To be fair, a base Model S doesn't have all the autopilot stuff and upgrade sound and everything else. So to compare equivalent equipment packages, that Model S is a lot more than $9k more.
doesn't the model S though also give you free access to superchargers (unlike the model 3 where you have to pay)? This should factor in the comparison if you live close to one and/or plan a lot of cross country trips where they are available
The value of free Supercharging is fairly small for most people. If you drive 12,000 miles/year and 25% of your driving is Supercharged, you'll end up paying something like $100/year in Supercharger fees for a Model 3.
The "small battery" still has more range than any other electric car out there, except the Bolt, which has a very small lead, but does not seem to be made in large numbers. And it matches the promised range (>215 miles). So it is great value for everyone, who does not need the 300 mile range. So you do get a sporty (0-60 <6s) 5 seated electrical sedan for 35k, which is great.
Except for the part where they're not actually making the 35k base model yet, sure. So in reality you might be able to get it for 35k at some unspecified point in the future, assuming they don't outright cancel the base model again.
The S40 was cancelled because there were very few orders for it. If you now order a Model 3 you have to wait way into 2018 for delivery. But according to the Tesla web page, the production of the base model starts in November. They had to choose a battery size to start the production with, and it makes sense to start with the larger one, especially as all press reviews are done with the larger battery.
The 2005 onward NC model Mazda MX-5 Miata: A test by Car and Driver magazine revealed a 0-60 mph (97 km/h) time of 6.5 s for the 2.0 L (120 cu in) U.S.-spec NC[1]
I suspect the average MX-5 owner is quite happy with the characteristics their vehicle. Hell, I consider my long wheel base turbo diesel VW T5 Transporter quite sport to drive. For a (very basic) camper van.
Also, the Miata is also widely considered a unique sports car. Sure, handling plays a role - but most people consider Camaros and Trans-Ams sports cars also. If the 3 is as nimble as the miata, it could earn a spot in the sporty list through its agility- but the original post referred to the 3's 0-60 as the reason to consider it sporty. Case in point, no one considers a CRX 'sporty.'
Maybe I am old, but the Model 3 gets 0-60 in about the same time the Porsche 911 used to. I would consider everything less than 8s "sporty". That does not mean, it is a race car, just something with quick performance. The fact that the full power is always instantly available without shifting or pressure by the turbocharger building up, closes the gap further.
The Tesla will probably feel a lot quicker even with similar 0-60 times because the EV drivetrain is so much more responsive.
I have a Model S 85, with a 0-60 time similar to what Tesla is claiming for the Model 3. A couple of months ago I had a Cadillac ATS rental which also has a similar 0-60 time. It was a decent car overall, but it felt like an absolute snail compared to my S. Floor the accelerator in the S and you go. Floor it in the ATS and Stuff begins to Happen, and Eventually the car begins to Move. I assume they have similar numbers because the ATS makes up for it with better acceleration as you get closer to 60, but most acceleration I do isn't a pure 0-60 run, but 0-30, or 10-40, or whatever.
* don't mind the noise, burning tires, and clutch wear
* have perfect traction, weather, straight road, temperature
* execute two perfect shifts
With normal driving you also have to worry about what gear you are in, what gear you want to be in, handling the throttle in the mean time, and turbo lag. By the time you go from say cruising on the highway in 6th and full throttle in 3rd the model 3 will already have a substantial jump on you.
The telsa on the other hand is pretty simple, just stomp. There's no wrong gear to be in, no shifting, not much noise (traction control and no gas motor). In a wide variety of situations a Tesla model 3 (at least the large range version) is going to feel faster than a WRX. I have had both a forester xt and a WRX.
You're making an incorrect comparison, there's a logic failure there.
$59,500 as shown, then you use that to compare to the base Model S at $68,000, referencing a "real-world" price difference of 13%.
How exactly is $59,500 defined as the official "real-world" price, such that it gets pegged as the key comparison point to use vs the base S? That's a wholly subjective premise you crafted.
"Real-world"? Musk said the Model 3 would have a 220 mile base range from Day 1, years ago. And it does. This isn't price creep. This is delivering exactly what you promised. And for most people, 220 miles is more than enough. How far do you drive to work?