Acceleration Boost vs Third Party Hacks

[Billmister]

I ended up purchasing the Acceleration boost. It really makes the car feel so much faster and responsive. Prior to the purchase I never used the Chill Mode. Now I use it all the time and feel it a more “chill” way to drive. However when I see Bmw or Porsche etc I switch to sport, just in case.

Great purchase!

 

[buckets0fun]

As stated above, the ingenext ghost module tells an AWD with the 980 motor that it is a performance model, that means it gets track mode.

Do you have the ghost module?

I do. It doesn’t unlock track mode. Please don’t type such things.

 

[MoreAgain]

Do you have the ghost module?

I do. It doesn’t unlock track mode. Please don’t type such things.

They call it lap mode, but the functionality is the same. All they do is re-skin it.

 

[buckets0fun]

They call it lap mode, but the functionality is the same. All they do is re-skin it.View attachment 823564

It absolutely isn’t the same nor is it a reskin of the oem firmware. It doesn’t put Gmeter on screen, it doesn’t save lap info, it doesn’t allow you to adjust anything on the oem screen.

Please accept that you’re wrong. This is hilarious.

 

[dfwatt]

Hi everyone,

I purchased the acceleration boost for my M3 LR and I'm happy with it and if you have the money to spend on it, I'd recommend it. However, I know there are third party boosts like BOOST 50 TO GHOST FOR TESLA MODEL 3/Y that offer similar functionality. However, I am not in it to get an acceleration boost that provides similar functionality to save a few dollars.

My understanding is the ingenext can add ~150 HP to M3 (not sure if it's compatible with 2022) and get the 0-60 from 4.4 to 3.2 instead of 4.4 to 3.7 when compared to the built-in acceleration boost. That being said, this just looks like they are exposing existing functionality and aren't doing anything explicitly to "tune" the performance.

So with that being stated, do we expect Tesla to simply adjust the acceleration boost or introduce an additional addon to get it from 3.7 to 3.2 and make the hack obsolete? My hunch is that they will. Thoughts?

That speculation has been presented on the forums frequently since 2018. Seems like an obvious way to make some additional money without any downside. The problem, as lots of people have pointed out, is that when they changed the rear motor from 980 to 990 on a lot of the dual motor and rear wheel drive cars, a simple software unlock to Performance levels of power and torque is not possible. So you would really have a limited market for this as the 980 motor basically went away except on performance models I think sometime in 2019 - early 2020. So even though it seems like low hanging fruit, it's probably just too small an option for Tesla to bother with.

 

[MoreAgain]

It absolutely isn’t the same nor is it a reskin of the oem firmware. It doesn’t put Gmeter on screen, it doesn’t save lap info, it doesn’t allow you to adjust anything on the oem screen.

Please accept that you’re wrong. This is hilarious.

I think we may agree on more than we disagree about. I have no problem admiting when I'm wrong, it actually happens quite often. Just ask my wife.

I have no inside information or proof about what Ingenext does or doesn't do. And I assume that you do not either. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I have based my statements on deductive reasoning. It is entirely possible that Ingenext wrote code from scratch to imitate the core functionality of Track Mode (front/rear bias adjustment, adjustable stability control, adjustable regen level, post drive cooling, and compressor over-clock,) but I think it is much more likely that they figured out how to tap into Tesla's code for this or to somehow trick the system into enabling this functionality.

You are absolutely correct that they don't show the controls for these adjustments, or the g-meter or brake/battery info on the OEM screen, but have built a separate interface for the controls (what I rather crudely referred to as a re-skin.)

Here's what I do know, if I had a LR with the correct motor configuration, I would absolutely buy a Ghost module, because however they did it, they've unlocked the core speed and track mode functionality of the Performance version, and that's pretty cool.

 

[Evpowerdan]

How I simply look at it, Tesla performance upgrade may cost more, however I trust the Tesla engineers to turn up the performance without affecting reliability or putting the electrical motors at the limits.

To me it’s a expensive vehicle that Tesla has control and can monitor all software mods - not authorized or uploaded by them. Not worth the additional $1000 savings IMO.

 

[MoreAgain]

How I simply look at it, Tesla performance upgrade may cost more, however I trust the Tesla engineers to turn up the performance without affecting reliability or putting the electrical motors at the limits.

