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

For AWD owners wanting a P3D-

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Tesla dishonestly uses a different measurement for P vs non-P versions of the same car.

Every other car company measures ALL their models the same way. Tesla, not so much.

The listed time for the P (S, X, and 3) is with rollout. They don't use rollout for the measured times for any other trim of their vehicles.

Only rational explanation for this dishonesty is to push folks toward the higher-priced version of the vehicle.

We don't know why Tesla rated them different.

One explanation could be SOC (state of charge). The P3D might be more rated to hold near a 3.2 time at lower SOCs whereas a AWD loses performance rapidly.

There really hasn't been a lot of testing.


I mean, when you think about it, when you buy a P3D you really aren't buying performance. The AWD and P3D are capable of similar performance.

You are buying increased battery wear and the likelihood that the battery will be warrantied near year 8.

Acceleration is really, really hard on the battery. So much that Tesla warns Ludicrous owners.


The P3D seems to consume more power above 40 mph at low SOC.

wykHvKJ.png




The AWD, being artificially limited, seems to drop off a bit above 40mph.

71qs2fB.png



Granted these graphs aren't comparable since they are on different software versions, but the second graph does include P3D at 75% for reference.


I mean, the P3D at 75% beats the pants off the AWD at near full battery.
 
Last edited:
We don't know why Tesla rated them different.

One explanation could be SOC (state of charge). The P3D might be more rated to hold near a 3.2 time at lower SOCs whereas a AWD loses performance rapidly.

There really hasn't been a lot of testing.


I mean, when you think about it, when you buy a P3D you really aren't buying performance. The AWD and P3D are capable of similar performance.

You are buying increased battery wear and the likelihood that the battery will be warrantied near year 8.

Acceleration is really, really hard on the battery. So much that Tesla warns Ludicrous owners.


The P3D seems to consume more power above 40 mph at low SOC.

wykHvKJ.png




The AWD, being artificially limited, seems to drop off a bit above 40mph.

71qs2fB.png



Granted these graphs aren't comparable since they are on different software versions, but the second graph does include P3D at 75% for reference.
We don’t know, I don’t think, how much of that power is converted to acceleration vs lost to inefficiency in each model, either. Do we? Could be the 980 motor can take more power than the 990, but it may not be as an efficient consumer/converter of power as the 990. I don’t really know, just saying...
 
Last edited:
We don’t know, I don’t think, how much of that power is converted to acceleration vs lost to efficiency in each model, either. Do we? Could be the 980 motor can take more power than the 990, but it may not be as an efficient consumer/converter of power as the 990. I don’t really know, just saying...

Pretty sure the difference between the 980 and 990 parts is Tesla is using a lower-cost low current MOSFET now to get more margin out of the lower models.

Which is why a unlock may not happen unless Tesla attempts to explain to people why some cars can get it and others cannot within the same model line, which is an uncomfortable thing to do.

Power ICs aren't cheap, and optimizing that part of the car is easy to do and benefits margin on future and existing models.
 
We don't know why Tesla rated them different.

One explanation could be SOC (state of charge).


Err...At the kmh equivalent of 60 mph, the Ps power dropped more than the AWD did from 90->70% SoC.

The AWD is only down a mere 10 KW from 90% SoC to 70% SoC at ~60 mph.

The P is down roughly 3 times that much in the same SoC drop at ~60.

Which makes some sense since we know the AWD is being held back by software not any actual battery/motor HW limitation.



That said- none of that explains, in any way, why Tesla rates all of their P vehicles using a different 0-60 measurement than their non-P vehicles.

A practice nobody else in the auto industry engages in, because it's clearly dishonest.

Either a company measures ALL their cars with rollout (GM for example) or they measure NONE of their cars that way (BMW for example).

It'd be like if they listed the mileage of one version of a car using the European ratings and another using the US one. (Which, like the 0-60 thing, would make one car look artificially better in comparison- since the Euro numbers are always 'better' but also like the 0-60 thing would leave the average consumer unable to accurately compare the 2 cars).

Even worse, the average buyer probably isn't even aware they're doing it since they've actively hidden this info (there used to be a pretty clear disclaimer about it back in the P85 days but I guess they wanted to make it even harder to notice they were being dishonest about it)


The Ps 0-60 gets worse with lower SoC too. Every EV does. That's not a "difference" requiring dishonest spec listings.

What makes it worse is when the 3 first came out, Tesla in a pleasant surprise did not do this... (though they've always done it on the S/X).

Many hoped it represented a change in policy with Tesla becoming more honest about their specs since they were going "mass market" with the 3...

And then a while later they just reverted back and dropped the P3s 0-60 without actually doing anything to make the car any faster, simply by switching the public # to rollout, while leaving the others listed without.
 
The Ps 0-60 gets worse with lower SoC too. Every EV does. That's not a "difference" requiring dishonest spec listings.

The difference is the AWD artificially gets worse.

Go back to that 2nd graph again. Why does the AWD at 75% drop power from 90% at all? The P3D at 75% is capable of way more power.

Same inverter (supposedly). Same motor (supposedly). And definitely the same battery.


I'm guessing the 4.4 spec is the 50% power curve so Tesla doesn't get a class action lawsuit since the AWD is basically a P3D (for now) but software limited. With software emulation of performance drop based on SOC.

It's not until 150 kph (90 mph) that the 75% curve of the P3D and AWD mysteriously start to match. The AWD has programmed software limiting. Including artificial SOC limiting.
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure the difference between the 980 and 990 parts is Tesla is using a lower-cost low current MOSFET now to get more margin out of the lower models.

One wonders why they're not using it in the even cheaper SRs though...

Which is why a unlock may not happen unless Tesla attempts to explain to people why some cars can get it and others cannot within the same model line, which is an uncomfortable thing to do..


Tesla has already done this- a number of times...just a few examples-

Only "some" P75 owners got the performance uncorking- depended if your car was built before/after a certain date.

Ditto AP2 folks who don't get dashcam.

Heck they even offered paid upgrades for some P85 owners back in the day
 
Err...At the kmh equivalent of 60 mph, the Ps power dropped more than the AWD did from 90->70% SoC.

The AWD is only down a mere 10 KW from 90% SoC to 70% SoC at ~60 mph.

The P is down roughly 3 times that much in the same SoC drop at ~60.

Which makes some sense since we know the AWD is being held back by software not any actual battery/motor HW limitation.



That said- none of that explains, in any way, why Tesla rates all of their P vehicles using a different 0-60 measurement than their non-P vehicles.

A practice nobody else in the auto industry engages in, because it's clearly dishonest.

Either a company measures ALL their cars with rollout (GM for example) or they measure NONE of their cars that way (BMW for example).

It'd be like if they listed the mileage of one version of a car using the European ratings and another using the US one. (Which, like the 0-60 thing, would make one car look artificially better in comparison- since the Euro numbers are always 'better' but also like the 0-60 thing would leave the average consumer unable to accurately compare the 2 cars).

Even worse, the average buyer probably isn't even aware they're doing it since they've actively hidden this info (there used to be a pretty clear disclaimer about it back in the P85 days but I guess they wanted to make it even harder to notice they were being dishonest about it)


The Ps 0-60 gets worse with lower SoC too. Every EV does. That's not a "difference" requiring dishonest spec listings.

What makes it worse is when the 3 first came out, Tesla in a pleasant surprise did not do this... (though they've always done it on the S/X).

Many hoped it represented a change in policy with Tesla becoming more honest about their specs since they were going "mass market" with the 3...

And then a while later they just reverted back and dropped the P3s 0-60 without actually doing anything to make the car any faster, simply by switching the public # to rollout, while leaving the others listed without.

And why would they do this? I posit, to sell more higher margin units, such as the P+. Capitalism at its finest! :rolleyes:

Very happy with the LR AWD and the two “For Free” performance upgrades received since I bought the car in late June. It’ll be a pass for me now on a “For FEE” performance upgrade, should one ever materialize. Enjoy your 3’s, all! :)
 
One wonders why they're not using it in the even cheaper SRs though...

They probably are, or will be. The LC (low current) parts only started showing up in the parts database very recently.

Tesla is entering the high-volume stage where $50, $100, or $200 of extra margin significantly matters on the bottom line vs the complexity of supply chain management of multiple parts. Need to order from the IC vendor in volume of hundreds of thousands to millions to make sense. IC tape-out is expensive. $100,000 just to make etching masks for silicon if these are custom.

They can probably save a lot more re-designing the chassis if the Model 3 is as over-engineered as they say, but re-doing crash testing and approval is probably waaay more expensive.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: MagnusMako
Someone really needs to do a tear down on that 990 motor. I’m sticking with my theory that it has a max (average?) current limit of 630A vs. 840A, as circumstantially suggested in screen captures of reman units (presumably LC and HC) in the catalog several months ago. Would fit with the 630A max power level of the AWD seen now, maybe.

Model 3 Motors Power Outputs

By your "logic" the SR(+) should also have a 990 as it's lower power output on the rear motor than the Performance (and here they would want to save money - so let's not conclude anything without clear "facts").

Doesn’t this post (yours!) above show that the SR+ is registered with greater HP than the AWD currently has from the rear motor alone? I am actually asking here, not trying to make a point, because honestly I have not been following all the numbers super closely lately. Partly I don’t follow the declared numbers, because they sometimes don’t seem to align with the reality, for reasons I don’t always fully understand.

In any case, seems possible they want to leave plenty of headroom for power increases (to the limit of the battery) on the SR+.

If 990 is now maxed out, the SR+ might be underpowered if it had the 990, wouldn’t it?
 

I’m familiar with that use of LC as an electrical engineer, but I don’t believe that is what the abbreviation refers to in this case.

My guess is low current and high current, but I have no idea, really. All we know is that HC seems associated with the 980 and LC refers to the 990. At least that is my recollection (the details/evidence is in that Motors thread).
 
...Which is why a unlock may not happen unless Tesla attempts to explain to people why some cars can get it and others cannot within the same model line, which is an uncomfortable thing to do.
...

This is what happened with the uncorking of the S75D. Typically disorganized communication from Tesla as to which cars were eligible. It wasn't a strict date or VIN cutoff; they had to access a certain byte in the configuration. Most cars made after a certain month were eligible but my car was just on the cusp and was one of the unlucky ones. It was a lease so i didn't care but this did eliminate any possibility of my buying it out at end of lease.
 
I’m familiar with that use of LC as an electrical engineer, but I don’t believe that is what the abbreviation refers to in this case.

My guess is low current and high current, but I have no idea, really. All we know is that HC seems associated with the 980 and LC refers to the 990. At least that is my recollection (the details/evidence is in that Motors thread).

But it could be HC with "Y" conversion efficiency for the 980, and LC with "X" (>"Y") efficiency for the 990. I don't know, but just saying there may be more than one variable at play here....
 
They probably are, or will be. The LC (low current) parts only started showing up in the parts database very recently.

That's simply not true.

990s have been in the parts catalog since 2018...and have physically been showing up in cars (starting in Europe) since very early this year.

If it's a cost saving item why wouldn't you put it in your lowest margin cars- the SR/SR+?

Especially since the 990 only began appearing in production cars around the same time the SR/SR+ were introduced- yet those keep being delivered with 980 DUs.
 
This is what happened with the uncorking of the S75D. Typically disorganized communication from Tesla as to which cars were eligible. It wasn't a strict date or VIN cutoff; they had to access a certain byte in the configuration. Most cars made after a certain month were eligible but my car was just on the cusp and was one of the unlucky ones. It was a lease so i didn't care but this did eliminate any possibility of my buying it out at end of lease.

That's actually a good clue because I don't recall it being related to DU at all, rather it was battery pack and/or fuse related (I've got my bullet proof vest on waiting for someone to correct me). There's so much focus on DU's (980 vs 990, etc.) but the community is likely barking up the wrong tree.
 
The SINGLE 3.86 run is including the 1ft rollout as quoted by dragy.

The guys time w/o rollout is 4.08, a full 0.3s more. Somethings shady since all the other AWD owners are getting a 0.2s between the two measurements.

At any rate, the P3D is still a full 1 second faster 0-60.

I would say more like a 0.88 second faster if we are comparing fastest times known so far (2.98 v 3.86). Also, the guy with 3.86 is me. I think there are just other variables which may account for it. In particular, the slope I ran that at is -0.87%, just shy of the 1% grade margin of validation (others did not have as much negative slope). Secondly, my SoC was at 94%. None of the other results I've seen so far are near that - all posts near my time are with a sub 80% SoC. Additionally, my subsequent runs (as you can see below) were all 4.1x at 3.9x with rollout as my SoC dipped into the 80's. Even my 4.21 run was 3.99 with rollout.

LOWRES.png


Here's one of those which had a perfect 0.00% slope. Probably around 88% SoC. A solid 3.9 time (3.92) and 0.24 difference from no rollout.

392.png


I've attached the other one's just in case people want to see the data.

396.png 397.png 399.png
 
I would say more like a 0.88 second faster if we are comparing fastest times known so far (2.98 v 3.86). Also, the guy with 3.86 is me. I think there are just other variables which may account for it. In particular, the slope I ran that at is -0.87%, just shy of the 1% grade margin of validation (others did not have as much negative slope). Secondly, my SoC was at 94%. None of the other results I've seen so far are near that - all posts near my time are with a sub 80% SoC. Additionally, my subsequent runs (as you can see below) were all 4.1x at 3.9x with rollout as my SoC dipped into the 80's. Even my 4.21 run was 3.99 with rollout.

View attachment 478048

Here's one of those which had a perfect 0.00% slope. Probably around 88% SoC. A solid 3.9 time (3.92) and 0.24 difference from no rollout.

View attachment 478053

I've attached the other one's just in case people want to see the data.

View attachment 478057 View attachment 478061 View attachment 478062

Sweet! Good to see more data!

Now if we can get more P3D data....
 
That's actually a good clue because I don't recall it being related to DU at all, rather it was battery pack and/or fuse related (I've got my bullet proof vest on waiting for someone to correct me). There's so much focus on DU's (980 vs 990, etc.) but the community is likely barking up the wrong tree.


Given we know for a fact all the other parts are exactly the same between P and AWD, as you can see yourself in the parts catalog, no I don't think they are.