Tesla Finally Unveils $35,000 Standard Model 3

by Hilbert Hagedoorn on: 03/01/2019 08:31 AM | source: | 136 comment(s)

Not to confuse it with the premium Model 3 that is available and pushed the $35,000 Tesla Model 3 has finally arrived, CEO Elon Musk says. The low-cost model does come with a number compromises mostly on Tesla's end as they would be closing stores and make online purchases available only.

The Standard Range base model starts at $35,000 and has a top speed of 130mph/ 210 km/h, it can accelerate from 0-60mph in 5.6 seconds. Tesla will also offers a Model 3 Standard Range plus at a starting price of $37,000, which has 240 miles of range, a top speed of 140mph and 0-60mph acceleration in 5.3 seconds. New is also a model for $ 40,000 with premium equipment, 425 km range and 225 km/h top speed. In this version, the leather seats are heated at the rear and front. There are also 14 speakers, satellite image maps with live traffic visualization and navigation, Internet streaming for music and an internet browser

Tesla announced that it is shifting sales worldwide to online only to “achieve these prices while remaining financially sustainable.”

“Shifting all sales online, combined with other ongoing cost efficiencies, will enable us to lower all vehicle prices by about 6% on average, allowing us to achieve the $35,000 Model 3 price point earlier than we expected,” the company said in a statement.

“Over the next few months, we will be winding down many of our stores, with a small number of stores in high-traffic locations remaining as galleries, showcases and Tesla information centers,” the statement continued. “The important thing for customers in the United States to understand is that, with online sales, anyone in any state can quickly and easily buy a Tesla.”

Tesla said the three new models could be delivered within the next two to four weeks. Reservation holders are still preferred. In Europe, the new models should be available within the next three to six months.

28 pages « < 25 26 27 28

schmidtbag
Senior Member

Posts: 5640
Joined: 2012-11-10

#5647875 Posted on: 03/08/2019 06:24 PM

From the very beginning I explained how EVs aren't that better environmentally compared to regular cars and their lack of practicality makes them much worse. Yes, for some people it is not an issue, but overall they are inferior product, that costs more and is also subsidized by many countries. Naturally you can buy whatever you want, I will not. And I am more concerned with the direction of many industries, as low emissions are pushed by i.e. EU and I would probably riot if I were forced to buy EV.

Backstabak
Senior Member

Posts: 707
Joined: 2015-11-13

#5647883 Posted on: 03/08/2019 06:43 PM

Yes, and despite how many times it was explained to you, they are actually more environmentally friendly in the long run. It has also been stated repeatedly they are practical, after all, look at all the new EV trucks about to be released. Their torque numbers are insanely high. As long as you maintain this mentality, it's no wonder you will continue to find them inferior.
I don't see anyone getting forced to buy an EV for a very long time, if ever. Definitely not on a wide scale.

I thought we already agreed that we disagree on their environment impact. And it is clear we disagree on practicality as well. From my point of view it is better to use a bus if you commute a few km (or even walk). And I already do see countries that subsidize EVs because or i.e. EU pushing new limits on greenhouse gases emissions, which are not only expensive, but also pointless. Simply because it¨s not a global initiative. After all, isn't fuel tax something that French have been rioting over, from before Christmass ?

Denial
Senior Member

Posts: 13234
Joined: 2004-05-16

#5647885 Posted on: 03/08/2019 06:55 PM

You tried to explain that EVs are worse than gas cars in the context of the "extreme" and then tried several times to say that these extremes are the norm.

I'm briefly skimming through these posts and I've seen you do it with "mostly coal" turning into "mostly fossil fuels" and "most people don't travel extremely short distances" where the evidence shows literally the opposite (16 mile average commute with only .01% of population traveling over 100 miles a day). Because I'm briefly skimming I'm sure there are other examples. You literally stated yourself that you're purposely using the extremes to prove a point. It's like arguing gas cars are bad because some percentage of people live on islands.

And even in these extreme examples you list - those cases are constantly being innovated on and rapidly becoming non-issues. Super charging networks are getting faster and more abundant. Battery technology and density is improving. The grid itself is becoming more efficient with the rapid adoption of green renewable energy and improvements to existing coal/gas power plants. If you look at the MPG trend for the last 40 years its been basically stagnant since the 80s until 2007/8 - when Hybrids/EVs start being produced, laws get passed to get rid of older cars and subsidizes are created to incentivize innovation instead of stagnation.

Aura89
Senior Member

Posts: 8141
Joined: 2008-07-31

#5647891 Posted on: 03/08/2019 07:37 PM

As you've said the standard is 120V/20A and as far as I know the 240V or more in a typical house/flat can be gained only using 3 phases (voltage between phases), this therefore requires additional wiring. I wouldn't say it's that easy to install, as you would need to drill into your walls, floor or ceiling to install those wires. It's probably OK solution in a house and a terrible one if you live in a flat and charge your EV parked outside through an extension cord (which isn't so unusual).

I use the extremes to show you the problem. It's all nice and well to just say this doesn't concern me so EVs are fine, lets roll them on mass and tax everyone who doesn't use them (or subsidize EVs which is essentially the same), but as you can see there are massive problems in some use cases.
Using the extremes to show us the problem? Lol? Well my 1 gallon per mile vehicle with a 200 gallon tank and the smallest ever possible fuel intake that takes 42 hours to fill the 200 gallon tank would like to have a word with you, since we're talking about unrealistic, illogical worst case scenarios to make an illegitimate "problem".

I'm done with you, you aren't posting useful information you only care about your extremely narrow minded, illogical worse case scenarios and making them seem like they are normal and reality and facts state otherwise, but again you don't care about facts, only peddling your nonsense.

No point reading your nonsense, you're blocked.

airbud7
Senior Member

Posts: 7835
Joined: 2011-07-20

#5647902 Posted on: 03/08/2019 07:59 PM

28 pages « < 25 26 27 28

Post New Comment

Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.