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.
#61
The focus is very much on the price drop resulting from cell production in the Gigafactory. But there are other things, besides a lower kWh-price, that will make it possible for Tesla to achieve a lower price for Model 3 (compared to Model S 70D):

- Smaller, lighter car, which means a smaller battery for the same range
- Use of steel instead of aluminium
- Cost advantages of higher production volumes (very important)
- Lower profit margin required (15% will suffice versus 25-30% for Model S)
 
#62
Breezy said:
I'm glad you're so convinced Tesla will be able to deliver a quality, reliable, luxury/performance BEV for $35k. We'll see what rolls off the assembly line in 2018.
Click to expand...

Nothing is ever guaranteed in this world, and you'll never see me claim certainty on an unannounced product. However, probabilities can be weighed.

It is unlikely that Tesla would build an econobox with average performance, even at the 35k level. First, Tesla isn't in the econobox market. Second, their website states: "Tesla designs and manufactures premium electric vehicles", and Third, their current products, the Model S and Model X, are not econoboxes. The entire reason for the company's existence is to build BEVs that are better than their ICE counterparts, in order to demonstrate that BEVs are better. They say they aren't in the business of lower end cars, and their actions back up those statements.

A USDM BMW 3-series starts at 33k + destination, and the top-range M3 starts at 63.5k + destination. I expect Model 3 to be priced similarly.

Again, I ask: It's not 100% certain either that the next generation BMW 3-Series or Mercedes C-Class will be vastly superior to a Honda Fit. Anyone want to bet on this?

Yes or no? Simple question:biggrin:
 
#63
anticitizen13.7 said:
Nothing is ever guaranteed in this world, and you'll never see me claim certainty on an unannounced product. However, probabilities can be weighed.

It is unlikely that Tesla would build an econobox with average performance, even at the 35k level. First, Tesla isn't in the econobox market. Second, their website states: "Tesla designs and manufactures premium electric vehicles", and Third, their current products, the Model S and Model X, are not econoboxes. The entire reason for the company's existence is to build BEVs that are better than their ICE counterparts, in order to demonstrate that BEVs are better. They say they aren't in the business of lower end cars, and their actions back up those statements.

A USDM BMW 3-series starts at 33k + destination, and the top-range M3 starts at 63.5k + destination. I expect Model 3 to be priced similarly.

Again, I ask: It's not 100% certain either that the next generation BMW 3-Series or Mercedes C-Class will be vastly superior to a Honda Fit. Anyone want to bet on this?

Yes or no? Simple question:biggrin:
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of "vastly superior." If you're talking about trim, features and (subjectively) styling, then sure. If you're talking about reliability, practicality, etc., my money's on the Fit. :smile:
 
#64
GM just shot the Bolt in the head anyway.
They just said point blank that they are not working with anyone on a network of DC chargers and don't see it as their role to do so - so they won't be doing it in the future either.
Why on earth would anyone get this car after that kind of backing.
 
#65
igotzzoom said:
Depends on your definition of "vastly superior." If you're talking about trim, features and (subjectively) styling, then sure. If you're talking about reliability, practicality, etc., my money's on the Fit. :smile:
Click to expand...

As a Honda Civic driver, I salute this response :biggrin:

On a more serious note, driving dynamics and NVH are items that are immediately noticeable as different between luxury and budget cars. The Fit simply does not have the engine power, weight distribution, or suspension setup for great driving dynamics (Honda even deleted the rear stabilizer bar, which was present in the previous generation Fit). The L15 is a raspy little engine due to its direct injection heads and the Fit's relative lack of insulation. The car magazines still complain about road noise and wind noise. With the CVT, the engine can be run at lower RPM at highway speed, but the manual 6 is geared aggressively and the engine turns at around 4k RPM at 80 MPH if I remember correctly. It's noisy. The Fit will never be as comfortable, powerful, or well composed as a C-segment sport sedan, but it was never meant to be one or compete with them.

