How is Tesla going to make the Model 3 for $35,000?

[Bangor Bob]

The base model will not go 0-60 in 5 seconds and there's no reason why that would be necessary.

That seems a bit of ICE-tinted thinking. While of course I can't know for certain, the cost delta for improved performance in an electric drivetrain is going to be nothing like the cost delta of going from a naturally-aspirated 4 cylinder ICE to a turbo four, or to a V6. Doubling the EV power output requires maybe 50% more copper in the motor, bigger HVDC connectors and twice as many, or higher-capacity IGBT's in the motor controller. It's nothing like the extra bits required to double ICE performance.

I'd love them to take a page out of BMW's i playbook and go with a carbon fiber body structure with highly-automated manufacturing. Yes, CF is expensive, but you get a huge reduction in parts count (many fewer presses and stamping die sets required), assembly is simpler (robotic gluing), material handling is cheaper (body parts can be moved by workers without hoists, or smaller robots), and the resulting vehicle is much lighter, so you can put fewer kWh into the battery pack for the same range, handling, acceleration and stopping gets better... It's just better (provided you don't let BMW do the styling....)

Seems unlikely for the Model 3 though. Maybe for the 4th model...

 

[ratsbew]

In what way other than appearance? The Leaf does 0 to 60 in under 8 seconds and it drives and handles really nice with top safety ratings. It also comfortably fits my family of 5, with good cargo space and so far has been very dependable (aside from the 12volt battery problem). It has a good backup camera, bluetooth (better than Teslas), keyless ignition, etc. My only gripes are the range and appearance but the appearance has grown on me.

I agree. The Leaf is a fine car. If it went 200+ miles and could supercharge that is all I could ever want from a base model Model 3. Ideally I'd want 300 miles and the ability to charge 200 miles in 30 minutes.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

In what way other than appearance? The Leaf does 0 to 60 in under 8 seconds and it drives and handles really nice with top safety ratings. It also comfortably fits my family of 5, with good cargo space and so far has been very dependable (aside from the 12volt battery problem). It has a good backup camera, bluetooth (better than Teslas), keyless ignition, etc. My only gripes are the range and appearance but the appearance has grown on me.

I say 7 is the magic number: 0 to 60 in 7 seconds matches standard mid-sizes and 3-series diesels.
Want more? Pay more.
But where the base starts would depends on overall cost reductions: the higher the minimum cost, the higher the base spec.

 

[pmadflyer]

I could see them making it 5 seconds base. Should be possible with a 60 kWh or larger battery. Now imagine the public reaction. No matter what, we know that people who know nothing about Tesla are going to want one when they are introduced. Whether it comes from epic acceleration, unexpected range, or a hugely practical surprise, it will get lots of positive attention, because it must.

 

[beegee]

The packs that will be built in Reno will also be a 20700 form factor instead of the 18650. This is supposed to lower the cost per pack by ~25%.

Lighter Batteries May Prove The Tipping Point For Electric Vehicles - Gas 2

 

[aronth5]

Just like the initial price of the Model S was $57,499 (40 kWh) before the tax credit the Model 3 will come in close to $35k. Perhaps a thousand or two higher. But then when everyone adds options and the average sale price approaches $50k the $35k number will slowly fade away just like the $57,499 price of the low end Model S.

 

[Airx]

The car needs to be compelling in both base performance and base accessories.
It should rival the BMW 3 base models and still keep particular features that immediately say its a Tesla.
I certainly don't want another Toyota Prius and if I wanted a Leaf I would have one.
I certainly don't covet the Bolt and I am not afraid to shell out $45K, D-model please.

 

[Model 3]

... that TM has a BOM price of $200/kWh or lower effective Q2 2016. I presume it will drop slightly by the time Q4 2017 rolls around.

I thought they were down at $180/kWh over the past year?

... and backing out TM's 25% gross margin ...

Telsa will NOT have a 25% gross margin on the Model 3. I think they was talking about around 12-15%? Still high in this marked.

- - - Updated - - -

I remember Elon saying that the 3 would be made of steel in stead of aluminium

Where? Any sources for that it will be steel?
Yes, I remember that it is stated that it will not be "all aluminum", but not that anyone has stated what will be used instead. But steel is a good guess...

 

[Matias]

"How is Tesla going to make the Model 3 for $35,000?"

They won't.

PS. I refute my statement. Nissan Leaf MSRP is $29,010. It has 24 kWh battery. If Model 3 has 50 kWh, it is 26 kWhs more. If Tesla can make those at price 200 dollars/kWh, 26 kWhs would cost 5200 dollars. So it is possible. Of course Tesla would also make the first 24 kWhs with same price/kWhs, but this extremely crude calculation does not take that into account.

PPS, 50 KWhs is maybe not enough, because Leaf's EPA rating is 73 miles and Model 3 is supposed to get 200 miles. So it would need (200/73)x 24kWh = 65 kWhs. So extra 41 kWhs would cost 8200 dollars.

 

[gavine]

The Model S 60 kWh gets 208 EPA miles. Why would the lighter/smaller Model 3 need 65kWh to go 200 miles?

 

[Matias]

The Model S 60 kWh gets 208 EPA miles. Why would the lighter/smaller Model 3 need 65kWh to go 200 miles?

Elon has stated, that the goal is to get 200 real world miles. I don't know, how many kWh Model 3 needs for that.

