"Acceleration Boost" option, discussion as to which models and how much quicker

[Daniel in SD]

In what way wouldn't it be the same - the same cost for the same outcome, isn't it?

Technically I'd be getting less than someone who paid $2k at purchase since my car has 15,000 fewer miles of life left.

 

[Dan203]

if and when this update is released, do you guys think there'll be a way to add the cost of the upgrade to the payment on the vehicle?
or will i have to pay the full amount straight up?

I don't think so. I think someone caught something in the source code early in the leak that said it would only drop the 0-60 time by 0.5s. The P3D does 0-60 in about 3s after the most recent upgrade. The LR+ only does 4.4ish. So this wouldn't get you to full Performance specs.

 

[PACEMD]

I honestly don't recall. I thought at one point there was a $1K difference before or after purchase but could have been the time they were planning a price increase so it never actually worked that way. Found this article but as you state, it may not be accurate.

There was a running scare for many months that if you didn't buy FSD at $6k now with your vehicle purchase and wanted to buy it later the price would be $1000 more. But that only because the overall price of the FSD was speculated to increase. Which it did. Still, the price of FSD during that time was the same if bought before of after vehicle purchase, excluding a down the road price increase.......as it were, not to put too fine a point on it, blah blah, blah.....

 

[Dan203]

There was a running scare for many months that if you didn't buy FSD at $6k now with your vehicle purchase and wanted to buy it later the price would be $1000 more. But that only because the overall price of the FSD was speculated to increase. Which it did. Still, the price of FSD during that time was the same if bought before of after vehicle purchase, excluding a down the road price increase.......as it were, not to put too fine a point on it, blah blah, blah.....

And that's still true. You buy a new car it's $7k or if I upgrade my existing car it's $7k. There is no price difference between buying before or after unless the price changes in the meantime.

 

[PACEMD]

Technically I'd be getting less than someone who paid $2k at purchase since my car has 15,000 fewer miles of life left.

Smells like a class-action lawsuit to me.........I'm wid youse.........

 

[MoreAgain]

There was a running scare for many months that if you didn't buy FSD at $6k now with your vehicle purchase and wanted to buy it later the price would be $1000 more. But that only because the overall price of the FSD was speculated to increase. Which it did. Still, the price of FSD during that time was the same if bought before of after vehicle purchase, excluding a down the road price increase.......as it were, not to put too fine a point on it, blah blah, blah.....

Yeah, I think they got rid of that whole pay $X at time of purchase or X+ after and went with language that the price is likely to increase later. I think this is much better because when the said the after-purchase price would be $X+, I took that to mean that for the life of the car I would be able to purchase for the quoted $X+ amount, which has turned out not to be true.

 

[Eno Deb]

I don't think so. I think someone caught something in the source code early in the leak that said it would only drop the 0-60 time by 0.5s. The P3D does 0-60 in about 3s after the most recent upgrade. The LR+ only does 4.4ish. So this wouldn't get you to full Performance specs.

Yes, but the difference isn't that big. If you correct for Tesla's rollout marketing shenanigans, they always kept the delta between the LR AWD and P at around 1s (for example, Motortrend measured the LR AWD at 4s flat w/ rollout). We'll have to wait and see if this "acceleration boost" changes the pecking order.

 

[Dan203]

Yes, but the difference isn't that big. If you correct for Tesla's rollout marketing shenanigans, they always kept the delta between the LR AWD and P at around 1s (for example, Motortrend measured the LR AWD at 4s flat w/ rollout). We'll have to wait and see if this "acceleration boost" changes the pecking order.

So if that's the case then they should offer this option for the P as well to keep the delta inline.

 

[Eno Deb]

So if that's the case then they should offer this option for the P as well to keep the delta inline.

Perhaps. But it's not obvious how much headroom the P models have left (hardware-wise).

 

[Knightshade]

I don't think so. I think someone caught something in the source code early in the leak that said it would only drop the 0-60 time by 0.5s. The P3D does 0-60 in about 3s after the most recent upgrade. The LR+ only does 4.4ish. So this wouldn't get you to full Performance specs.

This isn't correct- apples to apples the P does about 3 flat now, and the AWD does 3.9.

Tesla deceptively uses 2 different measurements for the 2 cars.

So a .5 second improvement to the AWD would drop it to ~3.4 apples to apples vs 3.0 on the P.

Second, yes, nobody knows the part differences between the 980 and 990. But you can bet they’re different for a reason.

Lastly, Tesla is trying to make money. Selling the update to 3P is not happening for $2k.

You contradict yourself here.

If "only" the 980 can be a P, then selling a full P unlock only to 980 owners (that is, owners from 2018 and early 2019) is nothing but making money and can't hurt future P sales since new AWDs can't do this upgrade.

 

[PACEMD]

This isn't correct- apples to apples the P does about 3 flat now, and the AWD does 3.9.

Tesla deceptively uses 2 different measurements for the 2 cars.

So a .5 second improvement to the AWD would drop it to ~3.4 apples to apples vs 3.0 on the P.

So you can buy cheap Apple oem aftermarket parts to make an AWD a P?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The whole 980 / 990 discussion has been beaten to death.
Biggest difference between a P and an AWD is not in the rear it is in the power to the identical front motors.

It's true this is the biggest difference - and we know from Tesla that those front motors are identical so that's just a software limitation. But there is a 25kW or so difference in the peak rear motor input power, which is not nothing. Plus there is the difference in maximum torque all the way up (this is not an average power limitation) - and if there is some reason the torque has to be limited in the 990 motor (to be clear, I don't know why there would be such a physical limit due to components), that would be significant (power limitations don't even come into play in acceleration until over 45mph (or ~30mph, if you're comparing points on the P curve to the AWD curve)).

Remember it's the area under the curve that matters, not just the peak.

Credit to @EvanLin for the image (I believe, though I am not sure, that this is taken from a video of CAN bus motor input power data during a 0-60 run, so don't take it as exactly correct):

His Post

So to base anything on that is shaky at best

I think it's very presumptuous to assume there's an actual difference at this point.

This is also circumstantial data, but...

The EPA submitted data from Tesla does say, explicitly, since 2018 (the numbers haven't changed to match the two 5% power bumps):

"20xx MY Model 3 AWD Long Range Carline; AWD & PERF SHARE COMMON FRONT MOTOR - 147 kW; REAR (AWD) - 188 kW; (PERF) - 211 kW;"

The implication of this statement is that the rear motors are different. However, it is not proof. (It is proof that the front motors are identical though.)

Download Fuel Economy Data

 

[hydro 481]

Yes, but the difference isn't that big. If you correct for Tesla's rollout marketing shenanigans, they always kept the delta between the LR AWD and P at around 1s (for example, Motortrend measured the LR AWD at 4s flat w/ rollout). We'll have to wait and see if this "acceleration boost" changes the pecking order.

Oh god here we go again

 

[hydro 481]

This isn't correct- apples to apples the P does about 3 flat now, and the AWD does 3.9.

Tesla deceptively uses 2 different measurements for the 2 cars.

So a .5 second improvement to the AWD would drop it to ~3.4 apples to apples vs 3.0 on the P.




You contradict yourself here.

If "only" the 980 can be a P, then selling a full P unlock only to 980 owners (that is, owners from 2018 and early 2019) is nothing but making money and can't hurt future P sales since new AWDs can't do this upgrade.

I knew you would chime in lol

 

[CMoZ]

It's true this is the biggest difference - and we know from Tesla that those front motors are identical so that's just a software limitation. But there is a 30kW or so difference in the peak rear motor output, which is not nothing. Plus there is the difference in maximum torque all the way up (this is not an average power limitation) - and if there is some reason the torque has to be limited in the 990 motor (to be clear, I don't know why there would be such a physical limit due to components), that would be significant (power limitations don't even come into play in acceleration until over 45mph (or ~30mph, if you're comparing points on the P curve to the AWD curve)).

Remember it's the area under the curve that matters, not just the peak.

Credit to @EvanLin for the image (I believe, though I am not sure, that this is taken from a video of CAN bus motor input power data during a 0-60 run, so don't take it as exactly correct):

His Post

View attachment 489817





This is also circumstantial data, but...

The EPA submitted data from Tesla does say, explicitly, since 2018 (the numbers haven't changed to match the two 5% power bumps):

"20xx MY Model 3 AWD Long Range Carline; AWD & PERF SHARE COMMON FRONT MOTOR - 147 kW; REAR (AWD) - 188 kW; (PERF) - 211 kW;"

The implication of this statement is that the rear motors are different. However, it is not proof. (It is proof that the front motors are identical though.)

Download Fuel Economy Data

I question wether pulling data from the CANBUS tells us anything. To measure you'd have to pull the motor out and apply the same accelerator signal to both motors without the software in the way.

This is like doing a 0-60 run finding the LR AWD slower and saying " See the motors are different"

You're not cutting out the software here where we know tesla limits performance

I don't think the EPA data means what you think it means. Actually the EPA data says that the LR AWD and the LR Performance all share the exact same motors "147 and 188 kW AC 3-Phase" the 211kW is the RWD models. Even the MPGe numbers only vary with wheel size. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I question wether pulling data from the CANBUS tells us anything.

Absolutely true which is why I mentioned the statements to the EPA. Which as I said is just implication at best.

 

[CMoZ]

Absolutely true which is why I mentioned the statements to the EPA. Which as I said is just implication at best.

I updated my post. The EPA data actually implies they're the same

Edit: adding screenshot to save searching

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Actually the EPA data says that the LR AWD and the LR Performance all share the exact same motors "147 and 188 kW AC 3-Phase" the 211kW is the RWD models

I updated my post. The EPA data actually implies they're the same

Really not following you. The EPA data says 1) The AWD and Performance share the same front motor - 147kW.

So that takes care of the front motor.

2) it also says:

REAR (AWD) - 188 kW; (PERF) - 211 kW

Elsewhere in the document it says for "motor type":

AC Induction+Other (Other is referring to the Rear motor type since the RWD vehicle motor type just says "Other")

And (For rated motor gen power (kW)):

147 and 188 (For the AWD/Perf)

and

211 (For the RWD variants)

So that clearly means to me: AWD is 188kW rear motor, Perf is 211kW rear motor.

While regardless of software limits, the front is a 147kW motor.

I'm not following why you think it implies that the rear motors are the same. I agree it is just implication, regardless.

Note that to date, ALL of the RWD vehicles (including SR+) have been populated with 980 motors - the 211kW motor - just as the EPA document says. Again this is the number before two 5% boosts since the 2018 data says this too.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I updated my post. The EPA data actually implies they're the same

Edit: adding screenshot to save searching
View attachment 489826

There's no question there is some inconsistency in the datafile (column DG should read 147 and 211 for the 2020 performance), but it is that note (in column DC) that is key:

I believe that column DG is a mistake because in prior years it was different (see the red circle below). Revising my statement above that nothing had changed vs. prior years...it used to be that the rear motor was declared with lower output power (202kW)...though the verbiage in column DC still said 211kW for Performance. In any case that 211kW number (and the 147kW number) pre-dates any 5% boosts.

This is from 2018:

 

[MikeTX]

Wah. Wah. I was going to buy this. Then the actual description loaded into the site. It only lowers 0-60 to 3.9. I'm not sure about doing this any more. I was expecting to unlock P3D-.