Tesla Model 3 P+ vs BMW M3?

[Kevin Harney]

IMHO it needs:

0-60 < 4.0 sec
Nurburgring < 8.0 minutes
Top speed 160 mph range

and I think the "P" package will be available at the start. No waiting for the "M" version. "P+" will not be necessary as they will make the "P" version right from the beginning unlike the Model S. That lesson has been learned I hope. I just want the convertible version of this :scared:

 

[donauker]

Model X will be AWD and Model S will have an AWD option once Model X production is rolling. So I have every reason to expect that a Performance Model 3 will be AWD. I also expect it to tip the scales around 3,800lbs. So think about a car w/ twice the power of Model S that weighs 800lbs less?

Twice the motors does not equal twice the power.

Battery pack capacity * C discharge rate limit = maximum power available.

 

[strider]

Twice the motors does not equal twice the power.

Battery pack capacity * C discharge rate limit = maximum power available.

Sure. What I left unsaid there is that I believe they will have the battery chemistry, PEM, and cooling technology to feed both motors. Who knows, maybe they could play w/ adding some capacitors for short bursts of extra power. But I also don't think they need twice the power to stomp an M3/M4. 2014 M3/M4 peak torque is 405 lb ft while Model S P85 is 443lb ft. M3 weighs 3,500lbs. I expect Model 3 to weigh 3,800lbs. I'm no physics geek but I don't think you need that much more torque to overcome the weight different. And as I stated, just think about a 3,800lb car with 800 lb ft of torque. It makes me smile. :biggrin:

 

[Red Sage]

strider: It sure is nice to finally have someone on my side!

$60,000 ⇒ Tesla Model ☰ P135+ AWD Coupe, 500 HP/550 LB FT Torque, Top Speed 155 MPH, 0-60 3.0 Seconds, 1/4 mile in 10.2 Seconds @ 134 MPH, 505 Mile Range.

Please note that range and power each come from the same well: The bigger the battery, the more of each you have at your disposal. It all depends on how you drive it.

 

[dsm363]

strider: It sure is nice to finally have someone on my side!

$60,000 ⇒ Tesla Model ☰ P135+ AWD Coupe, 500 HP/550 LB FT Torque, Top Speed 155 MPH, 0-60 3.0 Seconds, 1/4 mile in 10.2 Seconds @ 134 MPH, 505 Mile Range.

Please note that range and power each come from the same well: The bigger the battery, the more of each you have at your disposal. It all depends on how you drive it.

Would expect such a car to be well over $100,000 though.

 

[strider]

Would expect such a car to be well over $100,000 though.

Yeah, $60k is low. I am expecting (and budgeting) it to be right around $100k.

 

[Red Sage]

No Need to Follow the Leader...

I look at it this way... The Tesla Model S originally included a 40 kWh version at around $59,900 as a base price. You could equip the Model S 40 with all the same goodies as you could the higher capacity versions (sans Supercharging), increasing its price with options to your heart's content. Meanwhile, even today, with prices being a bit higher for certain options, you basically have to get everything there is as an option for the $93,400 Model S 85 to get it to crest the $120,000 mark, doubling the cost of the base car. (Idunno about you, but I wouldn't need the vanity lighting, rear facing seats, ultra high fidelity sound, paint armor, extended napa trim... they all really add up!)

I believe the same will be true essentially for the Tesla Model ☰. That is, a fully optioned top-of-the-line version of the car will cost twice as much as the bottom-of-the-line, base version of the car. So at around $60,000 for my hoped for Tesla Model ☰ P135+ AWD Coupe, it would be pretty well fully optioned already, except for a handful of items that might push it to $70,000 -- like maybe a Mr. Fusion.

My point with all this is that Tesla Motors will NOT follow the standard issue practices of traditional automakers, who introduce limited edition cars that are meant to hold a 'HALO' position in their lineup with ANY of the Tesla Model ☰ cars. All of those 'independent franchised dealerships' would certainly hang a higher price on the car I describe. They justify it all the time with various vehicles, claiming to charge 'what the market can bear'. Tesla Motors is different.

