Tesla Model 3 Sedan, Wagon, Coupe & SUV Variants All Under Consideration


Tesla Logo

Tesla Logo

According to Auto Express, several variants of the Tesla Model 3 are under consideration.

Aside from the expected sedan version, Auto Express is led to believe that the Tesla Model 3 will be offered in a range of setups, including as a coupe, wagon and even a crossover utility vehicle.

Of course, Tesla would love to capture a sizable market with the Model 3, so branching out to include several body variations is expected.  However, nothing is set in stone as of right now.

Per Auto Express:

British-born Chris Porritt, Tesla’s vice president for engineering, told us the new small Tesla – expected to be revealed in 2016 for a 2017 launch, and hinted at in our exclusive images – is still in the early stages of development and that nothing is being ruled out.

“We don’t know what type of customer we’re trying to appeal to yet, but we want to speak to more customers… Lots of them!” he said. “We’ve got specific customers for Model S, we have an idea with Model X, but we need to appeal to more people with Model III.

“We want this car to be £30,000 to £35,000 with derivatives which will appeal to all sorts of people. SUVs, estates – who knows?”

On the topic of price, Porrit explains that Tesla is still a long way from being able to achieve the $35,00 target that Musk has announced for the Model 3:

“The type of technology we have now is quite expensive. To enable us to sell Model 3 for a more cost-effective price, we need to take the 
cost of building it down as well.”

“We’ve got to be more efficient in the way we build it and we will have to use more cost-effective materials and/or be cleverer with the materials we use.”

After the Model 3, the Roadster may be reincarnated, according to Porrit:

“We may do a Roadster or a sports car again, but at the moment we are on a trajectory to get more volume rather than focus on a specialist product.”

Source: Auto Express

Category: Tesla

Tags: , ,

71 responses to "Tesla Model 3 Sedan, Wagon, Coupe & SUV Variants All Under Consideration"
  1. alain dion says:

    2017 that mean’2019 or 2020,i will be ready to trade in my leaf,great,who are we kiding here 2017 sure ,i have dreams too! the price 35 000 to 40k ,sure with steel body and 40 to 45 battery,I,m a buyer,i will put my money down.

    1. Jouni Valkonen says:

      Tesla Model 3 will come on time in late 2016. It will cost for Tesla several hundred millions each month in forever lost revenues if Model 3 is delayed, so it is not in Tesla’s financial interests to delay significantly the Model 3.

      1. Mikael says:

        I hope you’re right. But Teslas track record shows that they can’t get things done in the time frame announced even if their lives depended on it.

        Hopefully there will be fully functional prototypes ready by late 2016 at least. And some kind of production starting before 2018.

        1. Lustuccc says:

          Or maybe they could have rolled out Model X on schedule, but why the rush? Model S sells like cup cakes! So they take their time to polish it more and make another big splash..

          1. Jouni Valkonen says:


        2. Jouni Valkonen says:

          For the delays of Roadster it was obvious that the project was very difficult, markets unsecure (global financial crisis) and overall risks were high, because it is not easy to start-up a car company. And then Elon Musk run out of cash because both Tesla and SpaceX were in troubles simultaneusly. Therefore Roadster delayes were just unavoidable.

          Model S delays had similar problems that first design was not good and they had to start all over again and this of course was not easy with limited budged and very limited experience on manufacturing.

          Model X delays on the other hand were planned because Tesla is anyway short in basic components such as batteries and today it cannot even satisfy the Model S demand. Therefore Tesla does not lose money if Model X is delayed in order to clear the potential bugs.

          But today Tesla has in practice infinite amount of cash so Tesla can invest heavily on new model development if that is necessary. And if it seems that Model 3 design is difficult, then Tesla can just quadruple the design budged and make sure that everything gets tested and polished on time.

          Of course Tesla cannot start Model 3 production sooner when gigafactory starts production because Panasonic can supply enough batteries through 2017 only for S and X. So therefore Model 3 will come in late 2016 because that is when gigafactory is scheduled to start production.

          Actually Model 3 will come possibly early, because gigafactory is ahead of schedule, because so far things have gone smoother than anticipated. Of course further delays with gigafactory are possible because project is complex and not everything can be solved by burning cash.

      2. MTN Ranger says:

        There is no way that the Model 3 will be on sale in 2016. Most likely 2017 for startup production and 2018 with full scale production. That is if everything goes well.

