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

[terranx]

Acceleration drops at that point for every car. No street car maintains constant torque above 50-60 mph. Name another sub $40k car that can run 95+ mph in the 1/8.

If you put it in Track Mode it struggles with straight line acceleration. If you heat the battery it doesn’t. It is kind of like when someone forgets to take an ICE car out of ECO mode and then complains that it is slow.

I still own my model 3 performance, I know what it drives like. It’s turd past 60 lol. Just because you’re used to it doesn’t change that. There’s many cars with slower 0-60s that have comparable or better 1/4 mile times

 

[Ultimos]

For everyone asking for a single Plaid motor in the rear, this is why that isn’t a good idea.

I setup a simulation of what would happen if we raced a Model 3 Performance with just a single Plaid motor(340 max HP) at the rear with no other changes against a Model 3 Performance with a single Model S LR motor(329 HP max) at the rear and a Model 3 motor up front that holds max HP(199 HP) all the way to redline. I also included a stock Model 3 Performance. Here are the results.

View attachment 1006516

The car with the Plaid motor would do 0-60 mph in 2.78 and the LR motor car would do it in 2.89 seconds. Just over .1 seconds difference but that may matter to some people.

However, when we look at the 1/4 mile times we see that the Plaid motor car is doing 10.90 seconds vs. the LR motor car’s 10.95 seconds. The really interesting thing is that the LR motor car is doing 127.5 mph vs. the 125.8 mph of the Plaid motor car.

The LR car is pulling much harder up top because the front motor of that car pulls constant HP all the way to redline.

There is so much more room for improvement in the front motor of the Model 3 Performance over the rear motor. If you just focus on rear motor changes you will miss out on a ton of performance.

Also look at the power draw for the 1/4 mile race. At most these cars would pull 10% more power from the battery over a stock Model 3 Performance at peak HP and about 17% more energy over the 1/4 mile.

The peak power for these upgraded cars really isn’t that much more than stock. It probably wouldn’t require a significantly different battery unless additional cooling was required.

If you want a much better 0-60 mph then yes throw a Plaid motor on the rear and that will get you a tenth over the LR motor car with the constant power front motor.

However, if what you really want is a better 60-130 mph time then you really should just concentrate on having both motors hold constant HP all the way to redline. I believe they can do that without using Plaid motors at all and without increasing cost dramatically.

Plaid motor is capable of 414-421hp, but nerfed in the MS due to the battery (see screenshot).

I guess it depends whether Tesla sticks with the induction motor in the front.

Could be:
Induction motor front, MS LR or Plaid motor in the rear
MS LR motor front and rear
MS LR motor front, Plaid rear
Plaid motor front and rear (lol, imagine)

 

[gearchruncher]

Plaid motor is capable of 414-421hp, but nerfed in the MS due to the battery (see screenshot).

Always awesome when all you get is a werid small corner of a PDF, when the internet easily lets you link to the source document.
If this really was a screenshot of a Plaid spec sheet, why is the maximum net power not 618 kW? There are two motors in the rear.

It's also not accurate to say the battery "nerfs" the power to this motor. At full acceleration at low speeds, the car has so much weight transfer that the front axle is pretty worthless, and if the battery is limited to 737kW, there are absolutley times that the car would run 618kW on the rear axle and 119 or less on the front due to lack of traction.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

Always awesome when all you get is a werid small corner of a PDF, when the internet easily lets you link to the source document.
If this really was a screenshot of a Plaid spec sheet, why is the maximum net power not 618 kW? There are two motors in the rear.

It's also not accurate to say the battery "nerfs" the power to this motor. At full acceleration at low speeds, the car has so much weight transfer that the front axle is pretty worthless, and if the battery is limited to 737kW, there are absolutley times that the car would run 618kW on the rear axle and 119 or less on the front due to lack of traction.

In some countries the government requires the manufacturer to rate the motor’s power. The specs he lists are also shown on the Tesla website in the UAE. However, that doesn’t mean that the car is capable of actually applying that power.

Like you said. It can’t apply power when it doesn’t have traction. Also, it can’t apply that much max power if the battery can’t output that much power.

Tesla’s own website says that the “max vehicle power” is limited vs. the max power the motors are capable of.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

Plaid motor is capable of 414-421hp, but nerfed in the MS due to the battery (see screenshot).

I guess it depends whether Tesla sticks with the induction motor in the front.

