Forums

Tesla Model 3 - What to keep from Model S

Tesla Model 3 - What to keep from Model S

Hey fellow tesla enthusiasts. Realistically, what do you think they will keep from the Tesla Model S to be included in the Model 3? Ideally, i would want to see the following to be carried over from the Model S, just my thoughts.

-Retractable door handles
-Five person seating (at least)
-200 mile range (base)
-around 35K price point
-leather seats (optional selection)
-heated steering wheel.seats (optional selection)
-remote start
-acceleration that at least bests the nissan leaf, toyota prius, and chevy volt

On the other hand, I can do without the following from the Model S in the interest of cost savings:

-17inch screen (maybe smaller)
-sun roof
-navigation

All things considered, this will put my money in Elon's pockets in a heartbeat.

mimajor3 | 24 December, 2014

Also, will there still be a frunk???

Tom P. | 25 December, 2014

17" touch screen is signature and best feature of Tesla. Hoping for no changes in this regard.

Model ☰ | 25 December, 2014

@mimajor3
First - what we need to look at is what is default at base-price. Anything may be available as options.

-200 mile range (base)
-around 35K price point

This is promised. Nothing to speculate about.

-Five person seating (at least)
-acceleration that at least bests the nissan leaf, toyota prius, and chevy volt
The car is to be positioned to fight the BMW 3-series. It will be 5 seats and beat this cars... Nothing to speculate about :)

-Retractable door handles
I think they will have door handles that does not add air resistance. Maybe a simpler solution like what was on the old Volvo 140/240 series?

-remote start
If it has Internet connection, it will have an app, and then I don't see any reason not to have remote start. The question is if it will have the Internet connection....

From the not list:
-17inch screen (maybe smaller)
It's been told that the Gen-III will only have one screen. Which screen to remove and which to keep is just guessing. But I think if they keep the console screen it will be 15" in the Gen-III.

Model ☰ | 25 December, 2014

Grrr.... Forgot to end the italic, so my quotes mixes with my answers :( Sorry for this...

Dramsey | 26 December, 2014

The retractable door handles have always seems rather silly to me-- an immeasurable improvement in drag compared to standard automotive handles, and a substantial increase in complexity and cost, with a concomitant decrease in reliability.

PMadFlyer | 26 December, 2014

Tesla isn't going to give up the center screen or the cluster. That would require physical buttons.

Red Sage ca us | 26 December, 2014

Go to a Toyota dealership. Look around. See that base version of the Yaris? The Tesla Model ≡ will not be like that. See the Camry LE? Set that as the target for baseline minimal appointments. Make your way over to the Avalon XLE... Yeah. Wouldn't it really suck if the Model ≡ cost around $7,000 more and was less feature rich? You'd think it was designed to compete with the base BMW 3-Series or something. Oh, wait...

Sparky | 27 December, 2014

Why have any door handles at all? Just have the doors pop 1 inch on a fob command, or proximity, and have the actual latch button on the back side of the door panel. Minimum drag with maximum sleekness and probably minimum cost as well.

Instrume | 27 December, 2014

Is there any chance Tesla will go down to PHEVs instead of full EV vehicle with Model 3? The distinction is there, the Model 3 is branded with a number as opposed to a letter, so it could definitely be something different than Tesla's conventional line.

Unfortunately, one thing I seem to see is that a PHEV is far more complex than an EV vehicle. Tesla's pure EV strategy, when you consider it, has far more advantages than a PHEV approach as Tesla does not need to master either ICE engine technology / drivetrains or PHEV technology.

PHEV would make it far easier for Model 3 to reach a $30,000 to $35,000 price point by reducing the cost of batteries, but Panasonic provides base batteries at $180/kWh, by 2017 prices will drop to $150 or $160, and with scaling up of their active battery manufacturing technology, Tesla should be able to provide significant cost savings over their present batteries (rumors are that they're below $400/kWh, meaning Tesla's processing and packaging operation adds above $200 per kWh, but we have no specific information.)

