JeffK
Well-Known Member
They aren't leather.Doesn’t even say leather seats for premium package.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They aren't leather.Doesn’t even say leather seats for premium package.
They aren't leather.
You're correct it doesn't say anything for the premium, but it does call out textile seats for the standard interior.Oh lord. I knew I should have edited my post. Synthetic or whatever.
What size battery is this? The 64kWh Kona is rated for 300 miles and costs about the same for the top spec model.
What size battery is this? The 64kWh Kona is rated for 300 miles and costs about the same for the top spec model.
The long-range battery is 80 kWh (according to teardowns).What size battery is this? The 64kWh Kona is rated for 300 miles and costs about the same for the top spec model.
300 miles? Maybe on the more mild NEDC, but the Hyundai currently estimates 250 miles in their US press release (http://www.hyundainews.com/en-us/releases/2507).
Even at 250mi on a 64kWh pack would be 3.9 miles/kWh or roughly 256Wh/mile. Seems a little optimistic.
Doh. You are right. Someone needs to redesign that portion of the website.
It does say 215 for the standard battery now though. I can’t imagine the dual motor standard will have less range than the RWD version.
I just watched a YouTube video (dated Jan. 2018) by "Vehicle Virgins" that tested the model 3 with the big battery. Their results, after two runs, 0 - 60 mph in 4.4 sec.Havent seen this discussed anywhere yet? The new specs for the standard range model 3 is showing a range of 215 miles and a 0-60 of 5.1 seconds. The LR is now showing 0-60 in 4.5 seconds
Not a fan of the range downgrade albeit 5 Miles in minimal.
It's saying 215-220 miles. Could depend on options.
It's saying 215-220 miles. Could depend on options.
AWD could be less efficient in the SR. It adds weight and the front induction motor will be less efficient than the rear PM motor. Tesla isn't indicating that the L3D will have more range than the L3, although as another poster noted, they could just be sandbagging. At 310 miles 5 miles isn't going to make much difference. It would make a bigger difference for the SR, so Tesla might specify the difference.
But, my well-developed Tesla cynicism suggest that when it goes from 220 to 215-220, expect the next step to be 215.
I just watched a YouTube video (dated Jan. 2018) by "Vehicle Virgins" that tested the model 3 with the big battery. Their results, after two runs, 0 - 60 mph in 4.4 sec.
They were also testing down hill.
Same car tested by another person got 4.6 on a flat road.
Professional car mag reviews haven't gotten quicker than 4.8.
Flat road, single male driver, average weight (approx. 175 lbs).
Flat road, single male driver, average weight (approx. 175 lbs).
Testing the car on what seems to be a mountain pass, the Model 3 was able to consistently hit 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds, a full 0.70 seconds faster than Tesla’s claimed performance for the car. It should be noted, however, that Parker’s run was conducted on what appeared to be a downhill slope, which could explain the 0.20-second difference between his run and the one performed by Brooks
Also one important factor here, all of them measure with 1 foot rollout, which can easily mean .3s on a 0-60 time. Even a car with an initial average acceleration of 1.2g it takes 0.23s for the first foot. And that's already P100D territory (which takes 0.24s for that first foot).
Since most car manufacturers don't use the foot rollout, when giving 0-60 and even Tesla only really uses it for their top vehicles, I wouldn't call 5.1, instead of 4.9 and a bit, too much sandbagging.
Sure, being below 5 might make the AWD car seem even more attractive, than "just" being 10% quicker, but still that's cosmetics.