Model 3 Motors on the Tesla Parts Catalog

[AlanSubie4Life]

@Saghost Thanks for the old screen capture.

Did some reading...IGBT is the tried and true power switching technology but modern Silicon Carbide Power FETs probably win out, the more power being switched. The SiC devices perform very well at high temperature due to wide bandgap and can have very low on resistance and high breakdown voltages. So, for extremely high power, SiC is good.

Elon did say that the front drive unit is Silicon Carbide as well, and see earlier in this thread for front drive unit identified as “IGBT-HC” (high conductivity???) and I don’t know how SiC IGBTs compare to SiC MOSFETs. But anyway...

Regarding which drive units belong to which Model 3 models:

1) Well, since the third one (part number ending 990) says “AWD” right in the description, I guess it is safe to say that is used in the AWD versions of the car. Presumably both Performance and non. Unless there is a fourth part number they have not yet provided!

2) MOSFET-LC most probably means low gate charge for the power FETs? For power MOSFETs this is a “thing” - allows the devices to be switched faster and more efficiently (less switching losses). There are a host of different parameters for power MOSFETs, so maybe the power FETs are different for this motor, and thus they may be superior in other ways as well (lower Ron, lower switched capacitances on the drain, etc.)

So my best guess is:

70 motor/DU -> SR/MR RWD. (IGBT)
80 motor/DU -> LR RWD. (MOSFET)
90 motor/DU -> all AWD (MOSFET-LC)

AND perhaps these parts all have the same actual motor (simpler?), but the drive electronics (and therefore their maximum capabilities & cost) are definitely different, based on the description.

 

[Saghost]

@Saghost Thanks for the old screen capture.

Did some reading...IGBT is the tried and true power switching technology but modern Silicon Carbide Power FETs probably win out, the more power being switched. The SiC devices perform very well at high temperature due to wide bandgap and can have very low on resistance and high breakdown voltages. So, for extremely high power, SiC is good.

Elon did say that the front drive unit is Silicon Carbide as well, and see earlier in this thread for front drive unit identified as “IGBT-HC” (high conductivity???) and I don’t know how SiC IGBTs compare to SiC MOSFETs. But anyway...

Regarding which drive units belong to which Model 3 models:

1) Well, since the third one (part number ending 990) says “AWD” right in the description, I guess it is safe to say that is used in the AWD versions of the car. Presumably both Performance and non. Unless there is a fourth part number they have not yet provided!

2) MOSFET-LC most probably means low gate charge for the power FETs? For power MOSFETs this is a “thing” - allows the devices to be switched faster and more efficiently (less switching losses). There are a host of different parameters for power MOSFETs, so maybe the power FETs are different for this motor, and thus they may be superior in other ways as well (lower Ron, lower switched capacitances on the drain, etc.)

So my best guess is:

70 motor/DU -> SR/MR RWD. (IGBT)
80 motor/DU -> LR RWD. (MOSFET)
90 motor/DU -> all AWD (MOSFET-LC)

AND perhaps these parts all have the same actual motor (simpler?), but the drive electronics (and therefore their maximum capabilities & cost) are definitely different, based on the description.

Maybe. It might be implying something about the motor instead, though. The S and X have always used induction motors - and use IGBT packages to control them. The RWD LR 3 uses a fancy switched reluctance permanent magnet motor, and apparently a MOSFET package to control it. I've read that the 3 front motor might be an induction type but I haven't seen confirmation of that.

Maybe the designation is suggesting that the MR and SR versions won't have the switched reluctance motor in the rear, but something more similar to the S and X motors.

About the SiC MOSFETs modules in Tesla Model 3

 

[SD_MDL3]

Are there any mid range owners that can read off the part number on the rear motor to confirm which unit is being used?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I've read that the 3 front motor might be an induction type but I haven't seen confirmation of that.

The front motor is induction. I think to some extent the motor type is independent of the drive electronics (though the control of the drive on a PMSR vs. Induction is quite different I think). Induction is a small contributor to the AWD reduction in range vs. the RWD due to its lower efficiency. Also Elon tweeted about it:

Elon Musk on Twitter

 

[Krash]

There is a rumour that the new S and X drive units corresponding to option code DU00 and DU01 (released 14 June 2017) included the new model 3 inverter technology.

 

[SD_MDL3]

This website gives a good explanation of how IGBT functions.

https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/power/insulated-gate-bipolar-transistor.html

 

[lolder]

IGBT and MOSFET are just nomenclature for solid state control devices. They've all been around a long time and reliability shouldn't be much different. I doubt the motor itself is different. The inverter technology may be slightly different but it's the SRPMS ( switched reluctance permanent magnet synchronous ) motor in the rear drive of all the M3s that's revolutionary.

