Model 3

Tesla Forums are now read only. To continue the conversation with the Tesla community visit engage.tesla.com.

Model 3 Battery Sizes - Final Bets

edited January 2017 in Model 3
A search of this forum shows a thread from back in April of 2016 speculating on the battery size of the Model Ξ. Since it is now 2017, and the first Model Ξs will be rolling off the factory floor at the end of this year, one of the biggest questions still unanswered: What will the base battery size and options for the Model Ξ?

Here are a few facts with which to start. Tesla has stated the Model Ξ will be about twenty percent lighter and smaller, with a slightly better aerodynamic profile, a battery pack less than 60 KW, and the base model will have a real world range of 215 miles on a full charge.

Based on the known specifications and efficiency of the Model S, I estimated the following:

Model Ξ 55, EPA Estimate 215 miles, $35,000
Model Ξ 65, EPA Estimate 244 miles, $40,000

Model Ξ 55D EPA Estimate 223 miles, $37,500
Model Ξ 65D EPA Estimate 259 miles, $45,000
Model Ξ 75D EPA Estimate 293 miles, $52,500

Three versions, with two variations, would make logical sense since Tesla would want to keep its Model Ξ in line with the varying ranges of the Model S and X. I've done the math and I'm certain my estimates will be exact for battery size, within three miles of range and $2500 of the final price plus or minus for both.

This is my bet, what is yours?
«13456

Comments

  • edited January 2017
    Did anyone else see the Churchhill panel on YouTube discuss batteries? Tesla and SolidEnergy were represented and I got the impression that something big was coming. Then a tesla Blogger mentioned he recently heard a GF employee slip a word about a large covered machine and lithium foil in the same sentence, on a recent tour. Is the SolidEnergy Gen3 a possibility in the Spring?
  • edited January 2017
    The unveil range was not tested using the 2170 batteries. I suspect the base pack range to be much higher.
  • edited January 2017
    I would presume they would be:

    ___ 1 _ A Nice Size
    ___ 2 _ Enough for the Job at Hand
    ___ 3 _ Really Frickin' Awesome Huge

    And no -- I'm talking about the battery pack capacities. Get your mind out of the gutter. Geez.
  • edited November -1
    I'm betting on a 90 or 100 kw coming. Looking for 350 miles.
  • edited January 2017
    The 55-60D range is where it wants to land.
  • edited January 2017
    "At least 215 miles" is so 2016's.
    After the intro of the Bolt, there is no way the battery of the base M3 will come in under 240 miles.
  • edited January 2017
    If dual motors is not an option on the smallest battery, I would be quite upset
  • edited November -1
    I think there will only be 2 packs and they will be a 75 and a 100kw unlocked. This will offer 60 and 80kw with the option to open them up. Not worth building a separate pack with only 10kw difference. The 60/80 will be fast charging due to the extra capacity and the 75/100 will be for range/travel so people wont mind waiting 45 min or sooner(3.0)
  • edited January 2017
    "with a slightly better aerodynamic profile" Significantly better (16%).

    "will have a real world range of 215 miles on a full charge. " AT LEAST 215.

    "The unveil range was not tested using the 2170 batteries." Is there any evidence it was tested at all? Also, Tesla KNEW that they were going to change over to 2170s, they included that in their estimate.

    "You should probably add in the $1,200 delivery charge as it is part of the price." No, it's specifically (and legally required to be) NOT part of the price. It is part of your cost, like taxes.

    "I think there will only be 2 packs and they will be a 75" That contradicts one of the few facts we have 'less than 60 kWh" Referring to Tesla's cost, so unlocking doesn't count.

    So I predict:
    Base Model: 55kWh (nominal; 53-59 actual) This keeps it below the brag mentioned above, without positing some huge efficiency increase.
    Top Model: 90kWh (nominal) 86kWh would be just the volumetric scaling from the Model S (accounting for taller batteries). They might squeak out 95 through even more efficiency increases in the battery chemistry.
    Possibly another model in between, call it 70kWh or 75kWh.

    Thank you kindly.
  • edited November -1
    @topher +1
    Great comments and I like the guesses. I'm still in the "not sure scale makes up for sw-limited battery" camp. The fact that Tesla had to raise the price of the MS-60 seems to show that more people than expected bought the sw-limited battery.
    By keeping packs a little smaller than possible, you gain that much more in overall capacity. So if you shave 10% off the max (say 90-kWh vs. 100-kWh) than you can make more cars. That *might* keep Tesla from going for broke. I agree that they will likely beat the Bolt at the base. But if they can get 220 miles out of their estimated base-pack, they may stick w/ it and let the expanded battery "beat" it.

    Elon is on record about ideal sizes of batteries and how more is not necessarily better. I think if they can get a 220-mile, 300-mile, and 360-mile battery they will be happy. Using EPA 5-cycle rating of course.

    I would love to get a day-to-day 220-mile one, then rent a 360-mile one for road trips. Actually a 400-mile one would be ideal, but I think that's pushing it for mark-1 version.
  • edited January 2017
    @JeffreyR - "The fact that Tesla had to raise the price of the MS-60 seems to show that more people than expected bought the sw-limited battery"

    Touché. I was a little bit skeptical of the economics of 'put in a bigger battery and unlock it via s/w'. The battery is the most expensive bit of the car, putting in a larger one that might never be monetized doesn't sound like a recipe for profitability to me. You'd need to save an *awful* lot of money from tooling, economies of scale, or other efficiencies to make it work.

