I thought the inconel they use to manufacture the connection was the most expensive part though?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Unveils The Model S 60 at $66K..... effects on the Model 3
- Thread starter juanmedina
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3
diamond.g
Active Member
So if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying there would be (for the Model 3 and pulling the kwh from the air) 45/60 pack and a 75 pack? and that the 75 pack would come in Regular or Performance Trim? Or are you saying that every Model 3 comes in Performance trim, with the other motor and battery kwh disabled?
I was thinking that others were going for the idea of the 75kwh battery electronically limited to either 60 (55) or 45 kwh or whatever differentiation they needed, then segment by Regular or Performance. Still 1 battery, but differing drive units (and other FW related stuff).
EVNow
Well-Known Member
That has zero validity - it is fun but non-representative number.
Based on the information that was similarly logged as to who would join the queue to reserve Model 3 - I counted 4 people at my location. So I went to the store expecting to see a small crowd - but - there was a long line of 700 people.
alseTrick
Active Member
I'm saying there will be at least 2 entirely separate packs (like with the S, for instance). One for the base (60/75kWh) and one for the performance (90kWh). I have no idea if Tesla will "lock" either one.
In regards to the bolded, I thought they were referring to one pack for all variations of said model in order to never have to change up the battery installation part of the production line. If what you're suggesting is what they were actually saying, it certainly makes more sense. Though I still don't think Tesla has any plans on installing a 90kWh battery on every single Model S and limiting down to 60 and 75kWh versions, regardless of PDL or not. And they certainly won't do it with the Model 3 if they aren't doing it with the S.
With the significantly larger volume Tesla will be pushing with the Model 3, I also think it's less likely they increase the "free hardware but upgradeable with software for an extra fee" options. A hit on their margins would add up much quicker with the 3 than the S. Some are saying to include the full price of the battery in the base price of the car even if the consumer doesn't purchase the upgrade (in other words, charging a new S60 owner the full $74,500 for the S75). I think that is the entirely wrong method. And apparently Tesla agrees with me. That's why Tesla lowered the price of the S60 for the "locked" battery pack.
Last edited:
EVNow
Well-Known Member
When you use kw instead of kWh, you lose some credibility.
Anyway, let us go by that very low number. What % of the margin/profit is $1500 ? Not small at all.
RWD 45 in the base with the ability to software upgrade to 55 with same hardware. Dual motor is an option and requires 2nd DU installation. 70/75 is a different battery. Ludicrous contactor hardware "might" be included in the big battery, and software upgradable.
Having a battery upgradable makes sense. A "dead" DU doesn't.
One pack from 45 to 75. Nope.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
Tesla does provide a calculator so that you can customize your assumptions ... Order your Tesla Model S | Tesla Motors
Yes, and I pointed out that you can't change the assumed MPG. It's 20. Lots of cars get more than that (or less). So the calculator isn't very useful. And yet the results of it are rolled into the price at the top like that's definitely what you are going to save. (You also can't change the cost paid for electricity built into the clculator - it's .12/Kwh)
Although I like the poster who puts 1's into it so that the gas savings = 0 and they can see the prices without it included That is a great idea.
You are only looking at the battery users that don't upgrade and they could have spent $1,500 less on...how about the users that spend $9,000 more with the opportunity given?
With those numbers, if 15% of users who start with base battery upgrade later, they make MORE money than if they sold you a battery size and you were stuck with it. Then the added benefits of simplifying production and base customers having more flexibility and being able to charge their battery to 100% without penalty.
Tesla thinks outside the box. Maybe you should go buy a gm.
With those numbers, if 15% of users who start with base battery upgrade later, they make MORE money than if they sold you a battery size and you were stuck with it. Then the added benefits of simplifying production and base customers having more flexibility and being able to charge their battery to 100% without penalty.
Tesla thinks outside the box. Maybe you should go buy a gm.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
yup no quote by me able dual motors on every car.
