Tesla Model 3 Specs: 220-310 Miles Range, 0-60 MPH in 5.1 Seconds – More Details

JUL 29 2017 BY STATIK 574

The Tesla Model 3 has arrived…and the specs (and pricing) do not disappoint!

The wait for the Tesla Model 3, the company’s long-promised inexpensive, long range all-electric car has been excruciating…has it really been almost a decade since CEO Elon Musk foretold of his plan for the 3?

The first 30 Tesla Model 3s were given out Friday, July 28th!

With that said, the wait ended Friday night, as Tesla gave over the keys to some 30 Model 3s to anxious owners from its Fremont, California production facility.  (Watch the event here, or at bottom of this story))

And when it was all over, Tesla put out all the pricing and specs we have been waiting for!

The base Tesla Model 3 was confirmed to have a price of $35,000 – which nets 220 miles of range (EPA estimate), a 0-60 time of 5.6 seconds and a top speed of 130 MPH – with deliveries to start in the Fall/November 2017.

Adding the “Long Range” battery option moves first deliveries up to this month (so we assume all the cars given out tonight have this option), adds $9,000 to the price, but bumps range up to 310 miles, lowers the 0-60 MPH time to 5.1 seconds, and bumps the top speed to 140 MPH – a pretty good deal from $44,000 we would say!

There was no word on the AWD versions of the Model 3, but one expects those offerings to add a little more performance on top, as well as slightly higher range abilities.

Model 3 all-wheel drive production is estimated to get underway in late 2017/early 2018.

Tesla Model 3 Delivery Party!

And of course we know everyone wants to see the interior up close!

Tesla Model 3 Interior – Here It Is!

Another look inside the Tesla Model 3

Gallery (below):  More from inside the Tesla Model 3!

Tesla says of the Model 3:

“Model 3 is a smaller, simpler and a more affordable electric car. Designed and built as the world’s first mass-market electric vehicle, it is a critical step in Tesla’s mission to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.

Tesla on stage about to handover the keys to the first 30 Model 3 owners!

Like every Tesla vehicle, Model 3 combines range, performance, safety and technology. Intelligent design maximizes interior space to comfortably fit five adults and all of their gear. The high-efficiency powertrain provides zero to 60 mph acceleration in as little as 5.1 seconds.

Model 3 is designed to achieve the highest safety ratings in every category. Combined with 220* to 310 miles of range and a starting price of $35,000 before incentives, Model 3 is Tesla’s most affordable vehicle yet.

Model 3 is currently in production, and deliveries to employee reservation holders began on July 28, 2017 at the Tesla Factory in Fremont, CA. Reservations for Model 3 first opened on March 31, 2016 and remain available today.”

Tesla Model 3 from $35,000

And as one can see from the Model 3 event Friday, Tesla is forecasting a S-Curve in production for the rest of 2017:

Tesla Model 3 production for 2017

Full Tesla Model 3 spec list:


Price – $35,000

Standard Battery

  • Range: 220 miles (EPA estimated)
  • Supercharging rate: 130 miles of range per 30 minutes
  • Home charging rate: 30 miles of range per hour (240V outlet, 32A)
  • Deliveries begin: Fall 2017


  • 0-60 mph: 5.6 seconds
  • Top speed: 130 mph

Definitely the youngest attendee, our own Bria Loveday who was on stage earlier to announce the winner of the fan-made Tesla commercial competition!


  • 15” touchscreen display
  • Dual zone climate control system
  • FM/Internet streaming radio
  • Textile seating
  • Front center console with open storage and two USB ports


  • Onboard maps and navigation
  • Wi-Fi and LTE internet connectivity
  • Keyless entry and remote climate control using the Tesla app
  • Voice activated controls
  • Bluetooth hands-free calling and media streaming
  • 60/40 split folding rear seat to maximize cargo options
  • Back-up camera
  • Auto dimming rear-view mirror
  • One-touch power windows throughout
  • Power-adjustable side mirrors
  • 12-volt power outlet


  • Full LED exterior lighting
  • Eight cameras, forward radar and twelve ultrasonic sensors enabling active safety technologies including collision avoidance and automatic emergency braking
  • Six front row and two side curtain airbags
  • Three-point safety belts with belt-reminders for driver and four passengers
  • Two LATCH (Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children) attachments in second row
  • Electronic stability and traction control
  • Four-wheel antilock disc brakes with electronic parking brake
  • Child safety locks
  • Anti-theft alarm system
  • Tire pressure monitoring system


  • Vehicle: 4 year, 50,000 mile limited warranty
  • Battery warranty: 8 year, 100,000 mile (120,000 mile with Long Range Battery)

It’s S, E, X on a bridge (don’t blame us, it’s Tesla pun with the naming convention)


Long Range Battery – $9,000

  • Range: 310 miles
  • Supercharging rate: 170 miles of range per 30 minutes
  • Home charging rate: 37 miles of range per hour (240V outlet, 40A)
  • 0-60 mph: 5.1 seconds
  • Top speed: 140 mph
  • Deliveries begin: July 2017


  • Solid Black: Standard
  • Midnight Silver Metallic: $1,000
  • Deep Blue Metallic: $1,000
  • Silver Metallic: $1,000
  • Pearl White Multi-Coat: $1,000
  • Red Multi-Coat: $1,000


  • 18” Aero: Standard
  • 19” Sport: $1,500

First 50 Tesla Model 3s from the event launch on July 28th, 2017

Premium Upgrades Package – $5,000
Upgraded interior with additional features and premium materials.

  • Premium heated seating and cabin materials throughout, including open pore wood décor and two rear USBs
  • 12-way, power adjustable front seats, steering column and side mirrors, with custom driver profiles
  • Premium audio system with more power, tweeters, surround speakers and subwoofer
  • Tinted glass roof with ultraviolet and infrared protection
  • Auto dimming, power folding, heated side mirrors
  • LED fog lamps
  • Center console with covered storage and docking for two smartphones

Enhanced Autopilot – $5,000
Model 3 will match speed to traffic conditions, keep within a lane, automatically change lanes, transition from one freeway to another, exit the freeway and self-park at your destination.

Additional features will roll out over time through software updates.

Full Self-Driving Capability – $3,000 (requires Enhanced Autopilot)
In the future, Model 3 will be capable of conducting trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat.

This feature is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary by jurisdiction.

Tesla Model 3 has arrived!


Dimensions & Weight

  • Length: 184.8”
  • Width: 72.8” (76.1” with mirrors folded)
  • Height: 56.8”
  • Wheelbase: 113.2”
  • Track (wheel center): 62.2” front and rear
  • Ground clearance: 5.5”
  • Head room, standard: 39.6” front row, 37.7” second row
  • Head room, glass roof: 40.3” front row, 37.7” second row
  • Leg room: 42.7” front row, 35.2” second row
  • Shoulder room: 56.3” front row, 54.0” second row
  • Hip room: 53.4” front row, 52.4” second row
  • Seating capacity: 5 adults
  • Luggage capacity: 15 cubic feet
  • Curb weight:
    • 3549 lbs. (Model 3)
    • 3814 lbs. (Model 3 Long Range)
  • Weight distribution:
    • 47% front, 53% rear (Model 3)
    • 48% front, 52% rear (Model 3 Long Range)


  • Hybrid steel/aluminum body
  • Drag coefficient of 0.23


  • Double wishbone, virtual steer axis front suspension with coil over twin-tube shock absorbers and stabilizer bar
  • Independent multi-link rear suspension with twin-tube shock absorbers and stabilizer bar
  • Variable ratio, speed sensitive electronic power steering
  • Electromechanically boosted four wheel anti-lock disc brakes with electronic brake force distribution
  • 18” Aero or 19” Sport wheels with all-season tires

Standard Accessories

  • 240 volt NEMA 14-50 adapter
  • 120 volt NEMA 5-15 adapter
  • J1772 public charging adapter
  • 20 foot mobile connector with storage bag

Video (below):  Livestream of Tesla Model 3 delivery party:

Another Tesla graphic on Model 3 production:

Some Tesla Model 3 production S-Curve action (via Tesla)

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , , , , , , ,

574 responses to "Tesla Model 3 Specs: 220-310 Miles Range, 0-60 MPH in 5.1 Seconds – More Details"
  1. Derek says:

    310 miles on a 44k car is pretty damn good. This car is gonna sell like crazy.

    1. Robert Middleswarth says:

      Assuming you don’t want any of the options like Auto Polite.

      1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

        I need Auto Polite quite often here.

      2. Asak says:

        Nah, I’ll definitely take my car rude.

        1. floydboy says:

          OK, that was genuinely funny, LOL!

        2. Ambulator says:

          “Nah, I’ll definitely take my car rude.”

          That will cost you an extra $1,000.

          1. Nix says:

            Is that the $1000 dollar Red-In-The-Face Multi-Coat paint option?

            1. ffbj says:

              Yes, and it honks & flashes it’s lights, if something is blocking it and says:
              “Hey I’m drivin’ here.”

      3. “Auto Polite”, must be the feature that gently reminds you that you got the best EV, now you can sit back and enjoy!

        1. JustWillimPDX says:

          Or not! Perhaps “auto correct” is responsible for a common error! Maybe you are part of the majority rejecting sedans! Maybe you ignored all available information and thus find it shockingly expensive! You might have found an EV that better fits your needs, called IT “the best!”, and added exclamation points to every sentence you write about it!

          1. ffbj says:

            ..and here we have a wonderful example of trying to be funny and failing miserably.

            1. I’d! S!A!Y! E!x!c!l!a!m!a!t!i!o!n! M!a!r!k!s! C!A!N! B!e! O!v!e!r!k!i!l!l! !!!!

          2. Adi says:

            You have such a good car with realy good performance potential all you can think of is auto pilot.This is a car not an I phone.learn to enjoy it properly.

    2. WadeTyhon says:

      That would be without premium heated seats or power seats? Add $5,000.

      Autopilot or self driving tech: $8000.

      Less range than the Bolt? $9000 to increase the battery capacity. Ehhh my wife may rethink the model 3 after seeing these prices.

      1. floydboy says:

        Not that much less range than the Bolt. Access to supercharging, 400kW free every year. OTA upgradeable. Autopilot hardware already installed, capable of being turned on at later date(when possibly less expensive). Quick, sleek and sexy.

        1. WadeTyhon says:

          True, although around 40,000 is our comfort zone. (We’re young, under 30, she just graduated college and started her career.)

          For 40,000, the Model 3 may not be for us. She needs heated seats and she always buys leather. Apparantly that is only available in a $5,000 upgrade with a bunch of stuff she won’t care about.

          She wants ACC or autopilot. It is her only disappointment with the Bolt. So that’s $5,000. Add $1000 on delivery, $1000 for paint, and dwindling incentives…$47k before tax, title, lic.

          Basically it is a 10k difference… before the $7500 incentives from the feds and the $2500 Texas rebate. If we went with a Model 3 it may be very late 2018 or early 2019 before they got around to us. At best we would be looking at a partial rebate.

          That means potentially a $15k-$20k price difference after rebates. We make decent money but for us that is a huge difference. The Model 3 looks gorgeous but we also love the look of the new Volt.

          But maybe option prices will drop or used ones will be available by then. And the fact that the Model 3 has a real 5th seat is important to us as well… plus, who knows what pricing will be a year from now.

          Oh well, I should get to bed before I go crazy. Tesla needs to move to the other coast so that we can do these things at a reasonable hour lol!

          1. Cavaron says:

            Remember that sharing the car via Tesla Network can generate you some revenue. Could sicnificantly reduce the amount of money you have put in the car over time.

          2. DC Tesla Patiently Waiting says:

            Yeah, I agree that the options are not cheap and these prices are before you add sales taxes and delivery etc.. The bigger battery plus the tech package and auto pilot and blue color will run 55k before sales taxes. Heated seating is nice in the North east and I’ve wanted that all glass roof since it was initially introduced. But 55k is far from a 35k price tag based on the initial impressions and introductions of the car.

            I’m a bit on the fence to be honest even though I made my reservation back first thing in March along with everyone else.

            It’s still one heck of a long time to wait for a car. Waiting for a product is not such a bad thing but I can tell you I will never do this again.

            As a side note, not sure if anyone noticed, but at 20k per month goal starting at the end of december that means in 2018 they will still be working on fullfilling the backlog of the 375k orders. There was no mention of the rampup in 2018 other than 40k by the end of 2018. So maybe they will get through just the backlog by the end of 2018? Maybe not?? I suppose we will have to pay attention to their quarterly shareholder discussions to determine what the 2018 ramp will be.

            1. Koz says:

              They talked plenty about the ramp up which allows easy estimates to what sales should be but don’t worry, they just burned through 100k reservations last night. Only black standard and $5000k to get power mirrors and seats if that is all one wants from tech package will cancel many out, not to mention $5k for adaptive cruise.

              Their marketing and sales must have forgotten this car is meant for mainstream and is competing against all other sedans, ICE and hybrid included. There aren’t 500k/yr EV only customers.

              1. DJ says:

                I think you make a very good point. Compounded with their dwindling Fed tax credit and you have an even bigger issue. Time will tell though.

          3. zll says:

            A bit of advice here, if you’re under 30 and still starting out, it’s not wise to get a $40,000 car. Save up for a home and the future. Take care.

            1. Vexar says:

              As a homeowner, I beg to differ. All that time wasted in maintenance you will never, ever get back. Besides, the base price is $35,000. Go ahead and get the base Model III, it is the cheapest EV you can buy today that you can always drive home to Mom & Dad’s to mow their lawn, anywhere there’s a road, with recharging speeds! Except in North Dakota. Man, that stings. I swear, Tesla has no love for that state on the Supercharger map.

              1. Fool Cells says:

                That is untrue. Want to flush money down the toilet, rent. Talk about money you will never see again.

                1. L'amata says:

                  RENT = Pay the other guy’s Mortgage.,Over & Over in a life time…. l o l..

                2. Nix says:

                  When I look at my house bills over a year, I put the numbers into two columns.

                  In the first column I add up all the mortgage interest I pay for the year, HOA fees, the taxes and the insurance, and the maintenance work I’ve done, and that’s what I consider my “rent”. I will never see that money back the same way as if I were renting.

                  In the other column, I put the total Principal I paid, and an estimate on what fraction of home improvements may have added to the value of my house, plus how much Zillow says the value of the house has gone up in the last year. That is my equity I’ve gained in my house. This I consider my “savings”, like a savings account.

                  With where I’m at paying off my home, my “rent” numbers wouldn’t get me even a studio apartment. While my “savings” are 2 full orders of magnitude bigger. When looking at the numbers that way, it is a no brainer.

                  It all comes down to how much you can afford to put into “savings” each year, and if your work is stable enough to stay in the same location long enough to make it work

            2. abc123 says:

              “A bit of advice here, if you’re under 30 and still starting out, it’s not wise to get a $40,000 car. Save up for a home and the future. Take care.”

              I agree. Unless you’re under 30 and making a big chunk of change, you’re wiser just to get a used car. Used Volt goes for a lot less.

              My advice is to get settled first, save up some emergency funds, get some job experience, then get the toys later.

              Cars depreciate so fast that if you get into financial trouble, you won’t get much back for your car should you need to sell it.

          4. FISHEV says:

            “She wants ACC or autopilot. It is her only disappointment with the Bolt.”

            Me too otherwise I’d be driving a Bolt now. Crazy they didn’t include it. It also points out that $5,000 to get it in the T3 with Autopilot.

            1. L'amata says:

              Buy the Bolt ! r o t f l m a o ..The model is a no Brainer against any car out there…Less Money .., More Car ,,dduuuuuuuu

              1. FISHEV says:

                No dynamic cruise is a no sale for me. Drive 25,000 miles year and dynamic cruise is essential and key safety feature.

                Bolt lacks power driver seat which is also important for high miles driving.

                If Bolt adds it (the hardware is all there so it was senseless not to include it), I might do it but I have the money and want the AWD also so the $60K AWD, 300 mile, T3 has everything I want in an EV so I’ll wait and get one. US made is nice feature also.

                Base delivered $36,200
                Warranty/Service $7,000
                AutoPiliot $5,000
                AWD $5,000
                70 kWh battery $9,000
                Paint $1,000
                Seats $5,000

                $68,200 delivered.

                1. ffbj says:

                  True. The Bolt is certainly designed as a city runabout, not a cruiser. No adaptive cruise control is, as you say, critical for long distance driving.

                  1. ClarksonCote says:

                    Bolt EV may get ACC in 2018 model year. They waited a year on the Gen 2 Volt as well.

                2. Fabian says:


                  Warranty/Service is 7k for a 35k car?

                  This Tesla equation is not working out so well.

                  Uhhh, no.

                3. Tom Incorporated says:

                  Where are you getting this Warranty/Service for $7,000 price from?

                  1. FISHEV says:

                    “Where are you getting this Warranty/Service for $7,000 price from?”

                    Tesla. It is the cost of warranty extension and four years of service on Tesla’s. Tesla has a monopoly on parts and service and any warranty issues that might come up with a Tesla after initial warranty would hugely expensive.

                    Can’t see anyone buying a Tesla without the extended warranty and service of $7K. It’s in my budget for loaded Model 3 in 2019.

                    1. William says:

                      A smart money move, to cap your potential unforeseen Tesla 2019 M3 ownership expenses. Best insurance money can buy.

                    2. speculawyer says:

                      Seems like a really bad move to me. You really think you’ll need $7K in parts?

                      If so, then it is crappy EV. One of the whole points of EVs is that they have less maintenance & repairs. If the odds are so bad that you’ll need $7K+ in repairs then it is a TERRIBLE EV.

                    3. Martin Winlow says:

                      There isn’t anything *to* service?! Why would you pay $4k (or anything) for it? Buy the extended warranty after 4 years, if you feel the need!

                4. speculawyer says:

                  “Warranty/Service $7,000”

                  No thanks. Junkyards are a thing.

                5. JayTee says:

                  Buy 2 really nice cars instead.

          5. Jacked Beanstalk says:

            If your wife is that set on getting autopilot, just tell her to drive everywhere with her mother-in-law in the passenger seat.

        2. arne-nl says:

          In real life, the Model 3 will feel like it has more range than the Bolt.

          The EPA range is an average between city and highway range. In the city, it will lose out on the Bolt, but on long highway trips, the lower drag will give it an advantage. Wait for the detailed EPA range estimates.

          1. unlucky says:

            While I also feel that the Tesla Model 3 base will have more highway range than the Bolt you do have to realize that it won’t be by much. It’s not going to feel particularly different. You’re talking about 220 miles (Bolt) versus maybe 230 miles (Model 3 base).

            Also note that EPA doesn’t give highway range per se in their figures. But you can calculate it from the total range figures and the combined and highway MPGe.

            1. Jay Cole says:

              That’s technically not accurate, the EPA numbers listed for public consumption don’t list them, but they have the splits internally…of which we do publish once available. But your estimates are probably pretty good on the highway spreads between the base 3 and the Bolt.

              Here is the Bolt EV for example (link), where the Bolt EV’s drag does factor in as large as any EV on the road at .32

              City: 255.1 miles
              Highway: 217.4 miles
              Combined: 238

              Here is the data (linkie) for the Model S P100D and its .25 Cd

              City: 331.1 miles
              Highway: 337.2 miles
              Combined: 335 miles

              Given this data, one expects that the base Model 3 (~.23) will have greater highway range than the Bolt (by ~15-20 miles), but no where near that 255 mile city number (~low 200s).

              Should also note to be fair: that this EPA highway number testing tops out at 60 mph, with an average speed of 48.3 mph … so in reality, on a major highway at sustained speeds (most drive 10+ over), the splits will be far greater than 15-20 miles

              1. Asak says:

                Just a tip:

                You can find the city/highway range splits for any car listed on Fueleconomy.gov.

                Just open up a compare side by side (you can do this even with only a single vehicle). Then click on the personalize link toward the bottom and change the “percentage of stop and go miles” to either 0% (highway range) or 100% (city range).

                1. Jay Cole says:

                  Hehe, just that easy, (=

                  I guess I should have said not easily listed for public consumption. I would say, you have to be really “in the loop” to know to do that…maybe a handful of people have done that.

                  Also, the excel spreadsheet numbers give a lot of other metrics, and note if the highway/city numbers have been voluntarily lowered (which Tesla has often done in the past to avoid product-creep between models)

              2. speculawyer says:

                Wow! The difference in the Cd between the Bolt and the Model 3 really just shows how the existing gas automakers STILL DON’T GET IT.

                They are still designing gas cars where Cd don’t matter because gas tanks are cheap.

                But batteries are EXPENSIVE so you need to maximize Cd to make the most of your VERY expensive battery. So the Model 3 will get much more range out of its battery.

                1. ClarksonCote says:

                  If you want more head space and a higher roofline, it comes at an aerodynamic cost. There’s no free lunch.

                  1. speculawyer says:

                    Did you not watch the Model 3 reveal? Elon specifically brought up that as one of the most challenging issues. He pointed out that to make sure they had good headroom in the back, they went with the glass roof because that allowed for more headroom.

                    No free lunch, but careful design & engineering.

          2. FISHEV says:

            But in real life the Model 3 will have less range than the Bolt.

            Funny how that works.

            Interesting that Tesla did to try and beat the Bolt’s 238 mile range. That extra 8% covers the inevitable Lion battery degradation so the Bolt will be a fer shure 220 mile EV in 10 years while the Model 3 will be a 200 mile EV. Range is key in EV sales so it matters.

            1. ffbj says:

              I think the sc network makes up for the slightly lower mileage. Plus you assume the packs will degrade equally while I would say the Tesla pack will probably degrade more slowly.
              Clearly it’s a plus for the Bolt not that big of one.

              1. Jacked Beanstalk says:

                The SC network isn’t so great in many areas. I’ve checked it here in MI and for the places I drive it’s useless. I’m also in a rural area so range is a necessity for me.

                My Volt remains the best solution for my needs. Too bad it drives like a Chevy instead of a BMW.

                1. Nix says:

                  They announced the number of Superchargers will triple by the end of 2018. So that might very well change.

                  1. William says:

                    More Tesla superchargers are good, unless your driving pattern and route selection doesn’t intersect with their locations. This may be a growth problem that Tesla will become painfully aware of, as more EV manufacturers start to provide alternatives to the Tesla Supercharger Network.

              2. FISHEV says:

                “I think the sc network makes up for the slightly lower mileage.”

                Only thing the makes up for range is range with EV’s where even the fast charging DC systems like Tesla’s take better part of an hour.

                Add on the 10%/10 years basics of battery degradation and the range becomes more of an issue. With my 25,000 I’ll see more large percentage dischargers and fast DC rechargers which speed up battery degradation so the 300 mile range of the T3 is big plus for me.

                1. arne-nl says:

                  Uuhm no, at some point your battery will deplete, no matter how big it is. With the negligible difference in range between the Bolt and Model 3, the Supercharger Network is a key difference, making only the Model 3 a possible 100% usable replacement for a gasoline car.

                  Albeit with a bit of extra time to factor in on long road trips. But most people get bladder anxiety long before the battery depletes, so the ‘better part of an hour’ recharge time usually adds very little to the total travel time.

                  1. FISHEV says:

                    “Uuhm no, at some point your battery will deplete, no matter how big it is. With the negligible difference in range between the Bolt and Model 3”

                    That is actually an argument for the greater range Bolt 238 over the lower range Tesla 220. The SuperCharger network not only doesn’t save you from battery degradation, the fast DC charging causes faster degradation as Tesla noted recently in limiting it on cars where owners and using too much fast DC charging.

                    Lion tech tells us the batteries will degrade over time. We saw some extreme use Tesla’s (Tesloops taxis service) have the battery totally fail at 200,000 miles of constant SC use along with high percentage discharge. Fact of life.

                    The Bolt degrades 10% to 214 miles, the Model three to 198.

                    A argument for a Bolt.

                    1. William says:

                      It is just only just a 16 mile argument. Consider the actual highway long range mile comparisons (at an approximate 65 MPH average). I think the actual mileage ranges, at the typical average highway cruising speeds, will be in the lower single digits, not the mid teens. Aerodynamics at higher speeds (65 MPH +) give Tesla at least handful of extra miles in overall highway range.

                    2. arne-nl says:

                      Argument for a Bolt? Huh?

                      First of all you totally forget that the Model 3 will have the edge in highway range due to its far better aerodynamics.

                      Secondly, following your line of thought that the Bolt would go a whole 18 miles further before needing a charge, what good does that do, if you only have a weak (50 kW) fast charger (or no fast charger at all) waiting for you?

                      Compare that to the Tesla superchargers and how they are integrated in the navigation system and you’ll have to concede that it is a much better solution from the point of view of the customer. If you just wants to get from a to b without hassle the Tesla beats the Bolt hands down.

                      Clearly you’re not being rational here. Range isn’t everything. It’s the whole picture that counts and recharging infrastructure is a vital part of that.

                    3. FISHEV says:

                      “First of all you totally forget that the Model 3 will have the edge in highway range due to its far better aerodynamics.”

                      Range is range and the EPA ratings are fair comparison. Bolt has 238 and Tesla has 220.

                      That is solid 8% plus for the Bolt and in low range vehicles like these, that is bigger difference and advantage for the Bolt.

            2. BenG says:

              In real life the Model 3 will have longer range where it matters. It doesn’t typically matter if you have 220 miles city range or 255 miles city range. You’ll never hit either of those figures in a day of city driving.

              On the highway though the range is very relevant, and as guys have said above, Model 3 will have an advantage in highway range on the slow EPA test, and a much greater advantage when you’re talking about 65-75 mph steady highway travel.

              Combine that with the Supercharger network and the Model 3’s range over a day’s driving is comparable to a gas car, even with the smaller battery while a Bolt will struggle to cover anywhere near that distance.

            3. speculawyer says:

              1) Uh…yes, the long range version has much more range.
              2) The base Model 3 is slightly less than the Bolt…but also $2500 cheaper! (and more elegant).
              3) Supercharger network is far more important.

      2. mhpr262 says:

        I have to agree, those prices are really hefty. Two thirds of that across the range would be OK.

      3. philip d says:

        That 220 number is combined. I’m betting that on the highway at cruising speeds where range counts the Model 3 will be very close or the same to the less aerodynamic Bolt. The Model 3 220 range actually has a curb weight that is 15 lbs. lighter than the Bolt as well.

    3. Priusmaniac says:

      That would be 600$ per extra KWh, that is very expensive. With 21% VAT still upon that, we will be pass 50000€. That is very bad news.

      1. arne-nl says:

        But you get the extra performance too. That is worth a lot of money in carlandia. Tesla is just another manufacturer asking the highest price is thinks it can get. That’s capitalism.

        1. Jacked Beanstalk says:

          Higher priced cars sell in lower volumes. That’s also capitalism.

          1. AlphaEdge says:

            Right now, selling is not an issue till all those pre-orders have been met, and then Tesla can start discounting if needed.

          2. arne-nl says:

            Yup, and there’s an optimum somewhere. Tesla will find out where it is and adapt pricing/options to arrive there.

    4. midimal says:

      If u add some options it will be far over 50.000 even close to 60k! – which isnt a low price at all!

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        I’ve been trying to tell people that this isn’t an “affordable” car, but rather “semi-affordable”.

        I think now they’ll listen.

      2. L'amata says:

        When I sold new cars, I would tell buyers the truth , Instead of loading up a lesser priced car((Unless U gotta have it)) with options, go to the next level* for the same price,or sometimes even less,(((the more money car had more wiggle room)))where the “Options are allready included”..ie: Why buy a Loaded up Ford Focus ..when you can buy a Fusion for the same or Less money. Tesla doesn’t wanna lose S buyers to the 3 if they can help it. Hence this pricing structure..

        1. Will says:

          Used S with all the bell and whistle cost less then this car

          1. BenG says:

            Yep buying at least a couple years used is the way to REALLY get your options cheap.

            I bought a loaded 2012 Volt Premium with the expensive paint for $14,000 last year. It only had 34,000 miles on it and was well kept, so it’s in cherry condition, well, with one exception (see * below).

            Car was probably, what, $45,000 new? The first owner ate over $30,000 worth of depreciation in the four years she owned it! Expensive options seem to make a car depreciate extra fast.

            * The stupid used car dealer’s detailing service left a fragrance bomb in the car and it was closed up in the sunshine 95 degree central Georgia with that fragrance bomb for a couple weeks … damn car still stinks of it a year later unfortunately.

            1. Nix says:

              “The first owner ate over $30,000 worth of depreciation in the four years she owned it!”

              Actually, the first owner ate $23,500 worth of depreciation, and passed on $7500 in Federal Tax incentives to you, the second owner. That money didn’t come out of her pocket.

              $23,500 in depreciation on a $45K car for 4 years of driving sounds just about right for most $45K cars.

              1. ClarksonCote says:

                Yup, many people still don’t get that the tax credit which will instantly reduce resale value is NOT depreciation.

                1. BenG says:

                  Well, we don’t know for sure if the original owner got the full tax credit or not, though it’s pretty likely. This was also purchased when Georgia had a hefty $5000 tax credits as well, so the initial net purchase price was probably even lower. $45,000 – $7,500 fed credit – $5,000 GA credit = $32,500 net purchase price.

                  Original owner probably took about a $20,000 hit on depreciation over the 4.5 years of ownership. 60% depreciation is pretty typical for a new car over that much time. Still a huge chunk of money to me.

        2. FISHEV says:

          But Model S will lose sales to Model 3. A lot of people don’t want that big car even though they can afford it. Especially true with EV’ers who are going to efficiency types already.

          $93K vs. $68K is a big price difference with the smaller car being a plus.

          And at that the $68K Model 3 has 300 miles vs. the 259 miles of least expensive comparably equipped Model S (AWD, paint, AP, Package for heated seats etc, warranty and delivery)

          1. L'amata says:

            what you all say is true.I guess it boils down to different strokes for different folks.

          2. Nix says:

            “But Model S will lose sales to Model 3.”

            In the short term that is very likely.

            But the Model 3 will make Tesla a much more well known and recognized brand, and in the long term it will draw even more buyers into Tesla and into the Model S and X.

            Totally new to the brand conquest sales are the most expensive/difficult type of sale to make in the automotive industry. It is much, much easier to get buyers to “buy-up” within a brand. The Model 3 just created half a million new potential “buy-up” sales opportunities the next time they go to buy a new car.

            Any short term flattening in Model S sales due to people choosing the Model 3 instead will actually work out to Tesla’s favor in the long term.

            Tesla’s bigger problem with the Model S is that it is now in it’s 5th year of production. And even with modest updates, a new nose, and constant powertrain improvements, they will need to come up with something they can call “next generation” in the next 2-3 years.

            1. FISHEV says:

              All true but it points out the argument above that it won’t affect Model S sales was wrong.

              Why spend an extra $30K on a bulky S when you can get a slim Model 3?

              1. L'amata says:

                In all Fairness the S is Much more car in many ways.(U get what U pay for?) I like the 3 for it’s size. If The 3 will take sales away from the S will Remain to be seen , I myself don’t believe it will, Some people just like a Bigger Car..

                1. FISHEV says:

                  “In all Fairness the S is Much more car in many ways”

                  S has less range and 3 is smaller body so advantage 3 in two key points.

                  S weighs more, again advantage 3

                  Liftback is about the only advantage of the TS over the T3 and for $30K differential, I live with the trunk.

          3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Or maybe the popularity and media buzz about the Model 3 will cause more people to look at what Tesla has to offer, and more people will buy the MS and MX.

            I don’t notice BMW whining about the sales that the 3 Series “steals” from the 5 Series, and most likely it will be the same for Tesla — despite all the many Tesla bashing posts here from FISHEV.

    5. CCIE says:

      As most people expected, the base car isn’t a bad price and the options are overpriced. So, it will likely be almost impossible to get a base car, especially for the next 1-2 years. Tesla would probably lose money or barely break even on any base cars sold.

      This is really an old legacy carmaker’s trick. Low price on the base vehicles attract buyers, but all available cars have some overpriced options installed. It’s a bit sad to see Tesla resorting to this.

      1. philip d says:

        For some reason among all the overpriced options the one that really irritates me the most is that you have to get the $5,000 premium package to get a console armrest/lid! Even the cheapest econobox you can buy comes with a console compartment. I mean come on.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          I’d love to see some articles on, and some discussion of, what aftermarket suppliers make consoles that fit EVs which lack them.

          If it was my money, I’d certainly think it would be worth the time and trouble to find and install (or pay to have installed) a nice aftermarket console that would cost far, far less than $5000.

    6. FISHEV says:

      What will likely sell like crazy is the $52,000 ($59,000 with extended warranty and service) “base” model with 300 mile range, autopilot, paint.

      What’s interesting is that the option are priced much the same as TX and TS models. AWD will come in around $5K

      Add in the AWD which by customer choice was 80% of TS and TX sales, and the a fully equipped T3 with warranty is $64K.

      That’s excellent and a 300 mile, AWD EV is perfect. What’s best is it sets the bar for other mfgs. to provide the same for the same price. Audi e-Quattro will have to have the same range if it hopes to compete. GM’s Buick EV AWD same deal.

      For those us buying in 2019 when everything settles out (any T3 bugs and improvements plus AWD will be offered) there should be some nice choices but the Model 3, AWD, 300 miles is the new standard at $60K.

      1. pjwood1 says:

        The 60k talk is silly. 220, a Supercharger network, maybe 5k for Autopilot and the pre tax-credit price is 40k.

        1. FISHEV says:

          “The 60k talk is silly.”

          I would say the $35K is “silly talk” as delivered it’s $36,200 but mostly because Tesla will likely not be selling any even at $36,200.

          Tesla stated early on it would give sales preference to “highly optioned ” vehicles and that is what Tesla needs to sell also so you will see $60K Teslas (300 miles, Autopilot, Premium, Paint, Warranty/service, AWD for $68K before any $36,200 vehicles are shipped.

          Buyers want the loaded vehicle and Teslas needs to sell the loaded vehicle, a convergence in the force.

          1. pjwood1 says:

            Months lag, and you’ll see base RWD Model 3 sedans being delivered. Tesla were slow with Model X base cars, since they took many months to deliver the 5-seater, that set the base price. I don’t see that happening here. If people are in line for a 220 mile car, plus supercharging, 35k was accurate. Most manufactures charge a destination fee. Nothing unusual for that not to be built into a “base price”.

            I’m totally sympathetic to Model 3 owners who, like Model S shoppers, are faced with the new “hostage taking”. Things like coil suspension won’t be released any longer for Model S. The ransom on heated steering is $5k. Plenty of reasons to walk away from a maker who has boldly gone the opposite direction of “custom”. How much electric drive means to people is something Elon Musk hasn’t stopped daring them to give up.

            1. FISHEV says:

              “Months lag, and you’ll see base RWD Model 3 sedans being delivered.”

              These are ALL RWD being delivered. There is no AWD option though one is promised by 2010.

              As with TS and TX, once the AWD is offered, few purchased the RWD. Tesla even stopped offering it on on the TS and TX models due to low demand.

              And people are going to bid up, offering to buy the fully loaded $68K T3 over the $93K similarly equipped TS, so Tesla will ship the high profit model and put the few going for the stripped down RWD on hold.

    7. joe p says:

      It will be huge.. Long range should not be an option, it should be standard equipment

  2. vvk says:

    Nothing about dual motor?

    1. Robert Middleswarth says:

      Won’t be introduced until 2018.

    2. FISHEV says:

      AWD is supposed to show up beginning of 2018 when actual buying customers should start be able to configure and get their Model 3’s with the 2017 cars going to employees and selected Tesla owners for beta testing.

      What wasn’t said at the opening was how were the 30 delivered “beta” models set up? With the 300 mile larger battery, glass roof, autopilot etc.? One would guess they are loaded with options so the options can be tested by employee drivers.

  3. tm says:

    Dual motors?

  4. Murrysville EV says:

    How can the rear seat headroom be the same with the glass roof as the standard roof?

    1. fred says:

      Its the same glass rear window that extends over the rear seat. In front of that its either metal or glass. So its the same headroom for the rear seat. They showed an image.

  5. 2013Volt says:

    Love it. I’ll take a base car in black with the long range battery please.

    1. David says:

      No autopilot and lvl5 future?

  6. fred says:

    More expensive options than I thought. The naysayers were right. $9k for bigger battery is way more than I expected. $8k for autopilot software? Everything else in $5k premium package.
    $22k in options on a $35k car. Wow.

    Surprised he didn’t try to sell it at all. No demo. No talking it up. No talk of the configurator etc.

    1. Murrysville EV says:

      “The naysayers were right.” True.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      I agree, the prices for the options are significantly higher than I expected. $100/mile for the larger battery pack? That would be something close to $400/kWh!

      1. Asak says:

        I’m actually sort of disappointed the larger battery costs that much more. Obviously there’s a lot of profit margin built into that. Aren’t some estimates that the Chevy Bolt’s battery costs only $10,000 total? If so, another 25 kWh shouldn’t be more than about $4,000.

        I can accept the other option prices (although $1000 for a different paint color seems excessive), but I think pricing the battery at such a premium might be a mistake. I mean, on the one hand it’s a good upsell, but on the other a 220 mile range is really still sort of short compared to gas cars. I’d really have liked to see a base LR version being $40,000.

        1. Vexar says:

          GM Bolt et al have a 60 kWh battery. That means their pack price would have to be $167 per kWh. The Bolt is 30 pounds lighter than the base Model III. The Bolt is 20 inches shorter in length. It is also six inches taller, but the head room is identical. Unless you get the sunroof option for the Model III, then you have even more headroom! You also get 2 inches less hip room per seat, in the Bolt. It looks like that almost correlates to the 3 narrower inches in the Bolt, although Tesla had to do something to get such an amazing crash test video for side impact, publicly SHAMING the Volvo S60, for having a 5-star rating and clearly inferior crash test side impact (See this video @ 27 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZEjJDNkXxw).

          Don’t know what to say about the side-impact safety in this GM Bolt video. Did they get four stars?

          1. philip d says:

            “The Bolt is 30 pounds lighter than the base Model III.”

            I think it’s the other way around.
            Bolt (from GM site) 3580 lbs.
            Model 3: 3549 lbs.

          2. joe p says:

            Dude that video is for a Volt not a Bolt

            1. William says:

              GOOD catch! GM/ Chevy Volt/Bolt model name confusion, rearing its confoundingly ugly head again for the win.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “Aren’t some estimates that the Chevy Bolt’s battery costs only $10,000 total?”

          Well, the cost for the cells alone is $145 x 60 = $8700. If pack assembly costs are 25% of cell costs, that would total $10,875.

          If the total is only $10,000, then pack assembly costs are only 15%. That seems a bit low to me, but I don’t know what LG Electronics’ assembly costs are. I suppose it’s possible.

          1. Doggydogworld says:

            Some random GM Europe guy said cell cost was $130 a few months back. I still believe the official number, especially with raw material prices rising, but it is the latest data point.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Cell costs are partly dependent on volume of the order. I think there was an article on VW ordering a really huge number of cells from LG Chem, and getting a price even lower than the $145/kWh that LG is charging GM.

              But that shouldn’t affect the Bolt EV battery price for at least a year or two. GM has a contract with GM for battery supply, and we’ve seen what looked like a PowerPoint slide for the $145/kWh price holding until 2019, which most likely shows the price in the contract between GM and LG Chem.

              1. William says:

                “GM has a contract with GM”? Is that the same kind of inside arrangement as, Tesla has a contract with Panasonic?

          2. John says:

            The price of a replacement pack was somewhere…IIRC it was something like $10,000

      2. reijer says:

        The base Model 3 has enough range voor 95% of the people. The battery upgrade is not only 90 miles added, but 0.5 faster and faster charging as well

    3. Rich says:

      Agreed, the option prices are Much Higher than I expected.

      I was shocked that he showed up, said here it is and we have a lot of work to do … then exit stage left. What was that?

      1. It was apparently more ‘Delivery Party’, than ‘Model 3 Detail Reveal!’

    4. Mark.ca says:

      So don’t take the options then….you do know the car can run just fine without them, right?

      1. John says:

        Don’t be stupid! The base version has less options than my $15,000 gas car that is 5 years old.

        1. Mark.ca says:

          And your gasser was $50k 5 years ago….what’s your point? I used to own a 20 year old car with more options than the base 3 and costed $2500 …..you’re an idiot!

    5. WadeTyhon says:

      Yeah, my wife has been set on a Model 3. She went right to bed after we watched the stream.

      She may change her mind after seeing the prices for autopilot and premium seats. We were thinking a 40-42k. After delivery, taxes, autopilot and premium seats, the car becomes very expensive. And By the time we got one, the federal tax rebate will be gone or significantly reduced. And it probably will not qualify for the state rebate in Texas.

      May wait for used ones to show up in a few years. Or go with a gen 2 volt.

    6. BenG says:

      I called it, except for Autopilot is more expensive than I thought.

      As I said, by the time we get an AWD Performance with Ludicrous version we’ll be up around $85,000 or more.

  7. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Well, I was wrong when I predicted the base (“standard”) battery pack would give the car more range than the Bolt EV’s 238 miles.

    Still wanna know what the kWh ratings are for the two battery pack sizes!

    1. Ben says:

      I’m guessing 50 and 75 based on the mileage specs. Someone with good insight should look at the weight difference and do some calcs to make an educated guess.

      1. Murrysville EV says:

        The standard battery is probably closer to 55 kWh. I can’t see a 3500 lb car getting 4.4 mi/kWh (if it only had a 50 battery); 4.0 mi/kWh or lower makes more sense.

        It’s probably not 60 kWh (which is what I expected), because it would be closer to the Bolt’s range if it was.

        1. Tom says:

          It’s 50 and 75. You can tell that by the electrek article from this morning.
          If you take the efficiency per mile noted in the article and multiply by 50 and 75 you get almost exactly the miles stated as range. Note the: 0.237 kwh per mile


          1. Bul_gar says:

            I would say 55 and 75kWh for sure.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Yes, I had also come up with 50 and 75, due to the discussion below. Interesting that the Electrek article seems to confirm those figures.

            I’m surprised the base pack size is, apparently, only ~50 kWh, but I guess that’s one of the choices Tesla made to keep the base price down to $35k.

        2. Asak says:

          I’m surprised that the Model 3 doesn’t seem to be significantly more efficient than the Bolt. The curb weight is about the same, but the Model 3 is definitely more aerodynamic.

          So, does that mean that GM’s EV drive system is efficient enough to completely make up the difference in aerodynamics? On the one hand that’s pretty impressive, but it’s also a bit surprising to me. I guess the Model 3 could be tuned for more performance at the expense of efficiency.

          1. Nix says:

            See the video of the M3 compared to the Volvo. That’s where the added efficiency went. Into safety.

            Nothing is free. Including safety

            1. unlucky says:

              That safety video just came to you from the company who invented the “so safe it broke the testing equipment” excuse for their own choice of selecting too weak testing equipment on the Model S.

              And the same people who when presented with an underperformance by their car decided to claim that only NHTSA knows how to test a car.

              Tesla is marketing you a story. Be careful to receive it critically.

              1. Nix says:

                Gee, who should I believe? My own eyes watching the videos of both tests, or the flapping lips of somebody on the record talking about 2019 for Model 3 deliveries?

              2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                “Tesla is marketing you a story. Be careful to receive it critically.”

                I certainly do “receive” the posts of a serial Tesla basher like you quite critically. There’s very little gold scattered in the dross there. Tesla is guilty of a lot of hype, but compared to your constant stream of serial basher B.S., Tesla’s PR is as honest as Abe Lincoln.

                The sad thing is that you probably actually believe your own Tesla bashing lies. At least a troll is smart enough to realize that what he’s posting isn’t true.

                1. unlucky says:

                  Yes, I do believe that Tesla told the world that only NHTSA knows how to test a car after IIHS rightfully didn’t give top marks for Tesla’s car.

                  What do I have wrong here?

                  Should we believe Tesla just because they say it? Is it true that IIHS and EuroNCAP don’t know how to test cars, only NHTSA?

                  Attacking me doesn’t change what Tesla did. Is it at all possible you can stick to what is going on instead of resorting to name calling?

                  1. William says:

                    You have Nothing Wrong Here!
                    Crash testing is only as accurate as the exacting testing parameters, that are included in the implementation of said tests. There are many behind the scenes variables that can and are active in documenting outcomes.

          2. CCIE says:

            Tesla has never done very well with building efficient cars. Lots of vampire drain issues in the past and the drivetrains have prioritized acceleration/speed over efficiency.

            In the gas world everyone considers efficiency (gas mileage). But, most people don’t think about miles per kWh in electric cars. I’m not sure if the average is even shown on the window sticker like mpg is.

            Everyone should be striving for 5 miles per kWh. Anything under 4 is inexcusable.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              The self-defeating attitude you’re espousing is exactly why EVs were stuck with the “punishment car” image for so long, and why there were no production plug-in EVs.

              Thank goodness Tesla emphasized performance over energy efficiency, and kicked off the modern EV revolution!

              EVs are inherently far more fuel-efficient than gasmobiles. Sure, it’s great that the various EV makers are figuring out how to tweak that already superior efficiency, but they’ve already won that battle and now they’re just polishing the trophy. The 2012 Nissan Leaf had an energy efficiency rating of about 3.12 miles/kWh. That’s already about 3.5 times as good as the average gasmobile, and more recent production EVs have improved on the Leaf’s efficiency. The energy efficiency of the Model 3, at better than 4 miles/kWh despite being a mid-sized car, is simply amazing!

              If you really want a vehicle with a super-high energy efficiency, then buy a low-speed NEV, or a scooter. Or better yet, a bicycle. The rest of us would rather drive real cars.

              1. arne-nl says:

                Nope, I’d rather drive a bicycle!


                1. arne-nl says:

                  “drive” haha


              2. CCIE says:

                We don’t all need crazy acceleration in our commuter cars. I’d rather have a more efficient car that gets more range from its battery than a sub-6 second car.

                4-5 miles per kWh seems reasonable. I can get six in my Spark, but that’s obviously a different animal.

          3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            “I guess the Model 3 could be tuned for more performance at the expense of efficiency.”

            I’m pretty sure that’s the case, yes.

            Before we got these numbers I expected the Model 3 to have better energy efficiency than the Bolt EV despite having better performance, due to noticeably better aerodynamics. Perhaps I was being overly optimistic, but I’ll hold off on passing any judgement about the comparative energy efficiency until we get some official numbers on the M3 pack sizes. I think they’re about 50 kWh and 75 kWh, but those are just educated guesses.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        I wouldn’t try to figure based on weight, because we don’t know what fraction of the weight isn’t the cells themselves. Other parts of the weight would include casing, cooling system, and the BMS.

        Pure math based on the listed ranges says that if the larger pack size is 75 kWh, then the smaller one would be 53.2 kWh. Throw in the law of diminishing returns for the larger pack, and that suggests the smaller pack is ~55 kWh… just as many of us including yours truly had predicted. But it could be closer to 60 kWh, depending on just how much the heavier weight of the larger pack reduces the range of that trim level.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Oops, I “reversed the polarity” on the law of diminishing returns! 😳 That suggests the smaller pack size is closer to 50 kWh, as Ben said.

          1. Tom says:

            See my other comment. It’s 50 and 75.

            1. Priusmaniac says:

              If batteries are not 60 KWh and 75 KWh but 50 KWh and 75 KWh it would mean a 360 $/KWh price which is not 600$/KWh but still very expensive. Tesla indicated they were bellow 145 $/KWh, even with a healthy margin that is still far from 360$. Why are they overpricing such an essential component of the car? It should be 200$/KWh maximum.
              In more, with 1000$ asked for any color but black, Ford style, other options become totally unaffordable, not even mentioning budget through the roof self drive stuff.
              Nice car but very disappointing on pricing especially the battery.

              1. drpawansharma says:

                Because they know they can sell them at this asking price, the day, demand flags, they will decrease the price.

              2. josoborne says:

                “Why are they overpricing such an essential component of the car? It should be 200$/KWh maximum.”

                It may not be a popular opinion here, but:
                Maybe they are not overpricing the 310 miles version, but underpricing the 220 miles one. In the sense that they really have to get the majority of people to buy a (heavily optioned) extended range version in order to make a profit with the Model 3.

              3. Someone out there says:

                “Why are they overpricing such an essential component of the car?”

                For profit of course. Range is the most desirable property of an EV and people are willing to pay for it.

              4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                “Tesla indicated they were [below] 145 $/KWh…”

                I rather doubt that. I suspect you’re quoting somebody’s speculation or misinterpretation of something a Tesla spokesman said.

                But if you’re correct, then I’d love to see the citation.

                “…even with a healthy margin that is still far from 360$. Why are they overpricing such an essential component of the car?”

                Probably because with demand so high and supply so low, they’ve decided to charge what the market will bear. Perhaps the prices for those options will come down to a more reasonable level as time passes. At least, I hope so. If not, Tesla is probably going to find the M3 is priced out of the market within a couple of years.

              5. arne-nl says:


                Welcome to the real world where ANY manufacturer will charge you the price that will maximise profits.

                And as I pointed out before, you ignore the performance difference.

                You get more for you 9000 than just the range. Higher supercharging rate and lower battery degradation.

                1. William says:

                  Potentially lower battery degradation by % over time, if you use the same exact charge and discharge %, for the larger battery pack. Other wise, not as much of a win-win scenario, if you drive 20% further and charge much more frequently due to more mileage driven.

    2. captylor says:

      Then can’t wait to see the cross country race between the 238 Mile Bolt vs the 310 Mile Model 3.. Think the model 3 will be waiting on the bolt to finish charging that is if you can find a CCS Station that works.

      1. fotomoto says:

        Meaningless metric.

        Folks who travel coast to coast are either moving, on a loooooong vacation, RV, etc., not racing. If time is critical (or just about every other realistic reason), they fly.

    3. unlucky says:

      Yeah. Other than Musk’s tweet there never was really a reason to think it would.

      More range costs more money. Even for Tesla. I know people complain about the Bolt price a lot but with the current cost of batteries that’s just how it is.

      We can hope for more range or lower prices (or both) later.

      And of course the Model 3 has the longer-range option too.

    4. Stx says:

      According to motor trend the two options are 60 and 85kWh.

      1. Nix says:

        MT is clear to say those are their estimates, not Tesla’s numbers

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “According to motor trend the two options are 60 and 85kWh.”

        Very unlikely. Elon said 75 kWh was the most they could fit into the M3’s pack. I doubt he was lying about that; what benefit would there be in such a lie?

  8. SparkEV says:

    What are the battery capacities? 220 miles / 50 kWh and 310 miles / 70 kWh would mean 4.2 mi/kWh, but are they?

    What is the towing capacity?

    1. Bul_gar says:

      That’s why I think 55 and 75. Elon already said that the biggest battery for now will be 75kwh

  9. Chris G says:

    I agree. A very weird launch as he does not seem enthused by this and talking it down. And everyone can be Tesla crazy but this is not an AFFORDABLE mass market car. With the options there is no way I would pay mid 50Ks for a small car like this. I’m really let down

    1. Stimpacker says:

      Eh then explain why thousands of BMW 3 series are sold? The entry level versions are the same price as this Tesla Model 3, not counting EV incentives.

      The base Tesla Model 3 is already better equipped than said BMW.

      If you can’t afford $50K, then don’t bother with useless addons like glass roof or amp-ed up audio. With only 200mi range, you don’t need Enhanced Autopilot.

      1. Chris G says:

        BMW is not a mass market car. This car was supposed to be for the middle class – the everyday non Ev buyer. Do not compare to a BMW. This was supposed to compete with Toyota camry, Chevy Cruz’s, etc.

        1. Dan says:

          I’ve never heard the Camry comparison. They’ve always talked about the BMW 3 series as the benchmark. That’s the car that is in the 35k range. There are magnitudes fewer of those sold per year than a Camry for that same reason. Tesla is not going to be a pure mass market car for the foreseeable future.

          1. needa says:

            There was a thing that came out a while back that said the majority of the people that would be buying a 3 were Camry/Accord owners. I personally have never heard Tesla compare the 3 to the BWW 3 series. Elon said as nice as an Audi, but that’s about it.
            Also… If you subtract fuel differences and maintenance costs, you get to the price of an Accord. Tesla has/had a habit of pushing that lower price to prospective buyers.

            1. needa says:

              I think they did say ‘size of a three series’ a long long time ago.

            2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              “I personally have never heard Tesla compare the 3 to the BWW 3 series.”

              Quoting from Wikipedia’s “Tesla Model 3” article:

              “In 2013, design chief Franz von Holzhausen stated that the Model 3 will ‘be an Audi A4, BMW 3-series, Mercedes-Benz C-Class type of vehicle that will offer everything: range, affordability, and performance’…”


        2. randomhuman says:

          Nop not really. It was supposed to compete with BMW 3 series and Audi A4 and the Model 3 exactly does that in terms of price and performance and so on. I mean a Camry come on. The base Model 3 price of 35K is known for over a year now. A Camry starts at 23K. Of course they don’t compete against each other.

          1. Asak says:

            Well, with the EV rebates the Model 3 is basically in competition with the Camry in CA. Although, you can probably buy a Camry for less than MSRP.

            I’m actually not sure why people are that disappointed by the price being offered. GM selling the Bolt at $37K tells us about how much the production cost for a ~200 mile EV is. The fact the Model 3 ended up in the same ballpark is not surprising.

            Once the rebates are gone, however, then the price of the car is going to be more difficult to justify for the mass market. Will economies of scale allow the price to drop as the rebate tails off? That’s the big question, in my opinion.

          2. needa says:

            It was only supposed to ‘compete’ with the 3 series in the eyes of those that ‘want it’ to compete with the 3 series. Read my comment above.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              …and then read my response to your comment, including the direct quote from Tesla’s design chief.

          3. JK says:

            The Model 3 exterior dimensions are almost identical to Audi A4 base

            But The Model3 has 0-60 time of 5.6 vs 7.1
            Wheelbase M3 3 inches longer
            Weight of M3 and a4 almost indentical if you put 12 gallons of gas in the Audi.

            The M3 would be a bargain at the base price with rebates, but I doubt anyone not a tesla insider will get such a great car for $28,000 net compared to the A4 MSRP of $36,000.

            The curb weight of the base Model 3 at 3549 lbs is a great surprise. The options prices not good news for the consumer though. The Model3 might take half the A4 sales though.

            1. arne-nl says:

              “The curb weight of the base Model 3 at 3549 lbs is a great surprise”


            2. AlphaEdge says:

              > Weight of M3 and a4 almost indentical if you put 12 gallons of gas in the Audi.

              Very impressive for the M3!!!

            3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              “The curb weight of the base Model 3 at 3549 lbs is a great surprise.”

              Well, let’s compare:

              Model S 75D curb weight: 4647 lbs
              Model 3 Long Range curb weight: 3814 lbs

              Model 3 is said to be 20% smaller than the Model S. If we reduce the curb weight of the S 75D by 20% (one dimensional reduction; length only), we get 3718 lbs; by 36% (two dimensional reduction; length and width), we get 2974 lbs.

              The Model S is a wide-bodied car, and we could expect the M3 to be somewhat narrower, but probably not 20% narrower. So, split the difference between those two figures, which gives us a guesstimate of 3346 lbs.

              Add in the fact that the Model 3 uses some steel in the body vs. the Model S’s all aluminum body. How much would that add? Heck I dunno; but if we guess 15%, that would yield a guess of 3848… which is pretty close to the real figure of 3814 lbs.

              (Full disclosure: This wasn’t completely a guess on my part. I tried 20% for the increase due to steel in the body, but that was obviously too heavy, so I tried a second time using 15%.)

              Anyway… What do you find surprising? Looks to me to be not too far off from what an educated guesstimate might have predicted.

        3. JustWillimPDX says:

          It’s all relative, and you are ascribing terms like “mass market” and “affordable” outside the pre established context of the vehicle, manufacturer, and automotive segment in question.

        4. unlucky says:

          Agreed. This is supposed to be the EV Accord. And it is. As close as it can be on price. And similar on time levels, performance, etc.

          Musk wants you to think of it as a 3 series competitor. It never was. It’s not a luxury car. It’s a good, useful car that a lot of people will find very attractive.

          1. CLIVE says:

            The Accord it a Boat!

            I think best represents a Civic of today’s time.

            It will be as popular today, as a Civic was yesterday.

            1. unlucky says:

              Accord Sedan: 192.5″L x 72.8″W x 57.7″H. 109.3″ wheelbase.

              Model 3: 184.8″L x 72.8″W x 56.8″H. 113.2″ wheelbase.

              I guess you’re right. The Accord is quite a bit longer.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            This is supposed to be the EV Accord. And it is.

            Twice wrong. The Model 3 was never aimed at the “affordable” market segment despite what all too many people said.

            Cars aimed to compete with the Audi A4, BMW 3-series, Mercedes-Benz C-Class, are not “affordable” cars.

            As to whether the M3 will actually compete with those cars, and eat into their market, we’ll have to wait and see. But in the mean time, we have good reason to disbelieve everything Unlucky posts on the subject, as amply demonstrated by all his reality-rejecting posts in this very discussion thread!

        5. JustWillimPDX says:

          Camry? Please cite ANY instance where Tesla or Elon Musk has suggested that the Model 3 was meant to compete with a Camry.

          I value my life enough to not hold my breath waiting for proof of something that never happened.

          1. needa says:

            Please site any instance where Elon said the 3 was supposed to compete with the BMW 3 series. I see so many peeps saying it… it makes me thing that I am wrong. But I can’t find any such instance.

            1. needa says:

              I mean seriously… Why would Tesla say that they were going after 3 series buyers when BMW doesn’t sell a half million of those in a year, globally. They are 100% going after Camry/Accord buyers.

            2. Nix says:

              You mean like this tweet:

              “Model 3 is like a BMW 3 series or Audi A4…”


              1. needa says:

                Not really. Though good find. That was simply saying that the model 3 is going to pale in comparison to the model s. And the only reason BMW was use in the scenario is because he was replying to a comment that used BMW.

                1. Mister G says:

                  Nix got you lol stop with the rationalization.

                2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  We’re probably not gonna find any time that a Tesla spokesman specifically said the Model 3 is intended to “compete” with the BMW 3-Series. But we’ve now got two quotes from two different Tesla spokesman directly comparing the M3 to the BMW 3-Series.

                  How much evidence do you need that Tesla intends the M3 to compete in that class?

                  Here’s that other quote again:

                  “In 2013, design chief Franz von Holzhausen stated that the Model 3 will ‘be an Audi A4, BMW 3-series, Mercedes-Benz C-Class type of vehicle that will offer everything: range, affordability, and performance’…”


        6. mhpr262 says:

          Not really. Tesla has always been a premium brand and was and is set to compete with the BMW 3-series

        7. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “Do not compare to a BMW. This was supposed to compete with Toyota camry, Chevy Cruz’s, etc.”

          You’ve been paying far too much attention to people who were letting their hopes and dreams trample reality.

          Elon quite clearly said the Model 3 was aimed to compete with the BMW 3 Series. This was never intended to be an “affordable” car, despite so many people saying that.

          The Model 3 is aimed at the “semi-affordable” market segment. Some few of us were saying that, but many or most chose to ignore us. Wake up and smell the coffee.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Ummm… because people shopping for an “affordable” car don’t even bother looking at a BMW, unless it’s a used car?

        People looking for an “affordable” car are looking at a Chevy, or a Ford, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Kia, or maybe a Hyundai.

        1. reijer says:

          The average car in the Netherlands drives around 225.000 km before it gets scratched. In that life time a Model 3 owner will save approx. €20.000,- on gas savings. Not taking in account the possibility of rising fuel prices.

          1. Asak says:

            The problem is that back ended savings like that don’t help those who can’t afford the car in the first place. And even for those who can afford it, saying in the future you can save money is something that is a pretty hard sell for many people.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Yup. The TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) argument is nice and logical, but very few people choose which car to buy cars based primarily on logic. That might persuade an accountant, but few other people.

          2. David says:

            225000km is not E20000 saving. Could be around 8000-12000Euro in real. BUT the price of repairment of Tesla is pretty high. Until they lower TCO there is still one question…do I have take or wait for another car?

            1. reijer says:

              225.000/14 = 16.000 liters.
              16.000 * € 1,65 = € 26.500,-

              225.000/6 kWh= 37.500
              37.500 * € 0,19 = € 7.125,-

              Saves almost €20.000,-. When comparing the Model 3 with a 3-series or golf gti the difference will be bigger.
              People only have to think more about the future and calculate with the years you use the car and not only the purchase price. There are planty ways to finance the price differnce these days.

              1. Bojan says:

                I ran those numbers too and my savings were about 10k€/200kkm, so about half of what you calcualted. The main difference is that I assumed slightly better fuel economy for the gas car (the number you used is about what my 18-year-old car is getting, a new car would probably get around 5l/100km). In addition, gas is a bit cheaper here (between 1,2 and 1,3€/l), but so is electricity so that had a bit less impact on my results.

                The problem with that calculation is that spending more on the car upfront also increases your insurance costs (because it’s a more expensive car), so a lot of your gas savings are going to go towards paying for more expensive insurance.

                Same is true for motor power. Since more powerful electric motors don’t increase energy costs as badly as more powerful gas engines do, it seems like a no-brainer for manufacturers to make electric cars more powerful. However, where I live the engine/motor power is the main factor that determines the cost of mandatory liability insurance – for the 200hp Bolt, that would cost about twice as much as what it costs for my current 100hp gas car.

      3. JimInAuburn says:

        Does the base model BMW 3 series have a center console? Power seats? Does it come in more than one color? Does it come with ugly wheels?

        1. david Cary says:

          It comes in 2 colors. No power seats. Does have a center console.

          Much slower at 7.1 sec

          Colors are $700

          1. BenG says:

            Base Model 3 kicks base BMW 3 Series’s ass. Much quicker and quieter and vastly more efficient.

    2. JustWillimPDX says:

      I can’t believe anyone is surprised. While compact in size, it has always been clear that the 3 would be positioned as a competitor to the BMW 3 series and Audi A4, and NOT a Honda Civic or Chevrolet Cruze. The pricing is absolutely in line with the intended ICE competition, just as the S was before it. The affordability factor is relative to previously available Tesla models and other EVs.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Okay, thanks.

        BMW is out of my personal price range, so I’ve never looked at their prices, and didn’t realize options would be so expensive, despite the fact that I’ve been pointing out the Model 3 is a “semi-affordable” car rather than an “affordable” one.

    3. Asak says:

      Assuming we actually see the base model available, I think it is basically a mass market car. The premium options are all unnecessary fluff–some people might like them, but they’re clearly not needed. Autopilot you can skip.

      The only thing I find disappointing is the $1000 cost of a different paint job. That seems a bit tacky to me. At least offer a few basic colors besides black (is this like a weird Model T reference?).

      And the cost for the higher capacity battery is also disappointing. In fact, it almost makes me suspect the base model is pretty much a loss leader to hit the price point, but in reality they don’t want to sell many of them. That’s ironic though because the base model is also the only one that really qualifies as being in the “mass market” price range.

      1. Nix says:

        Base model deliveries are scheduled to start in November

        There are only 3 months between now and november. Which is substantually sooner than never.

    4. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      Jesus Christ man, Then don’t get the muthaF—k-n options.

      1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

        Yeah, that was a reply to @Stimpacker…..lol

  10. David says:

    9000 for 90miles…no that is too much:(.

    1. Koz says:

      That’s one way to look at it but it also gets you more performance and faster supercharger. The difference is a between reasonable road trip car and a great city car. I have a Model S 85 and the small battery 3 will be significantly more limiting for road trips. A 500 mile drive will be 0:45-1:15 hrs of supercharging for larger battery and 1:40-2:30 hrs of supercharging for small, assuming both start from full. An under 300 mile drive is no Supercharger vs 20-30 min. All given as time away from highway. I don’t know about everyone sensibilities or their spouses sensibilities but the small battery will only be acceptable to EV enthusiasts for long distance travel (>200 miles).

      1. pjwood1 says:

        Up top they say “130 miles, in 30 minutes” charge timre. As fast as Model S.

        1. Koz says:

          Like I said. I own a Tesla. I know what it means to drive one on trips via the Supercharger. You don’t usually drive within 20 miles of empty and the charge rate times quoted by Tesla are ideal for the first 1/2 of battery capacity. It slows from there. Non-EV enthusiasts will not be happy driving the smaller battery size on trips long enough to require Supercharging very often unless they are OK spending a lot of extra time en route. The real value iin the larger battery is not just an extra 90 miles of range. It makes it a viable roadtrip car for most people. If you don’t plan to roadtrip with, the extra X pacify is a total waste of money unless you really value performance.

    2. Mr. M says:

      But you can use the 90 extra miles multiple times. 😉

  11. Bill Howland says:

    It is interesting that there was an article about a 48 ampere charger for the “3”, yet the specs here state 32 amperes. It will be also interesting to see if the actual charger capacity is 7680 watts, 7200 watts (which would be identical to the BOLT ev), or some other figure.

    Perhaps the 48 amp charger is only available as an option if you also purchase the larger of the 2 battery packs – that would be one explanation of the discrepancy in the information. 220 mile epa rating is almost as high as the BOlt ev’s is.

    One would think that since both the ‘3’ and GM products pamper their batteries with conditioning, and have decent ranges, that this would make NISSAN hotter under the collar re: release of its new 40 kwh Leaf product. Too little, too late?

    1. Nix says:

      32A is for the small battery.

      The large battery has higher specs and charges faster from the home charger:

      Home charging rate: 37 miles of range per hour (240V outlet, 40A)

      1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

        Yeah but the article stated 48A…

        Maybe their source was wrong?

      2. Asak says:

        40 amps is a good number. That’s exactly how powerful my EVSE is! 😀

  12. Assaf says:

    Is the $35k the MSRP, or with the Fed incentive factored in?

    1. V2 says:

      AFAIK it is all before rebate money. Expectations are Tesla will run out of subsidy slots anyway as they are capped at 300k cars?

      1. Rich says:

        Tesla isn’t capped at 300K cars.

        Scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the Phaseout section.

        Full tax credit ($7,500) – switches from a count (200K total USA sales) limit to a time based limit once each automaker’s USA sales reaches 200K. The time period will be the remainder of the quarter when 200K USA sales is reached and then 1 full quarter after that. It is unlimited sales during the time limit.
        50% credit ($3,750) – will run for 6 months unlimited sales after full credit expires
        25% credit ($1,875) – will run for 6 months unlimited sales after 50% credit expires

        1. V2 says:

          You are correct, the phase out makes the numbers a bit hard to predict but someone in the past used some tricks to calculate based on expected volumes of production at what number of cars the incentives run out. Since I will likely wait for the dual motor small battery option, the timing may be really pushing it. At least based on the timelines Elon announced.

  13. Longvsshort says:

    They gave us a rock concert.

  14. V2 says:

    There is something missing in all this. Cars are getting delivered but almost no interior shots in the presentation and the media slides? Really a bummer needing 50k to have a nicely optioned car… Somehow was hoping for a surprise and getting a 40k car with upgraded interior sooner than late next year… Cant wait to see the car in person in different colors and interior materials

  15. Rob Stark says:

    The glass roof is the standard roof.

    1. Murrysville EV says:

      If the glass roof was ‘standard’, why do the specs differentiate the two?

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      What “Murrysville EV” said. The steel roof is standard.

      Specs read:

      “Head room, standard:”


      “Head room, glass roof:”

  16. pjwood1 says:

    Great news that this wheelbase can do 310 miles. 220 and 310 miles mean something like a 55KWh and 80KWh battery size.

    37 miles of charge per hour, at 240v 40a suggests = 3.85 miles range efficiency per KWh, which is a big improvement for Tesla. Numbers work to 310/3.85=80KWh, if we’re backing into the big battery’s size.

    The options look priced the same as Model S, which is a tough pill to the 35k shopper. Auto-pilot at $5,000? ~$55k Model 3’s. Come’n get it.

    1. SparkEV says:

      L2 is not 100% efficient. If you consider 85% efficient,

      37 / (240*40*0.85) * 1000 = 4.53 mi/kWh
      30 / (240*32*0.85) * 1000 = 4.60 mi/kWh

      Then the usable battery would be

      310 / 4.53 = 68,4 kWh
      220 / 4.60 = 47.8 kWh

      Since the battery won’t be discharged to 0%, and assuming 92.5% utilization (like SparkEV) full battery capacity could be

      68.4 / 0.925 = 74 kWh
      47.8 / 0.925 = 52 kWh

      Guessing game…

      1. pjwood1 says:

        Regardless of our both arriving at what sounds like will be claimed a large efficiency bump, the 90 mile spread between the two batteries has to make for a bigger gap in battery size than almost anyone expected. “60/75” are out of the question, just looking at the “220/310” proportion.

        This whole options re-work seemed ham-fisted, to me, but I give Elon credit for showing real costs in his options. There’s super-labor in his AP software development, and he’s charing $$$ for that too.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “…the 90 mile spread between the two batteries has to make for a bigger gap in battery size than almost anyone expected.”

          That’s true. I was expecting something between 60/75 kWh and 55/75 kWh, but it looks to be closer to 50/75 kWh.

      2. Morrisg says:

        I did the battery size calc differently but came up with results close to yours:

        237 watt-hr/mi x 220 mi = 52.14 Kw-hr battery
        237 watt-hr/mi x 310 mi = 73.47 Kw-hr battery

      3. L'amata says:

        In my Opinion,$100 per mile or $9000 for 90 extra miles is wayyyyy toooo crazy much money.Battery prices were to come down Elon said.It looks to me that battery prices are Going UP! Now This Is Insane!

  17. Is the $35k the MSRP, or with the Fed incentive factored in?

  18. JL says:

    Very little hype for such a hyped event. If the Gigafactory is revolutionizing batteries/cost, does $9,000 for 90 miles of additional range seems like a lot, or is it just me?

    1. David says:

      My too:(. Overpriced 90miles.

    2. Stimpacker says:

      Probably they make next to no profit off the $35K base. The $44K model is what they formerly called the popular “$42K” option.

      $9K for that bit of range and $5K for a FW update? Those will be the big money maker.

      1. MTN Ranger says:

        Some people will buy it just for the 5.6 dropping to 5.1 0-60MPH. It also gets faster L2 charging. Higher top speed too.

      2. Actually, Elon said he figured the ‘Average’ sale price to be $42,000! However, that means – Average Price over a few 1000 cars, where there are varying numbers of units buying paint and wheel upgrades, some buying Enhanced Autopilot, some getting big battery (or maybe he didn’t include the big battery aspect), etc.

        It does not mean, and I never took it to mean, that the average buyer would exactly get a car for $42,000!

        However, without double checking the math, it still seems like a fully loaded Model 3, even with a Dual Motor (at about $4,000 more), could be had for half the price, of a fully loaded Model S!

        1. JimInAuburn says:

          You figure $35K for the base model. +$5000 because you want a center console and standard features you see on a $20K car like power seats. Don’t want those ugly aero wheels, +$1500. Want another color besides black, +$1000.

          Right there you are at $42,500.

          If you wanted more battery, or any level of auto pilot, dual motors… Tons more money.

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        The $44K model is what they formerly called the popular “$42K” option.

        I’m pretty sure no Tesla spokesman ever referred to “a $42k option”, popular or otherwise.

        Elon said they estimated the average sale price at $42k, but that’s not at all the same as saying “a $42k option”.

    3. pjwood1 says:

      Honda wanted $10,000 more for its plug-in Accord, with the same 2.0ltr hybrid motor when folks wanted that extra ~7Kwh. Tesla is offering about 25KWh, for that extra $9k. Around $300/KWh is still a good price, retail.

      1. a-kindred-soul says:

        I had an accident with my Kia Soul EV in Europe. The exchange of the 30,5 kW battery costed 16000 euros. So 9000 dollars for 25 kW, plus more speed and more rapid charging, is not overprized.

    4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Definitely not just you.

      With a higher planned volume, the unit price on these options should be lower than on the Model S, and I predicted they would be.

      Shocked to see I was wrong about that, and frankly I don’t understand why Tesla would price them that high.

      BTW — By comparison, the pricing on the Bolt EV now looks better than it did. And the Leaf 2.0 is gonna eat Tesla’s lunch when it comes to price comparisons with the M3.

      1. BenG says:

        Leaf 2.0 will obviously be cheaper but will not come close to ‘eating Tesla’s lunch’. Totally different class of car. Utilitarian economy hatchback vs. sport-luxury sedan.

      2. BenG says:

        How does Bolt pricing look better compared to a $35,000 base Model 3. Don’t you think 90% people will prefer the Tesla?

        GM is going to have to drop the $37,000 base price of the Bolt significantly below the 3 to compete.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          We’ll see. My reaction posted above was shock in not knowing what BMW charges for similar options. I knew the Model 3 was aimed to compete with the BMW 3 series, but despite the fact that I kept pointing out that the M3 is “semi-affordable” rather than “affordable”, I didn’t actually understand what that meant.

          We’ll see what happens in the market. Perhaps the M3 will sell those expensive options better than I thought it would based on my initial reaction, but I see a lot of people posting similar reactions here.

          Some have already posted here that they will be cancelling their M3 reservation. I’ll be very interested to see any reports or rumors of what the cancellation rate is. Can Tesla really sell 400,000 M3’s per year, or will that turn out to be too optimistic a figure?

          Hopefully as M3 production ramps up, Tesla will shave some off the price of those options. In fact, Elon hinted they would trim prices as the level of automation is improved, so perhaps the M3 will wind up more competitively priced in 2-3 years.

      3. Tech01x says:

        Huh? The base Model 3 seems to have equivalent highway range with the Bolt. Plus it has standard DCFC on the best DCFC network plus some included electricity, plus active safety features like AEB. It is bigger than the Bolt in critical interior dimensions like hip and shoulder room. It has built in navigation and maps, standard rear view camera, and is in a different class in terms of performance. Plus the warranty is one year, 14,000 miles longer. The roughly equivalent Bolt is $40k, or $5k more and you get less. Read the Motor Trend first drive… the Model 3 is a driver’s car and the Bolt… not so much.

        1. unlucky says:

          The Bolt has standard rear view camera. And the NAV system comes from your phone. If you have a smartphone, you have NAV.

          The Bolt is larger in several critical interior dimensions than the Model 3.

          The base model is not in a different performance class as the Bolt. No, the $40K Bolt is not roughly equivalent to the base Model 3. Although you could argue you should add the Bolt safety package to be comparable to the Model 3.

          The Motor Trend test is of the significantly more expensive 310 mile model. Heck, the model AS TESTED is $59,500. And they don’t even say if that includes the $1200 delivery fee!

          1. Tech01x says:

            Model 3 has 1.7″ wider front shoulder room, 1.2″ wider rear shoulder room, 1.8″ wider front hip room, 1.6″ wider rear hip room. Head room is comparable, with rear head room higher in the Bolt by a mere 0.2″ and the front is higher by 0.1″, which is not noticeable. Leg room is also comparable.

            Shaving 1 second off the 0-60 time is a different class of performance, and read the Motor Trend first drive article on the driving dynamics.

            1. unlucky says:

              Yes. The Bolt has more rear headroom. More rear legroom. The Bolt is larger in some critical dimensions.

              1. BenG says:

                And likewise the Model 3 is larger in important interior dimensions. When you are thinking of carrying 5 adults that extra shoulder and hip room makes a big difference. And it also makes a big difference for large people who might feel somewhat cramped by the Bolt’s narrow build and seats.

                I expect that Model 3 will have significantly better handling to go with its significantly better 0-60 time, putting it in a different performance category. The Bolt is somewhat of a ‘hot hatch’, but it’s handling is not great. The Model 3 is firmly in the ‘sport sedan’ category, dusting off competitors like low end BMW 3-series.

                1. BenG says:

                  First drive: http://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-3/2018/exclusive-tesla-model-3-first-drive-review/

                  “What’s blanching, though, is the car’s ride and handling. If anybody was expecting a typical boring electric sedan here, nope. The ride is Alfa Giulia (maybe even Quadrifoglio)–firm, and quickly, I’m carving Stunt Road like a Sochi Olympics giant slalomer, micrometering my swipes at the apexes. I glance at Franz—this OK? “Go for it,” he nods. The Model 3 is so unexpected scalpel-like, I’m sputtering for adjectives. The steering ratio is quick, the effort is light (for me), but there’s enough light tremble against your fingers to hear the cornering negotiations between Stunt Road and these 235/40R19 tires (Continental ProContact RX m+s’s). And to mention body roll is to have already said too much about it.”

                  I have never heard anyone gush about the Bolt’s handling. It’s supposed to be good, but not sports-car level by any means.

                  1. AlphaEdge says:

                    Incredibly high words of praise from the MotorTrend’s Testing Director there!!!

                    Handling is amazing, and enjoyable. Certainly a major criteria if competing against the BMW 3 Series, and Audi A4.

                    1. BillT says:

                      The Motor Trend 1st drive video is definitely very encouraging and worth the watch for the detailed view of the interior and trunk plus frunk alone. Very exciting.
                      I suspect BMW is puckering pretty bad about the fate of their 3 series cash cow right about now.

                    2. William says:

                      Finally an Affordable mass Market EV “Drivers Car”. BMW, the i3 EV is going to need something special, and quick!
                      2018-19 BMW i3 better get some 200 + mile range, or this may be “all she wrote” for the BMW i3 pricing structure.

          2. Nix says:

            “And the NAV system comes from your phone. If you have a smartphone, you have NAV.”

            If you don’t have phone service, you don’t have NAV. Which is probably exactly when you want it the most….

            1. unlucky says:

              Is there some reason you think that the NAV in the Model 3 isn’t cellular based? Did Tesla say it wasn’t?

              Let’s face it here. In a car where you are spending your time finding chargers (and checking availability) you are going to be pretty dependent on cellular anyway. I can’t see why either car would bother with onboard NAV storage (other than your current set route). It’s a luxury the price doesn’t merit.

              1. pjwood1 says:

                Let’s face that gas cars spend time looking for gas stations, where electrics go home.

              2. BenG says:

                Storage is cheap. Having to rely only on GPS satellite signals and onboard maps gives you much more flexibility than having to rely on a cell signal. It should be worth it to include that on any $35,000 car, IMO.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Tech01x said:

          “The base Model 3 seems to have equivalent highway range with the Bolt.”


          Bolt EV range: 238 miles

          Model 3 standard range: 220 miles

          That’s not what I call “equivalent”. It’s what I call one being 92.4% of the other.

          1. unlucky says:

            He’s going under the assumption that the Model 3, like the Model S will have better highway efficiency than city. Thus it will have a longer highway range than its combined range. While the Bolt is the opposite and has a shorter highway range than its combined range.

            If the difference between city and highway efficiency on the Model 3 is sufficient the Model 3 will indeed have a longer “EPA highway range” (there isn’t quite such a rating but you can calculate it from EPA data) than the Bolt.

            It is a notable possibility (which I’ve noted before) but it’ll be hard for the Model 3 to be even 10 miles longer than the Bolt on this. Still, it’ll probably tie or even win slightly and that’s something Model 3 owners who take longer trips won’t mind having in their pocket.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Thanks, Unlucky!

              Yeah, there’s a lot more discussion of highway range vs. city range elsewhere, I think in this very discussion thread.

              Apparently, from what they’re saying, the Bolt EV is optimized for city driving, and the Model 3 for highway driving. And that fits, since the Bolt EV is obviously oriented more towards (and optimized for) being a “city car”, with no support from Tesla’s superior Supercharger network; whereas the Model 3 is more oriented towards (and optimized for) highway driving, taking advantage of the Supercharger network.

          2. arne-nl says:

            Huh, you’re confounding average range (city + highway combined) with highway-only range.

            Model 3 has far better aerodynamics. (Much) worse city range, slightly better highway range is what I predict for the EPA ratings.

      4. needa says:

        At ninety bucks a mile, they are priced the same. lol

    5. William L says:

      For early reserved people, get long range 310-mile M3 has much higher chance of $7500 federal tax credit.
      If you wait for 220 miles M3, you probably get $3750 tax credit.

      If I factor the tax credits difference, the difference between the two is $5250

      1. Asak says:

        Yeah, it seems like if you hold off for the base model you could actually end up shooting yourself in the foot. That being said, $44K for a car, or $34K after rebate is a bit pricey for a lot of people. How many pre-orders end up getting knocked out by the price?

        I feel like I’m facing the same problem as with the Bolt. While I can “afford” the Model 3, I don’t know whether I can justify it. After all, a low range EV can handle my around town driving, and I can always rent when I need to go further. And for that matter, the Volt can also handle both and it’s much cheaper after rebate.

        I hope that there are plenty of people who will buy the car, but I might hold off for a few years until I can get a 300 mile EV for closer to $25,000.

      2. Nix says:

        Tesla’s Delivery FAQ says 220 mile versions start getting delivered in Nov.

    6. WadeTyhon says:

      Not just you. All the options are very high in price. Makes my $750 DCFC on the Bolt look like chump change lol.

      Still looks like a nice car… and we will not be making a decision for at least another year. But I am bumming pretty hard right now.

      As much as my wife wants the car… knowing her, she will scoff at paying $5000 to essentially get faux leather seats. Then the thing that differentiates the car from Chevy offerings is autopilot and that is another 5k.

      That is a lot of money when a premier Volt is in the mid-$30,000 range and qualifies for the state rebate… we maybe could get a used Model 3, but then again, we could buy a used, completely optioned up Volt with ACC for 28k or less.


    7. Ambulator says:

      Car companies always gouge you on options. Given that, this is a normal price.

      1. Spider-Dan says:

        The Bolt definitely didn’t gouge on options.

        1. unlucky says:

          The Bolt doesn’t gouge you on options AS MUCH.

          They pulled DC fast charging off the car between the initial announcement and the time price sheets went out. That’s a $750 gouge.

          And if you look at the headline features like the camera rear view mirror you see that you must get things like the tech pack (Bose stereo, wireless phone charger, etc.) before you can even select that feature.

          Yeah, the Bolt does gouge you on options some. Not nearly as much as this car though.

          1. Spider-Dan says:

            There’s a big difference between “options are offered on the car” and “gouging.”

    8. Nix says:

      JL “If the Gigafactory is revolutionizing batteries/cost, does $9,000 for 90 miles of additional range seems like a lot, or is it just me?”

      It costs about $28K to go from a 259 mile 75D to a 335 mile 100D. That’s less than 90 miles for 3 times the money.

      So no, not really.

  19. SparkEV says:

    It’s a huge disappointment that the range is not 314.15926 miles. They could’ve squeezed out a bit more for more memorable number. 220 isn’t bad (two two’s naught)

    1. Murrysville EV says:

      They’ll release a software improvement on March 14 to boost the range.

      1. arne-nl says:

        😀 (for both of you)

        1. MikeM says:

          And a pie in the face for SparkEV!

    2. V2 says:

      There are only 10 types of people – those that will get the joke and those that will not 🙂

      1. Ahldor says:

        Took me a while to get your joke .. does that mean I am in a super position in between the two? 😉

        1. Think again, this way:

          “There are 10 types of people who understand Binary! Those Who Do, and those Who Don’t!”

          1. Nix says:

            He got it.

            And then once he got it, he took the joke quantum.


            1. ffbj says:

              True. That puts a different spin on things.

              1. SparkEV says:

                No. What we have is coherence problem.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “…does that mean I am in a super position in between the two? ? ”

          Not possible. Haven’t you heard?

          “God does not play dice.” — Albert Einstein


          1. ffbj says:

            ..with the universe.”
            If God is everywhere & is therefore universal or the universe. Then you could paraphrase Einstein by saying:
            God does not play with himself.

  20. V2 says:

    Can one “unlock” auto pilot and self driving later? Is it extra compared to purchasing upfront?

    1. MTN Ranger says:

      $1k more each after delivery, just like the S & X.

    2. Rightofthepeople says:

      I wondered the same thing. Also, will the base pack be OTA upgradable to the long-range pack for a charge later? This could help a lot of people who want long-range but can’t quite afford it now. Get the base now to maximize the tax credit, then save some money and upgrade to the long-range pack a year or two from now.

      1. BenG says:

        No way. These will be two physically different packs. The ~75 kwh pack is way too expensive to sell a de-rated version for $35,000 and hope to make money back with future upgrades.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Yes. This is confirmed by the higher curb weight for the Long Range option; it has a heavier battery pack.

  21. David says:

    Maybee time to cancel my preorder and wait on Das Auto…Wolkswagen next 2 years:(.

    1. Mister G says:

      Please do one less person in line LOL

      1. William says:

        Please, help thin the heard. The upcoming Tesla Model Y preorder, will surely pile on a lot more of us future Tesla drivers, so thanks for your kind gesture!

  22. Tom says:

    1. I would just like to say that all the idiots out there that thought the M3 could never option up that far, I counted up the options and it gets you to $59,500 and we aren’t even to AWD yes.
    2. I guess $35,000 entry was vaporware which is hilarious. They are going to do their ever loving best to ensure as few as possible people buy that thing. It will ALWAYS get de-prioritized on the wait. Which is exactly what they should do…they aren’t a charity. But I’m just pointing out the folks that were in denial.
    3. I didn’t say it wasn’t worth that much. Quite the contrary. It is absolutely worth that.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      I see you’re trying hard to maintain your troll status, acting like a sore winner by sneering at others and scoring “points” you have not actually earned.

      Nobody was claiming that Tesla would be putting the base trim level $35,000 cars into production this early. Some were hoping so, but nobody was claiming they would.

      1. William says:

        Thanks Pushy, for stating the obvious. Any body paying attention, could see the early upmarket, profit making, Tesla sales tactic. Volume production drops prices, Tesla will get there (500K), in a few years. Then keep your eyes peeled for the $35K, higher optioned Tesla Model 3s, ready for purchase/lease and almost, if not immediate, delivery to a potentially new Tesla driver.

    2. Tech01x says:

      How exactly is the $35k price vaporware? People can and will order the base model.

      1. unlucky says:

        If you can’t buy it at that price right now how is it anything but vapor?

        Musk says it’ll only be fall before we see base models. That’s better than I expected. But if you can’t buy it there’s no point in comparing it to something you actually can buy. It might as well be listed at $35 if you can’t buy it anyway.

        1. Tech01x says:

          Since first non-employee deliveries are late October, the availability of the standard packs in November is basically the same timing. Therefore, it’s not vapor since first deliveries have started and they are proceeding through the production ramp.

          Basically, all non-employee customers will be able to order the standard pack by the time they are able obtain any Model 3.

          1. unlucky says:

            What? Are you kidding me?

            Tesla won’t make any real deliveries until late October?

            Wow, even my statement that Tesla wouldn’t make any real deliveries in August is going to turn out to be correct. I started to wonder about that one right after I made it.

            Isn’t the real story that the Model 3 isn’t even available until October? Even the long-range model is vapor right now.

        2. Nix says:

          Thats funny unlucky, because I don’t remember you calling the Bolt “vaporware” back in July 2016. Even though it wasn;t delivered until Dec.

          If you did, please post a link to it, and certainly you would be consistent at least, (although still utterly wrong in your definition of vaporware)

          If you can’t, just stop the nonsense now and simply say you were wrong, and that a couple month delay certainly NEVER would fit the definition of vaporware.

          Stop the endless disinformation campaign. 220 mile cars are scheduled for Nov.

          1. unlucky says:

            I don’t have a link to me saying it. I don’t think I said it either. But it doesn’t matter. The situation never arose. If someone had said that the Bolt is real today a that time I would have said it isn’t.

            I have consistently said that no vehicle is real until you can buy it and thus any theoretical pricing is moot. I’ve said it about all vehicles.

            Comparing something you can buy to something you can’t is not a useful exercise. Comparing a car you can buy to vapor is pointless. Companies (including Tesla, GM, VW, etc.) constantly want to wow us with prices of low quoted prices for cars you can’t even buy. They do it because prices on EV components are dropping over time and saying “our car will have 200 miles at $40K” is a very spectacular thing when you say it in 2015 as GM did. No existing car can compare to yours so it looks amazing. But by the time your car comes out it may be that someone else already made a car with more range for about the same money as you. As we see happened to Tesla.

        3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          unlucky continued his Tesla bashing:

          “If you can’t buy it at that price right now how is it anything but vapor?”

          Perhaps you need to look up the definition of “vaporware”. You seem to be confused.

      2. Priusmaniac says:

        Perhaps but with a return range of 110 miles, I would not even be able to go to sea and there is no way to charge there since even finding a parking place can be challenging. Tesla is price gouging the 90 miles battery upgrade and that is not favoring ev adoption by the many.

        1. Rightofthepeople says:

          They aren’t price gouging the long range, they are charging what they think the market will tolerate. Who else even offers something like this? If Tesla is wrong and many people cancel their reservations b/c of the $9k for longer range, Tesla will adjust that pricing. I think there is a fair chance they adjust that in a year or two, but you don’t shoot low right out of the gate. Tesla is a for profit company, not a charity.

        2. arne-nl says:

          That’s already the third time you complain about the battery upgrade pricing.

          Stop whining and take it like a man. Tesla can charge the hell what they want, we live in a frigging capitalist economy.

          1. Priusmaniac says:

            What about accelerating transition to ev cars.
            What about preventing climate change.
            What about preventing pollution and dependence on fossil fuels.
            Sorry but was that all just talk?
            Asking 9000$ for a battery add worth less than 4000$ just doesn’t fit.
            So yes, disappointment on the price but above all on the fact that money now appears as the essential drive not accelerating transition to ev cars anymore.

  23. cab says:

    While I do think there is a bit of disappointment in some of this, the real question is “What else is more compelling at the same price points?”

    A base Bolt vs. a base 3 ends up the same way it did yesterday. You get style, more performance and superchargers, and a $2k+ savings in the Model 3 vs. more utility, upright seating, and 18 miles of additional range in the Bolt.

