Wow, I don't really know how bmw or mercedes are going to compete with model 3. Tesla does not look worse than 3 series and C class, is faster and is almost free to run. And the base bmw 3 series starts at $33,200 and it is almost empty inside...It will be an interesting couple years for auto industry for sure.
1.) Design is subjective. I for one think while the Model S looks great, the X and 3 do not look that attractive.
2.) I really don't think "faster" really means much when are you talking about the majority of the mainstream automobile market. Top speed is low on the list of priorities for the average consumer.
3.) Cheaper is not free. I would save about $70 (based on today's gas prices in Ontario, Canada) per month in gasoline costs, but it would still cost me about $60 a month in electricity costs to do an average of 20,000 km a year.
4.) Production capability, supply chain and support network can not be overlooked. Tesla struggled to get 50,000 cars out last year. BMW sold north of 2 million cars in 2015. I recognize Tesla is growing day by day, but 50,000 to 2 million is a big jump.
To be fair, acceleration speed is most important, and zero-to-sixty in 6 seconds is competitive against $30k cars. (The fastest cars in this price range... like Ford Focus RS... is zero-to-sixty in 4.7 seconds. $35,900 for the RS.)
Everyone appreciates a speedy acceleration, when merging into highways or getting out of the way. Its far more important to be quick on acceleration than to have a top-speed.
6 seconds is fast for a luxury sedan, but there are plenty of cars for less than $30k that will do zero-to-sixty in under 6 seconds. The Subaru WRX does 0-60 in under 5 seconds and costs ~$26k. That's the only 4 door car I can think of that's quite that quick, but there are plenty of performance oriented cars in that price range that are very quick.
Yeah, this is more about what I was getting towards.
Tesla Model 3 isn't breaking any records. I can think of plenty of cars in the price range that is that fast actually (and as you noted, the WRX definitely undercuts the Tesla significantly in price).
But in my experience, zero-to-sixty in 6 seconds is a good speed. Its not "slow", and should be fast enough to feel somewhat luxurious.
The Subaru WRX, and Ford Focus RS are performance-oriented cars after all. They happen to also be good daily drivers. Performance-oriented drivers will stick with Subaru WRX / Focus RS because the real time performance people care about is the Laguna Seca lap-time (or other lap times on famous tracks)... a combination of cornering speed, handling, acceleration, AND braking to test all aspects of the car.
Zero-to-sixty in 6-seconds isn't amazing, and the M3 likely won't do Leguna Seca very well (Model S overheats for example and is forced to slow down. Its probably something to do with electric motors)
And there's the Subaru WRX, beating out the Model S on Leguna Seca by a few seconds, let alone the Model 3. So yeah, people who care about overall performance aren't going to be getting any of the Teslas any time soon.
----------
So the real selling point is the electric car value. The question is if the Model 3 can actually deliver. Its still a concept-car, a lot of things are going to change between now and "late 2017", probably 2018 when the cars actually come out for most people.
The GM Bolt is launching this year. BMW is launching their electrics soon. Tesla has a leg up inside of the electric market IMO, but I'm curious to see if the M3 actually gets widespread adoption.
And no, I don't think a refundable $1000 deposit really counts as a real sale.
The other thing to remember is the Model 3 will still have that "100% torque from a full stop" feel that gives the Model S it's kick. I suspect it will feel much faster than an ICE with the same 0-60 speed.
I doubt it'd be much better than any manual car reving up to 4000 RPM and then dropping the clutch. You can squeal the wheels of even low-power engines with that technique.
Frankly, zero-to-sixty in 6 seconds WITHOUT shifting and with 100% standing torque is kind of... awful actually. I suspect the opposite, when a ICE engine hits 4000 to 6000 RPM and the torque kicks in, you'll be accelerating far stronger than the smooth acceleration a Model 3 will give you.
Consider a jerky zero-to-sixty with three gear shifts on your typical manual car (say... Ford Focus ST or RS), in contrast to the smooth acceleration from like a Nissan or a Subaru WRX. You definitely feel more G forces from the Focus, while the WRX only beats the other car because the CVT engine never has to "stop" for the gearshift.
