Tesla's Model 3

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2014/07/teslas-model-3

by gmays • 12 years ago

135 113 12 years ago

exDM692• 12 years ago

The SUV is the perfect "form factor" for an electric vehicle because they are typically large and heavy so the big battery pack will not hurt so much in the weight budget. The Model S weighs in at around 2100kg, when similarly sized cars with internal combustion engines are around 1400-1700kg.

The Model 3 has potential to shift the whole market if they can provide a practical electric family car for the average people living in suburban areas.

pilom• 12 years ago

I completely disagree on the SUV being the perfect "form factor" for electric. At least if the SUV is being used for things like carrying gear for an excursion or off-roading. In those cases, it is a terrible form factor (especially with the gull-wing doors that prevent you from using a roof rack). Off-roading isn't as efficient at regenerative braking compared to stop and go traffic in an urban area. They go to areas not at all served by charging facilities let alone superchargers. They generally need even greater range than urban only cars. All of these things make an electric SUV not the SUV for me.

If you just mean the silly way Americans use SUV's (to simply be taller than the other cars on the road) then maybe it is a decent form factor.

saucetenuto• 12 years ago

Well, they're selling it in America, right? So American behavior shapes their opportunities, even if it is silly.

Mvandenbergh• 12 years ago

Most SUVs will never see a day of offroad driving in their lives. That's good because most of them aren't suited for it in a stock configuration anyway.

jmartinpetersen• 12 years ago

Lots of SUV's are bound to the concrete jungle, I doubt it is an american phenomenon. I see loads of SUV's incapable of going off-road here in Denmark, and I doubt the more southern parts of Europe are different.

ghshephard3• 12 years ago

I don't know if it's "Silly" or not, but you are correct that Americans, in general, do not use SUVs for "Offroading."

blt• 12 years ago

No, most Tesla SUV drivers will not go off road. The Model X is a "crossover" SUV with very limited off-road capability. You can tell in photos: its ground clearance is low and it doesn't have large suspension travel. It's going to take sales from the Lexus RX, Mercedes M-Class, BMW X series, etc. Nobody takes those cars off-road.

I used to share your disdain for SUVs until I dated someone who drove one. They can be really useful for carrying cargo and the smaller ones get decent fuel economy.

That said, I think a lot of SUV buyers are motivated by fear. They feel that collisions are inevitable so they want to drive a big armored box. They want 4WD even here in the Southern USA where it snows 2 days per year. I think a lot of them have kids and it's one more part of the protective worrying parent mentality.

Personally I can't stand the handling of tall vehicles.

cpwright• 12 years ago

Or you use the SUV to carry your kids and stuff around. An SUV is bigger and more comfortable than most cars. - Easier to fit car seats and people in - Seats 8 (as opposed to 5) on the rare occasion that you want to - Has four wheel drive, so handles better in the snow - Has a trailer hitch for your bike rack, which is more convenient than trunk mounted ones. - A roof rack for sheet goods - Enough cargo space for suitcases, moving, or a trip to the home center

You can get by with a smaller car, but the SUV form factor provides lots of capability, which is nice to have whenever you want it.

I've got one sedan (an Accord) and an SUV (a Pilot), both have their place.

netcan• 12 years ago

Slight sidetone:

The reaction to this comment is really depressing. Obviously exDM69 means 'perfect' in a certain context. IE, does being electric make an SUV better at being an SUV and doing the things that the people who own SUVs, own them for. The comments and voting can't help but be all about how people feel about SUVs in general.

exDM692• 12 years ago

I completely disagree on the SUV being the perfect "form factor" for electric. At least if the SUV is being used for things like carrying gear for an excursion or off-roading.

Most SUVs are driven by soccer moms taking their kids to school. That's the "form factor" I intended in GP.

If we would be talking about an off road vehicle, I'd agree with you.

ensignavenger• 12 years ago

I don't consider the Model X a true SUV. Tesla calls it a "crossover" which I suppose is the industry lingo for fake SUV's like the Model X.

I can see how it would be a good alternative to a minivan, though. So maybe they should call it a "crossover" minivan? (I suppose calling it a minivan wouldn't be as attractive as SUV.)

personZ• 12 years ago

the silly way Americans use SUV's (to simply be taller than the other cars on the road)

Everyone I know who owns an SUV has multiple children. I have four children, and with that a minivan and an SUV. Kids come with a lot of accessories, especially with modern safety requirements of car seats and so on.

It is really unfortunate that every discussion about SUVs turns into some sort of oddball moralizing (especially bizarre when they're contrast with minivans, also 5000lb+ vehicles with largely the same fuel economy). SUVs actually have a very practical purpose. They of course use more fuel, generally, though on the flip side that awareness of fuel makes me less likely to take flippant drives (all things tend to equalize, generally).

dragonwriter3• 12 years ago

If you just mean the silly way Americans use SUV's (to simply be taller than the other cars on the road) then maybe it is a decent form factor.

