Tesla Unveils Dual Motor and Performance Specs For Model 3 272
Rei writes: Yesterday evening, Elon Musk announced the pricing and specs for two of the Model 3's most in-demand options -- dual motor and performance versions. The base dual motor configuration adds an AC induction front motor to the current partial-PM reluctance rear motor for $5,000; in addition to AWD and allowing the car to drive with either motor out, this cuts the 0 to 60 mph acceleration time from 5.1 seconds to 4.5 seconds. The performance package is available as a bundle, including the long-range pack, premium interior, 20" wheels, carbon fiber spoiler, and a new black-and-white interior. The vehicle will cost $78,000; 0 to 60 mph times are further cut to 3.5 seconds and the top speed increases from 140 mph to 155 mph.
While these options have consistently polled as the most in-demand options not yet available, several still remain and are variously due late this year/early next year: cream interior, non-PUP, tow hitch, SR battery, and air suspension. EU-spec and China-spec are also due early next year. Production is currently over 3,500 per week, rumored to be 4,300 per week, and will be undergoing a shutdown from May 26-31 to raise production to the Q2 target of 5000-6000.
While these options have consistently polled as the most in-demand options not yet available, several still remain and are variously due late this year/early next year: cream interior, non-PUP, tow hitch, SR battery, and air suspension. EU-spec and China-spec are also due early next year. Production is currently over 3,500 per week, rumored to be 4,300 per week, and will be undergoing a shutdown from May 26-31 to raise production to the Q2 target of 5000-6000.
Huh. (Score:3)
Huh. Just off the presses.
Tesla cuts Model 3 delivery delays for new orders in half as production ramp improves [electrek.co]
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. Just off the presses.
Tesla cuts Model 3 delivery delays for new orders in half as production ramp improves [electrek.co]
As noted at the end of the article and confirmed on FB groups, some have been notified their already configured orders are pushed to July.
Supposedly that's to make sure the 200000th US delivery will not happen until Q3, prolonging the feferal tax credit
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. There's been lots of speculation (from both longs and shorts) that Tesla would do this. It's a pretty obvious decision which lets them give the tax credit to tens of thousands more customers. It'll make their Q2 a bit worse, of course, but all that will get offset into Q3.
Their Q3 sales numbers are going to be massive - both having a high production rate, and stockpiled deliveries going out.
Re: (Score:2)
"Their Q3 sales numbers are going to be massive - both having a high production rate, and stockpiled deliveries going out."
With AWD now available for Model 3, I predict there's going to be a sharp drop in orders for S75D, which will negatively impact Tesla's profit in Q3, the first of which Elon promised would show profitability
Re:Huh. (Score:5, Interesting)
All of Tesla's models are currently backordered, so any drop on S75D wouldn't be that meaningful. And S model production is interchangeable; their real limit is that the number of cells that Panasonic can provide is only enough for about 100k S+X vehicles per year, and they adjust their pricing and introduce new options on these vehicle lines at rate to maintain this (they could expand 18650 production, but neither Tesla nor Panasonic have interest in this, since they see the 2170s as the future). I do think you're right that demand for S75D will drop, and I can envision Tesla discontinuing it while sweetening up the 100s. Of course, that will only decrease the number of S+X vehicles that they can make per year, since more cells are needed for the 100 packs.
I feel pretty confident that they're eventually going to refresh S and X atop the Model Y platform. Since Y's platform is basically a stretched, upgraded 3, and a stretched pack means not only more capacity, but more power.
Re: (Score:3)
"they could expand 18650 production, but neither Tesla nor Panasonic have interest in this, since they see the 2170s as the future). I do think you're right that demand for S75D will drop, and I can envision Tesla discontinuing it while sweetening up the 100s. Of course, that will only decrease the number of S+X vehicles that they can make per year, since more cells are needed for the 100 packs"
I thought Tesla still hasn't fulfilled the 2 billion 18650 cell contract with Panasonic, enough for over 250k cars
Re:Huh. (Score:4, Interesting)
Tesla's initial use of 18650 cells had nothing to do with any inherent advantages or disadvantages of that size; it was about the fact that the size was in high volume production because of its use in laptop computer batteries. If you slice open the removable battery from an older laptop you will probably find 18650 cells inside.
