Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla Says Model 3 Will Be On Sale 2017 Alongside Chevy Bolt

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Fair enough on the above points and I fully expect Telsa to trounce the Bolt in nearly every area with the exception of passenger space, but that comes down to the sedan style of car vs the CUV style. I also believe OTA software updates will be there. I just don't believe they will install the auto pilot sensors in 100% of the cars like they did with the S and X. The overhead margins just aren't there on a car like the Model 3 to be able to install options that (potentially) will never get paid for. Tesla may surprise me on this, as they do take a fair amount of risks, but if not enough people opt for the auto pilot upgrade (which is much more likely on a lower priced mass market car) Tesla will lose money on it which is the last thing they need or we want. It all comes down to the cost of the sensors really and that I admittedly do not know. I do expect them to build the car with the option to install them later at a service center at the very least.

AP hardware has to be on every Model 3 made

* speeds production having all get the same option, less rerouting/batch changes on the assembly line.
* cars can have AP enabled in software later by first owner if they don't order it
* cars can have AP enabled in software during CPO process after a trade in

It's win/win for 95% of the cases. (wasted if the car is wrecked and Tesla never got paid for AP but otherwise a win).

- - - Updated - - -

Wait, so does that mean it's after they sell 200k in a single quarter?

here is my explanation of that from another thread.

The phase-out period stretches over one year, beginning in the second calendar quarter after the quarter in which the manufacturer hits the 200,000 vehicle US sales mark. From there, all qualifying vehicles sold by the manufacturer are eligible for 50% of their specified credit for the first two quarters and 25% of the credit for the next two quarters.


For example if a manufacturer sells its 200,000th vehicle in the first quarter (Q1) of 2018, the credit amounts for all of that manufacturer's eligible vehicles would phase out as shown in the table below.


Tax Credit Phase-Out Schedule Quarter Credit


  • Q1 2018 Full amount
  • Q2 2018 Full amount
  • Q3 2018 50% of full amount
  • Q4 2018 50% of full amount
  • Q1 2019 25% of full amount
  • Q2 2019 25% of full amount
  • Q3 2019 No credit

It's entirely possible that it will trigger sooner and run out sooner but the important concept is that it doesn't go away immediately and when it starts going away it diminishes slowly not all at once.


If Tesla is pumping out 10,000 plus a month in 2018 they could easily sell 50,000 or more with the full tax credit. They could then be selling double that amount in the next 6 months with half tax credit. And then double rate again with 1/4 tax credit. All in all hundreds of thousands of Model 3s could be sold with federal tax credit.


Keep in mind Tesla can game this slightly by focusing on overseas deliveries of Model S and Model X the month they are going to roll over 200,000 US deliveries. If that rolls them into the next quarter it extends the tax credit by 3 months no matter how many they sell after that.


Now to update the current totals at end of 2015 would be
US running total Tesla Sales vs 200,000 for federal credit phase out trigger

  • 2011 end 1,900
  • 2012 end 4,550 (2,650 for 2012 + prior year)
  • 2013 end 22,200 (14,650 for 2013 + prior years)
  • 2014 end 39,500 (17,300 for 2014 + prior years)
  • 2015 end 65,414 (25,914 for 2015 + prior years, Model S and Model X)

Do the math if Tesla is doing less than 26,000 a year US in 2015 how many years will it take to hit 200,000 US sales? They'll ramp up S and X production but there will still be plenty of discounts on Model 3.


