Ultra-Economy EV

[vinnie97]

I agree with the OP, though not necessarily sub $15k (he mentioned no price anyhow). Let's shoot for $20k before inflation blows out that price point. This would help to make EVs as ubiquitous as the Prius. Maybe GM will fill in at this price point at some future date, but I can't see Toyota bothering, so I hope Tesla's production output exceeds their wildest imaginations to make it a reality, partly for selfish reasons.

Even with the Model 3, it looks like you'll have to cough up well over $50k to get one with 300 miles of range.

 

[Twiglett]

OP: the car you have described is not exactly 'compelling' - hardly inline with the philosophy of the brand.

Rest assured, Mitsubishi et al will make many different versions of this car for you in the years to come.

^^This^^
We only have to look to see how well the Mitsubishi has been selling to see how many folks that want cheap EVs

 

[S'toon]

I submit to you that the Bolt will come down in price once the Model 3 comes out.

 

[PaulRocket]

I think you could realistically build a 150mile 5 seater EV for under $20,000. For the interior I would give every customer an iPad and build a stand on the dashboard. Other than that I would only add a AC. You really don't need more, you have a navigation system on the iPad...

 

[1208]

I submit to you that the Bolt will come down in price once the Model 3 comes out.

And then Tesla will reduce the price of the 3.

 

[Twiglett]

And then Tesla will reduce the price of the 3.

I would ask why they needed to?
They are not competitor products, but it they were....
Bolt is 35K after rebate
Model 3 is 35K before rebate so is already $7500 cheaper

 

[YBT]

Indeed - if both products (Bolt & Model 3) adhere to the pricing projections we are being given it is clear that M3 will eat the Bolt for lunch as it is a premium car from a premium manufacturer that will cost less and (most likely) perform better than its "budget" rival. Bolt will sell for 42.5K for the first year or so and then drop to match the 35K price point once the M3 is available (and it will still move far less units even with price parity).

Consider this: If a base model Corolla cost the same or more than a base model BMW3 series - which do you think would sell better?

 

[1208]

I would ask why they needed to?
They are not competitor products, but it they were....
Bolt is 35K after rebate
Model 3 is 35K before rebate so is already $7500 cheaper

Shhh. Elon might be reading :biggrin:

 

[Jeff N]

I would ask why they needed to?
They are not competitor products, but it they were....
Bolt is 35K after rebate
Model 3 is 35K before rebate so is already $7500 cheaper

Actually, GM has consistently stated that the Bolt is below $30,000 after rebate ($37,500 before rebate). That price includes the "destination fee". At least one report has said there is reason to believe that the Model 3's stated price of $35,000 does not include a ~$1,000 destination fee.

So, the Model 3 is probably less than $2,500 cheaper.

 

[Twiglett]

Actually, GM has consistently stated that the Bolt is below $30,000 after rebate ($37,500 before rebate). That price includes the "destination fee". At least one report has said there is reason to believe that the Model 3's stated price of $35,000 does not include a ~$1,000 destination fee.

So, the Model 3 is probably less than $2,500 cheaper.

Maybe - but importantly, still cheaper and a more upmarket car (hopefully)

 

[JRP3]

Think about the economic impact a vehicle like this would have for a poor family 5-7 years from now. They could easily have cheap solar and if you could give them a battery EV, it would be world-changing for their wealth prospects.

That market will be well served by the used EV fleet. LEAF's are already going for less than $9k. The family you describe should not be buying new vehicles, the value proposition simply isn't there.

 

[1208]

That market will be well served by the used EV fleet. LEAF's are already going for less than $9k. The family you describe should not be buying new vehicles, the value proposition simply isn't there.

I don't think they base it on value. People like to buy things new as it feels like its made for them, it feels like their own. Even us poor people should be allowed that.

 

[JRP3]

I could afford new vehicles but I've never bought them. Sometimes there is a reason poor people stay poor.

 

[richkae]

I know we all like the higher-end S and X, but why not release the Model 3 and take the next logical step? At only 20% smaller than the Model S, the 3 will still be massive and have insane(unnecessary) performance levels. Can we think about maximizing efficiency/cost and go with something more the size of a Civic?

0-60 in......who cares. Slow. Same as a base model Civic.
One moderate sized motor, rear wheel drive.
Very simple computer that's mostly for monitoring.
No over the air anything, you gotta USB/bluetooth your phone in to do updates/communicate.

The best thing about EVs is their simplicity, why not see how far we can push that? A skateboard with a laptop in it. By the time this came to production appropriate batteries would be ready, you'd only need 150 miles of range and if it's light enough that's a small pack. There are so many things that could be stripped out or made ever so slightly less convenient, shouldn't we be talking about that as the next step? Perhaps they already are, who knows.

- - - Updated - - -

Think about the economic impact a vehicle like this would have for a poor family 5-7 years from now. They could easily have cheap solar and if you could give them a battery EV, it would be world-changing for their wealth prospects.