But the laptop computer business has changed. Thin and light designs now dominate the business; those have non-removable flat batteries inside, much like overgrown versions of the ones now found inside cell phones. Meanwhile, Tesla is shifting its car batteries to a larger size of cell to reduce manufacturing costs: fewer cells means fewer interconnects, less complexity in charge balancing hardware and software, and so forth. And now Tesla is a large enough buyer to get Panasonic to make a new size of cell to meet its needs, something that wasn't true back in the company's early days.
With both of these factors in play, the market for 18650 cells is declining. It would make sense for Panasonic to allow Tesla to shift some of its previously contracted orders to the new size, leaving Panasonic's existing capacity available to fill orders for the remaining legacy markets for 18650. If there is a need for such a renegotiation it would make sense for both companies, so Tesla should have no difficulty working out a new deal.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously you have never seen kids throwing rocks at car transports. It is a sport in some places.
It doesn't actually matter if the rocks are being thrown up by trucks without flaps (which I see all the time, or at least, with inadequate flaps) or by children in need of extra-curricular activity. Either way, they should account for it. They tried to save money, and it's costing them money.
Perhaps they should whip up some of these semis they're so proud of, and go into the vehicle transport business :)
Too much money (Score:4)
$78k for the performance version of a $35k base car? Is Tesla an American company or a German one?
And still have to wait until 2019 for air suspension?
The $5k for dual-motor / AWD is expensive enough.
Re:Too much money (Score:4, Interesting)
Having recently taken delivery of a Model 3, had I known that the dual-motor/AWD version would be available for $5k more while still getting the full federal tax rebate, I would have taken that option.
Re:Too much money (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not just the Germans who do that. Go configure a Ford F-150 and see how much the price spikes when you check all the option boxes.
The one thing that really sets Tesla apart is their heavy use of bundling. When you break down the performance vehicle cost - subtracting the cost of the known options, and making reasonable guesses for the new ones - it only works out to roughly a ~$15k premium. But of course they bundle it together with everything but the kitchen sink (more accurately, everything but autopilot). Kind of annoying, but of course it's a big encouragement for people to spend more on options. Which of course they'll justify to themselves later ;)
I don't think $5k for the dual motor is expensive at all, given that in addition to giving you all wheel drive and a spare motor it drops the 0-60 by 0,6 seconds. You know how much you usually have to pay in an ICE vehicle to drop its 0-60 by 0,6 seconds? Doesn't come cheap. We had a poll on the Model 3 forum recently, and the average expectation was that this option would come in at around $4,5k. So pretty much spot on.
The real question is why the performance version and the basic dual motor version are coming in at the same range. Performance will be heavier, and more importantly, is swapping out the aero wheels with efficient tires for 20" sports wheels with sports tires. Should be a significant range hit by comparison. But of course since Tesla deliberately sandbagged the EPA range numbers from 318 to 310mi, they have some room to play around with the figures. E.g. maybe performance goes down to an EPA 310 while the basic dual goes up to ~330 or so, and they just call them both 310. I guess we'll know for sure once deliveries happen and people start doing tests.
Re: (Score:2)
Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? (Score:2)
<eom>
Re: (Score:2)
It's not only standing up, but moving forward a few rows [electrek.co].
I'm not sure why people have had this notion that despite the fact that the vehicle as a whole was significantly delayed - mainly due to pack production delays - the SR pack should nonetheless have come out on the original schedule. Where's the logic in that? SR was never supposed to go into production until after the battery line was running at full. It's finally getting close to that, at last.
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't that also mean that the people for whom the federal tax credit would be the biggest relative benefit will be likely to miss actually getting the benefit, though?
Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? (Score:4, Interesting)
It looks like Tesla is going to hit the US limit - deliberately - right at the start of Q3. This means that the full $7500 credit for buyers in Q3 and Q4; a half credit in Q1 and Q2; a quarter credit in Q3 and Q4; and then gone in 2020.
Re: (Score:3)
No. It's $35k without the credit; $27,5k if it gets a full credit. LR is $44k without the credit, $36,5k with a full credit. LR + PUP is $49k without the credit, $41,5k with a full credit.
Where I am it works in just the opposite manner. All cars have a massive VAT (for example, a BMW 3-series' VAT will be around 40%). EVs don't have to pay it. We also have huge gas prices (in US dollars figures they're now over $8/gal).
Re: (Score:3)
The Model 3 with Long Range Battery and All Wheel Drive Dual Motor and the Performance versions are going from 12 to 18 months to just 6 to 9 months.
As for the least expensive version of the Model 3 with the Standard battery pack starting at $35,000 in the US, the timeline for new reservations is going from 12 to 18 months to just 6 to 12 months.
Seriously, a 6 to 12 month wait after ordering? Really? Rolls Royce [rolls-royc...aleigh.com] can hand-build you a fully-bespoke car faster than that...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Rolls-Royce doesn't have a waiting list of nearly half a million people.
Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice non sequitur. And beyond that, I doubt you've ever even seen a Model 3. Or talked to anyone who owns one.
Re: (Score:2)
Like your non-sequitur? RR has a waiting list as well, yet they can deliver quicker than Tesla. And I have seen Model 3s in the wild, as well as one owned by a coworker at Dolby. So... It's nice, but about what I'd expect from a solid $20K Kia.
But hey, you keep cheer-leading a 6-12 month wait for cars, from a company that was supposed to be delivering 5K/week last fall (then winter, then spring, now late summer), and still does NOT make a profit - BEFORE R&D and capital equipment expenditures.
Re: (Score:2)
He may have seen a Model 3, but he hasn't seen a Rolls Royce up close. Fit and finish isn't good on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice non sequitur. And beyond that, I doubt you've ever even seen a Model 3. Or talked to anyone who owns one.
Anyone who keeps up with the automotive press knows that the Model 3 fit-and-finish has been very poor to date. Tesla is working out their manufacturing processes, and it's not surprising that they've having problems. Let's not pretend they're not having them. Every teardown of the vehicle so far has quantified their panel gaps as being far below average consistency, for example.
Re:Will the real $35k Model 3 please stand up? (Score:4, Interesting)
And BTW your claim about "every teardown" is wrong. You mean "Every teardown by one Randy Munrone". Ingineerix, Jack Rickard, and Evannex disagree.,
You mean Sandy Munro? You know those guys have chops [sbir.gov], right? They're not amateurs. Also, I don't know if you took the time to actually watch the entire interview, but he gave Tesla credit for numerous things that he thought they did extremely well — better, in fact, than literally anyone else. The electronics leap immediately to mind.
Besides that though, there are plenty of other [jalopnik.com] media [latimes.com] references [cnbc.com] as well, not to mention the owners complaining all over the official forums. Please don't pretend like Tesla isn't having quality control problems. They absolutely are, and there's no credibly denying it. When you get in to this kind of money, it's not cute to have problems like that. It's not an especially huge amount of money to spend for a product that does what it does, but it is enough money where it's disappointing for it to have that kind of flaw. If we didn't care about style, we'd all drive identical-looking vehicles which were based on the intersection of crash safety and aerodynamics.
It would be less embarrassing if this were Tesla's first car, but it isn't...
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla hasn't been making cars for 114 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not only standing up, but moving forward a few rows [electrek.co].
After all we've been through over the past year plus, it's cute that you're saying with a straight face that we should believe a delivery promise from Elon that's still 6-12 months out.
I'm not sure why people have had this notion that despite the fact that the vehicle as a whole was significantly delayed - mainly due to pack production delays - the SR pack should nonetheless have come out on the original schedule. Where's the logic in that?
Um, try the logic that Elon hyped this to the world as a mass-produced $35k electric car, and so he should actually deliver that instead of continually coming up with new high-margin options that he really really hopes people will tack on so he'll take a bit less of a bath on each shipment and buy a bit more time to come up w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For new orders. And what part of moved forward did you not understand? Even a delay would mean "back to the earlier schedule".
Sort of reminds me of the situation with the Model 3 production in general. The whole thing was heavily moved forward to an extremely aggressive schedule, then fell back to its original schedule, an
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of reminds me of the situation with the Model 3 production in general. The whole thing was heavily moved forward to an extremely aggressive schedule, then fell back to its original schedule
When was the published schedule EVER set to be deliveries in any reasonable quantity starting in late Q2/early Q3 (at best) 2018?
Re: (Score:3)
The goal in 2014 was 500k per year by 2020 [cleantechnica.com]. They should hit that in early 2019. That was still the goal [cleantechnica.com] in August 2015, although they were talking that they might be able to exceed it. First deliveries - not 5k per week, but first-off-the-line - were to be "late 2017". So rather than "by the end of July" for the first delivery, it was to be "by the end of December", six months later.
