Connect with us

News

Tesla Showdown: We got a Model 3 and compared it to a Model S [Video]

Published

on

We’ve seen a handful of Tesla Model 3 review videos floating around — including an excellent hour-long, deep-dive into the car’s features by our friends at Model 3 Owners Club. That said, we just got a chance to conduct an in-depth evaluation of Model 3 for ourselves. It’s a fascinating car and in our view, will come to dominate the mid-sized sedan segment over the next few years.

Above: Considering the differences between the two Tesla sedans (Photo: EVANNEX)

In some ways, Model 3 demonstrates how Tesla has elevated its interior design capabilities and improved the integration of features, functionality, and storage as the company moves forward. In other ways, Model 3 reinforces the contention that Model S remains Tesla’s flagship sedan. We think it’s worth comparing and contrasting the two Tesla sedans to better understand the differences between the cars.

Above: Examining a few of the subtle, and not-so-subtle similarities and differences between Tesla’s Model 3 and Model S (Youtube: EVANNEX)

We spent two full days with the Model 3, reviewing the interior and exterior in granular detail. We examined the car through the lens of five years (since 2012!) of Model S ownership. Sure, some Tesla owners (like us) are wondering how these siblings stack up against one another. But there are many others pondering the possibility of owning their first Tesla. The big question is… if you’re considering the purchase of a Tesla Model 3 or Tesla Model S, which one should you buy?

Interior

Let’s compare and contrast some of the interior features of Model 3 and Model S with particular emphasis on driving and vehicle control displays, HVAC capabilities, interior volume and storage, the front driver’s compartment, and the little things that add functionality to the interior.

Above: A look inside the Tesla Model 3 interior (Photo: EVANNEX)

Driving and vehicle control displays. The Model S boasts two digital displays instead of one in the Model 3. The Model 3’s horizontal, center display is also smaller (15-inch) vs. a vertical, center display which is larger (17-inch) in the Model S. Because Model S retains an information display immediately in front of the driver, it provides somewhat more comprehensive information content. As an aside, the 15-inch landscape display in Model 3 appears to be larger than it is and provides a full range of driving and vehicle information at a glance.

Advertisement
-

HVAC. Model 3’s HVAC approach demonstrates a significant step forward for Tesla. Both the Model S and Model 3 HVAC approaches are functional and capable, but the Model 3 has a definite advantage in terms of directional control and aesthetics. In addition, its novel design is impressive.

Interior volume and storage. Because Model 3 is a mid-size sedan, it can’t compete with Model S in interior volume—an important factor for many owners. Overall, interior volume in the Model S is far superior to Model 3. You get 30 cubic feet in Model S vs. 15 cubic feet in Model 3. As important in our view, the Model S hatchback design has significant advantages over the Model 3 conventional trunk opening. The hatchback opening provides very easy placement of large objects. It should be noted that the Model 3 trunk, when coupled with second row fold-down seats, does offer the ability to carry long objects with relative ease. The Model S also has a power lift gate instead of the Model 3’s manual trunk. In addition, Model S has a larger frunk than Model 3.

Seating. Model S has seating for 5 adults + 2 children (with rear facing “jump” seats). Model 3 only has seating for 5 adults. That said, Model 3’s seat quality, design, and overall spaciousness of the cabin were comparable to Model S.

Driver visibility. The interior design of Model 3 is striking in the sense that it eliminates the binnacle that normally sits directly in front of the driver, replacing it with a 15-inch landscape center display. With the binnacle removed, the Model 3 dash is lowered, allowing a more complete view of the road immediately in front of the vehicle. The large expanse of glass above the driver provides the feeling of an aircraft cockpit.

Center console. Sitting in the driver side cockpit of Model 3, it becomes obvious that Tesla has improved its interior design chops. The center console for Model 3 (available with the premium option package) is well-designed and functional. It offers easy mobile device charging, dual USB ports along with a 12V port, and elegant storage, complemented by storage compartments in the doors.

Lack of buttons. For Model 3, just about everything except window and door opening is controlled via the landscape display. This level of software control is impressive, but we felt that there might be times when it would be easier to use an analog alternative for, say, the control of the side mirrors or glove box.