Lets say 75,000 US for 2016 and 100,000 US for 2017, and maybe some of the tail of 2017 are founders Model 3. Then in 1Q 2018 they open the floodgates and a ton of Signature Model 3s come out, in 2Q 2018 a ton of regular model 3s come out all with full tax credit. Hoorah, look at this again


Tax Credit Phase-Out Schedule Quarter Credit

  • Q3 2017 possible deferred shipping to EU/ROW to avoid crossing 200,00 in US
  • Q4 2017 founders Model 3 with full credit (200,000 mark crossed)
  • Q1 2018 signature Model 3 with Full credit
  • Q2 2018 production Model 3 with Full credit (will they be making 4,000+ a week by then? Maybe 12 weeks worth is 50,000 Model 3s with full credit?)
  • Q3 2018 50% of full amount (maybe 75,000 Model 3s with half credit)
  • Q4 2018 50% of full amount (maybe 100,000 Model 3s with half credit, with extra production going outside the US)
  • Q1 2019 25% of full amount (maybe 100,000 Model 3s with quarter credit, with extra production going outside the US)
  • Q2 2019 25% of full amount (maybe 100,000 Model 3s with quarter credit, with extra production going outside the US)
  • Q3 2019 No credit

all in all they might get out 100,000 with full credit, 200,000 with half credit, and another 200,000 with quarter credit. I'd hardly call 500,000 Model 3s in 2018/2019 the same as your version of none of them getting the credit.


Shift that back a quarter and 100,000 less cars get a full credit, shift that forward a quarter and 100,000 more get a full credit. Just depends when they can start cranking out Model 3 en masse.
 
Most of the things that article pointed out have already been in discussion here in this forum, particularly the thread that speculated what the options will be and how much each of them cost. Like others have already said, I'm fully prepared to pay more than the $35k base price to get the Model 3 that I want. I don't see how any Tesla enthusiast interested in the Model 3 would expect otherwise. Like in the article, you can simply look at the options for the Model S and X and get some sort of expectation. The whole discussion on this matter is what features do we think will come on the base model, since the whole point of it all is to make an affordable, high-range EV. Given how $35k has been the number they have been shooting for, you would have to think that Tesla would have to make that model compelling enough to the general public in order to get the amount of sales they are looking for in regards to mass production (200k+).

And as far as Tesla's production of the Model 3 goes, while I may not be a Tesla expert, I don't necessarily agree with the notion that the Model 3 will follow the same path as the Model S and Model X go, with focus going on getting the higher end models off the line first. With so much riding on an affordable Model 3, I don't see how they could afford to go with that route. Everything I've been reading has indicated that they are taking an entirely different approach with the Model 3, and that they have a good portion of their engineers dedicated to Model 3 now. I have faith that they'll be able to figure it out.
 
Bolt only has one pack size 60 kWh

I expect Model 3 to come with two pack sizes and my last guess was

Model 3 - 65 (range similar to a S80) - 2018 version
Model 3 - 80 (range similar to a S100) - 2018 version

Model 3 - 40 (range similar to a S60) - 2018 version ?

No I don't think they'll bother with a 3rd pack size and I don't think Elon is interested in a lower range Model 3. He wants to show better than the rest and push the market. He'll also have this huge gigafactory pumping out cells as fast as possible, just tweak the price as needed to keep the higher pack size in demand and keep production at full tilt.

I think you need to realize by 2018 the Model S won't have a 60 kWh option so there won't be a "S60 2018 version".

Below is a list of pack sizes and dates. It's pure conjecture after 2015 so take it with a grain of salt but it is based on Elon Musk and JB Straubel's guidance of 5-10% pack increase per year.

Model S60 pre AP (2012 to early 2014)
Model S85 pre AP (2012 to early 2014)

Model S60 with AP (late 2014)
Model S85 with AP (late 2014)

Model S70 (early 2015)
Model S90 (mid 2015)

Model S75 (2016)
Model S95 (2016)

Model S80 (2017)
Model S100 (2017)

Model 3 - 65 (range similar to a S80) - 2018 version
Model 3 - 80 (range similar to a S100) - 2018 version

Model S85 (2018 version)
Model S105 (2018)

I fully expect by the time the Model 3 comes out a Model S with 60 kWh pack will seem underwhelming. The cheapest Model S around end of 2017 or early 2018 should be a 75 or 80 kWh pack.
 
