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

[mpgxsvcd]

You're correct, I read something backwards.

The E-ray is doing 495 HP in the ICE engine at the crank, and a DCT transmission drops a similar amount of power as an inverter and motor.
It's unclear where the E-ray is measuring the "160 HP" front electric motor power.


495 crank HP has to go through a multi-gear transmission, differential, and wheels.
EV power has to go through a single gear transmission (more efficient), differential, and wheels.
They're not really different. Your point that 462kW is at the battery and 495HP is at the crank is valid, but it's not clear how much heat loss the motor and inverter has, and how much of that is made back via the simpler single speed transmission.


Yes, above 60 MPH for sure, but I was just pointing out that in 0-60, 462kW is plenty to get into the 2 second range 0-60. Beyond that of course something like an E-ray will walk on a current M3P. That doesn't have to be true if the new M3P can maintain 462kW from 40 MPH to 100MPH+.

The Power from the battery has to go through the motor. The motor is really efficient but it isn't 100% efficient. You will get some losses there that the ICE vehicle doesn't experience because the power is measured after the engine.

I think the gearing for ICE vs. EV is the biggest factor for 0-60 mph. The Model 3 doesn't hit peak power until right before 60 mph. The ICE vehicle is hitting peak power by 20 mph and then basically holding it the rest of the way to the top speed. Yes, gearing doesn't matter if power is flat. However, EV power is increasing the entire time during a 0-60 mph run.

 

[terranx]

The ICE vehicle is hitting peak power by 20 mph and then basically holding it the rest of the way to the top speed.

Are you talking about a specific car? That is definitely not true in a general sense. ICE cars will generally start at near zero and reach a peak near their redline. And with each shift you'll be falling below peak power before reaching it again.

 

[gearchruncher]

I think the gearing for ICE vs. EV is the biggest factor for 0-60 mph. The Model 3 doesn't hit peak power until right before 60 mph. The ICE vehicle is hitting peak power by 20 mph and then basically holding it the rest of the way to the top speed. Yes, gearing doesn't matter if power is flat. However, EV power is increasing the entire time during a 0-60 mph run.

I think this is where we're not aligned.
You can't put 500HP into a tire at 20 MPH even if your ICE engine and gearbox can deliver it. The torque at the wheel is way too high since the RPM is low and that's just a spinning tire. What you can put into the tire is a flat torque because that's what coefficient of friction with the road surface cares about to first order.

The ramp that both the M3P and Plaid show to 40-60 MPH still lead to ~1G of acceleration, so not clear this ramp is really limiting acceleration and double the power would lead to faster accel. And of course ICE engines famously have torque curves which tend to not be able to deliver max HP at low RPM (and thus low vehicle speeds), and ramp even slower than the EV engine does. Which is why we need high RPM launch control, but those modes slip the clutch and modulate power to keep the engine in the power band while also not leading to wheelspin that you'd get if you just dumped the clutch.

 

[gearchruncher]

Some fun math:
A 26" tall tire at 20 MPH is 270 RPM. 500 HP at 270 RPM is 9,700 ft-lbs of torque.

9,700 lbs across four 26" tires is 2,400 lbs of force at the contact patch of the tire. Which is way higher than a tire can do with 1,000lbs of corner weight on it. (4K lb car, 50/50 weight distribution)

My math says you can only do 500HP (at the wheels) on a 4K lb car with 1.2G tires at about 40 MPH, and that's assuming AWD and the power is perfectly allocated across the axles against the weight distribution. RWD with a 80% rear weight shift can't hit 500 HP until 55 MPH.

And for remarkable alignment: On a 5000lb AWD car, you can't put down 1000 HP until 60 MPH. Dead on with the Plaid...

 

[mpgxsvcd]

Are you talking about a specific car? That is definitely not true in a general sense. ICE cars will generally start at near zero and reach a peak near their redline. And with each shift you'll be falling below peak power before reaching it again.

When I said 20 mph I was looking at a 10 speed transmission car so that is a bit different than other cars with less gears. That wasn't a good example.

I just did the calculation for the C8 Corvette Z51. It hits 36 mph in first gear and 59 mph in second gear. Peak HP(6450 rpms) is just below redline(6500 rpms) but it has a relatively flat HP curve from 5,000 to 6,500 rpms. At 5,000 rpms the Z51 is doing 27 mph in first gear. Therefore, from 27 mph through 60 mph its engine will be producing close to the max HP.

