310-Mile Tesla Model 3 Becomes New Dollar-Per-Mile EV Champ At $141.94

Tesla Model 3

JUL 31 2017 BY ERIC LOVEDAY 98

Prior to the release of the specs for the Tesla Model 3, the Chevrolet Bolt was the leading electric car in terms of dollars-per-mile of range.

At $157.54 dollars-per-mile of electric range, the Bolt was leaps and bounds ahead of its next closest competitor, the Hyundai IONIQ Electric at $237.90.

But with the unveiling of the Model 3, including “soft” pricing info and range figures, we now see that the Bolt has some solid competition in the dollar-per-mile race.

In fact, the longer range version (310 miles) of the Model 3 has jumped to the #1 spot (see Bloomberg’s chart below):

Price Per Mile – 310-Mile Model 3 Now #1 – Via Bloomberg

At $141.94, the 310-mile Model 3 is now easily in the lead. Even the standard (220-mile) Model 3 is nipping at the heels of the Bolt. These three EVs are really all alone atop this chart and will be until perhaps the next-generation Nissan LEAF is fully unveiled and its spec are announced in early September.

Tesla has yet to disclose battery pack sizing for its two versions of the Model 3, so we can’t do a price-per-kWh comparison that includes the 3, but we reckon it places well on that chart too.

Source: Bloomberg

Categories: Tesla

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

98 Comments on "310-Mile Tesla Model 3 Becomes New Dollar-Per-Mile EV Champ At $141.94"

newest oldest most voted

Do the S & X generally easily exceed their rates ranges in regular use, as all of GM’s EV/PHEV’s do?

I’m not being facetious, I actually want to know.

Ugh, really wish I could edit for spelling…

What I like to remind people is that the winter/summer mix anywhere besdies CA is going to affect this by about 15%. So Tesla M3 75 kWh will be more like 270 mi range combined with heater and battery conditioning on both extreme temp sides.

This is not the same in a Volt, yet another win for the PHEV. Batteries just are not there yet.

I own a 2014 Rav4 EV (Tesla) and a 2014 Volt Premium.

My wife and I have two real EVs and while we’re are in California, we are in a rather hot part. The range in summer isn’t affected that terribly. In freezing climates, the Model S faired fine.

Merely repeating false claims doesn’t make them true.

Summer driving in an EV does not result in anything close to a 15% hit to range.

I live in about the hottest place around, my climate control consumes less than 5% of my power use and in the summer on both the EVs I’ve used here I notice no reduction in range in the summer.

I’m in CT, so I see 95F & 0F throughout the year. It’s pretty rare for either my G1 Volt or Spark EV to get under their EPA ranges. And in summer they easily exceed their EPA rated ranges by 15-20%.

The fair-weather long-distance test drives of the Bolt also seem to indicate it’s very easy to exceed its EPA range.

I’m curious if Teslas act similarly and easily exceed their rated range?

It’s very speed dependent. If most of your driving is at low speeds, you get more mileage.

See ‘hyper-miling’ for extreme form of this, you can get almost 500 miles in a Model S, driving on a flat road at 25 MPH.

https://www.theverge.com/2015/8/26/9210607/tesla-hypermiling-model-s-p85d

The advice “YMMV” (Your Mileage May Vary) applies equally to EVs and gasmobiles, so what one person gets may not apply to you. If you’re a lead-footed driver who always drives a bit (or more) over the speed limit wherever possible, accelerates away from a stop as fast as possible, and drives at full speed as close to a red light or stop sign as possible before slamming on the brakes, then you will get less range than someone who drives more cautiously, accelerates gently, and coasts to a stop whenever possible. But to try to answer your question: There was a discussion in an InsideEVs comment thread just the other day about the Model 3’s range vs. the Bolt EV’s range. They said Tesla cars in general are optimized more for highway driving than city driving, and the reverse is the case for the Bolt EV. I don’t think anyone using normal driving techniques and keeping up with the traffic is going to achieve the EPA range rating when driving on the highway, let alone “easily exceed the EPA rating as you assert, regardless of whether it’s a Tesla car or a GM car. Someone using hypermiling techniques and/or… Read more »

That’s fair. A lot of my highway driving is on I95 and with traffic I’m probably only averaging 50mph.

But, if I remember correctly, almost all of the independent reviewers who did the original Bolt test drives were able finish a ~230 mile course with more than 30 miles range remaining. This guys did particularly well:

http://insideevs.com/ride-along-as-the-chevrolet-bolt-goes-240-miles-with-50-miles-of-charge-remaining-video/

I’d be curious to see how the M3 fares on that same course.

“But, if I remember correctly, almost all of the independent reviewers who did the original Bolt test drives were able finish a ~230 mile course with more than 30 miles range remaining. This guys did particularly well:” You’re referring to a case where some independent drivers were driving along an exact pre-set route carefully chosen by GM/Chevy to maximize range, at least partially (if not mostly) along scenic highways with a lower speed limit than normal highways. I give credit to GM and/or Chevy for mounting a clever PR campaign, but as with hypermiling, that has little to do with how well the car performs in typical real-world driving. I looked at Edmunds.com, because they do their own MPG/range ratings, and they are doing a long-term driving test with a Bolt EV. But if they’ve ever specified an “official” Edmunds.com range rating, I can’t find it. Too bad, because I think that’s about as authoritative as we can get for real-world range testing. I did find this at Car & Driver: We’ve already verified that the Bolt will actually cover 238 miles during a leisurely jaunt up the California coast that left us with an indicated 34 miles of remaining… Read more »

The used Leaf we got last year comes in around $135/mile of range, beating even the Model 3. πŸ™‚

If you want to play that game, my Spark EV cost $6000 brand-new after taxes & tax credit. That’s $73/mile.

It illustrates a good point though. Most people don’t pay MSRP for any EV except a Tesla. So, the average selling price of a bae Bolt would be less than shown.

I heard a 2011 Leaf owner PAID a scrap company $300 to haul away his severely degraded Leaf. That’s like -$4.1/mile. Does that win? Lol

How and when did you get that deal?

I’m looking forward to a deal like that on my future Bolt!

In November 2016. Dealer in MD was super motivated to get rid of a 2015 leftover. Sold it to me for $12.5k. I had to pay sales tax on that amount, but got $7500 federal tax credit. Net’d to about $6k.

I’m also looking forward to fire sale prices on the Bolt. If GM doesn’t get on the ball it won’t take more than a year or two.

Great deal!

Yes, it’ll be nice to get a cheap Bolt in a year or two.

Not by much. And you are stuck with an old and ugly leaf…

You could buy 4-5 lightly-used Leafs (with all bars) for the price of one new Model 3. OP was about cost, after all.

4-5 Leafs sounds about right to get the same number of miles as you would out of a Tesla (estimated 484,669 miles).

http://insideevs.com/do-tesla-batteries-last-forever/ (no)

The $44k price tag of the 310 mile 3 does not include the likely $1,200 destination freight charge Tesla charges on all its cars.

The Bolt’s $37,495 price tag incldues the ~$800 DFC.

So the 3’s true $ per mile figure is actually $145.81. Still in the lead, but not as quite as big a margin.

And since only $49k+ 3’s have been delivered so far, the Bolt still leads the “actually delivered” $/mile standings. πŸ™‚

We don’t talk about inconvenient Tesla truths around here. Don’t remember any GM people talking about manufacturing he’ll or not having door hinges that work. Tesla is awesome and getting worse but a little more clear eyed analysis here would help. If GM made total fewer than 200 vehicles in two months starting 10 grand more than promise they would be crucified. And by the way a year ago Musk was promising 30k pre tax credit

Getting BETTER not worse. Subconscious taking over?

Tom continued his Tesla bashing:

“We don’t talk about inconvenient Tesla truths around here.”

Tesla hating trolls seem to have a rather different definition of “truth” than the rest of us.

“And by the way a year ago Musk was promising 30k pre tax credit”

That’s a good example of what a troll like you calls “truth”: It’s a flat out lie.

Tesla has been very consistent in promising a $35k base trim level Model 3 before any tax rebate or other incentives.

Tom – “And by the way a year ago Musk was promising 30k pre tax credit”

Link to source please.

No Tesla 3’s have been delivered. The launch event handed a bunch of engineering validation cars over to internal employees, for what appears to be a strictly limited closed beta.
Technically these people are customers, but NDA’d to hilt and probably won’t keep the same vehicles for long.

Anyone seen a Model 3 Monroney sticker? Aren’t those legally required to officially sell any car in the US?

Or perhaps the NDA’s Tesla had its employees sign forbid them from even sharing that.

