Sub 3 seconds for Model 3 DL

[sitter_k]

Secondly, their goal isn't to simply sell vehicles, it is to sell electric vehicles to promote sustainable transportation, tothat end they will always try to sell as many as they can.

Isn't that a bit contradictory? I doubt any company's Corp mission ever speaks to making profit...I love what Tesla is doing, I'm a big fan and believe EVs are the future but I'm also a shareholder and Tesla is also a business and I have no illusions of Tesla being an altruistically driven entity. They want to save the environment. How? By selling everyone a Tesla of course...I doubt they will try to max their sales output and sacrifice profit.

 

[shokunin]

The 18650 I linked to is the "B" variant which Tesla used in their 85 packs.

Testing done by member wk057 says otherwise. While similar to the NCR18650B, the cells Tesla uses are slightly different.

 

[Garlan Garner]

These two particular Panasonic cells barely differ in Wh/L. 2.5%. tesla has been alluding to 10%, before any chemistry update.
I doubt these public Panasonic cells are very relavant for Current Model S/X cells, let alone upcoming Model 3. Even the dimensions may be differt. 20.35mm max is called a 21?

This is a post to hang on to for the next 18 months.

 

[JBsC6]

I'm just hopeful after driving a model s capable of a zero to sixty in four flat.....if I can get a model 3 AWD to do that I'll be pleased. I want AWD and sub 4 second zero to sixty...for under 55 grand....ill be pleased...

That's faster than my c6 450 hp m6 z51 corvette. I'm keeping my corvette as I take ownership of the model 3. I really don't want to drop more than 60 grand on the model 3 performance version with AWD.

I'll give up some performance if need be to keep that price point. I have a hard time processing cars over 60 grand...I might but I'm hopeful I don't have to.

 

[Garlan Garner]

I'm just hopeful after driving a model s capable of a zero to sixty in four flat.....if I can get a model 3 AWD to do that I'll be pleased. I want AWD and sub 4 second zero to sixty...for under 55 grand....ill be pleased...

That's faster than my c6 450 hp m6 z51 corvette. I'm keeping my corvette as I take ownership of the model 3. I really don't want to drop more than 60 grand on the model 3 performance version with AWD.

I'll give up some performance if need be to keep that price point. I have a hard time processing cars over 60 grand...I might but I'm hopeful I don't have to.

I'm with you.... ditto.

 

[shokunin]

Yes, but it's a little different at BMW. The base price for the M3 ($64,000) or M4 ($66,200) are higher than the base price for the 5-Series ($60,900). So, you don't even have to max out options on the M3 or M4 to get into the 5-Series price range. I expect the base price for the Tesla Model ☰ in Performance trim to be substantially lower than the base price of the Tesla Model S 60. I'm guessing by at least $15,000 or so. That way, a fully loaded, completely maxed out, optioned to the hilt version of a Tesla Model ☰ P100D might cost about the same as a Model S 75D. And that would be quite a bit less than a fully loaded M3 or M4.

$15K less than a base Model S 60 is $51K. So you think Tesla is going to offer the Pxx version of Model 3 for just $16K above base. I don't think so. If anything, just like you mentionted, I think the price of the perfromance is going to be similar to the BMW M3 pricing. If you want the fastest performance it's only going to be available on the largest pack, dual motor option, possibly requires the air suspension. That's before you add the "premium" for the performance option. I wouldn't be surprise if the P option alone is $10K

base $35K
Dual motors $3.5K
upgraded batteries (2 tiers?) $15K
P option - $10K

Starting at $63.5

 

[J1mbo]

Testing done by member wk057 says otherwise. While similar to the NCR18650B, the cells Tesla uses are slightly different.

We know the 18650 cells have been developed over time. The current cells have tweaked chemistry that provides about 6% more energy than the original cells. What does that tell us about the new format? Nothing much IMO.

Certainly doesn't suggest 90kWh in a ~30% smaller volumetric area than the P100DL battery.

 

[Red Sage]

So the batteries in series give you the voltage. The batteries in parallel give you the current. The total (series x parallel) gives you the battery capacity. So if the smaller car size holds a smaller battery, and the voltage is fixed, then the amperage will be lower and hence smaller power output. That said, batteries keep getting better.