Similarly, I'd expect the smooth acceleration on the Model 3 to have less peak G-forces than a manual car. It will happen to be a smooth and constant acceleration, but there's a HUGE difference in Model 3 vs Model S acceleration. And I hope people aren't getting their hopes up.
I'd go the opposite direction. As the owner of a Golf R (which competes with the STI and Focus RS), the 1-second-slower-to-60 Model 3 (this is the very base model, mind you.. no talk of dual engines or performance models yet) will certainly have less peak torque, but I think it will feel faster due to the linear nature of it. Having driven and ridden in a number of different-spec RWD Model S, the impression of acceleration is exaggerated by the off-the-line torque and lack of jerky shifts (remember, power has to let up in order for a shift to subsequently jerky).
Car and Driver just released a review of the STI vs Golf R vs Focus RS. Both the R and the RS had 1-second-slower 5-60 runs vs 0-60. Why? Because they don't have clutch-dropping launches. The STI was vastly worse -- 2 seconds slower 5-60 vs 0-60. That's right -- 5-60 was ~6.8 seconds vs ~4.8 seconds 0-60.
Remove the ICE drivetrain dump launch and suddenly ICEs don't feel so quick. A Model 3 that can do 6 seconds 0-60 might sound slow, but is faster than it sounds, and likely feels so. It laughs at 5-60 because, in the electric world, that's 5 fewer mph it has to accelerate through. In the ICE world, we're talking about a lot of revs we need to pound through before the exhaust gasses spin up the turbo enough to create adequate boost to force air into the engine to create powerful enough explosions to try to create enough power in the itty bitty engine. That's, quite simply, a huge amount of time lost.
Even in my R, I can mash my foot to the floor and wait a second or two before acceleration is truly impressive.
Which is crap compared to the naturally-aspirated 3.2L I6 in my BMW. Which is crap compared to the same engine with individual throttle bodies where there's less distance between the outside air and the valve controlling the intake. Which is crap compared to a much larger engine, like a big V8. All of which are crap compared to a properly-tuned electric motor. (yes, in the interest of efficiency, you may find that many electric motors are programmed to have really laggy throttle response; even so, BMW brags that the i3 is quicker 0-30 than their own M3, even though I found it to be horribly laggy in throttle and deceleration response)
Would you recommend the Golf R as daily driver - for someone who likes to drive? I currently have a 3.2 A3, its nice to have 6 cylinders, but I'm tentative about turbo 4 in the R. I gotta have a hatch.:) With that said, I have tested the Tesla S and the linear torque is different sensation compared to ICE. Totally agree with you on that, its the smooth power that feels faster. So, I ended up reserving the Model 3 because its closer my price range.
I love, love, love the Golf. I'm not the kind of person who always needs a new car -- my other car I've had for 10 years, a Z3 M Coupe. But despite not having owned a ton of other cars, I've driven quite a few (and especially the ST/WRX/STI/etc), and the R is head and shoulders above the rest. The number one thing is it oozes quality -- just such a nice car, it would feel premium even if it wore a BMW badge; it's not just "nice for a VW".
Performance is great, torque everywhere, handles great, great grip. Love it.
Meh. In my opinion, manual transmissions are a waste and appeal to people's vroom vroom instincts. Which is not utilitarian. My electric fiat feels super powerful from a stop and I really appreciate it for merging or other uses. I don't want to drop any clutches or have my car sound like a revving chainsaw just to speed up quickly.
My previous car was a Honda civic, and I appreciate the considerable improved acceleration and smooth everything of an electric car. I'll never again get an ICE if I can help it, and it looks like the model 3 will be waiting for me when I'm ready.
Even the Volvo XC90 managed to slide under the bar at exactly 6 seconds. You really have to work hard to move downmarket enough to still be over 6. Sorry Kia owners.
The comment he replied to said nothing about Tesla competing with BMW on all models, the original comment was referring to model 3 vs bmw 3 series and C class Merc
His point was that the supply chain is there and working well. Tesla has a non-trivial amount of work to do to be able to catch up to those sorts of production numbers.
Legit question: How much does a Tesla cost to recharge?
