Oct 23, 2013
DuncanWatson Gen III aka Model E - summary
I thought it might be nice to have a post summarizing the explicit claims from Tesla on the GenIII project. I figured I could write what I know from reading here and update this as anyone informs me of changes, news and things I missed. Please give me a source so I can link that as well.
Tesla GenIII project.
- US Price and Availability:Sedan will be first and target price is $35K USD, this is the price without government subsidies source Tesla Con Call 13-Aug-2013
- Range 300km, closer to 320km (aka 200miles) with options to go higher than that. Source - Elon Musk talking in Munich -forum post - GenIII when will we see first prototype
- Prototype ready - probably about a year, 12-18 months best guess 1st Quarter of 2015, souce - Elon Musk in Munich 21-Oct-2013
- Comparison Vehicle BMW 3 series - source Elon Musk in Munich 21-Oct-2013
- Size: "smaller than the model s, no as many features, but about half the price" - source Elon Musk in Munich 21-Oct-2013
- SUV - a genIII platform SUV smaller than the Model X was confirmed 30-May-2013 by Tesla
- Current Progress - GenIII is currently in sketch form, clay form expected in 2014, Model X takes priority and is in Clay (as of 24Oct2013)
- Fit and Finish - Less luxury than the Model S, possibly a smaller screen and/or 1 screen instead of two - source Elon Musk in Munich 21-Oct-2013
- Name:Unknown, Tesla was considering the name Model E - source: Entry-level Tesla will be called the Model E - report , James Chen of Tesla at Virginia Supercharger opening (3:10 in the video) - Tesla Richmond Super Charger - James Chen, Tesla Motors - YouTube - but has since abandoned the trademark for reasons unknown.
- Style: Tesla Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen quote from 12/12/2013 - �The model leads Tesla to a new level. The car will show what we are about: to build electric cars for the masses. It is not a small model S, we do not want a unit face like Audi.�
- Supercharging: Elon Musk in multiple appearances has stressed that Supercharging will be free for all current and future Tesla vehicles. In this case free means no ongoing cost, not the lack of an upfront charge at purchase time.
After the Model 3 (Gen III) sedan we should see the SUV/CUV (investigative work by poster Model 3)
There are obviously other bits of information I am missing above. Please update this post with claims and source and I will update the top post to reflect.
Rumored or Unconfirmed but strongly suspected information:
- Styling: The GenIII is reported to be heavily inspired by the Model S in appearance. I don't have a source for this and a search didn't reveal one quickly. If anyone can get me a source I will move this to confirmed - recently contradicted by Franz.
- Size Speculation in the GenIII $35K thread about 20% size reduction vs Model S, some of %30 volume reduction - source unconfirmed
Some other speculative comments from regular followers:
note: Elon has talked about ditching the big screen in the videos linked above.
djw�
Oct 24, 2013
tdelta1000 Please mention something about the sketches.�
Oct 24, 2013
DuncanWatson consider it done.�
Oct 24, 2013
hileyms Elon is in London UK today. This is a comment he made to one of our daily newspapers:-
"Gen3", would cost less than �35,000 and would probably arrive within three years.
In the UK we talk of prices including VAT (Sales Tax) of 20%. Therefore price before tax in US terms would be about $45000 including shipping etc. Seems a lot more than the $35,000�
Oct 24, 2013
DuncanWatson Prices in markets other than the US vary. Canada pays a higher cost for the Model S and so does Europe. I don't know the costs in the UK but they will be higher. I clarified the initial post on the US price.�
Oct 24, 2013
hileyms Just found this article from a Dutch car magazine
Entry-level Tesla will be called the Model E - report
In answer to tdelta1000 the article says - it will have styling that is heavily influenced by the Model S�
Oct 24, 2013
AnOutsider based on this article: Nieuwe Tesla 'Model E' goedkoper - Autovisie | Het laatste nieuws over auto's op Autovisie.nl van De Telegraaf [Tesla]
Can someone translate that (better than Google)? I'd like to know if Model E is 100% confirmed.�
Oct 24, 2013
DuncanWatson Unfortunately my Dutch is non-existant. When I read Dutch sites I suffer with google. I added the Model E information to an unconfirmed by likely section.�
Oct 24, 2013
vfx Elon, "Possibly one screen instead of two."�
Oct 24, 2013
dsm363 I hope they keep two screens. Even if they make the center screen 12" or something smaller it would still blow away everything else in its class.�
Oct 24, 2013
DuncanWatson I agree with you. I prefer 2 screens as that is what I have on my Ford Focus Electric.�
Oct 24, 2013
aronth5 I think Tesla will live to regret tossing out $35k as the target price. Great to drum up interest but that is all. Very similar to the $50k that was mentioned over and over for the Model S that turned out ultimately to be inaccurate.
Recently, Elon has also mentioned Gen3 will cost half as much as the Model S. With the average price of the MS around $90k+ by the time Gen3 is out my guess is the average price will approach $50k.
If I get away paying less than that I will be surprised.�
Oct 24, 2013
ryanjm Wait, so with one screen is Elon suggesting a traditional instrument cluster and a big (maybe 15"?) touchscreen? He can't be suggesting the opposite (i.e. ditching the touchscreen dashboard in favor of traditional knobs and buttons), can he?�
Oct 24, 2013
Citizen-T In this video a Tesla VP calls the Gen III car "Model E". That might be the best source that we have yet for the Model E name.�
Oct 24, 2013
gjunky Ditto: The two screens create the current user interface. I am not sure why they would go back to one and use a regular instrument cluster which really should save any money.�
Oct 24, 2013
Discoducky Good catch! He really blurts it out and is a VP so that's that.�
Oct 24, 2013
ryanjm Just watched the clip. He stated it very matter-of-factly. I'd call that as close to a confirmation as you can get.
BTW I called this (and advocated for it) a while ago.
�
Oct 25, 2013
DuncanWatson Thank you for this. I updated the Summary above. So the SXE progression is confirmed which is chuckle inducing. I will update the Title as well if possible to include Model E in it.�
Oct 25, 2013
clmason +1
I speculate Model E will start at $36,900 and will need an additional 20% in options to get it where most drivers find acceptable. After production begins pricing will increase 5% almost immediately.
A guess at Avg Sale $46K, and nearly $70K at the top end
Double edged sword, as with the model s:
Pre-order to lock in the low starting price and early delivery but risk build quality and have fewer options choices.�
Oct 25, 2013
ElSupreme Well the $50k after tax rebate WAS accurate. I was very much considering it. I ended up being able to afford an 85kWh. But when I put my reservation down, I wouldn't have been able to afford anything but the base. It turns out that people didn't want it, so it got axed, but it WAS accurate. I suspect the $35k Gen III will also be similar. There will be a de facto base price increase with a 'tech package' or equal, that >90% will opt for. And the median price for the Gen III will probably be around $50k, and the mean price probably closer to $55k.
Based on just the price, and a better public understanding of TCO for electric vehicles, I think Tesla will sell more low end Gen IIIs.
Not to mention they have the "2012 dollars" wiggle room. The real base price when it comes out is going to be more like $39,900.
I actually suspect (partly because Tesla is starting from scratch) that for the volume of vehicles that Tesla is producing (even when they start putting out Gen III) that touchscreens are probably cheaper overall than buttons. I don't ever expect a Tesla without the large central screen. Unless that concept is banned by law for some reason.�
Jun 18, 2014
anticitizen13.7
I remember Elon stating that his estimate for a mass-market car was 3 years from now, which would be middle of 2017. My rough guess had been middle of 2018, a year later, so I'd be happy with a 2017 launch.
I didn't expect the Model X to be delayed so much, because of the platform sharing with the Model S. However, I think the falcon-wing doors on the Model X presented a lot of unexpected engineering challenges. My guess is that had Tesla gone with conventional doors, Model X could have gone into production sooner.
I'm sticking to my June 2018 prediction for the Tesla G3. In the meantime, I don't think Tesla will have any trouble selling all the Model S and X it can build.�
Jun 19, 2014
purplewalt Probably not going to build a plant that way.
Yes, smaller concrete panels can be fabricated en-mass off-site and then erected, attached to some sort of structure.
Large concrete panels are typically structural and poured on-site (not trucked in -- just too large to fit on the trailer), and then tilted up, and attached to the rest of the structure.
In fact, I would not be surprised to see the Giga-building trying for some sort of LEED building certification, maybe even Silver or Gold.
Because it will likely be in a more rural setting, LEED Gold would be harder to achieve.�
Jun 22, 2014
Toyolla2 Concerning favo wrote (Page 13) - Two smaller motors may be more efficient and allow better handling.
WARPED ONE then posted
No and no.
One bigger electric motor is always more efficient at given output power than two smaller ones. Reason for this is that electric losses scale with square of electric current and power scales linearly with current.
AWD would only be better than FWD/RWD in extremely slippery conditions where two driving wheels don't have enough traction to move the car. When there is enough traction non-driving wheels will better steer the car than driving wheels can.
On that first statement I would disagree. Having two motors sharing an equivalent volume as a single motor would result in them having 26% more surface area per unit power - since power scales with cube of the linear dimension whereas surface area increases only with the square. Or to put it another way, for the same motor external case temperature the smaller motors can dissipate 26% more internal losses from which one could assume that the total power being developed would be similarly increased.
I would say that it is self evident that since the properties of most materials are eventually degraded by temperature, the ability to remove internal heat more readily will permit any machine to achieve a higher power density.
Following on from this brings me to the subject of motor efficiency, I have been known to postulate this somewhat disturbing statement : -
That the Induction motor becomes more efficient the faster it rotates
Specifically a machine rated at 92% effcy at 1500 rpm should improve to 99% at 12000 rpm. How can this be ?
Well it is a fact that constant electrical power is needed per unit torque (per pole) to provide the magnetic field and it naturally follows that the faster the rotation of this torque the more power to be developed. I think we are all onside with this - RPM times torque equals horsepower does it not ?
