116MPGe has me on the fence, thinking of RWD now

[Glamisduner]

I already have a very efficient EV but range and overall quality of the vehicle is nothing compared to the Tesla. I also enjoy performance (was tempted to keep it

Range a huge desirability for me. I plan to do drives from Los Angeles to San Francisco and other potential road trips. With the extra range and efficiency, I hope to minimize the number of super charger trips, as well maximize overall efficiency. I just like having as big as a buffer as possible as the range loss will eventually occur over 6 to 10 years. For reference Spark EV has experienced 18% usable capacity degradation over 5 years.

So while the the Model 3 might make a 250 mile trip for the first 5 to 7 years, I would start to question its range capability at 8+ years. I don't want to shoot myself in the foot early on paying extra for a feature I don't really need but immediately has efficiency losses (and associated costs), and later on potential range concerns.

I think there are other benefits this report doesn't show. AWD is Faster, driving in the rain may be more comfortable (oil on the roads in socal when it rains), the ride will feel different, more regen (which also means less brake usage).

 

[grovny]

Has anyone compared insurance costs between RWD and AWD? I wonder if there's enough difference there to offset the additional charging. I plan to check with a couple agencies, but may not get an answer without VINs to compare.

 

[dhrivnak]

I wasn't expecting that much of a loss and now I'm thinking of switching to RWD. Anyone else? (Assuming non-P AWD is also 116)

I have already bought and this makes me glad I pulled the trigger when I did. As I will need the range more than I will need AWD.

 

[VT_EE]

I just changed my order from AWD to RWD. Now 1-3 months delivery instead of 2-4. The loss in range in addition to the loss of the $3k Maryland tax credit (only good up to $60k) is not worth the .6 second difference in 0-60 acceleration. I’ll buy the Tesla snow tires/wheels for the winter.

 

[Glamisduner]

I just changed my order from AWD to RWD. Now 1-3 months delivery instead of 2-4. The loss in range in addition to the loss of the $3k Maryland tax credit (only good up to $60k) is not worth the .6 second difference in 0-60 acceleration. I’ll buy the Tesla snow tires/wheels for the winter.

I agree, that's a 3k additional expense then! Do you have FSD ? I mean starting price is 54k for AWD. 55.5k if you want white for red. but even then AWD in any color + Autopilot is under 60k?

 

[dbemis]

I was also surprised at the lower mileage from AWD, but I'm in it more for the performance/fun/winter driving perk (with winter tires, of course). The EPA tests don't really take into account regen though, right? And the front motor is supposed to provide more regen than a rear motor, so maybe that will help make up some of the difference?

 

[VT_EE]

I agree, that's a 3k additional expense then! Do you have FSD ? I mean starting price is 54k for AWD. 55.5k if you want white for red. but even then AWD in any color + Autopilot is under 60k?

Yep, I want FSD for the toys that Tesla will dribble out . The updates will keep life exciting.

 

[Glamisduner]

Yep, I want FSD for the toys that Tesla will dribble out . The updates will keep life exciting.

I went FSD too, but it was the first thing I would cut if I had to change my build. You have more faith than I do!

 

[seyclone]

Report was that Tesla down rated the RWD to 310 and accurately rated the Performance as the same.

Not sure people will notice much difference. Anything close to 300 miles of range is stellar for any EV.

Believe that the AWD will be sweet for people living in snow regions, while the RWD will certainly provide enough performance for great street use.

Performance wil appeal to those who may see themselves taking their car to the track once in a while, or wish to have dominance on the street.

It is simply amazing how soon Tesla has offered such long range and high performance in their lowest priced car. When the base model begins production they will have a very well rounded set of Model 3 offerings.

Congratulations to all those who have, or will soon qualify for significant tax deductions to reduce their total cost of ownership.

By the time that the competition gets their production act together Tesla will have a full line up to fullfill their master plan.

1. A full line up of various capability Model 3s.
2. A full line up of various capability Model S.
3. A full line up of various capability Model X.
4. A fresh release of the Model Y small SUV for a very popular and growing segment.
5. A world class high performance Supercar, the New Coupe.
6. A state of the art Electric Truck.
7. World class ultra high speed/low cost Lithium Ion battery production facilities, with more in the early stages.
8. Tens of thousands of high speed Superchargers to offer long distance and urban charging access.
9. High capacity Solar cell and battery pack production for home, industrial, emergency backup and utility scale power production and load leveling.
10. Full integration between Electric vehicle, home solar and storage solutions.
11. State of the art battery technology and advanced planning.
12. Additonal vehicle and battery assembly and production in the works.
13. Full integration between Tesla, Space X, Solar, Boring Company and Hyperloop.

I fully believe that while the news is predicting competition coming for Tesla, that Tesla is in fact the competition that is really driving all those other companies.

Once Tesla gets their production up where they can meet the demand for their vehicles they most likely will develop rolling chassis and electric components for RV, short range trucks, commercial vehicles, industrial vehicles, taxi and aero applications.

The future is Electric!

You forgot No, 14. World Peace!

 

[Jedi2155]

I was arguing with a friend that I wished there was a way to turn off the front AC-Induction motor for long drives for increased efficiency. He was doubting that it would provide much efficiency gain, primarily due to the existence of torque sleep and that the main reason for the lower AWD rating is due to the 234 lbs of extra weight from the front motor and maybe some motor drag since there is direct drive with no clutch to decouple the motor from tires.

I felt otherwise as AC Induction motors are essential electro-magnets that require no permanent magnets, using current to create the B field in the motor. This constant flow of electricity must have some idle losses during I^2 R losses even while torque sleep is being applied which results additionally losses. Of course I have no idea how much that is, my friend arguing that it was not much.

Based on @David99 excellent findings here. Found something very interesting, where the AC induction motor on his '14 S 85 motor draws about 400W when powered flipping his unit into D/N it gives us a baseline as to how much draw the front motor in our Model 3 is consuming while idle. I'm going to guess he has a RWD 270 kW, so if we linearly scale this to the 3's 147 kW front motor: the losses should be in the order of 218W when powered.

Based on Carb's UDDS test cycle where the AWD got 455 miles and the RWD got 495 miles on the test cycle. The test cycle averages about 45 to 50 mph, which means the test cycle runs for about 10 hours. WIth 218W, that means 2.18 kWh @ 250 Wh/mi, almost 11 miles of range difference or half the range difference between RWD and AWD.

So I'd say half the impact of the AWD efficiency is the induction motor requiring it to be always on, and the other half the 234 lbs of weight + drag.

 

[Glamisduner]

I was arguing with a friend that I wished there was a way to turn off the front AC-Induction motor for long drives for increased efficiency. He was doubting that it would provide much efficiency gain, primarily due to the existence of torque sleep and that the main reason for the lower AWD rating is due to the 234 lbs of extra weight from the front motor and maybe some motor drag since there is direct drive with no clutch to decouple the motor from tires.

I felt otherwise as AC Induction motors are essential electro-magnets that require no permanent magnets, using current to create the B field in the motor. This constant flow of electricity must have some idle losses during I^2 R losses even while torque sleep is being applied which results additionally losses. Of course I have no idea how much that is, my friend arguing that it was not much.

Based on @David99 excellent findings here. Found something very interesting, where the AC induction motor on his '14 S 85 motor draws about 400W when powered flipping his unit into D/N it gives us a baseline as to how much draw the front motor in our Model 3 is consuming while idle. I'm going to guess he has a RWD 270 kW, so if we linearly scale this to the 3's 147 kW front motor: the losses should be in the order of 218W when powered.

Based on Carb's UDDS test cycle where the AWD got 455 miles and the RWD got 495 miles on the test cycle. The test cycle averages about 45 to 50 mph, which means the test cycle runs for about 10 hours. WIth 218W, that means 2.18 kWh @ 250 Wh/mi, almost 11 miles of range difference or half the range difference between RWD and AWD.

So I'd say half the impact of the AWD efficiency is the induction motor requiring it to be always on, and the other half the 234 lbs of weight + drag.

Here I thought the lack of efficiency is because I keep punching the accelerator...

 

[Jedi2155]

Here I thought the lack of efficiency is because I keep punching the accelerator...

I punch mines regularly and I'm still at 279 Wh/mi lifetime (2800 miles).

 

[David99]

Based on @David99 excellent findings here. Found something very interesting, where the AC induction motor on his '14 S 85 motor draws about 400W when powered flipping his unit into D/N it gives us a baseline as to how much draw the front motor in our Model 3 is consuming while idle. I'm going to guess he has a RWD 270 kW, so if we linearly scale this to the 3's 147 kW front motor: the losses should be in the order of 218W when powered.

When the dual motors came out back in 2016 I believe, Tesla talked a lot about 'torque sleep' which completely de-energizes motor/s when not in use. I remember even in my RWD car I got a firmware update that mentioned that torque sleep would now also work on single motor cars when they are standing still. Well looks like that doesn't work. I can definitely measure the difference in power draw when the car is standing still in D compared to when in N or P.

I don't have a dual motor Model 3 to test but I'm not sure the findings on the Model S can be applied to the Model 3. They have very different motor designs (switched reluctance motor vs induction motor). I would think/hope Tesla has optimized the power draw in every aspect. But running a reluctance motor is more challenging on the inverter and the permanent magnets will always create electricity when the motor is moving. You can't let it run free like an induction motor.

 

[cwerdna]

Also FWIW, in 6700 miles of use over three months, I'm getting 263w/mi whether
...
Given that my LEAF has always settled in around 250w/mi,

The correct units are Wh or watt-hours, not w. The instrumentation on your Tesla is correct (Wh/mile). Leaf uses miles/kWh, which is also correct but just the reciprocal.

Watts are units of power. Watt-hours are units of energy.

 

[Jedi2155]

I don't have a dual motor Model 3 to test but I'm not sure the findings on the Model S can be applied to the Model 3. They have very different motor designs (switched reluctance motor vs induction motor). I would think/hope Tesla has optimized the power draw in every aspect. But running a reluctance motor is more challenging on the inverter and the permanent magnets will always create electricity when the motor is moving. You can't let it run free like an induction motor.

Not sure if you realized, on the AWD model 3x the front motor is induction the rear is SRM which means the front is comparable to the S.

 

[David99]

Not sure if you realized, on the AWD model 3x the front motor is induction the rear is SRM which means the front is comparable to the S.

I didn't know that. Interesting!

 

[okashira]

I assure you the model 3 does do "torque sleep" for the front motor. It's just a matter of turning off switching; really basic feature.
The lesser range of the AWD three comes down the the 250 lbs of extra mass and the frictional losses of having that rotor and gears spinning at 10,000 rpm otherwise doing nothing on the freeway. If they added a clutch that would really help range.

I was arguing with a friend that I wished there was a way to turn off the front AC-Induction motor for long drives for increased efficiency. He was doubting that it would provide much efficiency gain, primarily due to the existence of torque sleep and that the main reason for the lower AWD rating is due to the 234 lbs of extra weight from the front motor and maybe some motor drag since there is direct drive with no clutch to decouple the motor from tires.

I felt otherwise as AC Induction motors are essential electro-magnets that require no permanent magnets, using current to create the B field in the motor. This constant flow of electricity must have some idle losses during I^2 R losses even while torque sleep is being applied which results additionally losses. Of course I have no idea how much that is, my friend arguing that it was not much.

Based on @David99 excellent findings here. Found something very interesting, where the AC induction motor on his '14 S 85 motor draws about 400W when powered flipping his unit into D/N it gives us a baseline as to how much draw the front motor in our Model 3 is consuming while idle. I'm going to guess he has a RWD 270 kW, so if we linearly scale this to the 3's 147 kW front motor: the losses should be in the order of 218W when powered.

Based on Carb's UDDS test cycle where the AWD got 455 miles and the RWD got 495 miles on the test cycle. The test cycle averages about 45 to 50 mph, which means the test cycle runs for about 10 hours. WIth 218W, that means 2.18 kWh @ 250 Wh/mi, almost 11 miles of range difference or half the range difference between RWD and AWD.

So I'd say half the impact of the AWD efficiency is the induction motor requiring it to be always on, and the other half the 234 lbs of weight + drag.

 

[Candleflame]

When the dual motors came out back in 2016 I believe, Tesla talked a lot about 'torque sleep' which completely de-energizes motor/s when not in use. I remember even in my RWD car I got a firmware update that mentioned that torque sleep would now also work on single motor cars when they are standing still. Well looks like that doesn't work. I can definitely measure the difference in power draw when the car is standing still in D compared to when in N or P.

I don't have a dual motor Model 3 to test but I'm not sure the findings on the Model S can be applied to the Model 3. They have very different motor designs (switched reluctance motor vs induction motor). I would think/hope Tesla has optimized the power draw in every aspect. But running a reluctance motor is more challenging on the inverter and the permanent magnets will always create electricity when the motor is moving. You can't let it run free like an induction motor.

Model 3 does denergize the front induction motor. Without it the AWD would be even less efficient. It's more to do with the rear motor being incredibly efficient whereas for the Model S there is a very inefficient induction motor in the back so by switching that one off and using a smaller more efficient front motor at different gearing you do get a benefit in range.

i do not think that just the weight and drag of the front motor explains the 8% reduced range though, there is probably some other factors at play i.e. possible the bigger RWD motor being a bit more efficient than the smaller AWD rear motor.

 

[diamond.g]

Model 3 does denergize the front induction motor. Without it the AWD would be even less efficient. It's more to do with the rear motor being incredibly efficient whereas for the Model S there is a very inefficient induction motor in the back so by switching that one off and using a smaller more efficient front motor at different gearing you do get a benefit in range.

i do not think that just the weight and drag of the front motor explains the 8% reduced range though, there is probably some other factors at play i.e. possible the bigger RWD motor being a bit more efficient than the smaller AWD rear motor.

For the Model 3?

 

[Knightshade]

i do not think that just the weight and drag of the front motor explains the 8% reduced range though, there is probably some other factors at play i.e. possible the bigger RWD motor being a bit more efficient than the smaller AWD rear motor.

The LR RWD and LR AWD (and LR P) use exactly the same motor in the rear of the model 3