Tesla Releases New Model 3 Details In Model S Comparison Format

5 months ago by Eric Loveday 98

Tesla Model 3

Tesla Model 3

New Tesla Model 3 details are pouring in this week. Here’s the latest.

  • 0 to 60 MPH In 5.6 seconds
  • 215+ Miles Of Range
  • 14 Cubic Feet Of Cargo Volume
  • Length 184.8 Inches

Over at Tesla Model 3 Owners Club, new information on Tesla’s upcoming electric sedan came pouring out via an inside source.

This source sent along some images of what’s being referred to as a retail comparison chart. The chart is part of a larger effort to anti-sell the Model 3. The source indicates that the chart is to be used by Tesla salespeople to downsell the 3 and up sell the S. Take a look at the chart (via Tesla Model 3 Owners Club) below:

It’s obvious from the graphic above that Tesla is saying the Model S beats the 3 on all fronts. The only 14 cubic feet of cargo volume may be a deal breaker for some potential Model 3 buyers, but nothing else shown above would deter us from the 3.

Separately, Tesla Model 3 Owners Club put out a video to recap this new information and to highlight the first-ever charge port open image of the Model 3 (see below).

Video description:

“In this segment we talk about some new information sent to us from a Tesla source and their efforts to clarify Model 3 vs Model S. Details such as length, performance, charging and much more revealed! Also, we finally got a picture of the open Model 3 charge port!!”

Source: Tesla Model 3 Owners Club, Imgur, Twitter, Twitter

Tags: , , ,

98 responses to "Tesla Releases New Model 3 Details In Model S Comparison Format"

  1. Boukman says:

    Also the length of 184.8″ is shown just under the car. Not sure if that was ever released by a reliable source.

    1. DL says:

      Crap, unfortunately that’s a deal killer for me right now; can’t fit much more than 180″ in my little urban garage.

      1. Ptm says:

        Bolt, Smart4Two, Leaf (2017) all below 180″

        1. unlucky says:

          And the BMW i3. It’s basically the same size as the Bolt EV.

          1. MTN Ranger says:

            Though it may not look it, the i3 is 7 inches shorter than the Bolt EV. It also has much less interior space at 99 vs 111 cf.

          2. JustWilliamPDX says:

            Both small by U.S. standards, but the Bolt is considerably bigger than the i3, inside and out. The i3 is closer to the discontinued Spark EV in size.

    2. Ziv says:

      184″ is good news for me. I love my Volt, but it is just too small. If I ever get another car, it will probably be a Tesla. If the longer length translates into a slightly roomier back seat, that is.

      I have been a Volt guy since 2007 after learning about the Volt when Dr. Lyle started GM Volt dot com. But trying to shoe horn clients into the tiny back seat of the Volt has gotten old fast.

      Given how reliable my Volt has been these past 4 years, it could be a while before I buy another car.

      1. philip d says:

        I am shocked however that the trunk volume is only about the same as the Volt.

        14 cu.ft. frunk + trunk. That means the trunk will hold around 11-12 cu.ft. in a less usable trunk configuration compared to the Volt’s 10.3 cu.ft. liftback configuration.

        I’m not sure how the 3 managed to get half of the cargo volume of the S and in a trunk to boot.

  2. Brian says:

    All these stats look good to me. Also, I am quite happy to see “pay per use supercharging” listed. That will help keep congestion down. It may even help support rival networks, if they can get their pricing right.

    Today in NY, you have to get off the Thruway (a very popular highway system that connects NYC to Buffalo) to use a Supercharger. But Greenlots already has 4 QC locations at the service centers. The state has committed to installing more. I can see Model 3 drivers deciding to take the more convenient option, since they have to pay either way. And that helps the rest of us, since more demand should lead to more QCs.

    1. georgeS says:

      “Also, I am quite happy to see “pay per use supercharging” listed”

      Brian

      Did you see the shot with the charge door open?
      Why is the door so big?

      Maybe there’s a CCS port in there!

