Tesla Announces $45,000 Model 3 with 260 Mile Range

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,281
Tesla has announced a cheaper version of the Tesla Model 3. The $45,000 version will forgo some of the range, 260 miles versus 310 miles, of the more expensive Model 3 cars. The cheaper Model 3 is rear-wheel-drive while the upscale versions have dual motors. Also the 8 year warranty for the cheaper version is valid for only 100,000 miles, while the more upper echelon Model 3 versions have 8 year / 120,000 mile warranties. 20" rims are not available as an option on the $45,000 electric car.

The new version has a delivery period of six to 10 weeks, according to the website, which would customers eligible for the current $7,500 U.S. tax credit if they take delivery by the end of the year. The tax credit for Tesla cars will drop by half on Jan. 1. Although Tesla has promised a base-level version of the Model 3 priced at $35,000, so far it has only produced higher-cost versions starting at about $49,000. Tesla has said that it would not manufacture the base-level version of the Model 3 this year.
 
Wow Tesla's ordering site is a bit scummy - the price they display includes "potential" incentives and gas savings... How about you just show me how much you're going to charge for the car?

That said, the Reuters article is a bit misleading as well. If you ignore all of the potential savings (as they did with the $45,000 version) that "about $49,000" version actually starts at $54,000. I was about to ask who this $45,000 version would appeal to since it's only about 10% cheaper while losing about 15% of the range (not to mention it's slower and has a slightly less generous warranty.) Then I figured out how to find the actual starting prices and it's not $49,000 vs $45,000, it's $54,000 vs $45,000 which makes more sense - especially if you trust Tesla to deliver before Jan 1st.
 
nutzo said:
Still way too expensive.
Let me know when I can get one for less than $30,000
Click to expand...
You'll be waiting for... forever if you want a Tesla that cheap. The 3's have never been targeting that price, and nothing in the line up suggests a future model will. You need to go look at Bolt, Volt, or other EVs.
 
To make an "investment" on this scale, one also has to figure resale value. After about 6 or 7 years, wouldn't the battery be worthless by then???
 
Rear wheel drive. That actually makes this lower-cost one more attractive to me than the higher cost one. Not that I'm in the market for this anyway though.
 
Exercate said:
To make an "investment" on this scale, one also has to figure resale value. After about 6 or 7 years, wouldn't the battery be worthless by then???
Click to expand...


How so? Model S batteries if 10 years still have upwards of 85% original range. Far from worthless.
 
I've seen a few of these pass me on the roads lately. They're sharp looking cars, but I can't help but look at the people inside, and wondering if they realize where all the power they use to charge those cars comes from.....it ain't solar.
 
I can get a Solo for $16K if I want an electric. I'd have to charge it for 6 hours every day and watch out for 18-wheelers but it is 1/3 the cost of a Model 3. Paul just needs to build my Elio instead of hiding from his investors.
 
After going AWD on my most recent car purchase (Chevy Traverse), I don't think I'll ever want a RWD vehicle again...
 
I still wonder how well this would've sold over the more generic looking thing we got now:

2015-Chevrolet-Volt-Concept.jpg
 
Eulogy said:
You'll be waiting for... forever if you want a Tesla that cheap. The 3's have never been targeting that price, and nothing in the line up suggests a future model will. You need to go look at Bolt, Volt, or other EVs.
Click to expand...

Yea, Tesla is definitely a "brand" and with that comes a certain cost. Which, is totally fine. That doesn't mean there won't be options for similar vehicles from others.
 
HeadRusch said:
I've seen a few of these pass me on the roads lately. They're sharp looking cars, but I can't help but look at the people inside, and wondering if they realize where all the power they use to charge those cars comes from.....it ain't solar.
Click to expand...

Even of it was all coal it's still more efficient than burning oil in a conventional engine. Solar adoption is also exponential so even if it's not today, it's only about 14 years until we could be nearly 100% renewable

In my case I do have solar on my roof and charge from home during the day

So to answer your question it's probably 20% natural gas, 5% coal, and 75% solar. And yes my solar array is able to generate enough electric it to charge my car and still have some going back to the grid
 
Last edited:
So... why rear wheel drive? Why not at the very least front wheel?

That really limits traction and safety/ease of driving in bad weather.
 
Advil said:
So... why rear wheel drive? Why not at the very least front wheel?

That really limits traction and safety/ease of driving in bad weather.
Click to expand...

Because what Tesla is aiming to compete against are almost exclusively rear wheel drive luxury sport sedans (BMW 3 series, Mercedes C series, Cadillac ATS, etc.) Model S competes against 5 series, E series, and so on.
 
HeadRusch said:
I can't help but look at the people inside, and wondering if they realize where all the power they use to charge those cars comes from.....it ain't solar.
Click to expand...