Advertisement
-

The little things. There are little things you’ll find in a Model 3 that are absent from the Model S — coats hooks, built-in rear seat armrest, small storage compartments, back-of-seat kangaroo pockets, etc. To be a bit self-serving for a moment, most of these items can be had (in the aftermarket) for Model S from EVANNEX.

Exterior

Moving to the exterior, it’s apparent that Model 3 has the same vehicle DNA as Model S, but like all siblings, there are visual (as well as characteristic) differences.

Above: Tesla’s sleek design of its new Model 3 (Photo: EVANNEX)

Looks. The most obvious (in-person) differences are the shorter hood for Model 3, the noticeably narrower width of the vehicle, and smaller wheels. Because it is shorter and narrower, Model 3 has a less striking stance than Model S. Overall, the larger size of the Model S is more visually impressive. We think it’s fair to state that many Model 3 owners will remedy some of these issues in the aftermarket, but in the case of Tesla’s sedan siblings, size matters.

Sensor suite. Autopilot (and ultimately, autonomous driving capability) will be available for both Model S and Model 3. It appears that functionality and capabilities in this domain will be identical.

Door handles. We did have a few small quibbles with Model 3. The push-rotate-grab door handles of Model 3 achieve the required aerodynamic advantages for an electric vehicle, but they pale in comparison to the auto-present and retract door-handles for Model S. We felt that Model 3 handles weren’t as ergonomic, particularly if you’re carrying something as you get into the vehicle.

Wheels. The 18-inch Model 3 aero covers are a matter of personal taste, but the underlying wheel (rim) is a bit conventional in our view and doesn’t offer an aesthetic that Model 3 deserves. The 19-inch wheels (available as an option) are more interesting, but still a bit less luxe than Model S (19-inch and 21-inch) wheel options.

Advertisement
-

Driving

Performance. Before going any further, it’s important to note that we weren’t able to test drive the Model 3 during our recent evaluation. Last year, we did enjoy a test ride in the Model 3 prototype at Tesla’s launch event. At that time the ride of Model 3 felt like a Model S, but it didn’t have the explosive torque and power that Model S owners are accustomed to. If you’re looking for ludicrous 0-60 mph times (gulp, 2.28 seconds), the Model S is your car. On the other hand, the published findings of a number of different test drives indicate that drivability and overall performance of Model 3 are quite impressive for a car at its price point. To that end, Model 3 can race a respectable 0-60 mph in 5.1 – 5.6 seconds.

Range. Both Model S and Model 3 have plenty of range for road trips and access to Tesla’s vast Supercharger network. On the whole, depending on which variant you look at, Model S will provide more range (259 – 335 miles of range) than Model 3 (220 – 310 miles of range). Also, many Model S owners will be able to take advantage of free supercharging (with a referral) whereas Model 3 owners will not have access to that particular perk.

The Verdict

In reality, the Model 3 and Model S are different vehicles for different demographics. Both have the same vehicle DNA, both will turn heads, and both are the epitome of current automotive technology. It’s clear — you definitely want a Tesla. Which Tesla is right for you?

Foreground: A new “refresh” Tesla Model S (left) across from a used “signature” Tesla Model S (right); Background: Tesla Model 3 (Photo: EVANNEX)

Although we were extremely impressed with the Model 3, if you’re considering a Tesla (and can afford it), we recommend going with Model S. On performance and premium feel, Model S wins going away. On exterior aesthetics, Model S provides a head-turning design that Model 3 can’t match. On (a few) interior design cues, it’s Model 3 by a nose. On interior space, seating, and storage volume, Model S triumphs. And if you consider availability, you can get your hands on a new or used Model S in a matter of weeks. Model 3 availability? That’s an entirely different discussion.

===

Note: Article originally published on evannex.com, by Matt Pressman

Advertisement
-

EVANNEX carries aftermarket accessories, parts, and gear for Tesla owners. Its blog is updated daily with Tesla news.

Advertisement
Comments

Investor's Corner

New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point

New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.

Published

on

By

Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.

Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.

Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.

Advertisement
-

Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line

The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.

Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court

Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.

Published

on

By

SpaceX Terafab rendering

Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.

The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.

What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.

Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry

By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.

TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.

Advertisement
-

Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.

The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.

Continue Reading

News

NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way

NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.

Published

on

By

Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.

The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.

Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.

The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.

Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.

Continue Reading