Model ☰ | 27 December, 2014

Instrume
Is there any chance Tesla will go down to PHEVs instead of full EV vehicle with Model 3?

NO!

Instrume | 28 December, 2014

cmcnestt: You're absolutely right about Tesla having zero ICE experience, and one of Tesla's key competitive advantages is that it doesn't do PHEV. PHEV means that you have to compete with existing cars and if you look at the experience of BYD, a battery maker that wanted to become an auto maker, learning to PHEV involves a ridiculous amount of pain.

Still, in theory, if Tesla contracted, say, GM, or another car maker that needs to rapidly get into the EV field for it, with an established PHEV design (well, either Toyota or GM), building a Volt-class vehicle would save $11,000 in battery costs ((60 kWh - 15 kWh) * 250 USD). A major engineer problem there, however, is that Tesla produces low cycle batteries, and PHEV requires high-cycle batteries.

The other implementation is that Tesla is rumored to be looking to produce a high-cycle / low-cycle hybrid, with the high cycle being used to allow even greater degradation of battery lifespan with the low-cycle range-extenders. This probably would be doable by deep-cycling the low-cycle range-extender side.

===

Help me out, what exactly does this mean?

"Keep in mind Tesla will sell very few $35k Model 3. Average selling price will be closer to $50k-$55k."

The point of the Model 3 is to have a Tesla that's affordable for the mass market. Targeting a $50k-$55k price will be rather problematic because then you'd be competing with Mercedes and others; people targeting that price of vehicle tend to have high expectations in terms of trim and polish, and while Tesla might succeed there either by meeting their expectations or providing better vehicular performance, it's still not a mass market car that's accessible to the middle class.

cliffmccormick | 28 December, 2014

I think 350 miles as the standard, base range of the 3 would be an excellent goal.

I think that number will moves more minds than anything else.

Because no ones wants to drive that much in a day.

Except sometimes when you do, and at that point; I'd be ready for a coffee and a leg stretch at a supercharger.

Hit 350 and all the dominos fall.

I think.

Cheers!

-cliff

Instrume | 28 December, 2014

I'm curious, typically speaking, on long distance journeys, how long do you usually drive with your gas car? I'm usually fine for 4 hour jaunts, but then I need a break. Peak US speed limit tends to be 70 mph, that's 280 miles in range.

cliffmccormick | 28 December, 2014

Good question/modeling approach.

The long distance journey I regularly do is Bay Area to the Ventura Ca area...my trip is roughly 335 or so.

I religiously stop, at the "Wild Horse" exit specifically because its quick to refuel and get back on the highway.

I'd say my average stop is 5 minutes.

If that experience could be replicated in a Model 3...I'd be sold. While a 5 minute supercharge wouldn't be very reasonable, if I knew the car could make that trip, I'd literally consider it, just about indistinguishable from a traditional vehicle, save for the charging at night and the inherent virtues of the Tesla design/powertrain.

cliffmccormick | 28 December, 2014

Meaning..I think that at 350 miles anyone could imagine stopping for an hour if need be if they have yet to reach the destination...and if it was 400 miles..then sure...stop at a supercharger for 10-15 minutes somewhere along the way and you're good to go.

I don't know. I just...like 350.

If you say 200. I know people will think twice...even if they love everything else.

300...you think.."Yeah..but they had to."

350..you think..."Well.. Well.... s#t I think that's gonna work!"

I think for 3 do do what its designed to do/can do. It needs to make an unquestionable statement. People need to not feel they are "compromsing/early adopters with kinks to work out over time etc etc.."

At 350 miles..there frankly is no argument...for any adult responding prudently to the statistical probability of blood clots; ergo a bit of a leg stretch..so say nothing of is kids are along for the ride.

Basically...at 350..in the minds of the consumer it really is...apples to apples...which is kinda what you want. A product that can deliver in every metric that the legacy options provide, while simultaneously introducing a range of new benefits. Clean, Excelleration, PV/Home Energy Integration potential..etc etc.

