Model 3 Highland Performance/Plaid Speculation [Car announced 04.23.2024]

[terranx]

The speed limiter decrease has nothing to do with the cars' price changes. It literally costs them nothing to set the limiter to any particular value. Highland price went up in other countries, but still has the same speed limiter.

Prices from a year ago aren't really relevant to the discussion. Tesla was just doing what all the traditional dealers were doing and scalping their cars.

 

[Destiny1701]

The speed limiter decrease has nothing to do with the cars' price changes. It literally costs them nothing to set the limiter to any particular value. Highland price went up in other countries, but still has the same speed limiter.

Prices from a year ago aren't really relevant to the discussion. Tesla was just doing what all the traditional dealers were doing and scalping their cars.

Who knows mate. All conjecture on all sides. I’m just saying $ equate to value.

 

[Apprunner]

Conversely people paid 8-10knmore for a model 3 in 2022 than today. One could argue again people today are getting what they are paying for ‘today’.

At some point tesla will offer what they can at the profit level they can achieve per vehicle.‘if this erodes, features follow suit.

Not saying I like what they did, but can one complain paying far less than a buyer did a year ago?

Oh ya agreed…a 3P would smoke an X any day handling wise. Not the same category.

I agree that its not the same category and that is the point. A sports sedan should have a higher top speed than a sporty SUV. Its kinda dumb to lower the Model 3 to a 125 mph arbitrarily. There is probably a good reason they did this but haven't released why yet.

Also, 125mph is kinda low. All of my old ICE sports sedans were faster. I just hope they don't make a stupid mistake and limit the next M3P to this 125mph.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

i just want the 60-120 to be close to as fast as the 0-60. i went back and tested my 3 and x again today, and the x definitely pulls harder between 60-80mph. p3 needs to be faster at higher speeds and not lose performance/power below 70% battery... if those 2 things happened, then it would be close to the the perfect daily driver.

You want the Model 3 Performance to run a 3 second 60-130 mph? That doesn’t seem realistic at all.

 

[gearchruncher]

A sports sedan should have a higher top speed than a sporty SUV.

Is a base model 3 a sports sedan? This thread is all over the place from calling an M3P a cheap econobox to the base car being a sports sedan where 125MPH is unacceptable.

Who on earth would care about 125MPH top speed if a higher spec M3P exists?

 

[Apprunner]

Is a base model 3 a sports sedan? This thread is all over the place from calling an M3P a cheap econobox to the base car being a sports sedan where 125MPH is unacceptable.

Who on earth would care about 125MPH top speed if a higher spec M3P exists?

I would say the Model 3 itself is a sports sedan the same way most of the 3 series are considered sports sedans. Not everyone may want the highest end M3P but bought their LR to with sporting intentions (just not track focused).

People buy the BMW M340 and most of the buyers would probably expect more than 125 mph even though an M3 exists. Totally ridiculous to not want my car to exceed 125mph even though a higher trim exists. It’s mutually exclusive.

 

[Zcd1]

The BMW i4M50 (the fastest version) is limited to 124 mph, FWIW.

As near as I can tell, this (low-ish) limit is related to its reduction gear ratio and its maximum motor RPM…

 

[terranx]

The BMW i4M50 (the fastest version) is limited to 124 mph, FWIW.

As near as I can tell, this (low-ish) limit is related to its reduction gear ratio and its maximum motor RPM…

I’m seeing 140mph when I look it up?

 

[BigNick]

I agree that its not the same category and that is the point. A sports sedan should have a higher top speed than a sporty SUV. Its kinda dumb to lower the Model 3 to a 125 mph arbitrarily. There is probably a good reason they did this but haven't released why yet.

Also, 125mph is kinda low. All of my old ICE sports sedans were faster. I just hope they don't make a stupid mistake and limit the next M3P to this 125mph.

Cost reduction by installing OEM tires with a lower speeed rating on non-P cars?

 

[Apprunner]

Cost reduction by installing OEM tires with a lower speeed rating on non-P cars?

Could be but someone stated that the tires are higher rated than 125 mph. There has to be a reason and its probably cost related. I just don't know if its the tires or something else.

 

[Zcd1]

I’m seeing 140mph when I look it up?

There’s lots of conflicting information now - initially it was listed at 124 mph, but that MAY have been with 19” wheels/tires, with the 20” performance tires enabling 139.75 (140) mph.

Model 3P absolutely does 162 mph, as tested by multiple sources.

All those figures are largely academic unless you live near an autobahn, though…

 

[Knightshade]

Could be but someone stated that the tires are higher rated than 125 mph. There has to be a reason and its probably cost related. I just don't know if its the tires or something else.

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2024-tesla-model-3-highland-suspension-changes-deep-dive/

This says the US tires are Michelin Primacy All Season 235/45R-18 98W XL T0

Assuming that's true, W rated means 168 mph max sustained speed- so it ain't the tires.

 

[Apprunner]

There’s lots of conflicting information now - initially it was listed at 124 mph, but that MAY have been with 19” wheels/tires, with the 20” performance tires enabling 139.75 (140) mph.

Model 3P absolutely does 162 mph, as tested by multiple sources.

All those figures are largely academic unless you live near an autobahn, though…

Or Mexico

 

[Gauss Guzzler]

Tesla has a lot of trouble with dumb drivers, wrong pedals, and the resulting media shiitshow "TESLA" "ACCELERATION" "DANGEROUS" "ELON"...
They also have a lot of trouble with NHTSA being so shamelessly political that they were actually forced to recall 2 million cars for making "silent but deadly" fart noises.

A good solution is for Tesla to point to the fact that they have voluntarily implemented a much safer 125mph top speed limit than other brands, but they still allow enthusiasts - who presumably know which pedal is which - to pay extra for the performance model, whose higher speed limit is managed by appropriate brakes, suspension, tires, etc.

In other words, a win-win. On the PR side they sell a safe car, and on the performance side they justify a higher price gap.

 

[gearchruncher]

They also have a lot of trouble with NHTSA being so shamelessly political

LOL. As if Tesla doesn't antagonize NHTSA over every damn thing. Tell me, was the fart noise in compliance with FMVSS for a horn? If not, why is it polictical to go after Tesla for self-certifying a horn that in fact was not in compliance?

A good solution for Tesla is to point to the fact that they voluntarily implemented much safer 125mph top speed limits than most other cars, but they still allow enthusiasts - who presumably know which pedal is which - to pay extra for the performance model with a higher speed limit and appropriate brakes, suspension, tires, etc. to make it safe-ish.

This is an AWFUL path to take. The news cycle here is that because someone has more money they are inherently better drivers.
People buying the performance badge means nothing about driver skill.

If Tesla cared about safety and wanted to prove it, the following would be much more effective instead of a 125 MPH speed limit vs a 140:
1) 95 MPH speed limiters while the car is in the USA on a public road, because there is no reason to go 125 either.
2) If not 95, why not 113 like a Rivian or 118 like most basic cars?
3) FSD would not speed, not even 5 MPH
4) Tesla's safety score would consider speeding

 

[Gauss Guzzler]

Yes, the farts were fully compliant. Tesla never allowed the conventional horn or pedestrian warning sounds to be disabled, they only allowed additional sounds to be added to them. NHTSA's claim was that the farts could potentially be so loud that pedestrians would be unable to hear them. And would then die.

Whether or not Tesla is deserving of this retaliation does not change the fact that they have a very public reputation for making egregiously unsafe vehicles. How many of your friends and family asked you about the December recall to narrowly escape certain death slightly increase autopilot nagging? I had dozens. The media covered it for weeks as if it was the biggest crisis in America.

The "Performance model" shifts some liability perception away from the automaker and onto the driver, or even the parents of that joyriding teen. Whereas every time grandma drives her base model thru the liquor store window and the media goes nuts about the "Tesla" with "instant torque", "dangerous acceleration", and "countless NHTSA recalls" for being a "pedestrian-murder machine", at least Tesla can say that they tried to implement some safer technologies like speed limiters.

 

[gearchruncher]

Yes, the farts were fully compliant.

No they weren't. The whole recall was literally for failure to comply with FVMSS 141. NHTSA argued that the noise created by the boombox function was not compliant with FVMSS 141, and Tesla agreed, and voluntarilly recalled the function. Weird thing for Tesla to do if it was compliant.

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCLRPT-22V063-8773.PDF

Sorry, but this is not "political." There is a regulatory standard that vehicles in the USA must meet. Teslas did not. Tesla did what Tesla often does and released products without particular concern for compliance with regulations, and the regulator forced them to comply. It would be equally political for NHTSA to ignore it. Tesla then complains about how regulators suck and they were just trying to have some fun. The circle of life is complete.

If Tesla disagrees with FVMSS 141 and the underlying standards, they should get the rules changed, not ignore them and release knowingly non-compliant products onto the road. You know, like all the other companies building highly dangerous products are expected to.

Whether or not Tesla is deserving of this retaliation does not change the fact that they have a very public reputation for making egregiously unsafe vehicles.

Well, Tesla brings this upon themselves by constantly releasing half baked products that push the limits of sociatal acceptance. When "Full Self Driving" starts crashing into ambulances, fire trucks, and police cars, that does tend to make the news. If Tesla was so amazing at marketing and messaging, their argument would be stronger than "hurr, durr, lamestream media misreports on recalls that are just software updates!" or "eveyone knows Full Self Driving is just a NAAAAAMMMEEEE"

And noticably, this crash-into-emergency vehicles feature is only availible to wealthier people, as it's a $10K software package that adds 25% to the price of a Tesla. Always a good look that you only let your most expensive cars cause additional societal harm. Just like higher speed limits on more expensive cars.

And you wonder why the News covers this when it's also multipled by Elon's behaviors and attempts to dominate news cycles, and you think it's all unfair or political? Screaming "political witch hunt" is directly out of the gaslight playbook of some other notible people that take up the news cycles too.

at least Tesla can say that they tried to implement some safer technologies like speed limiters.

In what world is a 125 MPH or 140 MPH speed limiter a "safer technology" when the max speed limit in the usa is 85 MPH? Can you even find a high profile Tesla crash where the car was going over 125 MPH? Given 125 MPH is faster than the industry standard of 118 MPH or lower, how is Tesla doing better?

Plus, Tesla has had customer defined speed limiters forever now so that parents can limit the speed for Teenagers and Tesla doesn't go around yelling about this and how safe they are.

I don't think even Tesla is so dumb to try and argue the message: "We're a good company trying to reduce crashes. Look! We put a 125 MPH speed limiter on our cheaper cars because we care so much." Do you really think that Tesla put this here so they could tell the public or regulators how safe their cars are? Are we really going to see a press release like Volvo (who limits to 111 MPH on every car, even in their performance models)?

The limiter is there for a technical reason, not some 5D chess thing. Let's not try and pretend otherwise.

 

[momo3605]

I think the lower speed limits are just because people who own the cars don't drive that fast anyway, anyone want to guess the percentage of Model 3 LR owners that drive over 125. OR EVEN 100mph??

Additionally the model 3 is gutless above 90 anyway, so why bother with a 140 limit. 125 is safer and I think they've realized people aren't buying the DM LR for the top speed anyway. I think the more annoying change was the 130 limiter on the Model S LR. The car does the 1/4 mile at 129mph lmao, so it basically hits a hard stop at the end of a quarter mile. That's pretty rough.

 

[gearchruncher]

I think the lower speed limits are just because people who own the cars don't drive that fast anyway, anyone want to guess the percentage of Model 3 LR owners that drive over 125. OR EVEN 100mph??

125 is safer and I think they've realized people aren't buying the DM LR for the top speed anyway.

If nobody drives EVEN 100 MPH, then why is a 125 MPH limiter "safer"? It's irrelevant.

And if nobody drives 100 MPH, and lower is safer, then why not set the limit at 118 like other cars? Or even better, 111 MPH like Volvo, a leader in safety? Why not 100 MPH, since nobody drives that fast?

You can see how silly it is to think of 125 MPH as a safety function if you also argue that it doesn't impact anyone because nobody ever hits the limiter, and it looks even sillier when you realize that it's still higer than most cars on the road.

Yet if you look at it from the engineering standpoint of something only being rated to a specific speed (tires, motor RPM, aerodynamic lift, etc), then it's a lot more logical and likely than some sort of fuzzy "because it's safer" argument.

 

[momo3605]

If nobody drives EVEN 100 MPH, then why is a 125 MPH limiter "safer"? It's irrelevant.

And if nobody drives 100 MPH, and lower is safer, then why not set the limit at 118 like other cars? Or even better, 111 MPH like Volvo, a leader in safety? Why not 100 MPH, since nobody drives that fast?

You can see how silly it is to think of 125 MPH as a safety function if you also argue that it doesn't impact anyone because nobody ever hits the limiter, and it looks even sillier when you realize that it's still higer than most cars on the road.

Yet if you look at it from the engineering standpoint of something only being rated to a specific speed (tires, motor RPM, aerodynamic lift, etc), then it's a lot more logical and likely than some sort of fuzzy "because it's safer" argument.

I still think it's a "because it's safer argument" and i'd argue 125, because it's still high enough that no one will complain that they are hitting. I know Tesla usually addresses safety only when they are forced to by NHTSA or regulatory bodies, but I really do think it's the case here. People complain all the time about Rivian's 111 limit, it's too low and easy to hit since the power doesn't drop off the same way like the 3s

The Model 3s price has dropped, it's no longer in direct competition with BMW/Audi/Mercedes M performance/S line cars that all have 155 limits. Enthusiasts aren't the ones buying non-performance teslas anymore. It's mostly just commuters and tech bros' grandparents that drive them these days, so I think Tesla was like, why bother with the higher speed limit.

Anyway whats YOUR explanation?