    The loaded Bolt to loaded Model 3 is a bit more challenging as the latter can be $15k+ more, but the deltas are much more stark with the AP, 70+ miles of additional range in the 3. A better comparison would be the base battery 3 loaded with every option but the FSD…at that point you have about a $3k delta with AP being the primary difference.

    The wild card: Tesla’s $7500 credit running out sooner.

    Gonna be an interesting next several months…

    1. unlucky says:

      It isn’t even $2K price difference when the Bolt is $36,620.

      Tesla does come with a 240V EVSE though. That’s a savings of $600 versus the Bolt where you have to buy it separately.

      1. Nix says:

        That price doesn’t even get you DC fast charging of up to 80 kW with the Bolt. That is an additional $750 dollars.

        1. unlucky says:

          Yes. DC charging is another $750. But honestly, I fully expect GM to drop that, at least on the Premier. And long before the average person gets their Model 3.

          And in fairness, we don’t know that the Bolt will even get to 80kW on DC charging. It’ll probably not break 200mph DC charging while this does 260mph. It’ll be interesting to see the charge curve on the Tesla. I suspect it’ll roll off early like the Bolt does. It’s just the nature of higher density packs.

          1. Asak says:

            Wouldn’t we already know the behavior of the battery based off of the Model S and X? They already had 60 and 75 kWh packs.

            1. BenG says:

              New battery cell, new battery pack architecture. There’s nothing shared between the Model 3 and S packs.

            2. unlucky says:

              No. It’s a higher energy density pack. That means more space used for electrolyte and less for electrodes. Less electrode area means lower power density.

              That means lower charge rates and lower discharge rates for similar physical pack sizes.

              And by all accounts this pack size is smaller too.

              Don’t get me wrong, the figures given are fine. People should be happy with them. As long as they didn’t spend months convincing themselves otherwise by thinking Model S rates were the necessary baselines.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                unlucky said:

                “No. It’s a higher energy density pack. That means more space used for electrolyte and less for electrodes. Less electrode area means lower power density.

                That means lower charge rates and lower discharge rates for similar physical pack sizes.”

                Once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

                Energy content, and amount of electrolyte, is based on volume, so yes that’s directly related to size.

                But power, and power density, is a function of the surface area of the electrodes, and that’s a two-dimensional question. Surface area can be increased by folding or using a non-flat surface, without significantly increasing volume.

      2. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

        It does?

        Where does it say that?
        Maybe it’s just getting too late for my old az$.

    2. theflew says:

      The difference is you can actually get a base Bolt. Who knows when you can actually get a base model 3. Size wise the Bolt is just as large in the interior, but not as wide as the model 3. And the Bolt wins in storage. So it all comes down to what you need and when you need it. I don’t think the < 1 second is going to matter in the 0-60 and have a top speed of 130/140 is little more than a measuring stick.

      1. Nix says:

        Deliveries of the $35K version start in Nov.

    3. WadeTyhon says:

      I think if you are looking at a sedan-like Plug-In from Chevy, compare the Volt and the Model 3.

      A fully decked out Volt with ACC and lane keep is far more affordable. Sure one is a PHEV, but unless you have a crazy long commute or are a BEV-Purist, the Volt makes more sense.

      I’d say the Model 3 has the better looks on the outside, but from what I have seen, the Volt interior is nicer and the dash is more practical. But you lose the 5th seat and get a padded hump for children or carseats.

      Tough decision for us to make next year…

    4. Fred says:

      The real dissapointment here is the charge rate. 170mi/30min for the big batt option equated to 80Kw. To be honest, that’s very dissapointing.

      1. unlucky says:

        It’s completely unsurprising. I got tired of explaining it.

        But as pack power density goes up usually energy density goes down. So in the same space you can expect a slower charging pack. And that’s what they delivered.

        There never really was a reason to expect this would charge as fast (in mph) as a Model S does. But yet some people did.

        1. needa says:

          For me it was the tweet on charging. Elon acted like SCv3 was going to be in it. 170 miles in fifteen minutes is what I hoped for.

        2. Nix says:

          unlucky — 170 miles in 30 minutes is EXACTLY the same as the Model S. It is right on Tesla’s website, if you can manage to run buttons and a slider on a website:


          Stop the endless disinformation.

          1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

            Miles is not the same as kW or C-rate if you are talking about batteries specifically. It is function of kWh/mile, Model 3 is better in this aspect than S.

            It would be more interesting to see charge power over time graphs compared.

          2. unlucky says:

            I was referring to the base model. It is only 130 miles half hour. Sorry I didn’t pick up that he was talking about the big battery. It’s not like he didn’t write “170” right there in the post.

            I’m actually surprised the big battery only does 80kW. That’s another disappointment. How did everyone spend their time indicating 120kW (or 150kW) was necessary when Tesla’s $80K Model S starts at 80kW?

            1. pjwood1 says:

              Tesla is already reportedly putting 85kwh in its $75k base cars. I think the 2016 75kwh is limited to 90kw charging rate. That is on same personal experience as our 85 reaching 118kw (best). I don’t know where “80kw” comes from.

    5. Priusmaniac says:

      “What else is more compelling at the same price points?”

      Unfortunately at 44000, VAT excluded, it could be an ICE for many. Especially where you don’t have the 7500+2500 bonus anyway.

  24. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

    Wasn’t there an announcement a few days back about a 48A charge rate on 240VAC?????

    I don’t see that in the specs. Not even as an upgrade.

    1. unlucky says:

      It was just a rumor.

      Don’t fret too much. With the higher efficiency this has versus a Model S/X it will still charge quite quickly (in mph). Same as the Bolt in that way.

    2. A 50 Amp Breaker, can supply 80% continuous, hence 40 Amps; and a 40 Amp Breaker can supply 32 Amps Continuous; but yes, we got some ‘Rumor’ of a 48 Amp charger!

      1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

        …..and a 60A circuit with a 14-60r will deliver 48A continuous load, which I have currently.

        1. Nix says:

          That would require a different adapter than the stock one that Tesla supplies.

          I’m now actually thinking that it is entirely possible that the long range version may have the 48, but the stock 50A plug adapter is what is causing them to limit the specs to 40A.

          With a 60A, the full 48 might be available

          1. William says:

            A full 48, would be still pretty good considering the alternatives.

  25. cab says:

    Beyond my Bolt comparison, the more compelling options to a loaded Model 3 might be things like the upcoming BMW 3 series electric. It will undoubtedly be similarly priced when loaded, and probably nicer in many ways and then it will come down to…supercharging.

  26. Lawrence says:

    I’ll wager that there will be some excuse to delay production and sale of the standard battery pack well into next year once Fall comes.

    As a business, why sell a nil profit car when there is a long waitlist and a limited window (tax credit) which compels people to buy now.

    1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      They did say they were going to have some “cookie cutter” versions prebuilt.
      Maybe they will be the base models? Who knows right?

      1. Lawrence says:

        Cookie cutter doesn’t imply or equate to no frills. Some people read into Elon’s statement “to simplify manufacturing” as meaning no options, which is not necessarily so. Cookie cutter could just as well be the long range plus premium option.

        1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

          I meant the cookie cutters will be prebuilt preoptioned models stamped out in build runs of maybe a couple thousand or so….


          They could also be the base models.

        2. JimInAuburn says:

          They said only color and wheels to start. Being that we have seen power seats on production vehicles, that means you must get premium package. +$5000. Larger battery pack to start. +$9000. Color other than black, +$1000. Avoiding ugly aero wheels, $1500.

          So the first ones you can get are going to run about $52,000.

      2. Lawrence says:

        On my Tesla reservation page, it states first “production model” is a $49,000 car which is estimated to arrive Dec-Feb for me. Looks like that is the cookie cutter car. I didn’t really need the extra range but if choosing that ensures that I further up in line so be it.

  27. Murrysville EV says:

    That smooth upwardly-rising production curve will develop a kink once the Federal subsidy expires.

    That subsidy enables the sale of lower-priced EVs far more than expensive ones, and so suddenly the base Model 3’s effective price will jump 27% at that point in time.

    Several times, it has been shown that the removal of subsidies affects EV sales – the higher the subsidy, the worse the effect when it is removed. The subsidy was the deciding factor when I bought my former 12 Leaf, and it will play a significant role for many Model 3 buyers.

    My point is that the Model 3’s appeal as a mainstream car will suffer if a decently-equipped version costs $45-50k in 2019. Consequently, there won’t be a need for Fremont to produce 10k Model 3s a week, because people won’t be buying that many.

    1. SparkEV says:

      If Leaf was a gasser at $35K (when you bought it), no one would buy it, and only the subsidy made it attractive. Leaf is $18K car.

      Not so for Tesla 3. What car (I mean any car, gasser or EV) has 0-60 in 5.1 sec, Cd of 0.23, and look as good as Tesla 3? If Tesla 3 is a gasser, it’d still sell well at $45K with options.

      1. unlucky says:

        It’s not an amazing looker.

        And the performance is similar to a V6 Camry. But the Camry has a better interior.

        I cannot imagine why you think it would be a hot seller as an ICE car at this price. A Chevy SS (which also had a better interior) was about the price you list ($46K) and had much better performance and was pretty good looking too.

        It didn’t sell at all.

        1. david Cary says:

          Tesla does not equal Chevy
          It has more brand cache than BMW

          I’ll be happy to take my $50k model when it comes in early 2018. Faster than my 70D – probably more nimble.

          I love the Bolt, Leaf, 3 comparisons. You do know that cars don’t have to be practical boxes to get you from here to there right?

          People compare the Accord to the BMW 3 series all the time. And many chose to buy the BMW 3. Sure the Accord is more practical in every way and it is cheaper. Personally – I would rather drive a 3 series.

          Did anyone read the Motortrend quick review. And I paraphrase – Have I ever driven a more startling small sedan? I have not.

          The S is phenomenol to drive. A smaller S will be shocking to drive.

          30-40 something top 25%ers is the market. They can afford $50k.

          1. unlucky says:

            Yeah. You’d rather drive a 3 series. I see.

            But my point is this car isn’t comparable to a 3 series. Just because Musk said it would be doesn’t make it so. It is a basic car, not a luxury car.

            If you’re hung up on brand cachet then go ahead and pay for it. No one is standing in your way.

            1. pjwood1 says:

              Motor Trend this morning said the Alpha Romeo handled like a “wet sponge”, after the Model 3.

              A 3 series’ handling doesn’t compare, with the much lower weighted M3 (the cleaner one). Right now, I can only imagine how a 1,000 pound lighter Model S feels.

            2. BenG says:

              Please tell me what makes a base Model 3 less of an entry level sport-luxury sedan than a base BMW 3-series?

              You are being ridiculous.

              Comparing a similarly priced mid-size highly optioned sedan like a V-6 Camry to the Model 3 to try to make the point that the Model 3 isn’t ‘luxury’ is off base because A) the Camry is a significantly bigger car, and B) the V-6 Camry is a sport-luxury upgrade over the base Camry.

              The Model 3 will dust off the comparable 3 series, offering better acceleration and handling (sport) while being quieter and having more advanced user-interface (luxury).

              1. AlphaEdge says:

                > You are being ridiculous.

                I agree. He is being ridiculous.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            “It has more brand cache than BMW.”

            My inner Grammar Nazi can no longer be restrained! 😉

            It’s cachet, not “cache”.

            Sorry to nitpick, but I swear, I think I’ve seen the correct word used only once on InsideEVs in all the time I’ve been visiting, and the wrong one many times.

        2. Nate says:

          Chevy SS availability, especially with a manual, was spotty. The typical person looking for 4 door sedan in the U.S. has no idea what Holden is, and/or isn’t looking for 6.2 L V8 that they’ll pay the gas guzzler tax on. Those that do are much more likely to want a manual.

          It is not meant to be high volume. Mentioning it in the likes of a Camry or even the Model 3 makes no sense.

        3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “…the performance is similar to a V6 Camry.”

          The Motor Trend reviewer who took the Model 3 for a test drive has a very, very different opinion. His review is a love letter in which he clearly was looking for more superlatives to describe the handling and responsiveness of the car.

          I could not imagine that the Model 3 would be getting the sort of love letters from professional auto reviewers that the Model S did back in its day.

          As a Tesla fan, I’m very, very happy to see I was wrong about that!

          Go Tesla!


      2. Murrysville EV says:

        Of course the Model 3 is a better car than a Leaf or a gasser, but that’s not how it works.

        People shopping for a $35k car don’t simply buy a $45-50k car because it’s better. They end up shopping for something else at $35k.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Murrysville EV.

      “That smooth upwardly-rising production curve will develop a kink once the Federal subsidy expires.”

      So long as demand remains above supply, there’s no reason for Tesla to stop growing its production. Obviously Tesla will reach the limit of demand eventually, but likely not as soon as you seem to think. The drop in demand you’re talking about may be moving from “demand vastly exceeding supply” to merely “demand greatly exceeding supply”.

  28. MTN Ranger says:

    Well, I’ve decided on the long range model with premium, red multicoat. I’m not sold on the larger wheels, I may Tirerack the base rims and use those for winter wheels. AP/SD not wanted or needed.

    Now what will be the destination fee?

    So far a nice even $50k for me.

  29. unlucky says:

    310 miles is more than I expected. I expected 270 for the long-range model.

    “fall 2017” would be impressive and is earlier than I expected for base model deliveries. I won’t believe it until I see it. There’s simply not a lot of reason for Tesla to diverge from their past policies of holding back base models for quite some time.

    Early 2018 for AWD would also be quite impressive. It’ll be interesting if AWD adds or subtracts range. With the car being less optimized for performance (0-60) there isn’t as much reason to think they can pull the “front motor optimized for cruising” trick meaningfully here.

    Same AC charging rate as Bolt. A Supercharging rate far more similar to the Bolt rate than the Model S rate (but still more than Bolt, bolt is 90 miles in first 30 minutes).

    0-60 similar to Bolt (but again a little better).

    Interior very basic, not a premium/luxury car at all. Trunk significantly SMALLER than the Bolt. Crazy in a car that size!

    Sure seems like those who thought they were going to get a Model 3 for cheap were way, way off. Those who said there wasn’t a lot of reason to think Tesla could outdo other car companies (like GM) at the same price points were right.

    Except for autopilot, this is a very basic car. Perhaps they’ll add options like surround view that the Bolt has later?

    Autopilot is of course a big deal. Pricey but if you want it it’s something you’ll spring for. And if you want it on competing vehicles you can’t have it at any price.

    Other interesting (but minor) things:
    LED lighting is great.
    dual zone climate is nice.
    No AM radio. What gives? First the i3 now this?
    Those are seemingly the best visors Tesla has ever put on a car. About time they nailed that.

    1. unlucky says:

      Sorry, I meant to say those who thought they’d get a Model S for cheap were way off.

      I think those who though they were going to get a Model 3 for cheap were a little off. If you want a stripper model you save just a tiny bit versus a Bolt. Otherwise you’re going to pay a lot more.

      Chevy, time to make DCFC no extra charge on the Bolt. At least on the Premium. Come on.

      1. Nix says:

        “A Supercharging rate far more similar to the Bolt rate than the Model S rate (but still more than Bolt, bolt is 90 miles in first 30 minutes).

        1) Source on the Bolt charging 90 miles in 30 minutes (actual charging rates with taper please)

        2) The big battery charges in the RXACT SAME 170/30 that Tesla documents on their website for the Model S. The smaller battery is still roughly 50% FASTER than the Bolt numbers you provided (if you can support them)

        So no, not at all what you said.

        1. unlucky says:

          The 90 miles in 30 minutes on the Bolt comes from the video from Capitol Chevrolet. But it’s not like you couldn’t have googled it yourself.

          And it’s could actually be a little bit low if what we hear about greater than 125A capability (but not much) is true.

          Yes, this includes taper. 90 miles is only a 38% charge. The Bolt doesn’t taper before 38% full.

          Why did you think that taper would come into play for a charge which is so small compared to the total size of the pack?

          Yes. 130 is higher than 90. But it’s more similar to Bolt speeds than Model S speeds. And as I said none of these figures are bad. It’s just that people got themselves too worked up by using 120kW as a rate when it’s not even correct for all Model Ses.

          1. pjwood1 says:

            The whole KW thing confuses, yet matters. 118kw rolls downward after just 10-15 minutes, so perhaps all makers should state a 30 minute average maximum available charge rate. Then, since Tesla wants us to think range, and no longer in terms of KWH capacity, efficiency becomes this critical aspect of advertising “miles of range” load over “30 minutes”.

            Comparing to Bolt packs these two together.

    2. SparkEV says:

      You’re stretching some numbers to make Bolt not suck so bad.

      “Same AC charging rate as Bolt” is for the base. Unlike Bolt, higher battery option has 20% higher power charging.

      “0-60 similar to Bolt” is way off. Even the base at 5.6 seconds (vs 6.3 for Bolt) is 11% quicker. With bigger battery, the gap jumps to 19%. That is HUGE.

      “Model 3 for cheap were way, way off”, how so? Base model costs $2.5K less than Bolt. Actually, Bolt may be cheaper for a while due to not using up the fed tax credit.

      “Except for autopilot, this is a very basic car” but Bolt doesn’t even have autopilot. Does it even have adaptive cruise control? Surround view is a gimmick compared to autopilot.

      1. unlucky says:

        I’m not stretching. I compared the car to the car it is comparable to. There is no longer range Bolt. And besides, at 40A and the lower efficiency exhibited by the bigger pack model it won’t charge much faster in mph. And it’ll charge slower if you use a 32A/30A constrained charger as most work/apartment complex chargers are.

        The base model is 32A. Same as the Bolt. This is a very fair comparison. You’re being bizarre trying to pick at me over this. At least pick something which is subjective to complain about!

        The base Model 3 is 5.6 0-60 and the Bolt is 6.2. This is comparable but yes a little faster for the 3.

        As to the “Model 3 for cheap were way, way off”, that was a typo. I corrected it in my response. I meant a Model S for cheap. But no this isn’t $2.5K cheaper. A Bolt is $36,620. This is $35K. How is that a $2.5K difference?

        No. The Bolt doesn’t have the option of autopilot. Which is why I said it doesn’t have the option of autopilot. Do you have a point to make here?

        If you think surround view is a gimmick you’ve never had it. Is autopilot a bigger deal? Yes. That’s why I said so. That’s also why it costs $5K. Which I also mentioned.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          unlucky said:

          “I’m not stretching.”

          Well, we could use less polite terms, but “stretching the truth” will do.

      2. unlucky says:

        And “not suck so bad”? Could you have chosen worse words?

        The 0-60 figures of the Bolt do not suck. The AC charge rate of the Bolt does not suck. The MSRP of the Bolt does not suck (it’s nearly identical to this).

        You’re using very loaded words that don’t fit. Why?

        1. SparkEV says:

          Let me put it this way. Other than sedan vs hatch, in what ways is Bolt better than Tesla 3? You might say 18 miles more rated range, but that also comes at extra cost for Bolt. Even that’s not clear how it’ll translate at highway speeds.

          In all other ways, Tesla 3 is superior. In addition, they have options that Bolt cannot even get (much longer range, autopilot, etc. etc). “Suck” is the proper word comparing Bolt to Tesla 3.

          1. unlucky says:

            Suck is not the proper word. The cars are so similar on stats that if the Bolt sucks then the Model 3 does also.

            Love how you try to diminish the value of range. Apparently worse doesn’t matter if it’s something the Model 3 does worse. In that case it’s fine, except at highway speeds where the Model 3 probably does better so then suddenly range matters again.

            The prices are near identical, unless you want black. In that case the Model 3 is 5% cheaper for 9% less range (note that you do get free DCFC capability on the Model 3 though).

            1. Terawatt says:

              This is how a moron speaks.

              Range only matters at highway speeds. And it is totally obvious why! No sane person is the least bit interested in the capability of doing 19 hours of continous city driving without a charging break.

              So YES, higher range on the combined cycle or in city driving is purely an on-paper advantage with no real value, regardless which vehicle has the edge in this department. Higher range on the highway is actually a real advantage, although it’s not so straightforward to say what it is worth. Given the slick aero of the Model 3 I think the two will be very similar in terms of “relevant range”.

              But to say that highway range only matters because that’s where the Tesla has the edge is utterly ridiculous. It reminds me of the worst-case range in the WTP range tables for the Bolt, which are at extremely low speed and temperature. Some people were absolutely SHOCKED to see that it was possible to get as little as 50 miles from a Bolt! But apparently they aren’t thinking people. If you sit in a parked Bolt for several days with the heat on full blast and it’s -25 degrees Celsius outside, your range drops to zero. Shocking, right..?

              It is usually possible to get numbers to seem good or bad by cherry-picking with no regard to how ridiculous the scenario. But it’s not a sign of integrity to engage in this sort of behavior. With range, at least as long as it is more than 150 miles on a charge, ONLY the highway is relevant for the simple reason that only the highway lets you go that far in a time it may be acceptable to drive without breaks.

              1. unlucky says:

                No, range in the city isn’t useless. Ask anyone who lives in an apartment and can’t charge every night. Ask people who have to fight for an available work or public charging spot. And there are even people who drive frequently in city situations (see cab drivers, deliverymen, anyone with a commute through congested traffic). City range is not merely an “on paper advantage”.

                I do feel that highway range is more valuable and I’ve said so on here before specifically in relation to the Model 3. But it’s not true that city range doesn’t matter.

                Could you please refrain from name calling? It’s not necessary. We don’t need to add to the agitation on here by trying to pick a fight. There’s enough to argue about already.

                1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  unlucky said:

                  “City range is not merely an ‘on paper advantage’.”

                  This habit you have of continuing to argue even when everyone can see you’ve lost the argument, and lost it badly… not working for you, dude.

                  “Could you please refrain from name calling?”

                  Ordinarily I’d agree, but in your case, Terawatt’s condescension was appropriate. If you don’t like being treated as though you’re suffering from invincible ignorance, then stop displaying invincible ignorance.

                  Oh, and tell us again, Unlucky, how the “EV” in “PHEV” doesn’t mean the same thing as the “EV” in “BEV”. 🙄

          2. Brian ro says:

            What sucks is your objectivity.

            Tesla fanbois are ripping on the 3 on Electrek and the Tesla owners forum. Lol

            1. SparkEV says:

              Why don’t you compare the cars objectively. Make 2 columns, one has Bolt advantage over Tesla 3, other has Tesla 3 advantage over Bolt. I can assure you, the list on second column will be many times that of the first column. If you weigh the items (though weights are subjective), that differential gets much larger for me.

              1. Bojan says:

                The problem is, a lot of the advantages that the Model 3 has over the Bolt are expensive options that are irrelevant to someone looking to buy a 35k$-ish car. If you can afford to spend 60k$, then you can simply say that the two cars are incomparable, and that’s fine. However, if you’re going to compare them, it only makes sense to do so at the 35k level, where I think the Bolt can be quite competitive, with its only serious disadvantage being the lack of a supercharger network.

