Range! We need range!

Range! We need range!

If the Model 3 has "passed all regulatory requirements for production", would that include the EPA mileage rating? If so, it's time to spill those beans.

My guess is that the 75 kWh will manage 254.5 miles per charge.

Ehninger1212 | 03. Juli 2017

I don't think EPA mileage rating is required for production. They were producing the 100D cars before the EPA certified them. I'm sure Tesla is fully aware of what the range is going to be though. Also you do realize your guess is only 5 miles more range then an S75, many people have calculated closer to 250 with the speculated 60kw pack | 03. Juli 2017

@Ready: Tesla will publish an estimate for rated range if they don't have the EPA number. You are being pessimistic as @Ehninger has pointed out above. My guess: 295 miles for the 75 kWh pack.

LostInTx | 03. Juli 2017

George, I'll be ecstatic is a 75 kWh battery can achieve 295 miles. I'll be even more ecstatic if the 75 is available as part of the initial production.

MKM3 | 03. Juli 2017

I still hope that Tesla will only install 75kWh battery packs and software limit them to whatever they want to sell.

This would be beneficial for...
a) production (identical parts)
b) will keep the resale value up with people not selling their M3s as soon as the bigger battery hits the market and they feel the need for that extra bit of range
c) will be up-gradable any time for whatever amount Tesla sees fit to charge
d) keeps the restricted battery in an optimal state for rapid "100%" charging (with 20% not being utilized) and minimizes wear / cycles

I expect the M3 to weigh at around 1.600kg / 3.500lbs, that's around 30% lighter than the Model S. 30% lower consumption in addition to excellent drag coefficients, I guess an average M3 will be able to 150-180Wh/km / 240-288Wh/mi.

With ~68kWh usable I guess the realistic range will be around 450-370km / 281-231mi with the 75kWh pack.

We'll see! :)

bmalloy0 | 03. Juli 2017

"I still hope that Tesla will only install 75kWh battery packs and software limit them to whatever they want to sell."

+Simpler manufacturing line--no need to worry about multiple battery pack sizes
+Consumer has the option of paying up to get more range after deliver

-Reduced margins
-No guarantee that (m)any will pay to unlock larger battery = lost revenue

Overall, as someone who will be getting the smaller-sized battery, I personally hope they don't software limit it. Tesla needs margins on this car, and I doubt that the efficiency gained from the simpler production line would outweigh the lost marins on the tens of thousands of "free" kWh they'd be shipping.

MKM3 | 03. Juli 2017

The potentially lost revenue will come back due to the lack of a used car market, the worst enemy of every car manufacturer.
If you want a Model 3, you'll have to get it new for full price.

According to electrek, Tesla produces batteries at ~USD125/kWh, so that would be an initial loss of USD1.875. Just charge USD3.000 for the upgrade. It's a mixed calculation.
Maybe that loss is already calculated into the USD35.000 base price?

PhillyGal | 03. Juli 2017

Range is most important before you actually drive the car.

Once you have one, it becomes much less an issue.

jamilworm | 03. Juli 2017

@MKM3 - your used car market explanation doesn't make sense. You are saying that Tesla would suffer from people buying used 60kWh Model 3's instead of buying new from Tesla. But you said that those Model 3's would only be on the market in the first place because the original owners upgrade to new 75kWh Model 3's. So either way, all of those cars were bought new from Tesla at some point.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 03. Juli 2017

PhillyGal: Well said.

jamilworm: Well done.

MKM3 | 03. Juli 2017

I'll just give up with this forum.

Every car sold via the used car market is a car that won't be sold new. If the original owner upgrades to 75kW, this owner is more likely to keep that car to themselves instead of throwing it on the used car market.

Keep demand for new goods high, #1 mantra for each and every manufacturer in every conceivable market everywhere on this planet, except maybe North Korea.

Derrenjeffrey | 03. Juli 2017

We'll, the range cannot be any lower than 215 miles and I'm happy with that!

The model specifications released last year were enough for me to put my deposit down.


dsvick | 03. Juli 2017

"Every car sold via the used car market is a car that won't be sold new."

Most people that buy a used car do so because they either can't afford a new one, or they prefer to do without the depreciation of getting a new one. In either case having less model 3s available doesn't help that situation. Additionally, Tesla doesn't want owners to buy a model 3 and keep it forever, they want them to buy one, then buy another one some years down the line. This helps them sell cars and also furthers the move to sustainable transportation.

