Tesla Model 3 Interior Space Compared To S, X – Video

1 month ago by Eric Loveday 77

Is the Tesla Model 3 actually smaller than the Model S on the inside? The interior dimensions might surprise you.

Modern-day cars typically maximize interior space, while minimizing exterior size. The Model 3 is a prime example of this, while the now-dated Model S isn’t so much. Proof of this is found when comparing the exterior dimensions of both cars to the interior space (see graphic below).

On the outside, the Model S measures in at 196 inches long, 77 inches wides and 57 inches tall. Meanwhile, the Model 3’s exterior dimensions are 185 inches long, 73 inches wide and 57 inches tall. Aside from height, the Model S is significantly larger in all other exterior dimensions, but does it carry its size advantages inside? Not really.

Thanks to OCDetailing, we’ve got interior measurements of all three Teslas – S, 3 and X. Here are those figures (via Teslarati):

Interior Dimensions

OCDetailing notes that the Model 3 has spacious seating for driver and front passenger and that front leg room is more than adequate.

Once clear advantage that’s immediately noticeable from the figures above is the rear headroom in the Model 3. Model S owners often complain of having to tilt their heads sideways in the rear to avoid contact with the back glass. This shouldn’t be an issue in the Model 3.

The S does win in all of the width categories though, as it should since its 4 inches wider on the outside.

Study the numbers. Watch the video. Let us know if you’re surprised by the findings in comments below.

Tags: , , , ,

77 responses to "Tesla Model 3 Interior Space Compared To S, X – Video"

  1. Alexander H. says:

    I’m certainly surprised by the rear shoulder room in the Model X: 32.7″ in the middle row and 40″ in the third? Something doesn’t seem right about that, to me.

    Otherwise, very impressive Tesla has managed to carve out so much space in the smaller Model 3!

    1. Jason says:

      I imagine it’s because there are three seats in the middle row for the config he was looking at.

    2. pjwood1 says:

      Better than Audi A6 legroom and headroom (A6 41.3 and 37.2). I’m guessing better than A4, as well, then.

    3. unlucky says:

      The middle row shoulder room is lousy in the X because the gull-wing doors are so thick. The car retains roughly the same exterior width as the S, so when you make the doors thicker the interior gets narrower.

      Yet another reason those doors were a mistake.

  2. Carcus says:

    Comparable to a Honda Civic… maybe a little bit tighter.

    1. Shaun says:

      Some dimensions are comparable, but the Model 3 has a significant advantage in others.

      https://www.truedelta.com/Honda-Civic/specs-109#section_specs

      1. fotomoto says:

        Compare it to the new 2018 model civic and the interior stats are about equal except for rear leg room where the civic is over a significant 2 inches longer.

        http://driving.ca/honda/civic#specs

        1. Shaun says:

          Honda should just start calling it the Accord now. No wonder it is such a pig. Sochiro Honda must be rolling over in his grave.

          Btw, when I glance at the specs for the Audi A4 they seem very close, despite the small exterior dimensions of the Model 3.

          1. realistic says:

            Wow, Shaun. The Civic as “pig”

            The “pig” of a Civic is several cm smaller than the Model 3 in all three major exterior dimensions.

            I assume you’re a rez holder for the new Tesla Sow?

            1. Aaron says:

              hehehe…

              I do understand his point, though. Today’s Civic is significantly larger than the Accord of only 10 years ago.

              Same thing with the Corolla. It’s almost Camry size now.

              1. realistic says:

                No disagreement, Aaron.

                Cars have grown a lot. And yet they’ve successfully kept the same or better fuel consumption, dramatic emission reductions and giant leaps in crash safety.

                The 1709lb 1975 Civic was rated at 39 city and 50 highway way back in Farah Fawcett’s prime. But the Federal Test Procedure 1975 for “city” had an average speed of 21.2 mph, used a “cold” start of a balmy 75 degF, and was run with HVAC turned off. Meanwhile, The “highway” version of FTP75 ratings were derived at an average speed of 48.3 mph with only mild accelerations β€” no harder than an 18-second 0-to-60 (the Civic could only mamnage 0-60 in 13.2sec, so maybe that was harder than it seems today).

