Teslarati just posted this
5.6 0-60 would be nice and zippy. Not as fast as my 70D (5.2). but not a huge difference for me.
Cargo space is pretty much what I expected. trunk and frunk 14cu ft - compared to my 07 Lexus IS250 and the 2017 BMW 330i and Audi A4 which are 13cu ft. I'm guessing that means the trunk has roughly the same dimension as it's class competitors and the extra cu ft is probably in the frunk.
Now we have 2 meaningful confirmed specs about the 3. 0-60 times and size. 11.2 inches shorter than the Model S.
I'm guessing the cargo space is not reflective of the folded seats (which is probably a significant boost).
It also seems like there's some salesmanship with regard to the number of configurations. On the MS, if you take every variation of paint color, battery, audio, red brake calipers, etc., etc., I'm sure the combinatorics probably lead to the 1,500+ number. Personally, I'm not too concerned with massive customization. I'd settle for trims along the lines of: "good", "better", "best".
I was happy to see confirmation of reservations placed today, delivering in Mid-2018. I reserved a month ago, so hopefully I'll have a shot a some of the tax credit.
Also cargo space and the <100 configurations.
There is a ton of great information in the chart. It is intended to anti-sell the Model 3.
But the nuggets are:
1. Premium Features NOT available at launch include: HEPA, Aluminum Body, Smart Suspension, Glass Roof, Pano Roof, Auto-Presenting Door Handles and 21" Wheels
2. 30 day production goal from order to delivery (U.S.) vs Mid 2018 delivery (very optimistic)
3. 30 vs 14 ft3 frunk and trunk storage
4. 1,500+ v <100 configurations - think color, AP2, FSD, battery size
5. Power liftgate vs manual trunk
6. 5.6 0-60
How is there no "glass roof" I didn't understand that part.
Interesting what they're saying about less than 100 configurations. That's really low.
5 paint colors * 2 battery sizes * 2 (AWD vs RWD) = 20. Toss in some interior color options and cold weather, and you're at 100.
They're certainly not counting software-only options like Autopilot.
I'll be the 5.6 seconds is for rear wheel drive. For those waiting for all wheel drive, that should get a touch better. The specs are probably all for the initial shipments.
I believe the all glass roof will be standard. Optional opening sunroof.
This is going to be initial configurations, which will not include AWD or Performance.
I was surprised to see glass roof not included.
I also read it as "No pano sunroof." Seems fixed pano roof will be standard. If I'm wrong it won't be the first time.
Unless they are saying that the model 3 only comes with a glass roof therefore it is a premium feature only on the model S.. but that doesn't seem to make sense to me at all.
@Randkthorn. I believe your correct. Fixed glass front to back standard.
Oooh, someone may get in trouble for leaking that.
Not surprising but interesting to get official confirmation that the S will have free supercharging while the 3 will have pay per use supercharging. Makes sense for free supercharging to be a perk for the high end models.
+1 SamO that its purpose is to anti-sell the model 3. And +1 Tarla - Yes it's likely based on what will be available at launch (RWD, no P, no air suspension, etc)
The + is what I want to know.
Oh so little faith
Simply Red -
Yeah, I noticed that.
I definitely believe this is a "Model 3 Anti-Sell" sheet. It has a few new facts in it that aren't much of a surprise (cargo capacity, length, etc), but omits a few important ones (range, premium features). I think those are still on the table for Reveal 3.
Frank99. I agree. Saving details for the reveal.
jordanrichard: I first learned of this over at M3OC. You can see my more detailed posts on the subject there...
Basically, I'm peeved at this apparent confirmation of 'Pay Per Use Supercharging' and I also think the trunk is a wee bit too small. I'm wondering if we are being trolled. That's all.
Given how little electricity costs compared to gas, I do not mind paying for it at all.
I am consuming a service, and compensating them for it is fairly straight forward. Plus it's faster than elsewhere, and it costs the same? Deal.
I would like to ask please, those of you who use the term "anti-sell", what exactly does that mean? Does it mean an attempt to up-sell to the S or X? Or does it mean that Tesla is simply attempting to temper expectations of those interested in the Model 3?
Re: the lack of a specific range in this leak. One possible explanation may be that it is not specified because it is not yet known. It's still a few weeks/months before production is forecast to begin and who knows what may going on over at the Gigafactory in terms of locking down the chemistry/config/misc for the M3 production battery. They may be forestalling the road tests that will set that number until very late in the game.
