Model 3 Performance VIN Discrepancy

[voip-ninja]

I'm highly aware of VIN coding rules. If a manufacturer wants to split out different horsepower ratings of the same engine, they can do so. I could probably find numerous examples. The question is why Tesla didn't care to code their Performance models differently, considering how cheeky they are about it (Ludicrous Mode for example).



GOOD LORD. Eleven thousand dollars for software coding??? No wonder Tesla's margins are higher than anyone else's. That sound you hear is Elon snickering.

One reason even if the motors had different ratings is that any P car could be sold as an AWD car if necessary.

This would not be possible with a VIN that specified performance configuration.

More likely explanation is that most if not all AWD cars can be P cars with a flip of a software switch.

Elon says P motors have twice the burn in and highest output ratings. What he doesn’t mention is it is possible that 99% of the motors are meeting those specs.

 

[Jedi2155]

One reason even if the motors had different ratings is that any P car could be sold as an AWD car if necessary.

This would not be possible with a VIN that specified performance configuration.

More likely explanation is that most if not all AWD cars can be P cars with a flip of a software switch.

Elon says P motors have twice the burn in and highest output ratings. What he doesn’t mention is it is possible that 99% of the motors are meeting those specs.

He did something along the lines of sorting by sigma, but he didn't say which sigma....

 

[mattjs33]

I'd like to see some examples - I don't believe many ICE vendors have different horsepower ratings for engines without changing some mechanical components (It's possible to have a purely "chipped" variant, but I don't know of this actually being done - My Mustang Boss 302 has the same displacement as the stock GT, but has a different intake manifold along with a few other minor mechanical differences)

Just in checking my NICB book really quick, I've found differences in VIN coding to HP for Aston Martin, Bentley, Fiat, Hyundai, Jaguar, Lamborghini, Mazda, and Subaru. I also know that Koenigsegg codes their engines differently based on horsepower. All these examples came just from the car side, trucks and SUVs might show more examples.

It's just funny, given that Tesla and their Performance models are pretty well recognized. If there's no difference in VIN coding, it kind of implies there's no difference in how the cars are built, and they're free to designate them as Performance or otherwise as needed.

Which means...

Oh, it's even worse than that. The "coding" is really just setting one (or maybe a few) configuration values in some configuration table somewhere. It's almost certainly *much* less work than a "tune" on an ICE car - from acceleration graphs it looks like they just cap the torque of the AWD at a lower level than the Performance. Once the motor passes the constant torque phase (about 45 mph) the acceleration on the cars appears to be very similar.

One reason even if the motors had different ratings is that any P car could be sold as an AWD car if necessary.

This would not be possible with a VIN that specified performance configuration.

More likely explanation is that most if not all AWD cars can be P cars with a flip of a software switch.

Elon says P motors have twice the burn in and highest output ratings. What he doesn’t mention is it is possible that 99% of the motors are meeting those specs.

I would have to say that the money Tesla receives for the Performance upgrade is pure profit, and from a logical standpoint is the single most wasteful option a car buyer could spend money on. From an emotional standpoint, I get it, and everyone's wants are different, but $11K (or even $9K) is an awful lot of money to spend on a "flip of the switch".

 

[voip-ninja]

Just in checking my NICB book really quick, I've found differences in VIN coding to HP for Aston Martin, Bentley, Fiat, Hyundai, Jaguar, Lamborghini, Mazda, and Subaru. I also know that Koenigsegg codes their engines differently based on horsepower. All these examples came just from the car side, trucks and SUVs might show more examples.

It's just funny, given that Tesla and their Performance models are pretty well recognized. If there's no difference in VIN coding, it kind of implies there's no difference in how the cars are built, and they're free to designate them as Performance or otherwise as needed.

Which means...





I would have to say that the money Tesla receives for the Performance upgrade is pure profit, and from a logical standpoint is the single most wasteful option a car buyer could spend money on. From an emotional standpoint, I get it, and everyone's wants are different, but $11K (or even $9K) is an awful lot of money to spend on a "flip of the switch".

The way I look at it, the $9K (in my case) I saved by not going P- can be better used on buying the better/improved version of the 3 that will exist in 3-4 years time when there is actual competition from the likes of VAG, BMW, Merc, Volvo and others.

 

[brianman]

...

Glad to hear it all worked out. Thanks for the follow-up!

 

[brianman]

I would have to say that the money Tesla receives for the Performance upgrade is pure profit, and from a logical standpoint is the single most wasteful option a car buyer could spend money on. From an emotional standpoint, I get it, and everyone's wants are different, but $11K (or even $9K) is an awful lot of money to spend on a "flip of the switch".