Americans don't really buy SUVs for any rational reason, there was just a period of very intense propaganda directed at creating the idea that they needed SUVs as an attempt by the auto industry to get around US government safety and efficiency regulations from which "light trucks", which SUVs were carefully designed to qualify as, were exempted (Minivans where an earlier focus of the same PR effort, for the same reason.)

("Crossovers" are basically what happened when the original motivation was gone but the industry had already created the demand, so they went back to making passenger autos that weren't built on truck frames, but still had to make them styled like SUVs to sell in the market conditions their own intense marketing efforts had created -- since that was cheaper than doing another marketing blitz to get people to stop wanting things that look like SUVs.)

Shorel2• 12 years ago

In terms of real usefulness, it is a horrid "form factor" that wastes fuel and space, electric or not.

In terms of market, it can be the most successful vehicle for the American market.

These are two separate things.

gambiting2• 12 years ago

In terms of real usefulness, it is a horrid "form factor" that wastes fuel and space

I never understood this. I used to drive a Land Rover Discovery 3, which is a SUV. And then I had a rental Open(or Vauxhall, for UK folk) Insignia for two weeks - your typical 5 door sedan, a typical "car" which does not invoke hate in most people. And I could not possibly understand how such a "large" car, with footprint as large as my Land Rover, could be so small inside! It took as much space on the road as my "horrid waste of space" Land Rover, yet it could only take 5 people instead of 7, and probably half the luggage. But if you put these two next two each other, you would be a lot more quickly criticized for driving the SUV, purely because it's an SUV. But both cars had nearly identical length and width - so how is the SUV taking more space? If anything, the Insignia was half as practical as the land rover.

Vik1ng• 12 years ago

   heavy so the big battery pack will not hurt so much in the weight budget.

Wrong! Very wrong!

More initial weight means more batteries needed in the first places, which means more weight and even more batteries because of that.

Reducing weight on electric cars is really beneficial:

Less weight => less batteries => less weight => less batteries...

dm24• 12 years ago

I'm sure weight matters a little but torque is what gets the vehicle moving and regenerative breaking puts more back into the batteries with more weight.

Aerodynamics seem to be a more critical factor for electric vehicles. You want the vehicle to be able to cruise while using as little energy as possible, and weight doesn't matter as much for maintaining speed.

It's the same reason that most modern trains are electric or diesel-electric rather than pure diesel.

Many aircraft tow tractors are also electric these days, and they haul some fairly heavy loads.

eqdw• 12 years ago

The tyranny of the battery equation?

barrkel• 12 years ago

Electric vehicles aren't rockets; much of the energy expended to accelerate can be recovered through braking.

The energy required to maintain a given speed is almost independent of weight. Most energy loss at speed is from wind resistance. Rolling resistance will be affected some by weight, but it's not the dominant factor at speed.

cenhyperion• 12 years ago

The Model 3 has potential to shift the whole market if they can provide a practical electric family car for the average people living in suburban areas.

I actually don't think the target audience is families living in suburban areas. That's not the target audience of the BMW 3 series or Benz C class. I think their target audience is young professionals who can't afford a car that quickly costs over $100k but care about driving a practical, electric, professional car.

dm24• 12 years ago

Not just young professionals but technology lovers who are not millionaires. The car has it's own API and the cost savings verses a normal ICE vehicle could really add up in this newer low cost vehicle. No oil, gasoline, etc.

rdl• 12 years ago

Even though I could (barely) afford a Model S, I don't want one due to size. I think that is a market; people who like small, sporty, luxury cars, are relatively price insensitive ($40k vs. $60k for the Model III is insignificant to me; I'll keep it for 5-10y and drive 150-200k miles, so fuel/maintenance/etc. savings dominate purchase price), etc.

dm24• 12 years ago

It'll be good for towing also.

Electric vehicles are excellent for towing, I've seen lots of places use normal electric golf carts to tow huge boats, it's all about torque.

zarkov99• 12 years ago

The weight of the model S is pretty much irrelevant in day to day driving. Handling is fantastic. SUVs are more challenging as electric vehicles because for most families they are the default road-trip vehicles and, at least for now, long road trips, as opposed to daily commutes, are a little more inconvenient for electric cars.

Shivetya• 12 years ago

Lets be honest here, if we are having to stay so large to get any real range from batteries then the tech truly isn't ready yet.

One reason I haven't been all that impressed with the S is because even as large as it is its only 250 or so miles per charge. Some of the elements in its design are really good, but battery storage isn't prime time when it takes the majority of the car to get so little range.

Call me when the tech will take a Focus/Leaf sized EV near 300 miles for around 30k, then I will listen. Right now the only good bet is a range extender, fortunately the two big ones; i3 and Leaf, are affordable by a great many more drivers.

larrys• 12 years ago

"The SUV is the perfect "form factor" for an electric vehicle because"

Don't agree. SUV has big wind drag (not sure if that is the right word for it) which reducing efficiency in gas powered vehicles. I can't imagine that it isn't the same effect in electric powered. (I mean that's obvious, right or am I missing something?)

kmfrk3• 12 years ago

Pay- or registration-walled, alas.

MrBuddyCasino• 12 years ago

"Open in incognito window" did the trick for me.

kmfrk3• 12 years ago

Did the trick. Thanks.

davidw• 12 years ago

FWIW, The Economist is a pretty good magazine (err, I mean "newspaper"), worth subscribing to.

bellerocky2• 12 years ago

I get that it might be, but if I subscribed to all these news sites, the nytimes, the wsj, the economist, the information, the financial times, I'd be out a lot of money each month for what is basically an "I don't know how to use the icognito tab on my browser"-tax. I want to support these sites but they are too expensive, and it's too easy to circumvent their paywall. I actually subscribed to the nytimes for a month and I felt stupid for it, which is a weird feeling to have about it.

The Information has a real pay wall, and it's actually the most expensive out of this list, but if I subscribed to it, at least I wouldn't feel like a jackass for doing so. These companies want the Google crawling and the subscription fees, but it seems like you can only have one.

kmfrk3• 12 years ago

I'm subscribed to three newspaper already, so I feel like I've hit my quota. :)

smackfu• 12 years ago

Very expensive though. A lot of the time you can use frequent flyer miles to subscribe though, which is much more reasonable.

chucknelson• 12 years ago

Weird, no pay wall for me. I had ad-block installed in Chrome, so I'm not sure if that is doing something.

SuperChihuahua• 12 years ago

It depends on how many articles you've read! Read X articles for free - then paywall

coder232• 12 years ago

What, are, you doing? Don't risk your safety and sanity, install a javascript blocker.

rbinv• 12 years ago

Not really feasible nowadays. Too many sites fully rely on JS.

BenoitP• 12 years ago

(In Chrome)

1. F12

2. Resources

3. Cookies

4. right click www.economist.com, clear

5. F5

scragg4• 12 years ago

The $35,000 will be starting after rebate, so $42,500 out the door with zero upgrades. I'm pessimistic they can get that low of a price with 300 mile range, so I'm predicting that is an optional battery upgrade from the base price. There are options you will want like the tech package which is $3k+ on the S.

I snagged a 40kwh S before they discontinued it. Had it for a year, never needed to charge anywhere but my home. I get about 135 miles on a charge and it has been more then enough for commutes around the metro.

NickM• 12 years ago

The $35,000 will be starting after rebate

Citation? You might be right, but I thought I read that 35k was before the tax credit.

For that matter, I believe the current EV tax credit is only available for the first X number of EVs produced by a given manufacturer. It's possible the same credit won't be available anymore by the time the 3 comes out. Or on the other hand, there have been talks of raising the credit to 10k and making it permanent. Hard to know what will happen in the next few years.

johnward7• 12 years ago

Tesla always advertises the after rebate price. Nothing makes me think they would change that now. You are right that it is possible the rebate won't be available when this launches. I also doubt they can hit 2017 but we will see I guess.

If they could do come close to launch, actually hit that price with no rebate, and hit the 300 mile claim I would be very impressed (and in line to buy) but I think all of that is not adding up.

edit: according to a post above Tesla said they were not including the tax rebates. So that means you could get into a Model 3 for $27k. I really don't see how they can do that and 300mile range. That's a huge price cut from a model s. Makes me think it's not going to be up to the same quality/luxury feel that the model S has.

speeq• 12 years ago

Source? This is what they said during one of their earnings calls:

Barclays Capital – Question about $35,000 price point – before or after tax credits?

Deepak Ahuja (CFO): The $35,000 does not assume that the $7,500 federal tax credit is no longer available, but that the 35,000 Tesla Gen 3 pricing is without any subsidy.

Elon Musk: Helpful to have credits, but Tesla is not counting on them.

The tax credit applies for the first 250,000 (domestic?) units per manufacturer though, so if you pre-order a Model 三 you might be able to get it for $27,500.

maaku• 12 years ago

Model 三

Cute.

scragg4• 12 years ago

This was said over a year ago in an earnings call. I hope he is correct. It's a detail that is regularly omitted, wonder why. That tax credit will be available for the gen 3 based off of S sales. There are also phase out periods for the credit when the sales target has hit for 50% and 25% of tax credit. Telsa will want to have optimal production capabilities when that time comes.

johnward7• 12 years ago

Which battery option do you have. 135 miles out of what is supposed to be 200 mile range doesn't seem so great. I need at the very least 120mile guaranteed to make my commute.

scragg4• 12 years ago

It's a 60kwh battery software limited to 40kwh. In other words, it allows me to charge to 66% on a 60kwh battery. I could pay $10k to unlock the extra 60 miles of charge, but not worth it to me.

