All information derived from Car & Driver to make it an apples to apples comparison.
But more importantly, you can feel and see it in an EV.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
All information derived from Car & Driver to make it an apples to apples comparison.
But more importantly, you can feel and see it in an EV.
fastestlaps.com should provide the closest numbers for performance-oriented cars.
Agree...Car and Driver is gospel on these stats, and also agree with your comments on how EVs effectively perform considerably better in the real world than the numbers even suggest. I also agree that the passing and 5-60 mph numbers are much better indicators of real-world performance. On the passing performance, the only C&D spec that is always a bit worthless is the top gear passing for manual transmissions where they leave it in gear. For autos/DCTs those immediately (a relative term) downshift when the throttle is nailed.
Honestly, these numbers are probably only disappointing relative to the Model S. That will be largely resolved when things like dual motors and ludicrous mode types of options are released some time next year. Of couse, just like a BMW M3, you are going to pay for it and the price will overlap the Model S (just like the BMW M3 is WELL into 5 series pricing territory.) No real surprises here.
I'm 95% convinced that both Model 3 versions have the same rear drivetrain - one new drivetrain design. Not two new.
Performance difference comes from higher overall voltage and lower voltage drop during high load (bigger battery).
Later on we get another driveunit for front (very likely same motor as rear with different gear ratio and inverter position)
And later we might get performance version of rear motor. Why might? Because cooling. There is much less of it and
that can not be "added later" (limited radiator surface area and even more limited air intake aperture area).
Also Model 3 is designed to be sporty vehicle. Not holy-s**t-performance vehicle nor competitor of any of those.
Performance difference comes from higher overall voltage and lower voltage drop during high load (bigger battery).
Later on we get another driveunit for front (very likely same motor as rear with different gear ratio and inverter position)
And later we might get performance version of rear motor. Why might? Because cooling. There is much less of it and
that can not be "added later" (limited radiator surface area and even more limited air intake aperture area).
Also Model 3 is designed to be sporty vehicle. Not holy-s**t-performance vehicle nor competitor of any of those.
For low optioned yes, for high optioned no. We still don't know about the "P" version, but presumably it will cost even more.
X Fan
Active Member
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
Maybe it's going to come with spaceship controls, ramp to ramp self driving AP1, supercharger V3, a Cd of .21, retractable solar roof and very well optioned even as a base car.
I don't see Elon tweets as confirmation anymore. They are interesting and a good read, but no confirmation of anything.
kev1n
Active Member
model s 60 and old 75's are in the 5 second range and nobody is saying those are slow cars. i think the 5.6 5.1 will be plenty fast for the average buyer. from a marketing stand point it would make no sense to have the base or 2nd tier model 3 in the 4 second range and would be bad business decision(aka it would cannibalize mode s sales)
Yeah, Model 3 is artificially limited in 0-60 to not compete with Model S/X.
Whether or not this will remain the case once Tesla no longer relies on Model S/X sales for its quarterly results, we do not know.
After all, it is not unheard of for smaller cars being quicker than larger cars in manufacturer's lineups. BMW is one of those makers.
What do you mean? Do you think real world test show that is faster? I hope we see some videos of the model 3 from your channel
Agree 100%--The best way to compare an ICEV to an EV is to use the 5-60mph rolling start. For EVs 0-60 and 5-60 are usually very similar. Look at these 5-60 numbers from C&D:
330i 8-sp Auto: 6.7 sec
Bolt EV: 6.6 sec
340i 6-sp Man: 5.9 sec
Now compare that to the 5.6 and 5.1 sec (estimated) 5-60 times for the Model 3. Those are significantly different.
See also: The Rolling Start, A Better EV Performance Metric
Last edited:
voip-ninja
Give me some sugar baby
My 340i x-drive with the 8 speed steptronic transmission does 0-60 in something like 4.4 seconds. It is extremely fast and passing in traffic is effortless as it's faster than 99% of other cars on the road.
Now my previous 328i x-drive was about a 5.5 second car. It was not a slow car. It also had more noticeable turbo lag and delay when getting on the gas at higher speeds in traffic.
I think that the 5.1 second Model 3 is going to be pretty respectable. Keep in mind also that I live at 6,000 feet above sea level and at this altitude normally aspirated cars are only making about 85% of their sea level horsepower.
Also... My 340xi which I leased had a sticker price of about $58,000 and it doesn't even have all of the options. It does have a gorgeous interior though that is better than what I've seen in Tesla's offerings.
I guess the point is, that for those who insist on the best possible performance they will be waiting until the tax credits dry up and take delivery of a 2019 MY Model-3 that has AWD and Ludicrous and I expect that's going to be a $70,000 car that should compete with the likes of BMW M3 and Audi RS4.
Now my previous 328i x-drive was about a 5.5 second car. It was not a slow car. It also had more noticeable turbo lag and delay when getting on the gas at higher speeds in traffic.
I think that the 5.1 second Model 3 is going to be pretty respectable. Keep in mind also that I live at 6,000 feet above sea level and at this altitude normally aspirated cars are only making about 85% of their sea level horsepower.
Also... My 340xi which I leased had a sticker price of about $58,000 and it doesn't even have all of the options. It does have a gorgeous interior though that is better than what I've seen in Tesla's offerings.
I guess the point is, that for those who insist on the best possible performance they will be waiting until the tax credits dry up and take delivery of a 2019 MY Model-3 that has AWD and Ludicrous and I expect that's going to be a $70,000 car that should compete with the likes of BMW M3 and Audi RS4.
mkaresh
Member
Could be limited by the inverter and/or motor. Not necessarily artificial. A smaller motor costs less, and would make sense when trying to sell a car for $35,000.
Virtually no one can use a quicker car in daily driving. Even 5.6 seconds to 60 is very quick.
On the passing tests: in cars with a manual transmission the car is left in the top gear. Anyone looking to pass quickly would downshift. Top-gear passing stats only indicate how necessary it is to downshift.
Virtually no one can use a quicker car in daily driving. Even 5.6 seconds to 60 is very quick.
On the passing tests: in cars with a manual transmission the car is left in the top gear. Anyone looking to pass quickly would downshift. Top-gear passing stats only indicate how necessary it is to downshift.
Similar threads
