Model 3 Top of the Line guesses

[favo]

If the top-of-the-line performance Model 3 isn't aimed at besting the BMW M3, there will be a lot of disappointed people, myself included. There are plenty of folks who don't want or need the size of Model 3, but are still interested in top notch performance. Having said that, I don't think they need to go sub 3 seconds 0-60 or beat the future P1xxD.

I see no reason to omit dual motors or even any tech/driver assist options. Most of the latter involve sensor packages and software, so why not make them available as options and price them accordingly? One of the greatest advantages of Tesla's cars is that they can get better with OTA software updates. Model S can be set apart from Model 3 by size, luxury options like executive backseats, and maybe a small amount of performance and range. They could roll out new OTA features to Model S first to provide a little extra cachet, and then to Model 3 a little later.

 

[HankLloydRight]

Then get used to disappointment.

Elon's quest is to bring EVs to the masses. He doesn't do that by competing with the M3s of the world. Most of you seem to want a slightly cheaper, slightly smaller Model S. That's just not going to be the Model 3.

 

[favo]

Not sure why they can't have a base Model 3, Model 3D and Model P3D, starting at $35K, $42.5K and $50K plus options. The latter two would have a larger battery. Then everyone can be happy.

 

[HankLloydRight]

I don't think that makes marketing sense. You want economy and max range, buy the 3. You want max performance buy the S. You want a kid mobile, but the X.

 

[Subhuman]

Why do people think the only purpose of the model 3 is to be a cheaper car? Yes tesla's goal is to make and affordable EV but that is not the only reason someone would opt for a model 3 over a Model S. I had and M3 and wouldn't have took a 7 series if you have gave me one. They are completely different markets. Just because a Model 3 might be able to spank a Model S doesn't mean no one will buy a Model S. Sure some might opt for the less expensive car but not everybody. There is a reason different car markets exist and it is not soully because of price. Additionally someone who can afford a Model 3 might loaded the car up with all options resulting in higher margins for Tesla. This same person may only be able to afford a base Model S which could lower Tesla's margins.

 

[dsm363]

If the top-of-the-line performance Model 3 isn't aimed at besting the BMW M3, there will be a lot of disappointed people, myself included. There are plenty of folks who don't want or need the size of Model 3, but are still interested in top notch performance. Having said that, I don't think they need to go sub 3 seconds 0-60 or beat the future P1xxD.

I see no reason to omit dual motors or even any tech/driver assist options. Most of the latter involve sensor packages and software, so why not make them available as options and price them accordingly? One of the greatest advantages of Tesla's cars is that they can get better with OTA software updates. Model S can be set apart from Model 3 by size, luxury options like executive backseats, and maybe a small amount of performance and range. They could roll out new OTA features to Model S first to provide a little extra cachet, and then to Model 3 a little later.

That's like saying 'if the top of the line Accord isn't an M3 fighter....'. I understand the Model 3 might blow many cars out of the water in terms of acceleration but it is meant to be Tesla's base model after all.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure why they can't have a base Model 3, Model 3D and Model P3D, starting at $35K, $42.5K and $50K plus options. The latter two would have a larger battery. Then everyone can be happy.

I see your point. They could go that direction of course. My guess is Hank is right but maybe they'll add a performance version of the Model 3 down the road.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

That's like saying 'if the top of the line Accord isn't an M3 fighter....'. I understand the Model 3 might blow many cars out of the water in terms of acceleration but it is meant to be Tesla's base model after all.

- - - Updated - - -



I see your point. They could go that direction of course. My guess is Hank is right but maybe they'll add a performance version of the Model 3 down the road.

BMW offers slow, fast, and everything in between for the 3-series.

Tesla could more easily offer a similar lineup. Power train performance on a Tesla depends on battery capacity, inverter, and number of motors.

Base Model 3 could be the model with RWD (1x motor) and smaller battery. Highest end Model 3 could have Dual Motors, hi performance inverter, and largest battery. There can be models in between. This is the most logical lineup IMO for a compact to medium luxury sedan in the 35-75k USD price range.

 

[dsm363]

BMW offers slow, fast, and everything in between for the 3-series.

Tesla could more easily offer a similar lineup. Power train performance on a Tesla depends on battery capacity, inverter, and number of motors.

