No more $35K Model 3?

[Funkmobile]

Somewhat incorrect. 0-60 times on my 340xi were better than on the 340i even though it weighed 200 pounds more. If your argument is that dual motor on Tesla adds horsepower where-as on ICE cars AWD systems add traction that is technically true, but since performance of higher power ICE cars is usually traction limited the end result is the same for most practical driving situations.

If you want to compare apples to apples: 340i vs 340xi has a 1 second difference in 0-60?

 

[voip-ninja]

If you want to compare apples to apples: 340i vs 340xi has a 1 second difference in 0-60?

0-60 difference between RWD LR Model 3 and the dual motor version is only .5 seconds. So yeah, I paid $5,000 (some paid $6,000) for .5 seconds faster 0-60 performance as well as some performance advantages in wet/slick conditions.

For the BMW the difference if I remember correctly was about .3 seconds per BMW and real world testing put it at more like .5 seconds. Other performance differences, as noted were similar, similarly improved traction and so on.

No matter how you slice it Tesla is charging 2X-3X as much for an "AWD" option compared to their competitors. The typical consumer is not going to understand the benefits (or drawbacks for that matter) of having two independent motors versus just having a transfer case and differential that connects the front and rear axle.

 

[banned-66611]

Back on topic, does a $35k Model 3 even make sense any more? 200 miles is a bit sub-par in that price range, and the competition all comes with Autopilot included.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Yea, but nowhere did he say it will be $35K before rebates and savings. A likely scenario will be MR going back to $45K, SR starting at $40K.

..., and bankruptcy.

Elon Musk has stated $35k before tax credit multiple times.

The $35k target for the SR base isn't simply a number plucked out of thin air. It's about overall profitability.

Entry-level premium ASP is $42k. $35k+PUP+color+delivery is right there.

If Tesla can release the SR, the MR will be eliminated to upsell people to the LR. The MR was created to use the tax credit to lure SR buyers to spend more money by offering them a "good deal".

 

[Funkmobile]

0-60 difference between RWD LR Model 3 and the dual motor version is only .5 seconds. So yeah, I paid $5,000 (some paid $6,000) for .5 seconds faster 0-60 performance as well as some performance advantages in wet/slick conditions.

For the BMW the difference if I remember correctly was about .3 seconds per BMW and real world testing put it at more like .5 seconds. Other performance differences, as noted were similar, similarly improved traction and so on.

No matter how you slice it Tesla is charging 2X-3X as much for an "AWD" option compared to their competitors. The typical consumer is not going to understand the benefits (or drawbacks for that matter) of having two independent motors versus just having a transfer case and differential that connects the front and rear axle.

RWD LR does 0-60 in around 5.5 (maybe it used to do 5.1):

Long Range (First Production) Acceleration 0-60 5.1 second nerf ? | Tesla

According to this: BMW 0-60 Times & BMW Quarter Mile Times | BMW M6, X5, i3, M3, M1 & Z4 0 to 60 stats! the 340ix is slower than then 340i in 0-60 so I find it hard to believe that AWD magically gives you a 0.5 second boost in 0-60 using the same engine.

 

[happyzod]

That's really not true.

Mercedes & BMW both offer their AWD variants as a $2,000 premium. Same with Audi before they dropped FWD A4 from the US market.

Tesla is charging quite a premium for dual motor functionality vs. what traditional AWD costs from other luxe manufacturers. Arguably their system is superior but might actually be cheaper to implement so could cost the same.

I'm talking about Tesla's ecosystem here. Dual motor means more performance so they are justified in having a higher premium compared to other auto makers.

 

[voip-ninja]

RWD LR does 0-60 in around 5.5 (maybe it used to do 5.1):

Long Range (First Production) Acceleration 0-60 5.1 second nerf ? | Tesla

According to this: BMW 0-60 Times & BMW Quarter Mile Times | BMW M6, X5, i3, M3, M1 & Z4 0 to 60 stats! the 340ix is slower than then 340i in 0-60 so I find it hard to believe that AWD magically gives you a 0.5 second boost in 0-60 using the same engine.

I'd be really surprised if there is no 0-60 difference between the medium range and long range model 3 currently. I believe the MR is being advertised as 5.5.

