Hopefully. The thing is Tesla went AC induction motor in the front so it can coast/sleep, that's the part that worries me. or maybe it's cheaper to do AC inductor motor.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Let's discuss Dual Motor range
- Thread starter ModelNforNerd
- Start date
Don’t you read the thread? They mention there that S60 and P90D have the same rear motor but not S60 and S60D. Tesla used two motors for Model S, one large older that was on RWD cars and in the back of Performance models and a smaller but newer motor on the front axel on Performance cars and both places on normal dual motor cars.
For the Model 3 they started to use PM motors wish we know is more efficient but now with dual motors they will add an induction motor in the front. If they add a less efficient motor wish add weight to the car I have really hard to see how that will add range, it should give it less range.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
That depends entirely on what adds those few hundred pounds.
I already gave you 2 examples where it makes the car go further than without them- there's tons more (and even more still in ICE vehicles).
That's why your "laws of physics" bit didn't make any sense.
I mean... you literally did say it was impossible with the physics remark- that's why I replied
I mean... you literally did say it was impossible with the physics remark- that's why I replied
Good catch. I did contradict myself. I think we’re all trying to reduce a complex question to a yes or no answer. I now see that the difference between is RWD and AWD is the efficiency curve and the EPA 5-cycle test. If the question is whether Tesla RWD or AWD is more efficient, the answer is yes.
. At some speeds the RWD configuration is more efficient but at other speeds the AWD configuration is more efficient. My guess is still that on the EPA 5-cycle test, RWD comes out ahead overall. I hope I’m wrong.
Last edited:
For the record and before the details of the (non-performance) M3 dual motor configuration becomes public, I want to state that I find the disregarding of the above data-point unconvincing.
As for the possible, non-performance M3 dual motor configuration it may be relevant to enumerate the currently known M3 motor configurations:
- the current RWD M3 motor (with a reduction gear ratio of 9:1)
- the Tesla Semi M3 motor, axle one (with a reduction gear ratio of 15:1)
- the Tesla Semi M3 motor, axle two (with a reduction gear ratio of 23:1)
- the P-AWD rear motor (a Model S type induction motor that very likely will be P-only)
- the P-AWD M3 front motor, possibly one of the above, alternatively one with its own reduction gear ratio
Given the number of known M3 motor-variants it is quite possible that the non-performance AWD M3 will have different reduction gear ratios on its front and rear motors, and these ratios may or may not be different from the above 9:1.
Again, my guess for the non-performance M3 dual motor configuration is two M3 motors with different reduction gears on the front and rear, with the front motor geared for more efficient high way cruising.
With that I will await the non-P AWD M3 motor configuration to become public.
Reading my post again... I shouldn't be so confident in something that doesn't yet exist!
Still... I'm mighty impressed with how Tesla has handled the AWD in the S and X. So I *assmue* the 3 will be just as awesome. Better be for the extra wait (and weight, ha!) and $5k.
I am sure it will be awesome and will be able to get CalTran/CHP off my back while going to Mammoth...
Ah. NOW, I understand your concern. How does the CHP make that AWD snow decision? The car has to be proven all-time AWD and added to some list? Even if the Model 3 is going to sleep one motor when it can, the torque response will be so fast when needed that it will certainly ACT like it is all-time.
I'm in the same boat for trips to Tahoe. This whole time I've certainly assumed that CHP/Caltrans would accept any Tesla D.
Since I am in RWD car, I just stop before the check point and put the chain on. I figure they would generally know what car(s) has AWD
People have difficulty understanding efficiency.
Imagine the rear motor is 100% efficient. We add a front motor which is equally efficient, how much will that help range?
We know the rear motor is a permanent magnet one, the front one not. Will adding a loud child to a full classroom make the classroom more silent on average?
We never could trust Tesla number anyway. Look at the way they labeled battery capacity. Gasoline prices are set more fact and data driven than that.
We know that the 310mi EPA is a discounted number, likely because of the non-aero wheels also needing to make a good number, not seem a waste of energy (which they are). Wheels simply make more of a difference than dual motor ever did help, let alone when the rear motor is already a serious effort at being more efficient than S and X were.
Have any WLTP numbers been published? Or was THIS the reason of the 334>310 discount?
Imagine the rear motor is 100% efficient. We add a front motor which is equally efficient, how much will that help range?
We know the rear motor is a permanent magnet one, the front one not. Will adding a loud child to a full classroom make the classroom more silent on average?
We never could trust Tesla number anyway. Look at the way they labeled battery capacity. Gasoline prices are set more fact and data driven than that.
We know that the 310mi EPA is a discounted number, likely because of the non-aero wheels also needing to make a good number, not seem a waste of energy (which they are). Wheels simply make more of a difference than dual motor ever did help, let alone when the rear motor is already a serious effort at being more efficient than S and X were.
Have any WLTP numbers been published? Or was THIS the reason of the 334>310 discount?
I am guessing bit lower in the AWD version. The more efficient motor is already in the RWD car and at high revs, where the induction motor could make up some efficiency, the IPM already has high demagnetizing losses.
Since the IPM doesn’t have a clutch, it’s always on and can’t be turned off, like an induction motor.
So add in a bit more weight and friction on the front wheels and I bet EPA testing is a bit lower on the AWD Model 3.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Elon said a week or more ago when he announced the P that it uses binned versions of the exact same front motor as the non-P AWD model 3.
That’s the best part, the ability to be waved through “R2” (M+S tires, AWD) chain checkpoints.
Also nice if you park in water which freezes before you return!
I’ve always carried the window sticker in my cars, just in case CHP doubts that they’re AWD.
Is it possible the front motor has a different effect on the mileage?
I read that the front motor on my model s does most of the work at highway speeds.
Might the pulling energy lower the nose slightly, and lower wind resistance slightly?
The pushing energy from the rear motor drops the rear and seems to raise the nose, at least during launch.
This may be a silly question.
I read that the front motor on my model s does most of the work at highway speeds.
Might the pulling energy lower the nose slightly, and lower wind resistance slightly?
The pushing energy from the rear motor drops the rear and seems to raise the nose, at least during launch.
This may be a silly question.
it could be very slight, but even just the "dead weight" of the front motor should be able to keep the nose from coming up too high. and that's not taking into account any efficiencies of "pulling" vs. "pushing"
TT97
Active Member
Weight distribution shifting has to do with acceleration/deceleration, not the location of the motor. During acceleration, weight distribution favors the rear; during braking, weight shifts forward.
correct, but the point brought up was with more weight now up front, will that effect be less pronounced?
I agree to both points. I didn’t add the weight issue in case it made my post harder to read.
My thought is that wind resistance is the biggest issue for range at high speeds, say more than 75 mph/~120 kph.
A small change in the largest contributor may make more of a change than a large one in a smaller contributor?
Just a thought.
To add to that, since I'm not waiting even LONGER for SAS, I'm considering lowering the car ~1" next spring, as well as going from the aero 18's (to get through New England winters) to some lightweight 19's.
I'll be sure to track my consumption.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Marketplace listing
- Marketplace listing