I can't help but read these posts in every EV thread and wonder if the people making them realize how internal combustion engines work.

travisty said:
Even of it was all coal it's still more efficient than burning oil in a conventional engine.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Even after you consider transmission losses power plants are more than twice as efficient as typical internal combustion engines. ICEs rely on the expansion of hot gas in the cylinders, most of the energy is lost.
 
Krenum said:
Made in China.
Click to expand...
Pretty much like everything in your home, and if it says "Made in America" It more likely means "assembled in Amercia with materials and parts sourced from China that we don't tell you about". That statement stopped mattering long ago, 95% of the time we don't have facilities that can even produce quality on par with China anymore.
 
Eulogy said:
You'll be waiting for... forever if you want a Tesla that cheap. The 3's have never been targeting that price, and nothing in the line up suggests a future model will. You need to go look at Bolt, Volt, or other EVs.
Click to expand...

It would be YEARS before they get enough volume production to support a car priced at 30k. Tesla wants to get into that (very) lucrative market, they just don't have the infrastructure to support it at present. Musk has a long history of using his current product/projects to develop the next iteration. I do believe we will see it but again, the 10s of billions it will cost to create a production capacity high enough to support that type of price is staggering.
 
Vercinaigh said:
Pretty much like everything in your home, and if it says "Made in America" It more likely means "assembled in Amercia with materials and parts sourced from China that we don't tell you about". That statement stopped mattering long ago, 95% of the time we don't have facilities that can even produce quality on par with China anymore.
Click to expand...

Yeah...Just like Harley Davidson & Craftsman. How the mighty have fallen.
 
jevans64 said:
I can get a Solo for $16K if I want an electric. I'd have to charge it for 6 hours every day and watch out for 18-wheelers but it is 1/3 the cost of a Model 3. Paul just needs to build my Elio instead of hiding from his investors.
Click to expand...
18 wheelers? A big motorcycle could do damage to that little thing. haha

I hope Tesla will come out with a cheap model that does not have the range and all the bells and whistles, but still decent size.
 
Advil said:
So... why rear wheel drive? Why not at the very least front wheel?

That really limits traction and safety/ease of driving in bad weather.
Click to expand...

That might be true for non-EV rwd. The model 3 with its amazing weight distribution is just fine here in colorado
 
Eulogy said:
You'll be waiting for... forever if you want a Tesla that cheap. The 3's have never been targeting that price, and nothing in the line up suggests a future model will. You need to go look at Bolt, Volt, or other EVs.
Click to expand...

Same reason I would never buy a BMW or Mercedes, too expensive.

At my age, I just want a car the gets me from point A to point B, gets good mileage, and has excellent reliability.

DeathFromBelow said:
Even after you consider transmission losses power plants are more than twice as efficient as typical internal combustion engines. ICEs rely on the expansion of hot gas in the cylinders, most of the energy is lost.
Click to expand...

And my hybrid is almost twice as efficient as a standard ice since I drive 90% city. I get almost twice the mileage of the non-hybrid version of car.
Less gas, less pollution, and I can go 600 miles between filling the tank.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
I can't help but read these posts in every EV thread and wonder if the people making them realize how internal combustion engines work.



Exactly. Even after you consider transmission losses power plants are more than twice as efficient as typical internal combustion engines. ICEs rely on the expansion of hot gas in the cylinders, most of the energy is lost.
Click to expand...

I see that being a really nice thing on warm weather. On colder weather however, this "waste" actually warms the inside of the car. Me likey =D

I wonder how a Tesla performs on cold weather, say, below -14F.
 
cdr_74_premium said:
I see that being a really nice thing on warm weather. On colder weather however, this "waste" actually warms the inside of the car. Me likey =D

I wonder how a Tesla performs on cold weather, say, below -14F.
Click to expand...

Ask some of the Canadian owners.

The heated seats work fine. You can preheat the battery while you're plugged in to keep the range up. Higher speeds are supposedly a bigger drain on range than low temps.
 
0 to 60 in 3.3 seconds from a $45,000 car? Did they put that figure on the wrong page or am I just completely out of the loop on cars?
 
travisty said:
No it is US made
Click to expand...
That only 100% assemble in USA that not 100% made there a different as most of the components are sourced from all over the world as Testa has no in house component part making or metal foundry's unlike 50's+ years ago when just about everything was made in USA.
 
Last edited:
prime2515102 said:
0 to 60 in 3.3 seconds from a $45,000 car? Did they put that figure on the wrong page or am I just completely out of the loop on cars?
Click to expand...
Uh... you read that wrong. 0-60 in 5.6 seconds for a $45,000 car. You need to get the performance model (starting at $64,000) to hit 0-60 in 3.3 seconds.
 
I'd rather have one of these 47mpg hybrids for almost half the price, though I could do without some of the electronics. 50% more horsepower than my aging Accord (probably closer to 100%), and more than double the fuel economy... I'll take it!
 