 

[DrDabbles]

So, who's going to be the first person to do a RWD -> P-AWD DIY mod?

Not possible for those that didn't get the first run of RWD vehicles. They changed the battery pack design to simplify and remove some of the manufacturing steps. So if you want an AWD and you have an RWD, it'll be cheaper to sell your car and buy a new one.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Any potential longevity issues with the IGBT version in the MR car? I am getting the MR version.

Just slightly lower efficiency. With a 62kWh pack and all the same hardware, the MR at least be able to travel the same energy adjusted distance as the LR on the UDDS test, so with the LR at 495 miles, the MR should be able to hit at least (62kWh/75kWh)*495 miles = 409 miles of range, and IRL that would be a little more because it weighs less. With the IGBT inverter, it tested at about 392 miles. That's only a 4-5% difference compared to where it would be with just the smaller battery and the MOSFET inverter, but it's still something.

https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2019/tesla_pc_a3740024_0_z_e.pdf

 

[Kirby64]

Not possible for those that didn't get the first run of RWD vehicles. They changed the battery pack design to simplify and remove some of the manufacturing steps. So if you want an AWD and you have an RWD, it'll be cheaper to sell your car and buy a new one.

When did they change the battery pack design? Do you have info on that?

 

[DrDabbles]

When did they change the battery pack design? Do you have info on that?

I think it was during the quarterly call when he was talking about flufferbot and eliminating complexity and steps. Basically there is a bunch of stamping that goes into the pack for the extra connectors. On the RWD models, a blanking plate would be fitted and sealed. These extra components weren't necessary, so they just stopped doing it apparently.

At a guess, this could be the difference between parts 1137375-01-J and 1137375-01-K.

 

[Kirby64]

I think it was during the quarterly call when he was talking about flufferbot and eliminating complexity and steps. Basically there is a bunch of stamping that goes into the pack for the extra connectors. On the RWD models, a blanking plate would be fitted and sealed. These extra components weren't necessary, so they just stopped doing it apparently.

At a guess, this could be the difference between parts 1137375-01-J and 1137375-01-K.

Which quarterly was this? I've got a June build ... Probably pre optimization then? Given awd wasn't even really being proeprod by then.

 

[run-the-joules]

Not possible for those that didn't get the first run of RWD vehicles.

I suppose mine is probably considered "first run" in this context, but how can one know for sure? Not that I'd realistically do it, but it bears consideration I suppose.

 

[DrDabbles]

I suppose mine is probably considered "first run" in this context, but how can one know for sure? Not that I'd realistically do it, but it bears consideration I suppose.

You could look under the plastic under tray at the battery pack to see if it has more than one HV port for the motor on it. I'd expect there to be a physical stamping in the battery pack, but some kind of blanking plate over it.

@Kirby64 Oh wow, my google-fu finally kicked in after searching high and low. I found this article. Tesla streamlined Model 3 battery pack production time by 96%, says Elon Musk. The important quote during the 2018 Q1 earnings call from Elon:

“This still remains to be fixed, but in any case, overgeneralizing the design. For example, the current battery pack has a port for front drive units, which we then put a steel blanking plate on. So essentially, we punched a hole in it and put a blanking plate at the hole. And (we had to) do that for all rear drive unit cars, which is kinda crazy.

“It would have added cost, it would have added a manufacturing step, it would have added a failure mode; and four ports was unnecessary… That’s changed. So, the result was we had a rapid improvement in battery pack production, from taking 7 hrs to make a pack 3 weeks ago to under 17 minutes now. We’re able to also achieve a sustained rate of 3,000 vehicles a week, so we’re actually slightly ahead in battery module and pack production than expected.”​

So, from that quote that I somehow remembered from 9 months ago (I don't remember this morning, so who knows how this happened), we can assume that some number of RWD LR packs exist in the wild that had the HV port for the front motor stamped into the case, then the blanking plate installed and fixed in place. Tesla seems pretty wild about butyl tape and custom fasteners, so I suppose if you can find one you could probably pry it apart. Hopefully it isn't welded onto the pack, that would be totally insane.

 

[run-the-joules]

You could look under the plastic under tray at the battery pack to see if it has more than one HV port for the motor on it. I'd expect there to be a physical stamping in the battery pack, but some kind of blanking plate over it.

@Kirby64 Oh wow, my google-fu finally kicked in after searching high and low. I found this article. Tesla streamlined Model 3 battery pack production time by 96%, says Elon Musk. The important quote during the 2018 Q1 earnings call from Elon:

“This still remains to be fixed, but in any case, overgeneralizing the design. For example, the current battery pack has a port for front drive units, which we then put a steel blanking plate on. So essentially, we punched a hole in it and put a blanking plate at the hole. And (we had to) do that for all rear drive unit cars, which is kinda crazy.

