Confirmed: Tesla Adds 75D Option To Model S Lineup, 259 Mile Range

2 years ago by Jay Cole 86

Tesla Model S Refresh Will Also Now Have a 75 kWh Option Available For $3,000 More

Tesla Model S Refresh Will Also Now Have a 75 kWh Option Available For $3,000 More

After getting its announcement thunder stolen by CARB earlier today, Tesla has confirmed that the Model S lineup will now more closely match the full Model X offerings with a new 75D offering (75 kWh, all wheel drive).

News foreshadowing the new Model S showed up on CARB’s HOV eligible vehicle list early Tuesday morning, and Tesla has now responded to requests for confirmation on the product leak.

A Recent CARB Eligibility List Forced Tesla's Hand In Confirming The 75D Edition Of The Model S

A Recent CARB Eligibility List Forced Tesla’s Hand In Confirming The 75D Edition Of The Model S

Tesla Widens The Range Gap Between The Model S And Upcoming Model 3

Tesla Widens The Range Gap Between The Model S And Upcoming Model 3

Thankfully, Tesla has also given us some details on the upcoming 75D:

*- 75 kWh of energy translates to 259 miles of range – up from the 240 found in today’s 70D

*- the extra 5 kWh of power will cost an additional $3,000

*- the 75D is expected to launch next week

One would expect that the 70 kWh versions of the Model S will soon be discontinued, as Tesla’s future inexpensive Model 3 offering will have its starting range begin from 215 miles.

Also, and as we alluded to earlier today, it now seems even more likely that a future rumored upgrade for the premium Tesla trim levels on both the X and S to 100 kWh is in the cards.

Tags: , , , , ,

86 responses to "Confirmed: Tesla Adds 75D Option To Model S Lineup, 259 Mile Range"

  1. MTN Ranger says:

    I think Tesla is positioning the Model S as even higher priced so that the overlap with the Model 3 will be minimal if there is one at all.

    1. agzand says:

      How is a $75k overlap with a $35k car? Usually the difference is $10-$15k, for example 3 series starts at $35k and 5 series at $50k. The problem is that they need to make more money on each car. They said they will improve margins by the end of the year. This is a step in that direction.

      1. John says:

        I’ve got a feeling a fully loaded Performance Model ≡ will be close to $75k. Which sadly puts it firmly out of reach for me. Unless I want to live in it…

        1. Roger says:

          In todays market that not such a high price. A friend just paid $80k for a new Ford 4X4 pickup.

      2. sven says:

        I agree. Also, on the last conference call Tesla’s new CFO said: “My mandate from Elon is clear. Cash is king.”

        http://insideevs.com/ceo-elon-musk-to-tesla-cfo-cash-is-king/

      3. MTN Ranger says:

        For example, the Model 3 may possibly range from $36.2k – $70k and the Model S ranges from $75.7k – $140k.

      4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        agzand said:

        “How is a $75k overlap with a $35k car? Usually the difference is $10-$15k…”

        I don’t know what’s usual, but clearly there will be a bigger price difference between the Model S and the Model ≡.

        Elon estimated the average sale price for the M≡ at $42k. Simple statistics suggest, then, that the high end would be higher than $49k. I wouldn’t be surprised to see, as many others have suggested, that the price for the top-most trim levels of the M≡ might push up nearly to the bottom trim level of the MS.

      5. TomArt says:

        It’s not just price, but performance. Are you going to spend $120k on a car for 260 miles of range, autopilot, 0-60 under 4 seconds (S90D)…while you could spend $60k for essentially the same specs on a Model 365D (for example)?

        With the Model 3 announcement of having a minimum of 215 EPA miles per charge, it has become abundantly clear to me that the Model S and X are going to need major upgrades of one kind or another in order to justify the premium price.

