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