Base Model 3 could be the model with RWD (1x motor) and smaller battery. Highest end Model 3 could have Dual Motors, hi performance inverter, and largest battery. There can be models in between. This is the most logical lineup IMO for a compact to medium luxury sedan in the 35-75k USD price range.

My guess is that's the direction they'll go as well. The OP was saying it would have a 2.5 second 0-60 time which some others doubt. Anything is possible I guess.

 

[favo]

That's like saying 'if the top of the line Accord isn't an M3 fighter....'.

It isn't, though. Tesla has clearly stated the Model 3 is going to compete with the BMW 3 series, Audi A4, and similar cars, not Accords and Camrys. I don't think it's a coincidence they are calling it Model "3".

My guess is Hank is right but maybe they'll add a performance version of the Model 3 down the road.

I will be surprised if there isn't a performance version at launch. Why wouldn't there be? Tesla has a great paradigm with Model S--a single chassis with options for larger battery, dual motors, and performance motor/inverter. It is a no-brainer to extend that to Model 3. Minimal extra development cost, wider audience of prospective buyers. Plus, the higher-end cars will have higher margin, and replacing an ICE BMW M3 with a BEV Model P3D will be better for the environment than replacing a hybrid Camry.

It is also really important for the uptake of BEVs by the wider auto buying public that BEVs remain compelling and show that they can surpass ICE vehicles on all fronts, including performance. People on this forum may get excited by great range and efficiency, but "regular" people do not. They do get excited by good looks and performance, even if neither is necessary to getting from point A to point B.

- - - Updated - - -

BMW offers slow, fast, and everything in between for the 3-series.

Tesla could more easily offer a similar lineup. Power train performance on a Tesla depends on battery capacity, inverter, and number of motors.

Base Model 3 could be the model with RWD (1x motor) and smaller battery. Highest end Model 3 could have Dual Motors, hi performance inverter, and largest battery. There can be models in between. This is the most logical lineup IMO for a compact to medium luxury sedan in the 35-75k USD price range.

Exactly. By the time Model 3 rolls around, the Gigafactory will be online and batteries will have improved. They will also be better at achieving cost savings through economies of scale. Model 3 could have 50 and 75 kWh, and Model S could have 85 and 110 kWh. The small battery could have single- and dual-motor versions, and the larger one could have dual-motor and performance versions, just like Model S now. Still plenty of room for separation across model lines. Also, I don't see why their can't be some overlap.

 

[HankLloydRight]

People on this forum may get excited by great range and efficiency, but "regular" people do not. They do get excited by good looks and performance, even if neither is necessary to getting from point A to point B.

Strongly disagree. "Regular people" get excited about price, price, and what was that third thing, oh yeah, price. "Regular people" who are the target market for the Model 3 are definitely NOT looking for looks or performance, they're looking for price and practicality (range). It's an entirely different market segment than the Model S, which is why I think Tesla would be foolish to mix the two lines up with M-S/M-3 crossovers in performance or price.

Also, it's very difficult to compare BMW to Tesla Motors. BMW has the size, factories, and capital to build all kinds of trim levels on their cars, and lots and lots of people will buy them. Tesla doesn't have that luxury. To *really* hit the mass market like Elon wants to, like I said before, they're not going to build a Model S-Mini which most of you are describing.

 

[gregincal]

Then get used to disappointment.

Elon's quest is to bring EVs to the masses. He doesn't do that by competing with the M3s of the world. Most of you seem to want a slightly cheaper, slightly smaller Model S. That's just not going to be the Model 3.

He wants to bring EVs to the masses eventually. They've been very clear the Model 3 is aimed at competing with the BMW 3 series. I believe it's the people who expect it to be an everyman's car that are going to be disappointed when they realize that 35K is just the starting price and you have to wait an extra 6 months and the initial versions are generally going to be about 45-50K with an option for a 60-80K performance version. That's how Tesla makes their money and they know it's going to sell.

 

[Fiver]

He wants to bring EVs to the masses eventually. They've been very clear the Model 3 is aimed at competing with the BMW 3 series. I believe it's the people who expect it to be an everyman's car that are going to be disappointed when they realize that 35K is just the starting price and you have to wait an extra 6 months and the initial versions are generally going to be about 45-50K with an option for a 60-80K performance version. That's how Tesla makes their money and they know it's going to sell.

Exactly. The 3 isn't going to replace the Toyota Camry, WV Jetta, or the Chevy Malibu. It's up in the Audi A4 or BMW 3 class of vehicles.

 

[dsm363]

I'm sure there will be overlap in performance between the performance Model 3 and the Model S. I just don't think the performance Model 3 will beat the performance Model S.

 

[Model 3]

Strongly disagree. "Regular people" get excited about price, price, and what was that third thing, oh yeah, price. "Regular people" who are the target market for the Model 3 are definitely NOT looking for looks or performance, they're looking for price and practicality (range). It's an entirely different market segment than the Model S, which is why I think Tesla would be foolish to mix the two lines up with M-S/M-3 crossovers in performance or price.

Also, it's very difficult to compare BMW to Tesla Motors. BMW has the size, factories, and capital to build all kinds of trim levels on their cars, and lots and lots of people will buy them. Tesla doesn't have that luxury. To *really* hit the mass market like Elon wants to, like I said before, they're not going to build a Model S-Mini which most of you are describing.

I don't think Elon/Tesla is up to "*really* hit the mass market" as you say it. They want to hit the upper end of the mass marked, and by that inspire other car-makers into making real mass marked BEV's.

With that said, I'm not one that looks for supercar preformance, RR luxury or fantasy battery sizes in Model 3. I think I may be contempt with the base $35k version, maybe add dual motors AWD (I'm living in a "winter wonderland" ).

 

[favo]

Strongly disagree. "Regular people" get excited about price, price, and what was that third thing, oh yeah, price. "Regular people" who are the target market for the Model 3 are definitely NOT looking for looks or performance, they're looking for price and practicality (range).

People are not excited about price. They may be pleased if they get a good deal, but that's different. If they get a 25% discount, they may be excited, but I have never heard of anyone bragging their car has a really low sticker price. I am talking about excitement--what gets the kids to stare at the car as it drives by, what makes people to stop and walk around the car in the parking lot, what causes someone to say "What kind of car was that?!" when it silently zooms up the on-ramp. If Tesla loses that with Model 3, they are making a mistake.

Model 3 is not going to be affordable by everyone--it isn't supposed to be. It is supposed to make everyone realize that BEV are going to replace ICE vehicles, and sooner rather than later. Part of that is price, no doubt. I do think they have to have a version under $40K. When you consider TCO, that is a great deal! Ultimately, I won't be surprised to see a Model 4 that has an even lower price, maybe competing with BMW 1 series, or whatever. First, Model 3 has to be compelling and inspiring as a car, not just as a BEV. Otherwise the naysayers will say, "See, we told you, can't make a good electric car that doesn't cost $100,000." When you are trying to be a game changer, mindshare matters.

 

[dogphlap]

The top of the line (and just maybe all the other variants) should be the 3Q i.e. quad inboard motors in a similar layout to the Rimac. This gets rid of yesterdays solutions of differentials and torque vectoring by computer application of individual wheel brakes at a stroke. I can't understand why this has not been already implemented on the S. The motors would be half the current size so the cost would be similar to the current dual motor arrangement when you realise the differentials are no longer needed nor the cruder form of torque vectoring via wheel brakes. The $35,000 base model could be the 3D i.e. dual motor rear wheel drive.

 

[ryanjm]

There is a lot of wild extremism in this thread -- both on the optimistic side and the pessimistic side -- while others are losing sight of the topic here: the top of the line Model 3 (which I am saving up to purchase and eager to see!).

I look for the top of the line Model 3 to do a 0-60 sprint somewhere between the high 2s (optimistic) and the high 3s (pessimistic...but still awesome!). As others have noted, Elon has repeatedly stated that he wants his M3 to beat BMW's M3, and the latter is already in the high 3s, acceleration-wise. Also bear in mind how quickly Tesla is advancing! Just two years ago, the 4.2-second P85 was mind-blowing. In less than two years' time, Tesla has left that in the dust with the 3.1-second P85D. It's not unreasonable to imagine where they might be in another two years from now, which is when the Model 3 will start to become an imminent, real product.

On a related note, I am hoping for the dual-motor option to be available from the get-go on Model 3, since Tesla seems to be pushing in that direction with the S and X, but if they're trying to get to market as quickly as possible, I could also see them delaying the introduction of the D model until later. If they did, I would seriously consider waiting, as the added performance, range, traction, and handling would be of great interest to me.