          3. JimInAuburn says:

            Do you get a center console in a bolt? Power seats? More than one paint color? Ugly wheels?

          4. Asak says:

            I’d say the Bolt interior is arguably better. It might be “cheap”, “plasticky” or whatever, but it’s more functional.

            Otherwise the two cars are pretty close. In percentage terms the difference in 0-60 times seems big, but in absolute terms it’s only half a second. So, except for drag racing they are both pretty comparable in that regard.

            Outside of autopilot I’m really not seeing what’s so much better about the Model 3? You can argue the Model 3 is a little better in some ways (although lacking the utility of a hatch), but it doesn’t seem like a night and day difference that would explain one as being amazing and the other as sucking.

            They both seem to be pretty comparable to me.

            1. unlucky says:

              Some people really want a sedan.

              But let’s be honest. The biggest reason is so many people have already convinced themselves that they have to have a Tesla because of the Model S.

              And heck, there are a lot of people in the world who will have an opportunity to buy a Model 3 before a Bolt (or Ampera-e). Outside the US and Canada I would say it’ll be a LEAF 2.0 vs Model 3 duel until the Germans actually get it into gear in 2 years.

            2. Terawatt says:

              You say the difference isn’t so big in absolute terms. That’s true, but it isn’t what matters. To see this, just consider a heavy truck sprinting 0-40 mph in 25 seconds versus one that does it in 20 seconds. In absolute terms it is a whopping 5 second difference, but both would feel as they are, very very slow – with one being even more agonizing than the other. Now consider the same absolute difference of 5 seconds was instead between two cars sprinting 0-60 mph in 4 seconds or 9 seconds, respectively. The first is in sportscar territory – in fact supercar territory not that long ago! – and the other is very slightly quicker than average. The difference in feel depends on the *relative* difference, not the absolute one.

              Both cars are pretty quick, I’ll grant you that, but the Model 3 will provide a far sportier driving experience.

            3. BenG says:

              Model 3 apparently has FANTASTIC handling. That’s a big difference.


              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                A very big difference!

                The Model S got “dinged” by professional auto reviewers for two things: A Spartan interior, and mushy, unresponsive handling despite the superior acceleration.

                To see the Model 3 described by the Motor Trend reviewer as making an Alfa Romeo Giulia feel “like a wet sponge by comparison”… well, knock me over with feather!

                Go Tesla!

                1. BenG says:

                  Huh? I’ve read a lot of reviews of the Model S and I never saw anyone say the handling was mushy and unresponsive. I actually saw a lot of people raving about how good the handling was for a large sedan.

                  I.e. This Car and Driver review from 2016 says:
                  “The car steers, corners, and rides with a competence that seems perfected over decades of focused suspension development rather than a few short years as a Silicon Valley startup.” http://www.caranddriver.com/features/tesla-model-s-70-70d-2016-10best-cars-feature

                  And this one from 2013 Motor Trend: ” In the handling department, the Model S is on par with the best midsize sedans from Audi (S6), BMW (5 Series), and Mercedes-Benz (E-Class).” http://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-s/2013/

        2. SparkEV says:

          By the way, as I often mention, “suck” is only with relation to value (what you get for the price). If Bolt is cheaper by $10K (or even $7.5K) and still qualify for subsidy making it $22K car, it doesn’t suck at all as it’ll be an exclamation point against all cars (gassers or EV) at that price. But Bolt definitely suck at Tesla 3 price.

          1. Terawatt says:

            A car that really sucks is that Lambo in the winning Project Loveday video! And I have to say the video makes me giggle. This bloke has sacrificed all utility and practicality, and is polluting his environment with fumes and noise, and still we all know he just got smashed at the lights by a huge family sedan!

            Of course, Lambo buyers don’t buy a car, but just a piece of jewelry, like an expensive watch, and I guess they need it to make some noise to help ensure people notice the insecure little brat with too much money is in the area. Oh well.

            1. SparkEV says:

              Well, for most people, gas cars blow (exhaust from car in front of them). I wish they would suck more, but unfortunately, they really, really blow.

  30. David says:

    Based on the overpriced option is that the cost of repairment willstill be the same as S/X model. That is simply pity:(.

  31. Jay Cole says:

    All I can say is I hope the Model Y debut in 2019 starts even later on West Coast…not enough jet lag/sleep deprivation happening at all for us transplanted East Coasters, (=

    1. Ahldor says:

      You eastcoasters whine about 4 hours difference .. what about us in the EU then? We always have to suffer the most, but I guess it makes us tougher in the end.

      1. Jay Cole says:

        Bah, it just an early rise…not a late night.

        /just kidding

        (although it already only ~5 hours until my day starts tomorrow, and not close to packing it in from the event yet…thank goodness there aren’t too many of these)

    2. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      Quit your crying……lol

      At least it was sub 100°.
      It could’ve been 106°, you got lucky. 😛

  32. JimInAuburn says:

    This is going to be so much more expensive than a $35K car. Easily $50K+ If you want anything but black, + $1000. Don’t like those ugly aero wheels? +$1500. Want a center console and power seats? Maybe folding mirrors and a couple of other things? +$5000. Want the longer range? +$9000.

    They are going to lose tons of reservations.

    1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      I have always said the reservations will only result in half of those turning into actual sales.

      It’s only so much more than $35K if you slap a sh1tton options on……..duh.

      1. JimInAuburn says:

        I at least expected thing like power seats and a center console for the base price. Then they have ugly wheels, and if you want anything but black, you pay extra. Now I see why Musk said the average would be $42K. $35K for the car, $5K for the premium package so you can have power seats, a center console, power folding mirrors. Then another $1500 to get rid of those ugly aero wheels. And another $1K because you want some color besides black. Right there you are at $42,500.

        1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

          Don’t forget my AWD later in 2018!…..lol

          How much you wanna bet some other option will come up……..like dual charger for the 310 range model?

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Trollnonymous said:

        “I have always said the reservations will only result in half of those turning into actual sales.”

        After seeing the price of these options, I’ll certainly concede that it seems likely your prediction will turn out to be much closer to reality than mine was.

        Point for you, sir! 🙂

  33. ML says:

    True on time but here’s the facts
    50 produced
    2 to customers
    20 to testing
    Regarding EM, looked either nervous or scared to release as he was a HOT MESS.
    Pricing was what I figured but was surprised by the long range , kinda nice.
    He wants to crank these out thus it is going to create a quality issue and EV owners had warranty issues as theres not a major OE shop to take to. Rule #1 NEVER buy a car in it’s first vehicle production year

    1. Murrysville EV says:

      Mr Musk always seems nervous on stage; it’s just not his strength. Besides, he probably hasn’t slept in days.

      Agreed on the long range battery – that’s impressive.

      1. AlphaEdge says:

        He seem way more nervous than past events, but then again, this is by far their biggest “bet” for the company. He knows, they have to get this right. I’m not worried, as I think they will have a grand slam on their hands.

        Hopefully some of the engineers can get a bit of a break. I’m sure they have put in some insane hours.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          That’s odd, I thought he looked far less nervous than at previous on-stage events. In fact, as I think one person has already commented here, he looked more tired than nervous. Maybe something keeping him up at nights… what would that be? 😉

          Elon certainly was subdued as compared to previous on-stage events. I did not expect the anti-selling of the Model 3 in favor of the Models S & X to be on display at this high-profile media event, but it certainly seemed like Elon wasn’t interested in giving many details about the car, nor in showcasing the car itself it they way they did at the Model 3 rollout.

          Dunno if Elon intended it to come across as anti-selling, but at least to some extent, that’s how it came across to me.

    2. unlucky says:

      Rule #1. Don’t buy a car that was delivered the same day as the company is still making engineering validation units!

      You’re buying a beta. Enjoy the ride.

      Other companies make their production intent cars 6 months before the car comes out and test them all that time. You’re clearly taking a risk buying an early Model 3. Which I guess is why they only sold 2. The others will be available to the factory for engineering revisions basically every weekday as the employee drives it there.

      1. Nix says:

        How do you know they aren’t AWD prototype units? Or standard range prototypes?

        Why do you ASSume they are the exact identical long range battery RWD car being delivered to customers?

        1. unlucky says:

          I would appreciate you not using curse words towards me. There is no call for this.

          It doesn’t matter if they are AWD prototypes or small battery prototypes. They only have had cars on the road for a few months. They are still doing engineering validation with those cars that applies to the cars delivered. Even if they are also doing small pack validation with them or AWD validation.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            “There is no call for this.”

            If you don’t want to be treated like a jerk, then stop acting like one.

            There is no justification for you to keep insinuating that those who are reporting facts and pointing out your many errors are lying or cherry-picking facts, when it’s you who is doing those things.

          2. AlphaEdge says:

            Don’t worry, the warranty will cover things.

  34. Zbig says:

    A lot of hired ICE Car Industry/Big Oil hired trolls here talking the vehicle down. Clever, but not all that clever.

    1. Tim Miser says:

      Talk about an easy job!

  35. Ahldor says:

    Dimensions & Weight

    Length: 184.8” (469.4 cm)
    Width: 72.8” (184.9 cm) (76.1” (193.3 cm) with mirrors folded)
    Height: 56.8” (144.3 cm)
    Wheelbase: 113.2” (287.5 cm)
    Track (wheel center): 62.2” (158.0 cm) front and rear
    Ground clearance: 5.5” (14.0 cm)
    Head room, standard: 39.6” (100.6 cm) front row, 37.7” (95.8 cm) second row
    Head room, glass roof: 40.3” (102.4 cm) front row , 37.7” (95.8 cm) second row
    Leg room: 42.7” (108.5 cm) front row , 35.2” (89.4 cm) second row
    Shoulder room: 56.3” (143.0 cm) front row, 54.0” (137.2 cm) second row
    Hip room: 53.4” (135.6 cm) front row, 52.4” (133.1 cm) second row
    Seating capacity: 5 adults (5 large people)
    Luggage capacity: 15 cubic feet (425 litre)
    Curb weight:
    3549 lbs. (1610 kg) (Model 3)
    3814 lbs. (1730 kg) (Model 3 Long Range)

    1. Priusmaniac says:

      Appreciated. Thanks.

  36. Bill Lakatos says:

    20 inches longer than a Bolt, with 1″ more front leg room (but 1″ less rear leg room) and smaller luggage capacity with seats up (15 vs. 16.9) gives more battery space for the 310 mile one?

  37. David says:

    So, put in option “No paintment -500” if they set few colors so high:).

  38. Nix says:

    It will be interesting to see what the ranges are for the AWD versions of these.

    For the 75, AWD added 10 miles of range.
    For the 90, AWD added 29 miles of range.

    With the Model 3 even more efficiency-minded than the performance-minded Model S, will they set up gearing in the front motor to maximize efficiency over performance?

    Short range AWD == 235?
    Long range AWD == 330?

    1. unlucky says:

      There’s no real reason to think AWD will add range on the Model 3.

      On the Model S it added range because the front motor is more efficient than the 0-60 optimized back motor at highway speeds. Since the Model 3 (at least non-P) is not so fast 0-60 there isn’t a reason to think a front motor will add enough efficiency to make up for its added weight.

      1. Nix says:

        Unlucky —

        Model S 75: 0-60 5.5 seconds
        Model 3 75(ish): 0-60 5.1 seconds.

        There is every reason to believe the Model 3 will get at least as much benefit as the S75, and most likely more benefit with AWD. Especially if Tesla prioritizes efficiency over pure speed with AWD. Something that they have been saying outright, with the Model S always supposed to be the fastest car of the two.

        1. unlucky says:

          We’ll just have to find out later when it happens. I’m confident in my prediction. I was confident about my predictions for this time (shorter range than Bolt, DCFC rates similar to Bolt, not Model S) and I’m confident about this one. I’m very confident it won’t gain more, I can’t see what led you to think that at all.

          But neither of us can really be sure until we find out.

          1. Nix says:

            unlucky — I love how you instantly reject even YOUR OWN LOGIC the instant the results don’t turn out the way you want. You said:

            “Since the Model 3 … is not so fast 0-60 there isn’t a reason to think a front motor will add enough efficiency to make up for its added weight.”

            Then I prove that the Model 3 is actually about half a second FASTER than the S75 that gained range with AWD. Based on YOUR OWN LOGIC, you’ve proven that the long range 3 will gain more than the S75.

            Sadly, now that your own logic proves you wrong, you will simply cover your eyes and put your fingers in your ears and cry lalalalala….

            Go to bed, and change your diapers before you get under the sheets.

            1. unlucky says:

              You jumped the gun here. There act as if you caught me being wrong. But neither of us have the data yet. Don’t count your chickens before you hatch.

              I’m confident in my predictions. Beyond that we’ll just have to wait until the figures come out to settle this.

              1. Nix says:

                You jumped the shark here tonight. From your BS about the Model 3 charging rates, to you twisting yourself in knots to evade your own words, you’ve done nothing but act the fool.

          2. Nix says:

            Since you are on the record talking about 2019 before Tesla Model 3 deliveries, and we just saw them get delivered right now in July 2017, I wouldn’t be bragging about your supposed accuracy….

            1. unlucky says:

              I was not on the record saying that. You have me confused with someone else.

              I said just before the end of the year (2017) and then those might not even be real deliveries. Similar to these we see today.

              You just tried to knock me down and you instead knocked yourself down.

              I did once Musk said they would deliver in July that they would then go on to make 0 deliveries in August (basically the first set would be not real deliveries but prototypes sent out to be repaired repeatedly). You could have tried to hold me to that if you had remembered (since it seems a lot less likely now). But nope, you went for the brass ring and blew it.

              1. Nix says:


                sure, sure, whatever you say….


      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        unlucky said:

        “There’s no real reason to think AWD will add range on the Model 3.”

        Gosh, I’m sure that “reasoning” will convince a lot of people. 🙄

        You might as well argue that there’s no reason to think 2 + 1 = 3. Hey, maybe 2 + 1 will = 2 if Unlucky insists it is often enough!

        And the “EV” in “PHEV” means something different than it means in “BEV”, too!
        😀 😀 😀

  39. floydboy says:

    Get a Model S or X in one month or wait one and a half years for Model 3. I see Elon’s still anti-selling.

  40. Benz says:

    The $35,000 Tesla Model 3 is a good enough EV.

    Well done

  41. Nix says:

    Here are the comparisons between the Model 3 and the BMW 320i and Audi A4 base for leg room (Front leg room + Rear leg room) and cargo:

    Model 3: Leg 78 Trunk 14
    Audi A4: Leg 77 Trunk 13
    BMW 320i: Leg 77 Trunk 13

    1. Nix says:

      All I had to do was type 6 numbers, and I couldn’t even mange to do that without a typo. I got the Trunk wrong.

      Corrected numbers:

      Model 3: Leg 78 Trunk 15
      Audi A4: Leg 77 Trunk 13
      BMW 320i: Leg 77 Trunk 13

      1. BenG says:

        Nice, thank you Nix.

  42. WadeTyhon says:

    “Tesla’s app will take an increasingly more important role and the Model 3 will be Bluetooth connected to the owner phone in order to unlock the doors as they approach.

    If your phone is dead or you don’t have it on you for whatever reason, Tesla provides a keycard with a NFC chip. You just have to swipe on the B pillar and it will unlock the doors”

    You have to physically swipe the keycard if you do not have your bluetooth turned on or your phone with you… :/

    1. unlucky says:

      BTW, the Bolt does that bluetooth trick. On the Bolt it doesn’t really work that well. I’m skeptical that proximity unlocking can be done well with Bluetooth. I guess Tesla is going to find out.

      With the Bolt if the Bluetooth doesn’t work then it still works with the key in your pocket. Looks like Tesla didn’t bother with that.

  43. Benedictus says:

    A real 200+ mile 35k car, with easy fast charger access. That is awesome!

  44. Terawatt says:

    The day has finally arrived, and it does look good.

    But I’ve got to say the base version seems to be more bare-bones than I thought it would be. And I absolutely hate this insane business model of equipping all the cars with tons of expensive hardware, but disabling it unless you buy options.

    For example, what the heck is “autopilot” providing if you don’t buy “enhanced autopilot”? Apparently it is just plain old cruise control, since adaptive cruise control requires enhancing to the tune of $5000.

    (I know, automatic emergency braking and any other collision avoidance Tesla may develop will be enabled in the base car as well. And that is significant. Even so, this business model is going to lead to a lot of underutilized hardware, and that is very obviously not optimal. It’s only because Tesla hasn’t figured out how to make cars to order that they opt to sell the same hardware with different software options enabled at $20k price difference!)

    And $1000 more for any color other than black? WTF is the rationale for that?

    Much remains to be known, and I guess it will still be a year before I’ll have to decide what to do about my reservation. Since there’s not another car readily available to buy right now that I could get instead of the Model 3 there’s little point in pulling the trigger yet. Right now it feels at least 50% likely I will cancel and have my money back. I didn’t think I’d say this, but I may even have to consider another round with Nissan – we’ll see when the new LEAF is revealed in full detail in September…

    By the way, I find it very strange Tesla didn’t say anything about the number of reservations. I now doubt they have climbed much since the 400,000 was announced, not so long after the original reveal back in March 2016. Tesla wouldn’t have missed an opportunity to generate even more hype, so I think reservations haven’t increased, perhaps have even declined. I hope not, though! I want the Model 3 to be a huge success even if I end up deciding it is too expensive. Hopefully it’ll spur all the others on to offer better EVs sooner than they otherwise would have.

    1. Tech01x says:

      Musk said in interviews that the reservation size was over 500,000.

      The base car is pretty much what I expected. I think it compares very well with the competition, EVs and ICE alike. The BMW 330e starts at $44k also, like the long range Model 3, but is substantially slower. Optioned up with leather, driving assistance, and technology packages and it’s also above $50k.

      1. Doggydogworld says:

        Musk said 500k+??? Link, please.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          I second that request! I must have missed seeing it too.

          1. Doggydogworld says:

            Electrek reports that Musk said it in a pre-event press conference. Reuters, Washington Post and others printed it, I’m pretty confident they heard it straight from Musk and not Electrek.

            It’ll be interesting to see the Customer Deposits line in the balance sheet.

    2. Mr. M says:

      1000€ more for a color not being standard is pretty common in germany.

  45. Chris O says:

    Option pricing is pretty hefty for a $35K car. Makes one wonder if Tesla isn’t overplaying its hand here. Elon musk suggested an average sales price target of $42K for this car once but with these option prices it’s bound to be north of $50K. One wonders how realistic that 500k/year sales target is at that price point.

    1. Tech01x says:

      Look at the global deliveries of small/midsized luxury vehicles.

      Plenty of people will buy the base car or base + paint. The base car is good enough that I think many people won’t buy the options, except for Autopilot at a later date.

      I do think the long range version will get a lot of takers, so a $46k ASP is about right. I don’t think that many will option up past $50k… at some point, you might as well get an S.

      1. Chris O says:

        Turns out this has been researched. Using data from almost 8,000 Model 3 reservation holders it turned out that most reservation holders are preparing to pay between $45,000 and $55,000.


        So maybe at least those early adopters won’t be too disappointed with how much they end up spending for this car. Historically people overwhelmingly opted for the biggest battery on Model S so presumably the same will be true for Model 3 which will raise the average price people will have to pay dramatically.

        I can’t find data on what cars like BMW 3 series retail at on average so I can’t really say how Model 3 stacks up in the lower luxury class. Clearly 3 series doesn’t have $9K range options though.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Chris O said:

      “One wonders how realistic that 500k/year sales target is at that price point.”

      Actually, Tesla’s sales target is 400k/year for the Model 3. The 500k/year figure includes the Models S & X.

      1. Doggydogworld says:

        400k + 100k was official guidance at one point, but Musk has said 500k Model 3s many times. Last night he said the factory he was standing beside would do 500k + 100k “or possibly more”.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Thank you for the correction, Doggydogworld.

          I’ll try to replace that figure in my long-term memory, but I’ve seen and repeated the 400k + 100k citation so often that it’s in there pretty firmly.

  46. Niels777 says:

    About the pricing, do we remember the Model S was a $ 50k car?

    Even with all options its still a good deal.

    There is no sunroof option?

    1. Nix says:

      The $50K was after Federal tax credit.

      Using that formula, the Model 3 is a $27,500 dollar car.

      1. Niels777 says:

        yes but the average selling price is much higher, same as with model 3. This was to be expected.

      2. unlucky says:

        You’re right that was after tax credit. Actually it was $49K after tax credit.

        But what he is saying is that when the Model S was supposed to be $66,500 before credit and ended up being $75K before credit and an average transaction price of almost $100K people should have known what “$35K” really meant for this car.

  47. Someone out there says:

    310 miles of range is pretty damn good, for $44000 even! The interior still looks like crap though. I think GM will have to knock a couple of grand off the Bolt EV after this but I’m sure there is plenty of margin for that.

    1. Alaa says:

      EPA 310 translates to NEDC 435

      That is 700 km guys in NEDC standard. That is more than any petrol driven car. And for that price it is unbeatable. Just 5 solar panels are enough to power this car for 10,000 miles per year for 25 YEARS. The 5 panels will cost $500.

      1. arne-nl says:

        “That is more than any petrol driven car.”

        NEDC is totally unrealistic, and that is true for gassers too. EPA range is usually pretty close to what is achievable in real life with a sensible driving style. By that measure, 310 miles = 500 km, half of what I would routinely drive in my Prius.

  48. david Cary says:

    An amazing amount of negativity first night.

    Interior looks like crap? I think it looks fantastic.

    Range and cost is as expected.

    No power seats is expected

    18 inch rims standard – expected

    No big surprises to me.

    1. speculawyer says:

      I fully agree. WTF were people expecting for $35K?!?!? That’s half the price of a low end Model S and they expected the same car but 15% smaller?

      I think the specs are great in general. I wish there was a battery size that between those two though since 220 seems a little low but $9K is a big price jump.

      270 miles for $5K more would have been nice.

  49. Benz says:

    According to an article of Motor Trend (first drive), the battery packs are 60 kWh and 85 kWh.

    1. Nix says:

      In the data, they state that is based upon “MT est” not Tesla provided data

      1. Benz says:


        So 50 kWh and 75 kWh battery packs are more likely?

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Seems the best guess at the moment, but it’s still just an educated guess.

    2. speculawyer says:

      60KWH sounds certainly wrong. That’s the same size as the Bolt and the Bolt has a 238 mile range with a much worse drag coefficient.

      It’s gotta be smaller. 50KWH perhaps?