I think this recent battery project is a great base to work from. In theory that pack would OVER deliver for the base 3 I imagine...so what happens with the economics/tech of that battery between now and 2017?

Build a platform around that battery and refine from there.

I say a cool road map to an epic car you know?

I am excite. *grin*

cheers

-cliff

cliffmccormick | 28 December, 2014

Sorry *acceleration.. -- blearily late

Red Sage ca us | 28 December, 2014

Instrume, just how well does Berkshire Hathaway pay these days?

Instrume | 28 December, 2014

I don't work for Berkshire Hathaway nor am I affiliated with BYD. They know better to start what are essentially Mac vs PC or god forbid, Mac vs OpenBSD arguments on Tesla's own boards.

@cmcsnett, the problem with the Model 3 being sold commonly at $50-$55k is more about vehicle mission. At $35k, with subsidies added for a $27.5k purchase price(7.5k), the Model 3 is competitive with many American mass market sedans and can reach a massive audience and achieve massive volumes. If it depresses brand cachet, so be it. If you're sufficiently classist to think that only rich people should be able to afford electric cars, then I don't think we can discuss this topic anymore.

Regarding Tesla supplying GM, where do you see Tesla in 20 years? Do you literally see everyone driving a Tesla to the point where Tesla becomes synonymous with cars in the same way that we call vacuum cleaners hoovers? Tesla's current market capitalization is 30 billion, and Musk himself said that it was relatively high. If you consider Tesla's actual volumes, Tesla's current market capitalization is very future-adjusted; it produced around 20,000 vehicles this year and has a market capitalization of 30 billion; its value definitely factors in at least 3 years of future growth.

Now, consider the automobile industry at large. It's at 1.56 trillion, which is more than 50 times Tesla's current value.

Are you really expecting Tesla to manage to destroy the market share of the entire automobile industry? What's going to happen is that as PHEV / BEV increases its market penetration, established automobile industry players will begin to reorient their product layouts and they will produce more PHEVs and EVs as they transition off what will soon be a defunct engine technology.

Now, Tesla has two options here. One, it can directly choose to compete with established players. Some of them are good ideas, some of them are not. For example, should Tesla get into the same market that Geely is servicing right now, with Chinese death-traps being sold to people who can't afford any better? At those levels, the margins will likely be minuscule, Tesla will have to spend lots of money on developing capital goods, and will likely not make much money off it.

The other choice is that it can pick and choose its battles. It cedes some market areas, fights in others, and supplies batteries to other segments. In this case, Tesla will supply batteries to GM's EVs. If you specifically consider GM's PHEV technology, Tesla's batteries are simply not suitable; high-cycle batteries used for BEV hybrids will likely not have a significant cost advantage over rival providers, while low-cycle batteries will not have the cycle life needed to function in a PHEV mode, where deep cycling is the norm.

Instrume | 28 December, 2014

Anybody can order a base Tesla with no options and have it delivered. And I fully support that. There just won't be that many.

You're totally mistaken. Consider what happened to Louis Vuitton; LV handbags became an emblem of affordable luxury and the cognoscenti moved onto Hermes. Tesla has a carefully cultivated and built-up brand cachet. A $55k car is out of the reach of many, but there are many people who would definitely splurge just to be the first in their middle-class neighborhood to own a Tesla at $35k. At $35k, with the features advertised, it's perfectly usable as a primary car, provided that access to the supercharger network is permitted. The entire point of $35k is that it becomes an aspirational vehicle, no matter how crippled it may be.

Regarding an EV powertrain, I don't see that there is an extreme amount of difficulty in producing an EV powertrain. For instance, compared to ICE powertrains, you can almost completely neglect gearing. If you consider the inherent advantages of EV systems, making a powertrain that the consumer would accept would be relatively simple. Besides that, look up the cost of second-hand Nissan Leaf parts. These are relatively low-end, but the cost of the transmission and engine together is only $2000.

