Glad I could help.. let me know if theres anything else I can doPlaced a deposit on a P3- today
Thanks @shiftkenny for connecting me with your OA, she was awesome!
My own OA has been unresponsive since Friday. He finally texted me back today, after I had placed a deposit via the other OA.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
M3P- . What is it, how to order it, etc.
- Thread starter shiftkenny
- Start date
scubastevo80
Member
It always was a 4 second car - I think the change made the car on Tesla’s site go from 4.5 to 4.4. I still believe the older AWDs with 980 motors are capable of times in the 3s.
InfinitiGuy
Member
Well, the performance upgrade really tempted me and I pulled the trigger! Was set on white for a long time but they couldn't locate one with the performance upgrade so I ended up choosing red which was my 2nd choice and is probably an appropriate colour for this 'performance' car. Really excited to take delivery.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
The AWD does 4.0 flat when tested the same way they test the P (Tesla deceptively measures Ps differently from all their other cars to make the Ps look better) though a couple of owners have gotten very high 3s (like 3.96 or something)
FWIW I've yet to see any evidence the 990 motor makes any difference to running those times but I'm unsure if anyone has actually checked or not.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
It's something like an average power of 170kW to get to 60mph in 4.0s vs. an average power of 220kW to get there in 3.1s. So that is 77% of the average power required in the P3D. After accounting for whatever contribution the front motor makes, it's very likely that the requirement to maintain that 4 second time is less than the ratio 630A/840A (75%). (The amps determine the torque, not the power directly, obviously, but you can still use this as a proxy without the exact numbers - would be better to compare the acceleration (which is constant) from 5-45mph to get an idea of the requirements...but I don't want dig through posts here to look it up.)
Anyway, so it seems very likely that with the (speculative) 630A peak current "LC" motor, it would still be plenty to maintain the 4 second time. If the 990 motor has the 630A inverter, it should be enough for the AWD to meet the published performance numbers. Data would be good of course.
jebinc
Well-Known Member
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
In large part because they publish those using a different testing method than for P cars though.
The P isn't 3.2 using the same method they test the AWD with either it's ~3.5
(Tesla was, briefly, actually honest about this when the 3 first came out- then switched to the dishonest two-different-methods system some months later when the P magically got quicker without any actual change to anything)
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Yeah I was using the numbers not including rollout which seem to be approximately what I quoted. And the energy was calculated as the difference between 60mph and 5mph (not 0mph) since you’re going 4-5mph after about 12 inches. Not that it matters. Assumed 4200 pounds.
jebinc
Well-Known Member
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
But did you account for heat and friction loss?Thanks for the analysis.
No! They're there in both cases, to some extent they scale proportionately, to some extent they don't.
It is pretty hand-wavy. As I said, just going off the acceleration numbers people have measured would be a more direct way to go. But...lazy.I have no idea how much power the front motor contributes in a max acceleration run, and no way to measure it without diagnostics, so it's hard to actually be definitive, anyway.
I guess we could do the same analysis with the SR+ and see whether it could "get away with" the 990 motor. Since no one is posting recent pictures of those....
(Though it seems likely it has an 980 motor based on the pictures from earlier this year.)Didn’t the P now magically go to 310 miles range where previously it was 285 miles IIRC. Craziness to even make sense out of it.
jebinc
Well-Known Member
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
In that case I was mistaken. I thought original P was 285 mile rated.
robo_robb
Member
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
If you don’t need the car, and need to save for it as you mentioned previously, and you don’t drive enormous numbers of miles, just wait. Teslas are likely to get cheaper and higher performance over time.
You’ll save money by waiting and things will almost certainly get better over time.
I was talking about P version sold in mid 2018. Not sure why I thought it was 285 miles rated.
Similar threads
- Question
