TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

Model 3 external dimensions and comparison data...

Discussion in 'Model 3' started by X-Auto, May 7, 2017.

  1. X-Auto

    X-Auto Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Messages:
    70
    Location:
    Everywhere
    model-3-exterior-dimensions-featured.jpg

    So I got these numbers from Model 3's Wikipedia page and drew these measurements for the Model 3, also I created a table where we can compare the external dimensions of several Sedans both mid-size and big ones to Model 3 including the wheelbase, if interested you can view the table here: Tesla Model 3 Exterior Dimensions Comparison - Data & Analysis

    Model 3's long wheelbase and more width will actually enable it for a battery bigger than 75 kWh?

    Please Let me know your thoughts !
     
    • Informative x 6
    • Helpful x 1
  2. garsh

    garsh Re Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2016
    Messages:
    330
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Very nice.
    Elon has already stated that it won't fit more than a 75.
    Elon Musk on Twitter
     
    • Like x 1
  3. X-Auto

    X-Auto Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Messages:
    70
    Location:
    Everywhere
    Right, but it has a longer wheelbase compared to similar ICE vehicles, however 75 kWh is going to give good range for a smaller vehicle than the S !
     
    • Funny x 1
  4. wdolson

    wdolson Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    3,605
    Location:
    Clark Co, WA
    I suspect they orient the cells horizontally in the Model 3 instead of vertically to get a little more headroom inside (poor headroom for longer torso people has been a complaint with the Model S). The Model 3 pack might be close in size to the smaller Model S/X pack (the 14 module pack) in width and length, but it will be thinner in height. That may be why the Model 3 can't have more than a 75 KWh pack.
     
    • Informative x 1
  5. R.S

    R.S Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    477
    Location:
    Munich, Bavaria, Germany
    There has already been some speculation, as to why the Model 3 can only hold 75kWh, even though it's wheelbase is so long.

    The most probable answer is that in a Model 3, both motors are within the wheelbase:

    Bildschirmfoto 2017-05-08 um 15.12.19.png
    Bildschirmfoto 2017-05-08 um 15.11.52.png

    While in the Model S, the bigger rear motor is behind the rear axel:
    chassis-motor-dual.jpg
    model_x_chassis-1.jpg
    That way, the Model 3 might have less space for batteries. But I think it was intentional. They didn't find out they couldn't fit more than 75kWh, but rather engineered it in a way, that 75kWh would fit.

    Because 75 kWh seems to be enough for the Model 3, at least for now.
     
    • Informative x 6
    • Like x 1
  6. 03DSG

    03DSG Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Location:
    Cobourg, Ontario
    Great thread and great observations. The completely different placement of the rear motor on the 3 achieves some interesting effects:
    - Allows for the longer wheelbase vs. the overall length.
    - Allows for a shorter rear overhang.
    - Increases available inner trunk space with the shorter overhang.
    - Improves handling by keeping the motor in front of the axle.
    = less oversteer tendancy especially on the RWD versions.

    Well done Tesla
     
    • Like x 2
    • Helpful x 1
    • Informative x 1
  7. Big-T

    Big-T Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    350
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I"m curious about the affects of less oversteer on RWD versions you mentioned, can you elaborate on that?
     
  8. azred

    azred Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    637
    Location:
    USA
    Nice chart, but Wikipedia as the data source? I only wish the chart was based on fact rather than speculation as the estimated length will barely work in my garage space currently allocated to my Model 3. I recall Motor Trend estimated the dimensions based on their photo shoot last year but obviously that photo shoot estimate wasn't anything to count on. They weren't able to measure the prototype and the dimensions of the prototype may differ from the actual car.
     
    • Informative x 1
  9. R.S

    R.S Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    477
    Location:
    Munich, Bavaria, Germany
    To put it very simple: if you corner too quickly, the more weight behind the rear axel, the more force on the rear tires, the more likely the car will oversteer. In this case it doesn't even matter where the drive goes, but only the lateral forces on each wheel.

    If the tires are the same back and front, a car with more weight in front will understeer, while a car with more weight in back will oversteer.

    If the center of gravity is in the middle of both axels, you will end up with the most grip possible, with given tires. That's why supercars are usually mid engined.

    Suspension, uneven tire width and so on, also has a part to play in it, but if we see those as given, the location of the center of gravity has an influence over how the car responds to cornering.
     
    • Helpful x 1
  10. JeffK

    JeffK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2016
    Messages:
    5,173
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    I wonder what this means for the frunk...
     
  11. T34ME

    T34ME Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    483
    Location:
    California
    Good things!
     
    • Like x 1
  12. BluestarE3

    BluestarE3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2016
    Messages:
    2,516
    Location:
    Norcal
    A!though it may change on the production car, this is what it looks like in the original prototype:

    [​IMG]
     
    • Informative x 3
    • Helpful x 2
  13. Big-T

    Big-T Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    350
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I get all that, but the OD3SG said that the different placement of the motor in the model 3 (I assume he means compared to the model S) is going to result in less over steer tendency of the Model 3 RWD compared to the model S RWD.