  50. 2EVsCO says:

    So glad I did not wait for this and bought two used EVs lol. Typical Tesla. Over promise, under deliver.

  51. CCIE says:

    Well, I still hope it sells so that other automakers will be forced to get real with EVs. But, clearly even Elon wasn’t excited.

    As I said in a comment above, they must be losing money or barely breaking even on any base model sold, that’s why the options are so expensive.

    So, while they will make a token number of base model cars, the base config will be impossible to actually get for quite some time.

    The content of the Bolt actually looks decent now, especially when you consider that no one pays MSRP for a Chevy, whereas Tesla does not discount. Though obviously the M3 is a better looking car.

    1. Alaa says:

      “hope it sells”, man they have more than 400,000 deposits!

      1. CCIE says:

        Refundable deposits. We’ll see how the sale conversion rate looks. I do hope it goes well for them.

  52. Taser54 says:

    After reading the post, I just want to write that I wish everyone who wanted a Model 3 the best. I hope now that the specs and pricing have been revealed that it still works for you.

    1. Mister G says:

      You really don’t get it…it’s all about polluting less at any cost. http://Www.co2.earth…the data is screaming DO SOMETHING NOW

      1. pjwood1 says:

        There is this episteemology within the auto industry, that belives regulations come from outer space and people only act for their wallet.

      2. Taser54 says:

        I get that I wished tbem well. Lighten up Francis

  53. Warren says:

    The Model 3 is 10 pounds lighter than our Bolt, and has a bit less range? I am guessing that it actually has a larger battery than the Bolt, which you will be able to access at some later date, when Elon Tweets the $5k upgrade.

    Otherwise a decent sport sedan, at a price they should be able to actually make money at eventually. The Supercharger infrastructure is the real value here.

    1. Warren says:

      Correction: twenty pounds lighter

      Did he say how many free Supercharger kWh you get?

    2. arne-nl says:

      Looking at the specs, the base model is lighter than the long range model, so I doubt the extra capacity is there for a later upgrade.

  54. David Murray says:

    Still no instrument panel…

    I don’t buy the crap story about not needing it. Sure, if the car is self-driving you don’t need one. But the car can’t do that right now. Maybe in the future. And even if it could do that right now, if the damn thing has a steering wheel then that means sometimes you will have to drive it manually. And for those times, I want an instrument cluster. Period.

    1. Someone out there says:

      Yeah, having physical buttons for functions is a good thing as you can find them without taking your eyes off the road. Doing everything from a screen is a regression in my opinion.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      David Murray said:

      “Still no instrument panel…

      “…Sure, if the car is self-driving you don’t need one. But the car can’t do that right now. Maybe in the future. And even if it could do that right now, if the damn thing has a steering wheel then that means sometimes you will have to drive it manually. And for those times, I want an instrument cluster. Period.”

      ^^ this.

      Yeah, I just don’t get that people will buy the argument that “Well, you won’t need it in a year or so, so we didn’t put it in.” Those who buy the car will want to use it when they buy it, not wait a year… and then have to pay for another upgrade for full autonomy!

      And yeah, even when the car is capable of full autonomy, there will be some roads and some areas where that won’t work, so sometimes the human driver will actually have to drive.

      Well, we’ll see what happens. But I’ve already predicted that Tesla will be forced to rush some sort of HUD or instrument display into production, or make it a service center added option, due to the negative response. It’s not just moving the instrument cluster over to the corner of the main display screen, it’s that what Tesla says they’ll be displaying there — really, just the speedometer? Not even turn signal indicators? — isn’t adequate for human drivers.

      But not all my predictions have come true, by any means. Maybe this one won’t either.

      1. pjwood1 says:

        “Ultimate Driving” will never be an Elon Musk slogan, even if the car drives great.

      2. BenG says:

        I think people will get used to looking over at the big screen to get instrument data. The Motor Trend review said it’s no problem to monitor your speed for instance.

        1. speculawyer says:

          I agree. With an EV, there is very little you need to look at besides speed & charge. No need for temp, oil pressure, tachometer, etc.

          And for those that really can’t handle the idea…well, you can always buy a Model S or X.

      3. speculawyer says:

        You don’t think they can put turn signal indicators on the display or are you just annoyed about having to look over to your right?

        I don’t understand this “no instrument cluster” complaint. There is a full 15″ display that they can use to display whatever information that you would like.

        I’ve monitored by driving and I realize that about all I look at is the speedo & charge gauge. I think I can handle averting my eyes to the right to see them.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          speculawyer said:

          “You don’t think they can put turn signal indicators on the display or are you just annoyed about having to look over to your right?”

          1. Frankly, I can’t imagine that Tesla won’t display turn signal indicators somewhere on that central screen. I was just basing my complaint on what has actually been reported — that the speedometer will be displayed in the upper left hand corner** of the screen, with no suggestion that anything else normally found on an instrument panel will be displayed there.

          **Obviously that would be displayed in the upper right hand corner for right-hand-drive units.

          2. I’ve never driven a car with a centrally mounted instrument panel, but it seems to me that if you’re just seeing it out of the corner of your eye, that there would be some confusion from a left turn signal indicator being displayed on the right side of the driver. But maybe that’s one of those things that a driver would quickly get used to. There are a lot of things I can learn just by reading about them, but some — like this — would have to be experienced in person.

    3. speculawyer says:

      There certainly is an instrument panel. It is just located on the flat panel display to your right.

      Now you can be upset about having to look over the to right, but you can’t say that there is no instrument panel.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        speculawyer said:

        “…you can’t say that there is no instrument panel”

        Many of us can, and have. Repeatedly.

        I think it’s safe to say, Speculawyer, that your opinion on this is in the minority. Displaying similar info on a general purpose monitor mounted elsewhere does not transform that other monitor into an instrument panel.

        1. speculawyer says:

          Words have meanings. “Instrument panel” would mean a panel that displays instrumentation. The flat panel display is a panel and a speedometer is certainly piece of car instrumentation.

          Perhaps you want to say “instrumentation immediately in front of the driver”. But an instrumentation panel is certainly in the Model 3.

  55. Texas FFE says:

    I was already feeling pretty damn good about paying only $18k for a 2017 Ford Focus Electric with power leather seats but seeing seeing the option prices of the Model 3 makes me feel even better. I toyed with the idea of placing a $1k reserve on a Model 3 and now I’m glad I didn’t. I never could have afforded the Model 3, at least not for a few years.

    1. WadeTyhon says:

      Yeah you got an awesome price. Ford has a decent EV but they do not make nearly enough of them.

  56. Texas FFE says:

    You can buy a 2017 AWD Ford Escape Titanium with Adaptive Cruise Control and a rated towing capacity of 3,500 lbs for less than $34k. The Ford ACC option alone only costs $600. The Model 3 is priced for over paid techno-nerds, not practical real people.

    1. Vexar says:

      What’s a Ford Escape Titanium? Is it made with Titanium? My Model S has a titanium underplate to protect the battery. It isn’t called a Tesla Titanium, so the Ford Escape Titanium must have more. Yeah. Wow, that’s really cool. I don’t know how they got the price down so low with all that titanium in it, that’s really amazing. Titanium is an expensive metal compared to aluminium and steel. What’s the battery size and range in the Ford Escape Titanium? Oh wait, is it a titanium battery instead of a lithium? Now that’s cool. Tell me more, Texas FFE!

      1. Texas FFE says:

        The options alone to make your Model S compatible to a AWD Escape with Titanium trim package cost more than the entire Ford Escape. I’m not comparing the Ford Escape to your Model S or any of the other Tesla models, I’m just just pointing out how ridiculous Tesla option pricing is and how difficult it’s going to be for Tesla to compete with established auto manufacturers.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Maybe it’s made of titanium alloy steel, like the skin of an airliner?

          So what kind of battery pack does this 2017 AWD Ford Escape Titanium have? Is it a titanium battery?

          Now, you wouldn’t be trying to compare a Tesla Model 3 to a stinking, polluting, oily rattletrap of a petroleum-burning gasmobile, would you? Especially not comparing a cutting-edge BEV like the Model 3 to a gasmobile with a mediocre 23/30 MPG. Because that would be an apples-to-oranges comparison, and I’m sure an upstanding member of the InsideEVs Usual Suspects like you, Texas FFE, would never resort to a disingenuous debate tactic like that.

          Would you? 😯

        2. BenG says:

          You are comparing Tesla pricing to the wrong established auto makers. Compare them to BMW, Audi, and Mercedes, not Ford or GM.

      2. Mister G says:

        Vexar, Texas Ffe has it all wrong he meant to say adamantium…the metal wolverine’s claws are made of LOL

      3. Texas FFE says:

        I now pronounce you technically illiterate (at least as far as Ford trim packages are concerned).

    2. David Murray says:

      To be fair the Model-3 gets a $7,500 tax credit. Although that might not be available by the time you could actually get the car.

  57. Hans Hammermill says:

    I’m surprised I’m underwhelmed. I remember when the Roaster, S and X all came out they surprised/impressed me by pushing the envelope on what an electric car could do.

    I was hoping with a whole new powertrain, battery, electronics and a slippery body the base model would beat the Ioniq in efficiency or beat the BoltEV in range.

    The only surprise in this release are the price of the options.

    1. Alaa says:

      Both have the exact efficiency.

      1. Alaa says:

        Fd=cd 1/2 p v^2 A

        Fd Drag force

        cd Drag coeeficent

        p Density of air

        v Flow velocity

        A^2 Frontal area

        km/h 90

        Put it in an excel and see. The Fd is almost identical.

    2. Asak says:

      Ioniq is tuned for efficiency though. One criticism people had for it was it’s fairly anemic acceleration (by EV standards, it looks ok when compared to gas economy cars like the Civic).

      You can’t really build a car that offers 0-60 in 5.1 seconds and which also has the highest possible efficiency. Even with an EV there are still trade-offs that have to be made.

      Also, it doesn’t seem like Tesla really has much of a tech advantage in electric motors. Other manufacturers seem to have motors that are just as good, or possibly even better from an efficiency standpoint. My understanding is the AC Induction motors that Tesla uses are not quite as efficient as the DC Brushless motors used by other manufacturers.

      So, honestly, hoping for the Model 3 to be the more efficient than an Ioniq was probably futile.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Asak said:

        “Ioniq is tuned for efficiency though. One criticism people had for it was it’s fairly anemic acceleration (by EV standards…”

        Thanks for the info!

        I was wondering how the Ioniq Electric got such surprisingly high energy efficiency numbers; so high I wondered if they were a result of “gaming the system” or even outright faking the numbers.

        But let’s see:

        Hyundai IONIQ Electric
        EPA range 124 miles from a 28 kWh battery pack = 4.43 miles/kWh

        Tesla Model 3
        EPA range 220 miles (estimated) from a 50 kWh (estimated) battery pack = 4.4 miles/kWh (estimated)

        Nope, looks like the Model 3 has a definite superiority to the Ioniq Electric. Very nearly the same energy efficiency rating, while being far better in performance: The prize definitely goes to Tesla!

  58. Texas FFE says:

    Let the games begin! My first thought after the delivery party was that other auto manufacturers will now start to step up their game in the EV market. There’s no guarantee that Tesla will win or even come out as a leader but us as consumers are bound to win.

    1. Will says:

      I think now that legacy automakers can seat back while tesla founder while they continue making trucks and suvs for the masses and market. All tesla had to do was build a competitive car between 35k-38k with AP and the would have been done but now you can get a comfortable suv with all the bell and whistle for same price as their “long range” 3 model smh

    2. ffbj says:

      It’s already over.

      1. Will says:

        So how it’s over?. You know that tesla have not made a profit in any of its quarters since they went public, while the legacy automakers are making profit on SUVs and trucks. Ford makes a 90% profit margin on F150.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “Ford makes a 90% profit margin on F150.”

          90%; was that a typo?

          If not, Will, then you might want to do some fact checking on that figure. It can’t possibly be correct.

  59. JeremyK says:

    Impressed by what I read in the MT article. Price aside, M3 specs are compelling (overused term) . Hope this drives down the cost of the Bolt and spurs development of additional variants.

  60. Mister G says:

    I’m still in for a model 3 and powerwall bundle. All the whiners can continue driving gas guzzlers that are responsible for global warming. http://Www.co2.earth

    1. terminaltrip421 says:

      yeah damn them whiners and their inability to afford expensive vehicles. surely they should be held as responsible as those who can afford to drive more expensive vehicles and don’t or those who purposely drive heavily polluting vehicles.

    2. WadeTyhon says:

      Gas guzzlers? Who are you referring to? A lot of the people here that are criticizing the Model 3 are talking about pricing options or the limited dash, not the car’s desireability or performance. And these are EV owners. They aren’t driving Hummers.

      As for myself, we want one to replace our 2013 Volt. We are only having trouble justifying the price.

      Although in our case we are comparing the prices of the Gen 2 Volt, not the Bolt. Next to a decked out 2018 Volt, the Model 3 pricing doesn’t seem as reasonable to me.

      All I want: get rid of the overpriced packages and break them out into options. We want heated premium seats and adaptive cruise. $10k in options would be required as it stands now. Way too much for that.

      We have time though. Perhaps by next year they will make more options standard or have smaller packages.

    3. Asak says:

      There are other EV options besides the Tesla. So, just because someone doesn’t like the pricing of the Model 3 (or Chevy Bolt for that matter), doesn’t mean they have to stick to driving a gas guzzler.

  61. Hans Hammermill says:

    The delivery estimator says:

    220 mile range with Rear Wheel Drive $35,000 Jun – Aug 2018

    In other words Q3 2018.

    Looks like the federal $7500 tax credit is likely to expire before the $35k Model 3 is available.

    The $49k model 3 will be available in Q2 2018 and might make the tax credit.

    Unfortunately without the credit on the $35k model 3 this is out of my price range.

    BoltEV was/is the affordable long-range electric car afterall.

    1. unlucky says:

      I think that’s just if you start at the back of the line. If you are early in like Musk says they will start to sell base pack models in fall.

      1. M3 - Reserved - Niro TBD says:

        Clarifying – Start selling Nov to employees and tesla owners.

        We have First day – instore California:
        Delivery: Jan – Mar 2018.

        Parents have First day online California:
        Delivery: Feb-Apr 2018.

        The timing of crossing 200,000 USA Sales for Tesla is somewhere end 2017 to end 1st Qtr-2018. That means best case scenario is June 2018 where rebate drops to $3700.

        For those new buyers wanting $35,000-full rebate, if you’re not a launch day buyer—maybe SOL on the full rebate

        1. Asak says:

          The rebate situation really sucks. The whole idea of it being assigned per manufacturer was BS. So, if you do well and build a lot of EVs your rebates run out sooner?

          It should have been a large pool where the credits of all the manufacturers was consolidated. Basically if we have 10 manufacturers selling cars in the U.S. (don’t want to take the time to count), then there would be 2.5 million rebates available for all EV sales combined.

          Unfortunately, with a Republican Congress and a dunce for President we can’t expect that anything will change here.

          I wonder if this basically means we’re going to see badge engineered EVs from other manufacturers. Once GM’s rebate runs out, couldn’t they effectively sell their cars cheaper through another manufacturer? If so, maybe we’ll be seeing the Ford “Jolt” in a couple of years, or Jaguar “Model III”.

          1. Asak says:

            Sorry, that should have been 2 million rebates, but hell add an extra 500K for good measure. 😉

  62. Pete says:

    This extra costs are too high for the most people…

    1. u_serious? says:

      Then maybe theu shouldn’t slap on the extra options.
      How hard was that?

  63. Peder Norby says:

    It’s like advertising Filet Mignon at $4.00 a pound and then never being able to find it at the store.

    For such an innovator, the 35K price but you can’t find it in the store is as old as salt. It reminds me of the less than 50K Model S.

    Tesla needs to quit this deceptive idea of planting in everyones head its a 35k car.


    1. pjwood1 says:

      Peder, It has always been true that you can’t generally find a base price inventory Model S, but plenty of people ordered them. Same will be true for Model 3. Again, like Model S, configurations may be ordered in November, with 3+ month wait times, but they will get here and for those fixated on getting the black car.

      What happened in 2011 was when Tesla was a boutique firm. Plenty of reasons why margin probably sucks at 35k, but I don’t think they’ll survive the optics of not delivering 35k Model 3’s to all who want to go through the order process, for a good year or so.

  64. Poor says:

    $30K is tops for me. Still looking at 2020 before I buy electric. Agree with others that the options are way over priced. What the heck is Musk trying to do?

    1. Doggydogworld says:

      Musk is “trying” to sell 500,000 cars without losing $5 billion in the process.

      Batteries are expensive, folks. Building a new type of car is expensive. California is expensive. Yes, Tesla is playing some pricing games, but it’s not like they’re raking in the profits. They cut costs wherever they can and still run at a loss.

      The base car is $36,500 with non-hideous wheels, $37,500 if you want colors. That’s pretty competitive based on the acceleration and handling (see Motor Trend first take).

      “Mass market” customers who want a great sports sedan will have to live without fancy seats. You don’t get glass roof and autopilot from the competition, anyway, so their cost is irrelevant.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “What the heck is Musk trying to do?”

      He, or rather Tesla, is trying to sell cars at a price that will make them a profit.

      Perhaps next time Elon says the Model 3 is aimed to compete with the BMW 3 Series, you’ll actually believe him. All too many comments to InsideEVs showed wishful thinking, repeatedly insisting the Model 3 is an “affordable” car instead of a semi-affordable one.

      1. Tim Miser says:

        Profit? Or gouging? The most comparable option is the paint option. Tesla M3 = $1000 for upgraded paint. Most other ‘profitable’ car companies charge less than $500 for upgrade paint. i.e. – Bolt paint upgrade = $395.

        1. speculawyer says:

          Perhaps you can show me another EV with 220 miles of range and great DC-fast-charging ability for $35K. I’m all ears.

          Seems like Tesla is providing the cheapest long range EV.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “Tesla M3 = $1000 for upgraded paint. Most other ‘profitable’ car companies charge less than $500 for upgrade paint. i.e. – Bolt paint upgrade = $395.”

          Yes, but the Bolt EV isn’t intended to compete with the BMW 3-Series.

          For the 3-Series, you get your choice of black or off-white for $0, a “metallic” color for $550, or a premium color for $1950.

          1. Ambulator says:

            If Tesla was at only BMW prices on their paint jobs few would be complaining. Dark and light free paint choices is reasonable, dark only isn’t.

    3. Asak says:

      There’s no need to wait. You can already buy a Chevy Volt for less than $30K. Just get a lease and after rebates, et al it will cost about the same as a $20K car.

      It offers 50 miles of electric range, then another 250 or so miles of gas range, and of course you can just refuel it. It’s effectively an EV for most around town driving, but then converts to a hybrid for longer trips.

      If the price of the Model 3 is too high, there’s no reason you can’t still join the EV revolution right now!

    4. speculawyer says:

      Well, “Poor”, may I suggest you peruse the used car market. Lots of cheap EVs available.

  65. Jake Brake says:

    I would be curious if their battery warranty covers capacity degradation this time or not.

    1. William says:

      Probably not, but, I hope I’m completely and absolutely wrong, as wrong as can possibly be.
      Tesla does things different, and as customers, we are learning and adjusting to this newer retail business environment.

  66. BillT says:

    This is very exciting for me because it means for sure my Volt is my last car with a “suck squeeze bang fa3t” ICE in it. The M3 is out of my price range right now but in 2024 when it is time to replace my Volt there should be lots of used extended range RWD versions to choose from. Exciting times. Hopefully either my wife will go for a Bolt to replace her RAV4 in 2018/19 or there will be a >150 mile BEV alternative with a little more cargo room.

    1. joe p says:

      smart guy.. Keep your vehicle until it’s all used up, then go buy a nice used e vehicle..

      1. L'amata says:

        Why Buy someone else’s “unknown” problems? Just keep the car you “know” Until you save up enough to buy New!..

  67. Bill Howland says:

    Actually the pricing of this new vehicle is a bit more attractive than I suspected.

    As others have said, to make a somewhat fair comparison to the BOLT, you would have to add to the BOLT’s pricing a $750 CCS jack for fast charging (although no statement I’ve seen states precisely what the SC policy will be for the ‘3’, or whether or not there will be an ‘enabling’ charge), plus the cheapest ‘240 charging cord’ with a Nema 14-50 Plug is around $350 – so lets say $1100 increase, — but then – the BOLT was always advertised without the delivery charge, so unless you take the actual MSRP from each vehicle, you’d have to deduct $1000 from the BOLT, and also, what is with the $7000 ‘warranty/service’? That is an optional extra with the ‘3’?

    The other thing I noticed is that only the battery has a good warranty on the ‘3’ whereas the whole electric power train on the BOLT is 8/100000.

    The drive train problem was essentially only an X, and S problem so far. The Roadster drive train problem was nipped in the bud so most actual owners didn’t have trouble with it (other than I had 4 sets of cooling fans replaced under ‘recall’ or warranty – (when the recalled fan ironically seemed most reliable in the first place!).

    1. Hans Hammermill says:

      To be fair one also need to subtract the between $3-$6k dealers are offering off the BoltEV MSRP.

    2. speculawyer says:

      I’ve heard something like SC is enabled and you’ll get 400KWH/year free but you pay after that. But that needs to be verified.

  68. arne-nl says:

    I am surprised that so many people somehow seem to feel ‘betrayed’ by Tesla. There is nothing that really surprised me. Basically the same car that was shown to us a little over a year ago.

    And those who do not understand what “from $35k” means in the real world should grow up. That’s how it is done by any manufacturer (and not just in the auto industry). And there are reasons for that. Reasons that even the iron man can not circumvent.

    Tesla is not a friggin’ charity and at some point must start making a profit and this is how it is done. If you don’t like it, fine, buy something else. But please stop whining about ‘price gouging’ or ‘overpromising, ‘underdelivering’.

    Had you predicted a mere 6 years ago that we would have a $ 35k EV, 5.5 s 0-60 mph with a range of 220 miles, accomanied by a nationwide 150 kW charging network, you would have been declared a nutcase.

    Tesla thinks they know what their brand is worth and is going to find out whether they are right or not.

    1. arne-nl says:

      Oh, and there is more.

      Comparisons with the Bolt: GM reportedly loses money on each Bolt, so in fact it is subsidising the few cars it sells from its vast ICE sales.

      Let’s see what Nissan comes up with in September. They’re not prepared to lose money on selling EV’s. Until that time, Tesla is has done an incredible job making such an attractive car for such a low price, no matter how much you hoped you would get more than what was suggested.

      And comparing pricing/options with the Bolt ignores the elephant in the room: the Supercharger network. Without it, the usability of the Bolt is restricted.