  2. wavelet says:

    This also raises the base price for an S to $79.5K (incl. destination fee), IIUC…
    I was expecting something like this since Tesla needs differentiators between the 3 and the S aside from price.
    One difference is obviously going to be range. I commented a few weeks ago that I thought they’d wait another year or so, but looks like it’s already happening: The 3 will be a 200-250mi AER car, while the S will be 250-300mi .

    1. Bacardi says:

      Close, first it’s currently going to be an “offering” meaning that for now, the 70kWh will still exist perhaps only until the battery supplies are exhausted…

      Next if we look above at the CARB report, it would APPEAR that there will be a RWD 75kWh offering…If that’s the case and Tesla doesn’t cancel it (like the 40kWk, like the P60D), then it should be about $5K less…Currently to get the 70kWh in RWD on the configurator, it’s defaults to AWD, you have to click the RWD option…

    2. TomArt says:

      Yeah, performance is the big equalizer. Two cars with pretty much the same features (incredible acceleration, great cornering, very capable L3 autopilot) and one is twice the price of the other, then which one will you buy? Exactly.

  3. Ambulator says:

    If the battery size is the only change it looks like it’s a slight price increase. Goodness knows Tesla could use it.

    1. TomArt says:

      I don’t like the idea of yet another price increase so long before the Model 3 is out, in terms of accessibility, etc.

      However, if they have yet to be supply-constrained, then the crazy market is telling Musk that they can inch up the performance and luxury and price without losing any real sales.

      1. brunurb says:

        I think you mean demand-constrained? They have so far been only supply-constrained, they can’t get things built fast enough for the current demand.

        If they keep raising prices and still have more than enough demand, that sounds to me like they could price it even higher, until they get to a point where demand matches supply (but i don’t think they would)

  4. Carcus says:

    So you can buy two Model 3s plus $9,500 in upgrades for the same money as one base model S. Seems a little hard to believe.

    Somebody check my math….

    1. Dave S. says:

      Can’t buy any model 3s last I checked. Not to be smart, but you just can’t compare a real shipping product to one that only exists as a future vehicle.

      1. carcus says:

        Can’t buy a 75D either, last I checked … so I’m actually comparing a future vehicle to a future vehicle. How smart is that?

        1. sven says:

          Touché!

        2. wavelet says:

          Except they’re from different futures (-:
          The S75D will supposedly be available in 1-2 weeks, the 3 two years later (or more)…

          No telling what the S pricing structure will look like by then.

        3. Dave S. says:

          I believe you said “base model s” which isn’t a 75d. The S70 is the current base model S which is currently available. My point is that for someone wanting something now you can’t cross shop these two vehicles. You also can’t compare what a 75d will sell for vs a 60d or whatever model 3 will be. I’d imagine a base S will be S 80 by then.

          1. Carcus says:

            “I believe you said “base model s””………

            Well, then one would think your highly advanced persnickety skills should have caught my math error to start with, hmmm?

            1. TomArt says:

              +1 for the use of “persnickety”!

            2. Dave S. says:

              No math to check. We’ll revisit this once the model 3 design studio opens. I’ll set a calendar reminder….

              1. Carcus says:

                Even if that’s your best Clint Eastwood voice,… a “showdown at the design studio” just doesn’t sound right.

                1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  In either case, being a fast draw is an asset. 😉

    2. Josh Bryant says:

      Similar math gives me 2 BMW 3 series and about $18k in upgrades for a BMW 7 series.

      Sounds about right.

      1. carcus says:

        Well, there you go, …..and if you do the same math with Mercedes, it’s two C class plus about $18k gets you an S class.

        If BMW and Mercedes can do it… why not Tesla?

      2. agzand says:

        No, because a BMW 7 series has a much higher level of luxury equipment and materials comparing to a 3 series. A base Tesla S is comparable to a base 3 Series in terms of luxury/material.

        1. Acevolt says:

          Does a base 7 series have an autopilot option for $2500? I don’t think so. It does have a lot of little plastic buttons if that’s what you consider “luxury”. I prefer the 17″ touch screen and over the air updates.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          agzand said:

          “A base Tesla S is comparable to a base 3 Series in terms of luxury/material.”

