Electrek article claims code leak suggest 253 mile range with 60 kWh battery.
Can't see many complaints if this is correct :)
The Tesla Model ☰ is still not shown on the EPA's website as either a 2017 or 2018 model year vehicle. [11:07 am CDT]
316 miles for a 75 kWh battery sounds wonderful. I can't wait to place my order.
If I am understanding these numbers, then according to my calculations:
$5 will get you an additional 105 miles of range
A "fill up" of a 60 KWh M3 will cost ~$12
75 KWh fill up = $15
Take my money now!
I had a dream last night that the base model went 254 miles- so this is close.
Looks about right to me. :-)
Unlike ICE where a big engine always consumes more energy even when it's cruising or idling, efficiency of an EV is not much affected by weight of the car or power of the motor other than when you're accelerating hard. On the other hand energy efficiency is mostly determined by air drag under normal driving condition. It's not surprising at all that the super slick body of Model 3 could get efficiency that's better than the Bolt. Again first principle of engineering design wins.
ima need about tree fiddy
but really, 300+ is awesome and makes longer trips even better.
I and others speculated 250 would be the range after the Bolt came out with 238. Tesla certainly wouldn't just one up the Bolt by getting only 240. It would be something more significant and 250 certainly is when compared to 238.
We shall see if this leak is true, later tonight or in my case here in New England, very, very early morning.
The leaked range of 253 is perfectly in line with all the evidence, so it's probably correct. Beating the Bolt range was certainly a priority. When you look at the range of the S60 and Bolt, then scale for the Model 3 improvements to drag coefficient and frontal area, the math gives you roughly the same ~250+ number.
I doubt these clever programmers accidentally posted that code.
What does the company (that loves Easter eggs) have to lose by creating stories and buzz about the efficiency number a few hours before it's officially announced?
Are these COMBINED ranges? On Tesla's sites for the S and X, you can adjust a speed from 45mph to 70mph and it'll tell you the estimated range at each speed, so I'm not sure how this 253 compares to that.
For reference, Bolt is EPA rated at 217 highway, 255 city, 238 combined. I would think the 3's aerodynamic advantage would improve the highway driving primarily, while city range would probably be very similar to Bolt. That would bump the combined rating up.
Either way I'll get the larger pack, when available. 3'll be my long trip car.
I was going to say the same as Doublelift and Agent_86--companies like Tesla and Apple (in the Jobs era, anyway) don't make these kinds of mistakes. These are highly calculated, strategic maneuvers designed to generate hype.
Remember when apple "lost" the prototyped iphone when a "worker" "left it behind" it in a bar? Oh, yeah. The hype machine doesn't get much better when the internet does it for you for free!
Elon is a genius, both in strategic marketing, and also just in general. Everything that's been divulged to date has been by design no matter the method of delivery, and so will every bit of info that comes out between now and the day you can walk into a showroom and take a model 3 home with you same day.
The good part, though, is that Tesla is finally going to be releasing its baby to the wild, where civilians can disseminate cool new information by word of mouth and further hype. Still, I believe strongly there will be many things "under the hood," so to speak, even from day one and SN1, that we can't and won't know about until Elon is ready to show us. That's just the kind of genius he is.
This is awesome news and seems legit. I can't wait to see it confirmed tonight.
which makes this all that much more exciting!
This is exciting. I hope it is confirmed tonight. Boy, if Elon Musk announces tonight that the Model 3 gets 250-315 miles range, it will send ripples through the auto industry.
Does anyone else think that Chevy actually did us a favor with the Bolt? That the original intent of the base Model 3 was to be with a smaller battery than 60kW but was bumped higher to beat the Bolt's range?
More questions on the efficiency in addition to whether or not this is combined range. What is it with Dual Motors and aero wheels? Could we get close to 270 with both of those on a 60 kWh pack?
That range of 253 is based on a 60 Kwh battery. Has that been confirmed? If it's a 55Kwh, it would be around 232.
@acares No, I don't think so. Tesla has always been about being on the cutting edge of EV tech so I doubt that they would have released a "sub par" Model 3 on purpose. I think it is more likely that Chevy drastically underestimated Tesla and genuinely thought that the Bolt's range was impressive as is. Chevy seems to think that 200 miles range is the sweet spot for EV range and therefore that they did really well with 238 miles and did not need to push it higher. It is also possible that Tesla purposely low balled the range of the Model 3 when they announced "at least 215" so as not to give away the Model 3's true range to the competition. I think Tesla was always planning on delivering the best range that they could afford. It seems that they worked really hard on battery tech to make the Model 3's range as good as possible. I think Tesla understands the importance of EV range for customers more than any other auto maker since they have so much real world customer experience with the Model S and X and the supercharger network.
@hoffmannjames Even if they lowballed 215+ (maybe Elon finally learned under promise and over deliver) I also think, as it was also assumed on this forum for awhile, that the original "base" model 3 would be 55kW. That would put a range of around 230. But, when the Bolt's range came out they committed to moving the base to 60kW.
