Model 3 Motors on the Tesla Parts Catalog

[jebinc]

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?

I'm glad to have the newly coded 990 DU, as I don't think having it will make a difference on whether getting a P upgrade. My guess is no AWD owners will get that, but perhaps another 5% bump for free.

 

[dmurphy]

I'm glad to have the newly coded 990 DU, as I don't think having it will make a difference on whether getting a P upgrade. My guess is no AWD owners will get that, but perhaps another 5% bump for free.

I also have a -990 drive unit, from early April this year. It doesn't really matter to me, as long as it's reliable and meets the current specs. A bump in performance for me is wholly unnecessary.

 

[anon52695]

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?

It was random and out of the blue. I was reading the service report and they replaced the motor due to internal failure but that’s all it said. They also replaced the pyro fuse and the 12v battery. I am going there to grab my car and will talk to the service rep to learn more.

 

[Jedi2155]

I'm particularly interested in the cause of the motor failure as I've heard more than a few (maybe 10+ from the various facebook/forum posts I've seen). I'm particularly wondering if its simply a lack of QC or more of a design issue where it will happen to every Model 3 at some point, and really wondering how my warranty would be impacted by so.

 

[mongo]

I'm particularly interested in the cause of the motor failure as I've heard more than a few (maybe 10+ from the various facebook/forum posts I've seen). I'm particularly wondering if its simply a lack of QC or more of a design issue where it will happen to every Model 3 at some point, and really wondering how my warranty would be impacted by so.

Probably just high power electonics infant mortality.
Bathtub curve - Wikipedia
Maybe stacked up process variation.
Either way, I'm sure they are doing tear downs to root cause the failures and implement any changes needed.

 

[anon52695]

First off I just drove home live about 200 miles away from service center, that was the most efficient drive I have done coming from the service. My car almost did 50 wh/miles better than before. Maybe that was a sign of the faulty motor?

I also talked to service, they said it happens a bit but do t know what causes. They talked as it was mostly in the older cars built in 2018? Which I am hoping the new gen of motor is the upgraded one. Other than that they weren’t much help on why it failed for the specifics. Overall it took them 8 days to repair it from towing it.

 

[mongo]

First off I just drove home live about 200 miles away from service center, that was the most efficient drive I have done coming from the service. My car almost did 50 wh/miles better than before. Maybe that was a sign of the faulty motor?

I also talked to service, they said it happens a bit but do t know what causes. They talked as it was mostly in the older cars built in 2018? Which I am hoping the new gen of motor is the upgraded one. Other than that they weren’t much help on why it failed for the specifics. Overall it took them 8 days to repair it from towing it.

A corrected alignment can also give you an efficiency boost.

 

[AndrewR]

Not sure how relevant this is but checked my RHD P+, VIN is 502xxx and the rear DU is 980-00-F

 

[akdnj88]

SR+ M3 build date 08/19. 980 motor

 

[dennistdk]

SR+ M3 build date 08/19. 980 motor

Thanks. Interesting that it's an 980 motor in the SR+. I just checked a few EU registrations of SR+ (as they have also recently arrived here) and they are listed at the same max. power transfer as LR RWD in the offical EU papers. Interesting because the SR+ has a 0-60 of 5.6s and the LR RWD is at 4.9s (before 5% updgrade). From the dyno tests of SR+ it peak outputs 272 hp(I) - or 276hp(M) / 203kW.
Added various dyno results below (from some youtube videos - just for fun, they might be a bit unprecise and not official).


SR+ (registered after 5% upgrade in March) - 980.
Total/rear at 225kW / 306 hp(M) / 302 hp(I)

Tested at: 203kW / 276hp(M) / 272 hp(I) - 90%

LR-RWD (registered after 5% upgrade in March) - 980.
Total/rear at 225kW / 306 hp(M) / 302 hp(I)

Tested at: 242kW / 330 hp(M) / 325hp(I) - 108%

LR-AWD (registered before 5% upgrade in March) - Mix of 980/990
Front at 150kW / 204 hp(M) / 201 hp(I)
Rear at 190kW / 258 hp(M) / 255 hp(I)
Total: 340kW / 462 hp(M) / 456 hp(I)

Tested at: 274kW / 372 hp(M) / 367hp(I) - 80%

LR-AWD (registered after 5% upgrade in March) - All 990
Front at 155kW / 211 hp(M) / 208 hp(I)
Rear at 195kW / 265 hp(M) / 262 hp(I)
Total: 350kW / 476 hp(M) / 469 hp(I)

LR-P (registered before 5% upgrade in March) - All 980
Front at 150kW / 204 hp(M) / 201 hp(I)
Rear at 205kW / 279 hp(M) / 275 hp(I)
Total: 355kW / 483 hp(M) / 476 hp(I)

Tested at: 346kW / 470 hp(M) / 464hp(I) - 98%

LR-P (registered after 5% upgrade in March) and P3D- (first EU deliveries in August 2019) - All 980
Front at 155kW / 211 hp(M) / 208 hp(I)
Rear at 205kW / 279 hp(M) / 275 hp(I)
Total: 360kW / 489 hp(M) / 283 hp(I)


If those dyno results are correct then the 980 (based on numbers from LR-RWD) has a lot more to offer than currently in LR-P (reaching around 530hp in the Performance).
Also interesting that it's not a 990 in SR+ as it's close (if we assume the 990 is a "low current" version).

Speculation: Based on the numbers it almost seems like the 990 can do exactly what the 980 performance currently can (at least on the registration papers), but the performance can go to ~530hp if looking at the RWD (ludacris anyone?). Maybe the LR-RWD tests are wrong...

