Model 3 external dimensions and comparison data...

[hiroshiy]

Thanks, OP for the calculations. I am shocked that Model 3 is almost 189cm wide. This is almost the same width as Mercedes S class. I'm not sure about European market, but for Japan midsize cars should have widths less than 185cm 72.8 inches, preferably 180cm 70.8 inches.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Has anyone been able to get the tire size off of the Mules and RC's?

Can someone zoom in and get the tire sizes?

 

[wdolson]

This was posted Wednesday. Someone caught a Model 3 and a Model S in the same picture. It looks like the Model S in the pictures has 21 inch wheels. The Model 3 wheels look pretty close in size.

Tesla Model 3 Next To Model S In Traffic Puts Size Into Perspective

 

[Garlan Garner]

Does anyone believe the Model 3 looks kinda MPV-ish? Is it because of the short trunk?

 

[Saghost]

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:

View attachment 226070
View attachment 226071

While in the Model S, the bigger rear motor is behind the rear axel:
View attachment 226072
View attachment 226073
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.

Interesting point. In addition to the rear motor being behind the axle in the X/S, the front motor is out of plane - it's located over the top of the part of the battery pack where big battery cars have two stacked modules at the center front.

The graphics from the reveal show the new front motor down in plane with the pack and inside the wheelbase, as you pointed out.

 

[MissAutobahn]

Does anyone believe the Model 3 looks kinda MPV-ish? Is it because of the short trunk?

Don't worry

 

[R.S]

Interesting point. In addition to the rear motor being behind the axle in the X/S, the front motor is out of plane - it's located over the top of the part of the battery pack where big battery cars have two stacked modules at the center front.

The graphics from the reveal show the new front motor down in plane with the pack and inside the wheelbase, as you pointed out.

Yea, that's true. I have noticed it, but I didn't point it out, since I wan't sure how all the "back-of-the-napkin-calculation-warriors" would react to my post and I wanted to play it safe. The pictures don't show everything and it would be harder to prove the location of the front motor taking up battery space.

I don't think taking the wheelbase and width of the Model 3, and trying to find out how much battery would fit, leads anywhere. The M3 will fit exactly as much battery as needed. That's what it's designed for.

The fact that the wheelbase is unusually long, is because they can do it. And a longer wheelbase leads to more interior space. So the guys/gals at Tesla used the wheelbase to pack in the motors as well. And I wouldn't be surprised if there is even more down there, charger, DC-DC, coolant tank. Everything they can fit in there, they will fit in there. Because then the M3 will have even more space for luggage and passengers.

Tesla surely could have designed it to fit 100kWh, but they didn't feel they'd need to.

 

[SageBrush]

Don't worry

This photo is one of the few that pretty clearly show the central, stand-alone display.
I'm more confident now that the 3/2016 prototype is actually pretty close to the production version in terms of design elements.

 

[Pinewold]

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.

If you read the citation on Wikipedia, The current numbers based on Motor Trends pictures with known distance and reference objects for size, so very accurate.

 

[Lysol]

I truly think Elon is referring to the Tesla Semi on that "350kW is child's play". Already, Tesla will permanently throttle charging speed on your Model S/X if you fast-charge (i.e., 50kW+, including Superchargers) too often (i.e., DC fast-charged over 30,000 miles of your mileage).

Unless the 2170 cells have had a major breakthrough in charge rate C or unless Tesla has figured out how to charge more safely, I don't see anything over 150kW+ done safely on a consumer-level car done by Tesla in the upcoming future.

Well, 150kW doesn't mean per cell.... That power is spread out across all the cells in the battery pack. I agree with you in that larger battery packs can accept more watts similar to the same way that the larger battery packs are capable of putting out more power to the motors. Just don't know the specifics yet.

 

[JeffK]

I agree with you in that larger battery packs can accept more watts similar to the same way that the larger battery packs are capable of putting out more power to the motors.

Keep in mind that this is chemistry dependent.

 

[ikjadoon]

If you minimize parasitic reactions and lower the temperature then why not...

Sure. But, I don't think the breakthroughs in battery charging rates have changed that much sense Tesla launched the Model S in 2012. It's still ~100kW for just a small portion of the charge. 350kW will happen, but not on their consumer models coming out this year--from what I can see.

Though Tesla said about this that they don't throttle the charging, some battery packs will see a degradation in the charging capability from heat which will cause limits to fast charging. In other words the limit comes from the laws of Physics, not from any corporate policy.

It is corporate policy in which laws of physics are more important, Clearly, they favour range over charging speed once you get to the extreme of both.

Tesla does throttle the charging: they specifically added that limit, so that they can favour the physics of battery longevity over the physics of fast-charging.

The limit is a clear decision of corporate policy. I agree with the choice, but not the communication. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a corporate policy.

Well, 150kW doesn't mean per cell.... That power is spread out across all the cells in the battery pack. I agree with you in that larger battery packs can accept more watts similar to the same way that the larger battery packs are capable of putting out more power to the motors. Just don't know the specifics yet.

Yes! That's it. If the Model S can only barely increase charging rates over the past 5 years...I'm not sure how they'll charge at 3x the wattage immediately, even with a switch from 18650s to 2170s. It launched with 90kW and now you for a few minutes you can eke out 120kW.

The "area under the charging curve" has not changed measurably.

 

[Saghost]

Sure. But, I don't think the breakthroughs in battery charging rates have changed that much sense Tesla launched the Model S in 2012. It's still ~100kW for just a small portion of the charge. 350kW will happen, but not on their consumer models coming out this year--from what I can see.



It is corporate policy in which laws of physics are more important, Clearly, they favour range over charging speed once you get to the extreme of both.

Tesla does throttle the charging: they specifically added that limit, so that they can favour the physics of battery longevity over the physics of fast-charging.

The limit is a clear decision of corporate policy. I agree with the choice, but not the communication. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a corporate policy.



Yes! That's it. If the Model S can only barely increase charging rates over the past 5 years...I'm not sure how they'll charge at 3x the wattage immediately, even with a switch from 18650s to 2170s. It launched with 90kW and now you for a few minutes you can eke out 120kW.

The "area under the charging curve" has not changed measurably.

I think the key question here is what is producing the limits on charge rate.

If the limit is based on heating in the cells (which the progressive limit as internal resistance rises would seem to suggest,) then the 2170 packs might well have an abrupt non-linear jump.

Tesla took out some patents last year for one end connection of cells through flexible circuitboards with designed in neck points for fusing (as opposed to the ultrasonically welded fusible link all current cars have,) and for a heat pipe based thermal management system heating/cooling the cells from the other end.

Because of the various thermal conductivities involved, it's very likely that it's more effective to take heat out of the end of the entire separator than it is off of the outside perimeter of the cell. That's never been an option before because the lower case was connected to the anode rather than the separator. The heat pipe design can move massive amounts of thermal energy with only small amount of of surface area and temperature difference.

So if Tesla implements this approach on the 2170 packs for the 3 and S/X, and if the charge limit was mostly based on cell heating, I could see significant steps in the charge rate the car can safely absorb.

(Of course, the current Superchargers can't deliver all that much more power to a car - I think the ones they are installing now have a 145 kW rating? - and the connector plug/cable current will be come a limiting factor at some point unless they can raise the system voltage or implement the liquid cooling of the cable they were experimenting with a couple years ago.)

 

[daniel]

Damn, that thing is HUGE! That looks like about half a foot longer and wider than my 2004 Prius, and that car is already much bigger than I need. My old 1989 Honda Civic was about the perfect size. What's with the inflation in car sizes? Are Americans just so goddamn fat now that that cars have to be wider than the driving lanes on streets for them to fit inside???

It's going to be rough adjusting from driving my Roadster to the Model 3. Probably not a deal breaker, but I sure wish they'd been a bit more reasonable about it. A smaller car would probably have been a bit less expensive for the masses as well.

 

[Jersey Shore Tom]

Damn, that thing is HUGE! That looks like about half a foot longer and wider than my 2004 Prius, and that car is already much bigger than I need. My old 1989 Honda Civic was about the perfect size. What's with the inflation in car sizes? Are Americans just so goddamn fat now that that cars have to be wider than the driving lanes on streets for them to fit inside???

It's going to be rough adjusting from driving my Roadster to the Model 3. Probably not a deal breaker, but I sure wish they'd been a bit more reasonable about it. A smaller car would probably have been a bit less expensive for the masses as well.

Did your '89 Civic fit three adults in back seat in a way they could live with for an hour and a half drive. I'm hoping to be able to do that in the 3.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Damn, that thing is HUGE! That looks like about half a foot longer and wider than my 2004 Prius, and that car is already much bigger than I need. My old 1989 Honda Civic was about the perfect size. What's with the inflation in car sizes? Are Americans just so goddamn fat now that that cars have to be wider than the driving lanes on streets for them to fit inside???

It's going to be rough adjusting from driving my Roadster to the Model 3. Probably not a deal breaker, but I sure wish they'd been a bit more reasonable about it. A smaller car would probably have been a bit less expensive for the masses as well.

Look at today's Civic (LxWxH): 182.3 in x 70.8 in x 55.7 in
1989 Civic (LxWxH): 156 in (167 in sedan) x 65 in x 52 in

Yes, "compact" cars have grown a lot larger.

 

[JeffK]

Look at today's Civic (LxWxH): 182.3 in x 70.8 in x 55.7 in
1989 Civic (LxWxH): 156 in x 65 in x 52 in

Yes, "compact" cars have grown a lot larger.

It's considered mid-size nowadays.

 

[stopcrazypp]

It's considered mid-size nowadays.

EPA considers it "mid-size". However, Civic is still a "compact" sedan in the market segment though (AKA what is used by car reviewers and publications).

 

[JeffK]

EPA considers it "mid-size". However, Civic is still a "compact" sedan in the market segment though (AKA what is used by car reviewers and publications).

I park my Prius in compact car only parking spots

 

[stopcrazypp]

I park my Prius in compact car only parking spots

Parking spots are usually defined by 9x18 ft minimum for a regular space, and 8x16 ft minimum for a compact parking space. Most market segment "compacts" today will still fit in a compact space.

The EPA standard actually is the one that makes the least sense in this context. A Rolls-Royce Phantom Coupe is an EPA "compact". This car is 221" L x 78" W x 62" H and definitely will not fit in a compact space (won't even fit in some regular spaces without sticking out a few inches).

2017 Rolls-Royce Phantom Coupe