Tesla Model 3 Mid Range Fades From View

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

First, it faded from the automaker’s ordering page — a disappearance noted on Sunday. Introduced last October as a cheaper stepping stone to the Model 3 lifestyle (and a sort-of apology for the then-undelivered $35,000 Standard Range), Tesla’s Mid Range variant offered 260 miles of driving range, compared to the 310 miles available to Model 3 Long Range drivers.

With the Standard Range now available to order, the Mid Range apparently serves no purpose in the Tesla stable.

Available only with black paint in base trim, the $35,000 Standard Range’s delivery date was recently pushed back from two to four weeks to perhaps eight. For those who longed for the model since the Model 3’s debut three years ago, what’s another few weeks of waiting?

Anyway, the Standard Range version offers a 220-mile driving radius, and the addition of a Standard Range Plus (240 miles) for an extra $2,000 makes the Mid Range model redundant. There’s some debate as to whether the cheapest Tesla is, in fact, profitable. Certainly, there was a clear financial reason for the lengthy delay in getting the model to consumers, not to mention the earlier release of a much pricier performance version of the dual motor model.

The quiet execution of the Model 3 Mid Range comes on the heels of last week’s strangely unenthusiastic launch of the Model Y — a Model 3-based compact crossover designed to mine customers in the juicy $40-$50k SUV segment. That model arrives late next year in two flavors: a Standard Range model with 230 miles of driving range, stickering for $39,000 (before destination), and a $47,000 Long Range model with 300 miles of driving distance packed into its battery.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk said buyers of the cheaper version should expect their vehicles “sometime in 2021.”

Due to an abortive attempt to shutter its retail stores, Tesla plans to raise the recently dropped prices of all vehicles — sans Model 3 Standard Range — later this week by an average of 3 percent.

[Image: Tesla]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
5 of 29 comments
  • Moose&Squirrel Moose&Squirrel on Mar 18, 2019

    With t̶h̶e̶ ̶S̶t̶a̶n̶d̶a̶r̶d̶ ̶R̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶w̶ many other more affordable and higher quality EV options already or soon available t̶o̶ ̶o̶r̶d̶e̶r̶, the M̶i̶d̶ ̶R̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ ̶a̶p̶p̶a̶r̶e̶n̶t̶l̶y̶ entire line-up of Tesla vehicles serves no purpose i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶T̶e̶s̶l̶a̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶b̶l̶e̶. FIFY

    • See 2 previous
    • HotPotato HotPotato on Mar 19, 2019

      @SCE to AUX Yep. So far we have CARB compliance cars, and cars that cost as much as a Tesla but aren't even remotely as desirable. Lots of talk from the established manufacturers, still jack to show at the dealer.

  • SharkDiver SharkDiver on Mar 18, 2019

    Think I'll just hang on to my heavily modified '06 Vette and lifted '99 Tahoe.

  • Lorenzo They won't be sold just in Beverly Hills - there's a Nieman-Marcus in nearly every big city. When they're finally junked, the transfer case will be first to be salvaged, since it'll be unused.
  • Ltcmgm78 Just what we need to do: add more EVs that require a charging station! We own a Volt. We charge at home. We bought the Volt off-lease. We're retired and can do all our daily errands without burning any gasoline. For us this works, but we no longer have a work commute.
  • Michael S6 Given the choice between the Hornet R/T and the Alfa, I'd pick an Uber.
  • Michael S6 Nissan seems to be doing well at the low end of the market with their small cars and cuv. Competitiveness evaporates as you move up to larger size cars and suvs.
  • Cprescott As long as they infest their products with CVT's, there is no reason to buy their products. Nissan's execution of CVT's is lackluster on a good day - not dependable and bad in experience of use. The brand has become like Mitsubishi - will sell to anyone with a pulse to get financed.
Next