The smaller car will likely also have smaller wheels, and say what you will about force applied normal to a smooth surface being independent of surface area, a road is not smooth, and I expect lower forces will be possible on smaller tires. That said, tires can be changed out to a limit of the wheel well (without looking unorthodox).

And as noted the car will be lighter. But I don't think the ludicrous mode in the model 3 will hit sub 3 at least for the first couple of production years. I will be happy to be proven wrong.

I believe that Ludicrous means sub-3 seconds by default at this point. Insane was sub-3.5 seconds. Scary Fast was under 4.5 Seconds. Ludicrous will be available on the Performance vehicles per Elon.

 

[Red Sage]

$15K less than a base Model S 60 is $51K. So you think Tesla is going to offer the Pxx version of Model 3 for just $16K above base. I don't think so. If anything, just like you mentionted, I think the price of the perfromance is going to be similar to the BMW M3 pricing. If you want the fastest performance it's only going to be available on the largest pack, dual motor option, possibly requires the air suspension. That's before you add the "premium" for the performance option. I wouldn't be surprise if the P option alone is $10K

base $35K
Dual motors $3.5K
upgraded batteries (2 tiers?) $15K
P option - $10K

Starting at $63.5

For over two years my estimates have been based on the premise that Tesla Motors would have three main trim levels:

• Base vehicle, rear wheel drive
• Midrange vehicle, dual motor all eheel drive
• Performance vehicle, dual motor maximum capacity battery pack, dual motor all wheel drive

My presumption is that there will be three battery pack capacities such as 55 kWh (software limited), 70 kWh, and 100 kWh, possibly a 90 kWh version instead. That would result in configurations such as:

• Model 3 55 kWh RWD
• Model 3 55D
• Model 3 70 kWh RWD
• Model 3 70D
• Model 3 P100D

I believe each of those configurations could allow as much as $15,000 in options if requested. Thus, the base car could be $50,000 if all options were added to it. The Performance car would be a package featuring particular wheels and tires, suspension setup, brakes, seating, etc. It would cost perhaps $50,000 to $55,000, so an additional $15,000 in costs for options might push it to $65,000 to $70,000. As noted previously: a major bargain compared to other cars in class that have a Perfomance oriented edition. Remember, Model 3 is meant to be affordable. Costing a significant amount more to gouge Customers would be a bad idea.

 

[dsvick]

Isn't that a bit contradictory? I doubt any company's Corp mission ever speaks to making profit...I love what Tesla is doing, I'm a big fan and believe EVs are the future but I'm also a shareholder and Tesla is also a business and I have no illusions of Tesla being an altruistically driven entity. They want to save the environment. How? By selling everyone a Tesla of course...I doubt they will try to max their sales output and sacrifice profit.

You're right they won't. What saying is that I'm sure they've got a whole team of accountants and marketing specialists that have examined the question and they've come up with the proper balance to do both. Yes they could shift it to a higher price point and make more per sale but sell less, of they could lower the price and sell more but make less, but they've done this already. I don't think anyone on this forum can come in and accurately say, "they should do this, it'll be better".

If you have a different opinion, as a shareholder you can voice it, but you should also give them a bit of trust that they know what they're doing.

 

[Topher]

Think about it the S and X are the money makers for Tesla, without them you wouldn't have a 3 or the other future models

You could say exactly the same thing about the Roadster; note that Tesla abandoned that. The Model 3 will be the money maker when they are producing 50,000 Model S, and 500,000 Model 3.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Topher]

Is Ludacris that sort of feature? Only Tesla knows.

Actually, Tesla told us.
Elon Musk on Twitter

Thank you kindly.

