Battery is not the major limitation. You can drop a full second in 0-60 on the same battery.Yet others are claiming that the battery is not limiting performance. Yours is the full-fat, made in US, real-deal, Panasonic 3L too!
-
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
Thats not sport. We're in the thread of semi-educated guessing game. Once its out and full tested this fun thread would be dead.
Weight absolutely influences braking distance. You can overcome it to a degree with more aggressive tires.
But why don't we see what the real world shows for similar class cars
Car and Driver 70-0 / 100-0 times:
Model S Plaid: 150ft / 284 ft
BMW M5: 150 ft / 294 ft
E63 AMG: 155 ft / not tested
Audi RS7: 157 ft / 302 ft
Taycan Turbo S: 159 ft / 324 ft
Yet no one will say the BMW M5 or Porsche Taycan has 'terrible' brakes.
Tell me again the Model S Plaid has poor brakes compared to similar cars.
Going to the model 3 performance, we see 147ft for 70-0, and I don't see a 100-0 time. I expect ludicrous to be about the same since it has the same brakes and the front tire size didn't change.
Last edited:
Well you have my guess at 2.9 from 3.1 seconds which is US based cheating numbers with rollout
Matt Watson will give us the real figures.This is based on it not being a Plaid and that included the Model X Plaid which is 2.5 it cannot hit that and I think it cannot come close to that regardless of whatever the motors or battery can or cannot do. If it could, it would be the Model 3 Plaid and not Ludicrous.
I also think this car might be why Acceleration Boost isn't available on the Model 3 LR. If you look at the old LR with Acceleration Boost, once you got off the line and the Performance was a car length ahead the LR would keep up pretty much then. I think from what I've read, this is because Acceleration Boost took the LR motors to the power output of the battery so once you hit that point the Performance couldn't be quicker.
I'm hoping the Acceleration Boost comes back but I just wonder if they are not shipping it to avoid the situation where the LR isn't all that much slower than a Performance which eats into their ability to sell the higher end model which no doubt also has a higher margin as most Performance cars often do.
Not quite, you were reaching the limits of the motors, not the battery. The LR and Performance had effectively the same motors with the LR having a weaker rear inverter for newer ones. Past 50mph or so, the EMF limited how much power the motor could put out. Same motor in the X/S LR seems to do a bit better, but I think that's because of the higher voltage.
It absolutely is limiting (capping) performance and the performance envelope, as mpgxsvcd's post proves, particularly in the M3P which will sink all the power that the battery can source and from the UK/EU experience of the change to the LG 5L.
How?
Last edited:
This is not accurate. Battery temperature affects the Performance model significantly because the Performance Model can actually hit the max Power that the battery can give. As you cool the battery down the "Max Discharge Value" decreases which limits the Performance model down to the LR capabilities after max HP is reached.
Most reviewers have no clue about what Track Mode does and they just assume it makes the car accelerate quicker. It doesn't. It hurts straight line acceleration tremendously especially when you are only doing short 11 second acceleration runs and then letting the car sit in-between runs. Track Mode even cools the battery off if you stop and get out of the car. It has a setting for cooling the car after you stop completely.
The Performance Model is only slower than a LR with Boost if you have a cold battery. If you heat the battery completely then a Performance Model will beat a LR + Boost with equivalent wheels and tires even in 60-130 mph times.
So just checked Bjorn's videos where he did launches of the Performance and he's getting to 400KW roughly on pull from the battery and the LG pack is rated 415KW max discharge. Probably with some losses and so on, that feels like the Model 3 Performance was maxing out the battery pack already. Hence why I think a small improvement at low speeds will be due to motor changes and wheels to get the 0-60 down. They've changed where the motor tops out so that also will help hopefully with mid speed pull.
Ultimately though a car that will be a bit quicker than the last Model 3 Performance, not next level amazingly quicker. If Tesla's view is sub 3 seconds gets you to Ludicrous levels then the last car was almost there already. It only needs a slight nudge to get it over the line.
I hope to be wrong and pleasantly surprised but I think a lot of you are overhyping this and setting yourselves up to be massively disappointed.
Acceleration boost lifted the battery discharge power from 324kW to 366kW, which may not be significantly less than the available discharge power. Carwow are notorious for testing cars with ~50% SoC on a typically cold UK day, without any preparation, when the available power will be <400kW.
You'll see that 366kW is a well considered power level for homogeneous performance.
Last edited:
Man all this free speculation is so tiresome. Wouldn't it spare everyone alot of time if we all just Shut Up and wait for the actual reveal and reviews? "I think it.s gonna be 2.6...no..2.9...no...2.7..". It's like kindergarden in here.
