# Motor Trend: Model 3 Long Range First Test



## danzgator

I don't think anyone has posted this yet. The Model 3 eats the 330's lunch in every important metric, except cargo volume.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesl...-first-test-review/?sc_cid=AppleNewsMTArticle


----------



## KarenRei

Model 3 is as fast as the 340i. SR is as fast as the 330i.  Both are far cheaper than their respective competitors, even before accounting for "fuel" and credits. 

Their "base price" and "price as tested" are wonky. What they're testing has nothing to do with the fact that they've loaded it full of things like autopilot and FSD, and the base price is $35k, not $45k.


----------



## SoFlaModel3

danzgator said:


> I don't think anyone has posted this yet. The Model 3 eats the 330's lunch in every important metric, except cargo volume.
> 
> http://www.motortrend.com/cars/tesl...-first-test-review/?sc_cid=AppleNewsMTArticle


Clearly I'm biased at this point, but I think the Tesla Model 3 compares favorably and destroys the competition at its price point (with or without incentives).

I believe the list to be:

BMW 3
Audi A4
Mercedes C
Lexus IS
Infiniti Q50
All 5 are within the same price ranges and clearly target the same buyers.


----------



## garsh

Here's the comparison chart from the Motortrend article.

I have one *major* nit with this graph. It displays a row labeled "ENERGY CAPACITY, kW/h". Yes, it should be kW•h, but the bigger problem here is that it converts the 15.8 gallons of gas into the equivalent energy in kWh. It implies that the BMW can go about seven times as far on a tank of gas, which is very much not true. It's ignoring the fact that a combustion engine has terrible efficiency, and ends up wasting most of that energy as heat and noise.

Other than that, it looks pretty good. Although they really should have included a "range" row for comparison.


----------



## Roderick80

garsh said:


> Here's the comparison chart from the Motortrend article.
> 
> I have one *major* nit with this graph. It displays a row labeled "ENERGY CAPACITY, kW/h". Yes, it should be kW•h, but the bigger problem here is that it converts the 15.8 gallons of gas into the equivalent energy in kWh. It implies that the BMW can go about seven times as far on a tank of gas, which is very much not true. It's ignoring the fact that a combustion engine has terrible efficiency, and ends up wasting most of that energy as heat and noise.
> 
> Other than that, it looks pretty good. Although they really should have included a "range" row for comparison.


Agreed- I noticed the same thing. This and the fact that as @KarenRei points out, the car was loaded with $8k in software that was not evaluated (but used in their valuation assessment) is fishy.


----------



## garsh

Roderick80 said:


> Agreed- I noticed the same thing. This and the fact that as @KarenRei points out, the car was loaded with $9k in software that was not evaluated (but used in their valuation assessment) is fishy.


Tesla sent them the car for evaluation. I'm willing to say that was Tesla's fault.

Anyhow, next year Tesla will hopefully send them a bare-bones standard Model 3. Well, maybe with the 19" wheels added, considering who's doing the testing. I bet that will win.


----------



## KarenRei

garsh said:


> Here's the comparison chart from the Motortrend article.
> 
> I have one *major* nit with this graph. It displays a row labeled "ENERGY CAPACITY, kW/h". Yes, it should be kW•h, but the bigger problem here is that it converts the 15.8 gallons of gas into the equivalent energy in kWh. It implies that the BMW can go about seven times as far on a tank of gas, which is very much not true. It's ignoring the fact that a combustion engine has terrible efficiency, and ends up wasting most of that energy as heat and noise.
> 
> Other than that, it looks pretty good. Although they really should have included a "range" row for comparison.


Yep. Model 3 LR goes nearly as far as the 330i in the city and combined (5% and 13% difference, respectively); it's only on the highway where the 3-series has a meaningful advantage (and even there it's only 34% for the 330i). And as noted previously, the actual comparison should be with the 340i; Model 3 LR beats its city range.

Also - nitpick - the usable energy capacity is 78,2kWh, and the total battery capacity 80,5kWh. Not 75kWh. That's a 4,3% difference in usable capacity, and 7,3% in total capacity.