          Ummmm… No. Just no.

      3. Peter says:

        But BMW also has the 5 series in between the 3 series and the 7 series.

    3. TomArt says:

      If you want to match the range and performance, based on what we know so far, then your math might not add up as well.

      It also appears, for better or worse, that the promise and subsequent reservation totals for the Model 3, plus the ongoing demand for the S and X, have given Tesla license to go berzerk on the S and X platforms, raising performance, luxury and price ad infinitum.

      In other words, the Model S no longer has to be even remotely “affordable” anymore. And, to be reasonable, they can keep going for a while, and given their competition in the luxury segments, they’ll still be offering a great value.

      1. carcus says:

        Can’t argue with much of that. I think it’s called “making hay while the sun shines”.

        I have always understood the S class segment to be very high profit. This should be the case for an “established” Tesla as well. However, if the promises of the model 3 are to be believed, then Tesla is going to have to raise the bar on the Model S/X in order to differentiate the products and prevent cannibalizing S,X sales.

        (as you’ve already posted)

  5. Ocean Railroader says:

    Do to this little stunt by Tesla I think all electric cars over $40,000 should be kicked off the Tax Credit system Federal and State. This should send a message to Tesla and the other stop jacking the rates for these cars though the roof. Also if someone is able to buy this $80,000 car then they most likely don’t need to cry poor and get a tax break on buying it.

    1. Aaron says:

      *Due

      What little stunt? That the CARB released information on the 75D before Tesla did? How is that a stunt?

      1. Open-Mind says:

        The “little stunt” was Tesla raising their price. The premise is that capitalism is flawed because it doesn’t punish the wealthy. So to compensate, the tax credit should only be available to those who cannot afford the Tesla.

        1. Ocean Railroader says:

          Why should I slave away as a baggier who can barely dream about getting a used Nissan Leaf when it drops below $5000 when the government is giving out Cookies for someone to buy a $80,000 electric car. What angers me about this is that this $5000 price raise by Tesla is mostly worth as much if not more then the used electric car I plan to buy so why should they get a handout? Considering $2500 to $7500 is not going to make or break someone buying a $80,000 car.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            You’re allowing your anger to squelch not only your thinking, but also your advocacy for what would benefit you personally. If you want compelling electric cars to come down in price to the range where you might be able to afford one, then subsidizing the company which is leading the EV revolution, which is creating competitive pressure to force all the other EV makers to “up their game”, is something you should be cheerleading… not denouncing!

            Tesla raising the price on the Model S will help it generate the money it needs to put the lower-cost Model ≡ into production. Since you (just like me) are rather unlikely to ever be able to afford a Model S, why are you complaining about that?

          2. jelloslug says:

            How is getting to keep the money I earned a handout?

    2. Rich says:

      The Federal Tax Credit will continue to be a polarizing issue. Making the tax credit available for $100K+ cars is going to come under fire and IMO rightfully so.
      If congress reworks the tax credit, maybe they’ll put a cap on the vehicles MSRP.

      1. Anon says:

        But there are tax credits for ICE vehicles like Hummers. And anything that does not account for negative externalities, like acidification of the oceans, lung cancer, drought, flooding, famine, terrorism, etc.– IS ALSO A SUBSIDY. The hydrocarbon industry makes about 6 TRILLION a year. SIX TRILLION. Think about that.

        What little EV’s get to try to level the playing field, is just a tiny drop in the bucket.

        #TaxCarbon

        1. Michael Will says:

          +1

        2. arne-nl says:

          Well in the case of Tesla, it has been a tiny mustard seed that is growing a tree of epic proportions.

          ROI as viewed from the public is incalculable. I’m not talking about the primary effect (Model S instead of oil burners), but the secondary effect of shaking up the petrified car industry and making electric cars desirable.

          1. TomArt says:

            Agreed.

