Official Tesla Model 3 thread

[keydiver]

By 2018:

The U.S. Department of Transportation today finalized a set of federal standards for rear visibility that will require all new vehicles under 10,000 pounds to have backup cameras by mid-2018.
The rules will phase in over several years. Automakers will be required to have compliant rearview systems in 10 percent of the vehicles they build from May 1, 2016, to May 1, 2017. That share rises to 40 percent for the next year and 100 percent starting on May 1, 2018.

So, as I said, the base model will get no backup camera until 2018, and Tesla will meet the 10%/40% in the upscale vehicles.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still very much pro-Tesla, and might even consider replacing my Leaf if Tesla proves me wrong on most of the above. But, I just still have a bad taste in my mouth by the way the S base model turned out. I can still remember Musk touting "$50,000 car" and "250 mile range" in the same interview, as if it was the same model, when we all knew better. Call me pessimistic, but being a publicly-traded company, I'm afraid Musk plays to the cameras a bit to much to keep his stock price rising.

 

[EVDRIVER]

Tesla will not make a car that gets less than 200 mile EV range - since that complicates SuperCharger network infrastructure (which assumes certain range for their cars).

I wonder about that. It seems unrealistic to get a 200 mile (EPA) range car for under $40k in the next three to four years. My assumption (WAG) was that Tesla would have a base model that has a lower range and then an upgraded model at greater cost that would also be Supercharger capable. (Much as they tried to do with the original three battery sizes with the Model S.)

However, I'd love for you to be right; if they can produce a 200 mile (EPA) range car for under $40k, great! Time for a pizza bet?

I bet they won't, I'll take that bet with you.

 

[mitch672]

Even though Tesla cancelled the 40KwH model, IFF you had your deposit in, they delivered a 60KwH Model S that is software limited to using 40KwH of the 60KwH pack. So they did deliver on the promise of the 40KwH model, for the 500-600 buyers who committed to them. I just see sour grapes in the last few posts from people who did not want to commit. If you pay the $10K at any time, they will unlock that additional capacity to you, and you can also enable the SuperCharging (for $2K).

 

[dgpcolorado]

I bet they won't, I'll take that bet with you.

It was evnow who suggested that Tesla will pull it off; I'm also guessing that they won't.

I hope I'm wrong since I'd really like to buy one (or a used Model S if prices ever come down out of the stratosphere). In the meantime I will continue to LEAF it. But the Supercharger network is a paradigm shift in EV utility IMO, so I hope that Tesla survives and thrives.

 

[keydiver]

Even though Tesla cancelled the 40KwH model, IFF you had your deposit in, they delivered a 60KwH Model S that is software limited to using 40KwH of the 60KwH pack. So they did deliver on the promise of the 40KwH model, for the 500-600 buyers who committed to them. I just see sour grapes in the last few posts from people who did not want to commit. If you pay the $10K at any time, they will unlock that additional capacity to you, and you can also enable the SuperCharging (for $2K).

OK, so its MY fault because I wouldn't put money down on a car that I knew nothing about, and would have had to wait another 1 1/2 years to take delivery? To be honest, when Tesla FINALLY did release the base model specs, I don't remember any mention of $2000 to access the Supercharger network. The datasheet just said "NO ACCESS" for the base model. And, the datasheet even indicated that Supercharger access for the 85 Kwh model was in question. If I recall, the datasheet indicated that a QC port of any kind would not even be on the car, not even an option. The "pay us another $2000 and we'll give you access" offer sounds like something Tesla came up with at a later date, to pacify angry buyers. I'd like to see any links that might prove me wrong. And $1500-$1800 for Pearl White paint? Really? And, the really beautiful red color they showed in all the advertising was reserved for the super-deluxe model only, no way Tesla would allow that color on a base model. :roll: A $60,000 car with no NAV?? At that point, I walked away and have never looked back, so I admit I may have been out of the loop on how things went down after that. You can call it "sour grapes", but I call it customer alienation.
IMHO, they treated prospective base owners like a red-headed step child.

 

[Zythryn]

You could have ordered the 40kWh as late as February of 2013, just before they canceled it.
I'm sorry you are ticked off that the base model didn't include the bells and whistles you wanted.

You make all sorts of assumptions about why they did what they did, but have very little evidence.

They changed as customers requested things. If being responsive to customers (such as adding SC access to 60kWh cars as an option) is a bad thing, I can understand your displeasure.
Personally, I LIKE it when a company adapts to customer demand.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I will say that Tesla will be sub $40,000 AFTER incentive (if its still there) but options will push it to the low to mid 40's but then again it was news to think 2015. 2017 wont be.

 

[edatoakrun]

Back (sort of) on-topic, Tesla's quest for $ to build the battery factory, for the Tesla (formerly known as) E, are these two WSJ stories focusing on relative risk.

S&P Rates Tesla Debt as 'Junk'

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services labeled Tesla Motors Inc. a "vulnerable" investment, giving it a noninvestment-grade corporate debt rating of B-.

The rating, four levels below investment grade, is unsolicited because Palo Alto, Calif.-based Tesla doesn't have a rating agreement with the S&P to rate its debt, but S&P said there was sufficient investor interest to go forward with the rating. According to S&P, Tesla has liability for $2.9 billion in convertible bonds.

"Our 'vulnerable' business risk profile assessment incorporates Tesla's narrow product focus, concentrated production footprint, small scale relative to its larger automotive peers, limited visibility on the long-term demand for its products, and limited track record in handling execution risks that could arise in managing high volume parallel production," the agency said in a statement Tuesday.

The ratings firm estimates that Tesla will burn cash in 2014 and 2015 as large capital expenses connected to building a giant battery factory, Supercharger stations, showrooms and service facilities as well as developing the Model X SUV and another smaller car will use more cash than it will generate through selling new vehicles, said Nishit Madlani, a credit analyst with S&P.

On the positive side, S&P said Tesla's brand recognition and improving operating performance, premium pricing, and growing sales could lead to higher cash generation and a better outlook.

"This is an unsolicited rating from S&P that was developed independently by their analysts without any feedback from Tesla on our growth plans," the company said in an emailed statement.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20140527-712847.html?mod=WSJ_qtoverview_wsjlatest" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Panasonic's risk-aversion as reported last week:

OSAKA, Japan— Panasonic Corp. on Friday said the extent of its role in a proposed battery joint venture with electric car maker Tesla Motors Inc. is still being debated as it expressed uncertainty over the venture's cost-cutting target.

The electronics maker has committed to investing in the U.S. plant, which could cost as much as $5 billion, but the amount it would contribute is still being debated inside the company. Some Panasonic executives are still haunted by earlier failed capital investments in plasma televisions and batteries.

"Is 30% [cost savings] in sight? Not yet. It isn't that easy," said Yoshio Ito, Panasonic's senior managing executive officer who heads the automotive unit, in a round-table discussion with reporters.

Tesla needs to reduce the cost of the existing Model S battery pack by at least 30% to make a proposed car designed to attain 200 miles of all-electric range and start at $35,000 (3.57 million yen).

Mr. Ito said Panasonic has offered to jointly work on electronic controls in addition to battery-cell cost reductions as a means to lower the overall cost of the battery pack, which is a significant portion of the expense of Tesla's current Model S electric car.

Lowering the cost of the existing 1,000-pound battery pack is the primary driver of constructing a 10-million-square-foot factory. Tesla plans to use vertical integration in the giant factory, pulling in partners like Panasonic, as well as makers of component parts, like the metal suppliers for cathode and anode materials, into the plant.

JB Straubel, Tesla's chief technical officer, said he believes the cost reduction effort is on track, based on the company's analysis...

Mr. Straubel said Tesla is a few weeks away from breaking ground on the first of two sites for the battery factory, but he isn't concerned that Panasonic hasn't made a firm commitment to the plant.

In order to meet its timeline to start production in 2017, Tesla is starting site work on two different locations to ensure it can complete the project. Tesla is vetting potential sites in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and California..

He reiterated that Panasonic will be the lone battery maker working with Tesla. Panasonic helped boost Tesla's cash in 2010 with a $30 million stock purchase when the shares were $21.15. The stock is now trading at $203.

Under Chief Executive Kazuhiro Tsuga, Panasonic officials say they are compiling detailed risk scenarios and multiple backup plans to make sure new investments don't flop and jeopardize the turnaround Mr. Tsuga engineered...

http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303749904579580010945437686-lMyQjAxMTA0MDIwNDEyNDQyWj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[edatoakrun]

It's got a name now, and Tesla is still sticking to initial timeline, range and price estimates:

...The Tesla Model III is expected to debut in 2017 on an all-new, smaller platform. Among the car’s features will be a 200 mile range and a price-point starting in the mid $30,000 dollar range...

http://insideevs.com/tesla-3rd-gen-car-gets-name-tesla-model-iii/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm more than a little bit skeptical of each of those three figures myself.

IMO. if Tesla actually achieves any of those three projections, it will probably miss on one or two of the others.

Looks to me like the model III may already be few months behind schedule, in that "facility construction" of the gigifactory was supposed to have begun a few months ago- see page five below:

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/gigafactory.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[TomT]

If anyone can pull it off, it is Musk...

I'm more than a little bit skeptical of each of those three figures myself.

 

[abasile]

My guess is that, in Tesla-speak, 2017 actually means 2018 or 2019. But I'd love to be proven wrong!

 

[apvbguy]

if you are waiting for the model 3, plan on waiting at least 4 to 5 years. Musk is long on promises and short on delivery.

 

[Slow1]

if you are waiting for the model 3, plan on waiting at least 4 to 5 years. Musk is long on promises and short on delivery.

So very true. The Model-X is a good example as I believe it was originally promised to be out end of last year... I don't think they have even settled on a price for it yet (at least not published) instead saying "similar to Model S"... Also, consider that the price is likely inclusive of all available rebates/incentives. However, I'm happy to see them bringing EV's to the news. The Model S cars that I have seen sure look nice and I'd enjoy the opportunity to drive one if given the chance... too expensive for my budget though.

 

[apvbguy]

if you are waiting for the model 3, plan on waiting at least 4 to 5 years. Musk is long on promises and short on delivery.

So very true. The Model-X is a good example as I believe it was originally promised to be out end of last year... I don't think they have even settled on a price for it yet (at least not published) instead saying "similar to Model S"... Also, consider that the price is likely inclusive of all available rebates/incentives. However, I'm happy to see them bringing EV's to the news. The Model S cars that I have seen sure look nice and I'd enjoy the opportunity to drive one if given the chance... too expensive for my budget though.

I own a model S, would buy an X if it could actually be delivered by Q2 of 2015 and I believe that the model 3 is a world beater, however I am still awaiting the battery swap stations and the roadster upgrades. Unlike the TMC fanboys over at their website I am too much of a realist to become a true acolyte, assisting in the worship of all things elon

 

[Nubo]

Put in a Model X reservation in December; seems like we'll get it late next summer at this point. It was "introduced" in 2012.

But, that's not saying that they can't pull it off. Perhaps Model X schedule slipped due to battery supply constraints, etc... This thing isn't necessarily linear. I do know that they got a CA tax break on a rather large purchase of capital equipment. And the factory they got from Toyota is HUGE. The Gigafactory seems to be the next hurdle.

 

[epirali]

So very true. The Model-X is a good example as I believe it was originally promised to be out end of last year... I don't think they have even settled on a price for it yet (at least not published) instead saying "similar to Model S"... Also, consider that the price is likely inclusive of all available rebates/incentives. However, I'm happy to see them bringing EV's to the news. The Model S cars that I have seen sure look nice and I'd enjoy the opportunity to drive one if given the chance... too expensive for my budget though.

I own a model S, would buy an X if it could actually be delivered by Q2 of 2015 and I believe that the model 3 is a world beater, however I am still awaiting the battery swap stations and the roadster upgrades. Unlike the TMC fanboys over at their website I am too much of a realist to become a true acolyte, assisting in the worship of all things elon

Which Roadster upgrade are you waiting for (I am curious)? The battery upgrade? I can't imagine driving the Roadster for 150 miles, much less 400 miles!

 

[apvbguy]

Which Roadster upgrade are you waiting for (I am curious)? The battery upgrade? I can't imagine driving the Roadster for 150 miles, much less 400 miles!

please elaborate on this, why can't you imagine driving so far?

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Expect the answer to "how fast" to be "a lot less". You can have a higher volume/lower margin car chewing up gears every 10,000 miles; that's a fast track to bankruptcy.

 

[adric22]

One thing I can almost guarantee.. They say it will cost $35,000. But you can bet that is after the $7,500 tax credit. And you can also bet that is a base model with very little equipment. Which means the Leaf will still be around $10,000 cheaper.

 

[epirali]

Which Roadster upgrade are you waiting for (I am curious)? The battery upgrade? I can't imagine driving the Roadster for 150 miles, much less 400 miles!

please elaborate on this, why can't you imagine driving so far?

I love the car, but only as a fun drive around on nice-roads kind of car. Never EVER a commuter and would NEVER want to drive it for hours on end. The suspension is brutal (in a good way for handling, but not for comfort). Don't want to even get into the "seats," they should have kept the Lotus racing harness. The seats are pretty much only good for track days.

I can spend HOURS in the Leaf by comparison (obviously until it runs out of juice).