> Now the car is unpolished across the board. Be that manufacturing, interior materials or general care for UX. But those things matter far more to enthusiasts. Your average family owner cares more about all of Tesla's positives.

This actually seems kind of backwards to me? Car enthusiasts -- at least the way I think of "car enthusiast" -- are the ones who prioritize acceleration, speed and handling to a point where they're forgiving, at least to a point, of other flaws. Tesla also has a lot of tech enthusiast appeal, of course, and their best target market is right at the center of that Venn diagram.

However, I'd think "average family owners" are the kinds of folks who are way more likely to think that if they spent $60,000+ on a new car, that car should be as close to problem-free, and even maintenance-free, as realistically possible. They're not prioritizing for under 4-second 0–60 speeds. I mean, they'll also love the high safety ratings and trunk space, but if the car gets a reputation for reliability problems, they're going to remember there's a Volvo dealer next door.

Tesla's problems generally aren't much about reliability, they're stuff like panel gaps and bad paint, which are in the enthusiast realm. The OP here is really an extreme example.

> is incredibly heavy and so sticks to the ground,

I think you meant "it has a low center of gravity and so sticks to the ground". It's that, not pure weight - otherwise trucks would dominate F1 circuits.

In the early days of auto racing there were maximum weight limits--it was thought that more weight -> bigger engine -> faster car. Of course now things are just the opposite, to the point that race winners hope to collect enough loose bits of rubber ("marbles") to their super-sticky tires from the track during the victory lap to avoid penalty...

Collecting rubber isn’t about adding weight. The teams want to mask the exact tyre wear amount/patterns, which they do by covering the surface with scraps.

<edit> Actually this seems less clear cut than I thought. I'd heard from David Coulthard's commentary that the reason for picking up was to cover the wear from other teams' eyes. A quick search suggests many people believe it's to do with weight. The weight explanation seems odd, since if the officials think the tyres are masking the true weight of the car, they can demand a different set are used for the weigh-in, but I can't find an authorative source either way.

So it may be to do with weight, or it may be to do with hiding tyre wear. </edit>

Yep. I most certainly did.

I got a 4 year degree in mechanical engineering and worked a full-time job building cars for a bit, and I still wrote down a line that sounds as stupid as it does.

But damn, I did not expect that line to draw as much attention as it did down the thread. Such is life.

When compared to dimensionally similar (but certainly not similarly priced!) sedans, the Model 3 ranks well but doesn't really have more cargo space.

Dimensions are in cubic feet.

BMW 330: 17

Kia Forte: 15.3

Honda Civic (sedan): 15.1

Telsa Model 3: 15.0 (combined front and rear trunk)

Hyundai Elantra: 14.4

Volkswagen Jetta: 14.1

Mercedes CLA-250: 13.1

Toyota Corolla: 13.1

Audi A3: 12.3

Subaru WRX: 12

No doubt Tesla vehicles have amazing crash ratings, they've really put together some structurally sound vehicles.

I am genuinely surprised.

I could've sweared the Model 3 was a bigger than that.

> It accelerates very fast, is incredibly heavy and so sticks to the ground, and they provide smooth power across all speed ranges, due to torque being provided directly at the wheels and the lack of a gear box.

What about handling in corners, etc., ride comfort? Genuinely curious. I have driven a (2016?) Model S a few times, and wasn't hugely impressed with the handling (beyond as you same, the very valid straight line acceleration and linear-ish power curve), compared to my Audi, or Jaguar.

The model 3 handles way better than the Model S, except for (probably) the not yet released model S Plaid (due next year).

The new 2020 model S handles a lot better than the older models, but is still quite big and boaty compared to the model 3, at least assuming that you want a "drivers car".

That said, I love driving my model S, it's quite comfortable, and rock solid for "normal" driving.