I believe nothing about Tesla unless it is tweeted by a stoned Elon, the source for all things Tesla. :sorry:
 
capt_cope said:
Wow Tesla's ordering site is a bit scummy - the price they display includes "potential" incentives and gas savings... How about you just show me how much you're going to charge for the car?

That said, the Reuters article is a bit misleading as well. If you ignore all of the potential savings (as they did with the $45,000 version) that "about $49,000" version actually starts at $54,000. I was about to ask who this $45,000 version would appeal to since it's only about 10% cheaper while losing about 15% of the range (not to mention it's slower and has a slightly less generous warranty.) Then I figured out how to find the actual starting prices and it's not $49,000 vs $45,000, it's $54,000 vs $45,000 which makes more sense - especially if you trust Tesla to deliver before Jan 1st.
Click to expand...
Remember the headlines? I recall "an electric car for the masses" and "affordable Tesla." During interviews in 2016(?), the question of price was often asked weakly, and the answers were loaded. The target price was discussed to be under $35000, however that number came with lots of conditions which were discussed in these interviews. Conditions like state incentive programs, tax breaks, economic scaling over time, untested fabrication efficiencies and cheap labour, and competition to sense out an active market. It was an impossible deadline due to most of those incentive programs expiring last year.

It's not a "$45000 car for the masses!" They're not that out of touch. They know they failed that bit, but it doesn't matter since there's loads of wealthy people to serve.
 
I've grown to really hate regular cars. To the extend that I am not even legally allowed to operate one. The hate towards the way they sound and smell I've developed as an adult. The way they operate got me immediately, though. Hey fathero, there's an extra pedal here, and its function is making this otherwise simple operation very confusing to me. So I never got into driving. I'd totally get a license if I were to buy an electric car.

But I'd be interested in a small and cheap electric car. 50k is way too much. Even twice that would be pushing it for what I am thinking.
 
travisty said:
That might be true for non-EV rwd. The model 3 with its amazing weight distribution is just fine here in colorado
Click to expand...

You do realize most RWD luxury sport sedans have near 50/50 weight distribution.
 
capt_cope said:
Uh... you read that wrong. 0-60 in 5.6 seconds for a $45,000 car. You need to get the performance model (starting at $64,000) to hit 0-60 in 3.3 seconds.
Click to expand...
Oh I see... It has the specs for the high-end version are all over the page, had to click order to see the specs of the other two.
 
prime2515102 said:
Oh I see... It has the specs for the high-end version are all over the page, had to click order to see the specs of the other two.
Click to expand...
I kind of wonder if they'll bust out a 4-square when you get to the actual payment page in the order process.
 
Nobu said:
I'd rather have one of these 47mpg hybrids for almost half the price, though I could do without some of the electronics. 50% more horsepower than my aging Accord (probably closer to 100%), and more than double the fuel economy... I'll take it!
Click to expand...

If you mainly do city driving, you could get almost twice the mileage with a hybrid.
If you mainly drive on open highways/freeways, then your mileage won't be much better, and it's probably not worth the extra costs.

I do like the extra punch (especially on the low end) I get with my Camry Hybrid.
Quicker off the line, almost 2x the mileage, plus a 600 mile range even with city driving.
The newer models get even better mileage due to the switch to direct injection on the ice.

However, if I had to replace the Camry today, I don't think I'd buy a new Camry due to Toyota's design decisions.
Every Camry except for the most basic model comes with a sunroof. I'm tall and it reduces the headroom too much. One of the reasons I bought my current Camry Hybrid was because I could get it without the sunroof, but still get all the other options I wanted.
Then there's the non-power seats unless you buy a model with fake leather, and the too-low profile (45) tires. Lower mileage, stiffer ride and more expensive to replace.
 
nutzo said:
If you mainly do city driving, you could get almost twice the mileage with a hybrid.
If you mainly drive on open highways/freeways, then your mileage won't be much better, and it's probably not worth the extra costs.

I do like the extra punch (especially on the low end) I get with my Camry Hybrid.
Quicker off the line, almost 2x the mileage, plus a 600 mile range even with city driving.
The newer models get even better mileage due to the switch to direct injection on the ice.

However, if I had to replace the Camry today, I don't think I'd buy a new Camry due to Toyota's design decisions.
Every Camry except for the most basic model comes with a sunroof. I'm tall and it reduces the headroom too much. One of the reasons I bought my current Camry Hybrid was because I could get it without the sunroof, but still get all the other options I wanted.
Then there's the non-power seats unless you buy a model with fake leather, and the too-low profile (45) tires. Lower mileage, stiffer ride and more expensive to replace.
Click to expand...
I get about 19mpg, have to fuel up at least once every other week driving 30mi round trip (~300 for two weeks) to work at 65-70mph (well, about 5-10mi of that is 35-40mph). I'm absolutely certain I'd double my gas mileage. lol
Edit: oh, you probably meant over a new non-hybrid. Yeah, it might not be much better, but I do drive around the back-roads some times so it'd be nice for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top