MiamiNole
Member
Reading this paragraph has me salivating even more for a Model 3. Really hope this is the case.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Reading this paragraph has me salivating even more for a Model 3. Really hope this is the case.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
Both the AUDI A4 and BMW 3-Series are Compact cars, per the EPA. However, the BMW 6-Series and Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class are also Compact cars -- because their passenger and cargo space is rather small -- despite those cars being really big and heavy. In fact, the CLS-Class and A4 have the exact same total interior volume. Once again, check the Specs tab:
Compare Side-by-Side
Did you miss my previous post? EM has promised a lot of stuff, and failed to deliver a lot of stuff. Sure, I understand that this specific thing he promised and delivered on, but I won't be one bit surprised if the Model 3 comes with an EPA rating of less than 200 miles.
Do I think it'll be less than 200? No. But if it is, would be I surprised? No. Saddened? Sure.
wallet.dat
Member
Why wouldn't it hit the 200 mile target? It's not like Tesla is exploring new territory anymore. In fact given that the T3 will be employing the next iteration of the S's front motor (itself notably more efficient than the one in back) I'd venture to even say that hitting that target is formulaic for Tesla at this point.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
I do not believe that will be an issue. Here's why...
- $35,000 is merely a base price. That's it. A point that will be built upon with individual options, varied trim levels, and feature packages. Most people agree that the actual sale price will average quite a bit more than that, in the range of $45,000 to $50,000 for most buyers. Taxi companies, rental agencies, and fleet sales/leasing firms will gladly buy the base cars -- they don't have to reach end users -- business-to-business sales will be brisk.
- The success of a vehicle series is not determined by building one car, then dividing the expenses incurred in design, testing, tooling, and manufacturing by the one car -- or even the first 1,000 off the line. No. You determine how many you intend to build over the lifetime of the vehicle platform and use that number to determine the minimum number of units sold to break even or yield a profit.
- The range of an electric vehicle depends most upon the capacity of the battery pack. There are various other contributors such as weight, coefficient of drag, and rolling resistance. If we presume there will be at least a 60 kWh minimum battery pack capacity, the coefficient of drag is 0.24 or below, tires are narrower (perhaps 205-to-225), and fully loaded weight is under 4,000 lbs... We know that an EPA rating of over 200 miles can be achieved.
- Economies of Scale work. If your intention is to sell only 300 of something per year, their individual cost will likely be considerably higher than an identical product that is sold at 300,000 units per year. You can pass the savings on to your Customers, while still making a tidy profit.
Have some faith.
Two years ago Elon said Tesla had an S that could do 500 miles (but at that stage it was unrealistic to bring to market).
Range and cost are the last hurdles. Apparently the Gigafactory will crack that.
I choose to believe that we will be shocked by the progress Tesla have made and will be showcasing in the 3 on the 31st.
I don't imagine it will be the 500 mile battery pack just yet but 250 EPA/200 real world? Yes. That's minimum.
The Roadster was doing this with old chemistry back in 2008.
But then I'm speculating. Again
Range and cost are the last hurdles. Apparently the Gigafactory will crack that.
I choose to believe that we will be shocked by the progress Tesla have made and will be showcasing in the 3 on the 31st.
I don't imagine it will be the 500 mile battery pack just yet but 250 EPA/200 real world? Yes. That's minimum.
The Roadster was doing this with old chemistry back in 2008.
But then I'm speculating. Again
Last edited:
This is probably why they won't be shipping base cars initially - they require a much more active Gigafactory to enable the lower battery costs needed to make base battery size economical.Two years ago Elon said Tesla had an S that could do 500 miles (but at that stage it was unrealistic to bring to market).
Range and cost are the last hurdles. Apparently the Gigafactory will crack that.
I choose to believe that we will be shocked by the progress Tesla have made and will be showcasing in the 3 on the 31st.
I don't imagine it will be the 500 mile battery pack just yet but 250 EPA/200 real world? Yes. That's minimum.
The Roadster was doing this with old chemistry back in 2008.
But then I'm speculating. Again
It's also about controlling the story.
If Tesla keeps upgrading the S and the X, it allows their detractors to ignore the 3 and claim that the full potential of the electric drivetrain can only be achieved through expensive vehicles for the wealthy.
So ideally, the 3 needs to be the car with all the headline-grabbing statistics. The best 0-60. If possible, best range as well; certainly the lowest price. Plus whatever additional tech Tesla can offer at key price points. And it needs to hold this lead for 12 to 18 months. Just to confirm that it is no fluke. Just to tighten the thumbscrews.
For this to happen, Tesla would need to clear the field. The upgrades on the S and the X would need to be put on hold for a while. Just like the Roadster.
Will they do this? Probably not. Let's face it, all this engineering is just too cool to put down.
Besides, it IS true that Model S owners are the only economic group able to afford a 400 mile battery between now and the Gigafactory ramp up.
That would be a great headline/achievement.
If Tesla keeps upgrading the S and the X, it allows their detractors to ignore the 3 and claim that the full potential of the electric drivetrain can only be achieved through expensive vehicles for the wealthy.
