Jump to content

Talk:Tesla Model 3/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ajlurie2001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata

Hi, why do you create yet another wikidata item? There is already one, created on March 31st. Pyrros (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The two links from the right wikidata item has now been migrated to the wikidata item you have created. Pyrros (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Hej Sebastian, can you give us links to the 2 items you mentioned. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  07:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The original one have been deleted since it was empty. Pyrros (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Tesla 3

Tesla 3 redirects to Tesla Motors. Could we please move it to redirect to this page. 78.146.137.190 (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed  Stepho  talk  00:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I redirected all other alternative names to the new article.--Mariordo (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.  Stepho  talk  04:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Optional Specs

Maybe optional specifications should be marked possible or rumored or something similar. There is no official source for 300 mile battery option for example - now the refs lead to blog "we think" -comment.Darin-0 (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Change of topic; the Specifications section lists Torque (apparently motor torque), but does not specify whether that is motor torque or wheel torque. Wheel torque = motor torque * gear ratio ; 3700 Nm = 411 Nm * 9 (gearboxes are around 99% efficient). Front motor gear ratio not found. TGCP (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement about Model S drag coefficient

"The Model 3 is expected to have a drag coefficient of Cd=0.21. This will be lower than the Tesla Model S drag coefficient of Cd=0.24, which in 2014 was the lowest among current production cars.[5]"

This is simply plain wrong. Mercedes CLA had 0.23 in some of its models, and 0.22 in CLA 180 BlueEfficiency starting in 2013 already. I changed this and put a reference into my edit, but some guy reverted my edit without any comment. - Ralf König (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

From Mercedes-Benz_CLA: "Mercedes claimed that it would be the most aerodynamic production vehicle on sale with a Cd=0.23,[1] beating the previous most-aerodynamic, the Tesla Model S (0.24). The CLA 180 CDI Blue Efficiency was claimed to be even more aerodynamic with a Cd=0.22.[2] However, independent measurement by Car And Driver Magazine in May 2014 bore out Tesla's claim by exactly confirming a drag coefficient of Cd=0.24, while putting Mercedes' claim into question by measuring the CLA at Cd=0.30.[3]"
I'm a little unclear myself but it seems that the Model S had the best Cd of production cars when it was released. The CLA claimed to have bettered it slightly later in the year but Car and Driver's independent test disagreed with their claim.
However, since this article is about the Model 3, not the Model S, perhaps we should just restrict ourselves to just saying that the Model 3's Cd=0.21 is even better than the Model S's impressive Cd=0.24 .  Stepho  talk  15:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

BRD discussion on the building and test phase

I recently Boldly added the following sentence to the article:

Development and testing: During the build-out of the production line and testing of the manufacturing line phase, where the vehicles will be built by manufacturing line methods, Tesla plans to build approximately 300 Model 3s for use in the acceptance test phase.[1]

This edit was Reverted in good faith by User:Stepho-wrs with the edit comment: "Revert good faith edit. 300 sets of ordered parts could equally well be for 2 prototypes, 200 productions cars and 98 spare parts - or many other speculative combinations."

So with much mutual respect in the good faith of both parties, let's begin the Discussion of the BRD process now.

My sense was that the source provided said that about 300 Model 3s would be built; so I just went with that. I realize of course that many other interpretations are possible by us an analysts, but not sure that our editorial analysis would not be synthesis. Therefore, my sense is we are somewhat constrained to go with the source, and not wiki-editor analysis.

What do other editors think? Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Source says: "it doesn’t mean that the number of parts divided by the number of parts per vehicle necessarily means Tesla will build a fleet of 300 since some of the parts will be used for process validation outside of prototypes and other processes, but it is still a fairly good indication" -indication of what? Source does not clarify. We don't know when all necessary parts for a car will arrive at Tesla to start component testing and possibly prototype assembly. Until we have such info (likely kept secret), we can only quote source as "many parts ordered". TGCP (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, that was why the original wiki-prose I wrote said "to build approximately ..." But if that's not quite right, let's modify the prose: e.g., say, something like "has ordered enough parts to build approximately..." or "has placed order for parts that would support approximately ...", or whatever is needed to qualify the statement.
This BRD discussion is about the total deletion of the sentence, not any editor's attempt to make the prose better to better match the source, as no one has done that yet. Heck, we're just explicating the reality here in this article, and the best we have is what we see in sources. The point is, at an "order of magnitude", Tesla has paced orders for parts to support a build and test of up to several hundred Tesla Model 3s, and they have done that at this time in Nov 2016. That's relevant. So, still, just wondering why the total deletion? N2e (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree with the above statement, "much mutual respect".
All we really know is that they order 300 sets of parts. Some of those may be used for destructive testing. Some may be for building protoypes. Some may be for building test rigs. Some my be for production cars. Some may be for spare parts (warranty). Or maybe they really wanted 100 but the parts manufacturer had a minimum order quantity of 300. I've also seen parts ordered, then thrown away when the design changed. I help design ECUs for a living and we've had all of those happen to us. Eg: I often make up a test rig of, say, a throttle body so that I can test the new ECU software to control it. So all we can say is that 300 sets of parts were order and infer the intent to make some vehicles.  Stepho  talk  06:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree that it is a significant development (milestone) and notable, but I can't see a way to phrase it for WP. Suggestions for wording ? TGCP (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
For context; Bolt began line testing in March, and slow production in November. As TM3 is to be produced at 10 times the rate of Bolt, different production problems will occur. Ramp up is notable, but difficult to reference. TGCP (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, something like: "In November 2016, the industry publicationElectrek reported that Tesla had placed firm orders for parts that would support the build of as many as 300 Model 3s for use in the acceptance test phase." This is important, and relevant to our wiki readership. It is also important that they have the larger amount of material as, unlike the preliminary Model 3s that could be made substantially by development technicians, these parts will be used, over the time period of a few month, by the manufacturing team and manufacturing line that (critically) will need to be tuned/tested/adjusted to get the manufacturing line quality fit/function and efficiency performance up to where it needs to be to support the quite high production rate that Tesla is aiming for.
As said previously, in my view, total deletion of this important information is not the right call to improve the encyclopedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://electrek.co/2016/08/01/tesla-model-3-parts-fleet-300-prototypes/

