Thứ Năm, 26 tháng 1, 2017

Pricing of options, I hope the Model 3 is reasonable. part 1

  • Mar 26, 2016
    timk225
    I'm curious to find out what options will be available on the Model 3, aside from the obvious ones like bigger batteries, The D, autopilot, etc.

    I'm mainly thinking of the smaller things, like paint and wheel choices, and interior options.

    I have my "My Tesla" page activated so I can spec out a Model S, and when I play around with the options, I have to question the pricing a little bit.

    For example, paint. The black and white solid colors are free, but any metallic is $1000 or more. I am hoping the Model 3 comes with more choices in the low cost solid colors, like blue and orange and green and yellow, not just black and white. If people want metallic versions of the colors that is up to them.

    Then the wheels and tires. The base 19" wheel and tire looks fine, but the optional 19" is $2500. $2500 FOR WHAT?!?!?! A slightly different pattern wheel? Then the 21 inch wheels and tires. I know bigger tires are more expensive, but $4,500 ? And they aren't even all season tires!

    Now for the interior. I never cared about leather so the base seats that look like some sort of cloth (is it?) will be fine with me. The leather seats have lighter colors that will brighten up the interior, but for $2500, I will survive with the standard seats.

    And then my biggest gripe, the interior D�cor choices. A piece of plastic trim on the center console, a piece going across the dashboard, and the surroundings of the instrument panel. You get the base black one for free, but having a pattern molded into it is $750 to $1000 for the one that looks like carbon fiber? Nah. I think I can go to the local auto parts store and get a roll of woodgrain tape and stick it on and have the same net effect for $5.99 .

    I don't mind paying for options, but let the price fit the actual item being installed.
    �
  • Mar 26, 2016
    Two9A
    A post in the main 3 forum stated a hope that the options will scale with the base cost: so if AP on a model S is $2500, AP on a 3 should be $1000 or $1250. That maintains the cost of the options as a percentage of the base, while making everything cheaper.

    I know I'd be hard pressed to justify some of the more crazily priced options on a 3, if they remain at the price of the equivalent S option.
    �
  • Mar 26, 2016
    marymcc
    Do they really charge extra for different colors????
    �
  • Mar 26, 2016
    Model 3
    What they will do for the Model 3 is yet unknown. But in the meantime we can use what they do today on the Model S as a hint on what they will do:

    No, they do not charge extra for different colors, but they do only offer it in solid black or solid white with the normal standard plain paint. They do charge extra for metallic paint (where the most of the colors is), and yet more for the multi-coat paint.

    Maybe they will offer more solid colors on the Model 3? Maybe with or without taking any extra charge for that....
    �
  • Mar 26, 2016
    S'toon
    This is not unusual. Every auto manufacturer I've seen has some standard colours for no charge, but charge extra for the nice colours.
    �
  • Mar 28, 2016
    ummgood
    This isn't every auto manufacturer. This is German companies mostly. The BMW 3 series has black and white standard like Tesla and charges $550 to upgrade to metalic to get colors. Most mainstream cars might have 1 or 2 special colors that cost more but most are included in the base price. Think Honda, Acura, Toyota. Even the Lexus IS has most of the colors included in the base price. I think it depends on whom Tesla is planning on competing with in this car. I think less people will tolerate at this price point having to pay for any color other than black or white.

    Personally I'll never have a white car because I washed fleet cars at a ford dealership when I was a teen and I hated it. I know it is a really silly reason not to want a white car but it is what it is. Black is too hot in Texas for me so I'll be paying if I have to to get silver or something else.
    �
  • Mar 28, 2016
    Two9A
    I can verify that manufacturers will charge for different colours: my Hyundai was purchased new and was only available in red. Every other colour offered (five of them, if I recall) was an extra �500 above base.

    Given that I bought this car at the base configuration, I think I'll be fairly happy with the base 3. Heck, I may get electric rear windows this time.
    �
  • Mar 28, 2016
    WarpedOne
    This is easy way of increasing average price of sold cars i.e margin.
    My bet is only a few colors at base price, with additional few at 'healthy' price.
    �
  • Mar 28, 2016
    timk225
    Well I'll show them, I will order my car without ANY paint and ask for a discount below the base asking price! :cool:

    I would NEVER own another black car because it makes it too hot, and black paint shows every little nick and dent and ding and speck of dust. It the body is not absolutely perfect, black will call attention to it like a strobe light! And since I won't pay extra for metallic paint, looks like it'll be a white Model 3 for me, unless other solid paint colors are available.
    �
  • Mar 29, 2016
    ummgood
    There is a balance to play when having too many options and the cost of manufacturing. I don't think Tesla will be going with the Honda model yet but as they try to make the price lower there is some benefit from having 3 or 4 available trim levels and having fixed features per trim level. I doubt that is the way Tesla will go but it works really well for Honda and now on the new Maxima Nissan is doing the same.
    �
  • Mar 29, 2016
    tga
    It works for Honda and Nissan because they generally don't build cars to order, cars are pushed through to dealer inventory, and there is a long lead time (ie, boat trip). So simplifying the customer's choices makes it easier to find one on this side of the pond that matches, since there are limited choices to begin with (also why lots of options are "dealer installed").

    I'm pretty sure for the Japanese manufacturers, it's about ease of selling, not manufacturing.
    �
  • Mar 30, 2016
    MrBoylan
    The Model 3 will be smaller and much less expensive than an S or X. This means lower materials costs than comparable options on the S or X. I think all of the option pricing will be at least 20% or 25% lower on the Model 3 than on an S/X. Smaller motors should allow them to charge less than $5K for the AWD/dual motor upgrade (it's $5K on an S). And smaller wheels (which the Model 3 should have, given its smaller size) should allow for lower cost upgraded wheels. Maybe the Model 3 will have 17" wheels standard and 19" wheels as an upgrade option?