        1. Jouni Valkonen says:

          So are you here suggesting that Tesla is throwing 10 to 20 billion dollars in trash bin as forever lost revenues? And as competition is catching up, long term financial loses for Tesla Model 3 delays could be as high as hundreds of billions dollars, because one year delay of Model 3 just gives more time for the competition.

          We can estimate that the demand for Tesla Model 3 in 2016 is about a million cars annually. Therefore one year delay means directly at least 10 billion dollar loss in revenue.

          1. James M says:

            Funny numbers. Estimates are 100,000 in the first year and ramping up to half a million. Also, a million into 10 billion is a $10,000 priced Model 3? Check your math before posting such comments.

      3. Spec9 says:

        2016? 😀 LOL. Not gonna happen. Wish it would. Heck, we’ll be lucky if the Model X ships by then.

        1. Jouni Valkonen says:

          Model X is rather irrelevant car. Tesla does not lose money with Model X delays, because any X delays means that Tesla can sell more Model S85D cars.

          however Model 3 delays are financial disaster, because 3 and S/X are in different market segments.

          1. Stuart22 says:

            Irrelevant car? Try telling that to the many who have put a chunk of their savings down on it, and let us know their response.

            1. Rick Danger says:

              I think that Tesla originally thought that the Model X would be essential to their success because of American’s mania over SUVs. It turned out that the Model S was such a resounding success that bringing out the Model X on time became less of a priority. More important to get it right than rush it out the door too soon.
              The Model ≡, however, is a big priority for Tesla, for all the reasons you stated. They don’t want to be the last ones in the pool in that segment, although they still will not sacrifice quality to be first.
              I think Tesla will do everything possible to start shipping the first iteration Model ≡s in 2017, and to ramp up production just ASAP.

      4. tftf says:

        “Tesla Model 3 will come on time in late 2016.”

        Why do you continue to believe this?

        It’s almost certain at this point it won’t happen. Be realistic.

        2018-2020 is much more likely for Model 3 volume shipments given all the delays Tesla had in the past.

        1. Jouni Valkonen says:

          Tales from the future, why you do not understand that if Model 3 is delayed by one year, it costs for Tesla some 10 to 20 billion dollars in forever lost revenues. If Model 3 is delayed by two years, it probably does not mean that Tesla loses 25 to 50 billion dollars in lost revenues (assumed 50 % annual growth rate) but more likely it means that 100 to 200 billion dollar loss in revenues, because markets are probably no longer virging and untouched in early 2020’s. It is very hard to try to calculate what would be the cost if Tesla loses their current leader ship position on electric car markets.

          Therefore it is definitely on Tesla’s financial interests to delay Model 3 significantly. On the other hand, if it just possible, Tesla will bring the Model 3 as soon on markets as Gigafactory allows.

          1. Jouni Valkonen says:

            uh, you edit function:

            of course typo was obvious that there was missing negation, but the last paragraph should naturally start: “therefore it is definitely NOT in Tesla’s interests to delay Model 3 significantly.”

            1. Stuart22 says:

              Good points that can also be applied to the Model X. I wonder if Elon has learned any lessons from the wasted time it is taking to getting the falcon doors right. From a cost/benefit POV, the falcon doors are an ego-driven fiasco. Falling in love with an idea can be a dangerous thing, especially when it focuses upon something as irrelevant as third-row seat access.

          2. James M says:

            Considering both sides to the argument of lost revenue due to delay versus rushing the design to get the Model 3 out on time, sacrificing quality is the loser. Tesla has the engineering and market credibility after the Model S that it will never intentionally give up, with the X or the 3. Most customers will believe it is worth the extra wait. And there is no credible competition in the 200 mile EV range anyway. So rushing quality would only sacrifice long term sales for near sighted revenue gains.

            1. Jouni Valkonen says:

              James, it is also possible to rush development not by delaying, but quadrupling the development budged of Model 3. Then it is possible to ensure highest quality and not loose markets for competitors such as Audi A4 Quattro.

    2. Lustuccc says:

      It’s amazing to see how many people takes for granted that Model 3 will have a higher price tag than 35k$! For only one critic said it Will cost 50 000 $ then 70 000 $ Who is that guy anyway?!? On the other end, Tesla announced 35K$ and nothing else… The gigafactory is supposed to lower the battery costs 30% at the bare minimum. Musk said : “If we can’t get to 30 percent without technology improvements, someone should shoot us, because that would be in complete defiance of economies of scale and obvious cost savings.”If we can’t get to 30 percent without technology improvements, someone should shoot us, because that would be in complete defiance of economies of scale and obvious cost savings.”
      Staubel said that 50% decrease in cost is more likely.
      Actually we know nothing of their plans and all we do is speculations…
      So why all this BS against Tesla?

      1. Spec9 says:

        If I were driving around in my $50K Model S, I might believe you.

        1. LuStuccc says:

          The 50k Model S was the 40kWh battery, and as it wisely targetted the luxury market, there was not enough demand, so it was discontinued.

          The Main goal of Tesla is bringing clean electrics for the masses. Model S and X are the means to reach that goal. With the huge success of Model S, they rose prices like any business, to get the most cash they can, and that’s what they are doing right now in order to concentrate all efforts in the production of Model E.

          Now, to appeal the masses, isn’t it logical to take the price down instead of up? They annouced 35k$ but I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see a smaller tag price when it will be ready, like the Ford Model T.

          Musk has a clear mind and he didn’t choose “Tesla” and
          “Model” out of pure coincidence…

          1. LuStuccc says:

            Our collective memory is getting shorter and shorter…

            The Model S was indeed priced at 49 900 $ with the incentives.


          2. Spec9 says:

            I don’t buy this “there was not enough demand so we cancelled it” story. I think that it just did not have good margins and/or it didn’t work well with the superchargers, so they cancelled it. I’m sure it would sell if they offered it, especially because we all now know that you can upgrade your battery later with a swap.

      2. QCO says:

        Note that Tesla’s own Engineering VP is saying they are having difficulties getting to the target price. This is not an easy problem to solve. It’s highly dependent on a combination of lower battery costs, production efficiencies, and design cost reduction, any of which may not pan out quite as expected.

        They might still get there, but It’s far from a sure thing.

      3. Lensman says:

        It’s not BS to note that every single high-profile EV has had the estimated cost increase as it neared production. Nor is it BS to note that both the Tesla Roadster and the Model S had their price increased about 10% not long after they debuted.

        I am enthusiastic about Tesla cars in particular and EVs in general, but I’m not blind to the very high probability that the base Model ≡ will sell for something more than $35k. Heck, you can find many quotes from Tesla spokesmen where they cite the price at “between 35 and 40 thousand”, and I even saw one quote at 40k. So it’s not like Tesla has a firm corporate line that it won’t be more than $35K.

        Even if they do achieve the hoped-for 30% reduction in the per-kWh price of the battery pack, that doesn’t mean there won’t be cost overruns elsewhere in developing and building the Model ≡ … just as there have been such overruns and delays with all Tesla’s models to date.

        Noting and applying the lessons of history isn’t being a Tesla basher, and it’s not even being particularly pessimistic. It’s being realistic.

        Now, I do agree that at least the more recent delays in the debut of the Model X are probably delays by choice rather than by necessity. If the “D” version of the Model S will sell at a bigger profit margin for Tesla than the X (not an established fact, but at least a plausible scenario), then why shouldn’t they continue to sell the S so long as their ability to produce cars continues to be constrained by battery supply? That’s just exhibiting business savvy.

  2. Realist says:

    So no 35k car after all, 30-35k GBP vs 50k GBP for Model S would equal to 42-50K $ Dollar in US, and even for that costs need to go down

    1. James says:

      Enter the Gigafactory. Have you not been paying attention?

      So you want one American company to build out thousands of fast Supercharger stations around the globe, wave a magic wand and make lithium batteries suddenly affordable – and do all this is a timeframe suitable to your needs.

      Gee – that’s doable! L 🙂 L

      While they’re at it, they can cure cancer, end world hunger and oppression – cease all wars and make you and your wife get along all the time!

      Not too much to ask!

      Be patient – Tesla is here for the long haul. Much to the chagrin of legacy automakers. I have no doubt that someday I will be able to purchase a Tesla car that will suit my family of four at approximately the price of a loaded Toyota Camry.

      Some say Tesla will need two Gigafactories to pull off those types of prices. I’m no economist, so who knows?

      I can wait. Until then, I believe my Chevrolet Volt can get me nearly anyplace I want to go on zero gasoline – without stressing where I can plug in.

      1. James says:

        * and if Toyota, GM, Ford, Fiat and the rest stop the FOOL CELL nonsense, and calling their offerings with plugs “halo vehicles”, the process of mass production and competition will hurry the end goal of the affordable 200-400 mile family EV.

        Gas prices are down, Republicans rule the roost Democrats are caving daily to the XL Keystone tar-sands, fracking lobby – so the future of the Infernally-Combusted gas pig, pollution machine is bright as we speak, today.

