Here’s What A Maxed Out Tesla Model 3 Will Cost

JUL 31 2017 BY MARK KANE 92

Tesla Model 3

The Tesla Model 3ย enters the market in two battery/powertrain versions this – Standard and Long Range. We wonder how much each version will cost if maxed out.

The Long Range (310-mile) is first on the production line and will be followed by Standard (220-mile) some time in November. The difference between the two is $9,000 ($35,000 to $44,000).

We gathered all the official price info in one place to present you with a graphic that lays out pricing rather well.

It’s important to note that there will be additional options available later as well as the all-wheel drive version in Spring 2018 that will bump the price upwards, probably beyond $60,000 in the just-promised performance edition.

Tesla Model 3 prices

Tesla Model 3 spec

 

Categories: Tesla

Tags:

Leave a Reply

92 Comments on "Here’s What A Maxed Out Tesla Model 3 Will Cost"

newest oldest most voted

You guys forgot destination… ๐Ÿ˜‰

Destination is $1,200. Real MSRP of base Model 3, when it eventually comes out, will be $36,200. Model 3 with all the options ticked (excluding accessories) will be $60,700.

There’s definitely room for both Bolt EV and Model 3 in this market. Don’t think you’ll be able to lease a base Model 3 for Bolt EV prices (i.e., $200/month and $2,500 drive-off), for example.

Destination and Doc fee for the Model 3 is actually $1,000, not $1,200. And keep in mind that this single fee covers two separate fees for most ICE car sales. It covers both the Destination/Delivery fee charged by ICE car makers, and the Doc/Extra Profit fee charged by the vast majority of ICE dealerships.

The combined Dest/Doc fee of $1,000 dollars will likely be less than the combination of the two separate fees that car makers and car dealerships charge.

(โŒโ– _โ– ) Trollnonymous

I wonder if you can go pick it up at Freemont and reduce the fee?

Yeah, I’m a cheapaz$

Destination fee is federally mandated. It can’t be waived.

That’s… weird. Do you know how that came to be?

It comes out of window sticker disclosure laws. The car makers are required to put the delivery charge on a separate line on the window sticker so that the delivery costs are transparent to consumers.

But that doesn’t mean you can’t pick it up at the factory for free. I’m pretty sure that’s been a thing in history. I could be wrong. And also I’m pretty certain they are free to simply not charge a destination fee. It’s just disclosure of said fee that is mandatory…again could be wrong.

They charge the fee on EVERY car purchased, regardless if they let you drive it out of the Fremont, CA factory or you buy it in Miami, FL.

I think of it as a rough average of what shipping costs to every destination in the US.

Yes, the delivery charge is supposed to reflect actual costs for delivery. Car makers can do it 2 different ways.

1) Put the actual delivery cost for each car on each window sticker.

2) Take the actual delivery costs for all vehicles, create a composite average, and put that number on every window sticker.

If they use method 1, they could give out cars from the factory with zero delivery fees. But everybody does #2, so everybody gets the same delivery fee no matter how far the dealership is from the factory, or if the delivery is done at the factory.

So Tesla COULD do free factory delivery, but they would have to completely change how they do shipping, and make a whole lot of East Coast customers mad. That’s bad business.

The way I heard if dealers near Michigan were pissed people were driving to the factory to pick up cars. And they definitely were.

So the dealers lobbied to make destination fees mandatory and the same no matter how far from the factory you are.

Could just be urban legend though.

The version you heard, and the “official” version aren’t mutually exclusive. It wouldn’t be the first time somebody lobbied for a law with an agenda they want to hide, while using some fake concern as their official reason for legislation.

Concern trolling the gov’t.

Not happening. Same for Corvettes picked up at Bowling Green, KY across from the factory at the museum; delivery charge applies. In fact, picking up the car there costs 1K more and plenty customers do that.

Options cost money? Color me shocked!

At least you can avoid it by just choosing black.

That’s without AWD or Performance options.

The standard base model is a good deal. Hope they actually make them available.

CCIE — Did you even bother reading the story?

“The Long Range (310-mile) is first on the production line and will be followed by Standard (220-mile) some time in November. “

I did read the story, as well as most other articles here on the M3 in the last few days.

