Model 3 Dimensions

[rEVhappy]

The M3 is noticeably smaller than the A4. I expected an A4 sized car. I would suggest that the M3 stay the size that it is ( or larger ) so that there can be a smaller more affordable Model out there......IE M1.5.

The Model 3 is very comparable in size to the A4, give or take a few inches. In fact, considering the assumptions of the wheelbase (which is a good indicator of passenger cabin space), the interior space might be more comparable to the size up A6/ MB E-Class. The assumed wheelbase is longer than C Class, 3 Series, A4, Infiniti Q50, Honda Accord, Nissan Maxima, even the Chevy Impala! The Model 3 looks like it'll have tremendous packaging for its class and size.

 

[Garlan Garner]

The Model 3 is very comparable in size to the A4, give or take a few inches. In fact, considering the assumptions of the wheelbase (which is a good indicator of passenger cabin space), the interior space might be more comparable to the size up A6/ MB E-Class. The assumed wheelbase is longer than C Class, 3 Series, A4, Honda Accord, Nissan Maxima, even the Chevy Impala! The Model 3 looks like it'll have tremendous packaging for its class and size.

I don't know exactly the physical size of the M3, however I didn't think it approached
186″ L x 73″ W x 56″ H

That's the Dimensions of the 2017 A4.

So far in this thread no one has even speculated that the M3 is 186" long.

 

[rEVhappy]

You might've missed it, try and keep up Hot off the presses!

 

[Garlan Garner]

View attachment 176100



You might've missed it, try and keep up Hot off the presses!

I have to see that "for real". per Tesla sorry

 

[rEVhappy]

Check out gregincal's post on the prior page with the grid lines. MT's assumption is in the ballpark given that image.

 

[BluestarE3]

Garage planning.

Yep. The projected length of 184", while longer than my Gen 1 Prius, doesn't present a major problem for me. However, if the width is indeed 74", it will be a tight fit in my garage since the Model 3 will have to sit next to my wife's minivan.

 

[Garlan Garner]

I have to see that "for real". per Tesla sorry

I mean,,, look at this car. When I put the Audi A4 and the M3 side by side...I can't see how the M3 takes up all of that hood and trunk size of the A4.

 

[BioSehnsucht]

If those measurements from motortrends are right, then by measuring pixels of the front shot I get a drag area (after .21 coefficient) of 5.13 sq ft (vs 6.2 per Aerodynamic Tesla Model S Electric Car Wins The Wind-Tunnel Wars).

 

[electracity]

Remember - There is going to be a smaller model than the 3. "More affordable" I believe is what Elon Musk called it. If you want a smaller M3, then please wait for the smaller version. For me.... The M3 as is or larger would be great.

Keep in mind that before the Great Reveal, Elon Musk originally pointed to 1 car to provide a hint as to the size of the M3. That car was the Audi A4. The M3 is noticeably smaller than the A4. I expected an A4 sized car. I would suggest that the M3 stay the size that it is ( or larger ) so that there can be a smaller more affordable Model out there......IE M1.5.

The M3 is likely larger inside than the A4. But other than that point, I agree. The M3 is really tesla's mid size car. I think many will sell in the 50-60K range. I doubt the $35K M3 has any positive margin in the first few years of production.

People only buy the 320i when that is all they are willing to spend. It is not much of a car compared to the more expensive 3 series. Tesla's experience is that buyers constantly spend more on Tesla's than they have on any other car. I think many M3 buyers will find a way to add the options they really want.

 

[Zoomit]

If those measurements from motortrends are right, then by measuring pixels of the front shot I get a drag area (after .21 coefficient) of 5.13 sq ft (vs 6.2 per Aerodynamic Tesla Model S Electric Car Wins The Wind-Tunnel Wars).

That probably pretty close. I came up with 4.9 sq ft, but that's when I thought the car was a little narrower than it apparently is. I assumed a 23 sq ft frontal area.

If you assume the 74.2" width by MT is measured similarly to the 77.3" width of the Model S, then it's 96% of the frontal area of the Model S. The height and ground clearance are the same. That yields 24.2 sq ft and if you assume Cd 0.21, then the drag area is 5.08 sq ft.

 

[cokata]

The car is a little too tall for my taste. Even just an inch lower would have made a big difference.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

The car is a little too tall for my taste. Even just an inch lower would have made a big difference.

keep in mind, you don't know what suspension we've seen on the prototypes.

it's entirely possible that your car could go lower than what we've seen so far, if you have air suspension

 

[brianman]

If you want a smaller M3, then please wait for the smaller version.

I didn't say I wanted a smaller M3, but rather I expected one. Even so, why should I wait? The "big" factor didn't stop me from buying S, so why should it stop me from 3?

 

[BioSehnsucht]

That probably pretty close. I came up with 4.9 sq ft, but that's when I thought the car was a little narrower than it apparently is. I assumed a 23 sq ft frontal area.

If you assume the 74.2" width by MT is measured similarly to the 77.3" width of the Model S, then it's 96% of the frontal area of the Model S. The height and ground clearance are the same. That yields 24.2 sq ft and if you assume Cd 0.21, then the drag area is 5.08 sq ft.

I'm not super confident in the accuracy of my results though, so you may be closer. 74.2" is closer to the width of the body based on pixel size using height as a known value, and normally cars are measured at the width of the body not the mirrors (apparently), but assuming square pixels my width calculation was actually off from what they gave, measuring the pixels based on height I get 75.99.. inches. To be fair, the front shot is probably not even close to orthoganol, so doing such measurements is probably thrown off by whatever perspective the camera lens is giving us.

However, I decided to just take MT's figures as gospel for now, and went with a pixel size based on height, selected everything including mirrors and used the histogram function in photoshop to count pixels, did the math and that's how I got the 5.13. Could easily be over 5.2 or under 5, depending on the assumed accuracy of the measurements. I also included the frontal area of the front tires since I didn't know if that was normally considered and figured they're part of the frontal cross section...

 

[gregincal]

I didn't say I wanted a smaller M3, but rather I expected one. Even so, why should I wait? The "big" factor didn't stop me from buying S, so why should it stop me from 3?

Exactly. I used to have a rule that I'd never buy a car longer than 180", but I'll certainly downsize from 196" to 184". It will definitely be less squeezy in my 105 year old garage built for a Model T.

 

[Zoomit]

I'm not super confident in the accuracy of my results though, so you may be closer. 74.2" is closer to the width of the body based on pixel size using height as a known value, and normally cars are measured at the width of the body not the mirrors (apparently), but assuming square pixels my width calculation was actually off from what they gave, measuring the pixels based on height I get 75.99.. inches. To be fair, the front shot is probably not even close to orthoganol, so doing such measurements is probably thrown off by whatever perspective the camera lens is giving us.

However, I decided to just take MT's figures as gospel for now, and went with a pixel size based on height, selected everything including mirrors and used the histogram function in photoshop to count pixels, did the math and that's how I got the 5.13. Could easily be over 5.2 or under 5, depending on the assumed accuracy of the measurements. I also included the frontal area of the front tires since I didn't know if that was normally considered and figured they're part of the frontal cross section...

Part of the uncertainty is that the widths Tesla publishes are potentially not consistent with other manufacturers. Tesla gives 86.2" with mirrors and 77.3" with mirrors folded for the Model S. Other manufacturers often provide with mirrors and without mirrors. The most common width reference I have seen is the "without mirrors" or body width number.

We don't know what MT assumed for the 74.2" number they're quoting for width. It's likely not "with mirrors" but is it "with mirrors folded" or "without mirrors".

 

[rv1458]

I'm assuming that the MT estimates are fairly accurate, which is great! All the 170" estimates floating around here had me a little worried this was going to be a much smaller car than I'd anticipated.

 

[Zoomit]

I'm assuming that the MT estimates are fairly accurate, which is great! All the 170" estimates floating around here had me a little worried this was going to be a much smaller car than I'd anticipated.

Not to worry. Think about this, a VW Golf is 167.5". It was apparent (to me) during the reveal video on stage that this car is longer than a Golf.

 

[Dan Detweiler]

If these are correct then the Model 3 will be 4 inches longer and 3 inches wider than my Volt. My guess is the cabin space will be much better though due to the battery placement as well as the ability to move the front passengers forward in the M3. I hope so anyway. The rear leg room in my Volt is pathetic.

Dan

 

[Xminus6]

Okay. I've taken a screen shot of the video from MT and put it into my 3D modeling program. I then camera matched the position of the camera to correct for perspective. I've created boxes based on the known dimensions of the Model X and Model S in the photo. The length I've calculated for the Model 3 is 182.4". Still obviously a rough approximation but the numbers relative to the X and S work out pretty closely.