Tesla confirms Model 3 will have less than 60kWh battery option

[tomas]

Cool or not, it is a violation of forum rules (see last section about copyright) and copyright law. It is also disrespectful to the article author.
Forum Rules

in the Internet era, also means they don't get to count your click and their advertisers do not get to show you poorly chosen crap based on your last search or merchandise you've already bought or click bait for naked celebs or how to lose 100 pounds. A good compromise is quote the salient points and attribute the source.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

in the Internet era, also means they don't get to count your click and their advertisers do not get to show you poorly chosen crap based on your last search or merchandise you've already bought or click bait for naked celebs or how to lose 100 pounds. A good compromise is quote the salient points and attribute the source.

Where did THIS come from? context? what am I supposed to do with it?

 

[tomas]

Where did THIS come from? context? what am I supposed to do with it?

Side conversation recently up thread about pasting article in post. Do what you want with it.

 

[gavine]

There might be some efficiency gains on the horizon. BMW claims that the 2017 i3 will have 50% more range with the same 22kWh battery:

BMW To Improve i3 Drivetrain Efficiency For Slight Bump In Range

New battery will increase BMW i3's range

"According to Autocark, the new i3 is rumored to take advantage of an “optimised driveline” that draws on battery efficiency gains developed since its launch in 2013. The report mentions that the new battery pack will feature the same 22kWh (18.7kWh usable) capacity but with a higher power density. If that’s technologically possible, we’ll let the engineers on here chime in."

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

Where did THIS come from? context? what am I supposed to do with it?

never mind...I found the original article and now this copyright stuff makes sense. Just needed my coffee to take hold.

 

[houdini]

As noted by QuantumSlip, only the Model X among SUVs has a better coefficient of drag than the RAV4 EV.

Yes but 0.30 is rubbish. That will have an effect on range. And I agree with the other poster - you're never going to get near a ground up EV design in a retro fitted fossil car.

 

[Tiberius]

A 55kwh pack with 215 mile range breaks down to about 3.91 mi/kWh.

If tesla decides to reach 300 miles of range with the upgraded pack, they would need a 75-80 kWh pack depending on how much the extra weight reduces some range.

If the total pack (with cooling and all) is $190 per kWh then the 75 and 80 kWh pack will be $14,250 and $15,200 respectively (possibly lower depending on fixed costs).

$7,500 for the upgraded pack sounds doable. Especially considering pack prices will continue to drop as we approach Model 3 production.

Elon tweeted that it would cost the buyer less than $5k to get the upgraded battery pack. I highly doubt Tesla would eat the remaining $2500.

 

[jkk_]

Elon tweeted that it would cost the buyer less than $5k to get the upgraded battery pack. I highly doubt Tesla would eat the remaining $2500.

Wasn't it about dual motor, not battery pack?

 

[tomas]

There might be some efficiency gains on the horizon. BMW claims that the 2017 i3 will have 50% more range with the same 22kWh battery:

BMW To Improve i3 Drivetrain Efficiency For Slight Bump In Range

New battery will increase BMW i3's range

"According to Autocark, the new i3 is rumored to take advantage of an “optimised driveline” that draws on battery efficiency gains developed since its launch in 2013. The report mentions that the new battery pack will feature the same 22kWh (18.7kWh usable) capacity but with a higher power density. If that’s technologically possible, we’ll let the engineers on here chime in."

I don't understand. 22 is 22. If there's more density, they made the 22 smaller/lighter. Can't get 50% out of that. Maybe some from inverter, other weight loss, aero??? But 50% without more kWh? Not plausible. I suspect another journalist misinterpreting.

 

[Boourns]

Elon tweeted that it would cost the buyer less than $5k to get the upgraded battery pack. I highly doubt Tesla would eat the remaining $2500.

Whoa I missed this. Do you have the link? I searched but couldn't find it. I do also remember him saying that in general options on the 3 will cost less than on the S.

 

[gavine]

I don't understand. 22 is 22. If there's more density, they made the 22 smaller/lighter. Can't get 50% out of that. Maybe some from inverter, other weight loss, aero??? But 50% without more kWh? Not plausible. I suspect another journalist misinterpreting.

