Let's discuss Dual Motor range

[commasign]

The 3LR tests out at 126 MPGe and 334 miles. So, a decent guesstimate for the 3P would be 116/126ths of 334 = 307 miles ... pretty much spot-on the 310 figure.

^^^^THIS!!!^^^^

So, debate settled? Or any folks here still believe Model 3 AWD will have more range than Model 3 RWD? Please, don't bring up the arguments "The P is optimized for performance so maybe the non-P will be more efficient" or "We still need to wait for official non-Tesla-adjusted EPA range numbers" cause the writing is on the wall. Ok if you want to stay for the ceremony but the game itself is over.

 

[ℬête Noire]

^^^^THIS!!!^^^^

So, debate settled? Or any folks here still believe Model 3 AWD will have more range than Model 3 RWD? Please, don't bring up the arguments "The P is optimized for performance so maybe the non-P will be more efficient" or "We still need to wait for official non-Tesla-adjusted EPA range numbers" cause the writing is on the wall. Ok if you want to stay for the ceremony but the game itself is over.

The people that bet on the spread still care because a "meaningless field goal" remains a possibly. EDIT: That's what I've been here for for weeks now.

To what degree, if any, does the eMPG procedures require a vehicle to utilize the maximum acceleration that it is capable of?

 

[commasign]

To what degree, if any, does the eMPG procedures require a vehicle to utilize the maximum acceleration that it is capable of?

EPA supervisor to EPA tech: "I got this. You can go home. And turn off the camera on your way out."

 

[Knightshade]

As excited as everyone is about their blue jeans, I'm even more interested in this thread's topic, Model 3P range.

This is great sleuthing by JeffK on the 116 MPGe EPA figure.

The 3LR tests out at 126 MPGe and 334 miles. So, a decent guesstimate for the 3P would be 116/126ths of 334 = 307 miles ... pretty much spot-on the 310 figure.

Wonder if the 3D will be about the same ...

EPA says 310 FWIW per the window sticker

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/cb943c96-6063-4311-b696-0065797e46f7-jpeg.317007/

 

[Thomas Edison]

So that sticker isn't specific to performance package. Only to performance motor right? Meaning the reason (difference from first production version) it gets the estimated 8% less is the fact that it's carrying the ~400 lbs of dead weight in the front when it's in RWD mode on the highway (Becasue AC motor can full torque sleep and PM can't) assuming I got all my facts right.

 

[ℬête Noire]

So that sticker isn't specific to performance package. Only to performance motor right? Meaning the reason (difference from first production version) it gets the estimated 8% less is the fact that it's carrying the ~400 lbs of dead weight in the front when it's in RWD mode on the highway (Becasue AC motor can full torque sleep and PM can't) assuming I got all my facts right.

I thought AWD only added about 215lb?

 

[Thomas Edison]

I thought AWD only added about 215lb?

Let's say it does, then what say you?

 

[ℬête Noire]

Let's say it does, then what say you?

By "Performance package" did you mean the extra $5K Performance Upgrade? EPA testing is normally done with the base equipment, not optional equipment. So 18" wheels and not the upgraded calipers (or the spoiler).

 

[kengchang]

I thought AWD only added about 215lb?

It's only 82lb on Mars!!

 

[Thomas Edison]

By "Performance package" did you mean the extra $5K? EPA testing is normally done with the base equipment, not optional equipment. So 18" wheels and not the upgraded calipers.

Yeah, the extra weight of the wheels and the like. So if it's the base then the only weight difference over the first production is in fact the front motor setup. (My original suggestion)

 

[ℬête Noire]

It's only 82lb on Mars!!

I miss working in SI units as I did regularly before I moved to this sugarhole country.

 

[Petra]

EPA says 310 FWIW per the window sticker

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/cb943c96-6063-4311-b696-0065797e46f7-jpeg.317007/

Okay, this probably going to sound stupid, but....

The sticker shows 310 miles EPA range and 29kWh per 100 miles consumption.

Sooo... 29kWh/100mi. * 310mi. = 89.9kWh

If we assume that's at the wall and knock off 10% to account for charging efficiency (can't remember the actual number from the previously released EPA test documents), that comes to 80.91kWh to hit 310 miles.

Stupid thought: what if they just made the battery a smidge bigger for the performance version to hit their targets, both from a power and range standpoint?

 

[JeffK]

Okay, this probably going to sound stupid, but....

The sticker shows 310 miles EPA range and 29kWh per 100 miles consumption.

Sooo... 29kWh/100mi. * 310mi. = 89.9kWh

If we assume that's at the wall and knock off 10% to account for charging efficiency (can't remember the actual number from the previously released EPA test documents), that comes to 80.91kWh to hit 310 miles.

Stupid thought: what if they just made the battery a smidge bigger for the performance version to hit their targets, both from a power and range standpoint?

That is my theory but I'm also overly optimistic.

 

[Thomas Edison]

Okay, this probably going to sound stupid, but....

The sticker shows 310 miles EPA range and 29kWh per 100 miles consumption.

Sooo... 29kWh/100mi. * 310mi. = 89.9kWh

If we assume that's at the wall and knock off 10% to account for charging efficiency (can't remember the actual number from the previously released EPA test documents), that comes to 80.91kWh to hit 310 miles.

Stupid thought: what if they just made the battery a smidge bigger for the performance version to hit their targets, both from a power and range standpoint?

If that's true then the AWD wouldn't really be 310mi range, but less than advertised.

 

[cbutters]

Okay, this probably going to sound stupid, but....

The sticker shows 310 miles EPA range and 29kWh per 100 miles consumption.

Sooo... 29kWh/100mi. * 310mi. = 89.9kWh

If we assume that's at the wall and knock off 10% to account for charging efficiency (can't remember the actual number from the previously released EPA test documents), that comes to 80.91kWh to hit 310 miles.

Stupid thought: what if they just made the battery a smidge bigger for the performance version to hit their targets, both from a power and range standpoint?

I know this kind of speculation without facts is dangerous and counterproductive, but I remember in the battery teardown it seemed like there were 4 rows of batteries.. the two middle ones were packed more full than the outer two were by a few inches.... possibilities of them dropping 4 equal length battery rows in the performance/awd models for battery boost?

*edit* Just reviewed the video:

Looking at it again seems like a stretch that they'd be able to fit any more in there... the side battery modules are shorter to allow for bolts and things it looks like...

**edit 2**
Just found the pack opened and close-up at timestamp 01:00:55 and there is actually a bit of room for additional batteries in there.... total speculation though

 

[JeffK]

I know this kind of speculation without facts is dangerous and counterproductive, but I remember in the battery teardown it seemed like there were 4 rows of batteries.. the two middle ones were packed more full than the outer two were by a few inches.... possibilities of them dropping 4 equal length battery rows in the performance/awd models for battery boost?

Yes, there was extra space in the outer two modules.

 

[Thomas Edison]

~8% seems like a lot of a loss for ~215 lbs of added weight. Doesn't add up to me. Can someone set me strait?

 

[Petra]

If that's true then the AWD wouldn't really be 310mi range, but less than advertised.

We don't know anything about the non-performance AWD car. For all I know, maybe the AWD has the same battery as the performance car or maybe it doesn't. Maybe the performance car is geared a little shorter, hurting efficiency, and necessitating a larger battery to hit targets (talking a few kWh, so minimal increase in cost of goods and easily absorbed by the significant price increase of the performance version over AWD).

*shrug* I'm just working from the numbers on the window sticker for the performance car.

 

[Thomas Edison]

We don't know anything about the non-performance AWD car. For all I know, maybe the AWD has the same battery as the performance car or maybe it doesn't. Maybe the performance car is geared a little shorter, hurting efficiency, and necessitating a larger battery to hit targets (talking a few kWh, so minimal increase in cost of goods and easily absorbed by the significant price increase of the performance version over AWD).

*shrug* I'm just working from the numbers on the window sticker for the performance car.

Different gearing doesn't seem like it would be worth the extra effort to manufacture if you could just up the amps for the gains listed.

 

[JeffK]

We don't know anything about the non-performance AWD car. For all I know, maybe the AWD has the same battery as the performance car or maybe it doesn't. Maybe the performance car is geared a little shorter, hurting efficiency, and necessitating a larger battery to hit targets (talking a few kWh, so minimal increase in cost of goods and easily absorbed by the significant price increase of the performance version over AWD).

*shrug* I'm just working from the numbers on the window sticker for the performance car.

That old German paper did say 90 kWh for AWD but that was from February
Das Model 3 ist Teslas neues Glanzstück

Long bumps and ruts are less of a problem, but on transverse joints of all kinds, the Model 3 is extremely sensitive. Partial remedy promises the air suspension, which is to be offered from this summer in conjunction with all-wheel drive and the stronger 90 kWh battery.

We know the air suspension is not happening this year, but this was the first we had heard about the possibility of a 90 kWh battery.