There is no sticker. They were granted exemption from EPA to use some undisclosed temporary label for under 100 cars.
torquenews.com/1083/teslas-official-model-3-epa-data-will-be-one-month-late

They are months away from production line and real sales yet, these 30 are just manually assembled validation cars.

It is a sham that those first 30 units are officially considered “deliveries”, even though we STILL don’t know basic info about the Model 3 (battery size, detailed performance specs, what the base model looks like or if it has power seats, etc….). Not even a Monroney sticker for crying out loud.

I rather imagine those happy Model 3 owners, who are driving their cars today, consider their deliveries to be quite “real”.

But hey, don’t stop your frustrated and impotent Tesla bashing; it’s quite entertaining to watch you Tesla-hating trolls whine, gnash your teeth and vent your rage at the fact that Tesla delivered the Model 3 on time!

Gosh darn that #@%^* Tesla Inc.! Why does it keep stubbornly refusing to go bankrupt like we trolls keep predicting it will?!

πŸ˜€ πŸ˜€ πŸ˜€

Go Tesla!

I absolutely want them to survive. Musk is already putting CCS fast chargers in his stations. I will gladly pay him a premium for ubiquitous, working fast chargers. He could be the next Exxon, even if the car doesn’t replace my econobox. πŸ™‚

a zzzzzzzzz said: “There is no sticker.”

Wrong. Read your own source.

They absolutely do have a sticker. They have a provisional sticker that was APPROVED by the EPA for a limited number of SALES. These stickers contain all the information from the manufacture that will appear on the final sticker (once confirmed by Scott Pruitt’s EPA).

EPA has not yet verified Tesla’s testing data. They say they’ll have it in a month. Until then, they allowed Tesla to deliver a limited number of Model 3s, something the regs apparently permit them to do.

I hope they change the range to 314 miles, not 310. 310 makes no sense, seems to have come from someone who was doing 420, but had their hand one digit to the left when typing.

So basically you are celebrating how Tesla’s 3-Series competitor has only a marginal value advantage compared to your Sonic competitor that comes with neither quick charge capabilities to speak off nor Supercharger support?

Bit sad….

Point out anything inaccurate in my above statement. I have a sun dial ready.

You mean how that $37,496 doesn’t actually include the quick charge option (using that term very loosely indeed)as you suggest? LT+ quick charging is actually $38,245.

Screen shots of the Model 3 configuration page show the destination and doc fee is $1000, not $1,200. You also fail to account for GM Dealership doc fee that the vast majority of dealerships charge, that is actually included in the Tesla delivery and doc fee. If you are going to compare delivery and doc fee for both that is bundled in Tesla’s $1,000 dollar delivery and doc fee, you have to add back in something for dealer doc fees. That is typically around $500 in my region, give or take a few hundred. Dealer doc fees are the norm, and any example of a dealer who doesn’t charge doc fees is the exception that proves the rule. In the majority of purchases, the Bolt Delivery fee (charged by GM) and the Doc fee (charged by the dealership) will actually be HIGHER than the single $1,000 dollar combined delivery and doc fee charged by Tesla. _____________________________________ You will probably now move the goal-posts and ignore you’ve been debunked. You will likely start arguing discounted prices as a means to pivot. In that case, we have to look at the fact that GM doesn’t pass through the full $7500 tax credit… Read more »

Ok, I’ll give you the $80 CA doc fee (since all 3 deliveries have been in CA so far, let’s compare CA fees) and the $200 less DFC fee the 3 has compared to the S/X. That’s $299 or 97 cents/mile difference. Big deal there.

I actually purchased my Bolt outright and received the full $7,500 federal tax credit on my income taxes. The only fees I paid outside of the aforementioned $80 doc fee were the registration fees and taxes which everyone pays. Absolutely nothing else.
I also got a $1k dealer discount (even though Bolts literally just become available) along with $250 in GM card earnings.

Now you can easily get a Bolt for several thousand off MSRP (though the detractors will say it is because the Bolt is DOA and not selling). Even tossing in the $750 fast charging option, the average transaction price of a base Bolt will be WELL below the no discounts Model 3.

Now I’ll await your counters saying I will be killed on resale value for purchasing, no Supercharging network for my city car Bolt, and all that nonsense.

Again, the exception proves the rule. The reality is that the vast majority of Volt buyers will have to pay roughly $500 in additional doc/handling/etc dealer fees, give or take a few hundred dollars. Do you have any information to contradict this trend in the automotive industry? Because what YOU did is meaningless for statistical purposes.

________________________________

The fact that YOU bought a car instead of leasing doesn’t change at all what GM does to people trying to lease, and it doesn’t change the reality that by a vast margin, EV purchasers prefer to lease vs. buy. Do you actually have something to contradict this reality, instead of just trying to dodge the issue?

You are the one who brought up the issue, so saying the issue is trivial once you are proven wrong says more about you than anything else.

And no one should pay MSRP for a Bolt after initial intro, so the costs are even lower.

Reports were that Chevy dealers in some rural areas were putting an upcharge on the Bolt EV as much as $5000. Has that practice already stopped?

Somehow I doubt it.

I guess there’s an a$$ for every seat. I know some people are impatient overpay at vehicle launch. But, anyone doing it now is a fool.

For good or bad Tesla’s pricing is fixed, while anyone with a brain can easily get 5-10% off MSRP for any Chevy.

I actually like Tesla’s fixed pricing. But don’t agree with comparing that price to the MSRP of a dealer-based car. If average sale price for the base model of a dealer-based car isn’t available than an accurate comparison is not possible.

To be fair, that $5000 upcharge was likely an extreme outlier data point, not anywhere near the norm or the average.

Was going to say the same and we don’t even know what the M3 destination charge will be; popular theory is it will actually increase from $50-$300 for all Tesla vehicles…

With all that being said, it’s certainly possible to get a Bolt cheaper than a Tesla and high odds the Bolt will have a much lease deal…

Screen shots from Tesla’s Model 3 configuration tool show that the destination and doc fee is actually lower at $1,000 dollars.

Keep in mind that Tesla’s Destination and Doc fee combines two different fees that most Bolt buyers will have to pay. A Destination Freight Charge of $875 charged by GM, and a Doc/extra profit fee charged by most dealerships.

So if you are comparing Tesla’s $1,000 dollar Destination and Doc fee, the correct comparison is to GM/dealer combined Destination and Doc fees, possibly as low as $875, but more likely somewhere between $1,100 to $1,500 in total.

Thanks for that…

The $37,495 Bolt doesn’t even include DCFC or navigation.

No navigation?

How are your going to drive a Model 3 without a smartphone which, surprise, surprise, has NAVIGATION.

Connect iPhone to USB port, turn on Carplay, great navigation.

It does include Android Auto and Apple Carplay standard. Those aren’t even options on any Tesla.

“The Bolt’s $37,495 price tag incldues the ~$800 DFC.”

Troll liar.

From “DC FAST CHARGING CAPABILITY
$750
This available option allows you to charge your Bolt EV at publically available DC Fast Charging stations
Up to 90 miles of range in about 30 minutes of charge1”

http://www.chevrolet.com/byo-vc/client/en/US/chevrolet/bolt-ev/2017/bolt-ev/exterior/option/CBT

DFC = DESTINATION FREIGHT CHARGE. I only spelled it out in the previous sentence.

Stay in school, kids. Don’t be a speculawyer. πŸ˜‰

Precisely. But hey anything to skew the results in Tesla’s favor.

Not to mention you can get a Bolt for well under MSRP these days πŸ˜€

Go lease a Bolt and get a few thousand dollars off, and they keep a few thousand dollars of the $7500 federal tax credit because they don’t pass on the full credit to the consumer.

For the typical EV customer who prefers to lease their cars, the price discounts are a ruse. They make you feel good getting a few thousand dollar discount on the price, and then GM quitely keeps a few thousand dollars on the back end of the lease.

I suppose if you fall for it and never know the better then you would feel great about the supposed “great deal” you got from GM…

Yep, paying full price is always better than getting a discount. Because Elon needs all the money he can get to impress shareholders. Lol

bro1999

Please try to keep up. You aren’t actually getting discount of thousands when they reduce the price, and then keep thousands of the $7500 federal incentive.

Follow the money (round numbers used to make it easy for you:

$37,500 Bolt with $4K discount, GM only passes through $3,500 of the fed incentive and keeps the rest.
== $30K for your Bolt.

$37,500 Tesla with wheels and paint, no discount, the full fed incentive of $7,500 passed through in the lease.
== $30K

Your $4K “discount” on a leased Bolt just evaporated into thin air, like it never happened.

