Let's discuss Dual Motor range

[Dr. J]

It has to be on your Monroney Sticker at the time you take delivery.

Tesla was able to tip toe around that with First Production for a few months by going employees-only. But as soon as the vehicle is available and deliverable to the general public, it's required.

They could very well be testing it as we speak.

The Monroney sticker will say 310-mile range. The issue is not the EPA reported number (which is the same with all three LR variants because Tesla is sandbagging all of them, most likely), but what the cycle tests show. That info is not, to my knowledge, on the sticker.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

The Monroney sticker will say 310-mile range. The issue is not the EPA reported number (which is the same with all three LR variants because Tesla is sandbagging all of them, most likely), but what the cycle tests show. That info is not, to my knowledge, on the sticker.

Correct, but it has to be tested. Just as with the RWD, it was tested and published at 310.

But once those documents show up online, we can pull more data from them.

 

[moridin2002]

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.

Model S also runs two AC Induction motors. Not one PM motor and one AC Induction like the Model 3 AWD. The PM motor is likely way more efficient across a much broader area and the mass penalty from the extra weight for the AWD on the 3 is likely drop the efficiency of the car as a whole. My guess is that the new AC Induction motor likely doesn't add enough more efficiency in areas over the 2 cycle testing to overcome that mass addition, and the lighter, more efficient SR car is going to be more sensitive to that additional mass of the new front motor (its a larger percentage of the overall vehicle weight).

 

[moridin2002]

Correct, but it has to be tested. Just as with the RWD, it was tested and published at 310.

But once those documents show up online, we can pull more data from them.

Tested, but not by EPA. Manufacturers submit testing data for verification and certification by EPA which are the documents that leaked online for the original LR versions. However, the 2 cycle test data will show up on FuelEconomy.gov in the test data download section as soon as they include the vehicle in its drop down menus. You'll be able to discern the efficiencies of the different models over the 2 cycle tests as prescribed by SAE J1634, but the range may be adjusted voluntarily downward by Tesla, as we've seen them do many times before (not just on the Model 3).

 

[jsmay311]

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

 

[ℬête Noire]

Indeed it is. With the extra efficiency of the PM motor in the back I had resigned myself to seeing a lot lower bump than the Model S saw but this, if it does translate from the SR to the LR rather than being something inherent with the lower C of the SR or something, is worse than I'd expected.

Oh well, at least I'll have the nicer one-pedal, along with the better traction of the AWD. I've really taken a liking to the Bolt's aggressive regen and have been concerned with the reportedly relatively mild regen on the LR.

 

[Zoomit]

Oh well, at least I'll have the nicer one-pedal, along with the better traction of the AWD. I've really taken a liking to the Bolt's aggressive regen and have been concerned with the reportedly relatively mild regen on the LR.

I agree. I'd love to see higher regen in the Model 3 and hope the 3DM improves the regen capability. Motor Trend measured the Bolt EV and Model 3LR regen and found the average deceleration rate for them to be 0.26g and 0.16g respectively (using the highest regen settings on each). The Bolt EV can create 62% more deceleration using regen than the 3LR.

 

[JADCa]

It could be the 310 is the actual range of the P3D with 20"s and Tesla just wants all LR to have the same EPA range and will find a way to tweak the SR to all be 220 before final production.

 

[TT97]

I agree. I'd love to see higher regen in the Model 3 and hope the 3DM improves the regen capability. Motor Trend measured the Bolt EV and Model 3LR regen and found the average deceleration rate for them to be 0.26g and 0.16g respectively (using the highest regen settings on each). The Bolt EV can create 62% more deceleration using regen than the 3LR.

Quicker deceleration doesn't necessarily mean more regeneration. There are many factors that affect efficiency of the system - motor, batteries, controller all affect efficiency. Also, all other things being equal, a heavier car will have better regen (something about E=MC²).

Hopefully, there are smarter people than me on this site that can provide better insight.

 

[ℬête Noire]

Quicker deceleration doesn't necessarily mean more regeneration. There are many factors that affect efficiency of the system - motor, batteries, controller all affect efficiency. Also, all other things being equal, a heavier car will have better regen (something about E=MC²).

Hopefully, there are smarter people than me on this site that can provide better insight.

If by better you mean more efficient, heavier cars don't have better regen.

The best regen is regen you never use, because there's always going to be a % of energy put into accelerating that you don't get back with regen (damn you, Laws of Thermodynamics ). The more mass the more energy you're going to put in, so for a given % of efficiency on the regen it'll be more energy lost.

This is the same going up and down hills. You'll get more energy back coming down the hill but you have to put more energy in going up the hill to start with.

EDIT: Stronger regen does recover more if you needed to stop but the lower regen rate forced you to revert to friction brakes. Basically stronger regen covers for poor planning, situations where you don't want to slow down gradually, and really steep hills (like >%16 grade for the LR, which is pretty rare for roads in NA)

 

[TT97]

Also, all other things being equal, a heavier car will have better regen

If by better you mean more efficient, heavier cars don't have better regen.

I did not mean more efficient as I considered efficiency in the "all other things being equal." If two cars have the same efficiency, then the heavier car will have better regen.

 

[ℬête Noire]

I did not mean more efficient as I considered efficiency in the "all other things being equal." If two cars have the same efficiency, then the heavier car will have better regen.

So what's "better" mean here?

 

[TT97]

So what's "better" mean here?

More

 

[ℬête Noire]

More

More what? Generates more kW of electricity to achieve the same de-accelation rate?

I'm unclear by what criteria this would be "better".

EDIT: And it definitely doesn't involve E=mc^2. Maybe you were thinking of along the lines of F=ma?

 

[TT97]

More what? Generates more kW of electricity to achieve the same de-accelation rate?

I'm unclear by what criteria this would be "better".

EDIT: And it definitely doesn't involve E=mc^2. Maybe you were thinking of along the lines of F=ma?

wouldn't it be f=md (deceleration)

This is where my last sentence comes into play; "Hopefully, there are smarter people than me on this site that can provide better insight."

 

[clostridium]

wouldn't it be f=md (deceleration)

This is where my last sentence comes into play; "Hopefully, there are smarter people than me on this site that can provide better insight."

There is the amount of kW you get as part of regeneration and there is the amount of deceleration in g's you notice. Those two will have a clear relationship with the same car where you can say that generating x kW of regen will result in a certain deceleration and 1.5x will generate a clear amount more. I don't however believe that you can make that same statement between different cars since there are factors of the vehicle weight, the gearing of the transaxle, and possible more than impact things.

Craig

 

[vinnie97]

Indeed it is. With the extra efficiency of the PM motor in the back I had resigned myself to seeing a lot lower bump than the Model S saw but this, if it does translate from the SR to the LR rather than being something inherent with the lower C of the SR or something, is worse than I'd expected.

Oh well, at least I'll have the nicer one-pedal, along with the better traction of the AWD. I've really taken a liking to the Bolt's aggressive regen and have been concerned with the reportedly relatively mild regen on the LR.

On the contrary, since I don't desire AWD (but am a range junkie), I feel relieved (esp. after the last 2+ month ordeal I've undergone). Pardon my selfishness...

 

[jsmay311]

(Warning, speculation ahead...)

Assuming that source code stuff is legit / accurate, it seems like the best case is that AWD efficiency is only ~2% lower than RWD (for 215 miles for SR AWD vs 220 miles for SR RWD).

Worst-case... I'm thinking it could be up to ~7% worse (if you assume that the LR AWD could test as low as 310 miles on the EPA range test vs the LR RWD EPA test results of 334 miles).

Hopefully it's closer to 2%. Seeing people with RWD orders already getting delivery dates... well, I don't need another reason to regret my choice.

 

[ℬête Noire]

(Warning, speculation ahead...)

Assuming that source code stuff is legit / accurate, it seems like the best case is that AWD efficiency is only ~2% lower than RWD (for 215 miles for SR AWD vs 220 miles for SR RWD).

Worst-case... I'm thinking it could be up to ~7% worse (if you assume that the LR AWD could test as low as 310 miles on the EPA range test vs the LR RWD EPA test results of 334 miles).

The floor is higher than that for LR-D because I don't see how it won't be the P that is the lowest.

Hopefully it's closer to 2%. Seeing people with RWD orders already getting delivery dates... well, I don't need another reason to regret my choice.

I got Obsidian black, this is gonna be like a total reliving of the wife's old black G35x Infiniti...but quicker. I can't see how I'm going to regret this.**



** Unless I somehow miss the $7500 window for the Tax Credit.

 

[Zoomit]

I don't see how it won't be the P that is the lowest.

Assuming the 18" wheel/tires on both cars, there's nothing inherent to the P that would make it less efficient vs the LR-D. In fact, if the P has a lower suspension, it could get better range (again assuming the same tires).