Model 3 is more nimble than the S. But it also feels cheaper and less solid. Depends on what you like.

i have a model 3 performance and the suspension tune that came from the factory is worse than any performance car i have driven—rear seat passengers actually complain if you do more than highway cruising or drive somewhere with perfect asphalt. i am used to suspensions being stiff, but this one just bounces. tesla considers it within spec.

that said, the feeling behind the wheel is completely addicting. i cannot go back to noninstantaneous peak torque. this is pretty lizard brain of me, performance is more than acceleration, but pinning your head against the seat is a ton of fun and when i purchased the c8 hadn’t come out so there wasn’t another 3 second to 60 option in this price bracket.

agree with everything upthread about build quality issues, UX is not great, hope you don’t live somewhere that it rains hard because the fastest setting on the wipers is way too slow, etc etc. still fun as hell.

>What about handling in corners, etc., ride comfort

Drives a lot like a higher end mercedes, E-class/CLS feel. Smooth, powerful, good handling but not a tight suspension. My previous BMWs had better handling with better suspensions. Still, when comparing the Model 3 to similar ICE vehicles, the Tesla was hands down a better buy in my opinion.

Its a joy in the corners. The batteries have all the weight, and that weight is at the center of the car, and you get a car that spins like a top(when you want to). My last accord (2015) had better ride quality. I was honestly very impressed with autopilot(works for commuter traffic very well) and handling..

> is incredibly heavy and so sticks to the ground

That's... that's not how cars work.

(I get that you're trying to be funny. That's OK.)

Nevertheless: He means that electric cars have a "low center of gravity" which matters immensely in collision scenarios.

See this short video of a Model X in a capsizing test: https://twitter.com/ValaAfshar/status/1310623334367989761?s=...

"Low CoG" and "Heavy" are not at all the same thing, and frankly I've known plenty of people in meatspace who genuinely thought "moar heavy === better grip", so I may be over-sensitive to this particular falsehood.

The model 3 performance is great at straight line but stock suspension isn’t fun to around tight corners. The way it rebounds on road imperfection at highspeed is not confident inspiring. The mass also resists willingness to turn in. Unless I manhandle it I always run wide around corner.

You always run wide unless you manhandle it? Are you talking about city driving or track racing??

I had a 2008 Mazda 3, and that car was amazing. Cheap and absolutely a blast to drive, particularly if you shifted gears yourself.

I'm sure that many reading this comment will scoff. However, that car was living proof of one of my favorite truisms when it comes to driving cars in everyday traffic:

"It's more fun to drive a slow car fast than it is to drive a fast car slow."

That Mazda was not powerful by any means, but it rode low and handled like a sports car. Fun to toss around.

> The model 3 is among the best driving cars. It accelerates very fast, is incredibly heavy and so sticks to the ground....

This is nonsensical. Nobody ever said "How do we make this drive better? I know! Let's make it heavier!"

More mass makes acceleration worse, cornering dynamics worse, ride quality worse and braking worse. There are literally no upsides.

It's very good at certain things, but let's step outside of the reality distortion field for a moment...

This. The extra mass is done about as well as it can be because it's all at the bottom of a car but jerk the wheel left and right it becomes instantly obvious that it's not a light car.

>ride quality worse

I think you are wrong here, in this exact point. More mass in the car frame makes ride quality better: you can have more weight in wheels (unsuspended mass) or more responsive suspension.

More mass means more inertia, which means you get more body roll and heave. To counter this, you need to compromise on your suspension design (essentially make it stiffer) to stop the thing flopping about.

There is some nuance here though: more mass does potentially give you options in lowering the centre of gravity which can certainly help. Putting the batteries in the lowest point is a smart design move from this point of view.

In general, I'm not saying you can't make a heavy car have a good ride quality, I'm saying you can make it ride well in spite of the extra mass it has to deal with. Adding more mass doesn't magically let you have a better ride quality.

> This is nonsensical. Nobody ever said "How do we make this drive better? I know! Let's make it heavier!"

It's not well phrased, but it is better for the vehicle, if the mass is the same, just closer to the ground. Center of mass is lower down.

Electric cars have this due to the big heavy "sled" of batteries at the bottom of the vehicle.

> is incredibly heavy and so sticks to the ground

This is the first time I've ever heard people saying "heavy" as a pro. Any car is heavy in a sense of staying firmly on the ground. The rest is steering, suspension, and rubber; a tiny cheap Fiesta ST on good tires and dry tarmac handles like it's on rails. It'll go around a corner much more eagerly though, being about 60% lighter than a model 3.

Not quite. Low center of gravity is key.

"In addition to its near 50/50 weight distribution, Model 3 was also designed with an extremely low polar moment of inertia, which means that its heaviest components are located closer to the car’s center of gravity.

Even though Model 3 has no engine, its performance is similar to what’s described as a “mid-engine car” due to its centered battery pack (the heaviest component of the car) and the fact that Model 3’s rear motor is placed slightly in front of the rear axle rather than behind it.

Not only does this architecture add to the overall agility and handling of the car, it also improves the capability of stability control by minimizing rotational kinetic energy."

Source: https://www.tesla.com/blog/model-3-lowest-probability-injury...

This also has some safety benefits such as low rollover risk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L24xzJkCGdk

I think that Tesla's PR department is not a right source for judgement.

https://fastestlaps.com/tests/95pv46ue63rt - Tesla Model 3 Performance does not win big over BMW M3.

Well, considering the Model 3 Performance starts at $50k and the M3 at $70k, winning at all is impressive. I agree with the OP, there are a lot of problems with the Model 3, but most serious automotive journalists have concluded it drives incredibly well.

BMW did not get over $2 billion in subsidies from government. That may explain price difference.

You're arguments, are erroneous and are so out of topic.

Let's do a bit of fact checking on this false narrative. Having worked in government. Most if not all financial transactions records are public record and can easily be traced.

The only known grant(call it subsidy if you want) that Tesla got from the government is a loan from the Department of Energy.

"In January 2010, the Department of Energy issued a $465 million loan to Tesla Motors" Source: https://www.energy.gov/lpo/tesla

The loan was to buy the old Toyata/GM NUMMI plant. That single plant now hires thousands of workers and produce thousands of electric vehicles a month. That DOE loan was PAID off 10 years early PLUS interest. Therefore, the American taxpayers made money and cemented the U.S. as a leader in EV market share.

Source:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-doe/electric-carmak...

Can you provide the rest of the $1.5B you're claiming? I can already predict you will link the Business Insider and L.A. Times articles. Both of which are inaccurate. They also did not provide sources where they got those numbers from.

Before you mention the tax breaks for the Giga Factory in Nevada. This has been a common thing for states to do. So that they can entice companies to build infrastructure. Because that can end up bringing in tax revenue in the long run. BMW have gotten hundreds of millions as well in just South Carolina alone. So that point is moot:

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/25-years-ago-bmw-opened-shop...

https://www.dw.com/en/mexican-subsidies-for-bmw-under-fire/a...

Perhaps from this: 200k cars sold * $7500 tax credit (+ the cars sold during the phase out, perhaps another 100k maybe at an average of $2500)

Such credits are intended to go completely to consumers, but as many government programs have unintended consequences, or perhaps unadvertised effects, the producer just charges more for the item because they know the consumer is willing to spend more knowing they'll get the tax credit, only if they buy that item. Tesla even factored the credit into the price they showed on their website, which many complained was false advertising as it was very possible not to have $7500 in tax liability, but the vast majority did.

It became obvious that Tesla captured a substantial portion of the credit when they lowered the prices every time the tax credit dropped, meeting the people who "lost out" on the credit half way. They had quite a bit of room in their margins to attract new buyers with lower prices. Maybe not $1.5B of margin from the credits, but definitely not $0.

Bad spin. He claims the price is lower because of the “subsidies”. Which is opposite of what you’re implying.

Not only that your logic is flawed, the math also doesn’t check out. Why? Not everyone who were the first 200k early adopters got the credit. Because you would have to owed the tax liability. Hence it’s called a tax credit and not refund.

Moreover, if we use the logic you’re claiming. Then BMW has benefited from it too! Since they sell the i3 EV. Same with other manufacturers that offer BEVs. Like Chevy, Nissan, Audi and Jaguar etc.

When it comes to track times and races. A win is a win. That is an absolute fact.

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/bgxie8/electri...

It's also funny how you claim it's PR. When it's actually physics at work when it comes to low center of gravity.

http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/centre_of_gravity.html

http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age11-14/Mechanics/Statics/te...

The quote about "exceptional ride due to lower center of gravity and essentially middle engine design" was taken from Tesla PR in the comment I've replied to.

The 0-100km/h times for M3 and Model 3 is 3.9 and 3.2 seconds respectively and, essentially, 20%. The difference in peak torque (helps in acceleration out of corners) is smaller, 550 N/m and 639 N/m, about 11%. Power (helps at high speed) difference also less - 317kW and 340kW, yet Tesla win here too. Model 3 is even slightly wider (2cm, about 1% wider), which should help in track too. And after all that, a whopping 0.1s of win.

Tesla borked their very first Roadster, despite the fact that they had to provide only drivetrain to it and everything else was done by Lotus. The analysis above suggests that they are still do not get driving as opposed to drag racing.

> "exceptional ride due to lower center of gravity and essentially middle engine design"

That is a factual statement! Let me ask you this. Have you driven a decent mid-engine sports car like a Porsche 718 Boxster and a Tesla Model 3 performance? I have. They both handle quite well.

>The 0-100km/h times for M3 and Model 3 is 3.9 and 3.2 seconds respectively and, essentially, 20%. The difference in peak torque (helps in acceleration out of corners) is smaller, 550 N/m and 639 N/m, about 11%. Power (helps at high speed) difference also less - 317kW and 340kW, yet Tesla win here too. Model 3 is even slightly wider (2cm, about 1% wider), which should help in track too. And after all that, a whopping 0.1s of win.

Facts are facts, you can't spin it to suit your narrative. The Model 3 won while being heavier and costing significantly less is impressive. That was also prior to track mode being released and the new high performance package.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXyEgl9rFN4

> Tesla borked their very first Roadster, despite the fact that they had to provide only drivetrain to it and everything else was done by Lotus.

Do you have a background in automotive engineering? Elon Musk and the Tesla engineers said on many occasions, that the original Roadster only had about 20% original parts after they were done with the conversion. They also said that it would have been easier to start from scratch had they known the amount of hard work that had to be done.

> The analysis above suggests that they are still do not get driving as opposed to drag racing.

Terrible analysis. Randy Pobst (look him up) who is well respected in racing would tell you otherwise: https://youtu.be/aywleQX5lyA?t=202

Unplugged Performance Street Tuned Model 3 Beats McLaren F1 - Time Attack at Tsukuba Circuit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2dustv6utY

Tesla Model 3 prevails with two hill climb victories after Pikes Peak crash

https://thedriven.io/2020/09/01/tesla-model-3-prevails-with-...

Tesla Model 3 Performance Tire Rack Hot Lap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgCf4aos0ZY

Randy Pobst Pikes Peak Hill Climb 2020 (Unplugged Performance Tesla Run)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvZMwiwnLVg

Pikes Peak Unplugged Performance Tesla Day 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q23I3BywBAA

Heavy is the wrong way to describe it. What the Model 3 has is a very low center of gravity and low moment of inertia due to the low and centered battery pack.

> due to torque being provided directly at the wheels and the lack of a gear box.

All Tesla's have gearboxes[1], sometimes to the surprise of the owner when they learn they need their transmission oil changed after thinking they've been driving a car that doesn't need any oil.

[1]: https://twitter.com/Tesla/status/1051911793373638661

There is rumor(leaked video) of an AWD speed 3 coming. Both my wife and I like the 3.