Tesla Model 3 P+ vs BMW M3?

[Red Sage]

I typically use bold on formal names of people, companies, organizations, and things.

And I really like overkill.

 

[bonnie]

Right, but it makes it difficult for people reading the forum on phones and tablets. Out of consideration for them, perhaps you could tone it down a bit? Not a private playground ... team effort & all that.

 

[sigurdi]

The reason nobody have made a golf og BMW 3 series with 200 mile range is: The battery is not there today.
Tesla and others is working on better and light wait batteries, this takes time.

I guess Model 3 will have a 45kW and maybe a 55kW/60kW.
It is just not space to put in anymore, if it should have space for 5 passengers and luggage.
The roadster is a sport car with two seats and original batteries is from 2008. (6years) the development is going in the right direction but it takes time.

A100kW park or higher will be on the X and S long time before the Model 3.

Personaly I prefere long life expectance, on the pack before 400miles range.

sigurdi

 

[Model 3]

Range comes from higher capacity batteries.

Yes of course. I'm sorry, but I'm not a native speaker, so I may have problems to make it clear what I'm trying to say. To me it's looks like your to focused on the batteries capacity. What you need - in my humble opinion - is to guess on what range Tesla is targeting, then calculate what capacity the battery needs to deliver this range. Not the other way around.

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.

Thats right. But Tesla had no big problems with talking about 300 ideal miles - EPA(2) - vs 265 miles EPA(5) range. And if EPA change the rules once more I don't think Tesla will have any problems to separate the EPA(5) range vs the EPA(9) range. But you clearly have a point about a bit "overkill" to be absolutely sure almost everybody get at least the announced range. Maybe Tesla has calculated an even more realistic test then the EPA(5) test based on the experiences with GII and will start using that test for the GIII?

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.

Well... The 30% price reduction Elon is betting on, is it pr. cell? KG? Liters (volume)? Or is it pr. kWh? If it's the later you have just calculated the price reduction twice... :wink:

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
​

My take is:

Target	Range EPA(5)	kWh battery	Probability*
Minimum	200	45->50	100%
Medium	300	80->85	80%
Maximum	500	130->135	3%

*)
"Probability" is "What is the chance that Tesla in 2016 can get room for this capacity in a car thats 20% smaller then TMS for a price that the marked will pay".

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).

You might be right here, I have not made a precise calculation here, just giving some numbers that is in the right ballpark. But in 2017 I think i3 is not longer the most efficient EV on the marked

It is just not space to put in anymore, if it should have space for 5 passengers and luggage.
The roadster is a sport car with two seats and original batteries is from 2008. (6years) the development is going in the right direction but it takes time.

I disagreed. My guess is that they almost can put in a 60kWh of the same chemistry as in use in the TMS today. GIII will have a newer chemistry and can squeeze in more then 60kWh, maybe 90kWh, but not much more.

A100kW park or higher will be on the X and S long time before the Model 3.

Personaly I prefere long life expectance, on the pack before 400miles range.

sigurdi

Agreed on both

 

[green1]

You might be right here, I have not made a precise calculation here, just giving some numbers that is in the right ballpark. But in 2017 I think i3 is not longer the most efficient EV on the marked

While we can safely assume that the Model 3 will be a much better vehicle than the i3, I don't think it's safe to assume it will be more "efficient," just longer range. The Model S is actually not all that efficient a vehicle, they just placed aesthetics and function above efficiency (and rightly so) The i3 is quite likely to be a lighter weight vehicle than the Model 3, and that alone leads to large efficiency gains. (The carbon fibre plastic panels instead of aluminum, and the smaller battery both pretty much guarantee that)

The Model 3 will be more efficient than the S, based mostly on weight, though probably smaller tires for some more efficiency, and possible improvements in electronics (it has been a few years since the S first hit the road) It will also have a smaller frontal area, though I don't know if I'd count on any better drag coefficient, they have more experience now, but there are certain constraints here if people want to be able to actually sit in the car, and if they want it to look like something people want to buy.

All said, Model 3 will probably be more efficient than the S, but less efficient than an i3 (or any short range (and therefore light weight) EV

 

[CHGolferJim]

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

.

If close to that, Model3 will be truly a "3-series killer".