    The same goes for paint: a smaller body means lower materials cost and a bit less time required to apply it. I expect that the upgraded (metallic) paint choices will be under $1000 on the Model 3, maybe $750? Multi-coat specialty paint may be $1000 or more (it's $1500 on the S and X). And something similar for the interior options. The materials cost is lower, so the option price should also be lower. Also, battery costs should be substantially lower by the time the Model 3 is being built so a 20 kWH battery upgrade (e.g., from 60 to 80) should be less than the $13K they currently charge to bump the S or the X up from 70 to 90 kWh.

    Regardless of the actual cost savings in materials, there's also the perception that the options should be cheaper. I think Tesla has to charge less for options because it's a much lower base price. A $5,000 option on a $35,000 car seems like a lot more money than a $5,000 option on an $80,000 car. For this reason I expect that the "P" performance upgrade will be less than $20K if offered (I think it will be offered for $15K or less). Cold weather package, upgraded audio system, interior accents will all probably be a bit cheaper than on the larger cars.

    The only exceptions I can foresee may be SuperCharger access (free on the Model S) which may be a paid option on the Model 3 (though it may be included on the larger battery pack version) and AutoPilot. AutoPilot is a game-changer, and so superior to the competition. And the feature should be substantially the same on an S or an X. So I'm guessing that they will charge the same for AutoPilot across the board on Model 3, S and X. I could be wrong though.

    But don't think those details will be revealed tomorrow. On the Model X, we didn't know the details on options pricing until November 2015, nearly four years after the initial prototype was unveiled and two months after Tesla had already started delivering Founders cars. I expect the options pricing will probably not be announced/finalized for the Model 3 until late next year.

    But if you're interested in the performance version, upgraded audio, larger battery, autopilot, supercharger access, etc., definitely leave more (potentially a lot more) room in your budget than $35,000.
    �
  • Mar 31, 2016
    X Fan
    Hope I am pleasantly surprised but I don't expect to see detailed pricing tonight, just the vehicle and a generalized statement on pricing.
    �
  • Mar 31, 2016
    Zaphod
    The wood and carbon fiber trim are real in the S and X, not fake.
    �
  • Apr 4, 2016
    MP3Mike
    Here is my guess at available options and pricing:
    Base $ 35,000.00
    Supercharging $ 1,500.00
    Paint $ 1,000.00
    Larger battery $ 7,500.00
    AWD $ 4,000.00
    Wheels $ 2,500.00
    Auto-Pilot $ 2,500.00
    Leather Seats $ 2,000.00
    Premium Interior $ 2,500.00
    Panoramic Roof $ 1,500.00
    Fancy trim (Carbon fiber) $ 750.00
    HiFi $ 2,000.00
    Sub-Zero $ 1,000.00
    Peformance $ 10,000.00
    Ludicrous $ 5,000.00
    High amp charger $ 1,000.00
    Towing option $ 750.00
    Smart Air Suspension $ 2,500.00
    Carbon Fiber Spoiler $ 1,000.00
    Grand total: $84,000.00 (pre tax and delivery fees)
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    juanmedina
    ^ I hope you are incorrect :)
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    MrBoylan
    Seems like a reasonable guess to me. My speculation for a fully loaded Model 3 wasn't far off ($86500) but I didn't include the panoramic roof option as the Model 3 hadn't been shown when I made my guess. With Elon Tweeting that he thinks the average price will be around $42K, I'm thinking that they may not offer all the options that are in the S and X (like maybe Ludicrous mode?) or if they do, those options may be substantially cheaper than on the S and X. I do still think a fully loaded Model 3 will be over $75K though.
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    MP3Mike
    I guess that the performance and ludicrous options would only cost 50% of what the Model S costs... Same with the larger battery. So it could easily go higher than $84k. (But I don't suspect most people will be checking all the boxes.)
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    ABCCBA
    I am budgeting $70,000 for a fully loaded M3 DPP (Dual, Performance, Plaid)
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    MP3Mike
    So how would you take my option list and adjust it down to drop $12,500?

    Base $ 35,000.00
    Paint $ 1,000.00
    Larger battery $ 7,500.00
    Supercharging $ (included with larger battery)
    AWD $ 4,000.00
    Wheels $ 2,500.00
    Auto-Pilot $ 2,500.00
    Leather Seats $ 2,000.00
    Premium Interior $ 2,500.00
    Panoramic Roof $ 1,500.00
    Fancy trim (Carbon fiber) $ 750.00
    HiFi $ 2,000.00
    Sub-Zero $ 1,000.00
    Peformance $ 10,000.00
    Ludicrous $ 5,000.00
    High amp charger $ 1,000.00
    Towing option $ 750.00
    Smart Air Suspension $ 2,500.00
    Carbon Fiber Spoiler $ 1,000.00
    Grand total: $82,500.00 (pre tax and delivery fees)
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    Robbit
    Fully loaded P90DL is roughly double a 70. I can't see a fully loaded Model 3 running over $80k.
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    MP3Mike
    Can you show your work on that? ;) (You can start with my option list in this post.)

    A fully loaded P90DL costs roughly 206% of a stripped 70.

    Given the lower starting price for the Model 3 I expect that options can easily cost more than the base car.
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    ABCCBA
    Just a guess:

    Base $ 35,000.00
    Paint $ 750.00
    Larger battery $ 5,000.00
    Supercharging $ (included with larger battery)
    AWD Incl in Performance
    Wheels $ 2,000.00
    Auto-Pilot $ 1,500.00
    Leather Seats $ 2,000.00
    Premium Interior $ 2,500.00
    Panoramic Roof Already All Glass Roof
    Fancy trim (Carbon fiber) Incl with Premium Interior
    HiFi $ 1,500.00
    Sub-Zero $ 1,000.00
    Peformance $ 7,500.00
    Ludicrous $ 7,500.00
    High amp charger No Option
    Towing option $ 750.00
    Smart Air Suspension $ 2,000.00
    Carbon Fiber Spoiler $ 1,000.00
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    MP3Mike
    That puts you at $70,000... I can hope your guess is closer to reality than mine.

    I think you guys are nuts if you think the larger battery is going to cost less than $7,500. (It costs $13,000 for the Model S to go from a 70 to a 90.) So maybe it will only cost $6,500...

