Gen III - summary

[Red Sage]

Good Children Don't Eat Their Parents...

~*or*~

The Pivotal Case for Generation III Performance...

The other day Elon Musk said, "We... We actually have to make a car that's not 'a little bit better' than the competitors. Because if it's only 'a little bit better', then... Then why would customers bother buying it? It has to be a lot better, uh, than... Than any of the existing cars."

I think that even enthusiasts don't really understand the depth of that statement. The purpose of Tesla Motors has always been to bring a mass market electric car to fruition. That has always been the goal. Always. Tesla has no need to protect the sales of their higher end products. None.

Let me tell you why...

Elon has said that the Generation III vehicle platform would target the BMW 3-Series. That is because whether they deserve it or not, BMWs cars are considered the best of the best at the price point.

The BMW 3-Series sold 119,521 units in the United States of America during 2013. By comparison, the BMW 5-Series moved 56,863 units, and the BMW 7-Series a grand total of 10,932 units. Notice that the combined totals of the two higher end vehicles, which can sell for multiple thousands more... still trail the sales of the BMW 3-Series, their entry level model.

Another thing to keep in mind is that BMW shares drivetrains and motors across those product lines. Over the years the same set of motors have appeared in each class:

BMW Engines & Cars

LITER	3-Series	5-Series	7-Series
1.8	318i	518i	-
2.0	320i	520i	-
2.5	325i	525i	-
2.8	328i	528i	728i
3.5	335i	535i	735i

Because it is smaller, lighter, and more nimble, the BMW 3-Series, when paired with the same engine, has always been quicker at 0-60 MPH and through the 1/4 mile, than its upscale siblings. Always.

Comparison of BMW Performance Levels

Price	Vehicle	0-60 MPH (sec)
43,400	335i	5.1
45,400	335i xDrive Sedan	4.8
46,850	335i xDrive Gran Turismo	5.1
55,100	535i Sedan	5.5
57,400	535i xDrive Sedan	5.4
60,200	535i Gran Turismo	6.0
62,500	535i xDrive Gran Turismo	6.0
74,000	740i Sedan	5.6
78,000	740Li Sedan	5.6
81,000	740Li xDrive Sedan	5.4

The one performance point where the other cars typically exceed the 3-Series is top speed. That is pegged at 155 MPH, while the entry level cars are mostly (not all) locked at 130 MPH maximum. Those larger cars also have bigger fuel tanks, and greater range. What BMW 7-Series owner cares that he can be smoked off the line by a a BMW 3-Series driver? Exactly none of them.

People who buy the cars know this. Customers don't choose to buy the 5-Series or 7-Series because they don't want performance. They buy them because they have growing families, or a higher status in life. The larger cars fill their needs better by being more comfortable over longer hauls.

There is no cannibalization of sales. People simply buy the car they need. Production on the higher end cars is lower, because that is all that is required. The majority of BMW's Customers choose the 3-Series, by default, and by design.

You can tell it is by design, because the same pattern is true with Lexus. Sales of the lower end car greatly exceeds the others in the lineup:

Comparison of Lexus Performance

PRICE	VEHICLE	2013 US SALES	0-60 MPH Sec
36,620	Lexus ES	72,581	7.1
36,100	Lexus IS	35,017	7.7
47,700	Lexus GS	19,742	5.7
72,140	Lexus LS	10,727	5.4

Even if you remove the Lexus ES, which is effectively a rebadged Toyota Camry/Avalon, the principle holds true. The Lexus IS sells more than the higher end GS or LS models. There is no cannibalization of sales. People buy what they want, need, or can afford.

Those who argue that performance should be limited in the lower end cars should note the difference in 2013 US sales between Lexus and BMW.

• The Lexus ES, their best selling model, was outsold by 46,940 units when matched against the comparatively priced BMW 3-Series.
• The combined sales of Lexus IS and ES still lagged behind the BMW 3-Series by 11,923 units.
• The BMW 5-Series outsold the Lexus GS by 37,391 cars.
• The margin is lower, but the BMW 7-Series (even when greatly accosted by Tesla Model S) still outsold the Lexus LS by 205 cars in 2013.

This illustrates, I hope, one primary point I've been making all along: When it comes to sales, PERFORMANCE MATTERS.

Elon knows, as I do, that in mass market sales it is not good enough to only be 'good enough' to match a Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, or Ford Fusion. Notice how well the Mitsubishi Lancer and Galant sold over the years? Hyundai Sonata and Kia Optima didn't start making major moves on the sales charts until they were obviously more than just another 'also ran' in the segment.

The same will be true of the Tesla Generation III. It must be built with performance in mind. That is absolutely imperative to gaining sales. Tesla will build more of them than any other vehicle in their lineup from the very beginning.

I expect the Model S to top out around 50,000 cars per year. The Model X will sell at a higher rate, at least 75,000 per year (but will grow to 150,000). Even so, their combined sales will be dwarfed by GIII by 2018. Production of GIII at Fremont will be around 100,000 the very first calendar year. That will ramp up to 200,000 within 18 months of launch. That will double to 400,000 within a year after that mark has been reached.

The goal is to show that electric cars can be beautiful, fun to drive, and efficient, while also being affordable to the mass market, safe, and reliable. The goal is NOT to protect sales of a high end vehicle. There is no need to do that at all, because they will sell anyway. Any attempt to artificially limit the capabilities of your low end cars will result in lower sales, and lower profits.

 

[Red Sage]

Consider the dealership fight that Tesla has to put up with in the USA. ... All the other countries don't care what's going on in the USA.

True enough.

This also applies to the EPA's mileage figures. ... There are around 195 countries in the world. Only one of them cares what the EPA has to say.

I've heard the opposite. Car Reviewers in Britain have regularly panned the EU's mileage ratings for everything under the sun as being far too optimistic. They think that the ones granted by the EPA are much closer to reality, and can be achieved, though not easily. The EU's on the other hand are absolute pipe dreams.

Even if it was an embarrassment here inside the USA... Tesla could afford it. It wouldn't affect sales one bit.

It is one more storm that they have weathered. Just because it hasn't killed you doesn't mean it won't keep trying. Naysayers will latch onto anything -- even GOOD news. No need handing them bad news to gleefully rejoice over.

I'm inferring from your calculations that the improvement in battery capacity will be even better then the conservative figures I showed. Assuming I am correct... great!

I use both the method you did, with 7% or 8% improvement per annum, along with the 40% every four years in my calculations. I have put together tables representing each. I just used the more aggressive of the two in this example, because it was what JB Straubel had observed from his own work. That guy really likes batteries! :-D

I still think that the 40kWh will be sold, if it provides over 200miles of range. It will make the car cheaper and thus more will be sold.

I think that the only 'City Car' that Tesla Motors will ever build is the Google Self Driving Car. I think Google intends to have their own urban ride program. I expect it will be free, supported by advertising. Tesla will benefit from the technology they develop for use in autopilot/accident avoidance systems that actually work.

I have a problem with your use of the term "might as well." It's a little unscientific... not well-grounded in economics. They might as well make it 60 ?

I apologize for the laziness of that line. I'm usually a bit better, but I may have been getting tired. However, I did write extensively to give an explanation of the point prior to stating it. I hoped that explained my position and how I came to that conclusion.

If 40kWh provides a car that gives people acceptable range, Tesla will do it. If it doesn't sell well, Tesla can discontinue it.

But it can't have acceptable range with so little storage, unless it is incredibly small (or incredibly wimpy), under 3000 pounds perhaps. NHTSA crash test requirements basically make it extremely difficult to manage. Even if a 40 kWh battery pack weighed only 60% of what they would have in 2012, that is still a significant portion of the mass in a 3,000 pound car. You might be looking at a chassis in the range of 2,200 or 2,400 pounds. The car designs that would fit those parameters are bound to be rather ugly if they meet with NHTSA requirements. They'd end up looking like the Mitsubishi iMiEV or smart EV at best, certainly not as neat as a Honda CR-Z. Something that small should be a two-seater, shaped like a Honda CR-X or Mazda RX-7 instead. And that isn't going to happen, again because of NHTSA crash tests.

Don't forget that even with its awful packaging, safety, performance and 90-mile range, the Nissan Leaf is selling very well. If Tesla can put something out with twice the range of the Nissan Leaf plus the usual Tesla benefits of interior packaging, safety and performance - and it only requires a 40kWh battery - they will do it.

Oh, I haven't forgotten, and neither has Tesla Motors. That thing is ugly. And slow. And short range. And against everything that Tesla Motors represents. Merely having twice its range is simply not enough. The original Model S 40 should have attained that, but was robbed of the goal by the EPA.

The range of the base Tesla GIII should be significantly greater than any other EV on the market at its price point, so as to drive home the point other manufacturers are NOT doing their best:

Name	Price	kWh	MPGe	Range
Chevrolet Spark EV	27,010	28	119	82
Fiat 500e	31,800	29	116	87
Nissan Leaf	35,020	30	114	84
Ford Focus Electric	35,170	32	105	76

It is insulting that those EVs all have such higher ratings for MPGe than any Tesla Model S variant, when they don't even store enough usable energy to equate to a single gallon of gasoline's energy of 34 kWh. Though I do see they have marginally increased their capacities, because none of them were previously over 24 kWh.

Among hybrids, it gets even worse. A whole 0.6 kWh (yeah, ZERO-point-SIX) battery pack on the Honda Insight. 1.4 kWh battery in the Prius. 4.4 kWh for the Prius PHEV. 16.5 kWh capacity for the Chevrolet Volt. Those give you anywhere from a whopping ZERO miles of electric range, to maybe 35 miles, if you're lucky.

So this is in fact an argument in favor of having a minimum of a 60 kWh battery pack capacity standard on GIII. Elon wants other auto manufacturers to stop it with the pussy-footing around on EVs and embarrassing themselves with hybrids. Their efforts are literally pitiful. Going with a 40 kWh battery would make far too marginal a difference in range compared to them, unless you were willing to sacrifice performance, and I'm not.

None of these 'competitors' is compelling. They are simply 'good enough' for now. Each is a retreat from the boundaries of what an EV can and should be... They represent a surrender to the continued dominance of ICE technology. Tesla GIII should allow people to 'Drive The FUTURE Today!' instead of continuing the wait for a mythical tomorrow.

 

[GLDYLX]

To Red Sage,

Your posts may be dauntingly long, but they are chock full of YUMMY.
I am not waiting for Bluestar because I want a cheaper car; I need a smaller car that's big enough to accomodate my snowboarding gear and/or golf clubs (and occasionally tools/equipment). I want performance and beauty, not a clunky econobox. It must be more fabulous than ANY car of similar size, regardless of what propels it.
If Tesla can give me that, with 85kWh and air suspension for ~$50k, I will be a VERY happy puppy.

Happy Friday!

 

[igotzzoom]

0-60 in 5 seconds, 200 mi range, 4-doors for $40-45,000....SOLD! Agreed...I don't want a "just as good as...." car. I want a kick-@$$ car. It's pretty sad the current affordable EV I get most excited about is the Chevy Spark. No offense against the Spark, but it's a dinky econobox, in either ICE or electric form. I want something at least as substantial as the Focus, but with real range and performance.

 

[David_Cary]

Obviously all enthusiasts here. The fact is that the majority of people don't really care to go 0-60 in 4.5 secs.

I personally expect a 40 kwh car. With reduced weight, better aero with smaller frontal area and smaller tires, 200 EPA is doable. 195 would still be 200 in people's minds.

What some posters seem to forget is that the 40 kwh car was not meant to be a 60 kwh with software limits, that is just what Tesla did when they decided to discontinue the model.


People don't mind paying for range in a $70k+ car, but when you get to $30k, people will choose to save money.

I think people's expectations on battery improvements are unrealistic. I also think it is very unlikely that the Gen 3 would have a larger battery option than 85. But you can dream...

Also, while there maybe a range bump perhaps with 2 motors, one optimized for cruising; it won't be more than 5%. The efficiency changes are not that great.

And getting 5% improvement in losses is really hard in an EV. Copper is copper.

The other EVs have better efficiency because they are lighter and they have smaller tires. Period. (Yes the Leaf improved in 2013 significantly but it started with some pretty inefficient choices)

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Obviously all enthusiasts here. The fact is that the majority of people don't really care to go 0-60 in 4.5 secs.

I personally expect a 40 kwh car. With reduced weight, better aero with smaller frontal area and smaller tires, 200 EPA is doable. 195 would still be 200 in people's minds.

What some posters seem to forget is that the 40 kwh car was not meant to be a 60 kwh with software limits, that is just what Tesla did when they decided to discontinue the model.


People don't mind paying for range in a $70k+ car, but when you get to $30k, people will choose to save money.

I think people's expectations on battery improvements are unrealistic. I also think it is very unlikely that the Gen 3 would have a larger battery option than 85. But you can dream...

Also, while there maybe a range bump perhaps with 2 motors, one optimized for cruising; it won't be more than 5%. The efficiency changes are not that great.

And getting 5% improvement in losses is really hard in an EV. Copper is copper.

The other EVs have better efficiency because they are lighter and they have smaller tires. Period. (Yes the Leaf improved in 2013 significantly but it started with some pretty inefficient choices)

Actually, new car buyers in he USA pay for performance all he time. That's why cars in the united states are relatively inefficient compared to other countries. However, in the case of Gen 3, while Tesla's goal is to compete with the BMW 3 Series, there are a few things to note:
- 10% of US 3 Series sales are diesels and base diesel perfornance is nothing special
- Elon Muskchas noted that base 3 Series performance in other countries is not as high as in the more performance-oriented USA, and that it is offered pretty bare bones base.
- Tesla is building a car for the world, and the new car buyers are different in different countries. Of particular note is that in high-gas-tax countries there is a stark cost differential per mile whichcwould make a BEV kore affordable.
- Gen 3 will start at a price where a large chunk of mainstream new car buyers will be able to afford the car (I hope).
- Performance adds cost to a car. In a BEV the motor and inverter become more expensive and the inverter in particular is not an insignificant cost. Plus, lightweighting helps performance, but it can be expensive.
So, I expect the base model to be around 0-60 in 7s, which matches a base 3-Series diesel and is better than mainstream midsize cars. Then there will be a power upgrade available to put it into the 5's, and on larger battery versions a performance upgrade to push it into the high 3s.

The base model would attract mainstream buyers like me and more mainstream buyers in high-fuel-tax countries, while the performance-luxury buyers would opt for the power. While the US 3 Series market is significant, it's still a smaller market than the Prius market, and given the conquest pattern for PEVs, and the shape of the hybrid and ICEV markets a mid-size, long range BEV car with significant cargo space has potential to be huge and a Prius killer as long as the price is right. I think Elon Musk has been talking now more about $30k rather than $35k and $31k for Gen 4, and I hope that's the target.

 

[physicsfita]

I guess it depends on who they're aiming for -- when I got my Prius, I didn't mind trading down substantially on my 0-60 time in return for nearly double the mileage (and a lot better emissions). For my rather ridiculous commute combined with winter driving and a love of road trips to regions that won't see superchargers any time soon, I'll mostly be looking at range -- if there is an option to get closer to 300 mi than 200 mi, I'd probably go for it. As long as I can get up to speed on the on-ramp before merging, I'll be OK with the acceleration.

 

[ElSupreme]

Another thing to keep in mind is that BMW shares drivetrains and motors across those product lines. Over the years the same set of motors have appeared in each class:

BMW Engines & Cars

LITER	3-Series	5-Series	7-Series
1.8	318i	518i	-
2.0	320i	520i	-
2.5	325i	525i	-
2.8	328i	528i	728i
3.5	335i	535i	735i

Because it is smaller, lighter, and more nimble, the BMW 3-Series, when paired with the same engine, has always been quicker at 0-60 MPH and through the 1/4 mile, than its upscale siblings. Always.

Well a couple of points. BMW no longer matches the numerology on the back of the car X35 no longer equates to a 3.5L engine. Right now the 335 is getting a 3.0 I6 Turbo engine. The US 328i and 320i are using a 2.0L I4 with turbo. And yes almost every single car manufacturer uses the 'same' engine across multiple products lines. But most of them will have different power outputs for the same engine. VW does this with their 2.0T engines. Where the fuel/air controls limit the power of the same engine.

I tend to agree with you that higher performance smaller cars don't cannibalize large cars. People generally choose a size range then buy within that range.

I would also say the Lexus ES is a bigger competitor to the 5 series than the 3 series. It really is mid-sized car. Cost wise it is probably a little closer to the 3 series, but really the IS is the 3 series competitor.

 

[igotzzoom]

I would also say the Lexus ES is a bigger competitor to the 5 series than the 3 series. It really is mid-sized car. Cost wise it is probably a little closer to the 3 series, but really the IS is the 3 series competitor.

 

[Red Sage]

ElSupreme: I'm not really a BMW fan. They have however, historically -- say, 1986-2011 -- used the same engines among different body styles in the manner I outlined. Currently, the best of their regular 3-Series vehicles (non-M) are all quicker 0-60 MPH, and through the 1/4 mile, than either 5-Series or 7-Series sedans, regardless of displacement.

In any case, I'm pretty sure that Lexus intended their GS to be a competitor to the BMW 5-Series. Let's see how that worked out for them last year:

Comparison of BMW vs Lexus Low/Mid Model Sales Volume

Vehicle	2013 US Sales
Lexus IS	35,017
BMW 3-Series	119,521
Lexus GS	19,742
BMW 5-Series	56,863

Notice how the cars that have the better performance statistics win? I think Tesla Motors is likely to follow BMW's example instead of Lexus'.
physicsfita: The idea behind Tesla Motors is that no one will ever have to 'trade down' on performance ever again with an electric vehicle. You'll get to have your fun, and drive it too.
ItsNotAboutTheMoney: The problem with settling for a 7-second range for 0-60 in a Tesla Motors product at ~$35,000 is that is what the Spark EV does already. It's in fact, rather interesting the number of EVs and hybrid vehicles that get to precisely 60 MPH in exactly 7.2 seconds... Almost as if there were a speed limit imposed for some reason... No, Elon Musk stated that their cars must be better than all the other cars in the market. Not also-rans. It will be up to Toyota to build a 100% electric Camry that drives like a Camry. Tesla cars will always drive like Teslas.

David_Cary wrote, "Obviously all enthusiasts here. The fact is that the majority of people don't really care to go 0-60 in 4.5 secs."

And they don't have to. It's all about throttle control. That speed is achieved by stomping the accelerator to the floor. In normal driving, it would be... normal... but responsive.

David_Cary wrote, "I think people's expectations on battery improvements are unrealistic. I also think it is very unlikely that the Gen 3 would have a larger battery option than 85. But you can dream..."

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." -- John Lennon, 'Imagine'
;-)
No, the projections for improvements in battery capacity are not unrealistic. There have been pretty linear improvements in lithium ion batteries since their initial introduction. The usable capacity effectively doubles every nine years, ten at the most.

Conservative estimates allow for at least the capability of a 100 kWh battery pack being available for use by 2016. Those would use fewer battery cells than would be needed for an 85 kWh battery pack today. The same quantity of battery cells could range anywhere from 120 kWh up to around 142 kWh, dependent upon how you do the calculations.

I believe that Tesla Motors will attempt to optimize their use of battery cells to get as much power as possible in each car, while using as few cells as possible to reach that goal. But a low-ball, bottom-of-the-barrel range of almost 200 miles from a 40 kWh to 48 kWh battery pack is not one of those goals at all. Tesla will not be frightened into complacency by their success, no matter how much that might delight Wall Street and Detroit.

Neither the Tesla Model S or Model X will stand still. I expect that upon the introduction of GIII the Model S 60 will go away. The 85 kWh battery pack will become the baseline minimum. Whatever maximum capacity that is available on GIII will also be available on Model S and Model X. I currently hope for 135 kWh as that top-of-line version, as I expect it will allow Model S to match the range of BMW 7-Series vehicles, thereby silencing Naysayers. I expect that to be an available option by 2016 -- ahead of the introduction of GIII.

 

[David_Cary]

I suspect 7 sec 0-60 is what the average person feels is really good acceleration.

Historical density improvement (by weight) from 91-05 was about a doubling. So 14 years for a doubling earlier in the development cycle. Lots of people feel like we have pushed lithium ion about as far as it can go. Certainly improvements can and will be had but 7-8% per annum in density is optimistic without a big change in tech (that of course we all hope will happen but hasn't been invented yet). Just because a lot of people go around saying batteries "improve" at 7% a year, doesn't mean it happens. And history certainly doesn't predict future developments. This isn't Moore's law.

As far the Model S not standing still.... Hmm. 2 years after the initial delivery and there have been relatively few battery/drivetrain improvements (faster supercharging worth 20 minutes a year for the average driver). I forget exactly when the first Model S was first available to be driven but it was certainly 2 years ago. And the details of the battery size/car size etc have been there for 3 years. So where are the improvements? 2016 is 2 years away or 2017 is 3 years away.

The Model S costs enough that it has to be a fast car. A $35k car does not need to be so fast. In a perfect world, you can have a 250 miles EPA car that goes 0-60 in 5 sec for $35k - but I really really doubt you get that in 2017. And you don't need it - 0-60 in 7 secs in an EV will impress most people (effortless, quiet, smooth etc).

I am sure the Model S will be up to 100 kwh by 2016 but Gen III is smaller and I bet will be a challenge to get to 85 kwh by 2017.

 

[GSP]

The other EVs have better efficiency because they are lighter and they have smaller tires. Period. (Yes the Leaf improved in 2013 significantly but it started with some pretty inefficient choices)

Don't forget less frontal area and more efficient chargers. These both have a big influence on EPA mpge and kWh/100 mile efficiency.

GSP

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

ItsNotAboutTheMoney: The problem with settling for a 7-second range for 0-60 in a Tesla Motors product at ~$35,000 is that is what the Spark EV does already. It's in fact, rather interesting the number of EVs and hybrid vehicles that get to precisely 60 MPH in exactly 7.2 seconds... Almost as if there were a speed limit imposed for some reason... No, Elon Musk stated that their cars must be better than all the other cars in the market. Not also-rans. It will be up to Toyota to build a 100% electric Camry that drives like a Camry. Tesla cars will always drive like Teslas.

- BMW 320/328d does 0-62 in 7.4 seconds.
- 2013 US 3 series sales: 119,521
- 2013 Global 3 series production: 500,332
- In Europe in 2008 over 60% of European BMW 3 Series sales were diesels. (I don't have more recent numbers, but diesel percentages have generally risen).

Making the base Gen 3 a 5s performance model would add to the cost and lose sales, both from more cost-conscious customers at the fat end of the luxury market, and from mainstream buyers who would otherwise buy up. At the price range Tesla is targeting every $1k counts. Elon Musk has, multiple times, recognized that the 3 Series encompasses a broad range of performance and luxury.

The Spark is a minicompact, 4 seater, short-range, (currentlly) compliance BEV that sells a few hundred a month. It's not a mid-size, long-range BEV with class-leading cargo space.

 

[igotzzoom]

Somehow I don't think Tesla's going to punt with the Gen-III and deliver a "meh" vehicle. I think it will definitely have the wow factor one way or the other, whether it's the range/price equation, or performance, or both. I have confidence in Elon & co. to deliver a home run.

 

[stopcrazypp]

For me the range (for a given price point) is more important than the performance. The performance can be an option (and likely will be), but if it saves money to offer the base model with lower performance, I think Tesla should do that. I would be perfectly happy with a 7 second 0-60.

Remember, the i3 has similar acceleration and price, and I don't think anyone has complained about the straight-line performance.

 

[Red Sage]

David_Cary wrote, "The Model S costs enough that it has to be a fast car. A $35k car does not need to be so fast."

Yes, I am an automobile enthusiast. That's why I know full well there have been cars at this price range -- and lower -- that were considerably quicker than 0-60 in 7.2 seconds 25 years ago. When Lexus and Infiniti first arrived on the scene, they cost between $35,000 and $40,000. People did NOT buy them because they had styling that reminded them of Mercedes-Benz and BMW vehicles. People bought them because they looked good, were well appointed, and blew the doors off cars by Mercedes-Benz and BMW that cost $15,000 more.

The launch of Tesla Generation III must follow a similar trajectory. It cannot be a car that a Chevy Spark EV, Ford Focus Electric, Nissan Leaf, Fiat 500e, BMW i3, OR BMW 320i might be compared to favorably -- at all. It must be a line of vehicles that is obviously BETTER than anything else at its price point. Otherwise, why would anyone buy it?

ItsNotAboutTheMoney wrote, "Making the base Gen 3 a 5s performance model would add to the cost and lose sales, both from more cost-conscious customers at the fat end of the luxury market, and from mainstream buyers who would otherwise buy up."

I believe the exact opposite. As noted previously, the Lexus vehicles in the price range which have performance figures that lag behind the BMW 3-Series, all sell horribly in comparison. A GIII that performs like a 320i instead of like a 335i will be totally ignored by everyone that knows anything at all about performance vehicles.

If there are 500,000 people worldwide who can settle for a wimpy 3-Series, disguised as a performance car, why can't there be just as many who choose a superior GIII instead?

The only thing about giving more power that makes an electric car 'more expensive' is adding more batteries. I've already outlined that the cars will have more power than before -- by using fewer batteries -- because of improved power density.

When it comes to the electric motor itself, once you move into the economies of scale involved with mass manufacturing, it costs no more to build a 225 kW / 302 HP motor than it does to make a 270 kW / 362 HP one. If you decided to wimp out, lower the copper count inside each motor, use less efficient wiring techniques, you can save a handful of bucks per each by using motors that are half as capable. Then you'll get to watch everyone go out and buy Camrys and 3-Series cars instead, while they laugh wholeheartedly at the little electric car industry that just died.

stopcrazypp wrote, "The performance can be an option..."

No. Performance will be standard on every Tesla Motors product. You will have the option of getting even MORE performance, but it will never drop below a minimum that astounds the public.

If you do not either want, or expect to drive, a performance car -- do not get a GIII.

 

[stopcrazypp]

No. Performance will be standard on every Tesla Motors product. You will have the option of getting even MORE performance, but it will never drop below a minimum that astounds the public.

If you do not either want, or expect to drive, a performance car -- do not get a GIII.

Don't agree. For example, the base 60kWh is 5.9 seconds 0-60. It's okay (slightly better than the 528i at 6.1), but not exactly "performance". Plus the cancelled 40kWh had 0-60 in 6.5 seconds. So I expect performance to match a base BMW, but not really blow its doors off.

Elon's stated goal with the Gen3 is 200 miles of range at around $35k. Clearly the range/cost ratio is much more important than performance (or he would have mentioned it). If it happens the performance comes "free" then sure, no problem. But if it conflicts with the price and range targets, I won't think he would hesitate for a second to sacrifice it on the base model.

As for your point about the 5 series and 3 series sharing engines and the smaller car always having better performance as a result, at least in the US market, the 3 series starts with a smaller engine (throwing in 7 series just for the heck of it, which starts with a larger engine than the 5 series). In the US, it seems the market expects the base model of the larger cars to be more powerful and faster than smaller cars.

320i: 0-60 7.1
328i: 0-60 5.7-5.8
335i: 0-60 5.1-5.4

528i: 0-60 6.1
535i: 0-60 5.5-5.7

740i: 0-60 5.6
750i: 0-60 4.7
760Li: 0-60 4.5

 

[ericspecullaas]

either way the 3rd gen will change the world.

 

[igotzzoom]

7 sec 0-60 would be acceptable, 6 sec I'd be pleasantly surprised, 5 sec, I'd be excited. Perhaps these will be the three levels of performance. I know there's more to vehicle performance than just 0-60 times, but let's face it, it's become the de facto performance benchmark for a lot of people. If the "base" model delivered around 6 flat 0-60 for around $35,000 with 200 mi range, I think that would be a major game-changer in the EV market.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I believe the exact opposite. As noted previously, the Lexus vehicles in the price range which have performance figures that lag behind the BMW 3-Series, all sell horribly in comparison. A GIII that performs like a 320i instead of like a 335i will be totally ignored by everyone that knows anything at all about performance vehicles.

