The numbers on the semi destroyed what anyone thought possible.
- 0-60 in 5 sec
- 0-60 in 20 sec under max gross payload of 80k lbs
- 65mph up 5% grade under max lied, compared to 45mph for ICE semi
- 500 mile range
- 400 miles of additional range after 30 min charge
- Guaranteed 7¢/kWh fuel cost(solar) compared to volatile oil
- Nuclear explosion proof glass(apparently cracked windshield takes semi off road)
- 1 million mile guarantee it won't breakdown
- Will never need a brake change
- "Impossible" to jacknife
- Beats semis on economics day 1
- In convoy mode, beats rail on economics
300 miles of range: $150,000
500 miles of range: $180,000
Founders series: $200,000
https://youtu.be/CBTQnmUolas
The Roadster was a complete surprise, and the numbers given destroy any production car you can think of, even a Koenisegg.
- 0-60 in 1.9 sec (this is faster than most Formula 1 cars)
- 0-100 in 4.2
- 1/4 mile in 8.9 sec
- 250+ mph top speed
- 621 mile range (That's Kansas City to Denver without fueling)
- 10,000 nm torque
and that's the base model. Starting at $200k and Founders series at $250k. Destroys million dollar cars.
Also teased a rendering image of a consumer pickup truck with a normal truck in the bed.
In its report, the outlet found “flaws—big flaws” in the Model 3's braking distance, controls and ride quality.
And finally, the “stiff ride, unsupportive rear seat and excessive wind noise at highway speeds” didn’t do the Model 3 any favors. The outlet argued that other competitors in the compact luxury sedan segment have a better ride quality and more comfortable rear seat.
Consumer Reports concluded that the Model’s problems outweighed its pros and couldn’t give it a recommendation, kind of an unexpected outcome for such a hugely important (particularly for Tesla) and extremely hyped vehicle. Tesla has been working like mad to even build Model 3s on time. You don’t want to put in all that effort for a car only to get not recommended by CR. [Reply]
In its report, the outlet found “flaws—big flaws” in the Model 3's braking distance, controls and ride quality.
And finally, the “stiff ride, unsupportive rear seat and excessive wind noise at highway speeds” didn’t do the Model 3 any favors. The outlet argued that other competitors in the compact luxury sedan segment have a better ride quality and more comfortable rear seat.
Consumer Reports concluded that the Model’s problems outweighed its pros and couldn’t give it a recommendation, kind of an unexpected outcome for such a hugely important (particularly for Tesla) and extremely hyped vehicle. Tesla has been working like mad to even build Model 3s on time. You don’t want to put in all that effort for a car only to get not recommended by CR.
This part is especially reassuring:
In CR’s testing, Model 3's braking distance from 60 mph was 152 feet, a distance that the outlet claimed is “far worse than any contemporary car [it has] tested” and was nearly seven feet longer than the braking distance than that of a Ford F-150.
To conduct the braking test, testers make sure a car’s brake pads and tires are up to par, drive the car up to 60 mph and slam on the brakes to record the distance. They do this multiple times and, of course, they let the brakes cool between tests. [Reply]
Originally Posted by MagicHef:
Wait, she ran into a stopped firetruck at 60 mph and only broke her ankle? That's incredible.
Many lifetimes ago, I hit a stopped 18 wheeler in my 1980 Volkswagen Rabbit. (Don't fucking ask.) I went ~60 to zero in 0.0 seconds. Nothing but bruises and scrapes. It happens. [Reply]
Originally Posted by vailpass: This part is especially reassuring:
In CR’s testing, Model 3's braking distance from 60 mph was 152 feet, a distance that the outlet claimed is “far worse than any contemporary car [it has] tested” and was nearly seven feet longer than the braking distance than that of a Ford F-150.
To conduct the braking test, testers make sure a car’s brake pads and tires are up to par, drive the car up to 60 mph and slam on the brakes to record the distance. They do this multiple times and, of course, they let the brakes cool between tests.
I wouldn't put too much stock into that. Those braking numbers don't seem abnormal for a compact at all.
2018 Golf: 185 ft
2018 Sentra: 168 ft (from 70 mph)
2018 Cruz: 161 ft (from 70MPH)
2017 Mazda 3: 185 ft (from 70mph)
2017 Focus: 173 ft (from 70 mph)
2017 Elantra: 168Ft (from 70mph)
(as per Car and Driver and Motortrend)
To me it sounds like Tesla didn't line enough money in Consumer Reports' pockets.
Wind noise can be found in most compact models (they're freakin' rolling bricks the lot of them) and back seat comfort is subjective. Just like every car, you'll need to drive it yourself. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
I wouldn't put too much stock into that. Those braking numbers don't seem abnormal for a compact at all.
2018 Golf: 185 ft
2018 Sentra: 168 ft (from 70 mph)
2018 Cruz: 161 ft (from 70MPH)
2017 Mazda 3: 185 ft (from 70mph)
2017 Focus: 173 ft (from 70 mph)
2017 Elantra: 168Ft (from 70mph)
(as per Car and Driver and Motortrend)
To me it sounds like Tesla didn't line enough money in Consumer Reports' pockets.
Wind noise can be found in most compact models (they're freakin' rolling bricks the lot of them) and back seat comfort is subjective. Just like every car, you'll need to drive it yourself.
I highly doubt that. CR doesn't take ad money or donated products. They made their bones on being verifiably impartial.
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
I always thought Model 3 was suppose to be a compact. Maybe i'm wrong?
I see them comparing it to the BMW M3. I'm no expert.
But I do know that the Tesla performing the same as those models you listed would be fine if they were in the same price point. But they aren't. They aren't even in the same area code. [Reply]
Originally Posted by vailpass:
I see them comparing it to the BMW M3. I'm no expert.
But I do know that the Tesla performing the same as those models you listed would be fine if they were in the same price point. But they aren't. They aren't even in the same area code.
Geesh, the M3? That's a sports coupe. Anywho...looks like Elon is already on it:
"The company had to scrap part of its assembly line last year, after struggles with automation. Today (May 22), Elon Musk said Tesla would be updating the Model 3’s braking software—and promised to fix any problems—after testers at both Consumer Reports and Car and Driver magazines found “big flaws” with the Model 3’s performance compared to comparable vehicles." [Reply]
Interesting..."And yet, other publications had variable test results, with Motor Trend noted that in one case, a car braked from 60-to-zero in just 119 feet."
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
Interesting..."And yet, other publications had variable test results, with Motor Trend noted that in one case, a car braked from 60-to-zero in just 119 feet."
So both car and driver and consumer reports are reporting inconsistent braking. Motortrend says they got a car to stop in 119 ft, while consumer reports is saying 152ft.
That's beyond inconsistent. That's wildly inconsistent. I'd be more concerned about inconsistent brakes than i would be over the 152ft figure. Your car should be predictable. [Reply]
