use meter on my Volt isn't super accurate, but when I'm stopped with the AC and radio going while charging my phone it says I use anywhere from 0.5 kwh to 1 kWh I'm pretty sure the consumption meter isn't that far off that it's actually using 3 kWh when it says 0.5 or 1.
Here is my thoight on why tesla did not post kWh numbers.
tesla is less efficient than the Chevy bolt. Instead of manning up they just hide it by saying people only care about range and not the kwh details. It is possible they have a 60kwh pack in the model 3 and yet not as efficient as the Chevy bolt.
tesla is less efficient than the Chevy bolt. Instead of manning up they just hide it by saying people only care about range and not the kwh details. It is possible they have a 60kwh pack in the model 3 and yet not as efficient as the Chevy bolt.
AssortedBread
Member
Price wise your getting a lot of miles for the dollar if you buy the model 3 long range.
Unlikely. If that were true, then the 75kwh battery that the 3 can accommodate wouldn't come close to the 310 range they're claiming now. Also, we had confirmation quite a while ago from a Tesla exec that the battery would be smaller than 60 kWh long before the Bolt officially released. A 55 kWh battery with about 52 kWh usable sounds the most likely as of now.
Similar threads
