May 12, 2015
thegruf The Model S 70D is $75,000 at today's pricing.
What $40K value gets cut off to get the price down to $35K?
Smaller body shell (2 doors would save some more)
Single smaller motor
Smaller wheels/tires
Battery - cheaper in a couple of years but still got to be good for 200+ miles
Cheaper HMI
Does that really add up to $40K value?
What's your math on this?�
May 12, 2015
gregincal Smaller margins. Increased volume covers more fixed costs.�
May 12, 2015
SabrToothSqrl I'd say niceties like power locks/windows/etc, but that's not the real cost of the car. it's all in that battery pack. I'd cut the HP from the 360 that mine is down to say 300 or 260. That could save some $
Smaller battery - will save $
Cloth Seats vs. leather - save $
Cheaper rims - save $
Number of man hours to assemble - reduce that and you'd save a ton. Make the car easier to snap together.
Offer more things as optional will get price down... power windows/locks.
I assume you could forget about the power retracting handles on the 3, but that may be a signature Tesla move and they may want to keep them.
You could consider smaller / cheaper screens, but why? Making the driver and center stack identical in all their cars makes manufacturing the parts and the software easier.
If you only have to make one of a thing, it's much simpler than GM with 20 engines across 4 car type planning.�
May 12, 2015
Kevin Harney And you are forgetting economies of scale. Overall cheaper parts costs because of increased volume.�
May 12, 2015
Model 3 Yes. But think it will still be 4(5) doors.
Singel maybe, but the 70D already has the smaller motor that Model 3 will have.
Yes.
Yes. Price for battery cells will be at least 30% down with the GF, and possibly 50% when it is in full production in 2020.
Quite possibly.
+
- Volume, volume, volume.
- Lower margin on each car, replaced by: "Volume, volume, volume."
- Lower prices on parts - from: "Volume, volume, volume."
- Better, cheaper production lines - from: "Volume, volume, volume."
- Lower fail-rate and less warranty repairs - from: Experience with the TMS/X.
- Some cheaper materials like not using aluminum all around, maybe not using boron-steel?�
May 12, 2015
Kevin Harney Yes. Economies of Scale on parts and batteries will be the greatest factors.�
May 12, 2015
gregincal Besides which, I can't really imagine cranking down the windows on the Model 3 like a '90s Corolla.�
May 12, 2015
Twiglett indeed - just because the base model needs to hit 35K, it doesn't mean that all the expensive stuff can't either be optioned in or that different trim levels can't be offered.
The Model S is a very high margin car - but it is funding the expansion of the company.�
May 12, 2015
gavine Not all aluminum.
No Brembo brakes.
Not dual-motor AWD.
Supercharging optional.
Also, what's the cost difference between a 7-series and 3-series BMW? Quite substantial and similar comparison levels.�
May 12, 2015
mtndrew1 Long time lurker, first time poster. I just drive a lowly Kia Soul EV.
Annyyyyway I've been chewing over the Model 3 numbers for a while and I thought it was borderline implausible that TM would be able to deliver a $35,000 ~55 kWh car and make any money on it right up until the Q1 call.
Elon guided that once Gigafactory cells are in production that they anticipate a 20% gross margin on stationary storage. This means that since they're selling stationary for $250/kWh that TM has a BOM price of $200/kWh or lower effective Q2 2016. I presume it will drop slightly by the time Q4 2017 rolls around.
This implies a cost of ~$11,000 for the pack in the Model 3. Starting at $35,000 MSRP and backing out TM's 25% gross margin that leaves us $26,250 to play with. Subtract the battery pack and that leaves $15,250. The most expensive parts of a car outside of powertrain are seats, glass, and crash pyrotechnics. Even so, I can say with relative confidence that it costs much less than $15,250 in parts and labor to assemble a modern automobile. Furthermore I expect Supercharging to be a $2,000 option which the vast majority of 3s will be equipped with, effectively bumping up the MSRP nearly 6%.
Stamp the 3 out of steel, equip it with less flashy rims, brightwork, and lighting, make everything optional (a la BMW), and there should be no issue in TM sourcing materials and assembling a compact/midsize sedan for $15,250 with a 25% gross margin.
As far as timeline and potential delays, I think Elon's got this sorted by now. Besides the chassis stampings and crash testing, there's not a lot left to do. Seats, pyrotechnics, glass, steering column, and lighting will all be from suppliers. The OBC will be the same as the S/X/Supercharger, the mobile connector is done, the cooling systems will be largely carryover, vehicle software is likely to be similar, etc. If it's front drive, the Ds/B-Classes/RAVs have taken care of front drive engineering and packaging work, if it's rear drive then it's drop in.
As an armchair quarterback I think the Model 3 will be on time and at or near the promised MSRP.�
May 12, 2015
thegruf ^ good analysis and with you all the way until the last line
�
May 12, 2015
igotzzoom There's absolutely zero chance the Model 3 will come to market with crank windows. Power windows have become so commoditized that it's probably cheaper for OEs to make all of some models with power windows than to have a relatively low volume with crank windows. There are still some (limited) exceptions to the rule, like fleet trucks, but the vast, vast majority of new cars have PW standard.
