Tesla Model 3 Specs: 220-310 Miles Range, 0-60 MPH in 5.1 Seconds – More Details

JUL 29 2017 BY JAY COLE 574

The wait for the Tesla Model 3, the company’s long-promised inexpensive, long range all-electric car has been excruciating…has it really been almost a decade since CEO Elon Musk foretold of his plan for the 3?

The first 30 Tesla Model 3s were given out Friday, July 28th!

With that said, the wait ended Friday night, as Tesla gave over the keys to some 30 Model 3s to anxious owners from its Fremont, California production facility.  (Watch the event here, or at bottom of this story))

And when it was all over, Tesla put out all the pricing and specs we have been waiting for!

The base Tesla Model 3 was confirmed to have a price of $35,000 – which nets 220 miles of range (EPA estimate), a 0-60 time of 5.6 seconds and a top speed of 130 MPH – with deliveries to start in the Fall/November 2017.

Adding the “Long Range” battery option moves first deliveries up to this month (so we assume all the cars given out tonight have this option), adds $9,000 to the price, but bumps range up to 310 miles, lowers the 0-60 MPH time to 5.1 seconds, and bumps the top speed to 140 MPH – a pretty good deal from $44,000 we would say!

There was no word on the AWD versions of the Model 3, but one expects those offerings to add a little more performance on top, as well as slightly higher range abilities.

Model 3 all-wheel drive production is estimated to get underway in late 2017/early 2018.

Tesla Model 3 Delivery Party!

And of course we know everyone wants to see the interior up close!

Tesla Model 3 Interior – Here It Is!

Another look inside the Tesla Model 3

Gallery (below):  More from inside the Tesla Model 3!

Tesla says of the Model 3:

“Model 3 is a smaller, simpler and a more affordable electric car. Designed and built as the world’s first mass-market electric vehicle, it is a critical step in Tesla’s mission to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.

Tesla on stage about to handover the keys to the first 30 Model 3 owners!

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.

Model 3 is designed to achieve the highest safety ratings in every category. Combined with 220* to 310 miles of range and a starting price of $35,000 before incentives, Model 3 is Tesla’s most affordable vehicle yet.

Model 3 is currently in production, and deliveries to employee reservation holders began on July 28, 2017 at the Tesla Factory in Fremont, CA. Reservations for Model 3 first opened on March 31, 2016 and remain available today.”

Tesla Model 3 from $35,000

And as one can see from the Model 3 event Friday, Tesla is forecasting a S-Curve in production for the rest of 2017:

Tesla Model 3 production for 2017

Full Tesla Model 3 spec list:


Price – $35,000

Standard Battery

  • Range: 220 miles (EPA estimated)
  • Supercharging rate: 130 miles of range per 30 minutes
  • Home charging rate: 30 miles of range per hour (240V outlet, 32A)
  • Deliveries begin: Fall 2017


  • 0-60 mph: 5.6 seconds
  • Top speed: 130 mph

Definitely the youngest attendee, our own Bria Loveday who was on stage earlier to announce the winner of the fan-made Tesla commercial competition!


  • 15” touchscreen display
  • Dual zone climate control system
  • FM/Internet streaming radio
  • Textile seating
  • Front center console with open storage and two USB ports


  • Onboard maps and navigation
  • Wi-Fi and LTE internet connectivity
  • Keyless entry and remote climate control using the Tesla app
  • Voice activated controls
  • Bluetooth hands-free calling and media streaming
  • 60/40 split folding rear seat to maximize cargo options
  • Back-up camera
  • Auto dimming rear-view mirror
  • One-touch power windows throughout
  • Power-adjustable side mirrors
  • 12-volt power outlet


  • Full LED exterior lighting
  • Eight cameras, forward radar and twelve ultrasonic sensors enabling active safety technologies including collision avoidance and automatic emergency braking
  • Six front row and two side curtain airbags
  • Three-point safety belts with belt-reminders for driver and four passengers
  • Two LATCH (Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children) attachments in second row
  • Electronic stability and traction control
  • Four-wheel antilock disc brakes with electronic parking brake
  • Child safety locks
  • Anti-theft alarm system
  • Tire pressure monitoring system


  • Vehicle: 4 year, 50,000 mile limited warranty
  • Battery warranty: 8 year, 100,000 mile (120,000 mile with Long Range Battery)

It’s S, E, X on a bridge (don’t blame us, it’s Tesla pun with the naming convention)


Long Range Battery – $9,000

  • Range: 310 miles
  • Supercharging rate: 170 miles of range per 30 minutes
  • Home charging rate: 37 miles of range per hour (240V outlet, 40A)
  • 0-60 mph: 5.1 seconds
  • Top speed: 140 mph
  • Deliveries begin: July 2017


  • Solid Black: Standard
  • Midnight Silver Metallic: $1,000
  • Deep Blue Metallic: $1,000
  • Silver Metallic: $1,000
  • Pearl White Multi-Coat: $1,000
  • Red Multi-Coat: $1,000


  • 18” Aero: Standard
  • 19” Sport: $1,500

First 50 Tesla Model 3s from the event launch on July 28th, 2017

Premium Upgrades Package – $5,000
Upgraded interior with additional features and premium materials.

  • Premium heated seating and cabin materials throughout, including open pore wood décor and two rear USBs
  • 12-way, power adjustable front seats, steering column and side mirrors, with custom driver profiles
  • Premium audio system with more power, tweeters, surround speakers and subwoofer
  • Tinted glass roof with ultraviolet and infrared protection
  • Auto dimming, power folding, heated side mirrors
  • LED fog lamps
  • Center console with covered storage and docking for two smartphones

Enhanced Autopilot – $5,000
Model 3 will match speed to traffic conditions, keep within a lane, automatically change lanes, transition from one freeway to another, exit the freeway and self-park at your destination.

Additional features will roll out over time through software updates.

Full Self-Driving Capability – $3,000 (requires Enhanced Autopilot)
In the future, Model 3 will be capable of conducting trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat.

This feature is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary by jurisdiction.

Tesla Model 3 has arrived!


Dimensions & Weight

  • Length: 184.8”
  • Width: 72.8” (76.1” with mirrors folded)
  • Height: 56.8”
  • Wheelbase: 113.2”
  • Track (wheel center): 62.2” front and rear
  • Ground clearance: 5.5”
  • Head room, standard: 39.6” front row, 37.7” second row
  • Head room, glass roof: 40.3” front row, 37.7” second row
  • Leg room: 42.7” front row, 35.2” second row
  • Shoulder room: 56.3” front row, 54.0” second row
  • Hip room: 53.4” front row, 52.4” second row
  • Seating capacity: 5 adults
  • Luggage capacity: 15 cubic feet
  • Curb weight:
    • 3549 lbs. (Model 3)
    • 3814 lbs. (Model 3 Long Range)
  • Weight distribution:
    • 47% front, 53% rear (Model 3)
    • 48% front, 52% rear (Model 3 Long Range)


  • Hybrid steel/aluminum body
  • Drag coefficient of 0.23


  • Double wishbone, virtual steer axis front suspension with coil over twin-tube shock absorbers and stabilizer bar
  • Independent multi-link rear suspension with twin-tube shock absorbers and stabilizer bar
  • Variable ratio, speed sensitive electronic power steering
  • Electromechanically boosted four wheel anti-lock disc brakes with electronic brake force distribution
  • 18” Aero or 19” Sport wheels with all-season tires

Standard Accessories

  • 240 volt NEMA 14-50 adapter
  • 120 volt NEMA 5-15 adapter
  • J1772 public charging adapter
  • 20 foot mobile connector with storage bag

Video (below):  Livestream of Tesla Model 3 delivery party:

Another Tesla graphic on Model 3 production:

Some Tesla Model 3 production S-Curve action (via Tesla)

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

574 Comments on "Tesla Model 3 Specs: 220-310 Miles Range, 0-60 MPH in 5.1 Seconds – More Details"

newest oldest most voted

310 miles on a 44k car is pretty damn good. This car is gonna sell like crazy.

Assuming you don’t want any of the options like Auto Polite.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

I need Auto Polite quite often here.

Nah, I’ll definitely take my car rude.

OK, that was genuinely funny, LOL!

“Nah, I’ll definitely take my car rude.”

That will cost you an extra $1,000.

Is that the $1000 dollar Red-In-The-Face Multi-Coat paint option?

Yes, and it honks & flashes it’s lights, if something is blocking it and says:
“Hey I’m drivin’ here.”

“Auto Polite”, must be the feature that gently reminds you that you got the best EV, now you can sit back and enjoy!

Or not! Perhaps “auto correct” is responsible for a common error! Maybe you are part of the majority rejecting sedans! Maybe you ignored all available information and thus find it shockingly expensive! You might have found an EV that better fits your needs, called IT “the best!”, and added exclamation points to every sentence you write about it!

..and here we have a wonderful example of trying to be funny and failing miserably.

I’d! S!A!Y! E!x!c!l!a!m!a!t!i!o!n! M!a!r!k!s! C!A!N! B!e! O!v!e!r!k!i!l!l! !!!!

You have such a good car with realy good performance potential all you can think of is auto pilot.This is a car not an I phone.learn to enjoy it properly.

That would be without premium heated seats or power seats? Add $5,000.

Autopilot or self driving tech: $8000.

Less range than the Bolt? $9000 to increase the battery capacity. Ehhh my wife may rethink the model 3 after seeing these prices.

Not that much less range than the Bolt. Access to supercharging, 400kW free every year. OTA upgradeable. Autopilot hardware already installed, capable of being turned on at later date(when possibly less expensive). Quick, sleek and sexy.

True, although around 40,000 is our comfort zone. (We’re young, under 30, she just graduated college and started her career.) For 40,000, the Model 3 may not be for us. She needs heated seats and she always buys leather. Apparantly that is only available in a $5,000 upgrade with a bunch of stuff she won’t care about. She wants ACC or autopilot. It is her only disappointment with the Bolt. So that’s $5,000. Add $1000 on delivery, $1000 for paint, and dwindling incentives…$47k before tax, title, lic. Basically it is a 10k difference… before the $7500 incentives from the feds and the $2500 Texas rebate. If we went with a Model 3 it may be very late 2018 or early 2019 before they got around to us. At best we would be looking at a partial rebate. That means potentially a $15k-$20k price difference after rebates. We make decent money but for us that is a huge difference. The Model 3 looks gorgeous but we also love the look of the new Volt. But maybe option prices will drop or used ones will be available by then. And the fact that the Model 3 has a real 5th seat is… Read more »

Remember that sharing the car via Tesla Network can generate you some revenue. Could sicnificantly reduce the amount of money you have put in the car over time.

DC Tesla Patiently Waiting
Yeah, I agree that the options are not cheap and these prices are before you add sales taxes and delivery etc.. The bigger battery plus the tech package and auto pilot and blue color will run 55k before sales taxes. Heated seating is nice in the North east and I’ve wanted that all glass roof since it was initially introduced. But 55k is far from a 35k price tag based on the initial impressions and introductions of the car. I’m a bit on the fence to be honest even though I made my reservation back first thing in March along with everyone else. It’s still one heck of a long time to wait for a car. Waiting for a product is not such a bad thing but I can tell you I will never do this again. As a side note, not sure if anyone noticed, but at 20k per month goal starting at the end of december that means in 2018 they will still be working on fullfilling the backlog of the 375k orders. There was no mention of the rampup in 2018 other than 40k by the end of 2018. So maybe they will get through just the… Read more »

They talked plenty about the ramp up which allows easy estimates to what sales should be but don’t worry, they just burned through 100k reservations last night. Only black standard and $5000k to get power mirrors and seats if that is all one wants from tech package will cancel many out, not to mention $5k for adaptive cruise.

Their marketing and sales must have forgotten this car is meant for mainstream and is competing against all other sedans, ICE and hybrid included. There aren’t 500k/yr EV only customers.

I think you make a very good point. Compounded with their dwindling Fed tax credit and you have an even bigger issue. Time will tell though.

A bit of advice here, if you’re under 30 and still starting out, it’s not wise to get a $40,000 car. Save up for a home and the future. Take care.

As a homeowner, I beg to differ. All that time wasted in maintenance you will never, ever get back. Besides, the base price is $35,000. Go ahead and get the base Model III, it is the cheapest EV you can buy today that you can always drive home to Mom & Dad’s to mow their lawn, anywhere there’s a road, with recharging speeds! Except in North Dakota. Man, that stings. I swear, Tesla has no love for that state on the Supercharger map.

That is untrue. Want to flush money down the toilet, rent. Talk about money you will never see again.

RENT = Pay the other guy’s Mortgage.,Over & Over in a life time…. l o l..

