May 16, 2015
pr0teu5 Hello everyone. One thing that I noticed is that everyone seems to come to the intuitive understanding that the base 35k version of the Model 3 will be a single motor version, but after thinking about it for a little bit I'm not quite so sure.
At first blush it would seem like an AWD model would be significantly more expensive, but when you look at it more closely this may not be the case. Unfortunately I didn't really have to time to do something rigorous, but I think this might be a sketch for an argument for a base AWD version of the model 3.
So first we must realize that the motors, gears, and power electronics will be more expensive for an AWD set up. In general the price of an electric motor scales as the square root of the motors horsepower. So assuming that Tesla is shooting for 250hp we can find he difference in price for the motors.
Assuming two 125hp motors vs. one 250 hp motorPrice ratio = 2*sqrt(125)/sqrt(250)=1.41
So assuming that the 250hp motor cost approx $2k, I have no idea if this is in the right ballpark, the two 125k motors would cost $2828. So we have $828 we need to make up.
However, it is the case that due to always being able to operate the motors at this maximum efficiency point, the AWD configuration is more efficient than the SWD configuration. At first blush this doesn't seem to make much difference as the p85 has a 265 mile range and the p85D has a 270 mile range, not a significant difference. However we have to remember that the p85D is significantly heavier than the p85 lowering the range.
We can therefore perform a calculation to see what the change in efficiency would be in the case that they had the same weight.
Assuming a 4200lb weight for the p85 and a 4400lb weight for the p85D, and that range depends linearly on weight which it generally doesn't.
265 miles *(4200lbs/4400lbs) = 252 miles(270-252) =17/265 ~7% efficiency increase.
Now you ask why even consider the two cars at the same weight as in the real world a dual motor setup will obviously weight more. However, what we must consider is that when tesla is designing the car and the battery pack from scratch they get to choose the capacity they need. So with a higher efficiency they can select a smaller pack.
If we assume that a 50kWh pack is required for their 200 mile target with a 7% increase they would only need 46.5 kWh. If we assume even a very low price for batteries $200/kWh this offsets $700 of the cost of the AWD. Leaving only $128 of the cost left. If we assume a higher cosf batteries as in the 7kWh powerwall it could amount to nearly $1500.
As for offsetting the weight if the powerwall weights 220lbs then 1/2 of that weight is 110lbs so that goes quite a way to the offset.
Summary
The higher efficiency of the AWD configuration could make it less expensive or negligibly more expensive to sell a something like a 46.5kWh Model 3D rather than a 50kWh Model 3.�
May 16, 2015
Red Sage I believe there is a strong possibility that the base version -- no, ALL versions of Tesla Model ? will be dual motor all wheel drive configuration. Every direct competitor in the range of $35,000 or more offers AWD at that price point. Even though many buyers don't actually need it, AWD is considered as much of a safety feature as ABS thanks to marketing efforts by others in the industry. Thus, the perception is that it should be a standard, included feature -- like seatbelts, rearview mirrors, and grab handles.
Tesla Motors and Elon Musk have long stated that their Generation III vehicles will be built to compete directly with the leader in this market, the BMW 3-Series. Whether deserved it not, those cars are the perennial sales leaders in class. They are also the best selling vehicles in the BMW lineup. And they have a reputation that places them at the pinnacle of automotive excellence as the standard bearer for what it means to be at the wheel of what they term 'The Ultimate Driving Machine'.
So, with that very hard task before them, to overcome decades of deeply entrenched ideals about what it means to drive a car, Tesla Motors must make absolute sure the Model ? is up to the task. For some this means it absolutely must not be a front wheel drive car, because there is no FWD 3-Series. That would lead some to suppose that also means there must be a rear wheel drive version, in order to satisfy the expectations of legions of fans of induced oversteer while testing their skills with RWD. But that is a purely emotional argument, and may not stand up to cold, hard, analytical inspection.
See, the problem is that, as Elon has indicated, Tesla cannot get away with building cars that are simply 'just as good' as other cars -- even exceptional ones. They must build cars that are better, than all the other cars, or no one will have a reason to buy them. And the evidence is clear that dual motor AWD is simply better.
The handful of lost sales from those who despise AWD will be dwarfed by the torrent of orders from those who demand it. The same as those who want to hear a loud, roaring engine, or must have a clutch and shifter so they can 'feel alive' while they 'tame the beast'. Tesla Motors has a lot of good reasons to go with AWD and dual motors standard across their entire product line. Now they simply need the courage to implement that strategy over any and all objections.�
May 16, 2015
gregincal AWD in an electric car is different enough from an ICE version that I can't imagine somebody deciding to buy an electric car will reject AWD for emotional reasons. If they decide to have a non-AWD version it will just be for cost reasons. They have shown that an AWD version is superior.�
May 16, 2015
Nomad I'm also of the opinion that there will not be a single motor variant for the Model 3. Like Red Sage suggested, Elon wants to convince the world that electric vehicles are far better than their ICE counterparts, not simply on par. The idea that we'll get a sub 200 hp motor configuration in even the base Model 3 is ludicrous to me.
That said, I think the most important factor that Tesla will consider is power train assembly and manufacturing efficiency. I wouldn't be surprised if all versions of the Model 3 have two 221 hp motors. This is the same two motors found in the 85D, the front motor of the P85D, and likely the same two motors in the 70D (albeit with less voltage and perhaps smaller inverter). Imagine the incredibly efficient manufacturing process and economies of scale from using the same motor in all of their lineup. It would allow for Elon's end goal�a mass market car that outperforms its ICE competition. Optioned out, Model 3 will be in a totally different class.
The real problem they'll have to deal with is differentiating the Model 3 from the Model S and X. I suspect that will be accomplished by much larger batteries in the S&X, probably to the tune of 85 kWh and 120 kWh around the time the Model 3 comes out. Those figures are based on a 40% improvement over 5 years, which is 20% less than the oft-stated figure of 100% over 10 years. Specifically, the original 60 x 1.4 = 85 kWh and the original 85 x 1.4 = 120 kWh.
As an aside, Elon's passion to demonstrate how awesome electric vehicles can be is the big reason I'm a fan of Tesla. If someone else was CEO, they would rather focus on a 5% increase in margins or whatever and settle with 180 hp Model 3. Elon wants to change the world's perception of what an electric car is. That's how you convince people to move to sustainable transportation. Hopefully I'm not way off the mark here. :redface:�
May 17, 2015
TEG I hope they make them all as AWD. That would be great.�
May 17, 2015
mrdoubleb You know, you do bring up a good point. I too have to force myself to get rid of my ICE thinking where a 90hp engine is a lot cheaper to produce than a 400hp. Nevertheless, 2 motors is twice the cost, period.
Anyone knows how those costs (of high performance) scale for electric motors and inverters? Also, do we have a guess of the manufacturing costs of these Tesla motors?
Having said that, inverters aside, once you go several hundre hp, my understanding is there is a lot of things that become a lot more expensive with it, no matter what drivetrain you use. I am thinking wheel and tire sizes (go ballistic with costs above the mainstream sizes), suspension, brakes, etc. Not to mention burning through 2k worth of tires every 5k miles feels a lot difderent for the 100k car buyer than the person who stretched from a Golf to a 3.
So there may be a sweetspot for Model 3 where they can still go with the 195/15 or 205/16 of the compact class for the base model.�
May 17, 2015
wallet.dat Exactly. The T?sla Model ?, if it is to compete with the BMW 3-series, will have to feature 400hp at the very least.�
May 17, 2015
Red Sage There is no way in [HECK] the Tesla Model ? will be classified as a 'Compact' car. The EPA does their size classifications based upon usable interior volume and cargo space. Please note the AUDI A8 is Midsize, though it is longer than the Tesla Model S, which is a Large car instead. The Model ? will be Midsize at the very least. The Toyota Mirai will be lucky to get a Compact rating, because a fuel cell, battery pack, and hydrogen fuel tank all take up space.
Take a look at the BMW 335i. That will be the performance target for the base version of Model ?. It will only get better from there.�
May 17, 2015
mrdoubleb There are several standards for categorizing cars by size, I took the "compact" label form the BMW 3 series wikipedia page where they classify it as compact exectutive car. The EU calls that D segment, the US says mid-size.
In any case I was just pointing out that more HP means bigger wheels and tires and brakes so higher costs (and maintenance costs). The BMW 3 starts at 116hp in Europe with a 205/16 tire and goes up to 306hp on 225/17. (Of course the M3 is a different story at 431hp and mnster 255-275/18 wheels).
All I am sayng is that it would make sense to have a base model with less insane specs to achieve the 35k and appeal to folks who are also worried about running costs (like tire replacement, buying a second set of wheels for winter tires, etc.)
That may mean a RWD entry model with no more than 200hp. Doesn't mean they can't produce a monster that would eat the M3 for breakfast and cost the same (60k).�
May 17, 2015
wallet.dat IMHO T?sla has always had the upper-end in it's cross hairs. Let the other auto makers produce electric cars that can compete with base model ICE cars. I don't think that's what T?sla is looking to do for the ?. If they're going to compete with the BMW 3-series, I'm betting that T?sla has its sights set on the upper range in that line.�
May 17, 2015
mwulff Europe really is a different place than the US when it comes to cars. Here AWD is rare and not really seen as essential. AWD is considered something that people who live in mountains need and the rest of us are better off without it.
That said there is very little penalty for Tesla if they go AWD only.
If they target the 3-series they will need to take on the 316 and the 318 (the most popular models) with about 110 hp+. So not really in M territory at all.
Of course since HP is easy and cheap with an EV they might as well go for 250 hp which puts them in line with the absolute top 335i. The real problem with that is that the cars are all but impossible to insure in Europe.
Cars with much more than 120 hp are considered muscle cars and pay extreme premiums on insurance. Especially if the driver is young.�
May 17, 2015
mrdoubleb Yeah, and not just insurance. In my country there is a list of purchase and annual car taxes related to the performance of the car. Of course there is always talk about what execptions EVs should get...
In any case, the question of AWD only is really a question of how much extra cost is it to have e.g. 2x100hp instead if 1x200. I am sure that designing the 3 means accepting a few compromisies (materials used, etc) so everything has a cost: e.g. ok, we take the higher cost of 2 motors, but what do we give up to stay within budget?�
May 17, 2015
gregincal I just want to point out in assessing competition that the Model 3 will be $35K in the US. Given the current exchange rate and Tesla pricing structure I wouldn't be surprised to see it starting at around 38-40K Euro (US price plus $3k shipping plus 20% VAT). That's not 316 prices, more like 328 prices. Of course who know what exchange rates will do between now and then to make the Model 3 more or less competitive in Europe.�
May 17, 2015
SmartElectric What is conveniently ignored here is the cost of the non-motor elements of dual motor AWD, namely, multiple inverters ($), front wheel drive components such as half shafts and associated bearings ($) which would not otherwise be required if RWD was chosen.
Tesla has chosen to outline ONE thing about the Model 3, price. They haven't provided any other guidance.
Price will be the deciding factor of what comes standard and what doesn't.
Personally, AWD is a requirement here in Canada, so no matter what, I'll be looking for that, even if I need to pay extra above the quoted base price.�
May 17, 2015
dlinkeg I agree that the Model 3 will likely appear with AWD, since Elon Musk desires to surpass any and all $35K "comparable vehicles". To leave out AWD, especially since the 70 series is only AWD, would be a big surprise. No matter what appears in the final version of the Model 3, I can't wait to replace my orphan Coda with an EV that has a company behind it who will innovate, support, and survive.
I want to be on the waiting list YESTERDAY. I never could wait very well.�
May 17, 2015
Cebe They may need to make the "default" AWD so that they hit the 200mi target range?�
May 18, 2015
Model 3 And that just proves that Norway is not a part of Europe... on the other hand, we do live in the mountains (a lot of us at least).
�
May 18, 2015
mwulff Yup. Norway is classified as mountain.�
May 18, 2015
pr0teu5
This is a good point and was something that I was thinking about when doing my analysis. However, I had no real way to estimate this cost as I didn't have any real idea how these components scaled. We could make the assumption that these things scale approximately that same way that the motor(s), as the square root of the horsepower required, but then we would need to know how much the entire drive system costs, which I don't really have a good estimate for.
This is why I said that the argument presented wasn't so much a rigorous argument, but the outline for one. I was mainly just me thinking out loud.
I think the larger point though, is that by adopting an AWD layout in a model where the size of the pack can be chosen from the beginning the efficiency increases from the AWD have the possibility of offsetting, at least in portion, the increased cost of the AWD system.�
May 18, 2015
David99 Dual motor in an EV is not automatically more efficient. The only reason the Model S with dual motor is more efficient is because they are using the old, power optimized, large rear motor and then a newer, smaller and more efficient front motor. By switching off the rear motor they can make the Model S go a little more efficient. But that also means if it had only the newer, more efficient front motor it would be even more efficient, lighter and cheaper to make. So dual motor is not better from an efficiency and cost point of view. It is worse. The Model 3 is primarily about cutting the cost down. It is also a space issue. The dual motor Model S lost most of its frunk space to the extra motor. I use the frunk a lot so I'm glad I have a rear motor only.
I'm pretty sure the Model 3 will come with optional dual motor, but also a front motor only configuration. Most cars sold in the 35k range have front or rear wheel drive only. Most people that buy these cars don't even know which wheels are driven by the motor. They really don't care because it makes no difference to their daily driving. They care about cost and range. Model S owners are a very different group. They don't care about cost, they care about performance and technology. Model 3 buyers will be a different group.�
May 18, 2015
Kevin Harney Not all of them! I for one want the P85D version of the Model 3. I think most will go the middle of the road which will probably be a D version. Few will go higher and even fewer will go more base model. Just my opinion of course.�
May 18, 2015
igotzzoom No disrespect, but the purported advantages of front-wheel-drive is ICE legacy thinking. If packaging is similar to the Model S, there would be little advantage to going front-drive in the Model 3. In fact, there would be a lot of drawbacks, including losing the "frunk" which seems to be one of the favorite features among Model S owners. Yes, you might be able to retain a nominal frunk even with a front motor, but I think the drawbacks outweigh the positives. The only reason FWD is so popular for ICE-powered cars is it allows the entire powertrain module (engine, transmission, etc) to be installed in a single module. The integrated rear motor/transmission module in the Model S has all the same advantages, minus the steering hardware, which I think would be inconsequential from a cost standpoint. I believe the Model 3 will be standard single-motor rear drive, and optional dual motor AWD.�
May 18, 2015
Kevin Harney Agree with this except.... By the time Model 3 comes out the Model S85 will probably be no more. All Teslas will be AWD. But if not the AWD will be standard and the RWD will be optional removal like the Model S is now. I think those cards have already been laid on the table.�
May 18, 2015
gregincal I thought the efficiency gain was having the two motors geared differently, so that one provides more of the power at highway speeds and the other around town.�
May 18, 2015
igotzzoom Sorry. I'm still not drinking the Kool-Aid of AWD inevitability standard across the lineup. Guess we'll find out March '16. :smile:�
May 18, 2015
Kevin Harney I am with ya! I think there is about a 60/40 shot right now that you are right. Question is just when it will happen in my mind. I think it will be standard AWD with the option to remove it if you want.�
May 18, 2015
gavine They will notice (and care) with all of that electric motor torque driving the front wheels. The torque steer would be unbearable. As much as I would be happy with AWD, RWD is a close second. FWD is a definite NO in my book for Tesla.�
May 18, 2015
Kevin Harney Great point on the torque steer.�
May 18, 2015
tga A big component of torque steer on an ICE is due to uneven half shaft lengths. Because of the simplicity of the motor and gearbox packaging/positioning, there is really no need for this to occur in a FWD Tesla.
People need to remember that there is one reason, and one reason only, that automakers pushed FWD configurations - they are cheaper to manufacture. Period.
ICE manufacturers did not switch to FWD because it is better in snow, increases understeer (which most people find less scary), etc. They did it to save money. Everything else was a side benefit.
People want FWD in snow because years of ICE marketing have taught them to want it. If Tesla produces a FWD Model 3, it'll be because they decided it's to hard to educate the sheep who have years of "FWD is better in snow" drilled into their heads by ICE marketing departments.�
May 18, 2015
Kevin Harney Valid point. BUT Tesla will not decide it is too hard to educate. They will build the right car and let it speak for itself. I have a 3 Series and IMHO it was built right and speaks for itself. Tesla will not dumb the car down.�
May 18, 2015
igotzzoom It seems to me it would be a lot easier to modulate wheelspin with electric motors than with ICE powertrains, so I think the FWD/RWD issue is largely moot, but for the consumer conditioning reason noted above, I believe there will probably be an AWD variant. But I'm NOT of the belief that it will be the default offering.�
May 18, 2015
Shortmanz I think that Tesla will be struggling to hit the $35K price point just as they did trying to hit $60K with the short-lived Model S 40's. For this reason, I think that the base model 3 will be either front or rear wheel drive with AWD available as an option. There will also most likely be a Tech Package option to boost the average sales price closer to $40K.�
May 19, 2015
aronth5 Averages sales price of $40k is just wishful thinking. It will be much closer to $50k or more.�
May 19, 2015
igotzzoom For better or worse, I've resigned myself to the fact that the Model 3 configured the way I'd want will probably be closer to $50k than $35k.�
May 19, 2015
Kevin Harney You should feel lucky. I have resigned that it will be closer to $70K for me. See signature below. But that is OK since I spent $65K on my current car.�
May 19, 2015
David99 The Model S owners here are tech savvy and for the most part not constrained on money. The fact that almost all Model S sold are 85 and have plenty of options shows that the typical Model S buyer is all about features and technology. They don't worry about cost much. That does not apply to the market the Model 3 is aiming for. Those buyers are different. Price and range will be their priority. While I see a lot of very good points made here, the average car buyer is not thinking in the same way because they struggle to pay for it. For the majority of Model S owners it's nothing to add $20k in options to their car and pay cash for it. That's more than the majority of people can afford to pay for a car at all. Applying 'Model S logic' doesn't translate to the Model 3 market directly.�
May 19, 2015
gregincal That all depends on what you consider to be the Model 3 market. The fact is that getting the car with interesting options is almost certainly going to cost more than 40K, so the market is people willing and able to pay that much for a car. Basically the same sort of market that currently buys Audi A4s and BMW 3 series.�
May 19, 2015
igotzzoom Do I have enough assets to buy a Model S outright? Yes. But it would require liquidating most of my stock portfolio, a good portion of which I'm planning to retire on. If I were impulsive and irresponsible, I could go out and buy a MS today. But yes, I am like the 99% in that "value" is a factor in my carbuying decision. Also, assuming most 3 Series and A4 buyers are wealthy is a fallacy. The majority of 3 Series are leased, and I would guess a similar proportion of A4 and C-Classes are as well. If it weren't for favorable lease terms, BMW and Audi wouldn't be doing nearly as well as they are.
The Model 3 by necessity will need to appeal to a wider audience than the Model S. True, a lot of well-equipped mainstream trucks and SUVs are in the $50-70,000 range, but most are in the $35-50k range. I am going on record here and now that if a reasonably-equipped Model 3 is going to be $70k, it's off my shopping list.�
May 19, 2015
Kevin Harney Agreed. But I am not looking at reasonably equipped when I say I am going to spend $70K. I am looking at Top of the Line. I think the average price of a Model 3 will be $50-55K.�
May 19, 2015
gregincal Nowhere did I say that I assumed BMW 3 series and Audi A4 owners are wealthy. However, there are a lot of expensive options on both cars that have a lot of takeup, and the ASP for both cars is well over the base price. The thing about leases may very well be true, but it could be true for the Model 3 as well. I just react to posts that seem to indicate that the Model 3 market will somehow be budget shoppers. It will be an expensive car with expensive options, and I'm pretty sure the ASP will be well above the base price (but certainly not 70K).�
May 19, 2015
RobStark Household income difference in the USA between 3 Series buyers and Model S is only about $20k.
The marginal difference is not that great.
Many people buy 3 Series over 5 and 7 BECAUSE it is smaller and fits their parking space better or is easier to maneuver in densely populated cities/metro areas including suburbs close to major cities. More so even in Europe.
In Northern Europe today the majority of luxury sedans are sold with AWD, not sure about the D segment though.
AWD gets better traction which is safer whether in good weather or bad. Two gear ratios is more efficient than one. And so far multiple speed transmissions in BEVs have proven unreliable. But I suppose in the future 2 gears up front and 2 in the rear will be more efficient to a 2 speed RWD.
A 2015 Honda Accord V6 has 278 horsepower and it does not eat new tires for every breakfast.
A 350 HP AWD Model 3 will not be chewing up more tire than the above Accord because it will spread wear more evenly.�
May 19, 2015
brianman I get really tired of hearing phrasing like this.
"You bought __. That implies that you don't care how much __ cost."
Wrong for just about everyone I've ever spoken to personally for more than 7 words -- Tesla-related or otherwise -- for my entire life.�
May 19, 2015
igotzzoom I know a lot of people that bought the Model S did so at a significant financial sacrifice, and I have a lot of respect for those that did. But I simply have a comfort level in terms of how much I want to spend on a car. I wish I were at a place in my life where the difference between $50,000 and $100,000 is academic, but I'm not. I guess just reading the threads and posts where prices of $65-70k are discussed for the Model 3 is discouraging. And I want to be clear I'm the LAST person that grinds the axe of class warfare. I just hope there will be trims of the Model 3 that are accessible to the average buyer.�
May 19, 2015
gregincal I agree. I sweated over every option I ordered, and looking at the amount of angst in the ordering threads of this forum I think that's pretty normal. I actually don't expect the Model 3 ordering to be much different.�
May 19, 2015
dsm363 It's sounds like there will be. My hope is $50,000 will buy a well equipped Model 3.�
May 19, 2015
brucet999 It's worthy of note that you have calculated only motor costs, but have not considered extra expense and weight of the other front drivetrain components - shafts, CV joints, etc. as well as cost of electronics to manage the motors. Considering that 70D is priced only $5k less than 85 RWD, despite the fact that its most expensive component, the battery, is 17.6% smaller, the additional cost of AWD is likely much more than you estimate.
- - - Updated - - -
Are the taxes on new cars based on displacement or horsepower? I noticed a lot of eurocars' displacement seem to be clustered around certain values, suggesting to me that they are coming just under some tax threshold.�
May 19, 2015
pr0teu5
I don't this is the correct reason for increased efficiency in Tesla's AWD systems.
A normal electric motor has Power and efficiency curves that look basically like what's shown below.
So we see that the motor operates very inefficiently at low percentages of it's rated power, but works more efficiently at higher power, though it is still drawing more energy in absolute terms at higher power.
So let's imagine that we had two systems one 250hp motor, and one with two 125 hp motors, and that we need 25 percent of our rated horsepower. If we only have one motor we would operate at ~75% effeciency while in the two motor system we could just have one motor operating at 50% of the rated horsepower and operate at ~85% efficiency. Of course gearing and other factors come into play, but the general concept is that by operating along two curves rather than one we can better optimize our efficiency.�
May 19, 2015
Model 3 I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but here in Norway the tax is made up by:
- Horsepower
- Weight
- Price (VAT)
- CO2 emissions
- NOX emissions
BUT: "For vehicles in group A which is not covered by the obligation to document fuel consumption or CO2 emissions, the tax is calculated on the basis of displacement as an alternative to CO2 emissions." From wikipedia. There is also vehicle groups where CO2/Nox part is replaced by displacement - like motorcycles.
The current trend is to lower the HP/Weight part, and raise the CO2/NOX part.
... and on use the fuels (gasoline, diesel and electricity) are heavily taxed, so you will be taxed based on fuel consumption.�
May 19, 2015
pr0teu5 This was mentioned in another post that I made in the thread, but in principle these numbers would also scale as some function of what they would in the single motor case. So in principle if you knew the principle if you knew what that scaling factor was and what the price of the that whole system is you could simple use that factor to scale the price.
The important part of the argument isn't the actual price. Rather it's the observation that by having a more efficient AWD system you can offset a significant portion of the AWD system cost by using a smaller battery.
In addition your example of the pricing of the 70D vs the 85 actually works better as evidence toward my point rather than against it. They both have similar ranges and performance characteristics and their ranges are not all that dissimilar.
The price different is $5000 as you say, but how unexpected is that. The difference is battery size between the 70D and the 85 is 15kWh. To get a rough estimate we can look at the powerwall. The 10kWh cost ~$3500. So given that 15 is 1.5x10 the additional price of the 85 over the 70D if we only consider the battery should be 1.5x$3500 = $5250. This is almost exactly the price difference between the models.
Once you perform the rough estimates you see that Tesla could have produced something like a S77D with 8kWh less than the S85 with exactly the same range for something like $2k to $3k less that the S85�
May 20, 2015
Cebe �
May 20, 2015
gregincal I'm not so sure about the average buyer, but I believe you'll be able to get a nice Model 3 for 45K. Who knows what the top end will be, and that's what the people talking about 65-70K are referring to. But it sounds like you don't want all the bells and whistles, so it shouldn't bother you. The Model 3 should start at about half the Model S price (35K versus 75K), but a fully loaded P85D is 130K (all before any tax incentives).�
May 20, 2015
igotzzoom My needs are simple: 200+ mi real-world range (that means driving 75-80 on the freeway), the usual expected tech goodies (Bluetooth phone/streaming, nav, SXM, etc.) at least 250 hp, and 0-60 in 7 seconds or less. If I could get that for $40-45k, I'd be happy.�
May 20, 2015
Kevin Harney I think you'll be happy then :biggrin:�
May 20, 2015
Candleflame
200 miles of range at 80mph is the bare minimum imho.�
May 20, 2015
brucet999 My point was that the front motors have parts that are not in rear motors at all, CV joints and other parts that allow steered wheels to be powered. So no, they cannot be scaled from single motor versions.�
May 20, 2015
pr0teu5
I think you may be misunderstanding my point slightly. I'm saying that the price of all of the components that are necessary to drive power to the front wheels, insofar as those components are also present in the rear drive train will scale as some function of the price of all of those same components in a similarly sized rear wheel configuration.
The only way I can see your argument in a sensible way is if you are contending that in order to specifically drive the front wheels, which are steering, extra components are required beyond what would be required in an identical configuration where those wheels are not being steered. This will, to be sure, increase the price. However, it this doesn't mean that the price of the AWD system would no longer scale with the price of the RWD system it would just change the function by which it scales. I think that you may have gotten confused by my use of the word factor and thought that I was arguing that the price of the AWD system would scale linearly with the price of the RWD. This is obviously not the case in the original post I point out that price of an electric motor tends to scale as a function of Sqrt(horsepower).
So all i'm really saying is that by adding in the cost of the other front drive train components you are changing the scaling formula from something like;
Price AWD = 2*Sqrt(.5*System HP)/Sqrt(System HP) to some other function that we don't know.
It would also be worth asking if you still have any outstanding issues with the efficiency increased of dual motor, or the relative size of the cost of the battery in proportion to the other AWD costs.�
May 21, 2015
Red Sage OK. Let's use the opposite end of the telescope for a moment, eh?
Think of the expense in time, money, and engineering effort, to design and build two completely different front ends for a single car. One that does nothing but steer... Another that both steers and applies power to the road.
Now consider having to stock both sets of components at every Service Center 'just in case' they are needed for repairs. Now go a bit further, noting you must also keep them on hand for different configurations such as sedan, crossover, wagon, convertible, coupe... All, cars that have different weight distribution profiles.
A lot of that complexity is eliminated if you simply decide upon dual motor all wheel drive system from the outset.
As for the expense of having multiple redundant systems...
When you begin building a championship level American Football team, you start with Defense. That is simply the way it is done. Period.
When you decide to build a car, your budget is directly proportional to your intended sales volume. The more you intend to make, the lower your costs. This is known as 'economy of scale', and it both guides and governs the decision making process. Period.
Tesla Motors literally manufactures their own motors, on site, at Fremont. They can make them any way they want. They don't have to wait on a third party supplier to get around to making a motor to their specifications.
The most expensive component of the motors themselves is copper wire. That's it. Due to economy of scale, the more motors they build, the less they cost. And the less copper that goes into each individual motor, the lower their cost. Thus, if the same motor can have an output ranging from 180 HP to 250 HP, using a minimum of copper, then you can put two of them in one car. Since you've already decided the cars will all be dual motor AWD, you simply calculate the expense of other included parts to form the value of the whole.�
May 21, 2015
DuncanWatson Given the trend I see Tesla only offering AWD on all of its models in the future. It simplifies things for Tesla.�
May 23, 2015
dgpcolorado My needs are even more simple:
� 200+ miles of range (so that Supercharging is relatively time-efficient because most of it is in the bottom half of the SOC level).
� Supercharger capable.
� Decent snow performance, although AWD would be preferred so that I can get up my long, steep, curved driveway in winter without chains.
� An "affordable" price. This is the big one: $50k for a car? Not a chance.
I'm certainly aware that the range in cold or snowy weather would be considerably less than the rated range but I don't tend to make long trips in adverse weather conditions.
I have no interest in tech goodies or 0-60 type performance. None, zero, zip. I would guess that in the "mass market" such views are not uncommon.�
May 23, 2015
Tyl Model 3?
- - - Updated - - -
- - - Updated - - -
Interesting renderings!!!!
- - - Updated - - -
�
May 23, 2015
MartinAustin I don't think that's the exact reason that dual motor is more efficient. The reason is, you can turn one of the motors off when the car only has to cruise along - like, using cruise control. When you need bags and bags of torque, you can turn on the other motor.
It doesn't matter if you have motors of different sizes, or the same sizes, or the motor you turn off and on is the front motor or the back motor. There will be an energy savings when you turn one of them off during cruising.
Now, Tesla is gaining experience with this technique that no other car manufacturer is gaining right now. The P85D has motors of different sizes. I believe the 85D and 70D use motor pairs whose power is identical front and rear. (though more powerful in the 85D, naturally) Tesla is gaining real world experience across thousands of cars of both types of configuration. When they do this in the Model 3, it will be "next-gen" energy efficiency during cruise.
I am also in the camp that thinks the base Model 3 will be RWD for cost reasons. AWD will be an option on most of the other variants in the range. When we see who is right... I think everyone will be happy no matter what�
May 23, 2015
vinnie97 As a destitute lower class member who also doesn't buy into class warfare, I have to echo your sentiments. Toyota got to economies of scale with the Prius for the everyman, so I have high hopes that Tesla will get there, too. I'm pretty sure it won't be the Model 3, but it will be the closest anyone has achieved yet.
- - - Updated - - -
I agree with your $50k being a nonstarter price. However, wouldn't you need something more robust tech-wise (like nav?) or are you not planning on stepping outside of your comfort zone (as far as distance traveling is concerned)? Having supercharger information at my fingertips would be a hard option to decline.�
May 23, 2015
MartinAustin I'm confident Tesla won't stray from that price... they have been chanting $35,000 for years. They've also said "about half the price of the Model S" for a long while, when the base price was $69,900.
I used to think the base price was going to be $34,900, but now that they have changed their base pricing to a round $75,000 in the 70D... I project the base price of the Model 3 will be $35,000. This will be plus delivery+documentation fees of about $1,000 and your state sales tax. This will get you RWD inc. traction control, cloth seating for four (or a cramped five), range of 220 miles, navigation & touchscreen, basic audio, coil suspension, solid roof, 17" wheels, parking sensors, and black or white paint. 0-60 will be about 6.0 seconds. Supercharging will be included IMO. Reservation deposit will be $1,000.�
May 23, 2015
ryanjm Wow, after looking at those godawful renders, I would 100% NOT hire Stumpf Studios to do any design/concept work for me. For anything. Who looks at that and thinks that's cool/good/impressive?�
May 23, 2015
AudubonB I have what I hope is an absolutely incontrovertible reason that this understandable comment of Greg's, and likewise similar ones in this thread, is as wrong as bellbottoms:
(Gregincal post #40)
It is: because if this is the case, then Tesla Motors has lost the battle, and the war. Fold up your tents and go home.
The single most important part of Elon Musks's Secret Master Plan is that endgame in the creation of Tesla Motors is to bring forth a vehicle that would sell at the 500,000 per year rate. And the Model 3 is that endgame; it is to be for budget shoppers. If you are to convince me otherwise, it would be through convincing me that there is a YEARLY market of 500,000+ buyers of a $40K? $45K? $50K? automobile. I do not believe that to be the case.�
May 24, 2015
stopcrazypp The 3 series which Tesla is targeting with the Model 3 is that vehicle. It sold 480k units in 2014 (the coupe 4 series sold 120k units in addition to that number), 500k units in 2013 (4 series 14.7k, previously was 3 series coupe).
http://www.bmwgroup.com/bmwgroup_prod/e/0_0_www_bmwgroup_com/investor_relations/corporate_news/news/2015/dividendenmeldung_maerz_2015.html
While the Model 3 will be much less expensive than the Model S, I'm not sure it'll qualify as a budget vehicle.
For the record, the 3 series sedan starts at $33k, and a fully loaded 335i sedan is in the $60-70k range. Then the M3 starts at $62k and can be optioned up to $90k.
Given that, I still think Tesla will come out with a $35k version and I agree that Model 3 buyers will be far more budget conscious than the Model S crowd. Just like how there were people that "stretched" to get a 60kWh Model S, there will be plenty that will "stretch" to get a Model 3 (although far less stretching required, maybe more like reach).�
May 24, 2015
MartinAustin Tesla isn't targeting any particular brand or car with the Model 3. They just want everyone to buy it.
You may perhaps be thinking about what other brands will be hit hardest by Tesla Model 3.
Don't forget, there are Priuses, Civics and other modestly-priced cars whose owners decided to get a Model S, along with owners of Audi A8, BMW 7, Mercedes S etc etc.. For all of those people, there simply wasn't an alternative to the Model S that they could consider. If the Model 3 is available, it will eat into sales of the Model S, but Tesla probably won't be bothered by that... don't forget their mission is to convert the world to electric cars and it doesn't matter which oil-burning car brand loses a sale if Tesla manages to sell one of their BEVs.
There will be a heck of a lot more Civic owners moving to Model 3 than there will be BMW 3 owners. Some BMW 3 owners may move to a Model S... but there will be hardly any more Civic owners moving to Model S (once Model 3 is available).�
May 24, 2015
MarkR I gotta think that most of the the people on this forum are already MS owners who will want the new Model 3 when it arrives. We will want the tech package, the largest battery, AWD, leather, air suspension, upgraded paint, premium audio, auto-pilot, the performance package, a pano roof, wood trim, better seats, a center console, and a few other new options that I can't yet imagine - it will certainly cost $70k+. In addition to our MS, we currently have a BMW 3 series. The new Model 3 will be the perfect size for us. Looking forward to a Model 3 P100D, 0-60mph in 2.8 seconds!�
May 24, 2015
dgpcolorado A valid question. For local driving, say a few hundred miles, I certainly don't need a nav system. But I don't believe for a minute that the Model 3 will not have some sort of basic nav system that allows one to plot courses between Superchargers; the car isn't a $15k econobox. It is the other fancy stuff, such as Bluetooth, that holds no appeal.
However, even if the Model 3 didn't have a nav system, unlikely though that is, I would just plot the Supercharger stops and terrain profiles before I left on a road trip. In fact, I plan to do so even with a nav system. For example:
�
May 24, 2015
gregincal Bluetooth isn't exactly fancy. A base model Toyota Corolla at less than 20K includes Bluetooth as standard.�
May 24, 2015
MartinAustin Not to mention, it's more-or-less required to help you avoid holding a cellphone to your head, which is illegal in more and more places (and even more by the time the Model 3 comes out)�
May 24, 2015
gregincal Although I'm sure that there will be some Civic owners buying the Model 3, I'm not convinced that will be more than BMW 3 owners. The Model 3 will be twice as expensive as the Civic. Gas savings accounts for something, but still.�
May 24, 2015
vinnie97 Yep, my Prius C (a vehicle that SRP'd for under $20k) Two has Bluetooth.
Fair enough, dgp, that would certainly be a valid alternative (terrain plotting).�
May 24, 2015
igotzzoom Yeah, BT, satellite radio and even nav aren't the exclusive luxury items they used to be. I'd even challenge anyone to find a car on a lot now that DOESN'T have power windows. In theory, there are cars that offer crank windows, but it's like finding a needle in a haystack. I could see the Model 3 having manual seats standard, and probably a non-leather interior. But even in "base" form, I expect it will be well-equipped.�
May 24, 2015
vinnie97 Actually, my father bought a base model Nissan Frontier last year that they had to ship in from elsewhere, and it had crank windows much to his surprise and chagrin. I was a bit gobsmacked myself. He apparently didn't think to ask (what's comical, though, is it actually did contain Bluetooth phone functions; perhaps to comply with all the new laws about cell phone operation while driving)...and inadvertently found the veritable needle in said haystack.�
May 24, 2015
Red Sage Though the average selling price for a new car was over $31,000 last year, the majority of cars purchased hovered around the $22,000 mark in the United States. That is right at the cost of a new Toyota Camry LE. The base trim of a BMW 3-Series is appointed about the same as a Camry LE. I would not expect a base Model ? to come any less equipped than a Camry LE or 320i. I would not be surprised if the base Model ? was equipped as well as an Avalon XLE, or Lexus ES 350. But those that suggest it would come practically stripped, like a 1972 Ford Maverick or 1974 Mercury Bobcat or 1984 Chevrolet Chevette or 1990 Ford Escort are all smoking crack and liking it.
The 'bells and whistles' will be fully available as options. But all the expected standard issue features will be available on the base Model ?. Trim levels will most likely be defined by battery pack capacity. Options will be available regardless of trim level.
So, yes... You could add around $15,000 in options to the $35,000 base trim to get a $50,000 price. Or, you could conceivably add $20,000 in options to the $50,000 performance trim to get a $70,000 price. It all depends upon how Tesla Motors decides to handle drivetrain and battery capacity. Meanwhile, the margin on options from a tow hitch to a set of 20" wheels will make the platform enormously profitable, to the envy of the automobile industry.�
May 24, 2015
wallet.dat At the very least, I hope the Model E has 4G connectivity.�
May 24, 2015
gregincal I imagine it will, but of course you are going to have to pay a monthly fee for internet connectivity.�
May 25, 2015
dgpcolorado I agree.
I was disappointed with the switch to power windows since, to me, it is just something frivolous to break and need fixing. However, it is what it is. But, then, I view air conditioning the same way, since it is unnecessary where I live and I always ordered cars without it if I could. Not too many cars made without AC nowadays! The only extra gadget I really appreciate is cruise control; I won't buy another car without it. I also really appreciate the heated steering wheel in my LEAF (don't use the heated seats much) so I hope that the Model 3 has that.
So far as nav is concerned, I can't see Tesla not including nav in a Supercharger capable car; it's part of the Supercharger paradigm. Whether Supercharger access is standard on the base Model 3, or an extra cost option, remains to be seen.
- - - Updated - - -
I suppose that you are right, but research shows that it is the act of making a phone call that leads to distracted driving, similar to threshold DUI in accident rates. Not whether or not it is handheld. And texting is worse, as I hope is generally known. So, I'd like to see phone use while driving banned, not that it will ever happen. I do appreciate the drivers who pull over to the side of the road to make phone calls.�
May 26, 2015
RobStark Elon has mentioned the BMW 3 Series more than once as the target/benchmark. Sometimes he mentions Audi A4.
Of course Tesla wants everybody to buy it.
Tesla wants everybody to buy a Model S too.
The average new car selling price so far in May 2015 is $30,428.
http://autos.jdpower.com/content/blog-post/Uu631df/retail-auto-sales-in-may-shaping-up-to-be-highest-so-far-in-2015.htm
But the average American car buyer buys a used car and spends an average of ~$16k.
Almost every one thinks they are "normal" and what they can afford is "affordable."
But the fact is Tesla is targeting the top 30% in the industrialized countries and maybe the top 3% in China.
The bottom 50% will be able to "afford" a Tesla when they become 5-10 year old used cars.�
May 26, 2015
gregincal I'll just remind people that in the Secret Tesla Master Plan Elon talked about them building "an affordable car" that was going to be a "sporty 4 door family car". Was he talking about the Model 3? No, that was his description of the Model S. The Model 3 was described as "an even more affordable car".�
May 26, 2015
brianman Incorrect. That wasn't and isn't the intent.�
May 26, 2015
gregincal Yeah, as I quoted above it was just the affordable car, not the even more affordable car. The fact is that Tesla makes the cars they feel will be excellent and leaders in their price range. The Model 3 is not suddenly going to be a car that everyone will be able to afford, nor is it meant to be. It's just part of the evolution of pushing EVs into the mainstream. If I hear one more person say that a car that will start at 35K for a stripped down base model is going to be a car for the masses I might scream.�
May 26, 2015
vinnie97 It took Toyota about a decade to reach the masses with the Prius, IMO. Tesla unleashed the Roadster in 2008 and should be well underway with the 3 by 2018. Of course, Tesla is also a new company with not nearly as a diversified product line as Toyota, but Tesla could do a lot worse than hitting $35k by 2018 as far as long-range BEVs are concerned. I would also hope it wouldn't take yet another 5-10 years (a reference to the aforementioned CPO Model 3 remarks) to get a new 200+ mile model with Prius-level pricing.�
May 28, 2015
Red Sage God.
What planet are you people from...?
The Toyota Prius has sold over 100,000 units in the United States every year since 2005. The least it ever sold was a small amount over 20,000 units its first year of release in 2002. The next year it moved 24,000. By 2004 it had crossed 50,000 units for good.
Truthfully, any vehicle that exceeds 30,000 units per annum sold in the US is mass market. There are long established traditional automobile manufacturers for whom every vehicle they sell in the US barely crests a 30,000 unit total -- combined. Almost every passenger car in the top twenty-five for 2014 sold at least 100,000 units. And the BMW 3-series outsold the Prius in 2014.
So claiming that the Tesla Model ? will not be mass market because of its starting price is woefully inaccurate, considering the sales goal.
Damn.�
May 28, 2015
dsm363 No reason to be upset with people. If you disagree with them that's fine but can just lay out your argument.�
May 28, 2015
EVNow Depends on your definition of "mass market". To me mass market is between $20k and $30k in the US now. Largest selling sedans and small SUVs/CUVs are priced in this range.
Ofcourse, it makes little difference what someone thinks of "mass market". If Model 3 can sell in excess of 100k a year in the US, I'd consider it a great success - that will force all OEMs to get into EV market. It will be the proverbial tipping point - and that is all that matters.�
May 28, 2015
vinnie97 I'm from Planet Indigent due to some chronic health issues and poor decisions.�
May 28, 2015
Red Sage Mass market may conceivably be defined by either price point or units sold.
I prefer to go by units sold.
There are some cars that cost less than $20,000 or $30,000 to start, that sell less than 20,000 units per year. Just because a car is inexpensive doesn't mean it will sell in great numbers. The BMW 3-Series outsells numerous vehicles that cost less than it. Heck, so do the Camry and Accord.�
May 29, 2015
RobStark Bovine feces. Have they ever refused somebody's cash?
Ferrari driver Prius driver or 85 Plymouth Voyager driver. Everyone is welcomed at a Tesla store to buy a Model S.
Not everyone can afford a Model S. Not everyone will be able to afford a Model 3 either.
- - - Updated - - -
He described the Roadster as high priced low volume car.
The Model S as a mid priced medium volume car.
And Model 3 as a low priced high volume car.
People buying Versas,Fits, and similar will not think Model 3 is low priced nor affordable.
And neither VW nor Toyota will consider Model 3 high volume.
At least not before 2025. If Red's predictions of millions being sold prove correct then high volume.�
May 29, 2015
Red Sage Take a look at this list:
2014 Year End U.S. Passenger Car Sales Rankings - Top 157 Best-Selling Cars In America - Every Car Ranked - GOOD CAR BAD CAR
Since this is for passenger cars, no pickup trucks, or SUVs are listed. Some cars may or may not be considered CUVs, but are shown for reasons outlined in the notes below the chart.
As I mentioned before, 22 of the top 25 passenger cars sold at least 100,000 units in the US. The #26 car was the Chevrolet Camaro, with 86,297 vehicles sold during 2014. Some of the cars the Camaro outsold were:#27 Dodge Dart
#33 KIA Forte
#37 Ford Fiesta
#38 Ford Taurus
#39 Honda Fit
#44 Dodge Avenger
#54 KIA Rio
#58 Volkswagen Golf?
I would think that those cars qualify as 'mass market'. But the BMW 3-Series, which by virtue of its starting price does not qualify as 'mass market' for some here, sold 142,232 units and came in at #16 for 2014 US sales.
My point is that if the Fremont facility finishes 2017 with a 300,000 unit capacity... And 100,000 of that is reserved to be split between Model S and Model X production... That leaves 200,000 capacity to be used by Model ?. If production only reaches 70%, that means 140,000 units built during 2018. If 40% is delivered to US Customers that makes for 56,000 units sold.
That amount would have been enough to take the #40 spot during 2014 (moving the Chrysler 300 down a notch). I believe those are conservative numbers. I am certain that Tesla Motors will be more aggressive with US sales from the outset. So that would be a range of 60% to 80% of 2017-2018 production going to the US. Or 84,000 to 112,000 happy customers on these shores. And even that is a low ball figure, from my perspective.�
Jun 9, 2015
LargeHamCollider At shareholders meeting. "Base Model 3 will be single-motor" -Elon�
Jun 9, 2015
TEG Note "Base", so AWD as a premium Option...�
Jun 9, 2015
Fiver He quickly followed with "but we expect dual motor options to be available."�
Jun 9, 2015
RobStark He also said base will be RWD single motor.�
Jun 9, 2015
TEG (Edited thread title to reflect updated info from Tesla.)�
Jun 9, 2015
MartinAustin THIS.
The Model S competes with every other car right now. There was a survey on this forum a year or two ago that asked owners what car they had previously driven, and I think 3% of them said Honda Civic. (myself included) Many more were Prius owners as you can imagine, many were Audi & BMW owners, etc. etc.. The Model S, being the only product from Tesla right now, becomes the object of desire for anyone who wants a long-range, high performance BEV.
It's normal for a Prius owner to buy another Prius. It's normal for a Honda Civic owner to buy another Civic. Or perhaps, Elantra, Mazda 3, etc. etc..
The fact that, for some people, the Tesla Model S is so compelling that they will blow their previous budget out of the water and spend the money to get the Model S shows clearly that it not only competes with every other car on the market, but in some cases it can win.
Today's shareholder meeting graph that shows how it outsells all the current high-end sedans on the market... shouldn't be so surprising. That owners of much cheaper cars are moving to the Model S - should at least be thought-provoking.
Once the Model 3 comes out for $35,000 (with the Model X starting around $80,000), the way Tesla's product range competes with the rest of the market will bifurcate. Model S and X will compete with expensive cars only... Model 3 will compete with everything in its price range and below, including cheaper CUVs. Honda Civic owners et. al will, in all likelihood, no longer buy Model S... they'll buy Model 3.�
Jun 9, 2015
ecarfan
I was glad to hear Elon make this unequivocal statement...so you guys could stop arguing about it. ;-)
It makes sense to me to have the Model 3 base be single motor and have a dual motor option.�
Jun 9, 2015
Nomad Looks like I have to eat crow here. I was wrong about the Model 3 coming with dual motors by default.�
Jun 9, 2015
electracity Really no reason to do a dual motor on the entry level car. That choice would just make it difficult to justify a premium model 3. Now they will be like the BMW 3 series. Going from a basic car to a high performer. Except that Tesla will beat BMW in performance at every price point. The Tesla line will go from $35K to $135K, hitting every price point. A nice strategy.�
Jun 9, 2015
nwdiver Elon also said that there would be a 40kWh Model S :wink:
If the AWD 3 is only a ~$1k premium over RWD once the fact a smaller battery equals same range is taken into account... if the RWD 3 has the same sales issue the 40 did then it could suffer the same fate.
Tesla certainly has a track record of chopping unpopular options for the sake of streamlining production. Time will tell. I'm still betting that Tesla will be like Subaru in ~5 years... AWD only. I DO believe a RWD 3 will be offered... I don't expect it to last...�
Jun 10, 2015
MartinAustin That's still a fair point. They did make some 40KWh cars and they're out in the wild, but not many, and Tesla discontinued it after a short while. Perhaps that will happen to the RWD stripper car!
It depends on the product mix as selected by the public. My guess is... the 40KWh Model S was regarded as the bottom of the range variant of a very experimental car from a relatively unknown brand in 2012. As a result the By next year when it is revealed, the Model 3 will not be regarded as an experimental car from an unknown brand - by any stretch of the imagination. In fact there are legions of people who have already made their minds up that the Model 3 is what they want next. There's a great possibility that the base model will be ordered just as commonly as the higher-up variants.�
Jun 10, 2015
MassModel3 I think a big part of what people will be buying is going to heavily depend on what is offered when. If Tesla comes out with only a RWD up front, but they plan on releasing the AWD within the following 6 months, people will be torn between getting their dream car (the Model 3) as soon as possible, waiting for the dual motor version, and hoping the tax credit doesn't run out for Tesla before the AWD variants are available. If there's any chance the tax credit might run out, waiting for a premium and AWD version could mean not only the price difference Tesla charges, but also another $7,500.
I can guarantee I'll be watching sales numbers carefully, but there will be variables that will be difficult to quantify, like the time to build and how many other potential Model 3 buyers are waiting as long as possible for the most advanced version that will still qualify for the federal tax credit.�
Jun 10, 2015
ecarfan And Tesla did offer the S40 as the base car in 2013 but there were so few buyers that Tesla discontinued it.
I believe that the base Model 3 will definitely be RWD but the AWD version will outsell it by a wide margin because it will only be about $3,000 more. However for many prospective buyers in that market segment that is a significant difference.
In the Model S market segment, a $3,000 price difference is much less of an issue because it is a much smaller percentage of the total vehicle cost.�
Jun 10, 2015
MorrisonHiker Why would they have RWD in the front? j/k :wink:�
Jun 10, 2015
Twiglett Sorry, I missed how the AWD would only be 3K uptick rather than the 5K difference on the Model S�
Jun 10, 2015
ecarfan You're right, I was just guessing about the Model 3 RWD/AWD price difference. Certainly could be $5K and not $3K. Which would be even more reason to offer the base 3 as RWD.�
Jun 10, 2015
vinnie97 Can someone make a quick itemization of the benefits of AWD versus RWD? Better handling especially in snowing conditions? I doubt anyone will go offroading in their Model 3 after all.�
Jun 10, 2015
dsm363 Better traction in snow or slick conditions is a likely benefit.�
Jun 10, 2015
Kevin Harney Better traction for better power delivery to the road and faster 0-60 times. ie performance version�
Jun 10, 2015
MorrisonHiker I believe AWD is also supposed to be more efficient (with a longer range) as the motors can be 'geared' differently. The AWD S85D is rated at 270 miles whereas the RWD S85 is only rated at 265 miles. Do a search on torque sleep and you'll probably find a few threads discussing it.�
Jun 10, 2015
vinnie97 Thanks everyone. I suppose each buyer will have to quantify the need for this enhancement, as it seems to improve two crucial areas (traction and range, albeit minimally based on the Model S range differences).�
Jun 10, 2015
gregincal The option with more range is the AWD option. That's would be the main benefit as far as I am concerned.
(sorry, I didn't see you had already replied. I'll see whether I'd get the RWD or the AWD, but I'm not convinced the AWD will be such a dominant seller over RWD as other people seem to.)�
Jun 10, 2015
JRP3 Pretty much as expected.�
Jun 10, 2015
BFCobra Here is a good argument for the AWD (its a little long, but not if your a car person - but I used to work at Laguna so I could be bias):
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=utube+918+vs+mclaren+laguna+seca&FORM=VIRE7#view=detail&mid=FC5AA5E93C2DB9158F00FC5AA5E93C2DB9158F00
The P85D drives flatter in both acceleration and deceleration than the P85+. The chassis, and thus tires grip is improved, less upset with a front end that pulls and well as a rear end that pushes.�
Jun 10, 2015
brianman +1
We really should focus on other obsessions like what colors will be offered.�
Jun 10, 2015
Red Sage Pretty much as I expected, but I still hope for dual motor AWD to play a fundamental role in a he Model ? product line.
On the first page of this discussion, I wrote:
I stand by that assessment. I certainly understand why a RWD version of Tesla Model ? will be offered. I don't believe it is necessary though, beyond showing off frunk space.�
Jun 10, 2015
wallet.dat Of course the Model E will be RWD. It will have to be if it has any hope of competing with the BMW 3-series.�
Jun 10, 2015
brianman Talk to a buyer of a Model S 40 kWh vehicle. Price matters.�
Jun 10, 2015
aronth5 Simple really. Elon has publically announced $35k as the price for the base model. A Single motor RWD costs less.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét