Tesla has always been known for its long driving range. However, the upgraded Tesla Model 3 now has to prove that it can match the Polestar 2 new sedan in other aspects besides its excellent driving range.
In the field of electric vehicles, power performance has become an "inflationary" concept. What is truly rare and hard to find are the characteristics that are not available to everyone. One such "golden asset" in the world of electric mobility is driving range. Tesla has long been a leader in this regard, with the Model 3 achieving excellent range through low energy consumption. But how does it perform in other aspects? There are some ups and downs. Nearly six years after the debut of the Model 3, Tesla has launched its upgraded version, called "Highland." It features a slightly adjusted appearance, a revised cockpit design, and a more aerodynamic body (with the drag coefficient dropping from 0.23 to 0.22).
These improvements are noticeable after driving for just a few meters. The new suspension system, with frequency-selective dampers, finally addresses the previous bumps and bounces during driving. The tiny bumps that once reverberated through the headrest are no longer felt. Although the Model 3 still maintains a relatively firm basic tuning, it is now more stable and confident on rough roads. The good shock absorption, coupled with soundproof glass throughout the car, significantly reduces noise levels.
However, even without being disturbed by noise, the Model 3 still isn't a "beast" on the highway. The issue lies more with the top speed being reduced from 233 km/h to 201 km/h, rather than with the still unstable straight-line driving and the steering system, which remains overly sensitive and lacks feedback in the middle position. When negotiating sharp bends on the highway, the driver needs not only greater sensitivity but also some courage. This is unfortunate, as from an energy consumption perspective, only a few electric vehicles are as suitable for fast highway driving as the Model 3. During tests, the car consumed an average of 22.7 kWh per 100 km, even including charging losses; in sports mode, the energy consumption was only 28.9 kWh per 100 km.
The Model 3's low energy consumption comes not only from its combination of an asynchronous motor on the front axle and a permanent magnet synchronous motor on the rear axle, but also from its low driving resistance. At 130 km/h, the power consumption is only 24 kW. Additionally, this power system can provide up to 366 kW of power at any time. In standard mode, the throttle response is very direct, which may require some adaptation; in "comfort" mode, the motor's output is smoother, but it doesn't reach the highest power. Although its 0-100 km/h acceleration time of 4.7 seconds is not official, the Model 3 can consistently achieve this result. Moreover, its braking distance should be better than the current 37 meters.
Off the highway, the sharp steering system makes cornering more fun for the driver, but the Michelin e-Primacy tires, optimized for rolling resistance, struggle to keep up with the intensity of the turns due to their lack of grip. Tesla tends to push the front end when turning, but gradually reduces grip on the steering wheel to warn the driver.
Such performance makes the Model 3 feel a bit like playing a video game, which could quickly become tiring. It is worth noting that even on slippery roads, Tesla can distribute power to all four wheels very sensitively. However, when changing lanes on a two-lane road, the extensive electronic stability system is sometimes too intrusive, causing unease for both the driver and passengers.
The performance of the driver assistance system is even more problematic. In addition to the common "ghost brake" issue when activating adaptive cruise control, other problems persist. In recent years, Tesla has gradually eliminated ultrasonic radar sensors, relying entirely on cameras for perception. As a result, there is almost no distance warning for approaching obstacles when parking, and adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping systems often fail in wet conditions. In dry conditions, drivers can use the steering assist function, but they must periodically turn the steering wheel slightly to prove they are still in the seat. A light touch isn't enough because Tesla doesn't have a capacitive steering wheel. If the driver fails to perform this action, the system records it, and after five "inappropriate operations," the assist function is disabled for a week.
Still, questions remain. Why are the turn signal switches designed as two buttons on the left spoke of the steering wheel? The user must focus their eyes on the steering wheel every time they use it. Tesla says the design is inspired by the traditional steering rod: up for a right turn, down for a left turn. While it sounds like a good mnemonic, this extreme design doesn't seem entirely intuitive.
In this facelift, Tesla not only eliminated the turn signal stalk on the left but also removed the gear lever on the right. Now, gear shifts can be selected through the touch screen or a capacitive touch area on the ceiling-this creates another layer of functional confusion. Other basic functions, like wiper and high beam control, have been moved to the steering wheel, and detailed settings must be completed through complex sub-menus on the central control screen. While the central screen is highly responsive and organizes many functions, games, and gadgets in a flat menu, it can be difficult to touch accurately while driving due to the small button area. The font on the screen can be enlarged, which slightly improves the user experience.
The charging route planning of the Model 3 All-Electric Sedan also needs improvement. The system only plans stops at Tesla's exclusive charging stations, sometimes choosing unreasonable charging strategies, such as stopping when the battery is at 30% power, even though subsequent charging stations may be more suitable. However, the interior quality has significantly improved: the inside of the car doors is wrapped in soft artificial leather, and the overall craftsmanship is more refined. Tesla has finally caught up. Some details, however, still need improvement, such as the slightly rough installation of the front door. Additionally, the Model 3 offers large storage space, retractable sun visors, and a spacious front luggage compartment.
The high-performance version of the Polestar 2 Pure Electric Vehicle tested here also offers a large front luggage compartment. Although the standard dual-motor version might be a more fitting comparison, it's unfortunately not available for testing at this time. Polestar's performance in driving and handling is impressive. While its nominal maximum power is lower than Tesla's, its acceleration is more powerful. The Polestar 2 also outperforms the Model 3 in braking thanks to its excellent Brembo system. Polestar 2's handling advantage is apparent.
This advantage comes from its precise and linear steering, which, although a bit light, is still much more accurate than the Model 3's. It offers selectable steering modes (light, standard, and heavy), though the feedback isn't significantly improved. What truly enhances its handling is the Öhlins dual-flow valve shock absorber, dual-motor setup with slight rear-drive characteristics, and high grip from the Continental sport tires. These features minimize roll during corners and provide high levels of grip. In sports mode, with the accelerator pressed and stability system engaged, the rear of the car will lightly swing out of the corner, showing a very high handling ceiling.
Despite the extra 300 kg of weight, Polestar 2 still demonstrates better dynamic performance in comparison. However, the lack of driving feedback and emotional engagement makes the experience somewhat monotonous. The Brembo braking system combined with the energy recovery system doesn't provide a smooth, clean foot feel, and the shock absorbers are relatively stiff at 100 km/h, especially when driving over manhole covers or railway tracks.
The driving assistance system of the Polestar 2 is also more functional and adaptable to all-weather conditions than the Tesla Model 3, though occasional problems persist. For example, the reversing camera struggles to adapt to light changes at night, and the vehicle's poor visibility affects the parking experience. In terms of interior layout, the Polestar 2 is more driver-focused, maintaining a traditional cockpit layout with physical buttons and steering rods, which reduces operational interference. The larger buttons on the screen make operation more direct and convenient. Additionally, Polestar 2's Nappa leather seats provide better support and are less slippery than Tesla's seats. However, this Swedish-designed, Chinese-made car does feel a bit overwhelmed by its powerful acceleration potential. Despite the finer bodywork, there is still some hard plastic, and the rear seats of the test car occasionally creaked during use. On a positive note, the luggage compartment includes practical hooks and straps.
Although the Polestar 2 is no longer a "power hog" after the facelift, it still cannot match Tesla's energy efficiency.
With better car system operation, superior driving performance, and refined handling, the Polestar 2 outperforms the Tesla Model 3 in performance. However, the Model 3 has a clear advantage in environmental efficiency, and it leads in price and cost (once you find the turn signal button). The Model 3 costs 49,990 euros and comes with a rich configuration, including an impressive sound system, four-zone seat heating, seat ventilation, driver assistance systems, matrix LED headlights, and a heat pump system. The Polestar 2 is much more expensive, but it doesn't outperform the Model 3 in terms of comfort and interior quality. Ultimately, the Tesla Model 3 won the comparison test. As a mature electric model, it shows great talent in some areas but still leaves much to be desired in others.