How many kWh can they squeeze into the Model 3...?

[Model 3]

Yes. I am guessing that this may be one of the rare times that Tesla over delivers. Why? Well, the Bolt, all the crowd of 2019/2020 BEV's coming may just convince Tesla to stay well ahead on range capability, assuming they have the capability to do so economically.

It could be. But it was exactly in response to the specifications of the Bolt Tesla did state this two statements that I mentioned. But they may change their minds, or they may have underestimated how popular the bigger battery will be...

... and I do believe that Model 3 will have a grater range - and performance - then the Bolt, even with a smaller battery. And range and performance is whats count, not the exact number of kWh battery capacity it have (and yes, I know they are somehow related ).

 

[Cloxxki]

Under 60kWh may well be needed to reach their claimed minimum EPA range of 215 miles. I did not catch the <60kWh claim.
I have not seen a claim as to the maximum size they intend to offer. If memory serves me, larger battery options (than 215 miles) were mentioned in the launch event.

 

[Carl]

Just for the sake of voicing a different view:

- More kW = better acceleration. < 5 sec on 0-60 (as with my S85D) is fun, for sure; in everyday life, you're often driving on AutoPilot which does > 20 seconds on 0-60... (which is even a bit too 'diplomatic driving' for my taste; I wish one could in the future calibrate AutoPilot in that respect, as I now often see strange faces of others overtaking me after a red light and obviously wondering why I'm driving like a grandpa in such a great car) - anyway, any acceleration < 5 seconds is more than good enough ! ;

- More kW = more range, of course, but also more weight. With the current number of Superchargers out there, I don't really care about having more than 200 miles or so of (real) range - after 200 miles, I will want to grab a coffee and stretch my legs anyway. Vastly more important to me is how fast the charging can be done at a Supercharger (and, of course, that I can charge at my destination). I don't see much benefit in carrying around hundreds of kilograms of additional weight of batteries which I will never need in daily use - on the other hand I do see the benefit in having an 80% recharge in 10 or 15 minutes rather than in half an hour, for roadtrip use. So I hope Tesla will be investing at least as much in ameliorating charging speed (and in placing Destination Chargers), than in squeezing as much kW as possible into the M3.

 

[JeffK]

Under 60kWh may well be needed to reach their claimed minimum EPA range of 215 miles. I did not catch the <60kWh claim.
I have not seen a claim as to the maximum size they intend to offer. If memory serves me, larger battery options (than 215 miles) were mentioned in the launch event.

Tesla confirms base Model 3 will have less than 60 kWh battery pack option, cost is below $190/kWh and falling

 

[Cloxxki]

Thanks!
Now that I look into it from this angle...
The restricted (true) 60kWh Model S RWD base model has a 210 mile range, 285Wh/mi , 177Wh/km.

To get to 215 miles, the now by most expected to be software restricted base Model 3 will indeed likely suffice with 55kWh (modest efficiency gains), or even 50kWh.
Being a good bit lighter, smaller and lower drag, could 50kWh (fully available) do it? It would require 18.6% better efficiency than Model S60. Seems tough but possibly doable.

 

[ohmman]

Just for the sake of voicing a different view:

- More kW = better acceleration. < 5 sec on 0-60 (as with my S85D) is fun, for sure; in everyday life, you're often driving on AutoPilot which does > 20 seconds on 0-60... (which is even a bit too 'diplomatic driving' for my taste; I wish one could in the future calibrate AutoPilot in that respect, as I now often see strange faces of others overtaking me after a red light and obviously wondering why I'm driving like a grandpa in such a great car) - anyway, any acceleration < 5 seconds is more than good enough ! ;

- More kW = more range, of course, but also more weight. With the current number of Superchargers out there, I don't really care about having more than 200 miles or so of (real) range - after 200 miles, I will want to grab a coffee and stretch my legs anyway. Vastly more important to me is how fast the charging can be done at a Supercharger (and, of course, that I can charge at my destination). I don't see much benefit in carrying around hundreds of kilograms of additional weight of batteries which I will never need in daily use - on the other hand I do see the benefit in having an 80% recharge in 10 or 15 minutes rather than in half an hour, for roadtrip use. So I hope Tesla will be investing at least as much in ameliorating charging speed (and in placing Destination Chargers), than in squeezing as much kW as possible into the M3.