In terms of the other points brought up on this thread, yes, a lot of the technology is already amortized among the Model S and Model X. The 3 may not have the flush door handles (at least not standard), which isn't a deal-breaker for me. It will probably have some sort of cloth or "leatherette" standard. I think the base model will be reasonably-equipped, but not lavish. Equipment level will probably be on par with a mid-trim Accord or Camry. (Not that I'm comparing it to a CamCord).�
May 12, 2015
mtndrew1 Having been privy in the past to materials and assembly costs for a major automaker, there's nowhere near $20,000 of "stuff" in a 3 series, powertrain or not. Amortized engineering and capex, perhaps, but not car parts.
I figure the extra-cost features on the Model 3 that are standard on the S will be:
Auto-dimming rear-view and outside mirros
Power folding mirrors
Mechanized door handles
Dual-zone climate control
Xenon headlamps
Power memory seats
Power steering column adjustments
Rain-sensing wipers
GPS
Auto up-down non-driver windows
Homelink
Parking sensors
Autopilot hardware�
May 12, 2015
stevej119 Sure, they'll be incorporating a lot which they've learned from building the S, but let's not lose sight of the fact that this is an entirely new car intended to be sold at the rate of 500,000 per year. The base model will not go 0-60 in 5 seconds and there's no reason why that would be necessary. This is a car for the masses and we shouldn't be disappointed that "it lacks this or that which is the trademark of Tesla." We need this car to hit a price point which makes it affordable to those who desire to own it. 17" touchscreen, self-extending/retracting door handles, 300 hp motor... those are not necessities in my opinion.�
May 12, 2015
Dutchie I remember Elon saying that the 3 would be made of steel in stead of aluminium�
May 12, 2015
thegruf most probably part/part as they will have to watch the weight, otherwise bigger battery required for the range
- - - Updated - - -
one thing with the options is to keep them as 2 or 3 add-on packs (eg Sport, Tech, Lux) which will preserve their value better on the used market which will be even more important in a more competitive sector as options alone are worth next to nothing at trade in�
May 12, 2015
joefee When I sent in my deposit for the Model S (before the factory was on line and with no betacar) the plan was for "starting at 55K" after rebates....I'm sure the Model 3 you'll want to order will be 2x 35 or 70K. Still the base model will be more than adequate and well worth the money (it could be a loss leader).�
May 12, 2015
Canuck Nissan makes the Leaf for under $30k at current battery prices. So add another $5k of batteries to the Leaf's price, at the gigafactory's reduced price, and it's done. Probably easier said than done, though.�
May 12, 2015
gregincal I expect a car far superior to the Leaf, however, not just with more range.�
May 12, 2015
Canuck In what way other than appearance? The Leaf does 0 to 60 in under 8 seconds and it drives and handles really nice with top safety ratings. It also comfortably fits my family of 5, with good cargo space and so far has been very dependable (aside from the 12volt battery problem). It has a good backup camera, bluetooth (better than Teslas), keyless ignition, etc. My only gripes are the range and appearance but the appearance has grown on me.�
May 12, 2015
Bangor Bob That seems a bit of ICE-tinted thinking. While of course I can't know for certain, the cost delta for improved performance in an electric drivetrain is going to be nothing like the cost delta of going from a naturally-aspirated 4 cylinder ICE to a turbo four, or to a V6. Doubling the EV power output requires maybe 50% more copper in the motor, bigger HVDC connectors and twice as many, or higher-capacity IGBT's in the motor controller. It's nothing like the extra bits required to double ICE performance.
I'd love them to take a page out of BMW's i playbook and go with a carbon fiber body structure with highly-automated manufacturing. Yes, CF is expensive, but you get a huge reduction in parts count (many fewer presses and stamping die sets required), assembly is simpler (robotic gluing), material handling is cheaper (body parts can be moved by workers without hoists, or smaller robots), and the resulting vehicle is much lighter, so you can put fewer kWh into the battery pack for the same range, handling, acceleration and stopping gets better... It's just better (provided you don't let BMW do the styling....)
Seems unlikely for the Model 3 though. Maybe for the 4th model...�
May 12, 2015
ratsbew I agree. The Leaf is a fine car. If it went 200+ miles and could supercharge that is all I could ever want from a base model Model 3. Ideally I'd want 300 miles and the ability to charge 200 miles in 30 minutes.�
May 12, 2015
ItsNotAboutTheMoney I say 7 is the magic number: 0 to 60 in 7 seconds matches standard mid-sizes and 3-series diesels.
Want more? Pay more.
But where the base starts would depends on overall cost reductions: the higher the minimum cost, the higher the base spec.�
May 12, 2015
pmadflyer I could see them making it 5 seconds base. Should be possible with a 60 kWh or larger battery. Now imagine the public reaction. No matter what, we know that people who know nothing about Tesla are going to want one when they are introduced. Whether it comes from epic acceleration, unexpected range, or a hugely practical surprise, it will get lots of positive attention, because it must.�
May 12, 2015
beegee The packs that will be built in Reno will also be a 20700 form factor instead of the 18650. This is supposed to lower the cost per pack by ~25%.
