While I do agree on you that 55/75 is what we can expect on the first generation of Model 3, I do object to the reasons you give here. The exact range and size of the battery of course unknown to us all, so what you really is saying here is that Elon has promised 215+ EPA miles, so they will not deliver any more then maybe a few miles above 215 EPA miles. The same logic one year ago would judge 215 miles range as an impossible pipe-dream, as Elon had just promised above 200 miles at that time. So I think it is reasonable that the base TM3 will have a range above 215 EPA miles, but how much above is unknown. It may be 220 miles or 250 miles or anything in between, whatever they manage to get out of that "55" battery, how many real and/or usable kWh it can hold.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
PJFW8
Red Menace may hurt me
PJFW8
Red Menace may hurt me
I don't follow. The original 40/60 and 85 S models used the same battery pack. The 40/60 was identical except for the software limit on the 40. The 85 replaced a dummy with cells. No reason a model 3 can't be 55/75 and 95 in the same pack.
It's possible they could shove the biggest battery in there and software limited two lesser capacities but I don't think that would work with the 35k base price. They may be able to put a 75 and keep a 35k base price with it limited to 60.
PJFW8
Red Menace may hurt me
If I still lived in Milwaukee, I would want at least 85 plus. Loved the city but not the winter weather! Back on topic, I agree that software limits are not likely to meet the price target.
... We will know one way or another soon enough
Not soon enough for me!
I don't think there will be a 350-mile option this year. I think the market for a 350-mile car, at the price it would have to cost, is just too small to justify. As battery technology improves and prices and weight come down, I think the time will come. But if you really need 350 miles, I think you'll have to wait a few more years.
I think the only reason the software limited pack worked with the Model S was that they expected so few orders of the 40 that it was cheaper to put in the batteries than to tool up for three versions. With the Model 3, a LOT of people will choose the base model, and putting in extra batteries in that many cars would be too expensive.
My prediction for the Model 3: What you pay for is what you'll get. No option to upgrade the range later via software alone.
Personally it will be a downer if the base three comes out with less than 238mi. The auto industry and enthusiasts are numbers people. It will be significant for them too. The general public will consider it, I think, and it may be a minus for them even if you can option a bigger battery. It will be on Tesla to advertise the many ways the 3 is superior even with less base mileage.
We will know one way or another soon enough
IMO, it doesn't much matter. The Bolt MSRP is 2.5 K more than the 3. The the 3 gets 15 less rated miles so be it. Elon would point out that the 3 has access to Teslas expansive supercharge network. The Bolt does not,
I get by on 30kw in my Leaf for now. That's about 80 winter miles! It's great for our daily use. Still plenty of range 99% of the time. A base of 215 winter 160 would be a big improvement but I still would like 250 base. The leaf preheat certainly takes the edge of the Milwaukee winter
Like I said, Tesla would have to market it where as having better range markets itself.
It really depends on price point and how competitive musk is. We shall see.
If you want to have options, the cell cost is low, and the spread between options is smaller, it may be cheaper to put the bigest one in and software limited it.
I don't know how all of the different possibilities pan out cost wise. Three sizes, three different batteries vs two different batteries two sizes vs one battery two choices or one battery three choices. My head is spinning.
The goal with the 3 is mass production. Thinking about how much easier making one battery and software limiting it would be, I'm thinking that would be a very attractive option for Tesla.
Seems like the kicker will be can they still make money at 35k with a 75 in it limited to 55 or 60. Maybe with a 70?
Seems like the kicker will be can they still make money at 35k with a 75 in it limited to 55 or 60. Maybe with a 70?
@LectrikPower, click HERE to listen to Jonathan McNeill (VP of Global Sales & Service) and Elon during the Q2 2016 conference call. The video starts at the correct moment. They talk about the software limited Model S 60 and profit margins. After listening to that, it is clear to me that the software limited S60 was only introduced temporarily to reach delivery goals. It has lower profit margins. This option won't be here for long. Tesla is not going to introduce a new software limited version. They have already discontinued the X60D. They will discontinue the S60D soon.
Thanks Troy I will listen to it.
He was talking about the S though. The three might be a different story.
NCC-1701-T
To boldly go...
I'm hoping for a "Goldilocks" option on the 3. Just enough performance and range boosts to justify the higher cost over the base model without being too much more or going to the most premium battery. If base is 55 or 60 than a 65 etc.
PJFW8
Red Menace may hurt me
Good to hearI get by on 30kw in my Leaf for now. That's about 80 winter miles! It's great for our daily use. Still plenty of range 99% of the time. A base of 215 winter 160 would be a big improvement but I still would like 250 base. The leaf preheat certainly takes the edge of the Milwaukee winter
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
Similar threads
