Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Blog Model 3: Is The Long Range Battery Worth It?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
At $9,000 US, one of the pricier options for Model 3 is range. The Standard Range (SR) vehicle comes with 220 miles of EPA-rated range and a Long Range (LR) car has 310 miles. Is the long-range upgrade worth $9,000 for 90 more miles? Today, we’ll explore this question.

You need to understand your personal driving needs. If you’ll never use the additional 90 miles, you might as well save the money. If, however, you’ll use it or it would give you peace of mind and you can afford it, you should get the LR.

Faster Charging

In addition to the extra range, the LR will also charge faster when connected to Tesla’s High Power Wall Connector. The SR charges at a rate of 7.6 kW (about 30 miles per hour), whereas the LR charges at 9.6 kW (about 37 miles per hour). The slightly faster home charging is a nice add-on, but far from justifies the cost. The point of the LR is the additional range, let’s move to that aspect.

Battery Cost

I thought you said we were going to talk about range next; this is cost. Yes, I did. But the question we are asking is about value for money. So, let’s look at the cost value of what you’re getting.

The price of lithium-ion batteries has declined from an average of around $400 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in 2012 (when the Model S was launched) to under $150 today. For comparison, GM says when buying batteries for the Chevy Bolt, they pay LG Chem about $145 per kWh. This is, of course, just for the battery cells, it does not include the packaging, cooling, installation… The final retail price for any finished goods would be far above the cost of the raw components, but this gives you a starting reference.

Although Tesla has not released specific pack sizes for the two vehicles, there have been leaks that have let us know the that the SR has about 50 kWh of capacity and the LR has 75 to 80 kWh. So let’s assume that the extra $9,000 buys you 30 kWh more capacity. That is a retail price of $300 per kWh. From this perspective, Tesla is not giving us a bargain, but there are other ways to look at this too.

It’s All About The Range

If you just look at the price of the car and the range, you can make a simple table of price per mile. Our table will have the Model 3 LR and SR as well as a few other EVs for comparison. Note, these are base prices (not including incentives). If you want to buy leather seats, or dual motors, that’s up to you, but including it here would complicate the table.

Screen-Shot-2017-10-06-at-9.43.11-AM.png


* The 2018 Leaf data is not final/official at the time of writing, this may need an update when final pricing and EPA results are published.

Looking at the range this way, the LR is the best per mile bargain in the bunch. Only the Model 3 SR and Chevy Bolt are even in the same category for dollars per mile category.

Summary

The car you’ll like best is the one that meets your needs and your budget. Make sure you understand your driving habits. Open Google Maps and plot out your regular drives. For your longer drives, open the Tesla Supercharger map and see if there are any Superchargers along the routes for your longer drives.

Sidebar: Margins & Upgrade Options

Tesla has to make money on each car they sell. These funds go towards building out the production capacity, charging infrastructure, and more. The no frills SR car should be as affordable as possible to allow as many customers into the 200-mile plus EV market as they can. One way to do this is to keep the profit margin on the base model of the car low and then offer compelling upgrades (with higher margins). This allows the company to have a blended margin that is above that of the base model while keeping the door open to more price-sensitive customers. Tesla is far from the only automaker to use this scheme and it is a win for both the company and customers.

TMC Member Patrick0101 is a solar and electric vehicle advocate who blogs at Cards With Cords

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The LR is probably the only thing that makes the Model 3 initially profitable.

GM says it costs them $140/kWh to source batteries. Tesla cost should be less. Let's say it's about $120.

The difference in the batteries in the two cars is, at most, 25 kWh. So it costs Tesla about $3,000 to provide a bigger battery that they are charging $9,000 for.

Definitely a huge cash cow for them. Similar to Apple charging $150 for 192Gb of flash storage that they pay $10-$20 for.

There's the EAP and AP but they're more like cost recovery because the hardware is built-in, just have to convince people that TACC is worth $5k. :)
 
People who drive EV's have consistently told me that they wish the battery was bigger. And I'm reminded again of when I was installing solar.

Key difference: people don't replace their solar system at regular intervals.

Money not spent on a longer range pack at present is money sitting around earning interest toward your next vehicle purchase. The LR battery is over a quarter the price of the entire car - and if you were to leave it sitting around for years until your next vehicle purchase rather than spending it, even more. The LR pack on your car meanwhile will have depreciated just like the rest of the car.

Example: You buy a M3 for $35k + $9k for LR. You change vehicles after 6 years and get 40% of your vehicle price back ($17,6). You spent $26,4k.

Example 2: You buy a M3 for $35 for SR. You invest the $9k in a mutual fund earning 10% interest. Your car depreciates to $14k, meaning that you spent $21k. Meanwhile your $9k in the bank has earned $5,4k, reducing your spending to $15,6k. You now have $10,8k more to spend on your next vehicle (or to repeat the same thing again with investment!). Nearly a third of your M3's purchase price.

Net summary: A longer-range pack isn't an investment. Buy it if you need it. Don't if you don't.
 