The AWD and Performance versions aren’t released yet. So, top price will increase significantly from what is shown.

http://insideevs.com/musk-confirms-performance-version-tesla-model-3-coming-next-year/

And, I didn’t mean that Tesla won’t produce base versions. I meant they won’t produce enough to make them available.

They’re probably losing money on the base version, and so they’ll limit its production numbers for quite a while. It only really exists to make the entry price look artificially low.

They are probably making at least 10% gross margin on base Model 3.

And will make it for all current reservation holders.

After that a expect a bump in specifications and price.

No point in making a 10 point margin car when someone else is willing to buy a 25 point margin car.

Can’t really see it.
That’s a significant chunk of the market at that price point. It’s also a spoiler: sell a low margin Tesla and another company isn’t selling a car.

They did exactly that with the Model S P40. It was introduced mostly for marketing purposes and then killed off.

True, but there was also little demand for it. I think the base 3 will see quite a bit of demand.

Dan, first I reject the premise that it was done purely for marketing.

But more importantly, the numbers don’t lie. The S40 only sold 400 units. That wasn’t anywhere near enough to justify an entirely different battery pack.

On the other hand, we have statistical data showing the opposite is true of the base battery. Model3Tracker has a significant number of data points to work with. And their survey showed about 30% of buyers wanting the base battery**. 30% of half a million reservations is 150,000 people**.

150,000 vs. 400.

Let that sink in.

400
vs.
150,000

The Model S40 is a sneeze in the projected 220 range battery demand. A rounding error.

Any attempt to draw a correlation between the two is not a serious examination of the numbers.

_______________________________

** – The small battery pack making up 30% of demand is actually likely to be a low estimate. Because Model3Tracker also included a “medium” battery pack that Tesla never ended up offering. “Medium” actually got another roughly 20%, and those folks will now have to choose between regular and large. True demand for the 220 range car may be closer to half a million or more.

CCIE — That is in complete contradiction with what Tesla is putting on their websites for target dates for current reservation holders to receive their base 35K Model 3’s.

The Model 3 is actually available SOONER than the higher profit AWD and Performance models that will be at higher prices.

So do you actually have a shred of evidence to back you up? Because if you are going to contradict the plain clear language that Tesla has already made available to current reservation holders, you need to have something to back up your claims.

I stand by assertion that Tesla will make very few standard base model M3s available. They need to sell M3s with the overpriced options packages to make a profit.

I really hope I’m wrong since the standard base version is a great deal.

Time will tell…

Ah, the old Herman Cain “I don’t have facts to back this up” offer of evidence. Got it.

I’ll stick with the facts and evidence thanks. Now don’t let simple things like facts and evidence get in the way of your trolling….

*laugh*

No one but Tesla has the facts or knows what they will do. But based on them not introducing the stripped base version at launch, and how overpriced the options and larger battery are, I’m making a guess.

Again, I hope I’m wrong since I want Tesla to continue advancing EVs. That means selling the stripped base version that some regular people will actually be able to afford.

“No one but Tesla has the facts or knows what they will do.”

That is correct. And Tesla has published what they know on their website. And the facts are that they plan on launching the 35K version in Nov, which is right on their website. In addition, they have provided estimates for each and every reservation holders with an expected 3 month window as to when each reservation holder will likely be able to buy a $35K version if they want to.

So you are correct, “No one but Tesla has the facts or knows what they will do.” That includes you. Tesla has already spoken VERY clearly, with detail as to what reservation holders can expect. And your claims you provide with zero evidence directly conflict with the very people you say are the only people who know the facts and know what they will do.

That facts are that Elon Musk has repeated lied about prices and dates in the past. He did NOT launch a $35,000 vehicle as he said he would. He launched a $44,000. So the lack of evidence is him actually sticking to what he has said. Other examples include the now delayed Tesla roof for instance. Or the previous statements about price a year ago with the M3 starting at 30 without tax credits. Or previous lies about S pricing. I’m a huge fan of Tesla but let’s not put too much stake in repeated ‘aspirational’ claims. For instance I don’t believe he has actually said he ‘sold’ these model 3 vehicles. In order to sell the vehicles he has to have gotten them EPA certified FIRST. EPA information is by definition public and is NEVER delayed in release by request of anyone. And yet no EPA release. Why? Because in all likelihood he ‘delivered’ these vehicles but since all 30 were put in the hands of employees they are certainly still property of the Tesla corporation and actually test vehicles. I assume EPA certs will be done in a few more days and then they just do a little… Read more »

Yeah, he’s playing things a little fast & loose. He couldn’t afford to be late. But, he’s a doing a lot better than previous launches. It’s basically on time.

It was foolish for him to state a price & range for the car so far in advance. It’s biting him now and forcing him to release a version of the car that he’ll likely lose money on.

He’s trying to minimize that loss by removing as much content as possible from the stripped base M3. If people are willing to pay for a few of the overpriced options the car becomes profitable and his gamble will work out. But he’s in trouble if a lot of people want stripped base models.

I don’t know when EPA issued their certificate of conformity, but that usually predates the ARB certifying the car in California, and that happened on July 11: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2017/tesla_pc_a3740018_0_z_e.pdf

It’s probably true they won’t make that many base Model 3’s, but I think your view is putting the cart before the horse, in that, not that many people will want the base model.

It’s true that they make more money on options, so they would prefer to sell you an optioned up car, but you don’t have to buy one.

Please stop calling this the M3. There is only one M3 if you know what I mean.I have nothing against model 3 but it cannot be called the M3.

Too late for that here. Here M3 means Model 3. It confused me early on too. But, given that I don’t frequent BMW forums, it’s not a real issue.

Hopefully Tesla’s high production volumes of the Model 3 will mean M3 comes to mean Tesla everywhere.

My reservation information does, indeed, show that I can get the more expensive bigger battery pack + Upgrade sooner than the base model. The D model is later but that is because it complicates the build and isnt ready yet.

“…they wonโ€™t produce enough to make them available.”

In case you’re not already aware of it, Tesla builds almost all of its cars to order. So once they make it available to order, anybody and everybody could order a base trim level if that’s what they want.

I’m not disputing that Tesla will lose money (or at least not make any profit) off a base Model 3 with no options. Perhaps that’s true; perhaps not. But to say they will make very few of them because they don’t want to sell them… that’s just not how Tesla runs its business.

35k$ +22% tax + import tax = affordable cca 43kโ‚ฌ, delivery in 2019. Leaf dont let me down (I’m renault\ Nissan hater BTW :), pleeease… Hope Ionia will get battery upgrade soon.

What’s the extended warranty and maintenance package cost? Some on the boards said it’s $7000 for the Model S.

This is answered in the Bill Howland thread further down

The faster Supercharging rate of that long range version is almost as much of a draw as its longer range.

BTW, I’ve noticed the Model 3 has really drawn out the trolls lately! I think the Koch Brothers are running scared. Good.

(โŒโ– _โ– ) Trollnonymous

lol
I had to read your comment like 4 times to get it.

I agree, the faster SC charge rate is just as an attractive item as the larger capacity battery pack.

๐Ÿ˜›

Yep. If you think “I’ll just get the shorter range version and stop to charge up more often.” you’ll be sorely disappointed that not only do you have to stop to charge more often, you also have to stay stopped for a longer time during each stop.

It’s a double whammy that really makes the bigger battery attractive.

The base model with zero options is the best package. Other options are not enticing at those costs. I am wondering if Tesla will be forced to cancel the base model, or postpone it indefinitely.

Nope. They’ve already announced production of the 220 mile version to begin in Nov. It is right on their website. In fact, this information is even included in the first line of this story:

“The Long Range (310-mile) is first on the production line and will be followed by Standard (220-mile) some time in November. “

Dates are always subject to change.

If they get the large numbers of the $49,000 “First Production Model” that date will likely change. Base models are likely a production spot filler when there isn’t enough demand for the profitable models. If they are at capacity pushing out optioned up models, there is no sense in taking up slots for the $35k model.

They’ll probably meet the date. But, they’ll keep the number produced extremely low.

+2 to both ๐Ÿ™‚

Just wanted to add that the first production model is actually $50k, less $1k if you insist on having it in black ๐Ÿ™‚

Also, possibly $51.5k, depending upon how the car looks with the “standard” 18″ wheels.

My guess is all the cars we’ve seen so far, have the 19″ wheels.

IMHO 18″ sounds plenty large, but that also depends on how “fat” the rubber part is, since the 18″ is the metal’s radius.

CCIE

Why do you claim that the numbers will be low when Tesla themselves is currently telling hundreds of thousands of reservation holders that they will be able to purchase a 220 mile Model 3 within a 3 month window?

Do you have any actual evidence to contradict the dates Tesla is giving to their current reservation holders?

As I said in the other post, time will tell.

I really hope they produce tons of the standard base model. But, I doubt they can afford to.

Ah, the same old “I don’t have facts to back this up” proof that you must be right that we get around here.

Again, no one but Tesla knows. To be extremely clear about what I’m saying:

I believe Tesla will produce the standard version of the car in quantity. I just don’t believe they will produce the stripped base version in quantity (with absolutely no options installed).

Yes, Tesla knows and you don’t, and Tesla has been very clear as to when they will start production, and they have communicated to every single reservation holder what the 3-month window will likely be for when they can buy whichever version they want.

You refusing to accept that reality is NOT support of your baseless claims for which you provide zero evidence.

(โŒโ– _โ– ) Trollnonymous

So charge AC L2 charge rate is….

Standard: 42A @240VAC
Long Range: 40A @240VAC

The article on having 48A is wrong?
http://insideevs.com/tesla-model-3-to-come-with-48-amp-onboard-charger/

OR?!?!?!?!?!?
The onboard charger *can* do 48A @240VAC but the EVSE they offer can only be 32A (Std) or 40A (LR)?

The FAQ says 30A for the standard. 40A for long range. The 48A was based off of unreliable info.

I’m voting for the 310 version of the car having internal chargers rated at 48A (that’s a stack of chargers, measured at their MAX capacity separate from the car).

But the cable that Tesla is providing for free with the car is for the 50A style of plug, and that cable is only rated at 40A, so Tesla I think Tesla is rating the whole thing together as the lowest rated component, which is the cable at 40A.

The 220 range version has a smaller internal unit, so it is rated less despite having the same cord.

The big question, is whether the car will recognize a connector to a 60A source, and charge at the full 48A, or if it will still charge at 40A. Or if it would need a software update for that.

(โŒโ– _โ– ) Trollnonymous

50A rated at 40A is typical NEC derated value of 80% for continuous load.

I was just hoping for 48A because my circuit is 60A (48A continuous) and my EVSE is 60A capable but I had the manufacturer set it to a max of 48A.

You will have to convince them to let you take a test drive and drive home and plug it in and report back the results!!!

*grin*

(PS — I’m serious!)

If would do that, don’t you think Tesla would have said so?

No, I absolutely do not think that Tesla would release that trivial amount of information at this point in the rollout.

That detail belongs buried deep in an owner’s manual, because 60A drops are relatively rare.

When you do a new product rollout, you choose the major data points that you want to get across to buyers. You don’t bury people with details that belong in the owner’s manual. That is what the owner’s manual is for.

So, at some point, Tesla intends to produce an affordable electric car? Roughly 35k?

(โŒโ– _โ– ) Trollnonymous

In November……..in theory.

I thought it was %35,500.00 myself but hey, I’m all for $500 off.
๐Ÿ™‚

(โŒโ– _โ– ) Trollnonymous

$35,500.00

In Europe you can add 20%. (Transport, tax)
So we speak about ~ 70k with a fully loaded M3.

Can someone please tell me the difference between ordering the $7000 warranty/service option, and not ordering it? (not mentioned here); so $66,500 I’d assume for ALL options.

This “$7000 extended warranty” is something that some troll made up. I think some such option exists (or existed) for the Model S and they are assuming it will exist for the Model 3 and at the same price.

I would just ignore such talk until we know more from Tesla. It makes absolutely no sense that it would be the same price as the risks & cost to repair would be lower for the simpler/cheaper Model 3.

I’m not too sure about that:

1). Roadster had much better ranger/rover policy than the “S” as it was free for the duration of the warranty…

2). Things on the ‘3’ seem to cost more than on the “S” – for instance – what Tesla calls pay as you go charging for the ‘3’ and unlimited (at least for a while longer) on the “S”.

Ok, so if the $7000 warranty/service applies to only the “S”, I repeat the question : what, assuming you have a new “S”, do you get with the $7000 or without the $7000?

There is no $7000 extended warranty + extended service contract “package”, not even for the Model S.

What there is, is some people buying multiple extended warranties and multiple extended service plans over the space of several years. You couldn’t buy all of that at the same time as the car even if you wanted to.

Whether this false “$7000 option” claim came about because of a misunderstanding, or whether it was deliberate FUD by some Tesla-hating troll, I dunno. Given the sheer amount of FUD generated by Tesla-bashing trolls, it might well have been the latter.

Discussion of the various options and costs for extended warranty and/or extended service contracts here, altho it seems to merely confuse the issue rather than clarifying it:

https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/maintenance-and-extended-service-agreement-prices-have-changed

OK, this is the 3rd time I’m posting this reply. I tried to include the link to the Tesla warranty page, but it has a pound sign in it that is probably being picked up by the spam filters.

Pushmi-Pullyu – Thanks for the link. Towards the top of the thread, it contains a URL to the Tesla warranty page.

Looks like the $7,000 is false info. This shows the 4yr extended warranty for the model S is $4,250 (purchased before 180 days) to $4,750 (purchased after 180 days)

This is rather the kind of thing that you only find out as an owner. $7000 seems right since ROCKY_H stated “4 years plus all 4 services and you’re already over $7000.”. It would be helpful if Tesla clearly spelled out what their policy was such as they used to, but lately I find the website more and more opaque, rather like VIAMOTORS. You end up with more questions AFTER looking at the website than before.

SO hopefully by the time I’m ready for the 310 mile model, this will be ironed out a bit more.

But I’m assuming all this is if you are near a service center, which, thankfully I’m only 220 miles away now so it is conceivable I would usually avoid ranger/rover charges, but again, I don’t know – and apparently few others do one way or the other..

But it is still up in the air in my mind and I’ll have to see when some ‘3’ owner runs into complications.

But the pricing seems a bit like BMW’s.

So… the supercharging rate of the two versions are at around 60 kW and 80 kW.

Not very impressive…

Higher capacity charging for the batteries is something that they should really work on.

you do understand the curve where the battery charges faster when it’s almost empty and slows down when closer to full. The S90/100 start at about 120kW and quickly decrease to 80/90 and then down to below 40 at the very top. (The curve is on their website). I suspect the M3 does the same, but the starting point is going to be lower because of the smaller number of cells in the battery pack, so perhaps starting at 90 and quickly ramping down? Time will tell, as people post their supercharging pictures.

I do understand that. And I do know that tapering shouldn’t start much as early as at 55-60% charge rate which the 60 kW and 80 kW rates are for.

So it is basically the top charge rate. And if it could do ~10 kW more for a minute or two it is still not relevant.

No, that’s not the max charging rate, that is the amount of charge over time including taper starting at some unknown battery level (not zero).

The Model S actually has the same 170/30 Supercharging statistics as the 310 mile version of the Model 3. (info on Tesla’s website) The Model S is well documented to have a charge rate of ~120 kW max when the battery is fully discharged, then tapering later. The Model 3 will likely be similar with a ~120 kW max charge rate, considering they both have the same 170/30 rating.

>>The Model 3 will likely be similar with a ~120 kW max charge rate<<

No way, Model 3 has lower capacity batteries, and kW will be less. C-rate may be closer to Model S 100 for the long range version.

Gosh, who to believe? A serial Tesla basher like zzzzzzzzzz who usually posts FUD, or someone who is amazingly well informed and almost invariably right, like Nix?

Not exactly a difficult choice there.

Reasonable people can certainly believe that Tesla has improved the ability of its cars to charge since 2012, when the Model S was new. That’s doubly true since Tesla is using a different type of battery cell, the 2170, in the Model 3.

When Nix is wrong and zzzzzz is right you should of course listen to zzzzz. ๐Ÿ™‚

Miles are not kW.

If the Model 3 charges at the same rate in mph (mph/2) then it actually charges quite a bit slower in kW because the Model 3 gets more miles per kWh.

Now you got it wrong. It is up to ~55-60% of battery capacity so tapering should not be much of an issue.

And the Model 3 is more efficient than the Model S so the same miles needs less energy in the Model 3 and a lower charge rate to get that energy.

So… top rate is pretty much 80 kW for the longer range and 60 kW for the shorter range Model 3.