There is no need to protect sales of higher end cars. They will sell anyway. There is no need to gouge for higher performance. They can just charge a fair price, nothing more. There is no need to make a car 'exclusive' or 'limited'. Tesla Motors wants their cars to be inclusive and ubiquitous.

If fewer people buy Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG GT because of the Tesla Model ☰ P135+ AWD Coupe costing so little in comparison, I see that as a good thing. That much less dinosaur juice burned to pollute the atmosphere. One more driver won over from the dark side. One more evangelist of the joys of driving on gallons of light.

If someone still wants to tear up the road in their Bentley, Panoz, Bugatti, or other gas guzzler, just for the sake of 'being different', that's fine. As long as they remain among a shrinking minority.

 

[strider]

Tesla will make money where they can. They are not a charity. The Model S price increases are a case in point. I don't believe there was a reason to increase prices on the P85 other than people are willing to pay it. So it was a pure money grab. So if the AWD Perf Model 3 ends up wickedly fast (which I believe it will) they will charge as much as they possibly can for it regardless of what it costs to build. A Porsche 911 Turbo costs $150k. I expect that class of performance from the AWD Perf Model 3 and if you look at it that way, $100k is a bargain.

 

[Red Sage]

A Porsche 911 Turbo costs $150k. I expect that class of performance from the AWD Perf Model 3 and if you look at it that way, $100k is a bargain.

Well, it is said that Porsche achieves a 50% gross margin on the cars they sell... Far more than the 25% that Tesla Motors is accused of 'gouging' for... Keep in mind... I'm not a Porsche fan -- at all. From my point of view, their cars are something like 250% overpriced. ;-)

Seriously though, I think the idea is to make a Tesla Model ☰ a competitor to the BMW 3-Series, first and foremost. As such, I think it is a good idea to show how they can be both more capable, and more economical, simultaneously. Tesla Motors will sell every car they build, no matter the price. But I think it is important that their Generation III vehicles remain as affordable as possible, at least at the outset.

One thing I didn't mention before... I think that when the Tesla Model ☰ arrives, the Tesla Model S 60 will go away. So there will be a Tesla Model S 85, 85P, and P135+ AWD as well. Though I don't believe there should be any protection for the higher end vehicles in terms of performance... I also don't think there should be an overlap in pricing as well.

Keep in mind that I do expect Tesla Motors will offer ultra-high end vehicles eventually, after the success of Generation III. Everyone expects a new Tesla Model R roadster, and that is certain to have the chops for taking on racetracks. I think there may be a Tesla Model L limousine class pullman style vehicle. I'm certain there will also be a Tesla Model Z supercar. I think these will be the cars that will be built for the sake of pure profit.

 

[Model 3]

Everyone expects a new Tesla Model R roadster, ...

And the Roadster will probably be based on the GIII platform with a shorted wheelbase and cost well more then the double off the base version. $100k++? It may even be called Model ☰ Roadster. And based on the roadster it may come a 4 seat full wheelbase coupe in more or less the same price range.

In the normal Model ☰ series we probably will see prices from $35k (Model ☰ 45) to $70k for the Model ☰ 90P. (Ok, maybe 95kWh). Up to $75k or $80k if it's AWD (if the base is not AWD). Yes, you probably will see the 135kWh battery-pack, but only on the GII platform, or maybe on the Tesla Truck (Model F?).

 

[Red Sage]

In the normal Model ☰ series we probably will see prices from $35k (Model ☰ 45) to $70k for the Model ☰ 90P. (Ok, maybe 95kWh). Up to $75k or $80k if it's AWD (if the base is not AWD). Yes, you probably will see the 135kWh battery-pack, but only on the GII platform, or maybe on the Tesla Truck (Model F?).

Well, this thread was meant to compare the Tesla Model ☰ performance version, which I would presume to be a coupe, with the BMW M3. So I only posted in regard to what I presume that will be, conceptually. To go a bit more in depth though...