Key difference: people don't replace their solar system at regular intervals.

Money not spent on a longer range pack at present is money sitting around earning interest toward your next vehicle purchase. The LR battery is over a quarter the price of the entire car - and if you were to leave it sitting around for years until your next vehicle purchase rather than spending it, even more. The LR pack on your car meanwhile will have depreciated just like the rest of the car.

Example: You buy a M3 for $35k + $9k for LR. You change vehicles after 6 years and get 40% of your vehicle price back ($17,6). You spent $26,4k.

Example 2: You buy a M3 for $35 for SR. You invest the $9k in a mutual fund earning 10% interest. Your car depreciates to $14k, meaning that you spent $21k. Meanwhile your $9k in the bank has earned $5,4k, reducing your spending to $15,6k. You now have $10,8k more to spend on your next vehicle (or to repeat the same thing again with investment!). Nearly a third of your M3's purchase price.

Net summary: A longer-range pack isn't an investment. Buy it if you need it. Don't if you don't.

Mine is coming from a need (work-related commute though the SR seems to make the cut (130-150 miles every week) so I will have to read up on people's review of the winter 2017/18 range and make a more informed decision then) and so if people anticipate work changes requiring frequent driving >150 miles round trip during winter, it's probably best to opt for the LR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KarenRei
Data: 2014 S85, 39,000 miles. Current range charge provides 257 miles. 40 mile round trip commute. 7 trips/year over 200 miles/day.
There was some great info for almost every situation in the threads already. The one thing I did not see was the battery life anxiety (not range anxiety) that comes from getting too close to zero miles. Just like range charging everyday is bad for the battery, getting below a 15% charge is also not recommended. On the S85, limiting the driving to a 15% charge minimum-85% charge maximum effectively eliminates 30% of the total miles, for an average range of 180 miles on a not so cold, not so hot day. If I had purchased the S60 (in 2014), my average available range would have been closer to 130 miles. For my daily driving that would have meant charging every other day during weather extremes. As it is, I get away with charging about 80 times/year.
A second item that I will mention but not dwell on is the tendency of rechargeable batteries generally to degrade faster as time passes. Paying the extra 10 grand pinched me, but I am looking to keep my Model S long enough to level out the massive loss in depreciation I have taken over the last three years. I was not convinced that the S60 would not suffer battery degradation slowly enough to make that work. And I know its a poor comparison, but if you have ever had a phone battery degrade, you know that at some point, the battery will not power the phone, even if the battery registers a charge. By paying up for the S85, I am counting on the lower number of charge cycles to extend my effective battery life, without changing the difference in depreciation between an S60 and and S85.
 
Key difference: people don't replace their solar system at regular intervals.

Money not spent on a longer range pack at present is money sitting around earning interest toward your next vehicle purchase. The LR battery is over a quarter the price of the entire car - and if you were to leave it sitting around for years until your next vehicle purchase rather than spending it, even more. The LR pack on your car meanwhile will have depreciated just like the rest of the car.

Example: You buy a M3 for $35k + $9k for LR. You change vehicles after 6 years and get 40% of your vehicle price back ($17,6). You spent $26,4k.

Example 2: You buy a M3 for $35 for SR. You invest the $9k in a mutual fund earning 10% interest. Your car depreciates to $14k, meaning that you spent $21k. Meanwhile your $9k in the bank has earned $5,4k, reducing your spending to $15,6k. You now have $10,8k more to spend on your next vehicle (or to repeat the same thing again with investment!). Nearly a third of your M3's purchase price.

Net summary: A longer-range pack isn't an investment. Buy it if you need it. Don't if you don't.

Your hypothetical rate of return from a mutual fund is not realistic... other than that I don't disagree with anything you said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kenbefound
Your hypothetical rate of return from a mutual fund is not realistic... other than that I don't disagree with anything you said.

That's roughly the average for the Dow (incl. dividends) over the past couple decades. 12% if you go all the way back to the 20s, but that's not really meaningful. Either way, a lower interest rate just corresponds to a longer depreciation period or a higher depreciation rate (I think I was pretty generous with the depreciation rate)
 
That's roughly the average for the Dow (incl. dividends) over the past couple decades. 12% if you go all the way back to the 20s, but that's not really meaningful. Either way, a lower interest rate just corresponds to a longer depreciation period or a higher depreciation rate (I think I was pretty generous with the depreciation rate)

Claiming a 10%+ rate of return is "typical" when looking at a very small time-segment is not meaningful. You could just as easily see the market tank and watch your $9,000 worth less than $9,000 after 5 years.

Over meaningfully long periods of time market leader indexes have averaged out to decent numbers. Most mutual funds have broader investments and don't necessarily pan out to averages on narrow sections of the market like S&P 500 (and the stocks on the S&P 500 itself are changed regularly).

If 10% was an easy/expected rate of return then 5 year CDs would be returning 5% instead of .9%.

