Official Tesla Model 3 thread

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
EatsShootsandLeafs said:
EVDRIVER said:
GetOffYourGas said:
Try $60k-$65k. If you were buying a $45k-$55k Model 3, you most certainly would not have it yet.

Right now a person can be into a premium extended range for about $40k, depending on any state credits offered.

Possibly, but the key issue is when the actual delivery will occur, i.e. very very unlikely in 2018. It all depends upon
if and when Tesla can "drive down" the M3 cost curve when fully burdened with Tesla's overhead costs, e.g. R&D, G&A,
and battery costs.
 
lorenfb said:
EatsShootsandLeafs said:
EVDRIVER said:
Right now a person can be into a premium extended range for about $40k, depending on any state credits offered.

Possibly, but the key issue is when the actual delivery will occur, i.e. very very unlikely in 2018. It all depends upon
if and when Tesla can "drive down" the M3 cost curve when fully burdened with Tesla's overhead costs, e.g. R&D, G&A,
and battery costs.
Tesla tells me 'early 2018' for my $36k Model 3 SR.
 
SageBrush said:
lorenfb said:

Possibly, but the key issue is when the actual delivery will occur, i.e. very very unlikely in 2018. It all depends upon
if and when Tesla can "drive down" the M3 cost curve when fully burdened with Tesla's overhead costs, e.g. R&D, G&A,
and battery costs.
Tesla tells me 'early 2018' for my $36k Model 3 SR.

Yes, that is what they are telling people. It's certainly possible, IMO. But it's also possible that it will be early 2019. In the end, I'm confident you'll get your $36k Model 3.

I'm also fairly confident that it will cost you more money than my fully loaded Bolt EV (after incentives and manufacturer rebates, etc), and be less well equipped. I predicted this long ago (that a Bolt will always be cheaper than a comparably equipped Model 3), and now I'm seeing it pan out. So I doubt that the Model 3 will "kill" the Bolt. In fact, it may support the Bolt, when people see the relative values, and as the CCS infrastructure grows.

Similarly, the Leaf will always offer a better value than either the Bolt or the Model 3 - provided the range is enough.
 
Value is subjective and a Bolt and Model 3 are not just comparable by features. When the Bolt was released it had no real competition for it’s range and it’s sales were not very impressive as an almost stand alone offering. What happened? These are not really comparable EVs at so many levels. Once people lean more about the 3 design and it’s many redundant safety systems and capabilities they will be more impressed. The driving experience is different and the concept and philosophy is almost a polar opposite.

DC charge infrastructure is pretty poor and I think it’s going to grow slow and it’s also going to be painfully slow in remote areas eliminating practicality and further crippled by it’s lower power equipment base and rollout. I’m sure the Bolt will not die, GM needs this car for now and they will likely incent people to buy them. I think the Bolt is a good EV but it’s not an EV that people will line up to buy and there are reasons for that.
 
Agree with you on pretty much all points, EVDRIVER.

GM marketed the Bolt as $30k after federal tax credit. I suspect they will hold that price via their own incentives or MSRP rollbacks as the federal tax credit expires.

Tesla expects the average selling price of the Model 3 to be $43k. This is will probably come true..

So what we'll end up with (after the federal tax credit expires, and Tesla works through their backlog) is a Bolt that is at least $5k cheaper than a Model 3. The Model 3 is a great car. Highly desirable. It should be for that price. It competes with the likes of a BMW 3-series. The Bolt is a Chevy. No one expects a Chevy to perform like a BMW (at least no reasonable person). They don't expect it to be priced like one either.

Where the Model 3 could help the Bolt is simply in EV awareness. There will be many people who want the Model 3, but can afford the Bolt. The Bolt is a very good car. It handles very nicely, and it is a blast to drive. If the Model 3 makes EVs cool, then the Bolt becomes affordable cool.

The Leaf is cheaper still, but it is in another realm. It is a family car, and will appeal to those who want a comfy (if a little bland) ride.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
Agree with you on pretty much all points, EVDRIVER.

GM marketed the Bolt as $30k after federal tax credit. I suspect they will hold that price via their own incentives or MSRP rollbacks as the federal tax credit expires.

