Model 3 to be sedan AND crossover

[MassModel3]

Yep I am thinking maybe 5 cars off this chassis.

1. Sedan / Hatchback 4/5 door
2. CUV / Wagon 4/5 door
3. Coupe 2 door
4. Convertible 2 door 2+2 passenger
5. Roadster 2 door 2 passenger

I would definitely be surprised if 1, 2, and 3 did not make the line-up. Putting the next version of the Roadster (will it really be called "Roadster"?) on this platform makes a lot of sense, but I'm thinking that items 4 and 5 will be one or the other, but not both. That's essentially making two versions of the same thing, one with 2 seats, one with 4 seats. Seems like a waste of effort and resources.

 

[Red Sage]

I think the two seater would be called Model R. I hope a subsequent hypercar, to arrive later, would be Model Z. Model ≡ will be in multiple configurations though, just as is the 3-Series.

 

[Kevin Harney]

I would definitely be surprised if 1, 2, and 3 did not make the line-up. Putting the next version of the Roadster (will it really be called "Roadster"?) on this platform makes a lot of sense, but I'm thinking that items 4 and 5 will be one or the other, but not both. That's essentially making two versions of the same thing, one with 2 seats, one with 4 seats. Seems like a waste of effort and resources.

I would actually like #4 to be a 4 door and #5 to be a 2 door but I think those chances are slim at best. You are probably right but I hope not. A Roadster is too small for me ... unless they make the Roadster a 2+2 instead of a true roadster.

 

[Red Sage]

If the rear seat passengers of a Cabriolet aren't able to hop over the side, then they don't get to ride! No four door convertibles! Sorted.

;-)

 

[Kevin Harney]

If the rear seat passengers of a Cabriolet aren't able to hop over the side, then they don't get to ride! No four door convertibles! Sorted.

;-)

Why are you being so mean to me !! LOL :tongue:

 

[MassModel3]

Why are you being so mean to me !! LOL :tongue:

Don't take it personally -- he's an equal opportunity offender! Brutally honest -- damned the torpedoes and all that. But I still like the insight Red Sage brings to the forums. :smile:

 

[Red Sage]

It's just that so many four door convertibles have been executed poorly in the past fifty years or so. I know it can be done right aesthetically... It's just that the barriers to doing so today are rather formidable. There are solutions, but each adds considerable complexity to the design. Hence, why so many either only do coupes as convertibles (avoiding the issue altogether), or live with the least common denominator kludges that are conceived for four door convertibles.

A literal, cloth 'ragtop' is out of the question. They always look really, truly, very bad when applied to 'chopped' sedans. So it would have to be a hardtop convertible, and that means a whole lot of weight. Not so bad in a gas guzzler, pretty bad for an EV.

Rear 'suicide' doors are a must, because regular swinging doors just get in the way at the rear. But not the stupid half doors at the back. And hopefully something that doesn't require a front door be opened first.

The B-pillar has to go. But side impact crash regulations have forced some to use a sort of 'basket handle' rollover hoop -- which looks stupid. Maybe a half-height pillar, beside the front seats would do the trick. But even that would seem out of place.

 

[aronth5]

So perhaps the only "news" part of this is:
1) Both sedan and crossover versions of gen 3 platform might be called Model 3 (instead of speculation crossover be called Model Y or something).
2) Both sedan and crossover released at roughly the same time.
Both of the above really depends on how the statement is worded.

But I agree with others that it has been long known and expected that a sedan and crossover will be built on gen 3 platform.

I think the only real news is how most people thought it was actually new and of course it wasn't. And I don't see the cross over being released for at least a year after the hatchback/sedan. Probably longer.

 

[Kevin Harney]

It's just that so many four door convertibles have been executed poorly in the past fifty years or so. I know it can be done right aesthetically... It's just that the barriers to doing so today are rather formidable. There are solutions, but each adds considerable complexity to the design. Hence, why so many either only do coupes as convertibles (avoiding the issue altogether), or live with the least common denominator kludges that are conceived for four door convertibles.

A literal, cloth 'ragtop' is out of the question. They always look really, truly, very bad when applied to 'chopped' sedans. So it would have to be a hardtop convertible, and that means a whole lot of weight. Not so bad in a gas guzzler, pretty bad for an EV.

Rear 'suicide' doors are a must, because regular swinging doors just get in the way at the rear. But not the stupid half doors at the back. And hopefully something that doesn't require a front door be opened first.

The B-pillar has to go. But side impact crash regulations have forced some to use a sort of 'basket handle' rollover hoop -- which looks stupid. Maybe a half-height pillar, beside the front seats would do the trick. But even that would seem out of place.

Don't get me wrong. I think you are probably correct but that could be a good gimmick. Only 4 door convertible on the market. And if not I will take the 2 door. That is what I have now.

 

[Kevin Harney]

What are the chances that we will see a sedan and coupe first. Followed by a CUV and convertible off those two soon thereafter? Thoughts ....

 

[Yggdrasill]

I'm thinking very unlikely. No way a coupe would sell better than a crossover, and Tesla is likely to target the largest markets first.

 

[Kevin Harney]

I'm thinking very unlikely. No way a coupe would sell better than a crossover, and Tesla is likely to target the largest markets first.

Agreed but my thought was to best utilize the platform. I doubt that they would come out with a sedan and a CUV at the same time and a CUV would likely come off the sedan and a coupe is needed and the convertible would come off that. This gets two lines going at the same time producing 2 and 4 instead of 1, 2,3 and 4. Saving time to a larger market share in the end.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Agreed but my thought was to best utilize the platform. I doubt that they would come out with a sedan and a CUV at the same time and a CUV would likely come off the sedan and a coupe is needed and the convertible would come off that. This gets two lines going at the same time producing 2 and 4 instead of 1, 2,3 and 4. Saving time to a larger market share in the end.

I would expect that the sedan and CUV are launched with less than a year between them.

And sure, it would be nice if Tesla rapidly came out with four Model 3 versions, but I don't think that's very realistic.

 

[JRP3]

A convertible needs significant structural redesign. I don't expect to see a Model 3 convertible.

 

[Kevin Harney]

A convertible needs significant structural redesign. I don't expect to see a Model 3 convertible.

And I see it the opposite way. They will design the Model 3 to accommodate a convertible so no redesign is necessary. Same way BMW does for the 3 series. It is in the big picture from the beginning not an afterthought.

 

[JRP3]

That would add weight and cost, both of which should be avoided when building what is supposed to be a less expensive more efficient vehicle.

 

[Kevin Harney]

That would add weight and cost, both of which should be avoided when building what is supposed to be a less expensive more efficient vehicle.

I understand how the convertible could add cost and weight but how could the design of it add that ? The hardtop in my 3 series only adds a couple hundred pounds so no big deal and that is a hardtop.

 

[MassModel3]

I understand how the convertible could add cost and weight but how could the design of it add that ? The hardtop in my 3 series only adds a couple hundred pounds so no big deal and that is a hardtop.

Yes, but the roof adds to the structural integrity of the overall vehicle. Designing the body to be structurally sound without that top portion requires additional reinforcements not otherwise necessary. So you lose the weight of the roof, but you gain the weight in making the body structurally stronger. Give a little, get a little. But I'm inclined to agree that it's at least a partial redesign after the fact. I don't think they'd want the structural beefing up for a hard top car that doesn't need it.

 

[JRP3]

Exactly.

 

[EVNow]

I don't see any reason why they can't design for the variations without compromises.