RobStark
Well-Known Member
The Bolt isn't a very good road trip car for 1 adult.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
The Automobile 2.0: Chevrolet Bolt EV vs Nissan LEAF vs Tesla Model 3 Long Range
- Thread starter seattlite2004
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3
The Bolt isn't a very good road trip car for 1 adult.
ElecFan
Member
Reading the apple vs pears discussion, I want to repeat the article's conclusion that clearly sums up the difference between model 3 and it's EV competitors:
The motortrend article comparison between model 3 and BMW 330i is more appropriate imo.
The motortrend article comparison between model 3 and BMW 330i is more appropriate imo.
insaneoctane
Well-Known Member
Tesla purposely limits their regenerative braking maximum charging power to around 70 kW. This is apparently for battery longevity? I would like the Model 3 to have greater regenerative capability myself.
Nope. Article didn't say that. They did say that in order to get roughly the same headroom (0.5" taller than the Leaf, 0.2" shorter than the Bolt), Tesla used glass over the passenger's heads. Also talked about foot to hip height, but the comfort of that is very dependent on the front seat position. If you add up legroom, 41.6" + 36.5" =78.1" (Bolt), 42.1" +33.5" = 75.6" (Leaf) and the Model 3 42.7" + 35.2" = 77.9" you will note that the Model 3's total front to back legroom is only 0.2" from the Bolt and much longer than the Leaf. If you are tall and you sit behind a tall driver, than the higher foot to hip position is going to make it worse than the Leaf and Bolt. On the other hand, for lots of people, comfort and sizing is about shoulder room... and if you need to use the middle seat, the Model 3 is 54" wide in back, 1.2" wider than the Bolt and 1.5" wider than the Leaf.
My bad, MT didn't use the word "uncomfortable", but did give them a fair share of critiquing. Sounds like MT had little issues with the Bolt and Leaf's rear seats.
People intending to use a Model 3 for road tripping with 4+ people (you know, because the Bolt and Leaf can't road trip
) may be in for a surprise (or their adult passengers, should I say) if they do not test out the seats before purchase. Then again maybe MT's observations are just a bunch of nitpicks. I guess we'll find out in a few weeks when "normal" people get their 3's? Hong thought the Tesla’s back seat is roomy enough but “felt a little sunken in, without much forward vision.” As for seat comfort in general, Brooks found the Tesla’s and Leaf’s front seats more comfortable than the Bolt’s—the Chevy’s bottom cushion is too narrow; its little side bolsters cut into his thighs.
Brooks then examined the trade-off of the Tesla’s sweeping glass roof, which maximizes headroom but at the expense of some sunload during daytime driving: “The glass was noticeably warm when the car was sitting in the sun. Access to the rear seats isn’t as good as the Leaf and Bolt due to the low seating position and substantial sills.” Of the two hatchbacks, the Bolt gets the rear passenger’s thumb-up for better foot space beneath the front row.
But the Model 3’s lower, sloping profile is reaching for slicker aerodynamics (0.23) resulting in some unusual consequences in back: a roof crossmember forward of the rear passenger’s heads allows for a headroom-maximizing thin sheath of glass directly above their noggins. Simultaneously, their knees are noticeably raised due to the smallish difference between foot and hip heights. Still, it’s worth noting that on paper, at least, the Model 3’s traditional SAE rear dimensions are quite similar to those of the BMW 330i.
The thing is, Tesla’s compromised back seat gives the direct payoff of less drag, leading to more efficient battery use. Despite being 400 pounds heavier than the Leaf and 350 more than the Bolt, the Model 3’s combined mpg-e is 6 percent higher than the Chevrolet and 13 percent better than the Leaf.
Last edited:
NerdUno
Member
Speaking of apples and oranges... Keep in mind that Motor Trend was testing $42,000 and $37,000 automobiles against a Tesla costing $60,000+. Tesla may call it a $35,000 car, but you can't (and probably never will) buy one at that price. Can you name other gas vehicles where a $40,000 car takes an award from cars costing 50% more? Might want to wait for the Audi, BMW, and Mercedes offerings where it will be a more realistic comparison of comparably-priced vehicles.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Spec the Tesla to a level in the other cars and pay less than the competition.
ElecFan
Member
Why can't you buy an M3 at 35k? It may be delivered later than planned, but you can configure and order it. I expect to see many 35k M3s since it is the bargain of the century imo.
Hmm... the minimum Model 3 that Tesla is making today is $44k + premium package for $5k + $1k destination fee for $50k. The additions of EAP, FSD, paint, and 19" wheels really did it no favors in this comparison. The vehicle would have still won all the driving dynamics categories handily with 18" wheels and been marked higher for better cabin noise, ride comfort, energy efficiency, and lower price. In other words, for this competition against $37-$42k vehicles where the $60k sticker price is a negative, going to the $50k configuration that is available for purchased (albeit still limited) would have fared better than the $60k configuration. At $50k, the difference is not so much anymore and not much to pay for the superior driving dynamics, much higher range, charging capability, charging infrastructure, better warranty, better electronics, and upgradability to active safety and assisted driving features.
BTW, there is no reason to doubt the availability of the lower spec battery pack and a vehicle without the premium package in early 2018.
um.....
..something like ~2000-3000 or less will probably be the number of produced units for december which should translate to absolute production hell till at least mid 2018 since they`re basically already 3-6 months behind shedule with the ramp up.
I don`t see them advancing the modularity anytime soon under these circumstances.
I´d like to be proven wrong though since I´m waiting for a naked(or a pup version without the glass roof) lr model to become available myself.
Last edited:
NerdUno
Member
Yeah. Elon has never been known to misrepresent anything... especially delivery times and feature sets.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
For the purposes of this comparison, we do know what comes with a bare bones Model 3. Same suspension, still superior performance to the other two vehicles, still includes active safety features, same interior layout.
Whether you opt for the PUP package on the Model 3 SR or not, the description provided in the article will remain the same:
Because the styling and performance will remain superior no matter the trim level or options ticked.
Wait... so we ARE supposed to believe online reports regarding seat comfort now?
This double standard stuff is SOOO confusing sometimes...
What double standard? The one of GM critics blasting the Bolt's "uncomfortable seats" but then dismissing Motor Trend's observations of "compromised rear seats" of the Model 3?
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
You're adding your own interpretation of that quote. "Compromised" does not mean "uncomfortable," especially in the context of the article.
N5329K
Active Member
Every design is a compromise. You have to figure out which compromises you can live with, and which ones you can't. For example, the cramped rear seat headroom in the Model S was a deal killer for me. No good excuse for that in a car so big. The Model 3, by all accounts, is a big improvement on that compromise.
Robin
omgwtfbyobbq
Active Member
Probably never will? What kind of odds are you giving. I'd be happy to score some more coin for purchasing a SR.
Similar threads