@ 5.1 seconds which is what Tesla has said the RWD car will do and 4.5 seconds (both times w/out rollout) the dual motor is only about .6 seconds faster. That still feels like a lot. I'm sure the P3D which I haven't experienced is simply mind blowing... and way too much car for me to have on a daily commute where I'm lucky if I hit 50mph.

I was pretty active on the Bimmerfest forums when the 340i came out and I strongly recollect people getting upset that the 340xi was posting better race slip times at drag strips than the 340i. I believe at the time the consensus was that with over 350 horsepower (BMW as always underrated it) the rear wheel drive car was traction limited.

 

[voip-ninja]

I'm talking about Tesla's ecosystem here. Dual motor means more performance so they are justified in having a higher premium compared to other auto makers.

You are the one that justified the $4,000+ price difference by saying it was typical for other manufacturers!

 

[Knightshade]

Back on topic, does a $35k Model 3 even make sense any more? 200 miles is a bit sub-par in that price range, and the competition all comes with Autopilot included.

the 35k car is 220 miles of range.

Also no, the competition does not "all come with autopilot included"

Some come with some features (often at added cost)- and all of them suck compared to autopilot in every professional comparison I've seen done....(with the one exception of Caddys system- that costs extra, only comes on 1 model, and only works on about 10% of the roads EAP works on)

I'd be really surprised if there is no 0-60 difference between the medium range and long range model 3 currently. I believe the MR is being advertised as 5.5.

MR is 5.6 (as is SR)...LR RWD is 5.1

I
@ 5.1 seconds which is what Tesla has said the RWD car will do and 4.5 seconds (both times w/out rollout) the dual motor is only about .6 seconds faster. That still feels like a lot. I'm sure the P3D which I haven't experienced is simply mind blowing... and way too much car for me to have on a daily commute where I'm lucky if I hit 50mph.

That's why you can't go just by the 0-60.... the AWD is much closer to the P at highway speds than it is to the RWD...you can tell by the 1/4 mile results, where the time difference after ~60 is almost nothing between AWD and P, while it continues to grow between RWD and AWD... but it's most obvious in the trap speed- where the AWD is within ~2 mph of the P, while the RWD is over 10 mph behind both.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Back on topic, does a $35k Model 3 even make sense any more? 200 miles is a bit sub-par in that price range, and the competition all comes with Autopilot included.

Yes, it does.

For a start, the competition at that price point doesn't have anywhere near the same performance as a Model 3, so it offers something different. If you want electric performance from the competition, you're into high end premium.

Offering the $35k base enables base + PUP (+ EAP later?) or base + EAP or base (+ EAP Later?), which opens up the market.

The 220 miles EPA range of the SR would be more than enough. I expect the range of the other models was set by wanting to get 4 credits in California (and Quebec) and 6 credits in China.

 

[N5329K]

Back on topic, does a $35k Model 3 even make sense any more? 200 miles is a bit sub-par in that price range, and the competition all comes with Autopilot included.

It makes sense only if you can afford to build it, which has not been the case. The base model is (was?) an ideal Tesla was shooting for, an attempt by a niche, luxury manufacturer to go after the fat midsection of the automobile market. So far, bringing those niche skills to the new game hasn't been so smooth (Q&A, parts and service, mainly). It might resolve in time. But it also might not. In which case, Tesla says, Sorry. We tried, (after "accelerating the transition to sustainable transportation" by goading the likes of Hyundai, Kia, VW et al into action).
Robin

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

It makes sense only if you can afford to build it, which has not been the case. The base model is (was?) an ideal Tesla was shooting for, an attempt by a niche, luxury manufacturer to go after the fat midsection of the automobile market. So far, bringing those niche skills to the new game hasn't been so smooth (Q&A, parts and service, mainly). It might resolve in time. But it also might not. In which case, Tesla says, Sorry. We tried, (after "accelerating the transition to sustainable transportation" by goading the likes of Hyundai, Kia, VW et al into action).
Robin

"Sorry" won't sell enough cars.

 

[happyzod]

You are the one that justified the $4,000+ price difference by saying it was typical for other manufacturers!

You are confused. Point out where I said that? Below is what I said.