I agree. However, there's mention of driveline efficiency improvements and that's where I think the extra range comes in. My point is that there might be a breakthrough in efficiency that will help Tesla achieve greater range out of the same amount of kWh.

 

[jonnyg]

Whoa I missed this. Do you have the link? I searched but couldn't find it. I do also remember him saying that in general options on the 3 will cost less than on the S.

Here is a link to a tweet that definitely referred to dual motor being less than $5k, not the battery upgrade:

Elon Musk on Twitter

 

[JRP3]

I agree. However, there's mention of driveline efficiency improvements and that's where I think the extra range comes in. My point is that there might be a breakthrough in efficiency that will help Tesla achieve greater range out of the same amount of kWh.

Efficiency should already be around 85-90%, at best they might be able to get another 5-10%.

 

[gavine]

Efficiency should already be around 85-90%, at best they might be able to get another 5-10%.

Does the 85-90% account for driveline losses, aerodynamics, tire friction, etc. or is that the efficiency at the motor output? Similar to ICE engines having 300HP at the crank, but 15-20% less at the wheels.

 

[MiamiNole]

Model S over the years since introduction has added a lot of features, which significantly improved the value proposition.

As an example I have 2013 P85+ with all options available at the time except the child seats, with the price of $117K. The closest match performance wise would be 90D, which with all options, except the seats costs $3 less - $114K.

So 90D today has comparable performance to my P85+ for $3K less, while adding a lot of features listed below (the list is pretty long and I probably forgot to list some). The 2016 90D is much better value than 2013 P85+

• Dual motor AWD
• extra 5kWh of battery capacity and 29 miles of range
• Autopilot safety features
• Autopilot convenience features
• New generation seats
• Full LED headlights
• Dynamic LED fog lights
• Power folding mirrors
• LTE connectivity
• HEPA filtration
• Center console
• Subzero weather package

I realize that the overall value of the Model S has increased over the years as far as features go, which is why I was specifically talking about the battery upgrade option.

Unless I'm misinformed, that option consists only a larger capacity battery for $12k on the Model S. My question was more or less wondering whether that price would ever go down, or would the size difference in the option be increased for that price as cost per kWh goes down. Of course based on your answer, money made off the battery option could be used on additional features for the car overall. But not everyone buys the larger battery... Of course I could be thinking way too into the weeds regarding this, but I'm just thinking aloud for discussion.

As a prospective Model 3 buyer, I'm still mostly interested in the price of the battery option for the Model 3 based on the information in this topic, but it still made me think about the S.

 

[JRP3]

Does the 85-90% account for driveline losses, aerodynamics, tire friction, etc. or is that the efficiency at the motor output? Similar to ICE engines having 300HP at the crank, but 15-20% less at the wheels.

It's battery-inverter-motor efficiency. The other factors are not affected by electronics and battery efficiency improvements.

 

[JRP3]

I sincerely doubt a 55 kWh or smaller battery will be sufficient to both meet the performance targets, while also achieving the needed range. Awesome if it turns out I'm wrong as a result of improved chemistry, better power electronics, smaller aerodynamic profile, lower mass, etc. But I honestly believe that 60 kWh should be the bare minimum and that 70 kWh would be best as the base capacity for Model ☰.

Some of us have been saying for years that the 3 wouldn't need a 60kWh pack to achieve the desired range, so it's not surprising that Tesla agrees with us. The math has always been there.

 

[zambono]

How will the M3 get +215m range on <60kWh but the Leaf gets ~100m with 30kWh? Are either the Drag Coeff or weight of the Leaf that bad?

The real question is how come the S doesn't get over 350 miles accounting for its weight and a 90kWh pack

 

[ModelNforNerd]

The real question is how come the S doesn't get over 350 miles accounting for its weight and a 90kWh pack

Different battery chemistries/energy densities.

The Model 3 pack will be different than the current packs in the S and X.

When the Gigafactory goes online, it's not entirely inconceivable that the S and X get to take advantage of the new battery technology as well.

 

[Tesloid]

I got a lot of push back from several members here when I predicted a 55KWh pack in the base Model 3. The popular argument being made was that Model 3 SHOULD have at least 60KWh since the Bolt has one as well. Makes no sense to me. Anyway, my bet is still on 55KWh with an EPA rated range of 220 miles.