I mean assuming you do it in your home and not at a free charging station. Are we talking $1/charge? $5? 50c? I just want a frame of reference. I'm talking raw electricity only (and obviously based on some average rate).
The average battery size for the Model S is probably 85kWh (they sell them from 70 - 90), and average residential power rates in the US are ~$0.15/kWh. So the easy answer is, a Model S will cost ~$12.75 to "fill up". However, some places have residential rates closer to $0.08/kWh, or $7/tank. That's for 300mi range.
They do sell lower capacity battery versions and the entry level Model 3 will likely have a 50kWh battery for a 215mi range, so that would cost $7.50 to fill.
Most areas have night-time plans from the utilities to level demand where they charge a lot less for power, the Supercharging stations are free to use for Tesla owners, so the average cost will probably be quite a bit lower.
Does the Tesla come with charge management settings to specify how much and when it charges? Some residents have power plans with reduced or free electricity during off peak. Mine is free on weekends for example and I usually only drive 150 miles/week. I could theoretically charge for free and always have a least a hundred miles range during the week. It would be nice if I didn't have manually schedule this.
Power rates vary widely in the US. In Southern California, I am above $0.30/kWh. I haven't done the math recently, but I don't think it's very cost competitive with today's gasoline prices for an ICE.
The average electric price in the US is 10-15 cents per kWh for most regions. A 60 kWh battery would cost $6 to $9 to fully charge, then. With gas at just ~$2 per gallon, it's only a ~50% discount compared to the fuel a gas car with decent MPG would need for the same distance travelled. The economics were better when gas cost twice as much.
Still a great savings at that vehicle class. Especially compelling is home charging with solar. Why not close the circle with a Tesla PowerWall and some Solar City panels? =P
It depends (d'oh) on how much charge you need to fill in and how much you pay for electricity (at time of charging). In my case I carge at work, so $0. Literally.
However, my daily commute is about 50 mi. My avg. W/mi is 340, so 17 kWh @ $0.13/ kWh (PG&E, EV-rate), so $2.21 but increase by ? 10% for various efficiency losses.
The Model S comes with a standard 60 kwH battery, which at an average rate of $0.20/kwH for electricity in the US, that's about $12.00 to fill it up for 250 miles range.
I find peoples' car aesthetics opinions totally incomprehensible. Ask 10 people what they like and you'll basically get 10 mutually incompatible answers.
Personally, I like futuristic looking stuff (I think it goes back to the Lamborgini Countach when I was growing up). Other people hate that, hate the Prius, etc. I'm always shocked how many people think a car has to have a traditional shape or it's ugly. Some people love Ferraris, I think they look like a woman's shoe. It's just a mess.
I think luxury cars look totally silly. I actually think the Toyota Previa is a gorgeous car and I'd have way more fun in that than in a Mercedes, which would make me feel totally ridiculous. I doubt there's another person on the planet who feels the same. I don't know why car aesthetics are so personal. I guess clothing is the same, only no one expects clothes to be one size fits all.
Yeah this is really funny. Somewhere in this thread somebody said that he finds the 3s design superior to the Model S and that he really likes the Porsche Panamera. My taste in cars is completely the opposite.
But I don't care too much about asthetics in cars, I value practical considerations much higher.
The C Class you've linked starts at 40,000$ and featurewise it's empty inside, you will need to add an extra $10K to get all the features basic model 3 has.
"they provide a more luxurious experience at the same price point."
A much, much, much more luxurious experience.
The highest end, max-optioned Model S you can buy does not have as nice an interior as a decent 3 series or C class mercedes. It doesn't even beat out their low end.
Never mind the cars in its price range (A8/S class/7series). They're not even remotely comparable in terms of interior or luxury appointment.
I find it odd, actually ... of all the things you have to do to make a car, sourcing some decent highly adjustable seats and some nice leather appointments, etc., has to be the easiest. Further, you can just add a "luxury package" and option it at $9950 and call it a day ... and lots of people would buy it.
There is a pretty big difference between the German luxury aesthetic and the Detroit luxury aesthetic. It's clear why they're not imitating Cadillac, but why not take some cues from Audi or BMW?