      1. georgeS says:

        negative on that george. Watch the video in full before you comment:)

        1. Brian says:

          I can’t listen to the video right now, but did skip through the see the close-up. Based on that, I can’t rule out the possibility of CCS. There was clearly a piece of black cloth covering much of the opening.

          Of course, CCS on a Model 3, as awesome as it would be, feels mostly like wishful thinking.

    2. unlucky says:

      I have to pay for my CCS charging too. But that doesn’t fix the congestion problem because Nissans and i3s don’t pay. They are the ones who clog up the chargers.

      S and X owners are still charging for free. You’re still going to have a congestion issue.

      1. Brian says:

        I never said there wouldn’t be congestion, only that this will help mitigate it.

        Oh, and I wish I had your “problem” of too many cars using an otherwise available QC. It’s a very short-term problem. If the demand is sustained, then there will be an economic incentive to expand the number of ports available.

        1. unlucky says:

          It’s not short-term. I’ve owned an EV too long to believe that. Nature abhors an unoccupied free charger. If you build more, you will get more people showing up to use them as long as they are free.

          And as to the economic return: what’s the economic return if you already got the supercharging money up front? It’s too easy with free charging to just advertise you have it and let people find out later it’s hard to make use of because of overcrowding.

  3. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

    Holy crap! The panel gap between the front and rear doors in the “charge port open” twitter pic is HUGE! It reminds me of that famous national park in Arizona.

    1. Mark C says:

      Would that be the park that is named, “I didn’t push the door hard enough to completely close it?”

      1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

        Nope. If you look at the bottom of the door below the lower crease there is a much, much smaller panel gap than there is in the top portion of the door below the window. Also, the driver’s window is pressed tightly against the B-pillar, and shows absolutely no gap from an open/ajar door.

        1. JP says:

          Zoomed in. Gap along bottom is increasing from front to back. Window shows gap at top of pillar. Door is clearly ajar.

          1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sven says:

            The panel gap at the right side of the front door goes from being very wide at the top near the door sill to being thin at the bottom.

            The window is recessed past the roof moulding. If door was ajar/open, the window would protrude and stick out compared to the moulding.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            It’s pointless trying to get Sven to acknowledge he’s wrong in his anti-Tesla propaganda. He never, ever admits that any of his Tesla bashing is incorrect, no matter how clear the facts are when we refute his B.S.

            *Sigh* I remember back in the days when he was actually a valuable contributor to InsideEVs comment threads. 😥

        2. JustWilliamPDX says:

          Are you implying that a preproduction test mule has less than production spec panel gaps? Say it isn’t so! Oh the HUMANITY!

          You may or may not be a self-serving stock manipulator, but you are AGAIN attempting to make something mundane and expected sound like a Tesla specific tragedy.

          You display no obvious sign of cognitive disability, so suspicion of bias is an unappealing but reasonable deduction when reading your posts.

      2. Brian says:

        LOL!

        I haven’t been to that National Park. I need to add it to my list.

    2. Peter says:

      that gap you are talking about is not a gap.. the door is simply not closed completely

    3. Shaun says:

      Looks like the door is ajar to me *shrug*

    4. jelloslug says:

      There is a park called FUD?

    5. Nix says:

      We’ve seen plenty of pictures where the door gap wasn’t this wide. So clearly the door is ajar.

      But thanks for yet again showing the wide canyon between your ears.

  4. bro1999 says:

    14 cubic feet of cargo space…INCLUDING the frunk. Wow, that probably means the trunk is only 11-12 cubic feet.

    Even including the frunk space, that’s still 3 cubic feet short of the Bolt’s capacity. And the Bolt has more utility being a hatchback.

    And the 0-60 time is less than a second faster than the Bolt. I’m assuming that is quoting the base Model 3? If

    1. Stimpy says:

      I agree that Bolt has more utility unless you define “utility” to mean “capable of road trips along convenient routes”. In that case Model 3 wins handily.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        It’s good to see confirmation by the numbers, but common sense has suggested from the first time we saw the cars that the Bolt EV has more cargo space than the Model S.