Lighter Batteries May Prove The Tipping Point For Electric Vehicles - Gas 2�
May 12, 2015
aronth5 Just like the initial price of the Model S was $57,499 (40 kWh) before the tax credit the Model 3 will come in close to $35k. Perhaps a thousand or two higher. But then when everyone adds options and the average sale price approaches $50k the $35k number will slowly fade away just like the $57,499 price of the low end Model S.�
May 12, 2015
Airx The car needs to be compelling in both base performance and base accessories.
It should rival the BMW 3 base models and still keep particular features that immediately say its a Tesla.
I certainly don't want another Toyota Prius and if I wanted a Leaf I would have one.
I certainly don't covet the Bolt and I am not afraid to shell out $45K, D-model please.�
May 12, 2015
Model 3 I thought they were down at $180/kWh over the past year?
Telsa will NOT have a 25% gross margin on the Model 3. I think they was talking about around 12-15%? Still high in this marked.
- - - Updated - - -
Where? Any sources for that it will be steel?
Yes, I remember that it is stated that it will not be "all aluminum", but not that anyone has stated what will be used instead. But steel is a good guess...�
May 12, 2015
Matias "How is Tesla going to make the Model 3 for $35,000?"
They won't.
PS. I refute my statement. Nissan Leaf MSRP is $29,010. It has 24 kWh battery. If Model 3 has 50 kWh, it is 26 kWhs more. If Tesla can make those at price 200 dollars/kWh, 26 kWhs would cost 5200 dollars. So it is possible. Of course Tesla would also make the first 24 kWhs with same price/kWhs, but this extremely crude calculation does not take that into account.
PPS, 50 KWhs is maybe not enough, because Leaf's EPA rating is 73 miles and Model 3 is supposed to get 200 miles. So it would need (200/73)x 24kWh = 65 kWhs. So extra 41 kWhs would cost 8200 dollars.
[TH="align: left"][/TH] �
May 13, 2015
gavine The Model S 60 kWh gets 208 EPA miles. Why would the lighter/smaller Model 3 need 65kWh to go 200 miles?�
May 13, 2015
Matias Elon has stated, that the goal is to get 200 real world miles. I don't know, how many kWh Model 3 needs for that.�
May 13, 2015
pmadflyer Probably 60 kWh. if they make 150k 85 kWh packs, and 350k 60 kWh packs, they would still have capacity to spare out of the 35 gWh destined for the 500k vehicles. I also did math in another thread to find that 100k 95 kWh packs, 50k 70 kWh packs, and 350k 60 kWh packs is also possible. So if 2/3 of S and X are 95 kWh and the rest are 70 kWh, then all 350k model 3 can be 60 kWh.�
May 13, 2015
gregincal Sub 8 seconds? It has a 107 hp motor. From the Edmunds review: "In Edmunds performance testing, a Leaf accelerated from zero to 60 mph in 9.9 seconds, which is a bit slower than either the Ford Focus Electric or Volkswagen e-Golf and about 2 or more seconds off the pace of the Fiat 500e and Spark EV."
I definitely expect at the very least a sub 7 second car, probably sub 6 seconds because it will be easy for them to accomplish.
Also looks, of course, as well as a far superior user interface.�
May 13, 2015
stopcrazypp I had the same thought. They might hit 25% at the very top trim levels, but for sure the base Model 3 won't have 25% margin. In fact, 15% is probably the average for the line (so base will be even lower).�
May 13, 2015
1208 Easy...
Steel wheels with hubcaps instead of alloys.
No heated seats.
Smaller body less material.
Use steel.
Plastic everything from handles to wing mirrors.
Everything manual operated from trunk to windows.
Cheap as chips. :smile:�
May 13, 2015
stevej119 That assumes the Model 3 and the Leaf have the same cd. I would expect the Model 3 to be far more aerodynamic than the Leaf.�
May 13, 2015
richkae The Leaf has a terrible Cd ( and CdA because it is tall ). Tesla already does much better with the S, and the Model 3 should be smaller.
The Leaf battery pack is reported at 660 pounds for 24 kWh. Tesla is already almost twice as good as that.
Beating the Leaf's mpge will not be hard for Tesla. I believe that the Model 3 can easily achieve 200 miles EPA with 50 kWh.�
May 13, 2015
EVNow While beating Leaf's mpge may not be difficult - getting 200 EPA miles out of tots 50 kWh will take extraordinary effort. It will be cheaper to add 5 more kWh. I won't be surprised if the base 3 comes with 60 kWh battery.�
May 13, 2015
Candleflame Heated seats and ideally steering wheel are really important for an electric car. It keeps you nice and cosy when its cold and you don't have to run the heater. Heated seats use hardly any elecitricity compared to the heater!