Most of the things that article pointed out have already been in discussion here in this forum, particularly the thread that speculated what the options will be and how much each of them cost. Like others have already said, I'm fully prepared to pay more than the $35k base price to get the Model 3 that I want. I don't see how any Tesla enthusiast interested in the Model 3 would expect otherwise. Like in the article, you can simply look at the options for the Model S and X and get some sort of expectation. The whole discussion on this matter is what features do we think will come on the base model, since the whole point of it all is to make an affordable, high-range EV. Given how $35k has been the number they have been shooting for, you would have to think that Tesla would have to make that model compelling enough to the general public in order to get the amount of sales they are looking for in regards to mass production (200k+).

And as far as Tesla's production of the Model 3 goes, while I may not be a Tesla expert, I don't necessarily agree with the notion that the Model 3 will follow the same path as the Model S and Model X go, with focus going on getting the higher end models off the line first. With so much riding on an affordable Model 3, I don't see how they could afford to go with that route. Everything I've been reading has indicated that they are taking an entirely different approach with the Model 3, and that they have a good portion of their engineers dedicated to Model 3 now. I have faith that they'll be able to figure it out.
I saw a lot of comments on forums, social media and articles related to Bolt where people claimed Tesla will offer a much better car and named the $35k price tag. With comments why you would ever get a Bolt when you can get a Model 3 for less.

And while the whole point is an affordable, high-range EV in the end you still have to make money and the margins on a $35000 Model 3 are probably pretty bad.
 
I think they will skip (at least) 95 and go straight to 100. Otherwise seems logical.

only way I see that happening is if they don't update the top pack for an extra 6-10 months. Giving us this

Model S75 (2016)
Model S90 (2016)

Model S80 (2017)
Model S100 (2017)

Though I suppose they could skip on both and just do even multiples of 10

Model S70 (2016)
Model S90 (2016)

Model S80 (2017)
Model S100 (2017)
 
Last edited:
I saw a lot of comments on forums, social media and articles related to Bolt where people claimed Tesla will offer a much better car and named the $35k price tag. With comments why you would ever get a Bolt when you can get a Model 3 for less.

And while the whole point is an affordable, high-range EV in the end you still have to make money and the margins on a $35000 Model 3 are probably pretty bad.
You skipped out on the later part of his comment that addresses that: "Given how $35k has been the number they have been shooting for, you would have to think that Tesla would have to make that model compelling enough to the general public in order to get the amount of sales they are looking for in regards to mass production (200k+)."

The base model $35k Model 3 vs the base model Bolt at $37.5k will likely have the Model 3 be equally compelling or more compelling. Of course the ASP of the Model 3 will be higher simply because Tesla is guaranteed to offer more than one battery option (while Bolt only has one). That doesn't mean however someone looking at a base models won't think the Model 3 is "better" than the Bolt.

The Model S vs ELR is a great analogy. The 2014 ELR started at $75k base, Model S at the time was $69k base. You had very similar arguments about comparing base prices and which car is "better" and also arguments about ASP and "loaded" models. A loaded ELR is much cheaper than a loaded Model S and probably had more equipment, but that didn't matter in the consumer mind. They looked the base price and said that for that money they would rather get a Tesla.
 
The ELR was different, though, because even diehard GM/Cadillac/Volt fans thought the price was outrageous.

The Bolt is getting a favourable response. Sure there are some people saying they'd rather have a Model 3, but there are many others saying the Bolt looks good and they want one.
 
Sorry, I had just done a quick search for Tesla's and assumed Chevy hadn't released that since they only just released the size of their pack.

Tesla currently costs $200/kWH. Looks like the actual estimate for the gigafactory is $100/kWH though. So, the Bolt is $8700 for their pack (confirmed) and the Model 3 will in theory be $6000.

When the news arrived about the $145/kWh that GM is paying LG on the Bolt, Tesla said that they still had the lowest cell price in the marked. So we do know one thing: Tesla does by now pay less then $145/kWh for the battery cells.