Here's another nitpick: "220/440-volt electricity" - no, it's 120-240V AC, or DC fast charging (variable voltage). There's no point in which you can charge it off 440V because the pack voltage doesn't go that high, and the AC charger can't take that.

Just bad fact checking here. Is there a way to contact them and post corrections?

ED: Just noticed another one: they wrote the HWY and COMB mileage figures reversed for the BMW - if you were to believe them, you'd think that the BMW goes further in combined driving than it does in either city or highway!


----------



## garsh

KarenRei said:


> Just bad fact checking here. Is there a way to contact them and post corrections?


I tried twitter:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935483357118566400
But I just mentioned this one important point. I didn't want to overwhelm him with all of the other nitpicks.


----------



## Love

garsh said:


> I tried twitter:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/935483357118566400
> But I just mentioned this one important point. I didn't want to overwhelm him with all of the other nitpicks.


You're too kind. I say we go after them like those people who love Beyonce so much they attack anyone who mentions her in any negative light!! 

Suggestions for our "Behive" mantra:
Musk-eteers
Elonians
Watt The Frunk?
"Don't Mess With Tesla" (instead of Texas)

These could be better... it's early and I'm still in wake up mode...


----------



## garsh

Lovesword said:


> You're too kind.


Kim Reynolds actually seems to be a huge fan of the Model 3. Be nice to him.
Proof:


----------



## danzgator

Has anyone gotten to the bottom of the actual Model 3 cargo volume? Just eye-balling the cargo areas of both cars, it seems like the Model 3 is more voluminous.2.3 Cu Ft less almost seems impossible. Like the 0-60 times, maybe Tesla sand bagged the volume? I think if you took into account all the nooks, crannies, and the frunk, the Model 3 could be more voluminous.


----------



## KarenRei

danzgator said:


> Has anyone gotten to the bottom of the actual Model 3 cargo volume? Just eye-balling the cargo areas of both cars, it seems like the Model 3 is more voluminous.2.3 Cu Ft less almost seems impossible. Like the 0-60 times, maybe Tesla sand bagged the volume? I think if you took into account all the nooks, crannies, and the frunk, the Model 3 could be more voluminous.


Everyone but Motor Trend says the BMW's trunk space is 13 cubic feet (versus the Model 3's 15). I have no clue where they get their numbers from. E.g.:

https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/bmw/3-series/interior




> *Cargo*
> 
> The 3 Series' 13-cubic-foot trunk is a decent size for a luxury small car. Cargo space grows to 24.6 cubic feet in the Gran Turismo (56.8 cubic feet with the seats folded down), and the Sports Wagon has 27.5 cubic feet behind the seats and 53 cubic feet overall.



Searches are even full of BMW dealerships citing the 13 cubic foot figure:

https://www.google.is/search?q=bmw+...eGFgAaYqIWQAw&start=10&sa=N&biw=2133&bih=1200


----------



## danzgator

KarenRei said:


> Everyone but Motor Trend says the BMW's trunk space is 13 cubic feet (versus the Model 3's 15). I have no clue where they get their numbers from. E.g.:
> 
> https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/bmw/3-series/interior
> 
> 
> Searches are even full of BMW dealerships citing the 13 cubic foot figure:
> 
> https://www.google.is/search?q=bmw+...eGFgAaYqIWQAw&start=10&sa=N&biw=2133&bih=1200


Hmmm. BMW's website doesn't show the cargo volume for any of the 3 series sedans. Car and Driver also has the volume as 17 Cu Ft:










https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-bmw-330i-automatic-tested-review

Edit: Edmunds has 13 Cu Ft.










https://www.edmunds.com/bmw/3-series/2017/review/


----------



## danzgator

KarenRei said:


> Everyone but Motor Trend says the BMW's trunk space is 13 cubic feet (versus the Model 3's 15). I have no clue where they get their numbers from. E.g.:
> 
> https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/bmw/3-series/interior
> 
> 
> Searches are even full of BMW dealerships citing the 13 cubic foot figure:
> 
> https://www.google.is/search?q=bmw+...eGFgAaYqIWQAw&start=10&sa=N&biw=2133&bih=1200


The A4 has 13 Cu Ft and the A6 has 14.1 Cu Ft, so it seems like 17 Cu Ft is unlikely.