 

[Jayc]

For over two years my estimates have been based on the premise that Tesla Motors would have three main trim levels:

• Base vehicle, rear wheel drive
• Midrange vehicle, dual motor all eheel drive
• Performance vehicle, dual motor maximum capacity battery pack, dual motor all wheel drive

My presumption is that there will be three battery pack capacities such as 55 kWh (software limited), 70 kWh, and 100 kWh, possibly a 90 kWh version instead. That would result in configurations such as:

• Model 3 55 kWh RWD
• Model 3 55D
• Model 3 70 kWh RWD
• Model 3 70D
• Model 3 P100D

I believe each of those configurations could allow as much as $15,000 in options if requested. Thus, the base car could be $50,000 if all options were added to it. The Performance car would be a package featuring particular wheels and tires, suspension setup, brakes, seating, etc. It would cost perhaps $50,000 to $55,000, so an additional $15,000 in costs for options might push it to $65,000 to $70,000. As noted previously: a major bargain compared to other cars in class that have a Perfomance oriented edition. Remember, Model 3 is meant to be affordable. Costing a significant amount more to gouge Customers would be a bad idea.

Interesting analysis. Would be good to know your pricing predictions for each trim with no options.

 

[Sharkbait]

It would cost perhaps $50,000 to $55,000, so an additional $15,000 in costs for options might push it to $65,000 to $70,000.

$74,925 nicely configured, inc. four years prepaid maint. but exc. DMV and the governor. That's my guess.

 

[Garlan Garner]

You could say exactly the same thing about the Roadster; note that Tesla abandoned that. The Model 3 will be the money maker when they are producing 50,000 Model S, and 500,000 Model 3.

Thank you kindly.

Indeed. The M3 WILL be the money maker.

 

[TheSuit]

They should definitely ensure under 3 seconds is available (here's hoping for 2.5), and they should keep under 70k fully optioned as well. Both are numbers that will look great for Tesla.

 

[Cloxxki]

A combination of lower car weight, good power and better cooling could make the Model 3 in P version a pretty rapid car around tracks with corners, not just drag races. That's the next way Tesla could impress the world. Although bringing 2.5 at half the budget will have an impact in its own right.

 

[Garlan Garner]

They should definitely ensure under 3 seconds is available (here's hoping for 2.5), and they should keep under 70k fully optioned as well. Both are numbers that will look great for Tesla.

I'm all in with this suggestion.

 

[wallet.dat]

For over two years my estimates have been based on the premise that Tesla Motors would have three main trim levels:

• Base vehicle, rear wheel drive
• Midrange vehicle, dual motor all eheel drive
• Performance vehicle, dual motor maximum capacity battery pack, dual motor all wheel drive

My presumption is that there will be three battery pack capacities such as 55 kWh (software limited), 70 kWh, and 100 kWh, possibly a 90 kWh version instead. That would result in configurations such as:

• Model 3 55 kWh RWD
• Model 3 55D
• Model 3 70 kWh RWD
• Model 3 70D
• Model 3 P100D

I believe each of those configurations could allow as much as $15,000 in options if requested. Thus, the base car could be $50,000 if all options were added to it. The Performance car would be a package featuring particular wheels and tires, suspension setup, brakes, seating, etc. It would cost perhaps $50,000 to $55,000, so an additional $15,000 in costs for options might push it to $65,000 to $70,000. As noted previously: a major bargain compared to other cars in class that have a Perfomance oriented edition. Remember, Model 3 is meant to be affordable. Costing a significant amount more to gouge Customers would be a bad idea.

This is the most reasonable estimation I've seen, and not just because it's about what my guess is as well. However, I do not believe that the top-end battery will be 100kWh... at least not right out the gate.

 

[wallet.dat]

I'm just hopeful after driving a model s capable of a zero to sixty in four flat.....if I can get a model 3 AWD to do that I'll be pleased. I want AWD and sub 4 second zero to sixty...for under 55 grand....ill be pleased...

That's faster than my c6 450 hp m6 z51 corvette. I'm keeping my corvette as I take ownership of the model 3. I really don't want to drop more than 60 grand on the model 3 performance version with AWD.

I'll give up some performance if need be to keep that price point. I have a hard time processing cars over 60 grand...I might but I'm hopeful I don't have to.

Physics-wise, the Mod3 should be capable of performance similar to the S P100DL. However, if Tesla decides to artificially maintain a performance hierarchy, then I suspect a full on balls out Mod3 will fall somewhere in between the S and X in performance (so somewhere between 2.5 and 2.9 sec 0-60) I mean if we're going to maintain a hierarchy, we can't have an SUV outperforming the sports sedans, right?