Tesla: Model 3 Will Be $35,000 Pre-Incentives, Taking Orders In March

6 months ago by Jay Cole 262

Close To The Model 3 Reveal, Tesla Officially Re-Confirms $35,000 Pricing

Close To The Model 3 Reveal, Tesla Officially Re-Confirms $35,000 Pricing

The question of “Will the Tesla Model 3 really keep the $35,000 price-point that  CEO Elon Musk promised so many years ago?” has definitively been answered.

Yes.

Tesla Says The Model 3 Is On Track For 2017 Arrival

Tesla Says The Model 3 Is On Track For 2017 Arrival (concept art via easycharge.me)

Seeking final clarification Bloomberg (who always seems to have Tesla’s ear for some reason) reached out to Tesla for confirmation ahead of the first reveal of the Model 3 next month.

“We can confirm it’s $35,000 before incentives,” Khobi Brooklyn, a Tesla spokeswoman told Bloomberg. “We haven’t changed our minds.” 

This means of course for the unwashed masses in the United States, the Model 3 will be available from $27,500, while other state residents will do even better – such as an effective starting price of $25,000 in California.  Far below the average new car transaction price in the US today.

The new question quite likely will now shift to  “How long will Tesla keep the Model 3 priced from $35,000?” as the company has a history of deleting and/or upgrading the base model (at a higher price).  But we will leave that for another day.

Given Tesla’s most anticipated quarterly report ever tomorrow after the market close (which we will cover live), we expect CEO Elon Musk to be peppered with questions about the March reveal during the subsequent Q&A session.

Tesla's Elon Musk (Shown Here From Hong Kong In January) Has Always Been Consistent With Model 3 Pricing

Tesla’s Elon Musk (Shown Here From Hong Kong In January) Has Always Been Consistent With Model 3 Pricing

Ms. Brooklin declined to give any more information on the car, or steal any thunder from her CEO, but did offer some guidance on the Model 3’s arrival:

“The Model 3 is on time, and everyone is going to learn more about it at the end of March.  That’s when we’ve committed to talking about it and giving a really great update, and that’s what we’re going to do.”

Bloomberg also did some math on how long we can expect those $7,500 federal rebates to last until Tesla hits the 200,000 trigger that would start the phase out, and came up with a mid-2018 figure.

As it stands today, the US EV credit phase out begins at the start of the second calendar quarter after the manufacturer has sold 200,000 eligible plug-in electric.  So potentially there could be up to 6 further months of credits regardless of the amount sold, followed by 6 months at 50%, and another 6 months at 25%.

See example below:

Current $7,500 Credit Program Phase-Out Example

Current $7,500 Credit Program Phase-Out Example

Bloomberg

Tags: , , , , , , ,

262 responses to "Tesla: Model 3 Will Be $35,000 Pre-Incentives, Taking Orders In March"

  1. Model 3 has got to be the most highly anticipated new car release in history.

    A bit like waiting for Heinz ketchup.

    Queue the Carly Simon song…

    1. Texas FFE says:

      I think the Bolt production model release is much more anticipated. The live feed of Mary Barra at the CES introducing the production Bolt was jammed up for hours. I think the Model 3 will be anticlimactic when it releases two years after the Bolt hits the road.

      1. RexxSee says:

        two years?

        1. przemo_li says:

          He picked start of production as sales starting date…

          And added one year to Model 3 for whatever reason.

          Both cars will be available in 2017. That is that. Only thing that is still undecided is whether GM will be able to produce order of magnitude more cars, or “just more” 😉

          Tesla will start production some months after Tesla. Though initial shipments will have to arrive from Korea, so bad winter weather could change that a bit.

          1. Peter Miller says:

            “Tesla will start production some months after Tesla”

            Something missing there?

            1. ffbj says:

              Replace 2nd the Tesla with GM.

        2. Mikael says:

          The Bolt at the end of 2016 and the Model 3 at the end of 2018.

          It’s likely that there will be two years between the models. Especially if you compare time when it’s in full production considering Teslas long ramp-up times.

          1. Nix says:

            It is possible that it will not be on time (late 2017). But here is what Tesla is saying as of today:

            “The Model 3 is on time, and everyone is going to learn more about it at the end of March”

            (It’s in the story…)

            Delays are the norm of the automotive industry, and most car companies hide the delays by using endless “concept” cars, and then only announce production when they are darn good and ready. While Tesla technically announced their plans to build the Model 3 about a decade ago when they released their long-term “secret plan”. So Tesla hasn’t been able to hide behind endless concept cars like the other car makers.

            So yea, I see your skepticism, and recognize it. But they are saying they are on schedule… Just sayin’

            1. Mikael says:

              The Model 3 is not on time. It was supposed to be here in 2015. 😉

              And it’s not about skepticism (or maybe it is a bit) but rather simple logic and knowing that’s theoretically and physically possible to do in the car manufacturing business. 🙂

              It’s not a hit at Tesla, it just how it most likely will be. Something I’m looking carefully at and planning considering the current cars in the family and that it will be at least two Model 3’s pre-ordered within the closest family in March 😛

          2. liberty says:

            I think the bolt will get first delivery in 2017, the model 3 most likely 2018. My best guess is a year difference. GM is expecting a much lower sales volume than tesla. My guess is tesla battery packs will cost less than the LG ones, but gm may be able to get more cost out of the rest of the car.

            1. Lindsay Patten says:

              I would find it surprising if GM didn’t deliver at least a few Bolts in 2016, the way they delivered a few Volts in December 2010.

              1. Ziv says:

                Pam has said there will be deliveries in the Fall, so we should see some by December, maybe some in November.
                It is looking increasingly likely that GM will have something of a hit with the Bolt, even with low gas prices. If gas prices go back to normal, GM won’t build as many as are demanded, I would bet.
                We are talking about GM here. They will find a way for the top brass to mess up after the engineers do a phenomenal job.

            2. ffbj says:

              Seems reasonable. I am thinking like a year myself. Whereas, Bolt comes out about 1 year from now, in any numbers. So Q1 of 2017, and Tesla maybe, Q4 2017.

      2. Vexar says:

        Dealers can do pre-orders of the Chevrolet Bolt (Volt-BEV) today. Pre-orders start on the Model III in March. By my count, that’s a two month head start. The Model III will be larger than the Bolt, about the size of a BMW 3-Series, and will apparently start at $2500 below the Bolt. You’re pessimistic without explaining why. Tesla has said the main dependency is the Gigafactory, because of their new battery designs. Near as I can tell, they are fully-operational, just not fully-sized. Start your clock when the first Bolt rolls off a dealer lot.

        1. Texas FFE says:

          Chevrolet presented a product ready Bolt last month. The only thing Tesla is going to present next month is a picture of a car. Deliveries of the Bolt are supposed to start in December 2016. Deliveries of the Model 3 are supposed to start the end of 2017 but most people are expecting the Model 3 to be delayed by at least a year because of the Tesla poor delivery track record.

          1. przemo_li says:

            Actually, GM only confirmed production start. They are not dumb. Those batteries will have to be shipped by see from Korea to USA. Bad weather or port strike could destroy GM plans for selling anything in 2016.

            1. Lindsay Patten says:

              LG has a battery factory in Michigan, which is already producing the same cells that will be used in the Bolt. I see no reason to believe that any shipments from Korea will have to wait until the last moment.

            2. theflew says:

              GM isn’t going to wait until the last minute to receive initial components for the Bolt. This isn’t their first, second or third car. They know supply chain management. If anything GM will stockpile components in the late summer, early fall to deal with the initial release. Upgrades were made to the plant last year ($160M). If they follow their normal build cycle they will have cars coming off the line sometime in the summer as they test the build process and training.

              They are not going to wake up some December morning and start building cars. They will ramp up from late summer and hold the cars.

          2. RexxSee says:

            In the 21st century, more and more parameters of a prototype can be fine tuned directly on computers..

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Boeing tried that with their Dreamliner airliner. Result: Massive delays in production, because parts designed in the computer, with no test-fitting of prototypes, didn’t actually fit when they tried to assemble them.

              Computer design can streamline and accelerate design, but it can’t fully replace traditional methods of development.

              1. jelloslug says:

                If they did not fit when they tried to assemble them then they did not simulate it correctly. It has nothing to do with computer simulation.

                1. scott franco says:

                  You stole my line.

                2. sven says:

                  If it doesn’t fit, me must acquit.

                  1. sven says:

                    Argh. . . we, not me.

                    1. ffbj says:

                      Its ‘you’ actually as he was speaking to the jury, who has the power to acquit.

              2. For the Lazy Engineers of the day – skipping the use of 3D Printers today – is without excuse: There are so many different materials, filaments, powers, resins, metal powders, and insert materials – all available at decent to excellent costs, compared to milling solid blocks of metal to make a test part, and they can be quicker, and even both better and lighter (or Heavier – as needed), and – Space X has 3D Printers – which Tesla’s Design Team likely has access to if needed, so while Simulation can be right or wrong – quick 3D Printed parts can be had – one off – in a matter of hours these days, I would Doubt that Tesla doesn’t have a few 3D Printers of their own as well, just to reduce the delivery turn time from Space X in LA to the Tesla Design Center!

              3. RexxSee says:

                1) We are past the Dream liner CAD software and hardware
                2) Sticking with “traditional methods” is what makes dinosaurs.
                3) You seriously compare Tesla with Boeing?? Lol!!

          3. Craig Capurso says:

            One company just has there hand deeper in the tax payers pocket.

        2. MTN Ranger says:

          The Bolt has more interior space than a BMW 3 series (111cf vs 109cf). The Model 3 will probably be very close to the Bolt in size, possibly with more cargo space.

          1. Tech01x says:

            BMW 320i – 57.13″ front shoulder room, 57.4″ rear shoulder room

            Bolt – 54.6″ front shoulder room, 52.8″ rear shoulder room

            You really think the Bolt is going to feel big inside?