Could be:
Induction motor front, MS LR or Plaid motor in the rear
MS LR motor front and rear
MS LR motor front, Plaid rear
Plaid motor front and rear (lol, imagine)

There are several components that limit acceleration from the motors. There is max HP that the motors are capable of. That is what you have listed from the Tesla specifications.

The motors may be capable of that power if the battery could supply that much power. However, there is absolutely no way the current Model 3 battery could supply anywhere near that much power and even if it could there is no way the Model 3 chassis and tires could put that much power to the ground.

However, there are other ways to improve acceleration other than increasing max power in a single speed transmission EV. If power drops off then simply stopping that drop in power will improve acceleration without increasing the max power draw from the battery.

ICE vehicles use a multi speed transmission to combat power drop off. EVs don’t typically do that.

A single Plaid motor wouldn’t necessarily produce anymore power in a real world scenario than a single Model S LR motor would produce. Both are limited to how much torque they can apply to the ground and by how much power the battery can provide.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

Here is an interesting thing to think about. The Corvette E-Ray has a single 160 HP motor with a 1.9 kWh battery. If we put 4 of those motors on a Model 3 would it be able to do 640 HP?

If the Corvette can get 160 HP out of a 1.9 kWh battery why can’t the 82.1 kWh battery of the Model 3 Performance do at least 640 HP?

https://www.caranddriver.com/chevrolet/corvette-e-ray

 

[Gauss Guzzler]

160HP (120kW) from a 1.9kWh battery equates to a 65C discharge rate, meaning that the battery could theoretically go from 100% SOC to 0% in 57 seconds. Modern lithium chemistries can support this discharge rate in brief spurts, obviously, but cells designed to do so must be significantly larger, heavier, and more expensive than those designed for ~5C discharge rates like those used in Teslas and other cars.

 

[FastLaneJB]

I for sure hope that is not the case for us Europe customers. The Freemont cars are worse in all aspects than the China/Germany cars. Why Tesla is reluctant to hire quality controllers is a question that baffles me...

Yes but the LG pack doesn’t make as much peak power I think as the Panasonic pack. This is why I mostly mention it.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

160HP (120kW) from a 1.9kWh battery equates to a 65C discharge rate, meaning that the battery could theoretically go from 100% SOC to 0% in 57 seconds. Modern lithium chemistries can support this discharge rate in brief spurts, obviously, but cells designed to do so must be significantly larger, heavier, and more expensive than those designed for ~5C discharge rates like those used in Teslas and other cars.

If the 1.9 kWh battery can theoretically sustain 65C for tens of seconds why would the 82.1 kWh battery be limited to holding ~5C for only a fraction of a second?

My question is if the battery truly is the limiting factor for why the power output falls off after 55 mph why can the 1.9 kWh Corvette battery sustain 10+ times the C rate for 8+ times the duration?

The Model 3 Performance drops down to about 3.65C after 8 seconds of full power. I am not expecting it to hold 5C for a minute or more but why would it not even be able to hold 4C for 8 seconds?

 

[gearchruncher]

If the Corvette can get 160 HP out of a 1.9 kWh battery why can’t the 82.1 kWh battery of the Model 3 Performance do at least 640 HP?

The E-ray and other performance hybrids (like an F1 car) use totally different battery designs as the goal is power desnsity and fast recharge not energy density. This is a combination of different cell designs which have much more surface area innterally (pouch cells in the E-ray) but also all the other elements of a battery such as thermal managment, which is also helped by external surface area to energy ratios. Which is the exact opposite of what the bigger and bigger cylindrical cells Tesla keeps moving to achieve.

The battery in an E-ray is about 100 lbs for 1.9kWh. This means a 83kWh battery would weigh 4,300 lbs, more than a whole Model 3. Yet the Model 3 battery weighs under 1/4 that.

If you want to maintain the energy density of a modern full EV like a Tesla so you can have 300 miles of range, you're gonna be stuck with batteries with about a 5C discharge rate until the state of the art changes. So you're going to be at about 65HP peak per 10kwh of battery you have. Which is remarkably close to what a Model 3 does.

The Plaid does appear to have moved this bar a bit as it runs about 7C. But that's stil nothing compared to the E-Ray's 60C+.

 

[hroussel]

Can we move the stereotyping and over generalizing to another thread? It has nothing to do with the particular topic of this thread.

Here is my speculation about the upcoming Model 3 Performance/Ludicrous.

A lot of people have speculated on how quick the Model 3 Performance can get with upgraded motors. Most people think it needs 3 Plaid motors to be substantially quicker. It doesn’t and this post will show you exactly why that is true.

