MODEL 3

[Kevin Harney]

Just curious -- what about having it standard with a $1-2k higher base price is better for you than having it as a $1-2k option? See, this is what I meant by "mysterious art".

Two things. It makes Supercharging more ubiquitous which is good. And if you can spread out the cost over 35000 cars instead of 20000 cars then the charge can be less. I am OK with the option and I will take it but I prefer standard on all cars.

 

[aarons23]

Anybody think the Model 3 will have the Insane Mode that the Model S has?

 

[favo]

They'd be crazy not to do it.

 

[Grendal]

It was just mentioned in the conference call that the Model 3 concept car will hopefully be shown by March 2016.

 

[Candleflame]

Anybody think the Model 3 will have the Insane Mode that the Model S has?

I have a feeling that it won't necessarly be a good idea to make the Model 3 as quick as the Model S from a marketing perspective. (I myself don't really care if it does 0-60 in 3s or 9s, that's not why I want a car) Tesla would be shooting themselves in the foot by giving their flagship product the same acceleration as a lower tier model. And with a smaller potential weight it will be easier to give the model 3 the same acceleration with a performance package.

I think general motor had the same problem with their Buik Grand National package in the 80s, didn't they? Once the added a turbo and this oversized engine, the car accelerated faster than GM's best sports cars so they "limited" the engine a little bit to make it about 1s slower so GM's flagships were quicker again. With a few tweaks to the engine this limiting could be removed later.

edit: see here: Buick Regal, Grand National, and Turbo Regals - GBodies.com

 

[Kevin Harney]

I have a feeling that it won't necessarly be a good idea to make the Model 3 as quick as the Model S from a marketing perspective. (I myself don't really care if it does 0-60 in 3s or 9s, that's not why I want a car) Tesla would be shooting themselves in the foot by giving their flagship product the same acceleration as a lower tier model. And with a smaller potential weight it will be easier to give the model 3 the same acceleration with a performance package.

I think general motor had the same problem with their Buik Grand National package in the 80s, didn't they? Once the added a turbo and this oversized engine, the car accelerated faster than GM's best sports cars so they "limited" the engine a little bit to make it about 1s slower so GM's flagships were quicker again. With a few tweaks to the engine this limiting could be removed later.

edit: see here: Buick Regal, Grand National, and Turbo Regals - GBodies.com

We have seen this statement a million times here. It is a valid point but I see no reason for it. There is no reason to expect that and HUGE LUXURY SEDAN will be faster and more nimble than a SMALLER SPORTS CAR. We see plenty of evidence in that with the BMW M3 being faster and better than the 6 and 7 Series and the same holds true for Audi and Mercedes I believe. I think a Model 3 will spank a Model S. If it doesn't I will be buying a BMW instead. Elon has stated several times that they must build the best car possible to succeed and I for one believe they will do so.

 

[igotzzoom]

I have a feeling that it won't necessarly be a good idea to make the Model 3 as quick as the Model S from a marketing perspective. (I myself don't really care if it does 0-60 in 3s or 9s, that's not why I want a car) Tesla would be shooting themselves in the foot by giving their flagship product the same acceleration as a lower tier model. And with a smaller potential weight it will be easier to give the model 3 the same acceleration with a performance package.

I know a lot of people on this forum get a woody from daydreaming about 2.5-sec 0-60 Model 3s, but as I've stated many times before, I think 220-250 hp, a 0-60 time of 7 seconds or less, and a real-world range of 225-250 miles will meet the majority of buyer's wishes and needs, and probably satisfy some enthusiasts. Don't get me wrong, I'd love an "insane" mode as much as anyone, and certainly wouldn't turn down 400 hp for $35k. But it's really not necessary. Will there be a performance-oriented variant of the Model 3 at some point? I think that's a safe bet. But at launch, assuming there's enough battery and production capacity to support it, the emphasis should be on more mainstream models.

 

[spottyq]

I know a lot of people on this forum get a woody from daydreaming about 2.5-sec 0-60 Model 3s, but as I've stated many times before, I think 220-250 hp, a 0-60 time of 7 seconds or less, and a real-world range of 225-250 miles will meet the majority of buyer's wishes and needs, and probably satisfy some enthusiasts. Don't get me wrong, I'd love an "insane" mode as much as anyone, and certainly wouldn't turn down 400 hp for $35k. But it's really not necessary. Will there be a performance-oriented variant of the Model 3 at some point? I think that's a safe bet. But at launch, assuming there's enough battery and production capacity to support it, the emphasis should be on more mainstream models.

Well, to make a powerful EV doesn't cost much more than to make less powerful one (certainly compared to an ICE), so why wouldn't Tesla make it more powerful ? Everyone likes moar horses ! (Unless they are penny pinching their way to $35k, which they very well could be.)

On the other hand, some countries tax based on motor power, so it will be* useful to have lower power ratings.
(*future tense here because in most countries, EV's are exempt of this tax, for now.)

 

[igotzzoom]

Well, to make a powerful EV doesn't cost much more than to make less powerful one (certainly compared to an ICE), so why wouldn't Tesla make it more powerful ? Everyone likes moar horses ! (Unless they are penny pinching their way to $35k, which they very well could be.)