“It would have added cost, it would have added a manufacturing step, it would have added a failure mode; and four ports was unnecessary… That’s changed. So, the result was we had a rapid improvement in battery pack production, from taking 7 hrs to make a pack 3 weeks ago to under 17 minutes now. We’re able to also achieve a sustained rate of 3,000 vehicles a week, so we’re actually slightly ahead in battery module and pack production than expected.”​

So, from that quote that I somehow remembered from 9 months ago (I don't remember this morning, so who knows how this happened), we can assume that some number of RWD LR packs exist in the wild that had the HV port for the front motor stamped into the case, then the blanking plate installed and fixed in place. Tesla seems pretty wild about butyl tape and custom fasteners, so I suppose if you can find one you could probably pry it apart. Hopefully it isn't welded onto the pack, that would be totally insane.

Interesting. My car is from January and who knows when the battery pack was made before that, so it’s reasonable to guess I might be one of the folks with such a pack.

 

[Kirby64]

You could look under the plastic under tray at the battery pack to see if it has more than one HV port for the motor on it. I'd expect there to be a physical stamping in the battery pack, but some kind of blanking plate over it.

@Kirby64 Oh wow, my google-fu finally kicked in after searching high and low. I found this article. Tesla streamlined Model 3 battery pack production time by 96%, says Elon Musk. The important quote during the 2018 Q1 earnings call from Elon:

“This still remains to be fixed, but in any case, overgeneralizing the design. For example, the current battery pack has a port for front drive units, which we then put a steel blanking plate on. So essentially, we punched a hole in it and put a blanking plate at the hole. And (we had to) do that for all rear drive unit cars, which is kinda crazy.

“It would have added cost, it would have added a manufacturing step, it would have added a failure mode; and four ports was unnecessary… That’s changed. So, the result was we had a rapid improvement in battery pack production, from taking 7 hrs to make a pack 3 weeks ago to under 17 minutes now. We’re able to also achieve a sustained rate of 3,000 vehicles a week, so we’re actually slightly ahead in battery module and pack production than expected.”​

So, from that quote that I somehow remembered from 9 months ago (I don't remember this morning, so who knows how this happened), we can assume that some number of RWD LR packs exist in the wild that had the HV port for the front motor stamped into the case, then the blanking plate installed and fixed in place. Tesla seems pretty wild about butyl tape and custom fasteners, so I suppose if you can find one you could probably pry it apart. Hopefully it isn't welded onto the pack, that would be totally insane.

Sounds like there's an opportunity to check if blanking plates exist then... then it's a matter of figuring out differences.

@Ingineer has this video that shows the AWD front motor and it looks like the AWD front motor is routed from the rear of the car actually...

Sounds like the HV cabling needs to be routed then? Pretty sure the channels for the cabling are there, but I doubt the actual cabling is there. This video seems to show the HV system but he points out an 'optional connector' that could be the so-called blanking plate:

Does anyone have an underside walkaround of the AWD variant to confirm that actually has the metal plate removed? Hard to tell from the AWD walkaround since all those plates are in the way...

 

[DrDabbles]

That battery module looks like it has the -J part number, but I can't get a clear enough shot. The first place I looked was @Ingineer youtube channel when I couldn't find the article talking about the call.

The first video showed the plate, obviously, and the second one of the P3D had the protective plate in place. So I think we're looking at the right place, but who knows when that change was implemented, or what stock they had of battery packs to get through. The mystery deepens.

Edit: The Jack Rickard videos also seemed to suggest that all of the power connections came out of the penthouse/back of the pack. So given that, it's almost certain that the additional blanking plate from the Ingineerix teardown of the RWD vehicle is the one that was supposed to go away. I'd be real interested in a mid range, RWD teardown now.

 

[Kirby64]

The MR RWD packs should have the redesigned batteries and inverter, so I imagine the blanking plates should be gone. Either way, the drive inverter would need to be swapped to bring the MR to LR RWD power anyways. Any conversion there would be too much...

I think the better question is changes are actually needed on the penthouse to add the connectors... if they're literally just a cap away from new connectors for the cabling, then that's a big difference from having to solder/attach/etc a whole new connector to the penthouse somehow.

Do we know if anyone has actually taken those blanking plates off to see what's behind them?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Shocking! @adaptabl disagrees with my guess about what part numbers correspond to which vehicle. Wonder what he thinks...? Maybe he is counting on one of these part numbers being the vaunted double burn-in motor!

 

[adaptabl]

Shocking! @adaptabl disagrees with my guess about what part numbers correspond to which vehicle. Wonder what he thinks...? Maybe he is counting on one of these part numbers being the vaunted double burn-in motor!

I don't believe there is any difference in the motors or electronics. Any performance difference is most likely software controlled. If there was a difference there would be unique part numbers for the different model cars.