I’m sorry you are so easily tricked by slight of hand by what gets hidden in the lease numbers.

In the worst case scenario, you could effectively pay MORE than MSRP with Federal tax incentive factored in. Essentially one could end up DOUBLE PAYING above MSRP on top of what GM got back for YOUR federal tax incentive. Let’s say you lease a car and get the Chevrolet Select Market Incremental CCR Program $3,250 discount in CA. You think you saved $3,250 off. Great Discount! WIN! But let’s add up what GM got for the car. They get your $7,500 Federal Tax credit, and let’s say they kept $4K for themselves and gave you the rest. With a price of $37500 (rounded for easy math) let’s see how much GM collects. $35,250 from you after huge $3,250 discount +$4,000 of your federal tax credit from the gov’t ————————— $39,250 That’s GM just leasing you a $37,500 dollar car, and pocketing $39,250 in total for the car. Between you and the balance of your federal tax credit going into their pocket instead of yours, you’ve just paid nearly $2K OVER MSRP!!! Now if you didn’t notice being pick-pocketed because it is hidden in the lease paperwork, you would walk away happy, thinking you got a great discount. Effectively leasing a… Read more »

Oooops! math error, my bad. I apologize to the math gods with ample offerings of fermented grains and hops.

But it doesn’t matter. It is just example numbers to show how you can effectively lease a car for above MSRP even when getting a discount. Even with the math error it is still above MSRP, just by $1,000 less than with the math error.

Talking to yourself like a true Elon groupie. Yeesh.

I was correcting my error, which you should try some time. Like that big fat whopper of a huge lie you told in the Volvo crash story.

Every time you post without having the courage to simply correct a huge massive error, the bigger the hole you dig in your credibility.

But here’s a bigger shovel — keep digging.

(oh, and nice job covering your eyes and staying intentionally blind to how Bolt discounts are meaningless for people who lease, and get those discounts taken right back)

I don’t know about the Bolt but on the Volt the GM dealers are playing the same game. I was able to find a few dealers that discounted the fed $ but then they did not reduce the inflated msrp at all…they will suck the fed $ one way or the other.

Do not see the 41 KWH Renault ZOE on the list!

The ZOE is ~ 30 000 EUR in Euripe.
The M3 55 will be probably between 35 000 and 37 000 EUR
The M3 75 will be between 44 000 and 50 000 EUR

Well….you can’t buy a ZOE in dollars. Not available in the USA.

We also don’t have an EPA rating on it so it would be hard to do an Apples to Apples conversion.

“We also don’t have an EPA rating on it so it would be hard to do an Apples to Apples conversion.”

Just what I was thinking. We’d have to use the notoriously exaggerated NEDC European driving cycle range ratings for comparison to the EPA rating, which would be more of an apples-to-Rubik’s-Cubes comparison than an apples-to-apples one.

So best value on EV island but how does it fare in the ICE ocean? Electrec just calculated that the $35K entry level Model 3 compares in terms of option level and performance to a $44K BMW 330i. So not too bad it would appear…

Pure spin! Nobody has gotten a base Model 3 yet. Like I said: We paid $36,509 plus tax, and license fee for a white Bolt LT, with DCFC, and heated seats and steering wheel. That price included all dealer faux charges…everything. If anybody can walk away with a base Model 3 for the price of our Bolt, let alone one in white, with heated seats, I will eat it.

Base model not yet slated until say mid-2018.

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/delivery-dates-just-bumped-up.95145/#post-2223714

They need to finish the 1.82 Billion battery cell minimum contracted order with Panasonic first through end of year 2017. This was the 2014-2017 contract that is highly redacted in past annual reports. 1.82 billion cells is enough for 70,000 Model S 85 kWh packs each year for the four years.

Base model is slated for November 2017. The Model 3 uses Gigafactory cells and Panasonic expects to make profit from the Gigafactory output in Q4.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-panasonic-results-idUSKBN1AG0VC

The Panasonic supplier order is for Osaka output and the S/X still use those cells as well as Tesla Energy used some cells before the Gigafactory started up. At just the 100k run rate for the S/X, the contracted amount will be consumed in Q4.

I think $35k bare bones model will have very low demand :/ It is not clear if it will have power seats or mirrors, ACC, HUD and similar features you can find in Japanese economy compacts at lower price levels. Who would want it without any options?