Tesla expects the average selling price of the Model 3 to be $43k. This is will probably come true..

So what we'll end up with (after the federal tax credit expires, and Tesla works through their backlog) is a Bolt that is at least $5k cheaper than a Model 3. The Model 3 is a great car. Highly desirable. It should be for that price. It competes with the likes of a BMW 3-series. The Bolt is a Chevy. No one expects a Chevy to perform like a BMW (at least no reasonable person). They don't expect it to be priced like one either.

Where the Model 3 could help the Bolt is simply in EV awareness. There will be many people who want the Model 3, but can afford the Bolt. The Bolt is a very good car. It handles very nicely, and it is a blast to drive. If the Model 3 makes EVs cool, then the Bolt becomes affordable cool.

The Leaf is cheaper still, but it is in another realm. It is a family car, and will appeal to those who want a comfy (if a little bland) ride.


True, and hopefully there will be new versions on the 3 platform. If they make the truck and crossover it's going to get crazy. In addition Tesla will and has already begun to redefine how cars are made and I expect others to be forced to follow. Nissan's conservative outlook on OTA updates and the like will need to change.
 
EVDRIVER said:
Value is subjective and a Bolt and Model 3 are not just comparable by features.

It's subjective AND objective.

To tag onto the DC infrastructure issue--and I hate to be THAT guy--but I need the capability to take a vehicle on long trips. It was one thing when we had one EV and one gas vehicle (or more technically, a hybrid (Volt)). But my goal is to get rid of gas altogether with my next vehicle, and that means a vehicle that will truly be able to go the distance. I don't mind the Bolt at all, and I would probably even consider the LEAF 2 despite being soured a bit on how Nissan is handling certain things (3G TCU upgrades, battery longevity).

But it's simply a non-starter due to lack of adequate quick charging capability and infrastructure. So yes, the Bolt may (or may not) come in cheaper than the Model 3, and the LEAF 2 certainly will, but it simply won't do what I need it to, so from a value perspective, unfortunately it drops down to 0. If a truly capable, 150kW CCS charging infrastructure were to appear tomorrow, I would be able to consider the Bolt, and between my indifference of certain "luxury-like" features of the Model 3, and actual distaste of some Model 3 design choices (e.g. lack of a key fob), the Bolt would very much be in the running. But for now there is only one horse in the game still.
 
I finally put down my deposit for a model 3. I'm not sure what that'll mean, but given my 'need' timeline is about 12 to 24 months , I figure getting 'in line' now might be about right...

That being said, I think I'm liking the 'car' part of the new leaf better, but I like the battery and charging of the Tesla better. Maybe that equation will change, but the tesla having a 100kw+ charging capability and infrastructure is a big advantage....
 
I'm in the same camp as iPickup. We want to be a two EV family. Since one is the LEAF, the other has to be a Tesla for long range versatility. Being a rabid Tesla fan just makes the choice a no brainer.
 
lpickup said:
EVDRIVER said:
Value is subjective and a Bolt and Model 3 are not just comparable by features.

It's subjective AND objective.

To tag onto the DC infrastructure issue--and I hate to be THAT guy--but I need the capability to take a vehicle on long trips. It was one thing when we had one EV and one gas vehicle (or more technically, a hybrid (Volt)). But my goal is to get rid of gas altogether with my next vehicle, and that means a vehicle that will truly be able to go the distance. I don't mind the Bolt at all, and I would probably even consider the LEAF 2 despite being soured a bit on how Nissan is handling certain things (3G TCU upgrades, battery longevity).

But it's simply a non-starter due to lack of adequate quick charging capability and infrastructure. So yes, the Bolt may (or may not) come in cheaper than the Model 3, and the LEAF 2 certainly will, but it simply won't do what I need it to, so from a value perspective, unfortunately it drops down to 0. If a truly capable, 150kW CCS charging infrastructure were to appear tomorrow, I would be able to consider the Bolt, and between my indifference of certain "luxury-like" features of the Model 3, and actual distaste of some Model 3 design choices (e.g. lack of a key fob), the Bolt would very much be in the running. But for now there is only one horse in the game still.


