Powerwall 2 and M3 battery prices

[flamingoezz]

S/X jump from 60 to 75 kwh for $8500.
Powerwall 2 packs 14 kwh in for only $5500.

With basically a year til M3's start hitting the road, it seems reasonable to consider that a similar 15 kwh jump might be $5500 or less for the M3.

 

[LBusDoor90]

If the Powerwall 2 cost does indeed translate to the M3 battery upgrade, it would be the best news about the M3 cost breakdown this teacher of meager means could get.

 

[Yggdrasill]

It could be better than that. The powerwall uses NMC, rather than NCA. If it had used NCA cells, it would be something like 19-23 kWh, depending on possible chemistry improvements. So, you should pay something like 5500 USD for a ~20kWh upgrade, going by the Powerwall pricing.

Of course, it sadly doesn't work that way. Tesla will price the battery upgrades for maximum uptake and profit. With a larger battery you also get better durability, more power and faster charging. Tesla will want money for this.

 

[jonnyg]

Powerwall 2 includes an inverter as well, so that cost can be subtracted out for sake of comparison.

 

[Waiting4M3]

OTOH packaging the cells for a car would probably be a lot more robust/heavier/costlier than for Powerwall, so 14kwh for M3 will probably cost more than the 14kwh Powerwall2.

But in any case Powerwall2 is ~55% volume of the original Powerwall, and ~70% of price/kwh of the original Powerwall, so Tesla can probably put in 40% (1/0.7-1) more battery in M3 vs 6-12 months ago when they quoted the # for M3 reveal pt 1, for the same money/volume.

The base 215 mi model, increasing by 40%, could be a 300 mi model. Tesla will probably not go that high on the base model, but compromise to only up the base range to 250 mi, keep the extra $ for profit. And when the EV subsidy runs out, they will have the margin to lower their price and keep pace with the subsidy decrease.

 

[Booga]

I don't think they can be compared. The chemistry of each battery is different because of the use. The metals that go into them will be pretty different.

 

[timk225]

What really bothers me is that in all likelihood the Model 3 will ship with a battery of (X) KW, upgradeable to (X+15) KW for ($ some number) more money.

But the extra batteries are already in the pack.

So if you think about it the right way, you're not paying ($thousands) for an extra 15 KW worth of batteries, you're paying thousands for someone in the Tesla call center to sit at their computer and perform a few mouse clicks to enable the extra capacity that YOU ALREADY HAVE!!!

I hate that the batteries sit in the pack unused, or to put it another way, their capacity range is artificially restricted through the computer.

I would prefer that there are only (X) KW worth of batteries in the pack, and to upgrade, you go to a Tesla Service Center and swap it for a pack with more batteries in it.

 

[3Victoria]

You are looking at it backwards. You get the extra potential for free. It costs Tesla extra, but they are giving you a deal. There are also benefits from having that extra battery, too -- you can charge to 100% without penalty.

[[ You realize that we are speculating that the smallest 3 will have an upgradable battery. ]]

 

[diamond.g]

You are looking at it backwards. You get the extra potential for free. It costs Tesla extra, but they are giving you a deal. There are also benefits from having that extra battery, too -- you can charge to 100% without penalty.

[[ You realize that we are speculating that the smallest 3 will have an upgradable battery. ]]

I don't think the 3 will have the margins for that in the base model in the beginning. If they offer three battery sizes I could see there being more margin in the middle size to allow upgrades to the largest battery via software locking.

 

[Booga]

I don't think the 3 will have the margins for that in the base model in the beginning. If they offer three battery sizes I could see there being more margin in the middle size to allow upgrades to the largest battery via software locking.

To a certain extent, you're right, because Tesla is trying to please the street to have access to the capital markets at favorable terms, and so they won't let short term margins drop too much.

That said, ideally (from their perspective), it should be based on cost and expected lifetime revenue. If they find that, say, 50% of S60 owners eventually go for the upgrade to 75 kWh, then they can figure that into what the sales price of the car is. For example, a $60k car with a $10k battery upgrade. If half of the customers eventually unlock it, then it's effectively a $65k car, and so they can determine whether to include a larger battery or not based on this expected revenue figure and what their cost is. If the battery were to cost less than $5k in every car, then on average, they come out ahead as a firm even if half of the owners never unlock it.

The Model 3 is no different, but given that it's going to be produced at a higher scale, and is a generally aggressive price point (though autopilot and other upgrades can make up for any lack of margin because a high percentage of owners will get those), maybe they hold off on a larger battery pack in order to not kill their financial performance in the short term.

If the base Model 3 gets a range increase, closer to say 250 miles, and it has a larger battery pack that can be unlocked for nearly 300 miles of range, then I'm a buyer who will stick to the 250. It provides me the benefit of faster charging and less degradation over time. I think it's an extremely valuable feature. I would actually pay $1k for a bigger battery I couldn't access lol.

 

[Model 3]

that in all likelihood the Model 3 will ship with a battery of (X) KW, upgradeable to (X+15) KW for ($ some number) more money.

While I agree that it is possible, it is not likely.

I hate that the batteries sit in the pack unused

No cell is unused. All cells are used, but they are not used to their fully capacity, and that save the battery from a grate deal of stress. And remember that if you have a 75, 85, 90 or 100kWh pack and just charge it to 90% (as you should in the daily use) there is 10% "unused" battery at the top. And btw - you are not even allowed to "use" the last few kWh of any of the battery packs.

So having this "unused" part of the battery saves it from a lot off (depending on use) stress, so it would probably have a longer life. And while all batteries will degrade over time/use, this will probably be "hidden" by the "unused" capacity. So if you plan on having the car for a long time, you can still count on having the same range as you had in the beginning for a long time. And that you can't if it was not for the buffer.

So, if Tesla offers TM3 with a "hidden" capacity at the top I would say "YES! Please! Let me have that!"

I would prefer that there are only (X) KW worth of batteries in the pack, and to upgrade, you go to a Tesla Service Center and swap it for a pack with more batteries in it.

And I would prefer to just call in and have this extra capacity enabled while I'm charging on a trip and find out that I need a bit more range to get all the way to that Service Center Much better then have it flat bedded...

 

[Waiting4M3]

I know I'm dreaming but it would be nice if Tesla offers a pay-as-you-go model for the extra battery capacity: buy the 60kwh base mode, and if you need a longer trip occasionally, pay some fee ($50/$100?) to unlock the extra 15kwh for a week, it's almost like renting a roadtrip car.

It will probably cannibalize some 75kwh model sale, but it would also open a whole new group of people who can only afford the base model but still want longer ranges. Given the market size distribution it's possible this may attract more lower tier buyers than the # of 75kwh it may cannibalize. Tesla can still offer other goodies exclusive only to 75kwh models to incentivize 75kwh buyers, such as bigger motor and faster acceleration.

 

[SageBrush]

So having this "unused" part of the battery saves it from a lot off (depending on use) stress, so it would probably have a longer life. And while all batteries will degrade over time/use, this will probably be "hidden" by the "unused" capacity. So if you plan on having the car for a long time, you can still count on having the same range as you had in the beginning for a long time. And that you can't if it was not for the buffer.

So, if Tesla offers TM3 with a "hidden" capacity at the top I would say "YES! Please! Let me have that!"

Exactly, and more:

An old car with a degraded range can be "refurbished" for $2500 by accessing the hidden range.