Model 3 Trim Levels with competition

[wallet.dat]

As I have already pointed out to the moderators and other enthusiasts here, I believe that Tesla Motors will use the '≡' symbol on the back of the Generation III cars themselves.

Please note that when asked, Elon Musk specified the vehicle could be referred to either as '3'or as three horizontal lines -- not Roman numerals.

Since I am not a BMW fan, I would prefer my posts not be confused with the performance version of their 3-Series vehicles.

How to properly write Model 3 - Thanks Elon! - Page 2

I believe you're mistaken then. IMHO Elon made that comment off-the-cuff before realizing that "three horizontal bars" is already an "E" in the T≡SLA font. And it's already been agreed that the 3rd gen will not be called the "Model E" due to a Ford trademark.

 

[ryanjm]

Mods, can you please lay down some sort of ground rule for TMC on how to write the damn car's name so we can be done with this forever? I'm really tired of every Model 3 thread getting fouled up by side arguments about "triple horizontal lines" vs. "3."

 

[Model 3]

I believe you're mistaken then. IMHO Elon made that comment off-the-cuff before realizing that "three horizontal bars" is already an "E" in the T≡SLA font. And it's already been agreed that the 3rd gen will not be called the "Model E" due to a Ford trademark.

No, it is just because they are not allowed to use the "Model E" name that it is called "Model 3", and will use this symbol on the back of the car witch can be read as both "3" and "E". But the name will still be "Model 3"...

 

[Red Sage]

Actually, I was rather wondering why they are so peeved by this... Aren't Moderators supposed to be... moderate?

I am a Tesla Enthusiast expressing his enthusiasm. What's wrong with that?

It is one moderator in particular who instigates sidetracked statements by continually demanding an explanation for something that has already been explained. If no one is allowed to post here unless Moderators agree with the content of their posts, please direct me to that part of the forum rules for reference.

Thank you.

 

[dirkhh]

Actually, I was rather wondering why they are so peeved by this... Aren't Moderators supposed to be... moderate?

I am a Tesla Enthusiast expressing his enthusiasm. What's wrong with that?

It is one moderator in particular who instigates sidetracked statements by continually demanding an explanation for something that has already been explained. If no one is allowed to post here unless Moderators agree with the content of their posts, please direct me to that part of the forum rules for reference.

Thank you.

Let's have side feedback discussions (and complaints about the moderators ARE side feedback) in that forum. The Moderators who object to the three horizontal bars have (I think) made their objections clear and they are based on reasonable concerns... we don't have to agree with them to respect their opinion. They are unpaid and are doing a hard job and if they feel that makes their hard job even harder then we should respect that. TMC has in general a very good moderator staff and even if they might get things wrong now and then, nothing that I've seen goes anywhere near the level of "no one is allowed to post here unless Moderators agree with the content of their posts".

 

[gregincal]

No, it is just because they are not allowed to use the "Model E" name that it is called "Model 3", and will use this symbol on the back of the car witch can be read as both "3" and "E". But the name will still be "Model 3"...

Except they won't because Model E was a stupid idea to begin with.

 

[wallet.dat]

T≡SLA Model --- (three horizontal bars)

 

[dirkhh]

T≡SLA Model --- (three horizontal bars)

+5 for being clever
-5 for not being constructive
:-D

 

[No2DinosaurFuel]

Interesting you say that. There are people here reporting below 280Wh/mi lifetime for their cars.
And no, city traffic is defintely NOT more efficient than going 65mph on the highway. On a trip a week and a half ago I averaged 287Wh/mile driving 55-70mph (mostly 65-70) over 96 miles in my P85D. I rarely manage to stay below 320Wh/mile in the city.
Biggest factor is temperature. If it's 70 outside with little wind 290Wh/mile is easy to beat.
Don't believe me? How about believing Tesla. Here's what they claim as range when going 65mph (Driving Range for the Model S family) 85D: 295 miles. The 85kWh gives you about 75kWh of usable energy so that means 254Wh/mile. For the 60 (RIP) they list 215 miles which (at 52kWh usable) gets you 242Wh/mile.

I prefer not to trust tesla's numbers. Remember real world numbers are better. I find their number to be quite optimistic. Just read the thread with lifetime wh/mi. Though there are people with less than 300wh/mi number, most of those people are near there (280wh/mi) and there are plenty of people with 340+wh/mi. Sure this might be because they drive in cold, hot, etc condition, but since when was driving a car without AC/Heat considered the normal? Especially a luxury car like the Model S. Also keep in mind, 65mph might be the speed limit here in CA, but we all know no one drives that speed on the HWY. Finally you must take into account the battery degradation. The older the car, the less efficient the batteries is as internal resistance builds up as the battery is cycled more and aged. So those numbers are only going to get worst as time goes on.

Here are the official EPA numbers for tesla vehicles. Even many here are saying the numbers are a bit optimistic, but I think it's a much better number than tesla's numbers.
Gas Mileage of 2015 Tesla Model S

 

[dirkhh]

I doubt you can get those numbers unless you are going < 55mph on the highway. Most people here are reporting lifetime wh of around 300-400wh/mi for their model S and this is including city driving which is suppose to be more efficient. This means the HWY wh/mi is much higher. Like I said, 290wh/mi is optimistic for a tesla.

I prefer not to trust tesla's numbers. Remember real world numbers are better. I find their number to be quite optimistic. Just read the thread with lifetime wh/mi. Though there are people with less than 300wh/mi number, most of those people are near there (280wh/mi) and there are plenty of people with 340+wh/mi. Sure this might be because they drive in cold, hot, etc condition, but since when was driving a car without AC/Heat considered the normal? Especially a luxury car like the Model S. Also keep in mind, 65mph might be the speed limit here in CA, but we all know no one drives that speed on the HWY. Finally you must take into account the battery degradation. The older the car, the less efficient the batteries is as internal resistance builds up as the battery is cycled more and aged. So those numbers are only going to get worst as time goes on.

Here are the official EPA numbers for tesla vehicles. Even many here are saying the numbers are a bit optimistic, but I think it's a much better number than tesla's numbers.
Gas Mileage of 2015 Tesla Model S

Proof by repeated assertion.
First you say you doubt that you can get 290Wh/mile unless you are going < 55mph
Then I show that indeed you can quite easily, even with a P85D. And I point out the many people who do.
Then you state (and I'm paraphrasing) "yeah, I see people do, but I chose to ignore that and instead repeat my earlier assertion".

Interesting way to add to the discussion. I'd argue, though, that it isn't moving the conversation forward.

Fact is, and there are data to prove this to be true, that many people frequently drive at 65mph (which in the context of this discussion is considered "highway speed") consuming fewer than 290Wh/mile. In a Model S that is assumed to be heavier and have higher energy consumption than the future Model 3.

 

[No2DinosaurFuel]

Proof by repeated assertion.
First you say you doubt that you can get 290Wh/mile unless you are going < 55mph
Then I show that indeed you can quite easily, even with a P85D. And I point out the many people who do.
Then you state (and I'm paraphrasing) "yeah, I see people do, but I chose to ignore that and instead repeat my earlier assertion".

Interesting way to add to the discussion. I'd argue, though, that it isn't moving the conversation forward.

Fact is, and there are data to prove this to be true, that many people frequently drive at 65mph (which in the context of this discussion is considered "highway speed") consuming fewer than 290Wh/mile. In a Model S that is assumed to be heavier and have higher energy consumption than the future Model 3.

I agree we are not seeing eye to eye. I will clarify my points if it's not clear and I will leave it at that.

1) 65mph is assumed, though I am only contesting that most people will drive at 70mph average (65mph-75mph) which will incur higher energy cost.

2) Less than 290Wh/mi is possible at higher speeds than 55mph if you drive on flat, straight road, no wind, no rain/snow, perfect 70F degree, no AC, no heat, no passenger, full batteries, new batteries, with super low resistance tires pumped to the max, etc. Basically ideal conditions. I have not seen many people report less than 290wh/mi numbers. I usually see 300wh/mi+ on the lifetime wh/mi thread.

3) wh/mi should include AC/Heat for some of the trip.

4) wh/mi should include hills, terrain (rough, damage roads), and weather.

5) Hence the EPA rating is probably the closest to real world numbers if you drive it normally, i.e. not hypermiling, not super slow acceleration, not slowing down up hill, AC/Heat on for some time, carrying passengers/cargo, etc. 240wh/mi is 140mpge, Currently S85D (the most efficient HWY model S) is rated at 106mpge. Optimistically I will give the Model 3 126mpge or even 130mpge. It is still off the magic number of 140mpge.


A final thoughts. Most people will only care about the wh/mi number when they are going on road trips. If you argue, most of the HWY miles on road trips, when you need the range, will be closer to 240wh/mi, then I might be more inclined to agree because this is when people will be hypermiling, slow accelerating, regening hard, no AC, etc to extend their range as much as possible. Long range daily commute on nice roads fair weather condition will also work. But to argue this is the normal for typical driving for day to day for people across the country is false. Maybe one day we will get to the magic 140mpge number in non-ideal conditions in a BEV, but that will require double or triple the energy density of the model S's batteries. I doubt the new cells the gigafactory are building will get us there.

 

[dirkhh]

2) Less than 290Wh/mi is possible at higher speeds than 55mph if you drive on flat, straight road, no wind, no rain/snow, perfect 70F degree, no AC, no heat, no passenger, full batteries, new batteries, with super low resistance tires pumped to the max, etc. Basically ideal conditions. I have not seen many people report less than 290wh/mi numbers. I usually see 300wh/mi+ on the lifetime wh/mi thread.

3) wh/mi should include AC/Heat for some of the trip.

4) wh/mi should include hills, terrain (rough, damage roads), and weather.

Bla bla, repeat assertion, bla bla and that makes it true.

I drove Hoodsport, WA to Portland, OR, via Centralia. Not extremely hilly, most definitely not flat. In a P85D. Going roughly speed limit (so mostly 70mph, some 55mph and 60mph stretches, average close to 65mph). No hypermiling, no gimmicks, having TACC drive (this was on .153 in case you care). AC running. Cabin at 68F. Starting out with about 120mile range, charging up to about 180mile range at Centralia, arrived at home with about 90miles range. Big heavy driver (me), one passenger for the first 60 miles, trunk full with heavy dive gear. Etc. 287Wh/mile.

So: not flat, not straight, normal weather (a tiny bit of rain when we left, clearing up once we reached Olympia), don't recall the outside temps but definitely in the 80s, AC running, battery mostly between 30 and 60%, standard 19" tires, back then underinflated (the SC just raised my tire pressure from 44 to 50psi). Real life regular conditions.

There are tons of other similar reports.

And that's a P85D weighing 4600lbs. We are talking about the much lighter Model 3 which certainly will have to reach at least 10-15% lower Wh/mile than a 70D (which in return already is 15% better than my P85D).

Yeah, I know, real data, actual facts, nothing you want to bother with.

Go ahead. Repeat your assertions. Claim whatever you want, based on no actual knowledge or experience, just because it fits your hypothesis. I'll leave you the last word. I can see that this isn't going anywhere.

 

[No2DinosaurFuel]

Bla bla, repeat assertion, bla bla and that makes it true.

I drove Hoodsport, WA to Portland, OR, via Centralia. Not extremely hilly, most definitely not flat. In a P85D. Going roughly speed limit (so mostly 70mph, some 55mph and 60mph stretches, average close to 65mph). No hypermiling, no gimmicks, having TACC drive (this was on .153 in case you care). AC running. Cabin at 68F. Starting out with about 120mile range, charging up to about 180mile range at Centralia, arrived at home with about 90miles range. Big heavy driver (me), one passenger for the first 60 miles, trunk full with heavy dive gear. Etc. 287Wh/mile.

So: not flat, not straight, normal weather (a tiny bit of rain when we left, clearing up once we reached Olympia), don't recall the outside temps but definitely in the 80s, AC running, battery mostly between 30 and 60%, standard 19" tires, back then underinflated (the SC just raised my tire pressure from 44 to 50psi). Real life regular conditions.

There are tons of other similar reports.

And that's a P85D weighing 4600lbs. We are talking about the much lighter Model 3 which certainly will have to reach at least 10-15% lower Wh/mile than a 70D (which in return already is 15% better than my P85D).

Yeah, I know, real data, actual facts, nothing you want to bother with.

Go ahead. Repeat your assertions. Claim whatever you want, based on no actual knowledge or experience, just because it fits your hypothesis. I'll leave you the last word. I can see that this isn't going anywhere.

Repeat assertion blab Blab

Lifetime Average Wh/mi

Gas Mileage of 2015 Tesla Model S

 

[gregincal]

Personally I think the whole range (hwy) thing is a bad metric. It reminds me of the original 300 mile range statement from Tesla and makes it hard to compare to current cars. EPA mileage is what people will see and should be what we are discussing. Then everyone can make their own personal EPA to myPersonalSituation adjustment. Anything else requires far too many assumptions.

 

[Candleflame]

I'm not sure why people always think that Model 3 will use 15% less power than Model S. With a lighter car this may be true for stop n go city traffic as you need to accelerate a lot of mass. However, for highway cruising where you can drive for hours at constant speed the weight does not really matter all that much. for city driving the range doesn't matter anyways, but for highway journeys it will matter.

I think the smaller frame and a bit less friction will perhaps reduce power consumption by 2.5 - 5%. But not more.

 

[brianman]

And that's a P85D weighing 4600lbs.

Base specs are "Curb weight 4,647.3 lbs". I have a fuzzy recollection that the P85D is around 4900. I'll have to look up my sticker.

Edit:
Turns out it's not on the sticker. But the web "knows":

the P85D is a hefty little so-and-so at 4,936 pounds

Tesla Model S P85D Specifications Revealed: Two Engines, AWD, Very Fast - Video, Photo Gallery - autoevolution

 

[tga]

I'm not sure why people always think that Model 3 will use 15% less power than Model S. With a lighter car this may be true for stop n go city traffic as you need to accelerate a lot of mass. However, for highway cruising where you can drive for hours at constant speed the weight does not really matter all that much. for city driving the range doesn't matter anyways, but for highway journeys it will matter.

I think the smaller frame and a bit less friction will perhaps reduce power consumption by 2.5 - 5%. But not more.

Who says the 3 will be lighter? Yes, it's smaller, but switching from AL to FE will offset a lot of the smaller size weight reduction.

 

[dgpcolorado]

I'm not sure why people always think that Model 3 will use 15% less power than Model S. With a lighter car this may be true for stop n go city traffic as you need to accelerate a lot of mass. However, for highway cruising where you can drive for hours at constant speed the weight does not really matter all that much. for city driving the range doesn't matter anyways, but for highway journeys it will matter.

I think the smaller frame and a bit less friction will perhaps reduce power consumption by 2.5 - 5%. But not more.

I would guess that most are assuming savings from aerodynamic drag. At highway speeds most of the energy is used to overcome drag and drag is proportional to frontal area. If the Model 3 has the same Cd as the Model S and the smaller size leads to a smaller frontal area then the drag would be reduced by that size difference. A 20% decrease in frontal area might well lead to a 15% (or more) reduction in energy use at highway speeds.

A lot of "ifs" though. If the Cd was reduced the numbers could be even better (or the reduced length of the car might lead to a worse Cd). And what, exactly, will the frontal area reduction be between the Model S and the Model 3?

 

[Candleflame]

I think ultimatley tesla will try to make a vehicle that will get 200miles of range at 65-70mph with aircon on. If their R&D engineers come up with some magical trick to reduce the drag, weight, increase efficiency and give us 15% more range this will most likely just lead to a smaller battery in the final car to save cost.

I couldn't really care less about the Model 3 having a smaller battery than the S70 or S85 I'm just worried that if they put a 50kwh battery or so in the Model 3 we will be stuck with slow(er) supercharging speed.

 

[Spidy]

I would guess that most are assuming savings from aerodynamic drag. At highway speeds most of the energy is used to overcome drag and drag is proportional to frontal area. If the Model 3 has the same Cd as the Model S and the smaller size leads to a smaller frontal area then the drag would be reduced by that size difference. A 20% decrease in frontal area might well lead to a 15% (or more) reduction in energy use at highway speeds.

A lot of "ifs" though. If the Cd was reduced the numbers could be even better (or the reduced length of the car might lead to a worse Cd). And what, exactly, will the frontal area reduction be between the Model S and the Model 3?

I would actually rather expect it to go up. A shorter and overall smaller car won't allow for such a aerodynamic design, especially if you also want to make it look good and don't want to compromise too much on passanger adn cargo space. One of the reasons some EVs look so crappy is because they choose reduced drag over design and Elson said he doesn't want to make a car that doesn't look good.

And as others have said switching to steal will probably really put a dent into overall weight savings even when the car is smaller.