No hatch-back on model 3 - Anyone else disappointed.

[EfficientWatts]

Has any attempt been made to calculate the delta between the model 3's trunk opening and say the BMW 3-series trunk opening size (sedan)? How much of a difference are we talking here? Everyone says it's smaller but how much smaller is not clear to me.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Has any attempt been made to calculate the delta between the model 3's trunk opening and say the BMW 3-series trunk opening size (sedan)? How much of a difference are we talking here? Everyone says it's smaller but how much smaller is not clear to me.

There isn't even a consensus about the length of the vehicle, so I doubt there can be a useful estimate of trunk opening size (which given the shorter measurements involved is subject to even more error). Currently, it just looks shallow.

 

[pangolina]

I'm more concerned with the size of the trunk opening, particularly its vertical dimension rather than depth of the trunk itself... Width-wise it looks OK, and overall internal volume of the trunk seems to be OK as well (based on one of the test-rides videos). But the distance from top edge of the opening to bottom edge looks rather small, smaller than in Mazda Protege for instance (I used to own one). On the other hand it might be because of the angle from which the video was taken...

 

[yesup]

Fully understand. My suggestion was to put the hinge all the way up to the B pillar area where the rear windshield piece meets the roof piece. This would effectively be in the middle of the car. I realize its not perfect and im not really advocating for it over the notchback. Just suggesting as a possible solution.

The problem is not where you put the hinge, but rather where you put the cross beam.
Right now, there is a cross beam structure at the bottom of the glass instead of being in the roof above the rear passengers. So you cannot get unobstructed access even if you find a way to open the glass.

 

[Haddock]

As a Yoorpean, I would have preferred a hatch or a station wagon, but I can live with a trunk. I don't really want a crossover (sends the wrong signals), but I'd consider that too.

I probably won't get a Bolt (Ampera-E) because:
* No three-phase charger, so limited to 3.6kW in my 16A-230V European home. (Model S or Renault Zoe can charge at 11kW at my home)
* No accessory hook or low-weight towing
* No superchargers

Skoda even managed both a trunk and a hatch in the same car.

 

[Chris L]

The M3 got the trunk because Tesla wanted to give (tall) adults in the back seat a lot of headroom and a feeling of spaciousness (glass roof). I was out this morning in southern California traffic for more than an hour, and I made a point of looking at all the cars to see how many had adults in the back seat — and there were NONE! Not a scientific study, to be sure, but it looks like Tesla obsessed on a feature that will benefit almost no one, to the detriment of all of those people who want the practicality of a lift-back for loading stuff in the back of the car.

It would be really nice if they would make two variants of the M3—the trunk version, and a liftback version with the structural cross beam relocated further forward. It should not be any more of a production hassle than single-motor vs. dual-motor, or standard battery vs. optional larger battery. Both versions could be built on the same robotic production lines. Since Tesla builds each car to a specific customer configuration, there would be no issue of maintaining inventories of cars with different variations (as manufacturers with franchised dealers have to do).

For those who say wait for the Model Y SUV/Crossover if you want a hatch/liftback, I say the people who routinely load lots of tall people in the back seat should wait for those TALLER Model Ys, and give the sleeker, lower M3s an MS-style liftback.

I'll still be buying the Model 3, even if it has only a little hole for a trunk, but it could be a lot better.

 

[gregincal]

The M3 got the trunk because Tesla wanted to give (tall) adults in the back seat a lot of headroom and a feeling of spaciousness (glass roof). I was out this morning in southern California traffic for more than an hour, and I made a point of looking at all the cars to see how many had adults in the back seat — and there were NONE! Not a scientific study, to be sure, but it looks like Tesla obsessed on a feature that will benefit almost no one, to the detriment of all of those people who want the practicality of a lift-back for loading stuff in the back of the car.

It would be really nice if they would make two variants of the M3—the trunk version, and a liftback version with the structural cross beam relocated further forward. It should not be any more of a production hassle than single-motor vs. dual-motor, or standard battery vs. optional larger battery. Both versions could be built on the same robotic production lines. Since Tesla builds each car to a specific customer configuration, there would be no issue of maintaining inventories of cars with different variations (as manufacturers with franchised dealers have to do).

For those who say wait for the Model Y SUV/Crossover if you want a hatch/liftback, I say the people who routinely load lots of tall people in the back seat should wait for those TALLER Model Ys, and give the sleeker, lower M3s an MS-style liftback.

I'll still be buying the Model 3, even if it has only a little hole for a trunk, but it could be a lot better.

Seems like sort of a strange way of looking at things. How many of those cars currently had something in the back needing a hatchback? Most of the time people don't need either thing, so just saying that most people don't have passengers in the back doesn't mean that they don't have passengers in the back more often than they need the utility of a hatchback. In my Model S I almost never have people in the back seat but it's even much more rarely that I stick anything in the back that wouldn't easily fit in a trunk. However, I will really like having better rear vision than I currently get in the Model S.

 

[SureValla]

Seems like sort of a strange way of looking at things. How many of those cars currently had something in the back needing a hatchback? Most of the time people don't need either thing, so just saying that most people don't have passengers in the back doesn't mean that they don't have passengers in the back more often than they need the utility of a hatchback. In my Model S I almost never have people in the back seat but it's even much more rarely that I stick anything in the back that wouldn't easily fit in a trunk. However, I will really like having better rear vision than I currently get in the Model S.

I would guess the need for cargo in the back would occur more often then the need for headroom for tall adults in the back seat.

 

[gregincal]

I would guess the need for cargo in the back would occur more often then the need for headroom for tall adults in the back seat.

You can guess that, but that doesn't mean it's correct (and remember, we are talking about cargo that doesn't easily fit into the existing trunk or frunk).

 

[Chris L]

Bicycles, strollers, house insulation, golf clubs, surf boards, etc. Tesla now has hundreds of thousands of reservations holders and their email addresses — easy enough to poll them as to which option they would prefer (if there were to be options). No guessing required. Tesla will likely build a couple million or so Model 3s in the first five or six years, so roughly a million liftback versions, if there would be one — enough to justify the extra tooling.
The trunk version of the Model 3 has plenty of cargo room for my purposes, that's not the issue. It's not having easy access to that cargo volume that is the issue.

 

[Chris L]

Neither is the issue whether one version is "better". Having two variants would give Tesla's customers a choice — different strokes for different folks. Adding a lift-back variant would not take anything away from the people who prefer the trunk version.

 

[gregincal]

Neither is the issue whether one version is "better". Having two variants would give Tesla's customers a choice — different strokes for different folks. Adding a lift-back variant would not take anything away from the people who prefer the trunk version.

We're talking about two different body frame designs. Perhaps someday Tesla might do this but I think at the moment they are concentrating on how to make this quickly enough, not add complexity.

 

[Chris L]

There would not be two different body frame designs, just the detail structural elements in the back part of the roof, mostly the cross beam location. Tesla said the lift-back would have impinged on the back seat headroom; the only way they would know that is if they designed and engineered a lift-back version of the Model 3 first, before switching to the trunk version. I think they, and most people, started out thinking the Model 3 would have a lift-back configuration similar to the Model S. I don't think we should be dismissive of the possibility of a lift-back version based on the assumption that doing it would be too challenging. In any case, Tesla will decide what they want to do. If they had prioritized eliminating production challenges, there would have been no all-glass roof.

 

[yesup]

Neither is the issue whether one version is "better". Having two variants would give Tesla's customers a choice — different strokes for different folks. Adding a lift-back variant would not take anything away from the people who prefer the trunk version.

Actually, it does. It adds to the development cost, and would likely delay the launch and production rate of the sedan version.
The development cost for a lift-back version is not trivial at all. Basically, they have to redesign the frame/chassis rear of B-pillar.

Tesla now has hundreds of thousands of reservations holders and their email addresses — easy enough to poll them as to which option they would prefer (if there were to be options). No guessing required. Tesla will likely build a couple million or so Model 3s in the first five or six years, so roughly a million liftback versions, if there would be one — enough to justify the extra tooling.

Tesla had to make the decision long ago. If they only make the decision now, I doubt you would see the car before 2019.
And why do they need to poll? The sales number tell the truth and gives you the picture exactly what US customers want.
Tesla knows that and made the wise decision according the what customers are buying.

In cars with sedan and hatch back versions, sedan outsells hatch back version by far in US.
I understand what you preference is, but unfortunately, you are a minority in US.

 

[coco81]

The M3 got the trunk because Tesla wanted to give (tall) adults in the back seat a lot of headroom and a feeling of spaciousness (glass roof). I was out this morning in southern California traffic for more than an hour, and I made a point of looking at all the cars to see how many had adults in the back seat — and there were NONE! Not a scientific study, to be sure, but it looks like Tesla obsessed on a feature that will benefit almost no one, to the detriment of all of those people who want the practicality of a lift-back for loading stuff in the back of the car.

It would be really nice if they would make two variants of the M3—the trunk version, and a liftback version with the structural cross beam relocated further forward. It should not be any more of a production hassle than single-motor vs. dual-motor, or standard battery vs. optional larger battery. Both versions could be built on the same robotic production lines. Since Tesla builds each car to a specific customer configuration, there would be no issue of maintaining inventories of cars with different variations (as manufacturers with franchised dealers have to do).

For those who say wait for the Model Y SUV/Crossover if you want a hatch/liftback, I say the people who routinely load lots of tall people in the back seat should wait for those TALLER Model Ys, and give the sleeker, lower M3s an MS-style liftback.

I'll still be buying the Model 3, even if it has only a little hole for a trunk, but it could be a lot better.

You didn't saw any car with people in the back seats... How many cars with huge objects in the back did you saw?

Audi A4, BMW 3series, MB C-class, the Model 3 real competitors are sedans and is OK. Yes, they have a wagon version but 90% of buyers choose the sedan version.

 

[diamond.g]

You didn't saw any car with people in the back seats... How many cars with huge objects in the back did you saw?

Audi A4, BMW 3series, MB C-class, the Model 3 real competitors are sedans and is OK. Yes, they have a wagon version but 90% of buyers choose the sedan version.

And when they do offer a Hatch/Lift Back [wagon] version, it isn't for the base price. It appears, at least in the case of BMW, that you have to pay an additional 9-10k to get the option. Would Model 3 buyers that want that style rear pay the extra for it?

 

[EVnut]

you have to pay an additional 9-10k to get the option. Would Model 3 buyers that want that style rear pay the extra for it?

I keep circling back to the question about why the cheapest model of car from so many auto makers is often a hatchback. Most of these cars start under $20k. If a hatchback is so much more expensive to make (as I keep being told)... this doesn't make sense. Or is it because these cheap cars are death traps, and in order to make a SAFE hatchback, it's more expensive?

 

[N5329K]

I don't doubt Tesla could have designed the 3 as a hatchback. But I'm pretty sure they can't ramp production to meet the obviously strong demand by introducing variants with differing structure. Hatchback? Wagon? Convertible? Coupe?
They are going to have lots on their hands as it is without piling more on. The 3 is a classic small-ish sedan with an unusually large interior volume. If that works for you (as it does for me), you'll have your car in a few years. If you need a hatchback, there's the Bolt. Or a Model S. You can have one of those, with a tax credit, next month.
Robin

 

[david_42]

Are you going to order a Bolt or are you going to wait for the Y?

Zero interest in any of the current offerings or future ones like the Bolt. That car looks like they designed it to be ugly and then ran it into a wall.

 

[SageBrush]

Tesla had to make the decision long ago. If they only make the decision now, I doubt you would see the car before 2019.
And why do they need to poll? The sales number tell the truth and gives you the picture exactly what US customers want.
Tesla knows that and made the wise decision according the what customers are buying.

In cars with sedan and hatch back versions, sedan outsells hatch back version by far in US.
I understand what you preference is, but unfortunately, you are a minority in US.

I'm hoping that I will not dislike the trunk so much that I cancel my reservation, so do not infer my preference for a trunk from the reservation.

And while true that the US car market overwhelmingly chooses sedans over hatchbacks, we do not really know if that preference carries over to the Model ☰ reservation group. What do the BMW and Audi markets with cars similar to this Tesla choose ? It does not appear that the hatchback design of the Model 'S' was a marketing problem despite my impression of hatchbacks being rare in the US luxury car market.