And regarding the 0 to 60 time; I reckon this will be good and much better than the leaf. To think that fast acceleration comes from a big engine/motor is actually sort of very ICEi thinking as the size of the batterypack plays quite a bit of a role. If you can feed more energy to the motor, it will spin faster. Just compare the S60 to the S85.�
May 13, 2015
stopcrazypp 2015 Leaf EPA rating is 84 miles. The previous 73/75 miles is for the older version and partially due to range average between 100% and 80% charge mode (which Nissan removed).
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=34918
That would work out to 57kWh for 200 mile EPA (assuming same efficiency as Leaf). A sanity check is that the 60kWh Model S got 208 miles EPA, so the number will never need to be over 60kWh.
The most efficient is the i3, with 81 miles from a 21.6kWh battery (18.8kWh usable). Works out to 53kWh (46.4kWh usable) for 200 miles EPA. So it seems somewhere slightly above 50kWh will get them to 200 miles EPA, 60kWh would give a decent bit higher than 200 miles EPA (closer to "real world" 200 miles).�
May 13, 2015
Model 3 Remember that Elon has stated something like that you need 240 miles EPA to get "real world" 200 miles. 70D gets 240 EPA miles, and I will guess Model 3 will also get (around) 240 EPA miles.�
May 13, 2015
pmadflyer THIS
His example was 200 miles driving down the highway in 10 degree F weather. The EPA number he threw out was 240, as you say. I imagine Elon's worst fear is someone who has never driven an EV trying to go 200 miles without planning and getting stranded at the side of the interstate. With another (toy/city/niche) electric car, those familiar with BEVs would say things like, "you you should have slowed down," or "winter range is reduced, so plan accordingly." To the unfamiliar, all they would see is a failure and an excuse for a weakness not found in more "reliable" ICE vehicles. This is meant to be the car that gets someone for whom BEVs are off the radar to go electric. At < $100 kWh by 2020, as per Elon, amazing things are bound to happen.�
May 13, 2015
brianman Earlier in the thread, 55 kWh @ $11K was offered as a possible battery pack cost.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a high-20s Model 3 base vehicle with a battery lease or rental. If you call this the "base model" and the leasing plan was "as economical as gas" (including electricity costs) then Tesla would be "overpromising" by delivering a sub $30k vehicle. As usual, the market would probably react with "wtf" and the stock would look serpentine for months.�
May 13, 2015
Sagemode I imagine that the reduction in size and gigafactory production will help keep battery costs low. Wouldn't need as large of a battery to power a Model 3 (especially if they drop its power)
Perhaps another reason they pulled the 60kwh Model S was to hold onto the batteries to use in Model 3?
If you think about it this way, they could potentially work with:
Model 3 - 50kwh
Model 3 - 60kwh
Model S - 70kwh
Model S - 85kwh
Model X - 85kwh
Model X - 95kwh
(I'm really hoping there's a Model 3 60d or p60d option!)�
May 13, 2015
pmadflyer Unless more than 2/3 of S and X are 95 kWh, Tesla can prodyuce EVERY model 3 with at least a 60 kWh pack with 1 gWh to spare. They put in the Gigafactory pdf that they will have 35 gWh going into 500k vehicles in 2020. The math is really easy. Even if every S and X had a 95 kWh pack, they can put 59.25 kWh packs in every model 3. They said no packs larger than 85 kWh for the s and X for a few years. That would mean that every model 3 could have a 63.5 kWh battery if every single model s and X is an 85.
Long story short. Model 3 has an average battery capacity of 60 kWh and if they go smaller, they'll have packs they don't have cars for.�
May 14, 2015
mrdoubleb I am not a battery expert, but wouldn't itbe true that they could use cheaper cells that do not need to cope with the high discharge rate demanded by the Model S warp engines?
- - - Updated - - -
So my 15 minute googleing into the topic tells me, that according to an MIT research paper, producing a body in white out of steel is about 50% less expensive than aluminium. They ran some numbers on cars with full alu bodies, vs some parts (doors, hood, trunk) made of alu vs all steel.
While that would surely have some weight consequences, there is a cost factor to consider there.�
May 14, 2015
tga How current is that research paper? I would expect the cost differential to be less than it once was, given the F150 now has an aluminum body. It doesn't get much more mass market than that.�
May 14, 2015
Model 3 First, it will be "a few years" until the GF is in production and the Model 3 is out. So it makes it very possible that it will be the time for an upgrade of the battery packs for Model S/X. And I see you have taken that into account in your calculations. But most people seems to think that if it was upgraded today it would be a 95kWh or 100kWh pack. In 2017 it will probably be bigger: 110-115kWh? And what size will then the "small"-battery version have? And how many battery-sizes will the Model 3 be delivered with?
Although I appreciate what you're here trying to figure out, and hope really you're right, but I think we just have to realize that we know too little to be able to arrive at any meaningful result. The one thing I think I can extract from your calculation is that the calculated average battery-size of the Model 3 seems to be in the 50-60kWh range. Which seems likely.�
May 14, 2015
WarpedOne Lower discharge rate batteries are not cheaper but have less capacity.