Missing essential data

No curb weight, no battery kWh! What is going on here? --Modalanalytiker (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Has Tesla released that information yet? because I don't see it published anywhere yet. MartinezMD (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
No they haven't, and all we have is CRYSTALBALL. Elon has said min. kWh is <60kWh, and that top kWh would be <100kWh. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 15:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Data is still not completely official. The EPA document seems to be an application with some errors, not an official EPA certification. The 78 kWh is measured for that particular car, not as a minimum for mass production. Multiplying 350 volts with 230Ah to get 80.5 kWh is a stretch as the last Ah happens at slightly lower voltage. The voltage minimum is where individual cells risk damage, which must not be approached. TGCP (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I have a question about the curb weight. What country is the Tesla.com/model3 website being accessing from? I ask because I am in the US and when I look at the weight for the SR , SR+, and MR the SR and SR+ have the same weight of 3,627 lbs while the MR has a weight of 3,686 lbs. Librab103 (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Production builds -- rampup, some units built in Feb'17, production to start by July'17

There is a great deal of sourced info about the production ramp up in a series of recent articles:

N2e (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

We use media reports for references, because we consider them to be roughly independent and reliable (some more than others). As few (none) are allowed direct and unlimited access to actual production, these sources build mostly on communications from the company, and maybe insiders/outsiders. But sometimes misunderstandings happen between original source and WP edits, and it can be difficult to find out what. We can't use primary sources for much because they have an inherant conflict of interest, but we /can/ use them to figure out who said what and when. To make it easier for editors to find them, here are Shareholder letter and Conference call (text) for 2017q3. Use with caution. TGCP (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The COVER UP!

This edit summary "vandalism edit to cover up Tesla's broken promises on Model 3 pricing", along with this one, claims that the price of the Model 3 is not what was promised, especially to those who paid deposit in advance. So I looked and couldn't find any evidence of this other than this blog electrek.co, which here goes into great detail about the utterly ordinary fact that the average price paid by all buyers is not the $35k of the base model, but more like $40k to $50lk, because many buyers add on options. Other than the few cars with no options, it's a perfectly normal thing. Any car has a base price of X and if more than one of them sells with any options, the average sale price will be greater than X.

Anyway, no. The base price is what was advertised. Nothing to see here. Wikipedia does not normally list street prices of goods. See WP:NOTSALES. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: The electrek.co "blog" you mention is usually very timely and well informed regarding BEVs. As such, the link to it you provide does not make a claim that Tesla broke a promise regarding Model 3 pricing. Rather, just like you argue, it points out what a likely average price seems to be, based on actual reservation data. The gist of the article seems more to be that a number of Model 3 reservation holders are willing to put down a lot more money than the base price. Which is a good thing for Tesla, naturally. So the edit you mention is clearly not WP:NPOV - probably just from another desperate Tesla shorter. Lklundin (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I found zero sources to support the claim that Tesla broke any promises. I'm sure electrek is a nice website and all, but their discussion of options is niave. For example, in 2008, even after the recession hit, a Mini Cooper had a base price of $18k, but the average sale price was 40% above that, which puts a $50k out-the-door Model 3 perfectly line with those proportions. An $11.5k Yaris, a really basic car, cost $17k with all the extras in 2008; that's a 50% bump above the base price. I suppose electrek just wants to geek out but the fact is there's nothing unusual here as far as the final prices buyers will pay after they pile on all the extras. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, this article gives some more detail to how the indutry looks at this -- a percentile between the base price and the highest priced version of a model. If the average is halfway between those, it's 50th percentile. In the 90s the averages were above 60, and even in sluggish times 57th percentile is normal. So $43k would be a likely average sale price with options, for the Model 3 or any car. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Car and Driver did a list of differences between base and average sale price, and found it to be around 5%. Some are also speculating that people will plow their tax benefit into options as well. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Really? Only 5%? Do you have the date and title of the article, or a link? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
You were right to disbelieve me Dennis Bratland, I did the math incorrectly, it is 20-30%. This is the article from Jan 18, 2016, by Jared Gall.L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Thanks for the link, that's good information. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The base price is currently missing from the article! Is this vandalism again? Deepdeepocean (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Image of VIN-1

Could it be possible to find an image of VIN-1 with the correct licensing to allow us to put it in the article? There are some differences (mostly in size) between the beta-vehicles and production. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The production model is slightly larger and more stylish than the prototype, so it would be great to get a picture of VIN-1. Musk has a tweet with a good picture, but it would be copyrighted. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Infobox picture has no source, and seems to be from company PR (no results on Tineye). CC2 photos here: cars charging, charge port, interior, side camera . TGCP (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Ah, already covered by Mariordo. TGCP (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Charging details provided to EPA

Additional cites were found giving hard information on the battery and charging parameters/limits. This was added (for the Long-Range) version in [4].

This was subsequently reverted with the edit summary "Moved sentence up. Listing the number of Amps at 400V DC is not very useful since those are rare so it can be confusing in an already busy table" in Special:Diff/807250279. The information does not appear to have been moved up, and the accompanying citation document has been removed entirely. Could anyone suggest where better this information about the Long Range version could be fitted in, if the corresponding location covering the Long Range version in the table is not felt is be the best location. The accompanying citation was/is:

  • Govindasamy, Kannan (2017-06-21). Request for issuance of a new certificate of Conformity – Initial application for MY2017 Model 3 ‐ Touring (PDF) (Report). EPA. Retrieved 2017-10-26. HTSLV00.0L13 … L: Lithium Ion Battery; 1 ‐ RWD Motor; 3 ‐ Model 3 Line of vehicles … battery is rated at 400V and is capable of delivering in excess of 1000 Amperes. The battery mass is less than 500 kg. … Model 3 comes with one on‐board charger is capable of a maximum of 48A on 208V or 240V outlets and 12A on 120V outlets. … battery pack has a nominal operating voltage of 400 VDC. … HPC can supply available current up to a maximum of 80 amps … 32A can also be achieved via a mobile connector. … capable of accepting DC current up to 525A from an off‐board charger (Supercharger).

(Whilst kW might be a more useful unit, we have only been given VA in the source material) —Sladen (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

There may be a difference between laboratory specs and road specs. The Bolt is also capable of charging with higher power, but is limited in everyday life (Point 3). Perhaps we should wait for official specs to appear - the above is "just" an application/request, not a certificate (yet?). TGCP (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
TGCP, the certificate [CSIR] was issued in July 2017 and cited in the article since August 2017.[5] —Sladen (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I am confused about your and FRmorrisons edits - not sure what has occurred and why. There are many confusing data in Kannan's piece. Voltage is stated at both 350 and 400 V. Many car weights. The 525A charge rate is not accompanied by voltage (could be at lower than 350V during low SOC), and as such is of limited value. The battery weight, volume and energy density (and motor parameters) on pages 14-17 are what I consider notable. RLHP could be Rolling HorsePower, a measure of efficiency. I agree that homecharge is notable. TGCP (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
For pack voltage the numbers appear to be self-consistent:
  • "nominal operating voltage of 400 VDC" (full-ish pack)
  • "Average voltage: 351;" (integrated average during whole full→empty→full discharge test cycle).
  • "Recharge Event Voltage: 208" (empty-ish pack).
For supercharging the numbers also appear to be self-consistent:
  • 120kW/525A = 228V (maxA occurs on empty-ish pack).
—Sladen (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I am glad you are interested in adding information to this article, but what originally was entered does not seem helpful. Supercharging and home charging rate are important but when the box says: Home charging rate: 37 miles (60 km) range per hour (240V outlet, 40A) (this is Tesla's intended config) and then you add "12A @ 120V AC or 48A @ 208V–240V AC" I don't see how that adds something useful to a reader. Perhaps if similar information is given like this not true stat: "12 miles range per hour (120V outlet, 12A)" would be useful since it is information in the same format. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Frmorrison Yes, it was good to finally be able to replace some of the speculative details with hard citations back in August.[6] Hopefully we can do the same here aswell. —Sladen (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I may have changed my mind - I think the 48A @ 208V–240V is close enough to 240V@40A to be similar. Not sure how useful 12A @ 120V is - do anybody use that 1½kW ? The 80A High Power Connector compatibility may be notable (same 18/19kW as Model S/X). Combining the other voltages 208-400 with amps would be wp:OR. TGCP (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
So, can we restore the cite, and leave out the additional prose? —Sladen (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The ref is good with some changes, bearing in mind that the Kannan paper is a company request, not certified by authorities. The 525A @ 400V DC is not specified in source. I would say, add and subtract content as I suggested. TGCP (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
By the way, the "Recharge Event Voltage 208" in the CSIR - is that DC on the battery, or AC on the wall? And more importantly, how do we know? Not guesses, but confirmation. TGCP (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
TGCP, this is an extremely good point, thank you for spotting it. The CSIRs for other vehicles mostly have 240V, so yes this is more likely to be AC RMS line voltage. (My apologies). —Sladen (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Production speed

