How does the Performance version have the same 310 range?

[Carl_Drogo]

Perhaps a dumb question, but I don’t know anything about electricity. My intuition tells me that it requires more power / energy to get the extra acceleration. So theoretically the range should be reduced unless Tesla put a better or bigger battery in the car or Tesla is artificially limiting the non Performance versions. If it’s the latter, does that mean the Performance battery might not last as long (since it would mean the battery is being more ‘stressed’, so to speak)?

Like I said, I don’t know jack about this stuff, so I’m just guessing, but very curious what the correct answers are.

Thanks very much

 

[jbcarioca]

There appear, at least to me, to be two distinct explanations for the seeming discrepancy.

First, the EPA certified range for the Model 3 LR is 334 miles, but at Tesla's request the stated range is 310 miles (That information comes from ten EPA form and is posted in another thread or two here)

Second, the Performance model and the AWD LR have the same motors, but the P has motors and electrical equipment selected to have the best performance characteristics. There are certainly some other changes like brake upgrades and other equipment. Despite that the motors being optimized differently front and rear allows AWD to have better efficiency in nearly all driving circumstances than will the RWD.

Clearly the more one uses all that "P" the higher will be energy consumption. I am not an expert on these matters but it seems confirmed that all three LR models have similar range, officially. Unofficially, if all the reports are true it seems very likely that when driven in exactly the same manner and conditions the probable greatest range would be the P3D, then 3AWD LR then 3 RWD LR. All have the same nominal range.

My personal experience driving a Model 3 LR for several hundred miles is that it handily exceeds rated range.

 

[PhaseWhite]

I agree with @jbcarioca some were expecting the AWD range to even be higher like what happened with the Model S, but they forget that that increase in range also coincided with a smaller rear motor on the AWD non P model. Here the motors are the same and there might be a small advantage by being able to optimize which motor is in use based on optimal gearing. That said I think the extra weight in this case outweighs that and you'll probably get better efficiency in the 3LR than the 3LRD. The P model should get identical range to the 3LRD if driven the same, but in the real world, and with larger 20" wheels it will get noticeably lower efficiency. I'd guess real world range of P model will be more like 280 miles (10% reduction because of wheels)

 

[dreamwave6]

Perhaps a dumb question, but I don’t know anything about electricity. My intuition tells me that it requires more power / energy to get the extra acceleration. So theoretically the range should be reduced unless Tesla put a better or bigger battery in the car or Tesla is artificially limiting the non Performance versions. If it’s the latter, does that mean the Performance battery might not last as long (since it would mean the battery is being more ‘stressed’, so to speak)?

Like I said, I don’t know jack about this stuff, so I’m just guessing, but very curious what the correct answers are.

Thanks very much

Carl. The answer is simple. Just because the extra acceleration is there doesn’t mean you have to use it. Sure, if you floor it, do lots of Ludicrous Launches, etc., then the range will go down. On the other hand, if you accelerate reasonably and don’t push it, the range will be comparable. Same as with the P100D Model S and Model X.

Andrew

 

[ucmndd]

. Same as with the P100D Model S and Model X.

Not exactly. The S/X “P” models do indeed have a lower rated range because they have a larger rear motor.

 

[shrspeedblade]

Carl. The answer is simple. Just because the extra acceleration is there doesn’t mean you have to use it. Sure, if you floor it, do lots of Ludicrous Launches, etc., then the range will go down. On the other hand, if you accelerate reasonably and don’t push it, the range will be comparable. Same as with the P100D Model S and Model X.

Andrew

This is one of the greatest things about a Tesla that I don't think gets emphasized enough.

With my BMW 3/Boss 302 my experience was and with any other fast car you pay for that ability to accelerate every time you drive the car.
With a Tesla you can be fast when you want to- and double the efficiency of a Prius when you don't!

(And with a Prius, you "pay" for the efficiency every time you have to drive the car, too! )

 

[Ejl80]

The same reason my 340 can get 35 mpg on the highway that my 328 did... And the same reason my 340 can get like 5mpg if I floor it all the time. Just because it CAN pull more kW, doesn't mean it HAS to.

 

[RayW]

The energy required is mass x (delta v)^2... accelerating to 60mph requires the same energy regardless of how quickly you do it, disregarding minor losses due to increased heat in the battery pack, motor, etc.

 

[scaesare]

The energy required is mass x (delta v)^2... accelerating to 60mph requires the same energy regardless of how quickly you do it, disregarding minor losses due to increased heat in the battery pack, motor, etc.

However electrical losses due to resistance go up with the square of current and thus can be not so minor...

 

[ucmndd]

The energy required is mass x (delta v)^2... accelerating to 60mph requires the same energy regardless of how quickly you do it, disregarding minor losses due to increased heat in the battery pack, motor, etc.

The fact that a Tesla battery pack will overheat and dramatically reduce power after a lap or two of at-the-limit track driving should be the first clue that those losses can be anything but “minor”...

 

[ewoodrick]

The best way to look at it is to just add a little weight for the new motors, but don't use them. So you are basically looking at the same specs as the RWD version. If a light switch is turned off, the lights don't draw power.

Now turn the lights on, and your efficiency goes to crap. No one ever said that ludicrous was efficient.

So basically, it is like some combustion engines, if you don't need the cylinder, just turn it off.

 

[FlyNavy01]

The fact that a Tesla battery pack will overheat and dramatically reduce power after a lap or two of at-the-limit track driving should be the first clue that those losses can be anything but “minor”...

The packs perform just fine at the track. In the Model S/X it's the rotors and inverters that overheat.

In the Model 3 it's the brakes that get cooked first. Search around the forums, a few folks have tracked the Model 3 (competitively even) and once the brakes are upgraded it has no overheat issues.

 

[Twiglett]

The fact that a Tesla battery pack will overheat and dramatically reduce power after a lap or two of at-the-limit track driving should be the first clue that those losses can be anything but “minor”...

That is not an accurate statement.
Especially given this thread is discussing the Model 3
Evidence in fact points to the Model 3 specifically NOT having overheating drive train issues.
Even from the Model S perspective, as @FlyNavy01 points out, the battery packs do not overheat, but other components so.

 

[ucmndd]

That is not an accurate statement.
Especially given this thread is discussing the Model 3
Evidence in fact points to the Model 3 specifically NOT having overheating drive train issues.
Even from the Model S perspective, as @FlyNavy01 points out, the battery packs do not overheat, but other components so.

Thank you for the corrections.

 

[FlyNavy01]

Thank you for the corrections.

I didn't mean to come off as a know-it-all (if I did I apologize). I just like to try and stop the spread of misinformation when I can. No real fault of yours as that's an easy misconception to make.

People are often too quick to jump down your throat on the internet

 

[ucmndd]

I didn't mean to come off as a know-it-all (if I did I apologize). I just like to try and stop the spread of misinformation when I can. No real fault of yours as that's an easy misconception to make.

People are often too quick to jump down your throat on the internet

Nope, very much appreciated. I heard something long ago that was false and/or incomplete. Appreciate the accurate info.

 

[mongo]

There appear, at least to me, to be two distinct explanations for the seeming discrepancy.

First, the EPA certified range for the Model 3 LR is 334 miles, but at Tesla's request the stated range is 310 miles (That information comes from ten EPA form and is posted in another thread or two here)

Second, the Performance model and the AWD LR have the same motors, but the P has motors and electrical equipment selected to have the best performance characteristics. There are certainly some other changes like brake upgrades and other equipment. Despite that the motors being optimized differently front and rear allows AWD to have better efficiency in nearly all driving circumstances than will the RWD.

Clearly the more one uses all that "P" the higher will be energy consumption. I am not an expert on these matters but it seems confirmed that all three LR models have similar range, officially. Unofficially, if all the reports are true it seems very likely that when driven in exactly the same manner and conditions the probable greatest range would be the P3D, then 3AWD LR then 3 RWD LR. All have the same nominal range.

My personal experience driving a Model 3 LR for several hundred miles is that it handily exceeds rated range.

Along with this, the 3P motors are binned /sorted so they are more efficient/ powerful than stock AWD, so that provides an efficiency increase.
Possibly enough of an increase to overcome the extra mass and friction of the front AC induction motor.
Whereas the S/X has two AC Induction motors with different gear ratios that trade off operation for peak mileage, the 3 will likely rely heavily on the more efficient rear PMSR motor.
When not energized, the front motor produces no additional drag beyond the purely mechanical effects.

 

[malcolm]

First, the EPA certified range for the Model 3 LR is 334 miles, but at Tesla's request the stated range is 310 miles

+1

And ambient temperature is another significant factor, affecting both maximum range of EVs and seasonal variations in mpg for ICE vehicles.

 

[timk225]

If the 3 actually has 334 miles of range, why won't mine show more than 310 at 100% charge?

 

[DR61]

If the 3 actually has 334 miles of range, why won't mine show more than 310 at 100% charge?

Because Tesla chose that number (approximately) to display. It is probably more realistic for most drivers, especially if they have the 19" wheel option. The 334 mi range is for the 18" base wheels and is determined by the EPA tests, not necessarily your driving.