Based on this is will remain this way a long time IMO. Even if DC grows out who will do it? If it's many vendors the support is going to be scary on a trip with few stops. Anyone that has used the SC network knows how good it is and that you can rely on it and Tesla to help if there is an issue.

Cost wise vendors like EVGo charge $5 per session and $.20 a min and a session is limited to 30 min for an occasional user. So if you come in at 50% SOC you won't get the full 50 Kwh all the time and you will be paying quite a bit. Not to mention after 30 min you need to start a new session with an additional $5 fee, On an SC you pay only $.20 per Kwh not per min so you will be paying a much lower rate. I guess you can pay the higher monthly fee but then you still have the per min charges and it's a waste if you only to long trips. DC public charging faces many issues and is just not a viable option for many people and will likely remain fragmented, expensive and relatively unreliable for a long time. There is no comparison here and the utility difference is massive for many people.
 
Small correction: Supercharger access is 20 cents a kWh in California, but it varies by state. I'll pay about 13 cents a kWh in Colorado
 
SageBrush said:
Small correction: Supercharger access is 20 cents a kWh in California, but it varies by state. I'll pay about 13 cents a kWh in Colorado
Major correction:

Whatever are the teaser rates it has announced, TSLA's only commitment to model 3 buyers is that it will impose whatever fees it wants to for charging at its DC sites.
 
lpickup said:
...But it's simply a non-starter due to lack of adequate quick charging capability and infrastructure. So yes, the Bolt may (or may not) come in cheaper than the Model 3, and the LEAF 2 certainly will, but it simply won't do what I need it to, so from a value perspective, unfortunately it drops down to 0. If a truly capable, 150kW CCS charging infrastructure were to appear tomorrow, I would be able to consider the Bolt, and between my indifference of certain "luxury-like" features of the Model 3, and actual distaste of some Model 3 design choices (e.g. lack of a key fob), the Bolt would very much be in the running. But for now there is only one horse in the game still.

Good point. The supercharging standard and network is probably where Tesla is still the furthest ahead of the rest of the industry and it's not because of groundbreaking technology, but clear thinking, guts and commitment. They didn't wait around for "standards bodies" and were building a real viable network while SAE were still examining their navels and pondering how to subvert ChaDeMo.

Sooner or later EVs are going to have to coalesce around a single standard. It'll be interesting to see if Tesla's leadership here is enough to overcome the Leviathans. I still think Nissan should recognize the writing on the wall, forsake ChaDeMo outside of Japan, and forge an alliance with Tesla for supercharging. If executed properly the others would fall in line I think.
 
edatoakrun said:
SageBrush said:
Small correction: Supercharger access is 20 cents a kWh in California, but it varies by state. I'll pay about 13 cents a kWh in Colorado
Major correction:

Whatever are the teaser rates it has announced, TSLA's only commitment to model 3 buyers is that it will impose whatever fees it wants to for charging at its DC sites.

Tesla will likely never play that game and they have stated that they will never make them profit centers. This is not the companies philosophy, the same way Musk opened his patents. I just see that as a non issue. The model S has fees as well now. The SC network is simply brilliant and I expect it to always cost less and be superior for a very long time.
 
Nubo said:
lpickup said:
...But it's simply a non-starter due to lack of adequate quick charging capability and infrastructure. So yes, the Bolt may (or may not) come in cheaper than the Model 3, and the LEAF 2 certainly will, but it simply won't do what I need it to, so from a value perspective, unfortunately it drops down to 0. If a truly capable, 150kW CCS charging infrastructure were to appear tomorrow, I would be able to consider the Bolt, and between my indifference of certain "luxury-like" features of the Model 3, and actual distaste of some Model 3 design choices (e.g. lack of a key fob), the Bolt would very much be in the running. But for now there is only one horse in the game still.

Good point. The supercharging standard and network is probably where Tesla is still the furthest ahead of the rest of the industry and it's not because of groundbreaking technology, but clear thinking, guts and commitment. They didn't wait around for "standards bodies" and were building a real viable network while SAE were still examining their navels and pondering how to subvert ChaDeMo.

Sooner or later EVs are going to have to coalesce around a single standard. It'll be interesting to see if Tesla's leadership here is enough to overcome the Leviathans. I still think Nissan should recognize the writing on the wall, forsake ChaDeMo outside of Japan, and forge an alliance with Tesla for supercharging. If executed properly the others would fall in line I think.