This source is considerably more optimistic than what the current article suggests and estimates the current production at over 1000 cars per month.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph on deliveries was a mess. It started over the chronology at least three times and it took five long paragraphs and many sources to simply say that Tesla failed to meet it's production targets. Looks like a section was added everytime there was news. Often in an arbitrary place rather than at the end. I took the liberty of boldly cleaning it up.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 14:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Shopping guide and comparison service

Per WP:NOTSALES, this article needs to be cleaned up to remove the retail price comparisons, cost of ownership comparisons, and obvious advice aimed at buyers choosing which electric car to buy or whether to switch from a conventional car to electric. All of the Tesla articles and nearly every article related to alternative fuel vehicles has been filled with this type of content, such as street prices and tax incentives.

The other thing going on with most of these is redundant explanations of what the components of an electric car are and how each technology works. The thousands of articles we have on conventional cars, trucks, airplanes, boats, and motorcycles don't have paragraphs explaining what a piston is or how a carburetor works or how to locate a gas station and insert the fuel filler nozzle into the car. Brief summary is appropriate for relatively new technologies, but this doesn't need to be repeated so extensively across so many articles. I think the main motive is that Tesla Model 3 is written with a reader in mind who drives an internal combustion car as in eying the Model 3, so he is given the full sales pitch. Over at Nissan Leaf, you have a different shopper, but he gets the full sales pitch too. And the same micro-detail about batteries gets repeated on both Electric car and hybrid car and so on and so on.

The quantity of cleanup for all this is vast, hence the need to tag and prioritize. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

We have disagreed in the past on another Tesla-related article (the Roadster in space) and this is no exception. The policy you cited, NOTSALES, says an "article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention". There are reasons to include explaination of how EV technology works because electrical cars are not mainstream so a reader should be educated and the references used also explain the technology. Conventional gas motorized cars has been in use for over 100 years so an average reader does not need to be educated on the basics. There is minimal price information, but it is notable to include it because this is the first mass market electric car aimed at the middle class. Just like on the Roadster article, you should give specific examples of what sections should be revised rather than just saying the whole article needs to be changed. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you are bringing up a completely different issue on a completely different article? What if instead of that kind of axe-grinding and WP:battleground behavior, we focused on content and had a productive discussion? Let's talk about the Tesla Model 3 article, OK?

It's true that EV technology is new, and it's true that WP:Summary style recommends a certain amount of redundancy for the sake of clarity and convenience. But we're not talking to children or cave men here, and this isn't simple.wikipedia.org. A moderately well educated reader doesn't need this level of excessive repetition of the same re-explanations of the same technology that has been seen around the globe for at least 20 years.

Since the civilized and polite maintenance tags I added keep getting deleted, I'm just going to nuke all the offending content wholesale, and let better-written content be put back later.

There is strong consensus for the widespread cleanup of this sales info from these many articles. Nissan Leaf was de-listed from Good Article because it had grown excessively long, mostly with too much detail about sales and prices. I had been complaining about that for over a year. A lot of that WP:NOTSALES content was split off to a separate article, but editors like DGG (talk · contribs) recognized that it didn't belong anywhere in an encyclopedia, and it was deleted after the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Market and sales of the Nissan Leaf. "Delete it before it spreads" is what Mangoe (talk · contribs) said. There was more discussion about deleting this kind of stuff at Talk:Electric car#Removal of info about sales, and Drmies (talk · contribs) nuked a big chunk of it. Robert Graves (talk · contribs) helpd remove a lot. Since last year, when Nissan Leaf was (no joke) a whopping 17,539 words, not counting no fewer than 8 long-ass tables and charts with efficiency and price comparisons, it has been cut down to "only" about 9,700 words and a modest three tables of sales crap.

It's the same story with Chevrolet Volt, which I tagged over a year ago, and which Wtshymanski (talk · contribs) pruned significantly. Mitsubishi i-MiEV is another example. Also see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 21#Template:Comparison electric car efficiency and Talk:Electric car energy efficiency#Still a shopping guide. Mariordo (talk · contribs) favors keeping much of this content, but even they have admitted that it has gone a bit far.

I bring up these editors and these other articles because the interpretation of WP:NOTSALES isn't something I made up one day. It's a widely supported consensus that applies to many different articles on many different topics. -Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Hmmm I guess I got pinged because I butchered the Nissan Leaf article--yeah, that was full of stuff that shouldn't be there. I don't know that I cited that abbreviation for NOTSALES, but I'm down with that. Dennis, in that edit of yours you cut a thing or two I wouldn't have--I'd have let the claimed acceleration stand at the beginning of that Overview section, but that's relatively unimportant. Frmorrison, I suppose we can all handle some information, but caution is advised, and these articles should not be comparison and contrast articles: we are not writing for people trying to decide whether to pick some car over another.