Adding in additional battery capacity that may never be needed (and thus a waste of money, time, and supplies) or paid for does nothing for Tesla.

Tropopause | 03. Juli 2017

After owning my S85 for 2.5 years, I've realized the 215 mile Model 3 is more than enough range for me. Patiently waiting.

PhillyGal | 03. Juli 2017

@Tropopause - Same here! Of course at the time we ordered our S85, we thought we needed more range than the S60 provided. Not the first time I've been wrong...

PhillyGal | 03. Juli 2017

Oh and happy 2.5 years!
I'm amazed that with a <15 mile commute most days we've managed to put 46k miles on the car in that time frame.

akgolf | 03. Juli 2017

Really looking forward to whichever Tesla I get.

Had to take the Leaf(EPA 107) to an event 55 miles away. I had to stop for a quick charge 38 miles out. I also topped up with AC while there and although I had an 80% charge and might have made it home, it appeared to be losing charge faster than normal, so we stopped again.

Of course where we stopped only had one charger and it was working. I've stopped at some on occasion and they weren't working. Not good when there's only one.

Tropopause | 03. Juli 2017


46k on mine as well.

It's worth noting that when I was deciding between a 60 kWh and 85 kWh Model S in late 2014, there were no Superchargers along the routes I drive for both work and my vacation getaway spot (which is 270 miles away from my home). The latter is the reason I chose the 85 kWh battery. I had to drive conservatively to make it to my destination on one single charge.

Fast forward to today and there are three Superchargers along my route to work and one along my route to my vacation spot. The Supercharger network is key to BEV success!

CraigW | 03. Juli 2017

I bought an S60 in JAN 2013 and drove it 60,000 miles (max 120mph on I5 out of the factory) until NOV 2015. My S70D was delivered DEC 2015 - the month without a Tesla was pretty tough - and we have 35,000 miles on it (max 131mph in Montana last year). We have driven all over the U.S. with both of these cars with absolutely no problem - even outside the supercharger network.

The only reason I would buy a Model 3 75 is that I couldn't get the 60 battery. I can get plenty of tickets in my 'slow' Teslas, so that the extra range is not necessary. The more the supercharger network is enlarged, the less necessary the larger battery is.

Great for those who want the larger battery, but people with the smaller batteries shouldn't feel they have sacrificed anything. Granted I don't live in the U.S. North, where winters are cold, but this is still my experience.

Atlanta09 | 03. Juli 2017

IMO - Zero percent chance that they will produce 75kwh batteries in all versions and then software limit the lower-end models. Regardless of the lost margin issue, which alone makes it inconceivable, it wouldn't fit the green/environmentally friendly ethics of the company at all. Lets mine and source a bunch of rare earth metals just to software limit their utility and throw them away?

SamO | 03. Juli 2017

+1 to Craig again from another happy S60 owner.

"I'll just give up with this forum."

Oh no. Please don't.


gavinmcc | 03. Juli 2017

Range: As a person who has been a daily rider of electric motorcycles for 6 years...well I know my range needs intimately...and 215 miles is great for me. Any extra? Cool, but just gravy. (same reason I don't really care about the superchargers...I am glad they are there as people here are excited by them...and maybe one day I might need one...but they are just not necessary for my needs now or the near future)...

As for the batteries being all one-size 75 pack and the 60 pack version being software limited...well I will defer to Mr. Musk's better judgement.....but....

1). Weight. Extra weight with no gain is never a good choice with electric vehicles...and ICE vehicles too...but we in the EV world already start with a heavy ride. My Empulse is about 100 pounds more than a similar 650cc motorcycle. Now that isn't horrible as I still have 100 percent torque at take off and smooth power curve (my gas bike friends tell me I look like I'm riding a slot car racer at take off)...but extra weight eats into range.

2). The gigafactory. If the GF is kicking it and there are batteries to spare, I guess it wouldn't be horrid to have one sized pack...but if the production of batteries limits making Model 3s at full volume in any way, then I would say make two sized packs. Three 75 packs would be four 60 packs. In July that might not be an issue, but come Dec and Jan and beyond I can see the cars needing packs as fast as the giga can make them.

just IMHO....


Coastal Cruiser. | 03. Juli 2017

Good wisdom from the owners here on required range.

