AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Ah. I've only used Track Mode at autocross one time. Had forgotten that pressing the brake was required; that is kind of automatic so I had never noticed.
-
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
Ah. I've only used Track Mode at autocross one time. Had forgotten that pressing the brake was required; that is kind of automatic so I had never noticed.
Please note that part numbers are obviously useful but do not provide the complete story on an item.
I have experience (not auto related though) helping design and use production / inventory systems for a large company.
Inventory and production systems use numerous fields, including receiving date, QC Status, manufacturer, comments etc in addition to just the part number. It would be a simple matter to use one of those optional fields to further identify a part to be used only under certain conditions and or with certain other parts.
As one example, a part is received with a part number but cannot be used until that particular receiving date has been approved and the proper released QC status assigned to it. The non released parts are normally but not necessarily physically stored in different locations but they have the same part number. If there is any delay in getting a QC release on a particular part shipment a newer receiving that was approved could be used before the older receiving.
As another example, companies usually have multiple parts suppliers for the same items and need to know which supplier provided which exact parts are in a particular finished item. If a defect is determined after production the company can determine where that particular part was made and when it was received. This is how recalls are performed.
Hope this helps.
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
This is true; we probably won't know for some time exactly what the significance of the part number is. All we have to go on right now are the part numbers & description in the parts catalog (in the other Motors thread).
However, we can look for patterns.
One hypothesis is the 1120990 motor "MOSFET-LC" is a low current version of the motor. That would mean it could only be used in AWD (non-P) vehicles. And perhaps in SR vehicles too (not sure). This motor has only recently shown up, starting in Europe, and now in the US (previously all vehicles had the 1120980 motor).
So, if we find a 1120990 motor in a P3D (Stealth or +), that would blow the above "low current" theory apart.
So far, we've only found 1120990 motors in AWD (non-P) vehicles. I think the count is 5 or 6 instances now.
But we have very limited data on recent P drive units (I think none - you'd have to check the other thread to see the exact status). So would be great for new P owners in particular (but new SR+ and AWD owners can contribute too) to report.
Supporting the theory of two different motor current capacities is the "remanufactured" parts available in the catalog - it appears possible these are two different max amperage capability drive unit assemblies - 630A vs. 840A. Not clear that's ACTUALLY what those numbers mean, but there haven't been any other good hypotheses and the numbers line up with the inverter max current specs which were previously published in the catalog, prior to the 5% power boost - the new numbers are ~5% higher than those old numbers (that detail is no longer visible in the catalog).
ASY,M3,REAR 3DU,MOSFET,GLOBAL
1120980-00-F
ASY,M3,REAR,MOSFET-LC,GLOBAL
1120990-00-F
ASY, P-TRAIN, RMN, 3DU-Rear 840 MOSFET
1521365-00-A
Note that the 630 RMN unit has now disappeared from the catalog...
Model 3 Motors on the Tesla Parts Catalog
Last edited:
Track mode is now showing an as option. Thanks all.
MagnusMako
Member
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Thanks so much. That's a 1120980 motor. The pattern continues to hold, since you have a P3D Stealth. Your build date (driver door pillar) is July 2019, right?
Last edited:
I finally got around to take taking a picture of my rear motor. 07/19 build date.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Seems that you may have forgotten to attach the picture? You should be able to edit the post above still. You have a P3D Stealth, 07/19 build, which initially was delivered as an AWD, so we expect it to be a 1120980-00-F motor, but we will see!
I was having technical difficulties with the attaching photos lol. I posted it in a new post
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Confirmed. I'm almost ready to call this a pattern.
Summary:
It appears likely that at some point in 2019, AWD non-P vehicles started being equipped with MOSFET-LC (1120990) motors, while Performance and Performance-capable vehicles have continued to be equipped with 1120980 motors (which has been referred to in one place on someone's service document as a "MOSFET-HC" motor). So maybe one is high current and one is low current. This is sort of supported by there being two different remanufactured units in the part catalog, an "840" and a "630" (the lower "current" one (no "A" (amps) unit is in the catalog) is no longer listed).
To disprove this pattern, we'd have to find a Performance vehicle with a 1120990 motor. So far, no luck.
Perhaps this is Tesla's sane answer to the "Performance drive units are lot sorted for highest sigma output " situation they had up until that point (x/2019), which most people have doubted in these forums, but perhaps was actually happening (the main reason it was doubted here was that no one does things that way)?
Whatever would @Knightshade & @StealthP3D say?
Last edited:
Confirmed. I'm almost ready to call this a pattern.
Summary:
It appears likely that at some point in 2019, AWD non-P vehicles started being equipped with MOSFET-LC (1120990) motors, while Performance and Performance-capable vehicles have continued to be equipped with 1120980 motors (which has been referred to in one place on someone's service document as a "MOSFET-HC" motor). So maybe one is high current and one is low current. This is sort of supported by there being two different remanufactured units in the part catalog, an "840" and a "630" (the lower "current" one (no "A" (amps) unit is in the catalog) is no longer listed).
To disprove this pattern, we'd have to find a Performance vehicle with a 1120990 motor. So far, no luck.
Perhaps this is Tesla's sane answer to the "Performance drive units are lot sorted for highest sigma output " situation they had up until that point (x/2019), which most people have doubted in these forums, but perhaps was actually happening (the main reason it was doubted here was that no one does things that way)?
Whatever would @Knightshade & @StealthP3D say?
Cool man thanks for your thoughts on this. So are you speculating that this change happened recently, and older AWD non-p cars could have also had the 980 to support the idea they could potentially be software unlocked through an update? I assume the pattern you’re finding is recent?
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
The pattern is recent. We don't know when "it" (AWD non-P being equipped with 1120990 rear motors) started - but it was sometime after 12/18 and sometime before 5/19, and possibly before 2/19.
Now, as far as software unlocking through an update of AWD non-P vehicles with 1120980 rear motors (and there are many of them - for sure any assembled before 1/19)...that will be debated ad nauseum here.
It's entirely possible, if Elon wasn't making stuff up, that some AWD non-P vehicles are not capable of Performance currents in the rear drive unit. But, no one knows. Obviously, some AWD vehicles will be capable, since they all (prior to 1/19) have 1120980 rear motors, and that's the motor Performance vehicles have. But if the drive units are somehow classified beyond the part number in Tesla's systems, then perhaps not all AWD vehicles are created equal.
This has been debated over and over again here, and honestly, there's no way to know right now. The only way that I can think of that we would know that it is NOT true is: if at some point in the future, Tesla offers a generic unlock to all AWD non-P vehicles which were manufactured prior to a certain date (presumably 1/19). Because that would imply all 1120980 motors are capable of P power.
Another way to throw a wrench in the works would be to simply find a 1120990 motor in a Performance vehicle.
Last edited:
Gotcha. Sorry I thought the reason you were collecting the motor info was because of the AWD upgrade debacle. Cool insights regardless, I wonder why the 980/990 change.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Confirmed. I'm almost ready to call this a pattern.
Summary:
It appears likely that at some point in 2019, AWD non-P vehicles started being equipped with MOSFET-LC (1120990) motors, while Performance and Performance-capable vehicles have continued to be equipped with 1120980 motors (which has been referred to in one place on someone's service document as a "MOSFET-HC" motor). So maybe one is high current and one is low current. This is sort of supported by there being two different remanufactured units in the part catalog, an "840" and a "630" (the lower "current" one (no "A" (amps) unit is in the catalog) is no longer listed).
To disprove this pattern, we'd have to find a Performance vehicle with a 1120990 motor. So far, no luck.
Perhaps this is Tesla's sane answer to the "Performance drive units are lot sorted for highest sigma output " situation they had up until that point (x/2019), which most people have doubted in these forums, but perhaps was actually happening (the main reason it was doubted here was that no one does things that way)?
Whatever would @Knightshade & @StealthP3D say?
I'd say it's a little weird it took them like 9 months to actually start using a "different" motor in the AWD non-P cars.
One would think the MFG complexity wouldn't be worth doing that that far into production (especially if it removed their flexibility to make AWD cars more valuable with a SW flash- both new ones and trade ins)
It doesn't change the fact all the AWD cars we saw data on for the first ~9 months of production came with the same 980 motor the P did and thus all ought to be SW unlockable as Ps.
And it doesn't change the fact that, as I've said from the start, if Tesla DID actually use a DIFFERENT drive unit, they'd give it a different part number... in fact it confirms it
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I'd say it's a little weird it took them like 9 months to actually start using a "different" motor in the AWD non-P cars.
One would think the MFG complexity wouldn't be worth doing that that far into production (especially if it removed their flexibility to make AWD cars more valuable with a SW flash- both new ones and trade ins)
It doesn't change the fact all the AWD cars we saw data on for the first ~9 months of production came with the same 980 motor the P did and thus all ought to be SW unlockable as Ps.
And it doesn't change the fact that, as I've said from the start, if Tesla DID actually use a DIFFERENT drive unit, they'd give it a different part number... in fact it confirms it
I agree with all of the above. We'll see what happens with the pattern. If people keep reporting their drive units this whole thesis could fall apart pretty quickly.
EDIT:
And it doesn't change the fact that, as I've said from the start, if Tesla DID actually use a DIFFERENT drive unit, they'd give it a different part number... in fact it confirms it
I guess I don't 100% agree with this (it's the whole crux of that debate).
Some people believe that even with the same part number, somehow Tesla is tracking these in "some other" mysterious way. So I guess it's a question of your definition of "different". Potentially, drive unit could be assembled the same way and have all the same nominal components. But those components could be lot sorted. I know you disagree with that and I'm not going to debate that - I don't have strong opinions on it, or any way to know the answer...yet. But is it possible? I suppose.
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
We also don't know whether ALL AWD non-P vehicles (and sold as such) now have 1120990 motors...I actually suspect some will have 1120980 for demand flexibility, but who knows...
It's all quite bizarre, and honestly if we find a Performance vehicle with a 1120990 motor it might actually make more sense, as a gradual transition to that drive unit... but no evidence of that so far. It's also perhaps somewhat contradicted by the remanufactured units in the part catalog.
jebinc
Well-Known Member
Quick question re rear motor P/N viewing - do you have to remove any covers to see the tag or do you just scoot underneath and look up?
Similar threads
- Question