My guess has been, and remains, that surprises on range will be to the upside. Just sayin'.
@CC - I think they have plenty of reservations, and they are trying to convert some to the S/X, especially before the final reveal. Elon said on the last quarterly call that even with his anti-selling, Model 3 reservations grow every day.
Coastal_Cruiser: I suspect the answer to the second and third queries in your first paragraph is, 'YES.'
I think the range is known, but that Tesla anticipated this 'leak' (may have even engineered it) and wanted to make sure that was left out on purpose.
I'm all about the 'upside' to Tesla.
re: anti-sell - I use it in both ways. I think Tesla is trying hard to make sure that people understand that the Model 3 isn't an upgrade from the Model S; those that want the size, options, and luxury should get them in the S. As part of that, they downplay the features of the 3, to "clarify" the differentiation.
I think Tesla knows exactly what the range of the Model 3 is - at this late stage of the game, I would believe that the chemistry for the battery is locked and loaded, the chemicals have been ordered in the appropriate quantities, and the engineering is complete except for final lifecycle qualifications. They probably haven't sent any 3's for EPA testing yet, as they don't want any leaks about range to accidentally make it out. But they have the ability to run the same test cycles as the EPA, so they know what to expect from them.
The fact that this sheet says "215+" implies that there's no negative surprise here - if they were expecting 207 miles, I'd expect this sheet to say something wishy-washy like "Over 200" or "around 215" or "Goal of 215". Instead, a clear statement of "215+". There might still be a negative surprise, but it seems much less likely. I still think they'll exceed the Bolt's range just as an exercise in corporate member-measuring, but I also think they won't announce the actual range until they're good and ready.
@PhillyGal - "Oooh, someone may get in trouble for leaking that."
I work for a large corporate, and the first assumption you make is that *any* general documentation made for staff will leak, no matter how much you try to contain it, and so you prepare it with that in mind.
In short, there is nothing in this document that Tesla was not prepared to have become public now. While they may have preferred it did not become public, neither were they to go into a tailspin if it did. They may have even prepared it hoping it would leak - that's the cynic's view.
But interesting data in there to allow me to do some size/cargo spec comparisons with my current ICE!
Great and respectful replies to that question folks. I spent the last few minutes trying to cure my ignorance as to how the term is used in general, and how EM is using it, and wanted to compare its usage here. It's just one of those nebulous terms that is so easy to spin the meaning of when a speaker is trying to make their point.
And I guess you're right about the battery chem being locked down. I realize now they are just being wise, even if they know the number, not to release it regardless, until the EPA weighs in. It's a needless risk with no real upside at this point in the timeline. Darn it. ;>
The inference I make is this information relates only to the initial base configuration. Not only are they staying coy w/ "215+" range, but also there is no concept of options at all. There should be a range of EPA 5-cycle ranges for the different battery sizes and AWD. Since they only show a single value for range we know this is only part of the story.
As others have pointed out this is what they wanted to leak now.
The chart shows the difference in announced features from one vehicle to the other. It doesn't mean that if it's not on the list, it won't be there as an option. For now, we know that the battery range will be at least 2015 miles, just as we used to know that 0-60 will be under 6 seconds. Neither statement is inconsistent with the other. The car can be 0-60 in 5.6 seconds and 0-60 in under 6 seconds.
215+ range is simply repeating what Musk said the range would be at the 3 reveal in March 2016.
But I think its not meant to be taken as other than "Still TBA" in effect.
Remember all it says "configurations" so my bet is there will be 5-7 colors, 3 interior options -- then a Base and Premium configuration. The premium config will come with several added options such as a larger battery, upgraded interior, AP, etc. You either get all of these options -- or settle for the base model.
The cargo space is smaller than I thought. In the Corolla/Civic range. I really love the car, but that is a bit of a disappointment for me. I don't care how much they anti sell it. It's still a heck of a lot better than a Bolt.
I guess I'm not too worried. that's likely the volume before the seats are folded down. If the seats fold essentially flat like the S, that will still be a good amount of space. It is a sedan after all. Not a hatchback, not a liftback or a wagon. It seems to be comparable to it's rivals.
Yeah, but I was just hoping for more. I have a family of four, so folding seats can't happen. I'm thinking in terms of 'can this car hold our luggage?'
It could hold mine, but the girls stuff for a road trip, well...
Another discussion for a different board. My Prius may last a few more years. My decision is really between getting the Model 3 as soon as I can or saving money for a Model S. We'll see once I can drive one.
