It would but not as much as an ICE if you can use regen to come to a complete stop. If you get to speed quickly on a long trip, you probably won't notice any less efficiency vs. slowly getting to speed as most of the energy used is keeping the car at speed.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Model 3 Highland Performance/Plaid Speculation [Car announced 04.23.2024]
- Thread starter Daniel L
- Start date
You have to clarify that statement. If you do full power 0-60 mph accelerations and then coast for the rest of a mile vs. doing very slow accelerations and then go fast enough to maintain the same average speed over a mile then yes the quicker accelerations will result in better efficiency.
You can’t compare wh/mi unless both vehicles have the same average speed over a given distance.
oreobbq
Member
I assume you mean in typical driving conditions, highway averages will affect range more. And not that a bunch of launches won't drain the battery.
The mods are going to say this is off topic and it is but as long as they have the same average speed over a given distance accelerating quickly is actually the more efficient way to travel.
Back to the topic at hand. I still predict a 2.5-2.6 with rollout subtracted 0-60 mph. I firmly believe that is possible and I can’t imagine many people buying the Ludicrous if it has a 2.9 0-60 mph with rollout subtracted. That just isn’t enough of an improvement.
Sellout
Member
Porsche sells six figure sports cars with incremental 0-60 improvements every year. People will buy it because it’s hard as hell for an OEM to improve a 0-60 time by more than a tenth at a time at this level.
Tiger
Active Member
If it's faster than a Model X Plaid people will simply buy two Model 3 Performances instead, if they need the space. And Model X can forget about selling any future "refresh" at elevated $140k price levels. /s There will also be very little reason to buy a Model S Plaid for the price/performance difference.
Yep. And this car has actual real improvements in the way of adjustable dampers, a broader power curve, actual interior changes, aero changes. Even if the 0-60 stayed exactly the same, there would be enough improvement there to convince people to buy.
That is incorrect.
Higher acceleration usually leads to larger deviations from average speed so it leads to 3 additional energy loss sources:
1. Higher power leads to loss increase through circuits, tires and pinions heating.
2. More periods above average speed - more air and tire friction loss.
3. More often usage of brakes - regen is not 100% return and mechanical brakes literally burn kinetic energy into atmosphere.
I think he talks about aligning travel time, so in such case you have higher loss of energy by driving longer above average speed to compensate longer time below average speed with slow acceleration.
One amendment, since I have new data:
My tweet from February was actually correct. The new 4D2 motors operating voltage is 335V indeed, so peak power is 318kW, not 304kW as suggested by me later, based on 320V. This is the first time a performance motor uses the same operating voltage as the base and front motors (335V).
Hmm, I always thought it was the battery’s voltage that made it to the motor, not that it was being regulated down.
I’m assuming the same cap didn’t apply to s/x LR with the 3d1 rear? I logged a peak of 280 kw in an X LR (and that was around 75% SOC)
I put $1,200 worth of wheels on mine and gained a tenth. Then gained almost 2 tenths more on the 1/4 mile by removing another 150 lbs.
I know they can’t reduce the weight that much but there absolutely is room for improving the power across the entire rpm range. This car is not maxed out for power especially off the line and above 55 mph.
The MS/MX LR Refresh is one of the very few cars I haven't logged yet. Since that drivetrain is motor power limited (very rare) the SOC shouldn't matter too much. Although variable current required, like sport mode in the plaid.
Both 3D1 rear and 3D8 front are stated at 325V operating voltage with 840A inverters. Technically that is 273kW max, but I've seen the current go higher once before in the M3SR RWD NCA with 3D5. Calculated limit was 220kW, but it logged 239kW.
Rear 3D1 has Model 3 gearing and front 3D8 is a 3D1 with Plaid 5D1 gearing.
Quick and dirty log I captured a while ago
And an attempt to convert to RPM since the front / rear tire sizes and ratios are different
Front motor seems like it’s being limited pretty hard at lower speeds
You can narrow it down with the outer dimensions from a tire size chart like this one and the gearing info:
- 3D1C rear = 9.04:1
- 3D8A front = 7.56:1
Does this even matter? I mean since especially we in Europe will get the LG pack with discharge power limitation?
