-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
In the same targeted class you have the M3, C63, S4.
Even lower your have STi, Evo, Si, ST, GTI, GT, Mazdaspeed, etc.
This has been a long standing tradition and there's definitely a market for these cars.
Electric700
Active Member
I would definitely like to see battery options for the Gen3. Considering battery improvements by 2016, perhaps Tesla could unveil a 230 mile base and 330 mile model for $5-10k more.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Why not ? Sig people trusted $40k with Tesla for a long time. I don't think the reservations will be "democratic". Not just Sig, other Model S owners might get first dip as well.
I was really really close to getting this instead of my Model S. Just a little too late, and a little too small. Much smaller hatch than my GTI.
Exactly GTI was a beast of a car. And it had a sticker around $25k. Loved mine for 6.5 years.
If there was a $70k sport performance 3 Series/Jetta/A4 sized hatch/wagon I wouldn't have even thought about the Model S! I want one so bad!
(1) I just think they're done treating Sig S in any special way. I've resigned myself to that apparent fact.
(2) They might but...
Generally speaking I think they're looking at "the mass market Gen 3" as a free for all. First come, first serve. On reservations.
- - - Updated - - -
There are technology "opportunities" in the original S offerings (parking sensors, etc.) but besides these details, the weakest point for me in the S is the size and weight. If Gen 3 is "performance compelling" like the S but easier to maneuver and park (smaller size, weight) it will be hard to pass up unless they make it spendy.
Here's a question I feel like we should discuss more:
What features will they cut from the S+X cars to make the price drop? Can they realistically keep the same features and shed 30K, even in a few years? Can economies of scale really do that, if anyone with some economic background knows?
I'm leaning towards no, but I have no evidence.
What features will they cut from the S+X cars to make the price drop? Can they realistically keep the same features and shed 30K, even in a few years? Can economies of scale really do that, if anyone with some economic background knows?
I'm leaning towards no, but I have no evidence.
gg_got_a_tesla
Model S: VIN 65513, Model 3: VIN 1913
I think the fancy door handles will go; evidence of any range improvement because of them has been flimsy at best. They've also been a significant service cost sink.
Screen will surely be smaller (17" will be too big for a 3-series sized car anyway). I don't see much of the software from the Model S going away; it should just be made to work with a smaller screen somehow.
Maybe, no rear AC vents to save the cost of ducting, etc.
The visors will be made even smaller?! :tongue:
Screen will surely be smaller (17" will be too big for a 3-series sized car anyway). I don't see much of the software from the Model S going away; it should just be made to work with a smaller screen somehow.
Maybe, no rear AC vents to save the cost of ducting, etc.
The visors will be made even smaller?! :tongue:
How about looking at it from a different angle. Gen III might have a new drive train and battery system and might be more efficient.
Like for example, look at the KLD OneDrive:
http://www.kldenergy.com/onedrive/
Maybe by increasing efficiency of the battery and the motor they can cut down weight and at same time make the whole system more efficient.
So if Tesla can make the system more efficient, maybe they can get 200+ miles out of a 30kwh battery. Then when you factor in cost going down, more energy dense batteries and a 30% smaller car with no aerospace bolts. It should be no problem.
Like for example, look at the KLD OneDrive:
http://www.kldenergy.com/onedrive/
Maybe by increasing efficiency of the battery and the motor they can cut down weight and at same time make the whole system more efficient.
So if Tesla can make the system more efficient, maybe they can get 200+ miles out of a 30kwh battery. Then when you factor in cost going down, more energy dense batteries and a 30% smaller car with no aerospace bolts. It should be no problem.
I dunno, I think the 17"er is staying. We all, rather, I don't think it's too big for a smaller car. We're talking smaller in length, not height.
They can go smaller for sure, but I'm it sure it's going to save much money. I think most of that savings will come from battery/power train improvements
Handles should definitely go.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I assume the G3/E will be lower and narrower as well, certainly hope so for good aero, and styling, and the large screen might have to shrink a bit. I can see many features being dropped for a base model.
Definitely kill the handles, my 1980 Corvette had flush mounted mechanical handles that worked fine.
Definitely kill the handles, my 1980 Corvette had flush mounted mechanical handles that worked fine.
The G3/E (I like this nomenclature JRP3 by the way)
Tesla will have to balance what needs to be optional and the added design cost versus determining the feature will not even be offered.
