-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Saw the Model 3 at Monterey car week....thoughts
- Thread starter eye.surgeon
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3
None of those have a 6" to 8" ?? thick battery pack under the floor. If the 3 was built as a Hatch it would probably look like a miniature X if you wanted decent rear headroom (which might be coming in the form of the Model Y) ??
It looks better than the Bolt, I3, Leaf, Soul EV, Focus Electric, from any angle!
kev1n
Active Member
i personally think the model 3 looks more like a mini X than S. it just doesnt have that sporty looking design that the S has.
alseTrick
Active Member
I agree the S has a nicer "slope" to the butt. But it's also a wider (looking?) butt from the rear, which I don't like so much. I also think the nose/hood is a little longer than necessary and I think the 3 has a better nose/nosecone aesthetic.
The 3 has a stubbier and shorter front end and a more bubbly backend. I think when viewing the glass windshield from directly in front of the 3 that it gives the 3 an odd glass bubble/dome appearance to the passenger compartment due to the low-rising hood area.
I also think both cars are pretty attractive in general, and don't think the average person will complain much about either. And even if they do find something to gripe about, I think most would inevitably cede that they're both still attractive, even despite a perceived problem area or two.
The 3 isn't perfect. But it's close enough for me. And I feel it will be close enough for many others. And I believe even more will view it as an aspirational purchase.
There are so few S owners out there that I'm not AT ALL worried about them finding the 3 unattractive when compared to the S. The number of 3 owners will so vastly outpace S owners in the next 5-10 years that, honestly, the S owners opinions won't matter to Tesla when compared to the consensus on the 3, Y and/or Truck.
The 3 has a stubbier and shorter front end and a more bubbly backend. I think when viewing the glass windshield from directly in front of the 3 that it gives the 3 an odd glass bubble/dome appearance to the passenger compartment due to the low-rising hood area.
I also think both cars are pretty attractive in general, and don't think the average person will complain much about either. And even if they do find something to gripe about, I think most would inevitably cede that they're both still attractive, even despite a perceived problem area or two.
The 3 isn't perfect. But it's close enough for me. And I feel it will be close enough for many others. And I believe even more will view it as an aspirational purchase.
There are so few S owners out there that I'm not AT ALL worried about them finding the 3 unattractive when compared to the S. The number of 3 owners will so vastly outpace S owners in the next 5-10 years that, honestly, the S owners opinions won't matter to Tesla when compared to the consensus on the 3, Y and/or Truck.
Model 3 has 37.7" headroom in the back vs 35.3" for the Model S. So i wouldn't say that there was no trade off on the Model S.
That seems to have been a good trade off for the S, but i'm thinking that it would have been a mistake on the 3. Especially with the autonomous/taxi things that Tesla have in mind for the 3.
Right when the first renderings came out, everyone was talking about the front...yet to myself the rear, and especially the rear headlights do not flow.
Porsche finally fixed the rear of the panamera...so hopefully in the next few years tesla can fix the model 3 in a similar fashion.
Porsche finally fixed the rear of the panamera...so hopefully in the next few years tesla can fix the model 3 in a similar fashion.
...
The crowd I was in that saw it on Ocean ave referred to it as the cheap Tesla.
...
Which is almost accurate. It is the inexpensive Tesla. Time will tell if it's cheap. Cheap does not always mean inexpensive. It can also mean low quality.
Since day one, many folk who know cars have been saying it will be extremely difficult for Tesla to produce an EV for $35,000. They do not have the luxury of selling them at a loss like other automakers can.
Last year a RWD stripped MS was ~$70k with 208 miles of range, and 5.x second acceleration.
I still doubt everybody understands. They have dreams of $38k ICE cars with EV drivetrains that are profitable. Not happening yet.
Oh wow. Before, I believed Tesla about 25% gross margins on the Model 3, but now I've completely changed my mind because of your post.
Tesla is either grossly incompetent or lying. Thank you for your wisdom.
Did you believe the Model S would arrive in 2011 and that Tesla will achieve profitability the same year? I don't think he was lying, it was a prediction that did not work out. Just like 25% profit on a powerful, long range EV in 2017 for the price of a Camry.
chibi_kurochan
Member
cgiGuy
Active Member
The "trade off" we're talking about is trading a hatchback to have a glass roof, as the OP stated.
No. His prediction was 35k base price. Will be achieved in Nov. 25% gross margin in 2018. Your statement that it will be non-profitable is shall we say "Ludicrous".
It has been repeatedly stated that this was not the only trade. They got more headroom in the back seat by going away from the hatchback.
Can we put a big disclaimer on the front of this site so we can stop repeating this?
Agreed, that back angle is tough to look at. It's just far too back-heavy and "practical". I thought Model Y was supposed to be practical. You know, because it's got the word "utility" in its vehicle class name. Sedans are supposed to be sexy and sleek.From the rear and rear 3/4 view, it's awkward looking. I can see why almost all the press photos show a front, or front 3/4 view, where it looks great. From the back it has an odd looking hunch back. It certainly looks like a hatch back, so it's kind of rubbing it in that it isn't.
Tesla tried to put too many hats on Model 3 and the end result is something that looks kinda like an X, but isn't as functional as an X. They sacrificed a lot in the looks and proportion department for what, an extra .01 off the drag coefficient? Oh, right, also to make it inferior to the S. Can't forget that. It's a shame. I was hoping for the S looks in a smaller package, and while we got the S, Tesla got rid of the parts that made it beautiful.
The roof just looks out of place. The S's roof is elegantly integrated, but the 3's roof seems kinda tacked on. It looks like a helmet, or worse, a cockroach shell. The bubbly back and poor spoiler integration throw a wrench in the car's overall flow. Add in the tiny stubby front, and the proportions are just way off.
Reminds me a lot of the A7, which I think has an ugly back. At least it's lower and sleeker.
But then I see some pictures and the car looks really great. I suspect that's just because of narrow focal lengths and camera phones, as well as juuuuuust the right angle. I still want to see it in real life to make a final judgement call. But I have seen the S a few times and the back is a bit bloated, so I can only imagine the 3's effect will be way worse.
Similar threads