----------



## Love

garsh said:


> Kim Reynolds actually seems to be a huge fan of the Model 3. Be nice to him.
> Proof:


Oh, definitely. I was totally kidding... as I usually do (trying to be humorous), and add nothing to the conversation. Sorry about that.

EDIT TO ADD: that silver is SOOOO good looking.


----------



## Quicksilver

"Pressed to the road by its tail-heavy (48/52) weight distribution." Is this due to the weight of the motor in the back? I was thinking that it would be closer to 50/50 but maybe that's just wishful thinking. Happy with 4.8 sec time.


----------



## KarenRei

There's no way that the BMW's trunk:

















... is bigger than the Model 3's:










(Not even counting that area under the bottom panel)

I really, really don't think Motor Trend was trying to be unfair. I just think they were lazy with their factchecking.


----------



## danzgator

KarenRei said:


> There's no way that the BMW's trunk:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... is bigger than the Model 3's:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Not even counting that area under the bottom panel)
> 
> I really, really don't think Motor Trend was trying to be unfair. I just think they were lazy with their factchecking.


Regardless of their intent, if it's factually incorrect, they should correct it. If it was off by 0.1 Cu Ft, or something like that, I'd give them a pass, but it's more than 30% overstated. They're incorrectly showing it as one of the few massive advantages that the BMW has over the Tesla.


----------



## MelindaV

KarenRei said:


> There's no way that the BMW's trunk:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... is bigger than the Model 3's:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Not even counting that area under the bottom panel)
> 
> I really, really don't think Motor Trend was trying to be unfair. I just think they were lazy with their factchecking.


the trunk/cargo numbers overall, from Tesla or whoever else, on the Model 3 seem way too low. The lower bin at the least has not been included, nor the frunk. but even just taking the main rear trunk, the minimum should be 16+sf (38" clear between wheel wells, 18" height clearance, 42" front to back). 
the lower bin is 11" deep (haven't seen a width or front to back dimension yet) so assume another 2sf for it for 18+sf in the rear. 
The frunk is ?"-34" wide x18" front to back x8'-10" deep for approx 2 ½-3sf. 
So without a car to measure myself, I'd still put money on it having at least 20sf of cargo capacity with the seats up.


----------



## jsmay311

The MPGe numbers stand out for me...

EPA: 126 / 131 / 120 (combined / city / highway)
MT: 103.7 / 89.7 / 128.2 (combined / city / highway)

Reading the article I couldn't find any details on their testing procedure for coming up with these numbers, but they sure seem odd. Does anyone know (possibly from previous MT tests of the S/X) how MT does their efficiency tests?

Also, I've been presuming that the EPA tests are done with 18" aero wheels*, whereas the MT vehicle had 19"s. (*Not 100% sure about this tho.) But then I'd expect the highway efficiency to suffer more than the city, but instead it's the opposite here.


----------



## 3V Pilot

Quicksilver said:


> "Pressed to the road by its tail-heavy (48/52) weight distribution." Is this due to the weight of the motor in the back? I was thinking that it would be closer to 50/50 but maybe that's just wishful thinking. Happy with 4.8 sec time.


48/52 is really not that "tail heavy" and 50/50 isn't always the perfect number to shoot for. With a rear wheel drive car having a bit more weight on the back can help with traction for acceleration, lighter steering feel, and braking (because of weight transfer to the front under braking). Plus, as I've said before in other threads, the low cg in this car make it feel and handle way different than other ICE cars. I love that they compared it to a Cayman when they talked about the way it feels. Don't get hung up on the numbers wait until you drive this thing!


----------



## Quicksilver

Mike Land said:


> 48/52 is really not that "tail heavy" and 50/50 isn't always the perfect number to shoot for. With a rear wheel drive car having a bit more weight on the back can help with traction for acceleration, lighter steering feel, and braking (because of weight transfer to the front under braking). Plus, as I've said before in other threads, the low cg in this car make it feel and handle way different than other ICE cars. I love that they compared it to a Cayman when they talked about the way it feels. Don't get hung up on the numbers wait until you drive this thing!


Makes sense. Thanks Mike.


----------



## danzgator

Mike Land said:


> 48/52 is really not that "tail heavy" and 50/50 isn't always the perfect number to shoot for. With a rear wheel drive car having a bit more weight on the back can help with traction for acceleration, lighter steering feel, and braking (because of weight transfer to the front under braking). Plus, as I've said before in other threads, the low cg in this car make it feel and handle way different than other ICE cars. I love that they compared it to a Cayman when they talked about the way it feels. Don't get hung up on the numbers wait until you drive this thing!


I assume the weight distribution is measured with an empty car, right? If so, once you have a driver in the car, it gets you even closer to 50/50.


----------



## KarenRei

MPGe is a nonsense figure anyway ("gallons of electricity"?), so if it's not the EPA numbers (which have a specific conversion behind them), who knows or cares?


----------



## skygraff

In addition to all of these comments reflecting on the comparison discrepancies, I also found it interesting that they didn't put an advantage at on the drivetrain warranty. Of course, this wasn't a maintenance comparison so...


----------



## jsmay311

KarenRei said:


> MPGe is a nonsense figure anyway ("gallons of electricity"?), so if it's not the EPA numbers (which have a specific conversion behind them), who knows or cares?


MPGe = 33.7 ÷ kWh/mi (for electric vehicles)

The conversion factor is what it is. The EPA is who defines how MPGe is calculated, so MT isn't gonna just randomly use a different conversion factor. So there's no reason to think the units being used had any bearing on the comparative results.

_(MPGe was intended by the EPA to allow a single unit to compare all sorts of different alternative fuels -- including electricity, hydrogen, CNG, etc. -- to the familiar gasoline MPG that Americans are used to. So, no, it isn't specifically well-suited for EVs. And the "e" stands for "equivalent", not "electricity". Wikipedia )_


----------



## 3V Pilot

danzgator said:


> I assume the weight distribution is measured with an empty car, right? If so, once you have a driver in the car, it gets you even closer to 50/50.


Actually I'm not sure. Here is a good article on the subject though....

http://automotivethinker.com/chassis/stop-and-weight-a-5050-weight-distribution-is-not-optimal/


----------



## GregRF

skygraff said:


> In addition to all of these comments reflecting on the comparison discrepancies, I also found it interesting that they didn't put an advantage at on the drivetrain warranty. Of course, this wasn't a maintenance comparison so...


Not a great comparison to make since the "drivetrain" warranty only covers the battery on the Model 3. The motor is left in the warranty for the rest of the car at the same 4 yr/50k mile.


----------



## Jayc

A 4 year warranty is actually not too bad IMHO. 

For my Toyota Hybrid, I got a 3-year warranty, 5 years for the battery. I've had it for almost 9 years now and it's had Zero problems. Zero, none whatsoever. I don't expect Tesla to match that so will extend my warranty when the time comes.


----------



## KarenRei

jsmay311 said:


> MPGe = 33.7 ÷ kWh/mi (for electric vehicles) The conversion factor is what it is. The EPA is who defines how MPGe is calculated, so MT isn't gonna just randomly use a different conversion factor.


And yet the numbers are quite different. And there's no reason to think that Motor Trend did a charge-depleting formal drivecycle run on a dynamometer with a measured recharge (I'd be shocked if they did). So where did they come from?



> _(MPGe was intended by the EPA to allow a single unit to compare all sorts of different alternative fuels -- including electricity, hydrogen, CNG, etc. -- to the familiar gasoline MPG that Americans are used to. So, no, it isn't specifically well-suited for EVs. And the "e" stands for "equivalent", not "electricity". Wikipedia )_


There already exists a unit for that: joules. MPGe is a meaningless measure for electric vehicles to the general public (you're only going to confuse people asking them to think of electricity in gallons), and it's neither price nor pollution equivalent to gallons of gasoline (the two things that the general public would care about). You're introducing a new unit to the "general public" either way. You might as well introduce the _correct_ one.


----------



## TrevP

Pretty light on details and opinions so I think this is going to be a series of posts on the car. Nothing on the interior or using it, mostly performance which we knew is very good.


----------



## TrevP

KarenRei said:


> There's no way that the BMW's trunk:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... is bigger than the Model 3's:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Not even counting that area under the bottom panel)
> 
> I really, really don't think Motor Trend was trying to be unfair. I just think they were lazy with their factchecking.


I can definitely say the cargo space in the Model 3 will surprise people and that's not even counting the rear well and the front trunk. When you take those into account there's no comparison.


----------



## ölbrenner

KarenRei said:


> Their "base price" and "price as tested" are wonky. What they're testing has nothing to do with the fact that they've loaded it full of things like autopilot and FSD, and the base price is $35k, not $45k.


I have to question some points. The base price of the model they tested (LR):
Base car: $35000
LR battery: $9000
Red paint: $1000
Total base price: $45000

The base price $35000 model is not representative of what MT tested, due to it having the SR battery which cannot attain the same forward acceleration (but possibly better lateral) numbers. I believe MT made a good call on this.

Just another viewpoint, I accept the upcoming counterpoint and already accept my certain loss  .


----------



## Love

ölbrenner said:


> I have to question some points. The base price of the model they tested (LR):
> Base car: $35000
> LR battery: $9000
> Red paint: $1000
> Total base price: $45000
> 
> The base price $35000 model is not representative of what MT tested, due to it having the SR battery which cannot attain the same forward acceleration (but possibly better lateral) numbers. I believe MT made a good call on this.
> 
> Just another viewpoint, I accept the upcoming counterpoint and already accept my certain loss  .


----------



## KarenRei

ölbrenner said:


> I have to question some points. The base price of the model they tested (LR):
> Base car: $35000
> LR battery: $9000
> Red paint: $1000
> Total base price: $45000


Except that it also had to have PUP. You're counting red paint but not PUP?

Perhaps if they marked it as $44k (not $45k), and made it clear that the category was "Model 3 LR", not just "Model 3", that would be okay. Although the as-tested price still makes it sound ridiculous because of all the unrelated options they tacked on.


----------



## 3V Pilot

Lovesword said:


> View attachment 4203


LMFAO!!.....Well said my friend!


----------



## dogfood

I think this answers the question why Tesla isn't bending over backwards to get their cars to the media.

And from reading through all the fluff, I'm just thankful they didn't test the car on a "Dark and Stormy Night."
#Snoopy #BulwerLyttonFictionContest


----------



## MelindaV

jsmay311 said:


> The MPGe numbers stand out for me...
> 
> EPA: 126 / 131 / 120 (combined / city / highway)
> MT: 103.7 / 89.7 / 128.2 (combined / city / highway)
> 
> Reading the article I couldn't find any details on their testing procedure for coming up with these numbers, but they sure seem odd. Does anyone know (possibly from previous MT tests of the S/X) how MT does their efficiency tests?
> 
> Also, I've been presuming that the EPA tests are done with 18" aero wheels*, whereas the MT vehicle had 19"s. (*Not 100% sure about this tho.) But then I'd expect the highway efficiency to suffer more than the city, but instead it's the opposite here.


agree - especially the 'city' number being 67% of the EPA, but the 'highway' being 106% of EPA 
I assumed multiple full throttle starts were calculated in their city 89MPGe number...


----------



## JWardell

danzgator said:


> I don't think anyone has posted this yet. The Model 3 eats the 330's lunch in every important metric, except cargo volume.


I highly doubt the model 3 has less cargo volume than the 3 series. I don't think they got these numbers from their own tests and therefore should not have included them in this chart.

I prefer Car and Driver's method of measuring cargo volume in cases of beer. Not just for the comedy, it's much easier for anyone to visualize, and simple for them to test.



garsh said:


> I have one *major* nit with this graph. It displays a row labeled "ENERGY CAPACITY, kW/h". Yes, it should be kW•h, but the bigger problem here is that it converts the 15.8 gallons of gas into the equivalent energy in kWh. It implies that the BMW can go about seven times as far on a tank of gas, which is very much not true. It's ignoring the fact that a combustion engine has terrible efficiency, and ends up wasting most of that energy as heat and noise.


They should have instead used highway range.


----------



## MichelT3

Putting up a different approach: Why is it relevant to compare a Model 3 with a BMW 3?
(Yes, I do understand the market-position.) 
In reality the difference isn't whether you have a cubic foot more or less range  in Model 3 or BMW. The question is whether or not you want a groundbreaking BEV in stead of an obsolete ICE-car (my opinion). The comparison with the BMW should be about the fundamental differences between BEV and ICE of these otherwise very comparable cars.

When you look at functional aspects like cubic range, Model 3 should solely be compared with other BEV's; Model S, Bolt, Leaf, i3, Zoe, etc., to compare their price and quality.

Isn't the reason Motor Trend is comparing Model 3 and BMW 3 just on functional aspects, because a comparison on the primal difference BEV versus ICE, the Model 3 would win on nearly all points? Because Motor Trend - like all car magazines - is getting the main part of it's income still from the ICE-industry, which is resisting BEV with all its might? So the superiority of BEV should be downplayed as much as possible.


----------



## danzgator

MichelT3 said:


> Putting up a different approach: Why is it relevant to compare a Model 3 with a BMW 3?
> (Yes, I do understand the market-position.)
> In reality the difference isn't whether you have a cubic foot more or less range  in Model 3 or BMW. The question is whether or not you want a groundbreaking BEV in stead of an obsolete ICE-car (my opinion). The comparison with the BMW should be about the fundamental differences between BEV and ICE of these otherwise very comparable cars.
> 
> When you look at functional aspects like cubic range, Model 3 should solely be compared with other BEV's; Model S, Bolt, Leaf, i3, Zoe, etc., to compare their price and quality.
> 
> Isn't the reason Motor Trend is comparing Model 3 and BMW 3 just on functional aspects, because a comparison on the primal difference BEV versus ICE, the Model 3 would win on nearly all points? Because Motor Trend - like all car magazines - is getting the main part of it's income still from the ICE-industry, which is resisting BEV with all its might? So the superiority of BEV should be downplayed as much as possible.


Because to 99% of vehicle buyers, all they care about is what MT is comparing. Tesla has to win on all, or at least all of those front to win over the other 99%. It may not seem like it on this forum, but we are the 1%. MT is not InsideEV's or Electrek, they are not pushing EV's, they are MOTOR Trend!


----------



## MichelT3

danzgator said:


> Because to 99% of vehicle buyers, all they care about is what MT is comparing. Tesla has to win on all, or at least all of those front to win over the other 99%. It may not seem like it on this forum, but we are the 1%. MT is not InsideEV's or Electrek, they are not pushing EV's, they are MOTOR Trend!


Still/exactly, so why don't they compare on the main difference; the MOTOR?!
Why? Because ICE would lose phenomenally from BEV.

EDIT: My English is sometimes a bit loose, when I lose grip, being a non-native English writer..


----------



## KarenRei

MichelT3 said:


> Because ICE would loose phenomenally from BEV.


(Pet peeve)


----------



## garsh

MichelT3 said:


> Still/exactly, so why don't they compare on the main difference; the MOTOR?!


Because most of the car-buying public don't care if it's a V8, turbo four-cylinder, or AC permanent magnet. They care about the price, how fast it is, and creature comforts.

They'll come around eventually, but for now, Motortrend has to present this car to their audience. We are not the typical Motortrend audience.


----------



## MelindaV

I think for most people, the 'style' of the vehicle is the first consideration over the propulsion when considering what their future car will be. So in that mindset, the Model 3's competition are those other entry level luxury (compact) sedans from BMW, Mercedes, Audi, etc. and not the Leaf or Bolt. In a stretch, you could say the i3, but it really is such a whole different level of BMW it isn't really there either.


----------



## MichelT3

MelindaV said:


> I think for most people, the 'style' of the vehicle is the first consideration over the propulsion when considering what their future car will be. So in that mindset, the Model 3's competition are those other entry level luxury (compact) sedans from BMW, Mercedes, Audi, etc. and not the Leaf or Bolt. In a stretch, you could say the i3, but it really is such a whole different level of BMW it isn't really there either.


