Model 3 will have less features than the S. Which one would not make it?

[igotzzoom]

I don't care about superficial gingerbread like chrome trim, etc. As long as it has a long (200+ mi) range, strong acceleration (sub 6-sec 0-60), good tech integration and good passenger/cargo practicality, then I'll be happy.

 

[ratsbew]

You guys really think the 17 inch screen will make it?

Yeah. LCD screens are cheap. The cost difference between a 17 and something smaller is maybe $15. Tesla is all about that UI so I bet it stays.

 

[MacroP]

Yeah. LCD screens are cheap. The cost difference between a 17 and something smaller is maybe $15. Tesla is all about that UI so I bet it stays.

I think a few model S have had issues with the touch screen already (delaminating) and those already out of warranty have been quoted over $2k from memory for a replacement unit though I think Tesla a doing good will gesture here. The LCD display is a complete and complex module which would is most likely built offsite by a third party. What I'm leading to, is that this thing is not really as cheap people think it is and are comparing it to a PC monitor sitting on its side. It's a lot more than that and I reckon it costs Tesla a lot for this OEM display. There's was a website company that stripped down the Model S and I had a close look at this large display module. Very well made but it looked like it cost a fortune to develop and to make.

Also - I'm not sure Tesla are intending to put many of the defining features of the premium Model S into an entry level car other than it being electric and having a good range. The main 17" LCD display is certainly one of those features. Having the 17" LCD would certainly undermine the larger Model S sedan. IMO they'll put in something slightly smaller even though it may cost the same to manufacturer. It will still most likely be larger than most other cars on the road when released. Just my thoughts.

 

[Yggdrasill]

One reason I think they'll go for a smaller screen is because the Model 3 should be narrower, meaning less room between the front seats. Maybe it's possible to fit a 17" screen, but it's probably easier to fit a 15" screen.

If the monitor has less pixels, that also means it needs less GPU-power, and it will consume less power, which means you can have a smaller power supply. These sorts of factors will work towards reducing the cost.

 

[vortexz]

Elon Musk should just give us a concept preview or something !
Just give us more details !
Model 3 will probably be my next car so I'm dying for more news about i!

 

[bigbear]

Elon Musk should just give us a concept preview or something !
Just give us more details !
Model 3 will probably be my next car so I'm dying for more news about i!

139 days until March

 

[MassModel3]

Also - I'm not sure Tesla are intending to put many of the defining features of the premium Model S into an entry level car other than it being electric and having a good range. The main 17" LCD display is certainly one of those features. Having the 17" LCD would certainly undermine the larger Model S sedan. IMO they'll put in something slightly smaller even though it may cost the same to manufacturer. It will still most likely be larger than most other cars on the road when released. Just my thoughts.

I just don't understand that line of reasoning. So many people suggest that Tesla probably won't do <whatever> because Tesla wants the Model S to have better everything than the 3 to keep it's eliteness. That's just not the case. Tesla will put out the best car they can at the price point, even if it means it has some of the bells and whistles of the S, even if it has some better features than the S, and even if it does 0 - 60 faster than a 70D does.

The Model 3 is the car they want everybody to own. Tesla will not lessen or intentionally limit anything about the 3 just because that feature is as good as, or better than, the Model S.

 

[Bangor Bob]

The Model 3 is the car they want everybody to own. Tesla will not lessen or intentionally limit anything about the 3 just because that feature is as good as, or better than, the Model S.

This. The kvetching from S owners could be monumental.

Remember the 2012 S was a $40k car with a $40k drivetrain and an expensive, low-volume interior. Good odds the battery cells themselves were initially close to $30k. With the improvements since then, the Gigafactory and the 3's smaller stature (meaning smaller battery) the cells could be as little as $6000. That leaves quite a bit over for the car itself.

I actually think Tesla is going to have to start stepping-up the content in the S before long to "justify" the price. (Arguably they've already started with Next-gen seats, Autopilot, etc.)

Interesting times ahead for the auto industry over the next few years...

I can live with a 15" screen and normal doors though. :wink:

 

[MacroP]

The Model 3 is the car they want everybody to own. Tesla will not lessen or intentionally limit anything about the 3 just because that feature is as good as, or better than, the Model S.

Ultimately it doesn't bother me as I can't own a a Tesla yet where I live but my reasoning is that it will prematurely de-value your S60 or another person's S60 and possibly make it very hard to sell for a decent return. If the Model 3 has most of the bells and the whistles of the early S60 and is around the same price (of a secondhand S60) also with a similar range - where does that leave the S60 in a couple of years? Undervalued? I simply saying that Tesla needs to be extra cautious here. IMO - to get it at the price-point they want they'll have to limit many of the fancy features regardless.

 

[aronth5]

139 days until March

I will be surprised if Tesla actually reveals the Model 3 in March. Tesla time probably means April/May.

 

[bigbear]

I will be surprised if Tesla actually reveals the Model 3 in March. Tesla time probably means April/May.

http://media1.giphy.com/media/5GrEWz54opeAo/200w.gif

 

[S'toon]

I've finally figured out what has been bugging me about this thread. The title is grammatically incorrect. It should read "Model 3 will have fewer features..."

 

[MassModel3]

I've finally figured out what has been bugging me about this thread. The title is grammatically incorrect. It should read "Model 3 will have fewer features..."