    The thing is, most of the weight of a Tesla is already centered around the battery pack, according to Quora the electric motor on a Tesla S weighs about 70lbs. The battery however weighs in at over 1,300lbs. I was curious on how a relatively small change in placement of a 70lb motor would help out oversteer when the battery pack which is almost 20x heavier than the motor already centered in the car.
     
    • Helpful x 1
  14. R.S

    R.S Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    477
    Location:
    Munich, Bavaria, Germany
    In that specific case, there is no real difference. Sure, 70 lbs is still something and the reduction gear and inverter might add up the whole weight count to well over 100lbs, but because of the big battery placed in the middle of the car, the effect on where a 70lbs motor in a Model S sits, would be irrelevant.

    For the Model 3 it might be different, since the batteries should weigh less than 700lbs, even the biggest ones, but still, the Model 3 should in either case behave more like a mid engined car, than a rear engined car. The main reasons for putting the motor in front of the rear axel probably don't include handling benefits, but rather packaging and crash structure.

    Side note: While it isn't really relevant to the discussion, I'd really be interested in knowing how much a motor in the Model S really weights. I know where the 70lbs number came from, but I somewhat still doubt it. Strangely no one ever put that thing on a scale, at least no one I know off.
     
    • Informative x 1
  15. garsh

    garsh Re Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2016
    Messages:
    330
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    The pictures of the battery pack at the reveal imply that the cells will still be vertical.
    [​IMG]
    Before Elon tweeted that the max size would be 75kWh, I tried calculating what the max could be. I came up with 85kWh for vertical cells, and much less when assuming horizontal cells.
     
  16. McHoffa

    McHoffa Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2015
    Messages:
    726
    Location:
    Canton, NC
    Have you ever carried an 80 lb bag of concrete in your trunk? It definitely affects steering to add weight back there, even in a fwd car.
     
  17. ecarfan

    ecarfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    12,556
    Location:
    San Mateo, CA
    @R.S Very perceptive! I have watched the Model 3 reveal video multiple times and never noticed that. Now that you point it out, it is clear that both motors are within the wheelbase. My guess as to why Tesla designed the car that way is so they could minimize the front and rear overhangs and maximize the internal volume, reducing the overall size of the 3 compared to the S but still ensuring that 5 adults would fit "comfortably", as Elon emphasized during his presentation. This design still provided space for a 75kWh battery pack which will likely provide a range of close to 300 miles, enough for most (not all!) people and fits nicely with the "premium" Model S which with the 100kWh pack offers significantly more range.
     
  18. SoCalGuy

    SoCalGuy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    409
    Location:
    LA/NYC
    IMG_9425.jpg If the cells are vertical that would imply a higher floor and less headroom, all else being equal since according to this picture from Tesla, the new cells are taller than the old ones.
     
    • Informative x 1
  19. Big-T

    Big-T Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    350
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Sorry if I'm wrong, just trying to understand the statement not to be argumentative here. - but on the RWD versions of the S and 3 will both have their motor in the back, just with the S it's a little behind the wheel base, and with the 3 it's going to be forward a bit. So we're not adding an 80lb bag of concrete we're just moving it from one edge of the trunk to the other - in something that weighs close to a base model Ford F150. Will this placement change really cause understeer to be better on the 3 vs the S?
     
  20. R.S

    R.S Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    477
    Location:
    Munich, Bavaria, Germany
    #20 R.S, May 8, 2017
    Last edited: May 8, 2017

    As to why Tesla chose 75kWh, I have multiple theories.

    1) it clearly puts the Model 3 below the Model S. When we look at BMW, or Mercedes, they attach, now very made up, displacement numbers to their vehicles, to differentiate them. The same goes for kWh in a Tesla. So even the most basic Model S has at least as much kWh as any Model 3, even if it's range might be lower.

    2) 75kWh should give the Model 3 more than 300 miles of range. 118MPGe combined should be enough to achieve that, which seems doable, even for a RWD Model 3 75. If there is an additional improvement in charging speed, 0-80% in 15 minutes for example, 300 miles would be very practical and additional range wouldn't really add much value, but additional costs and packaging problems.

    3) If there is a higher range option, it devalues the base model's range. To give an example (and I mean example, the following numbers are totally made up and aren't up for discussion): If the base Model 3 had 230 miles of range for 35k, it seems like a nice deal to us, even if there is a 300 mile Model 3. But if there is a 400 mile Model 3, 230 doesn't really sound so nice in comparison. Some would feel they need more, just because there is the option of having more. And if the 400 mile Model 3 is too expensive, they might go for a petrol car instead.
     
    • Like x 1

Share This Page