        3. Nate says:

          Vexar, keep in mind the BMW 3 series sedan is not that big. The passenger + cargo volume specs are pretty close to the Bolt. The Bolt is slightly smaller for passenger volume, bigger for cargo, and a little larger overall combined.

          Model 3 could likely be noticeably bigger than either of these, or it could be similar. Anyone’s guess.

        4. wavelet says:

          Unless Tesla shows driveable preproduction cars and gives full specs (at the level you can see on the Chevy website for the bolt), what people will be able to do in March is meaninglessly “reserve” a car, not pre-order. Note the language on the Model X reservation contract here:
          http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/v20121216-model_x_reservation_agreement-eu_english-pdf_0.pdf
          “This Agreement does not constitute an agreement for the sale of a Model X and does not lock in pricing, a production slot, or an estimated delivery date. You are under no obligation to purchase a Model X from us, and we are under no obligation to supply you with a Model X or any other vehicle. If and when we notify you of the availability of a Model X and you wish to proceed with the purchase of a Model X, such sale and purchase will be governed by a separate and legally binding Purchase Agreement between you and us or between you and another Tesla subsidiary (Tesla).”
          This isn’t the same as a preorder at Amazon, when they allow you to order a new product that is fully defined (including price and availability date!), production samples have been publicly reviewed, but Amazon doesn’y yet have it in stock. Very different.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Yes, the Model X is a perfect example which disproves your argument.

            The prototype Model X didn’t closely resemble the production model, now did it? So many changes, from the front end exterior to the non-foldable 2nd row seats.

            So how is putting money down to reserve a car which might exist only as a concept drawing/render worse than putting money down on a prototype which you know will be significantly changed before production?

            I’m sure many people are gonna jump at the chance to be one of the first to reserve a Tesla Model ≡. Heck, they’d line up to make reservations even if Tesla showed nothing at all.

      3. Trollnonymous says:

        Any DSL or T-1 line could get “jammed up” with a live feed……lol

        1. Nate says:

          Haha, judging demand by performance of a live feed from CES. That was good for a laugh.

      4. Anon says:

        …said the Tesla hater. At least TMC does not have blood on its hands from known defects and a decade of coverups from the public and government officials .

        Not sure why corporate murder does not rank on your list of automaker pet-peeves– but whatever. 😉 Why you support one automaker over vs another, is entirely your business.

        In the real world (outside of Texas), it may surprise you, but non-biased BEV lovers are anticipating BOTH GM (LG’s) Bolt and the Tesla Model III.

        1. Knut Erik Ballestad says:

          Oh yes indeed!
          – Spot On!

          The most important issue is that *both* companies get their cars into production, which should *really* kick-start the transition to electric vehicles.

          Buy whichever vehicle that fits *your* needs and *your* design taste. Two vehicles to choose between in this segment is way better than none! 😉

        2. ffbj says:

          I thought corporations were individuals. So sayeth the SC, idiots. So they have all he benefits of being individuals and none of the downside. Like being convicted of manslaughter, or negligent homicides as they should have been.
          Yes, you can get away with murder if you are a corporation, literally and figuratively.

      5. Michael Will says:

        As soon as people find out that the time to market of the bolt was bought with technological compromises like not being able to do automated cruise control for stop and go traffic, no supercharging, people will wait for the model 3. I am excited to see the Bolt in action but that is my prediction.

        1. super390 says:

          I think these two cars are intended for different kinds of buyers, even though the EV-first faction will shop them against each other. The GM has the look of a car for affluent urban and near-suburban neighborhoods with tight parking, short commutes, and little need for aerodynamics. Also, it keeps getting turned into more and more of a mini-ute every time GM gives out more info, but it only has 2 wheel drive. The Tesla, as far as we can tell, will be a longer 3-box design with better aerodynamics and possibly less interior room. As a competitor to the BMW 3-series, it is a sport sedan, and probably a fairly high performance one at that. After the surge of early adopters is over, these cars will be bought by different people, which is a good thing.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Call me an optimist, but I really hope the Bolt and the Model ≡ will both “steal” a lot more customers from gasmobile models than they do from each other.

            Let’s remember that 99% of the new car market is still gasmobiles. That’s a very large market segment to exploit. If the Bolt and the Model ≡ are both as compelling as I hope, then both GM and Tesla should be able to sell as many as they can possibly make, and more.

            1. Nix says:

              +1

              I think that was GM’s point about saying the Volt is mainstream. They are now trying to market to buyers other than us EV fans. They are trying to convert traditional gas buyers.

        2. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

          Bolt is GM/LG’s Model S: modest volume, and results will set the stage for expansion.

      6. Speculawyer says:

        LOL! That is some grade A trolling there, Texas FFE. I think the volume of replies you get proves where the attention of the EV fans really is.

      7. RexxSee says:

        By looking at the comments, it looks like haters and disinformers are more active today doing all they can to take down the TSLA stock..

        1. JosephDubeau says:

          Is it pretty cold in exile?
          John threaten banishment me for posting:
          “you are making up stuff again” as a personal insult.
          Or ” leave the fuel cell to the adults” so very insulting.

      8. Robb Stark says:

        Ha ha.

        Tesla website will be jammed with people making pre-orders not just looking for specifications.

        By the time Model 3 hits the streets, Chevy dealers will need to discount Bolts $10k to move them off the lot.

        1. Jake Brake says:

          GM plans on putting $10k on the hood eventually. Only suckers pay msrp.

          1. Nix says:

            My guess is that GM has priced the Volt and Bolt with some room to put money on the hood once the $7500 federal tax incentive starts to sunset. But I doubt it is $10K. More like $3K for late spring/summer, and $5K for clearing out previous model year vehicles.

        2. Speculawyer says:

          Yep. I predict that Tesla will get a HUGE number of pre-orders and they will claim that their website for taking orders crashed due to the load (though that latter part may just be due to intentionally letting it be a weak ordering system so they can tell that story). Marketing!

      9. JosephDubeau says:

        True

      10. jerryd says:

        I doubt that FFE. But then you are betting against Tesla so always talk it down like the short shill you are.
        The 3 will easily steal the Bolt market so fast it isn’t funny for GM.
        And GM will be forced like other EV makers to drop their prices to compete
        with the 3.
        Not only will the 3 be better, lower cost but since the 3 has the SC system, the Bolt will have to be $5k lower to compete you silly rabbit.

      11. Moshe says:

        I don’t think so Texas FFE. GM is missing one important factor… fast charging. They have no plans to install fast charging stations like Tesla did. Without it, the Bolt will just another commuter car that goes a little longer. You will not be able to go cross country, free and easy. The beauty of Tesla is the Supercharging Network. That is the point. You can go 150 miles, charge and keep going. With the Bolt you can only go 80-90 miles each way. That’s it!

      12. Tim says:

        The Bolt will do about 2500 per month in sales. The fact is, Americans aren’t big consumers of small hatchbacks regardless of drivetrain. And Tesla is an as-irrational brand, Chevy definitely is not. The Bolt will impact Leaf sales, but not Model 3 reservations or sales.

    2. Steven says:

      And how many members of the reading audience are too young to either get the reference, or have seen that commercial themselves?

      Every time our daughter struggles with a bottle of ketchup, my wife and I break into song.

      So, obviously some of the best money ever spent in advertising.

    3. Moshe Calderon says:

      Fantastic EV. I wish it will come to Israel soon. At the moment the only EV we have is the old Renault Fluence ze. We love our Renault ze even though it’s batteries suffer from very fast decay. These are first generation batteries does not fit to our hot climate. The bigger problem is that Renault will not fix or replace batteries under warranty even if the capacity decay more than 40% in 2 years.

  2. Bill Howland says:

    Model 3 for under the price of a BOLT?

    You would think there would have to be some unexpected cost savings in this vehicle for it to be profitable, as it must be for Tesla, and some pretty heavy compromises.

    1. s says:

      Bolt’s battery costs $145/kwh on the cell level.

      With the gigafactory Tesla is aiming for a $100/kwh on the battery pack level. Not a given, but if they pull it off, that’s where you get the cost savings.

      1. RexxSee says:

        I don’t even believe this P.R. stunt about the “leak” of the batteries cost. GM pays even less, and makes a big profit on this sub-compact car.

        1. R.S. says:

          Even with $145 at the cell level, if you produce lots of packs, the pack price should not be a lot more than the cell cost multiplied by the cells. A cooling circuit costs less than $40, in the Automotive industry and a meal casing even less.

          1. wavelet says:

            I’d be really, really, surprised if the total pack cost is less that 40%-50% more than the cell costs. Things you need to take into account:
            — Cooling system. It’s not $40 — Tesla has metal pipes between every cell. Probably more like $500. There’s also a heat pump, resistive heating and possibly waste/cabin heating reuse.
            — BMS
            — Casing
            — Assembly
            — QA. This a high voltage, high amperage system. Anything wrong with it will kill people.
            — Setaside money for warranty issues

            1. R.S. says:

              No really, a cooling system is about $50, for a car manufacturer. Assembly and QA should be the most expensive parts on that list, but also the easiest to reduce, if you mass-produce the pack. And I don’t think GM will get to that kind of mass production with 30k packs a year. If you would buy one machine to do the pack assembly on 300 days a year with a 12h shift the machine would have more than 7 minutes for each pack. That is by far too much.

              1. theflew says:

                How can you say GM is going to build 30k a year, but somehow Tesla will build more. I don’t think GM is any less capable of expansion than Tesla. Heck Tesla doesn’t have a facility to build more than 300k c

                1. Kacey Green says:

                  500k as NUMMI did and Musk reiterated last night on the call.

              2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                R.S. said:

                “No really, a cooling system is about $50, for a car manufacturer.”

                No. Just no.

                Instead of arguing with wavelet, you should thank him for taking the time to try to educate you on a subject regarding which you obviously know nearly nothing.

        2. przemo_li says:

          And how is that?

          Current prices are 250$…

          How could LG which is 5 times smaller then Panasonic offer even less then 140$/kWh???

          As its now, LG just agreed to paper shifting profits from batteries to other components GM source from them.

          So for all we know GM may pay more for those batteries, but can claim nice PR price due to accounting trick.

          Tesla+Panasonic on the other hand want to lower the price due to scale effect. Gigafactory itself will be many times bigger then LG in 20164 !!!

          1. RexxSee says:

            “Current prices are 250$…” last year? two years ago?

          2. RexxSee says:

            Companies never disclose the cost of their battery packs. Why in the world GM would disclose the real price they pay on the only one part of an EV companies can compete with?!?

            They pay LESS than 145$ /kWh

            1. Tech01x says:

              Ah, so par for the course, GM is lying to investors?

              1. RexxSee says:

                Companies do lie to investors all the time!

            2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              RexxSee

              “Companies never disclose the cost of their battery packs. Why in the world GM would disclose the real price they pay on the only one part of an EV companies can compete with?!?”

              The most rational explanation is that the PowerPoint slide which made the $145/kWh price public, was meant for internal GM use only, and was mistakenly included in a promotional talk given to the public.

              But of course, RexxSee, a “true believer” conspiracy theorist “truther” like you, someone who thinks the Bush Jr. administration blew up the World Trade Center, isn’t likely to look for the most reasonable or likely explanation for anything.

              1. RexxSee says:

                NEVER in history, a steel building fell on itself, NEVER! On September the 11, this happened THREE times.
                How convenient, Bin Laden has been killed instead of interrogated, Saddam Hussein was rushed to the gallos pole. Who was in charge of security at the WTC? Jed Bush!
                Where was the sophisticated cave “control center” in Afghanistan? Nowhere!
                Who profited? Haliburton, Big Oil and all the weapon dealers. Who died? Some of our sons (not the politician’s or the corporate head’s sons… and millions of Arabs.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_64RigP1Fk

                1. RexxSee says:

                  Never from fire. In Spain one skyscraper was set ablaze during 40 hours and they cleaned it up, then rebuilt it with the same frame!

                  Why don’t you take the time to educate yourself and do your own researches instead of parroting the official disinformation without using your reasoning? You will find a lot of evidence and anomalies… but your conditioned mind will refuse the reality because this would turn upside down all your faith in our “fair and balanced” “good” media, politicians and military.
                  Turn your brain on if you dare.

                  We are soooo manipulated in this country, and mine too.

                  A diplomat once said : American propaganda is very powerful because the population do not believe it exists.
                  They call it P.R. Sigmund Freud ‘s nefew, Edward Bernays founded it and used it very successfully for governments and corporations to play with our collective subconsciousness. Give a try to “Propaganda” written in 1920!
                  George Carlin said “They call it American Dream ’cause you’ve got to be asleep to believe it”
                  Wake up Pushyou.

              2. RexxSee says:

                “and was mistakenly included in a promotional talk given to the public”

                Question : How do you provoke leaks without simulating a mistake?

                1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  The usual method is to call a reporter (or in the Internet age, a blogger) and give them the info you want leaked on the condition they not use your name.

                  But of course, that’s too straightforward and non-convoluted for a “true believer” Truther like you, innit? 😀

                  1. RexxSee says:

                    Resorting to personal attacks like you still do shows how weak are your arguments.

                    1. RexxSee says:

                      On the contrary of the passive TV brain washed guy, there is historical researches, comparisons, deductions and logic in my affirmations.
                      No mystical or religious beliefs like you try to picture me with.

                      The worlds is full of conspiracies, it has always been. It’s in our gene, to survive, to struggle, to get a promotion, to hunt, to play football, to feed our young… It’s in our genes. the very expression “conspiracy theory” has been put forth and marketed by the same P.R. firms that harvest millions a year to dis inform you on TV and in the media about the climate and the “bad” EVs.
                      You are an intelligent person, and what I see is only low level attacks to win your point. Not very intelligent…

          3. Jake Brake says:

            Large format pouch cells are more cost efficient than smaller 18650s because they use less material. Plus LG can leverage the small consumer electronics battery capacity everyone seems to forget about and the volume from all the other OEMs.

            1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

              For the Bolt they can use their spare capacity from previous overbuild, but if they wanted good volume it’d need more investment.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                If GM wants to make the Bolt is “good volume”, they’ll have to start building their own battery factories, as Nissan and Tesla have done… and they’d better start doing it yesterday, since it takes about two years to set up a factory and fine-tune it for efficient mass production.

                So long as GM remains dependent on LG Chem for the Bolt battery supply, we’ll know they’re not serious about making the Bolt in numbers to rival even one of their popular gasmobiles.

    2. Phil says:

      My guess is that’s the base car with a 40kWh battery that three actual human beings will buy. There will most likely also be a 60 (can’t get beaten by the Bolt), and hopefully, an 80.

      1. Aaron says:

        There won’t be a 40kWh battery. Elon has stated several times that the Model 3 will be a 200 mile range car. The Bolt EV does it with a 60kWh pack, so the Model 3 will likely be the same capacity.

        1. Speculawyer says:

          I kinda wish they would make a 40KWH battery version just to have an ever lower cost model. But if they insist on 200 miles of range, that won’t be doable.

          Also, it would probably not be easy to make a 40KWH version work with the Superchargers.

          1. wavelet says:

            A 40kWh model 3 would probably have <130mi AER, since it'll be bigger and heavier than the Bolt (midsize vs. compact car), and if the rumors saying Tesla will still use cylindrical cells are true, the battery will have less weight density than the Bolt's. That doesn't fit within Tesla's stated goals.

      2. alohart says:

        I guess I’d be one of those 3 purchasers of a 40 kWh Model 3, but only if its body is not steel and it doesn’t weigh over 3,000 lb. (i.e., it must be aluminum and/or CFRP like our i3). I and over a million other Hawaii residents don’t need an EV with a 200 mile range.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Tesla has already said, multiple times, that the body of the Model ≡ will be mostly steel, to save money over the aluminum-bodied Model S.

    3. Just_Chris says:

      The $35k bolt will be out at the end of the year the model 3 will be coming when? 12 -18 months later, then of course there will be all the signature series to build, followed by the upteen premium models, then you’ll have the European and Chinese markets to fill. IMO it’ll be 3 years after the first bolt before the $35k model 3’s start hitting the road at which point the $35k price tag will probably be necessary to survive as there will no longer be as many generous incentives around. I would think by then GM will have knocked quite a bit out of the price of the bolt and Nissan will probably have (hopefully have) pulled their finger out.

      I don’t think Tesla are magic, they have a fantastic PR machine and no conflicting interests so they can just go for it. I am surprised Nissan or Toyota haven’t taken them on with a higher priced model, a $50-60k infinity or lexus with a 60 kWh pack would certainly pickup some of the low end Tesla buyers but I guess they like having Tesla around, or rather they don’t want to spend time and money battling with them whilst Tesla continue to do the whole EV industry a lot of good in terms of image. I am really interested to see how this all pans out, at the end of the day none of these car companies have a significant advantage as all of the batteries are 3rd party as is most of the power electronics. I am sure by 2020 there will be more technology differentiation.

      1. RexxSee says:

        Why in the world everybody thinks Tesla will follow the same path ?!? This is a new car, The Roadster had his own history, Model S and X were different stories, why would Tesla follow the same path with a different car, a different assembly line, a different battery pack supply, a more experienced company and an urge to sell affordable cars at last!

        1. przemo_li says:

          Because if they will only be able to produce Y cars, and sell them all….

          Yeah. They will wont highest price possible for each one. That’s how growing company can keep growing. By making good profits.

          1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

            If Musk was being honest when he said that Model 3 will start off basic so it can get to market on time, they might actually reverse things and sell more basic versions first.

            Initial sales with tax credit of basic versions, while people still need to buy an S or X to get premium features, keeping up margins. Then, ramp up, bring down costs, improve margin and the features to keep more affluent buyers who’ll still buy when the credits disappear the competition appears.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Just_Chris said:

        “…at the end of the day none of these car companies have a significant advantage as all of the batteries are 3rd party…”

        Well, it’s true that the battery cell making side of Gigafactory 1 will be run by Panasonic, but still it seems a bit of a stretch to categorize battery cells made by this partnership between Tesla and Panasonic as “third party” batteries. Tesla will certainly have a lot of input into how Gigafactory battery cells are made, and of course Tesla will design and assemble the packs themselves.

    4. R.S. says:

      The real difference is production volume. While GM would be happy if they sold 300k Bolts over its products cycle, Tesla thinks it can do the same thing in one year, with the Model 3 and its derivatives. So imagine you would be a controller at GM how much would you have to keep at every car to make up for, lets say, $1.5 billion in advertising and development costs. About $5000, right? Tesla might only keep $1000. Then there is the motor, which is a permanent magnet one for the Bolt, which is more expensive than the induction motor Tesla uses. And the batteries, which again should be cheaper for Tesla. So what about the rest of the car? Some pressed metal and an interior and thats not that more expensive to build for a larger car. In the end, the Tesla might even end up more expensive, but Tesla will have a better range option and an all wheel drive option and some nice leather seats, again an option and suddenly Tesla makes a lot of profit.

      1. super390 says:

        I have a bad feeling GM will not spend that much on advertising.
        Since the Bolt’s platform was designed in advance for both gas and EV models, I don’t know if the R&D cost will be that much either. GM is not acting like it’s expecting to sell a lot of these.

        1. Nix says:

          GM has been getting so much free press and free social network buzz, that I’m not sure they need to advertise that much. At least not until after the initial EV fan rush.