Took you 10 days and 17+ pages of posts to finally figure out what's buggin you? Too funny. :biggrin:

- - - Updated - - -

...but my reasoning is that it will prematurely de-value your S60 or another person's S60 and possibly make it very hard to sell for a decent return.

That's the price of living on the bleeding edge of technology. Early adopters have to expect that they won't get their monies back on trade, but as long as they can afford it and they're happy with the car, good on 'em.

I take consolation in the fact the I bought used and saved 1/3 the price on a car with only 10,000 miles on it. But I still do the math every once in a while and I know I'm going to lose money on the deal when I trade to a Model 3. Even so, I'd still prefer to trade for a new Model 3 versus keep an aging Model S that is eventually going to get very costly to maintain.

And you're right -- used Model S's will be ripe for the picking. They'll be fairly affordable -- in the same ballpark as a new Model 3 -- but the 3 will have new everything, including warranties and batteries. It'll just be a bit smaller.

Unless people really have their heart set on the S, or they have money to blow, the 3 should be a no brainer.

 

[Caligula]

You know, I don't remember where I read it but I recall recently reading a news article speculating the Model 3 would "beat the M3 (I assume E92) to 60MPH". Im obviously paraphrasing, but that's the basic gist. Anyone else see anything about this? Im just reminded of this as I browse the replies, and see people estimating 6-8 second 60MPH times.

 

[Caligula]

You know, I don't remember where I read it but I recall recently reading a news article speculating the Model 3 would "beat the M3 (I assume E92) to 60MPH". Im obviously paraphrasing, but that's the basic gist. Anyone else see anything about this? Im just reminded of this as I browse the replies, and see people estimating 6-8 second 60MPH times.

Sorry, for some reason I cant figure out how to edit my posts. Perhaps thats after you reach a set number of posts/replies? In any case, this isnt the article I read, but its basically what Im talking about:

http://www.carbuzz.com/news/2015/7/25/Tesla-s-Entry-Level-Model-3-Could-Do-0-To-60-MPH-Quicker-Than-The-M3-7728259/

 

[Yggdrasill]

You know, I don't remember where I read it but I recall recently reading a news article speculating the Model 3 would "beat the M3 (I assume E92) to 60MPH". Im obviously paraphrasing, but that's the basic gist. Anyone else see anything about this? Im just reminded of this as I browse the replies, and see people estimating 6-8 second 60MPH times.

In the base 35k USD version, something like 6-8 seconds on 0-60 mph is likely. But when you buy the bigger battery and the performance AWD, you'll probably looking at something in the 2.7-4.0 range.

 

[MacroP]

That's the price of living on the bleeding edge of technology.

I understand (I'm an avid early adopter myself) though I'm not sure a few around here follow your optimism. By the time the Model 3 is out you may see some 6 year old S60s floating around with 100k miles on the clock. Would be these be worth in the US then? Maybe $25k?. Potential bargain of the century.

Sad to say - I'm hoping the Model S's down here in Oz depreciate in a similar fashion once the Model 3 arrives to make them more affordable.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The S70s are already pushing depreciation of the S60s. I don't see any indication of Tesla holding back to preserve the value of older vehicles.

 

[EVdocmaker]

Personally I am getting rather tired of people suggesting that the MODEL 3 should or can have a battery that is less than 70kWh.
Allow me please to assure you anything less than absolute rock bottom 65kWh will cost the car so much range capability it will be a disaster.
People have got this huge ignorance when it comes to batteries and range. The notion that you could put a pack the size of the original
ROADSTER pack into a sedan and get 230 miles ranges is simply uneducated. A car that does 205 miles range is not going to cut it some
people think the MODEL 3 could drive on less than 50kWh and it could if 170 miles range is acceptable to you. The MODEL 3 needs a solid
70kWh battery pack as the entry level and it will touch or ballpark a 240 miles EPA range more with dual motor option. The Premium MODEL 3
with have a 90kWh pack and a 300 miles EPA rating. We are NOT talking about a future NISSAN LEAF we are talking TESLA folks !

 

[Yggdrasill]

Personally I am getting rather tired of people suggesting that the MODEL 3 should or can have a battery that is less than 70kWh.
Allow me please to assure you anything less than absolute rock bottom 65kWh will cost the car so much range capability it will be a disaster.
People have got this huge ignorance when it comes to batteries and range. The notion that you could put a pack the size of the original
ROADSTER pack into a sedan and get 230 miles ranges is simply uneducated. A car that does 205 miles range is not going to cut it some
people think the MODEL 3 could drive on less than 50kWh and it could if 170 miles range is acceptable to you. The MODEL 3 needs a solid
70kWh battery pack as the entry level and it will touch or ballpark a 240 miles EPA range more with dual motor option. The Premium MODEL 3
with have a 90kWh pack and a 300 miles EPA rating. We are NOT talking about a future NISSAN LEAF we are talking TESLA folks !

My bet is on 60 kWh (~53 kWh available) for the small battery and 80 kWh (~70 kWh available) for the big battery. Assuming the 60 kWh version will have 20% lower consumption than the S70, and the 80 kWh version will have 20% lower consumption than the 85D, that results in EPA ranges of around 245 miles for the small battery and 315 miles for the large battery. I think that is pretty good.