The Fit wins in cargo flexibility hands down, due to the Magic Seats which can fold down flat or flip up. I love the Fit because it's a throwback to the Hondas of yesteryear: utterly practical, austerely engineered, and pure in the sense that the driver isn't all that isolated from what the car is doing mechanically. This is not a car for those who like to be comfortable:biggrin:
 
#66
anticitizen13.7 said:
As a Honda Civic driver, I salute this response :biggrin:

On a more serious note, driving dynamics and NVH are items that are immediately noticeable as different between luxury and budget cars. The Fit simply does not have the engine power, weight distribution, or suspension setup for great driving dynamics (Honda even deleted the rear stabilizer bar, which was present in the previous generation Fit). The L15 is a raspy little engine due to its direct injection heads and the Fit's relative lack of insulation. The car magazines still complain about road noise and wind noise. With the CVT, the engine can be run at lower RPM at highway speed, but the manual 6 is geared aggressively and the engine turns at around 4k RPM at 80 MPH if I remember correctly. It's noisy. The Fit will never be as comfortable, powerful, or well composed as a C-segment sport sedan, but it was never meant to be one or compete with them.

The Fit wins in cargo flexibility hands down, due to the Magic Seats which can fold down flat or flip up. I love the Fit because it's a throwback to the Hondas of yesteryear: utterly practical, austerely engineered, and pure in the sense that the driver isn't all that isolated from what the car is doing mechanically. This is not a car for those who like to be comfortable:biggrin:
Click to expand...

I am driving my 09 Fit until I can get my Tesla, and may even keep it after that for hauling. I've had everything from bedroom doors and 2x4s, to a small tree, to a 12 foot countertop, to bags of concrete mix inside the thing. Very loud car, but runs like a champ at just over 100k.
 
#67
Twiglett said:
GM just shot the Bolt in the head anyway.
They just said point blank that they are not working with anyone on a network of DC chargers and don't see it as their role to do so - so they won't be doing it in the future either.
Why on earth would anyone get this car after that kind of backing.
Click to expand...

Has GM said they would never consider making a Bolt charger that is supercharger network compatible?

GM is saying they have not made a deal with the germans yet. But the Bolt isnot released. GM knows EVs need chargers.

If the Bolt was really just a compliance car, the battery would not be in the floor. If the Bolt not a compliance car, there needs to be a charging network. But that doesn't mean it has to be built out at the start.

The leaf proves that people will buy an inexpensive EV without a charging network. Tesla didn't have that option.
 
#69
Draighven said:
One thing to remember is that Tesla absolutely can not shrink the Model S into a 35K car. You don't get soft leather seats, felt/leather lined interior, a 17" touch screen, an all aluminum body, and super car performance for 35K. It absolutely will not happen. The materials used to make a 35K Tesla will be very similar to the materials used to make a 37K Bolt, soft plastic/cloth interior, cloth/hard leather seats, smaller touch screen, mostly steel frame and better than average performance should be expected. The features will be similar and I'm willing to bet that passenger volume will be significantly smaller than the Bolt, but as it will be in a sedan style form factor performance will be better and I'm willing to give Tesla the edge on range. There will be much less margin on these cars and so I don't think Tesla will be able to build in features to activate later, so don't expect to suddenly get auto pilot activated in an OTA update, they won't be able to include sensors for auto pilot on every car like the Model S to keep the base cost down, so expect to have to either foot the bill up front or install them later for even more cost. I think those who are expecting to get a slightly smaller Model S for 35K will have a rude awakening when they sit in the Model 3.
Click to expand...

I forgot to clarify and I should have, that I was mainly talking about the packaging of the platform. As in rear motor, RWD, balanced placement of batteries, independent rear suspension, similar designs of powertrain/motor, wrapped in a 5 door sedan/hatchback.

If you sit in a base 3 series, that are appx $35k, their interiors aren't in any way 'premium'. Minimalist, good enough, but not $70k 5 series level nice. Yet I consider the philosophy of the 3 series as a shrunken down 5, which in many ways it is. I don't expect much use of aluminum either, but the Model 3 having a smaller footprint compared to an S, will in my estimation mean that the weight penalty of conventional steel will be offset by the size.