For myself, being a person who tends to over-engineer my projects, the larger battery will give me some day-to-day peace of mind, even if the extra range is never/rarely required.

So I ran the numbers regarding how much extra the monthly payment would be and came up with a guesstimate of ~ $50 /month.

Mozart | 03. Juli 2017

A larger battery charges faster for a longer period of time at a supercharger

Earl and Nagin ... | 03. Juli 2017

Having driven, as daily drive, EVs with ranges of 120, 240, and 73 miles of range, my first observation is that the don't care range is about the EPA range minus about 40 miles. For my usage, I found that the 120 and 240 mile cars could pretty much do everything I needed from a daily perspective. Fast charging is necessary to enable road trips and adds a great deal of comfort for extreme local days. I'm quite sure that the base Model III's 215 mile range with Supercharging will easily meet 99% of the needs of 99% of the population.

eeb9 | 03. Juli 2017

On a day to day basis, I need to comfortably manage 150-ish miles (the max I dive on a single workday, including commute, off-site meetings, errand and suchlike).

Weekends and road-trips are a slightly different animal. I want to get places that don't have outlets, which means that I need to be able to get back *out*. In this case, the available range puts a hard-edged radius to how far I can indulge my love of wheeled travel.

For me, range = freedom

bj | 03. Juli 2017

@MKM - "I still hope that Tesla will only install 75kWh battery packs and software limit them to whatever they want to sell." - Good idea if you want Tesla to lose money.

Seriously, why does this keep popping up? If I said Tesla should give away a FREE Powerwall 2 (14 kWh) to every Model 3 buyer, and that buyer only had to pay Tesla for it if they installed it in their house, you'd think I was mad.

So why would Tesla giving away 15 kWh for FREE to every Model 3 buyer, with only a small proportion actually paying for it, not be equally mad?

The battery is the most expensive bit of the car. Having only one battery pack size, from a manufacturing perspective, would save only a trivial amount of money and nowhere near enough to offset the monetisation risk.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 03. Juli 2017

Atlanta09: Tesla specifically engineered their cars to use no 'rare earth metals' at all. Probably the hardest thing to get for their batteries is Cobalt, and there's plenty of that in the world. Further, everything about the car, especially the battery pack itself, is designed with an eye toward recycling. Though Lithium-Ion battery technology is considered to be 'landfill safe' and 'environmentally neutral' by the EPA, they are also fully recyclable. The automotive industry already recycles better than 90% of all batteries used in traditional ICE cars. The materials used in battery packs for fully electric cars are much more valuable than those for lead acid batteries. So there won't be any 'throwing away' of those components at all by anyone with vision and a pocketful of IQ points to rub together.

There is a case for software limited batteries, though it is very, very thin, and extremely unlikely to happen at this point. From the 'environmentally friendly' standpoint though, I believe that Elon Musk and JB Straubel believe it is best to convince the masses that as has been noted by owners of the Model S 60 in this thread, thanks to the Supercharger network, 'range anxiety' should not be an issue at all. They want to convince as many people as possible that all they need is 'enough' range. And thereby producing as many cars as possible that have 'enough' range the idea that 'bigger is better' will be banished somewhat. If the Model ☰ 60 has an official EPA rated range of ~250 miles in base configuration, I believe they will have achieved that goal, even if the Model S 75 has a range of ~295 miles.

Think of it this way... The number of battery cells it would take to build 100,000 battery packs with a 75 kWh capacity would be enough for 125,000 battery packs at a 60 kWh capacity. So, if there were 100,000 cars sold at $42,000 each, that would be $4,200,000,000 in revenue... And if there were 125,000 cars sold at $35,000 each, that would be $4,375,000,000 earned. I think that the priority at Tesla is to get as many long range fully electric cars on the road as possible as quickly as possible.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 03. Juli 2017

PS: What I not-so-secretly hope is that the Model ☰ 75 is the initial base version of the car at $35,000... And that once the Federal EV Tax Credit begins to phase out...? Tesla releases the Model ☰ 60 at $27,500. But then, I'm just some guy on the internet, I have no inside information whatsoever, and you may consider me your Friendly Neighborhood Over-the-Top Optimistic Tesla Certified Apologist Fanboy and stuff. So you would probably be well advised to thoroughly ignore anything I have to say on the subject. | 03. Juli 2017

The only way putting in a software limited pack with a full capacity of 75 kWh would be if the car has positive gross margin at $35 K. Then the upcharge for upgrading later to 75 is gravy.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 03. Juli 2017