It is actually pretty difficult to invest conservatively and beat rate of inflation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgpcolorado
I am opting for the LR as I have a 2013 Model S60 that I use as my daily driver. I want the 3 for it's range without having to buy a P100 Model S to get in that 300 mile range. I have a son who lives 180 miles from us and making that trip in my S does mean stopping at a Supercharger once each way.

Making that trip in my S doesn't cost me anything for Supercharger stops but in the 3 that won't be the case. So, if you feel like you want to save the $9k and get SR and just use Superchargers, don't forget that they are no longer totally free. I don't know the cost for using Superchargers but maybe one of these folks throwing equations around, would like to show the math.

Lastly, while I typically drive my cars until they don't run anymore or start costing too much in repairs; I feel like I might sell the 3 in a few years when the next Tesla comes out. I believe that it will be easier to sell a fully loaded ($59k) Model 3 than a stripped down model with SR and those ugly ass wheels, standard interior and hard top.

BTW, I will never sell my Model S. If anything I will hand it down to one of my sons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: internalaudit
I'm not thrilled that it's $9k. I think $5k would be a more reasonable option price, but I understand that Tesla is trying to build some margin into what will likely be a lower-margin (but MUCH higher-volume) car than the Model S. I will probably get the LR battery because of the convenience factor, and the likelihood it will have higher resale value down the road.
 
Presuming the SR is not under reported as well

Presuming the Electrek article is accurate with its 31 cell per brick SR/ 46 Cells per brick LR detail, and ignoring the very minor range difference due to the weight difference then we can easily calculate the expected range.

310miles * 31/46 = 209 miles for the SR
or if we use the 220 mile range for the SR
220 * 46/31 = 326 miles for the LR.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: SageBrush
Presuming the Electrek article is accurate with its 31 cell per brick SR/ 46 Cells per brick LR detail, and ignoring the very minor range difference due to the weight difference then we can easily calculate the expected range.

310miles * 31/46 = 209 miles for the SR
or if we use the 220 mile range for the SR
220 * 46/31 = 326 miles for the LR.

Why ignore the weight difference? It's not huge, and rolling losses are only a fraction of total, but it's meaningful when you're dealing with such small differences in range, it matters.

There's a 7,5% difference in weight. So, say, 2,5% difference in total drag on the highway when moving at a good clip maybe? So 318 miles for LR, not 326. At lower speeds, it'd be a greater reduction.
 
The $9K delta keeps getting mentioned between the LR and the SR models. But as the early adopters will attest, the delta is higher as the PUP is bundled in the LR model. This makes it all the more difficult to justify jumping up to the LR. One can say you compare apples to apples and remove the PUP cost from the equation but that is not true again for the early adopters because if you skip the PUP and order the non PUP LR model then your likely federal rebate will reduce by $3750 which essentially would have paid for the PUP if you had just ordered the initial release LR to begin with. So my point is, the delta is not $9K.

;););)

Here is the true breakdown between the LR w/ PUP and the SR

LR+PUP:
Base $35,000
Premium $5,000
Long Range $9,000
Paint $1,000
Destination $1,000
Total $51,000
CA Sales Tax $4,463
Total w/ Tax $55,463
Tax Credit $(7,500)
Final Cost $47,963

SR:
Base $35,000
Paint $1,000
Destination $1,000
Total $37,000
CA Sales Tax $3,238
Total w/ Tax $40,238
Tax Credit $(3,750)
Final Cost $36,488

Difference: $11,475.
 
The $9K delta keeps getting mentioned between the LR and the SR models. But as the early adopters will attest, the delta is higher as the PUP is bundled in the LR model. This makes it all the more difficult to justify jumping up to the LR. One can say you compare apples to apples and remove the PUP cost from the equation but that is not true again for the early adopters because if you skip the PUP and order the non PUP LR model then your likely federal rebate will reduce by $3750 which essentially would have paid for the PUP if you had just ordered the initial release LR to begin with. So my point is, the delta is not $9K.

;););)

Here is the true breakdown between the LR w/ PUP and the SR

LR+PUP:
Base $35,000
Premium $5,000
Long Range $9,000
Paint $1,000
Destination $1,000
Total $51,000
CA Sales Tax $4,463
Total w/ Tax $55,463
Tax Credit $(7,500)
Final Cost $47,963

SR:
Base $35,000
Paint $1,000
Destination $1,000
Total $37,000
CA Sales Tax $3,238
Total w/ Tax $40,238
Tax Credit $(3,750)
Final Cost $36,488

Difference: $11,475.

You should be able to get both the SR and the LR non-PUP with the full tax credit.
 
You should be able to get both the SR and the LR non-PUP with the full tax credit.

It depends on how early in the order queue you are. I'm April 1 and I have estimated delivery of SR of April-June which should qualify for full tax credit. Those who ordered even a month or two later than me and what SR stand a pretty good chance of not being able to claim full credit when their car is delivered later next year. For them it's true that if the federal rebate is cut 1/2 then the price difference for LR is not $9000 but about $5700.