Aardwolf• 12 years ago

"the car was going to be called the Model E, until Ford said it already had that name trademarked" (...) "We'll have three bars to represent it and it'll be S III X!"

3 also happens to be the '1337' slang variant of E.

Thiz• 12 years ago

Yep. S3X doesn't look bad to me.

ranran8763• 12 years ago

Not to be a contrarian, but there isn't really any reason to believe that the Model 3 will be any better than the already-on-the-market Nissan Leaf. Tesla hasn't really invented any new technology here that would be a game changer. The vague claim of a "closer alliance of Tesla and its battery supplier" isn't going to suddenly double the mileage when compared to the Lead- and it's not like Nissan hasn't been streamlining their production process for the past few years either.

The Model S is exceptional in that you can pay a ton of money and get an electric car with a very respectable range. But that doesn't really scale down when - like the article points out - most of the cost is in the battery.

aetherson• 12 years ago

On a technical note, you mean range, not mileage. I don't think that anyone is claiming that the Model 3 will have electrical motors that are twice as efficient as the Leaf's motors or anything -- the claim is that it will have batteries that hold more energy than the Leaf's.

I think you're right to be at least a little skeptical of the Model 3. For one, it seems like something of a stretch to say that they'll be on-the-market in 3.5 years with a vehicle that will feature batteries from a factory that hasn't even found a site yet.

That said, I imagine that the Leaf will have a better range in 2017 as well. It seems clear at this point that better battery tech is the final hurdle for electric vehicles. It doesn't seem completely implausible that with a lot of resources thrown at the problem, they'll be able to lower the cost of increasing the energy capacity of batteries in the next few years.

matthewaustin• 12 years ago

I disagree with your assessment that Tesla doesn't have any new technology that will improve their efficiency over Nissan.

Tesla builds their own powertrains and battery management systems, which are good enough that other automakers license or purchase these components from them.

I also believe that Tesla has efficiency advantages due to the high degree of automation they've built into their factories, as well as the lack of dealership markups. Tesla's profit margin on the Model S is excellent compared to many other automakers, which leads me to believe that they will also be able to offer more for less with the Model 3.

ranran8763• 12 years ago

I think the fact that Tesla "gave away" all their patents is a sign that this isn't a battle over technology, but a game of marketing, branding, and efficient manufacturing. I seriously doubt Tesla has some secret factory sauce that Nissan (who's been building cars for decades) doesn't have access to.

maerF0x02• 12 years ago

There's also the different, not better concept. The Model 3 will be a sedan, the leaf is a hatchback. Etc. All the same reasons there is a market for the many kinds of ICE vehicles we see today.

johnward7• 12 years ago

A model 3 hatch would be sexy though.

GreenPlastic4• 12 years ago

People who would buy a Model 3 would never buy a Leaf because it performs like a Leaf. The target market is BMW 3 series buyers who buy the car because it looks nice, has tons of power, and handles well.

They're going after the guy who wants a 3 series with instant torque. Range is a secondary consideration as long as it gets over 200.

ranran8763• 12 years ago

If in 2017 Nissan will have a cheaper, less powerful car with a 200+ range that will also be cheaper than the Model3 - then I think Tesla will be left in the dust.

The Model3 is their chance to break out of the luxury market and the Leaf is going to squeeze them really hard from the low end.

I think at the point, the main thing setting them apart is the Supercharger network. The financial viability of that endeavor is a bit unknown.. but if it translates into significant car sales, then it may pay off.

GreenPlastic4• 12 years ago

To drive my point home a little more, this car's sweet spot isn't really the Prius owner or someone who would consider the Leaf.

It's the guy who won't buy a car with a > 6 second 0-60 time. The guy who wants to step on it and be put in the back of their seat but for whom 50-60k is a little bit too much to spend. They can't afford an M3 but want an M3 performance so they buy a 335, a G37 / Q50, or an IS350. I've personally discounted the IS250 because the acceleration is too slow for me.

If the Model 3 gets 5.3 0-60 or better, it's a no-brainer.

johnward7• 12 years ago

I drive a CTS (3.6l is slow in that heavy vehicle). I want a Model 3. I think I fit this stereotype. I drive 120+ miles round trip. If I could do that paying $.07kwh vs $3-$4 per gallon I would do it. Also I'd buy a Model S if I could afford one right now. The only thing I'd like to see if an AWD system in a Tesla but I'm not sure it makes sense from an efficiency standpoint.

Tesla's Model 3

Related Stories