===

I think a big difference in our understandings is how we understand battery technology and scaling factors of technology. I think that half the value of Tesla Motors lies in its battery technology and charging infrastructure; because the cost of reliable energy storage is still relatively high, and the fastest way to push down the cost of energy storage technology is to expand volumes. By providing battery technology to companies like GM, Tesla can obtain economies of scale and further drive down the cost of automotive energy storage. The standard scaling factor is that for every 2x increase in capacity, the cost goes down by 15%, so for a 20 times increase in capacity, the cost should be approximately halved. Tesla's present battery price is estimated at $240, but in order to move the price down to $120, it would need to increase volumes from currently 30,000 a year to 600,000 a year.

Instrume | 28 December, 2014

A base Model 3 will not be crippled. Hermes and LV are irrelevant to Tesla. A $35k vehicle is out of reach for many. The average household in the world makes just ~$10k. If someone can afford a $35k car,insurance,and have the credit to actually purchase then chances are they can stretch to $42k+. People can't help but add on options,it is the nature of the beast.Just like people that go into a Tesla store planning to stretch to $70k end up spending $80k.

If it so simple then LG Chem,Samsung SDI, and the OEMs can handle the PHEV powertrains and Tesla can better spend their capital on building more Teslas. In order to make a compelling electric vehicle you need a ground up dedicated platform. Tesla can't force automakers to do that. Tesla does not have unlimited capital. Functionally, it has unlimited demand for Tesla vehicles. It needs to spend $2.5B plus another $2.5B from partners for the GF. The next $5B Tesla and partners spend should not go to supply GM and other OEMs but batteries for the Tesla pickup and expand production of the Gen III vehicles. Model 3 Sedan, Model Y Crossover, maybe a coupe/convertible. Then prepare to go further downmarket. Not spending capital becoming a parts supplier to legacy OEMs.

===

In general, I think I disagree with you on so many different points I no longer want to debate with you. For instance, the LV case is extremely relevant because it speaks to the importance of protecting your brand from downmarket associations. Consider Burberry's population with the British Chav subculture and its brand managers' efforts to keep such clothing out of their hands.

The $10,000 global GDP per capita is also highly irrelevant; the major markets for present EV vehicles are in developed countries, although there are also markets for luxury cars in the developing world as well. For the United States, the average sale price of a sedan is about $31,000. See: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/09/04/record-price-new-car... . If you claim the Tesla is so good and the EV technology will overtake all competitors, at the $35,000 price point, after subsidies, the Model 3 is now priced as a mass market car and it's now instantaneously affordable.

===

With regards to battery scaling, the problem isn't as simple as this. Musk's advantage with Tesla is two-fold, first, he figured out a better approach to battery management; meaning that he can achieve a 30-50% reduction in price independent of technology by buying low-quality commodity cells and using active management to keep them functional. Second, he figured out an efficient way to sell the batteries; by stashing them in performance sedans and luxury vehicles where the price premium of electric is essentially disguised.

If you think about it with regards to conventional battery companies, they have both a chicken and egg problem. First, in order to cut down costs, they have to spend a significant amount of money to build capacity. This involves risks, and it's very likely that they can put the product on the market, and no one will take up their product, and they've just built a huge amount of capacity with no customers. Second, the reason they don't have a market in the first place is because the product is too expensive for a market to exist, and because what they're selling is a vehicle component, the market will not instantaneously respond to demand because you need entities to package the goods before they sell it to consumers.

Musk bypassed both problems; he found a market where the high cost of batteries don't matter, and by finding a place where the high cost of batteries don't matter, he managed to create economies of scale.

===

In regards to Musk selling to GM before selling to Tesla, well, it depends. With Musk building Tesla vehicles, he actually has to build both the battery capacity AND the Tesla vehicle production capability.

If you compare Nissan to Tesla, where Tesla is strong in is that it has a better battery than Nissan does, and it has a better platform than Nissan does. Where Nissan is strong in, on the other hand, is that it has vehicle production capacity and economies of scale when it comes to auto-building.

