Why we won't get a 60 Kw base battery

[techmaven]

The EPA range uses the combined MPGe rating and that's definitely misleading. At the moment, I think the base Model 3 will have less EPA range than the Bolt, but also have longer highway range.

Take a look at the Model S 75 kWh versus the Bolt:

Compare Side-by-Side

The Model S 75 kWh has a highway MPGe rating of 100. The Bolt EV has 110. The dual motor 75D is 105. The Model 3 only has to be 10% more efficient than the Model S RWD in the highway cycle in order to match the Bolt's efficiency. By virtue of being smaller, it has both lower weight and smaller frontal area. Also, Musk/Tesla hinted at much better aerodynamics. Also remember, the EPA highway cycle is not very representative of long distance highway driving. It's more of a typical commute from a suburb into a city, so it has plenty of starts and stops and even the highway section undulates with simulated traffic. The average speed of that test is only ~48 mph (old style highway test and the new high speed test).

Detailed Test Information

The Bolt likely has about 59-60 kWh of usable capacity on a 64 kWh battery. If the Model 3 has 55 kWh of usable battery, it has to be about 20% more efficient than the Model S75 to match the Bolt's EPA highway range. And that's reasonable. I suspect that base Model 3 will have a lower official EPA range (since it uses the city rating at 55%, and highway rating at 45%) but a higher actual usable highway range, especially at 70-80 mph. And I think it will be a bit difficult to explain at first.

 

[Red Sage]

It would certainly be nice for that to happen, but I'd think they'd have to follow with an equal price reduction on the S/X given that they're supposedly the same AP2 hardware systems with the same capability. Though, I feel like leaving the pricing as is will just result in a really low take rate for AP in the Model 3. The current pricing would even make me think twice about it if I were configuring a new Model S or X... I mean, I really like AP1 in my Model S but that only cost me $2500.

Understood. Just noting that Tesla's 'more affordable car' should have more affordable options. 20% is probably too aggressive, and 50% may be seen as fair, but I hope their cost ratio falls somewhere in between for the sake of affordability. That's all.

Melbourne Red Metallic paint is a $700 option for the 3-Series. Not so bad, really. Ruby Black Metallic paint is a $1,950 option on the 7-Series. So,that is around 35.89% of the cost for the lower priced vehicle.

Red Multi-Coat paint for the Model S is a $1,500 option. If a similar ratio is applied, it comes to around $538 for the Model ☰. Which is interesting, because a few months ago when I checked, metallic paint for the 3-Series about a $500 option. I wonder why it went up to $700, a 40% increase? I suppose it could have something to do with the 3-Series sales dropping by 25.5% in 2016 compared to 2015... Would Tesla be 'gouging' if they also requested $700 for metallic paint on the Model ☰?

 

[Petra]

Understood. Just noting that Tesla's 'more affordable car' should have more affordable options. 20% is probably too aggressive, and 50% may be seen as fair, but I hope their cost ratio falls somewhere in between for the sake of affordability. That's all.

Agreed.

 

[RandyS]

If a person is going to buy a Model 3 for road trips, then it becomes an 80% car (assuming you value your time at charging stops).

New owners probably don't realize that. If Tesla were to offer a modestly priced battery upgrade for the 3, I would probably buy it. It helps for those road trip issues, and also helps to hedge against future capacity loss to keep the car more usable into the future....

I bought an 85 kWh pack for my Model S, and am very glad I did. I use all of its capability on road trips, and in 4 years and 40,000 miles, probably half of my driving has been on road trips (Canada, Texas, Colorado, Grand Canyon, Lake Tahoe, etc etc etc....)

 

[Rashomon]

Your 230 mile EPA range will quickly shrink to 120 miles driving 90mph on the motorway. This has nothing to do with range anxiety. it's just impractical.

A 75 kWh M3 will do around 250 miles at 90 mph. That's the wonder of good aero. A 55 kWh will do less, somewhere around 175-180 miles.

 

[happyguy]

I will take the 60kwH battery (or base pack) and save the $$$ for other upgrade (AP2)

 

[Rashomon]

A 75 kWh M3 will do around 250 miles at 90 mph. That's the wonder of good aero. A 55 kWh will do less, somewhere around 175-180 miles.

These calculations also imply a 75kWh M3, assuming you're willing to drive it at 60 mph, will go well over 400 miles. The base pack? Over 300 miles at 60 mph. Great aero will kill the Bolt at highway speeds, whatever the EPA average comes out at. It's why the base pack will be fairly minimal -- Tesla will deliver better than what Musk promised on EPA numbers, and exceed real world expectations because of vehicle design. All while being less expensive than the Bolt.

 

[arnis]

$8000 is not really anything out of the ordinary for going up in trim even in this segment.

Want to know the full price list (not the truncated US version with US-specific pricing), here you go:

Overall during decades best sellers have always been 318, 320, 330 lags behind.
Also note how much AWD adds to the price compared to RWD.
BMW 3-series buyers are extremely sensible to option prices - not the same case with 5-series.

Upgrading a S from 60 to 75 (w/ no options) is a ~9.5% increase. But that's just a software change.

Upgrading a S 75D to 100D (w/ no options) is a ~16.5% increase.

"Software or hardware" doesn't matter from pricing perspective to regular customer.
But those percents also give a hint.16.5% is $5,7k for Model3. Much less than $8k

 

[techmaven]

"Software or hardware" doesn't matter from pricing perspective to regular customer.
But those percents also give a hint.16.5% is $5,7k for Model3. Much less than $8k

Well, there is an underlying ~$5,000 cost to Tesla for a 25 kWh difference in the S/X. In the 3, the battery cells are cheaper and we are talking about ~20 kWh, so we are talking about a ~$3,200 cost to Tesla, so an option price of $5,500 does work out.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Want to know the full price list (not the truncated US version with US-specific pricing), here you go:

Overall during decades best sellers have always been 318, 320, 330 lags behind.
Also note how much AWD adds to the price compared to RWD.
BMW 3-series buyers are extremely sensible to option prices - not the same case with 5-series.

