Motor Trend: Model 3 Long Range First Test

KarenRei

Top-Contributor
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
1,647
Location
Reykjavík
Country
Country
#2
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.
 
Last edited:

SoFlaModel3

@Teslatunity
Moderator
TOO Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2017
Messages
9,819
Location
Florida
Tesla Owner
Model 3
Country
Country
#3
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

Dis Member
Moderator
TOO Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
11,263
Location
Pittsburgh PA
Tesla Owner
Model 3
Country
Country
#4
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

Active Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2017
Messages
81
Location
Riverview FL
Tesla Owner
Model S
Country
Country
#5
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.
 
Last edited:

garsh

Dis Member
Moderator
TOO Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
11,263
Location
Pittsburgh PA
Tesla Owner
Model 3
Country
Country
#6
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

Top-Contributor
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
1,647
Location
Reykjavík
Country
Country
#7
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!
 
Last edited:

Lovesword

Tesla Quad Cities
TOO Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2017
Messages
2,086
Location
Iowa
Tesla Owner
Model 3
Country
Country
#9
I tried twitter:

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!! :mad:

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...
 

danzgator

Top-Contributor
Joined
May 17, 2017
Messages
612
Location
Largo
Tesla Owner
Model S
Country
Country
#11
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

Top-Contributor
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
1,647
Location
Reykjavík
Country
Country
#12
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

Top-Contributor
Joined
May 17, 2017
Messages
612
Location
Largo
Tesla Owner
Model S
Country
Country
#13
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:

upload_2017-11-28_8-34-38-png.4196


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

Edit: Edmunds has 13 Cu Ft.

upload_2017-11-28_8-38-48-png.4197


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

danzgator

Top-Contributor
Joined
May 17, 2017
Messages
612
Location
Largo
Tesla Owner
Model S
Country
Country
#14

Lovesword

Tesla Quad Cities
TOO Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2017
Messages
2,086
Location
Iowa
Tesla Owner
Model 3
Country
Country
#15
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.
 
Last edited:

Quicksilver

Top-Contributor
TOO Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
1,531
Location
Dallas, Texas
Tesla Owner
Model 3
Country
Country
#16
"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

Top-Contributor
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
1,647
Location
Reykjavík
Country
Country
#17
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

Top-Contributor
Joined
May 17, 2017
Messages
612
Location
Largo
Tesla Owner
Model S
Country
Country
#18
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

☰ > 3
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
9,675
Location
Vancouver, WA
Tesla Owner
Model 3
Country
Country
#19
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

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
378
Location
Chicago Suburbs
Country
Country
#20
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. :confused:
 
Last edited: