Hyundai KonaEV

[banned-66611]

The M3 SR base model is a compliance car. They won't make many of them. Musk screwed up by announcing the price years ago, so other manufacturers were able to get their cars out first and make it look like a real bad deal.

It's an econobox. The budget Tesla you buy if you can't afford a decent spec but are desperate to own one. Kinda like those cheap and crappy iPhone SEs they made. Like the iPhone SE it's overpriced anyway. It's kind of hilarious how Tesla fans revel in the amount of profit that Tesla is making... off them! You are being fleeced and you love it.

I was going to start Niro thread but it's just going to be wall-to-wall trolling. There are better forums where people with a bit of perspective discuss these cars without the fanboy nonsense.

 

[Yggdrasill]

The base Model 3 is as much a compliance car or econobox as the base BMW 3-series, to which it compares favourably.

 

[techmaven]

The M3 SR base model is a compliance car. They won't make many of them. Musk screwed up by announcing the price years ago, so other manufacturers were able to get their cars out first and make it look like a real bad deal.

It's an econobox. The budget Tesla you buy if you can't afford a decent spec but are desperate to own one. Kinda like those cheap and crappy iPhone SEs they made. Like the iPhone SE it's overpriced anyway. It's kind of hilarious how Tesla fans revel in the amount of profit that Tesla is making... off them! You are being fleeced and you love it.

I was going to start Niro thread but it's just going to be wall-to-wall trolling. There are better forums where people with a bit of perspective discuss these cars without the fanboy nonsense.

You can't compete with facts apparently. Clearly, you also don't understand the term "compliance car." And the very car you are touting is the definition of an econobox. Yeah, go away.

 

[banned-66611]

The base Model 3 is as much a compliance car or econobox as the base BMW 3-series, to which it compares favourably.

The 3 series has a similar 0-60, better spec, "charge speed" and range are much better. Costs £10,000 less than a base Model 3 too.

Of course, it's actually worse than that because Tesla doesn't do discounts, where as BMW owners rarely pay the list price.

Completely ridiculous comparison.

 

[KarenRei]

The 3 series has a similar 0-60, better spec, "charge speed" and range are much better. Costs £10,000 less than a base Model 3 too.

Let's be nice to the BMWs and choose automatics (the manuals have worse fuel economy and performance):

Model 3 SR: $35k*, 0-60=5,6s**, EPA range+~=218/232/246 mi
BMW 330i: $40,3k*, 0-60=5,5s, EPA mpg=34/27/24, gas tank=15,85 gal, EPA range~=538/427/380 mi****

Model 3 LR: $44k*, 0-60=5,1s**, EPA range+~=316/334***/349 mi
BMW 340i: $49k*, 0-60=4,8s, EPA mpg=32/25/21, gas tank=15,85 gal, EPA range=507/396/332 mi****

Model 3 LR AWD: $49k*, 0-60=4,5s**, EPA range+~=297/308***/319 mi
BMW 340i-xDrive: $51k, 0-60=4,6s, EPA mpg=31/25/21, gas tank=15,85 gal, EPA range=507/396/332 mi****

Model 3 LR AWD P: $59k*, 0-60=3,5s**, EPA range+~=297/308***/319 mi
BMW M3: $66,5k, 0-60=4s, EPA mpg=24/20/17, gas tank=15,85gal, EPA range=380/317/269 mi****

