JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I'm inclined to agree with this line of thinking. The idea that a large luxury sedan has to be the fastest accelerating vehicle in the lineup because of it's price does not seem to be supported in other vehicle lineups.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I'm inclined to agree with this line of thinking. The idea that a large luxury sedan has to be the fastest accelerating vehicle in the lineup because of it's price does not seem to be supported in other vehicle lineups.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
When comparing to equally priced cars, if the Model 3 price can approach $80,000 then let's remember the 2017 Corvette Z06 can do 0-60 in 2.95 seconds.
strider
Active Member
You're making a huge assumption there. I believe that the 3PDL will be more profitable for Tesla than the SPDL. The Model S is quite difficult to manufacture and does not use Gigafactory battery packs. The Model 3 will be of a simpler design to manufacture and will use Gigafactory cells. Both of these point to a more profitable vehicle. But won't the 3PDL be cheaper? Not necessarily. If it can outperform the SPDL I don't see them having any problem charging $150k for it and selling plenty.
It's quite possible that Tesla will want to sell more 3PDLs than SPDLs.
I had this discussion with someone else on a thread a couple weeks ago. Even if you're correct that the 3PDL sells for enough that they make more gross profit off of it than a P100DL (which I seriously doubt will happen, cheaper Gigafactory cells or not,) it would still mean less money for Tesla this year.
That's because if Tesla has a massive backlog of 3 orders right now, but not S/X orders, and the S/X production line is mostly independent of the 3 line. If a 3 reservation holder buys 3PDL, that's great for Tesla. If they upgrade to a P100DL instead, that's even better - Tesla sells that S this year - and another 3 to some other customer in the place of the 3PDL they might have built as well.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
That'd be a very small subset of potential customers. It's likely that the performance Model 3 will be half the price of the Model S P100D give or take $10k.
The standard S90D is around 4s 0-60 now and it's way more than enough for all normal driving situations I've run into. With instant torque and no transmission gear shift to worry about, it's far more zippy than it needs to be in any situation except racing, which is both illegal and very dangerous on streets with potentially other traffic.
Production numbers for the 3 will be significantly larger than the S, so even with a smaller profit per vehicle, 3 production will probably make a larger gross profit once production is ramped up.
However the SPDL is going to likely be the top performing car Tesla makes until the Next Gen Roadster because of Physics. With a smaller battery pack the 3PDL just won't have as much instantaneous power to deliver. If the car was substantially lighter, it might overcome this, but the 3 is going to be a heavy car for its size and will likely be closer to the S in weight than many people think.
They may make the next gen Roadster a super performer by cramming a 100 KWh pack into the Model 3 chassis. But to do so they will have to sacrifice the back seat and a lot of cargo space. Basically pile up some extra modules behind the front seat to make the pack bigger. That would likely out perform the SPDL, but the 3PDL isn't going to be a supercar beater on the track. Tesla probably doesn't want it to outperform the SPDL, nor should they do anything special to the car (like formulate the 2170s for high C rate) to make it a better performer.
We see a lot of YouTube videos of P100DLs tearing up the track, but the number of Teslas that have been on a racetrack of any kind is a tiny percentage of those sold. The PDLs are a big profit center for Tesla, but the number sold is a relatively small minority compared to regular 90/100s and 60/75s. That's the bread and butter car that people are buying. The 60/75 out performs every car on the market except specially made performance cars. I expect the standard Model 3 to be a good performer too.
It would be a potentially fatal error for Tesla to sacrifice anything in the standard sedan version of the Model 3 to get more performance out of the 3PDL. The P100DL's performance comes from tweaking what's already there in the 90/100D and using the rear motor from the original RWD S. There is no special formula battery or anything done specifically that would detract from the base sedan. The Model 3 will be the same approach.
So expect the 3PDL to be capable of out running pretty much any sub-$100K car out there and probably quite a few $100K+ cars, but don't expect a super car. You'll just be disappointed.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
I don't believe so and here's why....
One of the goals of Tesla's battery research is cell/battery longevity. The reason they don't charge and discharge at higher C-rates is due to heat and how it reduces longevity. Jeff Dahn's entire work at Tesla revolves around battery longevity / capacity / cost.
If you can solve the longevity problem then you may get faster charge/discharge rates safely, for free.
strider
Active Member
This is the Ludicrous thread. Of COURSE it's unnecessary. However, you are mistakenly equating quick (acceleration) with fast (top speed). I can do 0-speed limit as fast as I want on any road and it is perfectly safe and legal. And with the quiet EV powertrain won't even attract any attention. I like being able to romp on the accelerator on a freeway on-ramp and run up to 70-75mph very quickly. There's nothing illegal or dangerous about that.
If you can afford it and enjoy it, why not? You can apply this principle to many things. House larger than 1,000 sq ft for a family of four? more than you need.... Spend more than $20 on a coffee maker? more than you need... Spend more than $5/bottle for wine? more than you need.... And on and on.
I wasn't confusing them. People who drag race on city streets don't just accelerate up to the speed limit. These are full on drag races, first across the line at x distance. Those are illegal in every jurisdiction I know of.
