I guess the silver lining of “software limited” is that it implies “software upgradable”.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
2006 Chrysler 300C
2016 VW Beetle
2018 Tesla Model 3
I think you might be in a demographic of 1.
2006 Chrysler 300C
2016 VW Beetle
2018 Tesla Model 3
I think you might be in a demographic of 1.
Probably
Although, the VW is just surrogate to ride over the gap. Wife chose it as she'll get it after I receive the Tesla. The Chrysler was my best and most reliable car I've ever owned (and that includes 2 Audis), 11 years and ~130k miles and apart from being bit thirsty (with 5.7L V8 and heavy shoes), it had very few repairs or even maintenance. I guess I got the good copy, since Chrysler is not known for reliability. The 2006 was with the Daimler co-operation though, so plenty of items were from MB. But about 18 months ago I got feeling that about every wearable part was about to wear down and it was more worth trading in than fixing it all, and I didn't think I could wait long enough for Tesla to arrive so Beetle it was.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Consider what happened shortly before the M3 was out.
They software upgraded the S75 from "slower than the much cheaper M3" to "almost a full second faster 0-60 than the much cheaper M3"
That to me pretty clearly says they don't want a non-P M3 that is faster than any still-for-sale Model S.
Which means the AWD non-P model 3 is probably gonna advertise 4.9 0-60, a relatively tiny performance boost but they get to say it's in the 4s
two reasons there.
1) If it ran low 4s it defeats the reason they uncorked the S75 in the first place comparatively.
2) If it ran low 4s they have a lot less room to justify the (almost certainly a lot more than 10k) upgrade price for a P model.
But make the M3 AWD run 4.9 around 55-60k (with PUP and SAS) and you can then offer a P3 AWD that runs high-3s around 75-80k (also with PUP and SAS)...and maybe they go back to Ludicrious being another 10k option on the P3 to get you into the low 3s.... THAT gets you 3 things-
The regular P3 is priced like an S75D, so you get to pick smaller/quicker (3) or bigger/slower (D)
The P3L is priced close to a S100D, and you again get to pick smaller/quicker (3) or bigger/slower (S)
The P100D remains king of the hill, at a king of the hill price.
EV-lutioin
Active Member
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
Well, seeing as how the current rear wheel drives are running around 4.6 in spite of
Tesla's 5.1 quote I am guessing the dual motor will gain about a half second on that and then performance to about the mid 3s.
Dan
So August plus six months is February. Are you saying it arrived last month?
Just kidding. I know the point you were making. Although engineering beta AWDs were out last month.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
I've only seen one 4.6 source- from dragtimes... they did 2 runs, one was a high 4.6 the other was a 4.9.... and as the comments note it was with 1 ft rollout which improves times
Tesla Model 3 accelerates from 0-60 mph in 4.6 secs – faster than Tesla advertises
Motortrend got 4.8.... so while I agree 5.1 is probably conservative I think 4.6 is probably...optimistic... for typical real world results.
Then again- Tesla doesn't ship with awesome tires, so that might help times once folks get some PS4ses on there or something.
No idea why you think dual motor alone would gain .5 seconds though. Dual motor on the S75 only gains 0.1 seconds from a much more powerful car (as evidenced by it being much heavier and still running low 4s)
In a way, the Model S seems like a different ballgame: the Model 3 is currently motor-limited and not battery-limited. Per a teardown by Ingineerix the battery is good for 1200 amps, so an AWD 3 could be capable of significantly more than its single motor with a 700 amp inverter. Whether the AWD 3 improves more than 0.1s seems more about software/marketing and less about physics. I agree that Tesla could definitely leave a lot on the table though if they think it’s better for sales.
For close to 3 years dual motor S were .5sec faster than their rwd counterparts.
You make a good argument, however I think the 100D is already faster than Tesla claims in their marketing and they may have tipped their hand already. I know @Krash remembers when Tesla started showing 3.5sec 0-60 times before fixing the glitch on their website. My bet is the 100D gets a performance bump to make room for the P3D. Tesla could do this now but they want the bigger gap between 100D and P100D to capture more higher margin sales until the high margin 3 is ready.
I think it's unlikely that a 35k base price car would top out at 100k. 85k I'm thinking will be the top end
I will be very disappointed if I'm forced to get airbag suspension with an all wheel drive performance version of the Model 3. Why over complicate the design and guarantee an expensive failure component for later in the life of the car. Please keep it performance oriented.
EV-lutioin
Active Member
I agree they are sandbagging the 100D numbers a little (Tesla unlocks even more power in Model S 100D, 0-60 mph now down to 3.6 seconds). The 100D should already be capable of 3.6s which makes sense: the 100D battery can discharge at 311kW compared to the 75D at 245kW (EV Database). The Model S Owner’s Manual indicates the large motors are good for 285kW and the small motors 193kW. So the 100D should still be battery limited but not as much as the 75D. If the 75D weren’t battery limited it could probably be a lot faster than the 75.
The Model 3 currently has the opposite problem: the battery is capable of 370kW, which is impressive. If the Model S had the same pack/cells it might be faster, so I wouldn’t be too surprised to see 2170 cells in a redesigned S even though Elon discounted that possibility last June. When we have two motors on the Model 3, though, it should also be capable of a lot more since the single motor is only good for 192kW. Again, AWD could very well be software limited though.
Tjhappel
Member
Does Toyota use air or hydraulic suspension? Land cruiser and lx both have hydraulic suspension.
Your stats are a bit dated, The latest version of the S100D puts out 427Kw at the battery. The battery is certainly capable of more. We can't be sure about motors and inverters yet.
See
Upgraded performance Metrics Summary
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
I'm taking it that you think it's a 1 to 1 link that there is no way to get 1 without the other.
He said linked, he didn't say both were required.
Consider an option tree with AWD as either on or off, and Air suspension on or off but only if you also got AWD.
We don't know for 100% certainty that he meant it that way but we don't know for certainty that he meant it in a 1 to 1 link either.
If you think AWD is less reliable than RWD you haven't been paying attention to the Model S reliability. AWD teslas can limp home when a motor fails, RWD get the flat bed no matter what.
If you meant air suspension is less reliable I'm with you on that one.
(Rear) Air suspension in my Sequoia. Here is the manual reference and a photo. Note that we do not adjust it very often.
Similar threads