When I look at my house bills over a year, I put the numbers into two columns. In the first column I add up all the mortgage interest I pay for the year, HOA fees, the taxes and the insurance, and the maintenance work I’ve done, and that’s what I consider my “rent”. I will never see that money back the same way as if I were renting. In the other column, I put the total Principal I paid, and an estimate on what fraction of home improvements may have added to the value of my house, plus how much Zillow says the value of the house has gone up in the last year. That is my equity I’ve gained in my house. This I consider my “savings”, like a savings account. With where I’m at paying off my home, my “rent” numbers wouldn’t get me even a studio apartment. While my “savings” are 2 full orders of magnitude bigger. When looking at the numbers that way, it is a no brainer. It all comes down to how much you can afford to put into “savings” each year, and if your work is stable enough to stay in the same… Read more »

“A bit of advice here, if you’re under 30 and still starting out, it’s not wise to get a $40,000 car. Save up for a home and the future. Take care.”

I agree. Unless you’re under 30 and making a big chunk of change, you’re wiser just to get a used car. Used Volt goes for a lot less.

My advice is to get settled first, save up some emergency funds, get some job experience, then get the toys later.

Cars depreciate so fast that if you get into financial trouble, you won’t get much back for your car should you need to sell it.

“She wants ACC or autopilot. It is her only disappointment with the Bolt.”

Me too otherwise I’d be driving a Bolt now. Crazy they didn’t include it. It also points out that $5,000 to get it in the T3 with Autopilot.

Buy the Bolt ! r o t f l m a o ..The model is a no Brainer against any car out there…Less Money .., More Car ,,dduuuuuuuu

No dynamic cruise is a no sale for me. Drive 25,000 miles year and dynamic cruise is essential and key safety feature.

Bolt lacks power driver seat which is also important for high miles driving.

If Bolt adds it (the hardware is all there so it was senseless not to include it), I might do it but I have the money and want the AWD also so the $60K AWD, 300 mile, T3 has everything I want in an EV so I’ll wait and get one. US made is nice feature also.

Base delivered $36,200
Warranty/Service $7,000
AutoPiliot $5,000
AWD $5,000
70 kWh battery $9,000
Paint $1,000
Seats $5,000

$68,200 delivered.

True. The Bolt is certainly designed as a city runabout, not a cruiser. No adaptive cruise control is, as you say, critical for long distance driving.

Bolt EV may get ACC in 2018 model year. They waited a year on the Gen 2 Volt as well.


Warranty/Service is 7k for a 35k car?

This Tesla equation is not working out so well.

Uhhh, no.

Where are you getting this Warranty/Service for $7,000 price from?

“Where are you getting this Warranty/Service for $7,000 price from?”

Tesla. It is the cost of warranty extension and four years of service on Tesla’s. Tesla has a monopoly on parts and service and any warranty issues that might come up with a Tesla after initial warranty would hugely expensive.

Can’t see anyone buying a Tesla without the extended warranty and service of $7K. It’s in my budget for loaded Model 3 in 2019.

A smart money move, to cap your potential unforeseen Tesla 2019 M3 ownership expenses. Best insurance money can buy.

Seems like a really bad move to me. You really think you’ll need $7K in parts?

If so, then it is crappy EV. One of the whole points of EVs is that they have less maintenance & repairs. If the odds are so bad that you’ll need $7K+ in repairs then it is a TERRIBLE EV.

There isn’t anything *to* service?! Why would you pay $4k (or anything) for it? Buy the extended warranty after 4 years, if you feel the need!

“Warranty/Service $7,000”

No thanks. Junkyards are a thing.

Buy 2 really nice cars instead.

If your wife is that set on getting autopilot, just tell her to drive everywhere with her mother-in-law in the passenger seat.

In real life, the Model 3 will feel like it has more range than the Bolt.

The EPA range is an average between city and highway range. In the city, it will lose out on the Bolt, but on long highway trips, the lower drag will give it an advantage. Wait for the detailed EPA range estimates.

While I also feel that the Tesla Model 3 base will have more highway range than the Bolt you do have to realize that it won’t be by much. It’s not going to feel particularly different. You’re talking about 220 miles (Bolt) versus maybe 230 miles (Model 3 base).

Also note that EPA doesn’t give highway range per se in their figures. But you can calculate it from the total range figures and the combined and highway MPGe.

But in real life the Model 3 will have less range than the Bolt.

Funny how that works.

Interesting that Tesla did to try and beat the Bolt’s 238 mile range. That extra 8% covers the inevitable Lion battery degradation so the Bolt will be a fer shure 220 mile EV in 10 years while the Model 3 will be a 200 mile EV. Range is key in EV sales so it matters.

I think the sc network makes up for the slightly lower mileage. Plus you assume the packs will degrade equally while I would say the Tesla pack will probably degrade more slowly.
Clearly it’s a plus for the Bolt not that big of one.

The SC network isn’t so great in many areas. I’ve checked it here in MI and for the places I drive it’s useless. I’m also in a rural area so range is a necessity for me.

My Volt remains the best solution for my needs. Too bad it drives like a Chevy instead of a BMW.

They announced the number of Superchargers will triple by the end of 2018. So that might very well change.

More Tesla superchargers are good, unless your driving pattern and route selection doesn’t intersect with their locations. This may be a growth problem that Tesla will become painfully aware of, as more EV manufacturers start to provide alternatives to the Tesla Supercharger Network.

“I think the sc network makes up for the slightly lower mileage.”

Only thing the makes up for range is range with EV’s where even the fast charging DC systems like Tesla’s take better part of an hour.

Add on the 10%/10 years basics of battery degradation and the range becomes more of an issue. With my 25,000 I’ll see more large percentage dischargers and fast DC rechargers which speed up battery degradation so the 300 mile range of the T3 is big plus for me.

Uuhm no, at some point your battery will deplete, no matter how big it is. With the negligible difference in range between the Bolt and Model 3, the Supercharger Network is a key difference, making only the Model 3 a possible 100% usable replacement for a gasoline car.

Albeit with a bit of extra time to factor in on long road trips. But most people get bladder anxiety long before the battery depletes, so the ‘better part of an hour’ recharge time usually adds very little to the total travel time.

“Uuhm no, at some point your battery will deplete, no matter how big it is. With the negligible difference in range between the Bolt and Model 3”

That is actually an argument for the greater range Bolt 238 over the lower range Tesla 220. The SuperCharger network not only doesn’t save you from battery degradation, the fast DC charging causes faster degradation as Tesla noted recently in limiting it on cars where owners and using too much fast DC charging.

Lion tech tells us the batteries will degrade over time. We saw some extreme use Tesla’s (Tesloops taxis service) have the battery totally fail at 200,000 miles of constant SC use along with high percentage discharge. Fact of life.

The Bolt degrades 10% to 214 miles, the Model three to 198.

A argument for a Bolt.

It is just only just a 16 mile argument. Consider the actual highway long range mile comparisons (at an approximate 65 MPH average). I think the actual mileage ranges, at the typical average highway cruising speeds, will be in the lower single digits, not the mid teens. Aerodynamics at higher speeds (65 MPH +) give Tesla at least handful of extra miles in overall highway range.

Argument for a Bolt? Huh?

First of all you totally forget that the Model 3 will have the edge in highway range due to its far better aerodynamics.

Secondly, following your line of thought that the Bolt would go a whole 18 miles further before needing a charge, what good does that do, if you only have a weak (50 kW) fast charger (or no fast charger at all) waiting for you?

Compare that to the Tesla superchargers and how they are integrated in the navigation system and you’ll have to concede that it is a much better solution from the point of view of the customer. If you just wants to get from a to b without hassle the Tesla beats the Bolt hands down.

Clearly you’re not being rational here. Range isn’t everything. It’s the whole picture that counts and recharging infrastructure is a vital part of that.

“First of all you totally forget that the Model 3 will have the edge in highway range due to its far better aerodynamics.”

Range is range and the EPA ratings are fair comparison. Bolt has 238 and Tesla has 220.

That is solid 8% plus for the Bolt and in low range vehicles like these, that is bigger difference and advantage for the Bolt.

In real life the Model 3 will have longer range where it matters. It doesn’t typically matter if you have 220 miles city range or 255 miles city range. You’ll never hit either of those figures in a day of city driving.

On the highway though the range is very relevant, and as guys have said above, Model 3 will have an advantage in highway range on the slow EPA test, and a much greater advantage when you’re talking about 65-75 mph steady highway travel.

Combine that with the Supercharger network and the Model 3’s range over a day’s driving is comparable to a gas car, even with the smaller battery while a Bolt will struggle to cover anywhere near that distance.

1) Uh…yes, the long range version has much more range.
2) The base Model 3 is slightly less than the Bolt…but also $2500 cheaper! (and more elegant).
3) Supercharger network is far more important.

I have to agree, those prices are really hefty. Two thirds of that across the range would be OK.

That 220 number is combined. I’m betting that on the highway at cruising speeds where range counts the Model 3 will be very close or the same to the less aerodynamic Bolt. The Model 3 220 range actually has a curb weight that is 15 lbs. lighter than the Bolt as well.

That would be 600$ per extra KWh, that is very expensive. With 21% VAT still upon that, we will be pass 50000€. That is very bad news.

But you get the extra performance too. That is worth a lot of money in carlandia. Tesla is just another manufacturer asking the highest price is thinks it can get. That’s capitalism.

Higher priced cars sell in lower volumes. That’s also capitalism.

Right now, selling is not an issue till all those pre-orders have been met, and then Tesla can start discounting if needed.

Yup, and there’s an optimum somewhere. Tesla will find out where it is and adapt pricing/options to arrive there.

If u add some options it will be far over 50.000 even close to 60k! – which isnt a low price at all!

I’ve been trying to tell people that this isn’t an “affordable” car, but rather “semi-affordable”.

I think now they’ll listen.

When I sold new cars, I would tell buyers the truth , Instead of loading up a lesser priced car((Unless U gotta have it)) with options, go to the next level* for the same price,or sometimes even less,(((the more money car had more wiggle room)))where the “Options are allready included”..ie: Why buy a Loaded up Ford Focus ..when you can buy a Fusion for the same or Less money. Tesla doesn’t wanna lose S buyers to the 3 if they can help it. Hence this pricing structure..

Used S with all the bell and whistle cost less then this car

Yep buying at least a couple years used is the way to REALLY get your options cheap.

I bought a loaded 2012 Volt Premium with the expensive paint for $14,000 last year. It only had 34,000 miles on it and was well kept, so it’s in cherry condition, well, with one exception (see * below).

Car was probably, what, $45,000 new? The first owner ate over $30,000 worth of depreciation in the four years she owned it! Expensive options seem to make a car depreciate extra fast.

* The stupid used car dealer’s detailing service left a fragrance bomb in the car and it was closed up in the sunshine 95 degree central Georgia with that fragrance bomb for a couple weeks … damn car still stinks of it a year later unfortunately.

“The first owner ate over $30,000 worth of depreciation in the four years she owned it!”

Actually, the first owner ate $23,500 worth of depreciation, and passed on $7500 in Federal Tax incentives to you, the second owner. That money didn’t come out of her pocket.

$23,500 in depreciation on a $45K car for 4 years of driving sounds just about right for most $45K cars.

Yup, many people still don’t get that the tax credit which will instantly reduce resale value is NOT depreciation.

Well, we don’t know for sure if the original owner got the full tax credit or not, though it’s pretty likely. This was also purchased when Georgia had a hefty $5000 tax credits as well, so the initial net purchase price was probably even lower. $45,000 – $7,500 fed credit – $5,000 GA credit = $32,500 net purchase price.

Original owner probably took about a $20,000 hit on depreciation over the 4.5 years of ownership. 60% depreciation is pretty typical for a new car over that much time. Still a huge chunk of money to me.

But Model S will lose sales to Model 3. A lot of people don’t want that big car even though they can afford it. Especially true with EV’ers who are going to efficiency types already.

$93K vs. $68K is a big price difference with the smaller car being a plus.

And at that the $68K Model 3 has 300 miles vs. the 259 miles of least expensive comparably equipped Model S (AWD, paint, AP, Package for heated seats etc, warranty and delivery)

what you all say is true.I guess it boils down to different strokes for different folks.

“But Model S will lose sales to Model 3.”

In the short term that is very likely.

But the Model 3 will make Tesla a much more well known and recognized brand, and in the long term it will draw even more buyers into Tesla and into the Model S and X.

Totally new to the brand conquest sales are the most expensive/difficult type of sale to make in the automotive industry. It is much, much easier to get buyers to “buy-up” within a brand. The Model 3 just created half a million new potential “buy-up” sales opportunities the next time they go to buy a new car.

Any short term flattening in Model S sales due to people choosing the Model 3 instead will actually work out to Tesla’s favor in the long term.

Tesla’s bigger problem with the Model S is that it is now in it’s 5th year of production. And even with modest updates, a new nose, and constant powertrain improvements, they will need to come up with something they can call “next generation” in the next 2-3 years.

All true but it points out the argument above that it won’t affect Model S sales was wrong.

Why spend an extra $30K on a bulky S when you can get a slim Model 3?

In all Fairness the S is Much more car in many ways.(U get what U pay for?) I like the 3 for it’s size. If The 3 will take sales away from the S will Remain to be seen , I myself don’t believe it will, Some people just like a Bigger Car..

