Sep 8, 2015
MuskForPresident We know the Model 3 will be around $35k. So assuming we can expect a lighter car with a smaller battery than MS, would not then we expect acceleration to actually go up from the MS?
So MS ludicrous mode does 0-60 in 2.8 seconds... Are we talking crazy ass performance for M3 at $50k and under price point?�
Sep 8, 2015
gordo I doubt it. The Model 3 will have a smaller battery pack (physically, but also kWh-wise), so it likely won't be able to draw as much peak power as a Model S. I suspect the high-end Model 3 will top out somewhere in the $65-75k range and have sub-4.0 second 0-60.�
Sep 8, 2015
tom66 I'm thinking (hoping) Tesla will whoop the M3's ass with the performance Model 3, but they won't attempt to beat the Model S; that would be cannibalising their own market. Something like 3.9 seconds 0-60, like the original P85, with all-wheel drive and around 400 hp total would line up well.
It won't have an Insane mode (maybe just Ridiculous Speed), but the off-the-line acceleration should be similar to the P85D with the all-wheel drive capability. Obviously reduced in magnitude, but still pretty strong.�
Sep 8, 2015
TEG If it has AWD and 0 - 60 in 4, I would be happy. Not expecting Insane / Ludicrous acceleration at the lower price point.�
Sep 8, 2015
Twiglett I really (really, really) doubt that Tesla are going to artificially make the Model 3 less of a car than the Model S.
While it will undoubtably be build down to a low entry point, it will probably still have insane or ludicrous options or could well be faster or more nimble than the Model S.
EM has consistently mentioned that they don't want to be like the other manufacturers in this regard.
After all, most manufacturers are trying to sell you up the range, Tesla is the other way around. The Model S is there as the enabler for the Model 3 in the same way the Roadster was for the S.
They seem to be planning on making each successive car better than the last.�
Sep 8, 2015
igotzzoom Will an ultra-high-performance Model 3 be offered at some point? Most likely. But probably not at launch. If it's 0-60 in around 6 flat right out of the box, that'll be enough for me.�
Sep 8, 2015
Bangor Bob As a general rule of thumb, the smaller models in a carmakers range tend to get the "high performance" versions. Supra, STI, Evolution, M3, RS4... These were not based on the makers larger vehicle platforms. On the other hand, Tesla regularly doesn't do what other automakers do...�
Sep 8, 2015
JohnSnowNW You need less power to reach similar performance in a lighter vehicle. It will be limited by power draw, but I don't see any reason the M3 won't be able to reach sub-3.5 second performance. The M3 won't be using AL, but that doesn't mean that weight savings can't be found elsewhere.�
Sep 9, 2015
Red Sage Ugh. Here we go again. Please take a look at the direct competitors for the Model ?. Tesla Motors will want the least capable of their offerings in the segment to blow their doors off. Elon Musk will want the most capable version of Model ? to thoroughly embarrass anyone and everyone that claimed market dominance before them. These guys? Done.
�
Sep 9, 2015
Yggdrasill I think the Model 3 will at launch have a D-version available. And assuming they use a similar motor to the front motor for both axels, that means they should have a version with around 400 hp AWD at launch. Already, that's about the same as an M3, and 0-60 will be somewhere around 4 seconds. And this wouldn't cost extremely much. Starting with a base Model 3 at 35k USD, all you need to add is the front motor/inverter, which is a 5k USD option on the Model S. I think they could make this motor cheaper for the Model 3, but they would proably load more profit onto this option, so I think it will cost a similar amount. That means a 40k USD Model 3 will have 400 hp and go 0-60 in around 4 seconds.
But I think Tesla could consider making a PXXD edition as well, having the upgraded contactors, fuses, etc, as well as a bigger motor and battery and a more powerful inverter. There would be nothing stopping Tesla from making a 350 hp rear motor plus the 200 hp front motor, thus 550 hp, or 125 hp more than an M3. Then you'd be looking at less than 3 seconds 0-60. Though given that Tesla has announced that they will be making another Roadster, maybe they will save this for the Roadster. If not, they would need to really outdo themselves, making a quad motor system or something similar.�
Sep 9, 2015
MassModel3 You say that like you're getting tired of talking up what an amazing car the 3 is going to be, but I know you love it.
Without a doubt there will eventually be a version of the 3 that does exactly that, but I'd be really surprised if we saw it on launch day. Dual motor and at least two battery sizes to choose from? Yep, right from the start. And I'll take the big battery D, thank you very much. But I don't know that EM is so concerned with embarrassing the competition with the 3. Yet. For now he just wants to change the mindset of buyers, proving that electrics are affordable, convenient, and fun to drive.
But on the other hand, the mad scientists at Tesla have already figured out how to design a high performance motor and fuse system to allow for embarrassing speed, so maybe we'll see some of that in the 3 right from the start. But I doubt it. I fear that a wildly varying cost could simply scare away customers who will see an affordable model as 'stripped down'.�
Sep 9, 2015
techmaven If we believe the Model 3 starts with a 55 kWh battery pack with a 70 kWh battery pack option and we are talking about roughly the same c-rate discharge limits as current vehicles, we're looking at 5.5 x 55 = 302.5 kW and 5.5 x 70 = 385 kW. That's 411 hp and 523 hp at the battery. Throw in 10% or so drivetrain loss, we're looking at the limits of 370 hp and 471 hp. Of course, on the cheaper models, Tesla will likely opt for a smaller inverter rating. The car is likely to weight in at 4,000 lbs or so at the top end, so we're talking 0-60 times in the mid to upper 3's.�
Sep 9, 2015
Kevin Harney I am going to stick my neck out here. I believe that there will be a Ludicrious Mode for the Model 3 and I think the 0-60 times will be sub 2.5. Of course none of this will be available at the $35K price. It will be upwards of $80Kish - say $75K-$85K�
Sep 9, 2015
Yggdrasill The best argument for Tesla having a Ludicrous version at launch is that Tesla might need the higher margins on these options to have sufficient average margin on their sales. Adding a ludicrous mode for on top of the regular XXD for something like 15k USD, with 50-75% margin, will really bring in the money. And people will definitely be willing to pay to get one of the fastest accelerating cars in the world.
- - - Updated - - -
I doubt it. 2.5-3 seconds is possible, but less than that and you really start to struggle with the laws of physics. I'm thinking that kind of acceleration will demand sacrifices that aren't compatible with a family car.
We might see something like that on the next generation Roadster, though.�
Sep 9, 2015
MassModel3 Without a doubt. Maximum plaid.
And maximum $$$.�
Sep 9, 2015
Red Sage Last year, before the Tesla 'D' Event, Elon Musk said that people on the internet were on the right track, but had misjudged the magnitude of what they had to show.
I believe that people are doing the same with Model ?. Some are literally predicting that the rear wheel drive base version will be no more powerful than a BMW 320i. Just a neat little runabout that is affordable and relatively efficient due to electric drive. Effectively, nothing more than a Camry LE, with rear wheel drive. It is that notion that my 'Ugh.' above was about.
No.
Elon has repeatedly said that their cars must be compelling, better than all the other cars on offer, or no one would have a reason to buy them.
That sentiment has been echoed by JB Straubel, who says that more than anything else, they want to make sure all their cars are fun to drive.
People both here and at the Tesla Motors forum told me that I was being 'Over-the-Top Optimistic' when I theorized that a version of Model ? might have dual 250 HP motors, 500 HP combined, paired with at least an 85 kWh battery pack, and that it would be priced similarly to the BMW 335i. They said I was out of my mind when I suggested that the base version of Model ? would probably use a refined version of the ~300 HP rear motor from the Model S 60, which would be discontinued ahead of the release of Generation III vehicles, and that the smallest capacity battery pack would be at least 60 kWh for a range approaching 250 miles. I now suspect that even that specification may be seriously short of what Tesla will actually unleash upon the automotive world.
So, yeah... This is a rather touchy subject for me. I honestly believe that Tesla Motors intends to utterly astonish the world with what the Model ? can do. They want to prove that all the Naysayers, every single one, is absolutely, thoroughly, and completely, 100% incorrect.�
Sep 9, 2015
Kevin Harney I have to admit when you first came forward with some of those ideas I was a bit skeptical but the more I see and hear the more I am in your camp. Especially since I want a Model 3 !! LOL :biggrin:�
Sep 9, 2015
MassModel3 Perhaps I just don't have enough history with Tesla, but I've been right along side Red Sage with that over-the-top optimism. Maybe it's just a lot of wishful thinking, but there's really no good reason most of these predictions can't come to pass. To his credit, he does far more research/homework than most, and I'm just extremely hopeful that he's right!�
Sep 9, 2015
Bangor Bob I'm *really* hesitant to voice this opinion as I'm not sure it'll be received well. But here goes...
There seems to be a lot of "talking down" of expectations for the Model 3 by current Tesla owners. My feeling is that some of that is due to ICE-age thinking. Current owners have paid a lot for their cars, and have an expectation for their cars to "be special." A mass market model that can be optioned up to near-equivalent performance is very threatening to that expectation.
An analysis of the economics though, suggests that the performance/cost slope for EV's is much steeper than for ICE's. You get a lot more performance for a small increase in cost. The incremental costs (as distinguished from retail price) of "Ludicrous" power aren't actually all that big. Nothing at all like the incremental costs for, say, moving from a mass-produced I4 ICE and transmission to a low-volume twin-turbo 6 and beefier transmission or hand-assembled bi-turbo AMG V8 and very low-volume 8-speed flappy paddle box. Motors, yes, are different, but Tesla's winding process is highly automated already. Flexibility in winding different capacity stators on the same line can likely be programmed into the tooling/robots. Power electronics upgrades can be "programmable" in that inverter boards get say, 1/2 populated with IGBT's for the base model, 3/4 populated with components for the midrange model, and fully populated for the Ludicrous model. Same circuit board, same parts placement robot, different program, tiny incremental cost (incremental component costs, likely in the $100's of dollars, possibly $10's with enough volume.). That's a brave new automotive world, and it's going to take some serious mental adjustments in our expectations and world-views going forward.�
Sep 9, 2015
RJK911 The BMW M3 does 0-60 in 3.9, the M5 does 0-60 in 4.2, and the M5 is the more expensive car. Both RWD.
It's not unheard of that the smaller, cheaper, sportier car is faster.�
Sep 15, 2015
justthemessenger Several publications have indicated that the primary motor in the Model 3 will be the secondary motor already used in the Model S and Model X. Crain Communications is a pretty big outfit, and today, Automotive News released this:
Tesla plans to borrow from the Model S and Model X to speed the Model 3 to market. For instance, the company already has a motor in its parts bin that produces a suitable 257 hp. (The dual-motor Model S 70D and 85D use one over each axle.) An updated version of that motor will power the Model 3.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20150914/OEM04/309149992/after-model-x-tesla-will-make-a-mass-market-shift#disqus_thread
I don't see a 257HP motor base Model 3 with more steel and less exotic components getting to 60 in much under 5 seconds.
They also wrote: The base car will have one motor, but buyers will be able to pay more for a dual-motor awd setup.
The dual motor version will be faster, and you can look at the difference in 0-60 times for the Model S vehicles that use it, like the 70D vs. the 70.
