Is the Model 3 AWD+ the least expensive sub 4 second 0-60 car?

[gavine]

Yup.

AFAIK the 5 quickest cars under 4 0-60, sorted by price lowest are:


1. Tesla Model 3 LR AWD without boost- $48,990, 3.9 seconds (only thing on the list below 50k)
2. Tesla Model 3 LR AWD with boost- $50,990, 3.5 seconds
3. Audi RS3- $56,200, 0-60 in 3.7 seconds.
4. Tesla Model 3 Performance- $56,990, 0-60 in ~3 flat
5. C8 base corvette- $59,995, 0-60 in ~3 flat


Sorting those by performance is almost exactly the reverse (I'd put the vette at #1 since it's .2 quicker in the 1/4 as a tie breaker- and the Audi slips one notch to sit between the AWD and AWD+

Need to adjust the Tesla prices due to the price drop that just happened.

1. Tesla Model 3 LR AWD without boost- $46,990, 3.9 seconds (only thing on the list below 50k)
2. Tesla Model 3 LR AWD with boost- $48,990, 3.5 seconds
3. Tesla Model 3 Performance- $54,990, 0-60 in ~3 flat
4. Audi RS3- $56,200, 0-60 in 3.7 seconds.
5. C8 base corvette- $59,995, 0-60 in ~3 flat

 

[1.21GW]

The crazy thing, even with Acceleration boost, I have become accustomed to the acceleration and long for more... I think this is just part of the addiction. It will only be temporarily cured with the upcoming Tesla roadster... Now I just need to start a gofundme...

 

[brandonc85]

Yup.

AFAIK the 5 quickest cars under 4 0-60, sorted by price lowest are:


1. Tesla Model 3 LR AWD without boost- $48,990, 3.9 seconds (only thing on the list below 50k)
2. Tesla Model 3 LR AWD with boost- $50,990, 3.5 seconds
3. Audi RS3- $56,200, 0-60 in 3.7 seconds.
4. Tesla Model 3 Performance- $56,990, 0-60 in ~3 flat
5. C8 base corvette- $59,995, 0-60 in ~3 flat


Sorting those by performance is almost exactly the reverse (I'd put the vette at #1 since it's .2 quicker in the 1/4 as a tie breaker- and the Audi slips one notch to sit between the AWD and AWD+



Even if you raised your spend cap to $99,000 there's only 2 other cars that'd get on the sub-4 list to my knowledge-

The Camaro ZL-1 which is 3.5 or 3.6 depending on who tested it and runs around 62k for the base with no added options

The Challenge Hellcat Redeye which is a little over 71k and lists a 3.4 0-60 but I've yet to find any car mag test that got better than 3.7 without slicks and a prepped track.

(Special mention I guess to the Mustang GT500 which I've only seen preliminary 0-60s on in the 3.6-3.7 range and is like 74k base and can get north of I think 95k loaded and apparently is a nightmare to launch well but don't think you can actually get one yet... outside of the ritual blood sacrifices the Vette engineers do it's just not super effective to have much north of 500 hp (let alone the 700+ HP of these american cars) and not be AWD)


If you go over 99k of course you immediately hit the P100D that beats everything else to 60.





...why would you reply to a thread about sub-4 second cars with a list of cars that run slower than 4 seconds?

What? The LR AWD 3 is 3.9? I thought it was 4.4.

 

[1.21GW]

What? The LR AWD 3 is 3.9? I thought it was 4.4.

It is with the 1 foot roll out time removed. A magazine typically removes the roll out time, so if you saw the LR AWD tested by Car and Driver they would likely say it does 3.9-4.0.

The first 1 foot typically takes 0.2-0.3 seconds.

 

[Knightshade]

What? The LR AWD 3 is 3.9? I thought it was 4.4.

Tesla, unlike everyone else in the car industry, measures some of their cars one way- and some of them another way.

it's incredibly dishonest, and they've been doing it for years.

They measure the P models using 1 foot rollout (same way US car mags do- and some american car companies do).

They measure the non-P models WITHOUT rollout (same way some foreign car makers like BMW do)

Nobody but tesla uses BOTH methods, just to deceptively make the gap between P and non-P look larger than it is.


In reality when measured the same way the P is about 0.5 seconds quicker 0-60 than the AWD+ (LR AWD with boost), and about 0.9 quicker than the AWD without boost.

 

[brandonc85]

It is with the 1 foot roll out time removed. A magazine typically removes the roll out time, so if you saw the LR AWD tested by Car and Driver they would likely say it does 3.9-4.0.

The first 1 foot typically takes 0.2-0.3 seconds.

Thanks! Had no idea!

 

[SammichLover]

Technically, it’s liquified dinosaur. Congealed dinosaur is what you use to fix a squeaky suspension component.

Technically it is congealed and then liquified algae and plankton.**



** Most widely accepted theory, there are suggestions of abiotic sourcing (geologically created, not from living material) out there and while there's some reasonable evidence that it occurs with methane the evidence that most hydrocarbons are abiotic in origin is fairly weak.

 

[SammichLover]

P85+ is a beast. Love that car.

Had one as a loaner and it is an unabashedly raw ride. From standing you punch it and you're forced to work the steering wheel like you've got a couple of hogs wresting in the trunk as the wheel hop starts on one rear wheel and then transfers to the other, and back.

 

[Ywoodu]

It is with the 1 foot roll out time removed. A magazine typically removes the roll out time, so if you saw the LR AWD tested by Car and Driver they would likely say it does 3.9-4.0.

The first 1 foot typically takes 0.2-0.3 seconds.

So, in doing the math would the 1 foot rollout take about 0.4 to 0.5 seconds? Is that how we get from the 4.4 seconds down to 3.9? If so, that looks to be a rather long time. As you mentioned most cars only take 0.2 to 0.3 seconds. With Tesla’s near instantaneous torque I would have thought it would be a smaller gap. Or is there something wrong with my logic?

 

[1.21GW]

So, in doing the math would the 1 foot rollout take about 0.4 to 0.5 seconds? Is that how we get from the 4.4 seconds down to 3.9? If so, that looks to be a rather long time. As you mentioned most cars only take 0.2 to 0.3 seconds. With Tesla’s near instantaneous torque I would have thought it would be a smaller gap. Or is there something wrong with my logic?

Tesla’s 4.4 second estimate is very conservative. Check the image below from a LR AWD car without the acceleration boost. (Using Dragy performance meter) The 0-60 includes roll out time and the 0-60(1ft) removes the roll out time.

 

[SammichLover]

Tesla’s 4.4 second estimate is very conservative.

Tesla's 4.4s estimate was very likely drive by a desire to create more differentiation from the Performance, to help encourage up-sells.

 

[gavine]

Had one as a loaner and it is an unabashedly raw ride. From standing you punch it and you're forced to work the steering wheel like you've got a couple of hogs wresting in the trunk as the wheel hop starts on one rear wheel and then transfers to the other, and back.

Exactly

 

[Knightshade]

Tesla's 4.4s estimate was very likely drive by a desire to create more differentiation from the Performance, to help encourage up-sells.

Yup.

After the first free 5% performance boost they dropped it from 4.5 to 4.4

After they second one they didn't change it at all.

 

[mreynolds767]

Yup.

After the first free 5% performance boost they dropped it from 4.5 to 4.4

After they second one they didn't change it at all.

Yeah; a firmware update increase the power/speed but it never changed on Tesla's website. That was around October/November 2019 or so.

 

[MagnusMako]

So, in doing the math would the 1 foot rollout take about 0.4 to 0.5 seconds? Is that how we get from the 4.4 seconds down to 3.9? If so, that looks to be a rather long time. As you mentioned most cars only take 0.2 to 0.3 seconds. With Tesla’s near instantaneous torque I would have thought it would be a smaller gap. Or is there something wrong with my logic?

My car was hitting 4.3 (for a best time), non 1 foot rollout time prior to any power increases they did. I would hit 4.4 often as well, and most others were also hitting 4.4, less hitting 4.5. So definitely conservative by Tesla, on top of being listed using a different test method than the P3, like Knight said to create an artificially bigger gap that would upsell people to buy P3's.

Here's a chart of the time improvements for my car, which the site has not been updated to reflect whatsoever. Most owners are hitting 3.9 all day on a full charge using 1' rollout test method.

 

[john5520]

The nature of EVs lends to a consistency in reported times that is pretty much absent in the ICE world.

 

[Gizmo35]

You guys a making me want to buy the performance boost now. At least it is still nice to have the option.

 

[SammichLover]

The nature of EVs lends to a consistency in reported times that is pretty much absent in the ICE world.

Only a matter of time before it forces rule changes in the competitive hobby drag races that use the "consistency" handicapping approach.

 

[john5520]

You guys a making me want to buy the performance boost now. At least it is still nice to have the option.

If I had a dollar for every time I thought about getting it, I'd be a billionaire.

 

[singerdesign]

ONE MORE THING...
I’m not seeing anyone mention the cost of ownership, but when you take that into consideration the Model 3 pulls ahead.

Most of the gas guzzlers require extra regular maintenance that makes them cost much more over ti

ONE MORE THING...
I’m not seeing anyone mention the cost of ownership, but when you take that into consideration the Model 3 pulls ahead.

Most of the gas guzzlers require extra regular maintenance that makes them cost much more over time

At the time of writing this I wasn’t thinking battery cost

Most likely I’ll eat some words

Have you seen the cost ?? Jiminy Christmas