    Roof will have three options: metal, fixed glass, and opening panoramic... So the opening panoramic roof is going to cost more.
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    Big-T
    That's what scares me the most, I don't realy want the extra battery - it's likely the most expensive upgrade (short of performance) you can get, but I hear on the X and S getting the larger battery is what moved people to the front of production. If I have to get it to qualify for the $7,500 tax credit I will - but that'll eat up the entire credit!
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    MP3Mike
    So you will opt for the larger battery just to get the tax credit, that gets spent on the battery just to get it sooner? (I assume you could opt for the smaller battery and still get 50%, or at least 25%, of the tax credit towards the configuration you actually want just a number of months later.)

    They might do the Model 3 differently; who knows if they are battery cell constrained they might choose to ship the smaller battery, but highly optioned, cars first so that they can ship more of them while the Gigafactory gets up to full speed.

    I, also, doubt we will have enough details to know for 100% sure how to configure a car to get the full tax credit. (But we can hope that the limit is increased, or removed, before then so it becomes a non-issue.)
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    ABCCBA
    I don't think the tax credit will play much of a role for many Model 3 buyers.
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    MP3Mike
    Just the opposite, I suspect a lot of the reservation holders are counting on it.
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    ABCCBA
    My point being in two years the 200,000 will be allocated and the credit will be diminishing.

    Most people don't understand the credit anyway. So as they find out they either don't qualify for it or it is severely reduced, then a large number will cancel.
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    MP3Mike
    I see you are saying it won't matter to many of the people buying a Model 3, where as I am saying it will be a huge issue for most people that have already reserved a Model 3. (Many of which will probably not actually turn into a buyer because of the tax credit, or lack of it.)
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    MrBoylan
    I like your prices better than mine. :) I too think that SC access will be included in the larger battery, but if the battery upgrade is a 20kWh difference (e.g., 60 to 80) then I think they may have to charge more than $5K for that, even with cheaper Gigafactory batteries. As the other Mike points out, going from 70 to 90 today is a $13K upgrade on the Model S or X. I was thinking that on the 3 it would be in the $7500-$10000 range. If it's only a 15 kWH difference, then it may be cheaper.

    But the only thing I really think they will keep consistent across the line is AutoPilot. That's probably going to be exactly the same feature on the 3 as on the S or the X so I think they may charge the same amount for it on any car. Of course, in 2 years, we don't know exactly what that feature will be.

    "Tessie, I'm almost finished at work. Can you come and pick me up?"
    "Yes, master"
    :)
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    zambono
    I think you have a good grasp on what options might be priced at. I would even say HiFi will be cheaper at $1k . It's not even worth the $2500 in the S. Leather seats and premium might also be cheaper
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    Canuck
    I think options is where Tesla is looking to make a lot of their money on the Model 3. The lists provided here may end up being pretty accurate. I also bet that the first cars that roll off the line will be for people who fully load them, which is probably part of the reason why they have given Model S/X owners priority since we're much more likely to fully load ours than the general public, and I predict we will be followed by reservation holders who fully load and, once those are done, then the basic cars will be delivered. I can already see the long threads complaining about that but it only makes financial sense to do it that way, and if history is any example by looking what they did with the X, we shouldn't be surprised at all if that's what they do with the Model 3.
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    timk225
    I don't know how $6000-$7500 for the larger battery can be justified. It's not like you're buying the stock battery and getting ANOTHER bigger battery with it. You are just getting a battery that is 30% or so larger.

    Same metal case, mostly the same wiring inside, it just has a few extra packs of cells in there. Getting the larger battery should not cost more than $2500, tops.

    I want a base Model 3 with the big battery. That's all. No glass roof. No fancy paint or radio, no dual motors.
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    MrBoylan
    What are you basing this $2,500 figure on? Tesla currently charges $13,000 for a 20 kWH battery upgrade on the S and the X today (upgrading from a 70 to a 90). Do you really think they can chop $10,500 off that price in less than 2 years?

    It really depends how low they can get the cell/pack costs down before they begin manufacturing the Model 3 and how much profit they need in the upgraded battery option in order to make up for the low margin base model.

    AFAIK, Tesla doesn't reveal their cell or pack costs, but the estimates I've seen are that they're currently at somewhere between $200 and $250/kWh in current production. Someone please let me know if this is wrong as I only did some quick research on that. If that's right, then a 60 kWh battery costs Tesla $12,000 to $15,000 to manufacture and an 80 kWh pack would be $16,000 to $20,000. These numbers aren't much of a stretch considering the "list" price of an 85 kWh Model S battery in Tesla's parts list was $44,564 just two and a half years ago (see David Nolan's battery upgrade story for details on that).

    So a 20 kWh upgrade (at $200-$250/kWh pack prices) would cost Tesla $4,000 to $5,000. That's base cost. If Tesla were charging 50% mark-up on popular options (again, to compensate for a very low margin base model), then we'd be looking at $6,000 to $8,000 upgrade fee for a battery that is 20 kWh larger than the base model.

    If the pack costs are substantially lower than $200/kWh by late 2017, then it's possible they could shave that down a bit, but I don't think $2,500 for 20 kWh more battery is feasible in less than two years. The gigafactory will make packs cheaper, but not right away. The first deliveries are currently supposed to happen well before the Gigafactory ramps up to full scale production (which is expected to happen in 2020). And even when the gigafactory is fully operational (why can't I say that phrase without hearing Grand Moff Tarkin talking about the Death Star?), the most optimistic estimates I've seen are in the $130/kWh range for an assembled pack ($88/kWh for the raw cells).

    Can someone check/dispute my math?
    �
  • Apr 5, 2016
    MP3Mike
    Have you priced out buying ~80kWh of batteries to base your costs?

    And if the Model 3 is like the Model S when you upgrade to the larger battery you are forced to get AWD as well. (Which extends the range a little as well.)
    �
  • Apr 6, 2016
    timk225
    Okay, I'll math it out......

    A 60 KW base battery, which I am getting with the $35,000 price, costs $12,000 if we presume $200 per KW.

    A larger 80 KW battery at $200 per KW is $16,000.

    The difference is $4000. So my $35K car becomes $39K. Keep in mind there's already some profit margin in there from the original smaller battery pack.

    I don't mind letting Tesla have a reasonable profit, but nearly doubling it? I don't know about that.

    I guess it is pointless to debate these things until we know actual pack sizes and option prices.
    �
  • Apr 6, 2016
    davidc18
    Tesla will price the options as high as possible. Just like they do now.
    �
  • Apr 6, 2016
    Model 3
    Please be careful about what is pack-price and what is cell price. A few years ago the reported cell price into Tesla was at $180/kWh. Your estimated pack price seems to be about right with this cell price. But when we talk about the price of 20kWh more/less in the same pack, only the cell price is relevant.

    What the cell price into Tesla is now is unknown, but I think it is safe to say well under $100/kWh when the GF-I is in full production in 2020. When GM reviled that their cell price was $145/kWh last year Elon's response was that Tesla still had a better price (if he meant "by then" or "by the time the Bolt is released" is not known). My opinion is that the cell price into Tesla would be in the range of $100-$120/kWh. This will give a 20kWh upgrade a cost to Tesla of about $2000 - $2400 in 2017/18, and the rest is pure profit if no other options is included (like supercharger access...).


    While I do agree that $2500 is to low, I think $4-5000 is a reasonable price for this upgrade.


    At that time one battery-pack sold was one less car produced and sold. So I think they added most of the profit they would get from selling a car into this "list-price".
    �
  • Apr 6, 2016
    MrBoylan
    If the 60 kWh pack is identical to the 80 kWh pack except with some cells missing (like with dummy placeholder cells in there) then that would be true, but I'm not sure it's that simple. But I admit I don't know much about how a Tesla battery pack is made to be able to speak with any authority on this distinction.

    Are the battery pack's thermal management system (radiators, fans, heat exchangers, glycol tubing, etc.) and charge management system of the Model S 70 kWh identical to that on the 90 kWh model? I would think that they'd have different specs (and potentially different components) to accommodate for different operating temperatures of the different sized packs.

    But again, a little out of my depth here...
    �
  • Apr 6, 2016
    MP3Mike
    I don't think it would make any sense to do that. The cost of having multiple different parts would outweigh the savings from any of them being smaller. (And then would make an upgrade years later a non-starter.)

    The cooling system has both passive and active modes. So it might be able to stay passive more on a 70 than on a 90.
    �
  • Apr 6, 2016
    hoang51
    For the many who reserved in store rather than online, it should be, as I'm one of them (hopeful for the full tax credit, if not at least some of it).
    �
  • Apr 6, 2016
    vinnie97
    Is there any further speculation on the biggest battery being offered? 80 or 90 kWh? I'm really hoping for at least a 300-mile range with a battery upgrade cost of no more than $5k.
    �
  • Apr 6, 2016
    TaoJones
    It would appear that the first 50,000 *or so* M3 buyers will get the full federal tax credit.

    Rationale as follows:

    US-centric production estimates - ~40K so far, another ~50K this year and ~75K next gets us to 165K before the first M3 is produced in late December 2017.

    Then there's the wiggle room provided by the verbiage of the provision itself. The 'or so' above could mean 75,000 M3 buyers get the full credit depending upon how Elon wants to reward current MS/X owners. And then it's a matter of cranking out as many as possible in the 2 quarters subsequent to the full quarter after the quarter in which the threshold is reached (got all that? :) Who comes up with this stuff - ah - committees - naturally) - all of whose buyers will get half the federal tax credit. I forget what happens thereafter.

    So net net, I believe that everybody who signed up from the US within the first 24 hours is going to get something - and even during the day after. After that, well, all bets are off :).

    And that, folks, is why I drove from LA County to Palm Desert to sign up, and was done at 10:07am. California owner or not, I just wanted to remove all doubt - besides which, my GRV (guaranteed resale value) option triggers in early 2018 - figuring after the employees get the first 1000 cars or so, that timing should work well. If I do keep the car that long, which is by no means certain given the anemic nature of the ESA for 50,001-100,000 miles (am at 40,000 miles after 15 months now), it would make sense to transition at that point. Selling privately is of course the best option, but having the GRV as a floor can't hurt.

    Now watch Elon surprise everyone and deliver the car mid-2017. Ack!
    �
  • Apr 6, 2016
    ABCCBA
    Shown below is a production estimate, from a publication this morning, for YE2016 which shows 187,000 to 197,000 total Tesla vehicles by year end. That leaves just 13,000 going into 2017. Tesla is selling around 14,000 Model S per quarter, so the 200,000 would be reached by Q1 17, nine months before the thought of any M3s being delivered.

    productionchart.jpg
    �
  • Apr 6, 2016
    TaoJones
    That's great info. However, only US production counts against the cap, after which there is still a time buffer.
    �
  • Apr 6, 2016
    juanmedina
    Is that global sales or US sales? ^
    �
  • Apr 6, 2016
    MP3Mike
    I suspect that will be very unlikely. If the battery upgrade is only 50% of what the upgrade cost for the Model S it would be $7,500. And then on the Model S the AWD option is required when getting the larger battery, which for the Model 3 might add another $4k.

    So a safe guess might be that the "long range" option package costs $10,000 to add both the larger battery and AWD. (Since AWD increases your range as well.)
    �
  • Apr 6, 2016
    vinnie97
    Rough since range difference between AWD and RWD is not that significant (and I don't live in a snowy region). What is the purpose of the dual motor (D) option? High performance?
    �
  • Apr 6, 2016
    TaoJones
    The chart reflects global sales.

    The US federal tax credit is concerned only with units produced for the US market. In round numbers, between 40%-60% of total production in other words.

    It won't take much, relatively speaking, in the most likely of scenarios, for Tesla to secure an additional 1-2 quarter s of full tax credit-eligible units before the clock starts toward half-credits and ultimately to a complete phaseout.

