Forums

model 3 options

model 3 options

344: Entry-level, single-motor, rear-wheel drive version, with a base price of $35,000, EPA range of 220 miles from a 44-kWh battery, and 0-to-60-mph time of 5.6 seconds

366D: Dual-motor AWD standard version with an EPA range of 320 miles from a 66-kWh battery. 0-60 time 4.7 seconds, price $44,000

P366D: 340-hp performance version with dual motors, AWD, a 300-mile EPA range, and 0-to-60 time of 3.1 seconds; priced with leather and a luxury interior at $60,000

Now this looks like the 366d might be 42k as Elon noted - most will want 42k car. I see why from this list. If the 366d comes in at 42k-It's mine.

Tropopause | 03. April 2016

dd.micsol,

Elon specifically mentioned not to release this information until Part 2. You're in big trouble now.

dd.micsol | 03. April 2016

This was published by someone else. Not me.

dd.micsol | 03. April 2016

You can find it easily on google search.

TeslaTap.com | 03. April 2016

Source is total speculation. I doubt even Tesla has finalized options, pricing and other details. Now the numbers sounds reasonable, but are just that - reasonable, not facts.

dd.micsol | 03. April 2016

Yes, true teslatap-but so very promising.

KP in NPT | 03. April 2016

LMAO! @Tropopause

Nic727 | 03. April 2016

Cool!

If Its true I will get the 320 miles (514km).

But why does the luxury version has only 300 miles range? Should be 320 too.

flight505 | 03. April 2016

So on P366D, I don't see a horsepower figure for each motor and which motors?

Are these motors offered today?

dd.micsol | 03. April 2016

Just and fyi-320m doesn't mean 320m its epa-so subtract about 15% and you get true mileage.
272m range. Might actually be 285 but this is just a rough guess.
With this many orders Elon might be very generous but we'll have to wait for part 2.
man-10b in sales sitting in front of him. Congrats Tesla and Elon-now make it reality for us believers.

Supraman | 03. April 2016

Where did this information come from?

john.tara.ford | 03. April 2016

someone copied it from Randy Carlson at seeking alpha

adoh2010 | 03. April 2016

It seems like they slammed the 90D motors on their prototypes but with a smaller battery. I fail to see the model 3 being light enough to get this range. It's 80% smaller but uses a much heavier steel in many components.

Also, keep in mind that 80% smaller in volume means the cubic root of 80% smaller in each dimension on average. Unless if they're lowering the drag coefficient by a significant bit than the already super-sleek Model S they will need bigger batteries.

JeffreyR | 03. April 2016

@john.tara.ford +1
You beat me to it. Volkerize "Randy Carlson". Brian H. and I have posted a few of his articles here so you don't need to help click-baiting SA.com.

Also if you just Google "randy carlson model 3" you can see the images from his articles.

adoh2010 | 03. April 2016

I just did some research using the range and battery of a RWD Model S.

Some article in 2015 says that Tesla is aiming for a Cd od 0.2 for the Model 3, down from 0.24 for the Model S. Even if the frontal area is reduced by another 20% that would mean a 44 kWh battery gives an EPA range of 208.18 miles.

donnyb | 03. April 2016

I was hoping the M3 would not be $60,000 fully loaded.

j.taam710 | 03. April 2016

No 44-kWH AWD?

NKYTA | 03. April 2016

Elon tweeted .21 for the drag coefficient.

purepwnage5000 | 03. April 2016

There should be an option for having the big battery but still with a single motor RWD configuration. That's what I want. Longer range but cheaper.

dd.micsol | 04. April 2016

Pure-you might be able to do that but dual motor will give you more range with the same battery pack.
It's true in the model s.

bbeakes | 04. April 2016

I think you start by looking at how they did it with the S.
1. 3 battery options
2. 2WD or AWD (difference between on S is $5G, cheaper car likely cheaper difference)
3. then adding on individual options, cold weather pack, improved stereo, etc.

Red Sage ca us | 04. April 2016

God.