    But since you're asking me: if you have three kids, don't get the Volt, for obvious reasons. The new Prius is good value for money and faster than the old. If you have the money, get a Tesla, haha. Anything else? Drmies (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Dennis, unfortunately you are in a crusade to chopped articles about plug-in cars, arguing WP:NOTSALES without paying attention to the arguments, or the actual content of the article, and claiming broad consensus, but you need consensus on each page unfortunately. Here we go again with the same arguments explaining why you are dead wrong:
As already mentioned above, it seems you missed the part of WP:NOCATALOG that I transcribed as follows in bold: An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention...
(i) All content is supported by reliable sources, as requested by WP policy (no single source or catalog, nor this is useful pricing for shopping). As required, there is encyclopedic significance because these sources are raising the issues of barriers to adoption, pricing is one (see next bullet) and sales volumes, as a measure of market penetration of any new technology, no matter if it is a success or a failure, this is how you measure it.
(ii) Pricing is a key issue in all green car technologies, because there is a premium you pay for the new technologies in the early phases of adoption (just remember the price of PCs and cell phones). So hybrids are more expensive than ICE-powered vehicles; plug-in electric cars are even more expensive, because of the battery (critical for all-electrics because the battery is bigger); and hydrogen vehicless are way up more expensive.
(iii) The existence of public policies, more specifically, of direct purchase subsidies or tax credits or tax exemptions is a reflection of the concern of more than a couple dozen governments around the world for this price premium, and these temporary policies were issued as a financial incentives to promote the adoption of specific green cars in their countries. So the relevance of pricing/sales volumes stats is justified in this article, and all others related, by no means is marketing.
(iv) There are plenty of Wikipedia articles dealing with these subjects, perfectly within the limits of Wikipedia policy, you are just objecting the ones related with plug-in electric vehicles. Just some examples, the list is huge:
(v) Also let's be clear, for the same reason that purchase price, or more specifically, the price premium is relevant (as supported by the reliable sources provided and already explained above), the introduction of operating costs and energy efficiency (or fuel economy) is relevant in all articles regarding green cars, these ARE NOT prices as you have claimed in some of those articles and manage to remove. Indeed, if you take your time and check the WP:Good Article reviews of the green car articles have have or had it, none of the reviewers (neutral, not related to Wikiproject Automobile) questioned the introduction of pricing, operating costs nor energy efficiency.
(vi) Finally, all these issues are relevant and encyclopedic, because the modern analysis of any technology IS NOT how the technology works. Engineering since the late seventies became more comprehensive, in addition to the technology (engine, brakes, transmission, etc.) also looks at the economical, social and environmental aspects of those technologies. It seems you want to cleanse the green car articles of those topics, but to comply with WP:NPOV editors should present in their articles all these issues, pros and cons, benefits and negative consequences.

Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Configuration options with screen shots

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/upload_2018-5-20_3-2-27-png.302424/

While the short range battery option is grayed out there are two possible configs not enabled yet

  • $35,000 Standard Battery
  • $40,000 Standard Battery with AWD.

Due to the nature of the reservation / invite to configure process you can't link to a public page with this configuration information and I don't think it's a good idea to point someone to a random news article instead. So for the time being I created this topic to document configuration options and pricing and I'll let someone else decide how they want to include or not the provided pictures and what to cite as sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.140.90 (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


"seconds tested" claim

There is a claim of "4.6/3.9/3.1 seconds tested" by User:Michal.Simek (his 4.6/4.3/3.1 change, his 4.3->3.9 AWD change) with no source reference. For example TMC Dragy 0-60 Model 3 AWD even verified in practice AWD is really 4.5s as Tesla claims. Then for performance model there is 3.18s record but that would be rather 3.2s and not 3.1s. Additionally where came the 4.6/3.9 times from? Jankratochvil (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


For Performance tested number may need to be changed from 3.1 to 3.2, I am unable to find the source of 3.1 number now (I did read it somewhere, I need to figure out how to add citations here), one source for 3.2 number is: https://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-3/2018/2018-tesla-model-3-dual-motor-performance-quick-test-review/

Same problem with Dual Motor, saw someone test after recent software upgrade and get a 0-60 time under 4 seconds, can't find it now, and unlike Performance version there are few test results posted, so not finding anything relevant at the moment.

The 4.6 number for single-motor rear-wheel drive has been reported by many over the past year, for example: https://electrek.co/2018/01/06/tesla-model-3-accelerates-0-60-mph-in-4-6-faster-than-tesla-advertises/

--Michal (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


Provided the 2 sources and one citation needed; I will try to find the 3.9 seconds later. Jankratochvil (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


"grammatical errors" in Tesla products and branding

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Hyphenation should not be prescriptive
 – There's a much more in-depth thread about this at the MoS talk page. Let's not WP:TALKFORK for no reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

User:LordOfPens has been repeatedly modifying Tesla product names and branding to fix "grammatical errors" by, for example, adding hyphens, changing "Long Range" to "Long-Range", and "Mid Range" to "Mid-Range", and "Dual Motor" to "Dual-Motor". For whatever reason Tesla has chosen to not have hyphens in those product names, it seems to me that a Wikipedia page about a Tesla product should be consistent with Tesla usage and style, rather insisting on "correcting" Tesla, am I missing something?

--Michal (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

When directly referencing a product name, it is a proper noun, and should be identical to whatever spelling the creator (Tesla) chooses, which can be any arbitrary string, which can arbitrarily include any capital letters, symbols, and numbers anywhere in the name. However, when describing something a noun, proper English should be followed.
In terms of product names (which are proper nouns), Tesla has (among others):
  • Model S
  • Model X
  • Model 3
  • Roadster
Tesla does not have a product called "Long Range All Wheel Drive Model 3", "All Wheel Drive Long Range Model 3", "Long-Range All-Wheel-Drive Model 3", "All-Wheel-Drive Long-Range Model 3", "Premium Upgrade Package Long Range All Wheel Drive Model 3", etc. Tesla simply has a product called "Model 3", and descriptions of various versions of the Model 3. Therefore, compound modifiers (such as all-wheel drive, standard battery, long range, long-range battery, etc.) for the proper noun "Model 3" should follow proper English rules for punctuation for usage of compound modifiers for nouns.
As of today, Tesla refers to the all-wheel-drive capability of the Model S as both "All Wheel Drive" and "All-Wheel Drive" (See https://imgur.com/a/uPGWNe4). Regardless of how they describe their product, their product is simply the "Model S" for this example. The Model S with all-wheel drive can be described as "All-Wheel-Drive Model S", or "All-wheel-drive Model S", but as a proper noun, it is only "Model S".
LordOfPens (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
LordOfPens Tesla does not have any product name I am aware of that includes all-wheel drive, and Tesla includes a hyphen on, for example, license plate frames with "All-Wheel Drive" written on them.
Tesla does have, however, products including "Model 3 Long Range" and "Model 3 Long Range Dual Motor", these strings appear without hyphens on Tesla web site, on in car and mobile app user interface, on badges tesla has affixed to some Dual Motor sedans, etc. These strings are also widely used consistently with Tesla usage in most media.
I find it strange and confusing to see those strings used consistently without dashes everywhere by Tesla and most media while you add a dash to them on this wiki page.
--Michal (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Michal.Simek, none-the-less, is there an identifiable problem or issue in the arguments presented by LordOfPens? —Sladen (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Sladen the problem or issue is that LordOfPens is adding dashes in this wiki to product names to make them "more grammatically correct" which is unhelpful because it is inconsistent with usage by Tesla. If he can persuade Tesla to correct their usage, then he can correct it here to match, but until then this page ought to be consistent with Tesla pages and user interfaces and documentation. --Michal (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
SMcCandlish why should product names such as “Longe Range” and “Dual Motor” not be stylized same on this wiki page as they are by Tesla on their web pages and user interfaces and in their documentation? Michal (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Because reliable sources independent of Tesla do not consistently spell/style them this way [nor apparently does Tesla, judging from what said above!], and when this is the case WP defaults to following the style specified in our own style guide, just as does every other publisher with an internal style guide. This is covered in great detail in a concurrent thread about this, here. In short, Wikipedia is not "WeirdTrademarkStylizationMimicryPedia".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
PS: Don't capitalize after a hyphen unless what follows the hyphen is itself a proper name, as in "post-Soviet".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Typo spotted in the article.

In the "Specifications" spreadsheet the "Power to Weight" line apparently has a typo in the right-most cell. The displayed value of "9 / 182" is disproportional compared to the next cell to the left. I think the intent was to write "19 /182" but 1 was omitted by mistake? 79.120.151.235 (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Kudos to 79.120.151.235 for spotting this, here are the edits that created this text:
  1. Special:Diff/851173575, by User:Michal.Simek ("221 W/kg (8 lb/hp)")
  2. Special:Diff/853734795, by User:Michal.Simek ("182 W/kg (9 lb/hp)")
  3. Special:Diff/853750523, by User:Michal.Simek ("9 lb/hp (182 W/kg)")
—Sladen (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Have removed uncited/unprovable numbers in Special:Diff/866537969. Hopefully these can be re-added after citations have been located. —Sladen (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Michal.Simek, please explain here why Special:Diff/867464446 has re-added the uncited entries, including "9 lb/hp (184 W/kg)", which was highlighted in this thread as likely being bogus. —Sladen (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Sladen, nothing bogus about those numbers, simple ratio of mass and power, both cited, these numbers are commonly used to compare vehicles, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-weight_ratio#Performance_luxury,_roadsters_and_mild_sports

No information on Model 3 Performance without premium upgrade package.

July 2018 through October 2018, Tesla sold a version of the Model 3 Performance without the performance upgrade package.

For completeness, I believe that this version should be added to the list of specifications.

Vcpecon (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Luxury?

What's the justification for calling this a luxury vehicle? There's a premium and a non-premium interior option. --Treekids (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources say it is a luxury car and it costs 40k or more. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Permanent magnet switched reluctance motor. Is it actually true?

The Tesla model 3 is equipped with an alleged "permanent magnet switched reluctance" machine. I found often this description reported in several websites on EVs, but I believe this is mereley an hoax/misinformation (spreaded most likely from Musk itself from his well known tweet...unwittingly I would say).

From the EPA Certificate of Conformity is clearly reported, pag. 7.