 

[dsm363]

If the P135+ AWD Model 3 is $55,000 that will destroy Model S resale value. You are also saying Tesla (bolded) will only charge $7,000 for an additional 50kWh capacity when they charge $10,000 for 25kWh additional capacity now?

 

[Red Sage]

If the P135+ AWD Model 3 is $55,000 that will destroy Model S resale value. You are also saying Tesla (bolded) will only charge $7,000 for an additional 50kWh capacity when they charge $10,000 for 25kWh additional capacity now?

No. The Tesla Model ☰ is the goal, the endgame, its sales are more important than anything else in the Tesla Motors product line. The Model S does not need to be protected in either resale value or for new purchases. People who want it will buy it regardless, because of the size, utility, and prestige. People who bought a Model S in 2012 are not likely to want to sell it in 2016 or 2017. If anything, they'll keep the car and upgrade to a 135 kWh battery pack, getting trade-in value from Tesla Motors for their older 40 kWh, 60 kWh, or 85 kWh battery pack. Fewer people willing to sell will keep the price higher for those who do. Sorted.

Look closer. The higher prices are primarily for the AWD function in my projections. Besides, there would probably be at least another $10,000 in options someone could add on top of that if they wanted. I am saying that the 135 kWh battery pack will only be offered for the AWD version. I don't think it makes sense otherwise on the smaller car. So the difference in price for the RWD 85 kWh version and the AWD 135 kWh version is actually $12,000. The difference between the RWD 60 kWh version and the RWD 85 kWh version is $8,000. Further, I believe there would be a $5,000 premium for the coupe version, which would hopefully include Falcon Wing Doors, at each trim level, because it would be projected to sell in lower quantities than the sedan and crossover.

If close to that, Model3 will be truly a "3-series killer".

Yup. I think that's the idea. I think it is a really good idea. It's... a strategy. ;-)

 

[sigurdi]

I just do not se batteries abow 85kWh for the S or Model 3.
If the X get high trailer waight capabilit, maybe a large battery. (you need large battery to drive some miles with a Trailer behind you)

The rest have not need for it, and while the population of SC is growing the need gets lower.
More charging time at SC, more dead waight to drag with you.

When the SC network is covering everywhere you drive, you need a 20-30 min stop every 3 hours. Drive for 6 hours and 1 hour stop instead, is actualy more dangerous. (I also have to pee after 3 hours driving and drikking Coca Cola or coffie)

The 2. and most importen view is that Tesla do not get enouch batteries for the demand, this is getting better, but will be a bootlenek until the Gigafactory is producing a reasonable amount of batteries.
If cars is delivered with lagrer packs it will be less packs to put in cars, eks a 135kWh, could give one 85kWh to an X and a 50kWh to a Model 3.
(It is not just that easy, sine the individual cells getting more capasity, so a 100kWh can have the same cell count as a 85kWh today.)

Looking forward for the next years to se what will happen, and to se the X equitment and pack size.

sigurdi

 

[ryanjm]

Folks here are missing a question in the OP, which asked if the MIII Performance car will have higher performance than the Model S P85. The answer is "Yes" -- just as the BMW M3 is quicker than its highest performance 7 Series.

To the other discussion in this thread: Red Sage, I love your enthusiasm (I really do!), but respectfully, you are nuts if you think Tesla is going to ship a 500-mile range M3-besting performance car for $60k.

Here's how I see it:

MIII will ship with two battery sizes (exact kWh hour size TBD based on battery chemistry): a 200-ish mile base option and a 300-ish mile upgrade. Model S -- which is also due for a refresh about the time Model III hits, per previous Tesla comments -- will drop the 60kWh and go with an 85kWh (265-mile range) and a new 350-400-mile range battery (again, kWh-size TBD).

Look at current Tesla option pricing to guide you; this is how I'm planning for my Model III, anyway:

$35k base price
+$10k bigger battery
+$10k performance package
+$10k options (tech package, pano roof, dual chargers, etc.)
+$5k performance options (spoiler, larger wheels; I expect 17" for base and 19" as the upgrade)

And you're at roughly $70k.

How that car will compare to a BMW M3 on a track remains to be seen, but Elon has made it very clear about one thing: the MIII will torch the M3 off the line. And if you think that's a bit cheap compared to the Bimmer, remember that the Model S costs a lot less than some of its competition (particularly the Panamera) and outperforms them. It's a big reason why the Model S is eating many of its competitors' lunches right now in its category.