President georgehawley: Correctomundo! Too many are certain that the Tesla Model ☰ will be 'losing money' or only 'breaking even' at the $35,000. That plays right into the hands of Tesla Naysayers, who presume it will be 'losing money' at $50,000 or even that it will be 'underwater' at any price point below $70,000. Those guys smoke crack and like it a bit too much. Me? I figure Tesla is aiming for the $35,000 car to be around 12% profitable out the gate. Meaning the $35,000 car will cost them perhaps $30,800 to build, however it is configured.

janendan | 03. Juli 2017

Range has so many other factors. Form drag, A/C, Heater, Regeneration level, temperature, wheel size, etc. All of these things are in the drivers control. It has nothing to do with the EPA. Your actual miles/ charge will be between ~100 and 600.
Every driver is different.

bj | 03. Juli 2017

@Red and President George - but the question is, would a Model 3 with 75 kWh battery be margin positive at $35k and if so by how much? Just scraping it in at 1% or a more comfortable 10-15%? I have no doubt Model 3 will have a nice margin with a 60 kWh battery but that's not the question.

Even if Model 3 was just margin positive at $35k with 75 kWh, the net effect of that is significant dilution of Tesla's overall margins since there will be so many Model 3's and possibly very few paying for that extra 15 kWh. I don't think that would be a smart thing to do for Tesla's long term financial health.

jstack6 | 03. Juli 2017

The model 3 has the new 2170 batteries with almost 50% more capacity. To keep cost down, profit up many think a 55 kW pack will be the standard. so 55 kWh x 4 miles per kWh= 220 mile range.
If you drive better (slower 55 mph) you can get more miles, if you go (faster 80 mph) you get less .

Later the 70 kWh or even 75 kWh battery will be around 300 miles per charge.

Either way there are now Super Chargers EVery 60-100 miles. so trips are not a problem.
Your mileage (range) will vary depending on the lose nut behind the wheel.

Coastal Cruiser. | 03. Juli 2017

Perhaps one way to look at the question of margin with different sized batteries, and the question of profitability is to take the estimate of Model 3 margins directly from EM, when he spoke of such things at the gigafactory last year. He effectively stated a 25% average margin (20B /year sales with 5B gross margin). In reporting the news, Elektrek broke down the 20B as 500,00 cars at 40K each. Let's use that ratio:

So if you assume at 40K that the car is fitted with a base level 60kWh battery, there is Tesla with a 25% on such a car (these are not ramp-up estimates. Let's go for the big picture).

Now, how much extra does the larger, let's say 75kWh battery, cost Tesla? Would it be fair to assume $125 per kWh? That would be 15 * 125 = $1875.

Now comes the biggest variable of all. What will Tesla retail that extra 15Kwh for? We don't know. Will the markup be the same as with a Model S/X battery? Don't assume so. For giggles let's say Tesla wants to maintain that 25% margin. 1875 marked up 25% is $2343.75. What the heck, let''s round that to $2500. Put that number away for a moment.

So, if Tesla included the 75kWh battery at the 60kWh price and software disabled the 15kWh, that would impinge on the margin by $1875 (their cost). With a 25% gross margin it costs Tesla $32,000 for a car it sells at 40,000. That's an $8K profit. Subtract the wholesale cost of that larger battery and you are left with 8,000 - 1875 = $6125 gross profit, or about 18% margin.

Conversely, if/when the customer pays to activate that 15kWh Tesla will realize an additional $2500 on the sale, restoring the 25% margin. Naturally if Tesla retails that 15kWh for more, margins rise.

Either way, are they losing money if EM's margin goals pan out?

bj | 03. Juli 2017

@Coastal_Cruiser - isn't the $125/kWh cell cost not module cost? The cost of 15 kWh module in a car is much more.

Coastal Cruiser. | 04. Juli 2017

Ah yes, of course. Well that takes care of that theory. Not sure if there is a way to reasonably estimate pack cost of the Model 3.

SamO | 04. Juli 2017

200 miles is plenty. But people get scared so buy the bigger battery. Whatever makes you happy. But "need" is the wrong word. Maybe "scared" is more accurate.

eeb9 | 04. Juli 2017

True for most people, most of the time.

But not for everyone, or for every trip.