It is the amortising of the exact same excitation power against steadily increasing power output with RPM which accounts for this apparent efficiency increase.
But isn't the effcy somehow related to the fact that the rotor doesn't rotate at the same speed as the rotating magnetic flux ? The %age SLIP ?
Well it should be noted that for fixed frequency working, at 50Hz say, slip is customarily quoted as a percentage of synchronous speed. However Slip, is in fact, more accurately defined as a fixed value of rpm dependent on motor loading and totally independent of motor rpm. Consequently if a 4-pole motor is accelerated from 50Hz to 400Hz, then with an initial 6% or 90rpm slip, its rpm is accelerated from 1410 rpm to 11,910rpm. The speed will in fact increase by about 8.45 and not by the 8.00 expected. And this correlates well with my postulation that motor efficiency improves with speed.
Perhaps later there is something that I would add regarding the use of a multiplicity of motors that has only been touched on previously in this forum.�
Jul 3, 2014
jarred767 Great info in this thread, I'm newer to the Tesla scene and didn't even know about the Gen3 until reading through this post. Maybe the Gen 3 is really what I'm searching for. Definitely bookmarking this thread!�
Jul 8, 2014
Red Sage OP: If I might suggest...
I'm pretty sure that Elon Musk has always said... 'minimum' or 'no less than' when referring to a 200 mile range for the Tesla Generation III vehicles. Unfortunately it seems that since he is either soft spoken or has a bad microphone in a large room, people may miss that word, and presume he means 'up to' that range instead.
Also, I believe that he and JB Straubel have called it a platform for multiple vehicles. It will not be strictly a sedan, and nothing else. I'm personally hoping there will be a coupe offered, with Falcon Wing Doors.�
Jul 8, 2014
Ebinity I am hoping for station wagon. Affordable station wagon would be very popular here in Europe.�
Jul 8, 2014
WarpedOne One normal 3 door coupe for me please!
AWD is not necessary�
Jul 8, 2014
Matias What about internal friction? Doesn't it increase with the square while power increases with the cube? So bigger motor has smaller internal friction compared to its power? Disclaimer: I'm not an expert, but this was an explanation I once read, concerning, why nanoscale motors are difficult to make: their internal friction is big compared to their power.�
Jul 8, 2014
mrdoubleb I am really OK with the whole world thinking "up to 200" as long as they release it with e.g. 220, we grab the headlines and TSLA takes a ride on the Falcon 9.�
Jul 10, 2014
Red Sage Well, sure... There is that. ;-)
It's just that for me, the notion that the battery pack will have 80% of the 60 kWh capacity at 48 kWh is absolute hogwash. Elon Musk never said that, but numerous publications, online blogs, and enthusiasts assumed that was what he meant. And because of that assumption, they further presumed that he said "up to" 200 miles as a range, when he actually said, "200 miles, minimum".
I'm rather a stickler for 'journalistic integrity', though I admit it is a concept that is rarely adhered to in today's society. :-D�
Jul 10, 2014
Toyolla2 What about internal friction? Doesn't it increase with the square while power increases with the cube? So bigger motor has smaller internal friction compared to its power? Disclaimer: I'm not an expert, but this was an explanation I once read, concerning, why nanoscale motors are difficult to make: their internal friction is big compared to their power.
Hi Matias, thank you for reading my post. You wrote concerning internal friction, in fact I believe you intended to be referring to the motor's internal resistance - an electrical characteristic. It is hard to explain and then there are possible errors in translation due to language irregularities but I will try.
Your question should be "how do you obtain eight times the power from a small motor without it burning up ?"
The answer is that the stator winding is re-wired in such a way that most of the conductors per stator slot are wired in parallel not in series. With this method the cross section of each copper conductor is effectively increased 8 times (in this case) so the effective resistance is reduced by 1/8. Don't forget also that the effective total conductor path length is also reduced to 1/8 since the original conductors are now wired mostly in parallel. The overall resistance is therefore 1/8 times 1/8 = 1/64 of the original resistance.
When you put 8 times the current through this motor naturally you would expect the I2R losses to increase by 64 times. However with 1/64 of the electrical resistance the actual power dissipation in the stator winding is 64 times 1/64 = 1. So the copper loss (as we conventionally refer to it) remains exactly the same. Clever eh!
You may be aware that the conductor bars on the squirrel cage rotor of the Tesla powertrain are made of copper not aluminum, for further savings.
There are similar supporting arguments for the iron loss due to the magnetic system operating up to 8 times higher frequency but I don't have time to explain. However I hope this answers your question about the electrical resistance adequately.
- - - Updated - - -
Moderators - how come I suddenly get the large font size ???????
And another thing - if I am logged in more than about 30 minutes the system rejects my post
I use Vista with text files in rtf
MOD EDIT: Changed text sizes. Once you get a few more posts you will be able to edit your own posts. Not sure about the 30 minute thing.�
Jul 11, 2014
Red Sage Understood. The reason I suspect a closed-roof coupe would have Falcon Wing Doors is that I've seen Franz Von Holzhausen's concept designs for Mazda. The Falcon Wing Doors on Model X are just a continuation, realization, and perfection of a design theme he has liked for a long time. He would really like to make sure there is a dramatic way of entering both the front and rear seats of a coupe at once if at all possible.
He was not given credit for the designs in their entirety, probably because he ran an independent studio. I believe he had more to do with them than the Japanese company is willing to admit. Take a look at these videos for reference:
Mazda Ryuga (1:51) -- PHOTO
Mazda Hakaze (1:49) -- PHOTO
Mazda Nagare (2:10) -- PHOTO
Mazda Kiyora (1:52) -- PHOTO
And... when the time comes for a Tesla Model Z Supercar? Franz has got that covered too:
Mazda Furai (1:28) -- PHOTO
As for AWD, I believe that going forward, beyond the release of Model X, either Performance and Performance+ Tesla Motors vehicles will feature dual motor AWD. The two motors can have a different final drive ratio. So the rear motor would bear the brunt of work for acceleration, while the front motor would have major duties while cruising at speed. The balance between them will change dynamically. The result is that you will get better range out of the same battery pack capacity.
Basically, I'm hoping for these trim levels on GIII:
GIII 60 -- $34,900 - 3700 LBS, RWD 300 HP/317 LB FT Torque, Top Speed 120 MPH, 0-60 4.5 Seconds, 250 Mile Range.
GIII 85 -- $42,900 - 3700 LBS, RWD 362 HP/325 LB FT Torque, Top Speed 130 MPH, 0-60 4.0 Seconds, 318 Mile Range.
GIII P85+ -- $47,900 - 3780 LBS, AWD 416 HP/443 LB FT Torque, Top Speed 140 MPH, 0-60 3.7 Seconds, 354 Mile Range.
GIII P135+ -- $59,900 - 3780 LBS, AWD 500 HP/550 LB FT Torque, Top Speed 155 MPH, 0-60 3.0 Seconds, 505 Mile Range.�
Jul 11, 2014
Red Sage There's your answer. If you copy & paste from an RTF document, the web page translates your font settings from that to the web interface. The same thing will happen if you try to copy & paste from another website. Try composing in an actual Plain Text document, using Notepad for instance.
As for the 30 minute thing... It's a timeout to discourage the use of bots. When you know it will take you a while to finish something, just type the whole thing into a text editor, go back to the main list of forum/subforum threads, enter the one you want to post the message on, then open the Reply dialog. You should be fine if you paste, make additional edits as needed, then Submit.�
Jul 11, 2014
igotzzoom A 0-60 time of 4.5 from 300 hp/317 lb-ft hauling 3700 lb is a little optimistic. Of course, that's not taking into account the fact that electric motors produce their peak torque at 0 RPM, or that there are no power interruptions from gear shifts, but I would think 5.0 or 5.5 would be more realistic. Plenty quick regardless, though.�
Jul 11, 2014
MartinAustin Time to jump in!!! Please excuse the huge post!!!
Battery Sizes
Some people say there will be no Gen3-40. I personally believe there is no �floor� below which Tesla won�t go� if it accelerates removal of gasoline-burning cars from the planet. If Tesla can profitably sell a Gen3-40, they will. Here�s how it might work:
Tesla was selling the 85kWh battery in 2012, along with the 40kWh in the same form factor. (I doubt the 40 was a loss leader) I understand the Model S-40 still had 60kWh of batteries in the pack, but was using software to limit the capacity, resulted in wasted battery material (which I�ve never understood, given the production constraint, but there it is). I�m going to assume for the Gen3 that Tesla no longer does this; a lot of packs will be made with the smallest capacity, and that would be a lot of wasted battery material. Let�s assume that the 40kWh battery only needs half the number of batteries as the 85kWh battery, though they�re still evenly spread throughout the Gen3�s smaller form factor to aid handling and fire resistance. My thinking assumes that Tesla squeezes 85kWh of 2017 batteries into the smaller form factor � in fact, whatever dimension can hold 85kWh of 2017 batteries may influence the Gen3�s pack size.
Let�s assume Tesla will follow their current strategy and offer a range of capacities that fit into the same pack size; lower capacities don�t use all of the space, and weigh less. I�ll also assume that Tesla will stick to the capacities we know today so that in these pioneering times, where for most people, �data� is pretty thin on the ground about how one electric car compares against each another, easier comparisons can be made about how far Gen3 can go on a certain battery capacity vs. the Model S, which will have been on the road for 5 years. Thus� 85, 60 and 40.
It�s been said in many presentations that battery density improves by about 7.5% per year. By the time 2017 rolls around, energy density will have improved by 5 years� worth, or 1.075*1.075*1.075*1.075*1.075 = 1.436. In 2017, the battery holding 85kWh will fit into a space that is 1/1.436 of the current Model S battery volume, which is approximately 2.13m x 1.22m x 0.15m or 0.38 cubic meters. Gen3 battery will fit 85kWh into 0.27 cubic meters.