        Waiting is an EV-activists middle name. This too shall pass. Tesla is my hero as between Nissan and Tesla – nobody else seems to be pushing the EV ball forward.

        Writing and reading about compliance cars from legacy automakers is a real drag. It’s all we got right now so wait we shall.

        Until then, the naysayers will have their day. When a combination of world events, prices of oil and it’s unpreventable rise in price emerges – the inevitable demise of explode-and-burn vehicles will come.

        Remember – when we despair at Keystone XL, fracking and evil lobbyists, just remember that our Canadian neighbors to the north are our number one suppliers of imported oil – and that Canadian consumers actually pay more per gallon than we do!!!

        No pipeline, political lobby nor public smear campaign can stop the EV-Manifest Destiny.

        So hang in there – everybody.

        1. James M says:

          Don’t forget GM, Ford and Mitsubishi. Their plugin world sales combined out due Tesla and Nissan’s. Pure EVs are best in the long run, but plugin hybrids do offer a dramatic step in the right direction too.

    2. Rob Stark says:

      British prices include 20% VAT

      1. Rob Stark says:

        And shipping across the Pond.

      2. Realist says:

        So no taxes or shipping for model s?
        If its 30% cheaper then model S in pounds, so it will be in dollars

    3. krona2k says:

      I think the currency probably got mixed up there. They’re aiming at £25,000 before UK incentive which should put it about £20,000 after incentive.

      1. Realist says:

        How is currency changed up if he said 30-35, US price was never 30k

  3. Rob Andrews says:

    Would rather have fewer choices and higher probability of getting the III on time. If you want to generate excitement, put up a Model III pre-order page with live counters that increment as people reserve their car. (just send me the link first 🙂

  4. Just_Chris says:

    The model 3 will either be a smaller model S in which case it will be expensive or much more like the Leaf, probably less ugly, and more modestly priced.

    IMO there will be a range with a 40 kWh base model with no fast charge for about $35k and then a range of variants with bigger batteries, different body styles and various other options. Much like the Ford focus; 3 door, 5 door and estate are all available. Diesel, petrol, AWD, BEV, etc.. obviously drive train variation will be limited to number of motors and size of battery pack but you get the idea.

    The SUV variant with an EV is probably not as difficult as with an ICE because you have most of the weight low down so bigger wheels don’t make the car unstable and an extra motor isn’t a big additional cost.

    The interesting thing is what else will be around at the time of the model 3 release? Maybe a 150-200 mile leaf? Maybe a 200 mile sonic? and a whole heap of PHEV’s / BEV’s with rex. Exciting times.

    1. Anthony says:

      I don’t know if 40kWh is enough to hit that 200 mile range that’s been promised. I figure the minimum is about 45kWh for a real-world 200 mile range, and about 48kWh to be an EPA rated 200 mile range.

      I think the Leaf will be around 150 miles, the Sonic EV at 200 miles, and the remaining fleet of CA compliance cars will get bumped to about 125 miles of range shortly thereafter.

      1. Lensman says:

        45 kWh was also my back-of-the-envelope guesstimate of what will be needed for what is optimistically labeled a 20% smaller “200 mile car”, in the same way the 85 kWh Model S was labeled a “300 mile car” altho the actual EPA rating came in at 265 miles.

        Those looking at the Model S and trying to figure out what changes will be made to make it a 35K car, are approaching it from the wrong direction. Auto makers don’t design a cheaper car by taking an existing model and cutting it down. They use what’s called a “clean sheet design”; taking a target cost as their budget, and deciding what they can afford to include within that budget. It’s an additive process, not a subtractive one.

        Those who think the Model ≡ will merely be a smaller version of the Model S… will be surprised.

  5. Anton Wahlman says:

    Wait a minute! I thought Musk said $30,000 — and sometimes $35,000 and sometimes $30,000 – $40,000.

    You mean it ain’t so?

    “If you like your $30,000 Gen 3, you can keep your $30,000 Gen 3.”

    1. leaf owner says:

      He should have just said “it would cost less than the Model S” and have been done with it….

    2. robert winfield says:

      perhaps people writing snarky comments anti tesla should also reveal they are SHORT the stock TSLA and want Tesla to fail. Me, I drive a PHEV and am Long TSLA stock, unlike the above commenter Anton

  6. kdawg says:

    Building multiple styles goes against their recent decision to limit choices to consumers in order to get more production.

    1. Rob Stark says:

      Limiting color choice and specification combinations is completely different than variants.