The materials can be mid level Honda Accord nice, and that IMO will be good enough. Do I expect a 17 inch screen, not quite but a 12-13" is feasible and not out of the ordinary. I do disagree with your statement about the Model 3 not being updated with OTA software, with AP, etc. This is in Tesla's DNA and I'm willing to bet that the Model 3 will definitely have OTA updates as well as the $2500 AP option as is afforded to the S and X

Now compare this design to a Bolt, which is in its packaging and platform, a sub compact econo hatchback with a torsion beam rear suspension and front wheel drive. The driving dynamics of such a design (barring something like a Type R Honda) leave much to be desired and in no way compare to something that was designed as an optimal, nearly no compromise, and without being constrained to be loosely based on a legacy conventional ICE platform. The Model 3 should and most likely will be designed as a sporty sedan EV first and will bring with it all the advantages of a clean sheet design with no constraints.
 
#73
It's been mentioned in the thread that Tesla could save on costs by shrinking the touchscreen from 17" to 12-13". I'm wondering if that might not be more expensive than just reusing the same unit from the S and the X.

Consider that with a shrink in the touchscreen you have to design the software twice over (once for the M3 and once for S/X). Also the prices of large LCD touch panels are coming down all the time. It might just be cheaper to keep building the 17" units and plugging them into the M3.

So it's 2*development cost vs. dropping lcd-touch panel costs.

I didn't include the cost of the cpu and associated hardware since those are likely marginal. I'm pretty sure an Nvidia Tegra chip is quite cheap when bought in lots of 100,000.
 
#74
mwulff said:
It's been mentioned in the thread that Tesla could save on costs by shrinking the touchscreen from 17" to 12-13". I'm wondering if that might not be more expensive than just reusing the same unit from the S and the X.

Consider that with a shrink in the touchscreen you have to design the software twice over (once for the M3 and once for S/X). Also the prices of large LCD touch panels are coming down all the time. It might just be cheaper to keep building the 17" units and plugging them into the M3.

So it's 2*development cost vs. dropping lcd-touch panel costs.

I didn't include the cost of the cpu and associated hardware since those are likely marginal. I'm pretty sure an Nvidia Tegra chip is quite cheap when bought in lots of 100,000.
Click to expand...

I agree... the cost of the 17" screen is ridiculous... you can buy a 17" HD capacitive display for less than 200$. This is not where Tesla have to save money for M3. Using a 12" instead of 17" screen to save 50$ in a more than 35000$ car... You save money in the seats (no leather, no electric adjustement, no memory), in the interior trim (leather as an option) and things like this.

Base Model 3 will have textile seats (unpowered, manual adjustement), and things like autopilot, leather, power seats, pano, parking sensors, rear view camera, handsfree access, xenon/led, navigation (software upgrade)... will be optional.

For 35000$ you will get a more than 200hp good looking EV with 220-230 miles EPA, 5 textile seats, halogen lamps, big trunk, a big 17" screen (with limited features) and probably supercharging capability with and endless list of options. But the base car will be a really good car.
 
#76
electracity said:
Has GM said they would never consider making a Bolt charger that is supercharger network compatible?

GM is saying they have not made a deal with the germans yet. But the Bolt isnot released. GM knows EVs need chargers.

If the Bolt was really just a compliance car, the battery would not be in the floor. If the Bolt not a compliance car, there needs to be a charging network. But that doesn't mean it has to be built out at the start.

The leaf proves that people will buy an inexpensive EV without a charging network. Tesla didn't have that option.
Click to expand...

That is Model 3's biggest advantage for now (until the reveal and we know how it looks and drives), Tesla's SC network. Until we know more, basically for the same price, you will be able to go anywhere the SCs are. That already makes the Model 3 more attractive for most people than the Bolt. You can actually go somewhere in it.
 
#77
electracity said:
Has GM said they would never consider making a Bolt charger that is supercharger network compatible?

