Ingenext Boost Modules [aftermarket]

[MagnusMako]

If the P gets 3.2s 0-60, why did the folks with P's below videos fail to achieve that?

.

I would say with confidence because each of those videos are from a year ago before either of the two free power bumps we received from Tesla. 3.48 is ~3.5 (no rollout), which is pretty much exactly what P3's were getting under ideal conditions before any of the power bumps which came in April then again in October of last year.

 

[Sam1]

If the P gets 3.2s 0-60, why did the folks with P's below videos fail to achieve that?

Again, everything depends on SoC, battery temperature, tires, available grip, etc. The Model 3 Performance can run up to 3.2s 0-60. As demonstrated by many videos online, you'll only get that number at ideal conditions. The dragy video from Rich's channel were not ideal, and neither are the tests above. For the Model S Performance to achieve its 0-60, the battery has to warm up first in Ludicrous+. The Stage 2 package probably sets the same configuration flag for the powertrain as the Stealth/Performance model - it should be the same as a normal performance.

I'm at 3.14, now with 1 mod, and was at 3.18 100% stock, even with all season tires.

It's nothing special, it's just what these awesome cars are capable of.

 

[Jlomb436]

Well, there's up and downs to early adoption: potentials bugs, and getting shafted on the price among other things. If I had waited 4-5 more months, I'd have saved 2k and gotten accessory upgrades (usb-c / charging). But that's how it goes:

2018 AWD MSRP was 53k and that didn't include Autopilot. Then it looks like 4 months later, it went up to 55k. That's what the P goes for today.

And now you want to pay another 4-5k to unlock the P. Might as well trade or sell and get a P. You get the speed, the better suspension, brakes, and all the goodies and abilities.

I honestly wish that were true because if it was a small amount, I'd have pulled the trigger by now. Sales tax alone is a culprit. Depreciation also hurts. My 18 AWD EAP is worth 45m roughly so says KBB. P is $55m. That's 10k. Before the $5000 in sales tax. Not worth it, unfortunately.

 

[john5520]

I honestly wish that were true because if it was a small amount, I'd have pulled the trigger by now. Sales tax alone is a culprit. Depreciation also hurts. My 18 AWD EAP is worth 45m roughly so says KBB. P is $55m. That's 10k. Before the $5000 in sales tax. Not worth it, unfortunately.

I think if you trade in, you only pay sales tax on the difference,but others here can chime in on that. Anyway, you can get a used P. Have you thought about going that route?

 

[ElectricIAC]

Well, there's up and downs to early adoption: potentials bugs, and getting shafted on the price among other things. If I had waited 4-5 more months, I'd have saved 2k and gotten accessory upgrades (usb-c / charging). But that's how it goes:

2018 AWD MSRP was 53k and that didn't include Autopilot. Then it looks like 4 months later, it went up to 55k. That's what the P goes for today.

And now you want to pay another 4-5k to unlock the P. Might as well trade or sell and get a P. You get the speed, the better suspension, brakes, and all the goodies and abilities.

I would gladly trade in my P3D+ on a new, fresh P3D- but i'll need a couple hours to swap over my dipping mirrors, disable the noisemaker, change over the homelink, transfer frunk hooks and of course i'll be keeping my floormats. Never mind that I have free unlimited connectivity but for $10/mo I can live with that cost until the next trade-in.

 

[Jlomb436]

I think if you trade in, you only pay sales tax on the difference,but others here can chime in on that. Anyway, you can get a used P. Have you thought about going that route?

Not in California, sadly. I'm glad that you're in a state that allows that though because that's a life saver.

 

[brandonc85]

Alright. So I have my LR AWD now. Love the feeling of flooring it.

Will I notice a difference with the speed boost?

 

[JPELKA]

Alright. So I have my LR AWD now. Love the feeling of flooring it.

Will I notice a difference with the speed boost?

Heck yea youll notice a difference. Its a half second 0-60

 

[Knightshade]

No different than the other decontenting behind and in front of scenes.

It's absolutely different because it would NOT BE behind the scenes

This isn't "guy picks up new Tesla and it's missing frunk hooks he didn't even know it used to have and Tesla isn't mentioning anywhere"

This is "Guy wants to buy a product Tesla publicly is selling (P unlock for AWD) and gets told "Sorry, newer cars have crappier hardware so your car can't do that"


Do you seriously see no difference there?

It looks like Knightshade ran off the guy who is one of the world's foremost Tesla Model 3 experts (that doesn't work for Tesla).

Yeah that was pretty weird.

He posted a pic of a burned out inverter and mentioned early builds were a crapshoot regardless of binning... so I asked if it meant there were issues with the first 980 rev either way, but later ones were all P quality or if there's still evidence of issues in later revs..... Which seemed the obvious question based on his post....and he got mad and ran off....for...some reason...

On the other hand- if he's unwilling to actually explain anything to anyone, as it turns out appears to be the case since being asked to is "why he doesn't post on the forums" no real loss since he wasn't gonna give us anything useful anyway right?

 

[StealthP3D]

Yeah that was pretty weird.

Actually, it's quite normal for an expert to leave a forum when someone who doesn't know 1/10th of what they know tries to tell them they are wrong.

It's just not worth the conversation at that point. That's not "weird" at all - it's common and normal.

On the other hand- if he's unwilling to actually explain anything to anyone, as it turns out appears to be the case since being asked to is "why he doesn't post on the forums" no real loss since he wasn't gonna give us anything useful anyway right?

On the contrary, I've always found @Ingineer to be highly informative and accurate with his information. But it doesn't take a social scientist to know the value of the information you get from an expert in their field will be proportional to the respect you afford them. He already confirmed the early Model 3 Performance DU's (inverters) were binned but you (predictably) acted like he was full of BS. His explanation matched exactly with mine (the variability was with the early silicon-carbide chips). The chips had considerable variation in terms of how much heat each one generated at any given load.

It's actually quite entertaining that you still deny this after almost two years and a mountain of evidence.

 

[Knightshade]

Actually, it's quite normal for an expert to leave a forum when someone who doesn't know 1/10th of what they know tries to tell them they are wrong.

Which, of course, I didn't do.

I said the pic he posted, and the fact he said ALL the early ones were a crapshoot regardless of binning, made it sound like results you'd expect from NOT binning parts....

I then added:

But if you're positive it happened can you speak to how someone buying a replacement 980 today knows they're getting the "better" one to replace in their P, given there's only the one PN and it doesn't require a VIN to order?

or is it more like "They only did this on the A/B rev parts- and everything later were all up to P spec" so any "new" part today (I think they've up to rev G currently) would be fine in any car

Not sure how that's "telling him he's wrong" rather than "If that's the case for the early stuff- what does that mean today?"

He already confirmed the early Model 3 Performance DU's (inverters) were binned

Well, no.

He claimed they were.

And his only evidence was to post a pic of a burned out one, and then add

Early inverters, even with binning were still a big crap shoot

Which- again- is the opposite of why you bin so that was a really weird result that suggests there's more to the story.


So as I say- I then asked if he could explain if this was just an early-rev thing (since HE mentioned early inverters) and they're ALL good in later revs... or if there's still to this day some secret BINNING and if so how does Tesla know to give you the "right" part when you order one OTC since no VIN is required.

but you (predictably) acted like he was full of BS. His explanation matched exactly with mine (the variability was with the early silicon-carbide chips). The chips had considerable variation in terms of how much heat each one generated at any given load.

It's actually quite entertaining that you still deny this after almost two years and a mountain of evidence.

...what evidence?

Nobody, including you, and now including him, has ever shown any evidence of your claim. Just repeating the claim isn't evidence.



I thought he MIGHT actually be about to do so- but he took his ball and went home when someone asked him a couple of more specific questions about his own picture.

If you want to show ACTUAL EVIDENCE (not just "Elon said so, months before they actually built any!") that'd be great.... and it'll need to explain:

The sooper sekrit hidden SECONDARY parts tracking system Tesla invented for no reason to "mark" the binned ones (versus just giving them a different PN like a sane person)

How Tesla knows to give you the SPECIAL 980 when you order a replacement- since such an order doesn't require a VIN.

The fact we know a number of folks got LR AWD cars delivered and had them flashed to P on the spot because they'd actually ordered a P.... (lemme guess, they ALL, 100%, just got lucky enough to have gotten a "spare" binned 980?)

 

[john5520]

It's probably too early to tell, but has anyone with a 990 have a DU failure?

 

[StealthP3D]

The fact we know a number of folks got LR AWD cars delivered and had them flashed to P on the spot because they'd actually ordered a P.... (lemme guess, they ALL, 100%, just got lucky enough to have gotten a "spare" binned 980?)

I'll let you in on a little secret. Cars have VIN numbers and inverters have serial numbers. Tesla knows the serial number of every inverter in every car. It's called a "database" and every car ever produced by Tesla has a surprising amount of data recorded unique to that car including data collected during the binning process and post-production testing.

While we don't have access to the data, it's a reasonable guess that 80% of those early inverters tested well enough to meet the specs required for a Performance model. This is based upon the natural variability of silicone-carbide power transistors. What this would mean is that MOST, but not all, AWD's met the Performance spec and could be flashed to Performance. I was one of the customers who ordered a Performance and took delivery during the mad rush on the last day of the quarter. The window sticker still said "AWD", not "Performance". However, the car had already been flashed to Performance, they just hadn't yet printed a new window sticker to reflect that. Obviously, they wouldn't flash an AWD to Performance unless the serial number indicated it met the minimum specs for Performance.

The entire reason Tesla binned the drive units to begin with is due to the natural variability of the silicon-carbide. It's the nature of the beast. Sure, Tesla could have told ST Electronics they wanted the chips to have tighter tolerances but that would require ST to raise the prices as they would have to test and sort every chip. These power transistors are a major component of the cost of the drivetrain so the impact to cost would be substantial. Another disadvantage of doing it this way is it wouldn't account for the fact that the chips perform differently once they are aggregated into a circuit and wired to the motor. It's more accurate to test the entire assembled circuit to ensure the whole performs adequately. The natural variability is one of efficiency which means the assemblies with greater efficiency produce less heat under heavy loads.

You continually bring up this ability to flash an AWD into a Performance as evidence that no binning happened but you fail to consider that the binning process does not magically end up with the percentages of Performance and AWD that matches the demand for Performance and AWD cars (there is much more demand for AWD while only a relatively small number of drive units are not suitable for Performance).

In other words, it's to be expected that most AWD's probably meet the spec for Performance. That's the nature of silicon-carbide. Tesla just needed to ensure that none of the "bottom of the barrel" drive units ended up as Performance. That's why they binned in the first place. And doing this for the early production Performance units was simply not an issue for a company like Tesla who looks for the most direct, no-BS way to achieve a successful result and get the cars to market ASAP.

We have had so much confirmation that Tesla was binning, and not a single shred of evidence that they only claimed to be binning (while not actually doing it). Binning was even mentioned by the tour guides to people who were on factory tours. It boggles the mind why you would believe something with no evidence to support it. And, no, a lack of unique part numbers on those early Performance models is not evidence they were not binning (the binning happened AFTER the drive units were assembled!).

 

[StealthP3D]

Which, of course, I didn't do.

I said the pic he posted, and the fact he said ALL the early ones were a crapshoot regardless of binning, made it sound like results you'd expect from NOT binning parts....

I then added:

Not sure how that's "telling him he's wrong" rather than "If that's the case for the early stuff- what does that mean today?"

There's more than one way to tell someone they don't know what they're talking about and if you can't see that's exactly what you did with @Ingineer then I can't help you.

Turning off our access to our best resources simply because you are defending your entrenched position is not a smart thing to do.

 

[Knightshade]

I'll let you in on a little secret. Cars have VIN numbers and inverters have serial numbers. Tesla knows the serial number of every inverter in every car. It's called a "database" and every car ever produced by Tesla has a surprising amount of data recorded unique to that car including data collected during the binning process and post-production testing.

That's great. Same is true of CPUs, and everything else that is actually definitively binned in various MFG industries.

All of em put a different PN on an actually different part to insure the correct spec part goes the correct place, and that the replacement part is correct for warranty purposes too.

It insures when I order a replacement part, I get one with the same performance....since people order by PN, not serial number.

So again- how does Tesla "know" to give me the "special" 980 when I order a new one, since it doesn't require a VIN (or any other identifying info) when you order one?

While we don't have access to the data, it's a reasonable guess that 80% of those early inverters tested well enough to meet the specs required for a Performance model.

If by reasonable you mean "random number based on 0 presented evidence" then sure.

100% might also be reasonable- and explain why 100% of em got the same actual part number

Again you keep saying "mountain of evidence" and only actually presenting "mountain of evidence-free speculation"

Obviously, they wouldn't flash an AWD to Performance unless the serial number indicated it met the minimum specs for Performance.

Or there was no actual difference.

They'd flash an AWD to P then too.

Obviously.

We heard quite a few folks had that happen. I don't recall ANY who were told "Oh, sorry, we can't actually flash this one, we need to get a special magic binned one instead"

The entire reason Tesla binned the drive units to begin with

Objection- assuming facts not in evidence.

You continually bring up this ability to flash an AWD into a Performance as evidence that no binning happened but you fail to consider that the binning process does not magically end up with the percentages of Performance and AWD that matches the demand for Performance and AWD cars (there is much more demand for AWD while only a relatively small number of drive units are not suitable for Performance).

In other words, it's to be expected that most AWD's probably meet the spec for Performance

Or possibly even all of them.

Still waiting for any evidence that's not the case.... you keep insisting you have a mountain of it after all!

That's why they binned in the first place.

Objection- assuming facts not in evidence.

We have had so much confirmation that Tesla was binning

Except, you've continued to present zero confirmation.

"Somebody said" is not evidence. It's hearsay.


You claimed there was a mountain of evidence- and you've not even shown a molehill of it.

, and not a single shred of evidence that they only claimed to be binning (while not actually doing it).

Absolutely untrue.

I cited three specific reasons to support the idea they DID NOT bin.

You didn't credibly address any of them.... (and didn't address the third one at all)

Binning was even mentioned by the tour guides to people who were on factory tours

And a cross-country drive on FSD was mentioned by the CEO of the company in 2016.

That also never happened.

Given how often we have factually untrue info regarding Tesla stuff from folks who should know like delivery advisors, salespeople, and service center employees I don't see why you find "A tour guide just repeated something Elon once said" to be "evidence" of anything besides who the guide follows on twitter.

. It boggles the mind why you would believe something with no evidence to support it

Right back at ya

. And, no, a lack of unique part numbers on those early Performance models is not evidence they were not binning (the binning happened AFTER the drive units were assembled!).

When I order a replacement 980 from Tesla, which doesn't require providing a VIN, how do they know if I need one of the special magic BINNED ones or not?

 

[Knightshade]

There's more than one way to tell someone they don't know what they're talking about and if you can't see that's exactly what you did with @Ingineer then I can't help you.

I mean- I wrote the post- so I submit I have a better understanding of what I said, and why I said it, than you do.

But you apparently believe you know everything, and just "saying so" makes it so, so I can't help you either.

I was intrigued by his "early" and "crapshoot" remarks and was asking for additional information to see if it was a case of "They really did bin at the very start, but found they were all good enough by Rev-B" or something.... since that would actually address one of the current "they didn't BIN" concerns on replacement parts in a way that would make sense with INITIAL binning that they no longer need to do.

Turning off our access to our best resources simply because you are defending your entrenched position is not a smart thing to do.

If he's unwilling to clarify his own remarks or provide additional info he's not being much of a resource though.

At that point he's just another guy mad nobody will take "Because I said so" as an answer.

 

[scubastevo80]

Can we all agree that we don't have conclusive proof one way or another that 980 motors, except maybe an initial batch, were binned and therefore the non-binned would be meaningfully limited? I've loosely paid attention to this issue since 2018, and I haven't found any evidence one way or another, aside from what Elon said publicly. I'm not aware of anyone having transparency into a 980 motor failure due to the inverter failing - certainly Tesla won't provide that info. I'm also aware of 1 or 2 people receiving "stealth P" performance but only paying for a dual motor (I haven't seen 0-60 times or Canbus data from them though). Lastly, and I'll try to put aside the hope my Oct 2018 980 motor car is at some point eligible for a full P upgrade, is that I'm not even sure we know what a current Performance model 980 motor and inverter limitations are (or maybe we are and I'm just not knowledgeable enough on electrical engineering). Could the failure point of the rear motor be 10% higher than current specs? 20%? 5%?

I'd love to see someone with the money and time show us the limits of the P car so we can figure out how to back into the non-P models.

 

[StealthP3D]

I'm not even sure we know what a current Performance model 980 motor and inverter limitations are (or maybe we are and I'm just not knowledgeable enough on electrical engineering). Could the failure point of the rear motor be 10% higher than current specs? 20%? 5%?

There isn't any ONE "failure point". Manufacturers deal in percent of failures. They want that number to be basically zero. We can guess there are Model 3's out there (both Performance and non-performance) that will never have an inverter failure but that would fail if they were driven hard enough over a long enough duration on a hot enough day. It all comes down to the frequency of the failure. The vast majority of them wouldn't fail even if tracked as hard as possible on a blistering hot day. But a small number would.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Glad to see @Knightshade is still fighting the good fight.
Do we have any evidence that 980's in P3Ds are actually programmed to produce any more power than in LR RWD models?
My hypothesis has always been that all the additional power in P3Ds is from the front motor.

 

[diamond.g]

In the spirit of the 980 discussion I do wonder something. If an AWD owner with the 980 suffers a rear motor failure would they replace with another 980 or would the use a 990 instead?