Power Electronics
The 2017 Gen3 will use an all-new generation of power electronics, and basically convert energy back and forth more efficiently than the 2012-vintage Model S does now. Consider what JB Straubel had to say here JB Straubel | [email�protected] SLAC 2013 - YouTube
* Let�s assume the Gen3 provides a given amount of torque using only 95% of the energy the Model S requires to provide that torque.
* Let�s assume the Gen3 recharges the battery 5% better during braking.
* Let�s assume the Gen3 doesn't heat its cables up as much during charging. I haven�t tried Supercharging on a hot summer day yet, but if you�ve ever touched an HPWC cable while it�s charging at 80A� woah, that heat ain�t good� it�s wasted energy.
* Let�s assume that Vampire Drain will be smaller than it is today, though that doesn't make too much difference.
Car Size & Aerodynamics
A major factor affecting the Gen3 car is its physically smaller size. Consider the ramifications �
Let�s assume it has the same mass as BMW�s 320i � about 3275lbs. (Putting it very unscientifically, the lightness of aluminium is offset by the weight of an EV battery.) This is vs. 4633lbs for the Model S-85, so the Gen3 is only pushing 71% as much mass down the road.
Also, being physically smaller means it will have a lower coefficient of drag. The Model S is the most aerodynamic production car on the road today, with Cd of 0.24 per manufacturer�s claim and independent measurement. Can they get the Gen3 down to 0.23? Aerodynamics will continue to play a crucial role for the Gen3. If you are only driving around town, you rarely move over 45mph and don�t benefit from aerodynamics too much; you�re also more likely to be able to charge here and there, and not have to worry about a flat battery or think too much about Tesla�s 200-mile range claims. However, when people drive more miles, it's often at over 50mph (on expressways, freeways etc.), and aerodynamics will have a major impact in extending range. The option to replace side mirrors with cameras sought by Tesla in order to get the advertised range shows you how important aerodynamics is for getting extra miles (i.e. if you use the conventional mirrors, you get 99% of the advertised range).
Tires
Next point to consider will be tires� the Model S is a big heavy performance car and starts out with 275/25ZR22 tires. The Gen3 base model will have perhaps the same as the base BMW 320i, which I believe is 225/50VR17 tires � so, a lot less rolling resistance, and somewhat improved aerodynamics. Tesla will likely be lobbying Dunlop, Pirelli etc. to come up with a special tire for their needs � ultra-low rolling resistance � for the OEM parts.
Efficiency & Driving Range
So with all those differences to take into account (none of which we really know the hard data on, I concede), let�s consider what they could mean for the range of the Gen3. Tesla have said 200 miles, but they won�t be saying �a 200 mile range no matter what you do� � they�ll say �200 mile range if you drive economically�. Over 11,500 miles, my P85 appears to get three miles/kWh with an even balance of all driving styles and equal city+highway top speed situations. (my lowest ever highway trip was actually 241Wh/mile @ 55mph) With all the factors I�ve mentioned, the Gen3 should average four miles per kWh over all styles of driving. The question is, can it achieve five miles per kWh during economical driving? (the kind where you drive on level ground at 55mph etc. etc.) At that efficiency, a 40kWh battery could take you 200 miles - perfect for people who drive around town and can charge every day or two - and 200 is the magic number that meets Elon Musk�s projections regarding range. (my math is approximate� leaving out anti-bricking buffer amounts inside the battery, which will be hard to predict on the new technology etc.)
Prices
The Gen3 won't make actual profit for a long time, given the five-billion-dollar construction of the Gigafactory to have to pay off first! However, you can still create a per-car profit margin in your calculations if you put the Gigafactory construction cost to one side. If Tesla sells a Gen3-40 for $35,000+sales tax with a profit margin of 15%, that means $5,250 profit and $29,750 costs. Using $180/kWh as their battery cost (see other threads on this forum), the battery would cost $7,200, and the base car without battery would cost $22,550. With those figures, the three battery size versions would cost thus:
40kWh = $35,000+sales tax
60kWh = $39,235+sales tax
85kWh = $44,529+sales tax
Tesla have shown that they�re serious about speeding up the transition away from gasoline cars. If the end-user cost of a Gen3-40 is lower� more people will stop using gasoline cars, so Tesla will do it - even if it�s not an obvious profit center. (of course we expect there to be deposits+waiting list, etc. which is good for the economics of the company)
Each of the three batteries listed will deliver more current to the motor, with more performance & top speed potential � similar to how the Model S works. I project Tesla will cap the 2017 Gen3 at 85kWh.
Tesla will keep the Model S and X at the top of the model range by exclusively offering them with higher capacities that will be available by then. Tesla will have also re-engineered Model S 60 and 85kWh batteries to use the 2017-grade denser cells and lower mass � extending performance and range in those cars, and perhaps allowing higher Supercharging wattages, but continuing with the original size. I project we see the beginning of all this in mid-November 2014 when Tesla announces a 110kWh battery for the top-of-the-range Model S/X during Q3 ER.
Just to show the math, here is a progression of capacity that fits into the same volume with a 7.5% improvement each year:
If Tesla ends up accelerating this increase due to whatever goes on inside the Gigafactory, things will be even better.
2012 85.0 2013 91.4 2014 98.2 2015 105.6 2016 113.5 2017 122.0 2018 131.2 2019 141.0 2020 151.6 2021 163.0 2022 175.2
Options
Here are some thoughts on options presented for Gen3:
* Batteries � 40, 60 and 85. Economical-style driving ranges would be 200, 275 and 350 miles.
* Hi-speed Computer Pack, perhaps exclusive to the Tech Package � a higher-speed computer back-end that allows for smoother scrolling and quicker responses to the touch. Don�t forget that five years will have passed since they locked the (somewhat sluggish) Tegra circuitry into the Model S. By 2017, this would also be available in the Model S and X (or even perhaps standard there), but you don�t get it in Gen3 if you don�t order the Tech Package. Perhaps the slower-speed computer package (when not ordering Tech Package) would only supply a subset of the car�s overall feature set, but there�d be more features and speed/smoothness with the newer, faster one. Perhaps the faster one is required to run the Autopilot, for example. To keep manufacturing and servicing simple, the faster computer system would be a drop-in replacement for the slower one.
* Autopilot, whatever it turns out to be � may be standard on Model X/S by 2017, may be only available in the Tech Package� may be something they reserve for Model X/S in any case, and not available at all on Gen3. Autopilot is likely a pretty heavy-duty computer power application, and I imagine it�ll be upgraded over time and will require even faster processing circuitry (in addition to more/improved sensor hardware, etc.), so by 2017, the Autopilot option on Gen3 may be �second generation.�
* Retracting door handles � these may be redesigned on the base model car to make them non-moving (and cheaper).
* All-Wheel-Drive � I think Tesla will want every car to be AWD-capable, but the cost of two motors keeps the price up, so they will leave it as a Gen3 option. (Subaru on the other hand, makes you pay even if you don�t want it). It does not affect range particularly, since the power used by two motors for a given amount of acceleration is the same as the power used by one motor. You just order it if you want better traction and don�t need the trunk space.
* Gen3 is a �platform,� just like Gen2, as JB Straubel pointed out in 2013. JB Straubel | [email�protected] SLAC 2013 - YouTube We shouldn�t be surprised to see a 4-door sedan/saloon in addition to a 2-door coupe and/or a CAV/CUV-type vehicle � all hatchbacks for aerodynamic reasons. Falcon doors may remain a Gen2 high-end option only, even perhaps simply due to form factor issues. Roll-out schedule for variants would be hard to speculate on, and Gen3 could just begin with a 320i-sized sedan, to start things simply (not to mention it would simplify manufacturing).
* There will be a much larger array of external paint colours and interior colours than we see today. (as there will be on Gen2 by 2017)
* A conventional sunroof that allows you to cover it up and mask 100% of UV rays will be an option. (yay!)
* Tasteful, aerodynamic wheels (as opposed to �traditional� wheels that don�t particularly take it into consideration) will be the basic type. There will be a much larger array of OEM wheels available - as owners seek to customize and individualize their Teslas. Maybe as many wheels as BMW!!! (ok, maybe not that many)
* The internet access and OS updates will continue as a Tesla brand feature. However, there will be optional �faster� internet access, as long as you pay for it. (This may become available on Gen2 before 2017.) The car purchase process may include options to sign up for internet access from one or more carriers, so it has access on the day you get the car. Perhaps Tesla will be able to negotiate a cheap deal with a carrier, enabling them to pledge free 3G service forever (as long as 3G technology is still in use - didn�t they close down PCS 2G recently?) � having said that, the data bill could get pretty hefty for 500,000 new cars entering service every year, so, maybe not.
* The up-front payment for Supercharger access may fall to $1,000. This sort of money is gravy for Tesla, since by 2017 there will be a lot of Superchargers around (not to mention developments enabled by the patent giveaway) It�s possible Tesla will make access to Superchargers free for all new Gen2 buyers going forwards, but keep it as a paid option for Gen3 buyers. (I project Gen3 will outsell Gen2 by 10 to 1.)
* The car won�t be an obvious 5-seater, it's more of a 4-seater. Thus, the rear seat may have a bench-type basic form factor, or an optional center situation like armrests, storage etc..
* Tesla will sell factory child seats as an option.
* Performance version - I�m not actually convinced Tesla will do a performance invertor. Less range, more speed, opt-in. P85 will be ~ $49,000. I�m also not projecting they will bring any �long range performance� option � an invertor/motor cooling system for track use � into production. The bottom-of-the-range Tesla car will always be aimed at energy efficiency. However, if the Gen2 platform has had something made available by then, perhaps it will eventually be made available in the Gen3 too. Also, if there some "energy-efficiency angle" could be found for the invertor/motor cooling system, where e.g. it increases range� then of course, they would put it in.
