Foxhound199
Member
I was still under the assumption that among RWD cars, the more highly optioned ones would come first.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
They've always had the same amount of time, reservation numbers didn't move the clock forward or backwards...
But which is more important? You spend almost all your time with the car IN THE INTERIOR. How often are you doing maximum 0-60 launches?
I'd rather have a slightly slower car with an awesome interior than a slightly faster car with a cheap interior, because I'm an adult now. Luxury is more important to most of us than impressing our friends at the drag strip.
Zaphod
Galaxy President (former)
If I recall, due to the surprising, overwhelming demand, they pushed production ahead almost a year. I believe 3 wasn't supposed to be launched until 2018 sometime.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
For me it's the 0-60 launches but more specifically passing ability. I could car less about the interior as long as it's functional and the seats are comfortable. Everyone is different.
I'm fine with my Prius interior if that tells you anything.
Actually, stalling against the converter or clutch assy so you can hold peak power RPM at 0 mph, then mash it and release the brake has always been very abusive, especially to IRS cars, and is never used on the street by good drivers.
Electric cars don't do that. You push the pedal on the right and it goes with little noise or fanfare. Quietly and instantly.
For driving safely, the number you really want to see is passing times.
MB C300 (coupe):
Passing 30-50 mph: 3.8 sec
Passing 50-70 mph: 4.7 sec
Passing 30-70 mph: 8.5 sec (this can also be thought of acceleration time to freeway speed from a roll)
Bolt EV (the Model 3 will be quicker):
Passing 30-50 mph: 2.5 sec
Passing 50-70 mph: 3.5 sec
Passing 30-70 mph: 6.0 sec
At 70 mph, each second is about 7 car lengths.
The Model 3 is not going to be dragster, but it will have modern ICE performance levels yet with the instant thrust of an EV.
EV test times are misleading. If an ICE records a given passing value, the EV with the same number will act quicker in the real world.
ThosEM
Space Weatherman
I, for one, want a Model ☰ic (cabriolet). That isn't unreasonable if the targeted comparable is a BMW 3 series. I own a 328ic now and would like to replace it with an EV. The next Tesla Roadster is more likely to be targeted at the BMW i8 or Porsche Mission E, a class I can't afford. I want an affordable E-cabrio with 2+2 seating. A panoramic roof or Targa coupe might do the trick and allow for a roll-bar, without requiring space for a folded down top. Can you handle that, Elon?
I'm with JeffK: As long as the seats and driving position are comfortable, the things that people regard as "luxury" are pretty meaningless to me, and many of them are just more stuff to go bad and cause problems. Acceleration for merging and passing is important, and as long as it's used properly and carefully, enhances safety. Also extremely important to me are quiet operation and not dumping filth and CO2 into the air, which is why I loved my ugly rattletrap POS Zap Xebra so much. It was probably the worst-designed and worst-built car in history, with the most uncomfortable seats ever, and before I got my Tesla, the Xebra was my favorite of any car I had ever owned.
So, to me, all that matters about the interior are: 1. Seat and driving comfort, and 2. ease of use of all the controls.
I never do 0-60 launches because the only way for me to do that would be if there was a stoplight right at the freeway entrance and no cars ahead of me. But I often do hard 0-35 launches, and in over 6 years of driving my Tesla I've never gotten tired of that.
After all the interior discussion this doesn't seem too bad. Some pretty cool features also.
Granted not nearly as attractive on the outside.
Granted not nearly as attractive on the outside.
Yeah I'd much prefer the bolts interior simply because of the drivers cluster and center console. But the outside is boring/ugly. A bolt won't get anyone laid. A Model 3 will.
I'm sure the Bolt has interesting features and is probably very comfortable to drive. But I don't trust GM. I don't trust their reliability, I don't trust them to support me, the customer. I also don't like it that GM was dragged kicking and screaming into the BEV arena. Tesla was founded with a vision of electric transportation and a commitment that I think GM lacks.
Chopr147
Active Member
It's not just the 0-60 launch or quickness. It's the whole package. Interior is nice but Tesla is behind a bit on that. Not WAY behind BMW, Audi etc.... but improving. I have come to enjoy the simpleness of an EV, the low maintenance, cargo space, comfort of not having the center hump, always full "tank" , quiet.........I can go on and on. NO ICE can compare. I'll see a MB S550, think ,nice car but it's not a Tesla. I have become a Tesla snob
The latter part is true, and GM has bad customer service, but I don't think teslas have been proven to be any more reliable than GM's current products. Lots of people making lots of visits to service centers on this site.
It's not just the 0-60 launch or quickness. It's the whole package. Interior is nice but Tesla is behind a bit on that. Not WAY behind BMW, Audi etc.... but improving. I have come to enjoy the simpleness of an EV, the low maintenance, cargo space, comfort of not having the center hump, always full "tank" , quiet.........I can go on and on. NO ICE can compare. I'll see a MB S550, think ,nice car but it's not a Tesla. I have become a Tesla snob
I, too, have become a Tesla snob. I see a beautiful antique car on the road, and I think, "That would be a really nice car if it had an electric drivetrain."
The difference (and this is just my opinion, based on my own experience with my Tesla) is that Tesla really seems to care about its customers. I gather that the Model X has had some serious problems (let's hope they learned a lesson and will do better with the Model 3), and both my 1989 Honda Civic and my 2004 Prius have been more reliable overall than my Tesla. But I really think that Tesla cares, whereas I think that GM would sell its grandmother a lemon and lose no sleep over it. Of course, I probably won't ever forgive GM for crushing the EV-1.
I also don't think we'd have the Chevy Bolt if it was not for Tesla. But if GM had built the Bolt in 2006 when I bought my Zap Xebra, I'd have bought the Bolt. Any EV is better than a stinker. But between GM and Tesla, I'm a Tesla fanboy all the way. And none of my qualms about the design and controls of the Model 3 would keep me from getting it if I was not already driving a Tesla, so I can wait for a test drive and decide which I like better.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Then I guess I am somewhere in the middle: I like understated elegance and thoughtful design. That strikes me as the natural companion of an EV drivetrain that seems to be invisible to the senses.
I'm looking forward to a minimalist interior without a host of button, knobs and lights of multiple colors.
IIRC, a Zap is a poorly built Chinese enclosed tricycle used for riding around the neighborhood. I forget what that kind of vehicle is called, but they are not intended for actual travel and are limited by law to something like 25 miles per hour? To drive one faster it needed to registered as a motorcycle. Sort of like a golf cart with less stability and no brakes.
So it is an excellent match for an 80's Civic or early Prius, very similar concept.
Best guess is a 200HP EV with 238 miles of modern EPA range that hits 60 mph in 6.x seconds would cost $100,000 in 2006. Lithium Ion was very expensive, and some the technologies in the Bolt construction were not available in 2006.
A lot of folk are misinformed about the EV1:
First, Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole shooter of JFK. Terrorists crashed jets into the World Trade Center. Mankind landed on the moon.
Now keep that in mind when reading the following.
While the EV1 was the trickest vehicle made in America up to that point, it was no Bolt. Nor was it GM's first EV, but that's another story. It was rated as one of "50 Worst Vehicles of All Time" by the mainstream press. It was also a flop in the showroom even with massive discounts. What happened? Was it internal GM sabotage? Was it Big Oil? Donald Trump? Saudi Sheikhs? No. It was not the car that buyers wanted to buy. So how could it gotten that far and lost so much money if there were not enough buyers? It was a comedy of errors.
The EV1 was never intended to be sold, and was never branded. The MSRP was listed at about $35k for market testing, but had no bearing on the car's cost. Like Tesla, there was no EV1 dealerships. It was called the EV1 or sometimes the GM EV1. You could acquire one from the GM Advanced Technologies Group at a Saturn dealer. You were a beta tester. While it could charge overnight on 120vac, GM setup up both home and remote 240v charging facilities for EV1s that would take 2-3 hrs for a full charge, GM was the first MFR to provide remote EV infrastructure with roughly 1,000 locations.
The EV1 was originally called the GM Impact. About 50 Impacts were made, and did a nationwide tour in the mid 90's so people could drive them and GM could get feedback. Sadly, this is where everything fell apart. We as a people do not know what we really want. 85% of the people said an Impact would suit their lifestyle. This would prove to be a very expensive error.
To promote the EV idea, the Impact set the world's land speed record for an electric car at 183 mph at Bonneville during it's reign as EV's Top Gun. The name was changed to EV1 because they thought Impact wasn't a clever name for a street car with airbags.
Since the Impact was a street legal car in 1990, it's hard to say that GM was forced to build the EV1 as many claim. The Impact engineering predates the CARB ZEV guidelines and mandates. Nor was the Impact the only EV GM was testing at the time. The Impact is the EV1 with a name change. They are one and the same.
Since the EV1 program was to be a beta test for further EV development, potential owners were selected by the Advanced Technologies Group. It certainly helped to be a celebrity when it was time for selection, but in the end, the EV1 ran out of customers before production was halted. Those '85%' people never materialized. But it wasn't necessarily GM's fault, as much as press induced hysteria. The EV1 was the first EV with fire issues. Although only one car burned up, you know how the press works. All the cars had to be recalled. And being a small 2 seater, it really only suited a very limited market, as Honda was soon to learn with it's Insight.
Owners were allowed to return their EV1s early, and many did. GM kept this quiet. By the end of the test, there were 42 out of 400? EV1 owners who wanted to keep the car. This is what they made a movie about.
What remains remarkable about the Impact/EV1 was how good a job GM did at building the car, and how bad a job they did at market research.
When the final EV1 rolled off the assy line, the specs were roughly as follows (memory sucks):
NiMH instead of lead acid battery would propel the car up to 140 highway miles.
Weight 3000lb
0-60 mph in 8.0 seconds.
2-3 hour charging with inductive 7kW charger (30 amp x 240vac)
Heat Pump
Electric Steering
Electric Brakes
Airbags
Aluminum aerospace engineering frame
Aluminum and polymer/composite body
137 HP AC Induction Motor
Aerodynamic Cd of 0.19
There are some EVs for sale today that are inferior to the EV1. It certainly was not a half ass effort of a team forced to come up with something at gunpoint.
But...
To be honest, it's more fun to think that Big Oil and GM conspired to kill the Electric Car. So fun, that somebody made good money fabricating a story about it.
Fun reading, an early press test of the first EV1 (not the NiMH) General Motors EV1 - Driving Impression - American Car - Motor Trend Magazine
Last edited:
AustinPowers
Total Smeghead
Plus, "heavily optioned" implies that there will be enough options in the first place. From the current indications given on the Tesla comparison page, there don't seem to be that many options in the pipeline, other than quite likely colour, wheels, and roof.
I mean, they specifically mention less than 100 combinations for Model 3 versus more than 1,500 for Model S.
Now take a look at the Model S optional extras. There are a few, but not that many.
Other than the obvious different battery sizes (5), there currently are:
- 7 colours
- 2 roof options
- 4 wheel designs
- 6 interiors
- Premium Upgrades Package
- Enhanced Autopilot
- Full Self-Driving Capability
- Subzero Weather Package
- Premium Sound
- Rear Facing Seats
- Smart Air Suspension (not for all battery sizes)
- Carbon Fiber Spoiler (only for P100D)
Now say Model 3 gets just 2 battery sizes (60 and 75 for example), and the larger one only comes with AWD.
Add to that at the bare minimum:
- 6 colours (judging by the RCs seen so far - black, white, red, blue, silver, Sig-red)
- 2 roof options
- 2 wheel designs
- 2 interiors
Even with no other optional extras that is already 96 possible configuration combinations!
As Tesla specifically mentions less than 100 combinations, and the above is the bare minimum from what we know for sure (which isn't that much), I don't see anything else that could be thrown into the mix, at least for the time being.
Or did I miscalculate somewhere?
Similar threads
