Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Ingenext Boost Modules [aftermarket]

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I haven't checked mine yet, but I'm a Feb 2020 build so most likely 990. We still don't know what it's actually capable of though. I sent an email to Electrified Garage asking about it. It would be interesting to know if they even attempted to
boost it beyond what Tesla did. Their stage 1 seems like a copy and paste of Tesla's upgrade. If it turns out we're maxed out (which I don't believe), then your best bet is to trade up to a Performance.

I agree and it would be lovely if someone could test the limits of the 990 motor and see if it's capable of P power. Perhaps EG or Ingeneerix will do that at some point, but for now we're all relying on the limits that TSLA allows on each motor, not its actual performance limit. Perhaps those with engineering background or that understand more of what the data shows can chime in with their theories. For all we know the 980 could be maxed (with a reliability buffer built in) at its current output of 265kW, but the 990 could be capable of something higher than the former 230kW (now 220kW after Accel Boost) but less than the 265kW.
 
  • Like
Reactions: john5520
I agree and it would be lovely if someone could test the limits of the 990 motor and see if it's capable of P power. Perhaps EG or Ingeneerix will do that at some point, but for now we're all relying on the limits that TSLA allows on each motor, not its actual performance limit. Perhaps those with engineering background or that understand more of what the data shows can chime in with their theories. For all we know the 980 could be maxed (with a reliability buffer built in) at its current output of 265kW, but the 990 could be capable of something higher than the former 230kW (now 220kW after Accel Boost) but less than the 265kW.

Good info. And to add to that thought is the fact that Tesla, with almost certainty, would not tune the AWD+ to threaten the Performance.
 
I agree and it would be lovely if someone could test the limits of the 990 motor and see if it's capable of P power. Perhaps EG or Ingeneerix will do that at some point, but for now we're all relying on the limits that TSLA allows on each motor, not its actual performance limit. Perhaps those with engineering background or that understand more of what the data shows can chime in with their theories. For all we know the 980 could be maxed (with a reliability buffer built in) at its current output of 265kW, but the 990 could be capable of something higher than the former 230kW (now 220kW after Accel Boost) but less than the 265kW.


I hope we get the Vendor to test and report back. Seems logical they would try it rather than just refuse to offer the service to 990 motors. There is obviously room to boost it further but how much is the unknown.

Anyway, if is confirmed is less capable I will be sure to give credit to Knightshade who has guaranteed that to be the case for awhile now.
 
I hope we get the Vendor to test and report back. Seems logical they would try it rather than just refuse to offer the service to 990 motors.


You guys keep acting like they're "tuning" these cars performance....I'm not sure there's any evidence of that?

Far as anything posted can tell Stage 1 basically just tells the computer "run the tesla boost code" and stage 2 tells the computer "this car is a P"
 
Far as anything posted can tell Stage 1 basically just tells the computer "run the tesla boost code" and stage 2 tells the computer "this car is a P"

Exactly.

It might also be a software limitation, too, in that the 990 might run different code vs. the 980. I'm not saying that this is for sure the case, but it is a possibility. It would be great if the vendor could give us a bit more information, for sure.
 
3. Tesla has historically messed around with options after the fact, for limited production runs. It's entirely plausible they release their own uncork to a performance, without any worry of penalty.
Here's to hoping. ;)

I am really grateful to all involved in the Electrified Garage for their efforts to push Tesla to open up, of which this is only a small part. I expect I'd be a customer to some degree if they weren't on the other side of the country. I hope they do ok on this, but I still would like to keep my 55K remaining powertrain warranty in place.
 
Too many people emailing them wondering what it is etc.

FYI, they are also going to be doing full LR RWD to Performance AWD upgrade.
Yes this involves adding another front motor/new battery swap and software upgrade. Price TBD

Also as stated in the INGENEXT youtube video a power boost upgrade is in the works for the LR RWD and should be avail in the coming weeks ahead (they confirmed in comments its coming).
 
FYI, they are also going to be doing full LR RWD to Performance AWD upgrade.
Yes this involves adding another front motor/new battery swap and software upgrade. Price TBD
I saw that in last week's video. Expect it'll be "market price" as I doubt all the parts needed are on Tesla's "sell to the public" list, and even if they did the price would likely be very steep, so they'll be sourcing things like the DU and high power links via salvage.
 
For the record, I have absolutely nothing to do with this, and I don't recommend it. It's appears it's these guys: Groupe Simon André

There are a lot of reasons why, but the #1 is; You void your warranty. If it smokes your inverter, you are on the hook for thousands.

Also, when Tesla sends down a software update and it bricks your car, then what are you going to do? To be safe with this, you'll have to permanently give up software updates. It's a crude hack, and it doesn't take into account that the early inverters were binned.
 
It's a crude hack, and it doesn't take into account that the early inverters were binned.


Apart from that one elon tweet that came before they actually built/delivered any cars- was there ever any actual evidence of that?

I ask because among other things owners have taken delivered of LR AWD cars that the service center flashed on the spot to a P when it turned out they'd ordered one but one wasn't what got delivered and nobody seemed to care if it had been "binned" or not....

Also the fact there's only the single PN in the catalog, available over the counter without a VIN, that is what is ordered to replace all 980 DUs, regardless of if they were a P or not.

All of which suggests either there never was any binning- or initial binning discovered all 980s met P standards.
 
Apart from that one elon tweet that came before they actually built/delivered any cars- was there ever any actual evidence of that?
There has been at least one other ex-Tesla insider that confirmed this binning occurred.

Whether the binning actually matters materially in whether or not it'll stand up to use as a P DU is a different question, and given the existence of P- that were done seemingly adhoc, as you mention, I suspect it does not.
 
There has been at least one other ex-Tesla insider that confirmed this binning occurred.

Who/where/when was that?


Whether the binning actually matters materially in whether or not it'll stand up to use as a P DU is a different question, and given the existence of P- that were done seemingly adhoc, as you mention, I suspect it does not.


That'd seem to fall into the second possibility I mention- they initially did testing intending to bin and discovered every one they tested passed P specs- and thus they only ended up with a single PN that went in all cars, and a single replacement part in the catalog that repaired all cars (until the 990 came along)
 
That'd seem to fall into the second possibility I mention- they initially did testing intending to bin and discovered every one they tested passed P specs- and thus they only ended up with a single PN that went in all cars, and a single replacement part in the catalog that repaired all cars (until the 990 came along)
That's really trying to split pendant hairs about "binning". You can still bin sub-assembly parts or the whole DU 980 part as the ones with the best performance results on the bench (basically confirm that they're up to P), tag them as "these are the best, use this set for Performance", without going through the paper shuffle of a separate part number. Remember Tesla is a sea of chaos, they shortcut like this at times because everything is fluid. Sometimes parts change without even a new part number, as long as the new can do the job of the old.

At some point when you are very confident the yields are high enough AND you've had the time for your engineers to do more design work you can start shaving pennies in costs for the D by purposefully building an intentionally cheaper 990. You'll need to save enough for the hassle of different inventory but given the different level of power between even the Boost and the P that shouldn't be too hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StealthP3D
That's really trying to split pendant hairs about "binning".

It's really not.

The point of binning is to seperate functionally different parts into different bins

If it turns out they all meet the same spec, and all end up in the same bin, you effectively did not bin anything.


You can still bin sub-assembly parts or the whole DU 980 part as the ones with the best performance results on the bench (basically confirm that they're up to P), tag them as "these are the best, use this set for Performance", without going through the paper shuffle of a separate part number.

You can- but it'd make the entire effort pointless.... since without actually assigning them a different part from others the work you did just got wasted.

When someone in an SC goes to replace a drive unit- they will grab a 980 off the shelf- with no indication if it's a "better" one or not. If there's actually 980s that aren't good enough for a P that's a major problem.

Sane people avoid this problem by giving different part numbers to parts if there's any reason you'd ever care to use one rather than the other.

So either Tesla is insane, or a 980 is a 980 is a 980.

The parts catalog (and all the flash-in-the-field examples) all tell us it's that second one here.


Remember Tesla is a sea of chaos, they shortcut like this at times because everything is fluid. Sometimes parts change without even a new part number, as long as the new can do the job of the old.

To my knowledge they always rev the letter at the end of the PN when they do this... (and only do it for relatively minor revs, not an ENTIRELY different part)



Disclaimer-
There is one other type of binning, where you take two otherwise identical parts (ie they both came off the line high quality) and give them different PNs for pricing purposes because you need more of the "cheaper" part to meet demand (Chip makers sometimes do this- but it's getting far afield- and since they only used one PN for all the 980 units this obviously didn't happen here)
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Cowby
The point of binning is to seperate functionally different parts into different bins
If you measure it and the measurement says "this works better" and you route that to the Performance vehicle, that's "functionally different" and a different "bin".
When someone in an SC goes to replace a drive unit- they will grab a 980 off the shelf- with no indication if it's a "better" one or not. If there's actually 980s that aren't good enough for a P that's a major problem.
That's assuming no tracking done in that mid-2018 to mid-2019 window outside of just the part number. Which is an assumption that is counter to the aforementioned ex-Tesla exec insider's assertion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StealthP3D
If you measure it and the measurement says "this works better" and you route that to the Performance vehicle, that's "functionally different" and a different "bin".

So you think they go right from the test bench to an individual car directly.... rather than a line of parts that feeds into a vehicle assembly system?

They're hand building each P?

or keeping a separate, special, P-only parts stack (with a bunch of parts labeled identically to the others, so you've no idea if something got switched accidentally), and then only wheeling that out when a P is being built?


That'd be especially weird given we've seen cars turned into Ps on the lot by Tesla. How'd they know to hand build that one with the special but not marked part even without labeling the car as a P at the factory?


If
That's assuming no tracking done in that mid-2018 to mid-2019 window outside of just the part number. Which is an assumption that is counter to the aforementioned ex-Tesla exec insider's assertion.

You mean the one you can't find to cite?

And how else are they "tracking" it for replacement parts?

I ask because the parts catalog specifies the 980 is an orderable over the counter part, not requiring you give them your VIN.

Meaning they don't care if the replacement 980 is going in a P or not.

Since they're all the same part.

If they were not the same then they'd need your VIN to insure you got the "extra secret hidden marking" version right?

(and I'd love somebody to explain the point of creating a second, hidden, inventory part number system to solve for this instead of just using the actual part number system to solve for this)