Nope. My E39 5-series BMW was much quieter, and even my E90 3-series was quieter wrt wind noise despite having louder tires.. The Model 3 is definitely as step down when it comes to wind noise on the freeway. Other cars were also quieter for wind noise (Honda Odyssey, VW Passat, etc.) I may have some bad windshield seals, etc, but whatever the reason it is crazy loud at 65mph or higher for a car in this class.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
2020 Model 3 and differences from 2019
- Thread starter dave999z
- Start date
Nope. My E39 5-series BMW was much quieter, and even my E90 3-series was quieter wrt wind noise despite having louder tires.. The Model 3 is definitely as step down when it comes to wind noise on the freeway. Other cars were also quieter for wind noise (Honda Odyssey, VW Passat, etc.) I may have some bad windshield seals, etc, but whatever the reason it is crazy loud at 65mph or higher for a car in this class.
On Dec 31st I finally picked up my model 3 performance
differences I found so far:
no hooks
no pocket lights
no frunk mat
no dead pedal
but I'm gonna retrofit those parts
pocket lights leds and hooks
View attachment 495910
Are these parts easy to install? (pocket LED lights and hooks)?
tinkererguy
Paul Braren TinkerTry.com/Tesla
tinkererguy
Paul Braren TinkerTry.com/Tesla
tinkererguy
Paul Braren TinkerTry.com/Tesla
tinkererguy
Paul Braren TinkerTry.com/Tesla
Yeah, my 2018 LR AWD is capable of up to 48 amps, but my wife's new 2020 SR+ can only do 32 amps, so we left it with the Mobile Connector charger it came with. So glad I paid the relatively modest $200 extra to have that second breaker/NEMA 14-50 outlet installed when the electrician was doing all the work a year ago, worked out rather nicely! I'll be publishing an article about how I safely suspend my charging cables from the ceiling to avoid tripping and to unhook/re-hook in under 5 seconds using modestly priced building materials. When you spend this kind of money, one's significant other probably doesn't want to see a huge Home Depot/Lowes charge for misc stuff. You can see the results this section of my (minimally edited, too long) differences video.
tinkererguy
Paul Braren TinkerTry.com/Tesla
Some 3D printed hooks seem to be out there on eBay (not Amazon), but the reviews aren't great. As for the pocket lights, I doubt it would be easy, given I don't see an easy plastic pop-out hole in the area where they would be installed, and no idea if the wiring is there behind the plastic anyway. I expect somebody will open things up and let us know soon enough, I'm not personally that interested in doing anything like that to my wife's new car, and she really doesn't care about those pocket lights for her front seat passenger's umbrellas anyway.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
So previously you said this:
So, I wanted to make sure it was clear that we now have evidence that the P (with 18" wheels, which is not lowered, and is identical to the AWD except for the rear motor) has been tested separately.
I'm happy to change my opinion if data indicates another conclusion should be reached, and I'll try to assess how I got it wrong.
I understand that, so there's a limited amount you can get out of a simple distance measurement because there will be a small amount of car-to-car variation (however, 4% is a pretty big difference). You really have to look at efficiency as well.
I'm confused by this. The EPA test goes nowhere near max power. If it were possible, the motor control profile could be the same over the range of powers exercised by the test, and deviate for higher powers where needed. So you're saying that Tesla would have a way to make the AWD Non-P more efficient but chose not to? So you're saying that if they had just done something super simple and made the motor control profile the same for the AWD (while maintaining the power limit difference), they could have got 332 rated miles for the AWD? But instead, they chose to limit it to 322 miles? This does not make much sense. I suspect the motor control profile is different because it has to be different, and as a result the efficiency is different.
I kind of hope there is not a 4% standard deviation on the range (conducted under tightly controlled conditions) from vehicle to vehicle when new. The EPA might be a bit displeased; I don't know what sort of variance is allowed.
What we know, in summary:
1) The Performance 18" was tested for the EPA. We knew this from the EPA datafile already, but this CARB data shows the raw test result for UDDS, and confirms it. You weren't sure before, now you can be.
2) The range of the Performance 18" is higher than for the AWD 18" (CARB data, EPA data file)
3) The efficiency of the Performance 18" is higher. (EPA data file.) This could be due to better driving efficiency (likely, since it's about 5% more efficient and also has about 4% more range). Or, it could be a change in the charging circuit (and for some reason they chose to make it more efficient in the Performance and only the Performance (???)). A change in the charging circuit does not seem likely.
4) To our knowledge, the only difference between Performance 18" and AWD 18" is the rear motor.
Of course, we will keep an eye out for the full EPA submissions. What we'll learn from that are:
1) Was the battery capacity the same on the AWD and the P, for the test articles? (I'm going to guess they are within 1%)
2) Is there a difference in charging efficiency? (I'm going to guess there isn't)
3) We'll get yet another confirmation of what exactly we are comparing, and we'll get confirmation that they are testing the same way as before.
Sure, it could be some other difference (which we don't know about) other than the motor/inverter, but at the moment we don't know of anything else that is different between the two vehicles...so I'm going with what seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation.
So, I wanted to make sure it was clear that we now have evidence that the P (with 18" wheels, which is not lowered, and is identical to the AWD except for the rear motor) has been tested separately.
I'm happy to change my opinion if data indicates another conclusion should be reached, and I'll try to assess how I got it wrong.
I understand that, so there's a limited amount you can get out of a simple distance measurement because there will be a small amount of car-to-car variation (however, 4% is a pretty big difference). You really have to look at efficiency as well.
I'm confused by this. The EPA test goes nowhere near max power. If it were possible, the motor control profile could be the same over the range of powers exercised by the test, and deviate for higher powers where needed. So you're saying that Tesla would have a way to make the AWD Non-P more efficient but chose not to? So you're saying that if they had just done something super simple and made the motor control profile the same for the AWD (while maintaining the power limit difference), they could have got 332 rated miles for the AWD? But instead, they chose to limit it to 322 miles? This does not make much sense. I suspect the motor control profile is different because it has to be different, and as a result the efficiency is different.
I kind of hope there is not a 4% standard deviation on the range (conducted under tightly controlled conditions) from vehicle to vehicle when new. The EPA might be a bit displeased; I don't know what sort of variance is allowed.
What we know, in summary:
1) The Performance 18" was tested for the EPA. We knew this from the EPA datafile already, but this CARB data shows the raw test result for UDDS, and confirms it. You weren't sure before, now you can be.
2) The range of the Performance 18" is higher than for the AWD 18" (CARB data, EPA data file)
3) The efficiency of the Performance 18" is higher. (EPA data file.) This could be due to better driving efficiency (likely, since it's about 5% more efficient and also has about 4% more range). Or, it could be a change in the charging circuit (and for some reason they chose to make it more efficient in the Performance and only the Performance (???)). A change in the charging circuit does not seem likely.
4) To our knowledge, the only difference between Performance 18" and AWD 18" is the rear motor.
Of course, we will keep an eye out for the full EPA submissions. What we'll learn from that are:
1) Was the battery capacity the same on the AWD and the P, for the test articles? (I'm going to guess they are within 1%)
2) Is there a difference in charging efficiency? (I'm going to guess there isn't)
3) We'll get yet another confirmation of what exactly we are comparing, and we'll get confirmation that they are testing the same way as before.
Sure, it could be some other difference (which we don't know about) other than the motor/inverter, but at the moment we don't know of anything else that is different between the two vehicles...so I'm going with what seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation.
Last edited:
It looks like it but that's still not certain as this references the same test group which we still don't have the description of
Data doesn't back up your current conclusions. Your current conclusions are assumptions based on tangental data
I can't even decipher exactly what your asserting here. The range test is how efficiency is defined by the EPA and CARB
There's no other test this is the only test that's been done, and it's considered by most to be an incredibly unreliable test and 4% is not a big difference here.
Again I'm having trouble deciphering exactly what you're trying to say here.
The software profile is 100% indisputably different. There is a designed torque and hp curve for almost every electric car if there wasn't and it was a direct accelerator pedal to motor connection based on the full capabilities of the engine the cars would be terrible to drive and the range would be horrific.
When we're talking software profiles here that doesn't just mean the top end is different it means the amount of power provided at every stage of the accelerator is/can be different. If the only difference in the P was at the top end of the accelerator then the differentiation is pointless as only a fraction of owners would ever see it. The entire accelerator range is different and how it's split between the motors is different to give the cars different feel. This isn't a matter of just unlocking efficiency. Electric motors are most efficient as they near 100% load so the LR AWD showing as slightly less efficient actually may me an indicator that it is capable of running at P loads.
Actually from all the things I've found the EPA allows up to a ridiculous 30% variation on EV's if you search for the Nissan Leaf there was a lot of discussion about this a couple years back
Edit: I’m totally wrong here. There’s no official “allowed deviation” by the epa but if the number is found to be out via audit they have to update the window stickers, yup that’s it. If it was an ICE and it was a lower mpg than is allowed by law then there’s harsher penalties but not for EVs
We don't know this as we still don't have the test group for 2020 and 100% it was not tested in previous years
yes but at best that's meaningless and at worst (from your perspective) it means the AWD isn't running at or near it's capable load
Same as above.
False. We also know the motor control software is different which is actually the most important part here
Capacity is the same do you mean the starting SoC?
100% agree
Yet again. While the EPA submissions are a good talking point as that's literally all we have right now even if the P is tested individually it doesn't prove anything because
1) They're not testing upper limits of motor capability
2) Efficiency doesn't mean what you think it does here
3) The software is the limiting factor here. and we can't determine anything unless the software is out of the equation
to resolve this we need bench testing of the motors it's the only way this particular argument can be resolved, as that is the only test that would actually tell us if there is a material difference in the performance limits of the 990 vs 980.
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
What? It is in the attachment above. It’s pretty clear. There is a different result for each variant in the group...
Would need a source for that.
That is incorrect. The range test is how range is measured (shocking!). Obviously the test uses only a portion of the battery, so the fixed length distance (depends on the cycle in question) is multiplied by the ratio of full discharge capacity over measured discharge during the cycle...that gives you the range. Not the efficiency.
That is incorrect. There is an additional charging test that is done - it’s required to get the published efficiency number. In addition to measuring discharge kWh during each of the range tests (see prior Tesla submissions), for the charging test they measure the recharge event kWh (which accounts for charging inefficiency and overhead). The recharge event kWh in combination with the range is used to calculate efficiency.
Specific example: If 120V charging was used during the EPA test (it is not), the range of the Model 3 would remain exactly the same. But the efficiency number published by the EPA would be far worse.
I agree it is possible that Tesla has simply decided to make the AWD inefficient in the process of limiting the maximum power. It is certainly possible it is only the software that is affecting the efficiency. But given the degree of difference AND the fact that previously (in 2018) these vehicles had the SAME efficiency in spite of their large maximum power differences suggests these two things (max power and efficiency under EPA test conditions) can be pretty easily decoupled. So what was different in 2018? The rear motor was the same...
It would also be pretty silly for a Tesla to leave available efficiency on the table, as they clearly have pretty much fully optimized their drive control, now that they aren’t under the gun and aren’t in danger of going ”bankwupt.” That is kind of what you are suggesting (I know you are saying it is because of the power differences...see above the 2018 case). The AWD is probably their top selling car and EPA-advertised range is a big selling point!
It’s also possible that since the 990 motor is different than the motor in any of their other vehicles and has only been around for a year, they haven’t completed their optimizations for that specific motor (this would require assuming that that motor is actually...different). Maybe AWD will catch up. It is actually a bit surprising that it is so much worse, given the very low powers exercised in the test. You’d think even if they reduced MOSFET switch sizes by a factor of two it would make little difference in these sedate conditions with minimal (average) current flow. But given the focus on those switches, perhaps they are crucial to efficiency even at relatively low load...so maybe a reduction in size by 25% would have an impact... I guess it’s the switching event that is key (the loss is I*Vsw!), so perhaps it all makes sense...
By this I mean: will the discharge kWh measured in the EPA cycles be the same for the two vehicles? Tesla has measured and published this for prior years. They run the fully charged vehicle on the dyno until it can no longer comply with the battery exhaustion test cycle. And yes, they also measure the discharge associated with each of the individual cycles. As you can tell from the description above, this ratio is key for the range number! But for the kWh/100mi metric, they use the full charging event measurement relative to the full discharge measurement to scale up the measured consumption for each of the city and highway test cycles. It’s easier to just look at the EPA documents than it is to explain... All the methodology details and explanation are in those documents.
Last edited:
Theres an actual document that outlines the test group and the test method that was used for the submission. Having results doesn't guarantee anything as you can see from 2019 that although they only did one test they extrapolated results for the P
I was wrong see my edit above
You're trying to break out one test in two things here.
The way the EPA testing ( and keep in mind the testing is done by Tesla not the EPA, unless they're audited) is done is
1. Fully charge the car
2. Leave overnight
3. Drive the prescribed cycles until the battery is fully discharged and the car won't run ( now you have the range)
4. Recharge via AC measuring the kW hours needed to fully recharge the vehicle
5. Divide the kWh above by the range the Test vehicle drove and boom you have your "efficiency number"
6. Now to get the ridiculous MPGe number you convert the kWh to miles using a conversion where 33.7 kWh = 1 Gallon of Gasoline.
They break this down per cycle but that's there's nothing more complicated than those 2 measurements. This does not give you any specifics on the motor as far as it's max efficiency or max performance. the EPA is 100% not concerned that your vehicle is more efficient than reported or could be more efficient than reported with a software update.
I'm not seeing how you think this proves anything.
You're still not understanding the software component of this. Tesla isn't "Leaving efficiency on the table" that they don't have to. Electric motors are more efficient at higher load as I stated before so a lower efficiency likely means something in the LR AWD is not running at it's most efficient load. Why would Tesla set out to manufacture and tool a whole new production line to produce a less efficient or capable motor? Especially when they'd been perfectly happy putting the 980 in it for so many years. Even if the motor was slightly cheaper to produce which it likely wouldn't be you'd lose any return on that investment for years because you had to set up a different or re-tooled production line. it makes no sense. If Tesla was to go this route it would make infinitely more sense to develop a better or more efficient motor and put that in the performance models then let the lesser models eat through all the remaining 980 stock, There is 0 sense in even altering production to produce a less capable motor
If we run under the premise that the engines are either the same or the 990 is the possible "next revision" of the 980 then it stands to reason that the profile it's running under on the LR AWD would see a lower efficiency as it's typically not getting loaded as highly at any particular rpm.
What is actually seeming more likely to me now as I talk further through this is that the 990 might actually be more capable but less tested and we'll eventually see it everywhere.
I've read those documents many times over. You're over complicating what and how they're testing. And as we've established this is the first year (if the documents end up showing that) that they've actually tested the 3P and you're giving the EPA documents and CARB documents way too much weight in determining something they or their testing procedures were never meant to determine.
Candleflame
Active Member
Yeah there isn't this lowend growling you get in an ICE but that's actually not loud, just deep/annoying. From a volume level Model 3 is definetely louder at speed.
Candleflame
Active Member
I the european manual it says that the RWD Model 3 has a 800A rearmotor whereas the AWD has a 600A rearmotor only with like a.... 400A frontmotor i believe and the performance a 800A motor again.
No the quote you have there is me referring to the EPA test group every year when they submit results they submit a document defining what models were tested and how they were tested, these docs haven’t been released for 2020 yet. I suspect those amp numbers are the max amps they run the motors at in those models not the max amps they’re capable of drawing.
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Not really. I was just trying to clarify that the statement “range test is how efficiency is defined” (which is what you said!)...is not the case, at all. In fact, the charging phase is not needed to determine the range. In this picture, you can derive the (unweighted) UDDS range according to the formula UDDSu = (SUM A)/(SUM B) * C. This involves no charging information. To get the weighted value you have the change the weights according to the cold start phase weight, etc. (note that first cycle consumption is very high presumably due to lack of regen, but it has less weight, so the UDDSw number ends up higher than UDDSu!) - so you have to know the weights that are mandated, which can be looked up. Furthermore, there is no way to determine the EPA efficiency from these numbers alone (as you said later).
I don't think I was trying to prove anything at all, just trying to make sure we were on the same page...
Not exactly, but close (the range is not the total range driven until the battery is discharged - the 420 miles
in the picture above). They do fully discharge the battery with the SS cycles. But anyway I think you understand, it's just hard to describe precisely in words what is done. It's an extrapolated range, fundamentally (as you can clearly see above). That's what I'm saying, and like I said, I think you understand.I'm sticking with my 75%-baked theory
that they have just 18 power MOSFETs in the inverter of the 990, vs. 24 in the 980. So 75% as much current capacity. Those MOSFETs can be expensive (and you can probably get rid of some of the gate pre-drivers as well)! Here is an example - obviously Tesla would get them cheaper than this, but they are not cheap! It makes sense to remove MOSFETs if you don't need them, even if it has a very small negative impact on efficiency (they still have better range than the Model 3 originally had, due to motor drive efficiency improvements):SCT3017ALHRC11 ROHM Semiconductor | Mouser
Anyway, it's all speculation until someone actually tears down a 990. It would save Tesla a lot of money to remove some SiC MOSFETs that aren't needed since that motor never generates as much torque or power as the 980. Since it's basically the same design it wouldn't be extra cost really. It's possible they depopulate the same board that is used in the other inverter but I don't think that would be required - building a different board is easy. Everything else in the drive unit could be the same.
Last edited:
So much wrong with this.Not really. I was just trying to clarify that the statement “range test is how efficiency is defined” (which is what you said!)...is not the case, at all. In fact, the charging phase is not needed to determine the range. In this picture, you can derive the (unweighted) UDDS range according to the formula UDDSu = (SUM A)/(SUM B) * C. This involves no charging information. To get the weighted value you have the change the weights according to the cold start phase weight, etc. (note that first cycle consumption is very high presumably due to lack of regen, but it has less weight, so the UDDSw number ends up higher than UDDSu!) - so you have to know the weights that are mandated, which can be looked up. Furthermore, there is no way to determine the EPA efficiency from these numbers alone (as you said later).
I don't think I was trying to prove anything at all, just trying to make sure we were on the same page...
View attachment 496731
Not exactly, but close (the range is not the total range driven until the battery is discharged - the 420 miles
I'm sticking with my 75%-baked theory
SCT3017ALHRC11 ROHM Semiconductor | Mouser
Anyway, it's all speculation until someone actually tears down a 990. It would save Tesla a lot of money to remove some SiC MOSFETs that aren't needed since that motor never generates as much torque or power as the 980. Since it's basically the same design it wouldn't be extra cost really. It's possible they depopulate the same board that is used in the other inverter but I don't think that would be required - building a different board is easy. Everything else in the drive unit could be the same.
Well there’s some likely bad assumptions here the total cost of the 980 was estimated at around $750 in teardown so there’s no way they have MOSFETs even approaching that cost given that they need to build you know the rest of the motor. I still contend there would be 0 benefit to them re-tooling or spinning up a separate production line ( even just for a different PCB) to produce a less capable motor they'd lose any saving they gained by not using the 980. This would be a move backwards. There’s no way. And this flies in the face of Elon’s quest to streamline and automate production, you want less options and differentiated parts to do that
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
You would have to explain. As you can see it definitely requires the discharge information to determine the range. Not the AC charging info.
I said they were very likely cheaper than my link. Obviously they are not buying from Mouser. My point is that these are expensive, critical, components.
no that’s not what I meant is wrong I was talking about the MOSFET talk.
1 there no evidence of that aside from your speculation which there’s 0 evidence for.
2 you’re not really responding to my argument with at least as much validity as your argument that producing a second inferior part (even if the parts list is less) will actually increase the cost due to the cost of production line variation and inventory management. And this makes no sense
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
My speculation is it’s actually just the next revision of the 980 no spec difference but possibly cheaper to produce maybe has a higher load ceiling and it will make its way into all awd model 3s after they’re confident with its reliability in the LR AWD and/or when they run out of remaining 980 inventory
