Sure it does. If the change is aesthetic and folding seats can simply be designed in later, people wanting an X may decide to wait. If the change is due to structural issues and the X will never had folding seats, people on the waiting list may decide to cancel and purchase something else.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Sure it does. If the change is aesthetic and folding seats can simply be designed in later, people wanting an X may decide to wait. If the change is due to structural issues and the X will never had folding seats, people on the waiting list may decide to cancel and purchase something else.
The Model X will still have superior cargo room to competitors by cubic feet, by a huge amount. It is tremendously much more cargo space with passengers, and passengers are a big point for a CUV. Still don't think reviewers will have a problem, but I guess we'll just have to see.
As this thread shows, subjective statement is subjective. I think it's better than the prototype from all the info shown so far, some people don't. The frunk specifications (two golf bags, or a stroller) are tremendously larger what most people speculated.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
It's only subjective if you're choosing to ignore that the 'fold flat' storage space was highlighted as a feature at launch and one of the few features reiterated after launch.
I know what you mean. The frunk is great for extra luggage etc. but most regular use is going to be through the powered tailgate; manually lifting and closing the frunk on a regular basis will get old fast. Oooh, perhaps the frunk is electronically powered?
Do you have the cargo volume numbers for the X so that we can compare it to those competitors?
Krugerrand
Meow
...but then Tesla doesn't actually have to tell people the why, they need only say 'folding second row seats will be a future option'. :wink:
Do you think ALL the engineers work for Tesla? There's a lot of smart people in this world that will figure it out. Once the X is released to the public, people will know the reason in short time.
Cubic feet of space is certainly a valid way to compare space and I believe the X will meet or beat every other competitor with a similar wheelbase. That is important to me. However, more important is the linear space for me personally with many of the things I would put in it.
Hugh Mannity
Mediocre Member
yeah and I still can't, (after religiously reading all the posts in the model x forum), stop thinking that there MUST be some type of solution that we have not seen or thought of that will open up the interior space as good as or better than the 2012 prototype
Really? I would bet on a square-backed SUV, even without a frunk, besting a sloped design. That's a lot of space given up.
so you're basically making stuff up without a shred of evidence. this is how religions gets started..
I'd argue that full-square full-sized SUVs aren't in the same class as the MX CUV/SUV, but maybe that's just me. (I very highly doubt that any full-box SUV will have more overall storage volume than the MX--many full-sized SUVs lose to the Model S in that competition...)
Anyways, it just comes back full-circle: if the Model X won't meet your needs, don't buy it and "enjoy" the purchase of your competitor.
Krugerrand
Meow
Wife just got home. All that stuff leaning on the wall was in the car PLUS four ten footers that are at my feet. That's right, 120"x6" base moulding in a LEAF.
Make of that what you will. What I'm feeling is that if she can go to the hardware store and bring that home in her LEAF, and IF, by design, I am unable to do so in my Model X, Tesla should be ashamed.
Make of that what you will. What I'm feeling is that if she can go to the hardware store and bring that home in her LEAF, and IF, by design, I am unable to do so in my Model X, Tesla should be ashamed.
Last edited:
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
I have to provide contrary points to a couple of items in the last few pages.
I believe it is fully correct to refer to the Model X rear doors as gull wing doors. It is also correct, and more precise, to refer to them as falcon wing doors. Falcon wing doors are a subset of gull wing doors with more specifics defined in how they function. But, according to every definition I can find, it is still accurate to refer to them gull wing doors as well.
This claim is not necessarily broken by 2nd row seats that don't fold. It's possible the audience of judges leading to that claim think that the overall functionality of the current non-folding seats exceed the original overall functionality of the prototype folding seats.
I believe it is fully correct to refer to the Model X rear doors as gull wing doors. It is also correct, and more precise, to refer to them as falcon wing doors. Falcon wing doors are a subset of gull wing doors with more specifics defined in how they function. But, according to every definition I can find, it is still accurate to refer to them gull wing doors as well.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
It think the objection to that is practically all gull wing doors are single hinge and thus calling the Model X rear doors gull-wing brings up the idea of an impractical design that needs wide clearance on the sides (esp for something as tall as a Model X; most gull-wing doors are used on a low slung sports car where single hinge works fine).
I think Elon invented the term for similar reasons. Technically you can call it a double hinged gull-wing door.
CarlK
Active Member
Similar threads