* I don�t think there will be height-adjustable suspension option unless they do it in a CAV/SUV-type of variant to address the Land Rover/Jeep/agricultural off-road market. (incidentally, I saw an electric Land Rover reviewed on Fifth Gear recently, and saw that it may be quite compelling, since in addition to its awesome torque control and AWD ability, it can drive through deep water without needing air/snorkel etc.)
* There won�t be a rear-seat option� car is too small.
* The basic servicing won�t be what it is for Model S today. I don�t believe they will do the �valet� style loaner car for free � that�ll be a paid option.
* 80A HPWC and dual chargers will still be an option, but they�ll be cheaper. Whay will be available by 2017 is home DC charging, as long as you have a Tesla Home Battery. Better than the AC charging which is currently 92% efficient.�
Jul 11, 2014
Red Sage Wow, MartinAustin! It's nice to see I'm not the only one who posts walls of text! This is definitely an obsession for us both, it seems! I'm glad you jumped into the discussion. ;-)
- - - Updated - - -
Well, the horsepower/torque stats are from the same motor that Tesla is using in the base Model S 60. I presume the performance at that weight would be slightly better than what BMW lists for the 335i, specifically because of the way that torque is delivered. 4.5 seconds would effectively be a half second advantage for the GIII. Oh, and I expect the base GIII to come in at 3400 or 3500 pounds if Tesla builds the car out of aluminum instead of steel.�
Jul 11, 2014
MartinAustin I am expecting that Tesla will be "dialling in" the acceleration of the base Gen3 so that it will get to 60mph less quickly than the base Model S. This will serve to reinforce the model range, and also to make the motor more efficient i.e. longer driving range.
i.e. 0-60mph in the 6.0-second territory, at best.�
Jul 11, 2014
igotzzoom I'm hoping Tesla doesn't deliberately sandbag the Gen-III too much. I mean, I understand the model hierarchy thing and all that, but size and price doesn't always necessarily equate with higher-performance. The M3 (M4?) is considered BMW's performance flagship, even though the brand sells much larger and more expensive cars. Don't get me wrong, I think 6 flat 0-60 is legitimately quick by mainstream standards, but I hope there would at least be some upside from "throttled" throttle mapping for increased range, etc.
In terms of charging for many of the "freebies" on the higher-end Model S cars, I think that's a given. There are just certain things you can offer at a lower-volume/higher-price point that become unfeasible for higher-volume/lower-cost models. I expect a paid 4G data option (like GM's OnStar 4G LTE service), and a la carte valet pick-up/drop-off. I think there will be at least one or two levels of higher-performance options, whether that's range or dynamic (0-60/handling) performance. I definitely think there would be a lot of enthusiast interest for a performance-oriented Gen-III.�
Jul 11, 2014
Red Sage Battery Sizes & Range
There will not be a 40 kWh battery offered ever again on any Tesla Motors branded product. The reason for this is that Elon Musk has always said the range for GIII will be '200 miles, minimum'. People just presume that he means 'maximum' or 'possible'. That result must be verified by an independent source, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in order to hold weight.
Please note the embarrassment that Tesla endured when the EPA rated the range of their cars. The EPA changed their testing cycle just before the Model S was released. Under the old cycle, which the cars had been designed for, the ranges were expected to be:
40...180
60...240
85...300
With the changes the results were around 90% of that:
40...160
60...208
85...265
Tesla cannot afford another embarrassment of that sort.
It has been shown that 'driven economically' at a constant 55 MPH on level ground, one can achieve a 300 mile range in a Tesla Model S 85.
It is well known that if you 'Drive It Like You Stole It', the range drops to what some term 'Real World Range' of 180-220 miles, dependent upon how heavy their right foot may be.
It has been shown that by using 'hypermiling techniques' (also known as Driving Like a Hippie Tree-Hugger) it is possible to reach a 400 mile distance in the car.
No one cares.
All anyone wants to see is an EPA rating of not one iota less than 200 miles range when GIII arrives. Period. If Tesla manages in their own testing a distance of 220 miles, and the EPA gets 90% of that for a 198 mile official range or less... Then every Naysayer, Bear, Short, and talking head throughout the financial and automotive press will eat Tesla's lunch. That cannot be allowed to happen.
JB Straubel has said that between the 2008 release of Tesla Roadster and the 2012 release of Tesla Model S battery cell efficiency had increased by about 40%. The number of battery cells that stored 53 kWh for the Roadster provided 85 kWh in the Model S. If the same thing happens again, then by 2016 the number of battery cells that provided 85 kWh will be able to store ~140 kWh. The number that stored 60 kWh before will offer 100 kWh.
Please note that the $59,900 Model S 40 had the same number of battery cells as the $69,900 Model S 60. The capacity of the lower cost car was limited by software, but could be unlocked to provide more range. Somewhere in their metrics, at least initially, Tesla thought that made sense financially in the long run.
In any case, if you just look at the fact that by 2016 it will only require about 60% of the amount of battery cells used in 2012 to produce a 60 kWh battery pack... And with the introduction of the Gigafactory pricing drops by 30% per cell... That means that the price paid for 60 kWh of storage in 2017 will be only 40% of what it was in 2012... PERFECT for a car with a list price that is HALF what the original Model S 60 cost.
Because of this, Tesla might as well make the minimum battery pack size 60 kWh on GIII. You would have a smaller vehicle, with a much lighter battery pack, achieving far more range, with way more power than any other electric vehicle on the market for $34,900. Whereas a 40 kWh or 48 kWh battery pack might just barely clear 200 miles under extremely frugal driving conditions... A 60 kWh battery pack would demolish that mark, getting at least 250 miles of EPA rated range.
I would go so far as to say it would even be worth it to make all the base battery packs with a capacity of 85 kWh, and limit them to 60 kWh using software. That would simplify manufacturing of the battery packs, and inventory control as well. Once people discover how much they enjoy driving electric, they always want more range. By offering an after-market upgrade people can always get more range later if they need it. Most will go higher end, getting an 85 kWh or higher capacity battery pack anyway, from the very start. Anyone visiting a battery swap location would always get the biggest possible battery.�
Jul 11, 2014
MartinAustin Red Sage... sadly, our combined $0.02 add up to only $0.04.
Consider the dealership fight that Tesla has to put up with in the USA. How much do you think this affects the financial affairs of the company? Hardly anything. Because... the car is sold all over the world, and the USA dealers are (fortunately) confined to the USA. All the other countries don't care what's going on in the USA.
This also applies to the EPA's mileage figures. Check out this page where Tesla indicates the Model S can go 312 miles. Model S Features | Tesla Motors
There are around 195 countries in the world. Only one of them cares what the EPA has to say.
"Tesla cannot afford another embarrassment of that sort. " Even if it was an embarrassment here inside the USA... Tesla could afford it. It wouldn't affect sales one bit. Frankly, the EPA has a lot of ground to make up in terms of earning public respect, after allowing manufacturers to submit their own gasoline consumption figures instead of doing the actual tests themselves.
I'm inferring from your calculations that the improvement in battery capacity will be even better then the conservative figures I showed. Assuming I am correct... great!
I still think that the 40kWh will be sold, if it provides over 200miles of range. It will make the car cheaper and thus more will be sold. (as I said Tesla are trying to end sales of oil-burning cars... if you have heard the furore over global warming that is happening now... think of what it will be like in 2017. We have a major global issue on our hands)
"Tesla might as well make the minimum battery pack size 60 kWh on GIII." I have a problem with your use of the term "might as well." It's a little unscientific... not well-grounded in economics. They might as well make it 60 ?
If 40kWh provides a car that gives people acceptable range, Tesla will do it. If it doesn't sell well, Tesla can discontinue it. Don't forget that even with its awful packaging, safety, performance and 90-mile range, the Nissan Leaf is selling very well. If Tesla can put something out with twice the range of the Nissan Leaf plus the usual Tesla benefits of interior packaging, safety and performance - and it only requires a 40kWh battery - they will do it.�
Jul 11, 2014
Red Sage Good Children Don't Eat Their Parents...
~*or*~
The Pivotal Case for Generation III Performance...
The other day Elon Musk said, "We... We actually have to make a car that's not 'a little bit better' than the competitors. Because if it's only 'a little bit better', then... Then why would customers bother buying it? It has to be a lot better, uh, than... Than any of the existing cars."
I think that even enthusiasts don't really understand the depth of that statement. The purpose of Tesla Motors has always been to bring a mass market electric car to fruition. That has always been the goal. Always. Tesla has no need to protect the sales of their higher end products. None.
Let me tell you why...
Elon has said that the Generation III vehicle platform would target the BMW 3-Series. That is because whether they deserve it or not, BMWs cars are considered the best of the best at the price point.
The BMW 3-Series sold 119,521 units in the United States of America during 2013. By comparison, the BMW 5-Series moved 56,863 units, and the BMW 7-Series a grand total of 10,932 units. Notice that the combined totals of the two higher end vehicles, which can sell for multiple thousands more... still trail the sales of the BMW 3-Series, their entry level model.
Another thing to keep in mind is that BMW shares drivetrains and motors across those product lines. Over the years the same set of motors have appeared in each class:
BMW Engines & CarsBecause it is smaller, lighter, and more nimble, the BMW 3-Series, when paired with the same engine, has always been quicker at 0-60 MPH and through the 1/4 mile, than its upscale siblings. Always.
LITER
3-Series
5-Series
7-Series
1.8 318i 518i - 2.0 320i 520i - 2.5 325i 525i - 2.8 328i 528i 728i 3.5 335i 535i 735i
Comparison of BMW Performance Levels
The one performance point where the other cars typically exceed the 3-Series is top speed. That is pegged at 155 MPH, while the entry level cars are mostly (not all) locked at 130 MPH maximum. Those larger cars also have bigger fuel tanks, and greater range. What BMW 7-Series owner cares that he can be smoked off the line by a a BMW 3-Series driver? Exactly none of them.
