Battery is big disappointment

[Trancela]

" Musk said the car is using a smaller number of battery cells (three modules as opposed to the 16 found in the Model S)" from Tesla Model 3: Everything you need to know

If true, then I believe the T3.310 architecture is 3M32S43P or possibly 3M96S14P. The latter architecture implies that the T3.220 will have only 2 modules. So is the T3.220

3M32S28P or
2M96S14P
?

 

[kbM3]

the hit on the range using the A/C is minimal. not even worth mentioning

I am glad to hear that. I live in Louisiana.

 

[gavine]

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.

The Audi doesn't have any tax credits so it's $36K vs. $27.5K.

 

[kaffine]

Well I am happy. I have a 180 mile round trip commute 4 or 5 times a week, so a 310 mile range is great. Would have preferred a faster on board charger though. I was hoping for the 72 amp charger and was going to install a wall connector on a 100 amp circuit. Since it only takes 40 amps I may just install a 14-50. Price is only a bit more than I was expecting but not unreasonable, the range is higher than I was expecting. I was afraid that it was only going to have a 250~ mile range which would be cutting it close with my commute. And there is still a chance I may get it before the end of the year

 

[Mikeavelli]

Solid to me!

 

[transpondster]

What about an 85 car that charges at double the speed of a 100?

except it wouldn't , because 100 high energy pack already pushing current SCs to its limits (please don't say SC V3 we had enough wishful thinking out of context posts), theoretical 85 high energy pack would get improvement in high 60%-80% SOC region, but at it would tapper too and remember 85% of high energy would be 100% high power. And lastly Tesla doesn't use sharp CC-CV profile it uses softened curve and which curve would high energy pack use.

 

[scaesare]

If the T3.220 is being supplied with 18650 cells fit in a 2170 can, or with early-run 'low-capacity' 2170s, then it is at its limit of 51 kWh (or 54 with buffering). Overtime, as the 2170 improves, the T3.220 range will increase to let's say 265, but will be held back by software at 220, with a software upgrade premium to 265. Once the 2170 production yield stabilizes for the 4.9 Ah full capacity cell, then they will all be at 310, with nasty software crippling for the 220 and 265.

I pointed out earlier that we can't assert categorically that 0-60 times are limited by the cells at the moment.

Your response here is so full of conjecture I won't bother.

 

[Cloxxki]

Indeed, 40% more battery nets a small improvement in -60 only. Assuming both cars are pushed by software fast as they can, the LR car at least seems motor limited.
Hmm, considering the LR is a good bit heavier (likely extra modules, not just cells), consumption may in fact be a few clicks higher, making the cell amount more than 40.9% extra, towards 42-43%.

 

[R.S]

" Musk said the car is using a smaller number of battery cells (three modules as opposed to the 16 found in the Model S)" from Tesla Model 3: Everything you need to know

If true, then I believe the T3.310 architecture is 3M32S43P or possibly 3M96S14P. The latter architecture implies that the T3.220 will have only 2 modules. So is the T3.220

3M32S28P or
2M96S14P
?

Where did you come up with these numbers? Why not 3M98S14, just for example?

I do think the Model 3 220 has the same modules as the 310, but 2 instead of three (if the bigger one really has 3). 50% more cells would mean less than 50% more range, because the car is heavier, and that fits perfectly with 310 miles.

 

[Cloxxki]

The Audi doesn't have any tax credits so it's $36K vs. $27.5K.

That's valid for only 4% of the global population.

 

[Cloxxki]

Where did you come up with these numbers? Why not 3M98S14, just for example?

I do think the Model 3 220 has the same modules as the 310, but 2 instead of three (if the bigger one really has 3). 50% more cells would mean less than 50% more range, because the car is heavier, and that fits perfectly with 310 miles.

Very interesting development. And fewer modules would likely be cheaper.
However, why would 50% more cells tranlate only to 40.9% more range? The 120kg weight increase doesn't come close to explaining it. Would...the large pack be software restricted to squeeze out more cash from owners down the line, or to maintain range through the initial stages (years and dozens of thousands of miles) of degradation?