I keep wondering if it's relevant to inform 'most' people about the comparison if specific features of a Model 3 versus a BMW 3, because they aren't interested in a BEV. They will never buy one anyway, because it's BEV; something strange and different from which they shy away.
Since that's the case isn't it better to inform them about the advantages of BEV over ICE?

That MT doesn't do that, confirms my supposition that's because they are financed by advertisements and need cooperation from ICE-manufacturers.


----------



## JWardell

MelindaV said:


> I think for most people, the 'style' of the vehicle is the first consideration over the propulsion when considering what their future car will be. So in that mindset, the Model 3's competition are those other entry level luxury (compact) sedans from BMW, Mercedes, Audi, etc. and not the Leaf or Bolt. In a stretch, you could say the i3, but it really is such a whole different level of BMW it isn't really there either.


Judging on most cars I see on the road today, I don't think style is a consideration at all. I don't think we will look back fondly on the current era of ugly design rampant in the majority of vehicles. I'm so glad we have Franz!


----------



## MelindaV

JWardell said:


> Judging on most cars I see on the road today, I don't think style is a consideration at all. I don't think we will look back fondly on the current era of ugly design rampant in the majority of vehicles. I'm so glad we have Franz!


good point - maybe I was talking more to 'my' own shopping style. I still cringe when I see my friend pull up in her Kia Rondo, but apparently "it has great legroom". If I were driving that, room to stretch my legs would be the last thing on my mind.


----------



## JWardell

If anything, it's stupid tech features that sell people these days (all the ads that tout nothing but wi-fi hotspots slay me) and they can't even figure out how to use them


----------



## Maevra

I admit that, not being a car person, a lot of the technical bits of the MT article went right over my head, but as to why we compare an EV to a non-EV, I am reminded of this Elon quote referring to the Model S:

*Yeah, well I think anyone who likes fast cars will love the Tesla. And it has fantastic handling by the way. I mean this car will crush a Porsche on the track, just crush it*. So if you like fast cars, you'll love this car. And then oh, by the way, it happens to be electric and it's twice the efficiency of a Prius. (source)*

It's great that Tesla thinks this way this because IMO that is the key to winning people over. That is why I bought a Tesla. It looks beautiful, is quick, drives like a dream, and has awesome tech. As much as contributing to a more sustainable future is a great reason to buy an EV, it's not high up on the list of concerns for most folks, so the cars themselves need to be desirable on their own, without the added halo of the zero emission incentive.

*Well, we've still got a ways to go before a Tesla crushes a Porsche at Nurburgring, but we'll get there (cough*Roadster 2020*cough)!


----------



## Rich M

Maevra said:


> (cough*Roadster 2020*cough)!


Fixed: (cough COUGH *I mean Roadster 2021* COUGH cough)
Fixed: (LOUD HACKING COUGH *I mean Roadster 2022* COUGH! HACK!)
Fixed: (*wheezing, looking for inhaler* *I mean Roadster 2023* *puff* *puff*)


----------



## Topher

jsmay311 said:


> The conversion factor is what it is.


Except when it isn't. Is Motor trend using the special 100% gasoline fuel that the EPA requires for their tests? Or the 10% ethanol that you get at most pumps? Or something else. The difference is quite significant.

Thank you kindly.


----------



## ölbrenner

Topher said:


> Except when it isn't. Is Motor trend using the special 100% gasoline fuel that the EPA requires for their tests? Or the 10% ethanol that you get at most pumps? Or something else. The difference is quite significant.
> 
> Thank you kindly.


MT test procedure, including the specific fuel used, is on thier website.


----------



## garsh

ölbrenner said:


> MT test procedure, including the specific fuel used, is on thier website.


Link?


----------



## Mark C

MelindaV said:


> good point - maybe I was talking more to 'my' own shopping style. I still cringe when I see my friend pull up in her Kia Rondo, but apparently "it has great legroom". If I were driving that, room to stretch my legs would be the last thing on my mind.


The "great legroom" is another way of saying, "My friends Rondo has plenty of room for me to dive in the floorboard if I see someone I know before they see me. "


----------

