Let's discuss Dual Motor range

[cbutters]

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



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.

Wow... with the EPA numbers and that german article there is now a semi-solid case to be made for a larger battery on performance cars... If I remember correctly... didnt the first iteration of the Performance Model 3 configurator list the "Performance option" separately in the Battery section? If so would be one more piece of data...

Again.. disclaimers for speculation.

 

[ℬête Noire]

~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?

The induction front motor is almost certainly less efficient than the rear permanent magnet based rear motor that the RWD and P/D share, so any extra thrust that comes through that motor will lower the overall efficiency proportionally. The difference in efficiency is about 10% so if the split is 1/3 - 2/3 front vs back drive units that translates to about %3.5 loss there.

Then you have the small friction loses and slight loses to that even an free spinning induction motor causes (it's better at "torque sleep" than the permanent magnet motors but still will act somewhat like a generator when it's not being used to drive).

 

[kengchang]

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

It was rough when I moved here too, Metric was so easy lol

 

[Knightshade]

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



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.

It appears to be a completely unsourced claim, with parts of it already proven untrue.

So, I mean, this post is the first you're hearing about the possibility of a 137 kWh battery in the model 3.

It's not happening, but you're now heard about the possibility!

A 90kwh battery would likely have better, not worse, range than a 75 even with the extra motor... and it'd seem nonsensical for them to do an 80 out of the blue and have to deal with different battery packs while trying to ramp production.

 

[Petra]

and it'd seem nonsensical for them to do an 80 out of the blue and have to deal with different battery packs while trying to ramp production.

I'm not going to disagree, but working the numbers on the window sticker brings you to 80.91kWh to travel the rated 310 miles, assuming 90% charging efficiency...

 

[EnrgyNDpndnce]

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

Welcome to America! And, since you are arguably in THE BEST state in the union, welcome to ‘Murica! ;-)

 

[clostridium]

I'm not going to disagree, but working the numbers on the window sticker brings you to 80.91kWh to travel the rated 310 miles, assuming 90% charging efficiency...

Exactly - the EPA number is from the outlet power consumption which means you have to adjust for charging efficiency like you did.

That is a larger battery than the 75 kWh that tesla has claimed but others have calculated 80.5 kWh using epa data previously.

 

[Candleflame]

The induction front motor is almost certainly less efficient than the rear permanent magnet based rear motor that the RWD and P/D share, so any extra thrust that comes through that motor will lower the overall efficiency proportionally. The difference in efficiency is about 10% so if the split is 1/3 - 2/3 front vs back drive units that translates to about %3.5 loss there.

Then you have the small friction loses and slight loses to that even an free spinning induction motor causes (it's better at "torque sleep" than the permanent magnet motors but still will act somewhat like a generator when it's not being used to drive).

common, if the model 3 AWD would come with a 90kwh battery i would gladly pull the fuse on the front motor or just ask tesla to take the damn front motor out if i get the same efficiency as with the 75kwh model 3 RWD.....

 

[Candleflame]

At 300+ miles, do we care any more?

It goes farther and faster than many cars with full gas tanks...

< 300 maybe I care. over 300... it's not even a thing

In Europe we drive much faster and in Australia the distances are very vast. Also in the outback it is generally accepted that people drive a bit faster than allowed, usually 130-150ish. At that point you need range and there aren't many charging stations in rural areas. At least not fast chargers.

 

[voip-ninja]

In Europe we drive much faster and in Australia the distances are very vast. Also in the outback it is generally accepted that people drive a bit faster than allowed, usually 130-150ish. At that point you need range and there aren't many charging stations in rural areas. At least not fast chargers.

Those are valid points.

Counterpoint, does 10% difference in usable range make that big of a deal in those situations?

Better to get the RWD car if range is the overriding priority.

 

[Candleflame]

Those are valid points.

Counterpoint, does 10% difference in usable range make that big of a deal in those situations?

Better to get the RWD car if range is the overriding priority.

yes it does because unfortunately villages are very spread out and those 10% will make the difference between getting to the next 3 phase charger (or just next village in general lol). On the coast its probably not too bad but will make the difference between driving i.e. 120 or 110. Most towns are about 300km apart or so on the coast and Queensland is building their own Chademo 50kw network which is actually very useable already, albeit not as fast as Tesla SC technology. Once you get down to victoria it doesnt matter as much anymore as city density is higher and tesla built a supercharger network there.

the QLD Chademo/CCS is again a great concept but lacks in execution as 50kw is starting to feel outdated already and Tesla is already expanding to the Sunshine coast.

 

[voip-ninja]

yes it does because unfortunately villages are very spread out and those 10% will make the difference between getting to the next 3 phase charger (or just next village in general lol). On the coast its probably not too bad but will make the difference between driving i.e. 120 or 110. Most towns are about 300km apart or so on the coast and Queensland is building their own Chademo 50kw network which is actually very useable already, albeit not as fast as Tesla SC technology. Once you get down to victoria it doesnt matter as much anymore as city density is higher and tesla built a supercharger network there.

the QLD Chademo/CCS is again a great concept but lacks in execution as 50kw is starting to feel outdated already and Tesla is already expanding to the Sunshine coast.

Well the solution seems to be to get the LR single motor version.

 

[kbM3]

Well the solution seems to be to get the LR single motor version.

With Aeros.

 

[voip-ninja]

With Aeros.

Exactly.

It seems people are upset they can’t have it both ways. Getting the higher performance dual motor variants with big fancy rims and also getting maximum range.

While speeds on Australia highways might approach 190 kph, the easiest way to extend the range of the car is simply slow down.

Or perhaps EV is not yet the perfect solution for this use case of driving hundreds of km at very high speeds with no DC fast charging solution yet in place.

I imagine many Aussies who do these drives in their petrol cars have a couple of gerry cans in the boot for fuel related emergencies.

 

[Dr. J]

I'm not going to disagree, but working the numbers on the window sticker brings you to 80.91kWh to travel the rated 310 miles, assuming 90% charging efficiency...

We know the 310 range number for RWD was lowered voluntarily (by some amount), so I don't see how using that to calculate anything is going to be accurate. Amirite? All we know is that the AWD and P-AWD, which have objectively shorter range (we think) can fit at 310 miles within that slack.

 

[Petra]

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?

It was a stupid idea. I went back and checked that old EPA test document for the RWD car ( https://cdn.teslarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Tesla-Model-3-EPA-CSI-HTSLV00.0L13.pdf ) and it showed a recharge event energy of ~89.4kWh. So, they have the same battery.

We know the 310 range number for RWD was lowered voluntarily (by some amount), so I don't see how using that to calculate anything is going to be accurate. Amirite? All we know is that the AWD and P-AWD, which have objectively shorter range (we think) can fit at 310 miles within that slack.

See above. Though, as a random thought, has anyone verified the derate in the real world? I mean, that would tell us if the RWD can actually go farther or if they did any software limiting or whatnot. *shrug*

 

[JeffK]

It was a stupid idea. I went back and checked that old EPA test document for the RWD car ( https://cdn.teslarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Tesla-Model-3-EPA-CSI-HTSLV00.0L13.pdf ) and it showed a recharge event energy of ~89.4kWh. So, they have the same battery.


See above. Though, as a random thought, has anyone verified the derate in the real world by driving at the efficiency shown in the old EPA document until nearly depleted? I mean, that would tell us if the RWD can actually go farther or if they did any software limiting or whatnot. *shrug*

We've always known the Model 3 has an ~80 kWh battery though. Both from that document and from tear downs like Tesla Model 3 - NextGen Battery - EVTV Motor Verks

 

[mhan00]

There have been reports on reddit of people getting anywhere from 320-350 miles of range on longer trips. But then you have guys like the Teslanomics guy who got only 280+ miles before the car shutdown, but he has 20” custom wheels and also experienced some major drain that he said was 20 miles while he and his passenger stopped for lunch for an hour, so dunno how representative his test was.

 

[david_42]

Tesla is advertising the same range for the performance version as for RWD. The EPA numbers are 116 and 130 respectively. Musk asked that the official range for the RWD be reduced to 310 (7.7% reduction). Maybe he wanted to claim the AWD got the same range, but that 7.7% doesn't cover a 10.8% change in efficiency.

/YMMV

 

[TerrapinThief]

Tesla is advertising the same range for the performance version as for RWD. The EPA numbers are 116 and 130 respectively. Musk asked that the official range for the RWD be reduced to 310 (7.7% reduction). Maybe he wanted to claim the AWD got the same range, but that 7.7% doesn't cover a 10.8% change in efficiency.

/YMMV

Was the 334mi number ever looked at again after the change from 126MPGe to 130MPGe?