In my experience with my S90D, the acceleration is more than anything I need for any actual road situation I might encounter including passing on two lane roads, even without a lot of distance to pass and getting onto the freeway when someone is trying to keep you from merging. The instant torque makes merging on the freeway so much easier than any ICE I've ever driven, including cars with a lot of power. With the Tesla's throttle, I can adjust speed instantaneously and slip into very narrow slots in traffic. I found this out when I did a test drive and was amazed at how confident I felt so fast in such an unfamiliar vehicle. Normally when I drive a car I haven't driven before I drive a bit more cautiously until I get a feel for the car, but I was amazed at how quickly I adjusted to the electric drive and regen.
The Performance model is there for those who want everything the car can give them and it's good advertising for the brand. I don't fault Tesla for producing the Performance model, but in the real world, very few people will ever need the extra performance, though a number will use it showing off the car. The fact that such a high powered model is available is going to get more people interested in the car.
The performance models of some other cars actually do add useful capability. The stock Ford Taurus is OK, but a bit of a slug. The SHO adds performance a driver might actually use sometimes. Same is true of the sportier models of some other cars out there.
I have the S60D and THAT is way more than most will ever need. The "slowest" Tesla blows past almost all ICE's on the road. I love the passing acceleration on the highways, 60-90 mph is also fast. Sure many ICE cars can beat it at those speeds (torque,gears etc....)
but it still takes off. I don't "need" a 100D but if I could afford it I would have gotten it.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
I have the S60D and THAT is way more than most will ever need. The "slowest" Tesla blows past almost all ICE's on the road. I love the passing acceleration on the highways, 60-90 mph is also fast. Sure many ICE cars can beat it at those speeds (torque,gears etc....)
but it still takes off. I don't "need" a 100D but if I could afford it I would have gotten it.
Here is a table of the current Tesla Model S performance times for 0-60 mph that range from 5.5 to 2.275 seconds
Tesla Model S - WikipediaMaybe that's a decent price for bigger battery and AWD, but adding Performance will jump minimum $10k, most likely more. A performance 3 will probably start around $60-70k.Another pipe dream ... prepare to be disappointed at your current price point or pay more for performance
Hmm.
BMW M3 starts at $64k.
Audi S4 Starts at $51k
MB C63 AMG Starts at $73k
Oddly, the three most likely reference targets for the 3PXXD aren't really that close together, but it's probably reasonable to guess Tesla will price to compete with them. Of course, none of them are sub 3 second, and none of them get $7500 tax credits...
EXOTIC1
Member
^^^^ wife had this car for less than 6 months
pure garbage... worst AMG car in their lineup by far
with decent options it's about 62-65k
Last edited:
Competition pricing is worthwhile to take a look at, but you also have to factor in price of hardware. A tricked out engine on an ICE is only gonna cost a few thousand more. A bigger battery will be $10k more in battery costs alone, then you have the cost of beefier suspension and stronger motors. Plus a modest software fee.
AWD is probably $4k (let's round to 5 for even numbers), so right off the bat, you're looking at ~$15k just to get to the point where you can tick the "performance" box. That's a $50k Model 3. Performance on the S has always added a ton extra. Price bumps from one tier below performance to the P version have historically been $20k! Ludicrous is another $10k.
I'm going to be really generous and split those right down the middle for the Model 3. So performance would be a $10k add-on and Ludicrous $5k. That means you're looking at +$25k to get to PxxD and +$30k to get to PxxDL. That means the performance version would start around $60k, which is with zero other boxes checked.
I also am having a hard time believing they will halve the performance cost compared to the S. I get it, the car is half the cost, but upgrades will not be. This means my $60k estimate is on the low end for PxxD, which means $60-70k sounds about right.
When you add all the extra options on top of that... better seats, leather, better wheels, roof, premium package, sound, cold weather, smart air, autopilot, etc. you're looking at a lot more money. All those boxes add an extra $30k to Model S. Generously halving that means you're looking at $80k for fully loaded, and that is, again, a very generous estimate. You can probably add another $10k on top of that, maybe more. There you are, fully loaded Model 3 for $90k.
The pessimist (read: realist) in me says $100k+ for a loaded 3. The argument "but but this is what the competition costs!" is kinda ridiculous when you look at what will make a loaded 3 loaded. You can't magically cut costs. The only way they'd do that is to neuter functionality or eliminate options altogether. I don't see them doing either based on Tesla's sales model and the "near-loaded" cars they debuted at the reveal. So we pay the price.
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and we certainly don't have proof one way or another yet. For the record, I think you're way of base, and the 3 PXXD will start in the same neighborhood as the "competition" I identified earlier.
Keep in mind, the Gigafactory is supposed to drive prices below $170/kWh if I remember right (and I think I read an article saying it had already done more than that?) - which means that the largest plausible upgrade pack (~80 kWh) will cost Tesla less than $14k - and the difference in cost to Tesla from the base pack is likely around $3k. Obviously they'll want some incremental profit as well, but I think your assumption of $10k is excessive.
However, the typical BMW M3 buyer wouldn't be cross shopping for a Tesla Model 3. The BMW M3's price premium over the standard BMW 3-series is due to track-focused performance components and engineering. Characteristics like handling, braking, and endurance also matter to that type of buyer - not merely straight line 0-60! The BMW M3 would be simply more "fun" to drive for that buyer. With current tech, the battery is still too heavy and still quickly overheats with vastly reduced power after only a few minutes of demanding acceleration. The problem has not been solved folks. Full electrics are outclassed in the performance car market, and will continue to be for some time to come. Also why would Tesla spend its resources to compete in that area, with such little return?
Similar threads