Unfortunately, physics comes into play, and tapering will occur at the higher SOC in your battery. So hauling those extra batteries around may become a necessity if only to make sure your Supercharging doesn't taper too quickly and too harshly.

The full range on my X and S is rarely used, except when I'm leaving home on a long trip. When Supercharging, I almost never go above 80% because it gets miserably slow. In ideal conditions, that means about 200 miles. Add in cold weather, wind, rain, or snow, and it drops quite a bit. I shoot for max range because the reality isn't the stated number, even on road trips. The reality is more like 70-80% of what's stated, depending on your patience, average speed, and ability to avoid less-than-ideal weather.

It might be better to think of the battery options that way, so you don't think that you're hauling around excess baggage. Consider the battery range at 80% of stated with "bonus miles" available in drastic situations. That will likely make you happier in the long run.

 

[Carl]

@ohmman, I understand that. My point was I do not really need "later tapering" as I'm happy with 200 miles autonomy on trips to the Alps (and indeed with a ski rack on the roof in the winter you get a slightly lower mileage, but nothing to worry about), nor do I need better acceleration, so I would not even been interested in exchanging my 85kW pack for a 100kW pack.

At Superchargers, I never go over 80% (except 'unconsciously', if I'm having a good time having lunch in a great place or so). What would really help Tesla bury all competition six feet under the ground, is if it would kill all competition in charging time - a Tesla Supercharger is today twice as fast as Chademo, but doubling or tripling charging speed in the next few years would be a much more interesting feature, imho, than doubling or tripling the amount of kW the car's battery can have.

 

[Cloxxki]

Good point on the charging time. A combination of a big battery to keep up with SC discharge rate mated with good efficiency, although the latter offers much less room for gains.
Where maximum range of course comes in is the first stint(s) from a home getaway. From home the car is fully charged. 2 drivers each take a good stint before it's really time to stretch the leg while the car charges. Then just a few 60-10% SC runs can fill the rest of the day. Unless of course you're towing in the rain with headwinds climbing into the mountains, where more charge is needed. Twice the consumption, four times the charging? Fossil cars still hold the advantage there as they can do a quick splash and dash even halfway a driver's turn if need be.

 

[Red Sage]

Quicker charging time or greater range? It seems some of us differ in terms of which is most important. Much as is the case in discussions about Range vs Performance.

Each has its merits. It's just important to realize they each have their tradeoffs as well. I think Tesla Motors has made good decisions thus far. Their cars may not be 'for everyone' but satisfy enough people to keep them in business. I expect that will be true of Model ☰ as well.

Yes, in the long term, it will be necessary to address charging time, if only to tell the very last of the loudest Naysayers they can [SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM]. And yes, in the long term it will be necessary to address range as well, if only to do the same to the next-to-last of the loudest Naysayers. But I believe that a focus on Performance will always remain a priority because it comes 'FREE' with electric drive -- or at least 91.83% free.

 

[Garlan Garner]

My point exactly

Whoa..... I'm the .01% and proud of it.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Yea, a $50,000 battery pack is more than likely a no-go for 99.9% of Model 3 purchasers.

Especially if the price per kWH to build the packs, as it stands today, is ~$195. So on a 100kWH pack, they're not going mark it up by over $30,000

I'm raising my hand as one of the .1%

 

[Garlan Garner]

I'm raising my hand as one of the .1%

Oh no - I got a "like". Looks like the percentage is up to .2%

 

[jbcarioca]

Whoa..... I'm the .01% and proud of it.

I'm raising my hand as one of the .1%

Me too, now we seem to be about 6% of the posters on this thread. Imagine 6% of Model 3 buyers choosing as we do. That would be similar to the BMW volumes for loaded M3 vs all. In their case the M3 allegedly contributes about 20% of total 3 series. For Tesla the relative contribution should be higher since there are far fewer changes required apart from the battery pack and probably inverters, fuses and the like. So we should contribute >20% of profits for the line. As a shareholder I'll be very happy. As an owner I'll be ludicrously happy!