                All that changed in 2006 with 20degF cold starts, city runs mixing in HVAC use, highway bursts up to 80mph and max acceleration. They were stiffened again in 2008, and repeatedly up through 2016. In some cases the difference in ratings will be 30% or more ’75 to ’17.

                The 2018 Civic with a CVT manages 0-60 in under 8 sec at a weight of 2700lb in a car that is likely an order of magnitude safer in most any quantifiable comparison, and it does so with a much more representative fuel economy of 32/40, probably real-world as good as its visionary cousin of 43 years past.

                I love all the modern mid-level sedans (Tesla Model 3 included, believe it or don’t) for their advancements to safe and economical individual mobility. In the developed economies, I don’t think you can buy a “bad” version. Globally the crossover/CUV/SUV is replacing the sedan, for better or worse, at present.

                1. Shaun says:

                  I realize sites like these tend to be populated by greenies, but I wasn’t lamenting the size-creep of the Civic due to potential effects on fuel economy and emissions. Its just one of a number of factors that have caused Honda to move away from enthusiasts over the years, including the switch from double wishbone to Mac struts, change in engine philosophy, etc. Delving into which would be beyond the scope of this discussion.

                  1. realistic says:

                    Understood now, Shaun, and I apologize.

                    Many’s the aging tuner that laments the end of the Prelude and other great sleek and affordable little platforms limited only by one’s imagination.

                    BTW, as a former Leaf and now 1st Gen Volt driver I’ve got no room to be critical, but what about the back end of the new Civic? It’s a neck-and-neck contest with the Prius for questionable styling judgment.

                    1. Shaun says:

                      The back, the front, the whole damn body of the current Civic took a dive off the ugly tree and hit every branch. I especially hate the squared off look on the front that also afflicts the Accord. It’s like a modern interpretation of the Chrysler K Car.

              2. James says:

                In America, all car categories are getting larger each generation, yet parking spots at retail locations seem to get smaller.

              3. realistic says:

                Also, just as an afterthought…

                The inevitable drift to safety features and size is not the only influence on economy of operation. Really, if we could accept the acceleration characteristic of cars from the 70s, we’d use a hell of a lot less energy (yes: electrification helps to cure that as well, I know). As a youngster I remember 0-60 in under 10 sec as a big deal. Now we look at anything over 8 sec as being a dog.

                If you’re a frequent user of ACS publications and have an account, you can get a recent CMU paper that discusses this obvious situation with some interesting analysis.

                http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/acs.est.7b03743

          2. realistic says:

            BTW, it was Soichiro, not Sochiro.

            1. Shaun says:

              You must not be a Honda guy if you don’t know what I’m talking about when I call it that. Also, my apologies for missing a letter in his name when I was typing on my phone as I rocked a baby to sleep

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                Some years ago (or by now, decades ago) there was a rule of thumb: “American automobiles, like species of animals, tend to increase in size to extinction.” πŸ˜‰ Probably that’s not as true now as it was back then, but we still see the same trend at least occasionally.

                My first car was a 1975 Civic CVCC. Yeah, the Civic certainly has grown quite a bit over the years! And I do find it strange that these days, there seems to be so little size difference between the Civic and the Accord. I’d think Honda would want more distinction between the two, to prevent too much sales cannibalization.

                1. unlucky says:

                  The word American doesn’t belong in there. It happens to all cars. A 3 series is lot larger than it used to be. A Civic too.

                  Marketing people are adept at selling “more”, so often they convince product design to provide more. More legroom, etc. That makes cars bigger.

                  And certainly safety requirements have added. Meeting side impact regs requires thicker doors. That means less space or a wider car.

                  1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                    “The word American doesn’t belong in there. It happens to all cars.”

                    No argument at all from me. I deliberately added the word “American” there because I’m not familiar enough with the trend (or lack thereof) in other countries to speak to that. I don’t recall the exact quote I was paraphrasing, but you’re probably right; it probably didn’t specify “American”.

                    Of course, the Civic is a Japanese car, not American, but I’m not sure the version of the Civic sold in Japan is the same. I understand that for some foreign make cars, the car bodies are made slightly longer for the American market, and with bigger ICengines.