      2. If you are against EV Subsidies because of what you think is expensive, I bet you love the subsidized cheap airline tickets you can get because of Government Sibsidizing Aircraft sales at Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, and others, helping companies offer cheap seats!

        Personaly, I think the Tax Credit should be a direct rebate at point of perchase, in the form of a 100% Tax Credit on each EV, And, an equal investment, matching the tax revenue of each EV sold, invested into infrastructure, county by county, matching the high growth areas with more and better charging facilities!

        Secondly, one the sale price of an EV Car exceeds $120,000, then you should be required to produce a notorized letter proving Your Income is less than 2X the cars price (whatever is the cars final sale price), and if the IRS agrees, then you get the credit, if not – ‘No Soup 4 U’

        It could also be graduated down for higher earners, too. I am sure it is a small thing at $7,500 for Milti-Millionaires!

    3. Rob Stark says:

      It is people with an average household income of $257k that are buying Teslas with an ASP of ~110k that have the income to generate over $7500 in tax liability and are funding Model 3, Model Y, Model 4 and the Supercharger Network.

      Directly with profits and indirectly by demonstrating proof of concept which allows Tesla to raise funds on favorable terms on Wall Street.

      Camry owners that are stretching their budgets to buy a sub $40k Model 3 are not funding the EV Revolution.

      And it will also be buyers of well equipped and fully loaded Model 3s that will help fund Corolla killer Model 4.

      1. Anon says:

        Well said.

      2. Josh Bryant says:

        Anyone who complains about the credit structure needs to read and digest Rob’s comment.

      3. Rich says:

        I believe it’s been estimated, people with an income of ~$60k will qualify for the $7500 tax credit.

        I agree, the current Model S and X owners are funding Tesla (obviously).

        “Camry owners that are stretching their budgets to buy a sub $40k Model 3 are not funding the EV Revolution”
        All consumers purchasing all makes of Electric Vehicles are funding the EV Revolution. Tax payers of all countries with an EV tax credit are helping fund the EV Revolution.

        1. Vexar says:

          To the whining lower-income earners out there: I saved for years to buy my Model S. I knew I could afford it, and I know multiple people now who went from a Toyota Camry to a Tesla Model S. At TeslaMotorsClub.com, I detailed what it took for me to “stretch” to buy my Model S, as have others. I remember reading the post of one fellow earning $40k per year who bought a Model S 60. He had me beat for his stretch.
          Some of us worked a little harder and stretched ourselves to buy a Model S. That tax credit mattered. I was able to pay off my loan sooner and get out from under the debt. You know what’s funny? Itemized tax deductions, I had to add that $7500 credit back in the following year, and ended up owing on my taxes because of it, so the IRS took their percentage back again. I didn’t even get the $7500, you see. That got taxed. I got less.
          One problem with the USA is that nearly everyone feels entitled. Since there is a variation in income, those who earn less are greater in number, and they demand their due from those who earn more.
          I bought a Model S and I’ve been working hard to “sell” to as many prospective buyers as I can. Maybe I earn more than you. Maybe I don’t. If you’d stop complaining an start planning, it’s amazing what you can actually accomplish. My wife has a friend who was complaining about not earning enough. I spent a day, thought about her locale and skills, solved a problem in the dairy industry, something I knew nothing about days before, and gave her a plan and an idea to execute on building an industrial product that I researched and found didn’t exist. Months passed, she never communicated any further interest. I took it to a friend of mine in Texas, and he said in the US alone, it was worth tens to a couple hundreds of millions of dollars. My wife’s friend still has her hand out. She feels entitled, but if it requires effort, it’s not worth it.
          So, yes, the Model S is incrementing to greater expense. And most of that federal tax credit is drying up for Tesla Motors.
          The good news is if you’re reserved for a Model III, you have years of dropping cable TV service, reducing dining costs or buying coffee at fancy shops, taking less expensive holidays, bagging lunches, using coupons at the grocery store, growing some of your own fruit and vegetables, doing repairs yourself instead of paying someone else, and every other thing it takes to stretch and buy without a Federal incentive.