Of course, there are faster versions of the Model S than the 70D, but what would be the point of a $60,000 Model 3?�
Oct 3, 2015
McHoffa To have almost Model S P90D performance for $60k instead of $130k?�
Oct 4, 2015
shrspeedblade I just hope that tesla remembers something that makes the M3 great is RWD and delivers a hi performance version in the model 3. Making it AWD or vanilla like the current S would really suck.�
Oct 4, 2015
MassModel3 It seems to me that the general consensus of the forums is that the dual motor Tesla is a more desirable vehicle, but I'd guess that's mostly due to the increased acceleration and the increased range the second motor provides. From a "feel of the road" perspective, some people say they prefer the feel of driving RWD, but for safety, acceleration, and range, give me the dual motor. Honestly, I probably couldn't tell the difference in FWD, RWD, or AWD under most conditions, and neither will most buyers.
And without a doubt, there will be a version of the 3 with the Ludicrous button, but it'll cost ya.�
Oct 26, 2015
Caligula Having blown the tires off of a P85+ on a slightly damp freeway onramp, and doing the same sans wheel spin in my S85D, I can attest to the awesomeness of the added traction in all but dry conditions on quality roadway.�
Nov 6, 2015
S?XY P100D The BMW M3 does 0-60 in 3.9s. A performance version of Tesla Model 3 ought to beat that.�
Nov 7, 2015
favo I'm pretty sure Elon will insist on having a Performance version that beats all of the competition (except maybe whatever top-of-the-line Model S is shipping at the time). I was thinking maybe 3.5s. There will surely be a large number of folks who will be willing to pay extra for it.�
Nov 7, 2015
Colsla A lot of people here seem to be very certain that there will be Ludicrous mode for Model 3.
My assumption is that it will be one of the features that will be exclusive to Model S/X.
That is of course if Tesla doesnt offer any faster launch upgrades between now and the time Model 3 is out.�
Nov 7, 2015
ProphetM I think a lot of us are operating under the assumption that they will try to make the best car that they can for the money. Given that ludicrous mode would undoubtedly be one of the tippy-top options on the highest-end model, it wouldn't factor in to their $35,000 base price goal. So the only real impediment to them doing it is cost - will it be so costly that they won't be able to sell it even at the very top end? Most people I think would probably say no.
The alternate point of view is that they will intentionally make the Model 3 less of a car that it can be, just to differentiate it from the Model S. That's something a traditional car company might do, but it doesn't really seem to fit in with Tesla's goals, IMO. They need the Model 3 to blow the doors off any comparable ICE car. Whether it also beats the Model S is irrelevant. They don't need to protect the S because upselling to it is not part of the plan.�
Nov 8, 2015
Colsla I believe even the base model will be able to beat its competitors i.e. lowest end of bmw 3 series easy and that will already be enough to beat the competition. It's just hard to imagine model 3 being as good as lots of people say it will be.. I guess it will be one hell of a car haha�
Nov 8, 2015
Tedkidd +1. Probably guilty of confirmation bias.�
Nov 8, 2015
ScepticMatt I think Tesla will have a high ASP version of the 3 at launch, maybe even at first like they did on S/X.
Makes sense to keep revenue high during demand constraints.�
Nov 8, 2015
Yggdrasill Agree. I think pretty much the only way Tesla will be able to offer an attractive Model 3 at 35k USD is by cutting the profit margin to the bone, and then making up for that by taking out more margin on higher priced versions. I wouldn't even completely rule out that the 35k USD model 3 would be eliminated, just like the 40 kWh Model S, if demand is sufficient for higher spec Model 3.
From Tesla's perspective, this is completely in line with their objectives. If they have no problem selling 500k Model 3 at 50-70k USD, Tesla can (and should) take those profits and roll them into the Gigafactory 2 as well as a new car factory.�
Nov 8, 2015
S'toon I disagree. Tesla and Musk have stated time and again that the Model 3 is the the car for the masses with a price of $35,000. It would completely destroy their reputation if they don't make a car for the masses with a price of $35,000.�
Nov 8, 2015
Yggdrasill It depends on how it's done. No one is up in arms because Tesla failed to meet it's promise of a $50k starting price for the Model S. The reason why no one is upset is because the more expensive versions stole the attention. And the same thing could easily happen again, once the Model 3 lauches, no one will be paying much attention to the base version. Everyone will be testing the P80D Ludicrous.
If Tesla then allows all the people holding a reservation at launch to spec out a $35k Model 3 if they want, and then quietly terminate that version, saying "there was no demand - only 5% chose this version", hardly anyone will notice, or care. Looking into the past: Tesla Kills The $50,000 Model S, Makes The Media The Fools Of April�
Nov 8, 2015
Stretch2727 My bet is a $35K RWD, 0-60 in 6 secs with a $70K AWD Ludicrous Mode Fully Optioned Car.�
Nov 8, 2015
electracity I don't see Tesla going after the ludicrous level performance in a steel car with a small battery. A six second base car and a four second performance model 3 should be plenty good enough.
I would prefer Tesla making a $45K aluminum base car. I'm curious what Tesla will be able to do with a steel model 3.�
Nov 8, 2015
Vger Except that JB Straubel explicitly said this would not be the case at a recent talk at U Nevada-Reno. He indicated that it would be and "had to be" all-new technology.
Almost everything the conventional auto industry and conventional auto press has assumed about Tesla has been wrong.�
Nov 8, 2015
S'toon I suspect you're looking at it from the point of view of someone who can afford a higher priced car, not someone who can't. I'm one of those who can't. I'll be royally pissed if after all these years I can't get the car I've been wanting.�
Nov 8, 2015
Colsla I would be happy with this.
