Tesla refreshes the Model 3 with improved range, a heated steering wheel, and more

[ColdSoup]

Seriously...no proper dashboard display swings it for you? Why is that?

It does. I don't like the style and it does remove the ability to comfortably see speed, range info, GPS, media information, and energy use. I hate looking sideways to try and see the center tablet.

Currently, I can control pretty much everything I want to in my car with physical buttons on the steering wheel with info displayed on a little screen in the center of my instrument cluster.

 

[mbk34]

You do realize that electric cars actually predate internal-combustion ones -- they were sold in the 1800s, and it wasn't until the early 1900s that gas cars overtook them in popularity.

Of course I do. And how does does that alter anything in what I said?

 

[Endymio]

Of course I do. And how does does that alter anything in what I said?

There are many things that give me the sense of future technology-- AI, genetic engineering, suborbital rockets. But given that we've been hooking up electric motors to batteries in cars for a century and a half, that just isn't one of them.

 

[Tempus]

I'll say this once again and I understand we are a non-standard use case. Until they get close to 400 miles on a charge, the charge only takes 5 or 6 minutes and there are as many charging stations as there are gasoline pumps, this is a non-starter for me. We take 6 to 8 trips a years where we do 900+ mile days and I can't even count the number of 400-500 mile trips we take in between (with destinations no where remotely close to a charging stations). Love to have an EV, especially a Tesla, however they and the rest of the industry just do not have what we need yet.

 

[Gastec]

The model 3 was the 12th best selling car regardless of price during the first half of 2020 and the top selling car among luxury car brands. If you combine aggregate sales of all car models for BMW, Audi, Mercedes, and Lexus, the Model 3 (presumably Tesla overall as well) comes in 5th.

I'd call that a good achievement considering how long the big name luxury brands have had to iterate designs and refine marketing strategies. I still won't buy a Model 3 because it doesn't have a proper dashboard display or instrument cluster, but hopefully Tesla will correct this or just make a Model S closer to entry level luxury car pricing.

So far Volkswagen Polo is the 3rd best selling car in Europe in 2020 and Dacia Sandero is the 10th. Both are automobiles that a normal person living in a block of flats can use on a daily basis. But don't get me wrong, if I was rich I would have my Tesla and a Porsche 911 Turbo S in the garage of my villa.

 

[poohbear]

I would hardly class Tesla as a 'Luxury' car maker. And to put Tesla sales into perspective - The VW group alone, sold 10 million cars in 2019.
How much did Tesla sell?

You mean the model 3? Sure the model 3 & Y aren't luxury, but the model S & X definitely are.

 

[p51d007]

A WHOLE thirteen miles more! WOW! Boy! That makes a huge difference LOL.
Has anyone looked to see how they achieved such a big increase? Better motors/batteries?
Or...did they just make it LIGHTER WEIGHT?

 

[DaveBG]

Fixed that for ya. Most people don't pay for a year of gas up-front when they buy a car.

View attachment 87144

Watch the videos someone posted above. There are many examples. You cannot order via the website.

 

[mbk34]

There are many things that give me the sense of future technology-- AI, genetic engineering, suborbital rockets.

I'm not sure I've seen any impressive AI outside of game playing programs, we seem to be as far away now from real AI as we were in the 80's. Genetic engineering has become very real with CRISPR but I'm not sure whether it promises a good future or a terrifying one. I suspect suborbital rockets simply sound futuristic but offer almost nothing to anybody.

I don't think cars will be be part of our future either. Considering the amount of money people spend on cars, their depreciation, insurance, taxes etc you'd think we'd get more from them. I live in a large city where most of the cars I see are parked in the street unused. People look at 0-60 times and top speed but the average speed in London is now apparently 7mph which makes a bicycle faster. I suspect the future will be more like Uber with automated vehicle just appearing when we want one to take us to our destination. They'll almost certainly be electric too.

 

[Endymio]

I suspect the future will be more like Uber with automated vehicle just appearing when we want one to take us to our destination. They'll almost certainly be electric too.

I think that's an astute observation ... but its not going to be anytime in the next decade or so. The battery technology is nearly there, but we lack both the generating and the charging capacity. Charging stations can be built quickly, but generation will of course lag behind.

 

[AlextheGreatest]

The only benefit of owning an EV that isn't wildly overstated is the level of smugness it generates in an EV owner.

when we stop subsidizing the fossil fuel companies (which will be shortly) then many others will make the switch. Carbon taxes are coming.

 

[AlextheGreatest]

I think that's an astute observation ... but its not going to be anytime in the next decade or so. The battery technology is nearly there, but we lack both the generating and the charging capacity. Charging stations can be built quickly, but generation will of course lag behind.

His post was astute in more ways than one- Uber has announced they will only work with drivers who use electric vehicles beginning in 2030, and many/most European countries as well as California and New York have announced they wont allow new non EVs after 2035 or 2040.

 

[Alfatawi Mendel]

The "VW Group" (VAG, actually) isn't luxury curs for the most part. That group includes Audi and Ducati, Bentley and Bugatti sure (with the majority of that being Audi) but the majority of those sales are probably Volkswagen, Skoda and SEAT. Not exactly comparative to a Model 3, let alone the S...

The model S...Tesla's ONLY vaguely 'Luxury' car sold all of 17,000 units in 2019.
BMW 5series in the US alone. 38,000.
Don't get me wrong....I WANT the electric car to succeed, but over-egging Tesla's pudding does it no favours. What makes it worse is that the US engineered a coup against a democratically elected leader in Bolivia, to secure cheap Lithium supplies for Tesla at the expense of the Bolivian people - Which Musk subsequently boasted about.

 

[netman]

I've had a Model 3 since April of 2018. I pay about $2000/year less for fuel than I did with the Audi S4 it replaced. The out-the-door price does not paint the whole picture at all. The all-in price of a Model 3 over 10 years of ownership is about the same as that of a car that cost $10-20K less up front.

Did you account for battery replacement after 10 years...?!

 

[Endymio]

when we stop subsidizing the fossil fuel companies...

No matter how many times this factoid is repeated, it still remains false. Externalities are not subsidies... especially mostly imaginary externalities.

Carbon taxes are coming.

God help the economy if that day ever arrives. Thankfully, in the US at least, it is as remote as ever.

Uber has announced they will only work with drivers who use electric vehicles beginning in 2030

And, like all other starry-eyed wildly impractical commitments for the far future, that date will be missed again and again.

 

[AlextheGreatest]

Really? Because it was mentioned during the debates. Diverting fossil fuel subsidies (which means they have to pay taxes just like everyone else in their income bracket) to pay for free college for 5 million students. I think it's a worthwhile goal.

What's far worse for the economy is going to tank if we have to keep having to pay billions of dollars for these calamities of hurricanes, sea level rise and climate fires. NY and NJ among 20 other states took good steps involving suing the fossil fuel cartels so THEY have to pay for them. I'm converting to full solar and rather proud of it, we're rather advanced here in NY as we've already banned fracking because we follow the science and the science says that no one in their right mind would even think of using fossil fuels after 2050, with a 50% reduction necessary by 2030, 90% by 2040 and completely 100% by 2050. I dont know about you, but I think about the future and not repeat the mistakes of the past. I'm also a big fan of nuclear energy, especially thorium reactors. They release far less pollution than other sources, especially fossil fuels.

Even if corrupt political figures that take bribes from the API dont do it, the free market will.

Renewable energy is becoming less expensive than natural gas.

Transition from oil:

Support: 57%

Oppose: 28%

The American public increasingly recognizes the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The arguments denying it or deflecting from human activities are increasingly rejected by the public. Now, the public is looking increasingly at policies aimed at addressing climate change and its growing adverse consequences. And most now realize that Exxon lied to them during the 70s and covered up climate science research, much how Big Tobacco was doing. That supermerger with Mobil should never have been allowed and they should be forced to break up, just like Big Tech companies.

In states like Texas, more people are now employed by the renewable industry than are employed by the fossil fuel cartels. And why not? The green energy jobs pay more, they are the fastest growing segment of the job market and they dont pollute the environment or people's health. What's not to love? The transition has already begun and people stuck in the past wont be able to stop it, try as they might.

 

[Endymio]

Diverting fossil fuel subsidies (which means they have to pay taxes just like everyone else)

Again, fossil fuels do not receive subsidies. The closest thing they receive are tax credits for various actions the government wishes to compel them to take: carbon sequestration plants, experimental biofuels, etc.

the economy is going to tank if we have to keep having to pay billions of dollars for these calamities of hurricanes, sea level rise and climate fires.

False premises. Calamitous fires in the West are the result of failed forest management, fueled by feel-good environmentalist policies that treat each and every tree as a sacred cow deserving of worship. Forest firest are a 100% preventable tragedy: remove dead trees, clear excess overgrowth, cut firebreaks. When you allow dead wood to build up for half a century or more, even a stern look can start a million-acre wildfire.

As for sea levels, they have been rising for 20,000 years, and in the past rising far faster than today. At the current rate of increase -- or even triple that rate -- they pose no threat, and can be mitigated by measures far simpler and cheaper than the various "green energy" proposals. Worse, even should we ban all fossil fuels overnight, those sea levels will continue to increase regardless.

I'm converting to full solar and rather proud of it

You've been sold a lie....several lies, in fact, if you think you're using nothing but solar power, especially in New York state.

here in NY as we've already banned fracking

Congratulations, you've kept alive dirty coal plants another two decades, and given yourself energy prices 53% higher than the national average, and, worse of all, raised the specter of returning to the widespread blackouts that NYC experienced in the '70s, thanks to energy shortages.

the science says that no one in their right mind would even think of using fossil fuels after 2050

The science says no such thing, of course. Some scientists do ... mostly the same scientists who, 30 years ago said we had ten years to dramatically cut emissions, or the planet was doomed.

Renewable energy is becoming less expensive than natural gas.

Not only is this false, but worse, it's irrelevant. Why? Because the more renewable energy you pump into a grid, the more natural gas you need to counter variability in those renewable sources.

most now realize that Exxon lied to them during the 70s

You have your dates mixed up. The 1970s was when the media was telling us that fossil fuels were causing global cooling, not warming. It wasn't until the late 1980s that James Hansen and his ilk had fully turned the tide to warming.

I'm also a big fan of nuclear energy

Finally, a bright spot in all the confusion.

 

[AlextheGreatest]

The forest fires have more than one cause, yes bad forest management is part of it but that is a direct result of human incursion into the wildlife buffer zone- if you want to see better forest management, you need to tell people not to build homes in those areas. But just as important is the historic drought going on there, which is the worst in 1,200 years according to tree ring data. Then there is also the bark beetle infestation. Since the trees can no longer produce protective maple because of the drought, they became easy prey to the invasive bark beetle, which killed them from the inside and then they became much more flammable as a result.

How far in the past would you say the sea levels were rising faster? That has occurred, of course, but those instances were quickly followed by a mass extinction (like we are in the middle of right now.) We've already experienced a 1 ft sea level rise since 1950 and the projections are for anywhere from an additional 3-8 ft sea level rise by 2100. It's pretty noticeable, as the military is moving bases away from the coast (for example the Naval base in Norfolk), as well as sunny day flooding in Charleston, SC, the Keys, and even here on the south shore of Long Island. Miami, for example, experiences sunny day flooding on 9 days per year right now, by 2050 this is projected to be between 50-90. And yes sea level rise can be mitigated but not cheaply! NYC is building a large seawall that will cost us 1 trillion dollars. Miami is building a 6 ft sea wall and no telling how much that will cost. People are being evacuated and relocated already from the coastal islands south of Louisiana because those areas are no longer habitable. And you're right about sea levels continuing to rise regardless of what we do, that's why we need a carbon negative economy not just carbon zero. Carbon capture and sequestration processes need to be developed and in a hurry to be able to do this.

About solar, besides using just solar, I've also bought a Generac power storage unit that utilizes both solar and battery power storage. That helps counter the variability and nuclear power is another good way to counter it. It's actually going to turn out to be less expensive for me because of the various incentives.

And we banned fracking because we're building hundreds of miles of wind farms off shore (a joint venture between NY-NJ), and are projected to be completely green by 2040 using a combo of solar, wind, hydroelectric and nuclear. But hopefully we'll have controllable nuclear fusion by that date and if we do, we can do that 100% and have solar power by creating it ourselves (after all, that's exactly how the sun is powered.)

Needing to cut emissions in half by 2030 and end them by 2050 comes directly from the latest IPCC report (you can easily find this online, it was issued last year.) I dont know what scientists you are referring to that said we needed to do this thirty years ago, but I dont remember any such thing.

And natural gas is just a euphemism for methane, as you probably know, and methane is a far worse GHG (86x worse!) than carbon dioxide (are you aware of the 3-5 pct of methane leaks that occur from fracking or the rapid increase of quakes due to the wastewater injection processes that occur after fracking?) All this went into the decision to ban it in NY after a year long scientific and environmental impact study was done. We also banned new pipelines after all the reports about leaks and explosions occurring from them. A number of lawsuits resulted from this (one notable one was near Boston, where a number of pipelines exploded destroying a bunch of homes and resulting in deaths. I also remember reading a power company in CA being sued because they were implicated and found guilty- and admitted their guilt- in one of the major forest fires there a few years ago.)

Do you deny that Exxon was covering up climate science research? That was uncovered a few years ago, whereupon all the lawsuits were launched in several states.

 

[mailpup]

We are wandering off topic. Come back please. Thank you.