With the GF-I they except the price to be reduced by at least 35% (from the get-go I presume?), and hopefully be reduced by 50% at full production (in 2020).

So when they start to produce TM3 in late 2017 the cell price will be under ($145/kWh - 35% =) ~$95/kWh, and that they hope it will be down to about $70/kWh or lower at full production in 2020. A price of $100/kWh is alleged to be the point where BEV's get price equality with comparable ICE cars.
 
Source? I want to believe...

http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...-motors-inc-management-wants-you-to-know.aspx

When asked about what Tesla thought about General Motors' recent reference to a battery with a cell cost of $145 a kilowatt-hour and whether this cost looked like a threat to Tesla, management responded confidently.

"In general, we're quite comfortable in our position with the type of cells and the form factors we're using," said Tesla's chief technology officer and battery guru, J.B. Straubel, "and we think that's going to be the best cost positioning and cost roadmap in the future."

Musk added: "I mean we're constantly agonizing about cell cost and pack cost, and we don't think anyone is on a path to be even close to us."
 
I don't think it says any such thing. It says they expect to have the lowest cost in the future, not that they have the lowest cost now. "On a path to be" isn't talking about the present.

Agreed on that what J.B. says is about the future, and that "On a path to be" is about the future of "anyone". But when GM in the near future (when they start producing the Bolt) will have a price of $145/kWh, and still not "on a path to be even close to us", it tells me that Tesla, at least when the Bolt will start producing, will have a lower price then this. And the Bolt will - from what I have understud - start producing before the GF-I starts, so we are talking about the prices before the reduction in cost from the GF-I.

If this is not correct, and Tesla now pays more for the battery cells then $145/kWh, then Elon should have worded this in an another way like "We will get well under this price once the GF-I start producing cells" or something.

...

And remember, when Tesla and Panasonic signed a contract a few years ago "everyone" agreed that the price was about $180/kWh. But that is a few years ago, and it is reasonable to think that the price have dropped since then. A "now" price of $140-$150/kWh is not unreasonable to believe.

Tesla currently pays Panasonic $180/kW for their batteries, ...
(Date: October 13th, 2014)
 
Last edited:
When the news arrived about the $145/kWh that GM is paying LG on the Bolt, Tesla said that they still had the lowest cell price in the marked. So we do know one thing: Tesla does by now pay less then $145/kWh for the battery cells.

With the GF-I they except the price to be reduced by at least 35% (from the get-go I presume?), and hopefully be reduced by 50% at full production (in 2020).

So when they start to produce TM3 in late 2017 the cell price will be under ($145/kWh - 35% =) ~$95/kWh, and that they hope it will be down to about $70/kWh or lower at full production in 2020. A price of $100/kWh is alleged to be the point where BEV's get price equality with comparable ICE cars.

This is just way too much guessing. Tesla is a major battery buyer, and gets a good price. Tesla hopes to have a competitive price advantage in the future. But how would they possibly know if the future gigafactory will truly produce significantly lower costs than their competitors? They can't possibly know.

We do know, at this point in time, that per unit hard costs are more important for Tesla than GM. A few dollars per kwh doesn't matter much in the next few years. But we will never be able to make a true apples to apples cost comparison between Tesla and a competitor anyways. No car manufacturer will ever provide sufficient information.

- - - Updated - - -

I keep hoping the Model 3 is a hatchback like the Kia Spectra5 or Honda Fit, with a front end more like the Model S. The Bolt has too much slope in the rear, which will probably make the back seat hell for any adult. The BMW i3 is just ugly.

The Bolt is reported to have excellent rear seat room for two adults. The M3 may not have as much room, but will probably be a better looking car.
 
I keep hoping the Model 3 is a hatchback like the Kia Spectra5 or Honda Fit, with a front end more like the Model S. The Bolt has too much slope in the rear, which will probably make the back seat hell for any adult. The BMW i3 is just ugly.


I keep hoping for the three vehicle Model 3 line up to match Mazda 3 five door, four door and CX-3, given Franz's involvement...