I don't even need the 'p' let alone Ludicrous. should bring down the price by 20k ish without the P and L :smile:�
Nov 8, 2015
Yggdrasill First and foremost, I'm looking at it from the point of view of someone wanting Tesla to succeed long term. I'm a long term investor and I believe in Tesla's objectives. And from this point of view, Tesla should focus on building factories, and for that, they need money. If focusing on more expensive variants of the Model 3 allows Tesla to produce 2 million cars in 2025 instead of 1 million, it is the only right course of action.
I'm not saying Tesla definitely will ax the cheapest variant and focus on more expensive variants this time around, I'm just saying it's possible. To maximize your chances of getting a Model 3 you can afford, I would be sitting ready with money for a reservation in March. After all, the first ones to order a 40 kWh Model S did receive their cars. (Though on the other hand, the first ones to order the 60D didn't get their cars, they were just told to get something else.) But if Tesla decides to drop the cheapest variant, I wouldn't lose hope of ever receiving one. The goal of Tesla is still to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to buy a compelling electric car. Though it might be that the car you are looking for might not materialize until 2020 instead of 2017.�
Nov 8, 2015
S'toon If they focus on more expensive cars, it will exclude the masses. The masses not buying cars means no expansion. As for the Model 40, it wasn't in demand because it was cheap. It wasn't in demand because of lack of range, and lack of supercharging capability. The Model 3 promises to be on par with the 70 range-wise, and have supercharging capability. That means there'll be more demand for it than the 40.
As well, if they renege on their promise, that'll be the end of Tesla. The media would have a heyday, trumpet how Tesla is a failure. Then the company will crash and burn.
Sorry to burst your bubble. The $35,000 Model 3 is a necessity, not a nice to have. Those of us who can't afford a $50,000 - $70,000 car will be able to own a Tesla whether you like it or not.�
Nov 8, 2015
Colsla I have to agree with S'toon. They won't be able to continue to raise capital by eliminating the base version, which is something that Tesla has been saying is for the masses. Sure, they will still be able to sell the car, but the size of the market will reduce significantly imo.
There is a debate over whether Tesla will make Founder's/Signature version of the 3, but I dont think Tesla will make people wait 3 years for 35k car after the initial model 3 release in 2017. Their stock will crash if they do that. People have been waiting more than enough. ANOTHER 3 yrs on top of that plus however long they will have to wait to get the car due to a crazy number of orders for the base model will do no good to Tesla.�
Nov 8, 2015
Yggdrasill I have no doubt that that the base Model 3 will be in high demand. But if they can produce say 200k Model 3 in 2018, and they have 200k reservations for higher spec cars and 500k reservations for lower spec cars, which cars are more likely to get priority?
They *could* decide to make the cars in the order they were reserved, but they could just as easily push all the lower spec cars to the back of the line, or eliminate the lower spec options altogether. A compromise might be to make a token amount of lower spec cars while focusing primarily on the higher spec cars. Like, if they say that 10% of the cars they make will be lower spec and 90% higher spec, they'd make 180k higher spec cars in 2018 and 20k lower spec. A new lower spec order would then take over 10 years to deliver. Yet they would have kept their promise to sell the Model 3 at 35k USD.
Nope. As long as Tesla sells every car they make, and production keeps climbing 50% each year, the media really doesn't matter.
There are many ways to fulfill that obligation without really doing so.
- - - Updated - - -
The base Model 3 isn't likely to contribute significantly to Teslas profits. They'll likely be making most/all of their profits from the higher spec cars.�
Nov 8, 2015
Mad Hungarian I'm hoping they manage to work out a scheme where they can afford to mix both the $35K and more profitable performance models into the early production schedule to satisfy all, including image/perception concerns.
However I'm very curious to see what the current split is here at TMC and have started a poll on it, please take a minute to vote: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/57071-Do-You-Want-Basic-Ludicrous-Or-Something-In-Between�
Nov 8, 2015
Yggdrasill How Tesla does things depends entirely on how many reservations they get and what people indicate to Tesla regarding what options they would pick. Probably not even Tesla knows what they will do until the middle of 2016 at the earliest.�
Nov 8, 2015
Stretch2727 Not sure if this was posted earlier. Good analysis of what the Model 3 line up could look like.
Will Tesla's Model 3 Compete? - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
On the aluminum versus steel I know Elon made a comment at a interview in early 2015 that the car will be "20% smaller hence 20% lighter". Surprising he made this comment if the car was going to be steel. Using steel would pretty much eat up the weight savings from the size reduction.�
Nov 8, 2015
Mad Hungarian And that's exactly why I started the poll, it'll be interesting to see what the split is here to start.�
Nov 8, 2015
Colsla well they cant just push the cheaper optioned cars to the back. People have their reservation #s and no one can tell what options they will go for.�
Nov 8, 2015
Yggdrasill Sure they can, and do. When you configure the car, what options you chose determine when your car will be produced.�
Nov 8, 2015
TEG Here:
Elon Musk interview with billionaire investment legend Ron Baron (11.6.15) - YouTube
He said "Will have a similar feel to the S... Great acceleration... Good driving feel... Good handling..."
I don't know how much we should read into that, but "great" > "good", so it sounds like acceleration is perhaps more of a priority than driving feel and handling.�
Nov 8, 2015
Colsla hmmm but in the case of X, people already pre-orered with reserv #. and Tesla doesnt know whos gonna order what options.
If Tesla puts lower priced cars at the back of the production line, then whats the point of pre-ordering? Isn't the point of pre-order getting your car sooner than other people?
Tesla may actually do what you are saying, but I don't know how people will react to that..�
Nov 8, 2015
physicsfita I, for one, wouldn't react very well if any tax credit goes up in smoke because I got put to the back of the bus because I didn't want (and probably couldn't afford) a fully maxed-out car. I would understand some shifting away from the reservation numbers for things like batching winter-package cars together, etc., but that would be about it.�
Nov 8, 2015
aronth5 It may be a necessity for some and I totally get that but the polls say most people don't expect that. Only 6% felt it would be under $40k.