Anyway I hope I'm not TOO wrong...only because $70k is going to be at the extreme limit of what I can afford with this car as it is.

 

[Red Sage]

I just do not [see] batteries [above] 85kWh for the S or Model 3.

Well, one of my suggestions is that even the 60 kWh version of the Tesla Model ☰ should actually have an 85 kWh battery pack that is software limited. People could pay the difference in price after purchase to get the extra range. It would simplify inventory so that you wouldn't have to keep track of which packs were installed off the line, except for what I presume would be a 135 kWh battery pack in the top-of-the-line version of the cars.

...Tesla do not get [enough] batteries for the demand, this is getting better, but will be a [bottleneck]...

Here is what I was speaking of before... Let's use round numbers to illustrate what I think about this. Also, this will presume that Tesla uses as few battery cells as possible to achieve the expected capacity in each battery pack:

Vehicle	# Battery Cells
Model S 85 (2012)	~7000
Model S 60 (2012)	~5000
Model ☰ 85 (2016)	~4200
Model ☰ 60 (2016)	~3000

See? Though availability of 18650 battery cells may be a bottleneck, it will be somewhat diminished as an issue, because the cells used in the future will be more efficient at energy storage. I'm presuming a minimum of 40% improvement in energy density. As a result, only 60% of the cells will be needed at each power level.

In other words, the number of battery cells that would have only powered three (3) cars at 85 kWh in 2012 will be enough to power five (5) cars in 2016, while delivering the same 85 kWh capacity to each.

Likewise, with those individual cells being provided by the Gigafactory, your cost per car goes down even further, another 30-33%, as compared to 2012.

With the battery cells from 2012, it would have taken about ~11,100 of them to get 135 kWh of storage. With a 40% improvement in storage capacity, that drops to only ~6,700 battery cells instead. And that quantity would fit inside the battery pack for the Tesla Model S just fine. I presume the same would be true of Model ☰ P135+ battery packs as well.

 

[Red Sage]

To the other discussion in this thread: Red Sage, I love your enthusiasm (I really do!), but respectfully, you are nuts if you think Tesla is going to ship a 500-mile range M3-besting performance car for $60k.

I'm a little confused, because though I may indeed be nuts, it seems as if you agree with me...

Look at current Tesla option pricing to guide you; this is how I'm planning for my Model III, anyway:

$35k base price
+$10k bigger battery
+$10k performance package
+$10k options (tech package, pano roof, dual chargers, etc.)
+$5k performance options (spoiler, larger wheels; I expect 17" for base and 19" as the upgrade)

And you're at roughly $70k.

Yes. And if you check above, I wrote, "The higher prices are primarily for the AWD function in my projections. Besides, there would probably be at least another $10,000 in options someone could add on top of that if they wanted." That would mean a fully optioned version of the Tesla Model ☰ P135+ AWD Coupe I described would top out at $70,000.

How that car will compare to a BMW M3 on a track remains to be seen, but Elon has made it very clear about one thing: the MIII will torch the M3 off the line. And if you think that's a bit cheap compared to the Bimmer, remember that the Model S costs a lot less than some of its competition (particularly the Panamera) and outperforms them. It's a big reason why the Model S is eating many of its competitors' lunches right now in its category.

Once again, this is precisely the argument I have made all along. The top-of-the-line versions of Porsche Panamera, BMW 7-Series, and Mercedes-Benz S-Class are all fully 50% more expensive than the Tesla Model S P85. Thus, I expect that a BMW M3 will cost roughly 50% more than a Tesla Model P135+.

Maybe I wasn't being clear before? The prices that I project for Tesla Model ☰ are all the base prices at each trim level. I believe that the 60 kWh battery pack would only be available as RWD. I believe that the lowest cost version of the 85 kWh battery pack would still be RWD. I expect that to get AWD you will have to get a Performance version of the car, with either an 85 kWh or 135 kWh battery pack. Each of these can be optioned upward, the same way that a BMW, AUDI, Mercedes-Benz, Chevrolet, Ford, Honda, Toyota, Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, or anything else with a starting price point at around $35,000 can be. I believe that every iteration of the Tesla Model ☰ will be very profitable for Tesla Motors using this strategy.

 

[Tasdevil]

$35k base price
+$10k bigger battery

10k minus "conservative 30% savings on battery from gigafactory."

