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

[Garlan Garner]

I didn't say "worse", I just said different. Without knowing all the options yet, a possible fully loaded M3 could have:
90KwH battery
performance mode (ludicrous speed)
all leather interior
dual motor
premium sound system
SC access
sub zero package
pano roof
21" wheels
plus others

While a base MS would have none of that (except SC access) but would still be larger, probably have a more luxurious look and feel to it and cost about the same. So which is better? It's all up to the individual, some will think one others will think the other one.

I guess, going back to the post I originally commented on, my whole point is that I don't see Tesla limiting the range on the M3 for the purpose of making the MS or MX seem like a better car. For so many people the range is the most important factor so they'll eliminate that to the extent that they can and let other features differentiate the models.

Don't forget all of the values that come with the car. Listen to 38:00 - 39:00

Elon Musk 2016 - Bing video

 

[andrerodpt]

I agree 100%. You don't limit the advancement of new technology for some kind of sentimental / emotional self served obligation.

There is no business edict that says that the MS "Has" to be better than the M≡.

Oh come on... off course there is.

There is nothing sentimental or emotional in this. This is pure business. Or you think it's the same for Tesla to sell you a M3 or a MS?

 

[Garlan Garner]

Oh come on... off course there is.

There is nothing sentimental or emotional in this. This is pure business. Or you think it's the same for Tesla to sell you a M3 or a MS?

So you think that Tesla says or thinks "The MS Has to be our best car no matter what we do". ?

I'm quite confident that there is no Tesla business plan - link - nor video reference that could be referenced to endorse that.

 

[dsvick]

Oh come on... off course there is.

There is nothing sentimental or emotional in this. This is pure business. Or you think it's the same for Tesla to sell you a M3 or a MS?

It isn't pure business though, the goal is to "accelerate the advent of sustainable transport", maximizing the range of each model car they sell is one way to do that. Making the MS the "best" and trying to drive people to buy that over cheaper models doesn't help that goal at all. In fact it would just reinforce the opinion that EVs are for rich or for the devoted, zealot tree huggers and not for average people.

And, even from a "pure business" standpoint they'll make each model as appealing as they can. It doesn't do them any good to make the MS better if most people can't afford to buy it.

 

[Garlan Garner]

It isn't pure business though, the goal is to "accelerate the advent of sustainable transport", maximizing the range of each model car they sell is one way to do that. Making the MS the "best" and trying to drive people to buy that over cheaper models doesn't help that goal at all. In fact it would just reinforce the opinion that EVs are for rich or for the devoted, zealot tree huggers and not for average people.

And, even from a "pure business" standpoint they'll make each model as appealing as they can. It doesn't do them any good to make the MS better if most people can't afford to buy it.

Absolutely, Absolutely Perfect. Exactly. I love it.

 

[Garlan Garner]

The ENTIRE reason why the Model S and X may have some of the latest and greatest technology in the future is because Tesla needs MS and MX owners to buy the newer technology at the high price scale. Then tesla will refine it and improve it until its affordable for the M3 line. Anything they do with the MS and MX will have the goal of mass production in the M3. Unless - there is a technology is fully refined. It has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the MS or MX having to be the best.

The primary reason Tesla made MS's and Mx's is to have the sale of those vehicles pay for the M3 platform. MS and MX owners financed the M3 - almost essentially buying 1.5 cars for each car purchased.

That's the business plan.

 

[dsvick]

The primary reason Tesla made MS's and Mx's is to have the sale of those vehicles pay for the M3 platform. MS and MX owners financed the M3 - almost essentially buying 1.5 cars for each car purchased.

Right, I forgot that point!

With that in mind you can certainly make the case the MS and the MX will always be the "premium" vehicles.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Right, I forgot that point!

With that in mind you can certainly make the case the MS and the MX will always be the "premium" vehicles.

Unless.... a technology has been already been proven elsewhere ( Other than Tesla) and requires no testing.

In other words... the 300KW inverter will only go into the M≡ a it stands right now. It does not need to be tested in the MS or MX

 

[Garlan Garner]

Right, I forgot that point!

With that in mind you can certainly make the case the MS and the MX will always be the "premium" vehicles.

Yes...your point is acceptable as long as it is translated properly.

MS and MX might emerge in certain technical circles as the premium vehicle, however it will always be by default, not by intent ( as it's being stated in this thread).
Tesla needs SOMEONE to pay for the R&D and that's MS and MX buyers.

These discussions require maturity because we see the final product and "THEN" speculate the possible and/or reasoning.

 

[Red Sage]

I don't think Tesla will make a 100 kWh Model 3 as as soon as 2017. Not because they can't, because it's quite doable, but because the price will be relatively high with not much additional utility.

Assuming the base Model 3 has a 55 kWh battery and goes 220 miles, an 80 kWh Model 3 would likely go around 310 miles, while a 100 kWh Model 3 would go maybe 375 miles. And assuming a 250 USD/kWh pack retail cost, the 55 kWh Model 3 would be 35,000 USD, the 80 kWh Model 3 would be 41,250 USD, and the 100 kWh Model 3 would be 46,250 USD. I don't think many customers would be willing to pay the extra 5k USD to go from 310 miles of range to 375 miles. At this point the range is good enough.

Additionally, allowing as big a spread as 55-100 kWh means the battery pack volume and battery pack structure in the base Model 3 is almost twice as big as needed. This adds cost and complexity to the base model, to allow for the high end 100 kWh battery. Tesla will probably sell very many cars that are fairly close to base configuration, and they really need to squeeze out all possible profit margin.

Instead of a 100 kWh pack for the Model 3 in 2017, I think that a 120 kWh pack for the S/X is likely. We should see 21-70 based packs for the S and X in 2017. For those who need range in the 350-400 mile area, they will need to go up a class.

A very good post. Well reasoned. I just see the same data through a different lens, yielding an alternate result.

My feeling is that Tesla Motors may well have learned from their mistake with Model S. That is, in particular, not realizing that the grand majority of buyers would go for the highest capacity battery pack from the start, and ever since. I believe that they will offer the Model ☰ in trim levels that will make the most of the 'medium' capacity in such a way that it is 'enough' for the vast majority of buyers. And that the 'low' capacity entry level car will have 'adequate' range to meet the stated parameter for Tesla Generation III -- 200 miles range, minimum. I think that the 'maximum' capacity battery pack should be paired strictly with the Performance iteration of the car.

If so, then I think the sales split will be about 30% 'low', 50% 'medium', and 20% 'maximum' capacity. That would allow the 'medium' and 'low' capacity cars to be built using the same physical battery pack, but with it software limited to a lower capacity in the less expensive car. Economies of scale will allow that to work in a profitable fashion, regardless of chosen options on either. And those who want the 'maximum' capacity battery pack installed in a less expensive vehicle configuration with the Performance profile of a Toyota Yaris or Prius or Mirai can just chew glass and kick rocks.

I think that doing things that way will handle your concerns fairly well. The tricky part is that I believe the Tesla Model ☰ in Performance trim must also be a bargain compared to its competitors. So, fully loaded, it would cost about the same as the base version of the BMW M3. That would put the Model ☰ in a position to completely destroy all the others: Cadillac ATS-V, Mercedes-AMG C63 S, Infiniti Q50 Red Sport, Lexus IS F-Sport, AUDI S4, Jaguar XE S, Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio, and anything else on the horizon. Balancing the Performance Model ☰ price point so that it is a no-brainer to those considering other marques, while not being a temptation to the vast majority of Model ☰ buyers may well be... difficult.

