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.
Looks like they updated the MY LR to 5.0 sec. Previously 4.8 sec.
Looks like they updated the MY LR to 5.0 sec. Previously 4.8 sec.
With one of you showing Vancouver as a location and the other Houston, I suspect you're comparing a 0-100 kph time and a 0-60 mph time. 100 kph is slightly faster than 62 mph, so the 0.2 second difference makes some sense.Still shows 4.8 for me...
Personally, I think the ability to charge 100% regularly is a very good thing...it makes charging a normal easy to do, don’t have to think about it task. Right now I have to baby the battery...I have to think not only how much charge but when I charge. Now, I admit, for nerds like us it is no big deal because we are constantly thinking (and writing) about our batteries. But, until it’s like my electric toothbrush and I just plug it in...then it will always be an enthusiast’s car.(moderator note)
I originally moved this post into the regular "Master thread LFP battery" thread, but thinking about it, decided it better fit into this thread on 0-60 times. and updated pricing for that model vehicle. I apologize for moving it twice but the discussion is better seen by people who are interested in the 0-60 times and pricing, and that is what is impacting you here.
=================================
(not moderation content, regular post)
FWIW, I think you are completely 100% justified here in being upset. I would be quite upset as well. I understand why tesla is making this change, because they are thinking that the "entry level" model 3 benefits more from range than performance (and its also cheaper for them), but thats not the car you reserved.
I personally dont get the excitement over "I can always charge to 100%" unless a person drives their entire range out every day. An additional 20 miles range is not going to make much difference on a trip ( you are likely not skipping a supercharger because of it), and for daily use, always charging to 100% instead of 90% doesnt mean anything at all.
Conversely, a slower car is a slower car. You can feel "slower or faster" every time you step on the pedal, regardless of whether you are playing "stoplight hero" or simply driving. There should be a choice for people who reserved (and still want) the higher performance / slightly less range version of the car. If it were me, I would be trying to find one in stock, or canceling my order. I generally dont "settle" for car purchase anymore, not since I have been able to afford to buy new ones.
Wishing you the best of luck, @quickshot23 , at either finding a SR+ with the NCA battery or some other resolution that works for you,.
Found possible reason. AMD Ryzen chipset seems to draw more power than the intel one.Looks like the WLTP range on Giga Shanghai made long range model 3 has reduced from 614 kms to 602 kms (~2% drop). Anyone has insights into this?
Australia and New Zealand websites confirm this on their model 3 design studios.
Found possible reason. AMD Ryzen chipset seems to draw more power than the intel one.
IF the Ryzen APU can pull 10 tflops like Elon proclaimed, it for sure pulls way more than 25 watts. Probably closer to the same power draw as the PS5 (~200 watts).That seems really unlikely to be true. I don't even need to look up the power draw of those chips to know that.
Let's say you're traveling 60 MPH at a good efficiency of 250 Wh/mi. That's an average power usage of 15,000 watts. In order to make a 2% difference in that the new computer chip would need to use 250 to 350 watts more power than the old. That simply isn't true nor would even be in the realm of possibility. I doubt either chip uses much more than 25 watts total.
Any range loss would be due to something else.
IF the Ryzen APU can pull 10 tflops like Elon proclaimed, it for sure pulls way more than 25 watts. Probably closer to the same power draw as the PS5 (~200 watts).
I am not. The MCU and FSD computer are two separate chips. From what folks have determined the new Ryzen APU (MCU) is the same part number in the S/X and 3/Y. So there isn’t a separate GPU. Really I guess we won’t know until someone takes one a part in a 3 or Y.Are you sure you're not confusing the MCU with the FSD computer? Or the MCU in the Model S/X (which is different)?
From what folks have determined the new Ryzen APU (MCU) is the same part number in the S/X and 3/Y.
Yeah looking at the parts catalog you are right. It is possible that the 3/Y are getting the same APU sans the external GPU. Has anyone determined if the APU is Zen 2 or Zen 3 yet?I have read that this is not true.
Just doing a search leads me to believe they are using Zen+ so the APU would be Vega. And it looks like it would have a 45W max power draw which is still higher than 25W, but not as bad as the 130-ish Watts Navi 23 with 10tflops would likely need.Yeah looking at the parts catalog you are right. It is possible that the 3/Y are getting the same APU sans the external GPU. Has anyone determined if the APU is Zen 2 or Zen 3 yet?
Just doing a search leads me to believe they are using Zen+ so the APU would be Vega. And it looks like it would have a 45W max power draw which is still higher than 25W, but not as bad as the 130-ish Watts Navi 23 with 10tflops would likely need.
Yeah it can be up to 45W, it mostly depends on what clocks they are running the chips at, since 12nm isn’t that efficient. I wonder how low they could clock it to mitigate the power draw and still be more responsive than the Intel Atom used before.While the Zen+ can be configured with a TDP of up to 45W that doesn't mean that it's 45W in every application. And even if it were that 45W max in this application do you think the CPU would be maxed out and pulling the full 45W by simply driving the car? I don't.
That seems really unlikely to be true. I don't even need to look up the power draw of those chips to know that.
Let's say you're traveling 60 MPH at a good efficiency of 250 Wh/mi. That's an average power usage of 15,000 watts. In order to make a 2% difference in that the new computer chip would need to use 250 to 350 watts more power than the old. That simply isn't true nor would even be in the realm of possibility. I doubt either chip uses much more than 25 watts total.
Any range loss would be due to something else.
AMD indicates they are not the same:Just doing a search leads me to believe they are using Zen+ so the APU would be Vega. And it looks like it would have a 45W max power draw which is still higher than 25W, but not as bad as the 130-ish Watts Navi 23 with 10tflops would likely need.
Ugh, Zen+ Is better than (the older) Intel Atom, but it really isn’t all that great. The newer Atom cores are what is used in Alder Lake and no one is complaining about performance there…