-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
CR full test of Model 3 - falls short on recommendation
- Thread starter jtpassat
- Start date
N8Howell33
Member
I agree with this. Too many drink the Tesla Kool-Aide and think they have no flaws. Do I love my model 3? ABSOLUTELY. Is it perfect? NO. Is anything perfect? NO. I trust consumer reports. They do standard testing for all cars (to weed out bias) and they use their money from subscribers to buy cars (so they can remain independent. The good news is this issue is fixable as stated via OTA. I get you probably won't ever slam on your brakes at 60 mph but if there is an issue I am glad someone noticed it and can get it corrected from my garage (which is a HUGE benefit of Tesla).
Exactly... and to add that Elon is not a god and he is flawed like everyone else. The one advantage Tesla has over all other car companies is that they can make incremental changes at any given moment.
insaneoctane
Well-Known Member
Where did this statement come from? I think everything has been conjecture so far. Tesla hasn't even acknowledged CR results to my knowledge.
thelastdeadmouse
Member
I'd be very curious to see what would happen if they took the same car, replaced the rotors and pads, then repeated the braking test. We've already seen that just a couple laps on the track completely eroded a set of pads, it seems possible the pad compound is at fault for both of these. Perhaps they chose an unusually soft compound for some reason that's highly susceptible to glazing, which would explain why they were able to get one good stop and then had significantly reducing braking performance after that.
Last edited:
128 feet is still too much. It should be under 110 Feet. Last M3 was 104 feet, current M3 is 99 feet.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
12Pack
Member
Well, I must say I’m not too surprised. I also find the braking on my MS P100D quite inconsistent and overall poor given its acceleration - certainly compared to my performance car. My layman’s view is that they haven’t quite accounted for the weight of these cars in spec’ing the brakes.
wrote a long post in another thread about this, tried to edit it to fit in this thread's existing discussion...
The number in CR's testing does look concerning compared to other vehicles. As mentioned earlier, CR described the results for the Model 3 as "far worse than any contemporary car we’ve tested." They reported 152 feet for the 3 vs. 132, 136, and 135 in their testing of the BMW 3 series, Mercedes C Class and Audi A4. Tesla told CR that in their own testing of the 3, the average result was 133 feet with the same tires as CR used in their testing. Interestingly, CR says their first run of this test did have a 130 feet braking distance, but, on average the distance was 152 feet. CR got a second car from a private owner to confirm their results, which they report the second car as doing.
On CR's website I noticed something else somewhat unexpected about these results. They do a wet and dry version of this test. The Model 3 had a 1 foot variance between wet and dry (all the numbers in the paragraph above are for the dry test). The BMW, Mercedes, and Audi, had differences of 7, 8, and 10 feet between the dry and wet tests.
Finally, CR mentioned that they had discussed this with the Testing Director at Car and Driver, who reported in their own testing they saw wide variability in this emergency braking for the Model 3, including this comment “and in 11 years, no car has stood out with inconsistent braking like this. Some trucks have. . . . It was just weird.”
CR only mentioned Car and Driver. Wonder if they reached out to other's who've tested the car. Motor Trend reports 119 feet 60-0 braking. As "privater" linked above, Edmunds got numbers that stack up well with BMW, Mercedes and Audi's cars in the class.
Hard to know what is going on, but, I think we will hear quite a bit from Tesla.
The number in CR's testing does look concerning compared to other vehicles. As mentioned earlier, CR described the results for the Model 3 as "far worse than any contemporary car we’ve tested." They reported 152 feet for the 3 vs. 132, 136, and 135 in their testing of the BMW 3 series, Mercedes C Class and Audi A4. Tesla told CR that in their own testing of the 3, the average result was 133 feet with the same tires as CR used in their testing. Interestingly, CR says their first run of this test did have a 130 feet braking distance, but, on average the distance was 152 feet. CR got a second car from a private owner to confirm their results, which they report the second car as doing.
On CR's website I noticed something else somewhat unexpected about these results. They do a wet and dry version of this test. The Model 3 had a 1 foot variance between wet and dry (all the numbers in the paragraph above are for the dry test). The BMW, Mercedes, and Audi, had differences of 7, 8, and 10 feet between the dry and wet tests.
Finally, CR mentioned that they had discussed this with the Testing Director at Car and Driver, who reported in their own testing they saw wide variability in this emergency braking for the Model 3, including this comment “and in 11 years, no car has stood out with inconsistent braking like this. Some trucks have. . . . It was just weird.”
CR only mentioned Car and Driver. Wonder if they reached out to other's who've tested the car. Motor Trend reports 119 feet 60-0 braking. As "privater" linked above, Edmunds got numbers that stack up well with BMW, Mercedes and Audi's cars in the class.
Hard to know what is going on, but, I think we will hear quite a bit from Tesla.
Given the small difference between wet and dry, a possible explanation could be that the ABS system is detecting wheel lock that's just not there and is being too conservative in dry conditions. If it were very close to an edge case, you'd get a system that sometimes produced 130-ish ft results and sometimes 150-ish foot results not correlated to actual conditions. That seems to be close to what CR & Car and Driver are seeing. Motor Trend's 119 is a bit of an outlier.
Tesla could easily confirm that's what happened with logs. No need for them to fire back with "but it worked when we tested it"
Maybe? I sort of think ABS controllers are a bit of an embedded system at this point. Not sure how much they log. I'm sure Tesla can log what sort of force is currently applied to the brake pedal, but less convinced they can log ABS decision making.
TT97
Active Member
If the ABS is being ultra conservative, tires with poor grip will cause the ABS to engage more often in hard stops. Depending how often the ABS engages would cause inconsistent stopping distances.
So is most of the car. Brakes are 100% electronic and are also used with autopilot, hard to imagine there aren't detailed logs for everything from pedal input to hydraulic pressure.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
That's with wider max performance tires on a lighter car. 128 feet is with all-season tires. The performance model should have better braking distances.
They were not testing the performance version of the Model 3.
CR's testing of the 3 series was 132 feet. fwiw, Mercedes C Class and Audi A4 were 136 feet and 135 feet in their tests. 133 feet for the Model 3 would be right in class.
Still the issue of what CR got in their testing of the 3, of course.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
When you slam on the brakes the ABS should be modulating the brake pressure all the way down to 0mph. Stickier tires just make the stopping distance shorter, they don't make the ABS modulate less.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