* The former qualifies for tax breaks in most markets and saves ~$1k/yr (US) / ~$2k/yr (EU) in fuel. ~$3k/yr where I am.
** Tesla nerfs Model 3 0-60s by a couple tenths of a second to account for performance variations relative to state of charge. In ideal conditions, LR RWDs measure in as low as 4,8s, for example.
*** Drivecycle-measured EPA ranges; Tesla merged all LR models together to a single "310" figure.
**** Starts every day with some fraction of a tank remaining, on average ~50-70%, vs. every day at ~80-90% for the EVs, depending on what the BMW's fill schedule is and what the Model 3 owner's daily charge limit is. That's a ~40% bonus to the EVs. Even ignoring that, note that the LR RWD actually has *longer city range* than the 340i, and that the P nearly beats the M3 in combined mileage as as well.. Accounting for daily "charge" states, the amount that a driver can just up and drive on any random day turns to 269/284/297mi vs. an average of 304/238/199 mi - and half the time less than that, potentially significantly less.
+ EPA ranges calculated by taking the combined range and adjusted for MPGe. SR combined range comes from the LR range and then adjusting it for the number of cells and the weight difference. No attempt is made to estimate SR AWD, since its performance depends on a lot of Tesla's particular design decisions.

You know, most people don't mind if someone has different opinions about debatable subjects. It starts to bug them when people insist on "different facts". Facts are facts, and not subject to debate. For example, the meaning of the term "compliance car" (a car produced in low volumes, such as for regulatory reasons). 18,6k per year is low volumes. "Some large fraction of 500k per year" is not.

 

[Phrixotrichus]

The base Model 3 is as much a compliance car or econobox as the base BMW 3-series, to which it compares favourably.

Depends on the market I guess.

I checked the pricing here in europe.
We expect 42-45k € (all including VAT) for the Model 3 SR here.
At comparable specs and acceleration the BMW 3 series sits at 45k€ (50k for the diesel variant), but with the rebates I usually get for my BMW company cars I wouldn`t even pay 35k(40k). And for fleets those rebates are entirely normal.
~10-15% is standard even in the private sector here.

Since cars in the premium class usually aren`t kept around long enough to make the difference back in fuel savings, and company car holders don`t pay for fuel the Model 3 SR loses in price, range, refueling time and build quality (if that doesn`t suddenly change) to the BMW 3 series.

Here it really comes down to "do you really want an EV over an ICE?"

Mainstream EVs still have a few years ahead of them where they will lose the bang-for-buck comparison with ICEs.
The declining battery prices will hopefully change that, but that will take another 5 years or so.

Edit: hmm i forgot about EV incentives. Those actually level the field somewhat for the private sector. But it`s also not clear how long those will be available.

 

[banned-66611]

The £35k 3 series (e.g. the 330i M Sport) are much, much higher spec than a compliance M3 and have a much higher quality finish inside and out. 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, if you care about such things.

£35k is less than what we expect the M3 to cost after the £4500 EV incentive in the UK (because it's $35k before tax, and the EU models are usually more expensive anyway due to higher costs to meet regulations).

Of course the same argument applies to the Kona and Niro and Leaf 60, which is why I think it's a stupid comparison. Phrixotrichus, it comes down to if you want a long range EV or are happy with short range/ICE.

 

[Yggdrasill]

The £35k 3 series (e.g. the 330i M Sport) are much, much higher spec than a compliance M3 and have a much higher quality finish inside and out.

Why do you think that? I've seen nothing to suggest this to be the case. Of course - we still haven't seen the base interior, which makes things a bit more uncertain.

The Model 3 has a superior suspension which leads to superior driver enjoyment on twisting roads. The center screen blows all the BMW infotainment systems out of the water, and includes stuff like navigation standard. You don't have a noisy, smelly, vibrating fossil engine. You don't have turbo-lag or similar imperfections. And instead of a crappy transmission, you have a single fixed reduction gear (basically giving the same driver experience as a *perfect* CVT.) When it comes to features like seats and mirrors, I suspect Tesla printed out the spec sheet of a 3-series, and then just went down the list and checked them off. It's quite apparent Tesla used the 3-series as a benchmark.

 

[banned-66611]

Why do you think that? I've seen nothing to suggest this to be the case. Of course - we still haven't seen the base interior, which makes things a bit more uncertain.

Well it's not going to be nicer than the LR, is it? Maybe in a couple of years when you can buy one they will have got the panel gaps down to something acceptable.

The center screen blows all the BMW infotainment systems out of the water, and includes stuff like navigation standard.

No Android Auto though, which blows the Tesla system out of the water.

You don't have a noisy, smelly, vibrating fossil engine. You don't have turbo-lag or similar imperfections. And instead of a crappy transmission, you have a single fixed reduction gear (basically giving the same driver experience as a *perfect* CVT.)

On this we can agree. Again, to be absolutely clear, I think this is a silly comparison and would never buy a BMW 3 Series under any circumstances. Aside from anything else the indicator lights are notoriously unreliable.

 

[scaesare]

I'm being generous to the Model 3 here. The base econobox model is very low spec, just a compliance car really.

Aaaaannnd there goes the last shred of credibility you had.

 

[KarenRei]

The £35k 3 series (e.g. the 330i M Sport) are much, much higher spec than a compliance M3 and have a much higher quality finish inside and out.

I'm sorry, please continue with your contradicting-both-owners-and-professional-car-reviewers insistence that Model 3 is terrible, based on your personal experience of never having seen in person, let alone sat in and driven, a Model 3.

 

[banned-66611]

Aaaaannnd there goes the last shred of credibility you had.

There goes your sense of humour. Calling a £30,000 car an "econobox" wasn't bad, so what happened?

 

[WannabeOwner]

neither average charge rate or some arbitrary percent-to-percent time is fair or useful

Maybe too detailed for your comparison sheet, but I have charge time from 0%-10%, 10%-20%, ... then 80%-85%, ... 90%-95%, 95%-100% and then "cell balancing" until charging stops (still at 100%). I can therefore predict charge time if I stop at Low, or High SoC. In fact Supercharging my Tesla is pretty much linear up to 70%, slightly longer to 80%, and then progressively longer above that (hence my change from 10% intervals to 5%)

The one pedal thing is so you don't have to move your foot.

I think just having Ticks and Crosses is the wrong approach (given that you say this is for other people, not yourself). Also ignoring "premium" models. You need additional indicators for "Option" and some classification such as "Poor", "average", "good" and an indication where such features are software and likely to be improved in future. Of course if it IS just for you then tick/cross is fine according to your criteria.

I understand that YOU think that one-pedal should apply friction brakes, but as a Tesla driver I'm not bothered. The reason is that I have consciously considered when that would be useful to me (once the Bolt came to market with that option). and in practice it is "almost never". If I am using AP then the car will come to a stop (and set off again, following car-in-front), by itself and if I am driving manually then when coming to a junction I have found that most of the time I have to slow down faster than Regen alone, so I am using the friction brakes anyway, and thus 100%-one-pedal would not be any benefit. Other driving styles are available

I don't know about Bolt / etc. one-pedal, but in Tesla if battery is 100%, or battery is cold-soaked, then regen is reduced and speed reduction is less effective, and thus even more likely to use friction brakes at junctions etc. If that is also true of one-pedal on Bolt/etc. then I think that would catch me out - i.e. complacency from one-pedal "most" of the time.

Personally I would like one-pedal that is the same "performance" 100% of the time - applying friction brakes if required - so one-pedal doesn't appear to perform any differently with e.g. cold-battery. I have hydraulic-drive garden tractor with that ability (tilt pedal forward/backward for forward/reverse) and its very easy to manoeuvre.

company car holders don`t pay for fuel

In UK we have Benefit-in-Kind (BiK) tax - do you have that in Germany? That applies to Fuel on a company-car, but not to electricity, so e.g. charge-at-work has no BiK tax In UK charge on off-peak overnight rate, assuming around 333 kWh/mile (e.g. model-S), is around 7x cheaper than a 30 MPG ICE, 4.5x cheaper than 50 MPG ICE and for 270 kWh/mile (e.g. Model-3) is 9x and 5.5x cheaper respectively

 

[KarenRei]

Maybe too detailed for your comparison sheet, but I have charge time from 0%-10%, 10%-20%, ... then 80%-85%, ... 90%-95%, 95%-100% and then "cell balancing" until charging stops (still at 100%). I can therefore predict charge time if I stop at Low, or High SoC. In fact Supercharging my Tesla is pretty much linear up to 70%, slightly longer to 80%, and then progressively longer above that (hence my change from 10% intervals to 5%)

For what it's worth, in the spreadsheet I'm working on (for four Model 3 versions, Bolt, 2019 Leaf, BMW i3, Ioniq, both Konas, both Niros, Zoe and E-Golf), I'm doing one better: minutes to charge from 30 EPA highway-cycle miles (not nominal miles) to 80 EPA highway cycles, and likewise 30-130mi, 30-180mi, 30-230mi, and 30-280mi - as well as a " miles per minute" average across each of those ranges. Because that IMHO most closely represents a real-world use case - people don't arrive at a charging station "empty", and they need to add some specific distance to their pack. Percentages and nominal miles are worthless, one has to pick a meaningful drivecycle (and EPA hwy is probably the best out there - of course EPA ranges are based around combined-cycle, not hwy, so this means first converting by the MPGe figures).

The spreadsheet does the above for each of "Common", "Rare", and "Super-Rare / Future" chargers. In the case of Teslas, Supercharger V2 fits both of the first categories (V1s have become such a small portion of the total), and V3 fits the third. For CCS / CHAdeMO, the nominal 50kW stations are "Common", the more powerful CCS1 stations are "Rare", and CCS2 stations are "Super-Rare / Future".

In its initial form, the spreadsheet is just an info page (colour-coded for what features are associated with each package), but I'd like to turn it into a comparator so you can pick packages and it'll show you a comparison for that specific config. There's 263 rows in the spreadsheet at present

 

[WannabeOwner]

Percentages and nominal miles are worthless

In my case, also FWIW , I work on real-world-miles. I know what 100% range, in good weather, is for my own car, so either Percentages or Real World Miles works OK for me.

For a road trip I know that I need to leave Supercharger-A at, say, 67% in order to get to Supercharger-B at no less then 10%. I can get those figures from e.g. A Better Route Planner (including, recently-added, for EV brands other than Tesla)

ABRP tells me how long I will be at Supercharger-A ...but if I detour, or arrive at a different SOC (traffic/roadworks improved my Range, or stepping-on-it eroded range, then my ready-reckoner table tells me how long I will be there (until reaching the needed 67% being my Departure-SoC required to reach next Supercharger-B)

That's what works for me ... but I'm a detail-person ...

 

[KarenRei]

There is no single universal "real-world mile". When comparing vehicles, what we have that can actually be measured is ranges and consumption on different drivecycles. So one has to pick a drivecycle. EPA highway miles (5-Cycle / HWFET * 0,7) is probably the closest to what you would call "real-world miles".

BTW, ABRP is (deliberately) conservative, and very conservative with Model 3. I've talked with Bo about this; he did it on purpose. He vehicle-collected data actually shows that the reference speed (@110kph) for Model 3 LR RWD Aero should be 143 Wh/km, yet he chose 160 Wh/km as the reference consumption so that nobody can blame him for accidentally stranding them And note that his reference data is for vehicles with varying tire pressures, varying amounts of cargo / passengers, driving on roads of various quality, etc, not people driving in optimal conditions. His system is even more conservative when it comes to low speeds.

 

[WannabeOwner]

There is no single universal "real-world mile"

I agree, particularly in respect of comparing one vehicle with another. As an owner, though, I'm only [then] interested in the actual capability of my own vehicle.

ABRP is (deliberately) conservative, and very conservative with Model 3.

Interesting about Model-3 as I have been basing my range-of-each-model on ABRP simulations. For my own car I set the consumption according to what I achieve in practice ... but ABRP was pretty close anyway. I'll add a KarenRei-factor adjustment for the Model-3 in future, thanks

 

[KarenRei]

I agree, particularly in respect of comparing one vehicle with another. As an owner, though, I'm only [then] interested in the actual capability of my own vehicle.



Interesting about Model-3 as I have been basing my range-of-each-model on ABRP simulations. For my own car I set the consumption according to what I achieve in practice ... but ABRP was pretty close anyway. I'll add a KarenRei-factor adjustment for the Model-3 in future, thanks

Heh, it's not my data, it's Bo's auto-collected real-world vehicle data People who set up a MyTesla login on ABRP contribute data as they drive and charge whenever they have the mobile site open. If you want to base your simulations it on the average Model 3's driver's energy consumption, you should choose 143 Wh/km at 110 kph as the reference consumption rather than the default 160 Wh/km (nearly 12% lower). Here's a graph he made of collected datapoints:

Note how much of a spread there is for differences in peoples' real-world conditions. Most of the things that can throw things off from a "perfect" run at a constant speed do so in a way as to raise the energy consumption. So for hypermilers, it's even better

Note that if you contribute data, it also contributes charging session data. They could really use some on the low-end right now, their low-end curve is currently entirely fictional:

 

[Phrixotrichus]

According to @KarenRei `s file the Model 3 LR would be struggling to go beyond 200km in germany with my current mainly 140-180km/h+ profile...and it would actually be more expensive than my regular LPG fuel, too....

meh, that`s harsh.....seriously.

 

[banned-66611]

Maybe too detailed for your comparison sheet, but I have charge time from 0%-10%, 10%-20%, ... then 80%-85%, ... 90%-95%, 95%-100% and then "cell balancing" until charging stops (still at 100%). I can therefore predict charge time if I stop at Low, or High SoC. In fact Supercharging my Tesla is pretty much linear up to 70%, slightly longer to 80%, and then progressively longer above that (hence my change from 10% intervals to 5%)

That's some interesting data. I've been thinking about how to do this and maybe something like 10-70% would be a good measure, but I have another idea. How about time to travel 500km and 1000km? That way you combine efficiency at highway speeds and charge rate with the optimal strategy.

Combined with range figures you then have a good idea of what any single day journey you might care to make will be like. Of course calculating these optimal strategies is not going to be easy.

I think just having Ticks and Crosses is the wrong approach (given that you say this is for other people, not yourself). Also ignoring "premium" models. You need additional indicators for "Option" and some classification such as "Poor", "average", "good" and an indication where such features are software and likely to be improved in future. Of course if it IS just for you then tick/cross is fine according to your criteria.

Maybe I could do 1-3 stars or something. It's another tricky one because often you really need some explanation, e.g. something is in beta or this feature is crippled by a certain flaw in the implementation (*cough* iPace *cough*).

I understand that YOU think that one-pedal should apply friction brakes, but as a Tesla driver I'm not bothered.

It's really just the definition of the feature, which was kinda set by Nissan who were the first to market with ePedal and now a few others are offering it too.

I have found that most of the time I have to slow down faster than Regen alone, so I am using the friction brakes anyway, and thus 100%-one-pedal would not be any benefit. Other driving styles are available

That's an example of when one-pedal mode would be a benefit because it applies more braking force than just regen alone. As long as you anticipate well you only need the brake pedal in emergencies.

I don't know about Bolt / etc. one-pedal, but in Tesla if battery is 100%, or battery is cold-soaked, then regen is reduced and speed reduction is less effective, and thus even more likely to use friction brakes at junctions etc. If that is also true of one-pedal on Bolt/etc. then I think that would catch me out - i.e. complacency from one-pedal "most" of the time.

Don't know about the Bolt but on the Leaf and Kona (and presumably Niro) the car always applies the same amount of braking force using whatever combination of regen and friction brakes are necessary. If the battery is full and no regen is available it applies more friction braking for a consistent response.