AWD 4 Door Sedans Faster than 4.3 sec?

[seantay00]

Spent some time browsing 0 to 60 website. One of the things that is very interesting with Tesla (EV's) is that adding AWD increases acceleration time, where traditional ICE's you give up time to the weight. No longer do you have to weigh performance against safety and road grip, you get both!

What I noticed is the field of players that can achieve 4.5 sec 0 to 60 on an AWD drive system/automatic (as can the M3 LRD) AND four doors, is very limited. Most of the sport sedans breaking the 4.5 sec mark are RWD only and/or Coupe's.

AWD Vehicles 0-60 | Find All-Wheel-Drive Cars & Trucks 0 to 60 & Quarter Mile Times

Quick scan provided the following observations. If you benchmark off the 4.5 listed spec, only around 9 cars in this "class" are quicker. If you benchmark the 4.3 field performance of the M3 LRD, only around 4 are quicker! With a close show down with the 2018 Audi S4 Prestige (4.2 seconds).

The value around the M3 LRD (AWD) is incredible. When you compare the list price of the 3 quicker (non tesla) cars, the best in class safety, the superior autopilot/tech, and gas mileage savings, it makes the car a slam dunk on value.

From a peer standpoint the performance M3 really only edges out the Audi S4 ($63K), which the non-P probably could with a slight software bump down the road.

For a commuter/family car, even more excited to get behind the wheel of my new M3 LRD. Goodbye ICE's!

Peers @ 4.5secs
2017 Audi S3 Quattro Sedan Compare Car 0-60 mph 4.5 | Quarter mile 13.1 DCT Manumatic Trans. | 4 Cyl Eng. | AWD | Sedan
2018 Volvo S90 T8 Inscription Plug-In Hybrid Compare Car 0-60 mph 4.5 | Quarter mile 13.3 Manumatic Trans. | 4 Cyl Eng. | AWD | Sedan

Peers @ 4.3secs
2017 Bentley Flying Spur V8 S Compare Car 0-60 mph 4.3 | Quarter mile 12.8 Manumatic Trans. | 8 Cyl Eng. | AWD | Sedan
2017 BMW 550i xDrive Compare Car 0-60 mph 4.3 Manumatic Trans. | 8 Cyl Eng. | AWD | Sedan
2017 Mercedes S550 4MATIC Compare Car 0-60 mph 4.4 | Quarter mile 12.9 Manumatic Trans. | 8 Cyl Eng. | AWD | Sedan
2018 Porsche Panamera 4 E-Hybrid Compare Car 0-60 mph 4.3 DCT Trans. | 6 Cyl Eng. | AWD | Sedan
2017 Volvo S60 Polestar Compare Car 0-60 mph 4.4 Manumatic Trans. | 4 Cyl Eng. | AWD | Sedan

Superior @ <4.3secs (Performance Model Peers)
2018 BMW M5 Compare Car 0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 11.0 Manumatic Trans. | 8 Cyl Eng. | AWD | Sedan
2018 Mercedes AMG E63 S Compare Car 0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 11.0 Manumatic Trans. | 8 Cyl Eng. | AWD | Sedan
2018 Tesla Model 3 Performance Compare Car 0-60 mph 3.2 | Quarter mile 11.8 Single Speed Trans. | AWD | Sedan
2018 Audi S4 Prestige Quattro Compare Car 0-60 mph 4.2 | Quarter mile 12.8 DCT Manumatic Trans. | 6 Cyl Eng. | AWD | Sedan

 

[Knightshade]

List is missing a fair number of other German cars... including a bunch of other BMW, Mercedes, and Audi variants and the VW Golf R... and the Focus RS was in the ballpark before they killed it.



,

 

[seantay00]

I'm sure there are probably some that slipped through as I don't think the 0 to 60 website covers all vehicles. For example they don't even have the Model 3 AWD on their site yet. I didn't include any hatchback's like the Golf R, as I was looking more at sedan equivalents. I also stripped out 2 door coupes, as I felt they were not similiar class either. I think the Golf R was listed around 4.5.

Feel free to add in any other AWD Sedan data points you might have. This was just a starting point.

 

[Knightshade]

Well, if you only want traditional has-a-real-trunk sedans (not sure if the S5 4 door fast back meets this criteria for you) the Audi S6 and S8 seem the most obvious, plus the RS versions of the S cars...The Infiniti Q50 Red Sport 400 does 4.5 0-60 I think... The 2019 BMW 340xi will supposedly do it in 4.2 (the outgoing model takes 4.6...and this had some speculating the AWD model 3 might get a small uncorking when the '19 BMW is out)

I imagine I'm forgetting some others too

 

[Knightshade]

Oh- probably worth noting most car mag times are done with rollout... the 4.5 of the AWD Model 3 is not. So the "real" 0-60 of the Model 3 AWD, if you're comparing it to magazine times, is more like 4.2-4.3

 

[seantay00]

@Knightshade - Interesting on the rollout. Since the M3 AWD appears to be a bit understated by Tesla, 4.5 is really looking like 4.3 on tracks, does this mean the comparable "mag time" will a M3 rollout is close to 4 even?

 

[HeatproofGenie]

One interesting thing about M3D is how it goes about it's acceleration with such little drama. It's so effortlessly fast. Even compared to the M3 rwd I rented the dual motor car has so much traction and balance.

I just got my M3D last Thursday (11/8) and so am still adapting but sometimes I'm only reminded of how fast it is by how quickly I Ieave other cars behind when accelerating from a stoplight. Also I love how small punches of the accelerator yield such bursts in acceleration. Also with regen braking the driving involvement and engagement is quite high.

 

[ewoodrick]

Spent some time browsing 0 to 60 website. One of the things that is very interesting with Tesla (EV's) is that adding AWD increases acceleration time, where traditional ICE's you give up time to the weight. No longer do you have to weigh performance against safety and road grip, you get both!

I wouldn't equate giving up time for weight. What I would say, and it works for ICE as well, adding an extra powerplant (and hence weight) decreases time.

Not too many ICE have multiple powerplants.

 

[Knightshade]

I wouldn't equate giving up time for weight. What I would say, and it works for ICE as well, adding an extra powerplant (and hence weight) decreases time.

Not too many ICE have multiple powerplants.

yeah, and really for performance cars it comes down to when you "need" to power both axles... much north of 300-400 hp it starts to require a LOT of chassis and transmission and computer engineering to be able to usefully apply power to only 2 wheels... things like the C7 corvette are works of art in this regard- but it's much "easier" to solve that issue with AWD... see for example the GT-Rs with significantly less horsepower knocking out quicker 0-60 times than significantly more powerful mustangs (older GT-R vs GT500 is a good example of this)

@Knightshade - Interesting on the rollout. Since the M3 AWD appears to be a bit understated by Tesla, 4.5 is really looking like 4.3 on tracks, does this mean the comparable "mag time" will a M3 rollout is close to 4 even?

Tracks use rollout too (that's where it comes from in fact)- which is why car mags use it.

But it's not a "real world" street number because in the real world when you go 0-60 from a stoplight you're not getting 1 foot of rollout between timing lights like on a track.


So both track and car mag numbers should be in the 4.2-4.3 range, while the "real world" on the street number is about 4.5

That's based on the actual testing I've seen posted here by various owners with vbox and draggy.

 

[eladts]

Not too many ICE have multiple powerplants.

I don't think there was ever a production car with two ICE engines. There are hobbyists the build such things like the Peugeot 205 with Twin V6 Engines.

 

[seantay00]

@Knightshade- Let me test for understanding with an actual comparison.

'18 Audi S4 Prestige Quattro (4.4 sec spec / 4.2 tested) vs '18 Tesla M3D (4.5 sec spec / 4.3 tested)

If both of these cars raced 0 to 60 (from a complete stop) what would we expect to see?

Would the M3D hold 4.3 sec, but the S4 perform more around 4.5-4.6 due to the sandbagged rollout time in car and driver? If this is the case then it's not correct to state the S4 is faster then the M3D... The M3D should then be reflected as a lower performing vehicle in my list.

 

[Knightshade]

@Knightshade- Let me test for understanding with an actual comparison.

'18 Audi S4 Prestige Quattro (4.4 sec spec / 4.2 tested) vs '18 Tesla M3D (4.5 sec spec / 4.3 tested)

If both of these cars raced 0 to 60 (from a complete stop) what would we expect to see?

Would the M3D hold 4.3 sec, but the S4 perform more around 4.5-4.6 due to the sandbagged rollout time in car and driver? If this is the case then it's not correct to state the S4 is faster then the M3D... The M3D should then be reflected as a lower performing vehicle in my list.

That depends on who tested them, and how.

Car mags generally test on a track with vbox- which includes rollout.

In that case you'd expect that the Audi will be .1 seconds quicker, with a "real world" time around 4.4 without rollout or a time around 4.2 if you're testing on a track with timing lights instead.

If the tested times are using, say, Draggy, which will give you a non-rollout 0-60 time, then same real world result as far as the Audi finishing .1 quicker, but it'd be 4.2 (audi) vs 4.3 (Tesla)


Tesla makes this extra confusing for owners in that they advertise NON rollout times for all their cars except their P cars...where they DO include rollout (which makes the P look a little quicker than it really is compared to the non-P version)

I don't think there was ever a production car with two ICE engines. There are hobbyists the build such things like the Peugeot 205 with Twin V6 Engines.

There are of course ICE cars that ALSO have electric motors providing power

 

[seantay00]

So comparison might looking something like this below:

Audi S4:
w/ Rollout: 4.3 (Per Car Mag)
Manufacturer Spec: 4.4
w/ out Rollout: 4.4-4.5 (Estimated from complete stop)

Tesla M3D:
w/ Rollout: ~4.3 (Per Tesla Owner Vbox)
Manufacturer Spec: 4.5
w/ out Rollout: 4.47 (Draggy from complete stop)

Looks like it would be a heck of a race. Would like to see this one on the tracks!

Also curious why the major car mags haven't tested the M3D yet... do they fear the results might not sit well with their traditional ICE enthusiasts?

 

[HeatproofGenie]

Another thing to consider is altitude. Here in CO at 5k ft elevation or above ICE cars lose a significant amount of power, worse for NA than forced induction of course but an EV produces the same power making the EV even quicker in comparison. Air is thinner too so less aerodynamic drag to contend with as well but no idea if this is significant or not to 60mph.

 

[eladts]

There are of course ICE cars that ALSO have electric motors providing power

True, but in most cases of ICE / electric AWD hybrids, the ICE have way more power than the electric motor(s) on the other axle. With the Model 3, the power distribution between the axels is much more balanced.

Porsche 918
Front (electric): 127 hp
Rear (ICE + electric): 600 hp + 154 hp

Volvo S60 T8
Front (ICE): 320 hp
Rear (electric): 80 hp

Tesla Model 3 LR AWD
Front (electric): 197 hp
Rear (electric): 252 hp

 

[voip-ninja]

Another thing to consider is altitude. Here in CO at 5k ft elevation or above ICE cars lose a significant amount of power, worse for NA than forced induction of course but an EV produces the same power making the EV even quicker in comparison. Air is thinner too so less aerodynamic drag to contend with as well but no idea if this is significant or not to 60mph.

That's a really good point that is rarely discussed. Non forced induction cars lose ~3% of their sea level HP per 1,000 feet of elevation change. At 5,000 feet they are down 15% from sea level whereas an EV has zero lose from elevation changes.

Even with forced induction, the HP losses are less but there are other effects such as longer and more pronounced spin up of turbos (turbo lag), etc.

Obviously this doesn't affect most of the country but it's still an interesting performance fact.

 

[Saghost]

I don't think there was ever a production car with two ICE engines. There are hobbyists the build such things like the Peugeot 205 with Twin V6 Engines.

I think the only production roadgoing vehicle with two ICEs from the factory is the Greyhound Scenicruiser from the 50s, designed to have a pair of detroit diesel straight fours. It didn't go very well, and they were retrofitted with detroit v8s once those were available.

 

[scwilliams52]

So comparison might looking something like this below:

Audi S4:
w/ Rollout: 4.3 (Per Car Mag)
Manufacturer Spec: 4.4
w/ out Rollout: 4.4-4.5 (Estimated from complete stop)

Tesla M3D:
w/ Rollout: ~4.3 (Per Tesla Owner Vbox)
Manufacturer Spec: 4.5
w/ out Rollout: 4.47 (Draggy from complete stop)

Looks like it would be a heck of a race. Would like to see this one on the tracks!

Also curious why the major car mags haven't tested the M3D yet... do they fear the results might not sit well with their traditional ICE enthusiasts?

seantay00 - Where did you find these Tesla M3D stats? I've been looking and can't find them anywhere else on the internet. Was that with 18" or 19" wheels? Also, do you think Tesla might change the advertised 0-60 from 4.5 to 4.3 like they changed the Performance from 3.5 to 3.3? My M3D (with 19") feels really quick, but I don't have a Vbox to test.

 

[M109Rider]

Cool thread to read.
It will be interesting to see what happens over the next two to four years.

My guess; Most new EV’s coming out over the next two to three years, will change the game.
3 - 4 second cars will be the norm, and ice cars will always be viewed as slower.
The car comparison times will shift to EV to EV comparisons, because ice cars won’t be in the game too often.

 

[Knightshade]

Also, do you think Tesla might change the advertised 0-60 from 4.5 to 4.3 like they changed the Performance from 3.5 to 3.3? My M3D (with 19") feels really quick, but I don't have a Vbox to test.

Tesla advertises all P models with rollout, and all non-P models without.

They weren't doing that on the 3 for the first few months, but now they are. That's why the P went from 3.5 to 3.3 without actually getting any quicker, and why the AWD (and RWD) models won't.