Price
Vehicle
0-60 MPH (sec) 43,400 335i 5.1 45,400 335i xDrive Sedan 4.8 46,850 335i xDrive Gran Turismo 5.1 55,100 535i Sedan 5.5 57,400 535i xDrive Sedan 5.4 60,200 535i Gran Turismo 6.0 62,500 535i xDrive Gran Turismo 6.0 74,000 740i Sedan 5.6 78,000 740Li Sedan 5.6 81,000 740Li xDrive Sedan 5.4
People who buy the cars know this. Customers don't choose to buy the 5-Series or 7-Series because they don't want performance. They buy them because they have growing families, or a higher status in life. The larger cars fill their needs better by being more comfortable over longer hauls.
There is no cannibalization of sales. People simply buy the car they need. Production on the higher end cars is lower, because that is all that is required. The majority of BMW's Customers choose the 3-Series, by default, and by design.
You can tell it is by design, because the same pattern is true with Lexus. Sales of the lower end car greatly exceeds the others in the lineup:
Comparison of Lexus Performance
Even if you remove the Lexus ES, which is effectively a rebadged Toyota Camry/Avalon, the principle holds true. The Lexus IS sells more than the higher end GS or LS models. There is no cannibalization of sales. People buy what they want, need, or can afford.
PRICE
VEHICLE
2013 US SALES 0-60 MPH Sec 36,620 Lexus ES
72,581 7.1 36,100 Lexus IS 35,017 7.7 47,700 Lexus GS 19,742 5.7 72,140 Lexus LS 10,727 5.4
Those who argue that performance should be limited in the lower end cars should note the difference in 2013 US sales between Lexus and BMW.
- The Lexus ES, their best selling model, was outsold by 46,940 units when matched against the comparatively priced BMW 3-Series.
- The combined sales of Lexus IS and ES still lagged behind the BMW 3-Series by 11,923 units.
- The BMW 5-Series outsold the Lexus GS by 37,391 cars.
- The margin is lower, but the BMW 7-Series (even when greatly accosted by Tesla Model S) still outsold the Lexus LS by 205 cars in 2013.
This illustrates, I hope, one primary point I've been making all along: When it comes to sales, PERFORMANCE MATTERS.
Elon knows, as I do, that in mass market sales it is not good enough to only be 'good enough' to match a Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, or Ford Fusion. Notice how well the Mitsubishi Lancer and Galant sold over the years? Hyundai Sonata and Kia Optima didn't start making major moves on the sales charts until they were obviously more than just another 'also ran' in the segment.
The same will be true of the Tesla Generation III. It must be built with performance in mind. That is absolutely imperative to gaining sales. Tesla will build more of them than any other vehicle in their lineup from the very beginning.
I expect the Model S to top out around 50,000 cars per year. The Model X will sell at a higher rate, at least 75,000 per year (but will grow to 150,000). Even so, their combined sales will be dwarfed by GIII by 2018. Production of GIII at Fremont will be around 100,000 the very first calendar year. That will ramp up to 200,000 within 18 months of launch. That will double to 400,000 within a year after that mark has been reached.
The goal is to show that electric cars can be beautiful, fun to drive, and efficient, while also being affordable to the mass market, safe, and reliable. The goal is NOT to protect sales of a high end vehicle. There is no need to do that at all, because they will sell anyway. Any attempt to artificially limit the capabilities of your low end cars will result in lower sales, and lower profits.�
Jul 11, 2014
Red Sage True enough.
I've heard the opposite. Car Reviewers in Britain have regularly panned the EU's mileage ratings for everything under the sun as being far too optimistic. They think that the ones granted by the EPA are much closer to reality, and can be achieved, though not easily. The EU's on the other hand are absolute pipe dreams.
It is one more storm that they have weathered. Just because it hasn't killed you doesn't mean it won't keep trying. Naysayers will latch onto anything -- even GOOD news. No need handing them bad news to gleefully rejoice over.
I use both the method you did, with 7% or 8% improvement per annum, along with the 40% every four years in my calculations. I have put together tables representing each. I just used the more aggressive of the two in this example, because it was what JB Straubel had observed from his own work. That guy really likes batteries! :-D
I think that the only 'City Car' that Tesla Motors will ever build is the Google Self Driving Car. I think Google intends to have their own urban ride program. I expect it will be free, supported by advertising. Tesla will benefit from the technology they develop for use in autopilot/accident avoidance systems that actually work.
I apologize for the laziness of that line. I'm usually a bit better, but I may have been getting tired. However, I did write extensively to give an explanation of the point prior to stating it. I hoped that explained my position and how I came to that conclusion.
But it can't have acceptable range with so little storage, unless it is incredibly small (or incredibly wimpy), under 3000 pounds perhaps. NHTSA crash test requirements basically make it extremely difficult to manage. Even if a 40 kWh battery pack weighed only 60% of what they would have in 2012, that is still a significant portion of the mass in a 3,000 pound car. You might be looking at a chassis in the range of 2,200 or 2,400 pounds. The car designs that would fit those parameters are bound to be rather ugly if they meet with NHTSA requirements. They'd end up looking like the Mitsubishi iMiEV or smart EV at best, certainly not as neat as a Honda CR-Z. Something that small should be a two-seater, shaped like a Honda CR-X or Mazda RX-7 instead. And that isn't going to happen, again because of NHTSA crash tests.
Oh, I haven't forgotten, and neither has Tesla Motors. That thing is ugly. And slow. And short range. And against everything that Tesla Motors represents. Merely having twice its range is simply not enough. The original Model S 40 should have attained that, but was robbed of the goal by the EPA.
The range of the base Tesla GIII should be significantly greater than any other EV on the market at its price point, so as to drive home the point other manufacturers are NOT doing their best:
It is insulting that those EVs all have such higher ratings for MPGe than any Tesla Model S variant, when they don't even store enough usable energy to equate to a single gallon of gasoline's energy of 34 kWh. Though I do see they have marginally increased their capacities, because none of them were previously over 24 kWh.
Name
Price
kWh
MPGe
Range
Chevrolet Spark EV 27,010 28 119 82 Fiat 500e 31,800 29 116 87 Nissan Leaf 35,020 30 114 84 Ford Focus Electric 35,170 32 105 76
Among hybrids, it gets even worse. A whole 0.6 kWh (yeah, ZERO-point-SIX) battery pack on the Honda Insight. 1.4 kWh battery in the Prius. 4.4 kWh for the Prius PHEV. 16.5 kWh capacity for the Chevrolet Volt. Those give you anywhere from a whopping ZERO miles of electric range, to maybe 35 miles, if you're lucky.
So this is in fact an argument in favor of having a minimum of a 60 kWh battery pack capacity standard on GIII. Elon wants other auto manufacturers to stop it with the pussy-footing around on EVs and embarrassing themselves with hybrids. Their efforts are literally pitiful. Going with a 40 kWh battery would make far too marginal a difference in range compared to them, unless you were willing to sacrifice performance, and I'm not.
None of these 'competitors' is compelling. They are simply 'good enough' for now. Each is a retreat from the boundaries of what an EV can and should be... They represent a surrender to the continued dominance of ICE technology. Tesla GIII should allow people to 'Drive The FUTURE Today!' instead of continuing the wait for a mythical tomorrow.�
Jul 11, 2014
GLDYLX To Red Sage,
Your posts may be dauntingly long, but they are chock full of YUMMY.
I am not waiting for Bluestar because I want a cheaper car; I need a smaller car that's big enough to accomodate my snowboarding gear and/or golf clubs (and occasionally tools/equipment). I want performance and beauty, not a clunky econobox. It must be more fabulous than ANY car of similar size, regardless of what propels it.
If Tesla can give me that, with 85kWh and air suspension for ~$50k, I will be a VERY happy puppy.
Happy Friday!�
Jul 11, 2014
igotzzoom 0-60 in 5 seconds, 200 mi range, 4-doors for $40-45,000....SOLD! Agreed...I don't want a "just as good as...." car. I want a kick-@$$ car. It's pretty sad the current affordable EV I get most excited about is the Chevy Spark. No offense against the Spark, but it's a dinky econobox, in either ICE or electric form. I want something at least as substantial as the Focus, but with real range and performance.�
Jul 12, 2014
David_Cary Obviously all enthusiasts here. The fact is that the majority of people don't really care to go 0-60 in 4.5 secs.
I personally expect a 40 kwh car. With reduced weight, better aero with smaller frontal area and smaller tires, 200 EPA is doable. 195 would still be 200 in people's minds.
What some posters seem to forget is that the 40 kwh car was not meant to be a 60 kwh with software limits, that is just what Tesla did when they decided to discontinue the model.
People don't mind paying for range in a $70k+ car, but when you get to $30k, people will choose to save money.
I think people's expectations on battery improvements are unrealistic. I also think it is very unlikely that the Gen 3 would have a larger battery option than 85. But you can dream...
Also, while there maybe a range bump perhaps with 2 motors, one optimized for cruising; it won't be more than 5%. The efficiency changes are not that great.
And getting 5% improvement in losses is really hard in an EV. Copper is copper.
The other EVs have better efficiency because they are lighter and they have smaller tires. Period. (Yes the Leaf improved in 2013 significantly but it started with some pretty inefficient choices)�
Jul 12, 2014
ItsNotAboutTheMoney Actually, new car buyers in he USA pay for performance all he time. That's why cars in the united states are relatively inefficient compared to other countries. However, in the case of Gen 3, while Tesla's goal is to compete with the BMW 3 Series, there are a few things to note:
- 10% of US 3 Series sales are diesels and base diesel perfornance is nothing special
- Elon Muskchas noted that base 3 Series performance in other countries is not as high as in the more performance-oriented USA, and that it is offered pretty bare bones base.
- Tesla is building a car for the world, and the new car buyers are different in different countries. Of particular note is that in high-gas-tax countries there is a stark cost differential per mile whichcwould make a BEV kore affordable.
