Car and Driver Model 3 Test - Not Great

[fbitz777]

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.

I have X and Bolt so I guess I can switch to the X if I want to be seen or caught dead (bad pun)! I bought the Bolt as a beater car and hatchback is my style.

Seriously, It is available ...good luck getting the 7500$ tax credit if you put a reservation in for a Model 3 (I did a month ago), holding out for the 35-45k version (dual motor short range) Good luck also getting off 4-5K off MSRP at Tesla.

 

[McRat]

Don't forget that the Bolt is also built less than 60 miles away from the Car & Driver headquarters.

C&D is not exactly what you'd call a domestic car publication. I'm not sure they acknowledged American cars existed until this century.
If they did exist, they lack eurostyle interiors and eurocar quirks so they automatically and always sucked in all regards. An American car must be far better than an import before C&D will give it the nod.

I remember reading all about the miracles of European interiors when I was young and the horror that was an American car. Imagine my surprise the first time I drove a Benz. Wowzers. This is special?

 

[ZsoZso]

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????

OK, you explained why the Bolt got a praise and I am totally fine with that.
However, you failed to explain the disparity between the scientific test results and the verdicts of the 2 cars.

To simplify: if (M>B) then how can M be valued less than B ?

Does not compute!

 

[voip-ninja]

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...

I'm giving you a hypothesis for why the Bolt might score well if the performance is not better. Without driving both cars I have no way of knowing why they would give it more praise, but the much lower asking price can't hurt.

 

[voip-ninja]

OK, you explained why the Bolt got a praise and I am totally fine with that.
However, you failed to explain the disparity between the scientific test results and the verdicts of the 2 cars.

To simplify: if (M>B) then how can M be valued less than B ?

Does not compute!

So you think that C&D should rate cars solely on scientific testing? This entire circular logic train you have going started when someone insisted that C&D does no scientific testing and that their comparisons are entirely subjective and I simply pointed out that's not true.

You turning into a dalek is not my fault.

 

[insaneoctane]

While C&D made some legitimate criticisms, the overall tone of the article seems to have been heavily influenced by being butt-hurt by this early quote: "This “production hell” (as Musk himself described it) apparently affected Tesla’s ability to provide us with a testable car despite multiple requests, so we turned to other sources—customers who had cars in their possession". I am quite sure that they feel like not getting their usual fawning treatment from the industry that they were slighted. Just my opinion.

 

[voip-ninja]

While C&D made some legitimate criticisms, the overall tone of the article seems to have been heavily influenced by being butt-hurt by this early quote: "This “production hell” (as Musk himself described it) apparently affected Tesla’s ability to provide us with a testable car despite multiple requests, so we turned to other sources—customers who had cars in their possession". I am quite sure that they feel like not getting their usual fawning treatment from the industry that they were slighted. Just my opinion.

Very possibly true.

Keep in mind though that sometimes even when Tesla cooperates they get kicked in the head. I believe they provided the roadster that Top Gear tested, and then made an entire episode about having to tow off the track. Tesla sued them for slander.

I still think that many of the points C&D made would matter to a car enthusiast vs. someone who wants a Tesla primarily because it's an electric car.

 

[ZsoZso]

So you think that C&D should rate cars solely on scientific testing? This entire circular logic train you have going started when someone insisted that C&D does no scientific testing and that their comparisons are entirely subjective and I simply pointed out that's not true.

It is completely straight-forward logic, that you are trying to evade.

T1. They measured the Bolt, published results and praised it.
T2. They measured the M3, published results and it did not satisfy them

The factual, objective results in T2 are better than those in T1.

The only way to accept all these, is to consider their judgement entirely subjective.
One can defend either T1 or T2 in isolation. One can even accept both from a different entity by concluding their standards are different. However, these two articles published by the same magazine renders their objective credibility nil.

 

[voip-ninja]

It is completely straight-forward logic, that you are trying to evade.

T1. They measured the Bolt, published results and praised it.
T2. They measured the M3, published results and it did not satisfy them

The factual, objective results in T2 are better than those in T1.

The only way to accept all these, is to consider their judgement entirely subjective.
One can defend either T1 or T2 in isolation. One can even accept both from a different entity by concluding their standards are different. However, these two articles published by the same magazine renders their objective credibility nil.

I'm not trying to evade anything. I'm mocking you for arguing that C&D should either rate cars solely on objective measurements or else they are a bunch of spiteful Tesla haters.

There are plenty of reasons that a car can perform worse in objective tests and still get lauded by them. Case in point, look at why Honda Fit Sport was recently on their 10 best cars list and BMW 3 series was not. BMW destroys the fit in every objective measurement yet somehow the Fit is better, how can this be! Clearly C&D hates BMW.

 

[McRat]

To simplify: if (M>B) then how can M be valued less than B ?

Application.

If you are buying an EV for urban use and have more than 1 car in your family, the Bolt is a good choice. IMO, it's superior to most cars that are used for this purpose, perhaps all. This includes all ICE/Hybrid/PHEV/EREV offerings today.

If you are buying a car that you want to travel long distances with (high luxury is not important to you though), want something that doesn't look like an appliance, you want more acceleration, and don't spend the majority of your driving in heavily congested areas, then the Model 3 is probably the better choice for you. I haven't driven a Model 3LR yet. I have not bought one because I won't pay above MSRP, and I don't think the line cutting policy is ethical when there was a Pick A Number system in place. And I still drive on electricity daily for over 5 years, so a Model 3 isn't going to change my lifestyle or driving habits.

Note though, I'm somewhat jaded about acceleration and power. A 2018 P100DL would not be the quickest car I've owned and tested. A Model 3LR would not make the top 10 of the cars/trucks I've owned in a stoplight war. While I've cut back, 5 of our existing vehicles will outrun it from 0 to whatever. It would however beat our kid's and work Volts in a drag race easily. Even our luxury barge for long trips with 4 adults in it will corner faster, accelerate faster, and brake in a shorter distance that what the reports show the 3LR is capable of.

That doesn't make the 3 a bad car. For its purpose, it's reportedly really good, and I can't wait to drive one and get my invite. But I gave up holding my breath after the second bump in deliveries. There will be a third bump. It is a mathematical impossibility to do the 200,000 car delay, the 5000/wk ramp up, and service the May-July "delivery estimate" list prior to August 1. Whether it's a published bump, or a de facto bump, there will be a bump.

 

[Aellinsar]

It is completely straight-forward logic, that you are trying to evade.

The factual, objective results in T2 are better than those in T1.

Except for price, as has been stated here many times. Are the better stats of the M3 worth $15k or not? That is a subjective question and different people will have different answers. I think it's reasonable for C&D to have answered "no".

I'm struggling a bit myself as I await my reservation. I was one lured in by the promise of a car that was maybe in the low $30k range after options and tax incentive. Upper 40's is a lot of money. Financial practicality would probably be to get an accord with 40-50,000 miles for ~$15k. Is having a new, fun EV worth 30k? That's a tough question.

 

[bro1999]

Don't forget that the Bolt is also built less than 60 miles away from the Car & Driver headquarters.

What does that have to do with anything? Is Mary Barra throwing money out her window at the C&D offices so her cars get favorable reviews?

 

[ZsoZso]

What does that have to do with anything? Is Mary Barra throwing money out her window at the C&D offices so her cars get favorable reviews?

Perhaps not literally, but I'm sure she throws a lot towards C&D in the form of advertising cost -- unlike Tesla.

 

[seattlite2004]

Regarding the Bolt...one could view the Bolt as a gateway EV. Once folks are introduced to the EV lifestyle...they could be more inclined to upgrade to more pricier/premium EVs... Like a Tesla. So... Give the Bolt some love...its an EV... Not burning any Dino Juice... and in a few years...who knows... Bolt owners could be driving Tesla's.

Why I traded my Chevy Bolt EV for a Tesla: one reader's story

 

[Canuck]

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.

So two wrongs make a right? I have a hard time following you.

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.

And that's fine. Didn't you read this in my post?:

I know you like C&D which is fine by me.

I just ordered my Model 3 and it was over $70k Canadian and I've never even seen one in person. You can wait but life's too short for me and one of the best things I've bought my was 2014 Tesla. It's greatly increased my quality of life and I look forward to driving it every day. But I'm not naive to think I'm changing the world, although I am concerned about my legacy, any my legacy will be owning three EVs when few people owned one. That's part of me that my children and grandchildren (to come) will look back on when I'm gone.

Bottom line: We should respectfully agree to disagree without telling each other to:

OMG give it a rest.

I think I made some good points and if you don't, or choose not to, hear them, others here do. We're here to discuss and debate, not silence each other.

 

[voip-ninja]

Bottom line: We should respectfully agree to disagree without telling each other to:



I think I made some good points and if you don't, or choose not to, hear them, others here do. We're here to discuss and debate, not silence each other.

I agree and will do better in the future.

 

[insaneoctane]

I will throw my thoughts in here. If not for the model 3, I would likely consider the Bolt. It is one of the only viable vehicles for my (110+ mi) commute. Now, for equal money, the Bolt vs base M3 is a fair comparison and I would personally choose the model 3 for sure. Now the question for me is if the current first production LR is worth the premium. I personally chose to do it. I am guaranteed to get the full tax credit too. That's my story.

Anyway tax credit or not, IMO, the SR base Tesla Model 3 delivers a complete smack down to the Bolt (when it eventually starts shipping)

 

[hacer]

In what way will it be much more costly? The Chevy Bolt seems to do pretty well with pouch cells. It weighs about the same as the short-range version of the Model 3 will and has a similar price, but has higher battery capacity and slightly more range.

If those things in the BMW video are large prismatic cells then they have several drawbacks. Here is an incomplete list:
(1) Their manufacturing yield will be lower than much smaller cylindrical cells because the amount of flawless surface area required in the separator and electrodes is 60 to 70 times greater, thus given the same conditions, they will have a much higher failure rate. Failures are (mostly) found during the cell testing before they'd be sold to BMW - that results in higher costs and there are a lot more materials in the failed cell to be recycled. This is sort of like the difficulty in making a 200 inch LCD screen with the same pixel density as a 15 inch screen, it's doable but inherently more difficult and expensive.
(2) Some small fraction of those defective cells won't fail until sometime after being put in service, in this case causing the entire battery to fail with resulting much higher warranty costs. Compared to 74 parallel small cells in a Tesla that are individually fused so a cell failure has little affect on the battery as a whole.
(3) The large cell has limits to the chemistry that can be used in them; it needs to be less flammable because the total energy in one (damaged cell) is so large it is nearly impossible (definitely impossible as built in the BMW pack) to protect that explosion from spreading to other cells because the individual "bomb" is so large. So they use a bit worst chemistry so it is less likely to explode in the first place. If new chemistry is discovered that is more flammable but much better performing, it won't be (safely) usable in prismatic cells, but is extremely likely to still be safe in small cylindrical cells.
(4) It has lower energy density because the structure required to hold the internal pressure is necessarily less efficient because of the larger scale.

It's possible that (1) and (2) could be mitigated if those "cells" are instead a collection of parallel pouch-cells with individual fuses and packaged in their pressure housing, but if that is the case we are back to "BMW has little experience building batteries" because they are making a battery of batteries instead of a battery of cells and most of the hard part of the problem is being done by others.

It is definitely more difficult to build a battery from many large cylindrical cells, but the additional costs are more than outweighed by the advantages; the main challenge is developing the technology to do it at low cost, high density and safely. Tesla developed and owns patents on this technology. It is a significant competitive advantage.

 

[cella]

It is definitely more difficult to build a battery from many large cylindrical cells, but the additional costs are more than outweighed by the advantages; the main challenge is developing the technology to do it at low cost, high density and safely. Tesla developed and owns patents on this technology. It is a significant competitive advantage.

So what about the Bolt battery? It uses pouch cells and appears to be absolutely competitive with Tesla's in terms of cost, weight and density. In fact, Chevy beat Tesla to the market with an affordable long-range EV.

 

[S'toon]

So what about the Bolt battery? It uses pouch cells and appears to be absolutely competitive with Tesla's in terms of cost, weight and density. In fact, Chevy beat Tesla to the market with an affordable long-range EV.

...and then squandered that opportunity by being reluctant to press the advantage, and fail to make mass sales.