Check out the poll results
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/41924-POLL-What-will-be-the-average-sales-price-of-the-Model-3
�
Nov 8, 2015
shokunin I don't think the production ramp will based off of "options" (tech, autopilot, air suspension) per se, but rather pack size. Model S started with the 85 first, then 3 months later the 60's then another 3 months for the 40's. I configured and reserved both nearly the same time but received my 40 6 months later than my 85. There were some ramp issues with the coil suspension back in the day, but lot of the issues back in 2012/2013 were due to Tesla being new to mass producing cars and needing the cashflow.
The $35K is definitely the target price with Elon quoting "fully operational gigafactory needed". It's just a matter of what is included in the $35K price, my guess is not a lot, similar to pricing out a BMW 3 series. Power seats, navigation, rear view camera, and parking sensors are all optional accessories/packages. Rear camera should be standard though.�
Nov 9, 2015
Yggdrasill I don't think you'll get very relevant data, though. The nature of this forum is that it attracts enthusiasts, while the more relevant market for the 35k Model 3 is people who have Leafs, i3s, Volts, etc, today, or who just haven't been able to find an EV they find compelling yet. These future owners won't come out of the woodwork until the Model 3 can be reserved.
- - - Updated - - -
And yet, if I want a Model X 70D, Tesla has indicated I will need to wait at least an additional year. Was it reasonable for me to think I would be able to buy a Model X with a smaller battery close to launch?
For ~2 years, the wording on the Tesla website was that the Model X would be available with 60 and 85 kWh battery options. Then about a year ago, that wording was changed to "multiple battery options". And now it's launching with 90 kWh battery only. These changes are natural given the demand for the Model X. Tesla is focusing on selling the higher spec models first, and then when supply starts to catch up with demand, then they will introduce lower spec options.
But where does that leave me, as a reservation holder? Well, if I can't stretch my budget to the 90 kWh battery, I will simply have to cancel my reservation. And then in a year, I might order a lower spec Model X, buy a used Model X, or I might wait for the Model 3 (or more likely Model Y).
As the reservation agreement clearly states, the agreement doesn't guarantee a place in line and it doesn't lock in pricing. It doesn't form an obligation for Tesla to sell you a car, and it doesn't form an obligation for you to buy a car.
All the reservation agreement does is increase the likelihood that you will receive a car sooner than those who reserve after you. This all depends on your location and desired spec.
Some will be angry, some will be understanding. But the noise will be drowned out by the joy of the people who receive their cars.�
Nov 9, 2015
davidc18 How ever it turns out, we just want them to get it successfully out the door so that the company survives. We love our MS and would like to get another.�
Nov 9, 2015
shokunin The IRS IRC-30D tax credit aka $7500 federal tax credit has a phase out of 1 year after 200,000 qualified vehicles are produced. It just doesn't go poof it slowly goes from 100% credit, an extra quarter at 100% credit ($7500) then the next 2 calendar quarters at 50% ($3750) and another 2 calendar quarters at 25% ($1875) of the credit. The phase begins in the second calendar quarter following the calendar quarter in which Tesla hits the 200,000 vehicle milestone.
https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Plug-In-Electric-Vehicle-Credit-IRC-30-and-IRC-30D�
Nov 9, 2015
Trev Page Rear view camera will be standard, NHTSA requires them on all cars by May 2018
NHTSA Announces Final Rule Requiring Rear Visibility Technology | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)�
Nov 9, 2015
dhanson865 I posted this in a CPO thread earlier but it applies here
------------
1. a new Model S will always have the same or higher capacity battery as the top option than a model 3
2. a used Model S can pay some outrageous price to upgrade the battery pack to the new version no matter what year it is
3. if the upgrade price isn't a preferred option someone will always have the option of trading up to a newer Model S instead of upgrading the older Model S. This will have a cost also.
But ignoring upgrades of existing cars you have the situation where (Model S options by year - a running history - Tesla Motors Club - Enthusiasts & Owners Forum)
2012 -2015 (pre April 2105) Model S only had 60 kwh and 85 kwh options
April 2015 to current adds 70 kwh and 90 kwh for Model S (90 kwh confirmed for Model X, unknown when a lower capacity will be added)
now lets extrapolate a little
Say in 2016 we gain a 75 kwh for Model X and Model S and a 95 kwh for both as well.
Say in 2017 Model S/X have a 80 kwh and 100 kwh
Say in 2018 Model S/X have a 85 kwh and 105 kwh
If the Model 3 has a 80% size and gets better efficiency from it then it gets similar range from an 80% sized battery. (you can argue that point in 300+ Mile Model 3?)
So say the 2018 Model 3 has a 85 kwh battery pack that gives it the same range as a Model S at 105 kwh and there is also a Model 3 with a 70 kwh battery pack that gives it similar range to a Model S with a 85 kWh battery pack.
You end up with CPO and used cars in buckets chronologically of
Model S60 pre AP (2012 to early 2014)
Model S85 pre AP (2012 to early 2014)
Model S60 with AP (late 2014)
Model S85 with AP (late 2014)
Model S70 (early 2015)
Model S90 (mid 2015)
Model S75 (2016)
Model S95 (2016)
Model S80 (2017)
Model S100 (2017)
Model 3 - 65 (range similar to a S80) - 2018 version
Model 3 - 80 (range similar to a S100) - 2018 version
Model S85 (2018 version)
Model S105 (2018)
I'll argue that much of the cost savings for Model 3 are in economies of scale and aren't just decontenting. A fully loaded Model 3 will be competitive to a comparably loaded Model S enough so that they'll be demand limited as usual.