I have over 100 1/4 mile passes logged with track slips, the Dragy, and my 2022 Model 3 Performance. I tested the car after every single modification I did so I know how much each modification improved the car.

I was able to compare all of my results to the motor matchup website and surprisingly the website accurately predicted my times with each modification almost down to the hundredth of a second and fraction of a mile an hour.

With that knowledge I can use the website to predict what would happen if the front and rear motors were modified.

The site uses 309 HP and 310 LB FT for the rear motor and 199 HP and 200 LB FT for the front motor. However, both of those motors fall off in HP above 5,300 rpms which is about 55 mph.

I started with a car that has my modifications and all I did was force the HP to remain flat for just the rear motor. Up to about 55 mph the car would be the same. However, after that it would maintain peak HP till the top speed.

If you just had a flat HP rear motor and the stock front motor with my other modifications then the 1/4 mile time would go from 11.17 @ 120.0 mph to 10.99 @ 124.7 mph. That doesn’t change the peak HP either. It just maintains the max HP longer.

If I make both motors maintain peak HP then the 1/4 mile could be done in 10.87 @ 128.3 mph.

However, if I just substitute in the rear motor from the current Model S LR then the 1/4 mile would go down to 10.67 @ 130.4 mph.

Finally if I just substitute in both Model S LR motors which are only about 25 HP more than the current Model 3 Performance rear motor then the 1/4 mile could go all the way down to 9.79 @ 140.9 mph with just two motors.

Do you honestly still think the Model 3 Performance will get 3 Plaid motors? It would be unusable especially on the wheels and tires that the Model 3 would use.

I do believe that there will be an upgraded 2024 Model 3 Performance/Ludicrous and I believe it will be deserving of the Ludicrous name. However, I do think it could be launched later in 2024 even if the Highland RWD and LR are released in Q1.

My prediction is 10.4 @ 129 mph for the 1/4 mile and 2.6 for 0-60 mph with rollout subtracted.

...

Thanks for the detailed analysis. This has to be the most informative post in this thread.

Your numbers for the Model S LR motors example have me drooling (had to wipe the floor with a beach towel!).

One big question is whether the battery can provide that much juice.

Given that it's supposed to be "pretty special" I would agree with your ET number, around 10.5, but I suspect trap speed could be well above 130.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

Thanks for the detailed analysis. This has to be the most informative post in this thread.

Your numbers for the Model S LR motors example have me drooling (had to wipe the floor with a beach towel!).

One big question is whether the battery can provide that much juice.

Given that it's supposed to be "pretty special" I would agree with your ET number, around 10.5, but I suspect trap speed could be well above 130.

Hyundai gets 640 HP for about 10 seconds out of an 84 kWh battery in the Ioniq 5N. Why can’t Tesla get the same out of their current 82.1 kWh battery?

Remember the current Model S LR only has 670 HP according to Tesla. Even with both LR motors the current Model 3 Performance battery should be able to put out close to that power.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

The E-ray and other performance hybrids (like an F1 car) use totally different battery designs as the goal is power desnsity and fast recharge not energy density. This is a combination of different cell designs which have much more surface area innterally (pouch cells in the E-ray) but also all the other elements of a battery such as thermal managment, which is also helped by external surface area to energy ratios. Which is the exact opposite of what the bigger and bigger cylindrical cells Tesla keeps moving to achieve.

The battery in an E-ray is about 100 lbs for 1.9kWh. This means a 83kWh battery would weigh 4,300 lbs, more than a whole Model 3. Yet the Model 3 battery weighs under 1/4 that.

If you want to maintain the energy density of a modern full EV like a Tesla so you can have 300 miles of range, you're gonna be stuck with batteries with about a 5C discharge rate until the state of the art changes. So you're going to be at about 65HP peak per 10kwh of battery you have. Which is remarkably close to what a Model 3 does.

The Plaid does appear to have moved this bar a bit as it runs about 7C. But that's stil nothing compared to the E-Ray's 60C+.

So how does Kia make 576 HP from a 77 kWh battery in the EV6 GT and Hyundai makes 640 HP from an 84 kWh battery in the Ioniq 5N? Are the Korean cars using a much better battery than Tesla does in the Model 3?

 

[gearchruncher]

So how does Kia make 576 HP from a 77 kWh battery in the EV6 GT and Hyundai makes 640 HP from an 84 kWh battery in the Ioniq 5N? Are the Korean cars using a much better battery than Tesla does in the Model 3?