Tesla CEO should cancel it because of obvious lack of demand soon after it will become obvious to everybody :/ $50-$60 cars with longer range, Premium package and Autopilot are much better deal. They should focus on AWD and Ludicrous mode, that is what all true fans want!

a zzzzzzzzz said: “that is what all true fans want!”

The Model 3 is for the a broader market. It is not a fan car.

“I think $35k bare bones model will have very low demand :/ …Who would want it without any options?”

Rather like the BMW 3-series, eh? Or the Audi A4? Then Tesla did a good job of targeting its intended market segment!

But of course, a Tesla-bashing troll like you, zzzzzzzzz, tries to spin that as if it’s a bad thing. πŸ™„

Go Tesla!

HUD in economy Japanese cars? Really?

One thing the Model 3 won’t be is a ricer-mobile.

I think that’s a positive.

But you can probably stick a tachometer and oil pressure gauge to the dash and have the sound system play the sounds of an over-revved, under-powered 4-cylinder engine if that’s your thing.

I think the base will be in demand. The issue will be Tesla not making enough to satisfy that demand because they’re likely losing money on the stripped version.

Base has power mirrors according to the Press Kit. But no mention that it’s heated. PUP makes them auto-dimming, folding and heated.

No mention of the basic seats being heated or power. However one poster at TMC wrote that the basic textile seats are manual with just the front seats heated. Don’t know whether he’d got some info at the event or just had it wrong. With PUP all seats are heated and the front seats are power-with-memory.

At least the driver’s seat is power with memory.

Bonaire — Please go back and actually read your source. That guy didn’t get a reservation until mid-July 2016. He won’t get his car until mid-2018 because he is around the 400,000th in line. Because months before he made his reservation Tesla was already around 400K:

http://fortune.com/2016/04/15/tesla-model-3-reservations-400000/

Your link is useful, but not for the reason you think. What it actually shows is that Tesla will be making EVEN MORE cars EVEN SOONER than we thought, if they will be serving customer number 400,000+ by mid-2018.

Pretty much the exact opposite of what you intended to post evidence of.

It’s a number – but something consumers would “never get”. Who drives their cars down to 0-miles remaining on a regular basis? It’s like selling ICE cars on volumetric size of their gasoline tanks and saying the 30 Gallon Sub-compact is the best ICE to drive.

No, it’s like the EPA issuing MPG ratings for gasmobiles that everyone knows are almost invariably higher than what the typical driver will get in real-world driving.

I deplete my Volt Battery as much as possible.

I push it close to zero everyday and have been for the last 3 years.

Bonaire — The important part is how many miles can you drive before feeling range anxiety, not that you can push it to zero.

For example, let’s say that person “A” needs to have at least 20 miles of range left on the guess-o-meter when they reach their destination. That makes the USABLE range of an original Leaf around 50 miles or so. Standard TM3 200, Bolt 218, Long TM3 290, etc.

You can plug in whatever you want instead of 20, but the relative gaps between each cars’s usable range will always remain the same.

Hehehe Bonaire , I regularly push the range limits of the BEV battery, nearly running out of juice on my roadster 4 times (and in fact actually running out a mile from my house once).

And with the BOLT ev I pulled into a public charger with 5 minutes left on the heater on high, where I probably had 2 or 3 miles actually left, but wanted to get a capacity figure on the battery, which seems more like 65 kwh since it was drawn down 59.9 kwh and it took 67.77 kwh to recharge it.

I’m pleasantly surprized at the 310 mile ‘3”s pricing, And am sorry GM didn’t think of offering a bigger battery for my car.

For Bolt, GM should’ve offered smaller battery option for lower price. Already, $37.5K ($30K) is way too high for compact hatch with low end of hot-hatch performance. But at $30K ($22.5K) and about 160 miles range, it’d be better than any car out there at that price, like SparkEV was and Tesla 3 is going to be.

Also, by removing a module (or two) from the rear of the car, balance will shift to the front. That will allow better traction, and lighter weight could make it comparable or better in acceleration than base Tesla 3.

LOL. Now the battery is too large?

Yes, Bolt battery is way too large. They should make it 0.001 kWh and lower the price to $22.5K pre-subsidy. *rolls eyes*

There’s no easy way to compete against Tesla 3 with Bolt, but price reduction is very easy to do by reducing the battery (again, PRICE reduction is the goal, not battery reduction). Side benefit of smaller battery with weight shift to front may be quicker than Tesla 3 base.

Then they can market it as “Bolt is cheaper than Tesla 3 by over $12K (post subsidy since plenty of subsidy left for GM), AND it is quicker to 60 MPH!” Of course, that means their $22.5K “nerdy econo-hatch” Bolt will out accelerate most GM “Sports cars”, something they probably won’t do.

If you go to TrueCar, I think you’ll find that average transaction prices are pretty close to $33K, so Bolt is tied with the Model 3 (w/large battery).

Should also point out that we have to take Musk at his word on the range. As far as I know, these are not EPA certified numbers.

It’s true the EPA has not yet verified the range ratings, but the EPA lets each auto maker do its own tests according to EPA’s standards. If what I see reported online is true, then the EPA actually tests only about 15% of new cars every year. So we occasionally get cases such as Ford’s inflated MPG claims for its C-Max and Fusion hybrids, when the EPA has to step in and re-do the testing.

But generally speaking, the EPA’s range ratings seem to match real-world PEV (Plug-in EV) ratings reports pretty well. In fact, they match them significantly better than the EPA’s MPG ratings for gasmobiles match real-world driving reports, and vastly better than the NEDC European MPG and EV range ratings.

Jeremy — I’ve noticed that the 220 and 310 numbers are very conveniently round numbers for range. A nice round 90 mile apart from each other too. Tesla can lawfully voluntarily reduce their range numbers from the actual test results. But they can’t round up. Given the nice clean round numbers, the fact that Tesla doesn’t want to talk battery size in kWh anymore, and the fact that they can round down but not up, I suspect that 220 and 310 are actually marketing numbers that are voluntarily reduced from actual test results. To back up that assertion with historical precedent, Tesla has already done reduced the range rating from the test results previously with both the Model S and X. I actually noticed this when the numbers first came out, but didn’t say anything because I didn’t want to sound like I thought the range was too low (I don’t, it is actually higher than I’ve been expecting). I’m only saying this now because it goes towards your point about the risk of EPA review coming up with a shorter range. My guess is that if they indeed did round down the range, that this would also reduces their… Read more »

Did anybody notice that the standard charger in the base Model E is 32 amps….just like the Bolt?

Yeah I noticed. What the ‘3’s car charger peaks out at though may actually be a bit better than the Bolt ev’s 7200 watts.

I assume the $9000 option gives you the larger battery, and 48 amps with a wallbox, and 40 amps with the ‘larger’ charging cord.

This article left out the new electric Smart ForTwo, which in Uk comes in at around Β£160 per Mile.

The new smart ED isn’t released in the USA yet.

Yes, indeed seen that way, the Model 3 75 wins.

Congrats Tesla on beating the Bolt in price.
Important thing to note is that the Model-3 is much bigger car than Bolt.

15″ monitor speaks for itself.

Why do you need ANY monitor in a car?

Frankly, I use my phone for nav and that’s fine with me. Give me buttons and knobs please.

No monitor means no need for OTA.

It’s really $145.80 per mile as the base Model 3 is $36,200 delivered and the adder for the larger battery is $9.000 for delivered price of $45,200.

You can’t buy a Model 3 for $35,000.

Well, there is a problem with that math too. Two problems actually. 1) Based upon a screen print from a Tesla employee configuring a car with max options, the delivery and doc fee is a bit lower than for the Model S/X. It is $1000 not $1200. (I’ve posted this in the max config story). 2) The $1000 dollar Model 3 delivery and doc fee is actually 2 fees bundled into one. For the vast majority of traditional ICE dealerships, there is a doc/extra profit fee on top of the delivery charge from the manufacturer. The unfortunate reality is that it is literally impossible to do a direct apples to apples comparison. Here are all of the (bad) options: 1) Compare the price without delivery or doc fees. But this rewards car makers/dealerships for charging high delivery and doc fees and distorts the actual numbers consumers actually have to pay. 2) Compare price+delivery+doc fees. This is impossible, because each dealership can charge their own doc fees, or no doc fee at all. 3) Compare price+delivery fees to price+bundled delivery/doc fee that only Tesla does. That rewards car makers for high doc/added profit fees that don’t get counted, and doesn’t reflect… Read more »

the chevy bolt base msrp is actually $36,620