I'm expecting the Model S of the second half of 2017 to have a equal pack in terms of range as a 2018 Model 3. I'm assuming the packs aren't interchangeable between S/X and 3 but are interchangeable between S and X.
So in 2018 I'm saying a new Model 3 will be a better car than a 2015 model S just because the motors/drive train components/fuses/inverters/charger/battery pack improvements will be significant and I don't think they'll decontent the interior enough to turn away people based on luxury.
I think this practically guaranteed improvement in range and component quality will be different enough from gas car improvements to make the S vs 3 comparison similar in 2018 vs 2018 but very different in comparing 2018 Model 3 to 2015 Model S.
----------------
Now since that post I've watched the Baron conference interview with Musk and He added a comment about how the S will always be the platform for new tech and the 3 won't have the latest tech. We don't know if that means one year behind or two years behind but until the reveal next spring lets go with the one year back version.
Think about that for your Ludicrous mode question. If a 2015 car has Ludicrous mode a 2018 Tesla Model 3 will have it. Whatever tech is common in 2016 will be on the Model 3 even.
Keep in mind from the 691 HP threads that the battery limit for HP drops as SOC% drops. A model 3 with a smallest battery can still Ludicrous at 100% SOC but will get noticeably weaker at 50% SOC. Don't think that will keep people (Tesla and owners) from bragging about the ludicrous mode, the 0-60 times, etcetera. The Model S might have a bigger battery and might be able to do more runs at a higher SOC% but both S and 3 will do fast runs.
Maybe range scales better than acceleration and the note on the Model 3 should be
Model 3 - 65 (range similar to a S80, acceleration similar to a S70) - 2018 version
Model 3 - 80 (range similar to a S100, acceleration similar to a S90) - 2018 version
But I honestly don't know how well acceleration vs range will scale.�
Nov 9, 2015
tga Maybe, but without knowing Wh/mi, you can say which car would have longer range, which is all that matters. Ie, if the 3 is much more efficient, it could have more range on a smaller battery.
I agree with your basic premise, but I think it applies more to things like autopilot (or autopilot v2). Ludicrous mode is less "technology" in my mind, then just a realization that the limits on amp draw could be relaxed (yes, the contactor is made of different material, but I don't consider this to be significant tech)
To get back to the OP's point, there will be a max performance version. Whether it's called insane, ludicrous, plaid, or whatever Spaceballs reference comes next is just an arbitrary label on the particular performance buckets.�
Nov 9, 2015
shrspeedblade Well, it will me for a smaller vehicle, so maybe, "Hyper-active!"
Or even better, "Snoddy, BEAM ME!"
�
Nov 9, 2015
dhanson865 The assumption is that the car gets whatever wh/mi efficiency gain to exactly offset the smaller battery capacity. It may be more or less but for now when doing napkin math that's close enough. Things will change later with more data.�
Nov 9, 2015
gregincal No, they have never ever said it would be a car for the masses. They have said it will be a mass market car, which is totally different.
- - - Updated - - -
It's exactly what they did with the Model S. Preordering means you get your car before other people with the same configuration that you choose.�
Nov 9, 2015
Kevin Harney To answer the OPs question. Yes the Model 3 will be Ludicriously fast. (I predict the PXXD version will hit 0-60 in 2.4 seconds) For under $50K ? No, I seriously doubt that.�
Nov 9, 2015
MichFin The car will be competitive with the BMW 3 series according to Musk.
320i 0-60 in 7.1 seconds MSRP $33k
328i 0-60 in 5.8 seconds MSRP $38k
340i 0-60 in 4.6 seconds MSRP $47k
340i with many options like driver assistance, luxury package and tech package can easily be well over $55k
So my guess is that the Model 3 will beat all those at those price points.�
Nov 9, 2015
Kevin Harney And I believe that the base Model 3 will be about 3.9 0-60 to compete with the BMW M3.�
Nov 9, 2015
Yggdrasill Nah. It needs AWD to do 3.9. Assuming AWD is a 4k USD option, you'd need a 39k USD Model 3 to be competitive with the M3 in acceleration. And to beat the M3, you'd probably need the upgraded battery and the performance version, so maybe 55k USD.�
Nov 9, 2015
Kevin Harney Why would it need AWD ? the BMW M3 does it without AWD. 3.9 is not that big of a deal for traction. Beyond that for Insane and Ludicrious I agree AWD probably necessary. You might be right on the larger battery but better chemistry might change that too. But I think a Base Model 3 with the upgraded battery will be less than $55K - more like $45K.�
Nov 9, 2015
Yggdrasill The M3 does it with 431 hp on the rear wheels. The Model 3 is unlikely to have more than 250 hp on the rear wheels in the base configuration, maybe only 200 hp. Adding the front motor bumps this up to maybe 450 hp, though limited by the battery and electronics.
And I assumed the 55k included both the upgraded battery at say 8k USD and the performance edition at say 8k USD. Here, I'm assuming you get an upgraded rear motor, inconel fuses and everything else you need to do 0-60 mph in 2.X seconds.�
Nov 9, 2015
Ryan H It worries me when I see people talk about the Model 3 in relation to the tax credit. I don't think people realize it's a credit off their federal tax liability. The catch is a person's tax liability cannot be less than zero. I wonder how many people who can't afford a higher end Model 3 would have income high enough to have a $7500 tax liability.
Full disclosure: I've already stated on this forum that I am one of the people who have less than a $7500 federal tax liability.�
Nov 9, 2015
MichFin "And I believe that the base Model 3 will be about 3.9 0-60 to compete with the BMW M3."
Not a chance.... The Model S 85D is 4.2 the 70D 5.2
So my guess is that the base Model 3 will come in somewhere around 5-6 seconds which will compare favorably with the 328i and upgrades from there will take you under 5 seconds beating the high end 340i. Keep in mind every bit of performance takes away from range and increases cost which are the two main targets that Tesla has highlighted.
