Who else is disappointed about the base model 3 batterie. 50 kWh/ 220miles

[AUSinator]

Considering:
1- it's recommended you only charge the batterie for 85-90 % to increase life
2- Radio on with aircon/ heater cause considerable less range.
3- 220miles based on only the driver not the whole family and luggage.
4- 220miles based on a lot of highway driving and taking advantage of the m3 good C.O of 23 which is less effective in city driving.
5-220miles based on not having a heavy foot and always only gradually getting up to speed.
6- -20 to 30 miles to save you range anxiety.
7 - cold weather range loss
8 - tyres not pumped up to optimal pressure
9 - 1 off 5 miles loss from max new range after a month or 2

As you can see there are a lot of things affecting the range. I'm a bit disappointed that tesla can not beat the 60kwh Gm bolt which is probably much superior in the city and much cheaper after there $5000 haggling discount.

My dilemma is I don't want to pay $9000US for the bigger batterie but the base model range is a little bit on the small side. When you look at the weight of the base model it's only a little bit heavier than a c class but with a much better centre of gravity. So I think the base model will handle/ drive better than its competitors and even drive better than its bigger batterie m3 version which is almost 400 pounds heavier And that's a lot for this size car. So there are positives for the base model.
However
I wish the batterie size was 60kwh not 50kwh
And
What is the real comfortable/ mainly city driving range of the base model 3?
And do you guys who are considering the base model feel the same way as me that you just wish it had a bit more range?
Did Tesla Offer a 50kwh base version on purpose - talking advantage of there massive order base and forcing people to upgrade to the bigger batterie for increase profits?
I know this thread is a bit negative and everyone will pounce on me but my attention is not to stop anybody from buying a m3 as I think it's a great car and I'm still going to buy one myself.

 

[Maximilien]

I am more amazed that Tesla could pull 220 miles from mere 50 kwh.

It doesn't end with it. We have an option to increase it to 310 miles which is sufficient enough for majority population.

Model 3's 50 to 75 is so much cheaper than Model S's 75 to 100.

We get what Elon promised for fraction of Model S price.

We get 0-60 under 6 seconds like he promised.

IMHO, people are demanding too much or want same treatment like Model S for half the price. I just don't get it.

 

[FlyingKiwi]

We were promised a 200+ mile range base model for US$35k.. thats what Tesla is delivering (eventually). What is there to be disappointed about? It was never going to do 200miles up a mountain in a blizzard with a horse trailer on the back.

 

[03DSG]

35 k for a minimum 220 full charge? (It'll be more) You've seen how beautiful the car is? It's a steal. Puts everything else electric (except Tesla's) to shame.

 

[S'toon]

Can we merge each of these repetitave "Disappointed by..." threads? Oi vey...

 

[jelloslug]

It's more than what was promised, what's to hate?

 

[gregincal]

Just to be clear, some of your points aren't really accurate:

1- it's recommended you only charge the batterie for 85-90 % to increase life
On a daily basis. When you need the range you charge to 100%.

2- Radio on with aircon/ heater cause considerable less range.
Radio has zero impact on range and aircon pretty negligible. Heater is the only thing that impacts range. some.

3- 220miles based on only the driver not the whole family and luggage.
Increases weight has a reasonably small impact on range.

4- 220miles based on a lot of highway driving and taking advantage of the m3 good C.O of 23 which is less effective in city driving.
Yes, but you usually don't drive 220 miles through a city.

5-220miles based on not having a heavy foot and always only gradually getting up to speed.
It doesn't make nearly as much difference as in an ICE.

My biggest question is #4. You seem to be mostly concerned with city driving. Do you really do more than 150 miles a day of city driving?

 

[Chargedmr2]

You are missing an option: NOT disappointed, but buying the Long Range version.

Agree with S'toon, merge these disappointment threads...PLEASE

 

[AUSinator]

[QUOTE="
My biggest question is #4. You seem to be mostly concerned with city driving. Do you really do more than 150 miles a day of city driving?[/QUOTE]

I do a bit because when you live I a large city it can take 1/half hours just to get to the other side and then you have to come back. Which I do several times a year. And often I'll use the car again after the big trip.
I surprised to find that some of you guys don't care which does make me feel better.

 

[Justmurr]

I'm right in the middle of "I'm fine with it..." and "I'm disappointed..."
Meaning....
I'm fine with having to go with standard - need 80mi per day so 220 is sufficient for my needs.
I'm disappointed that I must adhere to a budget and the extra $9k puts me too far over it with my other must-haves. I would love to just bite the bullet and give in to the mid-life crisis and be full in on first production run and all that jazz but alas......life.

 

[Rogue one]

I'm slightly disappointed by the slower super charge rate, but hey if the car can drive it's self someday soon... then I'll just sleep and not care very much how long or often it stops to charge.

 

[Twiglett]

would I have liked more range on the Std, sure.
Disappointed no.
I'm a realist.
Model 3 was NEVER going to be cheap - its a Tesla which is a premium grade car and never going to be an Accord (thank dog)

 

[kenbefound]

I was disappointed that the base battery did not at least match the range of the Bolt but I have since reconciled why it doesn't nor needs to. Having said that I initially felt $9K was a lot of mullah to upgrade to the extended range. And while I can do a lot of other things with that amount of money I may very well opt to get it. I fear the base version may not age well as battery costs decrease and higher rated batteries become more common place. On the other hand, with the number of Super Chargers being built the base is really all you need. But what I did was use the map on this site A Better Routeplanner to figure out the routes I sometimes take for business trips and some of my weekend adventures. I compared the number of stops required for the base to the extended and it really made me feel the extended range is the car I would want to live with should I decide to go through with my Model 3 purchase. As the earliest I can get mine is this coming February I really have plenty of time to mull this over and look forward to hearing the experiences of those who get theirs before me.

 

[keydiver]

I think the answer is fairly simple: Tesla had to hit the $35,000 price target that they promised, while still making a profit. If Elon had promised a $37,500 car, like the Bolt, we probably would have gotten a 60 kWh battery and >250 mile range. It is what it is. But, it think its fairly safe to assume that the range of the base model will grow over the years, just like the S60 became S70 and now S75.

 

[siggyfreud]

I would imagine that 220m is the average distanced achieved during testing based on a number of conditions, like using heat, AC, and different operating temperatures. It's likely that in some circumstances you'll get a bit less, and in others a bit more.

 

[Runt8]

Hard to take you seriously when you list the radio as having a serious impact on range.

 

[gregincal]

I do a bit because when you live I a large city it can take 1/half hours just to get to the other side and then you have to come back. Which I do several times a year. And often I'll use the car again after the big trip.
I surprised to find that some of you guys don't care which does make me feel better.

It doesn't matter how many hours it takes, it matters how many miles you drive. I don't think there are many cities that are 75 miles across.

 

[diplomat33]

I was disappointed that the base battery did not at least match the range of the Bolt

Considering that the Model 3 has a lot of other things going for it, compared to the Bolt, I don't mind that the Bolt "beats" the 3 in this one area.

 

[jsmay311]

To be clear, it was reported that he said "just over 50 kWh". Not sure why people are interpreting that as "= 50 kWh".

Regardless, it's the 220 mile number that matters more than the number of kWh's.

I had hoped they'd match or beat the Bolt's 238 miles, and I think the $9k is a bit steep for the upgrade. So, yeah, I'm a bit disappointed. But they didn't miss their original 215+ mile range or $35k base price targets/promises, so I can't complain too much.

 

[Topher]

5-220miles based on not having a heavy foot and always only gradually getting up to speed.

Nope, it is based on the EPA testing procedures.

I would imagine that 220m is the average distanced achieved during testing based on a number of conditions, like using heat, AC, and different operating temperatures. It's likely that in some circumstances you'll get a bit less, and in others a bit more.

Nope, it is based on the EPA testing procedures.

4- 220miles based on a lot of highway driving and taking advantage of the m3 good C.O of 23 which is less effective in city driving.

Nope, it is based on the EPA testing procedures.
What is a C.O? and 23?

8 - tyres not pumped up to optimal pressure

Why wouldn't you keep your ti(y)res properly inflated?

Thank you kindly.