I threw the list into a spread sheet. Your market doesn't have the 340i as a comparable, but the difference between the base trim 318i and 330i is 6800 EUR or $7242 USD.

And for 320d xDrive to 335d xDrive that is 12350 EUR or $13153 USD.

So again, the pricing still supports my suggestion. Going from base trim to top non-performance trim (keeping drive wheels the same), something that approaches $8000 isn't out of the ordinary for the 3 series market.

"Software or hardware" doesn't matter from pricing perspective to regular customer.
But those percents also give a hint.16.5% is $5,7k for Model3. Much less than $8k

I don't really buy the direct percentage based calculations that I keep seeing. There will be some savings from the gigafactory, but base price of the Model 3 is less than half that of the Model S. Is every option going to be less than half the cost on the Model 3 vs the Model S? I highly doubt it, given fixed costs.

Keep in mind even for the software unlock of 15kWh for 60kWh to 75kWh in Model S it cost $9000 (later dropped to $7000). The 15kWh (hardware) for 75kWh to 90kWh cost $10k (and this is after subtracting $2.5k for the bundled air suspension).

Others are suggesting only two battery models: 55kWh and 75kWh, for a 20kWh difference. Using same price structure as the cheaper software unlock that suggests $9333. $5.7k would be a 40% discount.

 

[arnis]

Note the acceleration values. Base Model 3 will be a competitor for 330i, 330e and 330d.
I also remind that best sellers are 318 and 320 "power levels". 330 is already having only a fifth of a share.
And anything above that gets very little, less than 10% all combined.
Tesla is not going to waste lots of money on a trim/power level that less than 10% people will opt.
I think 55/75 battery packs selection will be near 50:50 compared to each other. In US maybe 40/60, In EU maybe 60/40.
Base performance Model 3 will be way above what people in EU prefer according to BMW 3-series vehicles sold over decades.
Though people do like AWD options, especially snowy countries. For Tesla, that means even more performance.

Hmm. Interesting. Due to some marketing/psychological tricks (not going to explain in depth right now), it is actually
reasonable for Tesla to make 65kWh battery, with half the dummy cells compared to 55kWh.
People can be tricked to buy more expensive battery pack this way.
Though I still think they will just remove 2 modules out of 8 to reduce pack size from 75 to 55.

 

[Rashomon]

Pricing the self-driving features is an interesting puzzle. Tesla needs to recover the cost of the self-driving hardware in every vehicle, including those that are purchased without autopilot options. That's not cheap, maybe $1000-2000 or so OEM cost per vehicle, assuming a more integrated and less expensive processor will soon be available from Nvidia. Then they have to recover their software development costs, including their ongoing costs. It's obviously easier if you spread that over half a million vehicles (S,X, & 3), and they're obviously going to achieve a higher take-up rate if they price substantially lower than they do now. But what are the right numbers? I think base autopilot will be somewhat less expensive than for a S, and advanced autopilot as well, but can't see how they get much less than $2500 and $5000 in the near term without hurting margins. In the longer run, the hardware costs should fall considerably, and increasing volumes will allow software costs to be spread over more users.

 

[FlatSix911]

Interesting reading on real world pricing ...
Tesla Model 3 average sale price and budget to be closer to $50,000 based on latest data from reservation holders

The results are that most reservation holders are preparing to pay between $45,000 and $55,000, which makes sense since the bare Model 3 or nearly bare Model 3 are very rare options among the reservation holders surveyed. Most of them are looking for a battery pack upgrade from the base model, which is expected to offer 215+ miles of range, to bigger packs that could allow up to 300 miles of range.

The Autopilot/Self-driving options will also significantly increase the price. A buyer choosing only one of those options could easily see the price increase to $45,000 and both options could push the price to $55,000, based on the historical cost of Tesla’s options. Then you can add aesthetic upgrades, like interior options, wheels, and paint, and the price can easily go past $60,000 for a fully-loaded Model 3. It would make sense with the base price of the Model S going over $70,000 later this month due to the discontinuation of the Model S 60. The average sale price of the Model S will therefore also go up – likely closer to $90,000.

 

[arnis]

Pricing the self-driving features is an interesting puzzle.

I think that adding all the hardware in every vehicle will result in fast price reduction due to quantity.
Also, I would say all 8 cameras cost up to 300€ - camera - very simple and cheap device, think about webcams.
Radar is the thing that actually costs money (500-700€) - even though they are made in tens of thousands.
parking sensors also necessary (300-600€, no price reduction expected). GPS chip up to 80€.
NVIdia computer module up to 1000€, I bet price will fall down to 500€ within a year or two.
All hardware for level5 costs 2500€, maximum 3000€. For Model 3 maximum price to ask would be 4000€, realistically
I expect Tesla will ask 3200-3500€. Otherwise no more than a fifth will consider this option (aka money lost for Tesla).
BMW asks 2800€ for Driver Assist Pro. It's like autopilot V1, can keep you in the lane, lane change assist, adaptive cruise etc.

 

[phil0909]

Apples to Mandarins

S and X are much bigger cars with full width seats for typical sized Americans not competing in the same price class as Bolt.

Although Bolt is a subcompact hatchback while Model 3 is a compact sedan the small battery RWD Model 3 will be in the same price class as Bolt. And they will both have about the same interior volume although configured very differently.

These statements are all true. They also are totally irrelevant to the point under discussion. Tesla can, and does, sell cars with lesser range than the Chevy Bolt. They can do so again with the Model 3, if they choose.