Model 3 Zippier Than Tesla States, Does 0 To 60 MPH In 4.8 Seconds

1 day ago by Eric Loveday 45

Tesla Model 3

Tesla Model 3

Testing has revealed that the Tesla Model 3 can hit 60 miles per hour in just 4.8 seconds.

Oh, and the Model 3 is a finalist for Motor Trend’s 2018 Car of the Year, too.

Tesla Model 3

Tesla Model 3

Back to that 4.8-second time. When Tesla revealed the Model 3, the automaker stated:

“Like every Tesla vehicle, Model 3 combines range, performance, safety and technology. Intelligent design maximizes interior space to comfortably fit five adults and all of their gear. The high-efficiency powertrain provides zero to 60 mph acceleration in as little as 5.1 seconds.

5.1 seconds is now 4.8, in Motor Trend tests.

Motor Trend commented on the Model 3 too. Here are a few excerpts:

We Like: Great range, supercharging availability, excellent driving dynamics

We Don’t Like: Raised-knee position for rear-seat passengers, interior materials

The Model 3’s punchy torque (0–60 mph in 4.8 seconds) and laserlike handling impressed every judge who buckled in—though at the price of decidedly firm ride quality.

Motor Trend isn’t impressed by the car’s price though. Their as-tested Model 3 rings in at $60,000. Nowhere the base price of $35,000.

Motor Trend concludes:

“The Model 3 is a rolling Rorschach test. Change is great; change is strange. Will it ultimately change the automotive landscape? Said Chris Walton: “If this is the future of automobiles, then I’m OK with it.”

Source: Motor Trend

Tags: , , , ,

45 responses to "Model 3 Zippier Than Tesla States, Does 0 To 60 MPH In 4.8 Seconds"

  1. jon says:

    that makes it just faster then the semi truck lol

    1. pjwood1 says:

      They need to accelerate fast, so users can devote time operating the touch screen. Motor Trend’s short review put considerable focus, where this summary does not.

      The Rorschach test comment immediately followed, “it might be going too far too fast in eliminating tried and true ways to control aspects of the car”.

      1. jimjfox says:

        Is 0.3 sec in any way significant? Pfffttt…

        I must be real dim because I also see no connection with the Rorschach test- which is specific to the interpretation of inkblots.

  2. Counterpoint says:

    While the Motor Trend article did say it drove well and accelerated quickly, I also noticed that the fuel economy for city driving that they got was much worse than listed for EPA ratings (highway fuel economy was a tiny bit above EPA), which would mean a range of 288-300 miles instead of 310.

    1. L'amata says:

      I read somewhere that Real Life Mileage was actually 344 miles on one charge with the Bigger Battery…I believe That…

      1. Nix says:

        Yes, on the EPA test cycle the actual results were higher than 310 miles in range. But Tesla chose to voluntarily reduced the rating to 310 miles.

        One theory is that Tesla didn’t want to make the Model S look bad.

        Another theory is that Tesla knows that the EPA test cycle won’t match the heavy right foot that most Model 3 drivers will use in real life. The Motor Trend testing seems to support this theory. The EPA test cycle doesn’t have any 5 second 0-60 runs. The EPA test cycle has fairly slow acceleration so that all cars can drive the same test cycle.

        If somebody wants to hypermile a Model 3 they will likely get much, much better results (Motor Trend definitely do not hypermile in their tests). Just like pretty much every single car, EV or ICE.

        1. ModernMarvelFan says:

          If Motortrend testing still shows a 280 miles to 300 miles range on the Model 3 LR, I am still impressed regardless of what EPA ranges say. M/T don’t drive like Grandma which means their tested range is very realistic for just about everyone in the world in most conditions.

          That is a very solid real world range for anyone. Count me impressed.

    2. RedPillSucks says:

      Meh… Most cars test with lower EPA ratings in real life. I’m pretty sure everyone is expecting this. My 40mpg Camry Hybrid gets 35mpg.

    3. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      Test any car floored to hit it’s 0-60 and yeah, mpg goes down…………. LIKE DUH

    4. Lawrence says:

      Interesting point here that it brings up. EPA should require two range numbers just like they do with ICE MPG. Local/HWY (HWY at 70 MPH). Based off of Model S drivers, they lose up to 20% range from the estimated when driving 75MPH. Perspective, a 20% loss on 210 would be 168 miles of range. We’ll see what the real world results are on the Model 3.

      1. Paul Smith says:

        Maybe not, much lighter car, better batteries.

        1. Lawrence says:

          Battery technology won’t factor into that. The battery may have a longer life and be more dense, but it won’t have a higher capacity. 1kwh=1kwh. At that speed drag is the overwhelming factor. Even the most aerodynamic designed car will increase consumption by at least 10% going from 60 to 70mph.

    5. Deon says:

      Range can be subject to the type of driver who tests it, heavy footed drivers get less and light footed drivers get more oO

  3. Tom says:

    *Some assembly required.

    1. L'amata says:

      0r…Batteries “Not included”……. lol

      1. Tom says:

        Why not both?

  4. Stimpy says:

    A loaded non-black Model 3 should be $56,500. I am excluded FSD because you don’t get anything for that $3k so there’s no reason to pay for it (at least for comparison reasons).

    But most buyers won’t actually pay $56k. Depending on the federal rebate, they may not even pay $50k. Then you have potential state and utility rebates.

    TL;DR if price is the biggest negative, Telsa has a winner on their hands.

    1. L'amata says:

      Once they refine the art of building it, as they get Production Humming along and battery prices come down, All joking aside., if you want a Real bonnafied true car, This Model 3 is in reality the only True Choice. Especially at the “same price or Less” than some of the smaller inferior choices with “No Charging Infrastructure” That are currently offered by other car makers..

      1. abc123 says:

        “This Model 3 is in reality the only True Choice. Especially at the “same price or Less” than some of the smaller inferior choices with “No Charging Infrastructure” That are currently offered by other car makers..”

        Are you f’ing 12 years old or something?

        1. Lawrence says:

          He has the car poster on the wall as well.

          1. L'amata says:

            11yrs. 9months old, Many Car posters on the wall, & $40,000,000 Cash …lmao

            1. Lawrence says:

              Laughing at your own jokes is just plain sad.

        2. And sold 3 software Apps already!😀

    2. Lawrence says:

      They’re trying to be objective journalists, they’re not trying to sell the car.

      They have the same complaint about any car that has a large difference between base model and optioned up.

  5. SparkEV says:

    Bigger battery version is only $9K more at $44K. Did MT version at $60K come with extra options that boost acceleration? I didn’t think there’s “P” versions yet.

    1. bro1999 says:

      It IS a car voluntarily handed to MT by Tesla….so who knows? Maybe?

      1. Tech01x says:

        You are hoping?

    2. Nix says:

      It is more likely that the 1 foot rollout that MT uses in their testing, and MT’s test car having the optional performance street tires explain the difference. MT also uses a properly prepped test track with good surface prep, so their number is best-case under good traction conditions.

      0-60 with base 18″ all-weather M/S rated tires likely reduce traction off the line with RWD. The 5.1 number is likely based upon worst-case and some variance is to be expected based upon road surface condition, etc.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      SparkEV asked:

      “Did MT version at $60K come with extra options that boost acceleration?”

      Was this the same car used for Motor Trend’s earlier “First Drive” review? That car belonged to Franz von Holzhausen, chief designer for Tesla.

      Of that car, the reviewer said:

      And this is the single-motor, rear-wheel-drive starting point. The already boggled mind boggles further at the mention of Dual Motor and Ludicrous.

      http://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-3/2018/exclusive-tesla-model-3-first-drive-review/

  6. Viktor says:

    Motor Trend measures with one foot rollout wish Tesla is only doing on there performance versions so there is probably no difference.

    1. K L says:

      Exactly. Because of the 1-foot rollout, Motor Trend numbers can only be compared with other vehicles it tests. It’s completely meaningless otherwise.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Hmmm, perhaps the use of a 1-foot rollout isn’t quite as widespread as I thought — that is, perhaps it’s not the industry standard for auto manufacturing, as I thought — but I’m pretty sure Motor Trend isn’t the only auto review magazine to use a 1-foot rollout.

        Here’s what Edmunds.com has to say on the subject:

        …the use of rollout with 0-60 times is inappropriate in our view. For one, 0-60-mph acceleration is not a drag-racing convention. More important, it’s called ZERO to 60 mph, not 3 or 4 mph to 60 mph, which is what you get when you apply rollout. While it is tempting to use rollout in order to make 0-60 acceleration look more impressive by 0.3 second, thereby hyping both the car’s performance and the apparent skill of the test driver, we think it’s cheating.

        Nevertheless, some car magazines and some automobile manufacturers use rollout anyway — and fail to tell their customers. We’ve decided against this practice. We publish real 0-60 times instead. But in order to illuminate this issue and ensure we do justice to every car’s real performance, we’ve begun publishing a clearly marked “with rollout” 0-60 time alongside the primary no-rollout 0-60 time so readers can see the effects of this bogus practice.

        https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/how-we-test-cars-and-trucks.html

        1. Nix says:

          They are giving a generalization for typical cars. Each individual car would have their own advantage depending upon the actual time it takes to cover roughly 1 foot. A theoretical vehicle with 30 second 0-60 would have more than a 0.3 second advantage, and a theoretical vehicle with a 1 second 0-60 would have less than a 0.3 second advantage.

          Given the instant launch characteristics of EV’s (especially Tesla’s), I’m speculating that the Model 3 310 would come in better than the generalized number they are giving.

    2. SparkEV says:

      Aha! That’s probably the explanation. MT provides nice set of numbers so I used polynomial fitting to see what may be going on. There’s a discrepancy of about 0.3 seconds depending on poly order. Of course, there’s no guarantee it’ll follow such nice curve, but I’d call it “close enough” for the discrepancy.

    3. Nix says:

      Yes, the roughly 1 foot roll-out (depends on tire diameter) definitely contributes to the difference. But it likely doesn’t explain the full .3 seconds.

      Motor Trend also tested the version with the 19 inch sport wheels with Continental ProContact RX street tires. If the Model 3 is traction limited with RWD, then these tires would likely be quicker off the line than the 18 inch all-weather base wheels/tires. That may be an additional factor.

      Tesla also may not have wanted to publish sub-5 second numbers also, and may have gone with the conservative 5.1 number for other reasons, similar to how the EPA range number according to tests was actually more than 310 miles of range.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Since Edmunds.com says the 1-ft. rollout does make an ~0.3 second difference in 0-60 time (see quote in my post above), I would think that alone would account for it.

        1. Nix says:

          See my response above.

  7. God/Bacardi says:

    While it includes the roll out, could it also be that the base or small battery M3 has the 5.5 0-60 and the larger battery M3 has a quicker 0-60 as is the case with the S/X?

    1. Four Electrics says:

      Agreed–the larger battery is likely the reason for the quicker acceleration. The 5.1 second number is probably for the dinker battery, which Tesla is not yet shipping.

      1. Hauer says:

        No. It is 5.1 for LR, 5.6 for the SR.
        At least ist was.

  8. peetah says:

    can’t wait until air suspension is available to fix any ride complaints…

  9. Koenigsegg says:

    The 0-60’s would be quicker if they didn’t have that fat guy in the driver seat.

    I weigh 128 pounds so every car is quicker when I’m in it.

    1. And that works out great for Flying Small Aircraft, too! Always more fun after the Instructor gets out!👍

  10. Scott says:

    Tesla is like, Porsche and BMW, with conservative performance figures. Some companies like GM, test their vehicles with the perfect weather conditions for the best possible figures. Probably better to be humble/conservative!

  11. ModernMarvelFan says:

    Just about every manufacturer is conservative with their published 0-60mph times. That is typical. The last thing you want is when none of the magzine can repeat your stated claims. It is often industry practice to publish a slightly conservative number by all automakers.

Leave a Reply