Anxiously waiting an AWD review / videos

[EVnut]

I described earlier the handling, strength of regen, and acceleration in comparison to a RWD...

I may have missed this. When you "described" the strength of regen, was this quantified, or what it may have felt like?

Ok, but given your SoCal location, you did pay an extra $4k solely for performance gains (even at the expense of efficiency), so to me it seems like you aren't so different from the P3D buyers after all! Just to a lesser degree.

It would be nice to dispel the notion that AWD in the coastal area of CA is *only* useful for better acceleration. First off, CA is the only state to host both the summer and winter olympics for a reason: In a Model 3 we can surf in the ocean and ski at 9-10k feet on the same day in the same state. If you only drive where you live, you don't need a car... much less a long-range one! And then there are the driving dynamics. Try the Model 3 RWD and AWD back to back. Try an older Model S RWD with any D variant. This isn't just about acceleration... that's just one of the goodies that comes along for the $4k. Sorry... $5k now.

 

[Knightshade]

While I await my AWD (and wait, and wait)... there are three things that I'd like to know, and still haven't seen nailed down. And really for me, these are the quantifiable metrics that the value of that $4k is based on:

• What is the reliable 0-60 time? (is it really slower than the 4.5s advertised? That would be a first)

I've only seen one actual calibrated test posted.... 4.26 with rollout, 4.55 with rollout- so pretty similar to the other Model 3s as compared to Teslas official #

Does it allow more regen than the RWD? Do the acceleration boxes do negative numbers? Can the regen current be measured? Can we get actual data on this?

Don't know what data can be pulled- folks who've driven both claim the AWD (and P) feel like they regen harder though.

• And of course what is the efficiency as compared to RWD?

less? Ballpark around 8-10% (so more like actually 300-310 instead of the 330+ the EPA originally wanted to give the RWD) is the best guess but it's hard to apples-to-apples that without 2 cars driving the same route in the exact same conditions, or a lot longer/larger general data set.

 

[Jedi2155]

Don't know what data can be pulled- folks who've driven both claim the AWD (and P) feel like they regen harder though.

Deuce24 specifically claimed that that he could do 1-pedal driving with the AWD while he could not with the RWD model. Elon has tweeted that the AWD will have more regen as well.

 

[ℬête Noire]

I may have missed this. When you "described" the strength of regen, was this quantified, or what it may have felt like?

The "hard numbers", such as they are, that I've seen have RWD at 0.16G vs AWD at 0.20G. That alone will be fairly noticeable change plus there may also be a difference in how fast it fades in and variance at different speeds. I've not seen a detailed instrumentation yet for AWD and the RWD one I saw, done nearly a year ago, didn't have many data points. Performance's Track Mode is suppose to bump regen braking to around 0.30G.

P.S. "Emergency" level of hard breaking usually tops out somewhere around 1.5G for street cars.

 

[Zoomit]

The "hard numbers", such as they are, that I've seen have RWD at 0.16G vs AWD at 0.20G. That alone will be fairly noticeable change plus there may also be a difference in how fast it fades in and variance at different speeds. I've not seen a detailed instrumentation yet for AWD and the RWD one I saw, done nearly a year ago, didn't have many data points. Performance's Track Mode is suppose to bump regen braking to around 0.30G.

P.S. "Emergency" level of hard breaking usually tops out somewhere around 1.5G for street cars.

I too am looking forward to hearing more about AWD regen deceleration. It’s my biggest disappointment with Tesla driving dynamics and the potential for better regen deceleration is a prime motivation for me to get AWD. Other EVs decelerate faster: Bolt EV, 0.3g; I-Pace, 0.4g. I’ve been waiting for Tesla to release a “strong” regen setting for a while and hope they do so soon.

 

[EVDRVN]

I drove a 3P with 5% SOC, the regen was reasonable but did not seem as strong as my 85D.

 

[KenF]

I too am looking forward to hearing more about AWD regen deceleration. It’s my biggest disappointment with Tesla driving dynamics and the potential for better regen deceleration is a prime motivation for me to get AWD. Other EVs decelerate faster: Bolt EV, 0.3g; I-Pace, 0.4g. I’ve been waiting for Tesla to release a “strong” regen setting for a while and hope they do so soon.

Road and Track reported that the P3’s track mode will allow for up to 0.3g regen deceleration (an increase from 0.2g), which suggests the car is capable of decelerating faster.

Tesla engineer on Model 3 Performance Track Mode: ‘Our Track Mode doesn’t disable features, it adds them’

 

[ℬête Noire]

I too am looking forward to hearing more about AWD regen deceleration. It’s my biggest disappointment with Tesla driving dynamics and the potential for better regen deceleration is a prime motivation for me to get AWD. Other EVs decelerate faster: Bolt EV, 0.3g; I-Pace, 0.4g. I’ve been waiting for Tesla to release a “strong” regen setting for a while and hope they do so soon.

The Bolt's isn't that high, as measured by Motortrend (although this is the one where the underlying datapoints are sparse so I'm a little uneasy about it):

What's interesting from a perception POV is that it "feels" like a lot more difference between D and L than L and L+Paddle. Although I do use the paddle from time to time I'd be fine with L (I mostly use the paddle to disengage CC, since it lacks a TACC option). It does feel rather like semantic naval gazing to refer to driving using the steering wheel paddle as "1 pedal".


Where is that I-Pace number from?

 

[EVnut]

I originally said:

It would be nice to dispel the notion that AWD in the coastal area of CA is *only* useful for better acceleration. First off, CA is the only state to host both the summer and winter olympics for a reason: In a Model 3 we can surf in the ocean and ski at 9-10k feet on the same day in the same state. If you only drive where you live, you don't need a car... much less a long-range one! And then there are the driving dynamics. Try the Model 3 RWD and AWD back to back. Try an older Model S RWD with any D variant. This isn't just about acceleration... that's just one of the goodies that comes along for the $4k. Sorry... $5k now.
​

And I want to add that using regen to brake the front wheels, could (and should!) mean that AWD is capable of way more regen braking than RWD. AND the dynamics of using the front tires for braking makes far more sense. So the AWD advantages that I've come up with:

1. More capable in slippery conditions (snow, ice, wet, metal plates, gravel/dirt). Steep dirt roads are a big challenge with 2WD.
2. Can get away without snow chains in CA.
3. Better acceleration. More potential for future "uncorking."
4. Arguably better handling in "spirited driving" situations.
5. Higher and *better* regen braking when front wheels can also be used.
6. May mean nothing, but this car was designed to be AWD from the beginning, and all prototypes were P-AWD. The RWD, I'm assuming, was created to hit a price point.
7. More even tire wear with "spirited driving."
8. And that stupid thing that Tesla has been advertising: If one motor breaks, you still have another! (who the hell worried about that until we found out about this great feature that saves us from broken motors!?)


Downsides:
1. Lower efficiency/more weight.
2. More money.

 

[TurnFast]

2. More money.

LOL, yeah if only it wasn't for that more money downside I'd be all in for a P3D.

Though if the stock market keeps going like it's going while I still have an edit button... who knows.

 

[Stellavator]

Just drove a friend's AWD tonight, after driving the RWD a month ago. I was initially concerned about the "lag" I felt on the RWD at the start, and wondering how the AWD would do. I do not want to spend the dollars on P3D, so didn't drive one, and frankly didn't want to be tempted. Just wanted to know if my AWD choice would be gratifying to drive hard, and not have that little bit of vanilla start that the RWD has. I can say quite confidently, that there is no "lag", and that it jumps off the line very respectably. I was impressed. It felt solid and fast. I am sold, and no longer have any doubts about my AWD order.

 

[Zoomit]

The Bolt's isn't that high, as measured by Motortrend (although this is the one where the underlying datapoints are sparse so I'm a little uneasy about it):

View attachment 330051

What's interesting from a perception POV is that it "feels" like a lot more difference between D and L than L and L+Paddle. Although I do use the paddle from time to time I'd be fine with L (I mostly use the paddle to disengage CC, since it lacks a TACC option). It does feel rather like semantic naval gazing to refer to driving using the steering wheel paddle as "1 pedal".


Where is that I-Pace number from?

The Motor Trend graph for the Bolt EV is in error. They mislabeled the 3 modes (and left out one). Here's a correct chart, which is based a model I created from the second speed-dependent graph. Notice that the Drive mode in the Bolt EV is the same as the Low mode in Model 3.

The second graph was derived from a GM press conference presentation here: https://youtu.be/yQ8P7Ooo-7w?t=24m13s.
I modeled the Bolt EV regen about a year before the MT article came out with the graphs. As soon as I saw the MT graph for the Bolt EV, I immediately recognized the similar lines but figure they messed up the labeling and dropped the Drive mode line.

I haven’t done any specific testing to confirm the GM deceleration data, however our Bolt EV certain feels like it responds similarly to the GM provided data. The regen modes are NOT like the MT data in my experience. In particular, the Drive mode, which has the least regen, feels significantly less powerful than the other three. This matches your comments above as well.

Also, the MT graph lists average deceleration, not peak deceleration which is what most people use as a reference. Average deceleration will depend on the starting speed, while peak is always a peak.

Concerning I-PACE deceleration:
"When high regenerative mode is selected it effectively allows the driver to experience intuitive single-pedal driving as the car decelerates when lifting off the accelerator, reducing reliance on the brake pedal when slowing down. A maximum regenerative braking force of 0.4G is achievable." https://media.jaguar.com/2018/jaguar-i-pace-art-electric-performance

 

[ℬête Noire]

The Motor Trend graph for the Bolt EV is in error. They mislabeled the 3 modes (and left out one). Here's a correct chart, which is based a model I created from the second speed-dependent graph. Notice that the Drive mode in the Bolt EV is the same as the Low mode in Model 3.

The second graph was derived from a GM press conference presentation here: https://youtu.be/yQ8P7Ooo-7w?t=24m13s.
I modeled the Bolt EV regen about a year before the MT article came out with the graphs. As soon as I saw the MT graph for the Bolt EV, I immediately recognized the similar lines but figure they messed up the labeling and dropped the Drive mode line.

I haven’t done any specific testing to confirm the GM deceleration data, however our Bolt EV certain feels like it responds similarly to the GM provided data. The regen modes are NOT like the MT data in my experience. In particular, the Drive mode, which has the least regen, feels significantly less powerful than the other three. This matches your comments above as well.

Concerning I-PACE deceleration:
"When high regenerative mode is selected it effectively allows the driver to experience intuitive single-pedal driving as the car decelerates when lifting off the accelerator, reducing reliance on the brake pedal when slowing down. A maximum regenerative braking force of 0.4G is achievable." https://media.jaguar.com/2018/jaguar-i-pace-art-electric-performance

Ah, that's makes a lot more sense. The difference between D and L feels very substantial, I was wondering how it could be so close on numbers....and yeah, the "straight line" on their graph didn't feel right to me. The only had a couple points and they just drew a straight line between them, so I wouldn't be surprised if that second graph wasn't closer to reality.

So the Model 3 RWD Normal regen roughly splits the difference between D and L (a little more to the high side) and the AWD should be similar to L, of course without the whammy bar. I do wonder what kind of shape, if any, the Model 3's de-acceleration g-force curve has. Pretty sure someone has hacked the CAN bus enough to be able to log speedometer data. I wonder if that'd be as accurate as, or more accurate than a portable g-force box? If so, with a little calculating, that should give you a pretty accurate g-force curve.

Given that the Performance is supposed to be able to let the rear-end break free a bit for oversteer with .3g, that .4g on the i-Pace has the potential to be pretty squirrelly on corners unless they're really on top of the game with TC.

 

[Zoomit]

Given that the Performance is supposed to be able to let the rear-end break free a bit for oversteer with .3g, that .4g on the i-Pace has the potential to be pretty squirrelly on corners unless they're really on top of the game with TC.

At 0.4g deceleration, any modern TC has plenty of bandwidth to handle the car. Remember, the stressing cases are during max braking which are above 1g and would also include high yaw rates.

 

[ℬête Noire]

At 0.4g deceleration, any modern TC has plenty of bandwidth to handle the car. Remember, the stressing cases are during max braking which are above 1g and would also include high yaw rates.

But in 1-pedal mode? I don't think it's got a whammy bar type brake control, although frankly I've not really paid much attention to it's details so I could be wrong there. I've already got a home-based commuter EV so any non-Tesla is still a non-starter due to everyone else still having very poor of charging coverage for long range road trips.

Maybe that's it, that peak regen is only reached when supplementing the friction brakes (either manually or emergency braking). I'd heard it has the "fishy feel" brake pedal that's the normal hallmark of hybrids, so unlike Teslas they could be attaching the extra regen there.

 

[EVnut]

Ballpark around 8-10% (so more like actually 300-310 instead of the 330+ the EPA originally wanted to give the RWD) is the best guess but it's hard to apples-to-apples that without 2 cars driving the same route in the exact same conditions, or a lot longer/larger general data set.

I've been thinking about this for a bit. This was the response to my question about having real numbers on the efficiency comparison of RWD and AWD.

We are quite confident that the EPA numbers were over ~330 miles for RWD. And Tesla decided to lower that (legally) probably so that all cars in the line will show the same rating. Now, as far as I know, they can't legally report high HIGHER number than the EPA would show, so it would seem that the AWD must *at least* achieve 310 on the EPA test, right? And that is certainly smaller than a 10% reduction in range.

Just thinking out load. I just wish we had data whilst I sit here and wonder what may or may not be happening with my order. I love me some good data.

 

[voip-ninja]

I've been thinking about this for a bit. This was the response to my question about having real numbers on the efficiency comparison of RWD and AWD.

We are quite confident that the EPA numbers were over ~330 miles for RWD. And Tesla decided to lower that (legally) probably so that all cars in the line will show the same rating. Now, as far as I know, they can't legally report high HIGHER number than the EPA would show, so it would seem that the AWD must *at least* achieve 310 on the EPA test, right? And that is certainly smaller than a 10% reduction in range.

Just thinking out load. I just wish we had data whilst I sit here and wonder what may or may not be happening with my order. I love me some good data.

It’s just not a concern of mine. AWD is needed by me for road condition climate reasons. I’m really not getting it for performance reasons.

DM M3 still has better efficiency than dual motor S.

What’s amazing to me are the number of people overly concerned about AWD efficiency who are in climates where AWD is not even needed.

 

[EVnut]

It’s just not a concern of mine. AWD is needed by me for road condition climate reasons. I’m really not getting it for performance reasons.

DM M3 still has better efficiency than dual motor S.

What’s amazing to me are the number of people overly concerned about AWD efficiency who are in climates where AWD is not even needed.

I see that I'm thinking out "load" again. Hate it when that happens. Anyway....

So I'm one of those guys who is "overly concerned" about efficiency, and who lives in a mild climate. But as I think I've said many times on various threads: Everybody has different "needs" and wants, and we all have a different view of the pros and cons of AWD.

I'm getting AWD for a variety of reasons. But... I live and breathe energy efficiency. And after considering the pros and cons of AWD (I don't "need" it for where I normally drive by any means) the plus and minus accounts are just about perfectly balanced for me. I could go either way, so to speak. So... I went with more fun. Because as my loving wife pointed out... we aren't getting any younger. I think I'll call this my mid-life crisis car. (Though if that were the case, it should be red, performance+, white interior. I just priced that out for the first time. $80,500. Exactly $20k more than my current config.)

I may have listed this somewhere else, but in the off-chance that you are interested in the advantages that *I* see in AWD, even when it doesn't snow where I live:

AWD advantages:

1. More capable in slippery conditions (snow, ice, wet, metal plates, gravel/dirt). I go camping, I go to the snow, I drive non-off-road capable vehicles off-road.
2. Can get away without snow chains in CA.
3. Better acceleration. More potential for future "uncorking." Nothing here but expensive fun. I get that.
4. Arguably better, more consistent handling/performance in "spirited driving" situation.
5. More and *better* regen braking when front wheels can be used. Braking without the front wheels is silly!
6. May mean nothing, but this car was designed to be AWD from the beginning, and all prototypes were P-AWD. The RWD, I'm assuming, was created to hit a price point. If I can't use the blank front motor bay for more frunk, then I might as well store a motor there.
7. More even tire wear with "spirited driving."
8. And that stupid thing that Tesla has been advertising: If one motor breaks, you still have another! (who the hell worried about that until we found out about this great feature that saves us from broken motors!?)


The disadvantages:

1. Lower efficiency/more weight.
2. Higher purchase cost.


So those two items in the minus column weight about the same (for me!) as the eight combined in the plus column. YMWV.

 

[voip-ninja]

I see that I'm thinking out "load" again. Hate it when that happens. Anyway....

So I'm one of those guys who is "overly concerned" about efficiency, and who lives in a mild climate. But as I think I've said many times on various threads: Everybody has different "needs" and wants, and we all have a different view of the pros and cons of AWD.

I'm getting AWD for a variety of reasons. But... I live and breathe energy efficiency. And after considering the pros and cons of AWD (I don't "need" it for where I normally drive by any means) the plus and minus accounts are just about perfectly balanced for me. I could go either way, so to speak. So... I went with more fun. Because as my loving wife pointed out... we aren't getting any younger. I think I'll call this my mid-life crisis car. (Though if that were the case, it should be red, performance+, white interior. I just priced that out for the first time. $80,500. Exactly $20k more than my current config.)

I may have listed this somewhere else, but in the off-chance that you are interested in the advantages that *I* see in AWD, even when it doesn't snow where I live:

AWD advantages:

1. More capable in slippery conditions (snow, ice, wet, metal plates, gravel/dirt). I go camping, I go to the snow, I drive non-off-road capable vehicles off-road.
2. Can get away without snow chains in CA.
3. Better acceleration. More potential for future "uncorking." Nothing here but expensive fun. I get that.
4. Arguably better, more consistent handling/performance in "spirited driving" situation.
5. More and *better* regen braking when front wheels can be used. Braking without the front wheels is silly!
6. May mean nothing, but this car was designed to be AWD from the beginning, and all prototypes were P-AWD. The RWD, I'm assuming, was created to hit a price point. If I can't use the blank front motor bay for more frunk, then I might as well store a motor there.
7. More even tire wear with "spirited driving."
8. And that stupid thing that Tesla has been advertising: If one motor breaks, you still have another! (who the hell worried about that until we found out about this great feature that saves us from broken motors!?)


The disadvantages:

1. Lower efficiency/more weight.
2. Higher purchase cost.


So those two items in the minus column weight about the same (for me!) as the eight combined in the plus column. YMWV.

Everyone should do what they want, but being "overly concerned" with energy efficiency is at odds with the choice of a dual motor Tesla 3. That's simply a fact.

You could wait for the SR RWD Tesla which is probably going to be the most energy efficient EV on the planet when it is eventually released.

 

[EVnut]

Everyone should do what they want, but being "overly concerned" with energy efficiency is at odds with the choice of a dual motor Tesla 3. That's simply a fact.

We agree that efficiency and AWD are "at odds" in the case of the Model 3. Thus my consternation. There is no black and white here. The benefits are weighed against the negatives. Your decision is easy, mine not as much because I don't live where I'll need the AWD capability every day. Just sometimes. So it is a luxury. A bit like somebody claiming that they need a 200+ mile EV, and is "overly concerned" about price. Gets a Tesla over a Bolt anyway because of a big list of (many luxury) benefits that outweigh the price concern.

You could wait for the SR RWD Tesla which is probably going to be the most energy efficient EV on the planet when it is eventually released.

Yeah. As much as I just *love* waiting and waiting... that's not gonna happen. As you've pointed out... I've already skipped over the less efficient and more expensive S and X offerings. And for me, I'm in the sweet spot of efficiency/vs the stuff I want on the car for various (and sometimes impractical) reasons.

If all of our automotive decisions were rational, I don't think the Tesla boards would be so dang busy.

OK, this is fun and all. But could we get back to not having our cars delivered, please?