Tesla Model 3 Unveiling Invites Sent Out For LA Reveal, Plus Rumors From “Insider”

2 years ago by Eric Loveday 110

Tesla Motors Factory in Fremont, CA.

Tesla Motors Factory in Fremont, CA.

2015 Audi A4

2015 Audi A4

A Tesla Motors Club (TMC) forum member says that he recently spoke to a Tesla “insider” who revealed some new information on the upcoming Model 3.

We already know that the Model 3 will be priced at $35,000 before incentives and that its range will be over 200 miles, but this new “insider” info offers us some additional insight.

Here’s what was posted on TMC:

[Rumors] Spoke to an Insider Yesterday…

And he said the following:

-Model 3 looks very similar to Model S, just smaller and without luxury features like leather seats
-Cost saving is due to Gigafactory, smaller battery and economy features
-Possible release of smaller, stripped down Model X at same time (not sure if name is Model Y)

As for size, we learned earlier that the Model 3 is expected to be similar in overall dimensions to the Audi A4, which measures 15 feet in length, 6.6 feet in width, and 4.6 feet in height.

As for the Model 3 debut itself, it is now confirmed for March 31st in Los Angeles, California.  On that date, global orders will be taken at store locations worldwide,  with online orders beginning the next day (April 1st, 2016).

Here is Tesla contest winner, Bjorn Nyland’s full VIP invite to the event in Los Angeles (via Teslabjorn):

Bjorn's Invite

Bjorn’s Invite – Click To Enlarge

Lastly, (via Tesla Motors Clubb thread and Electrek) here is a copy of the general invites now being sent out to winners of Tesla’s referral program.

Model 3 Unveiling Invite

Model 3 Unveiling Invite (via Electrek)

Source: Tesla Motors Club Forum

Tags: , , , , , ,

110 responses to "Tesla Model 3 Unveiling Invites Sent Out For LA Reveal, Plus Rumors From “Insider”"

  1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

    It doesn’t sound convincing. You can’t make a car 50% cheaper just by making it a bit smaller and stripping leather seats that don’t cost much from OEM anyway. And how much smaller you can make it really? As Leaf passenger volume is 92 ft3, Model S 94 ft3, you can’t make it much smaller unless you are making 2-seater. I doubt that removing most of the trunk would result in significant savings.

    1. David says:

      Either that or the Model S will suddenly be half price (or less).

      1. MDEV says:

        A cut in price of model S like that will destroy Tesla brand, when you buy a car you expect some remain value for sale.

        1. Ed Hart says:

          Note that BMW has been able to successfully manage a very broad price range of products under the same brand. Mercedes too, but less well. VW tried it and failed badly.

      2. Bloggin says:

        This could mean we are due for a next gen Model S. With battery costs dropping, there is more room for more features and range for Model S to maintain it’s price point.

        But there does seem to be a wide variance between the 200+ mile Model 3 and 250+ mile Model S.

        Model 3: $35,000
        Model S: $75,000
        Model X: $80,000
        Roadster: $101,000

        But then again, the C-Class starts at $38K with the S-Class starting at $95k.

    2. manbitesgas says:

      True. But then again, Elon has revolutionized the space industry by making incremental improvements.

      I think they’re basically gonna miss the price mark, but in terms of design, Tesla is well aware that in order to achieve mass adoption, they have to produce a car that will be capable of replacing a single primary ICE. So size definitely matters.

      1. bro1999 says:

        I still believe Elon that there will be a version of the Model 3 that stickers for $35k…..just it won’t have free Supercharging, and you won’t be able to actually take delivery of one till probably late 2018.

        1. GrokGrok says:

          I fully expect that, once I configure the Model 3 with all the options I want (bigger battery, leather seats, AWD, etc.), it will run about $50,000, which is OK. Its competition is one of the smaller BMWs, not a Camry. Happily, that will put my car fairly far forward in the production queue. Getting my $1,000 ready…

        2. evcarnut says:

          I understood that all Tesla’s get _F/r/e/e/???Supercharging

          1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

            Currently they do. But when the S60 was introduced, they didn’t.

            Making the fee optional will make more sense for the Model 3 base version, because it’ll be cheaper, and more likely to end up as the “other car”.