Tesla uses highest capacity available and then optimize for durability. Whatever maximum power 'falls out' of that procedure, they run with it.
High power is not a design constraint, high capacity is. High power is then a simple corollary.
Remember, twice the capacity equals twice the power. It is that simple.�
May 16, 2015
Red Sage My heartfelt praise and appreciation goes out to those of you who have wisely beaten back the tide of doomsaying presented by the Myopic League of Lowered Expectations. Unfortunately, I can't give +1 to everyone on every post I agree with... Strange that the forum software limits that action.
;-)�
May 16, 2015
dsm363 A Jetta has heated seats so would expect the Model 3 to have it as well.�
May 16, 2015
Red Sage I believe Supercharger access will be standard on all Tesla Motors vehicles going forward, including all trim levels of Model ?. Built-in. Included. No additional charge. Prepaid. Free.
Improvements in margin wrought from Gigafactory supplies will cover Supercharger expenses.
The traditional automobile manufacturers claim a 6% overall margin for the industry as a whole. Even if Tesla Motors were to 'only' achieve a 14% margin, half the current 28% amount, that is still more than twice the average for the industry.
And by the way, Lexus admits to a 14% margin, which is no doubt aided by using rebadged Toyota products such as the Avalon and Sequoia, offered for sale at higher price points...
Besides, without middlemen in the form of 'independent franchised dealerships' muscling in for a share of the profits, another 2%-5% is gained in Tesla Motors favor.
Thus, on a car with a $34,900 base price, a 14% margin would mean a $30,014 build cost. If the battery pack were 25% of that internal cost (which works out to slightly over $125 per kWh for a 60 kWh battery pack), and its expense was reduced by 7% per year... Then Tesla Motors would indeed have funds on hand to cover Supercharger expenses for a very long time.
$7,503.50
$7,278.40
$6,768.91
$6,565.84
$6,368.86
$5,923.04
See? Conservatively speaking, internal costs for the battery pack would go down by nearly $1,600 within five years. Thus, more in the coffers to handle Supercharging.�
May 16, 2015
MartinAustin (Tried to find my old calculations on this subject, can�t find the post, so here they are again, approximately anyway.)
Since the base Model S is now selling for the round number of $75,000, they have dropped the "$NN,900" pricing language that was in use before. Let�s assume the stripper version of the Model 3 is exactly $35,000 - plus delivery and taxes. I suspect another reason for "$35,000" will be the kind of straight-shootin' truthfulness that Elon likes. The rest of the car business likes to price cars with "$NN,999" when possible. Elon will want to break from that.
If this basic Model 3 makes 15% profit right out of the gate (which is another assumption as it might begin with a slimmer margin), it would cost Tesla $30,434. (30434*1.15 = 35000)
An important factor to consider is the Model 3�s efficiency. The only spec Elon has mentioned so far is the car�s range � 200 miles. He has recently started talking about 240 miles, and I�m assuming that will be the range of the Model 3. The large & heavy Model S can be conservatively driven at 250Wh/mile. If a car that is significantly smaller and lighter can be driven normally at that power level, it would be travelling 4 miles per KWh and therefore require 60KWh of energy to travel 240 miles. Add 5KWh for buffer and you�ve got a battery of 65KWh. However, since the Model 3 is 80% of the physical size of the Model S, with reduced weight and aerodynamic drag, and it has narrower tyres, plus the latest generation of power electronics, can it drive at 200Wh/mile? That is surely a goal for Tesla Motors. The car would reach 5 miles for every available KWh in the battery. To travel 240 miles you�d need 48KWh, and adding 5KWh for buffer you have 53KWh. I�m going to assume this is the base level battery capacity. I have seen $180/KWh mentioned on this forum by those very knowledgeable on the subject of how much the Model 3 batteries are going to cost, and I�m going to use that as the cost of the batteries. 53*180 = $9,540.
This means the cost of the rest of the car, plus the empty battery pack, is 30434-9540 or $20,894.
This $20,894 would have to produce a car the size of BMW 3-series / Infiniti G37 / Audi A4 / Mercedes C Class. No supercharger access, one motor only, cloth seats, coil suspension and only black or white paint. What it would have as standard would be environmental sustainability, fully-silent operation, lots of interior room, the world-beating touchscreen and software capabilities, and 240-mile range for only 53KWh of electricity (which costs me about six bucks at my house). Still pretty compelling.
I think this is achievable and would generate at least $4,566 profit per car - even on the stripper. Naturally the options of metallic paint, air suspension, autopilot, leather, alloys, performance invertor, larger batteries and so on would be fantastic profit centers.�
May 16, 2015
Model 3 That the number I have seen also. But, remember that this is the price today - or at least last year. And they expect at least 30% of that price when they get cells from the GF, and Model 3 will get cells from the GF. That will be $126/KWh, or $6,678 for 53KWh. Or $6,930 for 55KWh that I think is more likely. Even 60KWh will be "only" $7,560...
Edit: fixed typos...�
May 16, 2015
TDR32 One minor talking point. I think supercharger access will be included in the base price. All the variations of the model s have it included. If it wasn't included you might get a na�ve person trying to travel with the base model 3 with no access to superchargers.�
May 16, 2015
Red Sage MartinAustin: Very well done, but please note that Tesla Motors' cost on battery cells will be reduced by 30% due to the Gigafactory from the outset. That changes the calculations somewhat, allowing for as little as $126/kWh, and thus $7,560 for the battery pack. That nearly $2,000 difference as compared to your calculations allows Supercharger access to be included.
Also, the base version of the BMW 3-Series is no better appointed than a Toyota Camry LE, which has a base price of ~$22,000. Surely a lean company such Tesla Motors can be at least as efficient as BMW and match their economies of scale. I'm betting Tesla will exceed them. So no, there will not be a 'beater' or 'loss leader' or empty, tin-can, substandard, stripped version of the Model ? at all.
Do not be surprised if (when) dual motor AWD is standard and the car is outfitted quite nicely in base trim. Yes, you will be able to add another $15,000 in creature comforts and convenience features as options upon request... But none of those will be absolute necessities, so no one who brings up the base model, chooses a tan interior with red paint, then clicks 'ORDER' will be disappointed at all.�
May 16, 2015
gregincal Come on, this isn't going to be a car somebody picks up at the corner store on the way home. They may decide to include supercharger access in the base car, but if they don't customers will be well informed.�
May 16, 2015
Red Sage Lots of information was available to those who purchased Model S 40 and Model S 60, yet far too many reported they 'felt cheated' or that they were 'misled' when they didn't have Supercharger access.
Mr. Miyagi say, "Best block: No be there."
It is best that Tesla Motors make things as simple as possible. No optional Supercharging. No annual, quarterly, or monthly subscriptions. No card swiping or 'pay at the pump'. Just, simply, included with the purchase of the car. Period.�
May 16, 2015
Canuck I agree. A lot of people don't need supercharging so why include it in the price of every car when you can offer cars without it for less money. It's not like supercharging is actually free. Tesla pays for each charge and if you don't need it, why pay for it. I also think a lot of people will buy it as a second car to an ICE and will never do road trips with it.�
May 16, 2015
Red Sage Canuck: I have heard that argument before and I disagree.
Tesla Motors is not in this to make someone's 'second car'. They have stated from the outset, and often been blown off or ignored, that their goal is to prove that electric vehicles do not have to be saddled with the perceived limitations that traditional automobile manufacturers have presented for decades.
They don't have to be:
� Short range
� Expensive to buy
� Inconvenient to operate
� Limited to commuter duty
� Slow and boring
� Have faulty, short lived batteries
� Slow to charge
� Ugly as [SNOT]
Tesla Motors wants to prove that an electric vehicle can be your only form of personal transportation.
True, enough... After buying a Tesla Model S, many have realized they needed a second car... So they ordered another Tesla.�
May 16, 2015
Canuck I agree but we need to face reality. There are more 2+ car households than single ones (57% percent of U.S. households have two cars or more). The vast majority of people are not going to replace all of their ICE vehicles with electric. That just won't happen despite Tesla's good intentions. And when people go on road trips, not everyone is like the folks here. I'd say the majority of people would rather buy gas than plan charging routes. So, in my opinion, supercharging should be an option on the Model 3 since not everyone will want it or need it.�
May 16, 2015
mwulff Why wouldn't they replace both cars? If this forum is anything to go by then people who experience an EV everyday very rapidly start to think that ICE's are clumsy, hard to drive and uncomfortable.
I would expect consumers to buy a second EV as soon as they realize the first one is brilliant.
If we had two cars I would love to have a Model 3 and maybe an e-Golf or a Leaf as the second car.
One of Tesla's biggest value propositions really is the supercharger network. They will roll it into the price of the car if they can. There is a fantastic argument at sales-time when the tesla-employees can say "ohh and feel free to take a trip to California with the car. It's on us�
May 17, 2015
MartinAustin The $180/KWh I am quoting is not Tesla's current cost, it's a projection of how much the Gen 3 battery pack would cost.
That said, the projection was made prior to Gigafactory, and perhaps the savings are bigger now.
And this is all complete speculation located in yet-one-more-regurgitative-model-3-speculation-thread of which there have been many and there will be many more before we are finished.�
May 17, 2015
Red Sage Canuck: The people who would prefer not to have Supercharger access included, and would request (or demand) it be removed in favor of a refund or reduction in price, can go buy a Volkswagen e-Golf, have a Coke and a smile, and shut the [FLOCK] up.
Just like the people who don't want to roll the standard, included, 18" alloy wheels, and ask why they can't just get old-school 14" steel rims with hubcaps like they had on their 1994 Chevrolet Cavalier in order to 'save money'.
Saying you don't need Supercharger access because you would never use it also ignores the fact that the next owner of the car will want to do so... Get this: in order to 'save money'.
