Tesla will never ONLY sell the M3. They need to put new unexplored features into the MS and MX and get folks to pay for the R&D by buying the car. Then they will roll the feature out to the M≡ or MY ( large scale production ).
Very much agreed on most points, though from a slightly different perspective. When it comes to range, there will of course be a point where 'enough is enough' for most people. I expect that will probably be when you can drive flat-out and cover 350 miles while going from 90% to 20% remaining no matter the weather or terrain and with no regard to posted speed limits. Thus, something like a 500 mile rated range from the EPA would do the trick. The problem is...? Most people would drive the car exactly like that, stopping to fill up every 350 miles or so. If that is the case, they don't really need the 150 mile range reserve they leave 'in the tank' after each run. They could accomplish the same thing effectively in a car with only a 400 mile range instead.
I remember it. That was in response to some that wondered if the Model S would go away if Model ☰ were successful. Elon Musk explained to them, again, that he wants Tesla Motors to be a full line manufacturer of automobiles. Part of that was to maintain a flagship as a leader in the product line. The Model S is that car for Tesla Motors. That said, if demand for Model ☰ ends up being so high that there is no remaining capacity at Fremont to build anything else, I don't think he would mind too much.
There was a quote I had once, let's see if I can find it...
The Model S has crushed Lexus LS, Maserati Quattroporte, Jaguar XJ, BMW 7-Series, AUDI A8 L, and a bunch of other flagship vehicles. They have thus far won two out of three falls against the Mercedes-Benz S-Class for sales dominance in the US. They are likely to make it three out of four by the end of this year.
300 miles EPA is NOT the same as 300 miles real world driving. I wish that it is. Electric car is still at least 10 years away from matching ICE cars in real world range. You need at least 400 miles EPA at absolutely bare minimum to even have a chance. A reasonable expectation is 500 miles EPA to have a real world range of 300 miles plus, which would match ICE cars.
Wait... The reason why cars like the Toyota RAV4 EV and Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric are not 'pretty awesome' is because those companies would not allow Tesla Motors to make those compliance cars so. It wasn't that they couldn't be -- they were mandated by the companies that commissioned them to be LESS than what they COULD have been. And that was done ON PURPOSE. That is why the RAV4 EV only had 154 HP and was front wheel drive. That is why the B-Class Electric was not a ground up electric vehicle, but a modified ICE chassis instead. At Tesla Motors 'affordable' will NOT equate to low Range or poor Performance.
300 miles EPA for ICE is the exact same as 300 miles EPA for electric vehicles. That is the point. There are probably a lot more cars that even today are only about 300 miles range than you expect. And there are considerably fewer vehicles with a 500 mile EPA range than you indicate. Pretty much zero these days that aren't either hybrids or diesels. Whether you drive ICE or EV, going 90+ MPH everywhere you go is going to severely affect your mileage 'in the real world'. Prior to 2012, every gasoline powered BMW 3-Series vehicle in the US had a range of less than 360 miles. And those had larger fuel tanks than the current version.
Well that's because it's already been vetted in the Model S, like, years ago...
I have tested a couple of ICE cars before in long road trips that consistently get over 300 miles (real world) per tank even after very aggressive driving and at very high speed (aggressive acceleration throughout and 85 mph for most part of the trip). And my cars are not even those big SUV and pickup where it typical has even more real world range. If the longest range Tesla (90D Model S) is driven the same way, you would be lucky to get 180 miles in real world range.
Well, that's why I gave you a link to the DoE/EPA website, so you could see the combined EPA rated range for the gas burning BMW ICE vehicles noted. Trust that if you drive either of them at 90+ MPH on the highway their range will be greatly reduced. The Monroney sticker is not advertisement. It is an official document required by law. The information it provides in terms of mileage is specific to operating a vehicle in a controlled circumstance under specific provisions that are identical from one vehicle to the next. None of those involve mashing the accelerator to the floorboards for two or three hours straight. Because in the real world, people get pulled over by Smokey and cited or jailed for doing that and stuff. To put it another way... Drain the gas tank in one of those vehicles to around 2.5 gallons of fuel left, then see how far you can go when mashing the [FLOCK] out of the accelerator. I guarantee you the Model S 90D will go further.
It's only sorted if your Performance model would have a different chassis, different suspension, different brakes, different tires, different cable harness, different charger, etc. You'd basically be talking about a completely different car, if the 100 kWh pack were to have no negative effects on the base model.
Tesla definitely *shouldn't* try to exceed the ranges of gas cars, just for the sake of doing it.
As noted in other posts...? I believe that a 100 kWh battery pack for Model ☰ would occupy about 71% of the volume that the 85 kWh battery pack for Model S did in 2012. It's mass and weight would be proportional to that as well. Thus, if one presumes the volume of the battery pack for Model ☰ is approximately 80% that of the Model S one, I'm certain the Model ☰ could be properly engineered to bear that weight without issue from the outset. Notice, I tend to use the phrase 'higher capacity' as opposed to 'bigger battery'. I believe the standard issue battery pack enclosure for Model ☰ will be adequate to hold a 100 kWh capacity without further enhancement. But I would not offer that capacity in a rear wheel drive car, or a non-Performance iteration, so as to fend off purchases by those who are NOT in search of a Performance car (or claim not to be).
I have no doubt that it is possible to engineer the Model 3 to fit a 100 kWh battery, the question is if they should.
I have to drive this route often in the near future, when my kid goes to college. There are no superchargers along this route (inconveniently in this case, there is one in my home town, but that doesn't help me). Thats a ~300 mile round trip with no charging opportunities. That's through the Appalachian mountains, and often in bad weather. I'd really like to be able to make this trip on a single charge. Adding a supercharger along the route would make it possible, but adding 20-30 minutes to the trip isn't appealing. So I'd like an EPA-rated 400 mile range, but given Musk's comments on the topics, I worry that it simply won't be offered.
I've never heard this. Do you have a source for that statement? I was always under the impression that Tesla would just upgrade things whenever they damn well feel like it.
I was conflating two points. One is that this trip will be impossible in a 300-mile range Tesla without a supercharger being added, and as you've stated, that will hopefully be addressed at some point.
I have to drive this route often in the near future, when my kid goes to college. There are no superchargers along this route (inconveniently in this case, there is one in my home town, but that doesn't help me).