 

[RobStark]

Tesla doesn't seem to lack for buzz and folks writing articles about them.

Buzz needs newness to keep going. I am not talking about now but 5 years from now.

As a Tesla investor, I want Tesla to live up to their vision statement about EV adoption that Elon laid out many years ago. If a M3++ helps that, so be it. I don't give a crap if the M3++ improves margin by .9%, but I definitely care if working on the M3++ slows down work towards more mass market cars.

Improving margins creates more money to invest in future down market cars. It is more likely Tesla can raise outside funds at cheaper rates.

High performance variations in no way slows down moving down market. That is a function mostly of battery chemistry and cost.

To suggest otherwise is ignorance.

 

[stopcrazypp]

High performance variations in no way slows down moving down market. That is a function mostly of battery chemistry and cost.

To suggest otherwise is ignorance.

I think he's referring more to engineering resources, which Tesla has a limited amount compared to other companies (seems like Tesla can only really work on one or two things at a time).

Having a "halo" version of the Model ☰ is far less important than getting the engineering of the overall model right (despite many people here who wish for more attention to be put into "halo" models, since that is what they intend to buy).

No doubt Tesla might launch first with the largest capacity version (like the 85kWh did with the Model S), but higher performance versions than that might be a lower priority (just like how the P85+ came afterwards).

 

[ryanjm]

10k minus "conservative 30% savings on battery from gigafactory."

I hope you're right, but do you really expect Tesla to pass that savings on to the customer? I love Tesla, but I expect that the larger battery option is going to be +$10k no matter if it costs the company less than it does today, as that's what they've conditioned people to expect. That, and it's a GREAT way for them to make more profit on many of the cars.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm a little confused, because though I may indeed be nuts, it seems as if you agree with me...

I guess my point is that I don't think Tesla will be releasing a 505-mile car in the Model III line anytime soon. Period. If (or rather, when) they get there, it's going to be on the Model S first. And there's no way an AWD performance car with 500-mile range is going to be $70k. That's just wildly optimistic. (Though again, I love your optimism! :smile: )

And I'm not sure if you meant to suggest that a MIII AWD Coupe will be available at launch (i.e. 2017), but I don't think there's much chance of that. Those features will come online later after the initial launch of the sedan.

 

[aronth5]

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.


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
​

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
.

Not sure I agree that the EPA screwed them the first. If I'm a buyer which is closer to the actual range owners are getting? Tesla's 300 miles or the EPA's 265?
When you factor in the real world, weather and typical driving habits the 265 rated range is certainly more accurate, especially for someone considering purchasing the Model S.

 

[30seconds]

By then I would expect something like a 75 and 100kW pack options. No reason to think that there wouldn't be some improvement if the 60pack isn't big enough to get the 3 to 200miles. These are also probable reasonable upgrades to a mid cycle model s refresh as well

 

[Red Sage]

I guess my point is that I don't think Tesla will be releasing a 505-mile car in the Model III line anytime soon. Period.

The range is really just a matter of the projected capacity of the battery pack for the top-of-the-line version. I expect that the majority of people will purchase the Tesla Model ☰ sort of like this, over its lifetime:

Vehicle	%
☰S - Sedan	70
☰M - Minivan	20
☰X - Crossover	5
☰C - Coupe	2
☰W - Wagon	2
☰R - Roadster	1

Trim	%
60	10
85	60
P85+	20
P135+	10

One of the consistent points that Elon says is that their cars cannot be at a mark that is only about the same as other cars. They must be demonstrably better. The performance versions of the BMW 3-Series really don't have that great a range. In fact, not one of them has a range of even 400 miles as rated by the EPA. So if the top-of-the-line Tesla Model ☰ can achieve an EPA range of 505 miles, while blowing their doors off, it will be an absolute coup de tat in this range of vehicles.

This is especially awesome due to the fact the 2015 BMW M3 is rated at only a 300 mile range. Imagine the shockwave it would send through the industry if an electric vehicle could defeat a BMW M3 in performance while achieving a range just short of the 555 miles attainable in the BMW 328d. That is why a 135 kWh battery pack must be made available on the Tesla Model ☰.

If (or rather, when) they get there, it's going to be on the Model S first.