“In all Fairness the S is Much more car in many ways”

S has less range and 3 is smaller body so advantage 3 in two key points.

S weighs more, again advantage 3

Liftback is about the only advantage of the TS over the T3 and for $30K differential, I live with the trunk.

Or maybe the popularity and media buzz about the Model 3 will cause more people to look at what Tesla has to offer, and more people will buy the MS and MX.

I don’t notice BMW whining about the sales that the 3 Series “steals” from the 5 Series, and most likely it will be the same for Tesla — despite all the many Tesla bashing posts here from FISHEV.

For those of you who work in the Metric System here are the stats: http://www.caradvice.com.au/570811/tesla-model-3-everything-you-need-to-know-about-teslas-50k-ev/

As most people expected, the base car isn’t a bad price and the options are overpriced. So, it will likely be almost impossible to get a base car, especially for the next 1-2 years. Tesla would probably lose money or barely break even on any base cars sold.

This is really an old legacy carmaker’s trick. Low price on the base vehicles attract buyers, but all available cars have some overpriced options installed. It’s a bit sad to see Tesla resorting to this.

For some reason among all the overpriced options the one that really irritates me the most is that you have to get the $5,000 premium package to get a console armrest/lid! Even the cheapest econobox you can buy comes with a console compartment. I mean come on.

I’d love to see some articles on, and some discussion of, what aftermarket suppliers make consoles that fit EVs which lack them.

If it was my money, I’d certainly think it would be worth the time and trouble to find and install (or pay to have installed) a nice aftermarket console that would cost far, far less than $5000.

What will likely sell like crazy is the $52,000 ($59,000 with extended warranty and service) “base” model with 300 mile range, autopilot, paint.

What’s interesting is that the option are priced much the same as TX and TS models. AWD will come in around $5K

Add in the AWD which by customer choice was 80% of TS and TX sales, and the a fully equipped T3 with warranty is $64K.

That’s excellent and a 300 mile, AWD EV is perfect. What’s best is it sets the bar for other mfgs. to provide the same for the same price. Audi e-Quattro will have to have the same range if it hopes to compete. GM’s Buick EV AWD same deal.

For those us buying in 2019 when everything settles out (any T3 bugs and improvements plus AWD will be offered) there should be some nice choices but the Model 3, AWD, 300 miles is the new standard at $60K.

The 60k talk is silly. 220, a Supercharger network, maybe 5k for Autopilot and the pre tax-credit price is 40k.

“The 60k talk is silly.”

I would say the $35K is “silly talk” as delivered it’s $36,200 but mostly because Tesla will likely not be selling any even at $36,200.

Tesla stated early on it would give sales preference to “highly optioned ” vehicles and that is what Tesla needs to sell also so you will see $60K Teslas (300 miles, Autopilot, Premium, Paint, Warranty/service, AWD for $68K before any $36,200 vehicles are shipped.

Buyers want the loaded vehicle and Teslas needs to sell the loaded vehicle, a convergence in the force.

Months lag, and you’ll see base RWD Model 3 sedans being delivered. Tesla were slow with Model X base cars, since they took many months to deliver the 5-seater, that set the base price. I don’t see that happening here. If people are in line for a 220 mile car, plus supercharging, 35k was accurate. Most manufactures charge a destination fee. Nothing unusual for that not to be built into a “base price”.

I’m totally sympathetic to Model 3 owners who, like Model S shoppers, are faced with the new “hostage taking”. Things like coil suspension won’t be released any longer for Model S. The ransom on heated steering is $5k. Plenty of reasons to walk away from a maker who has boldly gone the opposite direction of “custom”. How much electric drive means to people is something Elon Musk hasn’t stopped daring them to give up.

“Months lag, and you’ll see base RWD Model 3 sedans being delivered.”

These are ALL RWD being delivered. There is no AWD option though one is promised by 2010.

As with TS and TX, once the AWD is offered, few purchased the RWD. Tesla even stopped offering it on on the TS and TX models due to low demand.

And people are going to bid up, offering to buy the fully loaded $68K T3 over the $93K similarly equipped TS, so Tesla will ship the high profit model and put the few going for the stripped down RWD on hold.

It will be huge.. Long range should not be an option, it should be standard equipment

Nothing about dual motor?

Won’t be introduced until 2018.

AWD is supposed to show up beginning of 2018 when actual buying customers should start be able to configure and get their Model 3’s with the 2017 cars going to employees and selected Tesla owners for beta testing.

What wasn’t said at the opening was how were the 30 delivered “beta” models set up? With the 300 mile larger battery, glass roof, autopilot etc.? One would guess they are loaded with options so the options can be tested by employee drivers.

Dual motors?

See above! /^\

How can the rear seat headroom be the same with the glass roof as the standard roof?

Its the same glass rear window that extends over the rear seat. In front of that its either metal or glass. So its the same headroom for the rear seat. They showed an image.

Love it. I’ll take a base car in black with the long range battery please.

No autopilot and lvl5 future?

More expensive options than I thought. The naysayers were right. $9k for bigger battery is way more than I expected. $8k for autopilot software? Everything else in $5k premium package.
$22k in options on a $35k car. Wow.

Surprised he didn’t try to sell it at all. No demo. No talking it up. No talk of the configurator etc.

“The naysayers were right.” True.

I agree, the prices for the options are significantly higher than I expected. $100/mile for the larger battery pack? That would be something close to $400/kWh!

I’m actually sort of disappointed the larger battery costs that much more. Obviously there’s a lot of profit margin built into that. Aren’t some estimates that the Chevy Bolt’s battery costs only $10,000 total? If so, another 25 kWh shouldn’t be more than about $4,000.

I can accept the other option prices (although $1000 for a different paint color seems excessive), but I think pricing the battery at such a premium might be a mistake. I mean, on the one hand it’s a good upsell, but on the other a 220 mile range is really still sort of short compared to gas cars. I’d really have liked to see a base LR version being $40,000.

GM Bolt et al have a 60 kWh battery. That means their pack price would have to be $167 per kWh. The Bolt is 30 pounds lighter than the base Model III. The Bolt is 20 inches shorter in length. It is also six inches taller, but the head room is identical. Unless you get the sunroof option for the Model III, then you have even more headroom! You also get 2 inches less hip room per seat, in the Bolt. It looks like that almost correlates to the 3 narrower inches in the Bolt, although Tesla had to do something to get such an amazing crash test video for side impact, publicly SHAMING the Volvo S60, for having a 5-star rating and clearly inferior crash test side impact (See this video @ 27 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZEjJDNkXxw).

Don’t know what to say about the side-impact safety in this GM Bolt video. Did they get four stars?

“The Bolt is 30 pounds lighter than the base Model III.”

I think it’s the other way around.
Bolt (from GM site) 3580 lbs.
Model 3: 3549 lbs.

Dude that video is for a Volt not a Bolt

GOOD catch! GM/ Chevy Volt/Bolt model name confusion, rearing its confoundingly ugly head again for the win.

“Aren’t some estimates that the Chevy Bolt’s battery costs only $10,000 total?”

Well, the cost for the cells alone is $145 x 60 = $8700. If pack assembly costs are 25% of cell costs, that would total $10,875.

If the total is only $10,000, then pack assembly costs are only 15%. That seems a bit low to me, but I don’t know what LG Electronics’ assembly costs are. I suppose it’s possible.

Some random GM Europe guy said cell cost was $130 a few months back. I still believe the official number, especially with raw material prices rising, but it is the latest data point.

Cell costs are partly dependent on volume of the order. I think there was an article on VW ordering a really huge number of cells from LG Chem, and getting a price even lower than the $145/kWh that LG is charging GM.

But that shouldn’t affect the Bolt EV battery price for at least a year or two. GM has a contract with GM for battery supply, and we’ve seen what looked like a PowerPoint slide for the $145/kWh price holding until 2019, which most likely shows the price in the contract between GM and LG Chem.

“GM has a contract with GM”? Is that the same kind of inside arrangement as, Tesla has a contract with Panasonic?

The price of a replacement pack was somewhere…IIRC it was something like $10,000

The base Model 3 has enough range voor 95% of the people. The battery upgrade is not only 90 miles added, but 0.5 faster and faster charging as well

Agreed, the option prices are Much Higher than I expected.

I was shocked that he showed up, said here it is and we have a lot of work to do … then exit stage left. What was that?

It was apparently more ‘Delivery Party’, than ‘Model 3 Detail Reveal!’

So don’t take the options then….you do know the car can run just fine without them, right?

Don’t be stupid! The base version has less options than my $15,000 gas car that is 5 years old.

And your gasser was $50k 5 years ago….what’s your point? I used to own a 20 year old car with more options than the base 3 and costed $2500 …..you’re an idiot!

Yeah, my wife has been set on a Model 3. She went right to bed after we watched the stream.

She may change her mind after seeing the prices for autopilot and premium seats. We were thinking a 40-42k. After delivery, taxes, autopilot and premium seats, the car becomes very expensive. And By the time we got one, the federal tax rebate will be gone or significantly reduced. And it probably will not qualify for the state rebate in Texas.

May wait for used ones to show up in a few years. Or go with a gen 2 volt.

I called it, except for Autopilot is more expensive than I thought.

As I said, by the time we get an AWD Performance with Ludicrous version we’ll be up around $85,000 or more.

Well, I was wrong when I predicted the base (“standard”) battery pack would give the car more range than the Bolt EV’s 238 miles.

Still wanna know what the kWh ratings are for the two battery pack sizes!

I’m guessing 50 and 75 based on the mileage specs. Someone with good insight should look at the weight difference and do some calcs to make an educated guess.

The standard battery is probably closer to 55 kWh. I can’t see a 3500 lb car getting 4.4 mi/kWh (if it only had a 50 battery); 4.0 mi/kWh or lower makes more sense.

It’s probably not 60 kWh (which is what I expected), because it would be closer to the Bolt’s range if it was.

It’s 50 and 75. You can tell that by the electrek article from this morning.
If you take the efficiency per mile noted in the article and multiply by 50 and 75 you get almost exactly the miles stated as range. Note the: 0.237 kwh per mile


I would say 55 and 75kWh for sure.

Yes, I had also come up with 50 and 75, due to the discussion below. Interesting that the Electrek article seems to confirm those figures.

I’m surprised the base pack size is, apparently, only ~50 kWh, but I guess that’s one of the choices Tesla made to keep the base price down to $35k.

I’m surprised that the Model 3 doesn’t seem to be significantly more efficient than the Bolt. The curb weight is about the same, but the Model 3 is definitely more aerodynamic.

So, does that mean that GM’s EV drive system is efficient enough to completely make up the difference in aerodynamics? On the one hand that’s pretty impressive, but it’s also a bit surprising to me. I guess the Model 3 could be tuned for more performance at the expense of efficiency.

See the video of the M3 compared to the Volvo. That’s where the added efficiency went. Into safety.

Nothing is free. Including safety

That safety video just came to you from the company who invented the “so safe it broke the testing equipment” excuse for their own choice of selecting too weak testing equipment on the Model S.

And the same people who when presented with an underperformance by their car decided to claim that only NHTSA knows how to test a car.

Tesla is marketing you a story. Be careful to receive it critically.

Gee, who should I believe? My own eyes watching the videos of both tests, or the flapping lips of somebody on the record talking about 2019 for Model 3 deliveries?

“Tesla is marketing you a story. Be careful to receive it critically.”

I certainly do “receive” the posts of a serial Tesla basher like you quite critically. There’s very little gold scattered in the dross there. Tesla is guilty of a lot of hype, but compared to your constant stream of serial basher B.S., Tesla’s PR is as honest as Abe Lincoln.

The sad thing is that you probably actually believe your own Tesla bashing lies. At least a troll is smart enough to realize that what he’s posting isn’t true.

Yes, I do believe that Tesla told the world that only NHTSA knows how to test a car after IIHS rightfully didn’t give top marks for Tesla’s car.

What do I have wrong here?

Should we believe Tesla just because they say it? Is it true that IIHS and EuroNCAP don’t know how to test cars, only NHTSA?

Attacking me doesn’t change what Tesla did. Is it at all possible you can stick to what is going on instead of resorting to name calling?

You have Nothing Wrong Here!
Crash testing is only as accurate as the exacting testing parameters, that are included in the implementation of said tests. There are many behind the scenes variables that can and are active in documenting outcomes.

Tesla has never done very well with building efficient cars. Lots of vampire drain issues in the past and the drivetrains have prioritized acceleration/speed over efficiency.

In the gas world everyone considers efficiency (gas mileage). But, most people don’t think about miles per kWh in electric cars. I’m not sure if the average is even shown on the window sticker like mpg is.

Everyone should be striving for 5 miles per kWh. Anything under 4 is inexcusable.

The self-defeating attitude you’re espousing is exactly why EVs were stuck with the “punishment car” image for so long, and why there were no production plug-in EVs.

Thank goodness Tesla emphasized performance over energy efficiency, and kicked off the modern EV revolution!

EVs are inherently far more fuel-efficient than gasmobiles. Sure, it’s great that the various EV makers are figuring out how to tweak that already superior efficiency, but they’ve already won that battle and now they’re just polishing the trophy. The 2012 Nissan Leaf had an energy efficiency rating of about 3.12 miles/kWh. That’s already about 3.5 times as good as the average gasmobile, and more recent production EVs have improved on the Leaf’s efficiency. The energy efficiency of the Model 3, at better than 4 miles/kWh despite being a mid-sized car, is simply amazing!

If you really want a vehicle with a super-high energy efficiency, then buy a low-speed NEV, or a scooter. Or better yet, a bicycle. The rest of us would rather drive real cars.

Nope, I’d rather drive a bicycle!


“drive” haha


We don’t all need crazy acceleration in our commuter cars. I’d rather have a more efficient car that gets more range from its battery than a sub-6 second car.

4-5 miles per kWh seems reasonable. I can get six in my Spark, but that’s obviously a different animal.

“I guess the Model 3 could be tuned for more performance at the expense of efficiency.”

I’m pretty sure that’s the case, yes.

Before we got these numbers I expected the Model 3 to have better energy efficiency than the Bolt EV despite having better performance, due to noticeably better aerodynamics. Perhaps I was being overly optimistic, but I’ll hold off on passing any judgement about the comparative energy efficiency until we get some official numbers on the M3 pack sizes. I think they’re about 50 kWh and 75 kWh, but those are just educated guesses.

I wouldn’t try to figure based on weight, because we don’t know what fraction of the weight isn’t the cells themselves. Other parts of the weight would include casing, cooling system, and the BMS.

Pure math based on the listed ranges says that if the larger pack size is 75 kWh, then the smaller one would be 53.2 kWh. Throw in the law of diminishing returns for the larger pack, and that suggests the smaller pack is ~55 kWh… just as many of us including yours truly had predicted. But it could be closer to 60 kWh, depending on just how much the heavier weight of the larger pack reduces the range of that trim level.

Oops, I “reversed the polarity” on the law of diminishing returns! 😳 That suggests the smaller pack size is closer to 50 kWh, as Ben said.

See my other comment. It’s 50 and 75.

If batteries are not 60 KWh and 75 KWh but 50 KWh and 75 KWh it would mean a 360 $/KWh price which is not 600$/KWh but still very expensive. Tesla indicated they were bellow 145 $/KWh, even with a healthy margin that is still far from 360$. Why are they overpricing such an essential component of the car? It should be 200$/KWh maximum.
In more, with 1000$ asked for any color but black, Ford style, other options become totally unaffordable, not even mentioning budget through the roof self drive stuff.
Nice car but very disappointing on pricing especially the battery.

Because they know they can sell them at this asking price, the day, demand flags, they will decrease the price.

“Why are they overpricing such an essential component of the car? It should be 200$/KWh maximum.”

It may not be a popular opinion here, but:
Maybe they are not overpricing the 310 miles version, but underpricing the 220 miles one. In the sense that they really have to get the majority of people to buy a (heavily optioned) extended range version in order to make a profit with the Model 3.

“Why are they overpricing such an essential component of the car?”

For profit of course. Range is the most desirable property of an EV and people are willing to pay for it.

“Tesla indicated they were [below] 145 $/KWh…”

I rather doubt that. I suspect you’re quoting somebody’s speculation or misinterpretation of something a Tesla spokesman said.

But if you’re correct, then I’d love to see the citation.

“…even with a healthy margin that is still far from 360$. Why are they overpricing such an essential component of the car?”

Probably because with demand so high and supply so low, they’ve decided to charge what the market will bear. Perhaps the prices for those options will come down to a more reasonable level as time passes. At least, I hope so. If not, Tesla is probably going to find the M3 is priced out of the market within a couple of years.


Welcome to the real world where ANY manufacturer will charge you the price that will maximise profits.

And as I pointed out before, you ignore the performance difference.

You get more for you 9000 than just the range. Higher supercharging rate and lower battery degradation.

Potentially lower battery degradation by % over time, if you use the same exact charge and discharge %, for the larger battery pack. Other wise, not as much of a win-win scenario, if you drive 20% further and charge much more frequently due to more mileage driven.

Then can’t wait to see the cross country race between the 238 Mile Bolt vs the 310 Mile Model 3.. Think the model 3 will be waiting on the bolt to finish charging that is if you can find a CCS Station that works.

Meaningless metric.

Folks who travel coast to coast are either moving, on a loooooong vacation, RV, etc., not racing. If time is critical (or just about every other realistic reason), they fly.

Yeah. Other than Musk’s tweet there never was really a reason to think it would.

More range costs more money. Even for Tesla. I know people complain about the Bolt price a lot but with the current cost of batteries that’s just how it is.

We can hope for more range or lower prices (or both) later.

And of course the Model 3 has the longer-range option too.

According to motor trend the two options are 60 and 85kWh.

MT is clear to say those are their estimates, not Tesla’s numbers

“According to motor trend the two options are 60 and 85kWh.”

Very unlikely. Elon said 75 kWh was the most they could fit into the M3’s pack. I doubt he was lying about that; what benefit would there be in such a lie?

What are the battery capacities? 220 miles / 50 kWh and 310 miles / 70 kWh would mean 4.2 mi/kWh, but are they?

What is the towing capacity?

That’s why I think 55 and 75. Elon already said that the biggest battery for now will be 75kwh

I agree. A very weird launch as he does not seem enthused by this and talking it down. And everyone can be Tesla crazy but this is not an AFFORDABLE mass market car. With the options there is no way I would pay mid 50Ks for a small car like this. I’m really let down

Eh then explain why thousands of BMW 3 series are sold? The entry level versions are the same price as this Tesla Model 3, not counting EV incentives.

The base Tesla Model 3 is already better equipped than said BMW.

If you can’t afford $50K, then don’t bother with useless addons like glass roof or amp-ed up audio. With only 200mi range, you don’t need Enhanced Autopilot.

BMW is not a mass market car. This car was supposed to be for the middle class – the everyday non Ev buyer. Do not compare to a BMW. This was supposed to compete with Toyota camry, Chevy Cruz’s, etc.

I’ve never heard the Camry comparison. They’ve always talked about the BMW 3 series as the benchmark. That’s the car that is in the 35k range. There are magnitudes fewer of those sold per year than a Camry for that same reason. Tesla is not going to be a pure mass market car for the foreseeable future.

There was a thing that came out a while back that said the majority of the people that would be buying a 3 were Camry/Accord owners. I personally have never heard Tesla compare the 3 to the BWW 3 series. Elon said as nice as an Audi, but that’s about it.
Also… If you subtract fuel differences and maintenance costs, you get to the price of an Accord. Tesla has/had a habit of pushing that lower price to prospective buyers.

I think they did say ‘size of a three series’ a long long time ago.

“I personally have never heard Tesla compare the 3 to the BWW 3 series.”

Quoting from Wikipedia’s “Tesla Model 3” article:

“In 2013, design chief Franz von Holzhausen stated that the Model 3 will ‘be an Audi A4, BMW 3-series, Mercedes-Benz C-Class type of vehicle that will offer everything: range, affordability, and performance’…”


Nop not really. It was supposed to compete with BMW 3 series and Audi A4 and the Model 3 exactly does that in terms of price and performance and so on. I mean a Camry come on. The base Model 3 price of 35K is known for over a year now. A Camry starts at 23K. Of course they don’t compete against each other.

Well, with the EV rebates the Model 3 is basically in competition with the Camry in CA. Although, you can probably buy a Camry for less than MSRP.

I’m actually not sure why people are that disappointed by the price being offered. GM selling the Bolt at $37K tells us about how much the production cost for a ~200 mile EV is. The fact the Model 3 ended up in the same ballpark is not surprising.

Once the rebates are gone, however, then the price of the car is going to be more difficult to justify for the mass market. Will economies of scale allow the price to drop as the rebate tails off? That’s the big question, in my opinion.

It was only supposed to ‘compete’ with the 3 series in the eyes of those that ‘want it’ to compete with the 3 series. Read my comment above.

…and then read my response to your comment, including the direct quote from Tesla’s design chief.

The Model 3 exterior dimensions are almost identical to Audi A4 base

But The Model3 has 0-60 time of 5.6 vs 7.1
Wheelbase M3 3 inches longer
Weight of M3 and a4 almost indentical if you put 12 gallons of gas in the Audi.

The M3 would be a bargain at the base price with rebates, but I doubt anyone not a tesla insider will get such a great car for $28,000 net compared to the A4 MSRP of $36,000.

The curb weight of the base Model 3 at 3549 lbs is a great surprise. The options prices not good news for the consumer though. The Model3 might take half the A4 sales though.

“The curb weight of the base Model 3 at 3549 lbs is a great surprise”


> Weight of M3 and a4 almost indentical if you put 12 gallons of gas in the Audi.

Very impressive for the M3!!!

“The curb weight of the base Model 3 at 3549 lbs is a great surprise.” Well, let’s compare: Model S 75D curb weight: 4647 lbs Model 3 Long Range curb weight: 3814 lbs Model 3 is said to be 20% smaller than the Model S. If we reduce the curb weight of the S 75D by 20% (one dimensional reduction; length only), we get 3718 lbs; by 36% (two dimensional reduction; length and width), we get 2974 lbs. The Model S is a wide-bodied car, and we could expect the M3 to be somewhat narrower, but probably not 20% narrower. So, split the difference between those two figures, which gives us a guesstimate of 3346 lbs. Add in the fact that the Model 3 uses some steel in the body vs. the Model S’s all aluminum body. How much would that add? Heck I dunno; but if we guess 15%, that would yield a guess of 3848… which is pretty close to the real figure of 3814 lbs. (Full disclosure: This wasn’t completely a guess on my part. I tried 20% for the increase due to steel in the body, but that was obviously too heavy, so I tried a… Read more »

It’s all relative, and you are ascribing terms like “mass market” and “affordable” outside the pre established context of the vehicle, manufacturer, and automotive segment in question.

Agreed. This is supposed to be the EV Accord. And it is. As close as it can be on price. And similar on time levels, performance, etc.

Musk wants you to think of it as a 3 series competitor. It never was. It’s not a luxury car. It’s a good, useful car that a lot of people will find very attractive.

The Accord it a Boat!

I think best represents a Civic of today’s time.

It will be as popular today, as a Civic was yesterday.

Accord Sedan: 192.5″L x 72.8″W x 57.7″H. 109.3″ wheelbase.

Model 3: 184.8″L x 72.8″W x 56.8″H. 113.2″ wheelbase.

I guess you’re right. The Accord is quite a bit longer.

This is supposed to be the EV Accord. And it is.

Twice wrong. The Model 3 was never aimed at the “affordable” market segment despite what all too many people said.

Cars aimed to compete with the Audi A4, BMW 3-series, Mercedes-Benz C-Class, are not “affordable” cars.

As to whether the M3 will actually compete with those cars, and eat into their market, we’ll have to wait and see. But in the mean time, we have good reason to disbelieve everything Unlucky posts on the subject, as amply demonstrated by all his reality-rejecting posts in this very discussion thread!

Camry? Please cite ANY instance where Tesla or Elon Musk has suggested that the Model 3 was meant to compete with a Camry.

I value my life enough to not hold my breath waiting for proof of something that never happened.

Please site any instance where Elon said the 3 was supposed to compete with the BMW 3 series. I see so many peeps saying it… it makes me thing that I am wrong. But I can’t find any such instance.

I mean seriously… Why would Tesla say that they were going after 3 series buyers when BMW doesn’t sell a half million of those in a year, globally. They are 100% going after Camry/Accord buyers.

You mean like this tweet:

“Model 3 is like a BMW 3 series or Audi A4…”


Not really. Though good find. That was simply saying that the model 3 is going to pale in comparison to the model s. And the only reason BMW was use in the scenario is because he was replying to a comment that used BMW.

Nix got you lol stop with the rationalization.

We’re probably not gonna find any time that a Tesla spokesman specifically said the Model 3 is intended to “compete” with the BMW 3-Series. But we’ve now got two quotes from two different Tesla spokesman directly comparing the M3 to the BMW 3-Series.

How much evidence do you need that Tesla intends the M3 to compete in that class?

Here’s that other quote again:

“In 2013, design chief Franz von Holzhausen stated that the Model 3 will ‘be an Audi A4, BMW 3-series, Mercedes-Benz C-Class type of vehicle that will offer everything: range, affordability, and performance’…”


Not really. Tesla has always been a premium brand and was and is set to compete with the BMW 3-series

“Do not compare to a BMW. This was supposed to compete with Toyota camry, Chevy Cruz’s, etc.”

You’ve been paying far too much attention to people who were letting their hopes and dreams trample reality.

Elon quite clearly said the Model 3 was aimed to compete with the BMW 3 Series. This was never intended to be an “affordable” car, despite so many people saying that.

The Model 3 is aimed at the “semi-affordable” market segment. Some few of us were saying that, but many or most chose to ignore us. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Ummm… because people shopping for an “affordable” car don’t even bother looking at a BMW, unless it’s a used car?

People looking for an “affordable” car are looking at a Chevy, or a Ford, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Kia, or maybe a Hyundai.

The average car in the Netherlands drives around 225.000 km before it gets scratched. In that life time a Model 3 owner will save approx. €20.000,- on gas savings. Not taking in account the possibility of rising fuel prices.

The problem is that back ended savings like that don’t help those who can’t afford the car in the first place. And even for those who can afford it, saying in the future you can save money is something that is a pretty hard sell for many people.

Yup. The TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) argument is nice and logical, but very few people choose which car to buy cars based primarily on logic. That might persuade an accountant, but few other people.

225000km is not E20000 saving. Could be around 8000-12000Euro in real. BUT the price of repairment of Tesla is pretty high. Until they lower TCO there is still one question…do I have take or wait for another car?

225.000/14 = 16.000 liters.
16.000 * € 1,65 = € 26.500,-

225.000/6 kWh= 37.500
37.500 * € 0,19 = € 7.125,-

Saves almost €20.000,-. When comparing the Model 3 with a 3-series or golf gti the difference will be bigger.
People only have to think more about the future and calculate with the years you use the car and not only the purchase price. There are planty ways to finance the price differnce these days.

I ran those numbers too and my savings were about 10k€/200kkm, so about half of what you calcualted. The main difference is that I assumed slightly better fuel economy for the gas car (the number you used is about what my 18-year-old car is getting, a new car would probably get around 5l/100km). In addition, gas is a bit cheaper here (between 1,2 and 1,3€/l), but so is electricity so that had a bit less impact on my results.

The problem with that calculation is that spending more on the car upfront also increases your insurance costs (because it’s a more expensive car), so a lot of your gas savings are going to go towards paying for more expensive insurance.

Same is true for motor power. Since more powerful electric motors don’t increase energy costs as badly as more powerful gas engines do, it seems like a no-brainer for manufacturers to make electric cars more powerful. However, where I live the engine/motor power is the main factor that determines the cost of mandatory liability insurance – for the 200hp Bolt, that would cost about twice as much as what it costs for my current 100hp gas car.

Does the base model BMW 3 series have a center console? Power seats? Does it come in more than one color? Does it come with ugly wheels?

It comes in 2 colors. No power seats. Does have a center console.

Much slower at 7.1 sec

Colors are $700

Base Model 3 kicks base BMW 3 Series’s ass. Much quicker and quieter and vastly more efficient.

I can’t believe anyone is surprised. While compact in size, it has always been clear that the 3 would be positioned as a competitor to the BMW 3 series and Audi A4, and NOT a Honda Civic or Chevrolet Cruze. The pricing is absolutely in line with the intended ICE competition, just as the S was before it. The affordability factor is relative to previously available Tesla models and other EVs.

Okay, thanks.

BMW is out of my personal price range, so I’ve never looked at their prices, and didn’t realize options would be so expensive, despite the fact that I’ve been pointing out the Model 3 is a “semi-affordable” car rather than an “affordable” one.

Assuming we actually see the base model available, I think it is basically a mass market car. The premium options are all unnecessary fluff–some people might like them, but they’re clearly not needed. Autopilot you can skip.

The only thing I find disappointing is the $1000 cost of a different paint job. That seems a bit tacky to me. At least offer a few basic colors besides black (is this like a weird Model T reference?).

And the cost for the higher capacity battery is also disappointing. In fact, it almost makes me suspect the base model is pretty much a loss leader to hit the price point, but in reality they don’t want to sell many of them. That’s ironic though because the base model is also the only one that really qualifies as being in the “mass market” price range.

Base model deliveries are scheduled to start in November

There are only 3 months between now and november. Which is substantually sooner than never.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Jesus Christ man, Then don’t get the muthaF—k-n options.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Yeah, that was a reply to @Stimpacker…..lol

9000 for 90miles…no that is too much:(.

That’s one way to look at it but it also gets you more performance and faster supercharger. The difference is a between reasonable road trip car and a great city car. I have a Model S 85 and the small battery 3 will be significantly more limiting for road trips. A 500 mile drive will be 0:45-1:15 hrs of supercharging for larger battery and 1:40-2:30 hrs of supercharging for small, assuming both start from full. An under 300 mile drive is no Supercharger vs 20-30 min. All given as time away from highway. I don’t know about everyone sensibilities or their spouses sensibilities but the small battery will only be acceptable to EV enthusiasts for long distance travel (>200 miles).

Up top they say “130 miles, in 30 minutes” charge timre. As fast as Model S.

Like I said. I own a Tesla. I know what it means to drive one on trips via the Supercharger. You don’t usually drive within 20 miles of empty and the charge rate times quoted by Tesla are ideal for the first 1/2 of battery capacity. It slows from there. Non-EV enthusiasts will not be happy driving the smaller battery size on trips long enough to require Supercharging very often unless they are OK spending a lot of extra time en route. The real value iin the larger battery is not just an extra 90 miles of range. It makes it a viable roadtrip car for most people. If you don’t plan to roadtrip with, the extra X pacify is a total waste of money unless you really value performance.

But you can use the 90 extra miles multiple times. 😉

It is interesting that there was an article about a 48 ampere charger for the “3”, yet the specs here state 32 amperes. It will be also interesting to see if the actual charger capacity is 7680 watts, 7200 watts (which would be identical to the BOLT ev), or some other figure.

Perhaps the 48 amp charger is only available as an option if you also purchase the larger of the 2 battery packs – that would be one explanation of the discrepancy in the information. 220 mile epa rating is almost as high as the BOlt ev’s is.

One would think that since both the ‘3’ and GM products pamper their batteries with conditioning, and have decent ranges, that this would make NISSAN hotter under the collar re: release of its new 40 kwh Leaf product. Too little, too late?

32A is for the small battery.

The large battery has higher specs and charges faster from the home charger:

Home charging rate: 37 miles of range per hour (240V outlet, 40A)

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Yeah but the article stated 48A…

Maybe their source was wrong?

40 amps is a good number. That’s exactly how powerful my EVSE is! 😀

Is the $35k the MSRP, or with the Fed incentive factored in?

AFAIK it is all before rebate money. Expectations are Tesla will run out of subsidy slots anyway as they are capped at 300k cars?

Tesla isn’t capped at 300K cars.

Scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the Phaseout section.

Full tax credit ($7,500) – switches from a count (200K total USA sales) limit to a time based limit once each automaker’s USA sales reaches 200K. The time period will be the remainder of the quarter when 200K USA sales is reached and then 1 full quarter after that. It is unlimited sales during the time limit.
50% credit ($3,750) – will run for 6 months unlimited sales after full credit expires
25% credit ($1,875) – will run for 6 months unlimited sales after 50% credit expires

You are correct, the phase out makes the numbers a bit hard to predict but someone in the past used some tricks to calculate based on expected volumes of production at what number of cars the incentives run out. Since I will likely wait for the dual motor small battery option, the timing may be really pushing it. At least based on the timelines Elon announced.

They gave us a rock concert.

There is something missing in all this. Cars are getting delivered but almost no interior shots in the presentation and the media slides? Really a bummer needing 50k to have a nicely optioned car… Somehow was hoping for a surprise and getting a 40k car with upgraded interior sooner than late next year… Cant wait to see the car in person in different colors and interior materials

The glass roof is the standard roof.

If the glass roof was ‘standard’, why do the specs differentiate the two?

What “Murrysville EV” said. The steel roof is standard.

Specs read:

“Head room, standard:”


“Head room, glass roof:”

Great news that this wheelbase can do 310 miles. 220 and 310 miles mean something like a 55KWh and 80KWh battery size.

37 miles of charge per hour, at 240v 40a suggests = 3.85 miles range efficiency per KWh, which is a big improvement for Tesla. Numbers work to 310/3.85=80KWh, if we’re backing into the big battery’s size.

The options look priced the same as Model S, which is a tough pill to the 35k shopper. Auto-pilot at $5,000? ~$55k Model 3’s. Come’n get it.

L2 is not 100% efficient. If you consider 85% efficient,

37 / (240*40*0.85) * 1000 = 4.53 mi/kWh
30 / (240*32*0.85) * 1000 = 4.60 mi/kWh

Then the usable battery would be

310 / 4.53 = 68,4 kWh
220 / 4.60 = 47.8 kWh

Since the battery won’t be discharged to 0%, and assuming 92.5% utilization (like SparkEV) full battery capacity could be

68.4 / 0.925 = 74 kWh
47.8 / 0.925 = 52 kWh

Guessing game…

Regardless of our both arriving at what sounds like will be claimed a large efficiency bump, the 90 mile spread between the two batteries has to make for a bigger gap in battery size than almost anyone expected. “60/75” are out of the question, just looking at the “220/310” proportion.

This whole options re-work seemed ham-fisted, to me, but I give Elon credit for showing real costs in his options. There’s super-labor in his AP software development, and he’s charing $$$ for that too.

“…the 90 mile spread between the two batteries has to make for a bigger gap in battery size than almost anyone expected.”

That’s true. I was expecting something between 60/75 kWh and 55/75 kWh, but it looks to be closer to 50/75 kWh.

I did the battery size calc differently but came up with results close to yours:

237 watt-hr/mi x 220 mi = 52.14 Kw-hr battery
237 watt-hr/mi x 310 mi = 73.47 Kw-hr battery

In my Opinion,$100 per mile or $9000 for 90 extra miles is wayyyyy toooo crazy much money.Battery prices were to come down Elon said.It looks to me that battery prices are Going UP! Now This Is Insane!

aiu online student login

Is the $35k the MSRP, or with the Fed incentive factored in?


Very little hype for such a hyped event. If the Gigafactory is revolutionizing batteries/cost, does $9,000 for 90 miles of additional range seems like a lot, or is it just me?

My too:(. Overpriced 90miles.

Probably they make next to no profit off the $35K base. The $44K model is what they formerly called the popular “$42K” option.

$9K for that bit of range and $5K for a FW update? Those will be the big money maker.

Some people will buy it just for the 5.6 dropping to 5.1 0-60MPH. It also gets faster L2 charging. Higher top speed too.

Actually, Elon said he figured the ‘Average’ sale price to be $42,000! However, that means – Average Price over a few 1000 cars, where there are varying numbers of units buying paint and wheel upgrades, some buying Enhanced Autopilot, some getting big battery (or maybe he didn’t include the big battery aspect), etc.

It does not mean, and I never took it to mean, that the average buyer would exactly get a car for $42,000!

However, without double checking the math, it still seems like a fully loaded Model 3, even with a Dual Motor (at about $4,000 more), could be had for half the price, of a fully loaded Model S!

You figure $35K for the base model. +$5000 because you want a center console and standard features you see on a $20K car like power seats. Don’t want those ugly aero wheels, +$1500. Want another color besides black, +$1000.

Right there you are at $42,500.

If you wanted more battery, or any level of auto pilot, dual motors… Tons more money.

The $44K model is what they formerly called the popular “$42K” option.

I’m pretty sure no Tesla spokesman ever referred to “a $42k option”, popular or otherwise.

Elon said they estimated the average sale price at $42k, but that’s not at all the same as saying “a $42k option”.

Honda wanted $10,000 more for its plug-in Accord, with the same 2.0ltr hybrid motor when folks wanted that extra ~7Kwh. Tesla is offering about 25KWh, for that extra $9k. Around $300/KWh is still a good price, retail.

I had an accident with my Kia Soul EV in Europe. The exchange of the 30,5 kW battery costed 16000 euros. So 9000 dollars for 25 kW, plus more speed and more rapid charging, is not overprized.

Definitely not just you.

With a higher planned volume, the unit price on these options should be lower than on the Model S, and I predicted they would be.

Shocked to see I was wrong about that, and frankly I don’t understand why Tesla would price them that high.

BTW — By comparison, the pricing on the Bolt EV now looks better than it did. And the Leaf 2.0 is gonna eat Tesla’s lunch when it comes to price comparisons with the M3.

Leaf 2.0 will obviously be cheaper but will not come close to ‘eating Tesla’s lunch’. Totally different class of car. Utilitarian economy hatchback vs. sport-luxury sedan.

How does Bolt pricing look better compared to a $35,000 base Model 3. Don’t you think 90% people will prefer the Tesla?

GM is going to have to drop the $37,000 base price of the Bolt significantly below the 3 to compete.

We’ll see. My reaction posted above was shock in not knowing what BMW charges for similar options. I knew the Model 3 was aimed to compete with the BMW 3 series, but despite the fact that I kept pointing out that the M3 is “semi-affordable” rather than “affordable”, I didn’t actually understand what that meant.

We’ll see what happens in the market. Perhaps the M3 will sell those expensive options better than I thought it would based on my initial reaction, but I see a lot of people posting similar reactions here.

Some have already posted here that they will be cancelling their M3 reservation. I’ll be very interested to see any reports or rumors of what the cancellation rate is. Can Tesla really sell 400,000 M3’s per year, or will that turn out to be too optimistic a figure?

Hopefully as M3 production ramps up, Tesla will shave some off the price of those options. In fact, Elon hinted they would trim prices as the level of automation is improved, so perhaps the M3 will wind up more competitively priced in 2-3 years.

Huh? The base Model 3 seems to have equivalent highway range with the Bolt. Plus it has standard DCFC on the best DCFC network plus some included electricity, plus active safety features like AEB. It is bigger than the Bolt in critical interior dimensions like hip and shoulder room. It has built in navigation and maps, standard rear view camera, and is in a different class in terms of performance. Plus the warranty is one year, 14,000 miles longer. The roughly equivalent Bolt is $40k, or $5k more and you get less. Read the Motor Trend first drive… the Model 3 is a driver’s car and the Bolt… not so much.

The Bolt has standard rear view camera. And the NAV system comes from your phone. If you have a smartphone, you have NAV.

The Bolt is larger in several critical interior dimensions than the Model 3.

The base model is not in a different performance class as the Bolt. No, the $40K Bolt is not roughly equivalent to the base Model 3. Although you could argue you should add the Bolt safety package to be comparable to the Model 3.

The Motor Trend test is of the significantly more expensive 310 mile model. Heck, the model AS TESTED is $59,500. And they don’t even say if that includes the $1200 delivery fee!

Model 3 has 1.7″ wider front shoulder room, 1.2″ wider rear shoulder room, 1.8″ wider front hip room, 1.6″ wider rear hip room. Head room is comparable, with rear head room higher in the Bolt by a mere 0.2″ and the front is higher by 0.1″, which is not noticeable. Leg room is also comparable.

Shaving 1 second off the 0-60 time is a different class of performance, and read the Motor Trend first drive article on the driving dynamics.

Yes. The Bolt has more rear headroom. More rear legroom. The Bolt is larger in some critical dimensions.

And likewise the Model 3 is larger in important interior dimensions. When you are thinking of carrying 5 adults that extra shoulder and hip room makes a big difference. And it also makes a big difference for large people who might feel somewhat cramped by the Bolt’s narrow build and seats.

I expect that Model 3 will have significantly better handling to go with its significantly better 0-60 time, putting it in a different performance category. The Bolt is somewhat of a ‘hot hatch’, but it’s handling is not great. The Model 3 is firmly in the ‘sport sedan’ category, dusting off competitors like low end BMW 3-series.

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

“What’s blanching, though, is the car’s ride and handling. If anybody was expecting a typical boring electric sedan here, nope. The ride is Alfa Giulia (maybe even Quadrifoglio)–firm, and quickly, I’m carving Stunt Road like a Sochi Olympics giant slalomer, micrometering my swipes at the apexes. I glance at Franz—this OK? “Go for it,” he nods. The Model 3 is so unexpected scalpel-like, I’m sputtering for adjectives. The steering ratio is quick, the effort is light (for me), but there’s enough light tremble against your fingers to hear the cornering negotiations between Stunt Road and these 235/40R19 tires (Continental ProContact RX m+s’s). And to mention body roll is to have already said too much about it.”

I have never heard anyone gush about the Bolt’s handling. It’s supposed to be good, but not sports-car level by any means.

Incredibly high words of praise from the MotorTrend’s Testing Director there!!!

Handling is amazing, and enjoyable. Certainly a major criteria if competing against the BMW 3 Series, and Audi A4.

The Motor Trend 1st drive video is definitely very encouraging and worth the watch for the detailed view of the interior and trunk plus frunk alone. Very exciting.
I suspect BMW is puckering pretty bad about the fate of their 3 series cash cow right about now.

Finally an Affordable mass Market EV “Drivers Car”. BMW, the i3 EV is going to need something special, and quick!
2018-19 BMW i3 better get some 200 + mile range, or this may be “all she wrote” for the BMW i3 pricing structure.

“And the NAV system comes from your phone. If you have a smartphone, you have NAV.”

If you don’t have phone service, you don’t have NAV. Which is probably exactly when you want it the most….

Is there some reason you think that the NAV in the Model 3 isn’t cellular based? Did Tesla say it wasn’t?

Let’s face it here. In a car where you are spending your time finding chargers (and checking availability) you are going to be pretty dependent on cellular anyway. I can’t see why either car would bother with onboard NAV storage (other than your current set route). It’s a luxury the price doesn’t merit.

Let’s face that gas cars spend time looking for gas stations, where electrics go home.

Storage is cheap. Having to rely only on GPS satellite signals and onboard maps gives you much more flexibility than having to rely on a cell signal. It should be worth it to include that on any $35,000 car, IMO.

Tech01x said:

“The base Model 3 seems to have equivalent highway range with the Bolt.”


Bolt EV range: 238 miles

Model 3 standard range: 220 miles

That’s not what I call “equivalent”. It’s what I call one being 92.4% of the other.

He’s going under the assumption that the Model 3, like the Model S will have better highway efficiency than city. Thus it will have a longer highway range than its combined range. While the Bolt is the opposite and has a shorter highway range than its combined range.

If the difference between city and highway efficiency on the Model 3 is sufficient the Model 3 will indeed have a longer “EPA highway range” (there isn’t quite such a rating but you can calculate it from EPA data) than the Bolt.

It is a notable possibility (which I’ve noted before) but it’ll be hard for the Model 3 to be even 10 miles longer than the Bolt on this. Still, it’ll probably tie or even win slightly and that’s something Model 3 owners who take longer trips won’t mind having in their pocket.

Thanks, Unlucky!

Yeah, there’s a lot more discussion of highway range vs. city range elsewhere, I think in this very discussion thread.

Apparently, from what they’re saying, the Bolt EV is optimized for city driving, and the Model 3 for highway driving. And that fits, since the Bolt EV is obviously oriented more towards (and optimized for) being a “city car”, with no support from Tesla’s superior Supercharger network; whereas the Model 3 is more oriented towards (and optimized for) highway driving, taking advantage of the Supercharger network.

Huh, you’re confounding average range (city + highway combined) with highway-only range.

Model 3 has far better aerodynamics. (Much) worse city range, slightly better highway range is what I predict for the EPA ratings.

At ninety bucks a mile, they are priced the same. lol

For early reserved people, get long range 310-mile M3 has much higher chance of $7500 federal tax credit.
If you wait for 220 miles M3, you probably get $3750 tax credit.

If I factor the tax credits difference, the difference between the two is $5250

Yeah, it seems like if you hold off for the base model you could actually end up shooting yourself in the foot. That being said, $44K for a car, or $34K after rebate is a bit pricey for a lot of people. How many pre-orders end up getting knocked out by the price?

I feel like I’m facing the same problem as with the Bolt. While I can “afford” the Model 3, I don’t know whether I can justify it. After all, a low range EV can handle my around town driving, and I can always rent when I need to go further. And for that matter, the Volt can also handle both and it’s much cheaper after rebate.

I hope that there are plenty of people who will buy the car, but I might hold off for a few years until I can get a 300 mile EV for closer to $25,000.

Tesla’s Delivery FAQ says 220 mile versions start getting delivered in Nov.

Not just you. All the options are very high in price. Makes my $750 DCFC on the Bolt look like chump change lol.

Still looks like a nice car… and we will not be making a decision for at least another year. But I am bumming pretty hard right now.

As much as my wife wants the car… knowing her, she will scoff at paying $5000 to essentially get faux leather seats. Then the thing that differentiates the car from Chevy offerings is autopilot and that is another 5k.

That is a lot of money when a premier Volt is in the mid-$30,000 range and qualifies for the state rebate… we maybe could get a used Model 3, but then again, we could buy a used, completely optioned up Volt with ACC for 28k or less.


Car companies always gouge you on options. Given that, this is a normal price.

The Bolt definitely didn’t gouge on options.

The Bolt doesn’t gouge you on options AS MUCH.

They pulled DC fast charging off the car between the initial announcement and the time price sheets went out. That’s a $750 gouge.

And if you look at the headline features like the camera rear view mirror you see that you must get things like the tech pack (Bose stereo, wireless phone charger, etc.) before you can even select that feature.

Yeah, the Bolt does gouge you on options some. Not nearly as much as this car though.

There’s a big difference between “options are offered on the car” and “gouging.”

JL “If the Gigafactory is revolutionizing batteries/cost, does $9,000 for 90 miles of additional range seems like a lot, or is it just me?”

It costs about $28K to go from a 259 mile 75D to a 335 mile 100D. That’s less than 90 miles for 3 times the money.

So no, not really.

It’s a huge disappointment that the range is not 314.15926 miles. They could’ve squeezed out a bit more for more memorable number. 220 isn’t bad (two two’s naught)

They’ll release a software improvement on March 14 to boost the range.

😀 (for both of you)

And a pie in the face for SparkEV!

There are only 10 types of people – those that will get the joke and those that will not 🙂

Took me a while to get your joke .. does that mean I am in a super position in between the two? 😉

Think again, this way:

“There are 10 types of people who understand Binary! Those Who Do, and those Who Don’t!”

He got it.

And then once he got it, he took the joke quantum.


True. That puts a different spin on things.

No. What we have is coherence problem.

“…does that mean I am in a super position in between the two? ? ”

Not possible. Haven’t you heard?

“God does not play dice.” — Albert Einstein


..with the universe.”
If God is everywhere & is therefore universal or the universe. Then you could paraphrase Einstein by saying:
God does not play with himself.

Can one “unlock” auto pilot and self driving later? Is it extra compared to purchasing upfront?

$1k more each after delivery, just like the S & X.

I wondered the same thing. Also, will the base pack be OTA upgradable to the long-range pack for a charge later? This could help a lot of people who want long-range but can’t quite afford it now. Get the base now to maximize the tax credit, then save some money and upgrade to the long-range pack a year or two from now.

No way. These will be two physically different packs. The ~75 kwh pack is way too expensive to sell a de-rated version for $35,000 and hope to make money back with future upgrades.

Yes. This is confirmed by the higher curb weight for the Long Range option; it has a heavier battery pack.

Maybee time to cancel my preorder and wait on Das Auto…Wolkswagen next 2 years:(.

Please do one less person in line LOL

Please, help thin the heard. The upcoming Tesla Model Y preorder, will surely pile on a lot more of us future Tesla drivers, so thanks for your kind gesture!

1. I would just like to say that all the idiots out there that thought the M3 could never option up that far, I counted up the options and it gets you to $59,500 and we aren’t even to AWD yes.
2. I guess $35,000 entry was vaporware which is hilarious. They are going to do their ever loving best to ensure as few as possible people buy that thing. It will ALWAYS get de-prioritized on the wait. Which is exactly what they should do…they aren’t a charity. But I’m just pointing out the folks that were in denial.
3. I didn’t say it wasn’t worth that much. Quite the contrary. It is absolutely worth that.

I see you’re trying hard to maintain your troll status, acting like a sore winner by sneering at others and scoring “points” you have not actually earned.

Nobody was claiming that Tesla would be putting the base trim level $35,000 cars into production this early. Some were hoping so, but nobody was claiming they would.

Thanks Pushy, for stating the obvious. Any body paying attention, could see the early upmarket, profit making, Tesla sales tactic. Volume production drops prices, Tesla will get there (500K), in a few years. Then keep your eyes peeled for the $35K, higher optioned Tesla Model 3s, ready for purchase/lease and almost, if not immediate, delivery to a potentially new Tesla driver.

How exactly is the $35k price vaporware? People can and will order the base model.

If you can’t buy it at that price right now how is it anything but vapor?

Musk says it’ll only be fall before we see base models. That’s better than I expected. But if you can’t buy it there’s no point in comparing it to something you actually can buy. It might as well be listed at $35 if you can’t buy it anyway.

Since first non-employee deliveries are late October, the availability of the standard packs in November is basically the same timing. Therefore, it’s not vapor since first deliveries have started and they are proceeding through the production ramp.

Basically, all non-employee customers will be able to order the standard pack by the time they are able obtain any Model 3.

What? Are you kidding me?

Tesla won’t make any real deliveries until late October?

Wow, even my statement that Tesla wouldn’t make any real deliveries in August is going to turn out to be correct. I started to wonder about that one right after I made it.

Isn’t the real story that the Model 3 isn’t even available until October? Even the long-range model is vapor right now.

Thats funny unlucky, because I don’t remember you calling the Bolt “vaporware” back in July 2016. Even though it wasn;t delivered until Dec.

If you did, please post a link to it, and certainly you would be consistent at least, (although still utterly wrong in your definition of vaporware)

If you can’t, just stop the nonsense now and simply say you were wrong, and that a couple month delay certainly NEVER would fit the definition of vaporware.

Stop the endless disinformation campaign. 220 mile cars are scheduled for Nov.

I don’t have a link to me saying it. I don’t think I said it either. But it doesn’t matter. The situation never arose. If someone had said that the Bolt is real today a that time I would have said it isn’t.

I have consistently said that no vehicle is real until you can buy it and thus any theoretical pricing is moot. I’ve said it about all vehicles.

Comparing something you can buy to something you can’t is not a useful exercise. Comparing a car you can buy to vapor is pointless. Companies (including Tesla, GM, VW, etc.) constantly want to wow us with prices of low quoted prices for cars you can’t even buy. They do it because prices on EV components are dropping over time and saying “our car will have 200 miles at $40K” is a very spectacular thing when you say it in 2015 as GM did. No existing car can compare to yours so it looks amazing. But by the time your car comes out it may be that someone else already made a car with more range for about the same money as you. As we see happened to Tesla.

unlucky continued his Tesla bashing:

“If you can’t buy it at that price right now how is it anything but vapor?”

Perhaps you need to look up the definition of “vaporware”. You seem to be confused.

Perhaps but with a return range of 110 miles, I would not even be able to go to sea and there is no way to charge there since even finding a parking place can be challenging. Tesla is price gouging the 90 miles battery upgrade and that is not favoring ev adoption by the many.

They aren’t price gouging the long range, they are charging what they think the market will tolerate. Who else even offers something like this? If Tesla is wrong and many people cancel their reservations b/c of the $9k for longer range, Tesla will adjust that pricing. I think there is a fair chance they adjust that in a year or two, but you don’t shoot low right out of the gate. Tesla is a for profit company, not a charity.

That’s already the third time you complain about the battery upgrade pricing.

Stop whining and take it like a man. Tesla can charge the hell what they want, we live in a frigging capitalist economy.

What about accelerating transition to ev cars.
What about preventing climate change.
What about preventing pollution and dependence on fossil fuels.
Sorry but was that all just talk?
Asking 9000$ for a battery add worth less than 4000$ just doesn’t fit.
So yes, disappointment on the price but above all on the fact that money now appears as the essential drive not accelerating transition to ev cars anymore.

While I do think there is a bit of disappointment in some of this, the real question is “What else is more compelling at the same price points?”

A base Bolt vs. a base 3 ends up the same way it did yesterday. You get style, more performance and superchargers, and a $2k+ savings in the Model 3 vs. more utility, upright seating, and 18 miles of additional range in the Bolt.

The loaded Bolt to loaded Model 3 is a bit more challenging as the latter can be $15k+ more, but the deltas are much more stark with the AP, 70+ miles of additional range in the 3. A better comparison would be the base battery 3 loaded with every option but the FSD…at that point you have about a $3k delta with AP being the primary difference.

The wild card: Tesla’s $7500 credit running out sooner.

Gonna be an interesting next several months…

It isn’t even $2K price difference when the Bolt is $36,620.

Tesla does come with a 240V EVSE though. That’s a savings of $600 versus the Bolt where you have to buy it separately.

That price doesn’t even get you DC fast charging of up to 80 kW with the Bolt. That is an additional $750 dollars.

Yes. DC charging is another $750. But honestly, I fully expect GM to drop that, at least on the Premier. And long before the average person gets their Model 3.

And in fairness, we don’t know that the Bolt will even get to 80kW on DC charging. It’ll probably not break 200mph DC charging while this does 260mph. It’ll be interesting to see the charge curve on the Tesla. I suspect it’ll roll off early like the Bolt does. It’s just the nature of higher density packs.

Wouldn’t we already know the behavior of the battery based off of the Model S and X? They already had 60 and 75 kWh packs.

New battery cell, new battery pack architecture. There’s nothing shared between the Model 3 and S packs.

No. It’s a higher energy density pack. That means more space used for electrolyte and less for electrodes. Less electrode area means lower power density.

That means lower charge rates and lower discharge rates for similar physical pack sizes.

And by all accounts this pack size is smaller too.

Don’t get me wrong, the figures given are fine. People should be happy with them. As long as they didn’t spend months convincing themselves otherwise by thinking Model S rates were the necessary baselines.

unlucky said:

“No. It’s a higher energy density pack. That means more space used for electrolyte and less for electrodes. Less electrode area means lower power density.

That means lower charge rates and lower discharge rates for similar physical pack sizes.”

Once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Energy content, and amount of electrolyte, is based on volume, so yes that’s directly related to size.

But power, and power density, is a function of the surface area of the electrodes, and that’s a two-dimensional question. Surface area can be increased by folding or using a non-flat surface, without significantly increasing volume.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

It does?

Where does it say that?
Maybe it’s just getting too late for my old az$.

The difference is you can actually get a base Bolt. Who knows when you can actually get a base model 3. Size wise the Bolt is just as large in the interior, but not as wide as the model 3. And the Bolt wins in storage. So it all comes down to what you need and when you need it. I don’t think the < 1 second is going to matter in the 0-60 and have a top speed of 130/140 is little more than a measuring stick.

Deliveries of the $35K version start in Nov.

I think if you are looking at a sedan-like Plug-In from Chevy, compare the Volt and the Model 3.

A fully decked out Volt with ACC and lane keep is far more affordable. Sure one is a PHEV, but unless you have a crazy long commute or are a BEV-Purist, the Volt makes more sense.

I’d say the Model 3 has the better looks on the outside, but from what I have seen, the Volt interior is nicer and the dash is more practical. But you lose the 5th seat and get a padded hump for children or carseats.

Tough decision for us to make next year…

The real dissapointment here is the charge rate. 170mi/30min for the big batt option equated to 80Kw. To be honest, that’s very dissapointing.

It’s completely unsurprising. I got tired of explaining it.

But as pack power density goes up usually energy density goes down. So in the same space you can expect a slower charging pack. And that’s what they delivered.

There never really was a reason to expect this would charge as fast (in mph) as a Model S does. But yet some people did.

For me it was the tweet on charging. Elon acted like SCv3 was going to be in it. 170 miles in fifteen minutes is what I hoped for.

unlucky — 170 miles in 30 minutes is EXACTLY the same as the Model S. It is right on Tesla’s website, if you can manage to run buttons and a slider on a website:


Stop the endless disinformation.

Miles is not the same as kW or C-rate if you are talking about batteries specifically. It is function of kWh/mile, Model 3 is better in this aspect than S.

It would be more interesting to see charge power over time graphs compared.

I was referring to the base model. It is only 130 miles half hour. Sorry I didn’t pick up that he was talking about the big battery. It’s not like he didn’t write “170” right there in the post.

I’m actually surprised the big battery only does 80kW. That’s another disappointment. How did everyone spend their time indicating 120kW (or 150kW) was necessary when Tesla’s $80K Model S starts at 80kW?

Tesla is already reportedly putting 85kwh in its $75k base cars. I think the 2016 75kwh is limited to 90kw charging rate. That is on same personal experience as our 85 reaching 118kw (best). I don’t know where “80kw” comes from.

“What else is more compelling at the same price points?”

Unfortunately at 44000, VAT excluded, it could be an ICE for many. Especially where you don’t have the 7500+2500 bonus anyway.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Wasn’t there an announcement a few days back about a 48A charge rate on 240VAC?????

I don’t see that in the specs. Not even as an upgrade.

It was just a rumor.

Don’t fret too much. With the higher efficiency this has versus a Model S/X it will still charge quite quickly (in mph). Same as the Bolt in that way.

A 50 Amp Breaker, can supply 80% continuous, hence 40 Amps; and a 40 Amp Breaker can supply 32 Amps Continuous; but yes, we got some ‘Rumor’ of a 48 Amp charger!

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

…..and a 60A circuit with a 14-60r will deliver 48A continuous load, which I have currently.

That would require a different adapter than the stock one that Tesla supplies.

I’m now actually thinking that it is entirely possible that the long range version may have the 48, but the stock 50A plug adapter is what is causing them to limit the specs to 40A.

With a 60A, the full 48 might be available

A full 48, would be still pretty good considering the alternatives.

Beyond my Bolt comparison, the more compelling options to a loaded Model 3 might be things like the upcoming BMW 3 series electric. It will undoubtedly be similarly priced when loaded, and probably nicer in many ways and then it will come down to…supercharging.

I’ll wager that there will be some excuse to delay production and sale of the standard battery pack well into next year once Fall comes.

As a business, why sell a nil profit car when there is a long waitlist and a limited window (tax credit) which compels people to buy now.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

They did say they were going to have some “cookie cutter” versions prebuilt.
Maybe they will be the base models? Who knows right?

Cookie cutter doesn’t imply or equate to no frills. Some people read into Elon’s statement “to simplify manufacturing” as meaning no options, which is not necessarily so. Cookie cutter could just as well be the long range plus premium option.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

I meant the cookie cutters will be prebuilt preoptioned models stamped out in build runs of maybe a couple thousand or so….


They could also be the base models.

They said only color and wheels to start. Being that we have seen power seats on production vehicles, that means you must get premium package. +$5000. Larger battery pack to start. +$9000. Color other than black, +$1000. Avoiding ugly aero wheels, $1500.

So the first ones you can get are going to run about $52,000.

On my Tesla reservation page, it states first “production model” is a $49,000 car which is estimated to arrive Dec-Feb for me. Looks like that is the cookie cutter car. I didn’t really need the extra range but if choosing that ensures that I further up in line so be it.

That smooth upwardly-rising production curve will develop a kink once the Federal subsidy expires.

That subsidy enables the sale of lower-priced EVs far more than expensive ones, and so suddenly the base Model 3’s effective price will jump 27% at that point in time.

Several times, it has been shown that the removal of subsidies affects EV sales – the higher the subsidy, the worse the effect when it is removed. The subsidy was the deciding factor when I bought my former 12 Leaf, and it will play a significant role for many Model 3 buyers.

My point is that the Model 3’s appeal as a mainstream car will suffer if a decently-equipped version costs $45-50k in 2019. Consequently, there won’t be a need for Fremont to produce 10k Model 3s a week, because people won’t be buying that many.

If Leaf was a gasser at $35K (when you bought it), no one would buy it, and only the subsidy made it attractive. Leaf is $18K car.

Not so for Tesla 3. What car (I mean any car, gasser or EV) has 0-60 in 5.1 sec, Cd of 0.23, and look as good as Tesla 3? If Tesla 3 is a gasser, it’d still sell well at $45K with options.

It’s not an amazing looker.

And the performance is similar to a V6 Camry. But the Camry has a better interior.

I cannot imagine why you think it would be a hot seller as an ICE car at this price. A Chevy SS (which also had a better interior) was about the price you list ($46K) and had much better performance and was pretty good looking too.

It didn’t sell at all.

Tesla does not equal Chevy
It has more brand cache than BMW

I’ll be happy to take my $50k model when it comes in early 2018. Faster than my 70D – probably more nimble.

I love the Bolt, Leaf, 3 comparisons. You do know that cars don’t have to be practical boxes to get you from here to there right?

People compare the Accord to the BMW 3 series all the time. And many chose to buy the BMW 3. Sure the Accord is more practical in every way and it is cheaper. Personally – I would rather drive a 3 series.

Did anyone read the Motortrend quick review. And I paraphrase – Have I ever driven a more startling small sedan? I have not.

The S is phenomenol to drive. A smaller S will be shocking to drive.

30-40 something top 25%ers is the market. They can afford $50k.

Yeah. You’d rather drive a 3 series. I see.

But my point is this car isn’t comparable to a 3 series. Just because Musk said it would be doesn’t make it so. It is a basic car, not a luxury car.

If you’re hung up on brand cachet then go ahead and pay for it. No one is standing in your way.

Motor Trend this morning said the Alpha Romeo handled like a “wet sponge”, after the Model 3.

A 3 series’ handling doesn’t compare, with the much lower weighted M3 (the cleaner one). Right now, I can only imagine how a 1,000 pound lighter Model S feels.

Please tell me what makes a base Model 3 less of an entry level sport-luxury sedan than a base BMW 3-series?

You are being ridiculous.

Comparing a similarly priced mid-size highly optioned sedan like a V-6 Camry to the Model 3 to try to make the point that the Model 3 isn’t ‘luxury’ is off base because A) the Camry is a significantly bigger car, and B) the V-6 Camry is a sport-luxury upgrade over the base Camry.

The Model 3 will dust off the comparable 3 series, offering better acceleration and handling (sport) while being quieter and having more advanced user-interface (luxury).

> You are being ridiculous.

I agree. He is being ridiculous.

“It has more brand cache than BMW.”

My inner Grammar Nazi can no longer be restrained! 😉

It’s cachet, not “cache”.

Sorry to nitpick, but I swear, I think I’ve seen the correct word used only once on InsideEVs in all the time I’ve been visiting, and the wrong one many times.

Chevy SS availability, especially with a manual, was spotty. The typical person looking for 4 door sedan in the U.S. has no idea what Holden is, and/or isn’t looking for 6.2 L V8 that they’ll pay the gas guzzler tax on. Those that do are much more likely to want a manual.

It is not meant to be high volume. Mentioning it in the likes of a Camry or even the Model 3 makes no sense.

“…the performance is similar to a V6 Camry.”

The Motor Trend reviewer who took the Model 3 for a test drive has a very, very different opinion. His review is a love letter in which he clearly was looking for more superlatives to describe the handling and responsiveness of the car.

I could not imagine that the Model 3 would be getting the sort of love letters from professional auto reviewers that the Model S did back in its day.

As a Tesla fan, I’m very, very happy to see I was wrong about that!

Go Tesla!


Of course the Model 3 is a better car than a Leaf or a gasser, but that’s not how it works.

People shopping for a $35k car don’t simply buy a $45-50k car because it’s better. They end up shopping for something else at $35k.

Murrysville EV.

“That smooth upwardly-rising production curve will develop a kink once the Federal subsidy expires.”

So long as demand remains above supply, there’s no reason for Tesla to stop growing its production. Obviously Tesla will reach the limit of demand eventually, but likely not as soon as you seem to think. The drop in demand you’re talking about may be moving from “demand vastly exceeding supply” to merely “demand greatly exceeding supply”.

Well, I’ve decided on the long range model with premium, red multicoat. I’m not sold on the larger wheels, I may Tirerack the base rims and use those for winter wheels. AP/SD not wanted or needed.

Now what will be the destination fee?

So far a nice even $50k for me.

310 miles is more than I expected. I expected 270 for the long-range model. “fall 2017” would be impressive and is earlier than I expected for base model deliveries. I won’t believe it until I see it. There’s simply not a lot of reason for Tesla to diverge from their past policies of holding back base models for quite some time. Early 2018 for AWD would also be quite impressive. It’ll be interesting if AWD adds or subtracts range. With the car being less optimized for performance (0-60) there isn’t as much reason to think they can pull the “front motor optimized for cruising” trick meaningfully here. Same AC charging rate as Bolt. A Supercharging rate far more similar to the Bolt rate than the Model S rate (but still more than Bolt, bolt is 90 miles in first 30 minutes). 0-60 similar to Bolt (but again a little better). Interior very basic, not a premium/luxury car at all. Trunk significantly SMALLER than the Bolt. Crazy in a car that size! Sure seems like those who thought they were going to get a Model 3 for cheap were way, way off. Those who said there wasn’t a lot of reason… Read more »

Sorry, I meant to say those who thought they’d get a Model S for cheap were way off.

I think those who though they were going to get a Model 3 for cheap were a little off. If you want a stripper model you save just a tiny bit versus a Bolt. Otherwise you’re going to pay a lot more.

Chevy, time to make DCFC no extra charge on the Bolt. At least on the Premium. Come on.

“A Supercharging rate far more similar to the Bolt rate than the Model S rate (but still more than Bolt, bolt is 90 miles in first 30 minutes).

1) Source on the Bolt charging 90 miles in 30 minutes (actual charging rates with taper please)

2) The big battery charges in the RXACT SAME 170/30 that Tesla documents on their website for the Model S. The smaller battery is still roughly 50% FASTER than the Bolt numbers you provided (if you can support them)

So no, not at all what you said.

The 90 miles in 30 minutes on the Bolt comes from the video from Capitol Chevrolet. But it’s not like you couldn’t have googled it yourself.

And it’s could actually be a little bit low if what we hear about greater than 125A capability (but not much) is true.

Yes, this includes taper. 90 miles is only a 38% charge. The Bolt doesn’t taper before 38% full.

Why did you think that taper would come into play for a charge which is so small compared to the total size of the pack?

Yes. 130 is higher than 90. But it’s more similar to Bolt speeds than Model S speeds. And as I said none of these figures are bad. It’s just that people got themselves too worked up by using 120kW as a rate when it’s not even correct for all Model Ses.

The whole KW thing confuses, yet matters. 118kw rolls downward after just 10-15 minutes, so perhaps all makers should state a 30 minute average maximum available charge rate. Then, since Tesla wants us to think range, and no longer in terms of KWH capacity, efficiency becomes this critical aspect of advertising “miles of range” load over “30 minutes”.

Comparing to Bolt packs these two together.

You’re stretching some numbers to make Bolt not suck so bad.

“Same AC charging rate as Bolt” is for the base. Unlike Bolt, higher battery option has 20% higher power charging.

“0-60 similar to Bolt” is way off. Even the base at 5.6 seconds (vs 6.3 for Bolt) is 11% quicker. With bigger battery, the gap jumps to 19%. That is HUGE.

“Model 3 for cheap were way, way off”, how so? Base model costs $2.5K less than Bolt. Actually, Bolt may be cheaper for a while due to not using up the fed tax credit.

“Except for autopilot, this is a very basic car” but Bolt doesn’t even have autopilot. Does it even have adaptive cruise control? Surround view is a gimmick compared to autopilot.

I’m not stretching. I compared the car to the car it is comparable to. There is no longer range Bolt. And besides, at 40A and the lower efficiency exhibited by the bigger pack model it won’t charge much faster in mph. And it’ll charge slower if you use a 32A/30A constrained charger as most work/apartment complex chargers are. The base model is 32A. Same as the Bolt. This is a very fair comparison. You’re being bizarre trying to pick at me over this. At least pick something which is subjective to complain about! The base Model 3 is 5.6 0-60 and the Bolt is 6.2. This is comparable but yes a little faster for the 3. As to the “Model 3 for cheap were way, way off”, that was a typo. I corrected it in my response. I meant a Model S for cheap. But no this isn’t $2.5K cheaper. A Bolt is $36,620. This is $35K. How is that a $2.5K difference? No. The Bolt doesn’t have the option of autopilot. Which is why I said it doesn’t have the option of autopilot. Do you have a point to make here? If you think surround view is a gimmick… Read more »

unlucky said:

“I’m not stretching.”

Well, we could use less polite terms, but “stretching the truth” will do.

And “not suck so bad”? Could you have chosen worse words?

The 0-60 figures of the Bolt do not suck. The AC charge rate of the Bolt does not suck. The MSRP of the Bolt does not suck (it’s nearly identical to this).

You’re using very loaded words that don’t fit. Why?

Let me put it this way. Other than sedan vs hatch, in what ways is Bolt better than Tesla 3? You might say 18 miles more rated range, but that also comes at extra cost for Bolt. Even that’s not clear how it’ll translate at highway speeds.

In all other ways, Tesla 3 is superior. In addition, they have options that Bolt cannot even get (much longer range, autopilot, etc. etc). “Suck” is the proper word comparing Bolt to Tesla 3.

Suck is not the proper word. The cars are so similar on stats that if the Bolt sucks then the Model 3 does also.

Love how you try to diminish the value of range. Apparently worse doesn’t matter if it’s something the Model 3 does worse. In that case it’s fine, except at highway speeds where the Model 3 probably does better so then suddenly range matters again.

The prices are near identical, unless you want black. In that case the Model 3 is 5% cheaper for 9% less range (note that you do get free DCFC capability on the Model 3 though).

This is how a moron speaks. Range only matters at highway speeds. And it is totally obvious why! No sane person is the least bit interested in the capability of doing 19 hours of continous city driving without a charging break. So YES, higher range on the combined cycle or in city driving is purely an on-paper advantage with no real value, regardless which vehicle has the edge in this department. Higher range on the highway is actually a real advantage, although it’s not so straightforward to say what it is worth. Given the slick aero of the Model 3 I think the two will be very similar in terms of “relevant range”. But to say that highway range only matters because that’s where the Tesla has the edge is utterly ridiculous. It reminds me of the worst-case range in the WTP range tables for the Bolt, which are at extremely low speed and temperature. Some people were absolutely SHOCKED to see that it was possible to get as little as 50 miles from a Bolt! But apparently they aren’t thinking people. If you sit in a parked Bolt for several days with the heat on full blast and it’s… Read more »

No, range in the city isn’t useless. Ask anyone who lives in an apartment and can’t charge every night. Ask people who have to fight for an available work or public charging spot. And there are even people who drive frequently in city situations (see cab drivers, deliverymen, anyone with a commute through congested traffic). City range is not merely an “on paper advantage”.

I do feel that highway range is more valuable and I’ve said so on here before specifically in relation to the Model 3. But it’s not true that city range doesn’t matter.

Could you please refrain from name calling? It’s not necessary. We don’t need to add to the agitation on here by trying to pick a fight. There’s enough to argue about already.

unlucky said:

“City range is not merely an ‘on paper advantage’.”

This habit you have of continuing to argue even when everyone can see you’ve lost the argument, and lost it badly… not working for you, dude.

“Could you please refrain from name calling?”

Ordinarily I’d agree, but in your case, Terawatt’s condescension was appropriate. If you don’t like being treated as though you’re suffering from invincible ignorance, then stop displaying invincible ignorance.

Oh, and tell us again, Unlucky, how the “EV” in “PHEV” doesn’t mean the same thing as the “EV” in “BEV”. 🙄

What sucks is your objectivity.

Tesla fanbois are ripping on the 3 on Electrek and the Tesla owners forum. Lol

Why don’t you compare the cars objectively. Make 2 columns, one has Bolt advantage over Tesla 3, other has Tesla 3 advantage over Bolt. I can assure you, the list on second column will be many times that of the first column. If you weigh the items (though weights are subjective), that differential gets much larger for me.

The problem is, a lot of the advantages that the Model 3 has over the Bolt are expensive options that are irrelevant to someone looking to buy a 35k$-ish car. If you can afford to spend 60k$, then you can simply say that the two cars are incomparable, and that’s fine. However, if you’re going to compare them, it only makes sense to do so at the 35k level, where I think the Bolt can be quite competitive, with its only serious disadvantage being the lack of a supercharger network.

Do you get a center console in a bolt? Power seats? More than one paint color? Ugly wheels?

I’d say the Bolt interior is arguably better. It might be “cheap”, “plasticky” or whatever, but it’s more functional.

Otherwise the two cars are pretty close. In percentage terms the difference in 0-60 times seems big, but in absolute terms it’s only half a second. So, except for drag racing they are both pretty comparable in that regard.

Outside of autopilot I’m really not seeing what’s so much better about the Model 3? You can argue the Model 3 is a little better in some ways (although lacking the utility of a hatch), but it doesn’t seem like a night and day difference that would explain one as being amazing and the other as sucking.

They both seem to be pretty comparable to me.

Some people really want a sedan.

But let’s be honest. The biggest reason is so many people have already convinced themselves that they have to have a Tesla because of the Model S.

And heck, there are a lot of people in the world who will have an opportunity to buy a Model 3 before a Bolt (or Ampera-e). Outside the US and Canada I would say it’ll be a LEAF 2.0 vs Model 3 duel until the Germans actually get it into gear in 2 years.

You say the difference isn’t so big in absolute terms. That’s true, but it isn’t what matters. To see this, just consider a heavy truck sprinting 0-40 mph in 25 seconds versus one that does it in 20 seconds. In absolute terms it is a whopping 5 second difference, but both would feel as they are, very very slow – with one being even more agonizing than the other. Now consider the same absolute difference of 5 seconds was instead between two cars sprinting 0-60 mph in 4 seconds or 9 seconds, respectively. The first is in sportscar territory – in fact supercar territory not that long ago! – and the other is very slightly quicker than average. The difference in feel depends on the *relative* difference, not the absolute one.

Both cars are pretty quick, I’ll grant you that, but the Model 3 will provide a far sportier driving experience.

Model 3 apparently has FANTASTIC handling. That’s a big difference.


A very big difference!

The Model S got “dinged” by professional auto reviewers for two things: A Spartan interior, and mushy, unresponsive handling despite the superior acceleration.

To see the Model 3 described by the Motor Trend reviewer as making an Alfa Romeo Giulia feel “like a wet sponge by comparison”… well, knock me over with feather!

Go Tesla!

Huh? I’ve read a lot of reviews of the Model S and I never saw anyone say the handling was mushy and unresponsive. I actually saw a lot of people raving about how good the handling was for a large sedan.

I.e. This Car and Driver review from 2016 says:
“The car steers, corners, and rides with a competence that seems perfected over decades of focused suspension development rather than a few short years as a Silicon Valley startup.” http://www.caranddriver.com/features/tesla-model-s-70-70d-2016-10best-cars-feature

And this one from 2013 Motor Trend: ” In the handling department, the Model S is on par with the best midsize sedans from Audi (S6), BMW (5 Series), and Mercedes-Benz (E-Class).” http://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesla/model-s/2013/

By the way, as I often mention, “suck” is only with relation to value (what you get for the price). If Bolt is cheaper by $10K (or even $7.5K) and still qualify for subsidy making it $22K car, it doesn’t suck at all as it’ll be an exclamation point against all cars (gassers or EV) at that price. But Bolt definitely suck at Tesla 3 price.

A car that really sucks is that Lambo in the winning Project Loveday video! And I have to say the video makes me giggle. This bloke has sacrificed all utility and practicality, and is polluting his environment with fumes and noise, and still we all know he just got smashed at the lights by a huge family sedan!

Of course, Lambo buyers don’t buy a car, but just a piece of jewelry, like an expensive watch, and I guess they need it to make some noise to help ensure people notice the insecure little brat with too much money is in the area. Oh well.

Well, for most people, gas cars blow (exhaust from car in front of them). I wish they would suck more, but unfortunately, they really, really blow.

Based on the overpriced option is that the cost of repairment willstill be the same as S/X model. That is simply pity:(.