-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Car and Driver Model 3 Test - Not Great
- Thread starter igotzzoom
- Start date
- Status
Let's see, 3 million cars, $1bn profit works out to $333 per car profit. Yikes, that is a slim reed. I wouldn't be crowing about that.
That's the way the car business works. That's why Tesla is no Amazon or Apple.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
And you know that how? These writers put a roof over their heads, eat, and put their kids through college based on 99.9% of their compensation coming from ice, big oil, or related. That's just a fact. If you don't think it affects their opinion, even on a subconscious level, then you need to give your head a shake.
For them to tell me: "we’re still left waiting—along with all those hopeful would-be owners—for the Model 3 to change the world" is about as idiotic of a statement you can put in a review. It has nothing to do with how the car drives but is solely about self-preservation, although I doubt they have the insight to see it. It was a classic Freudian slip, and it's odd to me that you can't see that or perhaps choose subconsciously to block it out.
Your point? Here's an analogy for you: The church does good things like raise money for charity and help homeless people but when they clash with science this atheist will call them out, just like I will do with C&D. I know you like C&D which is fine by me. A lot of people like the church and I am fine with that too. But when my kid's future depends on EVs taking over and pushing ICE and its C&D mag out the door I will never stay silent. C&D showed us their true colours in that review -- not with the technical stuff, that's all fair game -- but with their open bias and low brow shot at Tesla, wholly unrelated to what we would expect in a car review and sad really. Then again, it's like asking the horse and buggy people to review the Model T. "No change of the world to see here folks, please look the other way!"
Last edited:
It’s the way all entrenched industries work until there’s a disruptor. And I’m sure GM is doing their optimal best, right?
EV-lutioin
Active Member
Some of your points are valid, but it does not change the fact that CDs review of the Model 3 was opinion-based. Since no real scientific testing was done, their bias really shows through.
voip-ninja
Give me some sugar baby
Scientific testing was done. They provided metrics from their test track just like they do with other cars they review. Their comment that the skidpad, braking distance, 0-60 and 1/4 mile acceleration results were not that impressive compared to similarly priced ICE burner cars is completely legitimate.
There are plenty of things to pick apart with their review but this is not one of them.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
And that's all fine by me and is information I like to have too.
So do we have your agreement that this is one of the things we can pick apart?:
If we can, then I'm at a loss at why you told me to "give it a rest". This is the crux of their review. It's their "thesis" so to speak. I am of the opinion that they started with this view and worked backwards, giving us data like you quote above, to prove their thesis, and ignoring other data that disproves it. That's only my opinion, of course, but I'm sceptical when someone's existence depends on the failure of the product they are reviewing. You are not. That's where we disagree.
I also say such a statement has no place at all in a car review -- except for the reason I have stated. If you think that deserves a blind eye, which is the same as telling me to give it a rest, we will again agree to disagree.
NJturtlePower
Living the Dream, Driving the Future!
I honestly can't look at a Bolt and not feel embarrassed for the driver. On the other hand the 3 has KILLER looks!
EV-lutioin
Active Member
Ha, so now I *have* to pick it apart
You might have missed it in the negative verbiage of the article, but they did comment that acceleration was better than similarly priced ICE cars, "...zero to 60 mph in 5.1 seconds—just a smidge quicker than the Audi A4 and the BMW 330i"
Now for the nitpicking: First of all they say, "As such, the chassis test numbers—a 176-foot stop from 70 mph and 0.84 g around the skidpad—were unremarkable, even by mainstream-family-sedan standards." A BMW 3-Series is 168/.83... so if the Model 3 is better handling than a BMW, what is unremarkable about it, and why combine the two results? They could have said the braking was unremarkable, but the handling is impressively as good as a BMW. Contrast that to Consumers' Reports take on handling, "Our testers were impressed by our car’s glued-to-the-road handling, with steering that is quick and precise, much like a well-tuned sports car. The Model 3’s taut suspension keeps the car from leaning when cornering, while its sharp reflexes help it carve through tight turns with ease and tear down straightaways." Admittedly no data here by CR, but it sounds quite different than "unremarkable, even by mainstream-family-sedan standards". They list Highway Range as 200 miles in the sidebar as if it is bonified data, when in the article they admit, "but it was certainly affected by the 28-degree-Fahrenheit ambient temperature.". This is not science, you can't test one car in one condition and test another in a totally different condition and call it valid. Here is how they tested the Bolt, "So in our most recent rendezvous with the Bolt, we performed a real-world range test that mimics a long highway road trip. With the cruise control set to 75 mph and the climate system set to 72 degrees, we drove the battery to exhaustion in 190 miles. "? And statements like this, "...it’s difficult to gauge exactly how disappointing the Model 3’s result is in our real-world 75-mph highway fuel-economy test." Here they are implying that the economy is disappointing before they have even tested it. And this, "Our sound meter measured 69 decibels at 70 mph, louder than an A4." How much louder? Data please! I don't mind a negative article on the Model 3, I just don't like cherry-picked data and an intentional use of negative wording... not sure what their motives were here.
Just for comparison: Chevy Bolt: Braking, 70-0 mph: 181 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 g
insaneoctane
Well-Known Member
Obviously this is a subjective topic, but I can't imagine how with class matching (or beating, depending on the test) acceleration, gorgeous looks, EAP, and the supercharger network, you end up with a tie... .
While I absolutely agree that tesla is a lot more asset intensive than say Apple of Amazon, I think it is misleading to assume that you can't turn a profit on cars.
By the way not all car makers are like that. Porsche' margin on their cars is 20 percent
T34ME
Active Member
From C&D Media Kit:
Car and Driver offers uncontested authority, greater insight and proven foresight on where the industry is moving and how that will impact drivers.
voip-ninja
Give me some sugar baby
C&Ds statement is as valid (and potentially politically charged) as reviews of Tesla vehicles that insist that they are going to save the planet. Both are hyperbolic.
It is your opinion that C&Ds very existence depends on Tesla being a failure. I scoff at that assertion. C&D has been in trouble for far longer than Tesla has existed as a company that delivered mass market cars.
It is your opinion that any perceived shortcomings in the Model 3 as compared to other entry level luxury sedans should be overlooked due to the advantages of the car being an EV... but again, that is your opinion.
I will admit that the car being an EV has distinct advantages, but, from my perspective, not environmental ones.... the biggest advantages, for me, would be never needing to visit a fueling station (always leave the house with a full charge) and lower operating costs... although honestly the jury will be out on that one for many years as the Model 3 was just introduced.
Everything else, and I do mean everything, comes down to pitting the Model-3 driving experience against other sports sedans or sporty hatchbacks that I can purchase in the $40,000-$55,000 price range. It would be my expectation, due to the very low CG of the Model 3, and electric drivetrain that;
1. Model 3 would punch above its weight in acceleration. Certainly early dyno tests seem to indicate that Tesla is intentionally holding performance back, which is disappointing.
2. Model 3 would have razor sharp go-kart handling due to the low center of gravity.
3. Model 3 would have a gorgeous cabin with premium materials, like other $50,000 entry level luxury sedans.
From the C&D review, all 3 are a 'meh'.
Now, I don't think C&D is the final verdict, and other reviews have different takes.
What the C&D review has done, for me, as someone who has typically agreed with their opinions about automotive performance is convinced me that I need a real test drive of the car before blindly spending $50,000 on it.
In every single one of those metrics the Model 3 was better than the Bolt, yet they were praising the Bolt and dishing the Model 3.
Explain!
voip-ninja
Give me some sugar baby
Because you can get a Bolt for under $30,000 after tax incentives today, by driving it off the lot. It is selling well enough that GM is expanding production. If you want your $50,000 Tesla Model 3, you put in a reservation request and get it in 2019... maybe.
That's why.
C&D weren't the only ones who have had high praise of the Bolt. The Business Weekly reviewer got weeklong access to Bolt and Model 3 and still called it a tie.
Now personally I wouldn't be caught dead in a Bolt.... but I'm not hypnotized enough by what Tesla is doing to not understand why the car is appealing to many people.
So much about "Scientific testing", it all comes down to price and availability then.
to sum up: the Model 3 is better in every possible metric but they prefer the Bolt, because its cheaper and they can have it now.
Thanks for playing...
Don't forget that the Bolt is also built less than 60 miles away from the Car & Driver headquarters.
I think you'd need an hour test of the Bolt to understand why neither owners nor reviewers trash it. After they explain the goofy shifter to you, you really need to drive without salesperson in the car. Drive the car. Don't just move it between locations.
It feels lighter than it is in the city, and feels bigger than it is at 85 mph.
It's agile without being squirrely, the suspension is firm without being harsh.
I'm betting the Model 3 will be a superior car for the way I like to drive, but there seems to this illusion on this site that a Bolt is a Honda Fit. A good economy car, but not a fun car. That's incorrect. It's fun car to drive with great visibility and manners.
But the Model 3 is a much longer and lower car, hence less available visibility in traffic. For zipping around town, the Model 3 is not necessarily a better tool than a Bolt.
BTW - Did you used to be a Dalek? Or are you STILL one????
- Status