GM is saying they have not made a deal with the germans yet. But the Bolt isnot released. GM knows EVs need chargers.

If the Bolt was really just a compliance car, the battery would not be in the floor. If the Bolt not a compliance car, there needs to be a charging network. But that doesn't mean it has to be built out at the start.

The leaf proves that people will buy an inexpensive EV without a charging network. Tesla didn't have that option.
Click to expand...
The gaping void here is that even VW, Audi, BMW, & Nissan all have partnered with someone to build (or plan to build) some kind of network.
Tesla built their own.
GM is now out there with Fiat on the level of supporting a charging infrastructure
 
#79
rEVhappy said:
I forgot to clarify and I should have, that I was mainly talking about the packaging of the platform. As in rear motor, RWD, balanced placement of batteries, independent rear suspension, similar designs of powertrain/motor, wrapped in a 5 door sedan/hatchback.

If you sit in a base 3 series, that are appx $35k, their interiors aren't in any way 'premium'. Minimalist, good enough, but not $70k 5 series level nice. Yet I consider the philosophy of the 3 series as a shrunken down 5, which in many ways it is. I don't expect much use of aluminum either, but the Model 3 having a smaller footprint compared to an S, will in my estimation mean that the weight penalty of conventional steel will be offset by the size.

The materials can be mid level Honda Accord nice, and that IMO will be good enough. Do I expect a 17 inch screen, not quite but a 12-13" is feasible and not out of the ordinary. I do disagree with your statement about the Model 3 not being updated with OTA software, with AP, etc. This is in Tesla's DNA and I'm willing to bet that the Model 3 will definitely have OTA updates as well as the $2500 AP option as is afforded to the S and X

Now compare this design to a Bolt, which is in its packaging and platform, a sub compact econo hatchback with a torsion beam rear suspension and front wheel drive. The driving dynamics of such a design (barring something like a Type R Honda) leave much to be desired and in no way compare to something that was designed as an optimal, nearly no compromise, and without being constrained to be loosely based on a legacy conventional ICE platform. The Model 3 should and most likely will be designed as a sporty sedan EV first and will bring with it all the advantages of a clean sheet design with no constraints.
Click to expand...

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.

As far as the Bolt, I don't understand why people claim it's an econo box. Look at the Volt, it is by far not an economy car even though it's the size of one. It uses the same interior materials as many of the higher priced offerings and much better materials than it's Cruze counterpart. It also has significantly better NVH mitigation (when the engine is on) than any econo car, and some higher priced cars that I've driven. It also handles and drives a lot better, not really sporty, but a lot better than econo box cars and, again, it's Cruze equivalent. Just because the car is small doesn't mean it's an econo box, I would expect the Bolt to be the same.
 
#80
I like the Bolt so far, I'll have a better opinion when it's actually out and I can take a test drive.

However the attractiveness of Tesla's offering of over the air software updates, auto pilot, superior design aesthetics, Supercharger and no franchise dealership shenanigans to deal with certainly keeps me from really considering other offerings.

For me, if I'm spending $40K+ on a car I'd better be able to drive anywhere and not worry about how long it's going to take me to charge it.Yes you can charge pretty much anywhere but it's the time it takes. Superchargers are Tesla's ace in the hole and that I think is going to be a major tipping point for a lot of people into model 3 camp rather than the Bolt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Chevy Bolt gets the ax
Replies
64
Views
4K
Electric Vehicles
wws
W
N
Model 3 Track Package for 2018 M3 AWD LR
Replies
3
Views
452
Model 3
804son
804son
P
Tesla Model S 2017 service cost & fog light condensation
Replies
2
Views
101
Model S
PHob99
P
P
Washington State Vehicle Sales
Replies
5
Views
803
Northwest
Poiu
P
Y
Tesla is selling model 3 demo vehicles [12.21.2023]
Replies
5
Views
829
Model 3
buckeye3
B
Top
Back
Blog
New
Forum list
Marketplace
Menu