Battery is big disappointment

[JeffK]

Apparently you can't read that you mentioned the Bolt multiple times.

Anyways the OP said that $9k to go from 220 to 310 isn't great, but that is not true. If you based how much it cost on the Model S to go from 259 to 330, it's $23k. People have unrealistic assumptions of what Tesla is trying to do with the Model 3. Tesla's goal with the Model 3 is to make a car that cost half as much as the Model S and they did that. The cost to upgrade to long range on the Model 3 is less than half of that on the Model S.

Is there any other car that even gives you an option to go past 300 miles on a single charge on the market for less than $9k? No there isn't. In fact only Tesla even produce an EV that can even get to 300 for any price. So yes, Tesla sucks. Don't buy the car. No one is forcing you to.

I sure did mention the Bolt, please read the context. The 310 mile car is irrelevant in a comparison between the base Model 3 and the Bolt with regards to range.

An uninformed consumer choosing between the two vehicles if looking only at range, the Bolt is the better deal. Many Tesla buyers were disappointed when they assumed, based on Elon's tweet about having faith, that the base Model 3 would have more range. Especially given Elon's ego and bragging about having the highest cell capacity and price in the industry.

 

[Cloxxki]

I believe "RANGE" was Tesla's objective.....NOT battery size.

You're so clever with words...native English speaker?

If you design a car, you allocate volume for batteries as you feel needed. If range is your prime objective, you make a lott of volume available, to a point. Then when you pick your bettery tech, you go for density by volume over anything else.

The way I see it, cost and easy of design were so high on the priority list (while making sure to not accidentally out-do Model S) that they simply didn't make the best possible car with a $35K base. The base car itself may well be the best you can get in it's class, but they are not trying to sell you that car, they want you to take premium, long range, autopilot, etc.

 

[chronopc]

I sure did mention the Bolt, please read the context. The 310 mile car is irrelevant in a comparison between the base Model 3 and the Bolt with regards to range.

The OP isn't comparing the range between the base Model 3 and the Bolt. He is mentioning the cost of going from base to long range. And there you go, bringing up the Bolt again.

Let's just agree you're wrong and let's move on.

 

[JeffK]

They say don't feed the trolls and I always fall for it... shame on me.

 

[bonaire]

Apparently you can't read that you mentioned the Bolt multiple times.

Anyways the OP said that $9k to go from 220 to 310 isn't great, but that is not true. If you based how much it cost on the Model S to go from 259 to 330, it's $23k. People have unrealistic assumptions of what Tesla is trying to do with the Model 3. Tesla's goal with the Model 3 is to make a car that cost half as much as the Model S and they did that. The cost to upgrade to long range on the Model 3 is less than half of that on the Model S.

Is there any other car that even gives you an option to go past 300 miles on a single charge on the market for less than $9k? No there isn't. In fact only Tesla even produce an EV that can even get to 300 for any price. So yes, Tesla sucks. Don't buy the car. No one is forcing you to.

If range is important, would be nice to see the MS 100 come out with RWD only option.

 

[Garlan Garner]

You're so clever with words...native English speaker?

If you design a car, you allocate volume for batteries as you feel needed. If range is your prime objective, you make a lott of volume available, to a point. Then when you pick your bettery tech, you go for density by volume over anything else.

The way I see it, cost and easy of design were so high on the priority list (while making sure to not accidentally out-do Model S) that they simply didn't make the best possible car with a $35K base. The base car itself may well be the best you can get in it's class, but they are not trying to sell you that car, they want you to take premium, long range, autopilot, etc.

I'm not trying to be clever.

What was Tesla's objective with the Model 3?

What if they said from day one.......we need a 300 mile range car. What would be wrong with that. How do you know they didn't?

There are tons of articles where Elon has been saying just that. Here is one below. Don't believe my words.....believe his.

Elon Musk says “range anxiety” is a mental problem

 

[chronopc]

If range is important, would be nice to see the MS 100 come out with RWD only option.

You actually get slightly better range with AWD vs. RWD.

 

[sports4eva115]

jeez it's getting tense ._.

 

[AssortedBread]

I'm not trying to be clever.

What was Tesla's objective with the Model 3?

What if they said from day one.......we need a 300 mile range car. What would be wrong with that. How do you know they didn't?

There are tons of articles where Elon has been saying just that. Here is one below. Don't believe my words.....believe his.

Elon Musk says “range anxiety” is a mental problem

The article you linked has Musk saying the Model 3 is going for 200 mile range. Which he deems as a passing grade. But intends on surpassing.

So I think he held true to his word on both fronts. A $35,000 at 200 and a more "ideal" range for a bit more.

 

[Cloxxki]

You actually get slightly better range with AWD vs. RWD.

If I got a fair discount, I'd consider a Model "S100-" with Model 3's motor. I'm sure it will suffice. Might challenge S100D for range. By now though, Tesla can easily make a 120kWh car. Different thread.