So, again... I'd only include the highest capacity battery pack in one configuration, the Performance iteration, nothing else. Yes, that package would include mandatory big wheels and staggered tires, dual motor all wheel drive, and the highest capacity battery pack. The idea is to drive home the point of this car is to thoroughly embarrass ICE vehicles in the Street Light Grand Prix. So it would be a bit more than $5,000 over the 'medium' variety of the car -- which I would see as a Model ☰ 75D. Thus, the 'maximum' would be the Model ☰ P100D. And the 'low' level car, the base level entry variety, would be Model ☰ 55 with rear wheel drive.

The way I see it, you could order one of three cars, then alternate configurations would be based upon the options chosen from those starting points. Here is something like what I have in mind:

Model ☰ 55

$35,000 base price
215 to 225 miles range
Get Dual Motor AWD as a separate option to be Model ☰ 55D (230 to 255 miles range)
Get software unlock of battery pack to get Model ☰ 75 (270 to 300 miles range) with Free for Life Supercharger access
Up to $15,000 of other options available beyond base configuration​

Model ☰ 75D

$42,000 base price
280 to 310 miles range
Free for Life Supercharger access included
Up to $15,000 of other options available beyond base configuration​

Model ☰ P100D

$50,000 base price
320 to 360 miles range
Free for Life Supercharger access included
Up to $15,000 of other options available beyond base configuration​

Please note the highest capacity you can get with rear wheel drive is 75 kWh. And, that at 75 kWh or higher, Free for Life Supercharger access is included by default. A person with $50,000 on hand to spend would have some decision making to do -- get a fully loaded Model ☰ 55, or a base Model ☰ P100D, or a modestly upgraded Model ☰ 75D. Ultimately, I think that is just fine. Those on a hard budget under $45,000 would just get something that included a 75 kWh battery pack. And they'd be happy, I think.

 

[Red Sage]

Guys, a question: does it make sense the Model 3 to have a a greater estimated EPA than the flagship models? Even if Tesla can do it, should they do it?

My guess is that the Model S (and X) will always have the top of the line tech, giving them a clear edge for Model 3 (and Y).
No way the Model 3 will ship with better batteries while the MS and MX use old tech.

I'll answer this too... The Tesla Roadster had a range of roughly 255 miles at a constant speed of 55 MPH in perfect conditions. It was a Tesla Generation I car. Tesla Motors chose NOT to limit their Generation II vehicles, Model S and Model X, to have a maximum range less than the Tesla Roadster. I submit that Tesla Motors will choose NOT to limit the Model ☰, their Generation III car, to have less range than their Generation II cars.

The Model ☰ is the very essence of The MISSION that was stated ten years ago. Of course it will have better performance and greater range than anything seen from Tesla Motors so far. If not, there is no point in calling it a Generation III car. They could have just called it 'Model S Lite', and built a fully electric Camry with a 30 kWh battery pack and 154 HP motor. I'm pretty sure only the most boring people in the world would consider that a 'compelling' vehicle.

From the outset, the Generation III vehicles were meant to outsell those in Generation II by several multiples. First, at about a 33:1 ratio, and now, at better than a 10:1 ratio -- because Model S ended up being vastly more popular than hoped. There is no need to 'protect' sales of Model S and Model X. They will be fine -- as they go on to both exceed sales of cars like Mercedes-Benz S-Class and Porsche Cayenne.

 

[Red Sage]

I respectfully disagree with that. I think the MS will always be the best in all variables except price. I think Elon said so already.

The Mercedes-Benz S-Class is the best car in their product line. It still gets its doors blown off by the Mercedes-AMG C63 S. The C-Class outsells the S-Class by a wide, wide margin. Neither car is diminished by the success the other enjoys.

The BMS 7-Series is the best car in their product line. It still gets its doors blown off by the BMW M3. The 3-Series outsells the 7-Series by a wide, wide margin. Neither car is diminished by the success the other enjoys.

The AUDI A8 L is the best car in their product line. It still gets its doors blown off by the AUDI S4. The A4 outsells the A8 L by a wide, wide margin. Neither car is diminished by the success the other enjoys.