      That has virtually zero impact on unit sales. While limiting Gen 3 to either sedan or crossover would limit sales.

      A sedan and CUV is a done deal.

      Coupe and station wagon/estate are long shots.

      1. kdawg says:

        Comes down to spreading yourself too thin. Tesla is not a large company.

        1. Taser54 says:

          With the quality challenges before them, Tesla should not spread themselves thin until they can consistently produce the quality cars that they promised.

      2. James M says:

        “Wagon” is the wrong word, hatchbacks are hugely popular (think Ford Focus, VW Golf, Mazda3, Audi A3). It is the perfect format to target sporty and practical, both Tesla icons. The Model 3 will definitely have a hatchback variant, likely before a coupe.

  7. Bret says:

    This is all really old news.

    Elon said years ago that a CUV variant would follow the Model E, just like the Model X will follow the Model S. As for the station wagon, I doubt they would sell enough of those to waste the money in development.

  8. pjwood says:

    Tesla’s last quarter walked the “stable, high growth” strategy. I think they could risk getting too comfortable in the Model S sand box. Model III would be rolled out to a lot more competition from BEV/EREV/PHEV. You don’t have to look past today’s ridiculous story about Audi making a sports car, out of a heavy 250 mile battery, to see realistic competition in the luxury BEV space years off. This is putting Tesla on extended play.

    Not to take development success away from them, but Tesla has been ceded the luxury BEV market where they are going to have to brawl their way to gaining share in the 30k-40k segment. It’s where other manufacturers have taken losses, to sell new tech, and fetch compliance points. How much can Tesla do that? How much should Tesla do that, when they don’t need to go credit farming?

    1. ffbj says:

      Pretty much agree with most of that.
      They own the upper echelon ev market.
      They will probably own the SUV segment when the X, comes out.
      I think they will only any real competition in the mid-range segment, though I think the Model III will be competitive.

  9. Spec9 says:

    Take advantage of that skateboard design and provide a number of different body styles. It shouldn’t be that hard.

    1. Open-Mind says:

      Exactly. And it’s baffling why Tesla has not already done that with the Model S. With different body & wheels, the AWD Model S would be a great pickup or SUV.

      1. Spec9 says:

        Well . . . I think they tried to do it with the Model X. But those Falcon doors have ended up being a boondoggle.

        1. James M says:

          Luxury SUV yes. Luxury pickup, are you kidding? Wait and see, X will likely out sell S.

          But for the rest of us, we’re all waiting for our 3.

      2. Lensman says:

        I’m not convinced that the tech is there yet for a compelling EV pickup. You can’t build a pickup with the highly advantageous streamlining that the Model S has. Higher wind resistance means lower range. And hauling around a lot of cargo, which after all is the purpose of a pickup, will also cut into the vehicle’s range.

        We’re finally starting to see other auto makers talk about 200 mile BEVs. If there really is a battery improvement in the works which will enable other auto makers to make such EVs, then perhaps we’ll finally see the EV revolution shift into second gear. (Definitely still not top gear!) I think a compelling pickup will have to wait until the -next- advance in battery tech beyond that.

        Now, that’s not to say that nobody will build a compliance vehicle EV pickup before then. After all, Toyota already built and sold a “California compliance” crossover SUV, the RAV4 EV. But I don’t expect to see any attempt to build an EV pickup in large numbers in the next few years.

        1. James M says:

          Bo Lutz has a more compelling argument than yours. I very much hope he’s right:

  10. GaryMulcahey says:

    The next gen Leaf and the next gen EV VWs are going to beat the Tesla 3 to market. They will both have a 200 miler out in a couple of years in the $35G range. Or so they claim.

    1. Lustuccc says:

      Too high priced for mid quality cars.

    2. Spec9 says:

      I don’t think either of them have made such a claim at that price point. GM has. Nissan has said they are working on more miles but have given no price.

    3. Lensman says:

      It doesn’t matter if two or 200 models advertised as “200 mile EVs” beat the Model ≡ to market, if none of them are built in numbers greater than the Leaf. Even the Leaf needed two additional battery factories built to satisfy demand– and that’s for a 75-80 mile BEV, not a 200 mile one.

      Tesla Motors is building a GigaFactory to provide the number of batteries needed for producing a “200 mile” BEV in large numbers. Unless and until some other auto maker builds the equivalent of the GigaFactory, then they simply won’t be able to supply enough BEVs to compete with a car like the Model ≡.

  11. GeorgeS says:

    I bet GM has a 200 mile EV before Elon can get the Gen 3 out.

