Model E

[JRP3]

I'm assuming this will be the base model though.

Yes.

The Power electronics piece shouldn't be underestimated since a small gain in efficiency is multiplied several times between discharge and regen.

I would not count on much if any increase in electronics, and regen only provides a small amount of energy in comparison to the amount used that any efficiency increase would be tiny.
The existing 60kWh pack presumably leaves the front section empty, but would need to be narrower and probably shorter to fit into the Model E platform, so they could not use the same pack layout.

 

[paco3791]

The existing 60kWh pack presumably leaves the front section empty, but would need to be narrower and probably shorter to fit into the Model E platform, so they could not use the same pack layout.

agreed, it's not a simple cut and paste operation. What I was trying to say was I think a E 60 is probably doable with existing cells or a modest increase in cell power density.

 

[John Luciano]

As a potential buyer, I see the E as being the poor mans Tesla. If the range was only 150 miles it would suit 80% of the driving public. If the car comes in at $40,000 or less , they will have a hard time keeping up with production. With the increase on charging stations, 150 mile spacing ,is very doable. Do I wish it was 200+. You bet. I checked my weekly driving distance and it is 195 miles ( takes about $35.00 in gas ) I could do one overnight charge a week .( I don't know what it cost to do that ) but I bet it is cheaper than $35.00 at .11 per KWH

 

[JRP3]

Elon has pretty much drawn a line in the sand at 200 miles minimum. Obviously real world results would be less in many cases.

 

[VolkerP]

There is no point in reusing the 60kWh pack of the Model S for the Model E.

- Model E will be 20% smaller, it cannot accomodate the Model S pack form factor.
- The Model S 60kWh pack is only partially filled with cells/modules, so that would be wasted space in Model E.
- Tesla has learned a lot since starting to manufacture Model S, they surely want to improve design and cost of a new battery pack form factor for Model E

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Elon has pretty much drawn a line in the sand at 200 miles minimum. Obviously real world results would be less in many cases.

I think of it as being based on Supercharging, which can't get slower, which pretty much means 200 miles, 60kWh as the baseline.

 

[eepic]

I think of it as being based on Supercharging, which can't get slower, which pretty much means 200 miles, 60kWh as the baseline.

If the Model E is 20% smaller, then you would get *almost the same range with a 50kWh pack as a Model S with 60kWh (*almost because some things like general electronics, aerodynamic drag, etc will not scale down by 20% in power consumption). Elon mentioned this himself at CUPC you don't need the same battery capacity for the same range in a smaller Gen 3 car.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

If the Model E is 20% smaller, then you would get *almost the same range with a 50kWh pack as a Model S with 60kWh (*almost because some things like general electronics, aerodynamic drag, etc will not scale down by 20% in power consumption). Elon mentioned this himself at CUPC you don't need the same battery capacity for the same range in a smaller Gen 3 car.

Right, the importance of drag means that when you really need the range, you'd feel the impact of a smaller battery much more. You'd be driving on the highway with less range than an S60 and then, with the 20% lower capacity, your charging would take 20% longer. At Tesla prices the capacity reduction would save $2k or less. To me, reducing battery capacity and increasing Supercharger contention are the last things they should be doing; better to save money on the base model by reducing performance rather than practicality.

 

[JRP3]

Except the larger area of the Model S means it's impacted by drag at higher speeds to a much greater degree than the smaller Model E will be. Remember the Roadster, which has a poor cd but a small A, gets 240 miles of range from a 53kWh pack. The Model E will be larger than the Roadster but should have a cd at least as good if not better than the S. There is no good reason the Model E should not be able to get an EPA 200 mile range from a 50kWh pack, and it's range should suffer less at speed than the S because of it's smaller size.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Remember the Roadster, which has a poor cd but a small A, gets 240 miles of range from a 53kWh pack.

The Roadster gets 245 miles, but that was on the obsolete 2 cycle EPA test. The Model S gets 320 under the same rating:
"We are very pleased to report that Model S has exceeded our initial range expectations by about 20 miles and has achieved a Roadster equivalent 2-cycle range of 320 miles and a 5-cycle range of 265 miles."
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/model-s-efficiency-and-range

That would suggest that the Roadster would only get 203 miles under the new 5-cycle test.

Also, Tesla says that the Roadster battery "stores 56 kWh of electric energy" (although I know some places reference 53kWh).
http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/technology/battery

 

[JRP3]

The 60kWh S gets a 208 EPA range, I think a 20% smaller E should get similar range with a 20% smaller pack, which would be 48kWh.

