Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Model 3' started by Tesla Addict, Feb 7, 2017.
And for the Euro 65.000 other options included as well
By the time the car comes to Europe larger battery options may be available. Maybe a sports option too... but even if they did a sports option at 74D you would get 0-60 at 3 seconds and 300mile range.
Quote: "By the time the car comes to Europe larger battery options may be available. Maybe a sports option too... but even if they did a sports option at 74D you would get 0-60 at 3 seconds and 300mile range."
The following Open Question I pose.
My understanding, through the many articles read, is that the model 3 will weigh just under 2000 Kg. Is 74 kWh dual motor enough to do 0 - 62 at 3 seconds and 300 mile range?
The simple truth is that no one knows. There's a lot of speculation. And some of it is even "informed" guesswork. But it's still guessing. We don't know what the final weight of the car will be. Or what its drag coefficient will be. Or what its Wh/mile rate will be. Or what battery pack options will exist. Et cetera.
All we know is that it will be a quick car. As Elon likes to say, "At Tesla we don't make slow cars." Will it be 0-60 in 3 seconds? Not likely. For that, you'll almost certainly have to pony up $100,000 for a Model S P85D or better. But a Model 3 will probably be able to hit 60 mph in 4s or 4.5s with AWD and the Performance option. That's still really quick. And it doesn't have to have an 85kWh battery to be quick. The Model S 60D hits 0-60 in 5.2 seconds...and that's without the Performance option. I have a "classic" Model S 85, and it does 0-60 in 5.4s, and that's still ridiculously fun to drive, even after more than 3 years.
So I wouldn't sweat it. We'll get all the specs in a few months when they do the final reveal for the Model 3 in June or so.
For the fun part of being quick is for me not the first motivation. THE motivation is that with a quick car or motorbike (with good handling capacities) you can escape accidents. And I was lucky having quick motorbikes. There are always people who do not pay any attention in traffic. Therefore I am pressing for the highest kWh possible in stead of the safest car in the world at accidents. One never knows how safety works in accidents even when the safest car is involved.
Brings me to another point. Does anyone think a model 3 can act like a crashbumper to avoid accidents, like a German model S driver did with his car near Munich when he saw a lifeless driver behind the wheel of a running car?
About the 315 mile or 500 km reach. Are these numbers from real all day life, the desert or tests from a factory of Volkswagen ha, ha?
Battery size has some restrictions. If you expect to buy small and upgrade later, you may be disappointed.
I bought a Model X 60D which has a software limited 75kwh battery. The upgrade to 75 kwh is almost 10 grand but available over-the-air.
A friend who was upgrading his Model X from 90D to 100D offered me his slightly used 90kwh battery.
Tesla says: yes, it will fit in the space provided, yes the connectors are compatible and NO they will not do the battery swap BECAUSE THE SUSPENSION IN MY X60D IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROPERLY HANDLE THE HEAVIER 90D BATTERY.
With the current battery technology the Model 3's wheel base limits the auto to a max of 75kwh, which is the most the car can hold. You have to realize the vehicle is about 20% smaller than the Model S which does limit how many battery packs it will hold. You can't just wish it would hold more.
I want to believe that, but I still have my doubts. That is because Elon first communicated that 100 kWh will not fit model 3.
Just after the announcements of discontinuing the 60 kWh on the model S, the minimum of 75 kWh's of the model S AND that model S will stay the most important car instead of the 3, Elon communicated that model 3 will have a maximum of 75 kWh. It is this sequence of communications which gives me doubts still.
I think physical it is possible to put a 85 or even 90 kWh batterypack in or under a model 3. Only a 100 kWh batterypack is not possible at all. There's simply no room for that.
I believe Musk has already said that the 75kwh is the largest that the current Model 3 configuration will hold. That's taking into account the new battery's also. At this point only new tech will increase the battery size. That's not likely for at least 2 years.
The statement of Musk, you refer to, was made a while after Musk's other statements I wrote down.
