AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Where in the thread...too lazy...
But the inverter backplate is right where the motor ID plate is. If you have a 980 pretty sure your part codes will line up with a contemporaneous vehicle.
-
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 Motors on the Tesla Parts Catalog
- Thread starter EVMike3
- Start date
Where in the thread...too lazy...
But the inverter backplate is right where the motor ID plate is. If you have a 980 pretty sure your part codes will line up with a contemporaneous vehicle.
You can go ahead and bring the cash, they won't do anything for you. I think even IF they are the same on some LR AWDs they won't do the upgrade for any.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
That's interesting. The RWD vehicles I have seen have been 1120980 (and some of them were earlier VINs - in the 11-15k range - and early cars - as early as 5/18). Can look earlier in this thread from many months ago. I don't think I've ever seen a picture of the 1120970 (IBGT inverter as I recall), though maybe I've forgotten.
Pictures of some RWD & AWD Rear Motors
I assume all the "recent" LR RWD vehicles (not sure when the last ones were built) are 980 motors but not sure whether we've ever seen that confirmed. Either 970 was the second type of motor installed in LR RWD, or it was used briefly and quickly abandoned. (I suspect the latter.)
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Model 3 motors are apparently operating in a region where either could work. SiC MOSFETs tend to switch faster and could result in lower power dissipation in some circumstances. This is partially due to lower gate charge on newer designs - which allows lower power consumption in the gate driving circuit, and faster switching, which is where most of the power dissipation in the device takes place (high current and high voltage across the device). It used to be that IGBTs were the device of choice because they can sustain higher voltages (historically) - but now the SiC MOSFETs are available which tolerate the voltages in question, yet operate faster than IGBTs.
Apparently (just based on what we see), the SiC MOSFET is a better choice for the performance/price/etc. tradeoff in Model 3. But it appears that the IGBT is capable of performing the same function - whether it would be capable of doing so for the higher power output drive units (arguably higher - it's not that different for the RWD vs. the AWD Performance for the rear motor output), I do not know. It may be that the maximum speed is limited for the IGBT motors (but no idea, this is pure speculation - it's not clear at all whether the IGBT switching speed is the limiting factor for the maximum RPM).
Perhaps someone here can add to this.
I posted this in another thread some time ago, but it might belong here better (official EU car registrations that includes offical max. motor power output of the different models).
I have now also gotten info from the EU registrations of P3D-/Stealth as the first were delivered a month ago in EU, and they are the same max. power output as Performance (e.g. they weren't registered as AWD and then upgraded.)
LR-RWD (registered after 5% upgrade in March) - 980.
Rear at 225kW / 306 hp(M)
LR-AWD (registered before 5% upgrade in March) - Mix of 980/990
Front at 150kW / 204 hp(M)
Rear at 190kW / 258 hp(M)
Total: 340kW / 462 hp(M)
LR-AWD (registered after 5% upgrade in March) - 990
Front at 155kW / 211 hp(M)
Rear at 195kW / 265 hp(M)
Total: 350kW / 476 hp(M)
LR-P (registered before 5% upgrade in March) - 980
Front at 150kW / 204 hp(M)
Rear at 205kW / 279 hp(M)
Total: 355kW / 483 hp(M)
LR-P (registered after 5% upgrade in March) and P3D- (first EU deliveries in August 2019) - 980
Front at 155kW / 211 hp(M)
Rear at 205kW / 279 hp(M)
Total: 360kW / 489 hp(M)
Metric horsepower (1 hp(M) = 735.5W), not imperial/mechanical (1 hp(I) = 745.7W) as these are EU registrations.
Currently AWD's output around 390 hp(M) ~ 287 kW (based on dynos etc.), so around 20% below the max. registed power output.
Also interesting is that the LR-RWD rear motor has 20KW more than the one in Performance (as they are both 980s - or 970 on some?).
Anyways - it gives some possibilities for an update to both Performance (~5%) and AWD (~20%) if they wanted to. Musk teased the Model 3 Ludacris update some time ago - and the 20% update for AWD was already installed in March/April a few EU AWD's (not the Performance software, but a special +20% AWD power increase software without track mode etc.).
I have now also gotten info from the EU registrations of P3D-/Stealth as the first were delivered a month ago in EU, and they are the same max. power output as Performance (e.g. they weren't registered as AWD and then upgraded.)
LR-RWD (registered after 5% upgrade in March) - 980.
Rear at 225kW / 306 hp(M)
LR-AWD (registered before 5% upgrade in March) - Mix of 980/990
Front at 150kW / 204 hp(M)
Rear at 190kW / 258 hp(M)
Total: 340kW / 462 hp(M)
LR-AWD (registered after 5% upgrade in March) - 990
Front at 155kW / 211 hp(M)
Rear at 195kW / 265 hp(M)
Total: 350kW / 476 hp(M)
LR-P (registered before 5% upgrade in March) - 980
Front at 150kW / 204 hp(M)
Rear at 205kW / 279 hp(M)
Total: 355kW / 483 hp(M)
LR-P (registered after 5% upgrade in March) and P3D- (first EU deliveries in August 2019) - 980
Front at 155kW / 211 hp(M)
Rear at 205kW / 279 hp(M)
Total: 360kW / 489 hp(M)
Metric horsepower (1 hp(M) = 735.5W), not imperial/mechanical (1 hp(I) = 745.7W) as these are EU registrations.