Sellout
Member
lol, have you never spent any time in an online forum? You can post objective truth and people will argue over it, so a thread about speculation will always end up being a complete mess.
There is tons of great information and also speculation based off of that great information here. Do with it what you want. The topic of the thread is Speculation about the new car and that is exactly what we are providing. There are several people in this forum who know exactly what the current car's battery, motors, and performance are capable of. Based on that knowledge we can definitely make educated guesses on what is possible and also what is plausible. You are free to ignore that information if that is what you desire. No one will stop you.
When that was a thing I was still messing with BMW and Merc V8 engines and I haven't measured on any Tesla before 2019, so I really don't know. I just quoted the manual.
If you look at that projected torque curve, you also see that all motors are limited to the same combined torque really, whatever it states in the registration docs and user manual. I think they are doing that on purpose ;-)
No way for me to know since I havent seen a non torque limited front and rear motor in a M3P yet. Since peak torque is basically the same through most of the SOC range, I can only assume, that there is an artificial limit that can be raised.
Yes. True. But one thing is...theyve never done that with the 3D3A and another thing is, whenever they do that kind of thing, they name it 3D3B oder 3D3C. I would be able to provide you with different data for these then.
From around 130kph onwards yes. Below that the Performance is allowed 1350A peak and the boosted LR only 1255A. At Autobahn speed there very little difference and if youve got a Model Y with the 4D1 rear motor there is none.
The LG is spot on with Maximum Discharge Power vs actual Battery power. If he was only pulling 400kW, he wasn't at 100% SOC and hot, but at 90% and hot maybe?
Actually from 320-325kW to 385-390kW in the LG 5L.
Lindenwood
Active Member
You’ve grossly misunderstood, or misrepresented, his post…
He said high SOC and Temps will improve 40-60 by about 0.1.
This doesn’t disagree with our assertion that the flat torque from 5-40 is artificially limited. Thus, Tesla could absolutely increase torque (power) output below 40mph without requiring a battery capable of a greater peak.
Additionally, different motor designs could inherently increase available power from 40-60 without as much effort from the battery.
Additionally, there is a lot of space from 0-5mph to make up a couple tenths with a dedicated “launch” mode that isn’t so timid off the line.
Therefore, the battery is indeed limiting peak power output, but there are several opportunities to improve straight-line “performance.”
I think one of the nice things on the LR and yes its slower but because it's not quite tapping out everything possible from the battery that it keeps that performance almost all the time regardless of if the battery is a lower SOC or maybe a bit colder. It's predictable performance.
Also that lower load on the battery helps keep their degradation down. Think over a 4 or maybe it's 5 year period the Performance is almost doubling the degradation of the Long Range. Might be wrong though as these are stats from my head and not sure where I saw it to validate it.
Yes correct, he Supercharged which would have warmed the the battery up but then assumed needed to drive to a location to launch it so guess decided to get it down to 90% and start from there.
Not at all. He said that "SOC is largely irrelevant for 0-60 mph until very low SOCs. However, battery and motor temperature are extremely important" and "With a hot battery you will gain about .1 seconds on your 40-60 mph time". His further posts referenced the detrimental effect that cooling the battery has on available power.
A hot battery provides more power from 40-60 mph when the torque is not "artificially limited".
I think you misunderstand basic physics. A motor cannot create power.
rotarypower101
Member
Seen this asserted also, is there any long term clear and trusted data to support that supposition either way for a P vs LR battery degradation with the same cell?
Try this video below. Two things but this one is showing that the China LG battery degradation on average is -6% and the Panasonic is around -11% on the LR so while that battery can make more power, it's not as good longer term.
The following though I guess is the key point. when you look at the LongRange the average after 50k miles is it's around 73 / 76KWH. The Performance spread is far more spread out which I'm going to assume it depends on how you drive it. If you drive it harder more often then the drop is going to be greater because you put more strain on the battery. Some other Performance drivers might be driving it easier and hence their batteries haven't degraded as much. The spread on the LR is much more clustered closer together so regardless of how you drive it, the degradation is more predictable due to it just not being able to tax the battery as much.
I mean in the scheme of things it probably doesn't hugely matter as you'll still get a lot of miles out of a Performance and I'm sure if you drive it easy, the same as a LR. Just if you drive it hard constantly the range is going to drop quicker is all.
I use this though with my opinion on why Tesla will limit this to some degree because they provide a battery warranty. If they run the car to the point you could destroy the batteries range too much they'll have a lot of warranty claims to deal with. Could you run the battery harder? Yeah sure I suspect you can but you'll destroy it too quickly so they block it. They might also be factoring in that those who do massive miles might be more likely to buy a LR than a Performance so they hedge their bets that no one will do both a lot of miles and also drive it like they stole it for most of those miles to claim on the battery warranty.