 

[Destiny1701]

A lot of posts in various threads are comparing an MS100 'D' with awd, adj. suspension, 72amp charger, 4.2 sec 0-60, 21" rims/tires, enhanced autopilot, 335 miles range, 'Free unlimited supercharging' larger interior and trunk/frunk, panoramic/sunroof, premium sport bolstered seats, 17" integrated screen, dash console etc etc with an M3LR 'rwd' single motor not the dual.

Price of new 'RWD' M3LR with premium pack, paint, 19" wheels, enhanced autopilot, no sunroof, no adj. suspension, pocket doors, coat hooks, 310 miles range, Extra $ for supercharging, smaller storage, +1 sec acceleration, 15" screen...$56,500. I would like to assume the AWD version may be around approx 6-8k more eventually to justify additional range and better acceleration handling. So perhaps around 63-$65k once that comes out. Probably even another 10-15k on top of that to get a 'P' version with ludicrous. (Think 328i to an M3 in terms of price difference.)

Let's ensure we are comparing Apples to apples here folks

I'm sure the M3 will be a phenomenal addition to the Tesla line up much as a 3 series is to a 5 or C class to E there will always be those who can outfit their top end 3 series better than a low to mid range 5 at less price. Different drive, different interior, different class altogether but still amazing and a pleasure to drive!

I have an M3 on order, very excited for it ...and own an MS90D so just wanted to ensure everyone is comparing correctly when looking at an MS100D and an M3LR.

 

[R.S]

Very interesting development. And fewer modules would likely be cheaper.
However, why would 50% more cells tranlate only to 40.9% more range? The 120kg weight increase doesn't come close to explaining it. Would...the large pack be software restricted to squeeze out more cash from owners down the line, or to maintain range through the initial stages (years and dozens of thousands of miles) of degradation?

The car is about 7.5% heavier, which hurts city range, which therefore results in less range. The Model S 100D should have 36% more range than the 75D, but it only has 29%. But the effective weight increase is much lower. And of course these aren't the final numbers, maybe the long range still goes up a couple of miles.

 

[Cloxxki]

The car is about 7.5% heavier, which hurts city range, which therefore results in less range. The Model S 100D should have 36% more range than the 75D, but it only has 29%. But the effective weight increase is much lower. And of course these aren't the final numbers, maybe the long range still goes up a couple of miles.

That's curious indeed. I didn't know about the higher consumption of the 100 to that degree. Perhaps I underestimate both the city consumption impact and its weighing towards the EPA rating. I have heard though that the "highway" part is a small portion, and hardly in a hurry.

 

[azred]

I am proud to announce that my original post in this thread has achieved an all-time record for thumbs down. I would love to reply back to each and every one of you Mooch-like, but that finger isn't available.

 

[R.S]

That's curious indeed. I didn't know about the higher consumption of the 100 to that degree. Perhaps I underestimate both the city consumption impact and its weighing towards the EPA rating. I have heard though that the "highway" part is a small portion, and hardly in a hurry.

Yea, average speeds in all driving cycles are low and weight still plays a big role in those.

The city driving cycle is higher valued, it counts 22.2% more. And in city driving aerodynamic drag is not important at all so if the cars weight goes up, driving efficiency goes down.

 

[chronopc]

So when Musk said the battery would get 218 miles everyone was like shut up and take my money. Now when he says it's 220 miles the battery range sucks? Makes sense.

 

[JeffK]

So when Musk said the battery would get 218 miles everyone was like shut up and take my money. Now when he says it's 220 miles the battery range sucks? Makes sense.

it was 215+ and you forget the Chevy Bolt came out in between the two events.

 

[eloder]

it was 215+ and you forget the Chevy Bolt came out in between the two events.

By all means, go buy a Bolt.

It'll clear up the reservation list now, and you'll still be buying a Model 3 down the line when you realize how inferior the car is and how "fun" gas-focused dealerships are.

 

[JeffK]

By all means, go buy a Bolt.

It'll clear up the reservation list now, and you'll still be buying a Model 3 down the line when you realize how inferior the car is and how "fun" gas-focused dealerships are.

You have put yourself in the shoes of people who don't know much about EVs or about the inside of a Tesla.
The price per mile is lower with the Bolt than with the Model 3 so on paper if you want the most miles for your dollar at a sub $30k price point after fed tax credit then the Bolt is the better option. If these people have a local Tesla gallery then they might think differently but these are still pretty sparse.