        2. R.S. says:

          There is nothing to reuse in the platform, at least for now. Take for example the motor. It was developed solely for the Bolt, but no other car uses it. Even a modern Ford GT reuses Fords 3.5V6 ecoboost. The same thing applies to the inverter, cooling circuit, motor control unit and probably a lot more. They just can’t reuse that much out of an ICE and redesigning is always expensive. The next generation might come in cheaper, but the initial Volt took a 1.2 Billion investment and I guess the Bolt has an even bigger one.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            LG Chem is making the batteries for the Bolt, and LG Electronics is making the rest of the electric powertrain. So that’s a lot of development costs that GM avoided… which is good for keeping down development costs for the Bolt program, but it also means they’ll be paying a middleman for the entire EV powertrain, and thus they’ll have a higher per-unit cost.

            Contrariwise, Tesla is notable for making a high proportion of its car parts in house. As a result, GM has much less incentive to ramp up Bolt production than Tesla has incentive to ramp up Model ≡ production.

            1. R.S. says:

              Its playing safe versus all in. If Tesla does not make its goals, they will go down. If GM doesn’t make its goals, LG looses some money, maybe also GM, that depends on the contract, but not that much. But Tesla has a better starting position, while it would take GM a lot longer to adjust to high demand and lower the price.

    5. Anon says:

      Most of Model III will likely use proven suppliers (volume discounts) and most of the “EV Bits” will be designed and built in-house, by Tesla. Batteries will be made mass produced in Gigafactory One; which is already making packs for powerwalls.

      GM owes a certain (presumably, fairly large) percentage of every Bolt sale, to LG. Someone reading regularly here probably knows the anticipated per car cost…

      1. super390 says:

        I’m wondering if LG is willing to break even or lose money on the Bolt to use it as a rolling advertisement for the EV components it will offer to other big brands in the future.

    6. jerryd says:

      First off Tesla has a 15-20% price advantage on the battery pack and very possible have less weight and better aero needing a smaller battery pack.
      And Tesla has sales people that actually want to sell them and care about good service.
      Now add the SC and the 3 has a $5k+ price advantage over the Bolt and much nicer people to work with vs GM dealers.

  3. Klaus says:

    Here in Colorado, it would get a $6000 state tax credits, bringing the base down to $21.500 after fed+state credits.

    I plan on putting down a deposit as soon as they will allow.

    1. bukweet says:

      A state credit of $6000, AND a federal credit of $7500??

      That’s unbelievable!!

      1. AlanSqB says:

        Yes, but we get to pay a big chunk of it back in Own Tax on the tag. It’s still a pretty good deal though.

      2. Klaus says:

        Yes, it’s a nice setup.

        The CO state formula is base price – $7500 fed credit x kWh / 100

        1. Saint says:

          What are you people smoking in Colorado??? 🙂

          1. Nix says:

            Diesel.

            Google it, but not from work….

            *grin*

      3. Speculawyer says:

        Yep. I’ve been amazed by it. And it is even more amazing that people don’t take advantage of it. I guess they don’t know about it.

        Georgia also used to have a very generous incentive but they got rid of it. I’m amazed that Colorado has been able to keep it around. As soon as there is an SUV PHEV available for sale, they’ll all probably discover it and it will shortly thereafter be killed.

        Then again, maybe the pot taxes will cover it. 😉

        1. Nix says:

          Colorado has a very green oriented governor who will be in office until 2018 when the full $6000 dollar credit starts to sunset. It is likely safe until then.

          But 2019 it starts to sunset, dropping to $4500 in 2019, then 3000, then 1500 before going away.

          With a new gov. being sworn in after 2019 has already begun, it is really the 3000 and 1500 dollar sunsets in 2020 and 2021 that are at the most risk.

          I’m more worried about the $7,500 federal incentive being killed in 2017 for the FY2018 budget year that starts Oct 1 2017.

  4. Anthony says:

    The *base model* of the Tesla Model 3 will be $35,000 pre-incentives.

    This isn’t like the iPhone or iPad where they announce a sticker price and most people pay that price or $100 more for more capacity. The base model of the Model 3 will likely be decontented heavily compared to a Model S – 205 mile EPA rated vehicle with only one drive unit. I expect the average sticker price for the Model 3 to be in the low to mid 40s. Additional 55 miles of range? $6,000. AWD? $4,000 Supercharging? $2,500. Autopilot? $2,500. Right there is 50K.

    Its not going to be a “cheap” car. Tesla is competing with BMW, not Chevrolet.

    1. Klaus says:

      If the base has 2xx EPA range and a reasonable fee for the supercharger network, I’m in and that would compete with the Bolt.

      However, I agree that bigger battery options and AWD will certainly be extra Some items, like autopilot, would likely also be available (at higher than initial cost) as addons.

      I’d like to keep it as low cost as possible, but RWD might be tough living in snow country.

      1. alohart says:

        RWD is fine in snow country as long as a significant percentage of the vehicle’s weight is over the rear wheels as it will be with the Model 3. That’s not the case for RWD front engine vehicles which is where RWD’s bad reputation arises. For a decade, I drove rear- and mid-engine RWD vehicles in Vail, Colorado, and never had a traction problem that FWD vehicles didn’t have.

        1. Klaus says:

          Good to hear that. I’m also in CO and live off of a road with 20%+ grade on the switchbacks, so it would be a challenge. I’ll have to search around for RWD model S owner experiences, but am thinking I could get by with a RWD model 3 with quality studs.

          1. Nix says:

            Colorado (and some other states) have an additional reason to go with the AWD option. When the Chain Law is in effect, having AWD is good enough to satisfy the chain law requirement.

            If you get the 2-wheel drive version, you would have to run with tire chains while the AWD version you can legally get away without them.

            1. Scott says:

              Chain Law is for commercial vehicles. Not POV’s- for CO anyway.

              1. Scott says:

                To clarify, you can look at CO code 15/16 for passenger vehicles (POV’s.) It CAN be required, but it would be rare and only likely on I70.

                1. Nix says:

                  To clarify my post, I’m talking about when CDOT issues a Code 15 under Colorado’s Traction and Chain Laws. This applies to all vehicles under 13 tons in weight, including all passenger cars, SUV’s and trucks.

                  When there is a Code 15 restriction in place, having the AWD version of the Tesla will always satisfy the requirements without chains, when many other car owners have to put on chains to legally be on the road.

                  Yes, I-70 up to the ski resorts is absolutely the number 1 location for the chain law to be in effect. That’s also where the largest number of passenger cars are found driving to ski resorts when the roads are the worst.

                  Many other roads will simply be closed under the same road conditions, while they will try to keep I-70 open with chain law in effect. Closing I-70 is only done as a very last resort.

        2. Michael Will says:

          Why do you think the model 3 has something else than the skateboard design ?

    2. jelloslug says:

      No, the Model S is competing with BMW and MB. The Model 3 is competing with Chevy and Nissan. Tesla is an EV car maker, not a luxury car maker.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Tesla or Elon, or both, have made it quite clear the Model ≡ is aimed to compete in the same class as the BMW 3-series. That’s their goal.

        Certainly a higher class than Chevrolet!

        1. RexxSee says:

          Selling for less than the Bolt or the new Leaf? They surely will compete with GM and Nissan. But again, Tesla is not in competition, it is promoting larger EV adoption.

      2. super390 says:

        BMW also makes $30,000 cars. Tesla makes fast cars with great handling. That’s competition.

        1. Stimpy says:

          Tesla makes fast cars, but great handling? You can only do so much to conceal 4,700 lbs. that doesn’t compete with a truly great handling car.

    3. Speculawyer says:

      Yes, most cars sold will have more content and cost more.

      But I still wonder if they can profitably make a completely stripped base Model 3 with 200+ EPA rated miles with a price tag of $35K.

      GM is selling the Bolt for $37.5K but they have been building cars for 100+ years and they are probably losing money on every Bolt. Can Tesla beat that? I guess they can if the Gigafactory pans out

      1. RexxSee says:

        The answer is that all ICE car makers only fake to struggle with high costs of EVs.
        The truth is a mass produced EV cost LESS than it’s equivalent ICE.

        1. przemo_li says:

          It doesn’t cost less. Not unless car maker is going after compliance car and produce cheapest possible thing, nobody whats to drive around.

          at 300$ per kWh 40kWh car is 12 000$ in just the batteries…

          EVs are new thing, so car oem can not just use existing parts.

          Again, one could… and produce EV nobody wants to drive around.

          EV is high investment game. Will bring big benefits in 5-10y, but still there is boatload of cash to be spent.

          1. RexxSee says:

            At 100$ it’s 4,000…
            Not the same parts?!?
            Adapted directly are the Focus, Fit, Rav4, spark, Smart, Altra, Golf etc.

      2. RexxSee says:

        LOL! GM won’t lose money on Bolts nor they didn’t lose money on Volts. This is anti-marketing, fraudulent theft of incentives by raising the price tags accordingly.

        The Bolt is a compact econobox and they sell it 3 times the price.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          RexxSee thinks GM can sell the Bolt for three times its build cost?

          Not only is he not living on the same planet as the rest of us, I’m not sure he’s even in the same galaxy!

    4. pjwood1 says:

      “Its not going to be a “cheap” car. Tesla is competing with BMW, not Chevrolet.”

      Well said. The Model 3 won’t be an over-sized Sonic, but my guess is it will be front wheel drive and will resemble the CUV segment. More X-like, than S-like, with awesome rear cargo.

      My bet is entered.

      1. Nix says:

        There was a story recently that Elon is hinting there will be both CUV and car versions of the Model 3.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          I think it’s a lot more than just a hint. I think it’s a pretty firm plan.

        2. jerryd says:

          Nix, that has been the plan, not a rumor, for 6 yrs now. Try to keep up.

      2. super390 says:

        It’s supposed to compete with the BMW 3-series. That’s nothing like what you’re describing.

      3. Josh says:

        You are confusing Model 3 with Model Y. Model Y is the CUV built on the new platform for Model 3. Likely minus Falcon Wing doors and the other high end gizmos of Model X.

