Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

"Even if you buy no options at all, this will still be an amazing car!"

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
That is a very, very sweet interior. I'm a sucker for wood though! Unfortunately I doubt I'd be willing to pony up the price of admission even if I could afford it.

It's unfortunate that my post several pages back inspired such bickering, that was not my intent, but only to express how impressed I am with the parameters of the Model 3 even as a base model. So much so that nothing else on the market holds much allure for me except a used Model S. If the Model 3 comes out and drives like a dog or gets restyled in a manner unpleasant to me (shallow, I know, but there's a reason I never even test drove a BMW i3) I'll probably change my mind.

Hell, if you don't care how a car drives or looks, go buy a new Prius! On a pure dollars and cents level it's an extremely good vehicle.

But by my personal criteria it's a cluster ****!
I care about how the car drives as everyone does - if not more, All of my previous performance posts have me ordering the largest battery and the shortest ludicrous times I can get.
 
Well the best thing about the 3 is that you can shut your eyes and imagine any interior you like for it, while it drives you sweetly to you destination. :cool:
And 10 second fill-ups beat 10 min fill-ups hollow. :rolleyes:
I agree. Good point.

I wonder if a Level 5 fully autonomous M3 will require the owner to have a drivers license. Sorry, I know that's of topic.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: MissAutobahn
You missed my point. Arguing that the Model 3 is the greatest automotive bargain ever produced by using the red herring of 100 mpg as a criteria (as was done earlier in this thread) is nonsensical. You have to look at the entire package to conclude that something is the greatest automotive bargain ever, and that means not just efficiency but all the other important elements of owning and using the vehicle.

To many people, range and "refuel" time is more important than efficiency, especially when you're talking about a mass market car. My experience over several years and well over 50,000 miles driving Teslas is that the range and refueling issues are major concerns.

I've used my Tesla on long road trips from the Bay Area to Montana and I assure you, there is more than just a little disruption on the trip from having to recharge. For example, my F150 has a 36 gallon fuel tank and gets 20 mpg freeway. I can refill the tank in about 10 minutes. The Tesla, on the other hand, has a real world range of about 180 miles when going from the Bay Area to Montana. I otherwise wouldn't take breaks every 180 miles unless I am forced to, and that is what happens with my P85D. With my truck, I'll drive about 5-6 hours at a stretch before stopping for either fuel, a bathroom break of food/drink. There is a very significant time penalty to driving a P85D on a road trip.

Now, take into consideration the fact that with a Model 3, you're going to have less real world range than I get in my P85D. I couldn't imagine having to stop every 150 miles for 30-60 minutes on a 1,000 mile trip. This is not an unusual road trip either, as it is the SF to Yellowstone route, which is a pretty popular vacation route. 100 mpg is nice, but for the typical mass market auto buyer range and time to refuel is at least as important.

And with the Model 3, the range is going to be a more pressing issue for routine driving. Yes, you start out the day with a "full tank", but if you are running around all day that full tank is going to need to be refilled at least once. Add in the fact that superchargers are likely not going to be plentiful enough to handle the massively increased fleet of cars using them and you have some pretty serious issues about range and time to refuel.

All of which is not to knock the Model 3, but the assumptions going into claims that it will be the greatest automotive bargain of all time are quite flimsy. My point is that focusing on the "100 mpg" criteria as one of the main metrics for judging whether this is one of the best cars ever made, while ignoring metrics like range or recharging time, is inane.
I've taken multi-day road trips to visit my folks in the States. I've never driven longer'n a couple of hours without having to stop for a bathroom break or food. My car goes 500km.

I've never in my life driven 500km in a day "around town" necessitating filling up the tank.

Over 95% of driving is < 50 miles/day.

Your metrics are the exception, not the rule. Most people don't drive 5 hours without a break. Even if they have cast iron bladders.
 
I often hear these arguments about what is better: driving 150 miles and stopping for 30 minutes or driving 600 miles with no breaks? Then I put my "reality hat" on (and I think others should to). Why does it matter.? There are MILLIONS of drivers on the road. There are certainly many of both kinds. To suggest that neither camp can flourish certainly flies in the face of hundreds of thousands of people who have purchased a BEV and the millions of people who have purchased an ICE. So, whether the Model 3 or Bolt have a real-world distance of 150 miles or 300 miles, people will buy what works for them. The buyers will look at works and make their choice. Just like a person who makes the choice between a Honda HRV and a Honda Pilot.
 
Why does it matter.? There are MILLIONS of drivers on the road. There are certainly many of both kinds. To suggest that neither camp can flourish certainly flies in the face of hundreds of thousands of people...

Until self driving cars are a reality, driver fatigue is a very real thing. As you said there are millions of drivers on the road... do you want one near you who is drunk, tired, distracted, zoning out, texting, etc? In a perfect world we'd have only alert and attentive drivers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3Victoria
Until self driving cars are a reality, driver fatigue is a very real thing. As you said there are millions of drivers on the road... do you want one near you who is drunk, tired, distracted, zoning out, texting, etc? In a perfect world we'd have only alert and attentive drivers.
My statement was in response to the 2 camps fighting over how a person takes a long distance trip (many stops vs no stops). It was not about automation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3Victoria
100MPGe (equivalent). A gallon of gasoline contains 33kWh of energy. Most cars go around 25 miles on 33hWh of energy. Apparently, the Model 3 will go 100 miles on 33kWh of energy. Probably more. So yeah, 100MPGe.

The BMW i3 BEV, by the way, goes 148 miles on 33hWh of energy.
Unfortunately, that isn't how the EPA calculates such things. They use a very strange formula that appears to be designed to put electric vehicles at the highest possible disadvantage. And it still doesn't work to save even the most efficient ICE vehicles from being gas guzzlers in comparison. It seems to me that the main point of 'MPGe' is to render a relative equivalence in cost to operate per mile as opposed to actual energy consumption.
 
And with the Model 3, the range is going to be a more pressing issue for routine driving. Yes, you start out the day with a "full tank", but if you are running around all day that full tank is going to need to be refilled at least once.

It would be if I was still in Orange County, CA and consulting, but I haven't driven over 60 miles in day since July when we went to San Diego. In fact, I don't think my wife and I combined have hit 100 miles in a day since then. With two cars, one of which is a very large box that gets 26 mpg and can carry a queen-sized bed, I won't worry about the Model 3's range. I'd even be willing to drop back to 100 miles if that knocked $5K off the price!
 
If the Model 3 is anywhere near as great as the S, then Tesla must be making a huge profit on even the base Model S. I don't think that is happening.
Why is that exactly? And if you don't expect the Model ☰ to be 'anywhere near as great' as the base Model S...? Then please, do let us know the level to which you believe everyone else should lower their aspirations in order to satisfy your need to dull the hopes of Tesla Enthusiasts. Do you expect a Tesla Corolla, or Tesla Camry, or somewhere in between? Maybe a Tesla Sonata or Tesla Malibu for our money?
 
  • Like
  • Funny
Reactions: Kiwi808 and JeffK
Look at my post again (#35 in this thread). Here is what I said in response to your listing "Dual Motor" and "AWD" as two separate bullet points in your earlier post:

"Those are the same thing. You buy the Dual Motor option and that means the car is AWD (All Wheel Drive)."
Right you are.

I was asking you about by what followed, until Topher reminded me to uncover ignored content.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red Sage
Why is that exactly? And if you don't expect the Model ☰ to be 'anywhere near as great' as the base Model S...? Then please, do let us know the level to which you believe everyone else should lower their aspirations in order to satisfy your need to dull the hopes of Tesla Enthusiasts. Do you expect a Tesla Corolla, or Tesla Camry, or somewhere in between? Maybe a Tesla Sonata or Tesla Malibu for our money?
I was just saying I don't think Tesla is making a huge profit on the base MS so I don't see how they can make any profit on a base M3. If it all works out that the M3 is as high quality and as great as the S for $35,000 then yes the only explanation would be economies of scale, like you said before, when you were ripping me a new one, earlier in this thread. Or was it the Model 3 Fit and Finish thread.
 
Last edited:
I was just saying I don't think Tesla is making a huge profit on the base MS so I don't see how they can make any profit on a base M3. If it all works out that the M3 is as high quality and as great as the S for $35,000 then yes the only explanation would be economies of scale, like you said before, when you were ripping me a new one, earlier in this thread.
Average margins on the Model S are stated at about 25%. I realize much of that is distributed toward the well optioned vehicles. It would be nice if someone could chime in with factual knowledge, assuming it is public, about the margins on the base Model S.

I agree margins will be slimmer on the 3. That's an amazing base price. I'm guessing they're banking on optioned vehicles to once again skew margins upward to a reasonable level. With the scale of the 3, it would be crazy to assume they're shooting for a similar spread.

As always, the base model will represent your best 'deal.' But it may not be your best choice.
 
Hi everyone !

Well after reading so many about options estimations and witch ones will be proposed with the model 3.

I have a question for you people!

Have we Forgotten or have we Questioning enough about what Elon said at the end of the presentation of the model 3?

"Even if you buy no options at all, this will still be an amazing car!"- Elon Musk

There is a lot of questions to be made from this. Please make yours! Focus!

My question: what could make today the difference between a base model S and a base model 3{an amazing car by Elon} ?

To be more clear, is the base model S already an amazing and so nothing much special to be expected from the base model 3?

What I think is that we may be getting this all rong about options and a base model 3 may include a lot of today options for S/X.

Thanks.

I've had my S for just over three years now. Let me say this, The Worst day in a Model S (if there is such a thing as worst day) is 1,000 times better than anything else.
 
It seems to me that the main point of 'MPGe' is to render a relative equivalence in cost to operate per mile as opposed to actual energy consumption.
Yes it is a problematic measure, similar to how the term horsepower came about for comparing artificial engines to the previously widespread use of actual horseflesh for motive power. Since I'm used to reading litres per 100km, I googled kWh per 100km to see if anyone publishes their EV mileage that way, and curiously found this

1 kilowatt hour per (100 kilometres) = 36 newtons

Presumably, to stick with SI units we should actually be talking about the relative fuel efficiency of EV in Newtons. That is the thing I learned today :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red Sage
Yes it is a problematic measure, similar to how the term horsepower came about for comparing artificial engines to the previously widespread use of actual horseflesh for motive power. Since I'm used to reading litres per 100km, I googled kWh per 100km to see if anyone publishes their EV mileage that way, and curiously found this

1 kilowatt hour per (100 kilometres) = 36 newtons

Presumably, to stick with SI units we should actually be talking about the relative fuel efficiency of EV in Newtons. That is the thing I learned today :)
The energy consumption ratings used by the EPA are further complicated by the fact they measure energy 'from the wall' instead of 'from the battery pack'. Some think that's fine, I think it's rather unfair. It is as if they are presuming you are spilling electrons on the floor every time you refill overnight in your garage. Just one example of the attempt to handicap the ratings for EVs as much as possible.

But yeah... 85 kWh is approximately equal to 2.5 gallons of gasoline in energy capacity. So, you'd think a 265 mile range would be divided by 2.5 gallons... And that would yield a 106 MPGe rating... But it doesn't.