- Gen 3 will start at a price where a large chunk of mainstream new car buyers will be able to afford the car (I hope).
- Performance adds cost to a car. In a BEV the motor and inverter become more expensive and the inverter in particular is not an insignificant cost. Plus, lightweighting helps performance, but it can be expensive.
So, I expect the base model to be around 0-60 in 7s, which matches a base 3-Series diesel and is better than mainstream midsize cars. Then there will be a power upgrade available to put it into the 5's, and on larger battery versions a performance upgrade to push it into the high 3s.
The base model would attract mainstream buyers like me and more mainstream buyers in high-fuel-tax countries, while the performance-luxury buyers would opt for the power. While the US 3 Series market is significant, it's still a smaller market than the Prius market, and given the conquest pattern for PEVs, and the shape of the hybrid and ICEV markets a mid-size, long range BEV car with significant cargo space has potential to be huge and a Prius killer as long as the price is right. I think Elon Musk has been talking now more about $30k rather than $35k and $31k for Gen 4, and I hope that's the target.�
Jul 12, 2014
physicsfita I guess it depends on who they're aiming for -- when I got my Prius, I didn't mind trading down substantially on my 0-60 time in return for nearly double the mileage (and a lot better emissions). For my rather ridiculous commute combined with winter driving and a love of road trips to regions that won't see superchargers any time soon, I'll mostly be looking at range -- if there is an option to get closer to 300 mi than 200 mi, I'd probably go for it. As long as I can get up to speed on the on-ramp before merging, I'll be OK with the acceleration.�
Jul 12, 2014
ElSupreme Well a couple of points. BMW no longer matches the numerology on the back of the car X35 no longer equates to a 3.5L engine. Right now the 335 is getting a 3.0 I6 Turbo engine. The US 328i and 320i are using a 2.0L I4 with turbo. And yes almost every single car manufacturer uses the 'same' engine across multiple products lines. But most of them will have different power outputs for the same engine. VW does this with their 2.0T engines. Where the fuel/air controls limit the power of the same engine.
I tend to agree with you that higher performance smaller cars don't cannibalize large cars. People generally choose a size range then buy within that range.
I would also say the Lexus ES is a bigger competitor to the 5 series than the 3 series. It really is mid-sized car. Cost wise it is probably a little closer to the 3 series, but really the IS is the 3 series competitor.�
Jul 12, 2014
igotzzoom 
�
Jul 12, 2014
Red Sage ElSupreme: I'm not really a BMW fan. They have however, historically -- say, 1986-2011 -- used the same engines among different body styles in the manner I outlined. Currently, the best of their regular 3-Series vehicles (non-M) are all quicker 0-60 MPH, and through the 1/4 mile, than either 5-Series or 7-Series sedans, regardless of displacement.
In any case, I'm pretty sure that Lexus intended their GS to be a competitor to the BMW 5-Series. Let's see how that worked out for them last year:
Comparison of BMW vs Lexus Low/Mid Model Sales Volume
Notice how the cars that have the better performance statistics win? I think Tesla Motors is likely to follow BMW's example instead of Lexus'.
Vehicle
2013 US Sales Lexus IS 35,017 BMW 3-Series 119,521 Lexus GS 19,742 BMW 5-Series 56,863
physicsfita: The idea behind Tesla Motors is that no one will ever have to 'trade down' on performance ever again with an electric vehicle. You'll get to have your fun, and drive it too.
ItsNotAboutTheMoney: The problem with settling for a 7-second range for 0-60 in a Tesla Motors product at ~$35,000 is that is what the Spark EV does already. It's in fact, rather interesting the number of EVs and hybrid vehicles that get to precisely 60 MPH in exactly 7.2 seconds... Almost as if there were a speed limit imposed for some reason... No, Elon Musk stated that their cars must be better than all the other cars in the market. Not also-rans. It will be up to Toyota to build a 100% electric Camry that drives like a Camry. Tesla cars will always drive like Teslas.
David_Cary wrote, "Obviously all enthusiasts here. The fact is that the majority of people don't really care to go 0-60 in 4.5 secs."
And they don't have to. It's all about throttle control. That speed is achieved by stomping the accelerator to the floor. In normal driving, it would be... normal... but responsive.
David_Cary wrote, "I think people's expectations on battery improvements are unrealistic. I also think it is very unlikely that the Gen 3 would have a larger battery option than 85. But you can dream..."
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." -- John Lennon, 'Imagine'
;-)
No, the projections for improvements in battery capacity are not unrealistic. There have been pretty linear improvements in lithium ion batteries since their initial introduction. The usable capacity effectively doubles every nine years, ten at the most.
Conservative estimates allow for at least the capability of a 100 kWh battery pack being available for use by 2016. Those would use fewer battery cells than would be needed for an 85 kWh battery pack today. The same quantity of battery cells could range anywhere from 120 kWh up to around 142 kWh, dependent upon how you do the calculations.
I believe that Tesla Motors will attempt to optimize their use of battery cells to get as much power as possible in each car, while using as few cells as possible to reach that goal. But a low-ball, bottom-of-the-barrel range of almost 200 miles from a 40 kWh to 48 kWh battery pack is not one of those goals at all. Tesla will not be frightened into complacency by their success, no matter how much that might delight Wall Street and Detroit.
Neither the Tesla Model S or Model X will stand still. I expect that upon the introduction of GIII the Model S 60 will go away. The 85 kWh battery pack will become the baseline minimum. Whatever maximum capacity that is available on GIII will also be available on Model S and Model X. I currently hope for 135 kWh as that top-of-line version, as I expect it will allow Model S to match the range of BMW 7-Series vehicles, thereby silencing Naysayers. I expect that to be an available option by 2016 -- ahead of the introduction of GIII.�
Jul 13, 2014
David_Cary I suspect 7 sec 0-60 is what the average person feels is really good acceleration.
Historical density improvement (by weight) from 91-05 was about a doubling. So 14 years for a doubling earlier in the development cycle. Lots of people feel like we have pushed lithium ion about as far as it can go. Certainly improvements can and will be had but 7-8% per annum in density is optimistic without a big change in tech (that of course we all hope will happen but hasn't been invented yet). Just because a lot of people go around saying batteries "improve" at 7% a year, doesn't mean it happens. And history certainly doesn't predict future developments. This isn't Moore's law.
As far the Model S not standing still.... Hmm. 2 years after the initial delivery and there have been relatively few battery/drivetrain improvements (faster supercharging worth 20 minutes a year for the average driver). I forget exactly when the first Model S was first available to be driven but it was certainly 2 years ago. And the details of the battery size/car size etc have been there for 3 years. So where are the improvements? 2016 is 2 years away or 2017 is 3 years away.
The Model S costs enough that it has to be a fast car. A $35k car does not need to be so fast. In a perfect world, you can have a 250 miles EPA car that goes 0-60 in 5 sec for $35k - but I really really doubt you get that in 2017. And you don't need it - 0-60 in 7 secs in an EV will impress most people (effortless, quiet, smooth etc).
I am sure the Model S will be up to 100 kwh by 2016 but Gen III is smaller and I bet will be a challenge to get to 85 kwh by 2017.�
Jul 13, 2014
GSP Don't forget less frontal area and more efficient chargers. These both have a big influence on EPA mpge and kWh/100 mile efficiency.
GSP�
Jul 13, 2014
ItsNotAboutTheMoney - BMW 320/328d does 0-62 in 7.4 seconds.
- 2013 US 3 series sales: 119,521
- 2013 Global 3 series production: 500,332
- In Europe in 2008 over 60% of European BMW 3 Series sales were diesels. (I don't have more recent numbers, but diesel percentages have generally risen).
Making the base Gen 3 a 5s performance model would add to the cost and lose sales, both from more cost-conscious customers at the fat end of the luxury market, and from mainstream buyers who would otherwise buy up. At the price range Tesla is targeting every $1k counts. Elon Musk has, multiple times, recognized that the 3 Series encompasses a broad range of performance and luxury.
The Spark is a minicompact, 4 seater, short-range, (currentlly) compliance BEV that sells a few hundred a month. It's not a mid-size, long-range BEV with class-leading cargo space.�
Jul 13, 2014
igotzzoom Somehow I don't think Tesla's going to punt with the Gen-III and deliver a "meh" vehicle. I think it will definitely have the wow factor one way or the other, whether it's the range/price equation, or performance, or both. I have confidence in Elon & co. to deliver a home run.�
Jul 13, 2014
stopcrazypp For me the range (for a given price point) is more important than the performance. The performance can be an option (and likely will be), but if it saves money to offer the base model with lower performance, I think Tesla should do that. I would be perfectly happy with a 7 second 0-60.
Remember, the i3 has similar acceleration and price, and I don't think anyone has complained about the straight-line performance.�
Jul 13, 2014
Red Sage David_Cary wrote, "The Model S costs enough that it has to be a fast car. A $35k car does not need to be so fast."
Yes, I am an automobile enthusiast. That's why I know full well there have been cars at this price range -- and lower -- that were considerably quicker than 0-60 in 7.2 seconds 25 years ago. When Lexus and Infiniti first arrived on the scene, they cost between $35,000 and $40,000. People did NOT buy them because they had styling that reminded them of Mercedes-Benz and BMW vehicles. People bought them because they looked good, were well appointed, and blew the doors off cars by Mercedes-Benz and BMW that cost $15,000 more.
The launch of Tesla Generation III must follow a similar trajectory. It cannot be a car that a Chevy Spark EV, Ford Focus Electric, Nissan Leaf, Fiat 500e, BMW i3, OR BMW 320i might be compared to favorably -- at all. It must be a line of vehicles that is obviously BETTER than anything else at its price point. Otherwise, why would anyone buy it?
ItsNotAboutTheMoney wrote, "Making the base Gen 3 a 5s performance model would add to the cost and lose sales, both from more cost-conscious customers at the fat end of the luxury market, and from mainstream buyers who would otherwise buy up."