There's still lots of places more than 200 miles from the nearest SC or home charger

Coastal Cruiser. | 04. Juli 2017

SamO: "Scared" may not be the right word either. That word tends to be used in a pejorative context. It could be perceived as as a way of making a person wrong for the their choice.

People pay you respect for your experience, which has value. Considering paying respect in return by allowing for the fact that the there are a variety of reasons a person may wish to have more range, if feasible. They may be people who are older than you and have lived more of life. They may have personally experienced that things go wrong in life. They've observed hat occasionally what was known and dependable stops being that way. Without notice.

Super Charger locations based upon a 200 mile range is a fine notion. But some people may not wish to assume that the next SC is always going to be a guaranteed thing. Or that the destination charger is going to be online. Stuff happens. Power outages occur. Machinery breaks. Lines get long (as you yourself have testified to).

Some people just like having a backup plan. A buffer. You can call that being scared. Or you can call that having a modicum of wisdom.

SamO | 04. Juli 2017

Is it called "range anxiety" or "Range experience"?

Coastal Cruiser. | 04. Juli 2017

Didn't even make a dent, did I?

SamO | 04. Juli 2017

I've participated in so many threads that the punchline always is… But I need more range.

I understand people are special snowflakes that need back rubs and front rubs and all kinds of special dispensation to ensure that they are not anxiet-ized.

But let's move away from the fear based reasoning and play the numbers. 80% of US lives in an urban areas. Where can't they reach with 200 miles of range?

bmalloy0 | 04. Juli 2017

"But let's move away from the fear based reasoning and play the numbers. 80% of US lives in an urban areas. Where can't they reach with 200 miles of range?"

I have never owned an EV and this is the exact logic I used to figure out that I could easily use an EV as my primary vehicle.

Iwantmy3 | 04. Juli 2017

A few thoughts,

1) I am looking for higher range out of convenience, not necessity. During the week, my range needs are small. However, on weekends, I have two specific destinations that I need to drive to. One of these is ~110 miles away. The Other is ~230 miles away. For the first one, I could stop at a supercharger located half way there (or back), but I would much prefer not to have to (particularly in the winter when stopping is less convenient and range is reduced). For the second, there is a supercharger at my destination. If I can reliably make it there without stopping, even in cold weather, then it becomes much more convenient. For both of these, a range of ~300 miles would be vastly more convenient than a range of 250 or less. Therefore range is important to me.

2) I actually hope that they are not considering a software limited 60 KWH version. I am hoping for a cost to upgrade (from 60 => 75) to be ~$3500 (based on the cost of the powerwall $5500-$2000 (cost of the inverter)). If they start bumping up their costs by putting in extra batteries that may not get used, then they will need to increase their upgrade price to compensate. No thank you.

3) As for expected battery sizes and ranges. I had expected to see a 55 KWH (230 mile) base and a 75 KWH (310 mile) upgrade. However, based on a recent leak, it seem likely that the base could be 60 KWH (250 mile). This all sounds good to me.

4) I can't imagine that they are planning to start with a $35000 75 KWH version with plans for a future 60 KWH version at $30000 or less. The savings on the battery and pack are only ~$2000. They are not going to willingly move to a substantially reduced margin while the car is sold out (as it seems likely to be for years to come.)

Mr.Tesla | 04. Juli 2017

People are free to want what they want and buy what they want. It is really no one else's business. We don't need to be busy bodies.

hmgolds | 04. Juli 2017

Regarding range, I'm sure it's not much of an issue for daily driving. But for road trips, range is not a binary - I.E. can I get there or not.

As I've played with various trips in my blue M3, I've found nowhere (for me) that I could not go with an assumed 215 mile range. But many of those trips come with limitations; particularly in winter driving. For example (and not all of these in a single potential road trip):

Taking a sub-optimal route because of supercharger locations
Staying overnight at a place I would not otherwise stay because it has a destination charger
A 60 mile (both ways) detour to reach a supercharger
Using a 120v charger overnight to barely make it to the next supercharger
Use of a residential charger shared (via plugshare) by it's owner
An otherwise unnecessary stop, and parking fee, to use a 30amp J1772 public charger

For me, I can deal with these in exchange for the benefits I expect from my M3. And I expect the frequency/likelihood to decline over time. But for many people, it may be an issue. And not all of them are "special snowflakes".


ReD eXiLe ms us | 04. Juli 2017

bj: There will be no 'scraping by' at all. Elon first noted an expectation of 10%-to-15% margin on Tesla Generation III vehicles over four years ago, in early 2013. He indicated that 12% should be possible from the outset. The traditional automobile industry admits to an overall 6% margin. Lexus gets around a 14% margin. Porsche reportedly has an industry leading margin in excess of 40% (when you include merchandising). Automobile companies that get less than 5% margin go out of business in the U.S. (Suzuki).

With this information in place, there is no way in [HECK] that Tesla will release a 1% margin vehicle in any configuration. They won't even go below 6%. And they won't even sell options that don't sell at least 5% of the time. So you can rest assured that if a Model ☰ 75 appears at a $35,000 price point, they be getting a significant margin on it, not a 'razor thin' amount, and certainly not one that is 'negative' or 'under water'.

Without the financial burden of traditional advertising... Without giving up margin to 'independent franchised dealerships'... Without filling lots across the nation with 'Acres and Acres of CARS!'... Tesla should be able to achieve 12% margin rather easily with whatever they choose to offer at the $35,000 price point.

eeb9 | 04. Juli 2017

@SamO - people who travel a lot by automotive means are not, generally, snowflakes. Snowflakes fly there, and get a taxi/rental/limo when they arrive.

Looking at the SC map, I'm going to have to do some *very* careful planning and make heavy use of public chargers and generous people making their home chargers available via PlugShare to get where I want to go.

Yes, 200 miles is much more than adequate for anything I do around home, and I can get to most of the destinations I want to visit within that limit. But not all of them, and absolutely not along the routes that I would *prefer* to take.

This is where individual generosity (PlugShare) and commercial interests (EV stations) fill the gaps that the SC network has not yet addressed.

So I utterly agree with you that 200 miles of range is more than enough for most of the people in the US.

I beg to differ though on the "snowflake" characterization for those who choose to wander out along and beyond the edges of the map.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 04. Juli 2017

Coastal_Cruiser: You made some really good points. Even so... SamO wins the match, in straight sets!

Iwantmy3 wrote, "I can't imagine that they are planning to start with a $35000 75 KWH version with plans for a future 60 KWH version at $30000 or less. The savings on the battery and pack are only ~$2000. They are not going to willingly move to a substantially reduced margin while the car is sold out (as it seems likely to be for years to come.)"

Assuming a 12% margin on the $35,000 version of Model ☰... The car would cost them $30,800 to build. If you assume that 25% of that build cost is attributed to the battery pack, that is $7,700 as their internal cost.

It has been revealed that in 2015 Tesla's internal cost was 'less than $190 per kWh' for their battery packs. And it has been announced that the Gigafactory saves them 35% from that. So, to start, their internal cost for battery packs for Model ☰ is below $124 per kWh.

That would still be a bit high, with a potential cost nearing $9,300 for a 75 kWh battery pack. But I strongly suspect that stated amount below '$190 per kWh' was a rather cagey response, and that Tesla has actually been below $180 per kWh for some time. That would make the Gigafactory battery packs come in at less than $177 per kWh. That might be low enough, even with a $8,775 internal cost for a 75 kWh battery pack to 'eat' that expense, knowing that grateful buyers would choose to spend a lot more on options if given the option of ~295 miles of range for a $35,000 base price.

So, rather than costing $30,800 to build the $35,000 car, Tesla would spend $31,875 to do so. That would make the margin 8.9% instead of 12%. And that is still 'above water' certainly not 'scraping by'.

Though I will concede that Tesla's internal cost would have to go lower to offer a 60 kWh version of the car for less than $30,000. Even if their internal cost was as low as $110 per kWh, the car would cost $29,700 to build. Even as low as $90 per kWh, the car would cost $28,500 to build. In order to maintain a 12% minimum margin, Tesla would have to figure out how to build the car at a $24,200 internal cost in order to offer a 60 kWh version of Model ☰ for $27,500. Perhaps this is where economies of scale begin to factor. Because if Tesla's cost for the battery pack goes down to $80 per kWh, while the rest of the vehicle assembly drops in cost to below $19,200 or so, they could definitely manage it.

Iwantmy3 | 04. Juli 2017

My thinking goes more like this,
They can easily price an upgrade at $5000 even if the cost to them is less than $2000.
However, they won't price a downgrade at -$5000 when their savings are less than $2000. It just doesn't make sense. Especially when sales are strong.