It is not as simple as some argue to just make features optional since the engineering and base platform cost needed to make them available adds cost to the base model. No way around that.
You cannot have it both ways so it will be a fine line for Tesla walk. They will get criticized no matter what decisions they make along the way.
1. Case in point is Air suspension. Yes it would be a nice option for some buyers willing to pay extra but by not including air suspension as an option the total over-all cost for the G3/E platform will be lower.
2. Due to shorter lengthy won't have the option of the rear facing seats which will simplify the design and reduce costs.
3. Agree automated handles are not needed.
4. If the 17" monitor can be made to fit one can argue that by the extra cost for software design might outweigh the savings on a smaller 15" monitor.
5. Ultra high fidelity sound. Not getting rave reviews in the MS anyway so why not include a good basic sound system and just let the after market vendors accommodate buyers with luxury sound requirements.
6. All glass Panoramic could be replaced by a really good sun roof. Again designing the option for an all glass panoramic adds cost to the base model.
7. Improve the basic interior lighting and avoid the optional improved interior lighting. The lack of good lighting in the frunk for example is ridiculous. Quality LED lighting should be basic to any good car.
Options I would still like to see:
1. Subzero weather package. If you live in a cold climate this is a must optional item.
2. Tech package (may not have as many features though)
3. Supercharging (no brainer)
4. Optional interior trim choices (i.e. leather)
5. High power home charging
6. Parcel shelf since I'm hoping for a hatchback design since it offers much better utilization of space and that seems important to Elon.
Tesla will have to balance what needs to be optional and the added design cost versus determining the feature will not even be offered.
It is not as simple as some argue to just make features optional since the engineering and base platform cost needed to make them available adds cost to the base model. No way around that.
You cannot have it both ways so it will be a fine line for Tesla walk. They will get criticized no matter what decisions they make along the way.
1. Case in point is Air suspension. Yes it would be a nice option for some buyers willing to pay extra but by not including air suspension as an option the total over-all cost for the G3/E platform will be lower.
2. Due to shorter lengthy won't have the option of the rear facing seats which will simplify the design and reduce costs.
3. Agree automated handles are not needed.
4. If the 17" monitor can be made to fit one can argue that by the extra cost for software design might outweigh the savings on a smaller 15" monitor.
5. Ultra high fidelity sound. Not getting rave reviews in the MS anyway so why not include a good basic sound system and just let the after market vendors accommodate buyers with luxury sound requirements.
6. All glass Panoramic could be replaced by a really good sun roof. Again designing the option for an all glass panoramic adds cost to the base model.
7. Improve the basic interior lighting and avoid the optional improved interior lighting. The lack of good lighting in the frunk for example is ridiculous. Quality LED lighting should be basic to any good car.
Options I would still like to see:
1. Subzero weather package. If you live in a cold climate this is a must optional item.
2. Tech package (may not have as many features though)
3. Supercharging (no brainer)
4. Optional interior trim choices (i.e. leather)
5. High power home charging
6. Parcel shelf since I'm hoping for a hatchback design since it offers much better utilization of space and that seems important to Elon.
AMPd
Well-Known Member
I love the Aston Martin Vantage door handles
As far as reducing cost, another thing to consider is since the car will be smaller, less aluminum will be used to manufacture it.
As far as reducing cost, another thing to consider is since the car will be smaller, less aluminum will be used to manufacture it.
gg_got_a_tesla
Model S: VIN 65513, Model 3: VIN 1913
Going back to steel would compromise the range though?! They'd need to squeeze as much range as possible out of a smaller battery...
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I think he means less aluminum since the car is physically smaller, not because they would substitute with steel.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
I expect them to use the same sized battery 60kWh to get 200 miles.
It would be an interesting exercise to see if added cost of Aluminum is cheaper than needed extra battery. We can assume that every 1% in weight reduction gets 0.5% more range.
So, if more steel means 100 pounds more - that would be 3% of the weight (lets say 3k pounds, total). That would reduce range by 1.3% or 3 miles - which would need about 1 kWh extra battery or about $250. Is going to Aluminum cheaper than $250 ? (I know there is a little bit extra weight because of 1 kWh battery, but we can ignore that for the given how rough the calculation is).
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Why are you expecting the smaller, lighter G3/E to require the same pack size as the larger heavier S?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Marketplace listing