Re: (Score:2)
(Ed: actually, probably more like late 2019... but still..)
Re: (Score:2)
For new orders.
Yes, I noticed the conspicuous absence of any promises for delivery for people who have had reservations for years. That strongly suggests they're in the same 6-12 month range. Consistent with that, one of the commenters in your article said they had a long-time standard battery reservation and were still showing December delivery.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow -- modded both overrated AND underrated. I've reached Slashdot nirvana.
Air suspension? (Score:2)
oblig.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Video not available here :P What's in it?
Re: (Score:2)
crap https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
OK I hope that helps. If not go to youtube and search on "Low Rider" by WAR
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, apropos :)
Performance (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're not the in the target public, just don't buy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you don't live in a "stand your ground" state when you wake up your 60ish Vietnam Vet neighbor with who has nightmares every night.
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla seems to take all the fun out of performance. It used to be able oil and gas and the small of exhaust coming out of two dual 2.5" exhaust pipes with a sound that made an indication of how fast it was. Now it's just a really quick golf cart.
Meh, speed limits and traffic do that. Sure, it's fun accelerating 0-55 mph faster than everything else but when you got a car that could do 155 mph you've barely tasted it. I'll admit I didn't really understand why anyone would go to a track to drive a car before I got a sports car, like can't you just drive it? Turns out driving on public roads is really just a tease, you can hear the roar but then you have to muzzle it if you want to keep your license.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I have a classic Chevy with a 454 (...) fun standing behind it
I don't get it, what's fun about an asthma attack? :-P
Re: (Score:2)
That's why God gave us Nevada[1]
[1] And for the gambling and prostitution. That and beer is proof God loves us.
Re: (Score:2)
If legal weed passes, NV will be complete. A marching maralist moron free zone...
https://www.abqjournal.com/880... [abqjournal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Performance (Score:5, Insightful)
Electric cars (and bikes) just confirm what I always knew.
Nobody's actually interested in the speed, or the acceleration. What they want to do is make a noise and be loud and "sound" cool.
Seriously, Harley Davidson could make an electric motorbike that out-accelerates all their other models (they are actually doing that). All the bike enthusiasts I talk to laugh at that idea - they don't even mention "range" or "battery life" (I think they have a hard time saying "battery" to be honest, if it's not full of some environment-destroying fuel, they can't play Mad Max). They just think the idea of something near-silent is counter to why they buy the bike.
They don't really admit that, but that's all it's ever been about. Not "Hey, I have the faster car". Not "I love the speed". Nope.. .it's how I can get everyone's attention and who's looking at me?
The cars are the same. Line up a dozen sports cars and nobody will look at the electric model. Even though it will out-accelerate the $200,000 supercar (and let's be honest, any race where you're just at top-speed all the time is boring... an electric car would win in a drag-race, in a rally, on a track, etc.).
Look at the motor-sports and electric cars don't really figure. Even the "electric formula one" kind of things get zero attention. But hey, put regenerative braking into something and use that to boost the performance, that's okay because it makes a lot of noise still.
Racing is literally about "who can be noisiest, messiest, cause the most disruption, and nearly trash their car" not "who wins".
For years, consumer cars have gotten faster and faster, but nobody really notices or thinks it matters, because they've also become quieter and quieter. Everyone drives what would have been a Formula One car back in the sixties, but now those kinds of cars are "granny cars", because they don't make lots of noise.
Sorry, but all those "car enthusiasts" that I know spend more time polishing and waxing, and bolting on ridiculous addons to their car than they ever do tweaking performance. Hey, unless you get a modchip that makes the car noisier and smokier...
Re:Performance (Score:5, Funny)
Tesla seems to take all the fun out of performance. It used to be able oil and gas and the small of exhaust coming out of two dual 2.5" exhaust pipes with a sound that made an indication of how fast it was. Now it's just a really quick golf cart.
I'm sorry about your penis.
Re:Performance (Score:5, Interesting)
I would love ironic, mismatched sound packages for the car (affecting both driving sounds at the horn). Examples:
* Old carburated sports car
* Model T
* Diesel semi
* Galloping horse
* Bicycle with a card in its spokes
* Jetsons car
* Cruise ship
* Roomba
* Milleneum Falcon trying to go into hyperspace but failing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I want mine quiet as possible, while still being fast and good handling. I'd love something like a Gen 1 Tesla roadster with longer range or electric MR2 with Tesla drivetrain.
Loud pipes just attract cops, which tends to put a damper on opportunities to have fun behind the wheel.
Re: (Score:2)
Vroomtones. They already exist.
Re: (Score:3)
Well it hasn't because in order to post a time you need to do a lap, at full chat the batteries in a Model 3 cant last the 3.1 miles of track.
Do you have a reference for that or are you just a "hater"? I haven't seen any Model 3 times for the Nurburgring but here's an article [teslarati.com] (complete with video) about a Model 3 doing 9 laps at full speed around Laguna Seca. Laguna Seca is 2.2 miles so that's around 20 miles at full bore on a road course without the car limiting the power, is there a reason to believe that it couldn't do that on the Nurburgring?
One of these days (Score:3, Insightful)
Mr. Musk might realize that the vast majority of folks aren't going to spend nearly $80k on a vehicle that does nothing but depreciate the instant you drive it off the lot. When his vehicles can financially compete with an ICE flavor, we'll talk about it. Until then, no.
Applying the typical 20/4/10 rule of thumb on an $80k car:
20% Down Payment: $16k
Finance Length: $64k for four years @ ~3% = ~$1400 / month
Gross Income Required for 10% rule: > $140,000 / year*
* > because I'm not taking interest and insurance amounts into account.
US Median Income 2015-2016: $57-59k. Relevant because his Model 3 is supposed to
be the affordable model for the masses.
If he doesn't realize it sooner rather than later, his little car project may implode.
It's hilarious just how out of touch with reality the super rich really are . . . . . . :|
Re:One of these days (Score:5, Insightful)
So the same proportional numbers give $62K income needed to afford the base $35K model, which is spot on. The performance model isn't designed to be affordable. It's designed to be profitable.
Of course, you know that, but you want to attack. Too bad your own facts show that the base Model 3 is affordable, just as promised. And that's without taking into account the reduced total cost of ownership for an electric car. And wait three years until you can buy one used for $20K that still drives just like new.
Re: (Score:2)
So the same proportional numbers give $62K income needed to afford the base $35K model, which is spot on.
So when do those affordable base models start shipping?
Re:One of these days (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The average price of a new car is $36k [prnewswire.com], Model 3 starts at $35k. If selling to >50% of the market is not mainstream, well then the problem is you.
Re: (Score:3)
A clunker that does very few miles is better for the environment than a new car...
A LOT of resources are consumed to manufacture a car, for an old clunker that's a sunk cost.
Re: (Score:3)
It's hilarious just how out of touch with reality the super rich really are . . . . . . :|
Most super rich are out of touch with reality. Musk is also out of touch with reality but in a different sense in a different plane. I mean how many super rich would think of landing a rocket back vertically? Then do it?
What is even more hilarious is jobless people with enough idle time to gas about in slashdot think they know more than Musk.
Re: (Score:3)
a vehicle that does nothing but depreciate the instant you drive it off the lot
As opposed to...? Hilariously, though... [insideevs.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Mr. Musk might realize that the vast majority of folks aren't going to spend nearly $80k on a vehicle that does nothing but depreciate the instant you drive it off the lot.
Given how he's unable to keep up with demand for said very expensive vehicles I think you couldn't be more wrong.
We know we are paying more. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Premium" interior (in any color I want as long as it is black) that gives me open pore wood trim and two more USB ports? For 5K? If any ICE car dealer pushed that option I would laugh at him so derisively he would cringe. Here I forked over the cash for obviously over priced profit center knowingly and willingly. That is my bit for the 35K for the masses.
AWD at 78K is outrageous in some sense. Electric dual motor AWD is so much simpler than the transfer case, locking differential, dual drive axle ICE AWD trans. ICE AWD is just 3 or 4 K more, and they make a good profit on that. Electric is just one more motor and all the rest is software. It should not cost more than 600$, and it would sell for 1000$ more in normal circumstances, if there are enough electric cars on the market giving competitive pressure. But... as it stands now, Tesla can bundle it with mauve interior and pink wheels and a unicorn hood ornament and price it at 78K. And there are lots of people willing pay. I see it as a good thing. Make as much profit as possible, amortize the factory, pay off the fixed costs, so that some day we can have a really affordable electric car for the people.