Actually it's fairly inexpensive under $5/lb, as far as I know, and they can 3D print it thanks to previous work at SpaceX
So for me it's ALL about range. I'm in for the 70/75 if that's what it will be. My question is would I be able to get the 70/75 WITHOUT 'Ludicrous'.....and WITHOUT 'Performance'? Don't need either and don't care about either but don't want to have to pay extra for a 'bundle'. I just want Max Range. I DO want AWD though.
Ski
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Not sure if your numbers are for illustration only, but no way the base pack is 45 kWh and still be able to have 215+miles of EPA range.
alseTrick
Active Member
The difference in range is misleading since with the S60 you can charge the batter to a full 100% every day without impacting battery life since the actual battery is 75kWh. Tesla recommends you charge your battery to no more then 90% except for the occasional long trip. Therefore the real range difference is closer to 15 miles with the S60 having the better range. (194 vs 210).
EVNow
Well-Known Member
But the utility of charging full everyday is almost nil for most people. What are the chances that you suddenly have to drive a lot and that 15 miles or so made all the difference ?
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Seems to me reducing the base price of the S by $4,000 will have a nearly zero impact on the 3. That's not substantially less money and doesn't change the equation for most people.
nexsuperne101
Closed
I have gone through the motions of ordering what I would like on my Model 3, using the new 60D, to see how they compare.
If I go for the Premium package, with AWD, upgraded sound system, next gen seats, 21" turbines, pearl white paint and pano roof, then I am up to £75K on a £57K base price.
That's a hell of a lot more than the £40k limit I set for the Model 3 AWD with similar options.
As nice as the S is, and I do really like it, I can't justify the extra £35K price tag.
With the £35K difference, on a 78 month HP term, this adds £450 a month to the outgoings, which if you take the £40k Model 3 option of 30% deposit (£12,000), minus the £1,000 reservation, the payments would be £346 a month (plus 5.9% interest makes it £367), which is easily affordable, £800 a month for the equivalent S60D is not.
For me, my cars get used for work. In the UK, we get paid £0.45 per mile for the first 10,000 miles and the £0.25 per mile for everything after that. With my 20,000 miles per year, this works out at £7000 towards the cost of the car. The Model 3 would cost £4,404 per year, based on the £367 x 12 months. The extra £2,596 would go towards another 30% deposit. In 60 months of the 78 month HP term, the deposit would be saved. The remaining 18 months would total at £2596 x 1.5 or £3894.
The £3894 should cover the electric price of charging at home. If I assume 250 watts per mile (based on a 0.29CD Nissan Leaf in real world testing), and my peak rate electric at 15p per unit, with no supercharging, the 130,000 miles of 78 months driving would cost 32,500KW, and at £0.15 per KW, this is £4875. I would be c£1000 out of pocket. This is worst case scenario, as I have off peak charging here, which is 6p/KW.
Based on 6p/KW, the total cost to drive 130,000 miles will be £1950, leaving me £1944 in pocket.
The actual figure is much better than this, as I have 6KW of solar on my roof, which I can utilise 100% of for free charging.
If I tried the same in an efficient 40mpg petrol car, like a BMW340 (326BHP, also £40,000 to buy), at £1.10 per litre (UK Gallons are 4.54 litres, so £4.99 a UK gallon), then I would need 130,000 miles/40mpg=3250 gallons, which would cost £16,217.50. This also needs to have road tax added, as its a polluting vehicle. This adds another £1200 to the 78 month cost.
So the point is that the Model 3 for the small business owners like myself makes perfect financial sense. The 45p/25p tax breaks from HMRC give enough money to make it cost nothing to have a decent car.
The EV vs the petrol equivalent works out as follows
Tesla Car cost £40,000
Electric cost (15p/KW) £4875
Road tax £0.00
Total £44,875
BMW340 car cost £40,335
Petrol cost (£1.10/litre) £16,217.50
Road tax (159gm/mile @£185pa)£1200
Total £57752.50
So that's a saving of nearly £13,000!!!
I chose the BMW, as they are comparable size and performance. The twin turbo 3 litre is efficient and gives a 4.8 second 0-60mph, which is where the AWD Model 3 should be (based on the sub 6 second RWD version)
If I go for the Premium package, with AWD, upgraded sound system, next gen seats, 21" turbines, pearl white paint and pano roof, then I am up to £75K on a £57K base price.