    2. realistic says:

      Also comparable to a Chevy Cruze, which wins in overall rear seating comfort in a car that’s 10 inches shorter and three inches narrower. The theoretical direct competitor to the Model 3 (BMW 3 series sedan) has virtualy identical seating measures, splitting the victory between the two by fractions of cm on various metrics, again versus a car that is slightly shorter and narrower than the Muskmobile.

      All that is no big deal becasue people rarely actually take a tape measure to the candidate purchases. But why Tesla merits “applause” or other special recognition for achieving interior volumetric utility normal for the industry is puzzling, particularly in light of the minimalist interior and the putative advantages of EV propulsion packaging.

      Reading IEV’s Tesla reviews is like listening to parents at their kids’ football (soccer) matches. Timmy passes to a teammate and there’s hooting and “good job!” from his loving ma and pa, when in fact he displays merely normal quality of play.

      1. Get Real says:

        And reading your serial anti-Tesla FUD is like listening to the NRA talk about gun control.

        The bottom line is the Tesla Model 3 is what is called an IMPROVEMENT by Tesla in designing interior space into a sedan.

        Not saying its perfect but it does stack up very well against what they were aiming at as the target which is the BMW 3 series.

        I expect as time goes on Tesla will continue these improvements on new models and redesigns.

        1. realistic says:

          Well, notwithstanding your tendency to wrap conspiracy and political obsessions into everything you type, I do agree: Tesla is meeting normal standards in interior space utilization.

          So, good job, Timmy! Let’s go get ice cream! With sprinkles, ’cause we’re all winners!

          1. Kbm3 says:

            Do you hate yourself that you keep commenting on articles about companies you dislike? I should it some kind of weird masochism?

            1. realistic says:

              Are you an amateur psychoanalyst? Between your version of Dr. Phil and Get Real’s political idΓ©e fixe, you two surely do like to keep comments in line with some narrow standards (based, I might add, on weak intellectual perspectives).

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                I think Kbm3 has an entirely legitimate question, and it shouldn’t be aimed just at you, Realistic.

                Why do so many people who are so hostile to Tesla, seek out and comment on Tesla related articles here at InsideEVs?

                I’m very opposed to how industrialized countries are burning up such colossal amounts of irreplaceable fossil fuels, every day, to fuel our transportation and electrical grid, but I don’t seek out forums for coal mining and petroleum production to serially make hater posts there!

                If you Tesla bashers hate the company that much, I’m sure you can find a coal-roller forum where your Tesla bashing posts will be quite welcome. Why do you insist on posting such comments here, unless you’re trying to be deliberately disruptive?

          2. Get Real says:

            “Conspiracy” obsessions?

            That is rich coming from a FUDster troll.

      2. unlucky says:

        There’s no question, Tesla has a packaging problem. I just call it a front problem.

        It’s time for them to look at other, better packaged cars like the Bolt, LEAF, etc. and figure out how to stop wasting space on the frunk which is of marginal utility.

        There’s no inherent value to making a car bigger, so you really only get added value from what you get from the extra size. And the Teslas aren’t delivering much from their extra size.

        BTW, I was passed by a Model 3 today. The hood is so much lower than an S or X when you see it from the front. I thought it would be hard to tell apart from the front but I was quite wrong.

        1. James says:

          I disagree.

          Again here is comparison of two completely different types of cars. Perhaps you feel your comparison is valid because both manufacturers were shooting for an EV selling at $35,000 with similar range?

          One is a near subcompact, tall, boxy FWD hatchback. The other a low, sleek compact-sized RWD entry-level performance luxury sedan.

          Looked at a Bolt yesterday and it is a small car in any American definition. I was disappointed in it’s tiny area behind the back seat with seats up. If you go purely by specs posted online, the Bolt’s cargo area may look OK by sheer cubic feet. Yet those dimensions are in height, not really useable space lest your habit is to stack your suitcases from the airport standing up. Or boxes on top of one another which could result in a safety issue.

          So look at Bolt’s motor and power electronics package. Truly the Bolt’s power plant looks like an ICE under the hood. It’s not a clean space. Lots of big power wires, cooling hoses and machinery in there. Cramped and complex.

          Model 3’s power package and gearbox are under the cargo area. It’s clean, neat and uncluttered I’m not saying these choices are better, but they are completely different to suit a different buyer and different uses.
          Different vehicle types for different priorities. Each successful in what it was designed to do. I find it impressive M3 has a frunk at all…and it is water tight useable space, more than can be said for BMW i3’s front area.

          Rear wheel drive means better performance. Pick any handling parameter, rear drive = more gs, faster, flatter cornering, easier to drive much faster on curves. RWD = overseer vs. FWD = understeer.

          It’s like when i3 fans label their car as high performance yet it laps a track 8 seconds slower than a $17,000 ICE subcompact economy car. And both of those were FWD! Bolt EV feels zippy and is no slug. Like i3, fun to drive. Just not enthusiast fun to drive.

          Bolt EV is a nice subcompact EV, maneuverable and quick, a great EV and serves a nice semi-practical purpose depending upon your needs. So nice, I’m pondering leasing one.

          Model 3 is a nice compact performance luxury EV. It has no packaging “problems”. In fact, it employs a great deal of packaging solutions. It stays sleek with a continuous arc in it’s roof design. Other automakers use a kink or a wagon-like shape to increase practical headroom, or a common three box sedan shape (boring) with lesser aerodynamic efficiecy and smaller trunk. Model 3’s combination is unprecedented in it’s category. Appearance is important in this genre and M3 is slick, more aero than it’s rivals that don’t need electric range.

          Wait for reviews from Motor Trend, Car and Driver and Automobile magazines. They have far more experience than you and I and I’ll bet you money they’ll not complain about a cramped back seat.

          Chevy Volt has a packaging problem. The T-shaped pack makes for an infamous back seat. I know, I own one. Gen 2 has a tangible headroom probkem for male N.American-sized adults.

          At that, for what Model 3 was designed as, I would say Model 3 is a slam dunk.

          Performance, looks and gasoline-free!

          I’ll lease a Bolt EV. It’s level of practicality, ease to park in small spaces, electric drive and range work for my family with 2 kids. The cargo area isn’t big enough but we’ll work with it.

          I’ll buy a Model 3 in 3 years.

          1. unlucky says:

            Wow, you sure mixed in a lot of things that don’t have anything to do with this. You don’t want to see wires? You want better performance (but yet larger size reduces performance)? These things have nothing to do with the packaging.

            The only value of the larger car is if it brings you more utility. More legroom, more trunk, etc. Tesla adds a lot of extra car size that adds none of this. Including the frunk which just adds a frunk space no one asked for.

            You may not like a Bolt but Tesla has to learn a lot from the Bolt, LEAF and plenty of other cars which package a lot better and thus provide more internal space without making the car so big on the outside.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            @James:

            Thank you for taking the time to write that thoughtful, in-depth comparison. Your comments certainly are more informative than the article!

          3. Tummy says:

            James, the i3 is RWD.

        2. Shaun says:

          Want to talk about wasted space? I’ll never forget the first time I popped the hood of a Leaf and my jaw dropped at all the wasted space due to poor packaging. Simply changing how the inverter box was mounted to the tranaxle would have freed up so much space for a frunk.

          1. unlucky says:

            If you saw the “frunk” in the i3 I think you’d be less excited. Putting in a weatherproof, lockable frunk with a release mechanism convenient and robust enough to use every day would be a pain. And for very little value. People don’t want their space divided into two parts, they’ll just take a bigger single space (trunk), please.

            And sure, the LEAF has some problems. It’s an EV built on a platform designed for an ICE. But still, Tesla has some things to learn from it.

            The idea isn’t to replace a Bolt or LEAF but take the good ideas from them. And in this case that specifically means better use of space. Especially longitudinally.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              The i3’s frunk isn’t waterproof. In fact, dirt and leaves can blow into the space.

              Sorry (or not, actually) to interrupt your constant stream of Tesla bashing to point out that Tesla has done at least one thing better than another auto maker.

              https://insideevs.com/bmw-i3-frunk/

            2. Shaun says:

              The i3 doesn’t have a frunk. It basically has a little bin under the hood. If you look at how things are packaged in the front of the i3 you will see it is simply another example of poor packaging. And no, designing such a thing into a car is no more difficult at the design stage than a normal trunk. People will take storage space where they can get it. You act as if Tesla sacrificed trunk space to accommodate the frunk, but that is ridiculous. The front end would be there regardless due to the target market of the Model 3.

              Tesla has nothing to learn from GM or Nissan because those companies didn’t do anything new. They did the same thing that minivan-shaped compacts have done for decades. Create headroom by making it awkwardly tall and create legroom by intruding on the rear cargo area.

              The Model 3 has it’s front end not to accommodate a frunk, but because they were smart enough to understand the target market for a car in this price range. The Bolt and the Leaf sell in the 30k plus price bracket, but they compete against gas cars that sell for under 20k. The Model 3 is positioned to compete against sporty sedans like the BMW 3 Series, which exist in the same price range as the Tesla. This is why Tesla has almost a half million preorders for the Model 3 and Leaf sales continue to be unimpressive, while Chevy dealers will have to continue offering deep discounts to move Bolts until GM finally offers a CUV version. Your brilliant design strategy would drive Tesla into the ground.

      3. James says:

        You name yourself “realistic”, but you are anything but.

        To be sure, lithium is expensive. The luxuries of an EV are a silent drive no ICE auto can match no matter it’s levels of insulation. It’s a great luxury to avoid gas stations by fueling at home. It’s also healthier to avoid breathing gasoline fumes or the real risk of fire that is present each time we put gas on our cars.

        If you were realistic, you’d marvel that owning an EV means not being a slave to the 400+ oily friction parts, the filters, the catalytic converters, mufflers,thermostats,hoses,spark plugs, belts and such that you have become accustomed to.

        Pushback from legacy auto slaves is due to pure economics. Their outdated business plan revolves around replacement parts and service. The Model 3 does not need for me to drive the 10.7 mile round trip every other year in my state for a mandated emissions check. The Model 3’s brake pads just last and last because of the inherent braking and regen abilities of that type of car. Not so for conventional cars.

        The luxury of one pedal driving is just one more joy. It’s fun lest you ever experience it.

        All this comparing is great n’ all…But truly, ICE cars pale in comparison to EVs overall. This is evolution. ICE proponents are now reduced to arguing inches and centimeters of legroom and headroom.

        I’m sure Neanderthals didn’t disappear overnight. So will go ICEd Civics, Corollas, 3 Series, A4s and C Class.

        Guys like you will argue and pick…As your voices slowly dim and we move forward…or evolve. Have fun with that flip phone or your dial up.

        1. realistic says:

          Incredible, James.

          Like yer buds Get Real and KBM, you find a need to create a persona for me.

          After you review my posts here about the Tesla Model 3, could you please let me know where I strongly advocated against electrification? Somehow I can’t find all the places where I said the Model 3 was problematic based on electrochemical energy storage and conversion vs. combustion — rather I pointed out (without refutation) that it was nothing special in space utilization.

          Perhaps you can find these offenses for me? Thanks! (Though I suspect that, like awaiting a rational, civil, and strawman-free response, I’ll be sitting here awhile.)

          While you resort to Cntrl+F to find the referenced outrages, could you tell me:
          — how many 100kW+ motor drives did you help develop in the pre-IGBT days using only SCRs?
          — what has been your experience with sensorless control of PMBDC rotor position? And in your work in this area what actions did you take to achieve high starting torques in the 0+ rpm regime?
          — did you have any success with failed pahse operation of SR motors (of course the advocates keep selling them based on fault tolerance, but what were your results)?
          — what results did you get from impingement flow methods with two-phase refrigerants?

          I’m guessing that you’re such an advocate that you have a couple of decades of experience in power electronics and motors like I do.
          I’ll bet your Corvair EV conversion project was probably more successful than mine (really crappy cell consistency in LiFePO4 cells back then, eh?).
          And, man didn’t we learn a lot from our scooter and e-bike BMS “designs”?

          No matter: surely you’ve been a plug-in driver like I’ve been since 2013, right?

          1. James says:

            Look, didn’t you ask for it, comparing M3 to Civic and Corolla?

            Where’s the plug in those?

            Whatever you plug in, whatever your skills, you choose to criticize M3 over an inch or two of it’s interior.

            Not only that —- You do so at length over multiple posts, each time upping the ante.

            I don’t buy your pious defense.

            1. realistic says:

              Loveday’s key theme in the article is this (I suspect you didn’t read it the first time — may actually do so now):

              “On the outside, the Model S measures in at 196 inches long, 77 inches wides and 57 inches tall. Meanwhile, the Model 3’s exterior dimensions are 185 inches long, 73 inches wide and 57 inches tall. Aside from height, the Model S is significantly larger in all other exterior dimensions, but does it carry its size advantages inside? Not really.”

              Clearly, he’s setting up the point that the Model 3 is actually about the same size internally as the S and that this is a noteworthy accomplishment. I don’t disagree with his factual conclusions.

              My point is that if indeed the Model 3 is revolutionary and possesses all the advantages of compact and efficient energy storage and conversion, it surely is a packaging disappointment compared to dimensional metrics of antiquated old ICE cars commonly available to poorly-educated cretins and malingerers like me who just need to be taken out and euthanized. That these cars don’t have plugs makes Tesla’s crappy volumetric shortcoming all the more egregious.

              FWIW, the Bolt exhibits MUCH more dramatic achievements in interior space utilization in a notably smaller footprint (much of that to electrification) — polarizing aesthetics notwithstanding.

              Finally, I didn’t give you a “pious” response. I simply pointed out that you manufactured a broad and grossly incorrect knowledge base from my posts here. I’m not new to electrification nor opposed to it: that was your instant conclusion based on a lack of Teslaworship.

              My occupational experience is hardly unique or exceptional. There is a good number of like types shuffling around with our walkers. (You’d be shocked that despite our collective factual knowledge of the technology most don’t drive plug-ins — a bigger fraction than most of the octagenarians but hardly a majority.)

              All told, I’m opining that the greater burden of technological ignorance lies between your ears, not mine.

              Ooops — time for Price is Right. Gotta go.

              1. Shaun says:

                I honestly don’t understand why some people act like the Bolt is some massive achievement in packaging design. Its basically does what every other minivan-shaped compact car has done. Increase headroom by making it awkwardly tall and increase legroom by intruding into the rear cargo area. Its nothing new, and its great for those who purely want a practical vehicle and don’t care about how it looks, but not everyone wants that.

              2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                realistic said:

                “…the Bolt exhibits MUCH more dramatic achievements in interior space utilization in a notably smaller footprint…”

                I fail to see why the Bolt EV should be praised for being taller and narrower than comparable vehicles. Sure, that gives it a smaller “footprint”; it also means that side to side, it’s narrow and cramped. The front seats are notoriously too narrow for many people; is that also a “dramatic achievement”?

                Deciding to make a car taller and narrower was a choice, not an “achievement”. Ditto with Tesla decision to make its cars longer and lower. That makes them attractive and “sexy” to many or most people, altho it certainly does come at the sacrifice of head room. Being “sleek” and low-slung is, again, a choice and not an “achievement”.

                Many of your posts, including this one, Realistic, make me seriously wonder if you meant your screen name to be taken ironically.

  3. Empire State says:

    I applaud the cabin design choices in the Model 3. The rear headroom accommodates first- and second-world adults better than does the Model S. The S and X aren’t terribly deficient in this regard, but the 3 is excellent in this regard for its exterior size, and doesn’t suffer for it in appearance.

    1. unlucky says:

      The S is terribly deficient for headroom in the rear considering its size. On the whole it’s tolerable, but a car that large should be more than tolerable for headroom in the back.

      The combination of the low roof and high floor (thick battery pack) is a double whammy.

      I’m really surprised how many oldsters in Florida get the S considering how much you have to fold yourself to get into it. Old people like more upright cars, the S has bucked that trend somehow.

      1. James says:

        Maybe the “oldsters” you deride are just smart citizens that have lived longer than you have.

        EVs are smart. Maybe they want the best.

        I tend to notice many of us resist change as we age. My brother is in his 60s and doesn’t use the web. He’ll call me to check prices or scan forums to get information.

        As for back seat room, Tesla designed a sleek form many see as more beautiful than a pricier ICEd Porsche Panamera which seats 4. Porsche is a much older company than Tesla, and they have prized German engineers. Form and function are usually at odds with each other and I say Tesla finds a very nice balance to suit more needs than a Panamera. I’d say sales reflect that. Model S is now not a new design, yet seats 5, 7 if you include children and optional jumpseats, has 2 trunks including a capacious storage area an adult male can sleep in. All with a design which ages nicely and has inherent low aero .cd rivaling tbe Porsche which has a roofline with a kink!

        When some choose to nitpick Tesla, they seem like they truly have an agenda, an ulterior motive.

        Here’s a news flash – If youngsters to oldsters need more room and love the modernity, quickness, features, freedoms from ICE maintenence realities,avoidance of dangers and inconvenieces of offsite fueling with volatile toxic liquid fuels, breathing fresh air and hate O.P.E.C. but don’t want to fold …. Tesla offers the Model X.

        1. unlucky says:

          Being electric doesn’t make folding your old frame into a car any better. Oldsters want upright cars because bending down and getting up is more hassle for them. Some even have true disabilities that make it inadvisable to fold themselves down into an S driving position even if they could do so.

          Given this I’m surprised the S has done so well.

          You did note I didn’t include the X in my post, right?

  4. vvk says:

    The important measure is the rear hip room — important for a family vehicle. While the rear seat of the MS is terribly uncomfortable compared to other cars in its market segment, there is more than enough room to fit any combination of three people or car seats. M3 seems to be tighter.

  5. pjwood1 says:

    I’m 6′, and my head has never hit in the back of Model S (Sun-Roof and no-SR). Try Mercedes C-class, or Volt, for significant rear seating issues.

  6. georgeS says:

    I own an S.

    I don’t ever want to sit in the back seat. It sucks.

    ….and by the way. The Bolt EV has more headroom AND legroom than the M3!!

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      …but not as much hip room or shoulder room. The Bolt EV is tall, but comparatively narrow, and it has gotten an eyebrow-raising number of complaints about its narrow front seats.

      1. unlucky says:

        Yes. And most of those eyebrows are people who read about it on the internet and then raised their eyebrows.

        For 4 people, it’s a good car. Good room all around. For 5 it’s too narrow in the back. Only good for short trips (20 minutes would start to raise complaints).

      2. realistic says:

        As a member of a fairly significant demographic (aging male with increasingly frog-like body, i.e., broad on top, no butt), I find the Bolt to be OK, actually more so in the back seat. I despise being seated 3 across in the back seat of anything, and would definitely not recommend it for any Bolt passengers.

    2. James says:

      They did improve the back seat after your version, though…So maybe it still sucks but sucks less than before?

      Mainly, I’m glad that possibly the only shortcut Tesla made would be that 6 footers aren’t as comfortable in back as they would be on an S Class. But who wants an S Class? Apparently not many as Model S outsells it pretty convincingly.

      I stand 6’1″. My height is in my legs, my mother says I’m “short waisted”. I sit in back of Model S and have plenty of leg and headroom.

      The downside is sitting next to a guy who is 5’10” and
      looking up to him.

      Hey bud, you have a Model S and I don’t. I’m still jealous. πŸ™‚

      Wanna trade?

    3. HN says:

      @georgeS
      ….and by the way. The Bolt EV has more headroom AND legroom than the M3!!

      Bolt legroom: F 41.6″/R 36.5″/Total 78.1″
      Model 3 legroom: F 42.7″/R 35.2″/Total 77.9″

  7. Brian D says:

    It’s easy to keep the cabin roomy while shrinking the outside. The difference is accomplished by a much smaller cargo area, thus making the 3 a poorer road trip car than the S. The S carries more luggage than most midsize CUVs.

    1. James says:

      Exactly.

  8. Kbm3 says:

    The funniest part of the video was his complete befuddlement that the second row of the three row model X had less legroom than the two row vehicles.

    1. James says:

      While explaining he may not understand how the seat adjusts.

      Seems many Tesla owners and workers at the plant do business with this guy. His detail shop is located in Fremont. Handy.

      Surely Tesla moans when he “reviews” their products, though. Can’t wait until real auto experts review the 3.

  9. unlucky says:

    Is there anyone out there who still believes these videos are a guy “gone rogue” and not Tesla creating some free cross-marketing?

    1. realistic says:

      Remember of course that the guy is seeking to build his bona fides as a Tesla aftermarket shop, so there’s that. But if Tesla is in fact nudging him to keep posting, I congratulate them for “breaking the rules”.

      1. unlucky says:

        That’s what I said cross-marketing. Tesla knows they don’t have to encourage this guy (financially or otherwise). He wants the free advertising. They want the free advertising. So if they approve they both win.

        And that’s clearly what it is. If Tesla wanted this stopped they would have had the car out of his shop before he could make his 5th (or whatever) video.

        1. realistic says:

          No disagreement, unlucky.

          1. Get Real says:

            No surprise that serial anti-Tesla trolls would come up with a…conspiracy theory to explain Tesla success and getting free media when the laggard OEMs they support over innovation often have to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars per car for advertising and cash on the hood to sell.

            1. unlucky says:

              What conspiracy theory? The thinking has been that this guy was getting away with something. Look at the insideev posts and the mentions that “surely this will be pulled down like last time”. I’m didn’t invent this.

              It’s just clear now that this is not the case. Tesla wants this stuff up there and that’s why it stays. Something wrong with saying that?

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                unlucky pretended protested innocence:

                “What conspiracy theory?”

                You mean, which conspiracy theory? You’ve obviously got at least two going on there:

                1. The conspiracy theory where you apparently believe this shop is posting videos with the approval of Tesla, despite the fact that they have to keep taking them down. Just who is demanding they be taken down, if not Tesla?

                2. The conspiracy theory where you apparently believe Tesla will send the Black Vans to spirit away this Model 3 from the guy’s shop so he won’t have time to make another video.

                How could Tesla remove the car from his shop? It no longer belongs to Tesla; they sold it.

                Oh, wait! I forgot about the Tesla bashers’ favorite new conspiracy theory, so that’s #3: Tesla only pretended to sell these TM3 to their employees, and employees of SpaceX. So according to this conspiracy theory, Tesla can indeed remove the car from the shop, since it still belongs to them!

                ROTFLMAO!
                πŸ˜† πŸ˜† πŸ˜†

        2. James says:

          Would you want someone to misrepresent your products?

          Not the sort of free publicity any company seeks.

          Maybe they figured out that Tesla’s legal dept. would look worse if a national story broke out about it punishing them, rather than just letting his unprofessional and flawed reviews be.

  10. IQ130 says:

    I am not surprised, the seats are way too low to sit comfortably. I would prefer a higher Model Y.

    1. James says:

      I think that is a more logical and sensible reply to this information than criticizing Model 3 for being a sports sedan.

  11. James says:

    Everyone is so hungry for M3 info right now, we even make news stories out of hack “reviews” like this one.

    Soon we’ll have legit reviews to argue over.

    L πŸ™‚ L

    1. georgeS says:

      James,
      No Dinner for you LOL

    2. unlucky says:

      Tesla doesn’t allow real reviews.

      What do you expect people to do?

      If Tesla’s worried about hack reviews (as you say above) the fix is simple. Let independent reviewers make a critical review of the car.

      Tesla hasn’t allowed it.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        unlucky continued his FUD campaign:

        “Tesla doesn’t allow real reviews.”

        Hey, there’s conspiracy theory 4!

        Keep ’em coming Unlucky; you’re providing some great entertainment here!
        πŸ˜€ πŸ˜€ πŸ˜€

        Meanwhile, back in the real world, here’s a real Model 3 review:

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

        1. Get Real says:

          Shhh, maybe next he will claim that…Tesla paid MotorTrend to write what they wrote!

  12. VFan says:

    There is no getting around the fact that adults sitting in the backseat will have their knees poking up in the air.

  13. Get Real says:

    Guess what, it has almost the exact same interior dimensions as the BMW 3 series, its design target.

    Yet I don’t see horders of whining about sitting in the back of BMW 3 series seats.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      I don’t see hordes of whiners short-selling BMW stock, either.

      Coincidence? Hmmmm… not likely!

Leave a Reply