Mikael — You are assuming this rating is based upon charging from 0%. But that is not the case for how they rate the Model S either.

We actually don’t know the starting point they are measuring from, because they don’t include that information.

We also don’t know how soon the battery tapers compared to the Model S.

I will agree that the battery will gain more miles than the Model S at a lower kW charge rate, but again until we know taper and where they are charging from, you can’t make claims like 80 or 60. I will say that charging from zero could indeed be less than 120 kW. That is possible because we don’t have all the details. But that certainly doesn’t prove your numbers correct either….

Tesla is doing some very strange things. I just went to their site and attempted to configure a Model S – there are so few options!!! They lumped everything together to the point that there is only 4 option packages: 1) premium (which now includes the upgraded sound system and the old “cold weather” package), 2) EAP, 3) full AP, and 4) rear-facing seats. Roof options are reduced – they removed the body-color roof option. The seat color options have been reduced.

The powertrain options are about the same as before, but still, very, very odd. Musk was claiming that the Model S had over 1k possible configurations while the 3 would only have about 150. It looks like the S has under 100 possible configurations.

Yes, Tesla announced earlier in the year that they would be packaging options more like the rest of the automotive industry in order to reduce the total number of configurations available.

It looks like for better or worse, Tesla is trimming costs in manufacturing in order to be more competitive with the rest of the car makers in the world.

This is a revolutionary vehicle. I am very excited to be part of a movement to accelerate the transition to sustainable transportation!

+1

Actually $60,700 adding in the unavoidable $1,200 delivery charge. $67,700 adding in extended warranty for eight years and service for four year.

And $65,700/$72,700 for AWD maxed out.

Still close to $30,000 less than a similar Model S. People really are looking for a smaller, less expensive but maxed out version of Model 3 so it will sell well at fully loaded price.

Another Euro point of view

With those prices it looks like Tesla will carry on doing what it did very well up to now. That is have a profound impact upon general public EV perception but no material impact on the car market as a whole. To have a significant impact Tesla would need to sell a good share of Model 3 production at $35K. They won’t do that, not even at $40K. They can always claim later that there was not enough demand for the $35K version. Who could challenge them on the veracity of that info ?

Don’t forget AWD and performance mode, which will surely bump the price up to Model S territory.

I don’t know how they consider this to be a mainstream car. I guess I just don’t spend nearly as much as the average American on new cars. My idea of mainstream price is $25,000 and that’s with most options.

Elon’s going to have to do a lot better than this if he really wants the mainstream public to switch to EVs. Right now, he’s only going to attract the folks driving cheaper BMWs. You need to attract the the people who buy cars like the Ford Focus and Mazda 3.

$30k is a pretty average MSRP for a decent car these days. So, the stripped base M3 is in line.

Plus, it’s trying to compete with the 3-series, A4, C-Class. It’s not supposed to compete with a Hyundai. That’s what the Ioniq (a respectable vehicle) is for.

Just noticed the pic of the standard wheels. Wow are they ugly.

Makes it even clearer that Tesla desperately doesn’t want anyone ordering a stripped base version.

They are designed for efficiency. They are proof that Tesla wants to put out as efficient a car as they can for buyers who value that the most. Efficient isn’t always the most attractive.

Sorry if you’ve blinded yourself so much that you can’t see that, and instead try to make it into something it isn’t.

BMW 3 series killer with the M3 killer around the corner. Both priced competitively but one does not need gas!

The basic point made here I GRIN at whenever I read all the comments….. Initially, the BOLT ev was claimed to be ‘way overpriced’ for what you got since it is so much cheaper. (My Canadian friends constantly tell me they get so much better a deal on a BOLT ev than I did – which is true – but its also true that many MORE Canadians are WAITING for more of them to show up at the dealerships, which GM may not be that enthused about doing since the dealers also need to get their cut, and GM may not want to give out the BOLTS at sacrifice pricing – or at least not too many of them.) Canadians essentially get free L3 fast charging (CCS), and seat heaters, which I had to pay extra for. I also did not get the CCS jack, since where I am I can’t use it. But now that ‘3’ pricing seems to have been a bit more clearly stated, it seems the narative ongoing is that the ‘3’ is “SO much more car than that Homely BOLT” that of course it costs more! I do wish I had had a chance to… Read more »