You’re right in that no-one NEEDS it but thats true of most things. How much you want it is personal taste of course.Just going to play the devil's advocate here and save people some money.Ask yourself, do I really need a half a tick 0-60mph time decrease for TWO GRAND? If the answer is yes, then go for it and be happy. If not, IMO, it's money better spent if you put it towards a quality coilover suspension system.
MY is faster than 90-95% crossovers/SUVs out there as it is (even faster than some of those AMG or M tuned Euros that cost $100k+).
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Does the $2,000 Acceleration Boost upgrade for 0-60 primarily, or increase passing speeds too?
- Thread starter ChimpledPot
- Start date
Well something does not add up, so what is it? If the app reports 623 HP from the battery and a third party measures 502 HP at the wheels via a dyno, that is 80.6% efficiency. So is the app not reporting correctly? If app is correct, where is the extra 12-13 percent loss? What could cause that? And does that 623 HP align to the same RPM as the 502 HP measured? We are assuming so.
That article only refers to MS/MX, so perhaps the MY has different drive train, not as efficient, cheaper. Since the MS and MX are the flag ship models, I would expect those to have the best there is, and the M3/MY may or may not be not quite as good, perhaps a generation behind or different parts to keep costs down? But 13 percent less efficient does not look correct in that case, too much to be just a difference in drive trains. A few percent may be, but not that much. We are missing something else or something is wrong.
That article mentions power electronics but it does not specifically call out the inverter, so I suspect that is the missing piece, otherwise I do not know where the extra 12-13 percent could be lost. 90 percent for inverter and 90 percent for motor/gear reduction = 0.9 x 0.9 = 81 percent, so if the MY motors and gears are not quite as efficient as the MS/MX then that 93 could be a bit lower, say 90 percent, and now we are very close to matching up to the numbers we see.
That article only refers to MS/MX, so perhaps the MY has different drive train, not as efficient, cheaper. Since the MS and MX are the flag ship models, I would expect those to have the best there is, and the M3/MY may or may not be not quite as good, perhaps a generation behind or different parts to keep costs down? But 13 percent less efficient does not look correct in that case, too much to be just a difference in drive trains. A few percent may be, but not that much. We are missing something else or something is wrong.
That article mentions power electronics but it does not specifically call out the inverter, so I suspect that is the missing piece, otherwise I do not know where the extra 12-13 percent could be lost. 90 percent for inverter and 90 percent for motor/gear reduction = 0.9 x 0.9 = 81 percent, so if the MY motors and gears are not quite as efficient as the MS/MX then that 93 could be a bit lower, say 90 percent, and now we are very close to matching up to the numbers we see.
Yes 80 percent seems high. But I do not think that we are not comparing apples to apples either. The 623 HP value in the conversation above is the raw energy from the power source, the battery, not the crank. If comparing apples to apples, the actual power lost in the BEV is much smaller, say 1-2 percent (?) in the gear reduction and bearings from the electric motor's output shaft to the drive wheels. No idea, not my area of expertise.
To compare apples to apples, we need to compare losses from the power source to the output shaft.
In a BEV that will be in the conversion of that battery energy to rotational energy, i.e. the DC to AC inverter, speed controller, and the AC motor. That is the 80 percent we are talking about above.
For an ICE the equivalent would be the energy in the amount of gasoline burned compared to the energy seen at the crank or output of the transmission. Show me any ICE that has 80+ percent efficiency converting gasoline to power at the wheels. None exist. The best I have come across is 56 percent, Mazda Says Its Next-Generation Gasoline Engine Will Run Cleaner Than an Electric Car which was not proven in that article, and the best proven thus far that I found was 50 percent, also referenced in that article. ICE cars on the road today are more like 30-35 percent and that is just the engine, no transmission. And if we looking at cars that produce similar HP and torque, I suspect those numbers will drop even more, to be even less efficient.
Measuring electric vehicle efficiency: What is MPGe? | Current Automotive
A 100 KW battery contains the same amount of raw energy as 2.97 gallons of gasoline. In a MS that 100 KW battery is good for 402 miles, EPA rated, according to latest MS being sold. Show me an ICE of similar size and performance that gets 130+ MPG EPA rated. Even if we adjust that EPA rating to better reflect real world driving, there is no ICE that comes close.
Last edited:
Good point. I am certainly not at all informed about this but it seems measuring wheel HP is the only way to get an apples to apples comparison. Using kW is just reading the amount of energy drawn and really should not be used for power output. I was not arguing energy efficiency.
Last edited:
Just as a courtesy, let's not hijack the OPs topic with all this.
Sorry to beat a dead horse and bring up power again.
You don’t just add the two horsepowers together.
The motors are different and are geared differently, so they don’t hit peak power at the same time. Peak horsepower added together makes big numbers, but aren’t representative of what is happening.
the peak for the 2 motors running simultaneously is around the 500hp mark. However, the individual motors combine to equal more then 500 if you add their individual peaks.
Back to topic, does the power boost make the throttle response quicker? If it does, then from my experience owning a performance 3, the sensitive throttle is actually tiring to use regularly. I jump back and forth between Chill and Sport regularly.
When I test drove a long range Y the other day, I found the “normal” throttle response to be very pleasing, and still “quick”. It made me wish the performance had a “normal” setting between chill and sport.
This might be a consideration. I wouldn’t trade my performance for a non performance because I love ridiculous power and always have. But, the long range is still much quicker then the average car without the higher performance options.
Have you owned ridiculously fast cars before? Would you know you’re actually missing something you haven’t experienced? Or is it fear of missing out?
You don’t just add the two horsepowers together.
The motors are different and are geared differently, so they don’t hit peak power at the same time. Peak horsepower added together makes big numbers, but aren’t representative of what is happening.
the peak for the 2 motors running simultaneously is around the 500hp mark. However, the individual motors combine to equal more then 500 if you add their individual peaks.
Back to topic, does the power boost make the throttle response quicker? If it does, then from my experience owning a performance 3, the sensitive throttle is actually tiring to use regularly. I jump back and forth between Chill and Sport regularly.
When I test drove a long range Y the other day, I found the “normal” throttle response to be very pleasing, and still “quick”. It made me wish the performance had a “normal” setting between chill and sport.
This might be a consideration. I wouldn’t trade my performance for a non performance because I love ridiculous power and always have. But, the long range is still much quicker then the average car without the higher performance options.
Have you owned ridiculously fast cars before? Would you know you’re actually missing something you haven’t experienced? Or is it fear of missing out?
Last edited:
The high efficiencies that Tesla is stating are maximums. Those occur when the motors are run at power levels around 100% of max continuous power. The peak powers quoted, i.e. 500 hp, can be maintained for only a brief time and are well beyond the max continuous power. At these power levels i-squared-r losses become significant.
Although I haven't run these tests on my raven model s, with my p90d during a launch the motor shaft power, as measured by the torque and rpm readings from the canbus, was about 82% of the battery output power. There was also about 3% loss through the transmission to the wheels. I think they have this down to about 2% with the new gears in the transmission.
In addition, there are also losses in the battery. The battery power they quote is at the battery terminals. During launch, the battery voltage would sag from 400 to about 310 while pulling about 1600 amps. So that's another 144kw that's lost as heat. The total power from the battery was 400v at 1600 amps, or 640kw; therefor 144 / 640, or 22.5 percent of the power was lost before it got to the battery terminals, and then another 18 percent loss to convert it to shaft power. That's about 64% overall efficiency.
Although I haven't run these tests on my raven model s, with my p90d during a launch the motor shaft power, as measured by the torque and rpm readings from the canbus, was about 82% of the battery output power. There was also about 3% loss through the transmission to the wheels. I think they have this down to about 2% with the new gears in the transmission.
In addition, there are also losses in the battery. The battery power they quote is at the battery terminals. During launch, the battery voltage would sag from 400 to about 310 while pulling about 1600 amps. So that's another 144kw that's lost as heat. The total power from the battery was 400v at 1600 amps, or 640kw; therefor 144 / 640, or 22.5 percent of the power was lost before it got to the battery terminals, and then another 18 percent loss to convert it to shaft power. That's about 64% overall efficiency.
Last edited:
I was on a 2 lane highway behind a M3 in the left lane that was traveling at the same speed as an ICE in the slow lane — just under the 65 mph speed limit. When a third freeway transition lane opened up I figured I could pass him there. Nope - he got to the lane first. But the lane opened up to two just before the metering lights — which were off. I sped up to finally get in front of him and he sped up to cut me off. So I floored it and left him in the dust at 72 mph. I have the $2k upgrade and am guessing that he didn’t.
Once I passed him and merged into the fast lane I never saw him again.
Once I passed him and merged into the fast lane I never saw him again.
bpon89
Member
Just going to play the devil's advocate here and save people some money.
MY is faster than 90-95% crossovers/SUVs out there as it is (even faster than some of those AMG or M tuned Euros that cost $100k+).
This is exactly what I'm going to do. Since MY already very fast, I'd rather spend the money on the luxury coilover suspensions. But I'd also like to do the 48 hour refundable test when I make a trip out somewhere farther than my daily.
How much is accelerator response changed? And is it as touchy as the performance the performance response?
I have a performance 3 and know how snappy the accelerator is, and I like how the “normal” response was on the non performance Y. I don’t want the performance accelerator response on a non performance car.
I have a performance 3 and know how snappy the accelerator is, and I like how the “normal” response was on the non performance Y. I don’t want the performance accelerator response on a non performance car.
My one experience with a car that had acceleration boost didn't have a jerky pedal at all. Very linear but you just felt more oomph.
