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

[Trips]

So if 55 kWh = 215 miles and 5.9 seconds or better, what would 110 kWh's be able to reach?

In two years the S/X should have a 110 kWh option so why not offer it in the 3 if someone is willing to pay the premium. My math would say the cost for a 110 upgrade could be $15k (Tesla Cost: 55 extra @ $160/kWh = $8,800)

 

[WarpedOne]

59 is also less than 60.

As of now we just don't have enough data for a meaningful conclusion.
We have "at least 2015 EPA range" and nothing else remotely definite.
We can also safely assume the advertised capacity will not be rounded down but up.

I still maintain that 55 won't suffice for more than 215 EPA range. As it may sound just a few kWh, its approaching 10%... same difference as between 215 and 194.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

So if 55 kWh = 215 miles and 5.9 seconds or better, what would 110 kWh's be able to reach?

In two years the S/X should have a 110 kWh option so why not offer it in the 3 if someone is willing to pay the premium. My math would say the cost for a 110 upgrade could be $15k (Tesla Cost: 55 extra @ $160/kWh = $8,800)

there is a finite amount of space that can be taken up by the battery pack.

where would you suggest they put it on a Model 3?

110kwH? I'm thinking just in terms of size/volume limitations, they'll max out at 80 or 90kwH on the 3.

 

[JRP3]

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

It probably can, at 50-55mph.

Model S Efficiency and Range

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

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.

I haven't seen the "must match the Bolt" argument.

My argument has always been that saving small amounts (5kWh @ <= $150/kWh => <= $750 saved) by cutting back on the _most important functionality_ of a long-distance BEV would be a bad thing.

I can only hope that less than 60kWh was simply a reference to pack design modularity leading to the capacity being a bit less than 60kWh.

 

[JRP3]

It's not the cost/kWh that's saved it's the retail pricing/kWh that lowers the cost of the car to the consumer, and allows Tesla to hit the $35K mark. Getting the needed range from a smaller pack is only a good thing, it means they built an efficient platform.

 

[inspron]

The math may work out to be around 55kwh but I think we'll get the 60kwh pack.

Imagine GM marketing tagline: "Get the Bolt, it has a larger battery". For most consumers, efficiency is mumble jumble.

 

[Az_Rael]

The math may work out to be around 55kwh but I think we'll get the 60kwh pack.

Imagine GM marketing tagline: "Get the Bolt, it has a larger battery". For most consumers, efficiency is mumble jumble.

Its already happening: Tesla Model 3 battery will be smaller than the Chevy Bolt's

 

[ZAKEEUS]

The math may work out to be around 55kwh but I think we'll get the 60kwh pack.

Imagine GM marketing tagline: "Get the Bolt, it has a larger battery". For most consumers, efficiency is mumble jumble.

You are assuming GM will give the Bolt a serious marketing campaign.

 

[SageBrush]

Imagine GM marketing tagline: "Get the Bolt, it has a larger battery".

And in small print: Ignore the inferior range

 

[MiamiNole]

As long as Tesla keeps the focus on range to the general consumer, I don't think it will matter how much emphasis pundits try to draw to the Bolt potentially having a bigger battery. Not necessarily apples to apples but the average person doesn't necessarily care how large a cell phone battery is (unless their specifically a techie). They care about how long the battery lasts.

 

[Zoomit]

Imagine GM marketing tagline: "Get the Bolt, it has a larger battery". For most consumers, efficiency is mumble jumble.

I think most consumers are a little more sophisticated than this. Amongst the ~100mi EVs, it's the EPA Combined range numbers that get thrown around the most, not the battery sizes.

 

[SageBrush]

As long as Tesla keeps the focus on range to the general consumer, I don't think it will matter how much emphasis pundits try to draw to the Bolt potentially having a bigger battery.

The Tesla range is going to make the Bolt range look poor. GM cannot make up for the difference in Cd (and probably frontal area, too) in other areas to be competitive.

 

[tomas]

Tesla has a huge head start on how to design and optimize a BEV. Plus they have brand cachet, and design sexy cars. That's why 400k people have already reserved the 3, and the S has gone from 0 to largest market share in its segment in 3.5 years. Comparative battery size vs. Bolt just doesn't matter. As long as the base 3 lives up to the published performance/range specs, and there are sufficient options/variants that allow buyers to pay more for more performance/range, it will be a home run. I'm hoping the Bolt is a home run too! There are a lot of cars being bought, and every BEV sold is an ICE not sold.

 

[Trips]

there is a finite amount of space that can be taken up by the battery pack.

where would you suggest they put it on a Model 3?

110kwH? I'm thinking just in terms of size/volume limitations, they'll max out at 80 or 90kwH on the 3.

Yes the M3 is smaller overall but a lot of that is in the front and back. The base for the batteries appears to only be slightly smaller.

I based my guess off a presentation by JB Staubel's (Tesla CTO, Co-founder) on The Future of Transportation from last year. He was talking about how the Energy Density will double in 10 years. His graph showed roughly a 22% improvement from 2015 to 2018. I also believe that they can only fit a 90 kWh today but with a 22% improvement we would be at 109.8 kWh by the time I see my car.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Yes the M3 is smaller overall but a lot of that is in the front and back. The base for the batteries appears to only be slightly smaller.

I based my guess off a presentation by JB Staubel's (Tesla CTO, Co-founder) on The Future of Transportation from last year. He was talking about how the Energy Density will double in 10 years. His graph showed roughly a 22% improvement from 2015 to 2018. I also believe that they can only fit a 90 kWh today but with a 22% improvement we would be at 109.8 kWh by the time I see my car.

We can hope. I'll take the biggest battery they can fit in it. Just not too sure it's going to be any bigger than 80...MAYBE 90 by early 2018.

 

[Breezy]

I think most consumers are a little more sophisticated than this.

I don't think they are. For example, automakers have successfully convinced most Americans that you need a big truck to tow anything. In the minds of many people, you need a truck to tow a little utility trailer.

 

[JRP3]

The math may work out to be around 55kwh but I think we'll get the 60kwh pack.

Even though Tesla has said we won't?

Imagine GM marketing tagline: "Get the Bolt, it has a larger battery". For most consumers, efficiency is mumble jumble.

Bolt will only come with one pack size, the Model 3 will have two, and one of them will be larger than the Bolt. Also you can be sure even the base Model 3 will outperform the Bolt. Plus, most consumers have eyes

 

[gregd]

Even though Tesla has said we won't?



Bolt will only come with one pack size, the Model 3 will have two, and one of them will be larger than the Bolt. Also you can be sure even the base Model 3 will outperform the Bolt. Plus, most consumers have eyes

Yes, but Tesla already started down the wrong path with its model numbering (Model S 70/85/90/etc) based on battery size. That will be on the buyer's mind, top and center. So the larger-than-Bolt battery (at about the same price!) will be essential in order to be able to even start the conversation about efficiency and range. Without it, Tesla will be starting out at a disadvantage.

Recall what Intel had to do when all people seemed to care about as how many gigahertz the processor ran at. Microcode efficiency, cache size, and all that, made a bigger difference, but they were losing out to chips with faster clocks. Now we have meaningless processor and family names.

 

[nd4spd569]

It probably can, at 50-55mph.

Model S Efficiency and Range

When they still had that range estimator online I believe when I was playing with it you could reach over 300 in range at low speeds like that.