Let's discuss Dual Motor range

[FlatSix911]

Why does everyone keep thinking that dual motor = more range? It was only true on the S because two, more efficient small motors replaced a single, less efficient large motor. Model 3 RWD already has the most efficient rear motor. Adding a second motor upfront only adds weight and decreases efficiency.

The EPA data on the Tesla Model S shows that range is increased with the dual motor option.
Tesla Model S - Wikipedia
The increase in range is 8-10 miles or about 3-4% gain across the Model S variants not including Performance versions.
Also, note that all Model S variants currently in production are dual motor due to the inherent benefits in efficiency.

 

[EVnut]

I think there's one thing we can all agree on:

The three variants, RWD, AWD and AWD-P (I'll even toss in a 4th variant... with/without the aero covers) are quite unlikely to all test to the same range. The differences may be slight, or they may significant enough to matter. We can safely assume that a single number to cover them all is not accurate, and instead is an "underpromise, over deliver" simplifier.

We really should stop pretending that when Tesla announced their obviously "underpromise" range number for each variant that it was at its core an easy simplification. The Model 3 variants will all achieve this artificially low number. YCoCWV. (Your Configuration of Car Will Vary.

 

[commasign]

The EPA data on the Tesla Model S shows that range is increased with the dual motor option.

See official Tesla blog post I linked to above. When comparing 85 vs P85D, range/efficiency is only improved at certain speeds (same rear motor, only difference being addition of a front motor). At lower speeds, the P85D is more efficient while at higher speeds, the 85 is more efficient. Of course the 85D is more efficient at all speeds but that situation (replacing one large motor with two small motors) isn’t analogous to Model 3 as the Model 3 already has small motor(s). The reality is we’re just speculating at this point. We don’t know if Tesla has changed the gearing ratios for the rear motor in Model 3 AWD. Yes, Model 3 AWD is likely to be more efficient than Model 3 RWD at some speeds. Question is how much overall relative to the EPA 5-cycle test.

“And if we look in even more detail at the differences just between the 85kWh battery pack variants you can see the interesting complexity in how the dual motor operates. At some speeds the P85D is more efficient than the base 85 and equivalent to the 85D. At other, higher speeds the 85D and 85 are slightly more efficient, with higher range, than the P85D.”

 

[FlatSix911]

See official Tesla blog post I linked to above. When comparing 85 vs P85D, range/efficiency is only improved at certain speeds (same rear motor, only difference being addition of a front motor). At lower speeds, the P85D is more efficient while at higher speeds, the 85 is more efficient. Of course the 85D is more efficient at all speeds but that situation (replacing one large motor with two small motors) isn’t analogous to Model 3 as the Model 3 already has small motor(s). The reality is we’re just speculating at this point. We don’t know if Tesla has changed the gearing ratios for the rear motor in Model 3 AWD. Yes, Model 3 AWD is likely to be more efficient than Model 3 RWD at some speeds. Question is how much overall relative to the EPA 5-cycle test.

View attachment 306248

“And if we look in even more detail at the differences just between the 85kWh battery pack variants you can see the interesting complexity in how the dual motor operates. At some speeds the P85D is more efficient than the base 85 and equivalent to the 85D. At other, higher speeds the 85D and 85 are slightly more efficient, with higher range, than the P85D.”

You missed the point ... if we compare similar models, the Dual Motor version is more efficient every time.
Performance versions mix apples and oranges in the comparison... Take another look at the chart above

 

[commasign]

You missed the point ... if we compare similar models, the Dual Motor version is more efficient every time.
Performance versions mix apples and oranges in the comparison... Take another look at the chart above

P85D vs 85/P85 is the most direct comparison. Same rear motor. Addition of a front motor. Performance has nothing to do with range. Elon has stated that driven the same way, 85 and P85 have the same range (EPA rating identical too).

85D vs 85/P85 is not analogous to the Model 3 question. You’re taking a single large motor and replacing with two smaller, more efficient motors. That’s not what is being done with Model 3 AWD. They are not replacing the small rear motor with an even smaller rear motor. The rear motors are the same. We’re just waiting to hear whether they’ve changed the gearing ratio or made other tweaks to the rear motor.

 

[commasign]

Ok, I give up. But just curious, how many of you who truly believe that Model 3 AWD has increased range also believed (right up until the production cars hit the road) that Model 3 would come with a HUD?

 

[FlatSix911]

P85D vs 85/P85 is the most direct comparison. Same rear motor. Addition of a front motor. Performance has nothing to do with range. Elon has stated that driven the same way, 85 and P85 have the same range (EPA rating identical too).

85D vs 85/P85 is not analogous to the Model 3 question. You’re taking a single large motor and replacing with two smaller, more efficient motors. That’s not what is being done with Model 3 AWD. They are not replacing the small rear motor with an even smaller rear motor. The rear motors are the same. We’re just waiting to hear whether they’ve changed the gearing ratio or made other tweaks to the rear motor.

The data do not lie ... all of the AWD Dual Motor versions have a longer range than the RWD versions.
The Performance versions are optimized for 0-60 and not efficiency ... the Truth will set you free.

 

[commasign]

...all of the AWD Dual Motor versions have a longer range than the RWD versions.

Except for Model 3.

Model 3 LR RWD - 310 miles
Model 3 LR AWD - 310 miles
Model 3 Performance - 310 miles

 

[FlyNavy01]

I don't think you can use Model S data (from a wiki page no less) to come to a conclusion about Model 3 range. Different motors, batteries, drivetrain, reduction gearing, etc.

 

[FlatSix911]

Except for Model 3.

Model 3 LR RWD - 310 miles
Model 3 LR AWD - 310 miles
Model 3 Performance - 310 miles

Tesla could be underselling Model 3’s range and charging capacity, reveals EPA document

The advertised range of an all-electric vehicle in the US is generally the EPA-cycle range. In the case of the Model 3, the document reveals that the vehicle achieved an EPA-cycle range of 334 miles (537 km), but Tesla asked the EPA to lower the official range to 310 miles. YMMV

 

[commasign]

Tesla could be underselling Model 3’s range and charging capacity, reveals EPA document

The advertised range of an all-electric vehicle in the US is generally the EPA-cycle range. In the case of the Model 3, the document reveals that the vehicle achieved an EPA-cycle range of 334 miles (537 km), but Tesla asked the EPA to lower the official range to 310 miles. YMMV

You were making your argument based on official EPA ranges, so shouldn't we stick with official EPA ranges for this discussion? Most of the community thinks Tesla overstates their rated ranges anyway. Even 310 miles for Model 3 LR RWD seems like a slight overstatement (or at best, just achievable) even with 18" wheels and aero covers on. So 334 miles makes no sense at all.

 

[FlatSix911]

You were making your argument based on official EPA ranges, so shouldn't we stick with official EPA ranges for this discussion? Most of the community thinks Tesla overstates their rated ranges anyway. Even 310 miles for Model 3 LR RWD seems like a slight overstatement (or at best, just achievable) even with 18" wheels and aero covers on. So 334 miles makes no sense at all.

Tesla arbitrarily lowered the actual Model 3 EPA range of 334 miles to look better in comparison to the Model S 100D range of 335.
Let's continue this discussion when the real EPA ranges are released for the entire Model 3 line ... until then we only have Model S data.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

P85D vs 85/P85 is the most direct comparison. Same rear motor. Addition of a front motor. Performance has nothing to do with range. Elon has stated that driven the same way, 85 and P85 have the same range (EPA rating identical too).

85D vs 85/P85 is not analogous to the Model 3 question. You’re taking a single large motor and replacing with two smaller, more efficient motors. That’s not what is being done with Model 3 AWD. They are not replacing the small rear motor with an even smaller rear motor. The rear motors are the same. We’re just waiting to hear whether they’ve changed the gearing ratio or made other tweaks to the rear motor.

But.....the motors.....regardless of their size and weight.....


Aren't....

configured....

to...

operate the same.


Look at Audi, for example....An A3 and an S3 (current generation) have the same EA888 2.0T 4-cylinder.

The S3 has a different manifold, a bigger turbo, and different ignition timing. The S3, while have the same "motor" (more or less) as an A3, makes ~100HP more.

Ironically, an A3 can be made to put out the same "off the shelf" horsepower, with just an ECU reflash and an intake. Same motor, but some tuning gives you different results.

same thing here with Tesla. They dropped the same physical motor in the 85 and the P85, but through an inverter and some software, they're made....to....perform differently. One is neutered, one is less fettered. You can't call them "the same" for the sake of this comparison.

 

[moridin2002]

Yes, Model 3 AWD is likely to be more efficient than Model 3 RWD at some speeds. Question is how much overall relative to the EPA 5-cycle test.”

A couple of things:
- It is not actually a 5 cycle test for BEVs. OEMs are only required to do 2 cycle testing and then apply a 0.7 conversion factor to get their label number. Tesla chooses to do a custom conversion factor.
- The PM motor and new inverter combo is likely to be much more efficient across a much broader speed range than the Model S/X induction motors. The new Model 3 front induction motor would have to be more efficient than the PM rear motor across a decent chunk of the 2 cycle test to overcome the test weight disadvantage of the additional motor. If GM’s Bolt EV motor is any indication of the efficiency that Tesla has achieved, an increase in range will be tough to do through the addition of an AC induction motor.

 

[commasign]

A couple of things:
- It is not actually a 5 cycle test for BEVs. OEMs are only required to do 2 cycle testing and then apply a 0.7 conversion factor to get their label number. Tesla chooses to do a custom conversion factor.
- The PM motor and new inverter combo is likely to be much more efficient across a much broader speed range than the Model S/X induction motors. The new Model 3 front induction motor would have to be more efficient than the PM rear motor across a decent chunk of the 2 cycle test to overcome the test weight disadvantage of the additional motor. If GM’s Bolt EV motor is any indication of the efficiency that Tesla has achieved, an increase in range will be tough to do through the addition of an AC induction motor.

Well said. Agreed.

 

[commasign]

Finally some actual evidence from the Tesla source code that dual motor decreases range. The Model 3 SR RWD has a range of 220 miles. The Model 3 SR AWD has a range of 215 miles. 5 miles less. The Model 3 LR RWD, LR AWD, and P all have an advertised range of 310 miles but we know that is Tesla voluntarily downrating the range so it’s possible they down rated all the LR versions differently to get the same 310 miles (e.g. perhaps Model 3 LR RWD downrated from 334 miles to 310 miles while Model 3 LR AWD and P downrated from 329 miles to 310 miles).

Source code extracted by Reddit user damieng...

Note: The top speeds and 0-60mph times give away the car versions so it’s pretty clear that MT301 is Model 3 SR AWD.

{"range":220,"units":"imperial","top_speed":130,"selected_by":{"and":["$MT300"]},"zero_to_road_limit":5.6}{"range":215,"units":"imperial","top_speed":130,"selected_by":{"and":["$MT301"]},"zero_to_road_limit":5.1}{"range":310,"units":"imperial","top_speed":140,"selected_by":{"and":["$MT302"]},"zero_to_road_limit":5.1}{"range":310,"units":"imperial","top_speed":145,"selected_by":{"and":["$MT303"]},"zero_to_road_limit":4.5}{"range":310,"units":"imperial","top_speed":155,"selected_by":{"and":["$MT304"]},"zero_to_road_limit":3.5}

r/teslamotors - Model 3 all versions range & acceleration chart

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Finally some actual evidence from the Tesla source code that dual motor decreases range. The Model 3 SR RWD has a range of 220 miles. The Model 3 SR AWD has a range of 215 miles. 5 miles less. The Model 3 LR RWD, LR AWD, and P all have an advertised range of 310 miles but we know that is Tesla voluntarily downrating the range so it’s possible they down rated all the LR versions differently to get the same 310 miles (e.g. perhaps Model 3 LR RWD downrated from 334 miles to 310 miles while Model 3 LR AWD and P downrated from 329 miles to 310 miles).

Source code extracted by Reddit user damieng...

Note: The top speeds and 0-60mph times give away the car versions so it’s pretty clear that MT301 is Model 3 SR AWD.

{"range":220,"units":"imperial","top_speed":130,"selected_by":{"and":["$MT300"]},"zero_to_road_limit":5.6}{"range":215,"units":"imperial","top_speed":130,"selected_by":{"and":["$MT301"]},"zero_to_road_limit":5.1}{"range":310,"units":"imperial","top_speed":140,"selected_by":{"and":["$MT302"]},"zero_to_road_limit":5.1}{"range":310,"units":"imperial","top_speed":145,"selected_by":{"and":["$MT303"]},"zero_to_road_limit":4.5}{"range":310,"units":"imperial","top_speed":155,"selected_by":{"and":["$MT304"]},"zero_to_road_limit":3.5}

r/teslamotors - Model 3 all versions range & acceleration chart

How would that prove that Dual Motor decreases range?

All it proves is that Tesla is advertising the same range. Until we see the EPA docs for Dual Motor, this is just conjecture, based on actual data from a different configuration, and an "advertised" number.

 

[commasign]

How would that prove that Dual Motor decreases range?

220 miles range for RWD. 215 miles range for AWD. To me that’s pretty strong evidence that dual motor decreases range. I don’t see how EPA documents would make any difference. Are you suggesting that dual motor increases range and Tesla is intentionally downrating it so much that it looks like dual motor decreases range? Makes absolutely no sense considering Tesla has long played up dual motor as being “better” in every way.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

220 miles range for RWD. 215 miles range for AWD. To me that’s pretty strong evidence that dual motor decreases range. I don’t see how EPA documents would make any difference. Are you suggesting that dual motor increases range and Tesla is intentionally downrating it so much that it looks like dual motor decreases range? Makes absolutely no sense considering Tesla has long played up dual motor as being “better” in every way.

We've seen it in the S that torque sleep increases range slightly at highway speeds (as discussed earlier in this thread).

Again, I'll wait to see EPA and real world results.

 

[commasign]

We've seen it in the S that torque sleep increases range slightly at highway speeds (as discussed earlier in this thread).

Again, I'll wait to see EPA and real world results.

I agree with the wait and see approach, but there’s flaw in your logic if you’re thinking that Tesla is lying about the 5 mile decrease in range between Model 3 SR RWD and AWD versions. I don’t see any posts on the forums where people are thinking (or asking for EPA data) that Tesla is lying about the decrease in range with the P100D relative to the 100D.