That's a hell of a lot more than the £40k limit I set for the Model 3 AWD with similar options.
As nice as the S is, and I do really like it, I can't justify the extra £35K price tag.
With the £35K difference, on a 78 month HP term, this adds £450 a month to the outgoings, which if you take the £40k Model 3 option of 30% deposit (£12,000), minus the £1,000 reservation, the payments would be £346 a month (plus 5.9% interest makes it £367), which is easily affordable, £800 a month for the equivalent S60D is not.
For me, my cars get used for work. In the UK, we get paid £0.45 per mile for the first 10,000 miles and the £0.25 per mile for everything after that. With my 20,000 miles per year, this works out at £7000 towards the cost of the car. The Model 3 would cost £4,404 per year, based on the £367 x 12 months. The extra £2,596 would go towards another 30% deposit. In 60 months of the 78 month HP term, the deposit would be saved. The remaining 18 months would total at £2596 x 1.5 or £3894.
The £3894 should cover the electric price of charging at home. If I assume 250 watts per mile (based on a 0.29CD Nissan Leaf in real world testing), and my peak rate electric at 15p per unit, with no supercharging, the 130,000 miles of 78 months driving would cost 32,500KW, and at £0.15 per KW, this is £4875. I would be c£1000 out of pocket. This is worst case scenario, as I have off peak charging here, which is 6p/KW.
Based on 6p/KW, the total cost to drive 130,000 miles will be £1950, leaving me £1944 in pocket.
The actual figure is much better than this, as I have 6KW of solar on my roof, which I can utilise 100% of for free charging.
If I tried the same in an efficient 40mpg petrol car, like a BMW340 (326BHP, also £40,000 to buy), at £1.10 per litre (UK Gallons are 4.54 litres, so £4.99 a UK gallon), then I would need 130,000 miles/40mpg=3250 gallons, which would cost £16,217.50. This also needs to have road tax added, as its a polluting vehicle. This adds another £1200 to the 78 month cost.
So the point is that the Model 3 for the small business owners like myself makes perfect financial sense. The 45p/25p tax breaks from HMRC give enough money to make it cost nothing to have a decent car.
The EV vs the petrol equivalent works out as follows
Tesla Car cost £40,000
Electric cost (15p/KW) £4875
Road tax £0.00
Total £44,875
BMW340 car cost £40,335
Petrol cost (£1.10/litre) £16,217.50
Road tax (159gm/mile @£185pa)£1200
Total £57752.50
So that's a saving of nearly £13,000!!!
I chose the BMW, as they are comparable size and performance. The twin turbo 3 litre is efficient and gives a 4.8 second 0-60mph, which is where the AWD Model 3 should be (based on the sub 6 second RWD version)
Last edited:
If I lived in Europe I would definitely consider the S. It s going to take years before you get your model 3. Then unlike Americans at $8 a gallon you don't necessarily need to drive gas guzzlers to save money switching to electricity. At $2 to $3 a gallon here the savings are questionable for me (30 U.S. Mpg car / 16k miles a year). Comparable ICE cars (V8 engine) car will cost you a fortune to operate in Europe.
For some, sure. For me, well let's think about it, for the same amount of money (speculating of course):
- maximum range vs minimum range
- Something that most likely is enough even in winter vs something that will most likely not be enough during winter (long trip cases of course, daily driving is same for both)
- some options vs no options at all
- so no AWD, AP, winter package etc
- more reasonable sized car vs a tad big car
- to be fair, I'm sure the S isn't too much trouble but still
Just from the top of my mind, I'll keep on saving money (for more options) and wait patiently. And like I started my post, for some this is probably excellent deal, which is great. More choices for customers is good.
If they start putting batteries, into cars, that aren't being used, they had better not, not once, be limited in production because of lack of batteries. If my Model ≡ is delayed so some Model S owner can carry around the dead weight baggage of my batteries, I will be more than a little annoyed.
Thank you kindly.
Thank you kindly.