Taking each point in turn:

First: slow 0-60. It is probably difficult to make an EV that is very slow. If you try to save money by putting in the weakest possible motor - the weak motor reduces your regen, which reduces your range, but then you have to add batteries back in to meet your range target. So it is a false economy to put in a motor too small. Even if you put in the smallest possible motor that can do the regen you need, the difference between a motor that can do an 10 second 0-60 in a lightweight EV and a 8 second 0-60 is probably only a few dollars. You will lose more sales to the slow 0-60 than you will to the few dollars higher price. I am sure there is a knee in the curve of cost vs performance, and it is probably above 6 seconds but well below 10 seconds.

Second: Single motor, rear wheel drive. Can't argue with that.

Third: very simple computer that's mostly for monitoring. Cheap 10" tablets are less than $200. Putting in a set of mechanical knobs and switches and buttons also has a cost. The savings may be negligible and be a poor trade for perceived value / cost.

Fourth: No over the air anything. This would be a huge mistake. The data that Tesla has access to via the two way telemetry is far more valuable than most realize, and far more valuable than the cost of the parts in the car, or even the bandwidth they pay for.

 

[vinnie97]

I could afford new vehicles but I've never bought them. Sometimes there is a reason poor people stay poor.

Looks like you'll have a long wait for the 3 then. Personally, I'm not interested in a used EV (with reduced range when it's already prohibitively shorter than any ICE). A brand new Leaf (a vehicle I also would never consider) is already limited enough. Call it stubbornness, principle, destiny to be destitute or what have you.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

As a Civic driver who would love an affordable, similar sized EV with long-range capability, I have a few comments:

I know we all like the higher-end S and X, but why not release the Model 3 and take the next logical step? At only 20% smaller than the Model S, the 3 will still be massive and have insane(unnecessary) performance levels. Can we think about maximizing efficiency/cost and go with something more the size of a Civic?

0-60 in......who cares. Slow. Same as a base model Civic.

The problem is that the Civic is no longer a slow car. The absolute cheapest Civic LX Sedan comes equipped with a 2.0L K-series engine and a 6-speed manual. It's good for 0-60 in 7.8 seconds. Keep in mind that this is an engine that still uses old port-injection technology. CVT option may sap a few tenths. The midrange Civic EX-T uses a 1.5L direct-injection turbo. Even with the standard CVT, it'll make the 0-60 run in 6.8.

An electric car has to be better than a gasoline car in order to get people to make the jump from ICE to BEV.

Taking each point in turn:

First: slow 0-60. It is probably difficult to make an EV that is very slow. If you try to save money by putting in the weakest possible motor - the weak motor reduces your regen, which reduces your range, but then you have to add batteries back in to meet your range target. So it is a false economy to put in a motor too small. Even if you put in the smallest possible motor that can do the regen you need, the difference between a motor that can do an 10 second 0-60 in a lightweight EV and a 8 second 0-60 is probably only a few dollars. You will lose more sales to the slow 0-60 than you will to the few dollars higher price. I am sure there is a knee in the curve of cost vs performance, and it is probably above 6 seconds but well below 10 seconds.

This is probably the strongest argument against making a weaker BEV. There is little or no $ savings by making the motor weaker.

The key to ultra-economy is more batteries, and more Gigafactories. When batteries become inexpensive enough, BEVs may become cheaper than ICE. The lower complexity of BEV will ensure that, assuming that other areas of the supply chain can be brought to parity with ICE.

 

[Red Sage]

This is probably the strongest argument against making a weaker BEV. There is little or no $ savings by making the motor weaker.

Correct. Similarly, there is little-to-no improvement in range by using a weaker motor -- especially when using a three-phase induction motor -- as opposed to a permanent magnet motor. Every motor that Tesla currently offers can take more power than the battery pack can supply. That is the full extent of their hesitance to allow MORE POWER.

 

[PaulRocket]

I also think there's a huge opportunity to build a very compelling low cost electric car. The body should look like a VW Golf, a nice simple and clean design.The cost should be around $18,000. Base battery size should be 30 kW/h for around 120 miles of range. 0-60 in 6 seconds and top speed of 100mph. That would really get a lot of people interested IMO. Also to save money the only interior gimmicks would be an AC as well as an iPad with LTE for navigation etc. That saves the company a lot of R&D money on a OS.

Anybody want to join and help me start this car company

 

[Model 3]

Base battery size should be 30 kW/h for around 120 miles of range.

There is a ton of cars out there with this type of range and size. "The body should look like a VW Golf" - why wold anyone buy this car instead of the e-Golf?

An new BEV with less then 200 miles EPA range today is in my opinion not worth making, no matter in what size or form. Yes, there is a marked for short-range BEV's, but this marked is well supplied already.

 

[glenhurst]

That saves the company a lot of R&D money on a OS.

Not really. The nice thing about software is that once it has been developed for use by one model, adapting it to another costs almost nothing. So, having a "simpler" car will save nothing in terms of software.