$35k entry point
200+ mile range�
Nov 9, 2015
dhanson865 Not living on either coast aka in a flyover state I don't make enough for the $7500 tax liability either.
2018 is a ways away. I'm not sure if I will by then or not.
Either way tax or not I keep seeing people talk about the Model 3 as though it will have 2015 tech in it. People keep talking about a 2015 Model S specs vs a 2018 Model 3 specs. A 2018 Model S will blow the doors off of a 2015 Model S and the model 3 will be less than some future Model S not less than the current Model S.�
Nov 9, 2015
Yggdrasill One of the main goals for Tesla is also profitability. Without offering high-priced performance options, Tesla is extremely unlikely to be able to make money on the Model 3. And 2.X second 0-60 times is a great way to sell the performance options. Those who need max range will configure for max range. Those who need a cheap as possible Model 3 will configure a cheap as possible Model 3.�
Nov 9, 2015
MichFin If you're buying a $40k car you pretty much have over $7500 unless you're retired or have some special circumstances. If you don't you can always lease the car and it gets rolled into the price of the lease.
Furthermore the Model 3 will NOT have the $7500 tax credit for long because it's only for the first 200,000 vehicles per manufacturer. Tesla is already over 50,000 sold and will likely Sell 50,000 next year in the US so 2017 they will only have it for the beginning of the year before they run out.�
Nov 9, 2015
Cobbler I think your expectations are realistic. Similar performance as a BMW 320i, 200mile range and with the price setting of 35K -40K $.
The high-selling points will be reliability (let's hope all the drive unit related problems will permanently fixed), trunk/frunk/space available in the car, low-cost maintenance, zero-emission, continues software-updates...
If you want more upgrades, there will be performance/styling/tech/.... packages at $$$�
Nov 9, 2015
MichFin Exactly, you can expect the car to sell between $35k and $55k depending on which performance levels and options you pick. Just like the BMW 3 series.
- - - Updated - - -
I agree that there will be performance packages in the car but 2.x second 0-60 is something that will be very difficult to do under $80k. I'm not so sure there will be a market for the Model 3 at $80k but for a few customers.�
Nov 9, 2015
Yggdrasill I think it's possible for much less.
The relevant Model S performance options are:
AWD: $5,000
Battery upgrade: $10,000
Performance: $20,000
Ludicrous: $10,000
Adding those options to the $35,000 base Model 3 means the price would be $80,000, but this is wholly unrealistic. For one thing, Tesla probably has somewhere around a 90% profit margin on the Ludicrous option, and all the other options would definitely be cheaper on a smaller car built in higher volume.
Even pessimistically the price shouldn't be more than:
Base Model 3: $35,000
AWD: $4,000
Battery upgrade: $8,000
Performance: $10,000
Ludicrous: $5,000
Total: $62,000
- - - Updated - - -
And just to mention it, the BMW M3 starting MSRP is $63,200 and it does 0-60 in 3.8 seconds, so a 2.7 second 0-60 time in a $62,000 Model 3 would be easy to sell.�
Nov 9, 2015
Lonnie123 Not quite, after the 200,000th car the FULL CREDIT is available until the end of the quarter after the quarter the car sells in. Then there is 6 months of 50% of the credit, then 6 months of 25% credit.
Example:
200,000th car sells on Feb 14th 2018. Since this is in the First Quarter of the year, it breaks down like this:
The full discount is available until May 31'st (the quarter after the quarter the car is sold in)
50% credit until Dec 31'st
25% credit until May 31'st 2019
In theory if the car sells early on in a quarter you could get nearly 6 months of full credit after that, unlimited amount of cars in that time period.�
Nov 9, 2015
physicsfita Just to be clear, I would be miffed if even half the credit goes poof, since some seem to be suggesting that waits of over a year for less-optioned vehicles would be appropriate.
- - - Updated - - -
I make basically just barely enough for the credit to come in to play. It would be a major factor is being able to afford a Model 3 because it would bring the total price to about the same as a Prius, which is affordable for me.
- - - Updated - - -
... which is why I'll be getting carpal tunnel from hitting command-r on the browser on unveiling day. :tongue:�
Nov 9, 2015
shokunin Most people will have tax liability greater than zero, and even if they have less than $7500 in federal tax liability, they will still get to claim a portion of it. Obviously there are some retirees and other situations where people may have very little federal tax liabilities.
If you make $46,550 using 2014 tax tables and have no other deductions of any kind then your tax liability is exactly $7500 and you will get to claim the full $7500 tax credit.�
Nov 9, 2015
dhanson865 Would you like some more accurate numbers to play with? It doesn't run out any time soon and it doesn't run out all at once.
Now to update the current totals at end of October 2015 would be
US running total Tesla Sales vs 200,000 for federal credit phase out trigger
2011 end 1,900
2012 end 4,550 (2,650 for 2012 + prior year)
2013 end 22,200 (14,650 for 2013 + prior years)
2014 end 39,500 (17,300 for 2014 + prior years)
2015 Oct 58,400 (18,900 for partial 2015 + prior years)
If we do another 5,000 US in 2015 we'll be around 64,000 US by end of 2015.
Do the math if Tesla is doing less than 25,000 a year US in 2015 how many years will it take to hit 200,000 US sales? They'll ramp up S and X production but there will still be plenty of discounts on Model 3.
Lets say 50,000 US for 2016 and 75,000 US for 2017, and maybe some of the tail of 2017 are founders Model 3. Then in 1Q 2018 they open the floodgates and a ton of Signature Model 3s come out, in 2Q 2018 a ton of regular model 3s come out all with full tax credit. Hoorah, look at this again
Tax Credit Phase-Out Schedule Quarter Credit
Q4 2017 founders Model 3 with full credit
Q1 2018 signature Model 3 with Full credit
Q2 2018 production Model 3 with Full credit (will they be making 10,000 a week by then? Maybe 12 weeks worth is 100,000 Model 3s with full credit?)