On the other hand, some countries tax based on motor power, so it will be* useful to have lower power ratings.
(*future tense here because in most countries, EV's are exempt of this tax, for now.)

True. And I think 300 hp for $35k is entirely feasible, and you can bet the interwebs would erupt with praise if Elon decided to do such a thing. However, I think Tesla would be shooting itself in the foot if it gave away all its goodies in the "base" model. You need to give customers some incentive to upgrade to higher-feature, higher-margin models.

 

[spottyq]

True. And I think 300 hp for $35k is entirely feasible, and you can bet the interwebs would erupt with praise if Elon decided to do such a thing. However, I think Tesla would be shooting itself in the foot if it gave away all its goodies in the "base" model. You need to give customers some incentive to upgrade to higher-feature, higher-margin models.

Well, why couldn't Tesla just have different motor options for the III at launch ? For example 50, 70D, P70D ?

Or do you mean that they should launch the higher performance model later to get people who already own a base model III to upgrade ? (so, same buyer get 2 cars)

 

[gregincal]

True. And I think 300 hp for $35k is entirely feasible, and you can bet the interwebs would erupt with praise if Elon decided to do such a thing. However, I think Tesla would be shooting itself in the foot if it gave away all its goodies in the "base" model. You need to give customers some incentive to upgrade to higher-feature, higher-margin models.

Yes, but if history is any guide Tesla will release the higher margin model first, and the 35K model later. I think either that or they will release them at the same time. It makes no sense to force people into buying the lower margin car because it's the only one available.

 

[Kevin Harney]

Yes, but if history is any guide Tesla will release the higher margin model first, and the 35K model later. I think either that or they will release them at the same time. It makes no sense to force people into buying the lower margin car because it's the only one available.

This an Tesla has a history and mantra of top down. And by that I mean using economies of scale to enable lesser models to exist. not trickle down economics. I believe that the Model 3 version of the P85D will be available on day 1.

- - - Updated - - -

I know a lot of people on this forum get a woody from daydreaming about 2.5-sec 0-60 Model 3s, but as I've stated many times before, I think 220-250 hp, a 0-60 time of 7 seconds or less, and a real-world range of 225-250 miles will meet the majority of buyer's wishes and needs, and probably satisfy some enthusiasts. Don't get me wrong, I'd love an "insane" mode as much as anyone, and certainly wouldn't turn down 400 hp for $35k. But it's really not necessary. Will there be a performance-oriented variant of the Model 3 at some point? I think that's a safe bet. But at launch, assuming there's enough battery and production capacity to support it, the emphasis should be on more mainstream models.

Agree that what you have stated is a pretty good base model. Will we get 400 horses for $35K - NO. Will there be a P85D version of Model 3 - YES. Will it come out first - PROBABLY.

 

[Twiglett]

They already have multiple motor/battery size combinations for the Model S, I haven't seen any indication that they will not do the same with Model 3.
I assume that as the different models age and mature that the super high tech stuff would hit Model S first and drifts down to Model 3 - just like Merc & BMW do with S-Class or 7-Series. It becomes the low volume (relatively) cutting edge platform.
But when it comes to performance, I don't think Tesla will "limit" the Model 3 to artificially keep the S faster.
Just like others have said, most of their competition don't do that anymore.

 

[Red Sage]

It was just mentioned in the conference call that the Model 3 concept car will hopefully be shown by March 2016.

The Tesla Model ≡ will be shown in Q1 2016... But it won't be a 'concept car', or a 'prototype'. It will most likely be an Alpha level design, but much further along than the original Model S and Model X vehicles shown years ago. I doubt that Franz von Holzhausen has been sitting on his hands since early 2012.

... Tesla would be shooting themselves in the foot by giving their flagship product the same
acceleration as a lower tier model.

No, they would not be. Even before you get to the BMW M3, the 335i is quicker than every 7-Series up to around $150,000. 7-Series only enjoy a performance advantage in top speed over 3-Series -- and that is due to an artificial limitation.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love an "insane" mode as much as anyone, and certainly wouldn't turn down 400 hp for $35k. But it's really not necessary.

Oh, there is certainly a necessity that needs be filled, even for the base version of Tesla Model ≡ when it comes to performance. Elon specifically stated their cars cannot be 'about the same' as everyone else's. Calling for less HP than a top-of-the-line Accord or Camry, while being stomped by an Infiniti Q will NOT work. The car must be BETTER, even in base trim, than ALL of the other cars within its price range.

True. And I think 300 hp for $35k is entirely feasible, and you can bet the interwebs would erupt with praise if Elon decided to do such a thing. However, I think Tesla would be shooting itself in the foot if it gave away all its goodies in the "base" model. You need to give customers some incentive to upgrade to higher-feature, higher-margin models.

I don't have to be faster than the bear. I just have to be faster than YOU.

Same goes for the Tesla Motors product lineup. The Model S doesn't have to be quicker, faster, better than the Model ≡. It just has to be better than AUDI A8, BMW 7-Series, Mercedes-Benz S-Class, and Porsche Panamera.