Model 3 battery options

Model 3 battery options

With the elimination of teslas 40,60 battery options in early model S and introduced 70,90,and possible 100 options I would expect the Model 3 to offer the 70 as the base model like the model S and X as standard.Also the 70 specs align with Elons numbers

Red Sage ca us | 13 april 2016

That would be very nice. An average consumption of ~260 Wh per mile would yield the 215 mile range that Elon quoted. | 13 april 2016

No one other than Tesla knows (and they may not even have a final number). It has a smaller battery compartment than the S/X, so the maximum power may be more limited than the S/X. Then again if it uses a more volume efficient battery cells it may help. Too many variables and we'l have to wait until "part 2" to get the real scoop.

Also keep in mind this is a lighter car so a smaller powered battery should go further than the S/X.

Kiwi | 13 april 2016

Don't want to be caught out with an obsolete battery after 5 yrs or so like 40,60Kw S owners.I guess I'll just put my trust in Elon

spike78 | 13 april 2016

@Kiwi - Lease, dont buy.

Rocky_H | 15 april 2016

@TeslaTap, They didn't specify at the reveal event that the Model 3 is lighter than Model S, so why do people keep saying that? It is smaller in size, yes, but it is also going to be using heavier steel, where the Model S used aluminum, so who knows how those two factors will cancel each other out and which will have more impact on the weight?

Red Sage ca us | 15 april 2016

I go by statements made by JB Straubel. He said that the Model S battery packs used fewer cells than the Tesla Roadster, but held more energy by 40%. He expects a 30% improvement as a minimum with Model ≡. Thus, for a given capacity, the battery pack -- the single heaviest component of the car -- will weigh quite a bit less. I believe this means the car will as well. Probably not as little as 3,200 lbs as some hope, though. I imagine the base car would be around ~3,700 lbs, with a fully loaded dual motor all wheel drive maximum battery capacity version weighing in at no more than ~4,100 lbs. So, yes... Considerably less heavy than a Model S.

slasher0016 | 15 april 2016

Red Sage I agree with your weight guesses. An Audi S4 with AWD and V6 comes in around 3,900. I expect the base to be just under that and the higher capacity batteries to be just over that.

Hi_Tech | 15 april 2016

55kwh - base for 215 miles range
80kwh - option for 300 mile range

yongliangzhu68 | 15 april 2016

I'll play too.

60kwh - base for 220 miles range, weight 3600lb
80kwh - option for 285 miles range, weight 4000lb (dual motor)

Kiwi | 15 april 2016

How about 70kwh base Rwd,AWD adds less than $5000 so say $3500.Following the model S upgrade to 90kwh adds $13000,P90D is $33000! What upgrade costs can we anticipate for an entry level Tesla 3

bcld | 15 april 2016

100Kwh please, I'd pay up for range :)

Basil Gourmet | 15 april 2016

Based on what has been revealed to date, Hi Tech and WJ are probably very close in their estimates. The current RWD model S70 has a bigger/presumably less efficient electric motor, a higher Coefficient of drag(.24 vs. .21ish), and is almost certainly several hundred pounds heavier than the model 3, and is still rated 234 miles by the EPA. Therefore since Musk already tipped his hand that the base RWD model 3 will get 215 EPA, it can be inferred that the base battery capacity will be lower in the 55-60KWH range. If he had said 255-260(10% better than comparable model s), it would have generally supported the 70KWH battery. Given the diminishing returns of additional battery size, an 80KWH battery (if an option on RWD model 3) would likely support 290 mile range.

JeffreyR | 15 april 2016

Would you like Tesla to reduce the number of cells so they could deliver more cars? For example, 10% fewer batteries could translate into 10% more cars.

Maybe it's not where the bottleneck is, and is not important.

