Does anyone know the hardware differences between the P3D and 3D?

[WarpedOne]

Based on all evidence so far, there's no HW difference at all, the 3D is simply software limited (regarding rear motor output and likely the general acceleration curve)

Total and utter BS.

Anyone who has ever built 'the same thing' in more than one sample, knows he did not built them exactly the same.
No two engines nor motors are really the same.
They are built against the same specification within a set of tolerances i.e. max allowed deviations from specification.

The most critical aspect of electric motor is its resistance and/or impedance. Again, no two motors built to the same specs end up having exactly the same resistance, some get a bit higher than most, some get a bit lower than most, the most get something in between.
If you measure every single unit and single out the ones with lowest resistance, you can pump more current through them, producing more torque and power with same heat output as those other with higher resistance.

Voila - lot sorting of "same HW", that is not the same. The P motor got built to the same specs but ended better than usual.

 

[animorph]

Plenty of ICE cars have "detuned" versions of higher output engines. Plenty of ICE engines leave power on the table and can gain from being chipped. Doesn't mean the manufacturer screwed the customer by not giving them the absolute maximum power they could squeeze out of an engine. There is a balance of power, efficiency, reliability, safety, durability, lifetime, warranty cost, and more I'm sure. Hack them later when they're out of warranty.

I once ran my slot car (for those that remember) at a higher voltage than it was designed for. It was much faster! But it pretty nearly burned my fingers after only a few minutes of racing. Last time I tried that, since i didn't want to buy a new motor.

 

[Quickturtle]

I wonder if you do realize that your logic implies that there would be dramatic power output variations between performance models as well as between regular AWD models of the car, which would be extremely problematic from a quality control standpoint. I think your argument is utter BS. Those variations off the lot are at most percent level, and at orders of magnitude from accounting for the differences between the cars.

Total and utter BS.

Anyone who has ever built 'the same thing' in more than one sample, knows he did not built them exactly the same.
No two engines nor motors are really the same.
They are built against the same specification within a set of tolerances i.e. max allowed deviations from specification.

The most critical aspect of electric motor is its resistance and/or impedance. Again, no two motors built to the same specs end up having exactly the same resistance, some get a bit higher than most, some get a bit lower than most, the most get something in between.
If you measure every single unit and single out the ones with lowest resistance, you can pump more current through them, producing more torque and power with same heat output as those other with higher resistance.

Voila - lot sorting of "same HW", that is not the same. The P motor got built to the same specs but ended better than usual.

 

[Swampgator]

Total and utter BS.

Anyone who has ever built 'the same thing' in more than one sample, knows he did not built them exactly the same.
No two engines nor motors are really the same.
They are built against the same specification within a set of tolerances i.e. max allowed deviations from specification.

The most critical aspect of electric motor is its resistance and/or impedance. Again, no two motors built to the same specs end up having exactly the same resistance, some get a bit higher than most, some get a bit lower than most, the most get something in between.
If you measure every single unit and single out the ones with lowest resistance, you can pump more current through them, producing more torque and power with same heat output as those other with higher resistance.

Voila - lot sorting of "same HW", that is not the same. The P motor got built to the same specs but ended better than usual.

Your logic is predicated on the motors being the limiting factor here. I do not believe that is the case. The battery limit of 1200A is the power limiting factor. The RWD model 3 has a weight to Hp ratio of 14.3 and gets to 60 in roughly 5 seconds. The Tesla semi uses 4 of these and if the Hp is still 271 as listed for RWD Model 3 then the weight to Hp ratio would be over 18. How then can the Semi achieve the same 0-60 time as the RWD Model 3? Well, the Semi is estimated to have a 900mwh battery pack. I'm sure it is capable of delivering much more power to the motors, therefor the motor has more headroom than it's rated Hp and is limited by energy delivery.

 

[WarpedOne]

Your logic is predicated on the motors being the limiting factor here.

If RWD was limited by battery power, AWD would have exactly the same performance - it uses the same battery.
Another motor can only help if RWD is limited its motor.
Yes, the bottleneck could be in the inverter but this changes nothing - the unit is still limited by heat removal and different units end up being slightly different even though they are built to the same specs.

Our discussion will not change the facts though. Anyone wanting to belive Tesla is screwing them, will continue to believe so and preach this 'fact'.

 

[Swampgator]

No I'm with you there. I don't consider anyone is getting screwed. Tesla limits the power to the motors using software and inverters. Interesting that the AWD model limits the rear motor hp vs the RWD model. Pretty sure they are the same part so why would Tesla do that? I think some of that is product differentiation, but some may also be to reduce stress on the rear motors since you have two available, and maybe to improve efficiency. I don't believe Tesla is binning the least powerful motors to the AWD models in the rear, do you?

 

[Daniel in SD]

If RWD was limited by battery power, AWD would have exactly the same performance - it uses the same battery.
Another motor can only help if RWD is limited its motor.

That's not really true. The Model 3 doesn't reach peak power until about 45mph. You could achieve a faster 0-60 just by hitting peak power sooner.
Anyway I doubt there is much power variation between drive units. I do wonder whether they are even sending more power to the rear drive unit in the performance model or if all the performance improvement is coming from the front motor.

 

[WarpedOne]

Pretty sure they are the same part so why would Tesla do that?

Tesla told you why and I also explained it why - production variations and part binning.

The rear unit in non-perf AWD will have to deal with less max current than in RWD cars.
Tesla can thus use those few rear units who end up having higher internal resistance producing higher loses and more heat.
They do not have to scrap them and they do not have to lower the max output of RWD cars.
Win, win, win.

Try to understand that all motors are not produced equal even though they are designed to be equal.

 

[Swampgator]

So you think Tesla is putting lower spec units for the rear of AWD cars? We will just have to disagree on that.
Maybe down the road a few months Ingineerex can get a hold of one and sort this out.
Personally I have an AWD on order but don't really care how they did it. As long as I get 450hp I'm a happy camper!

 

[WarpedOne]

So you think Tesla is putting lower spec units

?

Me, 3 post above yours:

Yes, the bottleneck could be in the inverter but this changes nothing - the unit is still limited by heat removal and different units end up being slightly different even though they are built to the same specs.

I guess part binning is incomprehensible concept to select few.

 

[MXWing]

I think we are splitting hairs here:

Let’s establish some undisputed facts:

1.) Motors are the same between AWD and P (known at this time)
2.) The “same” motors can still vary in output for same heat, wear and tear.
3.) Tesla is not screwing anyone even if they software limit. You paid for a 4.5 second car, you got a 4.5 second car.

The question what everyone wants to know is if all AWD motors are capable of P and if Elon is selling extra burn and sorting to make people feel better about an 11K software unlock.

Again - there is no issue if it is a software unlock but strangely people have some hang up over that.

Value is nothing but willingness to pay. Period!!

Don’t believe me?

Bitcoin

 

[Jigglypuff]

Value is nothing but willingness to pay. Period!!

Don’t believe me?

Bitcoin

Shots fired! Shots fired!

 

[MXWing]

?

Me, 3 post above yours:



I guess part binning is incomprehensible concept to select few.

Part binning is a real thing lol. However as an example, the worst Ryzen 7 Series CPU can hit 3.8GHZ without any issue.

Can the worst AWD motor hit P easily?

I think that’s what people are trying to figure out?

 

[Jigglypuff]

Lots of people who have fried overclocked processors. Parts binning is a real thing. I can make my computer crash if I overclock it.

You can chip your Golf GTI and get 300HP from 220HP. However lots of people with dead turbos and dead motors. Happened to a friend with his old A4.

I did tune my FRS. However, it's a mild tune in an NA car. It just fills in the torque curve. Many people did forced induction on their cars and killed their motors.

 

[WarpedOne]

Can the worst AWD motor hit P easily?

An electric motor will "hit" whatever power you feed it.

The question is for how long a duration until some insulation inside it gives up (short-circuit), bearings wear beyond designed limits, rotor deforms beyond tolerances, etc. Higher the temperature, faster the degradation.

Electric motor is a 'converter' - it converts the current into heat and torque.
Provide more current and it will produce more heat and more torque.

It is possible motor production quality will surpass RWD demand and some RWD-grade motors will come to AWD and be 'underspecced'.

Every single RWD should be capable of P performance (torque), but not evry single RWD unit would see equal lifetime in P-AWD use. Some/many/few would fail soon/er.

 

[MXWing]

Lots of people who have fried overclocked processors. Parts binning is a real thing. I can make my computer crash if I overclock it.

You can chip your Golf GTI and get 300HP from 220HP. However lots of people with dead turbos and dead motors. Happened to a friend with his old A4.

I did tune my FRS. However, it's a mild tune in an NA car. It just fills in the torque curve. Many people did forced induction on their cars and killed their motors.

You have to know what you are doing... and it depends a lot on overclocking/overdriving headroom you have access to.

Though it really is an academic discussion as I don't think

1.) You shouldn't steal from Tesla.
2.) You are asking for pain messing with -INTEGRATED SYSTEMS- you can't easily take it down to your local tuner to fix if something goes wrong.

 

[Knightshade]

It is possible motor production quality will surpass RWD demand and some RWD-grade motors will come to AWD and be 'underspecced'.

It's also possible every motor can hit RWD grade and all of them could run at P specs if the software were unlocked without issue, for years.

Likely even.

Why?

They've been making RWD motors for over a full year now.

They just started building AWD cars.

So either they stockpiled a bunch of "bad" motors for eventual AWD use... or they're all hitting the spec, and some are a couple percent better or worse beyond that spec in a way that's largely irrelevant.

 

[WarpedOne]

Yes, it is possible there are unicorns ...

 

[Knightshade]

Yes, it is possible there are unicorns ...

Like people who think RWD motors are magic but literally the same part in another car isn't?


All available evidence is it's a software lock- and the only binning happening at all is putting the "best" motors in the P, and best is likely a tiny % better, in the P cars- and that's not making them any higher performing, it's just making it more likely Teslas warranty costs will be that same tiny % lower.


This has numerous other advantages-


it greatly reduces Teslas costs as far as supply chain, manufacturing complexity, warranty/inventory parts issues, etc... rather than having numerous versions of the parts they have to track and incur cost and complexity in regards to.

It allows significant product differentiation between the 3 model 3 configs without any cost to Tesla beyond the time to write the software

It leaves room for future uncorking/unlocking of enhanced features via OTA updates, as they've done in the past with other models- either at a cost for profit or for free if competition requires it (both of which Tesla has done in the past)

 

[adaptabl]

That upgrade is the line in the firmware code base:

reduce_power = False # set to True for regular AWD model

No different than AP.