            The only important thing about the Supercharger network is that access is paid for with a lump sum.

      2. tedfredrick says:

        Eon has not revolutionized the space industry

        1. Only launched 2 of five last year due to internal problems of not analysing and proper saftey controls.
        2. Borrowed most of the technology from Rocketdyne for the rocket engines.
        3.Hires Kids out of school and works them to the bone until they quit and continues the cycle
        4. Has missed multiple launched this year and we are only in March.

        1. evcarnut says:

          You should offer Elon your expertise & show him how it’s Done.. I’m sure he would welcome an expert’s help……

          1. tedfredrick says:

            They have asked a couple of times, but I turned them down. 60 hours a week is to much for me on a regular basis

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          tedfredrick said:

          “Eon has not revolutionized the space industry”

          Hmmm… something tells me the reason you’re ranting about it is because you’re mad that SpaceX is doing exactly that.

          Remind me, which company is it that is the first to develop and test re-usable booster stage rockets? Oh, yeah… SpaceX.

          “1. Only launched 2 of five last year due to internal problems of not analysing and proper saftey controls.”

          All large rocket systems miss launch dates. SpaceX is obviously doing well enough to have won a NASA contract to supply the ISS (International Space Station), so they must be doing something right… in fact, lots of things right.

          “2. Borrowed most of the technology from Rocketdyne for the rocket engines.”

          Thank goodness patents only last 20 years. Imagine how tech advancement would be stifled if everyone had to keep reinventing the wheel! And bully for SpaceX in re-using proven technology, thereby helping keep costs down.

          “3. Hires Kids out of school and works them to the bone until they quit and continues the cycle”

          That reads like a rant from a NASA engineer whose obsolete job has been protected by pork barrel spending in certain States. NASA’s manned launch division has, sadly, turned from a cutting edge space exploration agency to mainly an agency for corporate welfare protecting engineers who no longer do anything useful.

          Speaking as an American taxpayer, thank goodness SpaceX is causing at least some of that bloated fat to be trimmed!

          “4. Has missed multiple launched this year and we are only in March.”

          Now you’re just repeating yourself.

          1. tedfredrick says:

            I must have hit nerve. I think Space X has some good ideas but revolutionize is not a word that I would use to describe what they do. I know a lot of people that work there and what I have seen they cut a lot of cornerrs that other companies that work with NASA must comply.

        3. Grendal says:

          1. SpaceX launched 6 rockets successfully last year.

          2. All rocket engines are similar. The Merlin 1D FT has the highest Thrust to Weight ratio of any orbital engine. It allows a very small rocket to carry very large payloads.

          3. That’s the Silicon Valley principle. It’s a very successful system. If you are a superstar you get noticed quickly.

          4. SpaceX is shooting for twelve launches. Once a month, for a total of 12. Their second launch is delayed, not missed.

          SpaceX has every launch company in the world scrambling to compete with them. The company has 50 launches still to go in their manifest.

          1. tedfredrick says:

            The RS25 built by Rocketdyne of Los Angeles has the highest thrust to Weight ratio.

        4. Joseph says:

          I agree with evcarnut’s response, but would like to add that you might want to get lessons in grammar and spelling if you want to sound like you know what you are talking about

          1. tedfredrick says:

            Sorry for some reason my computer drops a lot of letters when I type.

    3. Brian says:

      Passenger volume is a poor metric with which to compare the size of the Leaf and the Model S. The Leaf is a tall/upright car with lots of head room. The Model S is a sleek sedan with less head room. Unless you are 7′ tall, the Model S still has enough room for you. The Leaf could probably seat someone who is 9′ tall. All that vertical space adds up to nothing once you are in the car. All it does it make getting in/out easier. And it also kills the aerodynamics, which hurts highway range.

      1. Philip d says:

        Exactly right. The Model S is 8 inches wider than the Leaf.

        It has inches more leg room in front and back.

        It has about 3 inches more shoulder room in front and back than the Leaf.

        It has almost 5 more inches hip room in the front and back compared to the Leaf.

        It has a wider console in the middle with a wider 5th seat in the back.

