You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'd be interested as well. My screen said 5% and previously the 0-60 was advertised at 5.0 seconds, so I expect at least 4.75 after the update.I've seen numbers for the performance, AWD, and even SR, but does anyone have tested numbers for us OGs with LR RWDs?
I'd be interested as well. My screen said 5% and previously the 0-60 was advertised at 5.0 seconds, so I expect at least 4.75 after the update.
I've seen numbers for the performance, AWD, and even SR, but does anyone have tested numbers for us OGs with LR RWDs?
4.68 not badCheck out this youtube... the 5% produced a very very small difference.
Haven't seen 0-60 times for LR AWD since the previous 5% update a few weeks ago.
--Cintoman
5% more power doesn't mean 5% faster acceleration to 60. Maybe if you get perfect traction that might work out, but the LR RWD puts out enough torque that slippage becomes an issue.I'd be interested as well. My screen said 5% and previously the 0-60 was advertised at 5.0 seconds, so I expect at least 4.75 after the update.
i1Tesla got 4.68 with 1-foot rollout which is also the same metric Tesla uses to give us the original 5.0 seconds. Though you're definitely correct. I imagine this is especially going to be the case for the Performance models.5% more power doesn't mean 5% faster acceleration to 60. Maybe if you get perfect traction that might work out, but the LR RWD puts out enough torque that slippage becomes an issue.
AWD makes a big traction difference. I don't know if traction is limiting Model 3 performance 0-60 times or not, but I'm pretty sure it's not affecting the regular LR AWD models like mine.i1Tesla got 4.68 with 1-foot rollout which is also the same metric Tesla uses to give us the original 5.0 seconds. Though you're definitely correct. I imagine this is especially going to be the case for the Performance models.
i1Tesla got 4.68 with 1-foot rollout which is also the same metric Tesla uses to give us the original 5.0 seconds.
Wait that's insane. I didn't know that. That's ridiculous that you can't directly compare the cars performance to each other.No, it's not.
Tesla famously and dishonestly only uses rollout for the P 0-60 times. It uses no rollout for the non-P models, to make the P look better in comparison.
For example prior to this last 5% bump the P was listed at 3.2 and the AWD at 4.4. The 3.2 was a with rollout number, the 4.4 was not- actual rollout # on the AWD was 4.0 as confirmed by both users here with dragy and car magazines with vbox.
Wait that's insane. I didn't know that. That's ridiculous that you can't directly compare the cars performance to each other.
I'd pay extra just to have better brakes... they all feel fast... I find the default brakes on the M3 to look way inadequate for a car with its weight.
I'd pay extra just to have better brakes... they all feel fast... I find the default brakes on the M3 to look way inadequate for a car with its weight.
How do the brakes "look way inadequate"? Do they work okay for you?I'd pay extra just to have better brakes... they all feel fast... I find the default brakes on the M3 to look way inadequate for a car with its weight.
Maybe a single piston unit on a high performance vehicle?How do the brakes "look way inadequate"?
Since the front brakes on the Model 3 are not single piston, I assume you're referring to the rear brakes. In which case, single pistons are pretty common on the rear brakes of lots of high performance vehicles.Maybe a single piston unit on a high performance vehicle?