        The vehicle to follow is Roadster 3.0 built on the same platform . The long standing rumor has been targeting sub 2 second 0 – 60.

    5. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Anthony said:

      “The base model of the Model 3 will likely be decontented heavily compared to a Model S…

      “Its not going to be a “cheap” car. Tesla is competing with BMW, not Chevrolet.”

      Not to say you’re wrong, but Tesla pointed to the BMW 3-series as the price category it wants the Model ≡ to compete in. The MSRP, or base price, of the 3-series is $33,150.

      Is the base model 3-series that stripped down, as compared to the average sales price? Maybe it is, I’m just asking.

      1. Stimpy says:

        Yes, it is. Almost.p no one buys a stripper 3 Series.

  5. Sublime says:

    It will be $35k… It’ll just be 2030 before that trim level is produced.

    1. Trollnonymous says:

      +1

    2. andre says:

      condition that Tesla emerges from an imminent X related sort of b.rupcy….(let,s stay positive,and avoid watching Nasdaq etc.)

  6. Speculawyer says:

    I still maintain that the reality is “No”, they will not make that target price.

    But I also say that even if they even come close to that number, it will be a be a HUGE success.

    I hope they prove me wrong.

  7. Ct200h says:

    They really do need to offer and produce some base models during early production. More important this time than with the S or the X.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Not gonna happen. Tesla increases demand for their higher trim versions by making them the only versions available for “early adopters”.

      That’s one of several reasons why Tesla is able to actually make a decent profit margin off selling plug-in EVs… unlike other auto makers.

      1. RexxSee says:

        Tesla does not need to increase demand for Model 3. They just want to sell many.

      2. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

        Tesla has the S and X and the premium competition isn’t coming soon, so they might actually want to sell more basic 3s to reduce cannibalism and get credit-dependent buyers while they last.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Industry watchers have predicted that Tesla will run out of its slice of the pie of federal tax incentive about the time the Model ≡ goes into production.

          Tesla’s plan is to keep ramping up Model ≡ production until 2020. (If, as many of us suspect, the Model ≡ won’t actually go into production until 2018, then that goal may be pushed back to 2021.) The federal tax incentive will be gone long before that, unless Congress renews it, which I think unlikely.

          Given that scenario, I can’t see any reason why Tesla would want to rush the lower trim versions of the Model ≡ into production early. They clearly think demand will far outstrip production for years. Assuming they don’t drop the ball on designing the car, I think that will turn out to be correct.

    2. Samwise says:

      They need to ONLY produce the base model (possibly with simple options available) in the initial production run, this is the first foray into the bottom end of the market, they need to come in all guns blazing or not at all! This car’ss success is completely based around economies of scale they need to get these working straight out of the gate.

      1. Dan Zorrilla says:

        If you sell a lot out of the gate and there is a major issue with the car, you have a major financial problem. If you make 10, you can work the kinks out in the next 20 you make, etc.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Just because Tesla plans for a lower per-unit profit margin on the Model ≡ doesn’t alter the bottom line, which is this: Production, and therefore sales, will start out slowly, and only ramp up when Tesla is confident they can control quality properly. That’s what they have done with all their car models, and the same will be true of the Model ≡.

        Since initial production will be very limited, with a slow ramp up, Tesla might as well make as much profit as it can off each unit, and that means only selling the highest trim levels to start with.

        This has been a successful strategy for Tesla so far. Why meddle with success? There is no up-side for Tesla to start out by selling the cheapest trim levels.

  8. Wesley says:

    Can’t wait! That’s it. I’m just stoked that we will have multiple brands producing 200 mile BEV’s that will be affordable. Go Bernie!

  9. Trollnonymous says:

    I still need to see the car first.

  10. jelloslug says:

    The $35k Model 3 will be a lot like the Nissan Leaf S trim level. A basic car with most normal standard features the people expect. AWD, longer range, auto pilot, supercharger access, and other luxury features will all be optional.

    1. Adam says:

      Which is just fine by me.

      1. Nom de Plume says:

        Fine by me too. I wish people would stop saying “$35k is just the base model, nobody ever buys those”. Sure they do. I’ve bought plenty of new cars, and most of them were base models. If it’s a good car, it will have all the features most people want or need. If you want options, get options.

    2. fotomoto says:

      $35k……. AFTER fed incentives (in very fine print). 😉

      1. jelloslug says:

        Did you not read the GIANT PRINT?

        1. fotomoto says:

          Did you not see my emoticon? 🙂

  11. Speculawyer says:

    WAIT!

    I’ve got it figured out. What they can do is say that the super decontented base is $35K and then offer a large number of multi-thousand dollar add-ons: bigger battery, AWD, autonomous driving package, sport suspension package, winter heat package, Supercharger access, etc.

    And then they say that they will build the cars in order of price from high to low. And a new car order that comes in at a higher price than your car moves ahead in the line.

    In the end, they’ll never end up actually building any $35K base models.

    OK, that is a stretch. But I wonder if they could do something like that.

    1. Murrysville EV says:

      I think you’re exactly right.

    2. Josh says:

      This is how the first year of every Tesla launch is. If you want a base model, get in an early reservation and plan to get it about a year after the first founder/signature deliveries.

      The early ramp up is the worst on the bottom line for Tesla. It makes total sense to produce the highest margin products while getting the production line dialed in and costs out.

      Job #1 for Tesla is to stay in business.

  12. CDAVIS says:

    Likely the Model 3 upper price (including all the avail Model 3 options) will be a hair below the entry Model S…giving the consumer a Tesla product price range of $35K-$145K.

    A Model 3 with the most basic want/need options (Supercharger Network & AutoPilot) will likely be ~$45K. It’s this price/value sweet-spot that’s going to put a very big hurt on Volt, Bolt, i3, & Leaf.

    1. Nate says:

      I agree with everything up to the last sentence. I don’t think it puts much pressure on those cars with the exception of possibly the i3. The others still have a nice price advantage. All of them will have manufacturer support in terms of incentives, which helps for more competitive lease rates. The % leasing is higher for plug-ins due to tax reasons and people not wanting to be stuck with last generation technology.

      Most importantly, if plug-ins make deeper in-roads with the general public there is room for all of these models and many more.

  13. PureElectric says:

    What I think about Model 3:
    1) Version only with rear wheel drive and thats why will have frunk
    2) $35k for base 190-200hp motor with 55kWh battery
    3) 60kWh battery + $2500 and for 70kWh another $5000
    4) Supercharging + $1500-2000
    5) Autopilot + $3000
    6) Navigation + $1000-1500
    7) Leather seats + $2000
    8) Perf version 300hp + $3000

    1. Adam says:

      Navigation will be standard. Everyone is forgetting this car is designed to attract people from ICE because it’s a great car, it’s not going to be crippled. Sure, AWD and bigger battery’s will be more, so what, size of the battery is purely a technical detail, how many miles per charge is so much more important.

      On a side note, it wouldn’t suppose me if this car was available in AWD, RWD and FWD configurations. AWD being the top dog, RWD for buyers who can’t afford AWD but want driver focused dynamics, and finally FWD for buyers who live and snow prone areas but can’t afford RWD.

      1. ElectricPower says:

        Elon ones said “Model 3 will be only with RWD”.

        1. Nix says:

          The last I heard 8 months ago, he said it will be 2 wheel drive (doesn’t specify rear or front) and will have AWD as an option:

          http://insideevs.com/elon-musk-two-wheel-drive-standard-tesla-model-3-awd-option/

      2. alohart says:

        RWD rear engine vehicles do just as well in snow as FWD front engine vehicles. I drove RWD rear- and mid-engine vehicles in Vail, CO, for a decade with no more traction problems than FWD vehicles. It’s how much weight is over the driving wheels that matters, not the location of the driving wheels. So there’s no need for a FWD Model 3 since the RWD version will have considerable weight over its rear wheels.

        1. Texas FFE says:

          I’ve seen hundreds of rear wheel drive cars turned sideways and stuck in the middle of road on ice while front wheel drive cars drove around them. I’ve never driven a rear wheel drive car on ice but I’m skeptical it handle ice as well as front wheel drive cars.

          1. Nix says:

            Texan with no experience driving RWD tries to school someone with experience driving RWD in Colorado all about something the Texan has never done.

            What could be wrong with that?

            1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

              Texas gets ice storms, while I expect CO deals more with snow.

          2. ffbj says:

            Front wheel drive is superior to driving in snow than rear wheel drive, as you suggest.
            Of course AWD is the best. Winter tires help too.

      3. RexxSee says:

        FWD is good in the snow because the weight of the ICE engine and satellite systems is all on the front wheels. Teslas has their weight equally distributed, so FWD is irrelevant and more complex to build, maintain than RWD.
        RWD handles better in the snow, when skidding and sliding.
        FWD is only better for traction, on ICE cars.

        1. Djoni says:

          Doesn’t make sense.
          EV are heavy, (it’s a rime!) So FWD or RWD will be fine.
          My Leaf is FWD and has better traction than most other ICE FWD, so it’s good.
          RWD is cheaper and will also be good enough.

        2. ffbj says:

          Weight has something to do with it, but mostly it is due to the fact that FWD pulls the car forward, while RWD pushes.

      4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Adam said:

        “…and finally FWD for buyers who live and snow prone areas but can’t afford RWD.”

        The RWD Model S seems to do just fine in Norway and other very snowy regions. The problem with older RWD cars slipping and sliding around in the snow has been mostly solved by electronic traction control.

        I will be surprised if Tesla ever makes a FWD car. Despite the fact that regenerative braking is more efficient using front wheels than rear, Tesla seems to do quite well with RWD cars.

        1. Adam says:

          If that’s the case, well I change my mind and will say tats it’s RWD or AWD!

          I have zero experience driving in the snow myself, I live in Australia, I have always read that FWD is better, but I guess with modern stability controls, there is little on it. I personally am a car nut, so would usually only ever want RWD, however, with the non mechanical connection of EV, all wheel drive is almost a non compromise besides cost.

    2. Josh says:

      I like where your heads at. The base price should not be debated anymore, the options pricing is the more interesting debate.

      I would have guessed 55 kWh battery before the Bolt, LEAF 2.0/IDS spec reveals, but 60 kWh has to be standard now. I would guess there will only be one option pack, like S and X. I will go with 75 kWh for +$5k.

      Tech Package will include autopilot and navigation for +$3k.

      Leather seats will be +$1.5k

      Performance will include AWD +$10k and require the 75 kWh pack.

      SuperCharging will be +$2k like previously on 60 kWh Model S.

      So loaded Model 3 will come in around $60k pre-incentives.

      Take my money now!

      1. ElectricPower says:

        I would like to see Model 3 with 75kWh battery pack.
        Out there will not be only Bolt. Don’t forget 30% cheaper Leaf which has less range but still good for city car.

  14. DNAinaGoodWay says:

    What will the deposit likely be, to hold a reservation?

    If Bloomberg’s math is near correct, the full federal credit would last through 2018, that should work if we make a reservation as soon as we can get into the site.

    I’d prefer SC access to be pay as you go.

    1. Supermantibody says:

      SC will not be pay as you go 99.99% sure

      1. Josh says:

        Considering there is currently no payment system and Musk has specifically stated that a requirement of other OEMs to use it was having the OEM contribute (instead of the owner) based on use.

        I am with you.

  15. tftf says:

    Tesla is over-promising once again imho:

    $35k base pricing for a “BMW 3 series-like” TSLA sedan EV at “industry-leading margins” and all that shipping in “late 2017” already?

    [All the stuff in “…” is taken verbatim from Tesla IR documents.]

    I just saw a unicorn fly by.

    Large car companies can undercut Tesla as needed (because upcoming regulation requires them to sell more and more PHEVs and EVs anyway) and cross-subsidize their future EVs with millions of “normal” cars.
    Most of them will offer long-range EVs before or by the time the Model3 ships.
    Same for large battery suppliers such as LG Chem or Samsung. Who do you think can offer better pricing in 5-10 years for EV batteries once volumes go mainstream?

    Suppliers such as LG Chem with over a dozen car brands as clients or Panasonic-Tesla?

    I wouldn’t bet on the latter when the entire industry is going into the direction of prismatic/pouch cells and Nissan lost billions on vertically integrated battery manufacturing since 2011 (so much for Tesla being the only EV pioneer, Nissan-Renault did/tried all this vertical integration since 2009).

    1. jelloslug says:

      It seems that people don’t realize that a base model 3 series is not that special of a car. It’s actually priced less that what Tesla is claiming that the Model 3 will be priced at and feature wise is nothing special.

      1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

        And Elon Musk refered directly to that fact a couple of years ago. Cheaper batteries, cheaper power electronics, then cut back on the power of the motor for the base model and you can save a significant chunk of change.

    2. Speculawyer says:

      I’m pretty skeptical too.

      However, it *is* possible. Someone on Seeking Alpha did a really good analysis of how it might be possible to make a $35K Model 3.

      It won’t be easy and the Gigafactory will need to deliver on its battery cost reductions. But it MIGHT happen.

      1. Josh says:

        tftf (aka Tales from the Future) posts on Seeking Alpha and is a self identified short of TSLA stock. I would be surprised if he isn’t aware of the other post.

        Tesla certainly won’t have “industry leading margins” in the first couple years of production. I don’t know what statements he is citing, but it might be out of context.

        If Tesla can hit their cost cutting measure with the GF, making margins on 3 should be assured. The aspect that most people underestimate with the Tesla value proposition is the software component of their cars. No other automaker has a comparable system in regards to infotainment, remote access, and updatability.

        But maybe differentiating software won’t matter much at the lower price points.

        1. tftf says:

          ” I don’t know what statements he is citing, but it might be out of context.”

          No, it’s from an official Tesla IR PDF (Powerpoint discussing the Model3).

          You can find my quote about in this SA article:

          “D-segment sedan
          Base price $30-35K
          Tesla performance & range (i.e. above 200 miles)
          Category-leading gross margin”

          http://seekingalpha.com/article/2818826-teslas-latest-sales-projection-for-2025-is-next-to-impossible-to-achieve

          I may be short the stock but I always stick to facts.

    3. Nix says:

      It doesn’t make any sense for the major car companies to lose a lot of money trying to undercut Tesla just to get ZEV credits.

      The more EV’s Tesla sells, the lower the value of Tesla’s excess ZEV credits. If the other car companies want ZEV credits, they can just buy them from Tesla on the cheap instead of trying to undercut them.

      Not that other companies won’t try to compete with Tesla using low prices. That will probably happen. But there will never be massive thousands of dollar below cost market dumping with the intention of only getting ZEV credits.

      There is currently a glut of ZEV credits. If Tesla builds lots of Model 3’s, the glut will only increase, driving the price for a ZEV credit down in the secondary market.

      1. Lindsay Patten says:

        CARB’s ZEV requirement to sell a certain % of ZEVs are just starting to kick in and will climb each year. So the big manufacturers all have to have a model that is competitive. With the Bolt and Model 3 out there it will become increasingly difficult to sell current generation low-range EVs at anything approaching current prices.

    4. super390 says:

      How big of a chunk is taken by the dealers that Tesla doesn’t have? 30%? More? Enough that the dealers are fighting tooth and nail to stop Tesla.

      1. Nate says:

        I’m not a fan of the dealer franchise system the manufacturers others than Tesla are stuck with in the U.S., but dealers don’t get a 30% markup on cars in this price range. They make higher percentages on used cars (but not 30% on average).

        1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

          Right, dealers make about $500 per new car. That’s after all costs.

          1. John says:

            And that’s why they hate EV’s. They make the $500 off the sale, and then rarely get the car back to rip you off for service. I’ve had my volt for over 2 years and 50 thousand miles. I’ve been to the dealer 3 times. One oil change and 2 recalls. Total dollars I’ve given them since the sale, $40.

          2. ffbj says:

            That is at the bottom end of what a dealer will except. Instead of dollars you should use percent. Dealer markup is around 2%-3%, and that is a completely fair dealer. One not trying to rip you off, with the many scams they use.

            1. Nate says:

              It is more like mid to lower end of it, and the top end is not even close 30%.

    5. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      tftf continued his relentless anti-Tesla FUD campaign:

      “I just saw a unicorn fly by.”

      I just saw a troll post.

      “Large car companies can undercut Tesla as needed…”

      Just like Kodak could undercut digital camera makers “as needed”, hmmm? No doubt just like the Stanley Motor Carriage Co. thought it could undercut gasmobile makers “as needed”, during the last century’s automobile tech revolution. Funny how that never seems to work out.

      “Most of them will offer long-range EVs before or by the time the Model3 ships.”

      Two or three is “most”? Ummm… no, it ain’t.

      “Same for large battery suppliers such as LG Chem or Samsung. Who do you think can offer better pricing in 5-10 years for EV batteries once volumes go mainstream?”

      The companies which cut out the middleman of battery suppliers… as Tesla and Nissan are doing.

      “Suppliers such as LG Chem with over a dozen car brands as clients or Panasonic-Tesla?”

      More to the point, which auto makers will be able to make long-range plug-in EVs in large numbers? Those which depend on LG Chem, which has to split its supply among a rapidly growing list of customers; or Tesla, which can use as much of the Gigafactory’s battery output as it wants?

      “…Nissan-Renault did/tried all this vertical integration since 2009”

      Yeah, and as a result they and Tesla are the only auto makers in a position to control their own battery supply, and thus are the only companies which won’t be production limited if, as GM now claims, plug-in EVs are about to go mainstream.

      GM says it plans to make 20-30k Bolts per year, and when asked, a company spokesman estimated they could ramp up to perhaps 50k per year. Tesla says it plans to ramp up Model ≡ production to about 400,000 per year.

      1. tftf says:

        “Two or three is “most”? Ummm… no, it ain’t.”

        That’s if you (continue to) believe the Model3 wil ship by 2017.

        I say it will ship in volume by 2018-2019.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          No, I’m guessing we won’t see even limited deliveries of the Model ≡ until 3rd quarter 2018, despite Tesla making a real effort to get the car into production in 2017.

          Before then, in 200+ mile BEVs entering production, we’ll see:

          Bolt
          Leaf 2.0

          And possibly a 200+ mile i3, altho I think BMW will fall short of the 200 mile mark.

          Which other 200+ mile BEVs in this general price category (downmarket from the Model S and the i8) do you think will be in production before the Model ≡ debuts?

      2. tftf says:

        “Those which depend on LG Chem, which has to split its supply among a rapidly growing list of customers; or Tesla, which can use as much of the Gigafactory’s battery output as it wants?”

        Sorry, but do you have any background with company finances?

        Output expansion in EV batteries requires lots of capital.

        Compare the annual cap-ex budgets of large car makers and Tesla.

        Who can build or pre-order (JV structure with a battery supplier or similar) more batteries if needed within 5-10 or 15 years?

        PS: Did you have a look what just happened at Musk’s “other” company SCTY after Q results?

        Cheap and easy credit fueled TSLA and STCY stock gains and secondaries.

        No more easy access to capital and falling stock prices will plop the bubble when the environment turns. Welcome to 2016!

        1. tftf says:

          should read in PS: “…when the MACRO environment turns SOUR (same for credit markets in 2016).”

        2. ffbj says:

          I turned sour after reading this load of tripe.

        3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          tftf said:

          “Sorry, but do you have any background with company finances?”

          I’m sure it’s less than yours. Frankly I treasure my ignorance of the subject, but due to heavy investor participation on the now-defunct TheEEStory forum, on which I was one of the most frequent post-ers (under the screen name “Lensman”), I was forced to learn a lot more than I wished. Other than that, I’m just applying common sense here, plus critical thinking… and an objectivity you don’t possess.

          How is your batting average for predicting the performance of Tesla Motors, tftf? And I mean the company, not the stock price. Not so good, is it? Mine is much better than yours. My observations, deductions, and opinions of Tesla’s (not TSLA’s) performance isn’t biased by a negative financial interest, as is yours.

          “Output expansion in EV batteries requires lots of capital.”

          Yup, the Gigafactory 1 project is estimated to cost $5 billion when completed, and that’s without any cost overruns.

          “Compare the annual cap-ex budgets of large car makers and Tesla… Who can build or pre-order (JV structure with a battery supplier or similar) more batteries if needed within 5-10 or 15 years?”

          Your argument boils down to “Large auto makers can do things that Tesla can’t because they have deeper pockets.” But that truism holds for every tech revolution, yet it’s never, never the legacy market leaders which push forward the revolution. They always have too much invested in the old tech.

          Could GM build out battery production capacity faster than Tesla? Could they build 10 Gigafactories in the time it will take Tesla to build just one? Sure, if they wanted to. But they don’t want to. In fact, GM and other large legacy auto makers have a strong disincentive to produce compelling plug-in EVs in large numbers, because they don’t want to make cars which will compete with their own most popular gasmobiles.

          All this has been explained to you many times, tftf. Why do you keep spouting the same ol’, same ol’ discredited FUD? Because you want to, that’s why. Because you’re not interested in Truth, you’re just interested in promoting your short TSLA stock position.

          * * * * *

          A couple of quotes from others…

          “Tesla envy happens when other people have, ahem, long positions and yours is too short.” — Jim Whitehead

          “Until we see Audi, Mercedes, VW, Toyota, GM, Ford deliver a BEV that similarly dusts their own top-of-line ICE product in performance AND value for money, there will be no effective BEV competition for Tesla. And this isn’t going to happen for a LONG time, not for technical reasons, but because ICE carmakers cannot remain viable companies if they start killing off their highest margin products. The ICE carmakers will put batteries into version of their products for the customers who ask for ‘the electric one’. They will build low-end, compliance BEVs to earn the ZEV credits they need without cannibalizing their high-end ICEs. They will build hybrids and PHEVs to get their CAFE and CO2 g/km numbers. But they aren’t going to deliberately kill off their top profit making products just to compete with Tesla — at least not until Tesla gets a whole lot bigger than they are now.” — Randy Carlson

  16. Ryan Turner says:

    Two words…

    Bull s***

    You can’t price out a car that is likely 2+ years from delivery and not even out of the mold. Elon promised buyers of the Roadster that it would be available for something like 75k, people that had reservations, and they ended up having to pay over 100k to take delivery (if my memory serves me correctly). I think this car, when optioned appropriately, will be over 50k pre incentives.

    1. Ryan Turner says:

      Oh yeah, one other important dig. Why don’t you ask the purchasers of the lower end Model X how things are going with their reservation? Sure, Elon, will sell you a base Model 3, but 2 years after launch. Otherwise, get in line to spend over 50k for the loaded model. I am going to guess the top end will sell around 60k, as he is likely going to option everything that is standard equipment on the S to the model 3.

      1. Anti Lord Kelvin says:

        This is there only way to survive and spur. Selling high margin versions to have the money to built the low margin versions. One more time, they are not century old established car makers with deep pockets fruit of cheating tailpipe emissions!

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Why single Tesla out for following industry standard? Industry standard is to cite the MSRP price, which is the base model, lowest possible full retail price for a car.

        If Tesla did otherwise, if Tesla cited a price for a “well equipped” car, that would mislead people into thinking the average price would be even higher than it will be.

        It’s almost like a lot of people posting here actually want Tesla to fail…

    2. Speculawyer says:

      It is the Elon Musk way. You aim high and shoot for the stars . . . literally in the case of SpaceX.

      And the results are generally either:
      1) A GREAT product that is delivered a bit late and a bit over budget; or
      2) A crash & burn (again, literally in the case of SpaceX . . . and I guess literally in the case of the Model S too! 😉 ) that they learn a lot from such that the product is revised into result (1).

    3. sven says:

      Actually, bullsh*t is one word. 😉

      ” alt=”” />

    4. Anti Lord Kelvin says:

      Well, I think you should be…kinder on that, after all, that was their…first time!:) Not a century old car maker with ten of thousands engineers with decades of experience and engineering of ICE, and hundreds of suppliers handing them with their skills and low cost stuff, fruit of decades of mass production and business done together.

  17. Bro1999 says:

    Don’t forget the 1200 doc fee.

    1. Breezy says:

      That’s right. It’s $35,000, non-negotiable, plus some still unspecified freight and documentation charge. Likely $1200 like the S and X.

    2. Speculawyer says:

      doc fee? What is that? The vehicle title? License & registration? The owner’s manual?

      1. Bro1999 says:

        The 1200 delivery fee Tesla tacks on to each order.

        1. Speculawyer says:

          Do you have to pay it if you pick up at the factory?

  18. Ct200h says:

    They must allow base model orders or it will be blasted as a failure to deliver

  19. Jonathan B says:

    I’m sure I’m not the first one to catch this, but there’s no way the $2500 state rebate will still be around when I take delivery of my Model 3, so it’s not $25K in CA.

    1. M Hovis says:

      It could be. “As it stands today, the US EV credit phase out begins at the start of the second calendar quarter after the manufacturer has sold 200,000 eligible plug-in electric. So potentially there could be up to 6 further months of credits regardless of the amount sold, followed by 6 months at 50%, and another 6 months at 25%

      TMC’s production will be well over 100,000 by 2018. Unknown where it will be by 2019, but some credits may be in effect in the 200,000 production range unless someone trumps the credits….

      1. Josh says:

        You are taking the $7500 Fed rebate, he is taking $2500 CA state rebate.

  20. Someone out there says:

    They will probably do everything they can to get to the $35k level, skimping on everything.

    Most likely it will be the same thing as with the model S 40 kWh version, the $35k version will be such a low performer that nobody wants to buy it and then they will remove that level shortly after release because of “low demand”.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      The kind of bait-and-switch snow job you’re suggesting might work in a point-scoring Internet argument, but it sure ain’t gonna convince car buyers to part with their hard-earned money.

      Tesla says it wants to compete on price and features with the BMW 3-series. Edmunds.com says the average sale price for a 3-series is $35,159. Tesla had better be prepared to sell actual Model ≡’s for not much more than that, or it will price the car out of its intended market.

      Personally, I think you’re being too cynical about Tesla. It’s easy in hindsight to say the Model S40 wouldn’t sell, but Tesla doesn’t have any crystal ball allowing it to see the future. The only way to see what people would buy is to offer it and see what would happen.

      Now, it’s understandable that you’d be cynical about Tesla’s claims. They do use hype to a sometimes shocking extent. But I don’t think the S40 was the con job you seem to think it was.

      In fact, I think it’s rather absurd to suggest Tesla would have wasted all that money, not to mention the hit to public relations, developing a version of the car which it would have to almost immediately cancel due to very low demand.

      1. Someone out there says:

        They can say whatever they want, talking is cheap. We won’t know until we see it. However, they have done so before so it’s not something new for them (the S 40). The $35k price point is a tough one for any car manufacturer and they won’t be able to back out of it now.

  21. Of cause they must name the price without incentives, because it will be delayed and delayed and delayed and then only a handful founders editions will be delivered, before all the state incentives have run out.

  22. ModernMarvelFan says:

    Yes, the base version will be $35K and after building signature editions for 6 months at $60K each, Tesla will cancel the base $35K version due to “low demand”.

    The “new” base trim will start at $42K. LOL.

    I think this effectively killed off BMW i3 more than the Chevy Bolt.

    At least the Chevy Bolt got 200+ range and you can haggle at dealers with a lot of discounts which will have a lower potential price than $35K.

    1. ffbj says:

      Hardly likely.

  23. Ct200h says:

    Tesla must take different approach on the model 3 . Building Signature or founders cars or whatever for a year at 55 to $65,000 each will be a brand disaster!!!!!!
    After touting 35k blatantly for years and taking reservations , no way .
    It would be a huge blunder.
    They need to offer anyone who puts a deposit down.a base model if that’s what they want and build them along with the loaded models in a reasonable time.
    To do otherwise is wrong considering what they have promised.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      I see a lot of wishful thinking going on here, in this and similar posts.

      Reality check: Most, or nearly all, of those making early Model ≡ reservations will have to wait years to get their car.

      Given that reality, why in the world would Tesla not give priority to those ordering the most expensive versions of the car? To do otherwise would actually encourage early adopters to order a less expensive version… which means Tesla would make less profit.

      It would be stupid of Tesla to do that, and I don’t think they’re stupid.

  24. Ocean Railroader says:

    I’ll believe this after I see Big Foot driving a car. Or if we find a high tech underwater society of mermaids living under the sea.

  25. Mister G says:

    GO TESLA GO

  26. Ziv says:

    GM has shown us the Bolt. Elon says that they may show us a picture of part of a III in a couple months. So the Bolt and the III are coming out within a couple months of each other!
    And Elon should be considered to be telling the truth of pricing on the III a couple YEARS out when he was less than accurate in the past.
    The III is going to be very nice car. In 2018 when you can actually have one delivered. For $45k before tax credit. And when is Tesla going to run out of tax credits… Oh.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      It’s not like Tesla hasn’t addressed this issue. Tesla is well aware that price is critically important in this market segment. They know they can’t deliver a car priced much higher than what they’re currently touting, and still sell ~400,000 per year.

      If during development it starts to look like the Model ≡ will be much more expensive than $35k for the base model, Tesla will redesign the car to be cheaper. That may cause a delay in getting the car into production, which would be no surprise, but we can be reasonably sure the base price for the Model ≡ won’t be much over $40k, at the most.

    2. Koenigsegg says:

      Ok but look at the Bolt. What the ****is that thing?

      It is not good looking nor compelling.

      No one is going to go “Damn, thats one badass car” ..people say that when they see a Tesla.

      Bolt looks like a car dweebs would drive, no style

      1. Adam says:

        Bolt looks fine for what it is, it’s just a tough sell against a Model 3 for virtually the same price. It’s really irrelevant anyway, Model 3 will force the others to improve.

        Bolt would be good for 25k, but there is the long distance charging network issue…

        1. ffbj says:

          As in there is none.

    3. Josh says:

      Tesla has never “revealed” a vehicle reveal that was just pictures. Even the Model S and Model X reveals were real vehicles. The Model S rolled, but couldn’t be test driven. The Model X reveal allowed some test rides, albeit at low speeds. P85D was also test rides after the reveal, with partially functioning AutoPilot.

      If Model 3 isn’t driven onto stage, I would be pretty disappointed.

  27. Nix says:

    There are a lot of comparisons out there between the $35K price for the Model 3 and the $38K price of the Bolt.

    Well, you can’t really compare those numbers directly. Because Tesla doesn’t have an “MSRP” that they suggest for dealerships. They just have an “MP” (Manufacture’s Price).

    Short of a few discounts here and there, Tesla’s are sold at the price they say it will cost, because they don’t have dealerships to change the price.

    Meanwhile, cars with MSRP’s rarely sell for full MSRP. A few thousand off of MSRP is pretty normal. So I wouldn’t be surprised if in the real world the Model 3 and the Bolt will be near the same price out the door.

    1. Murrysville EV says:

      Excellent point.

    2. Trollnonymous says:

      Stealerships often put a “Markup” on products that are “In Demand”.
      Remember when the Volt came out?

      Stealerships tacked on more than $5K on the car. Some even slapped on $9K.

      Yup, That’ll sell the cars!!!

      1. Nix says:

        Trolly — You are indeed correct.

        Based on your comments, I would like to officially revise my previous post.

        Everything I said will only apply after, say, maybe 6 months? Only after GM dealers get done knocking the heads off as many whales as they can manage to screw for “Additional Dealer Profit”.

        Only after they are done doing that will my earlier post become true. Thanks for the post.

  28. Alex says:

    And i am wondering how many people say $ 30-40k dollar is “cheap”. In Europe you get a brand new Renault Zoe for around $24k before incentives (18.000 Dollar with battery rental). Sure a small car but $35k dollar is much more. Also Bolt is expensive, a Leaf SV is around $33k in Europe and sure will get a bigger battery when Nissan switch to LG, so around 5.000 cheaper than a Bolt. I prefer all under $25k before incentives, cars are money graves.

    1. jelloslug says:

      I just priced a ZOE on the UK site and the base model came out to just under $27k with less standard equipment than a Leaf S.

  29. Telsa Hater says:

    GM will blow Telsa out of the market because of market timing. It’s no longer cute to drag your feet because you thing your product is superior. Telsa skipped marketing 101.

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/2893356-gm-to-deliver-inexpensive-200-mile-ev-2-years-ahead-of-tesla?page=2

    1. ffbj says:

      Just a sad reflection on our educational system.

  30. Mario Landry says:

    Souhaitons simplement que les portières soit comme pour le modèle S.

    Les portes suicides sont totalement inappropriés et non adaptées aux familles et aux besoins de la masse. Un concept totalement dépassé tant qu’à moi.

    Si le modèle 3 à des portes suicides… Tesla vient de perdre 2 ventes.

    Pour le prix, 35 000 $ US avant l’incitatif, c’est déjà bien

    320 km d’autonomie réelle ou plus. (Je mise sur le 350 à 400 km)

    Les garanties? Un élément important et qui reste à connaître.

    L’accès aux SuperCharger? Option à l’achat et gratuit par la suite ou à l’utilisation?

    J’ai hâte au dévoilement à la mi-mars.

    1. Murrysville EV says:

      Good point about suicide doors; I don’t like them, either.

  31. PVH says:

    If (and only if) Tesla is able in a near future to produce a reliable Model X in planned quantities and make profits doing so then indeed there is about, let say, a 20% chance Tesla can produce a $35K Tesla 3 on time and be cash flow positive doing it. Whether we on this site do or not believe this is possible is totally irrelevant as it will be Tesla institutional investors that will need to be convinced to carry on on that boat.

  32. Mockasin says:

    I’m sure Tesla will present an excellent car with a very competitive battery package.

    My concern though is that other companies like Nissan, BMW and Chevrolet seem to increasingly use CFRP to keep the weight down, and so far we’ve not seen Tesla using it at all.

  33. Aaron says:

    The BMW 3-series (Tesla’s self-proclaimed target) starts at $33K.

    For that price, you get a 2.0 liter i4 turbo engine (180hp), faux leather seats, automatic transmission, halogen headlights, non-metallic paint, manually-adjustable seats, and Bluetooth. And a destination charge of $995.

    Expect to see the same level of equipment on the base Model 3. Smaller motor, basic paint, etc.

    1. Mister G says:

      $33k for a gas guzzling-toxic-poison machine or $35k for a clean machine? I’ll take the clean machine 🙂

  34. bro1999 says:

    Remember, the actual price of the Model 3 will be $35k PLUS whatever destination/delivery fee Tesla tacks on.

    They charge $1,200 for the Model S and X….you can probably expect a similar fee for the 3.

    So the $35k base price tag will actually be more like $36,200.

    The Bolt EV’s $37,500 MSRP listed on its official website includes fine print that says the price is inclusive of the destination freight charge.

    1. Trollnonymous says:

      Right, and dealers never put a “Markup” on new cars that are “In Demand”……

      Puhleeese……..

  35. carcus says:

    Tesla’s autopilot is miles ahead of the competition when it comes to highway driving. Once people figure out how much they want it, it’s going to be an important “driver” for Tesla sales.

    1. Ryan Turner says:

      It is not ‘miles ahead.’ That is just what Tesla folks think. Tesla doesn’t make the autopilot system. They integrate with a system that also makes systems for BMW and other makers. For example, the i3 with adaptive cruise control stop/go does everything the tesla auto pilot does except steer. In Europe, they actually allow the steering in low speed situations. Bottom line, Tesla is just pushing the limits a bit more and less risk averse, but they aren’t doing things that other manufacturers couldn’t do quickly (in regards to auto pilot)

      1. carcus says:

        “The sedan that begs to differ is this test’s clear winner. With utmost confidence and only two cautions from legal counsel—“Always keep your hands on the wheel. Be prepared to take over at any time”—the Tesla Model S locks onto the path ahead with a cruise missile’s determination and your hands resting on your lap. ”

        Semi-Autonomous Cars Compared! Tesla Model S vs. BMW 750i, Infiniti Q50S, and Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG

        http://www.caranddriver.com/features/semi-autonomous-cars-compared-tesla-vs-bmw-mercedes-and-infiniti-feature

      2. carcus says:

        …. add,

        “When a reporter asked Musk during the media Q&A what made his company’s autopilot service different than other computer-based driving assistance features that competing big auto makers are working on, Musk emphasized learning.

        “The whole Tesla fleet operates as a network. When one car learns something, they all learn it. That is beyond what other car companies are doing,” said Musk. When it comes to the autopilot software, Musk explained that each driver using the autopilot system essentially becomes an “expert trainer for how the autopilot should work.”

        How Tesla is ushering in the age of the learning car
        http://fortune.com/2015/10/16/how-tesla-autopilot-learns/

        1. Get Real says:

          Excellent job in schooling Ryan Turner on the facts rather then his persistent, whining anti-Tesla Fud!

          1. Ryan Turner says:

            You are just buying into the hype. It is ACC-Stop and Go with lane holding. His only ‘innovation’ is the lane changing. It is based on Mobileye technology, the exact same thing that is in many other OEMs.

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Ryan Turner said:

        “…Tesla is just pushing the limits a bit more and less risk averse, but they aren’t doing things that other manufacturers couldn’t do quickly…”

        You’re attempting to belittle what is the most important characteristic of tech revolution leaders: The willingness to jump in where more cautious older companies, with more to lose, don’t.

        That’s why legacy market leaders always, always lag behind during a disruptive tech revolution. It’s why Kodak went bankrupt during the digital camera revolution. It’s why the Stanley Motor Carriage company, manufacturer of the once best-selling Stanley Steamer, is no longer in business.

        Could legacy auto makers make plug-in EVs as compelling as the Tesla Model S? Could they make them in even greater numbers than Tesla is? Sure, if they actually wanted to.

        They don’t want to.

      4. Heisenberght says:

        Does everything except steer…

        I guess that is enough difference to call the Tesla system superior.

      5. carcus says:

        The other big advantage “market share gaining” Tesla has over the established car makers is that Tesla appears to be willing to allow upgrades to their “rolling laptop”. The established “market-share protecting” car makers will not. They (with the possible exception of Honda?) would prefer a very slow roll-out of autonomous driving features — enticing you to trade up for next year’s slightly improved model — and they want to see this tech very slowly trickle down from the expensive models.

        /I suppose where my opinion differs from most others is the importance I put on the highway capable auto-pilot. I just think it’s a huge deal and just like cruise control — only much more so — nobody’s going to be able to sell a car without it in a few years.

  36. John says:

    I like Tesla a lot and I wish it wasn’t but it is way early to promise anything firm on price. Bottom line is that I’ll believe this and a lot of other things when I see them.

  37. Rick says:

    I really wish you’d stop using the term “unwashed masses”. It’s a little bit offensive and somewhat elitist. EVs are having a difficult enough time appealing to the mass market, without it coming off as a vehicle driven by people who refer to those who don’t as the unwashed masses.

Leave a Reply