I hope Nissan does not:)
 
SageBrush said:
Small correction: Supercharger access is 20 cents a kWh in California, but it varies by state. I'll pay about 13 cents a kWh in Colorado

Lucky you!
 
EVDRIVER said:
Based on this is will remain this way a long time IMO. Even if DC grows out who will do it?

Definitely. When I see the first 10-20 8+ stall 150kW CCS chargers placed at strategic sites (not just city centers or at dealerships with no nearby amenities), I think we are looking at 3-5 years best case before the network reaches a minimally acceptable level. Bears are fond of saying that it's just a "simple" matter of replicating the SC network but it simply takes time to select sites, acquire rights to build, get permits and actually construct and provision the sites. Even if someone were to throw a whole boatload of money at it, you can do so much in parallel, and all these steps take time.

Who will do it? I do think that ultimately car makers will realize that without a workable charging network they will simply not be able to eat into Tesla's market share. So they will do it. I'm not necessarily a fan of automakers controlling charging networks (even Tesla, but at least in their case I can understand why), so I am hoping the way they do it is to subsidize existing independent networks like evGO, Greenlots, etc. But how exactly it will play out is anyone's guess.
 
lpickup said:
EVDRIVER said:
Based on this is will remain this way a long time IMO. Even if DC grows out who will do it?

Definitely. When I see the first 10-20 8+ stall 150kW CCS chargers placed at strategic sites (not just city centers or at dealerships with no nearby amenities), I think we are looking at 3-5 years best case before the network reaches a minimally acceptable level. Bears are fond of saying that it's just a "simple" matter of replicating the SC network but it simply takes time to select sites, acquire rights to build, get permits and actually construct and provision the sites. Even if someone were to throw a whole boatload of money at it, you can do so much in parallel, and all these steps take time.

Who will do it? I do think that ultimately car makers will realize that without a workable charging network they will simply not be able to eat into Tesla's market share. So they will do it. I'm not necessarily a fan of automakers controlling charging networks (even Tesla, but at least in their case I can understand why), so I am hoping the way they do it is to subsidize existing independent networks like evGO, Greenlots, etc. But how exactly it will play out is anyone's guess.

Some still fail to see the "forest vs the trees"! Even based on the minor availability of charging stations even with the SCs, the typical ICEV
consumer still perceives the abundance of gas stations and a "six minute recharge" as the preference. This not only limits Tesla growth
but also the overall BEV market. A perfect example is the sales of the Bolt, it's overall a very good BEV with a range that should fit most
consumer needs, but yet it hasn't sold well. The M3 availability in the low end of the BEV market won't change this in the near term.
 
edatoakrun said:
SageBrush said:
Small correction: Supercharger access is 20 cents a kWh in California, but it varies by state. I'll pay about 13 cents a kWh in Colorado
Major correction:

Whatever are the teaser rates it has announced, TSLA's only commitment to model 3 buyers is that it will impose whatever fees it wants to for charging at its DC sites.

You are just too much sometimes.
These are the rates that are charged. Model 3 owners have already been charged, and paid for SuperChargers.
 
lorenfb said:
Some still fail to see the "forest vs the trees"! Even based on the minor availability of charging stations even with the SCs, the typical ICEV
consumer still perceives the abundance of gas stations and a "six minute recharge" as the preference. This not only limits Tesla growth
but also the overall BEV market. A perfect example is the sales of the Bolt, it's overall a very good BEV with a range that should fit most
consumer needs, but yet it hasn't sold well. The M3 availability in the low end of the BEV market won't change this in the near term.

Very interesting. Just read a Seeking Alpha report on how the LEAF 2 is going to steal market share away from Model 3 because apparently there is a tremendous demand for medium range urban commuters and second vehicles that don't need any of that fancy Supercharging rubbish.

Well I think the truth is probably in the middle: there are some stubborn people who will refuse to get any vehicle without a six minute recharge, but likely not enough to dampen demand for the Model 3's 1-2 year backlog. And yet buyers will want some level of ability to take the car on a road trip that currently the Bolt and LEAF 2 simply don't offer.
 
Back
Top