 

[pmadflyer]

Probably 60 kWh. if they make 150k 85 kWh packs, and 350k 60 kWh packs, they would still have capacity to spare out of the 35 gWh destined for the 500k vehicles. I also did math in another thread to find that 100k 95 kWh packs, 50k 70 kWh packs, and 350k 60 kWh packs is also possible. So if 2/3 of S and X are 95 kWh and the rest are 70 kWh, then all 350k model 3 can be 60 kWh.

 

[gregincal]

In what way other than appearance? The Leaf does 0 to 60 in under 8 seconds and it drives and handles really nice with top safety ratings. It also comfortably fits my family of 5, with good cargo space and so far has been very dependable (aside from the 12volt battery problem). It has a good backup camera, bluetooth (better than Teslas), keyless ignition, etc. My only gripes are the range and appearance but the appearance has grown on me.

Sub 8 seconds? It has a 107 hp motor. From the Edmunds review: "In Edmunds performance testing, a Leaf accelerated from zero to 60 mph in 9.9 seconds, which is a bit slower than either the Ford Focus Electric or Volkswagen e-Golf and about 2 or more seconds off the pace of the Fiat 500e and Spark EV."

I definitely expect at the very least a sub 7 second car, probably sub 6 seconds because it will be easy for them to accomplish.

Also looks, of course, as well as a far superior user interface.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Telsa will NOT have a 25% gross margin on the Model 3. I think they was talking about around 12-15%? Still high in this marked.

I had the same thought. They might hit 25% at the very top trim levels, but for sure the base Model 3 won't have 25% margin. In fact, 15% is probably the average for the line (so base will be even lower).

 

[1208]

Easy...

Steel wheels with hubcaps instead of alloys.
No heated seats.
Smaller body less material.
Use steel.
Plastic everything from handles to wing mirrors.
Everything manual operated from trunk to windows.

Cheap as chips. :smile:

 

[stevej119]

50 KWhs is maybe not enough, because Leaf's EPA rating is 73 miles and Model 3 is supposed to get 200 miles. So it would need (200/73)x 24kWh = 65 kWhs. So extra 41 kWhs would cost 8200 dollars.

That assumes the Model 3 and the Leaf have the same cd. I would expect the Model 3 to be far more aerodynamic than the Leaf.

 

[richkae]

"How is Tesla going to make the Model 3 for $35,000?"

They won't.

PS. I refute my statement. Nissan Leaf MSRP is $29,010. It has 24 kWh battery. If Model 3 has 50 kWh, it is 26 kWhs more. If Tesla can make those at price 200 dollars/kWh, 26 kWhs would cost 5200 dollars. So it is possible. Of course Tesla would also make the first 24 kWhs with same price/kWhs, but this extremely crude calculation does not take that into account.

PPS, 50 KWhs is maybe not enough, because Leaf's EPA rating is 73 miles and Model 3 is supposed to get 200 miles. So it would need (200/73)x 24kWh = 65 kWhs. So extra 41 kWhs would cost 8200 dollars.

The Leaf has a terrible Cd ( and CdA because it is tall ). Tesla already does much better with the S, and the Model 3 should be smaller.
The Leaf battery pack is reported at 660 pounds for 24 kWh. Tesla is already almost twice as good as that.

Beating the Leaf's mpge will not be hard for Tesla. I believe that the Model 3 can easily achieve 200 miles EPA with 50 kWh.

 

[EVNow]

Beating the Leaf's mpge will not be hard for Tesla. I believe that the Model 3 can easily achieve 200 miles EPA with 50 kWh.

While beating Leaf's mpge may not be difficult - getting 200 EPA miles out of tots 50 kWh will take extraordinary effort. It will be cheaper to add 5 more kWh. I won't be surprised if the base 3 comes with 60 kWh battery.

 

[Candleflame]

Easy...

Steel wheels with hubcaps instead of alloys.
No heated seats.
Smaller body less material.
Use steel.
Plastic everything from handles to wing mirrors.
Everything manual operated from trunk to windows.

Cheap as chips. :smile:

Heated seats and ideally steering wheel are really important for an electric car. It keeps you nice and cosy when its cold and you don't have to run the heater. Heated seats use hardly any elecitricity compared to the heater!

And regarding the 0 to 60 time; I reckon this will be good and much better than the leaf. To think that fast acceleration comes from a big engine/motor is actually sort of very ICEi thinking as the size of the batterypack plays quite a bit of a role. If you can feed more energy to the motor, it will spin faster. Just compare the S60 to the S85.

 

[stopcrazypp]

PPS, 50 KWhs is maybe not enough, because Leaf's EPA rating is 73 miles and Model 3 is supposed to get 200 miles. So it would need (200/73)x 24kWh = 65 kWhs. So extra 41 kWhs would cost 8200 dollars.

2015 Leaf EPA rating is 84 miles. The previous 73/75 miles is for the older version and partially due to range average between 100% and 80% charge mode (which Nissan removed).
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=34918

That would work out to 57kWh for 200 mile EPA (assuming same efficiency as Leaf). A sanity check is that the 60kWh Model S got 208 miles EPA, so the number will never need to be over 60kWh.

The most efficient is the i3, with 81 miles from a 21.6kWh battery (18.8kWh usable). Works out to 53kWh (46.4kWh usable) for 200 miles EPA. So it seems somewhere slightly above 50kWh will get them to 200 miles EPA, 60kWh would give a decent bit higher than 200 miles EPA (closer to "real world" 200 miles).