I believe the exact opposite. As noted previously, the Lexus vehicles in the price range which have performance figures that lag behind the BMW 3-Series, all sell horribly in comparison. A GIII that performs like a 320i instead of like a 335i will be totally ignored by everyone that knows anything at all about performance vehicles.
If there are 500,000 people worldwide who can settle for a wimpy 3-Series, disguised as a performance car, why can't there be just as many who choose a superior GIII instead?
The only thing about giving more power that makes an electric car 'more expensive' is adding more batteries. I've already outlined that the cars will have more power than before -- by using fewer batteries -- because of improved power density.
When it comes to the electric motor itself, once you move into the economies of scale involved with mass manufacturing, it costs no more to build a 225 kW / 302 HP motor than it does to make a 270 kW / 362 HP one. If you decided to wimp out, lower the copper count inside each motor, use less efficient wiring techniques, you can save a handful of bucks per each by using motors that are half as capable. Then you'll get to watch everyone go out and buy Camrys and 3-Series cars instead, while they laugh wholeheartedly at the little electric car industry that just died.
stopcrazypp wrote, "The performance can be an option..."
No. Performance will be standard on every Tesla Motors product. You will have the option of getting even MORE performance, but it will never drop below a minimum that astounds the public.
If you do not either want, or expect to drive, a performance car -- do not get a GIII.�
Jul 13, 2014
stopcrazypp Don't agree. For example, the base 60kWh is 5.9 seconds 0-60. It's okay (slightly better than the 528i at 6.1), but not exactly "performance". Plus the cancelled 40kWh had 0-60 in 6.5 seconds. So I expect performance to match a base BMW, but not really blow its doors off.
Elon's stated goal with the Gen3 is 200 miles of range at around $35k. Clearly the range/cost ratio is much more important than performance (or he would have mentioned it). If it happens the performance comes "free" then sure, no problem. But if it conflicts with the price and range targets, I won't think he would hesitate for a second to sacrifice it on the base model.
As for your point about the 5 series and 3 series sharing engines and the smaller car always having better performance as a result, at least in the US market, the 3 series starts with a smaller engine (throwing in 7 series just for the heck of it, which starts with a larger engine than the 5 series). In the US, it seems the market expects the base model of the larger cars to be more powerful and faster than smaller cars.
320i: 0-60 7.1
328i: 0-60 5.7-5.8
335i: 0-60 5.1-5.4
528i: 0-60 6.1
535i: 0-60 5.5-5.7
740i: 0-60 5.6
750i: 0-60 4.7
760Li: 0-60 4.5�
Jul 13, 2014
ericspecullaas either way the 3rd gen will change the world.�
Jul 13, 2014
igotzzoom 7 sec 0-60 would be acceptable, 6 sec I'd be pleasantly surprised, 5 sec, I'd be excited. Perhaps these will be the three levels of performance. I know there's more to vehicle performance than just 0-60 times, but let's face it, it's become the de facto performance benchmark for a lot of people. If the "base" model delivered around 6 flat 0-60 for around $35,000 with 200 mi range, I think that would be a major game-changer in the EV market.�
Jul 13, 2014
ItsNotAboutTheMoney June US Sales:
Camry Hybrid: 3,784
Fusion Hybrid: 3,016
Prius v: 2,510
Sonata Hybrid: 1,523
CT200h: 1,521
Avalon Hybrid: 1,437
Accord Hybrid: 1,135
ES Hybrid: 1,102
Optima Hybrid: 1,006
Total: 17,034
Those 17,000 Americans who're happy to pay 25k or more for a mid-size, wagon or compact luxury hybrid that isn't a Prius liftback, aren't going to ignore a more-responsive base Gen 3 with a comparable or superior 7s 0-60.
And we already know that the 11,000 plus Prius liftback buyers aren't going to ignore a car that's cheaper to run and has comparable or superior cargo space with a much superior 7s 0 to 60.
And the 1,700 plus Volt buyers aren't going to ignore a more roomy long-range BEV.
And the 8% to 10% of US BMW 3-Series buyers who choose diesels aren't going to ignore a Gen 3 with 7s 0-60.
And the 60%+ of European BMW 3-Series buyers who choose diesels aren't going to ignore a Gen 3 with 7s 0-60.
And taxi drivers aren't going ignore a Gen 3 with copious luggage space because it only has a 7s 0-60 .
And the reset of the mainstream US car market (the largest segment of which is mid-size) aren't going to ignore the Gen 3 base because it only has a 7s 0-60.
The performance car buyers can simply do what they always do: pay a bit more for the extra performance. Just as many Tesla Model S buyers pay extra for the P85, which has the same battery, but a better motor and inverter.
Money.
Why do over half the European market go for the less powerful diesels? Because they're much cheaper to own overall.
The BMW 3-Series MSRP starts under $35k, nobody pays full price and they do special deals for business. Tesla wants to have a higher, no-haggle base price.
For Gen 3, Tesla needs to bring down manufacturing costs and it's not just for the battery. We know from JB Straubel's statement that the battery is less than a quarter of the cost for most Model S sold, which means that the remaining cost of the base car (including motor and inverter) is higher than Gen 3's target price.
Just look at the Tesla Performance option to see the first item on the list. As a number of Prius owners and solar panel owners can tell you, inverters are definitely not cheap.
See above with respect to the P85 option.
Why would they buy a Camry, if they could buy an affordable base Gen 3 with slightly better performance, much better response and better handling, that's quieter, smoother, cheaper to fuel, more convenient to refuel, cheaper to maintain, doesn't need servicing and has much more cargo space?
If they're they kind of person who loved their v6, they could pay extra for the power option, just as they did for their v6.
The 3 Series has 500k sales per year globally, and that's a huge part of the global luxury car market. But at the same time, just in the USA in 2013 there were mid-size sales of 2.5M and another 435k sales of hybrids and plug-ins. Yes, Tesla could insist on the base Gen 3 matching the BMW 3 Series gasoline car performance with their base Gen 3, but why do that if they can instead lower the base price, match the performance of base 3 Series and other diesels that sell very well outside the USA, make the car more affordable to mainstream buyers and offer performance as an option? Why would Elon Musk, who likes optionality, throw away volume?�
Jul 13, 2014
igotzzoom Okay...Bear with me here...I think some people don't care about 5 or 6-second 0-60 times, simply because they've never experienced them. I've been in a lot of sub 5-second cars. For me, it's a fun, but not transformational experience. The first time I was in a car that did 0-60 in less than 6 seconds, it was a "WOW!!" experience.
I'm willing to bet that a lot of Prius and 4-cyl Camry buyers have never experienced that feeling, and are content with the 8-10 second 0-60 time of their cars, simply because they were more interested in the 30-40+ mpg that they could get. If you took out some Prius buyers on a test drive of a Gen-III, and punched it getting on the on-ramp, and tell them it still costs less to drive and operate than their Prius, I think a lot of them would be sold then and there. Sure, a lot of them would be "Oh, I never drive that fast, I'll never use all that power." But for some, they'd be "Man, to think I've sacrificed the driving experience all these years for efficiency. Now I can have both."
Make sense?�
Jul 13, 2014
Red Sage stopcrazypp: Dude. C'mon. The BMW 760Li has a current base price of $141,200 -- more than four times as much as a BMW 320i. The Tesla Model S P85+ has a 4.4 second 0-60 time and costs $93,400. You could buy one of those, plus a GIII, and still have change left over for a down-payment on a BMW 320i lease. You really think it's even remotely fair to test the base Model S against a vehicle that costs twice as much?
I believe the base GIII will have performance to match or surpass the BMW 335i. Specifically because that is a higher priced car -- but it doesn't cost twice as much as a GIII. The most expensive version of the 3-Series comes in at $49,900 -- the BMW ActiveHybrid 3 -- that's 43% more than a base GIII. If the Tesla Model S P85+ can defeat a BMW 760Li that costs fully 51% more... I don't see any reason not to expect the same from a GIII when it comes to a BMW 335i, which would currently enjoy at least a 24% price advantage.
Oh, but wait... That brings me to another point. Price. Since BMW still uses those archaic 'independent franchised dealerships' their MSRP is all out of whack due to the toll fee that the middleman charges. In effect, the sticker price is inflated -- not because of performance -- but because of the dealerships taking their cut. Without a dealership, if BMW were able to sell direct, who's to say they wouldn't have offered the BMW 335i xDrive Gran Turismo at $36,850 instead of $46,850?
You mentioned the performance of a Tesla Model S 60, with a base price of $69,900. Please note that launch can be managed by anyone with a heavy right foot and opposable thumbs. Not so, the published 0-60 times for BMWs, which are managed by 'professional drivers on a closed course'. In the real world, the BMW would get positively ~*smoked*~ by even the lowly Model S 60.
- - - Updated - - -
Absolutely makes PERFECT sense! Exactly what I've been attempting to convey here. This is what happened when people have test driven the Tesla Model S when they were shopping for something else -- or so they thought. ;-)�
Jul 13, 2014
stopcrazypp I just threw those numbers in there for reference. The main point is that the base model to base model advertised acceleration is about the same for both the Model S and similar competitors and there's no reason to expect different for the Gen 3. Also for peak performance, most people compare the P85+ to the M5.
My secondary point is that US buyers seem to expect their larger more expensive cars (which are "higher up" in the line-up) to be more powerful and faster than smaller ones. They don't seem to like cheaper cars in the line-up (of the same type; exceptions may be coupes vs sedans) embarrassing them off the line or during overtaking. And manufacturers seem to be willing to cater to this (for example the M3 not surpassing the M5, or the Boxster not surpassing the 911).
