Model 3 Dimensions

[Hache]

119 inches (3.02m) is HUGE !
It would make a huge radius turn, really not good for some narrow parking lots in EU...

My monospace (Peugeot 5008) only has a 107 inches wheelbase.

 

[Az_Rael]

The Model S has a decent turning radius despite its long wheelbase, so maybe the Model 3 will be OK too. As long as it's not as bad as our old Acura TL, I will be OK with it. Our Tacoma truck has a better turning radius than that Acura did which is just plain crazy.

 

[Sunlight]

Hache - remember that the overhangs are really short so that helps in tight spots. And the nose is quite rounded at the edges - another help.

So then it is down to the turning angle of the front wheels - it seems this can be pretty acute nowadays despite having driveshafts! (AWD)

OK maybe the w/b will shrink a bit to, say, 115-117" but if less then the other dimensions from various photos start to be problematic. And I cannot believe that the M3 will be lower than the MS (even with the glass roof) - rather it will be marginally taller to make it a better 'all-purpose' family car - otherwise Tesla would not have put so much effort into excellent rear seat legroom. This ain't a 2+2......

It'll certainly be way easier than an MS in confined spaces - narrower and shorter.

 

[amb3rgris]

OK maybe the w/b will shrink a bit to, say, 115-117" but if less then the other dimensions from various photos start to be problematic. And I cannot believe that the M3 will be lower than the MS (even with the glass roof) - rather it will be marginally taller to make it a better 'all-purpose' family car

I still can't believe that Tesla would make the Model3 wheelbase larger than the ModelS.
These recent extrapolation pics from the MotorTrend shoot seem to continue to support the total length = 0.68 x wheelbase ratio.
So if we assume the wheelbase is the same as the S at 116", that puts the total length at 173", and the height at 56".
Hey, the BMW 3 series and Audi A4 both have a 56" height.
And I still believe that the Model3 comparable product/design targets are exactly those cars, and not a hypothetical "all-purpose family car."

 

[rv1458]

Somebody needs to figure out how wide that sidewalk is!

Construction plans are public information and should have that information...or someone could fly in a drone with a tape measure...

 

[plankeye]

Using these new pictures, no matter if I use the rim only or the whole tire (harder to see/measure), I still get around 114" for the w/b, which I still think makes sense for a smaller car, and is way bigger than a Civic's w/b (106").

I just think the overhangs are way longer than we can see from these pictures, which are all taken from some place near the middle of the side of the car. So we're seeing the corners of the car and not the very front or rear points.

 

[jonnyg]

Using these new pictures, no matter if I use the rim only or the whole tire (harder to see/measure), I still get around 114" for the w/b, which I still think makes sense for a smaller car, and is way bigger than a Civic's w/b (106").

I just think the overhangs are way longer than we can see from these pictures, which are all taken from some place near the middle of the side of the car. So we're seeing the corners of the car and not the very front or rear points.

Maybe this helps a little bit?

 

[S3XY]

Great - I was just about to post a similar picture. For those of you with measuring tools, here's one of the back so someone can guesstimate the width from the license plate (my plate with similar frame is 12.25" in width)


View attachment 173356

and here's another side view from the top of the Gigafactory:

This angle really shows how small the "roof" is. To me the metal roof option would look odd. It would just be a small strip breaking up this large expanse of window. I have a feeling they will sell very few of them and eventually that option will disappear. In fact, I'm not sure it will even make it to the initial production.

 

[Big-T]

Yeah but look at how much sun is pouring into that car, I hope they have some sort of pull over screen to block a little of that light if you don't want it blinding you or or passengers sometimes. (built into that center pillar would make sense)

 

[plankeye]

Maybe this helps a little bit?

it would if we could see the wheels. We need to know where the centers and edges are in relation to the rest of the body.

 

[gregincal]

Using these new pictures, no matter if I use the rim only or the whole tire (harder to see/measure), I still get around 114" for the w/b, which I still think makes sense for a smaller car, and is way bigger than a Civic's w/b (106").

I just think the overhangs are way longer than we can see from these pictures, which are all taken from some place near the middle of the side of the car. So we're seeing the corners of the car and not the very front or rear points.

Exactly. I pointed out before that if you try and estimate the size of the Model S using the exact same technique you get totally erroneous results, but people ignore that fact. You absolutely cannot compare the apparent length from the front to the back of the car, which is longest in the center of the car, to the apparent length between the wheels at the near side of the car to get a ratio. Perspective guarantees that the result you get will be wrong. How much wrong all depends on focal length of the camera lens.

 

[jonnyg]

it would if we could see the wheels. We need to know where the centers and edges are in relation to the rest of the body.

But you can see locations of things like mirrors, lights, etc in both images. Will have to use both a side image as well as the overhead image together I think.

 

[Sunlight]

If the MS w/b is 116" and not 119" has previously suggested (Hache), then 114" is a good figure......

Maybe the actual length then is around 177" which is OK - bit smaller than its natural competitors but with more internal space (and trunk space!)

 

[Pando]

Re-reading Snowdog's post #40 and all the other stuff, I am inclined to agree that the M3 wheelbase could be the same as the MS. This still gives reasonable overall length (with short overhangs) and height. Cross-checking all the photos seems to confirm this and it make sense. Obviously the M3 would be appreciably narrower.

Any validated evidence that this is not the case?

I did a photo analysis HERE which revealed that M3 has a wheelbase that's few (2-3) inches shorter than MS.

 

[Taliessin]

Maybe this helps a little bit?

If we assume that the width (minus mirrors) is about 73 inches (consistent with Audi A4 and BMW 3), then the length comes out about 175 inches, which is consistent with a number of other estimates and similar to that of the Nissan Leaf.

 

[plankeye]

Using the overhead picture, and a side picture to translate the wheel centers to some part of the body on the overhead pic, and my earlier calculated wheelbase of 114, I calculate the overall length somewhere between 185"-187". The biggest problem with this is finding the wheel centers on the body accurately.

 

[Taliessin]

Using the overhead picture, and a side picture to translate the wheel centers to some part of the body on the overhead pic, and my earlier calculated wheelbase of 114, I calculate the overall length somewhere between 185"-187". The biggest problem with this is finding the wheel centers on the body accurately.

This would make the width the same as the MS. I seem to recall some mention from people riding in the back seat at the reveal that the seating was noticeably tighter than in the MS.

 

[Taliessin]

Using the overhead picture, and a side picture to translate the wheel centers to some part of the body on the overhead pic, and my earlier calculated wheelbase of 114, I calculate the overall length somewhere between 185"-187". The biggest problem with this is finding the wheel centers on the body accurately.

But you might be close to right--it is just possible to see the door handles on the left side of the overhead picture. Getting the ratio of the distance between the door handles to the total length, then referencing this to an excellent side view picture, and assuming the external tire size for the 20" wheels to be 26.5 inches, one gets a total length close to what you suggest. However, using the same assumptions on the side view, I get a wheelbase of 111 inches. I think one of the main problems with this approach is foreshortening in the view from above, which appears to have been taken from a point over the front of the vehicle.

 

[plankeye]

But you might be close to right--it is just possible to see the door handles on the left side of the overhead picture. Getting the ratio of the distance between the door handles to the total length, then referencing this to an excellent side view picture, and assuming the external tire size for the 20" wheels to be 26.5 inches, one gets a total length close to what you suggest. However, using the same assumptions on the side view, I get a wheelbase of 111 inches. I think one of the main problems with this approach is foreshortening in the view from above, which appears to have been taken from a point over the front of the vehicle.

Yes, I agree. I noticed that the pic was taken from near the front of the car.

In a nutshell, none of the pictures are going to get us to numbers any closer than 75-80% of reality.

 

[Breezy]

Scaling from pictures should get us within about 5%. The more pictures, the better. Of course the production version could easily differ by that much anyway.