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

[momo3605]

This is what I was gunna say. That 0-60 time is NOT for the 45k trim

I do think it’s possible that the tri-motor R2 could be around $60k which as an SUV would qualify for the $7500 rebate. A $60k model 3 performance will not.

 

[MagnusMako]

People can value whatever they want in cars.

I value usable performance, which for me means performance I can use in my day-to-day driving. A Hellcat would be of zero use to me, because I don't need to show off to anyone, and because my car will decimate a Hellcat in daily street driving, which by definition doesn't include 3AM roll-racing.

And even though I spend part of the year right next to a completely desolate area with hundreds of miles of straight, mostly empty roads, I virtually never go there, because who has time for that?

My car is very quick on the roads I drive every day - that's what matters to me.

The model 3 is already quick as a daily, I don't think anyone can or has been contesting that whatsoever. Some people just want more (because why not more) options to use it in other manners than just the daily driving, and are willing to pay the premium for it. I certainly would even if it meant a 10k bump over current pricing.

But because who has time for going on the empty straight roads right? Lots of people do. And they take advantage of it. But please continue the stereotypes that don't fit into your little square box about what other people like and make time for.

 

[gearchruncher]

Callback to the 125 MPH speed limits on newer cars:
It wasn't the suspension.
It wasn't the aero.
It wasn't lower insurance rates.
It wasn't a saftey reason proving to NHTSA how much Tesla cared about it's customers.

It was efficency. Efficency delivered by removing a ply from the tires, reducing energy loss, but giving up the speed rating. Which is no big deal because nobody drives that fast according to their data. They also hint that the tire is a custom tire, so it's irrelevant if we can't find it on the market right now.

This means that there's really no reason the M3P won't have a high top speed given they will clearly not care about efficency on that variant and will slap UHP tires on it like they have always done.

 

[shahryaran]

No

 

[Lolo780]

Callback to the 125 MPH speed limits on newer cars:
It wasn't the suspension.
It wasn't the aero.
It wasn't lower insurance rates.
It wasn't a saftey reason proving to NHTSA how much Tesla cared about it's customers.

It was efficency. Efficency delivered by removing a ply from the tires, reducing energy loss, but giving up the speed rating. Which is no big deal because nobody drives that fast according to their data. They also hint that the tire is a custom tire, so it's irrelevant if we can't find it on the market right now.

This means that there's really no reason the M3P won't have a high top speed given they will clearly not care about efficency on that variant and will slap UHP tires on it like they have always done.

Smiles per mile.

 

[eivissa]

in some markets they also report the 30min average power.

so its possible that what they report as apparent peak power, is actually 1min peak power, or some other lower sustained value.

Tesla reports:

• Peak Power of each motor (motor limit / sort of usable value for daily driving)
• 30 minute rating of each motor (motor limit / lab bench test, irrelevant for actual driving, basis for insurance calculation)
• 60 minute power rating (battery limit, but yet not reflecting battery capacity in any sensible way)
• Motor operating voltages depending on model (base, dual motor, performance)
• Motor current limits independent of model

 

[Lets go Plaid]

Maybe behind the wall is the Roadster! Half an hour of our life we'll never get back. The wait continues.

 

[BigNick]

Hope you don’t mind but I took the liberty of creating a similar graph with my best data and the Panasonic battery. It isn’t totally accurate because the speeds for the peaks are different but it is close enough to get the idea.

My graph has mph as the X axis and KW as the Y axis. Peak front motor power is 198 KW at 57 mph with my current car. That is from my data reading Canbus values.

Peak rear motor power is currently 266 KW at 45 mph according to my data.

For my predicted rear motor power in the Ludicrous I get 300 KW at 68 mph and total combined peak power of 485 KW or 650 US HP at 68 mph. My current car peaked at 448 KW(609 HP) at 56 mph.

That would be about 40 HP increase for the maximum but just look at that area under the curve that you are adding! This would easily get the car into the 10s.

The important thing to recognize here is that I am basing my predicted rear motor values off of my absolute best run with a perfectly optimized battery. That is where it is only 40 HP better. If the battery was less than optimized then that HP difference would grow significantly.

I no longer think the Model 3 needs a different front motor. This difference in rear motor alone if these predictions are true would be a HUGE step up. It would still be pulling 506 HP combined at 110 mph as opposed to 451 HP combined at 110 mph before.

I am 100% trading my 2022 Model 3 Performance for the Ludicrous Model 3. Thanks to @eivissa for showing us what a difference this could make. You can use my graph below in any way you see fit if you want to.

View attachment 1025524

Looks like it will fall on its face after 120 MPH. I need something that pulls all the way to Warp 9.8!

 

[TomServo]

Will Tesla continue to state it's 0 to 60 times using the "1-foot roll-out" track staging rules and report a straight-up 0 to 60 time the same as the S/X?

 

[12B4A]

View attachment 1025733
Smiles per mile.

The real question is: "Is it as easy to steal as the ICE Chargers?"

 

[FastLaneJB]

The Rivian R2 is advertising a 0-60 under 3 seconds and a price of around $45K. For a modern performance EV, 0-60 above 3 just doesn't cut it anymore when a Cybertruck or R1 is faster, and now the R2.

I wonder if Tesla was waiting for the R2 and R3 announcements to figure out where they have to set the M3P's performance (given it's all just tune-able software balance between warranty costs, production yield, and performance)

It's not going to be doing under 3 seconds for $45k, that's the base price. You can be sure the triple motor model that can pull that off is going to cost more. They might also be taking a page out of Tesla's book here, announce a low price and get lots of reservations. Bump price up when it comes time to ship.

 

[FastLaneJB]

View attachment 1025733
Smiles per mile.

Not sure I 100% agree with that. I've had a V12 and I didn't care about the efficiency but I could also fill it up with petrol quickly. It was my daily driver and a few more 5 - 10 minute petrol station stops is no big deal.

I think I'd care if I had an EV that could only drive for say 2 hours and then I'd have to stop for 1 hour to charge it. Let's be honest not all chargers are equal and cars don't often get their headline charge rates. It's not about the cost of running the car, that's not important to me. The car not being a pain in the ass to live with absolutely matters though. Hence because of that, at least for an EV where ranges can go pretty low and charge times pretty high, I think efficiency does matter.

 

[n2mb_racing]

Not sure I 100% agree with that. I've had a V12 and I didn't care about the efficiency but I could also fill it up with petrol quickly. It was my daily driver and a few more 5 - 10 minute petrol station stops is no big deal.

I think I'd care if I had an EV that could only drive for say 2 hours and then I'd have to stop for 1 hour to charge it. Let's be honest not all chargers are equal and cars don't often get their headline charge rates. It's not about the cost of running the car, that's not important to me. The car not being a pain in the ass to live with absolutely matters though.

Thankfully those days are gone. It was a pain in the a** to have a 250 mile range and 50 kw charging. Now it's drive for 4-5 hours and then charge for 15-20 minutes.

 

[FastLaneJB]

Thankfully those days are gone. It was a pain in the a** to have a 250 mile range and 50 kw charging. Now it's drive for 4-5 hours and then charge for 15-20 minutes.

Think it depends where you are and what car you drive. My Eletre R does around 180 miles 100% to 0%, if you are driving say 80% - 10% then that's around 120 miles, averaging 60 it'll be 2 hours. It's got a 109kWh usable battery and you cannot always find a fast charger or they aren't always as fast as they claim so it can take a good time to top it back to 80%, certainly more than 15 - 20 minutes.

I saw this video of an Aussie car channel that went to the US to review a Rivian. It looks like at least in LA you also have to queue for an hour before you can even start charging.

It's getting better, it's not always like you say though and varies from country to country. If you only have experience of a Tesla, you might not know what it's like outside of that bubble.

 

[Knightshade]

Will Tesla continue to state it's 0 to 60 times using the "1-foot roll-out" track staging rules and report a straight-up 0 to 60 time the same as the S/X?

That's not what Tesla does, even today.

They report Performance models with rollout, and non performance ones without, the artificially make the gap between them look larger than it is.

That's true of 3, S, and everything else. It's dishonest and they're the only company I'm aware of that does it that way, but it's been done for years and years.

See attached for Model S pointing this out-- they use rollout for one but not the other trim-- same as 3, Y, etc.

 

[buckets0fun]

I do think it’s possible that the tri-motor R2 could be around $60k which as an SUV would qualify for the $7500 rebate. A $60k model 3 performance will not.

Judging by their current pricing model across 4 trims of R1, one could suspect the tri motor to be near 70.

Thankfully those days are gone. It was a pain in the a** to have a 250 mile range and 50 kw charging.

CCS chargers in the Central Valley of ca are regularly 50-67kW, in 2023. Areas of Oregon and Washington too.
Sadly, the days of mismanaged charging networks have not been put behind us.

 

[TomServo]

That's not what Tesla does, even today.

They report Performance models with rollout, and non performance ones without, the artificially make the gap between them look larger than it is.

That's true of 3, S, and everything else. It's dishonest and they're the only company I'm aware of that does it that way, but it's been done for years and years.

See attached for Model S pointing this out-- they use rollout for one but not the other trim-- same as 3, Y, etc.

View attachment 1025784

Thanks for setting me straight, I missed the asterisk on the MSP. But as I'm considering buying a LR S vs the old M3. I guess I was focused on that comparison. 3.1 for BOTH. Will be interesting to see how they report the new Ludicrous 3 times.

 

[pdx_m3s]

The Rivian R2 is advertising a 0-60 under 3 seconds and a price of around $45K. For a modern performance EV, 0-60 above 3 just doesn't cut it anymore when a Cybertruck or R1 is faster, and now the R2.

I wonder if Tesla was waiting for the R2 and R3 announcements to figure out where they have to set the M3P's performance (given it's all just tune-able software balance between warranty costs, production yield, and performance)

The $45k R2 is for the small battery (read: LFP) single motor variant. Large pack trimotor will probably be $60k+

 

[pdx_m3s]

What do we think the wheel specs are on the new M3L?

With 275 rear tires, they still look a little stretched like the 235s currently do on 20x9. I'm guessing 20x10.5 +45 rear. 20x9.5 +34 front.

 

[gearchruncher]

The $45k R2 is for the small battery (read: LFP) single motor variant. Large pack trimotor will probably be $60k+

Man, everyone focusing on the price vs performance when my main point was that even trucks and SUV's are doing 2 second 0-60, so if Tesla doesn't make the M3P go deep into the 2's, it's a very interesting decision in 2024.