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

[MagnusMako]

Charged to 90 to give it a full try.

Its meh. I kinda want to ask for a refund and just revert my car back.

I bought it spur of the moment hoping foe close to stealth, but $2K for half ass performance (also why would they decrease power on the rear motor!!?) seems too much. I will try to contact Tesla see if i can it reverted and refunded.

Your first mistake was expecting near stealth performance when the advertised numbers don't indicate anything as such.

Secondly, the power was simply adjusted to be more balanced between the rear and the front. This makes sense for several reasons, none of which should affect you as the customer other than having more even tread wear between all the tires, which is only a good thing.

 

[raptor5244]

Charged to 90 to give it a full try.

Its meh. I kinda want to ask for a refund and just revert my car back.

I bought it spur of the moment hoping foe close to stealth, but $2K for half ass performance (also why would they decrease power on the rear motor!!?) seems too much. I will try to contact Tesla see if i can it reverted and refunded.

The extra torque comes from the front induction motor and as a result they needed to dial back the rear motor to maintain proper balance. On these performance trims it would be nice if they would provide an option to relax the traction control and other nannies.

 

[mrau]

A 7 day free trial sure would help people make up their minds. Then we could all decide for ourselves if it is worth it.

 

[JTesmod3]

I could definitely feel the difference initially, just wish there was something visual to represent the upgrade (badge, display badge, upgrade list, HP meter. etc.) - locking the feature. After a few runs, the "boost feel" becomes somewhat indistinguishable from the cars previous performance. We're also relying on the community to benchmark the performance with each improvement. Slowly, buyers remorse begins to set in...with the uncertainty of a future software update wiping it out.

why not save the $2000 and just buy a dual motor performance badge for almost nothing! if you need something to show your 1/2 second faster than the rest maybe you are buying it for the wrong reason

 

[Antwan50]

Tesla is readying a new option, internally … - teslamotors - Reddit

Reddit post about an acceleration mode....

There are people corroborating the rumor via their account homepage. However, I can't see it on mine, since I already have FSD, so I don't have any "live"/official software updates available to me.

But.... $2,000 for this? Supposedly 10% improvement in 0-60 times (read the tweet thread).

Tesla Change Tracker on Twitter



Guys....now we're talking about P3D's that might be able to clear 2.75s 0-60.

That's Ludicrous (which they probably chose not to say.....so S and X can still have that)

I have a P3D and would definitely pay 2g's for ludicrous mode or speed. Actually, only fair they do something for us performance folks.

 

[pcons]

So, here's another thought:

Doesn't this now make AWD+ (or whatever we are calling it) significantly faster than a non performance model S? I think the S clocks in at around 4.4 seconds....wondering if model S owners will have an option to opt for this too down the road?

Maybe not since it's a heavier car so likely the power output is already similar to the AWD+...same as how the model x is slower than the S. But I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone ponder what it might mean for non model 3 owners...

 

[dave999z]

wish there was something visual to represent the upgrade (badge, display badge, upgrade list, HP meter. etc.)

Obviously, the AWD+ should say D U A L M O T O R with a silver underline.

 

[Knightshade]

One interesting thing I found is that at least for the 2019 model year Tesla doesn't even submit independent test results for the performance and LR AWD they just submit 1 set of results for "LR AWD/Performance" I don't see how they could do that if they were functionally different.

US AWD cars at the start of 2019 model year still had the 980

Meaning they and the P3D- motors were functionally identical

Thanks for confirming that fact

And so of course for 2020 they did individual results because they are not functionally identical anymore.

The 980 P3D- with 18s is measurably more efficient than the AWD with the 990 motor. Despite otherwise identical hardware other than the rear drive unit.

Again showing the 990 is a less efficient motor and functionally different than the 980

None of that is "unknown" it's all right there in the numbers.

 

[raptor5244]

I have a P3D and would definitely pay 2g's for ludicrous mode or speed. Actually, only fair they do something for us performance folks.

Agreed. I think we should get a 60-120mph boost at no charge and put us in the low 11s.

 

[Knightshade]

So, here's another thought:

Doesn't this now make AWD+ (or whatever we are calling it) significantly faster than a non performance model S?

...no?


The non-P S lists at 3.7 seconds (which is without rollout since Tesla dishonestly only uses rollout for P models)

 

[m3-ricardo]

i'm gonna save my 2k -- for when they make a "track mode" in app purchase

 

[K1Woods]

why not save the $2000 and just buy a dual motor performance badge for almost nothing! if you need something to show your 1/2 second faster than the rest maybe you are buying it for the wrong reason

I'm sure a lot of folks do that but it would drive me insane - false badging. Truthfully, I don't think stealth's should get the red underline either - if they don't come equipped with upgraded performance suspension, brakes, spoiler, etc...

I do like the silver DM underline idea though for the boosted models- Dual Motor Sport. Dual Motor Stealth.

In the past, some Model S cars received new badging with Battery Upgrades

 

[EVDRVN]

A 7 day free trial sure would help people make up their minds. Then we could all decide for ourselves if it is worth it.

LOL- Yea, fewer would buy it. Also if Tesla reuses to refund and it's not as expected you can go to your CC company, It's a very subjective purchase and I think Tesla should just make it more definitive.

 

[thor_2019]

No- the 990 is physically less efficient than the 980.

I'm gonna call bulls@#t in this one. There is now way that Tesla is going to make a "less" efficient motor. You're really starting to beat a dead horse here, you keep saying the same thing over and over again. I just come to this thread to hear how much everyone is enjoying the update and I've got to read through pages and pages of nonsense.

Urg!

 

[EfficientWatts]

Again showing the 990 is a less efficient motor and functionally different than the 980

I was with you till this statement (the efficiency). Where's the proof of this?

If anything else the newer Model 3's are rated higher for whatever reason (EPA ratings)

 

[Knightshade]

I was with you till this statement (the efficiency). Where's the proof of this?

You mean besides the last several pages with data directly from the EPA proving it?

try this one for example-

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

I
If anything else the newer Model 3's are rated higher for whatever reason (EPA ratings)

Nope.

2018- AWD and P3D- both with same 980 rear motor measured identical efficiency to each other despite the P3D- having the P software.

The AWD 2020 (990 motor) was measured with lower efficiency than the P3D- (same car but with a 980 motor and the P software)

Again see link above for the #s from the EPA data

 

[thor_2019]

This update definitely makes the SOC more important to get the maximum output. Before I couldn't tell the difference between 40% and 90%, now there is a substantial amount of difference.

Does the performance model behave the same!

I would make sure the car has at least 80% charge before any test runs. I purchased the boost last night and went for a quick drive when the car only had 20% and I thought there was only a slight difference. I then charged the car to 80% and went for a drive again and the difference is quite noticeable. I'm quite happy with the update, even thought I would be happier if there is another upgrade to the full P level.

 

[pcons]

...no?


The non-P S lists at 3.7 seconds (which is without rollout since Tesla dishonestly only uses rollout for P models)

Oh...maybe I was remembering numbers from CPO model S. I remember looking at some S90 2016 before getting my 3 and they were listed on the tesla site as being 4.4s 0-100 km/h...but that was over a year ago and not a new S.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I was with you till this statement (the efficiency). Where's the proof of this?

If anything else the newer Model 3's are rated higher for whatever reason (EPA ratings)

I know this thread is huge. And it's hard to find stuff. And I said I would not respond anymore. Here are some posts in addition to the one above from Knightshade.

Summary Tables Comparing 2018, 2019, 2020 Efficiencies

SR+ 2019->2020 Improvement (980 motor):
City: 148/140 => 5.7% Hwy: 132/124 => 6.5%
P3D Stealth 2018->2020 Improvement (980 motor):
City: 128/120 => 6.7% Hwy: 120/112 => 7.1%
AWD 2018->2020 Improvement (with swap to 990 motor):
City: 124/120 => 3.3% Hwy: 116/112 => 3.6%

So ALL vehicles improved in efficiency. But the AWD improved less...even though it is identical in every way to the Stealth 2020 as far as we know, except for the rear motor.

So, it's conceivable that Tesla chose to save some money internal to the 990 motor to save cost, with a small impact on efficiency (which was tolerable because they were able to gain 6% efficiency elsewhere).

Also some internal flags...this is only circumstantial...not sure what it means...

green on Twitter

Only relevant to this discussion because it may be a reason the rear motor output on this AWD+ update did not change; it's already maxed out, maybe.

EDIT: If you hand calculate (triangulate based on weight & 0-60 times and known AWD/P3D numbers) the torque requirement & power requirements for the current SR+ 0-60, it looks like the SR+ torque is about 360Nm (which is a lot higher than the peak torque on the rear motor on the AWD), and the max power is 230kW (which is similar to what the rear motor on the AWD does).

So since the SR+ does NOT have the 990 motor, it's possible that Tesla is telling us that they would be unable to generate either the torque or have enough headroom for future HP increases on the SR+ if they were to use the 990 motor. So it sort of suggests that the 990 is tapped out. To be clear, this is totally speculative & circumstantial.

 

[dahaz22]

why not save the $2000 and just buy a dual motor performance badge for almost nothing! if you need something to show your 1/2 second faster than the rest maybe you are buying it for the wrong reason

He can buy the badge and cut the red underline in half