TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

Green Car Reports Article

Discussion in 'Model 3' started by BlairC, Apr 15, 2016.

  1. BlairC

    BlairC Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    Messages:
    30
    Location:
    NC
    Found this article which I haven't seen discussed, so thought I'd drop it here:

    Tesla Model 3: speculating on versions, batteries, prices, power

    I know it is total speculation, but what else do we have to do until reveal part 2?

    It references an 8-month old article from Seeking Alpha. I'm not registered, and won't just to read a 15 page click-baity article. (I hate, hate, hate mulit-page articles, let alone 15 pages.) Here's the part I found interesting:
    "Author Randy Carlson predicts three versions of the Model 3.

    • 344: Entry-level, single-motor, rear-wheel drive version, with a base price of $35,000, EPA range of 220 miles from a 44-kWh battery, and 0-to-60-mph time of 5.6 seconds
    • 366D: Dual-motor AWD standard version with an EPA range of 320 miles from a 66-kWh battery. 0-60 time 4.7 seconds, price $44,000
    • P366D: 340-hp performance version with dual motors, AWD, a 300-mile EPA range, and 0-to-60 time of 3.1 seconds; priced with leather and a luxury interior at $60,000"
    that 366D is exactly the 2 options I was thinking of getting, and just ever so slightly over what I'm hoping it costs. (I'm hoping $42k) And while I doubt 320 miles on a charge, it would make me :). Do I NEED AWD? Not really, but nice to have in winter when we get some ice or snow. Do I NEED 0-60 in 4.7? No, but again :).
     
  2. jomo25

    jomo25 P4398

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,938
    Location:
    Tempe, AZ
    Those would be some solid versions. Put me down for a 366D please.
     
  3. PLFour

    PLFour New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    4
    Location:
    Boston
    3 66D sounds good to me too.
    Throw in a glass roof, and all the autopilot features and I'm sold.
     
  4. kort677

    kort677 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    1,861
    Location:
    florida.
    green car reports is hardly a credible source of info, I think of them as the onion of EV sites
     
  5. SageBrush

    SageBrush Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,679
    Location:
    Colorado
    It could be a lot worse, imagine green car reports based on seeking alpha
     
    • Funny x 1
  6. BluestarE3

    BluestarE3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2016
    Messages:
    1,007
    Location:
    Norcal
    ... and then there's Seeking Alpha, the bastion of journalistic credibility, reliability and integrity... NOT!

    Edit: SageBrush you beat me to it!
     
  7. Snowdog

    Snowdog Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages:
    130
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    44KWh for 220 miles EPA(as well as all the others), is crackpot theory territory.

    There is nothing in there worth discussing, unless we want to laugh at how silly and out to lunch it is.
     
  8. Boourns

    Boourns Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2016
    Messages:
    658
    Location:
    Dallas
    Yeah I am not an expert/math nerd, but based on the Extrapolation of Rage/Battery Size thread, a 44kWh battery for 220 miles seems . . . optimistic at best.
     
  9. geoffreak

    geoffreak Model 3 Reservation Holder

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2015
    Messages:
    132
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    I think that estimate is one that is cost-based, rather than range-based. I'm guessing the person that came up with it just assumed that Tesla would make batteries at the current (or past) cost per Wh and then determined that 44kWh was the only amount they could still make a profit at.
     
  10. Jeff N

    Jeff N Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,119
    #10 Jeff N, Apr 15, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2016
    I consider GreenCarReports to be pretty good. The large majority of the articles are written by reasonably informed writers including John Voelcker. Of course, the usual minor errors get into articles sometimes. There are a lot of car models and a lot of details and its changing all of the time.

    This article was originally written about a year ago by a semi-retired journalist who is a Tesla Model S owner who was invited to speculate about a future Model 3.

    I agree that the article is unrealistically optimistic about efficiency and battery sizes. This might have been entertaining speculation a year ago but I'm not sure what compelled the site to rerun/highlight this article now again a year later. Doing so is uncharacteristic for GreenCarReports and its especially surprising to see them rerun such a highly speculative article that has such a thin foundation at this point.
     
  11. JohnSnowNW

    JohnSnowNW Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2015
    Messages:
    1,397
    Location:
    Minnesota
    GCR is fine, though David Noland could stand to step away from the keyboard. Guy is only a couple steps away from spreading FUD.
     
  12. kort677

    kort677 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    1,861
    Location:
    florida.
    what was it about that one rotten apple?
     

Share This Page