So ideally, the 3 needs to be the car with all the headline-grabbing statistics. The best 0-60. If possible, best range as well; certainly the lowest price. Plus whatever additional tech Tesla can offer at key price points. And it needs to hold this lead for 12 to 18 months. Just to confirm that it is no fluke. Just to tighten the thumbscrews.
For this to happen, Tesla would need to clear the field. The upgrades on the S and the X would need to be put on hold for a while. Just like the Roadster.
Will they do this? Probably not. Let's face it, all this engineering is just too cool to put down.
Besides, it IS true that Model S owners are the only economic group able to afford a 400 mile battery between now and the Gigafactory ramp up.
That would be a great headline/achievement.
Well, the full potential of the fossil drivetrain can also "only be achieved through expensive vehicles for the wealthy".
But yes, TM3 needs all the headline-grabbing it can get, and Tesla traditionally does not do what car manufactures does, so this is an opportunity to say that for the electric drivetrain you don't need to be among the wealthy to achieve the full potential
david_42
Member
The Model S captured 25% of the super luxury sedan market in 2015. The Model 3 will be a really nice sub-compact, totally different market. We didn't buy a Model S because it's way too large (not sour grapes as I've made enough from my Tesla stock to pay for one).
ratsbew
Active Member
It's also about controlling the story.
If Tesla keeps upgrading the S and the X, it allows their detractors to ignore the 3 and claim that the full potential of the electric drivetrain can only be achieved through expensive vehicles for the wealthy.
So ideally, the 3 needs to be the car with all the headline-grabbing statistics. The best 0-60. If possible, best range as well; certainly the lowest price. Plus whatever additional tech Tesla can offer at key price points. And it needs to hold this lead for 12 to 18 months. Just to confirm that it is no fluke. Just to tighten the thumbscrews.
For this to happen, Tesla would need to clear the field. The upgrades on the S and the X would need to be put on hold for a while. Just like the Roadster.
Will they do this? Probably not. Let's face it, all this engineering is just too cool to put down.
Besides, it IS true that Model S owners are the only economic group able to afford a 400 mile battery between now and the Gigafactory ramp up.
That would be a great headline/achievement.
Tesla already has the market cornered. They need to go in for the kill with the Model 3 and deliver a devastatingly beautiful and functional car that will signal the end of fossil cars.
Hi Malcom,
You've been making arguments on both sides throughout the thread so what do you really think?
Will the Model 3 will be a S killer or not?
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
The Tesla Model ≡ will be designed to compete with the AUDI A4, BMW 3-Series, Cadillac ATS, and Lexus IS, among others. Those are all classified as Compact cars by the EPA (see the 'Specs' tab at link). It will have a similar footprint to those vehicles, though perhaps a slightly longer wheelbase. I believe that due to having a Frunk it will be classified as a Midsize car instead. I sincerely doubt a Compact or Sub-Compact will be offered by Tesla Motors within the next five-to-seven years... Unless it is the Tesla Model R, or whatever replaces the Tesla Roadster in their lineup.
Lol. Apologies for that.
To make the biggest impact in terms of their mission to electrify transportation, I feel that development of the S and X should be put on the backburner so that Tesla can focus on development, production and delivery of the 3/Gigafactory.
S and X vehicles will still be made and sold and of course software tweaks and simple upgrades (maybe a change of cell chemistry - maybe cell diameter) would still be possible.
But if Tesla push the 3 to the front in terms of new tech, first-to-350-miles, best-0-to-60 etc then S and X sales and residuals will be affected. ("killed" - compared with present levels)
I am conflicted about this. I'd like to see Tesla develop all three models in parallel. I worry that in doing so, they will spread themselves too thinly.
To make the biggest impact in terms of their mission to electrify transportation, I feel that development of the S and X should be put on the backburner so that Tesla can focus on development, production and delivery of the 3/Gigafactory.
S and X vehicles will still be made and sold and of course software tweaks and simple upgrades (maybe a change of cell chemistry - maybe cell diameter) would still be possible.
But if Tesla push the 3 to the front in terms of new tech, first-to-350-miles, best-0-to-60 etc then S and X sales and residuals will be affected. ("killed" - compared with present levels)
I am conflicted about this. I'd like to see Tesla develop all three models in parallel. I worry that in doing so, they will spread themselves too thinly.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
Once again, the most popular car in the intended market segment has been the BMW 3-Series. For several years the 3-Series used the same motors as 5-Series and 7-Series cars. Each time that was done, acceleration was better in the smaller, lighter 3-Series vehicles. BMW chose to 'protect' the 5-Series and 7-Series by limiting most trim levels of 3-Series to 130 MPH maximum speed, instead of 155 MPH. Further protection was offered by giving the 3-Series a much smaller fuel tank than its siblings, limiting its maximum range. I do not believe that Tesla Motors will resort to any such arbitrary limitations to Model ≡. Because it will be smaller and lighter, for a given battery pack capacity, the Model ≡ will have a greater range and better overall performance than a Model S. It must. Otherwise, no one will have a reason to buy it.
However, being larger cars the Model X and S will always be able to physically fit larger battery packs. So overall they still may end up having the best range (or at least equivalent range).