        2. pjwood1 says:

          People stretching to meet tax liabilities can always convert a traditional IRA, to a Roth, in the year they wish to take the credit. That’s still a big conversion, if at 15% federal rate (50,000).

          Otherwise, I think Rob is right. Multiple states are doing what Germany just did to Tesla, by setting a $67,000 ceiling for their own $4,000 Euro benefit. They are canceling previous $2,500 state incentives, or lowering them while favoring cars from makers who would love to walk off the electric vehicle field, all together.

          If Tesla went away, the momentum to repeal, or adjust Euro and CAFE standards, especially given lower gas prices, would be intense. Taking food off the plate of the firm making the most environmentally consequential contribution to EV miles, is wrong. I know some disagree, but the penetration just isn’t there, yet.

          1. Kirk says:

            Thanks so much for the IRA conversion idea, I may need to use that!!!

      4. Ryan H says:

        The $7500 tax credit doesn’t just benefit the rich man who is the first owner of the car, it lowers the used car market proportionally so average men like myself can afford to own a used Model S and used Roadster 🙂

    4. TomArt says:

      I agree – it looks like the combination of:

      1) ongoing supply-constraint of S; and
      2) reservation list for Model 3,

      has given Musk license to go berzerk on the S and X. As long as people keep buying them, and as long as their ability to meet and/or exceed the performance targets for the Model 3 continues, then the sky is the limit for the S and X. The 3 is the affordable one – they can do whatever they want with S and X as long as the crazy markets will bear it.

  6. Benz says:

    When will it be a good time for Tesla to announce the 100 kWh battery pack?

    1. Rich says:

      I wonder if the 100kWh pack will require a complete reconfig of the pack using the new Gigafactory cells.
      Hopefully, we’lll hear that Tesla is manufacturing the new cells out of the Gigafactory in a month or so.

  7. Rich says:

    Interestingly, the 100D wasn’t on the list. It makes sense for Tesla to move the Model S to 75kWh to match the Model X. This limits the amount of battery pack configurations to build, at least for the moment. IMO, I think they had to move the lowest pack to 75kWh so they can announce the Model 3 battery pack sizes (standard and large).
    We know the standard pack size will be less than 60kWh for the Model 3 (probably something in the 55 to 57 range). The really interesting question is what kWh size will the larger Model 3 pack size be.
    Any guesses on the Model 3 larger pack size and EPA range for the larger pack?
    I’m thinking 70kWh and 265 miles EPA range.

    1. tom911 says:

      They probably want to wait a few months before updating the battery to 100kWh. Otherwise they will have a lot of pissed off Model X owners… just sayin’

      1. Daniel says:

        for all we know they (Tesla) may already be building the 100KW capability into the current S and X fleet coming off the line now, and will be capable of enabling it via an OTA update for those that opt in concurrent with when such an option becomes available in the online configurator.

        1. TomArt says:

          I wouldn’t bet on it, but then, it would not surprise me, either. An announcement like that would be another great Twitter bump.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Rich said:

      “Any guesses on the Model 3 larger pack size and EPA range for the larger pack?
      I’m thinking 70kWh and 265 miles EPA range.”

      Well, it’s hard to guess the larger pack capacity when we don’t even know the base pack capacity.

      Everybody is citing numbers in multiples of five. It’s possible that the base battery pack won’t be divisible by 5; it wasn’t in the Tesla Roadster.

      But the difference between the lower and upper pack sizes… you’re guess 15 kWh. I think it will be at least that much, but more likely slightly more. My guess is that the larger pack will be about 20 kWh larger, but again perhaps not precisely that. Tesla could easily choose pack size based on a “sweet spot” in maximizing capacity for minimal increased cost, rather than rigidly adhering to multiples of 5.