I expect that the base model of the Tesla Model ☰ will be a five door liftback sedan. I think its trim levels and price points will be something like this:

34,990 ⇒ Model ☰ 60
42,990 ⇒ Model ☰ 85
47,990 ⇒ Model ☰ P85+ AWD
54,990 ⇒ Model ☰ P135+ AWD
​

That should fall right into line with BMW 335i vehicles on the high end. I expect that a crossover version would be available at the same price points as the AWD versions. I believe that the coupe versions would be ~$5000 more for each trim level.

I think the Model S 60 will go away with the introduction of Model ☰. The Model S 85 would become the new base version. Model S P85+ AWD would be the medium choice. A Model S P135+ AWD would become the new flagship edition.The Model X would of course gain its own 135 kWh capacity version as well.

I expect that by 2020 a battery pack of 170 kWh to 220 kWh capacity will be available. That is what will be included in a Tesla Model P pickup truck.The pickup would also be AWD, and would have at least Class 3 towing ability, placing it on par with a Ford F-350, Chevrolet Silverado 3500 or RAM 3500 -- but I would shoot for Class 4, just to prove the point.Torque comes for free with an electric motor. So a pickup truck with significant range while towing at 55 MPH would certainly be achievable.

 

[dsm363]

Can I ask why certain words are always bolded?

 

[Red Sage]

I'm a fan of using bold, italics, and underlining for emphasis. ;-)

 

[Model 3]

I expect that the base model of the Tesla Model ☰ will be a five door liftback sedan.

Agree

I think its trim levels and price points will be something like this:

34,990 ⇒ Model ☰ 60
42,990 ⇒ Model ☰ 85
47,990 ⇒ Model ☰ P85+ AWD
54,990 ⇒ Model ☰ P135+ AWD
​

I think you're too caught up in kwh, but all Elon and Tesla care about is range. Whats told is "realistic 200 mile range". I read that as 200mile EPA range. Just about the same as MS60 has today. With a 20% smaller/lighter car "everyone" has figured out it has to be 48,5kWh. What they forget is that Model ☰ will have a new battery chemistry with less weight pr. Wh. Therefore I guess it will be about 45kWh for ~210 miles EPA range. But it can be anything from 42kWh to 50kWh. Any more and they will miss the price point.

Naturally they will have more then one battery pack for the Model ☰, but what range will they target? I have 3 guesses: to match the TMS85 at 265 miles EPA range, to match the promised range for TMS - 300 miles, but this time in EPA range. In light off the newly announced replace battery for the Roadster I can hope for an 400 miles range, but not sure it will be EPA range... So my best guess will be: Somewhere between 300 and 400 miles EPA range, and possibly one package between the two.

The longtime goal seams to be 500miles EPA range, but I don't think they there yet. Maybe for the TMS at the time TM☰ is on the marked?

My guesses for the pack-size will then be 45kWh/210 miles@~35K. 70kWh/270 miles@~40k. 90kWh/320 miles@45k. The last might be up to 110kWh/360@~50k max. It will not be room for a bigger battery in this smaller car.

The "P" version will probably only be available with the biggest battery. Same goes for the coupe. Probably the coupe will only be available as a "P".

AWD: I HOPE it will be designed like the TMX with AWD as the only option. If not I guess your right about AWD only with the "P".

 

[4sevens.com]

 

[Red Sage]

I think you're too caught up in kwh, but all Elon and Tesla care about is range.

Range comes from higher capacity batteries. That's why none of the numerous production electric vehicles that top out at 24 kWh have a range that greatly exceeds 60 miles of use in the real world. Trust that if Tesla Motors could give you a 200+ mile range with 24 kWh of energy storage, they would.

Whats told is "realistic 200 mile range". I read that as 200mile EPA range. Just about the same as MS60 has today.

Precisely. The problem is that Tesla Motors originally expected the Tesla Model S 60 to be rated at around 230 miles of range by the EPA. The EPA changed their testing method to a 5-cycle instead of a 2-cycle process, just in time to test the Tesla Model S variants -- which had been engineered to the old 2-cycle process. As a result of that change, all of them were rated at about 90% of the range that Tesla Motors had expected.

