Let's discuss Dual Motor range

[Jedi2155]

For the street I like the off the line traction of AWD but for actual handling performance I think RWD has the edge. Look at the list of Laguna Seca lap times. I know the top car is AWD but that's a car so powerful it would probably be traction limited at 100mph if it were RWD.

You need to add the Model 3 RWD on that list at 1:48.667

 

[EVnut]

Interesting. I wonder if anything changes when the drivers are rank amateurs (like me!)?

(I'm finding very few electric, dual-motor AWD vehicles on that list, btw! I thinking that there has to be some sort of difference).

 

[Daniel in SD]

You need to add the Model 3 RWD on that list at 1:48.667

Not a stock car. All the cars on the list are running street tires. The Hoosier A7s that Model 3 was running are probably worth 3 seconds at least. On the other hand the times on the list were with a professional driver so who knows.

 

[EVnut]

You need to add the Model 3 RWD on that list at 1:48.667

And it'll be great to see how the AWD version of the same car does on the same track!

 

[Daniel in SD]

Interesting. I wonder if anything changes when the drivers are rank amateurs (like me!)?

(I'm finding very few electric, dual-motor AWD vehicles on that list, btw! I thinking that there has to be some sort of difference).

Your times would be much slower! Skill plays a huge role. The fastest car to slowest car on that list is only 20 seconds. I guess an AWD car might be easier for an unskilled driver.
The top car on the list (Porsche 918) is a dual motor (hybrid) electric car. haha.

 

[ℬête Noire]

I know the top car is AWD but that's a car so powerful it would probably be traction limited at 100mph if it were RWD.

That's what it comes down to. Conditions where, for whatever reason, RWD is traction limited is AWD's forte.

Still both are fun at that point, in their own way.

 

[VT_EE]

Does anyone know if it has been confirmed that you lose the free internet for life if you change your configuration post 6/30? I've got AWD ordered with a sept-nov delivery, but have been tempted to change to RWD (don't need AWD much here in Texas). It would be nice to lower the price and gain some range, but losing the free internet may keep the scale on the AWD.

I confirmed with my ISA today that I will not lose the free internet for life even though I switched to rear wheel drive 2 weeks ago. The date in his system has the original June 27th order date, not my design change date.

 

[EVnut]

I guess an AWD car might be easier for an unskilled driver.

This was my only point. I'm certain that amateur times would all be slower. But instead of a pro driving RWD and comparable AWD, what happens when you put an unskilled driver in both? (As we see on the road by the millions ever day?)

Maybe in that comparison AWD "handles" better? That's been my experience. And I'm at least skilled enough to steer with the rear wheels of a RWD vehicle when I want (including bicycle and motorcycle).

 

[Troy]

First, let me re-emphasize that I highly recommend looking at THIS range table instead of getting lost in technical discussions. I update that table whenever there is new information.

I have a question Troy, why does your chart show the LR and LR AWD dyno numbers to be awfully close. Is this a typo?
View attachment 319936
The EPA documents you provided indicated 495.1 miles in the UDDS cycle while the sheet ...

The city and highway range numbers in the EPA table you mentioned are the numbers after the voluntary reduction. Therefore when you calculate the dyno score, you don't find the actual dyno score if there is a voluntary reduction. For the 2017 Model 3 LR, the city dyno score was 495.11 mi (source: page 6 here). That means the city range should be 495.11 * 0.7 = 346.6 mi. However, if we look at the vehicles.csv file, it shows 321.86 mi for the 2017 LR and 324.08 for 2018 LR. Let's focus on the 2017 version.

How did they come up with 321.86 mi city range? Simple. The combined range aka EPA rated range (55% city and 45% highway) was 333.84 miles and Tesla voluntarily reduced it to 310 miles. Therefore, city and highway range numbers need to be reduced by the same ratio (310/333.84) so that when you calculate the combined range, you get 310 miles. The calculation was 346.6 mi * 310 / 333.84 mi = 321.9 mi.

In other words, EPA multiplied the actual city range 346.6 mi by 310/333.84 to calculate 321.9 mi city range after the voluntary reduction. This exact calculation was actually shown in the other EPA document I mentioned. You can download it HERE. Look at the top arrow:

Those EPA documents are also very interesting and I'd be interested to see the results from the AWD test.

The document that shows the dyno scores is not released yet for the LRD and P versions. Here is how you can check it yourself:
Step 1: Click here: https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/pubsearch.jsp
Step 2: In the 'Manufacturer' box select Tesla and click search. There are 83 documents in the search results. There will be more documents when the file is released.

However, I know what the file will show when it's released. It will show these numbers:
City dyno score: 455.32 mi
City dyno test electric meter consumption: 89.58 kWh
Highway dyno score: 422.64 mi
Highway dyno test electric meter consumption: 89.52 kWh

 

[clostridium]

When I look at the range of my RWD car on 19 inch wheels... I suspect that AWD + performance tires and or bigger wheels is not going to look good at all.. expect something closer to 200 miles than 300 miles IMO

My experience:
- 19 inch wheels -> 10 percent range loss reported is real
- I can’t imagine what the loss is on those fancy 20 inch wheels with performance summer season tires (other users will weigh in maybe)

I get like 260 watts per mile. I would get 285 watts per mile with an AWD. My range is horrible when I get these kind of numbers.

So think twice if you about getting AWD if you want performance tires or bigger wheels.

The range on a car with a 75 kWh battery like the Model 3 getting 285 Wh/mi ends up being about what an S75D gets. Which is about 260 miles. For a car getting 260 Wh/mi it’s more like 288 miles.

I agree that there will be range loss with larger wheels. It’s not yet clear exactly how much. We’ve got a few data points out there showing people with RWD get range of ~270-290 miles with 20” rims but not large amounts of data.

If you need AWD due to climate reasons or really want the performance than get it. The car will still get more range than my S75D and I’ve survived. If you don’t really need it don’t get it.

 

[FlatSix911]

Troy, great range table and thanks for posting. Do you have the EPA data for the Model S 70/70D?

First, let me re-emphasize that I highly recommend looking at THIS range table instead of getting lost in technical discussions. I update that table whenever there is new information.

The city and highway range numbers in the EPA table you mentioned are the numbers after the voluntary reduction. Therefore when you calculate the dyno score, you don't find the actual dyno score if there is a voluntary reduction. For the 2017 Model 3 LR, the city dyno score was 495.11 mi (source: page 6 here). That means the city range should be 495.11 * 0.7 = 346.6 mi. However, if we look at the vehicles.csv file, it shows 321.86 mi for the 2017 LR and 324.08 for 2018 LR. Let's focus on the 2017 version.

How did they come up with 321.86 mi city range? Simple. The combined range aka EPA rated range (55% city and 45% highway) was 333.84 miles and Tesla voluntarily reduced it to 310 miles. Therefore, city and highway range numbers need to be reduced by the same ratio (310/333.84) so that when you calculate the combined range, you get 310 miles. The calculation was 346.6 mi * 310 / 333.84 mi = 321.9 mi.

In other words, EPA multiplied the actual city range 346.6 mi by 310/333.84 to calculate 321.9 mi city range after the voluntary reduction. This exact calculation was actually shown in the other EPA document I mentioned. You can download it HERE. Look at the top arrow:

The document that shows the dyno scores is not released yet for the LRD and P versions. Here is how you can check it yourself:
Step 1: Click here: Basic Search | Document Index System | US EPA
Step 2: In the 'Manufacturer' box select Tesla and click search. There are 83 documents in the search results. There will be more documents when the file is released.

However, I know what the file will show when it's released. It will show these numbers:
City dyno score: 455.32 mi
City dyno test electric meter consumption: 89.58 kWh
Highway dyno score: 422.64 mi
Highway dyno test electric meter consumption: 89.52 kWh

 

[M109Rider]

Rest assured that I have no intent of adding less efficient wheels and tires. For me personally, is all down to debating the Y/N of AWD. It it is tough for me to make long-term, expensive decisions based on conjecture and the current state of plausibility.

As far as we know, nobody has yet taken delivery of a production AWD (performance or not) car, correct? (The performance version unfortunately won't tell me anything useful, as that configuration introduces several more variables.)

It was a tough call for me also. However, driving through snow 3.5 to 4 months of the year pushed me to AWD.
I drive about 50,000km’s a year. I just can’t be spinning around all winter long. I drive too much.
I used to live in BC, and RWD would be my immediate choice if I still did.

 

[Troy]

Troy, great range table and thanks for posting. Do you have the EPA data for the Model S 70/70D?

Yes, the data is available inside the vehicles.csv file here. I have now updated the table to include S70 and S70D. Click HERE for the latest version. I use the other forum because it lets me edit my messages so I can update the table in the opening message. I also added a column that compares the advertised range to the range that should be advertised. There are two problems with the advertised range:

1. The advertised range is sometimes adjusted up or down for marketing purposes.
2. The advertised range is based on 55% city range and 45% on highway range. It should be 100% highway range.

The green column that shows what the advertised range should be, corrects for both of these issues and then the next column compares the advertised range to the range that should be advertised. I also added new columns that show what the range will be after 5% degradation.

 

[commasign]

To everyone that kept insisting that Model 3 Long Range Dual Motor AWD would have more range than Model 3 Long Range RWD, we can now say without a doubt that you’re all wrong.

 

[Jedi2155]

I admit I was absolutely 100% wrong with the dual motor range.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

While I was wrong, at least I'm not the type of person petty enough to resurrect a thread that died 7 months ago to claim my win.

 

[commasign]

While I was wrong, at least I'm not the type of person petty enough to resurrect a thread that died 7 months ago to claim my win.

Yesterday was definitely a great day for settling old bets, especially for Tesla Superbulls. $35k car. FSD timeline. 3P uncorking (a little bit). 3LR Range. It’s all in good fun. We’re all here for the same reasons.

 

[ord3r]

While I was wrong, at least I'm not the type of person petty enough to resurrect a thread that died 7 months ago to claim my win.

But that’s half the fun! Need to have closure haha

 

[EVnut]

But that’s half the fun! Need to have closure haha

There's really no sense in going to the effort of *being* right if you can't rub it in at some point!

All good.

And yeah. I was *initially* incorrect in my hopes and dreams as well.

 

[EVnut]

But! What's the deal with the 325 thing now? Can we safely assume that this is simply a change in specifications, and that there is *no* change to the actual range? As in... the RWD car has always had more range due to better efficiency (we now know that, of course), but Tesla pretended that all cars were 310 miles at first... for no apparent reason. Or maybe for fear of scaring people off of the higher margin AWD vehicles??