        The Model S has 31.6 cu.ft. of cargo space to the Leaf’s 24 cu.ft. And the Tesla has a frunk.

        The Leaf just appears to have a similar volume because of the wasted headroom.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          People have different requirements. When you get older, it becomes physically impossible to sit down on the ground like you do in a sports car. People switch to SUVs just because of that. So headspace is really important for many, especially if you need to seat adult in the back where typical contemporary sedan has even less headspace.

          The point is if you reduce that passenger space (whatever, headspace or width) even further, you are getting into crammed compact car territory and it isn’t exactly what people may expect from Model S in my opinion, it isn’t $15,000 car after all. We will see it soon of course.

          1. tedfredrick says:

            My dad oves his leaf for that reason. Because he fits in it without pain

            1. tedfredrick says:

              For some reason on this sight I have to type really slow or it drops letters

              1. Nix says:

                It can be your browser. Sometimes you have to close all your browser windows to clear up memory. Other times it can be the ads from this site. Sometimes specific ads seem to slow everything down. I find refreshing with F5 before I post sometimes works. Other folks have more aggressive methods….

              2. Cerio says:

                On first sight? 😀

            2. Brian says:

              FWIW, I agree with you guys. That’s why I qualified my statement with “once you get into the car”. I have two kids in car seats. Believe me, even though I’m 2″ shorter than average, I still appreciate the height every time I have to help them with the buckles (pretty much every time, during glove season).

              My point was that the extra height skews the passenger volume metric in the Leaf’s favor. Otherwise, it really is a noticeably smaller car than the Model S. Yes, I have driven both.

        2. evcarnut says:

          A wise person wouldn’t use the names Tesla & leaf in the same sentence,let alone compare them ……..However,A wise guy would!

        3. Todd says:

          I am 6′ 6″ and fit in a leaf. I don’t even come close to fitting in a model s. I bought the leaf. One more on the way for my daughter. Headroom is not a luxury. It sells cars.

    4. jerryd says:

      zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz,, it’s more than just a little bit smaller as likely much lighter, more aero and not made from aluminum.
      Because of these it likely will need less than 200wthrs/mile meaning it’ll only need a 50kwhr pack that is under 50% of the present S weight is 500lbs right there.
      An EV glider is only say $14k and a 50kwhr pack by then will only be $6k-7k so quite easily it’ll even beat the Bolt which needs a larger pack that costs more/kwhr.
      So cost wise at $35k it’ll be nicely profitable.

      1. SparkEV says:

        I’m hoping they can start Model3 with 40 kWh battery and 160 miles range (80%=130 miles for 15 minutes at 120kW Supercharger). That’s 2 hours at 65 MPH, a point which people would need a break anyway.

        http://sparkev.blogspot.com/2016/01/mass-market-ev-hoping-for-tesla.html

        Then they’re not competing against Model S, and they can still offer bigger battery options for more money. As the CTO said, lower price should be high priority with reasonable range (2-3 hours on freeway) being close second.

        1. Robb Stark says:

          Tesla has repeatedly said $35k and 200 mile range.

          Tesla Model 3 will be backordered for years by the time Job 1 rolls around.

          There is absolutely no need to make a 160 mile range low profit margin car that is unable to travel from one Supercharger to the next.

          Nissan will be able to adequately cover that market. Perhaps others.

        2. evcarnut says:

          I’m hoping for a fast charging lighter smaller 100kwh battery to start 0ff with…. l o l …

      2. wavelet says:

        How are they going to make it much lighter unless it’s made from lightweight materials, all of which are fairly expensive?

        Nobody’s managed to beat 300Wh/mile in normal driving on any production EV car, and I don’t see what’s going to be magic about the M3 in that regard. They’re not going to be able to build it like the VW XL1… It’ll have to have side mirrors etc.

        If this is really going to be Audi A4-sized, rather than BMW 3-series, no way 50kWh will be enough. Even 60kWh might be borderline.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Indeed, wavelet. We can be pretty sure the Model ≡ is not going to be built of lightweight materials, because Elon or other Telsa spokesmen have repeatedly said it will be using lots more steel in the body, rather than aluminum, to save on costs.

    5. jelloslug says:

      Smaller, cheaper battery, steel vs aluminum body, cloth or vinyl seats, smaller center screen, fewer “gadgets”, etc. All of that adds up quickly.

      1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

        Cheaper power electronics, lower power motor.
        If powerful were cheap, the Leaf would have a more powerful motor.

      2. Rik says:

        Leather searts are not standard in the Model S; they are optional. So Tesla makes money by offering leather seats in the Model S. Tesla cannot save money by deleting leather as an option in Model 3.

      3. Delta says:

        Elon has a car door obsession so you can count on something weird like suicide doors or folding doors..

    6. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      For once, I agree with zzzzzzzzzz.

      The way to make a smaller car with a roomy passenger cabin is the way BMW made the i3 and the way GM is making the Bolt. Give it a snub nose, cut off the trunk and make it a hatchback, and raise the roofline.

      Will Tesla do that? I think it ought to, but perhaps not. Elon recently said the M≡ is essentially a smaller version of the Model S. I hope that’s not true, I hope Tesla doesn’t waste that much of the car’s length by giving it a longish nose, but we’ll have to wait and see.

      In any case, I think the rumor cited in this article is no more reliable than most rumors are… which is to say, not at all.

      1. Robb Stark says:

        Tesla is making a BMW 3 Series Audi A4 competitor not a Honda Fit BMW i3 competitor.

        Compact hatchbacks in the $35k-$70k price range will not sell in volume for long in North America nor China.

        Model 3 can’t be tailor made for Western Europe.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          You make some good points, Robb, but the Model S has been dinged for its poor rear seat head room, which it is claimed is one of the reasons it’s not selling as well in China as Tesla had hoped. If Tesla wants the M≡ to sell well in China, it would do well to have a higher roofline over the rear seat than the Model S. has. Of course, that would increase the wind resistance, which runs counter to Tesla’s desire to make that as low as possible.

          At any rate, the issue of what body style the Model ≡ will have won’t be settled by debating the matter in comments to InsideEVs. We’ll have to wait and see what Tesla actually builds. And that wait is now less than a month! 🙂

          1. Koenigsegg says:

            How many Yao Mings are there in China?

            they short!

            1. Jychevyvolt says:

              Short guys love to ride in tall cars. These Chinese Tesla buyers all have drivers so the backseat is more important than the front seat. Tesla is all about the front seat and driving dynamics.

      2. evcarnut says:

        The right way is the way NISSAN Did the IDS concept…With More Battery & not too Low To the ground…

      3. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

        Good aerodynamics are necessary for any long-distance BEV. They aren’t really necessary for a short-range or long-range BEV.

        I expect that the Y (CUV) could end up with a higher minimum battery size because it would be taller and less aerodynamic.

    7. TomArt says:

      They also specified that the car is being designed with efficient manufacturing, so it is more than size and luxury features that will be cut – various other things will most likely be simplified in some fashion or another in order to streamline manufacturing.

      Also, bear in mind that there are other possibilities – according to configurator screenshots posted on this website from Model X buyers, the 3rd row seats were extra. That no doubt played a part in keeping the cost of the Model X down to only $5k over the analogous Model S.

      I think that sort of tactic may be utilized for the Model 3. For example, the Model S contains the autopilot hardware (sensors, motors, etc.), and when you select that option, you are only “activating” the feature (for $2.5k, after purchase for $3k).

      It is possible that the Model 3 might not have any autopilot features built-in, and that the car would have to be built with that option (not able to be activated later).

      It is also possible that the Model 3 would require an activation fee for supercharger access like the S60 used to.

      There are many ways in which they can meet the promised starting price, depending on what they are willing to sacrifice and what they think potential customers would be willing to put up with.

    8. Samwise says:

      The Model S is 4600 lpbs the LEAF is 3300 lbs, so it has about 40% more material in it.
      It’s a MUCH larger car!

    9. Jim Whitehead says:

      How can they shave 50% off? Simple. Do the math. A car is parts, labor, large R&D cost, marketing/sales, plus reserves for Supercharging and warranty.

      1. Parts – Cut size 20% in every dimension and you have a car that weighs half. (0.794)^3 ~ 0.5. Larger buys on materials cut about 10% to 20% more off and raw materials prices are dropping anyways.

      2. Labor – Cut steps in half so that half as many steps with robots and people are needed.

      3. Marketing/sales – Low anyways, since the $1,000 deposits will fill up the order pipeline at near zero cost per car.

      4. Supercharging/ Warranty. The Model III should be about 20% more MPGe efficient, and the buildout of the network is nearly complete, so the Supercharger electricity cost should drop 20%. The cost to add more slots in an existing station should be about half the cost to build new.

      5. R&D costs/car drop 90% because its spread over 10x more cars than the Model S.

      There is a problem cutting the labor cost in half. He might get 20% to 30% greater efficiency from a greater scale. But this is more than made up for great savings in the battery pack, whose size may be about half or 50kWh, and whose cost it steadily dropping below $145/kWh to possibly $100/kWh with the Gigafactory, or just $5,000 total.

      So the whole thing is quite doable. When you go up 10x in size, economy of scale discounts from suppliers kick in big time.

    10. Will says:

      The PRIMARY source of savings comes from the Gigafactory (duh, I would have thought this obvious since batteries cost so much at present)

      Plus you overlooked the economy cabin features, whatever that means.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        No, it doesn’t. A Tesla spokesman said, a year or two ago, that the battery pack was about 25% of Tesla’s cost to make the Model S. Even if that cost is reduced to 1/2, that’s only a minority portion of the cost savings necessary.

        The bulk of cost savings will come in using cheaper parts, plus fewer luxury touches and geegaws.

        I find it very, very strange that so many people posting to InsideEVs think the way an auto maker designs a car model half the cost of another is to take the more expensive model and trim away bits and pieces here and there until they get down to what they want.

        Nope.

        If you want to reduce the cost that much, you start with a budget. You make a list of what you can afford to include in the car within that budget, and then you make a clean sheet design for that car.

        You don’t, you can’t, just take the blueprints for the more expensive car and simply shrink them by 20%!

  2. Brian says:

    I don’t put much weight in the “leak”. I suspect that the Model III will have a strong family resemblance to the Model S, but that it will not simply be a mini-S.

    1. mhpr262 says:

      I have seen a computer rendering of an artists’s idea of the III that was very much along the lines of a “small Model S”, and it looked stunning.

      1. Murrysville EV says:

        InsideEVs has published that rendering from time to time, but it’s totally meaningless since it didn’t come from Tesla.

    2. evcarnut says:

      Totally Logical ……….

  3. viktor says:

    Haven’t Tesla go out and said that they will not reveal two cars at the event and that Model III will be quite different from Model S? At least I don’t take this source seriously.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Tesla spokesmen have given conflicting statements. Older statements said that the Model S was a rather traditional design, but that they planned to do something more radical with the Model ≡. But more recently, Elon was quoted as saying:

      “It’s a smaller version of the Model S. It won’t have quite as many bells and whistles, but it will be at a much lower price point … I think really that is going to be the most profound car that we make because that will be a very compelling car at an affordable price…”

      source: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/129454/20160201/tesla-model-3-everything-we-know-and-don-t-know-about-elon-musk-s-compelling-car.htm

      We’ll have to wait for the Reveal to see what it really looks like.

      In any event, Tesla is once again masterfully orchestrating media buzz about its cars! 🙂 I wonder how many of the current rumors were deliberately planted by Tesla?

  4. jerryd says:

    I hope they bring out 2, the 3 and a CUV based on the same chassis.
    Then next yr a pickup and Van on stretched chassis.

  5. GeorgeS says:

    A scaled Model S?

    Nah

    I put my money on a scaled model X without falcon wing doors. They will have to maximize interior space so scaling the X makes more sense than scaling the S.

  6. Boris says:

    This is probably the funniest insider leak ever.

  7. mr. M says:

    Depending on the people you ask every Model S looks like a Jaguar, Audi, Masserati or BMW. So having a model 3, that looks like a small model S still can be like everything.

    We can conclude only:
    – Model 3 looks good
    – Model 3 is smaller than Model S

    Nothing new… Move on, move on.

    1. Murrysville EV says:

      I’m not convinced the Model 3 will look good, mainly because Mr Musk said they were shooting for a Cd of 0.20. Aerodynamic isn’t always pretty, or practical.