It's also possible, that it's one of the reason no changes were made to the interior or the interior is so sparse, because a decision was made on range vs. interior. All told it's my personal theory and I have nothing but speculation to support it.
Either way- I'm ecstatic about the car.
@acares | July 28, 2017
"Does anyone else think that Chevy actually did us a favor with the Bolt?"
No. It's Tesla that did a favor to Bolt buyers, and for that matter all future EV buyers.
I've been driving my leased Bolt for three months and have put on 6000 miles. I can tell you that doing mostly freeway driving with an average speed of 67 MPH the range is about 233 miles. This even includes using some AC. I have never used the heater so this will probably change when the winter months kick in. Around town I can easily get 255 miles on a charge.
Regardless of what the inside story really is, it is great news. I am also super excited for the Model 3 because I believe that Tesla is going to deliver a really great mass market EV. There have been other mass market EVs of course but they have either been low volume or not really that good (small range, aesthetically unappealing etc...). I think the Model 3 will be the first truly successful mass market EV because it will be high volume and a high quality vehicle that people love.
@carlk Does anyone else think that Chevy actually did us a favor with the Bolt? was meant more of a, Whoa who would've ever thought I could backhandedly thank chevy for something. Competition, even from the Bolt, likely helped improve the Model 3, just as Tesla helped improve every EV out there by setting the bar.
@paul, let's see how your range is after a full year of temperature and 30,000 miles.
These ranges look very realistic given what we know and I hope they are true.
Not so much for range sake, but for cost of driving. With these efficiency numbers my electric bill should go up less than $40/month. I currently spend $50-70 on gas.
Well actually, also for range sake. As a current EV owner, I know what many of you will know soon - range anxiety mostly only exists before you get the car. BUT, since no people who haven't owned a Tesla yet own a Tesla yet... published high range numbers will make the purchaser more comfortable.
So for that reason, bring on the range!
PhillyGal, +1, +1, +1
300,000 Smoots!!! Just as I predicted.
hoffmannjames: Is 'mass market' a price point or a production level?
@Doublelift not every programmer is clever, I've seen things that where brought into production that were simply dumb.
@ReD I think "mass market" is a bit of both. Mass market just means a product that sells to a large share of a market, in this case the auto market. So price is crucial because you want a large portion of the market to be able to afford the product. Production is also important because you need to be able to meet the demand. And, production is a good indicator of being mass market because if you are produce the product in large quantity, then presumably you are selling it in large quantities as well.
hoffmannjames: The reason I asked your definition, which I agree with by the way, is that so many have posted here that electric cars would 'never' reach mass market viability until/unless there were 'cheap cars' that 'everyone could afford'. I then have to point out to them the large number of 'cheap' new cars that are outsold by vehicles with a starting price twice as much. I also annotate that the best selling vehicles are used cars, not new ones, and that they average over 10 years of age and around $19,000 to buy.
But primarily, you have to sell new cars before you can offer used ones. There are no ten-year-old $19,000 used Tesla products for anyone to buy. Tesla doesn't have to offer vehicles for 'everyone' or even 'most people'. There will be enough people who are willing to keep the company going for quite some time to come, and easily through the next ten years, so that someone can buy a nice, used Model ☰ in 2017 or 2018. I think they will be very happy with the purchase when that time comes. And I believe that a commitment to upwards of 500,000 units per year definitely qualifies as 'mass market' intentions by Tesla for this car.
In its best years, the BMW 3-Series has sold in the neighborhood of 350,000 to 500,000 units worldwide. It is the perennial sales leader among premium brand passenger cars, both in the U.S. and worldwide. The 3-Series has also been considered the absolute best example of excellence ICE vehicles, the benchmark for an entire automotive marketplace in terms of what a driving machine should be, for several decades on end. So, in a quest to prove that electric vehicles can adequately replace ICE cars, the 3-Series is the perfect target to strive to unseat.
Especially for a relatively new company such as Tesla, which does not have the manufacturing capacity to take on Toyota's Corolla, or Volkswagen's Golf, or Ford's Focus, or Honda's Civic, or Hyundai's Elantra at this point in their development. If your price point allows you to sell at a substantial rate, no less than 100,000 units per year in the U.S., then your vehicle is undoubtedly 'mass market' here. Because typically nothing appears within the top 25 vehicles sold here unless it has moved 100,000 units or more in a single calendar year. Cross 200,000 units and you will be within the top 25. Exceed 300,000 units and you will definitely achieve the top 10.
I believe the price points for ICE vehicles, all of them, will continue to go upward when it comes to new cars. Cars that have a list price below $20,000 today will have a base price closer to $30,000 by the time Tesla is able to offer a car below $25,000. Because of this, Tesla would do better to stay around their current price points and become even more profitable as traditional automobile manufacturers abandon lower price points for higher ground. When a top-of-the-line Corolla or Civic is $42,000 some day...? Wouldn't you rather have a Tesla? Of course you would.