To me it’s a expensive vehicle that Tesla has control and can monitor all software mods - not authorized or uploaded by them. Not worth the additional $1000 savings IMO.

That's true when comparing to the accel boost that Tesla offers. But, for a LR AWD owner wants the full power of the P, and has the right rear motor, the Ghost module is the only way to get it.

 

[DayTrippin]

That's true when comparing to the accel boost that Tesla offers. But, for a LR AWD owner wants the full power of the P, and has the right rear motor, the Ghost module is the only way to get it.

The sad thing is there isn't really any performance advantage of the P at higher speeds. It is just like more of an acceleration boost to 60. So in the end I just bought the LR, saved 8k at the time over the P, gave up 2k for boost from Tesla and called it a day. If the P was substantially quicker at higher speeds that a stock or boosted LR, then I'd be interested but it isn't.

The P, LR, and booster LR, pretty much have the same trap speed in the 1/4 mile. Not a huge difference. Which told me early on, not any real reason to buy the M3P or MYP over their other models given the price delta when I bought my 3 and Y. The P version didn't address my complaint of they just sort of laid down at higher speeds; quick off the line and then that is pretty much it. Unlike the situation with the refreshed S and the LR vs Plaid. Actually neither of these lay down at higher speeds. The LR traps pretty close to 130 mph and with the Plaid in the low 150's. That is a very significant difference between the 2 unlike the 3P and 3LR trap speeds.

Now that the price delta currently is about 5k for the 3P vs LR, it makes it more attractive than before. If they still made the 3P Stealth version, I probably would have gone with it regardless.

 

[gearchruncher]

If the P was substantially quicker at higher speeds that a stock or boosted LR, then I'd be interested but it isn't.

You bought two cars that don't have track mode, but you are interested in acceleration at extra-legal speeds. What is your use case for wanting the 70+ MPH acceleration, but not caring about the 0-40?

 

[Knightshade]

That speculation has been presented on the forums frequently since 2018. Seems like an obvious way to make some additional money without any downside. The problem, as lots of people have pointed out, is that when they changed the rear motor from 980 to 990 on a lot of the dual motor and rear wheel drive cars, a simple software unlock to Performance levels of power and torque is not possible. So you would really have a limited market for this as the 980 motor basically went away except on performance models I think sometime in 2019 - early 2020. So even though it seems like low hanging fruit, it's probably just too small an option for Tesla to bother with.

The 990 began appearing early 2019 (there's one user, ever, that claimed a late Dec 2018 had it), but 980s still showed up on some cars through the summer of '19 at least- don't recall heard of any 980s in non-P 3s after about September '19.

Apart from the market being limited- they'd also need to explain to the now much larger # of post-980 LR owners why they can't have it-- leading to "Wait so you use an inferior motor now?" questions they probably don't want to deal with.

 

[Evpowerdan]

That's true when comparing to the accel boost that Tesla offers. But, for a LR AWD owner wants the full power of the P, and has the right rear motor, the Ghost module is the only way to get it.

Then by the M3P instead of the M3LR. Why take a risk at bricking you M3 or damaging the motors, Tesla will have the data And will determine warranty. Recall, With more power, you need better brakes and performance tires if you want to stop and turn.

If you mash the go pedal a lot from a stop, set aside $$$ to replace the tires , as EV immediate torque and power will wear them quickly.

 

[DayTrippin]

You bought two cars that don't have track mode, but you are interested in acceleration at extra-legal speeds. What is your use case for wanting the 70+ MPH acceleration, but not caring about the 0-40?

I do care about 0-40 but the acceleration on the 3/Y fall off noticeably at high speeds. The P wasn't worth the extra dollars asked by Tesla when I bought my 3 and Y. The 3/Y will pull a lot of cars 0-60. Most of my time isn't spent accelerating hard from a stop. Most of the time when I want acceleration it is going to be at higher speeds. The 3/Y models are least impressive there.

Which is one of the reasons I bought an S. It pulls pretty hard 0-60 and continues to pull hard at higher speeds. Not like where you have the 3/Y P's where they are pretty quick and then clearly flatten out once over 60. Not that they are really slow, but not near as quick as their 0-60 times would indicate.

A lot of the cars that the 3P might beat to 60, will then pull it at higher speeds. You can really feel it flatten out. That is why I never bother with the P. In a lot of ways, I think they just phoned it in when they built the car. Let me put the times in perspective. The M3P will do 0-60 in about 3.1 seconds and the 1/4 in about 11.5@117. Which is pretty impressive. Let's compare that to a supercar, the Lamborghini Aventador LP700-4 Roadster. It will run 0-60 in about the same time. Yet it doesn't flatten out. It continues to run to about 10.8 in the 1/4 with a much higher trap speed.

Or we can take the '22 refreshed Model S LR (not the Plaid). It runs 0-60 in about the same time as the M3P. Then it goes on to run about 10.8@130mph and about 10-15 mph faster than the M3P.

Or let's take a BMW M3 Competition. Slower to 60 (3.6) but easily pulling the M3P after that and running 11.6@124 through the traps in the 1/4 mile. So the key takeaway is the M3P is supercar quick to 60 but after that, a lot of other cars are going to pull you. Most of my driving consists of congested streets where I am lucky to do more than 30 mph or more on the open road where acceleration at speed (60+ mph) is more useful.

So I never saw that much value in the P version since the major benefit was initial off the line acceleration and the base 3 is going to take 85% of the cars on the road anyway in that scenario (0-40,50,600. The boosted LR will likely pick up another 5-10%. Now if Tesla had maintained the performance at higher speeds, I would went for the M3P but they didn't. Instead I ordered the S as based on everything I read, it was going to maintain its performance at higher speed and it clearly does in driving it.

 

[metroplex]

Just wanted to add that on paper the 0-60 of the Model 3 LRAB/P is faster than most cars, but when compared to twin-turbo AWD cars w/ just tunes (like the Kia Stinger, Fusion Sport, Taurus SHO), the ET and trap speeds aren't that far off. The Stingers are running 11s as is the Explorer ST. Model LRAB won't pull away from the Explorer ST in the 1/4 mile, and the M3P with 90% SOC should gently walk the Explorer ST and Kia Stinger.

I mean if you look at the 60' times for the M3P and M3LRAB, it's not that impressive. I think I saw mainly 1.8 60' for the M3P, and that's what I get from my Fusion Sport and Taurus SHO with worn out unprepped street all-season tires. And these are GTDI ICE engines, not the 10ms response electric motors.

 

[Billmister]

True. another advantage is it won’t cost $60+ to fill up the gas tank after a few runs = )

 

[dfwatt]

I think we may agree on more than we disagree about. I have no problem admiting when I'm wrong, it actually happens quite often. Just ask my wife.

I have no inside information or proof about what Ingenext does or doesn't do. And I assume that you do not either. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I have based my statements on deductive reasoning. It is entirely possible that Ingenext wrote code from scratch to imitate the core functionality of Track Mode (front/rear bias adjustment, adjustable stability control, adjustable regen level, post drive cooling, and compressor over-clock,) but I think it is much more likely that they figured out how to tap into Tesla's code for this or to somehow trick the system into enabling this functionality.

You are absolutely correct that they don't show the controls for these adjustments, or the g-meter or brake/battery info on the OEM screen, but have built a separate interface for the controls (what I rather crudely referred to as a re-skin.)

Here's what I do know, if I had a LR with the correct motor configuration, I would absolutely buy a Ghost module, because however they did it, they've unlocked the core speed and track mode functionality of the Performance version, and that's pretty cool.

Just wanted to add that on paper the 0-60 of the Model 3 LRAB/P is faster than most cars, but when compared to twin-turbo AWD cars w/ just tunes (like the Kia Stinger, Fusion Sport, Taurus SHO), the ET and trap speeds aren't that far off. The Stingers are running 11s as is the Explorer ST. Model LRAB won't pull away from the Explorer ST in the 1/4 mile, and the M3P with 90% SOC should gently walk the Explorer ST and Kia Stinger.

I mean if you look at the 60' times for the M3P and M3LRAB, it's not that impressive. I think I saw mainly 1.8 60' for the M3P, and that's what I get from my Fusion Sport and Taurus SHO with worn out unprepped street all-season tires. And these are GTDI ICE engines, not the 10ms response electric motors.

Please do tell us how you can get a Ford Fusion Sport to over 525 horsepower because that's about what it would need in order to compete with an M3P. In its stock form it can't even break under 5 Seconds 0 to 60, weighs 4100 plus pounds, and with most aftermarket tuning kits you get an extra 60 or so horsepower. That doesn't get you anywhere near the 500 plus horsepower you would need. Of course at that horsepower rating, it's a matter of time before you blow up your transmission with all that extra torque. To say nothing of completely voiding any engine warranty.

Tested: 2017 Ford Fusion Sport

Ford packs 325 horsepower under the hood of its mid-size sedan to produce a Q-ship for drivers in a hurry.

www.caranddriver.com

 

[metroplex]

Please do tell us how you can get a Ford Fusion Sport to over 525 horsepower because that's about what it would need in order to compete with an M3P. In its stock form it can't even break under 5 Seconds 0 to 60, weighs 4100 plus pounds, and with most aftermarket tuning kits you get an extra 60 or so horsepower. That doesn't get you anywhere near the 500 plus horsepower you would need. Of course at that horsepower rating, it's a matter of time before you blow up your transmission with all that extra torque. To say nothing of completely voiding any engine warranty.

Tested: 2017 Ford Fusion Sport

Ford packs 325 horsepower under the hood of its mid-size sedan to produce a Q-ship for drivers in a hurry.

www.caranddriver.com

It's easy to do a tune-only setup on a SHO or Fusion Sport to run with a M3 LRAB. I never said they'd beat the M3P. I believe I said the M3P would gently walk the tuned Explorer ST and Stinger on the 1/4 mile. The Explorer ST and Stinger will run 11s with just a tune. The Fusion Sport is probably the weakest link as the stock K03-variant turbos max out at 42 lb/min flow, but the stock Garretts on the SHO can be tuned to flow 48-50 lb/min. So you're looking at 420-450 hp at the crank with E30-E50 fueling on a tuned Fusion Sport. More like 500-550 hp on the SHO with E30 fueling. The Explorer ST has the 3.0 EcoBoost that has bigger turbos than its 2.7 EcoBoost brethren and those max out around 55 lb/min flow, so with E30-E50+ fueling they are pushing 550+ hp.

My SHO and Fusion Sport do 0-60 in 4.3 seconds, and run the 1/4 in 12.4 @ 111 mph. and they weigh 4300 lb and 4100 lb respectively (heavier than a Model 3 LR/P). I make my own tunes, and keep the stock torque limiters for shifting on the 6F55 transmissions. Heck there are F-150s with the 3.5 EcoBoost running 11s to 12s with just a tune and they weigh over 5000 lb. I've found that using more than E40-E50 fueling yields diminishing returns, so I stick with E30-E40 by dumping in E85 at the gas station along with 93 octane. This allows MBT spark with the turbos maxed out without any fueling mods (stock HPFP, stock injectors, etc...) except the SHO runs out of fueling above E30. My Fusion Sport can run full E85 because the stock turbos are anemic.

The SHO will run 11s with water/meth injection and drag radials to cut down the 60' times. from 1.8 to 1.7. On stock worn out street tires, my Fusion Sport and SHO would run 1.8 60' times all day long. The SHO was so consistent that I was able to perform pretty much 6 back to back 12.4x @ 110.x runs even with the intercooler temps fairly toasty.

 

[Knightshade]

Any discussion that starts with "once I get my water/meth injection properly tuned with drag radials, I can almost keep up with the stock factory version of your car" I kinda tune out.

Even the non-P Model 3 with AB runs 11s now. Stock on all season tires.


I do have a funny story bout this hypertuning stuff though, years ago I had one of the quicker NA daily drivable Impala SSes at the time- which was a big heavy car, but (for a chevy) a relatively nice one- without doing anything especially exotic, just a built 383 V8 and a TH400... on a local car board this dude in a heavily modded Neon SRT4 kept going on about how he could beat my car at the track because with his hypertuned turbos and magic fuel he was running 11s to my "mere" low 12s.


I told him "that's nice- but it's still a neon"...and there's doubtless lots of cars that could beat mine, someone always has more $ they want to dump into this stuff, and I was pretty happy with what I had.


He got super mad and insisted I race him getting increasingly foamed at the mouth about it.... I told him I wasn't gonna make a special trip just to race a neon, but he's welcome to show up the next test and tune I planned to attend and gave him the date.

Sure enough there he is that day... I can hear him revving on the yellow to try and clutch dump to get a decent launch... my expectation is I'm gonna get the jump on him off the line and he'll blow past me as the turbos spool... I certainly don't expect to, or even much care, about winning.

Anyway go on green....but I never notice him passing me. As I get to the end I check my mirror. He's still at the starting line.

That clutch dump snapped his transaxle or whatever garbage they put on cheap FWD cars.


As I got back around he was on the phone desperately trying to find someone with a trailer to come get him. I just smiled and told him 'Like I said- still a neon'



Today, my Model 3 is significantly quicker, bone stock on street tires, than that Impala was after all the mods (and tons cheaper to operate among other advantages). I'm certainly glad I owned it at the time, but I don't even slightly miss it.

 

[metroplex]

I dunno what this hypertuning is all about, but a basic E30-E40 tune for the Explorer ST will have it running high 11s, and that's a 4900 lb. SUV. The GTDI ICE vehicles are cutting faster 60' times on street tires. The worst is when the M3P roll races against some of these GTDI vehicles, it's like where did the electric power go. The LRAB is slightly faster than my Fusion Sport, so I'm still not 100% sure on whether to go with the LR. I'd give up Apple Car Play, Homelink, ventilated seats, and adaptive suspension.

What I never really quite figured out is how the F-150s with the 2.7 and 3.5 are running faster 1/4 mile times than the cars/SUVs with similar engines. I suspect because the F-150s have much bigger intercoolers (volume is twice that of the cars/SUVs) so they can lower the charge temps more. But it's impressive how they'll run 11s or low 12s with just a tune. The 10R80/10R60 when running properly has incredible shift times.

 

[dfwatt]

I dunno what this hypertuning is all about, but a basic E30-E40 tune for the Explorer ST will have it running high 11s, and that's a 4900 lb. SUV. The GTDI ICE vehicles are cutting faster 60' times on street tires. The worst is when the M3P roll races against some of these GTDI vehicles, it's like where did the electric power go. The LRAB is slightly faster than my Fusion Sport, so I'm still not 100% sure on whether to go with the LR. I'd give up Apple Car Play, Homelink, ventilated seats, and adaptive suspension.

What I never really quite figured out is how the F-150s with the 2.7 and 3.5 are running faster 1/4 mile times than the cars/SUVs with similar engines. I suspect because the F-150s have much bigger intercoolers (volume is twice that of the cars/SUVs) so they can lower the charge temps more. But it's impressive how they'll run 11s or low 12s with just a tune. The 10R80/10R60 when running properly has incredible shift times.

It's interesting in your apparent love of numbers that you haven't included any of the relevant other numbers that really matter: cost of ownership, cost of repairs, cost of maintenance, to say nothing of cost of any out of warranty engine work because obviously you've got no warranty on any of these cars. And that would include no warranty on the transmission or drivetrain either because any of these 'cheap' tuning kits void all that. And all this work and expense and grief to get close to what a stock M3p will deliver. No grief, no hassles, low cost of ownership, low cost of operation, and endlessly repeatable performance. It seems like you're trying to garner some kind of nostalgia for legacy technology that simply isn't competitive anymore. Not sure why you want to do that. As for your notion that you're giving up Apple carplay and some other minor issues if you don't buy your Ford Fusion Sport, that might be an excellent example of missing the forest for all the trees because it's an open question as to whether Ford is going to be out of business in 5-7 years. GM probably will be, and Ford is on the bubble. Will a legacy automaker go bankrupt before 2030?. The future of legacy car manufacturers

PS don't forget to include an accelerated depreciation schedule for your car because demand for these vehicles is already soft and is set to crater in the next two or three years. Add an additional heavy depreciation margin if Ford goes out of business, particularly if you can't get parts. Worst case scenario might be that you blow up your engine or transmission with all this aftermarket tuning and you can't get the parts to fix it. How cheap is all this aftermarket performance in that context?