I have actually written precisely that elsewhere, on the Tesla Motors Forums. I didn't mention it in this thread, because it was about comparisons of the BMW M3 and Tesla Model ☰. I think far too many people are way too pessimistic about Tesla's future. So yes, I believe a 135 kWh version of Tesla Model S and Model X will appear for sale by 2016. I expect that the option for that battery pack size will definitely be available in time for an AWD Model S. Unlike some, I believe that the first owners will receive their Model ☰ before the end of 2016.

And there's no way an AWD performance car with 500-mile range is going to be $70k.

We'll see. Though, honestly...? The phrase, "Yes, WAY!", comes to mind... BTW, I believe the 'Drive It Like You Stole It' range will probably be ~350 miles. On the BMW? Well... Uhm... Not so much. :-D

That's just wildly optimistic. (Though again, I love your optimism! :smile: )

Well, I do try to point out that what I write on the subject is a [WHISKEY ALPHA GOLF] as often as possible. I just try to support that notion with the limited information I have available to me. Then I try to back that up with Third Grade mathematics for the sake of minimal argument. Since this is about projections for the future, I choose to focus on what I believe the minimum goals for an awesome future should be...

I think too many enthusiasts have had their personal crystal balls clouded by the comparatively sub-par efforts of traditional automakers, who are still tied to the lodestone of 'independent franchised dealerships' as their customers. I know that Elon Musk wants to make cars that he would personally be happy with, and I use that as my guide. I think he would like my projections. As noted in my signature, I have no problem at all being wrong. I'd much rather be optimistic at this juncture though, because I think Tesla Motors is set to surprise a whole lot of people. ;-)

And I'm not sure if you meant to suggest that a MIII AWD Coupe will be available at launch (i.e. 2017), but I don't think there's much chance of that.

I hope that a coupe is among the launch vehicles for the Tesla Model ☰. But I'm not holding my breath for it. Coupes sell in very, very, very small numbers compared to sedans, minivans, crossovers, SUVs, pickup trucks... But again, this thread is a comparison of the Tesla Model ☰, versus the BMW M3, and that car is to my knowledge usually offered as a coupe, or 'two-door sedan', even if a four-door is on offer.

Did I mention that I really don't like sedans?

Those features will come online later after the initial launch of the sedan.

I believe that Tesla Motors will show at least three vehicle configurations at the introduction of Tesla Model ☰, hopefully at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, January 2015. I do not expect a coupe to be shown among them, but I desperately pray for it. I expect that a five-door liftback sedan, minivan, and crossover (or wagon) will be shown. There is an outside chance that a compact three-door liftback will be shown. There is a strong hope by many I'm sure that a hardtop convertible 2+2 will be shown. I don't want any of those.

The car I want is as I've stated before. I can wait as long as it takes for Tesla Motors to make it. It would be a five passenger liftback coupe with Falcon Wing Doors, available All Wheel Drive, five hundred horsepower, five hundred fifty lb-ft torque, and a 500+ mile range when you 'Drive It Like A Hippie Tree Hugger'. I expect to pay a premium of around $5,000 just to get that configuration instead of a sedan, wagon, or crossover version. I would get the compact three-door if I had no other choice.

 

[Red Sage]

Not sure I agree that the EPA screwed them the first.

I accept they may not have done it 'on purpose'. The result is the same. It allows Naysayers to claim that Elon Musk lied.

If I'm a buyer which is closer to the actual range owners are getting? Tesla's 300 miles or the EPA's 265?

The car was engineered to meet the 2-cycle protocol. That involved a certain distance traveled at 55 mph on level ground. The Tesla Model S 85, driven on level ground at 55 MPH will go 300 miles. If you use hypermiling techniques (AKA, 'Drive It Like A Hippie Tree-Hugger'), you can get the car to 400 miles.

When you factor in the real world, weather and typical driving habits the 265 rated range is certainly more accurate, especially for someone considering purchasing the Model S.

Typical driving habits of anyone who complains about range are that they 'Drive It Like You Stole It'. So, for them, 'real world range' is something like 70% of the EPA rating, on the low end -- 180-195 miles. Typical driving habits for people who drive 'The Approximate Posted Speed Limit' (wink-wink, nudge-nudge) generally yield ~230 miles 'per tank'. The EPA does neither in their testing. People who are careful about the Wh used per mile typically can travel the full 265 miles and have 'extra miles' left over with relatively conservative driving at around 5 MPH below the posted speed limit.