Most people who get a Tesla Motors product find they drive more often over distances they previously would have taken a flight. The people who put their foot down in resentment over this issue will have their order canceled, deposit returned, and account closed the instant they utter the magic words, "...I'll never buy from you again!" OK, cool. Tesla will take their word on it, call their bluff, kick them to the curb, and sell the car to someone more appreciative.
I sure would.�
May 17, 2015
Model 3 I've read some compelling articles that referred to the price was at $180/KWh for cells Tesla buys from Panasonic as of the last time they renegotiated the contract they have. Now I can not find the articles that I read, but here you can at least see that others also refers to this prize as a fact.
If they can do what they want to, to reduce the price of the battery cells with 50% when the GF is in full action by 2020, then the cell-price will get well below that magical $100/KWh line...�
May 17, 2015
Canuck That's quite rude to the owners of Model S's here who bought them without supercharging -- and that was only a small price to pay compared to the overall price of a Model S. The price savings, percentage wise, would be much greater with a Model 3. Those people didn't want the e-Golf and there's no need to be rude to them about their decision. They wanted a model S but don't need or want supercharging and would rather have saved money. I bet a lot of people who own a model S have never been to a supercharger and never will be.
With regard to the next owner, it will be just like the Model S's we see for sale here without supercharging. They just pay Tesla to have it enabled so the ad would read "add $* to enable supercharging." In fact, it can be considered a benefit since people buying used who don't want it can save even more.
As for buying two electric vehicles to replace ICE vehicles in 2+ car households, that just won't happen anytime soon. The majority of people here (on an electric vehicle forum) don't own two electric vehicles (like I do) and the vast majority also have an ICE vehicle at home (as I do - one hybrid, one ICE, two electrics). So saying that people will want to go all electric makes for a nice talking point, and it will happen, but not for a very long time for the masses, since it's not even happening for the enthusiasts.
In any event, only time will tell what Tesla will do with the Model 3 and optional or standard supercharging. It will be interesting to find out.�
May 17, 2015
gregincal Supercharging can be enabled at any time. So somebody can buy the car for a cheaper price and then pay the supercharger fee when they realize how nice it is to drive. I can see it either way. I wouldn't be surprised if they include supercharger access with every car, but I think it's fine if they don't in order to meet the 35K price.�
May 17, 2015
mwulff You keep stating this as a fact, but this is pure speculation on your part about what consumers might do in the future. I looked around this forum and it's filled with posts like: "should've sold my ice the moment I got the S" and so on.
If there was more choice in EV types I am pretty sure that many would gladly go EV only. In my country people aged <35 are truly starting to want ev's. The Tesla Model S is seen by many as a far more desirable vehicle than a Porsche or a Ferrari. If I had a nickel everytime somebody says: "I saw a Tesla the other day and ohhh my god....".
All I have is speculation but in this country we are approaching a tipping point where ICE cars are less desirable than EV's. This is all based on observing and talking cars with people younger than me. EV's are cool and environmentally friendly. ICE cars are dinosaurs that only old people buy and drive. Most don't even desire a car because of the headaches it brings.
I have no scientific facts to back up my claim, all I have are observations. But get the EV's cheap enough and everybody here will want one.
Give it another 8-12 years and you won't be able to resell a used ICE car in this country�
May 17, 2015
dsm363 We are a long way off from even a quarter of all homes in America owning one EV, let alone a two car household going fully electric. I have only been kept from taking trips I wanted a handful of times in the last 4 years by driving only electric but for some people, one trip they couldn't take their personal car on would be enough for them to turn around and sell it.�
May 17, 2015
mwulff Completely true. Our distances here are way shorter so I think we will reach the ev-tipping point a lot sooner. But maybe we are drifting off topic here.
Back to cost savings: skip HID and go for classic bulbs. Keep the LED though. That would help across 100.000 cars�
May 17, 2015
SmartElectric I'll take that bet!! The primary reason I would buy a Tesla is for longer range trips than I can take in my current EV (Smart ED).
There are hundreds of thousands of us short range EV owners, and we will be buying longer range EV's as our second vehicles in a few years time. If I don't get into a Model S prior to the Model 3, I will expect supercharging to be a standard feature of the car, but even if not, I will be purchasing that option if necessary, as will the vast majority of people coming out of existing short range EV's.
A worldwide supercharging network is arguably the greatest achievement made by Tesla. Brilliant!
- - - Updated - - -
Sure, today, but by the time Tesla Model 3 is available for sale, there will be many hundreds of thousands of short range EV's on the roads, and those drivers (like me) will be looking to go fully electric. Right now, I have a gas SUV in my driveway that does all of our family trips, most of which are >120km and the majority of our long trips are in winter when EV range is halved here in Canada.
Volt is too small for our family, and no other EV has long enough range. Larger PHEV's like Ford Fusion are poorly implemented for winter driving due to running the gas motor to warm the cabin. There is just NO other option outside of Tesla Model S right now that I would even consider to replace my Mercedes SUV.
Our family average gas mileage is 5L/100km totalled for both vehicles, which would be like two Prius, and yet I have a 300HP SUV and a fast and fun Smart ED, so much preferable to running two hybrids...�
May 17, 2015
Canuck "We suspect that access to the Supercharger network will be an option for Gen 3 (so, some will undoubtedly say it isn�t free then)."
