Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

AWD Y Much Slower Than AWD 3

Oct 20, 2019
59
38
South Carolina
Tesla advertises 4.4 sec for LR AWD Model 3 without the boost vs 4.8 sec for LR AWD Model Y.

My own LR AWD 3 without boost, shows 4.47 sec 0-60 mph with 1 ft roll - close to advertised time.

Where did you get 4.0-4.1 sec 0-60? View attachment 583512 View attachment 583513

There was a free performance boost update in late 2019 that improved the LR AWD M3 0-60 performance by ~10%, which put it down into the 4.0-4.1 range. I'm not sure why they never updated the official specs on it. I can't recall if that performance boost was a lineup wide thing or just the M3 though, so who knows if it had any impact on the Y.
 
Oct 20, 2019
59
38
South Carolina
I hear you, I'd love the YP, but unfortunately I don't have $10K burning a hole in my pocket, that couldn't be used better elsewhere. I do however have $2,000 burning a hole in my pocket, so I'm planning on getting the Performance Boost, whenever that is made available, but I'd like the actual numbers to improve before that as well (to the 4.4-4.5 range). :)
I'm in the same boat. As much fun as the 3.5sec would be, I'd rarely ever be flooring my MY other than when I first get it, so the value isn't there for me for an extra 10K for a performance enhancement that I'll rarely use. 4.8 with the instant torque is still plenty fast relative to comparable ICE vehicles out there. I was happy with my LR AWD M3 acceleration at the 4.1 range, so I never opted for the acceleration boost to get it down to 3.6. I may however drop for the acceleration boost if they offer it on the MY and the boost puts it down in the <=4.2 range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: richyrich

RoBoRaT

Zero Farts Given!
Nov 22, 2018
1,388
1,228
NorthSoCal
There was a free performance boost update in late 2019 that improved the LR AWD M3 0-60 performance by ~10%, which put it down into the 4.0-4.1 range. I'm not sure why they never updated the official specs on it. I can't recall if that performance boost was a lineup wide thing or just the M3 though, so who knows if it had any impact on the Y.

@Stach. I tried again this AM to see if 4.10s is doable - and you are right.

4.06s and 4.10s up/down same road on Dragy.

2018 LR AWD Model 3 SW v10.2 2020.36
85% SoC, 19" Sportwheels/Stock Tires 42 PSI
79% outside, Dry Road, AC on 73F Auto.

Screenshot_20200905-082719_dragy.jpg Screenshot_20200905-082605_dragy.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: pt19713

BlindPass

Member
Jul 23, 2020
536
369
Florida
Both the MYP and MY AWD seem to hold back the first second off the line, especially compared to an M3. I suspect the 30+ acceleration is quite close between the MY and M3.
Agree, it’s rather noticeable in the Tesla context. The first time we tested the MYP I had to double-check we got the correct trim.

I didn’t expect it to be as quick given weight and profile, but for that to be on the very initial part of the acceleration is a little surprising.

I do wonder if this is strategic by Tesla. The MY is going to sell well regardless of a little less acceleration. If a little quicker, would it cannibalize the M3 too much? I could see Tesla waiting until they have more MY sold, plus modifications and production cost savings to M3, then leverage these captive consumers into freemium performance upgrades for MY and increase price of faster new MY. Such upgrades would also be great marketing of OTA capabilities, even if a ruse and staged
 

Mo City

Active Member
Jul 17, 2016
1,910
11,671
near Houston
I own a Model 3 AWD and test drove a Model Y AWD last month. The MY was noticeably slower. Disappointingly slower IMO.

For me, the one and only way the Model 3 is > Model Y is the from the standpoint of the driver. The Model 3 accelerates faster, is more nimble and more fun. Some prefer being higher off the ground in the Y but that doesn't matter to me.

However, in every other single way the Model Y is clearly superior and it's very obvious to me why it will be Tesla's flagship vehicle for the indefinite future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Exelion and Stach

Stach

Member
Mar 23, 2019
459
239
Madison, WI
@Stach. I tried again this AM to see if 4.10s is doable - and you are right.

4.06s and 4.10s up/down same road on Dragy.

2018 LR AWD Model 3 SW v10.2 2020.36
85% SoC, 19" Sportwheels/Stock Tires 42 PSI
79% outside, Dry Road, AC on 73F Auto.

View attachment 584757 View attachment 584758

I'm confused, you say that you got a 4.06 and 4.10, which is what I've seen others getting, and then you attach photos of 4.39 and 4.40 dragy results. Why the discrepancy and which one is correct?
 

RoBoRaT

Zero Farts Given!
Nov 22, 2018
1,388
1,228
NorthSoCal
I'm confused, you say that you got a 4.06 and 4.10, which is what I've seen others getting, and then you attach photos of 4.39 and 4.40 dragy results. Why the discrepancy and which one is correct?

Tesla uses 0-60 with 1 ft roll out for acceleration. Those numbers are with 1 ft roll out.
 

frankvb

Supporting Member
Feb 29, 2020
902
553
San Diego, CA
Tesla uses 0-60 with 1 ft roll out for acceleration. Those numbers are with 1 ft roll out.
Tesla is making things rather muddled by using the 1ft roll-out number for performance versions, and the regular number for everything else. Makes it impossible to do any proper comparison.

So IMHO the AWD 0-60 should be specified without the roll-out, to be able to compare with the 'official' Tesla number. Though obviously this makes it impossible to tell how far the acceleration boost improves it toward the Tesla-listed performance time :(

Of course the solution is to always use times with or without the roll-out (or even better, just list both).
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Arctic_White

RoBoRaT

Zero Farts Given!
Nov 22, 2018
1,388
1,228
NorthSoCal
Tesla is making things rather muddled by using the 1ft roll-out number for performance versions, and the regular number for everything else. Makes it impossible to do any proper comparison.

So IMHO the AWD 0-60 should be specified without the roll-out, to be able to compare with the 'official' Tesla number. Though obviously this makes it impossible to tell how far the acceleration boost improves it toward the Tesla-listed performance time :(

Of course the solution is to always use times with or without the roll-out (or even better, just list both).

Our TMC predecessors has had the same muddled discussion about this issue with the same predicament - use 1 foot roll out or not.

Here's a snippet of a long thread about 0-60 with 1 foot roll-out numbers used by Tesla to advertise MS specs.

That Motor Trend 1 foot rollout
 

Neilio

Member
Jul 8, 2020
907
531
Brentford
If you want a performance boost for your model Y, surely you'd just upgrade to a 3?

Seems odd to me to buy a car based on practicality and interior space then complain it's not as quick as it's smaller, lighter brother.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imola.zhp

Lostthebeat

Member
Jan 30, 2020
48
18
Orlando
As my Y arrives next week, I need to ask for an unrelated comparison from the 0-60 experts in the room:

Coming from someone who has never driven a Model 3, and is currently driving a 2016 Chevrolet Spark, do you think I will notice the difference in acceleration with my Model Y? Inquiring minds desperately want to know!!!
 

captanzuelo

Member
May 28, 2020
498
693
los angeles
Coming from someone who has never driven a Model 3, and is currently driving a 2016 Chevrolet Spark, do you think I will notice the difference in acceleration with my Model Y? Inquiring minds desperately want to know!!!

The chevy spark is a sub $15k, new age econobox, that takes longer than 10 second to go 0-60. Your jaw will drop the first time you floor that accelerator in your Tesla
 

john5520

Member
Mar 3, 2020
892
633
Florida
Tesla is making things rather muddled by using the 1ft roll-out number for performance versions, and the regular number for everything else. Makes it impossible to do any proper comparison.

So IMHO the AWD 0-60 should be specified without the roll-out, to be able to compare with the 'official' Tesla number. Though obviously this makes it impossible to tell how far the acceleration boost improves it toward the Tesla-listed performance time :(

Of course the solution is to always use times with or without the roll-out (or even better, just list both).

Without roll-out I've seen tested numbers range from 3.6-3.9 0-60 with the boost upgrade for the AWD 3. The discrepancy could be wheels, SOC or slope angle etc. But you're getting the advertised speed and then some. I've also seen 1/4 mile numbers at the track at around 11.7-11.8 or so which is better than expected.

There's no technical reason they can't come out with a boost upgrade for the LR AWD Y, but it could depend on how much they think it might affect MY Performance sales.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Arctic_White

Apprunner

Member
Jul 2, 2019
503
585
So-cal
What muddies it even more is that the Performance 3 0-60 is no longer with rollout. Plenty of people have hit 3 flat with rollout and 3.2 without. They've kept the same 0-60 in 3.2 before the last 5% upgrade. So for the Model 3 range, 0-60 is without rollout across the range.
 

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top