The motor is a 3‐phase AC internal permanent magnet motor utilizing a six‐pole, high‐frequency design with inverter‐controlled magnetic flux.


1) There is no indication of "switched reluctance": if the machine was a "switched reluctance", this should be logically reported in an official document because it is a peculiar characteristic of this machine typology.

2) AC internal permanent magnet motor, in the electrical machine design field is universally known also as "Interior Permanent Magnet (IPM) synchronous" motor in reason of the arrangement of the magnets in the rotor (they are placed internally). If you compare the rotor design with that of a "switched reluctance" machine, it is hardly possible to find any similarities. Among the PM synchronous machines, the IPM design is the only one which exploits the "reluctance mechanism" for the torque production. This might explain where this "reluctance" term come from. Depending on the rotor design, this "reluctance torque" can be significant (some multi-flux barrier design exibith this feature). In this case the machines are often described as "permanent magnet assisted synchronous reluctance (PMASR, PMSynREL)" machines.

3) As far as I know, excluding some few particular designs in the scientific literature, "switched reluctance" are without "permanent magnets": PM-free is an eminent feauture of switched reluctance machines.

4) Control strategy and power converter architecture of permanent magnet synchronous and switched reluctance machines are different. For instance, in the latter it is not possible to use a "standard" inverter.


Anyone with better sources/knowledge can confirm or deny such statements?

NRG1985 (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a combination motor with a special inverter. See the Munro videos, and this article and video. TGCP (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGzwnPgow8U
(TGCP, broken video link). This works [7]. —Sladen (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


Thanks TGCP, I know already such sources. Even from the statements of Dr. Laskaris from the first link, there is no reference to any "switched" and/or "reluctance" (only in the comments, casually...), he is referring only to a generic "permanent magnet machine".
So, as you know, our Model 3 has a permanent magnet machine now. This is because for the specification of the performance and efficiency, the permanent magnet machine better solved our cost minimization function, and it was optimal for the range and performance target.
I studied and I work in this field, informally nowadays this terms means often specifically "permanent magnet synchronous" machines. The V-shape rotor pattern is not something of unknown. And this V-shape design has the peculiarity to offer a reluctance torque contribution to the total torque production...but the machine is however still "synchronous" type.
"Switched reluctance" machines are interesting machine designs, especially for cost point of view, but they have currently limited use in the automotive industry for complexity/cost of power converter/control and some technical issues, such as potentially high noise.
As regards Munro, I am aware of his videos but in my opinion some of his statements related to the electrical machine design are partially or totally not techically sounds. Therefore I would not consider them as a reliable source.
NRG1985 (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
This article from March 2018 concedes that switched reluctance is not confirmed for Model 3. It also links to research showing reduced ripple and increased power by including relatively small permanent magnets, indicating that PM-SRM is perhaps possible. Prius uses reluctance, and BMW has a US Patent 20120267977A1 for Permanent magnet assisted reluctance motor. The question then seems to be whether the Model 3 uses switching and/or reluctance, and to which degree compared to induction. TGCP (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
If the the machine is not with confirmed to be "permanent magnet switched reluctance" and this conclusion is based on not-technically sound facts and/or comments without any reliable reference, this should not appear in the spec table of a Wikipedia article.
Just a matter of example, considering the key excerpt of that article from March 2018:
I engaged Ingineerix in the video’s comments section, where he revealed that the car has a “Switched Reluctance motor, using permanent magnets.” Ingineerix went on to say, “Tesla calls it a PMSRM, Permanent Magnet Switched Reluctance Motor. It’s a new type, and very hard to get right, but Tesla did it!”
<<Tesla calls it PMSRM">>... What is the source? PMSRM could be also the acronym of Permanent Magnet assisted Synchronous Reluctance motor (I saw it sometimes, unfortunately there is not a standard way to describe the different machine types). Why exactly "switched reluctance", what are the technical and objective facts which support this hypothesis?
That is also interesting to note that the switched reluctance machines have normally stator with concentrated winding (the coils are switched according to specific strategies in order to "pull" the rotor iron poles leading to the rotation), while the Model 3 motor is most likely a distributed winding (common setup of synchronou machines, like in the competitors, especially if you want to fully exploit the reluctance mechanism). To be honest, there are however some recent references to distributed winding designs as well (I know one).
Toyota Prius is not equipped with a "(synchronous) reluctance" machine. It is rather an "Interior Permanent Magnet (IPM) synchronous" machine, with a 8-pole rotor and it is interesting to observe the similarities with the Tesla model 3, which is a 6-pole design with a similar V-shape pattern. BMW can be correctly described as a "Permanent Magnet Assisted Synchronous Reluctance" machine (BMW call it hybrid), like, after all, the GM designs: it is important to highlight the fact that all of them are "synchronous reluctance" type not "switched reluctance", two different things even if they exploit the same mechanism. These "synchronous reluctance" designs are not new, significant developments started from the 1990s/2000s onwards with the work of academic researchers like Lipo, Vagati and Bianchi.
From my point of view I would stick to the the official EPA reference, replacing the "Permanent magnet switched reluctance motor" with the description "3‐phase AC internal permanent magnet motor" (or better machine rather than motor, since it operates also as a generator during the regenerative breaking).
NRG1985 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