But as I still want to believe you both really..................., I still have my doubts. When (no matter which topic/ discussion) my doubts are still on, after a period of this lenght, usely my doubts change into facts...................................................... we will see.
I think people have too high of expectations for the Model 3. After browsing the forums I understand why Elon thinks so too. The Model 3 will be the gateway drug to a model S. Tesla will position the model 3 such that anyone who can afford a model S will choose it over the model 3. I'm going to guess there will be only 2 capacities offered to keep the Model 3 simple and # of configurations small:
55kWh @ 245Wh/mi = 220
75kWh @ 245Wh/mi = 306
I'm guessing at 245Wh/mi based on the Bolt being rated at 238mi with a 60kWh pack which is about 252Wh/mi and the Model 3 has to do better than 252Wh/mi.
The only way I see Tesla offering 3 range options would be to have a 60 or 65kWh pack that is software limited to 55kWh and is cheaply upgraded to full capacity for somewhere between $1.5k-$3k. That way they can say they offer the base model at $35k and in reality 90+% of buyer will opt for the larger battery. The likelihood of this is dependent on what they have the battery cost down to. Then 75kWh would be the high capacity. I think Tesla is smart not going higher than 75kWh since that could cannibalize model S buyers who would buy a model 3 simply because the higher range. That and they are trying to keep the cost down on the Model 3. I'd expect that to change as the market changes over the next few years.
I agree. I can not see Elon allowing the base $35 000 having less range than the Bolt. Elon's quote, "You will not be able to buy a better car for $35,000, or even close, even if you get no options,"
Not wanting to blow my own trumpet too much... but it is rare my predictions come true. However I got the 220miles and the 310miles spot on, pat on the back too me.
It is also a shame that I got it right as I really really wanted the base model to beat the Bolt in range (something Tesla still could do, if they upped the standard range before production started, or if they are actually 250miles with a battery lock, so you can 100% charge to 220 miles each time!)
It looks like my guess at the P may well be good too, it certainly wont be a $60,000 car.
Pretty dang good prediction! You would've been 100% right on if you predicted that WITHOUT the D option, but i'll give you credit. ;-) Also yea, I think the P model will be at least 75k. A fully loaded non-P and non-D model is just a pubic hair under 60k. Current estimates are that the D model will cost an extra 5k bringing the car to 65K. I would guess the P model will have to be at least 10K more if it's anything like the Model S P100D, so that brings it up to 75K.
Who does remember this discussion?
Half a year ago or a bit longer Elon stated after answers: "it simply doesn't fit". Meaning the wheelbase of the M3 hadn't enough room for 100kWh. And that some people had questions about that statement.
By then...how is it possible that the new Tesla Roadster with a smaller wheelbase has a 200 kWh batterypack?
Somebody has the answer?
I was thinking the same thing. When he said they put a 200kWh battery in such a tiny car it just didn't make sense. Maybe they anticipate much better battery tech to be ready by 2020? They probably have it mostly ready but not enough to get it into the model 3 in time. Hopefully the model y will have at least 100kWh.
They didn't design the Model 3 to be able to carry a very high capacity battery. With the cheaper battery design and how they are to be arranged in the model 3 it's likely they couldn't fit at 100kWh battery in the model 3 with that battery design. At least not with out significant battery cost increase if not redesigning the car. When price is not a constraint you can do quite a lot. Plus who knows what higher density battery tech they have up their sleeves.
Totally different car and design requirements.
The Model 3 is built to be a compact family sedan meaning it a standard cargo capacity expectation. The Roadster will be in a space that has cars that can't fit a carry on bag anywhere except the passenger seat. I wouldn't be surprised if we found out that the Roadster has no frunk as the space was filled with battery and a significantly reduced trunk as the battery would be built up there to balance the weight distribution.
Instead of a flat battery pack under the car we might see a concept that's flat on the bottom and stacked in the front and back for additional storage.
No one is expecting to get their suitcases into this car.