Red Sage ca us | 15 april 2016

JeffreyR: I believe that was the intent for both JB Straubel and Elon Musk, originally. I believe that they have shifted perspective somewhat, due to realizing 'Go Big, or Go Home' is probably the order of the day. Otherwise, no one will want to buy the cars, and if the cars don't sell, then none of the traditional automobile manufacturers will be moved to make a change to properly support electric vehicles. For three years the highest capacity battery pack has sold best. So they need to go as large as can be managed even on the base version of the car in order to lure buyers. Of course, my crazy [BUTT] has a perfect solution: 100 kWh for the base car and no other sizes at launch. | 15 april 2016

I vote 55 kWh with @HiTech and the 3700 pounds estimated by @Red Sage sounds right but consumption will be lower than 260 wh/mile. 230 is about what I expect for rated miles per Wh. Leaving 5 kWh in reserve, 50 kWh/230=217...

3700/4555(wt. of S70) = .81 X 130 wh/mile (est. rolling friction consumption of S70) = 105. Assuming 20% less drag, air friction consumption at 65 mph ~ .8 X 180 wh/mile = 144 wh/mile. Total consumption at 65 estimated at 250 compared to 310 for the S70. 250/310 X 279 Wh/mile (rating for the MS )= 225. This is all guesswork but it is close to the 230 mentioned above.

Red Sage ca us | 15 april 2016

The 85 kWh battery pack used in the Model S (Generation II) used fewer battery cells than the 53 kWh battery pack in the Tesla Roadster (Generation I). That was nearly a 40% improvement in energy density. JB Straubel expects a further 30% improvement for Model ☰ (Generation III). Thus, the amount of battery cells that produced 85 kWh before, may be enough to reach ~121 kWh for the new cars.

Therefore, the amount of battery cells for a 60 kWh battery pack in 2013 would be enough for an 85 kWh battery pack in 2017... The number used for a 70 kWh battery pack in 2015 would allow for a 100 kWh battery pack in 2017... And both those estimates are presuming 18650 battery cells.

If the new battery cells from the Gigafactory are higher in volume, perhaps 33% larger than 18650 battery cells... Then quantity of individual cells needed for a given capacity goes down again. And so does their cost per unit.

I believe that several factors regarding battery cells will be compounding in Tesla Motors' favor. Their internal costs will drop considerably from the outset. And those costs will continue to drop over time. The drop in overhead should allow them a wider margin, which in turn will allow them more revenue to use for further expansion of operations to multiple locations. Both for manufacturing battery cells and automobiles.

But then, I'm just some guy on the internet who is accused of being an Over-the-Top Optimistic Tesla Motors Certified Apologist Fanboy, so what the heck do I know?

Kiwi | 16 april 2016

Good One Red Sage and as to your earlier post "for the last 3 years the highest capacity battery pack sold best" with fast moving battery technology and seemingly lower costs it follows that the Gigafactory would mass produce a base battery 70 or 75kWh across all models for efficiency.
That way they can still use the 249 h.p motor used in MS+Mx

Red Sage ca us | 16 april 2016

My feeling is that Tesla Motors knows they have the best prices on battery cells right now, they know that will improve by 2017, and they know it will improve by a wide margin by 2020. So, rather than absolutely maximizing profit on a 70 kWh version of Model ☰ at a $35,000 price point... They should get by with minimal profit on a 100 kWh version at $35,000 instead. Given that size of battery pack from the get go, with Supercharger access included, many Customers will go ahead and add multiple options, thereby improving your margin on their own. Essentially, just act as if the benefits of all your hard work have already come to fruition. Then, 18-24 months after launch, release a 70 kWh version as a new base vehicle for around $7,500 less money.

dathon.scholtz | 16 april 2016

I'm thinking of getting a 110v step up inverter to 220v to see if that will increase the charging. Want to see if anyone else has tried this or would it just be easier to bite the bullet and put in a dedicated 220v line

eandmjep | 16 april 2016

I Don't believe the 215 reflects a 70 kWh battery. For the initial R&D I think the 215 is based on a pack somewhere around 55kWh. The overall reduction in vehicle weight everyone has mentioned must account for something otherwise why would the addition of a spare tire be such a concern with range. Elon said it was a Minimum number and 'hoped to exceed it'. I see it coming with a pack around 60 (with Gigafactory and cost at <$200 per kWh) and an EPA around 230. As on the Model S a dual motor can increase that to 240. But I think at the release an 80kWh will be the maximum pack offered. No point with my thinking, of offering a 70 unless they can squeeze that in the 35,000 price. 60 or 80? 80 at 310 range +/-. 60 or 60D $4000 more (heard it said the dual would be less than $5000) or 60 to 80D (Dual motor plus battery addition at $4000 for +20kWh) for $10,000-$11,000 as a package including supercharging and some cowbells:) Count me in.