These days the official blog of Tesla has provided more details as regards the description of their machine design of the drivetrain which is implemented in the lastest generation of Model S and Model X after its first introduction in Model 3.
All Model S and X vehicles now benefit from Tesla’s latest generation of drive unit technology, which combines an optimized permanent magnet synchronous reluctance motor, silicon carbide power electronics, and improved lubrication, cooling, bearings, and gear designs to achieve greater than 93% efficiency.
It is clearly mentioned the synchronous operation of the machine (not the switched operation). The machine technically speaking is an Interior PM synchronous machine (which however exploits partially the reluctance mechanism) and this is in agreement with the officiale EPA certification. All the other possible descriptions are just mere speculations, some of them are even not technically sound on the basis, for example, of the photographic information of the Munro's teardown.
If you investigate deeply all the other sources, EV websites, alleged experts, which refers as an alleged "PM switched reluctance machine", they are not linked to any official statements from Tesla engineers. I convinced that all of them refers, at then end, to a known tweet.
If no one can refute these points, I am going to change the motor description with:
Interior permanent magnet synchronous machine
NRG1985 (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

New Sources Needed - Current Sources for HP Ratings are Not Acceptable

All the sources for HP are from a user(s) on reddit posting their own dyno testing results. Per the User Generated Content section of Reliable Sources Wikipedia article, "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include … Reddit"

Can we get more reliable sources for the numbers? Have automotive publications done independent testing especially with the new updates (which currently put the model 3 performance to hp around 500)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:160:E308:0:0:0:0:9 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Car class

Mid-size car says that the EPA classifies these as follows: “mid-size cars are defined as having an *interior volume index* of 110–119 cu ft (3.1–3.4 m3).” According to: https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-3/2018/features-specs/ EPS interior volume of a Tesla Model 3 is 112.0 cu.ft.

So shouldn't this be "mid-sized" and not "compact"?

According to the EPA it is a mid-size car. Where does the article say it is a compact? I see the compact executive car but that is an EU classification not an EPA one. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Frmorrison, I see the word "compact" in the "Compact executive car" (UK classification) in the infobox. It would seem to me that, as the primary market for the Model 3 has been US-first and the US has the vast volume to date, the US/EPA classification would be the more appropriate one for something as prominent as classification in the infobox. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Production/deliveries for 1Q2020

Tesla has not yet released numbers for Model3-only production/deliveries in the first quarter, and has only released an aggregated number for both Model 3 and Model Y combined. That number, with both car models, has been added to the table of Model 3 quarterly production/deliveries. I've tagged it for needing some work, since as it stands, it is a number that is not comparable to the rest of the very useful table in the article; but left it in the article while we discuss it as is quite likely the right approximate number.

Perhaps we could address the combined number in article prose, and indicate in the table an approximate number for Model 3 only (if we have sources), or indicate in the table that it is "<87,282" or something else. How do others think we can improve the article so we don't mislead what the table numbers mean? N2e (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Italic 5.45.131.3 (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Market section reads like advertising.

Is it fair to include a section in this Tesla right-up which reads like a textbook case of "join the bandwagon" advertising? I noted that the Chevrolet Bolt wiki has a prominent section near the top of the page about "profitability" asserting the rather large losses GM is taking on each Bolt sold. However Tesla is losing money on each car sold too, and yet this wiki here doesn't include that subject under any "profitability" section near the top of the page. There seems to be a basic fairness issue going on here. For the record I do not own a Tesla nor a Bolt. I drive a 1971 Ford Ranchero. 2600:1700:87B0:20A0:9CC2:B183:7E3F:DAF1 (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit, but even though its content is valid according to WP:NPOV, your edit is NOT about the Model 3 but about Tesla, Inc. as a company ("As of October 2019 Investopedia reported that Tesla was still losing money on each car sold, $408 million in the second quarter."). Therefore the Tesla article is the proper place to make it, but be aware that you have to provide a reliable source (see WP:RS), otherwise it might be removed, as I did in this article. Cheers. - Mariordo (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Battery pack update?

Should the capacity of the battery pack be updated? Electrek reported that the Long Range now has an 82 kWh pack.

https://electrek.co/2020/11/10/tesla-model-3-82-kwh-battery-pack-new-cells/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.97.37.176 (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I changed the article to reflect this, hope it's OK (my first edit) Marnikdotorg (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Full Pricing information

Shouldn't we include the full price of the vehicle including the $1200 delivery fee in the specifications table? Publications like Car and Driver now routinely include the full price with required delivery fees in their pricing information. The Delivery and Documentation fee is a fixed amount that does not change based on location in the United States. Thanks! Jalapeno19104 (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sneaky update on range

Tesla just updated the WLTP range of the Model 3 Long Range to a whopping 614 km according to their Norwegian website (I live in Norway). 2A01:799:B22:4F00:883B:6A95:177A:9258 (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tesla_Model_3/Archive_1&oldid=1198183536"