    And it was possibly a punt by Tesla that in the cold light of day didn't quite make it. It would have been very hard to predict the take-up, they would have run the numbers on "X%" and when it turned out to be "Y%" they took it as another learning exercise.
  • edited January 2017
    @bj

    I'm sure Teslas numbers guys don't make those sorts of mistakes of costing their products that badly.

    But if you are correct, then doesn't that $2000 hike for what was "15kWh" of capacity sitting there "wasted", is about 2000/15 = $133.33 per kWhr [additional "cost"] to Tesla?

    Assuming they hiked the base price to cover their costs of putting in the larger pack only, and not for other reasons?

    If the finished pack cost of a 7 kWHr pack is therefore $133 using 18650 cells, and Tesla said that 2170 format wll be (at least) 30 cheaper, that indicates that a 75 kWHr 2170 cell pack would be 7,500 at the pack level now?

    Or did Tesla plan on using 2170 cells in the new MS 60 but went for 18650s instead hence the hike?

    I don't know but I'd bet 2170 using packs will be under or close too $100 kWHr now - when everyone else is talking of #100 a kWHr at cell level coming into "view" in a couple of years, Tesla has gone better than that, today.
  • edited November -1
    @EaglesPDX
    "T3 55 kWh 230 miles $36,200 (the $1,200 deliver charge is part of the price)
    T3D 65 kWh 250 miles $46,000"
    Seriously? 10k more for 20 mile range increase?
  • edited November -1
    I don't think the US $2000 price hike on the S60 was because the extra capacity in the battery meant they were losing money on the car -- Tesla apparently makes quite a nice margin even on the base models. Also, the cost to upgrade later via software is more expensive than the 'buy it now' price, which I expect neatly covers any expected loss of profits.

    And having a larger-than-rated battery, even if it is software limited, provides a better charging experience, a better reserve for out-of-battery range, and more resilience against potential warranty claims. Since the cost to build the largest size battery pack is probably (especially for the Model 3) less than the option cost of even the smallest battery pack, I would be entirely unsurprised to see exactly only one pack (a 100 kWH version) manufactured for the M3. Everything else will be handled with software limits on the customers side; every upgrade will be pure margin.
  • edited November -1
    @JLB39401
    I'm not sure the sw-limit is the reason or only reason for the price hike. But, it seems if they were making good money on the MS-60, they would have kept the price the same. By definition they dropped some demand for the MS by raising the base price.

    I think the charging benefits are the main reason why the MS-60 uptake was higher than expected. It's a great bargain for a great car that you can charge to 100% all the time (in theory) w/o paying a penalty.
  • edited November -1
    I think a 55KW and 80KW for 200 or 300 mile ranges.
  • edited January 2017
    My bet is on a 60 and a 80D. No way they have a base battery smaller than the Bolt - even just for letting GM brag that they have a bigger battery and the range is similar.
  • edited January 2017
    if the base model 3 is a 60 kilowatt battery, the range should be around 250 if the bolt can be used as a metric. It has the aerodynamics of a brick. therefore, I would guess the 55kw would be the base with a range of 240
  • edited January 2017
    Tesla will exceed the Bolt for sure. Tesla doesn't like to be second in anything and it would be super easy to do since their costs are lower than GMs. I'd bet a 55 pack in the base car would exceed the Bolt at about 240 miles .. and a 300 mile pack would be an option.
  • edited January 2017
    My prediction:
    55 and 70.
    Tesla seems like 15 KW upgrades (60, 75, 90), so I'm guessing that the Model 3 upgrade will follow that.
    The small battery will be big enough to give range equivalent to the Bolt - plus/minus a few miles.
  • edited January 2017
    My guess:

    Model Ξ 55, EPA Estimate 225 miles, $35,000
    Model Ξ 70, EPA Estimate 255 miles, $40,000

    Model Ξ 55D EPA Estimate 238 miles, $37,500
    Model Ξ 70D EPA Estimate 271 miles, $42,500
    Model Ξ 85D EPA Estimate 310 miles, $50,000

    An increase of 15 between packs makes more sense based on previous pack history. I'm also willing to bet the better pack cooling introduced in the P100D and the newer cell architecture from the 2170 cells will increase range somewhat.
  • edited November -1
    New cell and pack design make historical increments less meaningful. Which makes guessing fun. Part of the reason I "cheated" and guessed using range instead of pack size.

    Other fun speculation here:
    MODEL 3 VS. MODEL S: HOW WILL THEY BE DIFFERENT?
    http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/model-3-vs-model-s-how-will-they-be-different
  • edited January 2017
    Model Ξ 60, EPA Estimate 250 miles, $35,000


    Model Ξ 75D EPA Estimate 285 miles, $42,500
    Model Ξ 90D EPA Estimate 325 miles, $50,00

    Most options will be less than the Model S and X as Elon stated earlier.
  • edited January 2017
    Everything is subject to change until the next reveal.

    If you can inflate the prices to suit your agenda my guess is as good as your lies, maybe better!
  • edited January 2017
    If I can get a base battery with the dual motors and get 250 miles on a charge...I will be pumped!
Sign In or Register to comment.