Tesla, if it were to sell to GM instead of ramping up Model 3 production, would save money on production facilities for the Model 3, and could instead concentrate on ramping up battery production. That would make its core battery cheaper, and increase the level of profits for its Model S and Model X, because Tesla doesn't need to decrease the cost of the Model S and X as the price goes down.

The problem is, of course, would GM buy? At this stage of the game, is GM ready to do a full-scale conversion to EV production? Probably not, so while partnering with BMW might be an interesting way to cut down on the number of angry ICE companies out to stomp Tesla into the ground, GM, at this stage of the game, will not deploy EV vehicles at any price.

===

You see, the issue here, is as I've shown with that interview in the Economist, that Tesla is in large parts a battery play. Of course Tesla Motors is profitable, but the problem is that Tesla can only move into the automobile space, and will eventually meet significant push-back by established makers.

You can state that all the makers are incompetent, but you're ignoring things like Nissan, which has, to the present date, been able to deploy a comparable volume of batteries to Tesla, has sold 150,000 units of the Leaf, and is only one generation behind Tesla in battery technology, so that when the Model 3 is deployed (Tesla has announced its intention to freeze its battery technology until the Gigafactory is operational), Nissan will likely match Tesla for battery performance and capabilities.

BMW is outing a huge number of PHEV and EV vehicles, and Daimler both has a Tesla-drive-train derived Mercedes and a JV with BYD for a 200 mile range vehicle (main flaw: 14-second 0-60 times).

===

I think we were discussing earlier whether or not Elon Musk is a strong salesman, but actually, if you read up on various reportages, Elon Musk actually maintains a reality distortion field not unlike that of Steve Jobs'. If you'd be willing to step outside and consider Tesla critically, Tesla definitely is a major innovator, but the idea of Tesla being able to run ramshod over the auto industry is rather naive. There will be push-back, definitely, things will be late, and Musk's schedule will be to some degree optimistic. Have you taken your delivery of the Model X yet? Of course not, because it's been delayed more than 18 months by now.

Brian H | 29 December, 2014

You sure can shovel.
You've made quite a few confident predictions. Virtually all will fail.

3seeker | 29 December, 2014

@Instrume

The idea of TM supplying to GM doesn't make much sense for the following reasons:

There would be enough battery supply constraints for Tesla alone in the next several years
Tesla is already partnered with SolarCity to focus on battery energy storage solutions for commercial & residential use
Who would trust a third party, ESPECIALLY GENERAL MOTORS, not to fk-up using your product?

Why do you think TM opened its patents? One likely reason is because it won't have the resources to supply to everyone else.

3seeker | 29 December, 2014

Sorry to have digressed from this thread's topic.

Please keep the Model S' skateboard powertrain design but in a smaller package so it'll surely fit in my garage. Sky's the limit after that.

Brian H | 29 December, 2014

Expand the garage! >:)

Red Sage ca us | 29 December, 2014

Instrume blathered, "At $35k, with subsidies added for a $27.5k purchase price(7.5k), the Model 3 is competitive with many American mass market sedans and can reach a massive audience and achieve massive volumes."

1) There are no subsidies.
2) There is a Federal EV Tax Credit that begins to fade away once Tesla Motors has sold 200,000 units in the United States.

The Tesla Model ≡ will not require any additional support to sell. Once it comes out, there will be plenty of buyers. The Mercedes-Benz CLA-Class and Lexus ES may need some help, though.

Instrume balked, "If you're sufficiently classist to think that only rich people should be able to afford electric cars, then I don't think we can discuss this topic anymore."

I'm pretty sure he was pointing out that early buyers who chose the maxed out version of Model ≡ will likely have their orders prioritized early on. So dual motor, panoramic roof, higher battery capacity, full trim cars will be the first to see the light of day in the wild. And for what they offer, each will be a bargain, acting as ambassadors of affordable awesomeness in the EV world. The base version will be popular with fleet sales to taxi and livery firms. Individuals will be able to order a base Model ≡ if they like, but must be resigned to waiting for it a few months as production ramps up.

Instrume complained, "Tesla's current market capitalization is 30 billion, and Musk himself said that it was relatively high."

Yeah, and if you keep listening, he went on to say he was happy to do all he could to make sure Wall Street's confidence in Tesla Motors was properly justified by growing the firm to match that valuation in the future.

Instrume blamed, "If you consider Tesla's actual volumes, Tesla's current market capitalization is very future-adjusted;"

Well, DUH. The market capitalization is based upon the notion that Tesla Motors owns 100% of the market for pure battery electric cars with a range of 200 miles or more.

Instrume inflamed, "...it produced around 20,000 vehicles this year and has a market capitalization of 30 billion; its value definitely factors in at least 3 years of future growth."

Tesla Motors has produced, and delivered, at least 50% more cars than in 2013 during 2014... 33,000 units is fully 65% more tan what you attest to here.

Instrume proselytized, "Now, consider the automobile industry at large. It's at 1.56 trillion, which is more than 50 times Tesla's current value."

General Motors market capitalization is in line with the portion of the worldwide traditional automobile industry that it commands. The same is true of Volkswagen, Ford, and Toyota. Tesla Motors commands exactly ZERO PERCENT of the traditional automobile industry! Once again, Tesla Motors commands 100% of a specific market niche, which you have pointed out is dwarfed by the traditional automobile industry at a 52:1 ratio. That seems about right to me, for a parallel transportation industry that usurps the infrastructure of the one that came before it.

Grinnin'.VA | 29 December, 2014

@ Model ☰ | December 27, 2014

Instrume
Is there any chance Tesla will go down to PHEVs instead of full EV vehicle with Model 3?
NO!

Well put (IMO)

Go Tesla!

mimajor3 | 30 December, 2014

Seems there are a lot of folks on here in response to my initial post that think the $35K price point (base)will likely not be the most probable/desirable of price points for the coming Model 3 as most individuals will add options that sum up to an average $50K price point instead.

I think that by having a base price in the $35K-$40K range will put demand for Tesla vehicles through the roof, and TM will have the huge burden of having to further increase supply and additional gigafactories to meet this new demand. Also, per Elon's words, we are to assume that this Model 3 is to compete with the BMW 3 series. Not sure about you, but i would gladly take a "base" model BMW for $35K before any other sedan knowing that i'll be getting a Tesla vehicle, electrically powered, and with reliable range of at least 200 miles and potential access to super chargers and all the cost savings and futuristic driving experience that comes with the Tesla.

If there's this much hype and discussion about a vehicle that has yet to be unveiled, priced, discussed in detail by Tesla etc., it should be interesting to see what the hype is like in 2017/2018.

mimajor3 | 30 December, 2014

By "Base" BMW above, i mean to say that if the Tesla Model 3 is like a "Base" BMW in any sense, this thing is going to sell like hot cakes when even lower to upper middle class folks consider the cost savings from an all electric vehicle!

Instrume | 30 December, 2014

Brian H: It depends on context, of course. Consider some of the opposite predictions I'm facing predict that Tesla will essentially murder the majority of the existing auto players, when more likely a third of them will source batteries from LG Chem, a third from the Nissan NEC joint venture, and the third from Tesla itself. BYD could get into the market if they're lucky, but I wouldn't bet on it.

"The idea of TM supplying to GM doesn't make much sense for the following reasons:
There would be enough battery supply constraints for Tesla alone in the next several years
Tesla is already partnered with SolarCity to focus on battery energy storage solutions for commercial & residential use
Who would trust a third party, ESPECIALLY GENERAL MOTORS, not to fk-up using your product?

Why do you think TM opened its patents? One likely reason is because it won't have the resources to supply to everyone else."

It doesn't make sense right now because the market has not prepared to go full electric yet, and Tesla is currently limited in battery supplies. However, once the Gigafactory comes online, Tesla will have enough capacity for its own projected auto market and will be continually expanding capacity to the extent that the market will support it. It will then essentially have three pillars of demand, first, Tesla Motors itself, second, Solar City's storage solutions business, and third, third party vendors.