Supraman | 16 april 2016

Why do dual motors increase range? I would have expected the extra weight to reduce range.

eandmjep | 16 april 2016

I have heard some things on this. First as far as EPA, the two motors increase the regenerative braking just a bit as well as each take some of the load making reducing the power needs and usually the two motors don't have the same power output or power requirements. When cruising level roads the more power hungry motor backs off and goes into a sleep mode and lets the less power hungry motor keep the car at speed. All this does not account for much only about 5% more range.

yongliangzhu68 | 16 april 2016

@Supraman: Several technical reasons. The most basic is that the control system can decided the load reducing or adding energy to the motor that gives the best efficiency/traction for a given driving circumstance. Also you get (about) 2x the regenerative effect. There are other positive too. Keep in mind that the motors are relatively light and make only a small percentage of the car's net wight.

Basil Gourmet | 16 april 2016

Supraman - The current model S uses a different (larger) rear motor in the RWD configuration than the standard dual motor variant. In addition to what eandmjep noted, I have heard these smaller motors are more efficient individually, and can work in tandum to generate slightly greater efficiency which is partially offset by increased weight.

yongliangzhu68 | 16 april 2016

Looks like eandmjep hit post as I was SLOWLY typing. :)

Supraman | 16 april 2016

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Fascinating stuff!

PixelatedEngineer | 16 april 2016

Has anyone considered a "supplemental battery" option? Since we mostly use our cars for sub-100 mile trips, why not have a base configuration that carries less weight around, most of the time. On long trips you would put a long range battery extension in the rack, trunk, drunk... wherever.
Opens up the possibilities to:
-Buy small, then add on later
-Rent a battery for a long trip
-Have after-market power customizations
-Build in flexibility for future battery developments
-Put fewer charge cycles on your long-range battery, extending its life
-Get better mileage on short trips
-More closely match battery production capacity to "actual demand"
-Share a long-range battery with your home emergency or solar system
-Use your long-range battery in your towed camping trailer
-Use your long-range battery in other machines such as a riding mower
- ...

PixelatedEngineer | 16 april 2016


yongliangzhu68 | 16 april 2016

@ time: This are not flashlight batteries. Even a relatively small 40kwh battery would probably weigh in at about 500lbs and is the volume of a refrigerator. When is the last time you picked up 500lbs? Also we are not even getting into connecting cooling/heating and control electronics.

Red Sage ca us | 16 april 2016

timb: Many have made similar suggestions over the years. If Battery Swap were to become widespread, there is certainly the possibility that the highest capacity battery packs would be available strictly from those locations. A person could choose to temporarily replace their 60 kWh battery pack with a 120 kWh version for road trips. Then they would return for their original battery pack on their way home.

But ultimately Superchargers are much more straightforward. The majority of owners have found the dynamic of stopping for a bio-break while charging results in a more relaxed journey. So they arrive at their destination refreshed, not tired -- happy, not frustrated.

Further, it is best to design the battery packs as a structural member of the vehicle design. That improves the safety profile considerably. This way the battery pack is only removed for the sake of repairs or replacement when needed. The vehicle design would have to change a lot to allow easy, quick, regular removal of the battery pack. That would probably make the car heavier, and decrease range as a result.

Kiwi | 16 april 2016

100kWH for all.No range,capacity,or power worries.Just select option package for motor size,249hp standard as now and upgrade from there.The rear motor in the performance 90 is 503 hp coupled with the 249hp.
Teslas battery future looks bright,cheaper smaller more powerful Batteries for home and auto