    Places such as Colorado ($6,000) and the San Joaquin Valley (CA, with $5,500 available) will look pretty good once that tax credit goes away.

    Meanwhile, it stands to reason that more people will order fully-loaded cars as long as any tax credit or rebate is around.

    Whatever it takes to get more people to click or tap "Commit" is a Good Thing.

    Better handling in general. "On rails" is the phrase I most often hear from D owners. Are not required to carry chains, either, at least in most places if not all.
    �
  • Apr 6, 2016
    MP3Mike
    Better handling, higher performance, longer range, more even tire wear/less tire rotations required (regen both front and back), and some redundancy (with certain failures you could still drive with one motor failed).

    I know only ~4%, or 10 miles more on the base Model S 70. But hey 10 miles could be the difference between making it and not making it.
    �
  • Apr 7, 2016
    Model 3
    I can't clam to know for sure, but I think I remember reading here on TMC that this is exactly what they did to the TMS60 battery pack - putting in dummy placeholder cells. So I think it is reasonable to expect something like that on the TM3 also. And what ever they do, the pricing of a 60kWh pack and a 80kWh pack - excluding the cells - should be about the same if not exact the same.

    I do not have any inside information, but there was a report on someone (you even linked to it in you previously post) replacing the 60kWh battery with a 85kWh pack on a Model S. I can't remember that there was any talk about any change to the thermal management system or anything on the car, just replace the battery and a software update to get the 85 performance. But the report could be uncomplet?
    �
  • Apr 7, 2016
    AZ Desert Driver
    Can anyone help me compare AWD from RWD? I own a 4wd truck for offload traction purposes, and can't see taking a tesla on such roads. So - what is the advantage? It costs trunk space and two motors costs more than one - but to what advantage? Gotta be some.
    �
  • Apr 7, 2016
    ABCCBA
    AWD in both EVs and ICE vehicles is not the same as 4x4. AWD in modern luxury and performance vehicles is used to more evenly distribute the power to the wheels that are needed and improve traction during acceleration. It can help in rain or snow. No additional space is taken up in the Tesla vehicles for the second motor, as they have now designed the vehicles with that allocated area with or without the motor.

    Finally, in the Tesla BEV, the dual motors give you slightly better range as the power is distributed to each individual wheel as needed, thus a slightly smaller amount of energy is needed.

    Hope that helps.
    �
  • Apr 7, 2016
    MP3Mike
    I posted this just a few posts up, but here it is again:
    Better handling, higher performance, longer range, more even tire wear/fewer tire rotations required (regen both front and back), and some redundancy (with certain failures you could still drive with one motor failed).
    �
  • Apr 7, 2016
    AZ Desert Driver
    You sound like a well informed (insider?) to know how the trunk is used. You just helped me choose AWD over RWD in my option ordering. Thanks for the help.
    �
  • Apr 7, 2016
    AZ Desert Driver
    Yes you did. I failed to read the entire sequence of posts before my question. Thanks for being kind in your response.
    �
  • Apr 7, 2016
    ABCCBA
    Yeah, I make my living through commissions by providing answers to questions on internet blogs. lol
    �
  • Apr 7, 2016
    MrBoylan
    As others have pointed out, those are global numbers (and estimates), when it's only US sales that matter as far as the US tax credit is concerned. I believe the actual delivered number of Teslas in the US as of March 31st is somewhere between 60K and 70K cars - there are probably web sites out there with closer estimates. Most estimates based on current projections put the 200K-in-the-US dates somewhere in Q2 or Q3 of 2018, by which time Model 3 production should be pretty brisk (if all goes well). And again, depending on the exact day car #200K is delivered in the US, we'll have anywhere from 3 months and a day to 6 full months where all the Teslas delivered in that time period still qualify for the full $7,500 (the full quarter when the 200K deliver occurs plus the full quarter following that). So that should take us into 2019. Then for the next two quarters the credit is $3,750, the next two quarters $1875. So anyone who takes delivery of a Tesla in 2019 is *likely* to qualify for at least a partial Federal tax credit.

    But I'm sure many of the people who are counting on the tax credit (or at least hoping for it), don't realize how it works. If you don't have an income tax liability of at least $7500 in the year you purchase the car, you won't get the full amount. By "tax liability" I mean the Federal income tax you would have paid that year, after all deductions. There are estimates floating around, but I believe single individuals who make about $70K/year or above (with standard deductions) should be able to get the full credit or close to it.

    But again, that really varies depending on your specific deductions. I'd say the best way to see if you qualify is look at your 1040 or 1040EZ form for 2015 and see if you paid at least $7500 in Federal Income tax. If you did and you expect your income and other deductions in 2018 or 2019 to be similar, then you should qualify for the full amount (assuming the credit is still available for Teslas at the time of delivery).

    There are still a lot of unknowns, but it's certainly possible that over 300,000 or even over 400,000 Teslas (many of them Model 3s) could qualify for at least a partial credit. It really depends on continued demand for the Model S and X and how quickly Tesla can ramp up production of the Model 3.
    �
  • Apr 7, 2016
    ohmman
    It'll be interesting also to see what happens with S/X sales as the tax credit phase-out begins. I'm guessing for some buyers, they'll start ordering an S or X in order to take advantage of the credit, considering the waitlist on the 3. Granted, there are other economic decisions to be made with the vehicle - the S still has to represent a significant upside to the 3 for anyone to want to do this. But I think it's a piece of the credit puzzle that a lot of people are forgetting about.
    �
  • Apr 7, 2016
    MrBoylan
    The "I want one now" factor may offset the Osborne effect: people not buying the S or X because the 3 is right around the corner. Though Osborne effect may be the wrong term. The Model 3 isn't "better;" it's just smaller and less expensive.
    �
  • Apr 8, 2016
    ttupper92618
    In regards to battery costs, it really should be noted that the timing of Model 3 launch is concomitant with the timing for Gigafactory 1 to be well into production. The speculation is that Gigafactory will reduce battery costs by at least 50%. Therefore, all of the guestimations here based upon current battery pricing and cost are rather moot.
    �
  • Apr 9, 2016
    weak_pig
    D
    Does this mean if there are unexpected delays with the opening of gigafactory, it would greatly delay of model 3 production?
    �
  • Apr 10, 2016
    Model 3
    What Tesla has said is that the Gigafactory will reduce battery cost by at least 30%. Hopefully up to 50% at full production in 2020. As for my own posts in this thread this is taking into account.