Re: (Score:3)
We Tesla backers know it is going to be very barely profitable to sell that car. So we understand Tesla has to make profits from the people who are willing to pay more.
Well, you're more honest than most. You knew that the Model 3 program was set up to be untenable from the beginning, and that the only way for Elon to even try to balance things out was to make people like you feel good about overpaying for upgrades that you know full well you're overpaying for . Not to line Elon's pocketbook, of course, but for the good of humanity. Because humanity needs Teslas.
Every day that goes by this whole thing has more and more freakish cult overtones to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but Europe and the rest of the world have to wait :P I'm going to be waiting until at least Q1, since that's when the Eurospec goes into production. Could be worse; left-side-of-the-road countries aren't supposed to get theirs until Q3.
Nice that they moved up the schedule on the standard pack though. Giga has really come uncorked. Performance is way out of my budget, but a standard pack plus AWD would be a killer vehicle for the price. We still don't know what the 0-60 on it will be, but if it's a
Re: (Score:2)
"standard pack plus AWD would be a killer vehicle for the price. We still don't know what the 0-60 on it will be, but if it's a similar 0,6s drop as in LR, then that'd be 4,9s for a $40k vehicle"
It's supposed to be 4.5s according to Electrek. Considering that the LR is officially 5.1s but has tested as low as 4.7s, it could be even quicker
Re: (Score:2)
AWD LR is 4,5s. But LR is 0,4s faster than SR to begin with.
I guess we'll find out :)
Re: (Score:2)
On Youtube, one guy showed repeated 0-60 runs in 4.4s.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of tracks, what is its time around the Nurburgring?
Re: (Score:3)
I guess we'll find out :) The nice thing about the Model 3 vs. S and X is that the new motor has no rotor overheating issues. You can drive it full out lap after lap (and a number of owners have done just that).
Now, it'll be interesting to see how the front motor behaves. Because they interestingly chose to add an induction motor in the front rather than a second PMSRM. At this point, we have no clue whether it's the same induction motor as in the S and X or a new design. And even if it's the same as th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not by any standard "a very heavy car". The Model 3 LR is only marginally heavier than BMW's roughly performance equal model, the 340i. Model 3 LR-P is almost certainly lighter than most of its competitors in the market, since there's no extra batteries added, and electric motors give a lot of power per unit weight.
Combine this with a low centre of gravity and a much praised suspension....
Re: (Score:2)
There's only one way to settle this [pbfcomics.com].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And? Toyota didn't build their first large factory over the past year and a half. Toyota's production levels are the results of decades of investment.
(It's also worth mentioning, as a lesser point, that Toyota's average vehicle sale price isn't $45k)
Re:Run, Tesla. Run! (Score:4, Informative)
And? Toyota didn't build their first large factory over the past year and a half.
Neither did Tesla. They bought a fully-functional factory from Toyota and GM [wikipedia.org]. And you would think after 10 years of "production" that Tesla would have a better idea about how to do it...
(It's also worth mentioning, as a lesser point, that Toyota's average vehicle sale price isn't $45k)
Yep! The average Toyota is closer to half that amount [cars.com]. And yet, Toyota consistently makes a profit [ycharts.com] whereas Tesla consistently loses money [ycharts.com]. I guess if you want to gamble the value of a warranty/support on a $50K+ vehicle on a company that doesn't know how to make a profit, you have quite a bit of money to fritter away!
Re:Run, Tesla. Run! (Score:5, Insightful)
It was not a "fully functional factory", it's been entirely retooled for Tesla's vehicles. And greatly expanded as well. And furthermore, Tesla has been scaling up by orders of magnitude, at one of the fastest rates of any automaker in history. Talking about "10 years ago" when they were handmaking Roadsters on bodies sent over from Lotus is pretty meaningless relative to what they're doing today.
I love how you proudly state that, as though it somehow contributes to your point, rather than pointing out that their revenue per vehicle is half of Tesla's.
Wow, a company that is not pouring everything it gets and then some into expansion is paying dividends? You don't say!
Hey, the 10-year-old "Tesla Deathwatch" called, they want you to write a column for them.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
NUMMI was making cars 6 months before Tesla took it over. It was a fully-functioning factory when Tesla took over. They chose to change how it was being used; turns out, they should have just adapted the existing production lines...