40 kWh ⇒ 160 instead of 180
60 kWh ⇒ 208 instead of 230
85 kWh ⇒ 265 instead of 300
​

With a 20% smaller/lighter car "everyone" has figured out it has to be 48,5kWh. What they forget is that Model ☰ will have a new battery chemistry with less weight pr. Wh. Therefore I guess it will be about 45kWh for ~210 miles EPA range. But it can be anything from 42kWh to 50kWh. Any more and they will miss the price point.

Because of the fiasco that took place the last time, I don't think Tesla Motors can risk trusting the EPA not to screw them again. If Tesla engineers a car that they know will just barely scrape past the 200 mile barrier, say... 220 miles or so... then the EPA only gives them credit for only 90% of what the car can achieve again, that puts them at only 198 miles of range. Your example of shooting for 210 miles might yield only 189 from the EPA. Tesla would be raked over the coals if the car doesn't get a 200+ mile range rating from an independent source, such as the EPA.

I believe that Tesla Motors will be able to create a 60 kWh battery pack for the Tesla Model ☰ that uses only 60% of the battery cells that were in the original Tesla Model S 60. That gets you well beyond the 20% reduction in weight. With the Gigafactory supplying batteries, the price per cell goes down by 30-33% each. So you effectively will have 60 kWh of storage for only 40% of their cost in 2012. You get to use all the storage in a smaller space, at a lower cost, without having to resort to having a wimpy car.

Naturally they will have more then one battery pack for the Model ☰, but what range will they target?

As I said above, range comes from kWh capacity. The more you have, the further you can go. I expect that to work out like this as EPA ratings:

250 ⇒ Model ☰ 60
318 ⇒ Model ☰ 85
505 ⇒ Model ☰ 135
​

I especially like the 60 kWh version as being the base model, because when you consider who might be buying it... Since the 'average' daily commute is less than 40 miles round trip per day... Someone who started with a full charge and drove to work and back five days a week would still have ~50+ miles of range left. Still enough to go to a friend's house for the weekend and bum a free charge overnight... Or make it to a Supercharger on the outskirts of town, fill up and hit the asphalt for a road trip. Perfect for anyone who doesn't have garage parking at home or a charging station at work.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm going to throw my guess out there for 50kWh for the base Model ☰. 45kWh is likely too small to achieve 200 miles EPA range.

Just to compare, the currently most efficient EV is the i3 with 81 miles of EPA range using 18.8kWh (22kWh pack). That translates to 46.4kWh for 200 miles even assuming no buffer (using the 18.8kWh number).

 

[David_Cary]

And somehow I don't think the Model 3 is going to have tiny tires like the i3 or a carbon fiber construction.

20% smaller and lighter does not mean you get 20% more on a kwh. Not even close. For highway cruising, a 10% decrease in weight is worth about 1% in range. That 20% smaller size is unlikely to represent 20% less frontal area. Of course the EPA uses some stop and go so weight does matter. I suspect 10-12% increase in MPGe with resultant range/kwh battery.

 

[Red Sage]

That translates to 46.4kWh for 200 miles even assuming no buffer (using the 18.8kWh number).

Very good reasoning, and I agree, that should be enough. Unfortunately, I don't trust the EPA. What's to stop them from instituting a brand spanking new 7-cycle or 9-cycle category of testing just in time for the Tesla Model ☰ to arrive on the scene?

"Oh, we are SO sorry, Mr. Musk... Your car only got 150 miles in our revised testing scheme. So we're rating it at 65 MPGe..."

I'm a fan of overkill. If the car has enough battery capacity that even a blind, drunken, biased, lead-footed, anti-EV New York Times writer can't manage to get less than 200 miles of range on the coldest day since Hurricane Sandy... Then we can let the EPA test it for 'official' results.

 

[bonnie]

Sorry, the words you choose to bold make no sense to me. If you mean to alert the reader to something important, uhh, the usage just feels distracting. I find myself trying to figure out why you chose to bold the words you did. And yes, you are a fan of overkill. Clearly.

And I know I'm not the first one to bring this up ...