      The original Model S was available in 60 and 85 kWh pack sizes. The base M≡ pack size won’t be that much smaller, so I doubt the upper level will be only 15 kWh higher. That’s why I’m guessing something closer to 20 kWh.

  8. turboro says:

    So will there a future line up?

    Model 3 – 50kW – 215miles
    Model 3 – 75kW – 280miles

    Model S – 75kW – 259miles
    Model S – 100kW – 315 miles

    1. Josh Bryant says:

      Not to brag (well kindof), but I was postulating about this exact lineup 3 years ago.

      http://insideevs.com/what-would-it-take-to-make-tesla-model-e-desirable-and-profitable/

      Section 2 was the base battery, and why it would get where it will be.

    2. John says:

      I really like the simplicity in this.

      A Lot.

    3. AddLightness says:

      Those are good estimates assuming there won’t be further improvements by the time the Model 3 comes out. Based on history I can see there being another battery upgrade in the next 18 months.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Indeed. At best it will be at least 1-1/2 years before the Model ≡ comes out; realistically, perhaps more like 2 years. Why assume the current battery capacity increases in the Model S are the last we’ll see before the M≡ comes out?

        I think it more likely that the bottom end of the MS will get another bump shortly before M≡ deliveries actually start. Perhaps the top end, too.

    4. Rich says:

      I like it. I was trying to figure out if Tesla would offer a Model 3 with higher range than a Model S. I hope you’re right.

    5. buu says:

      except 50kWh is too small for 215 and 100 probably will be slightly over 320

    6. TomArt says:

      Uh, no – if they do that, then Musk would be wise to just cancel the S75 entirely. Who would buy it?

      Both cars are going to have the same autopilot capability, and with the superior handling and range of the smaller car…no, makes no sense to have the Model 3 available, in any trim, with more range than a base Model S.

      I could be wrong, but it just doesn’t make sense to me.

  9. Speculawyer says:

    Ah . . . think about the range of a 75KWH Model 3. Oh yeah.

  10. Lunguuks says:

    I would not predict Model 3 to have any same size battery as S, already the physical size will be different. I wonder if it will be totally flat without space for rear passengers feet. They should make one really long range model, for example to use frunk for additional battery and add also to trunk a battery that weight distribution will stay intact. That could be pricey for client, but shall create even more buzz and will kill range question for any driver. That could be used then for taxis etc.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Lunguuks said:

      “I would not predict Model 3 to have any same size battery as S, already the physical size will be different.”

      That’s right; The battery packs for the Model ≡ will have a different shape. So even if the MS and M≡ happen to have packs with the same capacity, they won’t be the same pack. No exchange-ability between MS and M≡ battery packs.

      1. The Model 3 doesn’t even have the same cells, or battery architecture.

        Model S, X and Roadster (as well as early Smart ED, 2012-2014 Toyota RAV4 EV, and Mercedes B-Class ED all use 18650 cells.

        Model 3 will use 20700 cells in multiple “bricks”.

        1. TomArt says:

          True, however, many of us expect that the S and X will be using the same cells fairly soon, or at least, no later than once the GF is complete and fully operational.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Right. We can expect Tesla to switch from 18650 cells to the larger Gigafactory cells in both the Model S and X, to lower their costs, when Gigafactory production volume permits.

            I have been assuming that the MX was designed to be able to switch to Gigafactory cells whenever they’re available. I’ll be interested to see how Tesla solves the engineering conundrum of re-engineering the MS battery pack to use larger cells. The 18650 cells are placed inside vertically, and the Gigafactory cells will reportedly be taller. So what’s the solution? Lay them down flat? Or settle for a taller pack, and use the car’s air suspension to raise it further off the ground to compensate?

            Inquiring minds want to know! 😀

  11. Ian says:

    Tesla is a company that sets the bar. I don’t see them putting a battery in the model 3 with lower KWh than the Bolt EV. Base 60kwh with 75 kWh option is my thought.