    I also bet it will be a quick little EV. Fun to drive.

    At a lower price than Gen 3 Tesla.

    1. DonC says:

      Don’t climb out on a limb George! Then again, given that GM is showing the car and Tesla has a concept, maybe this isn’t such a bold prediction? LOL

    2. Spec9 says:

      They certainly can do if they choose to do so. And if GM builds a reasonably-priced decent-looking 200-mile-range EV . . . I’ll buy it.

      Well . . . the one thing I’d worry about is fast-charging though. If they license the Tesla supercharger network, I’d buy it. But I might be tempted to wait for a Tesla so I could use the Supercharger network (even if it wasn’t free and I had to pay a reasonable amount for a charge).

  12. Illuminati says:

    Tesla S P85 battery cost: ~$20230 ($238/kWh)
    Tesla S 60 = 60 kWh = ~200 miles
    Tesla 3 = 20% smaller/lighter

    60 kWh x 20% lighter = 51 kWh for ~200 mile
    Battery: $238/kWh x -30% cost (Gigafactory) = $167 kWh
    51 kWh * $167 = $8517 (Battery cost for model 3)

    $35000 – $8517 = $26483 model 3 without battery
    Substract ~25% (Tesla gross margin on every car)

    $8517 for the battery (51 kWh/~200 miles)
    $8750 gross margin
    $17733 for the car

    $35000 is quite possible.
    Add maybe $5000 for Supercharger/Autopilot/Warranty/…

    Model 3: $35K to $40K (~$45 for the SUV version)

    1. Spec9 says:

      Well here are the parts of your interesting numbers that I don’t agree with.
      -I don’t see them getting down to $167/KWH
      -I don’t see them getting a 20% improvement on efficiency with a smaller car because often times smaller cars are less aerodynamic (long low cars are good, often smaller cars are TERRIBLE) and they won’t get much of a lighter car because they’ll use steel instead of aluminum.

      But if they can do 200 mile range (EPA rated) for $40K (or close to that), it will still be fine.

      1. Lensman says:

        Spec9 said:

        “I don’t see them getting a 20% improvement on efficiency with a smaller car because often times smaller cars are less aerodynamic (long low cars are good, often smaller cars are TERRIBLE) and they won’t get much of a lighter car because they’ll use steel instead of aluminum.”

        Yes, but this will be mitigated by the fact that a smaller, lighter car needs less energy to push it down the road. And while a smaller car may not have quite as good streamlining as the Model S, it will probably not be extra-wide like the “S”, giving it a smaller cross-section… making it easier to achieve low wind resistance.

        “Illuminati” is estimating a 51 kWh battery for a “200 mile” Model ≡; I’m estimating 45 kWh. We’ll have to wait and see who is closer.

        1. robert winfield says:

          @Lensman. You might download the (free) from Rocky Mountain Institute “The Economics of Grid Defection” that deals with PV and EV and home battery storage and their estimates of Li Battery costs. I suspect the gigafactory will surprise some folks at how well it does. (BTW, I own TSLA stock and am well on my way to a ‘free’ one in a few years)

      2. Illuminati says:

        -“I don’t see them getting down to $167/KWH”
        Musk said: “I think we will probably do better than 30 percent cost reduction…”
        Musk said: “If we can’t get 30% improvement someone should shot us.”

        -“I don’t see them getting a 20% improvement on efficiency with a smaller car because often times smaller cars are less aerodynamic (long low cars are good, often smaller cars are TERRIBLE)…”
        -Good point. But improvements may also come from the reduction of the weight of the battery (optimised size/shape), lighter seats, and other changes of this kind.

        -“…and they won’t get much of a lighter car because they’ll use steel instead of aluminum.”
        Chris Porritt said: “We can’t use aluminium for ALL the components.”
        Ok. Not a full aluminium car. So maybe steel for the frame, and aluminium for the body.

  13. Lou says:

    I think the fact of the matter in regards to Model III pricing is that Tesla will be offering a nicely apportioned, smaller, but upscale EV. My sense is that it will appeal to the Audi/BMW/MB buyer, who can purchase the lower range models that they offer. The Model S is for the upper end buyer, and regardless of cost overruns, or conversely,Tesla’s ability to reduce costs because of efficiencies of scale and Giga Factory, their market is going to be with that more price friendly German luxurty car. The Model III will sell, regardless of whether they can hit that magic $35,000 starting price or not.

  14. Chris says:

    The mass market vehicle, Model 3, it the reason Elon Musk started Tesla. It is THE absolute priority.