        Hatchbacks (or “liftbacks”) have more usable cargo space than sedans, all else being equal. That’s just a fact.

    2. SparkEV says:

      I thought it’d be 5.99 seconds, so 5.6 is actually a welcome news. A similarly priced car that’s almost a second quicker (or 15% quicker) is huge.

      Tesla 3 will be able to tow, which Bolt cannot. If it can tow even 750 lb (like Hyundai Elantra), that will allow up to 4x8x8=256 cuft of cargo using $300 harbor freight trailer. If it can tow 1500 lb like old Elantra, it could allow hauling small tent trailer or even travel trailer.

      Towing is a big deal. If SparkEV could tow 1500 lb, it’d meet 100% of my needs even for home depot runs.

    3. JustWilliamPDX says:

      If they weren’t EVs, they wouldn’t be compared at all. You can respect and appreciate both for what they are. The same goes for their drivers.

      Actually meeting and talking to fellow EV drivers of other brands is far more encouraging than reading EV discussions on the net. Anonymity has a way of bringing the worst in people.

  5. Delta says:

    More valuable is a comparison with German sedans under 45 K in price…

    1. Stimpy says:

      “The 2017 3 Series in sedan form has 13 cubic feet of cargo space, which is about average for the class.”

  6. wavelet says:

    The headline says Tesla released the info, i.e., this is official info. The text of the article says this is an (unnamed) inside source.
    Which is it? Either the headline or text should be fixed.

    1. bro1999 says:

      Seems this graphic was sent to Tesla “dealerships” to educate customers with questions. So not a public release.

      1. EVA-01 says:

        Tesla stores, not dealerships. A dealership is a reseller.

  7. Mister G says:

    They forgot to mention the price difference of $60,000 between a model s and model 3. For median income Americans the model 3 is the wise choice because you will not be burdened with huge monthly payment.

    1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      What? Median income was $56,516 for household in the US in 2015. A household may need to use this income to pay for two cars, mortgage or rent, taxes (less than $7,500 per year so you may be getting only fraction of tax credit at best), healthcare and see what is left for food. Median income Americans would need to be complete morons to get $40,000 loan for subcompact tech toy with entry level luxury car price tag. They would be much wiser to get beaten-up Civic or Prius for $5,000 with low depreciation.
      This one is for people well above median income who can afford it. Although sure people take unwise decisions all the time.

      1. SparkEV says:

        People aren’t rational. If they were, we wouldn’t have so much trouble in the world: no sub-prime mortgage meltdown of 2008, no huge college loan for underwater basket-weaving degree (aka, non engineering degree), no social security pyramid scheme, no Prez Dump.

        Fact is, as Mary Barra pointed out, average new car price is about $35K, which base Tesla 3 is to be. That means many people who make median income pay over $40K for a new car. I know several who make even less, yet they drive $40K cars.

      2. Amel says:

        I needed to read this. Thank you!

      3. Nix says:

        People with the median US income typically don’t buy brand new cars, whether they are ICE or EV.

        Median income Model 3 Buyers will buy CPO Model 3’s, just like they typically buy CPO or used ICE cars. The TM3 CPO price will be the affordable price.

      4. Wallace says:

        With that kind of thinking, no one would buy any new car. Let me tell you though, the first new car I got was a Volt. The new car that pays you in the form of gas savings. Compare payments and take into account monthly gas savings, and no gas car is worth it.

      5. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        zzzzzzzzzzz said:

        “Americans would need to be complete morons to…”

        …to take advice about buying a car from a serial Tesla basher who’s upset that he “lost his shorts” in the stock market. And not just Americans, either.

        Now, it is true that a car with an estimated average selling price of $42k isn’t really an “affordable” car, as many keep saying. It would be more accurate to describe cars like the Model 3 and the Chevy Bolt EV as “semi-affordable”.

        That said, I’m sure there will be many who are only middle-class who will be stretching their budget in order to buy a car which actually makes driving a pleasure, absent from the stink, rattle and noise of a gasmobile; one which is far, far better for the environment than cars which run on “dead dino juice”!

        Many Model S owners say the Model S is considerably more expensive than any other car they’ve ever owned. That’s a comment seen commonly over on the Tesla Motors Club forum. I have no doubt that will also be true of many Model 3 owners; perhaps a sizable fraction of them.

    2. Spider-Dan says:

      How do you figure the price difference is $60,000? The base model, no options M3 is planned for $35,000 (and the $7500 Fed rebate is not likely to be around for many of those sales). The base model, no options MS is currently $69,500 with rebate available.

      So the difference should be $34,500 if you’re being generous, or $27,000 if you’re not.

      1. Mister G says:

        I was referring to P100D that goes 0-60 in 2.3 seconds as depicted on the chart comparing s with the 3. Stop busting balls LOL

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Wouldn’t it be better to base the difference on the average sale price?

        Elon estimated the average sale price of the Model 3 at $42k. That may turn out to be incorrect, but for now it’s the best number we’ve got.

        The average sale price of the Model S used to be estimated at $95k-100k, but I understand the new S60 sold pretty well, so that has likely lowered the overall average somewhat.

        If the average sale price of the Model S is ~$90k, then the difference in price between MS and M3 would be estimated at ~$48k. So somewhere around $50k would seem to be a more accurate figure than the $60k claimed by Mister G.

    3. protomech says:

      Model S currently starts at just under $70k, or $35k more than Model 3.

      Even the Model 3 is likely to have a large monthly payment. Assuming average selling price of around 40k, a 2% loan for 48 months will still work out to be around $870/month.

      1. SparkEV says:

        Seeing how most people lease EV, how much will the lease be? Tesla S was as low as $600/mo, so half priced TM3 could be $300/mo. Since many Leaf SV/SL (about $35K) were leasing for about $200/mo, that’s about how low TM3 can lease as well. Could vs will is different, but this shows the possibility.

        1. MTN Ranger says:

          Tesla leases have always been high and are not a good deal. They usually require $7000 down which inflates the monthly prices even more.

  8. Bitwise says:

    Yes, that hurts. Googling a bit, I find the US Leaf and Ioniq electric has about 23-24 cu ft of cargo space, which is much more reasonable.

    For me, it’s a deal breaker. I hope Tesla will someday release a station wagon version of the 3.

    1. Nix says:

      Model Y

      1. EVA-01 says:

        That will be a CUV (Crossover Utility Vehicle), not a station wagon.

        1. MTN Ranger says:

          In this day and age, there is no difference. Look at the Kia Niro a CUV with no AWD, that’s a station wagon.

  9. Willem says:

    Can’t believe the Model 3 has less cargo space (14 cft) than the Bolt (17 cft), while the Bolt is 51 cm (!) shorter and it’s wheelbase is 27 (!) cm shorter. I think Tesla should measure again.

    1. Stimpy says:

      The Bolt’s cargo space has a lot more height than depth.

      The cubic feet measurement is somewhat misleading as it’s more difficult to actually use that height.

      1. Willem says:

        Agree. However Model 3 cargo space is front AND rear. Dissapointing if true.

    2. bro1999 says:

      A 2017 Chevy Cruze sedan (183.8 inches in length) has 14.8 inches of trunk space.

      So the Model 3, which is 1 inch longer, has only 14 cubic feet of storage capacity even with the frunk? wtf, how is that possible?

      1. bro1999 says:

        14.8 cubic feet, not inches. 😉

        1. WadeTyhon says:

          I think the Cruze glove compartment adds an extra 14.8 cubic inches of storage lol.

      2. Brian says:

        The Model 3 is designed to give rear seat passengers leg room and head room. That means the seats are farther back than on a Cruze. Hence the trunk is smaller.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      We’ve been told the Bolt EV has a surprisingly large amount of its total volume devoted to passenger/cargo space. The Model 3, by contrast, has a comparatively long hood and a sedan’s trunk.

      It shouldn’t really be any surprise that the Bolt EV has more cubic feet of storage area. In fact, that’s exactly what I expected.

      If you need more cargo space, but want a Tesla car, then wait for the Tesla Model Y, which will be a CUV/hatchback (or “liftback”) version of the Model 3 sedan. That probably won’t come along for at least a couple of years after the Model 3 enters production, though.

  10. WadeTyhon says:

    Yeah, that is a small amount of space, but way more than my Spark EV lol! Do the rear seats fold down as well in the Model 3? Not as good as a hatchback but that can help a lot.

    I think the Model 3 will be fantastic, but versatility is the reason why I wanted the Bolt. I got my Bolt build date for the week of June 12th! My dealer says the car should arrive at our Dallas dealer in mid-to-late July, a month ahead of schedule! 😀

    By the time my Bolt lease is up in 2020, there should be many good, larger EV options from all the other automakers. (I would love to see the Model Y or a PHEV Equinox by then too, but I doubt I will.)

    1. Willem says:

      EM has confirmed Model 3 rear seats fold down. Bicycle should fit in.

      1. WadeTyhon says:

        That is good at least, although it is not the ideal setup. Especially with storage split between the frunk and trunk. Together, it has about as much storage as the Ford Focus EV has in it’s trunk.

    2. SparkEV says:

      SparkEV cargo space is 14 cuft, the same as Tesla 3. However, SparkEV space is all in rear so Tesla 3 would be less in rear. TBH, I can’t imagine how small TM3 rear cargo space might be. SparkEV is already pretty damn small.

      Still, I’m used to not using such small cargo space with SparkEV, so it’s no biggie for me. If it can carry 4 pairs of beach sandals and towels, that’s all I need.

      1. SparkEV says:

        Oops, I was wrong. SparkEV is only 10 cuft (was looking at Cruze). That might mean TM3 rear cargo might be roughly similar.

      2. WadeTyhon says:

        Oh is it? I thought the Spark EV had less than 10 cubic feet of cargo space? Although with the seats folded down it has over 20.

        We take regular short camping trips up north. Right now we do this with the Volt, but our Bolt will be our new short vacation hauler since it is far more spacious.

        Although I think the Model 3 would be adequate for this purpose, just like the Volt is.

        1. SparkEV says:

          Google shows 9.6 for SparkEV, I just remember it as 10. SparkEV, like Bolt, has cube as rear cargo area, allowing good utility. Sloping rear of TM3 may not allow as good utilization even if the volume is the same.

    3. Texas FFE says:

      I’m negotiating with a dealer up in Maryland for a Bolt EV Premier. If the negotiations go well I could be driving my new Bolt from Maryland to Texas next month, CCS charging all the way.

      1. WadeTyhon says:

        Awesome, you’ll be one of the first in Texas! Or you could just get it shipped to you like I did with my Spark EV. Less time and stress.

        But if you have found a good route between MD and TX using CCS it could be a fun trip.

      2. bro1999 says:

        Nice, who are you dealing with? I’m guessing either Criswell or Ourisman?

      3. Mark.ca says:

        I hope all goes well and you get it!

  11. VazzedUp says:

    Hmm, waiting for the full 3 to Bolt comparison, but currently if your priorities are not sedan looks and sitting on your arse to drive across state the Bolt just stepped up some. Better range, more cargo, cheaper and almost as quick. Expect the number of DC chargers will increase fairly quickly over the next few years also.

    1. gamekaze says:

      There is a Bolt available in my area.Bolt now or Tesla Model 3?

      1. Mister G says:

        Model 3

  12. SimonMTL says:

    Total (front+rear) cargo space is similar to a BMW i3’s rear cargo space. I rented an i3 for a weekend recently, and I could only fit one large suitcase and a few gift bags in the rear, all the cargo was put at the feet of the kids. Not very practical… That really is a shame for the Tesla 3.

    I’m not sure what to think right now. I’d like to believe there is some mistake in there. I want that Model 3 so bad… but I know deep down that the lack of trunk space is going to be extremely hard to handle during family outings.

  13. georgeS says:

    So far it looks like I’m keeping my 2012 Model S #1682.

    The one spec I still need though is the overall height of the car.

      1. georgeS says:

        source?, I believe it is speculation and not from Tesla

        1. Twn says:

          Why does it matter? it is the same height as Model S look at the picture above

  14. Stx says:

    The suorce is “Tesla Model 3 Owners Club”, it is not Tesla.
    If the car pictures above the table are meant to be in scale the length of the Model 3 should not be more than 180″.

  15. Lou Grinzo says:

    For those who don’t live around a lot of EVs, a good reference point on the M3 length is the Nissan Rogue, which is also 184″ long.

    1. Nix says:

      Or the current Audi A4. Also about 185 inches long, and a 4-door sedan. Or the current BMW 3-Series, which is just slightly shorter.

      The Model 3 length is right between the Audi A4 and BMW 3-Series. And all have similar cargo space.

      1. SparkEV says:

        Except cargo space on gassers are rear only while TM3 is split between rear + front. That would make rear much smaller.

        1. JP says:

          Also means passengers (especially rear) must have more room for themselves, right?

          Ford Fusion Energi has only 8 cu ft cargo space in the trunk, and it isn’t even flat. That’s why I don’t have one.

          I could totally live with 14 cu ft, even if that is split between two areas. The M3 trunk floor will be flat.

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            More leg room possible.

            it doesn’t necessarily mean more head room though.

  16. ModernMarvelFan says:

    “The only 14 cubic feet of cargo volume may be a deal breaker for some potential Model 3 buyers, but nothing else shown above would deter us from the 3.”

    Wow, that is FRONT + REAR! I would have to see how small the trunk is before I pull my reservation.

    One great thing though, NO MORE GLASS ROOF!

    1. Mark.ca says:

      I was mentioned before that back seats fold down so your trunk space can be extended. I think this will be enough for many.

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        So, I can’t carry 4 adults and their luggage?

        That would ruin the appeal to be an Uber/Lyft car. LOL.

        1. Mark.ca says:

          Strap them up on top of the car Romney style. Their luggage can stay in the back seats with the seat belt on.

    2. TomArt says:

      There is still a glass roof, from the trunk up to nearly the center of the roof. It’s just not ENTIRELY glass – it will be an option.

  17. orinoco says:

    They forgot the promised trailer hitch for Model 3, which is a deal breaker for me on Model S as long it is missing.

    1. Mark.ca says:

      There is always the possibility of aftermarket hitch installs. I have seen them for eGolf…sure they are not to be abused and not designed to pull big load.

  18. Bojan says:

    M3’s frunk is likely to be fairly small though. The hood is shorter than on the S, so most of the space will be used by the front motor (if things are the same as on the refreshed model S, then the RWD Model 3 should have an equally small frunk as the AWD version). A large majority of those 14 cu ft of storage should still be in the rear.

    Despite being a “smaller” Tesla, it’s still a large car, at least from my European point of view. I drive an Astra caravan which feels like a long car to me, yet the m3 is longer (but has less cargo space, okay not fair comparing it to a wagon).

    To comment on some other aspects of the chart: Glass roof is conspicuously absent from M3’s feature list, while it is listed among MS features. Most M3s we’ve seen so far (all of them?) had the glass roof, so what gives? Are we not getting the glass roof in the end, or is it just this chart that is rather blatantly skewed in favour of the model S?

    1. pjwood1 says:

      It will be too bad if RWD Model 3 frunk is even smaller than “hepa”/AWD Model S. RWD MS was yuge.

      This list affirms Tesla was looking more to negatively sell M3 than frame a center screen only future. A deal-breaker for me. Coulda saved money and done better.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      I think the chart only shows what options will be available for the initial production of the Model 3. Note the small battery pack size shown. Yet we can be fairly sure that before long, Tesla will be offering the option of a larger M3 battery pack of ~70-75 kWh.

  19. Bob Nan says:

    With a length of 184.8 inches and a hatch like design, it should certainly have more than 14 cu. ft. of Trunk Space alone.

    Something is wrong with the data.

Leave a Reply