Q3 2018 50% of full amount (maybe 100,000 Model 3s with half credit)
Q4 2018 50% of full amount (maybe 100,000 Model 3s with half credit, with extra production going outside the US)
Q1 2019 25% of full amount (maybe 100,000 Model 3s with quarter credit, with extra production going outside the US)
Q2 2019 25% of full amount (maybe 100,000 Model 3s with quarter credit, with extra production going outside the US)
Q3 2019 No credit
all in all they might get out 100,00 with full credit, 200,000 with half credit, and another 200,000 with quarter credit. I'd hardly call 500,00 Model 3s in 2018/2019 the same as your version of none of them getting the credit.
Shift that back a quarter and 100,000 less cars get a full credit, shift that forward a quarter and 100,000 more get a full credit. Just depends when they can start cranking out Model 3 en masse.�
Nov 9, 2015
dhanson865 If your "Taxable Income" is $46,550 you might have that liability.
Working down a form 1040 (long form) the labels are
7 - Wages, salaries, tips, etc (think gross income)
a bunch of other possible sources of income
22 - Total income
37 - Adjusted Gross Income
40 - Itemized or Standard Deduction
42 - Exemptions
43 - Taxable income
For anyone with simple taxes 7, 22, 37 will be the same but 40 will be $12,400 for a married couple with no kids and no itemized deductions and line 42 will be $7,900.
meaning for that simple married family of two they'd need line 37 to be $66,850 to get to line 43 being your $46,550 number from the tax table.
for a single person with no dependents or spouse it'd be a lower number but I'm guessing a couple with no kids is likely the closest to simple taxes around the range we want for an example.
(numbers from 2014 tax form, not meant to be tax advice)�
Nov 9, 2015
shokunin If I use my magic 8 ball...
64,000 units end of 2015
+40,000 - S & X in 2016
+50,000 - S & X in 2017
that brings us roughly ~154,000 cars going into 2018. I personally don't think we'll see signification M3 production volume until 2018. Tesla might hit 200,000 in Q3 which leaves all of 2018 in the money for the $7500 Tax Credit. This all assumes the X is going to sell as well as the S, which I'm not yet convinced that it will.�
Nov 9, 2015
dhanson865 Yes in that scenario where US Tesla sales hit 200,00 in Q3 2018 we would have
Tax Credit Phase-Out Schedule Quarter Credit
Q3 2018 Full amount
Q4 2018 Full amount
Q1 2019 50% of full amount
Q2 2019 50% of full amount
Q3 2019 25% of full amount
Q4 2019 25% of full amount
Q1 2020 No credit
Note "full amount" may not be $7500 by 2018, Congress critters and such can and do muck around. It could be higher or lower if they retcon the law.�
Dec 22, 2015
cbin97 My entire life I considered myself a car guy, now I am a Tesla guy. There is nothing in the ICE world that I even remotely car about anymore. Every year since I can remember I have gone to either the LA or SD Auto Show, when I found out that there wouldn't be a Model X at this years show I didn't go. If it's not Tesla I am not interested.�
Dec 23, 2015
MassModel3 There are "car guys" at work who think I'm irrationally obsessed with Tesla. They admit Tesla's are nice cars, but they just don't get the obsession. They know my wife's next car may very well be a Tesla Model 3 and I'm sure they think I'm playing the elitist card saying that. But the fact of the matter is, I really have been spoiled by the Model S. ICE cars, while having their own appeal in their own way, still require stopping at gas stations, still require ongoing maintenance of thousands of moving parts, and still they don't have the get-up-and-go of a Model S, the clean interior, or the cool factor with the high-tech interface. And let's not forget the OTA updates to make it even cooler!
Yes, I too am spoiled by Tesla. And I fully expect the 2017 Model 3 to make my 2013 Model S look like an antique by comparison.�
May 4, 2016
Red Sage "RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE!" -- Zeus, 'Altered Beast' by SEGA
So, is this the place where I get to post, "I told you so!"...?
�
May 4, 2016
Mad Hungarian I totally get this, and I'm still going to be ICE for another 2 years (optimistically). I'm died-in-the-wool, work in the industry, been reading Road & Track and Car and Driver for 35 years, and as soon as I dived into the whole Tesla/EV world here last year I'm now so much less excited when the new issues show up in the mailbox. I immediately skim them for EV news, and am saddened when there's none. The only exception was the new Golf R that Teg threw up for conversation last week, we happened to have one at work at the same time and maaannnn that is one amazing little car. I nearly had a moment of weakness there. But then logged in here and regained focus�
May 4, 2016
shrspeedblade Yes, after nearly a lifetime of being a car enthusiast I'm almost a little miffed that the enthusiasm I used to feel for new ICE models has lessened as of late!
I need to go test drive a GT350 to help me out I think!�
May 4, 2016
wallet.dat Kids these days sadly won't recognize the origin of the term, "Beast mode"�
May 5, 2016
Red Sage I usually type that as 'RVISE FWUHVM YUIR GWAIVE!' for the sake of those who remember how bad the sampling was on the Genesis version.�
May 5, 2016
LectrikPower I feel exactly the same. I still love driving ICE if it is a manual but it already feels like they would be just recreational to me. Like my 79' CB750. It's like why the *@$% would I buy something with a dirty, smelly, inefficient ICE?
I have a Kia Serento and will get a M3 or used S and get rid of my 2002 Protege at that time. I definitely will be going all electric and will replace the Kia with another electric, ASAP, when I can afford something to carry 2 kids, a big dog and all the required support equipment�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét