It appears apprehensions over the driving range of electric vehicles will be sticking around for a few more years.
Tesla initially said its highly anticipated Model 3 would posses a 215 mile per charge capacity in its base trim, encouraging rumors that the BEV would offer optional power packages and extended range. However, Big Daddy Musk tweeted yesterday the Model 3 is incapable of housing the larger batteries found on the Model X and S.
Tesla’s CEO also said the current 100 kWh battery will be as large as the company plans to go on its present passenger vehicles — but did mention larger units would need to be installed on the company’s semi-trailer-trucks and, again, referenced the possibility of an electric pickup truck.
The current Model S 100D has a fully-charged estimated range of 335 miles and the Model X can manage roughly 295 miles in the same 100 kWh trim. As of now, those two are the company’s most long-legged offerings. Based off the Model 3’s anticipated range and Tesla’s current power source offerings, the base model will probably come with a 60 kWh unit. We reached out to Tesla on the possibility of a 85 kWh version of the 3 but have yet to hear back on the matter.
For the sake of comparison, the Chevrolet Bolt will be the Model 3’s primary rival, and it is outfitted with a 60 kWh lithium-ion battery with an EPA-estimated range of 238 miles. With a similar price, comparable range, and roughly 400,000 pre-orders, Tesla may not bother improving the 3 when it already has the market cornered. It is already going out of its way to increase production to meet demand, so enhancing its cheapest sales success before it’s even on the road may not be a high priority.
[Image: Tesla Motors] [Source: The Verge]
This should prove to be entertaining.
A 60kwh battery should be plenty good. I hope folks buy this car, and bring prices down. $20,000 is where I would like to enter the market. If they have normal depreciation, that means in 3-4 years. Which likely won’t happen :) Maybe with the Bolt.
I’m intrigued by the pickup idea. Americans love pickups, but that demographic generally isn’t made up of Tesla lovers, but there might be enough of them to make a pickup worthwhile, but at what price point? I expect Telsa is doing market research in this area, would be fascinating to see what they’re finding.
As long as the charging time exceeds 5 minutes, this model is pointless anyway. Tesla is a joke.
The lack of BEV progress (demonstrated by this Tesla model) means that the ICE will be around as the only logical choice for quite a while yet.
I’ll pay attention to dumb comments like this when they tell me how I can fill my gas car up at home while I sleep.
‘lack of BEV progress”. Um, let’s look at the facts, as in range for a mainstream BEV, by year:
2012: 80 miles
2016: 120 miles
2017: 238 miles
This looks like progress to me. Asdf is either blind or an ICE industry cheerleader.
You think that charging time is a non-issue?
For the 99% of days when buyers drive fewer than 250 miles, they can charge at home at night. For the 1% of times they go beyond 250 miles, they can charge up at a supercharger, which will take about 20 minutes.
If 20 minutes a couple times a year is an overwhelming issue, people can buy something else. Since there’s a 400,000 person waiting list, I don’t think Tesla will miss them.
Exactly this.
I will probably need to “stop to charge” a few times a year on long road trips. ALL the rest will be at home. I’ll never notice them.
Sorry. This really isn’t the big deal people make it out to be. Most BEV people will be spending far less time “refueling” per year than ICE folks.
“You think that charging time is a non-issue?”
Yes.
I’ll happily exchange longer charging times on the very occasional road trip for never having to stop for gas in the day-to-day hustle/grind.
There will always be people either unable to accept change (lets call them ‘conservatives’) or people getting benefit from conventional energy.
There are some sacrifices to both forms of energy.
Where I am, the govt. charges at minimum 38c per liter of gasoline… at the minimum (let us avoid state taxes and GST).
If I want to avoid this I can buy a pure EV. For this I expect never to visit a service station forecourt except to maintain tyre pressure.
The downsides? The limited range. 200 miles. This is easy done but doing a quick sum in my head. If the round trip is less than say 150 miles, I take the EV. If not take the ICE car.
The charge time. This isnt a problem if I plug it in every night and take advantage of off peak power. I assume people sleep every night. I get some of the conservatives here dont.
If you dont want to make any personal adjustments to suit an EV, then dont. Your lifestyle is supported by the 99% of manufacturers who make ICE cars. Its like as if Elon Musk is forcing you to buy a Tesla.
Even then, do you think the guy who buys a Tesla cant afford another car? Laughable.
The troll returns!
Estimates have it that a 70kWh Model 3 will go farther than a 100kWh Model S. Take it to 75kWh and maybe see 350 miles.
@vulpine: I think you’re right. My guess would be at least 3.8 in winter temps and 4.8 to 5.2 miles per kWh in warmer temps. That’s what I get with my Leaf.
Various higher density battery technologies are out of the lab and in early production at different companies. Full mass production isn’t until the early 20’s, so I’d expect the range to jump up and I think it’s will be possible to put 100 kWh in a 3 at that point.
But seriously, I ran two different errands today. Both were about 15 miles round trip and I had time to charge back to about 98% in between trips. The first trip was at temps around freezing. The range gauge never dropped below 80 miles on a 100-mile range Leaf. I’ve been doing fine with a 100-mile car, so 200 will be enough for me to totally avoid charging anywhere but home 99% of the time.
I think those numbers could be achievable with the Model 3, as long as the driver doesn’t glue his foot to the floor. I expect EPA ratings (or whatever) will be a bit lower though.
There are other good reasons to never have a 100 kWh battery in a Model 3 (besides it not fitting between the wheels):
a. Cost: A 100 kWh Model 3 might start at $55k.
b. Efficiency/range: You get diminishing returns on range due to the added battery weight. A 100 kWh Model 3 might only get 300 miles range.
c. Portfolio: Why should a Model 3 offer nearly everything found in a Model S?
Its a new paradigm… and yet, its not.
Why would you think that a lesser model would match the capabilites of a more expensive model.
There are marketing and physical/engineering reasons why it doesn’t.
If these depreciate like Leafs (Leaves?) my grandkids are gonna be cruising to hs in some nice looking wheels.
Teslas – to date – do not depreciate like the Leaf.
You could probably buy a new Leaf and throw it away every year for the amount a high-end Tesla depreciates in its first 2-3 years.
Sadly, not remotely true. If it were true I might own an early Model S. But they hold their value very well indeed.
I am not entirely sure why 3 is compared to Bolt. Tesla is luxury/sports, Bolt is family econobox. Same range, sure. But do we really compares BMW to Toyota by fuel mileage?
In building another sedan, Tesla is targeting the wrong market. They should be building a small, relatively affordable SUV. Something with the size and interior space of a Honda CR-V.
.
.
That’s next. The Model Y will be a compact CUV based on the Model 3.