    1. vdiv says:

      Indeed! And since the capacity seems to be increasing on an annual basis for Tesla these days that 55 or 60 kWh may end up as 65 or even 70 kWh by the time the Model 3 is really out 🙂 With the charging network growing we may see more people opting for the cheaper, lower capacity models, range no longer being the major factor.

    2. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

      Except that apparently a PR person at Tesla called in to correct an analyst on cost and said that the pack would be less than 60kWh.

      Since it was in response to a comment about cost and margins, where even $100 would be relevant, it doesn’t imply a _significantly_ lower capacity pack, but if correct it will have a smaller pack than the Volt.

      1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

        … smaller pack than the Bolt.

  12. Steve says:

    “it now seems even more likely that a future rumored upgrade for the premium Tesla trim levels on both the X and S to 100 kWh is in the cards”

    Why? Because they just introduced the 75? Not sure I see the reasoning for this.

    I agree there will definitely be a 100 some day. Who knows when though? I’d love to know why you think it’s now more likely.

    1. TomArt says:

      Answer: the new difference in EPA range and price:

      S75D = 259 mi EPA, $79.5k USD, 0-60 (~5.0s).

      S90D = 294 mi EPA, $89.5k USD, 0-60 (4.2s).

      That’s not much, and the differences for the X are even less:

      X75D = 237 mi EPA, $83k USD, 0-60 (6.0s).

      X90D = 257 mi EPA, $95.5k USD, 0-60 (4.8s), smart suspension included.

      I suppose, seeing the stats here, all in one place, that there is a little more difference than I recall; however, the differences are very slim compared to the price premium.

  13. Andrew K says:

    As a person who will never buy a Model S new this is rather annoying. But it does make some sense. They are slowly dragging the Model S price up and upgrading the interior to make it into a more direct competitor to the A8/S-Class/7-Series. While I’d like to see a 60D Model S with autopilot I realize that just isn’t possible if Tesla is going to hit their gross margin targets and have enough free cash for the Model 3 dev.

    1. carcus says:

      That’s a good summary, but then it begs the question:

      If Tesla will be production constrained on every $55,000 model 3 they can sell, then why would they make (and sell) one for $35,000?

      Answer: they wouldn’t.

      I’m not saying that’s the way it’s going to play out. But if you’re hoping to purchase a $35,000 Model 3, then Model S price creep doesn’t necessarily make the crystal ball any sunnier.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Charging “whatever the market will bear” for a car with an average sale price of $100k makes sense. It’s a winning strategy, because most buyers in that rarified price range are rather immune to a price increase of a few thousand dollars.

        Not so in the more downmarket price range of $35-42k. In that price range, raising the price by just a few thousand will lose a company customers in droves. Losing customers means lower sales, so the company has to cut back on production… which increases the per-unit cost. It’s a vicious circle.

        And that’s one of the reasons, perhaps the main reason, why the lower the cost of the car, the more competitive it has to be with other cars in the same price range.

        And Tesla knows this. They know that raising the price of the Model ≡ would be shooting themselves in the foot. It would put a serious dent in the market for the car, and destroy any chance of making the planned profit margin on volume sales.

        Don’t make the mistake of confusing the market economics of a $100k car with the market economics of an (average sale price) $42k car.

  14. Bloggin says:

    I expect by the time the Model 3 has it’s launch late 2017, the 70kWh pack will be the standard pack. Wth 85kWh being the upgrade with over 300 miles.

    Having the same upgrade packs as a Model S or X won’t be a problem, because it will offer a different range in a larger, much higher priced vehicle.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      No way. The Model ≡ was specifically engineered to be able to use a smaller battery pack; that’s why the streamlining is even more aggressive than it is on the Model S.

      One way Tesla will be able to offer a significantly lower cost car than the Model S is by using a significantly smaller battery pack. As a Tesla rep already said, the base Model ≡ will have a battery pack capacity of less than 60 kWh. We can expect that to go up in future years, but there’s no good reason to think it will go up before sales start.