Is it just me that is disapointed by the cargo space!?

[EinSV]

The presented capacity is better than the intended competition.View attachment 228954

Very helpful, thanks.

According to Edmunds, the Model 3's 14 cu. ft. of cargo capacity is comparable to (or better than) even the larger cousins of these models (Audi A6, Mercedes E300 and BMW 530). So the Model 3 is "fighting above its class" in terms of cargo capacity.

Tesla Model 3: 14 cu. ft.
2017 Audi A6: 14.1 cu. ft.
2017 Mercedes E300 13.1 cu. ft.
2018 BMW 530e 14.5 cu. ft.

 

[bro1999]

That may be true, but it is split into two parts in the Model 3, the trunk and the frunk. So how much of the 14 cuft. are in the frunk? (That could make a significant difference.)

The frunk will probably add between 2-3 cubic feet, so the actual trunk capacity will be 11-12.

 

[jelloslug]

This!
I mean, I was actually shocked when I first read about the Model 3 cargo capacity.
It is less than on my 2004 E46 3-series coupe (which certainly is not renowned for being a very practical and roomy vehicle), even though the Model 3 has a trunk and a frunk and is almost 14 inches longer!
Where has all that real estate gone? Especially as Elon mentioned how good the room economy was due to certain design tweaks.

My "frunk" is filled with a 6-cylinder engine plus all its additional components. I have a fuel tank and thanks to RWD a transmission tunnel. The Model 3 has none of that, plus is significantly longer. Imho that doesn't compute.

The cargo capacity for that BMW is listed at 9.5 cubic feet.

 

[bxd20]

Personally, yes I'm disappointed, very much so.

As others have said, I assume the small trunk is due to a very large rear seat area. We will have to see how roomy it feels when they are reviewed.

You cannot simply attribute the lack of cargo capacity to the 3 having a trunk versus a hatchback. This car is bigger on the outside than other cars that are smaller, yet have larger trunks. Chevrolet Cruze sedan and VW Jetta come to mind.

It's been drilled into us that EVs have much superior packaging than ICE vehicles, so actually falling in line and being very average in cargo capacity compared to similar sized ICEs leaves me disappointed.

I have a family of 4, and we like to take road trips. Long weekends, and, one week vacations. Had the Model 3 come with around 18 cu ft of combined cargo capacity, it would have been perfectly sized for the 4 of us, our 3 suitcases, and a few soft bags. Based on pictures of the frunk which appears to be 2-3 cu ft, the trunk will be 11 cu ft or so. That's a lot less room for beach toys in the summer, gifts at Christmas family gatherings, and pans of stuffing and pumpkin pie for Thanksgiving dinner at grandma's house.

It's definitely making me reconsider the Bolt with 16.9 cu ft.

 

[jelloslug]

Personally, yes I'm disappointed, very much so.

As others have said, I assume the small trunk is due to a very large rear seat area. We will have to see how roomy it feels when they are reviewed.

You cannot simply attribute the lack of cargo capacity to the 3 having a trunk versus a hatchback. This car is bigger on the outside than other cars that are smaller, yet have larger trunks. Chevrolet Cruze sedan and VW Jetta come to mind.

It's been drilled into us that EVs have much superior packaging than ICE vehicles, so actually falling in line and being very average in cargo capacity compared to similar sized ICEs leaves me disappointed.

I have a family of 4, and we like to take road trips. Long weekends, and, one week vacations. Had the Model 3 come with around 18 cu ft of combined cargo capacity, it would have been perfectly sized for the 4 of us, our 3 suitcases, and a few soft bags. Based on pictures of the frunk which appears to be 2-3 cu ft, the trunk will be 11 cu ft or so. That's a lot less room for beach toys in the summer, gifts at Christmas family gatherings, and pans of stuffing and pumpkin pie for Thanksgiving dinner at grandma's house.

It's definitely making me reconsider the Bolt with 16.9 cu ft.

Unless you are going to pack stuff to the roof, the Bolt may not be as versatile as you think.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Personally, yes I'm disappointed, very much so.

As others have said, I assume the small trunk is due to a very large rear seat area. We will have to see how roomy it feels when they are reviewed.

You cannot simply attribute the lack of cargo capacity to the 3 having a trunk versus a hatchback. This car is bigger on the outside than other cars that are smaller, yet have larger trunks. Chevrolet Cruze sedan and VW Jetta come to mind.

It's been drilled into us that EVs have much superior packaging than ICE vehicles, so actually falling in line and being very average in cargo capacity compared to similar sized ICEs leaves me disappointed.

I have a family of 4, and we like to take road trips. Long weekends, and, one week vacations. Had the Model 3 come with around 18 cu ft of combined cargo capacity, it would have been perfectly sized for the 4 of us, our 3 suitcases, and a few soft bags. Based on pictures of the frunk which appears to be 2-3 cu ft, the trunk will be 11 cu ft or so. That's a lot less room for beach toys in the summer, gifts at Christmas family gatherings, and pans of stuffing and pumpkin pie for Thanksgiving dinner at grandma's house.

It's definitely making me reconsider the Bolt with 16.9 cu ft.

YES!!! When did you reserve? What trim level were you looking at?


I'm hoping to move up. Come on everyone, let that hate and dissatisfaction flow......log in to your My Tesla account and cancel right now!!!!

 

[bxd20]

Unless you are going to pack stuff to the roof, the Bolt may not be as versatile as you think.

Correct. Hatchback ratings are always inflated, assuming you can pack to the roof. Which you can rarely do. You can't do that with Christmas gifts and pumpkin pies.

So 14 cu ft in the 3 will probably be a little more practical than 16.9 cu ft in the Bolt. Depends on what you're carrying.

I actually prefer trunks over hatchbacks.

The problem with the small trunk in the 3 doesn't stem from it not being tall enough; rather it stems from the L x W dimensions. Again, I think they took space from the trunk, made it very average in size, to improve rear seat space. "Average" trunk with hopefully a "gigantic" rear seat. I would have preferred a "roomy" trunk with a "roomy" back seat instead. At 184" this isn't a tiny car.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

The cargo capacity for that BMW is listed at 9.5 cubic feet.

Something people need to recognize is that European and US cargo capacities are generally measured differently. Europeans apparently fill their vehicles with water and Americans fill their cars with boxes of a particular size.

Also, the US standards (which aren't enforced in law) mean USA open vehicles (hatchbacks and SUVs) may be measured differently to vehicles with closed trunks.

 

[bro1999]

Correct. Hatchback ratings are always inflated, assuming you can pack to the roof. Which you can rarely do. You can't do that with Christmas gifts and pumpkin pies.

So 14 cu ft in the 3 will probably be a little more practical than 16.9 cu ft in the Bolt. Depends on what you're carrying.

I actually prefer trunks over hatchbacks.

The problem with the small trunk in the 3 doesn't stem from it not being tall enough; rather it stems from the L x W dimensions. Again, I think they took space from the trunk, made it very average in size, to improve rear seat space. "Average" trunk with hopefully a "gigantic" rear seat. I would have preferred a "roomy" trunk with a "roomy" back seat instead. At 184" this isn't a tiny car.

The Model 3 is 20" longer than the Bolt (164 vs 184). Despite being 20" longer and having a frunk, the cargo capacity is still less than the Bolt's. That is pretty surprising. I was expecting frunk+trunk to at least equal the Bolt's overall capacity.

And because the Bolt has the rear view mirror camera, stacking cargo up to the roof is actually not a huge deal, since you can get a crystal clear view out the rear with the rearview cam.

And you can always stack stuff ON the roof (and the rear) too.

 

[JeffK]

The Model 3 is 20" longer than the Bolt (164 vs 184). Despite being 20" longer and having a frunk, the cargo capacity is still less than the Bolt's. That is pretty surprising. I was expecting frunk+trunk to at least equal the Bolt's overall capacity.

And because the Bolt has the rear view mirror camera, stacking cargo up to the roof is actually not a huge deal, since you can get a crystal clear view out the rear with the rearview cam.

Likewise you can probably put down the rear seats and load the Model 3 up vertically too but that's part of passenger volume

 

[ModelNforNerd]

The Model 3 is 20" longer than the Bolt (164 vs 184). Despite being 20" longer and having a frunk, the cargo capacity is still less than the Bolt's. That is pretty surprising. I was expecting frunk+trunk to at least equal the Bolt's overall capacity.

I'm suspecting adults in the back seat of a Model 3 will have a better time....

 

[bro1999]

I'm suspecting adults in the back seat of a Model 3 will have a better time....

Do the rear seats lay down almost flat like in the Bolt?

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Do the rear seats lay down almost flat like in the Bolt?

Won't do you a lot of good if you have long legs.

 

[bro1999]

Won't do you a lot of good if you have long legs.

Well, the Bolt has plenty of vertical room too....to stretch one's legs or something.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Well, the Bolt has plenty of vertical room too....to stretch one's legs or something.

Vertical room to stretch your legs....are you putting your legs in the air? Is this that weird VW commercial where the couple can't stop copulating in their car?

MOST people I know tend to have their legs out in front of them, feet on the floor.

 

[bro1999]

Vertical room to stretch your legs....are you putting your legs in the air? Is this that weird VW commercial where the couple can't stop copulating in their car?

MOST people I know tend to have their legs out in front of them, feet on the floor.

I think this conversation zigged when it was supposed to zag...

Anyways, one thing the Bolt has NOT been criticized for is lack of rear leg room. Rather the opposite with most reviewers/owners being surprised at the rear legroom. And interior passenger space in general.

 

[Sonny Daze]

That may be true, but it is split into two parts in the Model 3, the trunk and the frunk. So how much of the 14 cuft. are in the frunk? (That could make a significant difference.)

4 cubic ft?

 

[jelloslug]

Something people need to recognize is that European and US cargo capacities are generally measured differently. Europeans apparently fill their vehicles with water and Americans fill their cars with boxes of a particular size.

Also, the US standards (which aren't enforced in law) mean USA open vehicles (hatchbacks and SUVs) may be measured differently to vehicles with closed trunks.

So then it helps to use the same measurement standard when comparing cars.

 

[jelloslug]

4 sq ft?

That's more like 2 cubic feet.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The Model 3 is 20" longer than the Bolt (164 vs 184). Despite being 20" longer and having a frunk, the cargo capacity is still less than the Bolt's. That is pretty surprising. I was expecting frunk+trunk to at least equal the Bolt's overall capacity.

If you look at the car design it makes a lot more sense. The wheelbase of the Model 3 is relatively long (est 113) and car has to have space to fit two motors (front and back). It's also a sedan, so space above the parcel shelf is not counted (under a similar standard, the European Ampera-e version of the Bolt is rated at 13.5 cubic ft; as noted above, the Europeans seem to use a standard of filling with water instead of boxes).