 

[JeffK]

The article you linked has Musk saying the Model 3 is going for 200 mile range. Which he deems as a passing grade. But intends on surpassing.

So I think he held true to his word on both fronts. A $35,000 at 200 and a more "ideal" range for a bit more.

The full quote is:

“anything below 200 miles isn’t passing grade, and most people are looking for at least 20% more than that.
We need over 200 miles range in the real world, not 200 miles in ‘air-conditioning off, driving on flat road’ mode.

20% more than 200 is 240 mi... 220 is close though.

 

[Garlan Garner]

The article you linked has Musk saying the Model 3 is going for 200 mile range. Which he deems as a passing grade. But intends on surpassing.

So I think he held true to his word on both fronts. A $35,000 at 200 and a more "ideal" range for a bit more.

What? So he exceeded his goals.....how about that? Isn't that wonderful?

The article quotes this:

One wonders if Musk was signaling that the Model 3 will include a longer-range option that is in his self-declared 250- to 300-mile sweet spot.

 

[bonaire]

You actually get slightly better range with AWD vs. RWD.

While true, it is a $5k add-on price. So the cost-per-mile goes up. $.05/mile if you own it for 50,000 miles and depreciation is 50%. And at .05/mile, it is possibly more cost added per mile than the energy bought from the grid to go that mile. Some are paying 6-10 cents / kWh and gets from 3-5 miles of range. I would look at a RWD S100 as "more economical" in nature, when boiling down the true TCO. And if used for Uber-type rideshare, cost per mile is very critical. Of course, $.05/mile is debatable, might tend toward $.04/mile.

 

[alseTrick]

Why does someone need this? Uber driver?

Idk if someone needs it or not. But i know there were posters on this site that were adamant it was going to happen. None of them are acknowledging it though.

 

[alseTrick]

If another module was stacked in the back under the passenger seat or the battery itself was extended in some fashion it could definitely fit 100 kWh in some way. It wouldn't fit with the current flat battery design between the motors as is though, especially with no module stacking like you see on the S.

What were your thoughts/projections months ago, before official details were released?

 

[JeffK]

What were your thoughts/projections months ago, before official details were released?

I thought they try to go for it at least attempt to fit 100 kWh... Imagine a production EV that could approach 380 - 400 mi on a single charge. It would be unheard of especially when others are trying to target 200 or 300 miles for 2020.

If we followed the upgrade price from 220 mi - 310 mi version it would follow that an upgrade to a 100 kWh version would be roughly $10-11k.
For less than the price of a Model S 75 kWh, you could get nearly 400 mi of range and much faster acceleration due to the decreased weight. Regardless of the other bells and whistles Model S provides, this would be the flagship model at least until Model S gets its refresh.

I still think they might do this eventually but more like 2020 at this point.

 

[alseTrick]

Right. We had this discussion back then.

 

[Trancela]

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

Funny. I provide the numbers, and you call it conjecture. You provide no numbers, and you call it the truth.

 

[Trancela]

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.

Yes, it is possible that the T3.310 is 3P96S14P. The reason for the 96S is that it both the TS and the Leaf are 96S. It is a good number as it is divisible by 12, and thus lends itself to smaller low-voltage modules in series. Do we really want car mechanics to be dealing with modules that are 96*4.2 = 403 V?

If the T3.310 architecture is 3P96S14P, then that implies the T3.220 is 2P96S14P. There is also another theory. That the T3.220 is 3P96S14P just like the T3.310, except that the cells are 3.4 Ah and not 4.9 Ah. The cells are just the good old Panasonics that have been fit in a 2170 can. Other theories:

3P96S10.4P, where the bay contains 14 parallel cells, but only 10 cells are installed and 4 are vacant.

Another possibility: The 310 is 3S32S43P while the 220 is 3S32S28.15P - i.e. each 43P bay has 15 cells missing. I like this last one the most, because the voltage is down to 134 V, and the connection is serial and thus simpler and more efficient.

 

[Trancela]

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?

Yes, if there are 3 modules, then the T3.220 will only have 2 modules. Alternately, it could have 3 modules, but with only 2/3 cells in parallel. I.e. instead of 43P it would be 28P, with 15 of the cells being vacant in the 43P bay. A third possibility is that the 220 has 3 modules but the cells are "low-capacity" 2170 cells, i.e. those cells that did not pass the capacity test. Or maybe they can put less sandwich in a cell so instead of putting 4.9 Ah worth of sandwich, they put in only 3.4 Ah in a 2170 cell. Finally another possibility is that the T3.220 has the range of 310 miles, but is software crippled to 220 miles, unless you unlock it for $9,000. There is no doubt as the Gigafactory revs up and yields for cells reach a high level, they will be stuffing 75 kWh into a 220 car, so they can charge for unlocking every one of them. It would not cost much for Tesla to stuff the extra 25 kWh in the 220 cars, once the Gigafactory is up to speed.