Model 3 Unveiling [video]

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 01, 2016, 2:21 PM UTC

rconti wrote: post #249

dragontamer wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it'd be much better than any manual car reving up to 4000 RPM and then dropping the clutch. You can squeal the wheels of even low-power engines with that technique. Frankly, zero-to-sixty in 6 seconds WITHOUT shifting and with 100% standing torque is kind of... awful actually. I suspect the opposite, when a ICE engine hits 4000 to 6000 RPM and the torque kicks in, you'll be accelerating far stronger than the…

I'd go the opposite direction. As the owner of a Golf R (which competes with the STI and Focus RS), the 1-second-slower-to-60 Model 3 (this is the very base model, mind you.. no talk of dual engines or performance models yet) will certainly have less peak torque, but I think it will feel faster due to the linear nature of it. Having driven and ridden in a number of different-spec RWD Model S, the impression of accele…

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 01, 2016, 2:27 PM UTC

sgeisenh wrote: post #195

dragontamer wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, acceleration speed is most important, and zero-to-sixty in 6 seconds is competitive against $30k cars. (The fastest cars in this price range... like Ford Focus RS... is zero-to-sixty in 4.7 seconds. $35,900 for the RS.) Everyone appreciates a speedy acceleration, when merging into highways or getting out of the way. Its far more important to be quick on acceleration than to have a top-speed.

6 seconds is fast for a luxury sedan, but there are plenty of cars for less than $30k that will do zero-to-sixty in under 6 seconds. The Subaru WRX does 0-60 in under 5 seconds and costs ~$26k. That's the only 4 door car I can think of that's quite that quick, but there are plenty of performance oriented cars in that price range that are very quick.

Post by superuser2 » Fri, Apr 01, 2016, 2:27 PM UTC

sgeisenh wrote: post #195

dragontamer wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, acceleration speed is most important, and zero-to-sixty in 6 seconds is competitive against $30k cars. (The fastest cars in this price range... like Ford Focus RS... is zero-to-sixty in 4.7 seconds. $35,900 for the RS.) Everyone appreciates a speedy acceleration, when merging into highways or getting out of the way. Its far more important to be quick on acceleration than to have a top-speed.

6 seconds is fast for a luxury sedan, but there are plenty of cars for less than $30k that will do zero-to-sixty in under 6 seconds. The Subaru WRX does 0-60 in under 5 seconds and costs ~$26k. That's the only 4 door car I can think of that's quite that quick, but there are plenty of performance oriented cars in that price range that are very quick.

Post by illumin8 » Fri, Apr 01, 2016, 2:28 PM UTC

jvm wrote: post #136

> Both cars will start at $30,000 or less after federal tax credits of $7,500 are applied. And both go at least 200 miles on a fully charged battery. The Bolt is a five-passenger hatchback that boasts cargo space and more legroom for rear passengers—front-seat backs are an inch thinner than in most cars. Looks almost identical specs-wise to Chevy Bolt, which will be available at the end of 2016 rather than 2017. http…

Post by node-bayarea » Fri, Apr 01, 2016, 2:30 PM UTC