The anti-sell for me is Tesla making me enjoy this less. I know i am not buying a $100k car. Don't make me feel I an buying a used ford escort. This is still at least a $35k car. Make it feel that way.
This isn't a Model S. It's a car that's half the price and will never be as big or as fast or as luxurious as the Model S.
Not sure what those that are disappointed were expecting for half the cost?
I think there's another element to this.
In addition to possibly anti-selling the M3 (coaxing people to buy a MS or MX now), Tesla will really need to up-sell it once production starts -- get you to buy options for your M3. If you compare the M3 and MS on this spec sheet, you might be thinking that what you really want is the MS. If it's out of your price range, then you might be tempted to go with a higher spec'd M3 to get a little bit closer. Even a modest number of compelling upgrades shown at the final reveal will help get buyers motivated. I'll bet battery upgrades and autopilot; followed closely by AWD will be the top three.
There were several articles this past week that estimate Tesla needs to up-sell customers to an average price of ~$41K to break even on the M3. I'll bet that won't be too difficult :-)
@Geozeke Very valid point. Not the feel I am getting though.
I can't, or won't, spend $100k on a car. I can only be lost as a
Model 3 customer or kept.
I am buying a made up feeling as much as a piece of iron, aluminum, and lithium. I have said before I can spend $15k and drive for 8 years. If I am paying an extra $25k for a feeling and Tesla doesn't want to sell that...I don't have to buy it. Once I get a test ride in a real Model 3 I am sure this will all fade away. Just considering the dark side.
Well, I knew that it'd be 20% smaller. That was hard to estimate regarding cargo size. So, it's a practicality thing for our family.
Lots of people have been disappointed with various things they hoped would be included with the car. Back when Elon wasn't anti selling the car, people expected cool new tech when the "feels like a spaceship" tweet came out.
I'm sure some folks' expectations were far too unrealistic for the price point.
Still though, we live in a place where people are free to feel whatever they want. Most of us appreciate that, and just let the rants go by because there will be more. I'm not sure about the pay per use disappointment, but there are/were many reasons some reservation holders took (or are still taking) a wait-and-see approach.
Tesla will endure, and I'm sure future versions of the car will be remarkable. I just want it to be very profitable. And I hope it propels us to a fossil fuel free future.
Don't forget the accessory hitch option for expanding your storage space. By no means as convenient, but still doable. That's my plan.
That's a great point! Definitely on the table.
I keep seeing so many 3rd party opportunities for the M3. And there's another one; a sleek, lightweight trailer for the M3 shaped along the lines of the 3 itself. If done properly it would sort of look like just a natural extension to the car.
Or maybe a flat shaped aluminum trailer with a pop up lid that resembles the diamond shape of the Gigafactory.
"fossil fuel free future"
You may have just coined another license plate for an electric car. And even room for one more F to send a message to those who fight such a future.
@Geozeke - "There were several articles this past week that estimate Tesla needs to up-sell customers to an average price of ~$41K to break even on the M3"
I would take that with a huge grain of salt given that they reached the $41K figure by basing it off of a tear down of the Chevy Bolt. Tesla has already said that they expect the average price to be about $42K and that they expect to make 20% - 25% margins on the model 3. So there is no way they are only breaking even at $41K.
Garyeop, where does it say that a Model S costs $100K? A Model S costs $100K, because one chooses to make it a $100K car.
Good point, @dsvick. I guess maybe the Bolt to M3 is not an entirely fair comparison.
It's fascinating what a pivotal time 2017-2018 is shaping up to be for the EV market. This is probably what future historians will refer to as the "inflection point" for the move to green energy.
@Geozeke remember that LG made the drivetrain and batteries for GM. So costs will be much higher for the most expensive part of the car. Tesla has said that GF has already achieved 35% cost reduction (that's better than predicted 30%) for batteries. Once they hit their stride, drive units and battery packs will only get cheaper to make.
Dont loose sight of the fact that this is for the initial production of Model 3 starting in July. Elon has said 2018 will have more options, such as four wheel drive 'D' version. I wont be surprised if the initial version only has one battery size either. Larger battery could become available in 2018. Elon has emphasized that he has learned from his Model X mistake (first cars had tons of options, and of course the FWD...) in which production was delayed quite a bit. For the Model 3 they are emphasizing ramping up prodcution (and profits) fast, so that means keep it simple - kind of like Henry Fords Model A. So, those of us who wan t the bigger battery and more bells and whistles will just have to wait til 2018.