 

[jdevo2004]

I can not remember where or when it was said but I seem to remember Elon saying he wanted 200 miles of real world range. I am going to guess it will be about a 55KWh pack.

 

[Username]

Looks like it stands for "Eccentric"!

 

[Kevin Harney]

Model E's direct competition. 0-60 in 4.2. That should be pretty easy to beat since the Model S can do it LOL :biggrin:I have said all along they should be shooting for 3.9. That leaves plenty of room for improvement with the new Roadster. Price $35,000(base) to $95,000(fully loaded)

BMW M4 Convertible

 

[ryanjm]

Model E's direct competition. 0-60 in 4.2. That should be pretty easy to beat since the Model S can do it LOL :biggrin:I have said all along they should be shooting for 3.9. That leaves plenty of room for improvement with the new Roadster. Price $35,000(base) to $95,000(fully loaded)

BMW M4 Convertible

The M4 is a 2-door coupe, and you've linked to the convertible version. Model E will be a four-dour sedan and, obviously, not a convertible. So it's not an exact comparison. I'm sure the 0-60 is about the same on M3, but the price is likely a bit lower than the M4 convertible. I really hope a loaded Model E Performance doesn't exceed $80k, otherwise I won't be able to stretch to afford one.

 

[Trev Page]

I sure wish I could have been a fly on the wall during the Model "E" design requirements meeting and watching Elon write his demands down on a white board like Steve Jobs used to do!

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Model E's direct competition. 0-60 in 4.2. That should be pretty easy to beat since the Model S can do it LOL :biggrin:I have said all along they should be shooting for 3.9. That leaves plenty of room for improvement with the new Roadster. Price $35,000(base) to $95,000(fully loaded)

BMW 0-60 Times & BMW Quarter Mile Times | BMW E36, X5, BMW M3 0-60, M5, M6, M1, 330, Z4 and Cabrio Bimmer 0 to 60 stats!

2014 BMW 328d Sedan 0-60 mph 7.0 Quarter Mile 15.6

To get cost savings from a smaller inverter and motor that's about what I'd expect from the base Model E. As the owner of a Volt, Prius and Civic that'd do nicely and I'm sure my wife would use that performance more than I would.
At the top end, Model E P85+, I'd expect sub 4s, but it'll cost ya.

 

[Kevin Harney]

The M4 is a 2-door coupe, and you've linked to the convertible version. Model E will be a four-dour sedan and, obviously, not a convertible. So it's not an exact comparison. I'm sure the 0-60 is about the same on M3, but the price is likely a bit lower than the M4 convertible. I really hope a loaded Model E Performance doesn't exceed $80k, otherwise I won't be able to stretch to afford one.

The 3 Series and 4 Series have sedans, coupes, convertibles and wagons. Why can't the Model E have those variants also? I for one will not be getting the Model E unless it has a performance convertible version. So for me if this does not compare to the M4 convertible I will not be getting it.

- - - Updated - - -

BMW 0-60 Times & BMW Quarter Mile Times | BMW E36, X5, BMW M3 0-60, M5, M6, M1, 330, Z4 and Cabrio Bimmer 0 to 60 stats!



To get cost savings from a smaller inverter and motor that's about what I'd expect from the base Model E. As the owner of a Volt, Prius and Civic that'd do nicely and I'm sure my wife would use that performance more than I would.
At the top end, Model E P85+, I'd expect sub 4s, but it'll cost ya.

I agree that this would be a great BASE model and I am prepared to pay for the sub 4 Sec version of this.

 

[JRP3]

I hope you're prepared to wait a long time for a convertible E since that would be major structural redesign, and I expect it to be a long way off, if they even bother. I'd expect a E platform based Roadster sooner.

 

[Kevin Harney]

I hope you're prepared to wait a long time for a convertible E since that would be major structural redesign, and I expect it to be a long way off, if they even bother. I'd expect a E platform based Roadster sooner.

While I do expect to wait a bit for the convertible I think that not planning on having one and building the Model E design with that in mind would be VERY shortsighted and unTeslalike conduct. They know that they can not survive on sedans alone. I would actually expect that the coupe might come out before the sedan or possibly at the same time. They already have a sedan to sell and an SUV so they need a smaller coupe next. More of the same will not get them very far.

And I would love a 4 door convertible !!! That would be a great novel car for them to build with. No one else has it to offer.