Notice a pattern here? The flagship of a brand is typically destroyed by its own juniors within a product line. That's OK. Because the people who spend more apparently also want to claim 'exclusivity' for some reason, and there is pride and heritage behind that distinction.

You know what? If you put a 20 gallon fuel tank in a C-Class, 3-Series, or A4, they would each get far more range than the flagship vehicles. There is no reason whatsoever to GIMP the Model ☰ by artificially limiting its range with smaller capacity battery packs than Model S. By my calculations, a Model ☰ with a 100 kWh battery pack would have a GREATER RANGE than the Performance iterations of its direct competitors.

 

[Red Sage]

But there wasn't any time overlap for those two models. The Model S didn't cannibalize any Roadster sells. And this time, I think Tesla is concerned about that. They don't want to stop selling the top of the line MS (remember the high profit it carries).

The Model S has been 'cannibalizing' sales of AUDI A8, BMW 7-Series, Infiniti Q80, Lexus LS, Jaguar XJ, Mercedes-Benz S-Class and others since its initial release. It is a car that was projected at perhaps 15,000 units per year prior to its release -- worldwide. It sold better than 7 years worth of cars at that rate after only 3-1/2 years. Tesla Motors is not concerned about the Model S at all, and they shouldn't be. This year, again, it is outselling its competitors. It is a car that was designed with an 8-year product cycle in mind, and has already sold 8 years worth of cars, with four years to go. There is no damage to Model S sales that the Model ☰ can do to overwhelm the attrition of prior owners of ICE luxury vehicles switching to Model S. Don't worry about it.

 

[Red Sage]

No, it's not irrelevant. Designing the car to be able to fit a larger battery pack means more volume is set aside for this purpose. It will also weigh more in the maxed out configuration, so you need better brakes and suspension, unless selecting the biggest battery pack also requires various modifications. Could be that you need different tires with a higher load rating. Maybe you also need a bigger onboard charger as standard, or at least the option to equip one, and the cable harness might needs to be designed for higher power (and longer duration) supercharging. Maybe also you need more power to accelerate this heavier car, affecting the drive units design and cable harness. All these modifications also add additional weight, leading to further modifications.

All this adds up. Adding support for a 100 kWh pack could easily increase the price of the base version by 500-1000 USD.

OK. And given all those reasons and others, I'd only allow the 100 kWh battery pack capacity to be specified for the Performance iteration of the car. Sorted.

 

[Red Sage]

Why in the world would Tesla create a "lesser" car on purpose?

Elon has already stated that the M3 will have better technology and a more efficient battery package.

Again, What reason could Tesla give their investors to justify making a "lesser" car - on purpose?

A very good point. I expect that the base Model ☰ will have a Performance profile to rival that of the BMW 340i. I very much disagree with those who expect it might barely be on par with BMW 320i or 320d instead. Often they make such suggestions presuming there will be a substantial increase in range with a given battery pack capacity by having a wimpy motor attached to the assembly. Not so.

 

[andrerodpt]

Much food for though. Maybe you guys are right on your arguments. I can see your POV, specially that the M3 is the "holy grail" for Tesla.
If Tesla in the future only sells M3's, and the M3 is a great product, then they will be alright and right on track with their ultimate goal.

And yet I recall Elon saying something like the MS will always be their flagship and the primary target for new tech, but I can't seam to find that soundbyte.

 

[Red Sage]

Will have better technology and more efficient battery package compared with today's cars.

And every single brand brand in the market do it. Unless you're a "one-model" brand.

The Model S will continue to improve. So will the Model X. As a snapshot of the product line on October 1, 2017 don't be surprised if the vehicle with the highest available range happens to be the Model ☰. That might be the case, even if the car with the highest capacity battery pack is the Model S.

For the longest time, Lexus would 'protect' the LS from other cars in its product line. Result? The LS loses in direct competition to the BMW 7-Series, and the IS loses by a much wider margin in direct competition to the BMW 3-Series. Attempting to 'protect' a flagship vehicle is a poor sales strategy.

 

[PJFW8]

A successful and technically advanced model three will lead to a spectacular second generation model S. BMW, Audi Mercedes do not short change the lesser models. For example the S class has always been quite conservative with new technology with occasional exceptions. It piloted adaptive cruise control and keyless entry at a very high cost. Very quickly theses features became available throughout the line. On the other hand the c class always had decent quality and many many options. While small it was a true Mercedes. There is a great synergy possible between the S and model three

 

[Red Sage]

A 80 kWh Model 3 will still be the longest range car of it's size by a wide margin. The Bolt has a 200-ish mile range and the 80 kWh Model 3 would have around 310 miles. Over time, improvements in chemistry will push range up towards 400 miles.

Once again, the competition of the Tesla Model ☰ is not the Chevrolet BOLT. It is instead the BMW 3-Series and similarly marketed vehicles. So, the Model ☰ must in some iteration match or surpass the range of those direct competitors. Cars like: AUDI S4 (338 miles), BMW M3 (300 miles), Cadillac ATS-V (304 miles), and Mercedes-Benz C63 S (360 miles). If Tesla Motors can do it, they SHOULD. A Tesla Model ☰ P100D WOULD.

 

[Red Sage]

But they are. Right now they are. When take into consideration that some estimate that the 60kWh versions accounts for 50% of total sales, and the narrow profit margin Tesla gets from it compared with higher kWh versions, then you can't say that Tesla isn't competing with Tesla. For example: that translates directly in $TSLA stock price.

Tesla Motors currently owns something like 99.999995% of the long range fully electric vehicle market. Once the Chevrolet BOLT arrives, that might drop to 'only' 99.95% instead. I think a lot of the speculation as to TSLA is based upon the notion that the long range fully electric vehicle market will continue to grow, and that Tesla Motors will maintain more than 90% of it for a very long time. Personally, I think that Elon Musk would be much happier with having 30% of an 80,000,000 unit per year industry than holding onto nigh 100% of a 10,000,000 unit per year industry. He would welcome external competition. Currently all of it is in ICE vehicles, so the Model S and Model X exist to kick their butts. Soon, the Model ☰ will do much the same.

We can argue that the buyer for the 60kWh MS is not the same as the 90kWh, and with those lower capacity models they expand their target "audience". But that won't happen when you compete with a model with tighter margins against a model with higher margins. A top-of-the-line M3 shouldn't be a direct competitor with a middle-of-the-line MS. There can be an overlap (think top-of-the-line BMW 3-Series vs bottom-of-the-line BMW 5-Series), but it's a fine equilibrium.

Hmph. I can see how a BMW 5-Series is better than a BMW 3-Series. What I can't see is why I would be compelled to buy the BMW 5-Series instead of a fully loaded Toyota Camry/Avalon or Honda Accord. Because really? I think those cars are better than a BMW 3-Series too. But somehow, no matter how many hundreds of thousands of Accords and Camry are sold every year, a handful of fools decide to get the 5-Series anyway. And they are somehow outnumbered by those who get the 3-Series anyway. There's no accounting for taste.

As every brand in the market, Tesla have to maximize profit (think economy of scale vs low volume/high margins) and should create products that don't compete directly with each other across all range.

This seems like very good advice -- for General Motors. I've said for some time that they should not have so much of a pricing overlap between Chevrolet, Buick, and Cadillac. If I were in control there, everything under $60,000 would be a Chevrolet. Buick would get the $70,000 to $120,000 market. Cadillac would rule from $150,000 and up.

Tesla Motors is fine. The Model S competes directly against flagship vehicles from other manufacturers. The Model ☰ will compete directly against the best selling vehicles from other manufacturers. Sorted.