 

[anon52695]

Thanks. Interesting that it's an 980 motor in the SR+. I just checked a few EU registrations of SR+ (as they have also recently arrived here) and they are listed at the same max. power transfer as LR RWD in the offical EU papers. Interesting because the SR+ has a 0-60 of 5.6s and the LR RWD is at 4.9s (before 5% updgrade). From the dyno tests of SR+ it peak outputs 272 hp(I) - or 276hp(M) / 203kW.
Added various dyno results below (from some youtube videos - just for fun, they might be a bit unprecise and not official).


SR+ (registered after 5% upgrade in March) - 980.
Total/rear at 225kW / 306 hp(M) / 302 hp(I)

Tested at: 203kW / 276hp(M) / 272 hp(I) - 90%

LR-RWD (registered after 5% upgrade in March) - 980.
Total/rear at 225kW / 306 hp(M) / 302 hp(I)

Tested at: 242kW / 330 hp(M) / 325hp(I) - 108%

LR-AWD (registered before 5% upgrade in March) - Mix of 980/990
Front at 150kW / 204 hp(M) / 201 hp(I)
Rear at 190kW / 258 hp(M) / 255 hp(I)
Total: 340kW / 462 hp(M) / 456 hp(I)

Tested at: 274kW / 372 hp(M) / 367hp(I) - 80%

LR-AWD (registered after 5% upgrade in March) - All 990
Front at 155kW / 211 hp(M) / 208 hp(I)
Rear at 195kW / 265 hp(M) / 262 hp(I)
Total: 350kW / 476 hp(M) / 469 hp(I)

LR-P (registered before 5% upgrade in March) - All 980
Front at 150kW / 204 hp(M) / 201 hp(I)
Rear at 205kW / 279 hp(M) / 275 hp(I)
Total: 355kW / 483 hp(M) / 476 hp(I)

Tested at: 346kW / 470 hp(M) / 464hp(I) - 98%

LR-P (registered after 5% upgrade in March) and P3D- (first EU deliveries in August 2019) - All 980
Front at 155kW / 211 hp(M) / 208 hp(I)
Rear at 205kW / 279 hp(M) / 275 hp(I)
Total: 360kW / 489 hp(M) / 283 hp(I)


If those dyno results are correct then the 980 (based on numbers from LR-RWD) has a lot more to offer than currently in LR-P (reaching around 530hp in the Performance).
Also interesting that it's not a 990 in SR+ as it's close (if we assume the 990 is a "low current" version).

Speculation: Based on the numbers it almost seems like the 990 can do exactly what the 980 performance currently can (at least on the registration papers), but the performance can go to ~530hp if looking at the RWD (ludacris anyone?). Maybe the LR-RWD tests are wrong...

This is great. I hope they allow AWD 980 from 2018 to get up to the potential of the P. I like where your thinking that there is more on the 980 to open up Ludacris. That would be an even better bonus.

 

[Quorky]

I can check the plate on mine P3D- (September 15, 2019 born date) if it helps anybody. Just don't know where the plate is and if easy to get to.

Would love to get ludicrous mode on the P3D- as 3.2sec 0 to 60 is starting to feel slow

 

[scubastevo80]

I can check the plate on mine P3D- (September 15, 2019 born date) if it helps anybody. Just don't know where the plate is and if easy to get to.

Would love to get ludicrous mode on the P3D- as 3.2sec 0 to 60 is starting to feel slow

The plate is on the rear motor, which you should be able to see by looking through the rear driver side wheel at the correct angle. See post 62 in this thread for an idea of where it is.

 

[ALSETJC]

Front motor is just nerfed for AWD cars. There is no way it only adds .5 sec 0-60 vs long range rwd. Tesla needs to keep the perception that you are getting something extra for your money.

 

[sickbones]

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).

Hey Dennis, would you be able to point me in the direction of where you saw AWD getting the AWD+20 upgrade?

 

[dennistdk]

Hey Dennis, would you be able to point me in the direction of where you saw AWD getting the AWD+20 upgrade?

It was my neighbor's Model 3 that got the 20% update. Track mode has apparently been there from time to time (depending on software version), but it has never shown as a Performance/Stealth with a red line in the "About my Tesla" menu.

 

[diamond.g]

Front motor is just nerfed for AWD cars. There is no way it only adds .5 sec 0-60 vs long range rwd. Tesla needs to keep the perception that you are getting something extra for your money.

Rear motor...

 

[ALSETJC]

Rear motor...

I guess the rear is the one that is held back in the AWD.

 

[dennistdk]

I guess the rear is the one that is held back in the AWD.

It's actually an interesting question. Has it ever been tested how much power each motor can output?

Pre-5% upgrade we know the AWD was doing 274kW (367hp). If the front was 150kW (201hp) then that just leaves 124kW (166hp) for the rear. It would make the front motor more powerful (and the rear 109hp less than it's performance counterpart).
Also means the 980/990 in AWDs are only running at around ~60% capacity compared to Performance. That doesn't seem right - especially if the Performance ones are just binned motors (such a big variance doesn't seem realistic). So maybe both motors are software limited in the AWD.

 

[diamond.g]

It's actually an interesting question. Has it ever been tested how much power each motor can output?

Pre-5% upgrade we know the AWD was doing 274kW (367hp). If the front was 150kW (201hp) then that just leaves 124kW (166hp) for the rear. It would make the front motor more powerful (and the rear 109hp less than it's performance counterpart).
Also means the 980/990 in AWDs are only running at around ~60% capacity compared to Performance. That doesn't seem right - especially if the Performance ones are just binned motors (such a big variance doesn't seem realistic). So maybe both motors are software limited in the AWD.

I’ll pull some can data on my way home from work and see what the max values for each is (assuming that PID is still exposed).