 

[ModelNforNerd]

I'm raising my hand as one of the .1%

I'm not sure the post was clear........


You're willing to pay the $35,000 base price.

And $50,000 for the battery pack....


and nothing else? $85,000 for a base model RWD w/a bigger battery?

If Elon could find more like you, they'd have been cash-flow-positive a long time ago.

 

[jbcarioca]

I'm not sure the post was clear...

And $50,000 for the battery pack....


and nothing else? $85,000 for a base model RWD w/a bigger battery?

If Elon could find more like you, they'd have been cash-flow-positive a long time ago.

In practice it will have AWD and lots of other goodies. Just as with the current production P100D, the extra price will include much of the optional features most of those who'll opt for higher capacity will also want. I, at least, imagined the extra 50 large would follow past practice and include such.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

In practice it will have AWD and lots of other goodies. Just as with the current production P100D, the extra price will include much of the optional features most of those who'll opt for higher capacity will also want. I, at least, imagined the extra 50 large would follow past practice and include such.

In practice yes, but that wasn't the spirit of the thread and conversation. You're all adding on what you WANT to get, but the topic was:

CAR+Pack=$85,000

no other options at all. no AP, no AWD, no winter package, no Premiuim Interior package, no Performance or Ludicrous Mode, nothing.

Just a base model RWD w/biggest pack for $85,000.

Still in, knowing that as soon as you start checking boxes you're going to easily blow away $100K?



You'd be willing to pay > $500/kWH for your battery pack?

Man.....Elon would LOVE to sit in a room with a few of you and your checkbooks.

 

[jbcarioca]

I started long ago with the assumption that one of my two reserved Model 3 would be -$100,000 and the other one would probably be around but-$65,000.

I doubt anybody would realistically think the pure battery upgrade all by itself would be priced at $50,000

 

[ModelNforNerd]

I started long ago with the assumption that one of my two reserved Model 3 would be -$100,000 and the other one would probably be around but-$65,000.

I doubt anybody would realistically think the pure battery upgrade all by itself would be priced at $50,000

I'd have a hard time believing that the "PXXD-L" upgrade(s) package would be $50,000.

A base Model S60 is currently $68,500
Moving up to the P100D-L, with no other boxes checked, jumps you up to $134,500.

As a factor of the base model price, the P100D-L upgrade is 96.35% of the base model's price.

IF all things are equal, and I know they likely won't be....

but play along, since you've got nothing but time in the next 14-15 months while awaiting delivery anyway.....


the Model 3 PxxD-L (with no other boxes checked) SHOULD cost ~$68,722 (base price of 35000 x 1.9635)

so will Tesla attempt to achieve similar margins with the Model 3? Guess we're all going to have to wait to find out.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Why is there a constant sound of competition and comparison between the M3 and the MS.

They are not in competition with one another. The M3 is in competition with the BMW 3 series and the MS with the BMW 7 series and so forth. I have a difficult time believing that Tesla is setting is pricing of the cars based on each other. They won't even be in the same class of cars.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Why is there a constant sound of competition and comparison between the M3 and the MS.

They are not in competition with one another. The M3 is in competition with the BMW 3 series and the MS with the BMW 7 series and so forth. I have a difficult time believing that Tesla is setting is pricing of the cars based on each other. They won't even be in the same class of cars.

I don't think in my posts I was setting it up as a competition between the 2 models, but more of a comparison, because, what would be a more apt comparison to make?

Should we compare the expected profit margin of the Model 3 and it's technical platform to a German ICE vehicle, or should we compare it to the (current) only other true mass market "premium" *(Tesla's own wording....) EV?

When you're comparing size, speed, even price in some respects, sure, it's okay to compare to the 3 series. But why wouldn't you compare two cars built on somewhat similar platforms, by the same OEM, when it comes to profit margin?

Sometimes Macintosh to Granny Smith Apples is an easier comparison to make than Macintosh Apples to Tangerines.