Currently AWD's output around 390 hp(M) ~ 287 kW (based on dynos etc.), so around 20% below the max. registed power output.
Also interesting is that the LR-RWD rear motor has 20KW more than the one in Performance (as they are both 980s - or 970 on some?).
Anyways - it gives some possibilities for an update to both Performance (~5%) and AWD (~20%) if they wanted to. Musk teased the Model 3 Ludacris update some time ago - and the 20% update for AWD was already installed in March/April a few EU AWD's (not the Performance software, but a special +20% AWD power increase software without track mode etc.).
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
No, probably not, even if theoretically you could do this. All LR RWD that I have taken pictures of have 980 rear drive units (but not yours)...just like the Performance. You can see the pictures linked a few posts above. So you wouldn't be making any change. The limits and differences are presumably software (though there is plenty of debate about binned drive units (with same part number) for Performance, and whether they exist, and I do not want this thread to devolve into that discussion again - there are plenty of other threads for that).
I think I have access (parking lot at work...I can creep around and take pictures of people's cars...
) to a pretty late 2018 LR RWD...after they had initially stopped making it (though they did make more later)...I should check it...I have not before.
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Sept 2019 P3D- Build with 980-F Drive Unit
From the M3P- thread. There weren't any apparent US market P3D- vehicles built in August 2019. They probably went to other markets. Now that end of quarter is near, they are building for US deliveries and are building P3D- again (and probably all other models for the US market too, of course). Still with the 980 motor, notable for this thread.
Would be good to see a continued trend of AWD (non-P) vehicles with 990 motors, as seems to be the pattern...if someone takes delivery of AWD this month in the US, do let us know. (Very likely it will be 990.)
From the M3P- thread. There weren't any apparent US market P3D- vehicles built in August 2019. They probably went to other markets. Now that end of quarter is near, they are building for US deliveries and are building P3D- again (and probably all other models for the US market too, of course). Still with the 980 motor, notable for this thread.
Would be good to see a continued trend of AWD (non-P) vehicles with 990 motors, as seems to be the pattern...if someone takes delivery of AWD this month in the US, do let us know. (Very likely it will be 990.)
Urbancowboy
Member
This is the single most compelling data point for AWD owners wanting more power, and it also shows the newer 990 is plenty capable of handling it. Thanks for re-posting.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Yesterday, Elon did reconfirm (in the context of questions about Model 3) that possibility of more power for the Model 3 Performance at some point. Not clear whether it would require newer hardware though - and might also not be rolled out until the Plaid drivetrain is ready (even though it would not be Plaid of course). Who knows.
Elon Musk on Twitter
I think the "evidence" hints of a soon to be released Ludacris mode for Performance and a +20% upgrade for AWD. Elon is hinting at the first quite clearly, and the AWD update is already out there for a very few EU users (owners were Tesla mixed up performance deliveries with AWDs in the initial EU batch, and then as compensation upgraded the AWD's OTA some weeks after delivery - not to P3D- performance software, but to a special AWD+20 version that doesn't have track mode and sport settings, just more power).
This would also confirm that not all AWD's (980 and 990) can use the performance software (because if they could they would just have updated to that as that would have been much easier, instead of "exposing" a special 20% AWD software version). But anyways - that is speculation - what is not is that on the track the AWD+20 update is very close to the Performance (measured at 3.6s for the AWD20% from standstill vs. 3.4s for the Performance in a 0-100km/h, and 1/8 mile being almost the same).
The performance should have more power than it currently delivers (if you compare the rating of the same 980 motor in the RWD and Performance, there is at least 20kW/26hp more available).
Last edited:
This would be awesome if they opened up 20% more power to the AWD, I bet they will eventually release this. They need to beat all the new cars coming out.
I just had my rear drive unit replaced with part number
ASY,3DUR,MOSFET-HC(1120980-00-F) it was built 9/18 of last year. Did we figure out what the HC means? And F is the version they are currently on. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
ASY,3DUR,MOSFET-HC(1120980-00-F) it was built 9/18 of last year. Did we figure out what the HC means? And F is the version they are currently on. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I think it means High Current. But that's just me. There is some discussion about this up in this thread, if you search for it. Here is where I detailed a theory:
Model 3 Motors on the Tesla Parts Catalog
Two different remanufactured rear drive units in the catalog:
Model 3 Motors on the Tesla Parts Catalog
There were remanufactured units that were 810/840, and they were higher numbers than a lower current version of that unit. It's all around this post...a bit confusing but that's why I think it's HC - high current and LC - low current. Just a theory though. Could mean something else but fairly sure HC is associated with 980 motor, and LC is associated with the 990 motor - that seems clear.
Of course, we know know that there were a few early RWD vehicles that got the 970 motor (see a tear out drive unit image above)...not sure where those fit in as far as what current they would be good for (I suspect for RWD it would be 810/840).
What type of car do you have? Looks like 2018 AWD? If so, would make sense (sort of) that they used that motor.
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Yes, so they replaced it with the same type of motor that it had originally (probably a new version F of course), rather than a 990 unit (which probably would have shown up as a MOSFET-LC on the repair receipt, as that used to be what was indicated in the catalog), which is what they would have used for (most) 2019 AWDs (non-P).
I really am starting to wonder about the failure rate on these rear motors. I just read your story - it sounds like there was really no warning. I wonder if the clunk you heard was the pyrofuse blowing. They didn't say anything about the failure being caused by a bad harness or something (has been the problem for a few people)? Any word on the failure mode?
Last edited:
