If there was a 100 mile range upgrade what would you be willing to pay?

[willow_hiller]

Not if you look at the price differences between the SR+, MR, and LR. $100/mile of range is very typical BEV pricing. Within, and even higher at times outside Tesla.

One easy way to calculate how Tesla values range is to look at where they've allowed software unlocking. SR to SR+ is ~$5,000, which includes the $3,000 AP upgrade. So 20 miles is $2,000 which works out to exactly $100/mile.

 

[Yang_H]

up to $5k to getting my SR+ to 350 miles range would be nice. In real world driving that'll translate into sth like 250 miles.

 

[SammichLover]

To (purposely) over simplify it, there just needs to be fewer cells in parallel.

I believe the SR+ has the same number of modules, 4? The obvious way is to rewire and add interconnects so when charging they are electrically parallel as usual. When driving the interconnects switch the circuit layout so you have two sets of 2 modules in parallel, and the two sets are serial. Boom, V is doubled.

However this and all the other wiring and software tweaks and QA on the changes are far more work than that simplification, though. For example DU would need to be re-engineered from nearly the bottom up, electrically, electro-magnetically, and thus to an extent mechanically and definitely heavily on the controlling software, too. Look how long it took Tesla to tune the current DUs to their current state, years after shipping started.

 

[GooseSerbus]

Winter range in Canada is a bit painful at -30C (-22F), so it would make a big difference for winter road trips.

Maybe C$5k (US$3.7k)

 

[1.21GW]

I would only want it if there was a power boost too

 

[DBV1]

Yeah I hear you but I'd still like my car to have more range because with a 400 mile battery maybe I could actually travel 300 miles on a charge at 80 mph.

Completely agree with you and would definitely pay more for that. Hopefully, it will be coming shortly and I would pay more.

 

[zhu-]

The amount I would be willing to pay "just to have" would be unreasonably low because a 90% charge currently can last me over a week and on further trips it seems like there are superchargers everywhere here in NJ. If the price was closer to the $10k level I'd probably be considering upgrading to a new Model 3 instead.

 

[JBT66]

Would prefer they add more SuperCharger locations than extend the range.

 

[jeremymc7]

Better question.

When battery day happens.

Cost / performance difference.
When shipped.
Effect on current models.
Possible (unlikely) path.

 

[SlimJim]

$0.00 I will get the next gen if its cool

I agree. I will keep my car until there is a new model out.
I would let $10000 grow in stocks until then, instead of spending it on extra 100 mile range.

 

[byeLT4]

5k would be the teetering point for me. Anything less is an easy yes, more and I'd probably wait for a new car.

 

[ForeverEv]

I'd be willing to pay something for increased range, definitely.

 

[rdskill]

Maybe $5k to get my SR+ up to 300 (never seen 250 miles) and i do 70-80 max usually. For $25 fill-up my Prius will go 480 miles easily.

But currently I only needed the extra range out west with 206 miles between some superchargers (and no Chademo in sight). So I hope more chargers get installed instead.

 

[interbear]

Range is always a winner for me, it’s why I chose the LR in the first place.

I’d pay up to $3k for an extra 100 miles

 

[drtimhill]

Well, I can't recall how much the battery pack in a Tesla costs, but its a pretty significant percentage of the car cost I think. Crudely, a 100 mile range increase would need a 33% increase (300 to 400) in battery capacity on an M3, and that's not going to be a cheap, especially when you factor in installation costs.

Plus, where would it go? It's a big jump in capacity, and I'm not sure there is much room under the car for the extra capacity, barring some major break-through in battery density/packing.

There is also a bit of diminishing returns (the rocket equation comes to mind). The battery pack is heavy; adding more batteries means more weight, which reduces the range .. so for 33% more miles you need more than 33% more battery. And the disadvantage here is that all the times you dont need the extra range (like all those short trips to the store and to/from work) you are actually paying with lower efficiency.

Would seem to me the main advantage would be easier access to less well-traveled routes (such as when doing scenic drives around the country). And perhaps finally put range anxiety to bed for potential buyers.

I'm sure we will each 400 miles range in the near future (yeah I know MS has that now), which is probably the sweet spot. But that will require tech changes which would, I would guess, preclude a retrofit to existing vehicles.

 

[toolman335]

I like this thread. The countless "is $7k worth it for FSD?" threads are exhausting.
If I had an SR or SR+ I would easily pay $7k.
I have a LR and would pay $5k.

Of course if the price was $6k I'm sure I'd pull the trigger. Probably $7k too

It's more about range loss in the long winters than anything.

 

[SammichLover]

If I had an SR or SR+ I would easily pay $7k.

Because the LR is about $7K above the SR+, for roughly 80 mile increase?

Come on folks, until battery costs drop a LOT an extra 100 miles range is going to be priced above $7K.

 

[Austindude]

Well, I can't recall how much the battery pack in a Tesla costs, but its a pretty significant percentage of the car cost I think. Crudely, a 100 mile range increase would need a 33% increase (300 to 400) in battery capacity on an M3, and that's not going to be a cheap, especially when you factor in installation costs.

Plus, where would it go? It's a big jump in capacity, and I'm not sure there is much room under the car for the extra capacity, barring some major break-through in battery density/packing.

There is also a bit of diminishing returns (the rocket equation comes to mind). The battery pack is heavy; adding more batteries means more weight, which reduces the range .. so for 33% more miles you need more than 33% more battery. And the disadvantage here is that all the times you dont need the extra range (like all those short trips to the store and to/from work) you are actually paying with lower efficiency.

Would seem to me the main advantage would be easier access to less well-traveled routes (such as when doing scenic drives around the country). And perhaps finally put range anxiety to bed for potential buyers.

I'm sure we will each 400 miles range in the near future (yeah I know MS has that now), which is probably the sweet spot. But that will require tech changes which would, I would guess, preclude a retrofit to existing vehicles.

I agree to get to an additional 100 miles of range obviously requires a big jump in battery capacity and this will never likely be available as an upgrade for existing models. What I was really after here however is what owners felt additional range was worth.

Of course Tesla (and the rest of the world) is working on increasing energy battery density and I'm looking for great news on this subject on battery day.

Like you, I think the sweet spot for the general public will be about 400 miles of range for EV's. As with ICE vehicles, factoring into the range equation is the speed of refueling and ease of access to refueling spots. Being able to charge at home is of course the major advantage the EV's will always have over ICE vehicles.

 

[TomT]

Two grand would be my limit as going from 325 to 425 would be of negligible value to me...

 

[XLR82XS]

I'll wait for Maxwell cells to be mainstream and when my 3 are worn out. (200K miles?) By then, there will be increased range.