I also look for the top of the line Model 3 to cost around $70-$75k fully loaded. Again using the S as an example, from the day the car was introduced up through today, the top-end Model S costs double what the bare-bones version does. So I'm trying to financially plan for a $70-$75k Model 3.

Range-wise, Elon has already hammered home the 220-240-mile base battery expectation. I expect the larger battery option to get 275-300 real-world range miles -- with the key being that I expect the Model S to get a range boost at the same time the 3 releases, if not a bit sooner, that takes it to 350-400 miles. That way the top-end S remains a desirable option to the luxury buyer over the Model 3.

Remember, we're not talking about the price-minded buyer in this thread, we're talking about the top-end Model 3 buyer.

 

[aronth5]

Then get used to disappointment.

Elon's quest is to bring EVs to the masses. He doesn't do that by competing with the M3s of the world. Most of you seem to want a slightly cheaper, slightly smaller Model S. That's just not going to be the Model 3.

He wants to bring EVs to the masses eventually. They've been very clear the Model 3 is aimed at competing with the BMW 3 series. I believe it's the people who expect it to be an everyman's car that are going to be disappointed when they realize that 35K is just the starting price and you have to wait an extra 6 months and the initial versions are generally going to be about 45-50K with an option for a 60-80K performance version. That's how Tesla makes their money and they know it's going to sell.

People are not excited about price. They may be pleased if they get a good deal, but that's different. If they get a 25% discount, they may be excited, but I have never heard of anyone bragging their car has a really low sticker price. I am talking about excitement--what gets the kids to stare at the car as it drives by, what makes people to stop and walk around the car in the parking lot, what causes someone to say "What kind of car was that?!" when it silently zooms up the on-ramp. If Tesla loses that with Model 3, they are making a mistake.

Model 3 is not going to be affordable by everyone--it isn't supposed to be. It is supposed to make everyone realize that BEV are going to replace ICE vehicles, and sooner rather than later. Part of that is price, no doubt. I do think they have to have a version under $40K. When you consider TCO, that is a great deal! Ultimately, I won't be surprised to see a Model 4 that has an even lower price, maybe competing with BMW 1 series, or whatever. First, Model 3 has to be compelling and inspiring as a car, not just as a BEV. Otherwise the naysayers will say, "See, we told you, can't make a good electric car that doesn't cost $100,000." When you are trying to be a game changer, mindshare matters.

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/41924-POLL-What-will-be-the-average-sales-price-of-the-Model-3/page2

45% of those responding to the poll on the average sales price of the Model 3 voted it would be above $50k. The $35k Model 3 will end up like the initial 40 kWh Model S with few buyers. The press and naysayers will complain but most buyers won't. Getting back to the purpose of this thread I believe the very high end Model 3 won't be available initially and that will be on purpose. Tesla will be under pressure to make the initial Model 3 available in the 2017/2018 timeframe and in order to do that will offer two battery options neither of which will challenge the Model S in performance. However, it won't be long before they add options at the high end.

 

[Red Sage]

Wow, guys. That is utterly astounding. How can we properly discuss a top-of-the-line level of performance, if no one can agree even on what the baseline minimum configuration might be?

I remind you, the Tesla Model ≡ will be placed to compete against the BMW 3-Series. That car outsells its rivals from Acura, AUDI, Cadillac, Lexus, Infiniti, and Mercedes-Benz by a wide margin, leading its class. The 3-Series is also the best selling vehicle built by BMW worldwide. It cannot be toppled by a wimpmobile.

Is this not breaking a cardinal rule with manufacturing - never undermine the higher-end model - especially in performance. And in this case, range as well.

Tesla Motors is a different company, with a different purpose in mind. Their higher end products exist to enable the fruition of their lower end products. Not the other way around. If upon the introduction of Model ≡ interest in Model S and Model X were to dwindle, so that all production at Fremont were focused solely on lower cost vehicles that are adored, lauded, and cherished by all...? No one would be happier than Elon Musk. Because that would mean Generation III of the Tesla Master Plan had succeeded. Finally, Tesla Motors would no longer be tagged as a niche manufacturer of 'Toys for the RICH!', and he could spend more time working at SpaceX.

Sorry I can't believe the Model 3 performance attributes that will trounce those of the Model S in any way. Wouldn't this be business suicide for the Model S?