A 44 kWh battery pack does not have the capacity to move a REAL CAR over 200 miles. Here's why:
1) There might be as much as a 10% reserve to prevent anti-bricking. So, instead of a full 44 kWh capacity, there would only be 39.6 kWh that was usable.
2) There are drivetrain losses due to friction and heat even in an electric car that may take another 10%. So, actual energy put to the ground for movement would be 35.6 kWh.
3) Traveling 220 miles with that amount of energy works out to 162 Wh expended per mile. That may not be impossible, but it would certainly be impractical, because you would probably have to drive mostly downhill at speeds under 25 MPH.

By the way... The Toyota RAV4 EV had a 50 kWh battery pack with 41.8 kWh usable and still had an EPA rated range of only 103 miles. It's EPA energy efficiency rating was 440 Wh per mile. The Fiat 500e has a 24 kWh battery pack, range of 84 miles, and energy efficiency of 300 Wh per mile. The BMW i3 BEV has a 22 kWh battery pack, range of 81 miles, and energy efficiency of 270 Wh per mile.

Damn.

georgehawley.fl.us | 04. April 2016

44 kWh pack won't get 215 miles of rated range. Needs at least 50 KWh plus buffer.

Here's a thought: S70. 230 miles, M≡ 20% lighter, 20% less wind resistance, 20% less energy should get about the same range. .8x70 = 56 kWh.

RJT85 | 04. April 2016

Gentlemen - you don't get 230 miles out of an S70 in the real world. You get that from an S85D like mine. First, remember that you only charge to 90% for day to day use. You only charge to 100% if you are going on a long drive immediately afterwards. You don't want your battery at 100% for any length of time.
You can only get the claimed 330 miles from an S85D if:
1. You charge to 100%
2. You drive like a nun
3. You avoid hills
3. You don't use air con or heating.
But the model S is still a great car and I have my reservation in for a 3. I live in hope of a Model 3 P100D :-)

mos6507 | 04. April 2016

Musk implied in his comments that there will be an AWD option with the base level battery pack. That's not listed here.

georgehawley.fl.us | 04. April 2016

@RJT: what you post makes sense but has nothing to do with the advertised range that is a rating based on an EPA formula. YMMV...

100 kWh never going to find its way into the M3, at least not in my lifetime.

Zer0 | 04. April 2016

These are likely incorrect speculations. The base version cannot reach 215 range with a 44kwh battery. The battery size will be at least 50 kwh, most likely 60kwh to reach the 215 range.

Also, the faster versions will be more expensive, unless Tesla is stupid. A private company that actually needs to generate profits would be absolutely stupid if it can make a car car that competes in performance and totally overwhelms a BMW 340i or MB C43 in tech, and yet charges 328 money. Also, the longer range Model 3 will not have 300 mile range. If the lower range car is a 60, then the larger range car is likely a 80, and that will likely bring about 280 or so range. The mid version, which I think will go 4.7 to 60, will likely start at 50-52k. The 42k that Elon has tweeted is like the average sales price of a base car with likely options.

The performance version, which will likely be just below 4 seconds to compete with BMW M3 and MB C63, will start at a similar price, 62-65k, with no options or leather, just like the competitors. Well equipped, the car should be 70-75k, but can easily top 80k with all the options, just like its competitors.

RJT85 | 04. April 2016

@Georgehawley. What I am saying is if Elon is referring to an EPA mileage of 215, that translates into 150 real world miles.
The model 3 may not get a 100kwh battery, but I'd expect that its successor will. I'm expecting to live that long.

skirtsanis | 04. April 2016

Is this info true or someone has just made it up for attention

Haggy | 05. April 2016

skirtsanis,

My theory is that even though Tesla didn't announce it to anybody and even though everybody involved is bound by non-disclosure agreements, the information somehow leaked out, but it never occurred to Tesla to delete the thread. Either that or it's fake.

skirtsanis | 06. April 2016

I guess if they did delete it,we would know it's true.

eandmjep | 07. April 2016

Somewhere between 50-55kWh pack for 215 miles. The MS 60 EPA was 208. If the M3 comes with a 60 at a 215 mile range and a 20% reduction in size even if its not 20% lighter, and only a 7 mile range improvement with that much weight off, sorry but the weight has to account for more than 7 miles. If not I want a spare tire!!!!!!! :)

Red Sage ca us | 07. April 2016

It is not about doing more with less. It is about doing more with the same... And doing even more than that with MORE.