I'm just going by the advertised numbers vs advertised numbers, in terms of their Gen3 target. Whether or not the owners can manage it in the real world seems to be unrelated to this.�
Jul 13, 2014
physicsfita As a very happy owner of a 2nd generation Prius (7 years/280,000 mi, and it still runs like a dream!), I wholeheartedly agree. I just worked out that the gas savings has recently paid for the car versus my old one. My motivations for looking at the Gen III are that it should pay for itself versus my current Prius, since fuel costs will be at most about 1/3 what I'm paying now (not counting possible future workplace charging and supercharging for my frequent road trips), with hopefully much lower maintenance and much longer lifetime (I drive my cars until they're shot), and the well-to-wheels emissions would be about the same or a little better than my Prius, even with Michigan's coal-heavy grid.
While I know my mileage is a little higher than average, this reasoning seems to resonate with other Prius owners I know.�
Jul 13, 2014
David_Cary Don't count me as someone who has never experienced a quick car. (I realize I wasn't singled out).
I drive a Leaf with a 9s 0-60. It feels pretty quick around town and takes no effort to accelerate faster than 99% of other drivers 0-40 (I drive very few 60 mph roads with stop signs or lights).
The car I've owned the longest was a Nissan 300TT so called stage IV - downpipe, exhaust, intake, chip. Usually quoted as 450hp. My next car was a 545 - a tick slower but much smoother....
I won't say I grew up but something like that.
You know what costs a heck of a lot with 0-60 in 5 secs - tires. Compare i3 tires to P85. The Leaf has a pretty middle of the road tire. I'd be perfectly happy for the gen3 to have Leaf tire size. The tires can kill the overall value. Speed is never free. Darn close in an EV but certainly not free.
And just to disagree on another point. Dealers make very little money on new car sales. There is no way there is $10k in profit for the dealer for a $46k BMW.�
Jul 15, 2014
HHHH David,
Lots of great points, and I agree with most of them, however, just a small correction dealer markups. As someone who operated an automotive dealership at the highest managerial level for 7 years, I can tell you it is quite possible and not as scarce as you might think to make $10k on a $45-50k car. BMW dealers have an average of about $4k markup on a $46k MSRP car, plus another $1k for holdback and incentives (sometimes more). There's $5k right there, plus the value they quote on your trade vs market value, which is another $2k, then add in interest rate markup $2k, and warranty / maintenance profit margins which are sold in the finance department = $10k. The dealer pricing model is convoluted and there's so many ways for them to make money it'll make your head spin...�
Jul 15, 2014
K5ING Gen III car to be called the Model 3.
�
Jul 15, 2014
Grendal Argh! Even Tesla themselves aren't helping. Is it a Model 3 or a Model III? Or both?�
Jul 15, 2014
palmer_md Everything on Tesla's twitter and Facebook has the number 3 not III (parts contributed by Tesla, not comments and other responses).�
Jul 15, 2014
stopcrazypp But the article with a direct quote from Elon say's the logo will be a 3 with 3 bars.�
Jul 15, 2014
sjoshuaj 
perhaps it will be Model 3 & Model 4�
Jul 16, 2014
palmer_md First, I've seen too many journalists misquote things to assume that Elon actually said it. Second, as noted in the post above, he could have been referring to an imaginary ad campaign using three horizontal bars, and not the III symbol. Also, the comment does come after the same joke he's told in the past about Ford killing sex, so it could just be a continuation on the joke. Perhaps it will be the Model III, but from what I've seen in written form from Tesla directly, it is Model 3.�
Jul 16, 2014
ChrisP Following the recent discussion here on performance/0-60 times, the article on Model 3 in autoexpress mentions that Musk also confirmed that he expected the new car to have a realistic range of over 200 miles with strong performance, like the Model S
So we are looking at 0-60 times possibly around 6 seconds (as the MS 60kWh) to maybe around 4 seconds for a performance version (if available). I like that!
***
Concerning as well the future range of Tesla vehicle discussed her, the same article mentioned that the Roadster will get an increase of range from 244 miles to 400 miles. That is an increase in 64% of range in 7 years (assuming it will be available in 2015)
Let�s assume the same gain in range for the model S (64% in 7 years since production) then we would get a 435 miles range in 2019. So a Model 3 with a range of over 300 miles or higher as an option is definitely a possibility. I like that as well�
Jul 16, 2014
AnOutsider Thanks for doing that. The 3 is exactly what I was picturing�
Jul 16, 2014
xhawk101 SEXY!�
Jul 16, 2014
NigelM Then the X is Model Ten?�
Jul 16, 2014
dalalsid 10 is just 2 in binary�
Jul 16, 2014
MartinAustin I was projecting earlier that the base Model 3 will be slower than the base Model S. This would probably be 6.0 since the S60 does 5.9.
However since Elon's interview, I am now in agreement with Red Sage that it will probably be faster than 6.0 on the base model... 5.5?
And all bets are off for the performance version, which there will now no doubt be.�
Jul 24, 2014
Red Sage I think it will be Tesla Model ?:
View attachment 54560�
Jul 24, 2014
DaveT I think "?" is way too difficult to type. IMO will likely be "Model 3" or "Model III".�
Jul 24, 2014
CHGolferJim This could become a fascinating international branding case study with the Asian/Western cross-currents, enthusiasms and resistances.�
Jul 24, 2014
Model 3 Yes. In offisial papers it will be "Model 3", but on the car, and on the website headings til will be "Model ?".�
Jul 25, 2014
Red Sage Sorry... I hadn't checked this thread since my Birthday... :-D
I'm pretty sure I answered this already. Tesla doesn't make wimpy cars. Mainstream buyers have been made to believe that performance can never be an option, without giving up something else. With a 60 kWh battery pack, you automatically get both range and power, by default. You don't have to give up either for the other.
I answered this already too, but I'll take a different tack... You can't get volume sales, if you don't give people a reason to buy to begin with... If Tesla Motors could build an affordable, safe, desirable electric car with 200+ mile range using a 24 kWh battery pack, they would. Volume must be built from a solid foundation. For Tesla, that foundation is performance. It is a fundamental advantage of an electric drivetrain and should be highlighted, not hidden. Just being 'cheap' to buy doesn't set a standard or even meet par. Tesla wants to show people they can have something that is better, by offering an excellent car at an average price.
Everyone who has attempted to start on the low end of the automotive scale for the last twenty-five years has had a hard time of it. When was the last time you saw a YUGO on the road? Daewoo and Daihatsu also bought the farm on these shores. For the grand majority of newcomers to the US automotive marketplace, wimpy cars do not translate to high sales.
I'm certain the only reason that Hyundai/Kia survived long enough to become somewhat successful in North America is because they had the backing of a much larger international firm that was determined to succeed, no matter the cost. The whole time, Hyundai worked extensively to improve the performance of their vehicles. They worked hard to make their cars exciting, moving, and finally, desirable. I wonder what would have happened if they started with the Genesis, instead of the Excel, to introduce their line of cars in North America.
Tesla Motors is trying something different. Traditionally, automakers have chosen a particular segment of the market, and stuck to it with their entire product line. Some place themselves relative to others in the market. Others place themselves strictly to go after customers in a specific earning bracket. A few cater high performance enthusiasts. More satisfy the basic needs for transportation. Tesla Motors is the only company that intends to tackle all of those markets, and perhaps create more, to be serviced by a single marque, no matter the income level of the Customer, with fully electric cars.
Volkswagen is going after every single market too, but their strategy involves using multiple brands that each target a specific segment of the worldwide market, and very few of those offerings are fully electric. None of them are unique vehicles designed from the outset to be fully electric. They are instead conversions of cars they also offer as ICE, or Hybrid Electric. As a result, as is often the case with traditional automakers, the ICE version of the cars tends to be vastly superior in range and price/performance ratio.
Superior. Excellent. Above Average. Average. Below Average. Poor.
Traditional automakers have conditioned the public to believe that owning an electric car means that you must pay an above average price, to get a vehicle that performs below average in expectations for range, 0-60, 1/4 mile, and top speed. Oh, but at least you get cubby holes, grab handles, and lighted vanity mirrors for your money. There are currently a crop of hybrid or electric cars that cost around $30,000 to $35,000 that reinforce this point. Because the versions of the same cars that have an ICE and cost between $18,000 and $22,000 are better in every way except fuel economy and emissions.
Just as it does not work to offer below average performance for an above average price point... It makes no sense to offer an average performance level for a below average price point. Tesla Motors makes cars that have excellent performance. When the cost of batteries goes down, and they can offer nothing less than an excellent driving experience for a below average price point, that is what they will sell. They will always strive to achieve a superior experience for the owners of their cars.
That is the primary identity of Tesla Motors. They will not abandon performance with their electric cars. Ever.�
Jul 25, 2014
carolj12 I'm new but searched to see if anyone had already posted this tidbit in the Forums but didn't find it.
Tesla was obsessed with the number 3 along with many other things. Why was Tesla obsessed with the number 3?.
I just ordered my CA license tag yesterday to put on my 15 year old car while I await the Model 3 => Nicola3.�
Jul 25, 2014
CHGolferJim Great post, Red Sage, hope you're right.�
Jul 25, 2014
GLDYLX
Happy Belated Birthday!
This (and their top down approach) is why I've been obsessed with Tesla for ~10 years, and why TSLA is a significant part of my "portfolio" (such as it is).
+10000000.
I've just realized that my current car cost me ~63x what I paid for the car before it... Of course, that car only cost $300, but it makes paying ~3x more for Model ? seem soooooooooo much more reasonable! I've also been realizing that my car, which supposedly gets a 6.8 0-60, isn't quite as peppy as I would like, even though its agility has gotten me out of a few hairy situations. Just because I drive a Toyota (for now) doesn't mean I don't value performance.
Happy Friday!�
Nov 3, 2014
DuncanWatson Updated some information.�
Nov 3, 2014
Jeff N FI just finished skimming this thread and didn't see any discussion of this July 2014 interview with Tesla's relatively new VP of Engineering talking about the Model 3:
Tesla promises realistic pricing for new BMW 3-series rival | Autocar
�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét