Model 3 will have less features than the S. Which one would not make it?

[Lonnie123]

Not sure how reducing the motor to 180hp would reduce cost. All they'd have to do is diminish the power going into the motor via software. These aren't ICE powerplants we're talking about, where making a lot of power requires semi-exotic, expensive materials. I agree on most everything else you listed though.

Smaller motor = lower cost, right?

If they are trying to keep their margins high, shaving every little bit of expense here and there will make a big difference. If they can save $50-100 on every single motor x 500,000 a year... It isnt a trivial cost.

I am no electrician/mechanic so I am purely speculating and maybe the cost difference is totally negligible. But for someone coming from a Corolla, jumping up to a 180hp motor would be an amazing increase. If it meant getting the car for cheaper I would certainly opt for a smaller motor.

The tesla's will have tons of upgrades and options... There could easily be a base motor, then a P verison, then a D verison, then a PD version for those who have the need for speed. Why not start with a competitive motor (3 series starts at about 180 if I remember right) and then allow for upgrades?

- - - Updated - - -

To me, hubcaps scream "cheap." The only reason I could see them on the Model 3 or any other EV is for aerodynamic or efficiency-enhancing reasons. If they serve a justifiable purpose, then that's understandable, but if the only purpose is cost-cutting, I think that would detract from the premium image Tesla is trying to maintain. I think flush-mounted (but not power-retracting) door handles are likely. In terms of power output, I don't know how much would be saved by going with a 180 hp vs. 250 hp motor. Other than a slight difference in material costs, I don't see the big savings. The output could be modulated by software. Maybe limit to 180 hp (134 kW) in "Eco" mode, and give the full 250 hp in "Performance" mode.

To me Rims scream "Expensive" and massively unnecessary. The ultimate in vanity... You are paying hundreds/thousands to get a certain look with no added functionality. To each their own, but I would be perfectly fine with an "Electric Corolla" for the Model 3.

Getting the car down to $35k will require shaving small amounts of costs here and there. Aside from the big things I wrote in my first list, shaving $50-100 in 10-20 different areas is going to go a long way in doing that.

- - - Updated - - -

Not using aluminum is going to increase the weight quite a bit and have a significant range impact. I don't see how they'll get above the 200 mi rated range target.

I believe Elon said the 3 will not be made out of aluminum, but perhaps some kind of alloy. Make what you will out of that

 

[GregRF]

Didn't they drop that strategy on later Roadsters to work around the AC Propulsion patents? I think they'd be on the hook for license fees if they go back to it.

Ahh, I was not aware they had tried, nor about the patents. Thanks for the info.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

During regen the motor power electronics rectify the AC power from the motor (acting as generator) to DC to charge the battery. This is what the stand alone battery charger does but uses AC power from the socket. So with a few modifications (wiring and switches) the PEM could do both. So with a small upgrade to the PEM you can save the cost of the stand alone charger and its wiring and cooling loops.

 

[apacheguy]

@Greg - If it is indeed that simple then why don't any EVs implement this technology?

 

[mzpolo]

IMO the 17" will not be there. Probably an iPad size or possibly a 13" screen.

Autopilot will be there. Iirc Elon said all tesla cars will have it.
Slacker might not be there.
To compete with the 3 series and C class the trim will have to be available. Perhaps a no trim option that is upgradable.
I think pano needs to be an option.
AL and stainless steel body/frame is a must. That is an absolute if you want to make million mile cars. In the north eastern US when you tell someone "this car will never rust" they give you a weird look which you then have to follow up with the explanation.

Now for what I think will be removed
No auto closing charge port.
No Rear heated seats
No jump seats
No adjustable air suspension
No fancy spoiler like the MX has.

Simply doing the following will reduce cost of car quite a bit:

- Reducing size 20%
- Reducing Battery to ~45-50kWh, along with the gigafactory reducing cost by 30% ( this is HUGE)
- Not using Aluminum
- Reducing motor to ~180hp

Those are really more car basics, but I think almost all of the cost problem is solved there. These are not "features" ... so features I think will be done away with or reduced are:

- Retracting door handles. Might create some flush design, but they wont have the retracting mechanism
- Premium seating / lighting
- Obviously nothing thats not stock on the S (auto pilot, auto parking, camera based stuff mostly)
- No pano roof/moon roof
- Cheaper rims, hub caps
- overall reduction in cost of materials (no expensive interior trim stuff)

I think with all that you are basically down to where you need to be price wise.

To bring cost down, they have to use the same parts that are already being used. don't reinvent the wheel. The smaller of the available motors for S and X (front back as well) will be used on the 3 based on this. Money will be saved in the battery supply chain. this will be the majority of the cost savings from the standard S. The base car will be a base S just a different frame and body (smaller). The 3 will scale to the S as far as battery goes, with the 3 dropping rows (?) of cells to account for the smaller length available when compared to the S. From there, all the others "stuff" will be options.
Supercharging will very definitely be available and not restricted. For mass appeal, that will always be available and stay free.

 

[wallet.dat]

Smaller motor = lower cost, right?

If they are trying to keep their margins high, shaving every little bit of expense here and there will make a big difference. If they can save $50-100 on every single motor x 500,000 a year... It isnt a trivial cost.

It's already been stated that the Model 3 will use an iteration of the front motor from the Model S, and that unit already makes 259hp. It would cost almost nothing to cripple it at 180hp, but if it's to be competitive with the BMW 3-series (an assertion that I think many people tend to forget), then why?

I believe (hope?) that the Model 3 will be much less an attempt by Tesla to keep up with the Joneses, as it will be Tesla forcing the rest of the industry to keep up with the Kardashians.

 

[InTheShadows]

To bring cost down, they have to use the same parts that are already being used. don't reinvent the wheel. The smaller of the available motors for S and X (front back as well) will be used on the 3 based on this. Money will be saved in the battery supply chain. this will be the majority of the cost savings from the standard S. The base car will be a base S just a different frame and body (smaller). The 3 will scale to the S as far as battery goes, with the 3 dropping rows (?) of cells to account for the smaller length available when compared to the S. From there, all the others "stuff" will be options.
Supercharging will very definitely be available and not restricted. For mass appeal, that will always be available and stay free.

Supply chain is right on. Keeping a limited number of parts being made in the factory is way more lean than offering a cheap stripped down base model with custom this and custom that. This is why all cars being made are shipped with autopilot even if you didn't pay for it. Keep the factory lean is of utmost importance.

Supercharging is a must. It could be possible that it's not active on the base model like the S60 but could be purchased.

I was just talking with another Tesla owner yesterday about my concerns with the current supercharger network when the 3 rolls out. I'm actually concerned about it in 1 year with 40-50k MX being out there and another 50k MS. Some of the Chargers get queued up now.

I had to hypermile to the King of Prussia mall this weekend to get an hour of charge to make it to a supercharger that was 30 miles out of the way of my final destination because Tesla has been struggling for over a year now to get a charger in Allentown or Harrisburg. Early adopters will put up with this (barely) but the masses will not. Station density needs to be massively increased and the existing stations need to be expanded, which isn't a simple task when you are talking 120-150kw per station. Tesla is going to have to start opening/ expanding one supercharger per day just in the USA to get us ready for a 2017 roll out.

I don't really see the existing model working that offers free charging for the masses. They may start charging a small per kw fee. This is actually what I thought the battery swap would address. Queue up for free or pay $40 and be on your way. This would be acceptable to most people I believe. However the 3 will have to have a physically smaller pack size making it more difficult, so maybe they have already figured this out. I don't know, but there is a charging issue that will need addressed within 2 years.

 

[nwdiver]

Supply chain is right on. Keeping a limited number of parts being made in the factory is way more lean than offering a cheap stripped down base model with custom this and custom that. This is why all cars being made are shipped with autopilot even if you didn't pay for it. Keep the factory lean is of utmost importance.

Agreed; Tesla has shown this by including 'options' in cars when they 'aren't there'; Like supercharging and auto pilot. Tesla put both of these in every car built to keep production lean... even if the end customer didn't want/pay for them. The expense of adding them to cars even when they weren't paid for was apparently made up for by streamlining the other vehicles.

I'd love to see stats on local use of superchargers... I wonder how much of the congestion could be cleared up by limiting SC use within range of your home...

 

[tga]

@Greg - If it is indeed that simple then why don't any EVs implement this technology?

To avoid paying license fees to AC Propulsion, I'd assume.

AC Propulsion | Creating electric vehicles that people want to drive

 

[No2DinosaurFuel]

Smaller motors doesnt necessarily lpwer cost. I think what tesla would do is use as much parts from the model s as possible to reduce development and test cost.

My guess is they will use whatever is in the 85d right now in terms of power train. Battery cost reduction will be achieved via giga factory and maybe lower reduced capacity. But even that is speculation. Again going back to keeping everything the same to reduce development and test cost.

 

[Lonnie123]

Good replies. I seem to remember Tesla having a 189hp Front motor on one of the cars... can't find it now. But I agree with you all now that they will likely use whatever motor they are currently producing in the 3

edit: Looking around a bit all I could find is that maybe they used to have a 188hp front motor on the 85D, but its now 259.

 

[vinnie97]

Based on previous model purchasing, I assume the design studio choices are strictly modular (i.e. if the only advanced feature you want is the biggest battery pack, you can choose it and bypass all the other additional features)? I don't really have particularly demanding winter driving needs, and I suspect AWD/RWD won't represent a huge difference in range.

 

[gregincal]

To me Rims scream "Expensive" and massively unnecessary. The ultimate in vanity... You are paying hundreds/thousands to get a certain look with no added functionality. To each their own, but I would be perfectly fine with an "Electric Corolla" for the Model 3.

You may be, but I'm not paying 35-45K for a Corolla, electric or not, and I'm sure I'm not alone. The Model 3 has to be able to compete with other 35-45K cars.

 

[Lonnie123]

You may be, but I'm not paying 35-45K for a Corolla, electric or not, and I'm sure I'm not alone. The Model 3 has to be able to compete with other 35-45K cars.

I have no doubt you are not alone, and it is likely me that is in the minority.

I also understand that there is, for the time being, an "early adopter tax" for getting EV's off the ground, and also further cost increases from buying from a smaller company like Tesla. Tesla isnt making "a car", its "an electric car" and with that comes certain concessions you must make (again, for the time being).

There is a very good reason that the main gripe with the S is that the fit and finish is not up to par with other $70-90k cars... Because it costs them more to make "the car", not to mention they dont have the economy of scale that the competing manufacturers have (yet). So the amenities and luxuries suffer as a result. Its still an amazing car, but its more in line with interiors of cars that cost much less, which is to be expected I would think.

I had thought this would be more readily apparent (that the product Tesla makes is inherently more expensive for the time being), but it seems that it isn't.

 

[davidc18]

Has there been any discussion on the need to greatly increase the density of the superchargers if the 3 is ever to be acceptable to the masses? I've seen it mentioned briefly several times, but nothing more in depth.

 

[Lonnie123]

Has there been any discussion on the need to greatly increase the density of the superchargers if the 3 is ever to be acceptable to the masses? I've seen it mentioned briefly several times, but nothing more in depth.

Ad nauseam online, nothing official by Tesla.

 

[ratsbew]

I'd be happy with 180hp. The great thing about electrics is you can mash the pedal and actually use that power without it sounding like your engine is going to blow up.

In my current car I shift at 2000 RPM which means I'm only using about 35 horsepower to accelerate. 180 would be like ludicrous mode to me!

 

[ryanjm]

I feel like I have to channel Red Sage here and say:

Remember, the Model 3, like Tesla's other cars, has to be so good that it absolutely blows away similarly priced ICE cars. That's the battle that Elon and Tesla have in getting people over to EVs. So while, yes, the 3 may not have all of the amenities and features the S has (though I expect nearly all of them to be available as options), expect it to blow the BMW 3 series out of the water in the performance department and everything else.

17" touchscreen? Maybe not 17", but probably not smaller than 15" for usability's sake.
Panoramic roof? Not standard, but probably an option.
Auto-presenting door handles? Maybe not standard, but probably an option. Though with economies of scale and all of the investment Tesla has put into reliably redesigning them, I also wouldn't be surprised if they DO end up standard. They are kind of a signature Tesla element, like, say, the analog clocks in the center of every Infiniti's dashboard.
Performance? It'll move even for $35, with obvious performance package and AWD options making it a monster at the top end.
Wheels? Of course.
Autopilot? You guys have covered this: included in every car but a paid option to unlock.
Supercharging? I believe Elon is already on record saying that all 3s will have it. As others have noted, it's a key Tesla advantage and also key to alleviating the range anxiety of the average consumer who will be buying their first EV.

Just my $0.02.

 

[Pete90D]

Is the $35k after the tax credit and gas savings? The base S70 is $52k after incentives.

Reducing the size of the car will help, and there are probably some components that are more costly than others, but a number of features shouldn't cost that much. Also, the volume a $35k car will create should decrease costs of a lot of parts. I think there are a lot of features on the car that probably don't cost much more than producing a version without it. I was talking to someone from Tesla once and they mentioned how the S40 had the 60kwh pack simply because it was cheaper for Tesla to produce a uniform pack size than have to create a variant. So you'll probably see the same.

Things like door handles, autopilot, wheels, lighting, leather vs textile, etc, don't change based on the size of the car. Pano roof, screen size, seats, dash, etc, these change based on the size of the car, and therefore require new tooling to build them. Similar to the battery. If the weight and performance of the car decreases you'll probably also see a decrease in brake size, which if you look at aftermarket BBKs can cost a lot of money.

Honestly I don't think Tesla is going to compromise that much on quality to reduce the price of the car. The base 3-series is 33k and the base 5-series is 50k so you're probably looking at a similar set of variations combined with reduced cost of materials (via mass production) to get it down to $35k. I bet a lot of the premium features will be available if you pay for it. It helps reduce MS/MX costs if they can produce more of the same parts or purchase more of the same material.

To me Rims scream "Expensive" and massively unnecessary. The ultimate in vanity... You are paying hundreds/thousands to get a certain look with no added functionality. To each their own, but I would be perfectly fine with an "Electric Corolla" for the Model 3.

It is not correct that they add no functionality. On the PxxD models you are getting staggered wheels, which improve cornering ability. Low profile tires will handle better in turns than a big fat tire will and will also warm up faster because there is less rubber. In regular cars where brakes are smaller, having larger wheels allows you to upgrade to larger rotors. There are of course downsides to larger wheels, but there are valid reasons for purchasing larger wheels that extend beyond appearance.

 

[MsElectric]

To make Model 3 less expensive, one of the cost savings is less features. Which features do you think won'tt make it to the Model 3?

Here's my list:
- Heated folding mirrors
- Supercharging

The Model 3 will be designed to compete with the BMW 3-series, Mercedes C Class, and the Audi A4. Ever been in one of those cars lately? We recently had a brand new C Class loaner when one of our cars went in for service and I was really impressed with the interior along with all the features in the car.

Reduce complexity, yes, but I don't think Elon or anyone at Tesla has ever said the Model 3 will have less features to save money. What they've all said is that the savings will come from the reduction of overall size and efficiencies of scale.

For reference, this is what the Model 3 will be competing with (note the copious features) and 3 years from now when the Model comes out the bar might be raised even a bit more:

http://www.mbusa.com/vcm/MB/DigitalAssets/pdfmb/brochures/MY15_C-Class_Sedan_093014.pdf

 

[anticitizen13.7]

I'm predicting that Model 3 will actually have more features available than today's Model S, and that the base-level Model 3 will be as well or better equipped than today's base-level Model S.

Why?

(1) As others stated, Model 3 has to compete with BMW 3, Mercedes C-class, and others. These competitors can all be had with very high levels of equipment. Tesla has to make something better than the competition in order to convince mainstream customers to switch from ICE automobiles to EVs.

(2) Technology becomes less expensive over time with improved production technology and economies of scale. That 17" LCD panel might be expensive today, but what will it cost in 2 years and at an order of magnitude higher production volume rate? It's the same principle that should drive down the cost of batteries significantly. Everything from rolls of aluminum to motors and reduction gears costs less per unit when acquired in higher volume.

There is one caveat: Supercharging.

I am very unsure that Tesla's Supercharging network will be able to sustain free long-distance travel when the company is shipping hundreds of thousands of units/year. I believe that at a certain point, Tesla will have to collect a small parking fee per unit time at a Supercharger stall for vehicles manufactured after a certain date.