Toyota has half the revenue per car, but crushes Tesla by selling so many vehicles that people buy. They sell more cars in one month than Tesla has ever shipped. Oh, and they actually make profit on that revenue as well. Tesla? Do they make a profit? Revenue is great if y
Re:Run, Tesla. Run! (Score:4, Informative)
What part of "it's been entire retooled for Tesla's vehicles and greatly expanded" was difficult for you?
You're totally right. Tesla should have made Pontiac Vibes.
And now we loop back to the beginning where I point out that this production rate is the result of decades of capex, not something that Toyota did a week from last Tuesday.
Re: Run, Tesla. Run! (Score:4, Informative)
the manufacturing of the batteries for a Tesla produce a shit ton of CO2, so driving a battery-based electric car will do nothing for climate change.
The argument that X is not a carbon-free process because various elements in the mining and manufacturing chain of X use carbon is almost as stupid as the cow-fart argument.
As we go through the long process of wringing the carbon out of industrial processes, the total carbon it takes to do X decreases. Eventually there will be electric large mining trucks, taking that element out of every manufactured process that starts with mining.
Re: (Score:3)
the manufacturing of the batteries for a Tesla produce a shit ton of CO2, so driving a battery-based electric car will do nothing for climate change.
The argument that X is not a carbon-free process because various elements in the mining and manufacturing chain of X use carbon is almost as stupid as the cow-fart argument.
I agree with you, but only because I think we should be doing something to reduce cow farts. They actually are a significant GHG. And you do have to reduce the carbon release in every step of the process. With that said, only about 1/3 of the lifetime energy consumption of the average ICE-based automobile occurs during production, at the high end, so it's hardly the most significant factor.
As we go through the long process of wringing the carbon out of industrial processes, the total carbon it takes to do X decreases. Eventually there will be electric large mining trucks, taking that element out of every manufactured process that starts with mining.
Yes, obviously we should do both things.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What makes the cow-fart argument stupid is that all the carbon that comes out of cows recently (during the lifetime of this animal. and mostly in the last year) came out of the air, through feed, to go into the cows. None of it comes from the fossil sources that are adding new carbon to the environment. Therefore if all the cows vanished today, the amount of GHG in the atmosphere would not change.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't even understand the argument, you're not qualified to call it stupid. Cow farts are a problem not because of co2 but because of methane.
Re:Run, Tesla. Run! (Score:5, Informative)
And by the way, just so you know, Toyota sold off a large chunk of the equipment at NUMMI [equipmenta...ctions.com]:
And transferred most of the rest [autonews.com]:
Tesla bought the small amount that was left over at the plant, about $15m worth (which is almost nothing in the automotive industry).
Re:Run, Tesla. Run! (Score:4, Interesting)
"They chose to change how it was being used; turns out, they should have just adapted the existing production lines"
The Model has a lot of aluminum which required a lot of new equipment.
When Ford converted its two main plants that make the F-150 to aluminum, they did a complete teardown & re-fit of both sites.
Re:Run, Tesla. Run! (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. More to the point, if you had actually read the Wikipedia article you linked, you would have learned that. They sold off or transferred all but $15M of equipment from the facility.
Re: (Score:3)
Why guess when you can read your own link?
Re:Run, Tesla. Run! (Score:4, Insightful)
So your contention is that if you aren't instantly Toyota, you may as well close your doors and give up?
BMW and Mercedes apparently never got that memo, and they're doing just fine.
Don't be a god damn idiot.
Re:Run, Tesla. Run! (Score:4, Insightful)
Electric cars do not yet make financial sense in the US, though if you include the tax benefits they are getting close. Especially the lower priced models like the Nissan Leaf, Chevy Bolt, and someday the base version of the Model 3. The purchase price is higher, but recharging is cheaper than gasoline and maintenance costs are lower. Oil prices continue to rise and the cost of making lithium-ion batteries continues to fall. Eventually the lines will cross and full-electric cars will be cost-effective even without tax subsidies.
Meanwhile, some Americans continue to buy them. Not to save money, but to help improve the environment or for the superior driving experience.
Re: (Score:2)
This is correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, in the real world, the commonly used functions are on the steering wheel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I have trouble seeing why people would choose a base S over a performance 3. Faster, lighter, can do sustained track duty, more efficient (aka, more range per minute spent supercharging), longer range, etc, etc. I guess if you need the S's extra cargo room... Or maybe if you were a courier and wanted that unlimited mileage warranty...