From:
Elon Musk Confirms Free Supercharging for Tesla Gen 3 (Model E) | Inside EVs�
May 17, 2015
aronth5 Red Sage, so lets assume for a minute that Tesla can get the price down to $37k but not $35k unless they make supercharging optional. What would you do?�
May 17, 2015
stopcrazypp To be clear, that's speculation from the author, not what Elon said himself. Personally, I would be fine with both situations. A $2000 supercharger option would not stop me from getting it.
However, the caveat is whether DC charging (like CHAdeMO/CCS) is included is a different story. By the time the Model 3 is out, a lot of the economy EVs will have this included standard (many already do). So it'll be less competitive if they don't include some type of DC charging as standard.�
May 20, 2015
motobroker Hi! I'm new here. Interesting post...I'm not sure that it is achievable�
May 21, 2015
Red Sage My firm position is that sales of the Generation II vehicles will support Supercharger access for many years to come.�
May 21, 2015
sandpiper Exactly. You have to recall that, except for the battery and electric motors, there is nothing that should make a Tesla more expensive than any other car. Excepting the cost of the battery, it should by rights be cheaper. The cost and complexity of a the ICE and associated systems is completely eliminated. If they make the car out of steel instead of aluminum and reduce the finish levels to what would be expected in another 35k car then it's quite attainable - assuming that they can hit the volumes.
As to the battery: That too is a manufacturing issue. The cost of raw materials in a Tesla battery is not a huge driver. The cost is in the manufacturing process. Volume, combined with more automation and a lot of learnings that have taken place on the Model S/X will make an enormous difference in those costs.
And, I doubt we'll see many 35K cars. I expect more of the 45 - 50K cars. It's tough but all doable.�
May 21, 2015
Red Sage I believe you'll end up seeing more of the base Model ? than you expect. They are bound to be very popular with taxi and livery services, as well as fleet sales to companies and municipalities, not to mention becoming a staple for leasing agencies and rental firms. They will be... Everywhere.�
May 23, 2015
1208 I figured it out again. This is probably the best and most cost reductive idea yet and we finally understand the real reason why its called the model 3.
The wheels cost a lot. So if we remove 1 we save a lot of money.
Three wheeled ev. Hence the model 3. Genius.
�
May 23, 2015
tdelta1000 I agree�
May 23, 2015
KD5MDK Are people putting cost of warranty service in the margin or attributed to individual parts?�
May 23, 2015
thegruf hah - at least do it properly!
See - our US friends simply have no idea about truly brilliant automotive eccentricity :wink:�
May 23, 2015
Twiglett two at the front for sure.
But for that though I am also that hopeful that this gets to launch
http://www.eliomotors.com
Not an EV, but it costs less than the fed tax credit for EVs�
May 23, 2015
vinnie97 Yea, I've heard about that little beast. You can't get much better mass market pricing than that. Safety would be my biggest concern, as the highway is where it excels in mpg. Local driving brings it down to earth (still superseding your average ICE of course), but still a great choice for personal commuting foremost because of that price!
�
May 25, 2015
coupedncal I am surprised not one has said this
I am surprised no one has said this but at least to me it seems very obvious the price point of Model 3 is expected to be $35K AFTER federal and state tax credits. So if true, the money they will collect is going to be in the range of $43K to $44K. Why would they leave that money on the table?�
May 25, 2015
purplewalt No, that certainly is NOT my understanding from what I have been reading.
The $35K price point was to be without any rebate ($7,500 Federal) amount figured in.�
May 26, 2015
pmadflyer Correct. The federal tax rebate may well be phasing out before the end of 2016�
May 26, 2015
Spidy I don't think supercharger acccess it will be included. The main reason they changed it with the Model S was that the figured out there was enough demand too sell it as a high priced luxury sedan and many people opted for the 85 versions. They no longer needed to market it as $60000 electric car.
1/2nd car... I think what also many people ignore here is that for road trips you often want a larger car. Most families I know at least in Germany the dad drivers a sedan and smaller commuter can and the wife has larger car wagon/suv/van etc. and currenly those car in the catagory of a Mode X a much more expensive than a Model 3. So I simply doubt many people who buy a Model 3 will also be able to afford a electric car that ha the space for roadtrips. Which brings us back to supercharger access and why it might not at all be neccessary for people who buy it just for their daily commute and maybe to save gas.
Sure, but so was the navigation system with the tech package in the fist Model S sold. It will just be a must have upgrade, at least heated steering wheel will be optional I would guess.�
May 26, 2015
Model 3 Correct, and this has repeatedly been clarified by Elon. At a time he was talking abut a goal of about $30k, but at that time without specifying with or without tax credits, and "in 2012 money" (I think it was?). But as long as the price of $35k has been mentioned it's been clear that this will be without any credits, and without any talk about inflation.
- - - Updated - - -
It was a $50k car - remember the 40kWh version (US only - and no supercharger at all).�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét