Time to go Frunkless?

[malcolm]

20% volume reduction compared to the S has been mentioned. Some have speculated that this won't be in the height of the vehicle since the S is already quite low. Others want to see a narrower car. Alternatively the 20% could be achieved with a much shorter front leaving the passenger space largely unaffected.
/[idle speculation]

 

[coco81]

20% volume reduction compared to the S has been mentioned. Some have speculated that this won't be in the height of the vehicle since the S is already quite low. Others want to see a narrower car. Alternatively the 20% could be achieved with a much shorter front leaving the passenger space largely unaffected.
/[idle speculation]

Maybe if the car need less number of battery cells (due to new cell type and new arquitechture) they can free space in the foot area and make model 3 even lower than model S. In this case the car will have same interior height with less exterior height and lower frontal surface --> less air resistance.

 

[Peter Egan]

The motor, etc, will not fill a crumple-zone frunk. Even if the spare tyre goes in there, there will still be a bit of space for other stuff.

 

[etm33]

The motor, etc, will not fill a crumple-zone frunk. Even if the spare tyre goes in there, there will still be a bit of space for other stuff.

Models S and X don't have a spare tire. I wouldn't think Model 3 will either. It's a weight (and therefore range) penalty, as well as an additional cost in a vehicle which may be pushing addressing an internal price ceiling.

 

[MassModel3]

Maybe if the car need less number of battery cells (due to new cell type and new arquitechture) they can free space in the foot area and make model 3 even lower than model S.

The Model S is definitely lower than most family sedans. I'm 6' 1" and I'd be really close to the roof if not for the Pano, so it's kinda tight (vertically). Also, something even lower to the ground is great for most 25 year olds, not so much for most 55 year olds. Tesla wants this to be a car that most everyone can get into, get out of, and drive comfortably. There's not much they can take away from inside cabin height or seat height above the ground without making it terribly uncomfortable for a large number of taller/older people.

Then again, maybe they do go that route, and tell the rest of us that's what the CUV (Model Y?) is for. But I hope not.

 

[wdolson]

The Model S is definitely lower than most family sedans. I'm 6' 1" and I'd be really close to the roof if not for the Pano, so it's kinda tight (vertically). Also, something even lower to the ground is great for most 25 year olds, not so much for most 55 year olds. Tesla wants this to be a car that most everyone can get into, get out of, and drive comfortably. There's not much they can take away from inside cabin height or seat height above the ground without making it terribly uncomfortable for a large number of taller/older people.

Then again, maybe they do go that route, and tell the rest of us that's what the CUV (Model Y?) is for. But I hope not.

I am 6'2" tall, but all my height is in my legs. I have no headroom problems with the Model S, even without the pano roof. I do have legroom problems with a lot of cars, but fortunately the Model S has enough legroom for me. I have found the Model S is a bit low for getting out. I've only been in one twice, but both times I kind of stumbled getting out and standing up. The Model X rides higher, so it doesn't have the problems getting in and out. Likely the CUV/SUV version of the Model 3 will be higher too.