Remember, Tesla does not exist in a vacuum, and if Tesla does not provide battery capacity, LG Chem, Nissan, and others will. Better that it competes in the auto battery space beyond its own vehicles than for it to get outflanked by established battery makers who will likely make up a majority of the market.

===

Like I said, think about it this way. Passenger vehicles are a capital intensive industry that requires high amounts of capital input and, depending on the segment, can result in relatively low margins, helping to account for the relative risk aversion of many automakers.

Tesla, once the Gigafactory comes online and the Model 3 is in production, essentially has two choices. First, it can dump more capital into the auto industry segment of its business, meaning that it's assuming risk for relatively low levels of return. Assume it's saturated the luxury levels, so further expansion will see diminishing returns.

The alternative option is for Tesla to to focus on expanding its own battery business. Yes, it has a deal with Musk's other green concern SolarCity, but as you scale up you increase economies of scale, and you increase the profit margins available through cost savings while gouging the customer, whether consumer or corporate.

Think about it this way, why should Tesla sell mass market cars on which it makes a trivial margin, when it can very well sell the electricity to power those cars (the supercharger network), as well as the batteries to store the energy? In the automaking space, it'll be competing with around 8 (Top end: Nissan, Volkswagen, Daimler, BMW, then Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda) other players, and in general automaking is very fragmented. In the battery space, however, there's only 3 real games in town, Tesla, LG Chem, and Nissan-NEC, with BYD as a "maybe, maybe not" due to their failure to launch and track record of failure. Tesla definitely does have an advantage in the automaking sector right now given its technological and business sophistication, but as time goes on, its advantage will degrade due to the volume of competition and the resources behind them.

sjoshuaj | 30 December, 2014

1. There will be no driver assist features like autopilot.
2. Cheaper stereo
3. Smaller cheaper wheels
4. Fewer upgrade options to streamline manufacturing
5. No dual motor option
6. No performance option
7. Cheaper easier to manufacture no profile door handles ( no motor )
8. Only 5 seats, no rear seat option
9. No air suspension option
10. No premium Interior Package option
11. Still Aluminium body but with design choices to streamline manufacturing (simplified body design)
12. Smaller far cheaper battery ( gigafactory )
13. It will keep the same size and number of screens ( costs more to make the software changes than they would save )
14. It will keep the pano roof option
15. It will keep the leather option
16. It will keep the supercharger option
17. It will keep the stereo upgrade option
18. It will keep the Model S side mirrors

At the time of the Model 3 launch the Model S will receive these changes.

1. Dual motor standard on all models
2. They will drop the 60kwh battery and add a 110 kwh battery
3. They will expand the driver assist features
4. Side cameras will be standard
5. Supercharger enabled will be standard
6. A few more premium features will be added

Grinnin'.VA | 31 December, 2014

@ Instrume | December 30, 2014

... why should Tesla sell mass market cars on which it makes a trivial margin, when it can very well sell the electricity to power those cars (the supercharger network), as well as the batteries to store the energy?

IMO, the idea that a mass-market Tesla model would make "a trivial margin" is speculative. Given the ineptness of the other auto makers, I think Tesla could become a top-contender in sales while making good margins. That's because they do engineering and marketing smarter than the competition.

Go Tesla!

Red Sage ca us | 3 January, 2015

Instrume queried, "...why should Tesla sell mass market cars on which it makes a trivial margin..."

The margin claimed by the traditional automobile manufacturers across the board is approximately 6%. Elon Musk has indicated that the Generation III margin might be around 10%-12%. I expect it will be about the same as that of Lexus, which has a 14% margin. So I project a 15% margin for Model ☰.

"...predict that Tesla will essentially murder the majority of the existing auto player..."

Actually, I predict that traditional automobile manufacturers will end their own existence by ignoring the importance of electrified transportation.

"Better that it competes in the auto battery space beyond its own vehicles than for it to get outflanked by established battery makers who will likely make up a majority of the market."

Gigafactory. More capacity than everyone else on the planet combined. Outflanked? By whom? When?