Tesla gets 100HP per 10kWh out of the Plaid battery. So they know how to make the Kia do 770HP and Huyndai do 840HP.
So I'd say there are a few things here:
1) The M3P is a 2017 design and based on what they knew then
2) They haven't wanted newer M3P's to outperform the old ones
3) They have less warranty overhead for cheaper cars
4) They have purposefully limited performance (keep it out of the 2's) on the M3P to keep Model S sales higher. This might change with the Cyber thing supposedly in the 2's.
5) They aren't focused on battery power that can only be sustained for a few seconds. The reality is that if you want our ~80kWh batteries to do 3000 HP for 2 seconds, they could do it no problem, as long as you then allowed a very long thermal rest period after.
6) They have other system limitatons that mean the battery isn't really the first limit (wire sizes, contact sizes, inverter limits, CV joints, differentials, ????)

 

[terranx]

Remember the current Model S LR only has 670 HP according to Tesla. Even with both LR motors the current Model 3 Performance battery should be able to put out close to that power.

And just to be clear, the rear motor in the LR is in fact the same as the M3P rear motor. Front motor no one seems to quite know the details about except that it’s geared longer and is rated for the same power.

I don’t know if that means that the flatter power curve on the LR is due to the front motor or if it’s due to the battery or if the M3P is simply being limited for reasons I don’t understand

 

[mpgxsvcd]

And just to be clear, the rear motor in the LR is in fact the same as the M3P rear motor.

What is your source for that information?

 

[mpgxsvcd]

Tesla gets 100HP per 10kWh out of the Plaid battery. So they know how to make the Kia do 770HP and Huyndai do 840HP.
So I'd say there are a few things here:
1) The M3P is a 2017 design and based on what they knew then
2) They haven't wanted newer M3P's to outperform the old ones
3) They have less warranty overhead for cheaper cars
4) They have purposefully limited performance (keep it out of the 2's) on the M3P to keep Model S sales higher. This might change with the Cyber thing supposedly in the 2's.
5) They aren't focused on battery power that can only be sustained for a few seconds. The reality is that if you want our ~80kWh batteries to do 3000 HP for 2 seconds, they could do it no problem, as long as you then allowed a very long thermal rest period after.
6) They have other system limitatons that mean the battery isn't really the first limit (wire sizes, contact sizes, inverter limits, CV joints, differentials, ????)

Do you think that the current 82.1 kWh Tesla battery could output 600+ HP like the Hyundai battery?

 

[Gauss Guzzler]

My question is if the battery truly is the limiting factor for why the power output falls off after 55 mph...

View attachment 1006803

The battery is not the limiting factor in the dropoff at speed, at least not directly. The flat line in torque at 0-40mph is software-limited current - it protects the motor, inverter, battery, chassis, geartrain, etc. I don't think the public knows why they chose this limit or if it has anything to do with the battery. It could simply be tuned for tire traction for all we know.

The sloping dropoff in torque over 40mph is simply the design point they chose for the motor. There's a tradeoff between high RPM power and low RPM efficiency to be made with any motor design and they could have easily set that torque dropoff point to be at any speed they wanted just by adjusting the stator coils. This has no direct cost impact, but any higher speed setpoints would reduce the EPA range.

 

[terranx]

What is your source for that information?

Parts catalog. Same 980 motor.

Parts Catalog

epc.tesla.com

You can also see the same part number on the motor when looking at rear end assemblies from wrecked Model S’

2021-2023 TESLA MODEL S MS Long Range REAR DRIVE UNIT ASSEMBLY 1120980-00-J | eBay

Model: TESLA S. Engine Assembly.

www.ebay.com

 

[Just a Reader]

The Model S Plaid set a time of 7:25.23 on the Nurburgring in June of 2023. This beat the prior best time of a Taycan Turbo S at 7:33.35 set in April 2022. It takes good handling and brakes, as well as power, to set a good time at the Nurburgring. So, the Taycan just can't hang with the Plaid.

Also, I think it's fair to say that an M3P was better than an M3 when it came out in 2018. Since then, BMW has put a lot of engineering effort into improving the performance of the M3 so that it could beat the M3P. Obviously BMW felt threatened.

Porsche has reported a couple of days ago that their upcoming new Taycan has pushed the Nürburgring time down to 7:07,55. That should put the ball back into Tesla's court. More information on this and the new version - likely called Taycan Turbo GT - will be published in March.