What we know: 1) S&X have 14(16) modules for 75(90) kWh 2) M3 has 8 modules (not sure if it's capped) and 215 mi (EPA) for base model 3) M3 has lower Wh/mi than MS 4) EPA range of MS is based on ~290 Wh/mi 5) Capped M3 will be 75 kWh (by Elon) Here is the math: In short: 1) Base M3 has 55 kWh 2) Capped M3 has 285 mi (EPA) 3) ~10% efficiency improved compared to MS Just killing some time while counting the days for M3...

Some people have nothing better to do with their time than to try and microanalyze Tesla. The batteries will be 60 and 80.

I find the analysis interesting. But - I also don't know what "Capped" means - in modules or kWh. So the details introduce me to a new language, new insight. Don't have a clue what details mean or how that will affect anything.

I find analysis much more interesting than proclamation. With posts like these and contributions from others we can get pretty close to what the actual results will end up being

Tesla has already said that the base will be less than 60kWh and that the max is 75kWh. Granted the "less than 60" statement was made a year or more ago (and before the Bolt announced its range) so that may change, but the 75kWh max was only stated recently so I assume that that is pretty firm.

I'm also unsure what you're trying to say. "Capped"? And it's quite unlikely there will be any version with a SW limit, beyond the unavailable 2-4 kWh buffer at the bottom.

I'd guess such people at least use their time to keep up on the topics they are posting about: Elon Says 75KWh Max

As a retired person, I still teach math at the local college. This week we were looking at some data on intenet providers and using various types of regression to extrapolate from that data into the future. Mathematically, one model was best based on the existing data. Unfortunately, that model made no sense beyond a few years in the future as it predicted the Internet would disappear withing a few years. My message for the class: Analysis is a good starting point but common sense is equally important. The analytical work done by the OP looks impressive but several "facts" are at best conjecture.