June US Sales:
Camry Hybrid: 3,784
Fusion Hybrid: 3,016
Prius v: 2,510
Sonata Hybrid: 1,523
CT200h: 1,521
Avalon Hybrid: 1,437
Accord Hybrid: 1,135
ES Hybrid: 1,102
Optima Hybrid: 1,006
Total: 17,034
Those 17,000 Americans who're happy to pay 25k or more for a mid-size, wagon or compact luxury hybrid that isn't a Prius liftback, aren't going to ignore a more-responsive base Gen 3 with a comparable or superior 7s 0-60.
And we already know that the 11,000 plus Prius liftback buyers aren't going to ignore a car that's cheaper to run and has comparable or superior cargo space with a much superior 7s 0 to 60.
And the 1,700 plus Volt buyers aren't going to ignore a more roomy long-range BEV.
And the 8% to 10% of US BMW 3-Series buyers who choose diesels aren't going to ignore a Gen 3 with 7s 0-60.
And the 60%+ of European BMW 3-Series buyers who choose diesels aren't going to ignore a Gen 3 with 7s 0-60.
And taxi drivers aren't going ignore a Gen 3 with copious luggage space because it only has a 7s 0-60 .
And the reset of the mainstream US car market (the largest segment of which is mid-size) aren't going to ignore the Gen 3 base because it only has a 7s 0-60.

The performance car buyers can simply do what they always do: pay a bit more for the extra performance. Just as many Tesla Model S buyers pay extra for the P85, which has the same battery, but a better motor and inverter.

If there are 500,000 people worldwide who can settle for a wimpy 3-Series, disguised as a performance car, why can't there be just as many who choose a superior GIII instead?

Money.

Why do over half the European market go for the less powerful diesels? Because they're much cheaper to own overall.
The BMW 3-Series MSRP starts under $35k, nobody pays full price and they do special deals for business. Tesla wants to have a higher, no-haggle base price.

For Gen 3, Tesla needs to bring down manufacturing costs and it's not just for the battery. We know from JB Straubel's statement that the battery is less than a quarter of the cost for most Model S sold, which means that the remaining cost of the base car (including motor and inverter) is higher than Gen 3's target price.

The only thing about giving more power that makes an electric car 'more expensive' is adding more batteries. I've already outlined that the cars will have more power than before -- by using fewer batteries -- because of improved power density.

Just look at the Tesla Performance option to see the first item on the list. As a number of Prius owners and solar panel owners can tell you, inverters are definitely not cheap.

Once you move into the economies of scale involved with mass manufacturing, it costs no more to build a 225 kW / 302 HP motor than it does to make a 270 kW / 362 HP one. If you decided to wimp out, lower the copper count inside each motor, use less efficient wiring techniques, you can save a handful of bucks per each by using motors that are half as capable. Then you'll get to watch everyone go out and buy Camrys and 3-Series cars instead, while they laugh wholeheartedly at the little electric car industry that just died.

See above with respect to the P85 option.

Why would they buy a Camry, if they could buy an affordable base Gen 3 with slightly better performance, much better response and better handling, that's quieter, smoother, cheaper to fuel, more convenient to refuel, cheaper to maintain, doesn't need servicing and has much more cargo space?

If they're they kind of person who loved their v6, they could pay extra for the power option, just as they did for their v6.

The 3 Series has 500k sales per year globally, and that's a huge part of the global luxury car market. But at the same time, just in the USA in 2013 there were mid-size sales of 2.5M and another 435k sales of hybrids and plug-ins. Yes, Tesla could insist on the base Gen 3 matching the BMW 3 Series gasoline car performance with their base Gen 3, but why do that if they can instead lower the base price, match the performance of base 3 Series and other diesels that sell very well outside the USA, make the car more affordable to mainstream buyers and offer performance as an option? Why would Elon Musk, who likes optionality, throw away volume?