    ... But then, 30-50% reduction from what? From what the cell price was when they started planing for the GF-I? (And that is the only price we do sort-of know ("have a reason to believe") anything about - $180/kWh.) Or from what it would be in 2017 without the GF-I? Or from what it would be in 2020 without the GF-I? From what they will pay Panasonic for the cells that is not produced at the GF-I? Or is it the pack-price not cell-price?

    It is just to may variables here to be sure of anything... But the numbers I have presented here is what I consider to be sober and probable assumptions based on what we know and what is suggested from Tesla.

    I think it is safe to assume that yes. Or at least it will slow down the ramp up of the Model 3 production.
    �
  • Apr 11, 2016
    Tiberius
    Elon sent out a tweet last week saying they expect the average optioned to cost $42k. Based on this I'd expect a highly specced model to be around $50k.

    It's competing with the BMW m3... how much does a highly optioned version of that car cost?
    �
  • Apr 11, 2016
    Tiberius
    He just sent out another saying that they "are adding more cowbell soon"
    �
  • Apr 11, 2016
    MP3Mike
    Keep dreaming. :) (Those low end $35k stripper versions bring the average down quick.)
    �
  • Apr 11, 2016
    MrBoylan
    A highly optioned BMW 3 series goes for around $70K. A highly optioned BMW M3 is around $90K I believe. You can play around with the configurator on the BMW web site and see.
    �
  • Apr 12, 2016
    davidc18
    Based on S/X option pricing, I would expect the 3 option pricing to be the same. Tesla needs to make money and the options do just that.
    �
  • Apr 12, 2016
    diamond.g
    Elon has already said that the AWD option won't be 5k, though he didn't say how much cheaper it will be...
    �
  • Apr 12, 2016
    Seesaw
    Who else is not wanting the AWD option (at this stage)? I think I would rather the frunk space, lower cost, and less weight
    �
  • Apr 12, 2016
    diamond.g
    The question really should be are they going to allow RWD for the larger battery option. They did for the S for a while but stopped. If you look at the S at first glance it appears it is only offered with AWD....
    �
  • Apr 12, 2016
    MP3Mike
    What makes you think that they will make two frunk designs? They may just use the same one for both AWD and RWD to save money/time. (This is supposed to be a more inexpensive car after all.)
    �
  • Apr 13, 2016
    vinnie97
    This effectively raises the price of the biggest battery option. I shudder to think. :eek:
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    miggz410
    Just ordered a MS60 a week ago and will hang on to reservation... We will probably go with the same similar options. Hoping buying a MS moves us up the reservation list =)....

    Base $ 35,000.00
    Paint: Factory (Solid White)
    Interior: Factory (Standard w/ black headliner)
    Larger battery: depending with price (Will settle for the lowest if over 200 miles)
    Supercharging $1500
    Auto-Pilot $ 2,500
    Panoramic Retractable Roof: $1500
    Smart Air Suspension $ 2,000
    Premium Package: $2500

    Total = $45,000 +Tax +RegFees +Delivery = $50k-$51k otd...

    Couple of things that might change my price... Depending on wheels and battery prices.

    [?IMG]
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    davidc18
    Look at the option pricing on the MS/MX and you will know what the option pricing on the 3 will be. If you are expecting "discounted" pricing on 3 options I believe you will be very disappointed.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    diamond.g
    We know, per Elon, that Dual Motor will be cheaper than the 5k they charge for the MX/MS. So the others could be less expensive as well, though by how much is anyones guess.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    miggz410
    I doubt options like auto-pilot, supercharger, air suspension, leather seats, and panoramic roof will be discounted... I think a lot of people will be surprised or disappointed if they think that the Model 3 will have the same battery options as the Model S. I wont be surprised if they re-introduce 40kwh or something close like a 45-50kwh as the base battery for the Model 3. With the option to upgrade to a 60kwh and 75kwh.. With the option to choose D for an extra cost.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    ummgood
    I agree with most of what you are saying but one thing to consider is there is now a cost savings for mass production. Seats cost a lot less if you buy 200,000 interiors worth a year instead of 40,000. If they pass that on to the consumer is anyone's guess. Personally for me if the options stay at the current pricing levels it will definitely make me second guess buying the car.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    miggz410
    Only way I see them dropping the price is if they used cheaper materials or parts for the model 3... If they used the same material for seats and interior as the model S, then that would drop the price of the Model S options also. I dont think it will really matter at the end.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    ummgood
    Agreed but not exactly. The cost of the seat is material plus assembly cost. (stitching leather, etc...) Even if Tesla got reduced cost on the leather it doesn't necessarily translate to less cost for the Model S. You still are making less seats for that car so yes the leather cost goes down but the cost to manufacturer the seat does not. That adds to their profit. Now since the Model 3 is targeting a more budget concerned consumer it would make sense to pass on some of the savings of mass production to the purchaser.

    BMW can charge way more for a leather upgrade in a 7 series than they get away with in the 3 series for the same reasons. Same with Audi group being able to charge more for options on a Porsche Macan vs a Audi Q5.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    davidc18
    Time will tell who is closer to being correct.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Model 3
    I would be very surprised if they could get the minimum 215 miles EPA range from a 40kWh battery. I would also be surprised if they manage to do it with a 50kWh, but not so much. And as we know it is less then 60kWh my "bet" is on 55kWh base battery.

    But yes, I do believe that they will be offering a bigger battery option, but not sure how much bigger.

    Looks like I'm going to be very disappointed then... My guess is that most option on the Model 3 will be 50-75% of the price of the same option on the Model S. This is based on cost savings for mass production as @ummgood says, and a lower margin on the options for a lower margin car. It just makes sense. And some options will use less material (example paint ) on a smaller car, so it just makes sense it also cost less.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    miggz410
    Did Elon promised a 200 miles minimum or said the car will have a 200 miles option on it?... If so I do see them introducing a 50-55kwh battery with 200 miles on it.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    ummgood
    He stated a 215 mile minimum target and they hope to achieve more.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    miggz410
    Wow... MS right now have the 60kwh at 210 miles minimum... I guess they will probably change that in the future. It will be hard to swallow that extra $30k on getting a model S in the future. Unless you just want a bigger car, specially if you can get the same options for the M3 for cheaper. I assume they improve the Model S also to keep buyers interested in that.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    ummgood
    I think part of the deal is the prestige of owning a larger more expensive car. I think they will lose some sales to the Model 3 because I know several Model S owners that stretched to buy their car because it was a compelling electric car. They all have lower trim models. I know guys that were driving VW Tourags or Subaru Outbacks that upgraded to an S just because it is so cool and we are engineers. I think those type of sales will go to the model 3.

    At the same time I live very close to a very exclusive part of Austin (I can't afford it but the people who live there go to the same grocery store as I do). When I go to the store or shopping I see that there are a ton of Model S sedans driving around. It is not uncommon for me to see 4 or 5 model S at my local grocery store at a time all the expensive performance trim. Those drivers used to be in Range Rover Sports. I have seen a dramatic drop in Range Rovers because of the Model S coming out (I know it sounds funny). I think that kind of buyer doesn't care that the Model 3 has the same range or has a hatchback or has options that cost more than the Model 3. I think those type of buyers are not interested in the immeasurable aspects of a large expensive car like a Panamera or a Range Rover. If they were buying on value alone they wouldn't be driving a Range Rover. The only value a Range Rover provides which is decent off road capability isn't even being used when going to Yoga or to the juice bar.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Model 3
    All the way, as long as the Gen-III car has been mentioned from Elon/Tesla it was "minimum 200 miles real world range" - translate to "EPA miles or better". At the unveil event earlier this year Elon said - as @ummgood correctly told you - that it would be a minimum range 215 EPA miles, and they hope to get it better then that. (My guess is that they know it will be better, but that they will not confirm anymore before the Bolt/Ampera-e starts deliveries.)

    Later a spokesperson from Tesla confirmed that the base model battery (with >= 215 EPA miles) will be less then 60kWh - but not how much less. Later still someone from Tesla confirmed that they expect the average battery for Model 3 to be less then 75kWh (or was it 70kWh?), and thereby hinting that it will indeed be - as we all expect - an upgraded battery option above the < 60kWh base battery. And that it is reasonable to believe that the upgraded battery option will be <= 70/75kWh.
    �
  • Jul 4, 2016
    Fourdoor
    I just read this whole thread, interesting that the speculation on battery upgrade costs was based on the old Model S upgrade from 70kWh to 85kWh costing $13,000. This is already blown out of the water with the new S-60 coming from the factory with a 75kWh battery that is software limited to 60kWh with the software limit removal costing $8,500 if done at time of purchase and $9,000 if done at a later date and the physical upgrade during assembly from the 75kWh battery to the 90kWh battery costing $10,000

    Producing one battery pack with 70kWh of physical capacity that is software limited to 55kWh on lower cost models may be in the cards, bundle the larger capacity with the upgraded dual charger and supercharger access all for $10,000 and balance that against the small number of base model sales and the small number of "I have to have every option" cars and you should average around $42,000

    I can see the base car not having heated front seats or folding heated mirrors, manual adjustment cloth seats, 4 or 6 speakers with no subwoofer, no rain sensing windshield wipers or voice activated controls. Pretty much nothing on the current "premium"package will be available. The new "Premium" package will be leather 6 or 8 way power adjustable heated front seats with heated steering wheel, heated mirrors, and the quick connect phone dock. Possible heated rear seats included with premium package, all for the same price as the current premium package. Possibly split into two packages of $2000 each, or stay one package at the current $3000 depending on what they think they can squeeze out of the customers.

    Call the 70kWh / supercharger capable / dual charger package the "long distance package" for $10,000

    I can see more paint colors available in "regular" paint, but still have to pay $1000 for metallic and $1500 for multicoat.

    I can see 17" base wheels with the "standard" 19" Model S wheels being a $1500 upgrade and the currently available upgrades for the same prices of $2500 for the "nice" 19" wheels and $4500 for the 21" wheels.

    Non-opening glass roof for $1000 panoramic opening glass roof for $1500.

    Air ride suspension package will not even be an option.

    Subzero package reduced and rolled into premium as described above.

    Autopilot would probably be around $2,000 but it may stay at $2,500 to keep from annoying S and X owners. Or S and X will get a price drop as well... this would not surprise me at all.

    Premium sound will get you two extra speakers and a subwoofer... none with neodymium magnets all for $1,500, and you need one of the glass roof options for XM.

    Lets say you can only get dual motors with the performance package and put that down to $15,000

    Plaid would stay at $10,000 and include a lip spoiler and red painted calipers... why not? It is a negligible performance gain for a large amount of $$$ in the S and the X... mostly it buys the chrome stripe under the car designation :)

    Lets do some math here: If I can get a Model 3 on standard wheels, metal roof, "regular" blue paint, with long distance performance package for $60,000, and if I lost my mind and though plaid was worth $10,000 total it up to $70,000 for a "max performance" version of the 3. Now if you add all the other bells and whistles it comes up to an additional $14,000 rocketing the max price up to $84,000 fully loaded.

    I have zero insider information and this is all pure speculation... but we have seen the battery pack price drop significantly in the last month... so I have hope that the gigifactory will help pull off a 70K max performance long range Model 3 :)

    Keith
    �
  • Jul 4, 2016
    MP3Mike
    Elon has already said that air suspension will be an option.
    �
  • Jul 5, 2016
    Fourdoor
    Cool for the people that want it I guess. I wouldn't expect a price drop from the Model S air suspension then. Any time you have options you add complexity and expense to a product line, and you have to sell either the entire line of product at a higher price, or the option has to bring in more profit than the sum of it's parts would indicate.

    This same argument can be made for not dropping the price of ANY of the optional equipment though :) And we know from what Elon has said in the past that at least some things like AWD will cost less than they did in the S, and some things like supercharger access that were included in the S without additional charges will be cost added options in the 3.

    Is the air suspension that popular of an option on the current models to justify having it as an option on the 3? I know that I am always puzzled when I see someone ask "why would you want AWD?" and the people who know more about the air suspension are looking at my question feeling the same way when I ask "why would you want air suspension" :D

    Keith
    �
  • Jul 5, 2016
    ummgood
    I think it is hard to tell how popular of an option this is. I know on the latest configuration you need to add air suspension when you go with the performance model (or it is included). I see a TON of performance models driving around. Who's to say those people wouldn't have gotten the air suspension if it wasn't required?
    �
  • Jul 5, 2016
    03DSG
    On the MX if you get the tow package air suspension is required. I imagine it will be required on the M3 with the tow package as well.
    �
  • Jul 21, 2016
    vinnie97
    $84k?! Add the air suspension and you're now over 85k. That seems obscene since it's almost 3 times the base price.

    Also, depending on the intended passengers/drivers, air suspension could come in handy for the more aged and rickety amongst us.
    �
  • Jul 25, 2016
    Fourdoor
    My plan was to purchase a Bolt in the fall, and drive that until the Model 3 is on the market and actually available for people who did not pre-order (4 years or so) and then get a loaded 3. Upset to the plans occurred when my 2011 Volt was heavily damaged by a lightning strike on the building it was plugged into for charging. If insurance company totals the 2011 Volt I will not be able to wait for fall for a new car, and will go ahead with purchasing a 2017 Volt, and the next "spare" $1000 will go to put me on the pre-order list. Or I may decided to have a mid-life crisis and raid my retirement fund and get a Model S :)

    Keith
    �
  • Aug 18, 2016
    Gwgan
    Just putting this out there, and this thread seems as good a place as any: Model 3 will drop the battery designation badge. There will be one battery size with software configurable ranges and no number on the back. Badge and styling will denote Performance, Dual Motor, and maybe Distance versions or some such differentiation, and those might have bottom limits on range options, but the cars won�t be labeled by the kWh.
    �
  • Aug 18, 2016
    ccutrer
    Interesting idea. I wouldn't be surprised, just on the basis that a 40kWh seems terrible compared to a 60-75 kWh X/S, cause many people won't realize range is the same - smaller, more aerodynamic car being more efficient.
    �
  • Aug 19, 2016
    diamond.g
    One of the things I hope the SC will do when it comes time to deliver my car is remove all the badging. Not sure if Tesla would do that by default though. The badging becomes a prestige thing: *I can afford the PXXD model with the ludicrous underline*
    �
  • Aug 19, 2016
    AZ Desert Driver
    I never understood badging...some cars come with information about the transmission pasted on the trunk. Engine size, and number of doors also appear on badges. So,,,what..?? I pull off my cars the Dealership logos as soon as it arrives in my driveway. I am contemplating removing my Tesla logo upon arrival. Who cares if it is a S60 or s75 or s85? What business is it to anyone if I have dual motors? If my logo is underlined, am I challenging the fellow behind me to a drag demonstration? I think a smooth trunk is quiet elegance and conveys nothing to the rest of the world - which is what I like. I guess there are some who like to boast - but I see no value in the prestige thing: *I can afford the PXXD model with the ludicrous underline*
    �
  • Aug 19, 2016
    tga
    Back when I was active on Audi forums, there was a theory that when de-badging, you should leave the Quattro badge in place. Without it, you ran the (slight) risk that a tow truck driver might mistake your car for a FWD version, and tow with a wheel lift on the front wheels. Dragging the rears on a quattro car does bad things to your center diff...

    Me too. They didn't pay me to advertise for the dealership, so I'm not going to do it. The one I always found weird were cars where the license plate has obviously been changed, but the dealer's license plate frame was re-installed with the new plate. I knew someone who did this when they moved from out of state; I could never understand why the put the frame back.
    �
  • Aug 19, 2016
    ccutrer
    Agree with both of you. I think dealership badging is annoying advertising, but I don't mind stock badging, as long as it's reasonable. The brand, model, and maybe major trim level. You don't need 10 badges to describe how each piece of the drivetrain works! My X is currently debadged from getting wrapped, and I'm going to get it put back on. Hopefully it will cut down on the uninformed questions of "is that the new Model 3?!"

    So... when I put my license plate on, I used the Tesla frame. Does that count as "dealership advertising"? ;)
    �
  • Aug 28, 2016
    Sarevok
    Are we confirmed that the panoramic windshield will be an option? It sounds like it's default on the X and not an option at all on the S, so maybe the car has to be built with it being there in mind. At least I can hope....
    �
  • Aug 28, 2016
    ccutrer
    I believe the options will be a metal roof, all glass roof, or "pano" roof (glass roof that opens). I'll be going for all glass, and hope the small support beam between the top of the windshield and the glass roof isn't too distracting (I'm love the windshield on the X).
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    Perhaps. But I've noted that BMW and Mercedes-Benz owners going for a 'pure blackout' theme for several years, prolly three decades or so. They get black cars, tint the windows to limo-black level, exchange tail lights and headlight lens covers for smoked out versions, apply oversized black BBS wheels with aggressive tires, add blackened ground effects, wings, and spoilers, conceal all remaining chrome with black paint or plasti-dip, and remove all badging. I suspect they are going for the opposite effect of what you might intend: pure intimidation. "Don't mess with me. My car is BAD, MAN!" I doubt it works. Because I've seen the same treatments done to Honda, Acura, Subaru, and other cars in more recent years. Likely because owners of those cars realize they can blow the doors off of a BMW 320d that is perpetrating a fraud -- and still get better fuel economy.
    �
  • 1/1/2015
    guest
    No... Unless you got it from Billy Bob Bleuhardt's Big Blue World of Cars or something, that is... :D
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)