Sorry you feel that way. Please note that the Tesla Model S P85D blows the doors off its predecessor, the Tesla Roadster. Once again, the Model ≡ is the goal, not some afterthought, meant to be offered as crumbs from the table of giants. If the Model S must be defeated to win market share, so be it.

The BMW 328i does 0-60 MPH in 5.8 seconds. That's about the same as a Model S 60, for around $35,000 less. The BMW 335i does it in 5.1 seconds for a hair under $44,000. Why would you expect a competing product in the same price range from Tesla Motors to be slower than them? By the way, a BMW 740i costs $30,000 more than the 335i, has only 15 HP more, and is slower 0-60 MPH at 5.6 seconds.

At best I predict the 'top of the line' specs be slightly under or maybe match that of the lower end S (both the 60 and now the 70).

Once again, I invite you to look through the opposite end of the telescope. It is more likely the base version of Model ≡ will have a similar battery capacity at 60 kWh minimum, which we already know allows a 200+ mile EPA rated range for the Model S 60. That level of energy reserve also allows for an output of 300+ HP for a single motor. In a car that may weigh around 700-900 lbs less than Model S 60, that will make for major acceleration for the base Model ≡.

Even having dual motor for the model 3 will be a stretch I believe. Maybe the top model 3 may have this as it main selling point.

No dice for you, again. Every iteration of BMW 3-Series is available with their xDrive, AWD solution. Evidence? The BMW 320i xDrive is $34,950 currently. Though some automotive purists will object, and TSLA investors may cry foul, do not be surprised if a single motor, RWD version is not offered for Model ≡ at all. Just as is the case with Model X, Tesla Motors may well decide the benefits of range, handling, safety, and simplicity of supply lines overcome the lack of frunk space and the 'fun' of breaking the rear end loose -- on a closed course, with proper safety equipment.

Personally I think power will be in the 200-300hp range and battery capacity no more than 50kWh. What ever performance figures and range comes from that - I don't know.

Look at the numbers. Assuming a 10% reserve for battery protection, that leaves only 45 kWh for a maximum charge. EPA range ratings seem to consistently come to only 90% of the full charge amount. So that means only 40.5 kWh as the basis for EPA rated range. Thus, to reach a 200 mile minimum EPA rated range, the car would need an efficiency rating that averaged 202.5 Wh per mile or better using a 50 kWh battery pack.

With a 24 kWh battery pack, 128 MPGe City/116 MPGe combined, and a class leading 238-280 Wh per mile combined energy consumption, the very efficient Chevrolet Spark EV manages only an 82 mile range. I think I once saw a 0-60 MPH rating of 7.2 seconds for it. Just a hair behind the 7.1 seconds of a BMW 320d. That level of performance -- and range -- will not suffice for a Tesla product.

I'm sure the targeted mass market target audience won't really worry too much either when it comes time to buying one. I think thinks like price, range, safety, warranty, seating capacity, comfort, (and cup-holders)etc etc will be further up the wish list.

[BOLSHEVIK]. Elon Musk said that they cannot build ordinary cars, that are 'just as good' as everyone else's. They have to build cars that are demonstrably better. Otherwise, no one has a reason to buy them.

So Tesla Motors will not build a car that drives like a Camry, Accord, or Altima. They will not build a car that drives like a Malibu, Fusion, or Sonata. It will not be something that reminds you of a Corolla, Civic, or Focus. They will make sure the Tesla Model ≡ drives like... a Tesla.

 

[Kevin Harney]

I doubt they'd position the Model 3 (the number 3) ahead of the Model S P1XXD that exists at the time in terms of acceleration. There is a thread already about the next gen Roadster. I don't doubt there might be a performance Model 3 with a 0-60 time in the 3-4 second range though.

Why is this ? BMW M3 performs better than the M5. A smaller vehicle has an advantage performance wise. And does not canabilize sales. Different stokes for different folks and we all need cars. Manufacturers often overlap models on the high and low ends to get people attracted to both cars.

- - - Updated - - -

My guess is that's the direction they'll go as well. The OP was saying it would have a 2.5 second 0-60 time which some others doubt. Anything is possible I guess.

The Model S now does it in 3.1 seconds and the model 3 will be smaller and lighter so why is 2.5 seconds unreasonable?