You have to look at it this way. Dual motor was always between 4K and 6K addon to the LR RWD. Including tax credits, price for a base LR RWD was 41,500 while price for a base dual motor LR is 46150. That's a $4650 difference or pretty much right in the range of the historical difference between RWD and AWD LR cars.

 

[Atari2600]

0-60 difference between RWD LR Model 3 and the dual motor version is only .5 seconds. So yeah, I paid $5,000 (some paid $6,000) for .5 seconds faster 0-60 performance as well as some performance advantages in wet/slick conditions.

For the BMW the difference if I remember correctly was about .3 seconds per BMW and real world testing put it at more like .5 seconds. Other performance differences, as noted were similar, similarly improved traction and so on.

No matter how you slice it Tesla is charging 2X-3X as much for an "AWD" option compared to their competitors. The typical consumer is not going to understand the benefits (or drawbacks for that matter) of having two independent motors versus just having a transfer case and differential that connects the front and rear axle.

I paid $4,000 which was the original price. I just looked it up to be sure.

 

[voip-ninja]

I paid $4,000 which was the original price. I just looked it up to be sure.

Yeah now that I think of it I paid $4,000 as well and "only" $1,000 for paint.

$4,000 for dual motor still makes it 2X as much cost as all wheel drive does from most manufacturers on similar sedans. If I had to guess I would say that the majority (overwhelming majority probably) of purchasers of AWD cars are making that choice for weather traction reasons and not for performance reasons.

 

[Atari2600]

Yeah now that I think of it I paid $4,000 as well and "only" $1,000 for paint.

$4,000 for dual motor still makes it 2X as much cost as all wheel drive does from most manufacturers on similar sedans. If I had to guess I would say that the majority (overwhelming majority probably) of purchasers of AWD cars are making that choice for weather traction reasons and not for performance reasons.

You are probably correct. I did have performance in mind with our G37x purchase back in late 2011. The AWD on that car allows 0-60 in 5.2 seconds with traction control off on stock all season tires. After that the added weight slows you down when compared to the RWD version.
Tesla offers two motors for system redundancy which is something new compared to ICE setups. I talked to a number of folks who do not really trust electric motors and after mentioning the redundancy they were more open to an EV but sadly they still talk about "all the fires".

 

[N5329K]

"Sorry" won't sell enough cars.

You're right. It won't. But it might sell as many as Tesla can build well and service well.
Robin

 

[SammichLover]

Somewhat incorrect. 0-60 times on my 340xi were better than on the 340i even though it weighed 200 pounds more. If your argument is that dual motor on Tesla adds horsepower where-as on ICE cars AWD systems add traction that is technically true, but since performance of higher power ICE cars is usually traction limited the end result is the same for most practical driving situations.

How much better were the x-Drive times compared to the 340i?

This source suggests the other direction, but only very slightly, on 0-60. The 1/4 times have a slight advantage to the xDrive, though:

BMW 0-60 Times & BMW Quarter Mile Times | BMW M6, X5, i3, M3, M1 & Z4 0 to 60 stats!

2016 BMW 340i Compare Car0-60 mph 4.8 | Quarter mile 13.4
2016 BMW 340i xDriveCompare Car0-60 mph 4.9 | Quarter mile 13.3

Keep in mind that the RWD Model 3 to D difference is rather substantial, in HP, 0-60, and 1/4 times. So you're dealing with at least 0.6s faster, compared to maybe 0.1s with the BMW if that. At 5s 0-60 and below the Model 3's differences are huge, that's 15%+ reduction. Normally automobiles are priced at several thousands of dollars for that acceleration performance step and nothing else such as the D provides in handling on sub-optimal surfaces.

 

[run-the-joules]

You're right. It won't. But it might sell as many as Tesla can build well and service well.
Robin

I’d say they’re already selling more than that particular number.

 

[ucmndd]

Anyone know a way to setup a charitable wager? I’d bet $100 for charity that the $35k car arrives by end of this year.

Based on the predictable, steady flow of disagrees my initial post in this thread is receiving, I’ll take that bet.

$100 to charity if Tesla delivers a single $35k (plus destination) car to a non-employee prior to Jan 1, 2020.