The Model 3 Performance is making about 60% of its max HP at 27 mph and it doesn't reach the peak until 55 mph. The Corvette has a HUGE advantage from 27 mph till 60 mph on the Model 3 Performance.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

I think this is where we're not aligned.
You can't put 500HP into a tire at 20 MPH even if your ICE engine and gearbox can deliver it. The torque at the wheel is way too high since the RPM is low and that's just a spinning tire. What you can put into the tire is a flat torque because that's what coefficient of friction with the road surface cares about to first order.

The ramp that both the M3P and Plaid show to 40-60 MPH still lead to ~1G of acceleration, so not clear this ramp is really limiting acceleration and double the power would lead to faster accel. And of course ICE engines famously have torque curves which tend to not be able to deliver max HP at low RPM (and thus low vehicle speeds), and ramp even slower than the EV engine does. Which is why we need high RPM launch control, but those modes slip the clutch and modulate power to keep the engine in the power band while also not leading to wheelspin that you'd get if you just dumped the clutch.

My 20 mph example was not a good one. That was a 270 HP 10 speed car with a really short first gear. I did the Corvette Z51 in my post above. That should be more realistic for what we are talking about. However, I am not sure if the E-Ray has the Z51 or non Z51 gearing. They are slightly different.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

RWD with a 80% rear weight shift can't hit 500 HP until 55 MPH.

This is the only thing I am not sure I agree with. The Corvette tire is 27.8" instead of 26.0". That should lower the force some. Plus the Corvette only puts down about 435 HP to the wheels so that reduces the force even more. For the Corvette specifically that speed should be significantly lower than 55 mph.

 

[gearchruncher]

I am not so sure about this one statement. Tire diameter affects that equation, right? The bigger your tire diameter the lower the force is for a given speed, correct?

This is because the diameter cancels out because it has more axle torque, but less RPM at the same vehicle speed, but then you get that lower axle torque back due to the longer lever arm.

26" tire at 60 MPH at 100 HP: 807 RPM, 650 ft/lbs at the axle. But this is 600 lbs at the contact patch which is on a 13.0" lever arm. (12/13ths)
27" tire at 60 MPH at 100 HP: 776 RPM, 676 ft/lbs at the axle. But this is 600 lbs at the contact patch which is on a 13.5" lever arm. (12/13.5ths)
28" tire at 60 MPH at 100 HP: 747 RPM, 703 ft/lbs at the axle. But this is 600 lbs at the contact patch which is on a 14.0" lever arm. (12/14ths)

A tire is just another gear ratio, and gears never make power, they just convert it. Thus you get identical acceleration for the same horsepower input no matter the size of the tire. The only question is if your motor can make 100HP at 807 RPM, 776 RPM, and 747 RPM. This is why the Plaid is "ideal" since it does create the same power at all RPMs above 60 MPH, and below that, it appears to make sufficient torque that the tires would spin if you delivered more power anway.

Notice that since the tire is just a gear, this also shows that if you have a "ideal" motor with a flat POWER curve, then your gear ratios don't matter. You can't change your final axle ratio and accelerate faster. Gears are there to keep motors in their power band and optimize the power available, they cannot create power out of thin air.

Also remember that acceleration just leads to kinetic energy in the car. A 5000 lb Plaid at 60 MPH has 815kJ of energy. That had to come from the motor. The only way a gear makes you get to 815kJ of energy faster is if it puts the motor in a power band where it actually outputs more power, and you can put that power to the ground.

Also, don't forget that the 0-60 math is total energy over those 2.5 seconds. ICE cars which have to shift can't deliver power during the shift. In a 2.5 second run, if a shift takes 100ms, you lose 4% of your energy just to that shift. So theoretically a 575HP EV with no shifts will have the same 0-60 as a 600HP ICE that needs one shift.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

This is because the diameter cancels out because it has more axle torque, but less RPM at the same vehicle speed, but then you get that lower axle torque back due to the longer lever arm.

26" tire at 60 MPH at 100 HP: 807 RPM, 650 ft/lbs at the axle. But this is 600 lbs at the contact patch which is on a 13.0" lever arm. (12/13ths)
27" tire at 60 MPH at 100 HP: 776 RPM, 676 ft/lbs at the axle. But this is 600 lbs at the contact patch which is on a 13.5" lever arm. (12/13.5ths)
28" tire at 60 MPH at 100 HP: 747 RPM, 703 ft/lbs at the axle. But this is 600 lbs at the contact patch which is on a 14.0" lever arm. (12/14ths)

A tire is just another gear ratio, and gears never make power, they just convert it. Thus you get identical acceleration for the same horsepower input no matter the size of the tire. The only question is if your motor can make 100HP at 807 RPM, 776 RPM, and 747 RPM. This is why the Plaid is "ideal" since it does create the same power at all RPMs above 60 MPH, and below that, it appears to make sufficient torque that the tires would spin if you delivered more power anway.

Notice that since the tire is just a gear, this also shows that if you have a "ideal" motor with a flat POWER curve, then your gear ratios don't matter. You can't change your final axle ratio and accelerate faster. Gears are there to keep motors in their power band and optimize the power available, they cannot create power out of thin air.

Also remember that acceleration just leads to kinetic energy in the car. A 5000 lb Plaid at 60 MPH has 815kJ of energy. That had to come from the motor. The only way a gear makes you get to 815kJ of energy faster is if it puts the motor in a power band where it actually outputs more power, and you can put that power to the ground.

Also, don't forget that the 0-60 math is total energy over those 2.5 seconds. ICE cars which have to shift can't deliver power during the shift. In a 2.5 second run, if a shift takes 100ms, you lose 4% of your energy just to that shift. So theoretically a 575HP EV with no shifts will have the same 0-60 as a 600HP ICE that needs one shift.

I was getting confused because I was getting 2,238 lbs of force per wheel in your first example and you had 2,400 lbs. It looks like you wrote "lbs" when you meant "lb ft". You divided by 4 when I think you should have divided by (radius times 4).

However, you are definitely right. For constant power force should be constant, regardless of gear ratio. Could you double check that "2,400 lbs" number in your first example just for my sanity?

 

[gearchruncher]

I was getting confused because I was getting 2,238 lbs of force per wheel in your first example and you had 2,400 lbs. It looks like you wrote "lbs" when you meant "lb ft". You divided by 4 when I think you should have divided by (radius times 4).

My math:
20 MPH with a 26" tire is 270 RPM
500 HP at 270 RPM is 9722 ft/lbs
9722 / 4 = 2430 ft/lbs per each wheel
Wheel is 13" radius, so 2430 ft/lbs at 13" is 2244 lbs at the contact patch.

Yeah, looks like I used the 12" radius force in the example not the 13" radius force.

 

[Park2670]

I just learned so much about acceleration and grip. Thanks all!

 

[clerks]

Just to speculate in the speculation thread...
MS is $75K @ 3.1 seconds. MS Plaid is $90K at "1.99" seconds.

M3 is $46K for 4.2 seconds and $51K for 3.1.
Why not charge $12K more in a M3P to get from 4.2 seconds to 2.5 and increase that margin from $5K to $12K?

Not sure you can get buyers at 63k for an M3P without some improvements in both the exterior and interior. That's expensive for an econobox even if its fast as hell. That said, 2k worth of enhancements on a cost basis (wheels, suspension, spoiler, bumper covers, racing seats) might be enough to do it. He question becomes what kind of a wrench that throws in the manufacturing chain.

 

[momo3605]

Not sure you can get buyers at 63k for an M3P without some improvements in both the exterior and interior. That's expensive for an econobox even if its fast as hell. That said, 2k worth of enhancements on a cost basis (wheels, suspension, spoiler, bumper covers, racing seats) might be enough to do it. He question becomes what kind of a wrench that throws in the manufacturing chain.

If it has legitimate performance chops, I’d spend $63k on it. Still much cheaper than a BMW M3 (although build/material quality of an M3 has gotten quite good these days. Full high grade nappa quality leather all over the place, metal trims, etc…)
But like you said, I’d expect suspension, wheels, buckety seats, more aggressive styling, etc…

 

[The Other Dan]

Lol. You got A BUNCH of us that spent $60k+ just to get the M3P we have now. Don't think it would be a hurdle at all if the new one was priced the same.

Personally, I don't want to pay more for "better" suspension or wheels, since I'm just going to replace it anyway.

 

[gearchruncher]

Not sure you can get buyers at 63k for an M3P without some improvements in both the exterior and interior.

They sold a ton of M3P's at above that price in the past, and inflation has made $63K not what it was when the Model 3P came out at $80K.

The "econobox" thing is kind of hilarious because most Americans and the auto industry consider Teslas luxury segment vehicles for fairly wealthy people. It's only people cross shopping with $90K cars that think of them as ecnonoboxes.

Plus, a Civic Type R is $60K nowadays and they can't make enough of them.

But all this goes to show- actual performance isn't what sells. It's the illusion of performance. Hence the reason BMW sells way more "Performance M" cars than actual M cars, and this apparently extends to a lot of people here too.

I'd personally drive a bread van if it was the fastest thing made, I could care less what it looks like, I only care if it's fast.

 

[Knightshade]

Of course it will as al Tesla numbers do.

To be clear, most Tesla numbers do not

Only Performance trims do that to be able to list better times and make the gap between P and non-P seem larger.

This was a big point of controversy back in the P85 days, and Tesla has continued the deceptive practice ever since.

AFAIK no other car maker does this--- some list specs for ALL models with rollout, some list specs for ALL models without rollout. Only Tesla uses rollout for some, but not others, to make the gap appear bigger.

 

[clerks]

They sold a ton of M3P's at above that price in the past, and inflation has made $63K not what it was when the Model 3P came out at $80K.

The "econobox" thing is kind of hilarious because most Americans and the auto industry consider Teslas luxury segment vehicles for fairly wealthy people. It's only people cross shopping with $90K cars that think of them as ecnonoboxes.

Plus, a Civic Type R is $60K nowadays and they can't make enough of them.

But all this goes to show- actual performance isn't what sells. It's the illusion of performance. Hence the reason BMW sells way more "Performance M" cars than actual M cars, and this apparently extends to a lot of people here too.

I'd personally drive a bread van if it was the fastest thing made, I could care less what it looks like, I only care if it's fast.

The car market is very different today than it was when M3Ps were selling for over 60k. I think your views on performance sedans are far far in the minority. I didn’t say anything about what it looks like. There is absolutely nothing luxury about a model 3. It’s a Honda at best.

 

[clerks]

Lol. You got A BUNCH of us that spent $60k+ just to get the M3P we have now. Don't think it would be a hurdle at all if the new one was priced the same.

Personally, I don't want to pay more for "better" suspension or wheels, since I'm just going to replace it anyway.

I paid $57 for mine. It was a different time and Teslas were viewed differently back in 2021 than they are now. One thing about price cuts, the market never forgets and it's hard to undo what has been done. People don't trust Tesla's pricing. Dealers don't want to take them on trades. Tesla has put itself in a tough spot in terms of pricing. In any event, like the other guy, most buyers want that stuff on the car at delivery and aren't interested in modifications. There is a clear path for a M3P to be a hit, maybe even at a price of 60k, but it's going to need more to differentiate it from a standard LR if they want to command a price premium. More competition in the sporty EV segment is coming as well. All good things for us here.

 

[clerks]

The car market is very different today than it was when M3Ps were selling for over 60k. I think your views on performance sedans are far far in the minority. I didn’t say anything about what it looks like. There is absolutely nothing luxury about a model 3. It’s a Honda at best.

You can down vote me all you want about saying a model 3 is a Honda. I’m sorry it hurts your feelings but the interior quality of the model 3 is basic economy car stuff. Flame away. It won’t make my statement any less true.

 

[Gauss Guzzler]

You can down vote me all you want about saying a model 3 is a Honda. I’m sorry it hurts your feelings but the interior quality of the model 3 is basic economy car stuff. Flame away. It won’t make my statement any less true.

I think the disconnect is that you seem to expect the Tesla to be everything a Tesla is - PLUS everything a Mercedes is - at the price of a Mercedes.

There's no Honda or Mecedes with Tesla-level integrated infotainment or app-control. And there's no Honda or Mercedes with Tesla-level performance or drivability. Yet the Tesla has a lower total cost of ownership than either. If those things appeal to you, Tesla may be a good choice. But if your priorities are fancy seat stitching and Android Auto, you're going to hate Tesla. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no need for you to keep whining about Tesla not having fancier interiors. Go get an i5 and enjoy everything that Tesla is not.