Knightshade
Well-Known Member
All available evidence says software limited.... which is basically "free"... rather than building a physically different motor that adds a ton of cost/complexity to manufacturing, supply chain, repairs, etc...
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Automobile Mag: Quick Drive: Tesla Model 3 Performance AWD
- Thread starter Funkmobile
- Start date
All available evidence says software limited.... which is basically "free"... rather than building a physically different motor that adds a ton of cost/complexity to manufacturing, supply chain, repairs, etc...
Swampgator
Active Member
So eventually they will unlock it like the S and give people MAX performance. No need to buy the P model 3 version.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Absolutely certain not to be the case.
The S was never unlocked to offer equivalent P performance (and in that case they have physically different parts anyway).
That said- it's certainly possible (even likely as more EVs hit the market in this segment) that they will offer SOME free performance improvement via a software update that still leaves the P model significantly quicker, which is what they did on the S.
And I suppose if there's a business case they might offer a "full" unlock on the non-P AWD to match P levels but it'd have to be more expensive than getting the P from the factory (see also how EAP and FSD cost significantly more after delivery and they too are just software updates)
My data is like Elons
Made up
Do you really think Tesla hasn't track tested this car? Despite reports seeing it on the track.
Do you think the current specs are the final story? Despite testers that have seen a Track Mode on some cars that is still being tweaked before being released to public.
Do you really think there is no "insane" or "ludicrous" or "plaid" mode in the future?
Then you don't know Elon as well as you think you do.
yes, but they lose a LOT of their "oomph" past 130kmh.
Ofc that`s critisizing on a ridiculous level
Might also be binned - they take the ones with worse performance that either don't meet spec or barely meet it and give them to the AWD cars, like Intel with CPUs.
eladts
Member
The EPA provides the maximum power for each motor separately. It is wrong to just add those two numbers to get the total maximum power, as the total power may be limited by the battery and/or the two motors reach their peak power at different speeds. Tesla used this method to get the 691 hp figure for the Model S P85D, but this backfired and eventually Tesla stopped advertising this misleading number.
Last edited:
spesler
Member
The Autoweek numbers also agree with reports that the AWD has a smaller rear motor inverter than both the AWD-P and RWD.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
They've explicitly said they bin the motors- but yields on electric motors are going to be tremendously less variable than things like 14 nanometer CPUs... it'd be pretty surprising if there's much difference at all between any 2 working drive units as far as output.
So mostly binned is likely a marketing thing ("we select the very best for you!") and might marginally mitigate warranty cost as well (This one can handle 2% more power so maybe it'll fail 2% less often!)
e-FTW
New electron smell
You are right. 480hp it is.
But only 30hp more than the AWD version does not make a lot of sense. Maybe the AWD is limited in what it can actually deliver to the road?
[Edit: meant to say it does NOT make sense]
Last edited:
Swampgator
Active Member
I think eladts makes a good point. Maybe with the software running the whole show we can only really get useful information from actual dyno testing. And even that is debatable if you read some of the dyno threads here.
Not smaller, less efficient/ tested so SW limited to a lower peak current/ power.
Motor magnets are variable. So are the SiC drive devices integrated into the DU. Depending on the part type (IGBT or FET), there could be 20% variation in the full conduction parameter (which increase losses by 40% for MOSFET type). Some parameter get worse with higher temperatures, so the effect amplifies.
General comment, the max power number is less important to low end acceleration than the peak current/ torque number.
spesler
Member
@mongo not to restart the ongoing argument, but the claim that the AWD uses a physically different 500A rear inverter, while the other two cars use 800A, does align with the Autoweek hp numbers. This is not to say that binning and sorting are not occurring, but rather that there may also be a hardware difference.
I have not seen evidence firsthand, so can’t assert it to be true, but do tend to believe. There are claims that the Tesla parts catalog confirms this (shows different part numbers.)
I have not seen evidence firsthand, so can’t assert it to be true, but do tend to believe. There are claims that the Tesla parts catalog confirms this (shows different part numbers.)
clostridium
Member
How about a middle ground answer to this - they are physically the same inverters but some are derated to lower current and then stamped with a different part number so Tesla can make sure the right parts get on the right vehicles. That derating is based on testing like what @mongo references
Glamisduner
Active Member
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
- Locked
- Marketplace listing