      Having said that, Tesla has a great track record with its design appeal, so I remain hopeful.

  8. kdawg says:

    Please no nosecone.

    1. Bobby says:

      I love the nose cone please nosecone come back
      I think the front end of the model S looks way better than the model x
      Just my opinion lol

      1. kdawg says:

        OK, an option for no nosecone 🙂

        1. Bobby says:

          Lol I agree
          Nosecone or not I’m waiting in line

    2. PoliticallyInKorrect says:

      +1

  9. scratche-Golfer says:

    15 feet is pretty short, that’s not much trunk

    1. Matt says:

      Keep in mind that there will most likely be a “frunk” too.

      1. scratche-GolferA says:

        An e-Golf is 168.1 inches. 14 feet, almost on the nose. An e-golf SE stripped sells for 29,000 to 36,400 MSRP for a loaded SEL, and is made in Germany with Panasonic Batteries. Giga Factory should offer huge economies of scale in savings.

        I find the Model S is close in looks to an Audi A7. I’m more inclined to believe the 3 is going to look closer in size and width, to an A3.

    2. Aaron says:

      Also less cabin space is used for the motor (versus an ICE) so people sit farther forward. You can put four full-size adults and a reasonable amount of luggage into an i-MiEV, which is only 11 feet long.

  10. Anon says:

    Muh ‘citement.

    It builds.

  11. Matt says:

    PLZ PUT TEH FALCON WING DOORS ON IT

    1. Nix says:

      Now that’s some funny trolling…

      =)

      /jk’s

  12. Jonathan B says:

    The cheaper Model X is interesting?… My gut tells me that this is an add on last minute because sales of the Model X have been crappy. I have talked to at least 3 different current Model S owners who had reservations on the Model X and are thinking of canceling them… Why? Because the cost is far too high for them and they think that new tech on the way will be cheaper. Because Tesla was late with the Model X and now just starting to deliver them when they announce the Model 3, they have put themselves in quite a bind. I’d really hard to justify a 220mi range $90K SUV when you announce a 200mi range $35K sedan. That’s a big pill to swallow. They know this, They know orders have not converted on the Model X and they need a solution. So my guess is that the “stripped down” Model X will be a 70kwh Model X without the fancy doors, leather trim, dual motors, etc… that can be had for about $55K. They are going to try and entice some potential Model 3 buyers over to this car.

    1. Ryan H says:

      Nope sorry, that’s like saying that BMW cannibalized it’s X5M sales by releasing the X1.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Jonathan B said:

      “…sales of the Model X have been crappy”

      Well, deliveries have been low because production has been held up, if that’s what you mean by “sales”. Reservations are running strong; stronger than reservations for the Model S in its first year.

      “Because Tesla was late with the Model X and now just starting to deliver them when they announce the Model 3, they have put themselves in quite a bind.”

      Tesla has always had an approx. 25% cancellation rate on reservations, if I recall correctly. If three people you know cancel their orders, that just moves everyone else up in the queue.

      Bottom line: The facts don’t support your speculations.

      1. ffbj says:

        Yeah, they are just still having some problems with the ramp up. Demand is not their problem.

        1. Jonathan B says:

          My point is that they wouldn’t have an issue with sales of the Model X if it came to market on time (9-12 months ago) long before the introduction of the Model 3. Now they are forced with having customers on the list for the Model X also getting to see how far $35K goes on the Model 3. This is not a comparison that they want to make. They would rather have had those customers take delivery of their car and then see the model 3.

          1. Nix says:

            That is like saying that Ford full-size SUV sales would be better if they didn’t offer the Ford Fusion.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Do you realize that, by the same argument, BMW shouldn’t make the 3-series or the 2-series because that will cut into sales of their more expensive cars?

            That’s simply not how it works in the real world of automobile sales, Jonathan. The Model X is Tesla’s “halo” car. If you don’t know what that means, Mr. Google is your friend.

          3. ffbj says:

            I think it’s true they would have preferred for things to fall differently.
            They underestimated the difficulties they would encounter with a Model X ramp up, which throwing a bit of a wrench into the gears.
            So not optimal.

