Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

M3 AWD LR Non P Vbox run(S)

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Alan,

Went out again tonight. I got those other stats you were asking for. Is there any possibility that there’s a gap before the start on my chart because I’m pressing “start” and then waiting a moment to go? I don’t have it set to auto start. The line looks pretty clean this time around. Let me know your thoughts.

Best,
Gene

View attachment 385590 View attachment 385591 View attachment 385592 View attachment 385589

I agree with Daniel. Time looks like 4.2 or 4.3. Unfortunately the data is still bad. The VBOX is also really frustrating to use as of late, since getting it to connect properly to the iPhone X Bluetooth is a crapshoot. But I have not seen data like this, I think even when starting manually.

But, I’m not that experienced using it; I’m borrowing it from Daniel and I’ve only had a chance to use it a few times. The other times I have tried I have not been able to get it to cooperate. Not sure if an iPhone update has rendered Bluetooth useless or what. Haven’t spent time to figure it out.

When it does work, GPS data has been good. I place it fairly far forward on the windshield.
 
Hey guys. Thanks for the feedback. I really wanted a time for an article that will be live this week but I’ll just go with low 4s.

I was using the external antenna, this time taped to the glass roof away from the cross beam.

Software was the same old 2019.5.4. Funny enough, or not funny, the thing updated when I got home at 1am to 2019.5.15 with the alpha numbers following that changing this time around. Does that mean firmware change? Obviously I didn’t go back out.

Sorry to tease with the potentially bad data. I’ll go back to Vbox again asking them what’s up. :/

I was at 97soc and the run sure felt fast! lol

Best,
Gene
 
Hey guys. Thanks for the feedback. I really wanted a time for an article that will be live this week but I’ll just go with low 4s.

I was using the external antenna, this time taped to the glass roof away from the cross beam.

If anything, it's better to put the antenna over where the crossbeam is, but as long as it has a clear view of the sky (more satellites in view nearer the horizon, BTW) then it should be OK. Don't put tape over the antenna if you can help it as even that can affect the signal. Isn't there something in the VBOX config to show number of satellites/quality of signal?
 
Hey guys. Thanks for the feedback. I really wanted a time for an article that will be live this week but I’ll just go with low 4s.

I was using the external antenna, this time taped to the glass roof away from the cross beam.

Software was the same old 2019.5.4. Funny enough, or not funny, the thing updated when I got home at 1am to 2019.5.15 with the alpha numbers following that changing this time around. Does that mean firmware change? Obviously I didn’t go back out.

Sorry to tease with the potentially bad data. I’ll go back to Vbox again asking them what’s up. :/

I was at 97soc and the run sure felt fast! lol

Best,
Gene

What size are the 18" Scottozero? Are they the Scottozero 3 Series II in stock Model 3 size, 235/45R18? Which are actually slightly higher than stock 18" but about the same as the 20" stock tires. This isn't potentially a tire size difference?
 
I was using the external antenna, this time taped to the glass roof away from the cross beam.

Any particular reason not to just suction cup the VBOX to the front window without an external antenna? The one I have used seems to have worked fine that way (other than the awful Bluetooth connectivity issues - once connected it is good, but hard to get the sequence exactly right to get to that point). I'd definitely do runs in a place with no tree cover and a wide open view of the sky.
 
The antenna was taped from the inside of the glass. Tape below, glass above.

I didn’t go the suction cup route because when I purchased it the cups and the remote antenna were the same price and I figured one was better for permanent installation.

Runs this time didn’t have a tree or building nearby. Clear open sky and zero Bluetooth issues. Also, no phantom MPH while at a standstill.

Lastly, while I know I haven’t made a good start here, I drove the car to the dealer this morning and it’s 100% faster with the update. No, not as in double but just that it is certainly faster. This was with regular soc [88%] and a cold drivetrain. I should get it back tomorrow and then I’ll try, get again, with the Vbox.

I’m happy to email someone the data file to examine. I’m all Mac so playing with the data file has been troublesome.

Also, Alan, what’s the M3P do data wise on those specific speed boundaries you asked for earlier in the thread?

All the best,
Gene
 
Phantom mph at standstill is a sure sign of poor GPS reception.

Do not tape it to the inside of the glass!! I don't know about the Model 3, but automotive glass often has coatings which will block the GPS signal. Put the external antenna in the middle of the roof, attached with double sided tape, or tape around the edge.
 
Picking up the car in a few hours. I'm going to tape it on top of the glass, on metal in my pockets, on the salt flats, at 100% soc. Go baby go! lol

Magnus, is that with the new software installed which may or may not increase power? Very nice!

Best,
Gene
 
80% SoC, 70ish F. 4.33s, 4.10s (1ft) tested with Dragy. LR AWD completely stock.


I always find these Dragy plots so weird because the derivative of the velocity plot never matches the acceleration, and of course the integral of the acceleration does not match the velocity. Specifically between 0 and about 4 mph. And then there is the wavy acceleration which is strange. Fairly sure the acceleration is closer to a correct plot though. Must be some initial timepoint thing or inaccuracy.
 
Good to see you here, Gene! I remember you abusing that C7 in the cold from the Corvette forum (currently tail_lights and formerly vetterlatethannever) haha! I loved those pics and how they were comparing your car with icicles to a Xenomorph. Good times!
 
  • Love
Reactions: phantasms
Good to see you here, Gene! I remember you abusing that C7 in the cold from the Corvette forum (currently tail_lights and formerly vetterlatethannever) haha! I loved those pics and how they were comparing your car with icicles to a Xenomorph. Good times!

Taillights! Great to see you here as well brother. I hope you're loving the Tesla as much as I am. With time, we'll convert them all! Actually no probably not.

Grrrr
LeedsZ01.jpg
 
Alright. Here it is.

First of all, thank you Alan for making clear to me the old data sucked and I had to do a better job.

I put the antenna on the trunk last night and got much cleaner and more reliable stats.

All runs were done with between 95% and 85% SOC and it was on the 2019.5.15 f5def7e software. 18" aero wheels on Winter tires. Flat ground. The performance was almost identical the whole time because as I was draining battery, the drivetrain was heating up. Maybe if I drove it hard, topped off at a supercharger, and ran again I could have squeezed a little more out of it but that really doesn't tell us anything interesting.

To summarize:
All stats are not including the 1 foot roll out which is industry standard across the board. [except with Tesla marketing non P]
Putting the 1 foot back in adds about 0.27 seconds.
The AWD model does 4.0x 0-60 all day long. I ran a best of 3.99 and a slowest of 4.09 with the average right in the middle after ~10+ runs.
1/8 mile: 8.19s @ 91mph
0-100 is just under 10 seconds.

Below are images.

First up is the clean plot of the 0-60. I realized the reason it looks past 4 seconds is that this graph is keeping the one foot rollout, because of course it should. It's the raw data.

IMG_8687.PNG


This image shows that the speed at the end of the first foot is about 4.13 mph.

IMG_8688.PNG


This shows us the time to get to ~4.13mph is about 0.27 seconds.

IMG_8689.PNG


Here are the full stats and splits of the fastest run I got in. Notice the 0-60 and the 5-60 are nearly identical which makes sense based on the above.

IMG_8690.PNG


Here is the close up of the 3.99 0-60 showing it pass at about 4.25s. 4.25 minus the one foot time of 0.27 is ~3.99. Again, makes sense.

IMG_8692.PNG


Here, for fun, is a run to nearly 100mph. I was at an indicated 102 or so but should have held on longer as the GPS only saw about 98mph. It gives a sense of the power curve at speed and time.

IMG_8695.PNG


This image shows us true 0-100 time is a hair over 10 seconds. Subtracting the .027 one foot puts us at about 9.8seconds 0-100. A funny side note. I've driven and reviewed a ton of fast cars. I always said 0-100 in ten seconds is a good time for a street car. It's plenty fast and once you start getting into the 8's it becomes a little too much to drive it hard on the street due to safety reasons and the law man, at least in the tri-state area. But yeah, of course I'd trade for a Performance model.

IMG_8694.PNG


Please note none of this is to take away from the Performance car's crown. It just shows that that car is about 0.8 seconds faster to 60, not 1.3. Again, I'm basing this on the premise that Tesla includes the one foot rollout for AWD times for all cars other than the Performance for marketing purposes. The difference between a 4.0 car and a 3.2 second car to 60mph is still massive. It wasn't worth 10k to me but if we're ever able to upgrade our AWD cars to M3P- for ~$5k, I'm all in.

Alan, you dig? :)

Best,
Gene

TeslaM3Leeds-4.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8691.PNG
    IMG_8691.PNG
    271.9 KB · Views: 44
  • IMG_8697.PNG
    IMG_8697.PNG
    247.8 KB · Views: 27
Last edited:
Looks much better. Glad you stuck with it! Good data is always nice...

Maybe if I drove it hard, topped off at a supercharger, and ran again I could have squeezed a little more out of it but that really doesn't tell us anything interesting.

I doubt a full charge would do anything compared to those SoCs (greater than 85%). At those charge levels (> 85%), the Performance can still run a 3.3 second 0-60 (minus rollout), and what happens with lower SoC is primarily a power limitation, which affects peak HP, not peak torque (so at lower SoC peak HP is lower, so the torque starts to roll off progressively sooner (lower RPM) as the SoC gets lower and lower). Since the AWD is putting out a significantly lower power to start with, I'd expect it to be able to run to an even lower SoC than the Performance before you start seeing the impact on 0-60 time. Since the power limit is the AWD software limit at these SoCs, not the battery. That's far from a clear explanation but don't want to try to rephrase it... :)

The AWD model does 4.0x 0-60 all day long. I ran a best of 3.99 and a slowest of 4.09 with the average right in the middle after ~10+ runs.

I'm surprised at how much better it is than the number (which includes the rollout) on Tesla's website. You're seeing 4.3 seconds, right now they list 4.5 seconds, and I don't know what it was exactly before the 5% announcement (I don't attempt to keep track). However, I remember hearing that generally the AWD does better than the posted numbers on the website, so maybe not really much of a surprise.

Also not really a suprise because Daniel had no problem beating me (by a hair) at autocross in his AWD (with proper wider tires). I was driving skittishly and he had wider tires, but still, they're both very fast and very comparable for that sort of application. At least with Track Mode, I didn't have to deal with the hazard lights turning on automatically like he did, though.

It sounds like the consensus is that the latest software did NOT provide the extra 5% peak power yet, but I can't say one way or another (have not checked myself).

Tesla really does not want to cannibalize their Performance sales. That's the moral of the story here as far as I can tell!
 
Looks much better. Glad you stuck with it! Good data is always nice...

Maybe if I drove it hard, topped off at a supercharger, and ran again I could have squeezed a little more out of it but that really doesn't tell us anything interesting.

I doubt a full charge would do anything compared to those SoCs (greater than 85%). At those charge levels (> 85%), the Performance can still run a 3.3 second 0-60 (minus rollout), and what happens with lower SoC is primarily a power limitation, which affects peak HP, not peak torque (so at lower SoC peak HP is lower, so the torque starts to roll off progressively sooner (lower RPM) as the SoC gets lower and lower). Since the AWD is putting out a significantly lower power to start with, I'd expect it to be able to run to an even lower SoC than the Performance before you start seeing the impact on 0-60 time. Since the power limit is the AWD software limit at these SoCs, not the battery. That's far from a clear explanation but don't want to try to rephrase it... :)

The AWD model does 4.0x 0-60 all day long. I ran a best of 3.99 and a slowest of 4.09 with the average right in the middle after ~10+ runs.

I'm surprised at how much better it is than the number (which includes the rollout) on Tesla's website. You're seeing 4.3 seconds, right now they list 4.5 seconds, and I don't know what it was exactly before the 5% announcement (I don't attempt to keep track). However, I remember hearing that generally the AWD does better than the posted numbers on the website, so maybe not really much of a surprise.

Also not really a surprise because Daniel beat me (by a small margin) at autocross in his AWD. I was driving skittishly, but still, they're both very fast and very comparable for that sort of application. At least with Track Mode, I didn't have to deal with the hazard lights turning on automatically & randomly like he did, though!

It sounds like the consensus is that the latest software did NOT provide the extra 5% peak power yet, but I can't say one way or another (have not checked myself).

Tesla really does not want to cannibalize their Performance sales. That's the moral of the story here as far as I can tell!
 
  • Like
Reactions: phantasms