      1. terminaltrip421 says:

        the same analysts responsible for the bolt loses money claim said the same about the model 3.

        1. arne-nl says:

          Bob Lutz thought so too. But he wasn’t working at the company at that time, so maybe you’re right. We’ll never know for sure, as manufacturers usually keep those things a secret.

          But that’s the nice thing about Tesla, we’ll know soon enough if they make money on the 3, as they don’t have billions in sales to hide their losses.

      2. Tim Miser says:

        Uhhmmm… taking 30 minutes to get 130 miles of range? No thanks, I will still take an ICE car on long trips. The Supercharger network is a great idea but who really wants to stop every 2 hours for 30 minutes on a long trip?

        1. arne-nl says:

          I was comparing to other EV’s, not ICE cars. But thanks for the comment anyway.

          ICE’s will beat EV’s on that metric for some time. It doesn’t bother me, I take slightly longer stops anyway to stretch my legs, take a leak and drink some coffee. And keeping/renting an ICE for just the long trips is just not worth it for me. But I live in a much much smaller country than you, so I don’t know your situation.

          I would say, stick to your ICE car if it suits you.

    2. Asak says:

      Reading the other comments, I think the people who are upset are those who wanted specific minor options, like heated seats, and have discovered they have to pay $5000 for a premium package to get them. Heated seats should really be a less than $1000 add-on by itself, on the Bolt it’s only about $500 and includes a heated steering wheel.

      For me the options really don’t matter since I wouldn’t pay for that stuff whether it was $500 or $5000. But if there are certain things you really want, but you don’t want the whole package then I can understand being upset.

      The only add-on that really appeals to me is the longer range, but looking at the supercharger map it looks like you can make it across country with only 200 miles of range, and around town 200 miles is more than enough, so I guess I can do without it.

  69. JL says:

    I wonder what the ‘sign up’ vs ‘cancelation’ ratio was for those watched the delivery show?

  70. William says:

    Model 3 looks compellingly good, Tesla will be supply constrained (filling reservations), on this game changing EV for at least a year, and possibly into the first or second quarter of 2019.

    Waiting on the Tesla Model Y, is going to be a bit of a challenge now, for those of us who utilize the hatchback and its cargo carrying capacity.

  71. x` says:

    M3 1st day res holder here, Big tesla supporter- almost obsessive Ev supporter, for various reasons.

    After such a long wait my general feeling is that I feel underwhelmed.
    Of course I do understand that they need to make money pay for R&D and SC network but to talk heavily about AP and that to cost an extra 25% of the price of car that’s a bit too much for a car that’s meant to be affordable (maaybe ok for a 80k+ MS). I don’t care much about the performance asapect, range is ok, not great fi even bolt beats it for the same price, AP is as if there’s not there for me at 8K, I do appreciate the SC but even that is not free anymore. Even the recharging rate is a bit low as per 2018, not as of 2012.

    I would probably end up buying the 35 car , maybe, but I would feel that I am overpaying (35k and not even an 10$ maybe armrest?).
    Unfortunately, really unfortunately as I would ‘ve really want to prove the naysayers right, but unfortunately , yeah.. underwhelming. Basically you would need to pay 50k to get what was promised a really unbeatable proposal, but then where ‘s the affordable aspect?

    I think that if the LR would’ve been 39 and the option packet (which probably cost tesla <1000$) 3k they would have many more takers.

    Of course people that wanted to spend 50-60k anyways wouldn't care, but for the rest of us it is feels like a rather expensive barebones, considering the expectations.

    Yeah, I know, I know all the maufacturers do the same thing, advertise a barebne low price (not THAT low in this case, considering competition as of 2018) and make money on the Overpriced options, I get it. Just oped that tesla is different.

    my 2 c.

    PS , again, no I am not advocating for a bolt
    of a leaf (horrible treatment for the customers, for the really bad batterie and not allowing the upgrade to the 30kw, they deserve some punishment, won't buy from them)

    No I won't buy a bolt for 3 reasons: size – do need 5 real seats, lack of SCs and GM despicable unfair lobbying_politics against tesla.

  72. arne-nl says:

    “but to talk heavily about AP and that to cost an extra 25% of the price of car that’s a bit too much”

    The price is exactly the same as for the Model S/X. What did you expect? To charge Model 3 buyers less for exactly the same thing? Then the Model S/X buyers would start complaining about being gouged.

    Maybe your expectations were too high?

    “I do appreciate the SC but even that is not free anymore”

    With the SC you get much, much more both in charging speed as in coverage as with any other EV. And the first 400 kWh per year free? Who offers a better deal? When it comes to road tripping, there is no alternative. Period. Not the LEAF, not the i3, not the Bolt, not the Ionic.

    And how again was it that Tesla is falling short?

    “Basically you would need to pay 50k to get what was promised”

    What was promised, or was it what you dreamt up? Can you please exactly tell us what was promised to be in the base car that’s not there?

    Afaik the only promise was >215 mile range and < 6 s 0-60 mph. And Tesla delivered on that promise.

    “I think that if the LR would’ve been 39 and the option packet (which probably cost tesla <1000$) 3k they would have many more takers."

    Duh. But how realistic is that. Tesla must make a profit. You can’t do that by practically giving away features. How realistic is that?

    “Just oped that tesla is different.”

    Nope, there’s the rub. Tesla have to obey the same laws as all (car) manufacturers. Make a profit or perish.

    1. arne-nl says:

      This was meant as a response to x`

  73. X says:


    Yes maybe you.re right maybe my expectations were too high.

    I don.t think that.s unheard of to have cheaper cars have less expensive options than the luxury cars and their respective options

    It could be realistic to charge less for options of the result is positive. 80% take rate vs 30%take rate. But yes, or duh if you prefer, we are all aware that they need to make a profit.
    The initial promise was that the ?m3 would be outstanding compared to any other car electric or not. I don.t feel that. It is so but for 59k

    1. arne-nl says:

      “..it would would be outstanding compared to any other car…”

      Well, it does compare very favourably to any other EV. Right? The closest rival lacks anything close to resembling the Supercharger network, and is therefore no match. Maybe for some people, but for most people the freedom of being able to go anywhere, anytime is invaluable.

      And gasoline cars? You must look at it from a TCO perspective, factor in the savings in gasoline. Tesla have always done that and it is reasonable to do so. Then the car does hold up pretty well too, depending perhaps on which features you value. Add in the tax credit and it’s a steal.

      But I somehow get the feeling (generally from this thread) that the car has to beat all other cars on all metrics to be worthy of consideration. There will always be a some areas where it is lacking. Focusing on those is a surefire way to miss it’s many qualities. Look at the total package and don’t forget the low running costs.

      I think in general that people were factoring in some positive surprises and when those didn’t materialise, they were disappointed. But knowing how Tesla had to scramble to release the car ahead of schedule, how realistic was that?

      1. x says:


        ““..it would would be outstanding compared to any other car…”

        Well, it does compare very favourably to any other EV. Right? The closest rival lacks anything close to resembling the Supercharger network, and is therefore no match. Maybe for some people, but for most people the freedom of being able to go anywhere, anytime is invaluable.

        And gasoline cars? You must look at it from a TCO perspective, factor in the savings in gasoline. Tesla have always done that and it is reasonable to do so. Then the car does hold up pretty well too, depending perhaps on which features you value. Add in the tax credit and it’s a steal.

        But I somehow get the feeling (generally from this thread) that the car has to beat all other cars on all metrics to be worthy of consideration. There will always be a some areas where it is lacking. Focusing on those is a surefire way to miss it’s many qualities. Look at the total package and don’t forget the low running costs.

        I think in general that people were factoring in some positive surprises and when those didn’t materialise, they were disappointed. But knowing how Tesla had to scramble to release the car ahead of schedule, how realistic was that?

        Yes I think you’re right, arne I don’t see any EV not even close to what M3 is offering, true, not by a long shot. The SC alone makes all the difference. Plus the announcement, to me outstanding tha EM made that the SC network will triple by the end of next year ! (!!)

        But yes, maybe some people obsessed with EVs and especially tesla were expecting something more which I agree in retrospect is was disrespectful towards their efforts… they already made HUGE strides compared to the entire industry which has access to vastly bigger resources. So , indeed we shouldn’t ask more and more and more and I mean it. It is A LOT that they are doing already if we show a bit of well warranted humility.

  74. Hans Hammermill says:

    Remember the $57,400 Model S? At that time project BlueStar was intended to be half the price of that Model S.

    The more I think about this, the fact that the only model 3 one can get while the $7.5k federal credit is active is $49k really really surprises me.

    The first ‘affordable’ electric cars Tesla actually ships is only $8k less then the original Model S?

    I’m starting to wonder if Tesla will drop the 220-mile $35k version before it ships (much like they did with the Model S 40).

    1. Hans Hammermill says:

      In retrospect the Model X was technical hubris. I think this Model 3 reveal will go down as brand and pricing hubris.

      All through BlueStar, Model E, Model ///, Model 3 for years I really thought it would end up shipping for $35k and I would be able to take incentives to bring it into the $25k-$30k range. Based on the release price ($49k), option prices and roll-out schedule this will certainly never happen.

      The Model 3 is not an affordable car. It does not appear that it ever will be either. Moreover Tesla has nothing in their public roadmap that will be affordable.

      Tesla is not a brand for us; Model S/X is for the top 1%, Model 3’s ~$50k price is for the top 7%.

      Tesla was fun/exiting to cheer on when they made $100k luxary cars that would eventually fund a decent car for the rest of us. The fact they have no plans to actually ship an affordable car really tarnishes the brand for me.

      Oddly as of today for me it is no longer any more fun to cheer on Tesla then it is to cheer on Bentley. As of today I have no interest anymore in reading Tesla stories. Their products are not meant for me nor will they ever be.

      1. Will says:

        ??? I agree. No affordable car with this company. Stocks on Monday will take a hit. That’s why Elon was stuttering cause he knows that the company isn’t going to sell 400k cars in 2 years time with price set where they are at. I see them selling 100k cars in 2 years time before discounting them or starting from scratch to build a affordable SUV at 35,000k with some bells and whistle

        1. Nix says:

          TSLA is up on after-hours trading. No signs of any crash.

          TSLA shares will go up, they will go down, then back up and down, etc. it is a volatile stock.

          1. L'amata says:

            Mr. Lemons has a Sour Bad taste in his mouth because He’s Shorted Tesla stock & it’s toooo late for him now! He will lose what ever he has tied up on betting against Tesla.So now,like a Drowning man,he’s Grasping at Straws.

    2. arne-nl says:

      “the fact that the only model 3 one can get while the $7.5k federal credit is active is $49k really really surprises me”

      Is that so? Afaik, the Federal tax credit expires after June 30, 2018 at the earliest. After that, there are two more quarters with 3750. They will start making the 220 mile version from Nov. So I think there is enough time for you to buy the base model with the full tax credit. Or were you too late with your reservation? That’s a bummer indeed.

      But there is something in your comment that I don’t get. You make it sound like a nasty surprise, but everything you say was known far in advance. The base price, the expiration of the federal tax credit, the higher optioned models going first, etc.

      Before cheering on Bentley, do realise that Tesla is still the only automaker that wholeheartedly embraces the need for change. But they are not a charity and the money can only come from one source. Reality is unbendable. Even for Elon Musk.

      1. Hans Hammermill says:

        “The higher optioned models going first”

        Good point; perhaps it is my fault — I’m an early reservation holder and I never realized that the pricier models would be first. I had thought that the simple/inexpensive version would be first followed by pricier/complex versions like dual motors later.

        Nonetheless realizing that a truly affordable (<$30 after credits) Tesla will not happen zapped all my enthusiasm for Tesla in general.

        I don't know why it did not hit me before the reveal that there is nothing affordable in their roadmap until now. I think I have been following them for so long perhaps I bought into the long-term vision set in the early days too much.

        I am lucky, however — I did get a BoltEV on discount with the full state and federal credits.

        Perhaps I am just sad in general that the price/performance of EVs has flat-lined after a fantastic revolution in the past 8 years.

        1. William says:

          Tesla is trying to up their profit in the near term, as they have some substantial Wall Street repayments due, in at least the next few years. There is a one time chance for Tesla, in the next 24 months, to capitalize and profit on the Model 3 launch.

          If Tesla can’t get their volume Model 3 delivery numbers up significantly, to make those repayments, they will need to make some drastic changes, to their future business growth plans.

        2. Nix says:

          “Nonetheless realizing that a truly affordable (<$30 after credits) Tesla will not happen zapped all my enthusiasm for Tesla in general. "

          Deliveries of the 220 $35K version start in November. Slightly sooner than "will not happen"

        3. arne-nl says:

          I just find your commennet to be … well … puzzling.

          “I’m an early reservation holder”

          When is your expected delivery date?

          “a truly affordable (<$30 after credits) Tesla will not happen"

          The base model will come out this fall. If you’re an early reservation holder, you should be able to get it before the expiry of the tax credit.

          “I am lucky, however — I did get a BoltEV on discount with the full state and federal credits.”

          Wait, are you telling me that you went out, right after the reveal headed to a Chevvy dealer to buy a Bolt?

          “Perhaps I am just sad in general that the price/performance of EVs has flat-lined after a fantastic revolution in the past 8 years.”

          Sad? Man, you sound outright depressed 😉

          I’m flabbergasted that you would say such a thing, since clearly the opposite is true.

          The price/performance has never had such a boost in a single year with three mid-$30k-ish cars coming out with a range of > 200 miles. The other manufacturers will follow suit in the coming years. And by 2020 there will be cars in the 20k – 30k price range (of course, 200 miles of range will be the minimum on any EV by then).

          Cheer up man! The best is yet to come.

        4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “Perhaps I am just sad in general that the price/performance of EVs has flat-lined after a fantastic revolution in the past 8 years.”

          This reads very much like a sour grapes rationalization from someone who decided to buy a Bolt EV instead of a Model 3.

          I hope you enjoy your Bolt EV. It certainly has some advantages over the Model 3.

          But both the Bolt EV and the Model 3 are in the forefront of the new, less expensive, “semi-affordable” generation of 200+ mile range plug-in EVs, so your mis-characterization of the EV revolution having “flat-lined”…

          Well, as they say: You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. And your assertion here is just contrary to facts, period.

          Flat-lined? The EV revolution is accelerating!

  75. Scott says:

    History in the making in my lifetime. Best value gas or electric. The small Bolt 164 inch is really $43,000 with a few basic options. The Model X/S was designed to beat the best out of Germany, S class, 7 series, Porsche at the same price point with all new drivetrain tech. Musk is going after the best sports sedan with the Model 3, BMW 3 series including the M car. MSRP of the 3 series $33,000-$70,000. We are hitting the tipping point for EV’s. Fossil fuels are killing us!

  76. Mister G says:

    All the naysayers, whiners, haters, procrastinators, and doubters can kiss Elon’s Lily white ARSE LOL

  77. Tim Miser says:

    I love the warranty! The options are great but the pricing of the options is crazy expensive… $9K for 80-90 extra miles and slight increase in performance? forget that! $5K for enhanced cruise control? No way! Still hate the interior but love the exterior. What happens when your phone goes dead before you get back to your car to recharge your phone? I’m ok with being charged to supercharge.

    Overall i think I would take a top of the line Bolt -7500 rebate equals $36,405 versus a base M3 for $35,000 with no rebate since that will be gone by the time you can purchase a base M3.

    1. William says:

      Somebody will take the GM Bolt bait, and it looks like the hook might already bet set with your preferences. Bolt buyers should learn to like the Bolt seats, they work for some, but others, not so much.

      The Chevy Bolt is Really spirited driving. Love that low end torque! Nissan

      1. William says:

        Nissan may be the Laggard out of the Tesla M3/Chevy Bolt/Leaf 2.0 (2018). We will have all the Specs in September, and the Tesla M3 is the drivers (fun and fast) car, so far.

  78. SparkEV says:

    There are so much bitching about options costing too much. If you thought Tesla would give you full blown Model S / X options for $35K, you were seriously deluded. WTF do you want, no options at all? Then people will complain how limited the car is.

    Fact is, all those options are OPTIONS that you can CHOOSE to install or not. At $35K base price, it’s already better than Bolt (needs $750 OPTION for DCFC) and most (all?) other comparable gas cars. Don’t take the options if you can’t afford them, take the options if you have the money, but stop bitching about options already.

    You have the freedom, use it! No one’s putting a gun to your head to force you to take the options, and the car will run just fine without them if you opt out of the options.

    1. CCIE says:

      I would agree, except that it seems unlikley that base cars will be readily available anytime soon. Until they are, those options aren’t optional. That’s what’s annoying people. Tesla is using a low base price that will look good in headlines, but won’t actually sell you a car without a bunch of expensive options being included.

      1. SparkEV says:

        If Tesla has a history of offering base model cars before their optioned cars, I could understand some of the bitching. But Tesla NEVER offered base model first. Frankly, one should be glad to have Tesla 3 in 2017 at all, given that their track record is ALWAYS late.

        In addition, they say base model will be out by fall of 2017, just few months later. It’s not like they won’t have the base model for years.

        1. CCIE says:

          I really hope it works out since Tesla is forcing the legacy manufacturers to also create EVs. But a few dozen hand built cars is not a mass market launch. We’ll see if they can actually ramp up this year.

          I believe that they will sell base cars, just not many and not soon. They’re probably losing money or barely breaking even on the base version, so no reason to make many.

  79. Will says:

    2018 ioniq electric rollout with bigger battery pack is coming out soon.

    1. William says:

      Lots of 2018 EV “bigger battery pack” contenders in the “on deck circle” ready to get a slim chance at enticing Tesla M3 reservation holders, back over to the legacy ICE manufacturers. The 2018 Nissan Leaf will be another “available now” EV for the masses, but I think the welcome surprise will be the longer range 2018 Hyundai EV Ionic.

      1. DJ says:

        And the Niro BEV.

        Can’t wait to see what that actually brings to the table. Here is to hoping it gets the rumoured 200+ 2018 Ionic battery pack.

  80. DJ says:

    Man I would love to have been a fly on the wall in Ghosns house when this was all made public. I bet there was some jumping up and down going on 🙂

    The Model 3 is definitely going to have a market but it isn’t a car for the masses that many wanted it to be. Here is hoping the Leaf we see in a little over a month can be that 😀

    1. speculawyer says:

      What? If they can profitably build & sell that base model for $35K, I think it really will be a big mass market car.

      The only thing close to it is the Chevy Bolt and that:
      1) costs $37,500
      2) Is an ugly econobox compared to Model 3. (Yeah, looks are subjective but I suspect most would agree.)
      3) Lacks a good fast well-deployed fast-charging network.

  81. CCIE says:

    Would it really have killed them to include a HUD?Looking right for basic info like speed is so annoying.

    It’s not like a basic HUD is hard to implement or expensive. Pontiacs had them 20 years ago.

    1. speculawyer says:

      I’m pretty sure they thought long & hard about it but finally decided to omit it because:
      1) Added cost for the parts;
      2) Added hassle during manufacturing to install (this could be much more important than #1!)
      3) Elon’s view that in a few years, the car will be driving by itself so who needs it.

      I think a lot of effort has been put into designing a really stripped down car so:
      1) cost of parts is low.
      2) Assembly is easy & fast.

  82. Joshua A says:

    You can see where you are on the reservation delivery window now : https://3.tesla.com/model3/delivery-estimate

  83. voracity says:

    From August 23rd, 2016:


    “…the Model S P100D easily exceeds 300 miles of EPA estimated range, making it the range winner out of all production electric cars.”

    “Price: $134,500 (a $9,500 bump over the older P90DL)”

    Now(ish), less than 12 months later, Tesla has introduced an electric car that does 310 miles of range for $44K.

    How is this considered anything less than astounding?

    1. arne-nl says:

      Indeed, the negativity of a disgruntled few who for some reason had hoped Tesla was capable of not only bringing the car to market early, but at the same time add everything and the kitchen sink and would give those goodies away for ‘an apple and an egg’ *)

      If you read the MotorTrend review, this quote says it all:
      “By happenstance, associate road test editor Erick Ayapana had penciled me into a 2.0-liter Alfa Romeo Giulia to get here, and it feels like a wet sponge by comparison.”

      The Model 3 is an awesome car and for awesome stuff you pay. That’s capitalism 101.

      *) Dutch proverb, meaning ‘for a very low price’

    2. Someone out there says:

      Yes it’s a huge leap forward. $44k is still a lot of money but it’s bordering on the “affordable” category. A lot more people will now be able to get an anxiety-free EV.

      Next it will be interesting to see when we can get 300 miles of range for less than $34k, the average purchase price of cars in the US. My guess is around 2020-2021. At that point it will make little sense to still buy ICE except if the type of car you want isn’t available in an EV version.

      I’ve always said the EV revolution will happen much quicker than people think. My prediction is still that by 2030 you won’t be able to buy a new fossil fuel burning car (well, maybe they will have a few old MY2027 all the way in the back but that is not “new”)

  84. Dan Roy says:

    In canadian money $1000 us dollars is approx $1243 which is expensive for paint as Audi, BMW and Mercedes charge $895 canadian for upgraded paint. Interior upgrade package is reasonable and in same price range as other luxury cars.
    I will choose the multi-red paint option but will wait for more info on base interior as only concerned about sound quality of stereo in base model.


    1. L'amata says:

      Tesla wants to get a Canadian market , Tesla will need to revise their Canadian Prices like Hyundai did on it’s EV Ioniq .

  85. Roy_H says:

    I haven’t read all the posts, but where did this $7,000 for warranty come from? Warranty is and should be included in the base price. So what gives?

    The base unit plus $1,000 for the color of my choice is fine for me. I would like AWD but that looks like it would be very pricey assuming it only comes with the larger battery.

    I believe Tesla will do everything they can to see that everyone already pre-ordered (US citizens) will get the $7,500 tax credit. It’s all about timing and when the unlimited number of sales starts and how many cars they can deliver in that time period.

  86. Scramjett says:

    Holy Carp! 570 posts (including this one)?! Is that some kind of record?!

  87. David S. says:

    Here are my battery capacity calculations.

    For the long range battery:
    37 miles of range per hour @ 240V,40A => 25,9 kWh / 100 miles consumption from the wall. Considering 89% charging efficiency (like the Model S 100D), 310 miles of ranges would require 71.5 kWh usable capacity. That would be 95% of the 75 kWh nominal capacity.

    Same calculation for the base battery:
    30 mph @ 240V,32A => 25,6 kWh / 100 miles. With charging losses, 220 miles of ranges would require 50 kWh usable capacity. Assuming again that 95% is usable, total pack size would be around 52.6 kWh.