        2. evcarnut says:

          the X is a complicated car to build ..

          1. ffbj says:

            The Model X is not the only thing that’s complicated around here.

    3. TomArt says:

      Wow…FUD City…

    4. bro1999 says:

      By marketing it as a “cheaper/budget” Model X, Tesla can spin it so that they took away the falcon wing doors and replaced them with cheaper, conventional doors. That way they don’t have to admit that the falcon wings were a HUGE mistake.
      They simply go “there was demand for a Model X at a lower price point, so “unfortunately” the falcon wing doors had to be removed to meet that price point.

      1. Robb Stark says:

        Spinning building a compact CUV off of Model 3 sedan into Model X/FWD failure is a new level of FUD.

        It is simply building out the product portfolio.

        Tesla will then build a pickup truck. Not because sedans and CUVs are failures but because trucks are the most profitable segment in North America. It is Detroit’s bread and butter.But battery tech and price is a few years away in order to build a capable competitive pickup truck.

    5. CDAVIS says:

      @Jonathan B said:”My gut tells me that this is an add on last minute because sales of the Model X have been crappy. I have talked to at least 3 different current Model S owners who had reservations on the Model X and are thinking of canceling them…”
      ———–

      I was recently at a South Florida Tesla Store/SC looking at the Model X…wow…amazing car. While there, I observed one guy taking delivery of an X, two couples there waiting their turn to test drive an X (current Model S owners like myself). Also one guy there a Model X owner 3 weeks…he told me he loved his Model S he turned in and loves the X even more. Only complaint I’ve heard from anyone that has an X on order is the long delivery wait due to the high initial demand outpacing current X production capacity. Hopefully over time the delivery time will shorten as Tesla scales up production.

  13. miggy says:

    would be nice if you included metric measurements as well.

  14. George Parrott says:

    At least two, or perhaps 3 years ago, there was an official Tesla presentation of their product plan from Model S onward. That plan included the Model X, the now called Model 3, THEN an SUV on the Model 3 platform, and AFTER all of that…a new Roadster on the Model 3 platform. Doesn’t anybody in the world of “journalists” have a memory?

    And for several of the other comments here….Any of you think just because a BMW 3-series is a bit smaller than a 7-series, that “size” is what determines the final corporate pricing? That an S-class is a bit bigger than an C-class this mass difference is what determines the extra cost? It is all about “marketing” and those “little details” that come with more exclusive pricing….and yes some extra “performance” as well.

    BUT extra $$$ at purchase is not a function of how big or how heavy a car is out the door of the factory. Customers pay big money EXTRA for a relatively stripped Porsche because that is the “closer to race version,” and other buyers pay big bucks for an Ariel Atom, at least on a $/pound basis.

    1. TomArt says:

      Yep, I remember that well. And, yes, I agree that the size is not directly proportional to price.

      Also, bear in mind that Tesla cites a smaller profit margin. They wanted 25%-28% for S and X, which they have already achieved for the S. They expect only about 15% profit margin on the Model 3. Those numbers are direct quotes from Musk quarterly conference calls.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Nice to see that someone has been paying attention.

        But only a fraction of the cost reduction can come from a slimmer profit margin. Most of it has to come from fewer parts and less expensive parts.

  15. HVACman says:

    For GM to get the Bolt to the magic $30K mark and 200 miles, they had to do a lot of things completely different and very-leading-edge AND take advantage of Giga-factory-like battery prices from LG.

    It won’t be Gigafactory volume production efficiencies that gets the 3 to Tesla’s stated price and performance metrics AND still be profitable for Tesla. It will be absolutely-world-class automotive engineering, relentless testing, and outside-the-box creativity.

    We’ll see what Elon reveals. With the Bolt’s cards laid out, it better be a relatively extensive reveal and be production-intent-level. A sneak-peek conceptual reveal will make me be suspicious that the design is still half-baked – or worse – undergoing extensive re-design.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      There were a lot of changes in the Model X between “reveal” and the actual production model. Why shouldn’t we expect the same for the Model ≡?

      Anyway, that’s what I expect to see.

    2. SparkFiatOwner says:

      This. Bolt is the comparison model. If Tesla doesn’t get near the specs of the Bolt, it will miss badly.

      I would be happy to get into a Tesla, but if doesn’t match space, performance, and price expectations, Tesla will be relinquishing its entire position on the 3.

  16. Nix says:

    Well, in the same thread that this information came from, was this picture of the new Model 3:

    http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/63490-Rumors-Spoke-to-an-Insider-Yesterday/page7?p=1395275&viewfull=1#post1395275

    Let’s keep this in perspective guys. The “source” of this supposed information is just another internet punk like you and I, who could be posting for any host of motivations.

    1. Kakkerlak says:

      And to be very clear (because subtle doesn’t play), that Tesla rumor thread photo is a 1983 vintage GM concept car.

      So yeah, it’s all guesses. But fun guesses.

    2. Liz says:

      Perhaps you missed the “LOL” after the posted pic.

      1. Nix says:

        My point is that the OP “MrJones390” with 165 posts over at that forum that started these rumors, is no more reliable a source than “Tesloid” with his joke picture.

        We don’t know their history, who they are, their motivations, or who is sitting home LOL’ing at all the attention-whoring they’ve scored for their posts.

        Heck, “Liz” and “Tesloid” and “MrJones390” and “Nix” can all be the same person for all anybody else knows. None of us are reliable sources.

        Everything said over on the Tesla board by a poster with 165 posts, should be taken with the same grain of salt that any internet board post should be taken.

  17. ModernMarvelFan says:

    So, the Bolt has about the same interior passenger volume as Model S. If the Model 3 is smaller than the Model S, then it will have smaller interior passenger volume than the Bolt or even maybe the LEAF.

    Audi A4 is a compact size car, not midsize. But maybe Tesla can squeeze out more interior total volume (passenger+cargo) to meet the midsize requirement but it won’t be nearly as spacious as the Model S or even the Bolt.

    1. Robb Stark says:

      A compact sedan will not have as much interior volume as a compact hatchback?

      Shocking.

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        “A compact sedan will not have as much interior volume as a compact hatchback?

        Interior volume is one thing. Interior passenger volume is another.

        Bolt, LEAF, Model S and upcoming Model 3 are all hatchbacks with about the same interior passenger volume but vastly different interior volume due to different cargo volume.

  18. Terry Kidd says:

    My guess is that Tesla will reveal another cost saving technical innovation with the Model 3.

    My money is on active suspension using linear motors. This will allow them to reduce complexity, weight and cost. And give plenty of scope for tuning the handling incrementally through software changes.

  19. ModernMarvelFan says:

    “My money is on active suspension using linear motors. This will allow them to reduce complexity, weight and cost.”

    Explain to me how linear motor is going to be cheaper than a conventional shock and spring setup?

    Shocks and springs can cost less than $50 in manufacturing cost. Will the linear motor combined with controllers cost less than that?

  20. floydboy says:

    My gut says the new cfo has thrown the lasso around mr Musk, with regard to his wanting a more adventurous(and likely expensive) design. So in the spirit of cost savings, we’re likely to see a more familiar exterior, with some shared parts from other models.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      I question that there are gonna be a lot of parts shared between the (claimed) MSRP $35,000 Model ≡ and the MSRP $69,900 Model S. I also question that a CFO hired recently is going to have much impact on the exterior of a car which has been in development for years.

      Certainly he will have some influence on the interior, and possibly exterior trim, but almost certainly the overall exterior shape has been more or less set in stone by now.

      Jay Cole recently wrote that it takes about four years to go from clean sheet design to production on an entirely new car model. The Model ≡ is much too close to production by now to make major changes in the body design without causing cost overruns and serious delays in production.

      1. ffbj says:

        I think so. Anything major now would be unlikely.

  21. James says:

    The photo of Model 3 in clay has been online for quite some time now – funny how not many have really picked up on that …

    To describe it’s looks – Think Model S with wheels pushed out to the corners and not much overhang front and rear.

    People say this is Photoshop, some say it’s an overlay of something else… I don’t think so. This picture has been out there for over a year – I think this is Model 3.

    1. TomArt says:

      I had forgotten about that. The proportions are not right for it being a recycled pic of a clay Model S – you’re probably right. I really like it!