Do you feel the same about EAP and FSD?

This branch of discussion reminds of some open source fans that believe that all software should be free, because they personally don't want to "pay" for anything. A larger discussion being simplified, of course; I'm just saying the tone and mindset are very similar IMO.

 

[mattjs33]

Do you feel the same about EAP and FSD?

This branch of discussion reminds of some open source fans that believe that all software should be free, because they personally don't want to "pay" for anything. A larger discussion being simplified, of course; I'm just saying the tone and mindset are very similar IMO.

I don't even know what EAP is, since I don't follow all the jargon here, so I really have no opinion on it.

People who have paid for FSD and have yet to get it activated, might be a better group to ask.

$11K is "worth it" for some people, as I stated. We know it's just a matter of code to "unlock" what is already there. It seems like a lot in my eyes, so there is of course quite a bit of blue sky there.

What is the actual value of all the hard parts in an Aston Martin vs. a Cadillac for example, and how much of that is merely "exclusivity" or simply a lack of volume upon which to spread the costs?

Maybe it strikes me as funny that no one has any misgivings handing over $11K more to Tesla for something they don't really have any costs into. I like speed too, and I understand market forces. Just seems like a lot of "market adjustment" that the traditional dealers get derided for on this forum, that's all.

 

[brianman]

I don't even know what EAP is, since I don't follow all the jargon here, so I really have no opinion on it.

People who have paid for FSD and have yet to get it activated, might be a better group to ask.

EAP = Enhanced AutoPilot

Maybe it strikes me as funny that no one has any misgivings handing over $11K more to Tesla for something they don't really have any costs into. I like speed too, and I understand market forces. Just seems like a lot of "market adjustment" that the traditional dealers get derided for on this forum, that's all.

It strikes me as funny that you have that impression given the high post volume across multiple threads covering this very specific topic. It's basically all over TMC.

something they don't really have any costs into.

A very naïve perspective. Development, support, and warranty costs are quite real. Even more alignment with my open source software comment.

 

[mattjs33]

It strikes me as funny that you have that impression given the high post volume across multiple threads covering this very specific topic. It's basically all over TMC.

Huh. No I hadn't seen anything to that effect. Okay then.

 

[dcgizmo]

The first time you floor the accelerator pedal you'll know whether you have it or not. (I paid the $11,000 extra)

If you are coming from cars that are in the 8 to 9 second 0-60 times, then no it is not obvious the difference between 3.5 and 4.5 unless you happen to have a non-performance model to compare it to. Both are much faster than anything they've ever driven. Yes, you can have someone sit in the passenger seat and time it.

 

[dcgizmo]

I am due to get mine delivered to me on Saturday night. I am ordering a 3D performance without the performance package. My worry is the same as everyone else who don't know if it's actually a performance version or the regular AWD. I have heard of some folks saying the performance without the performance package doesn't have a red underline, which then makes it almost impossible to tell from the AWD standard. Then I've heard that performance without the performance package has the red underline.

So I don't know what to believe anymore. So if anyone who has the performance without the performance package can chime in, that would be awesome.

I can confirm that I have a Performance model 3 without the extra Performance Package, and it has the Dual Motor with red underline on the dash display and in the app. And I have the B in the VIN. I have confirmed that it is in the 3.5 second 0-60 range. Many times. Just to be sure

 

[neroden]

For more anecdotal thought, according to the Teslike Model 3 Order Tracker, the 11 models before and 18 models after mine were all non-performance. Sorting by VIN, it's pretty random when they do 'make' a performance versus a non; sometimes it's quite spaced out, like mine, and other times there are a handful in a row.

That being said, where does Tesla actually say it's anything physical versus just software? I've only read performance is a higher standard online and not in any of the Tesla literature - they just say the performance is faster, not why. I didn't really do my homework on the background.

OK, the consensus from the smart people who know engineering is the following.

They test all the drivetrains. Maybe half of them (maybe 3/4 of them! maybe 99% of them!) are good enough to be used in Performance models. Far less than half of buyers are buying perfomance models. So most of the drivetrains which are "good enough" for Performance are used for AWD instead. The drivetrains which aren't "good enough" for Performance are alse used for AWD.

In short, some AWDs can be uncorked and some can't. Tesla won't tell you which one you've got, but they know.

This means that everything Tesla has said is literally true in its details (...though possibly giving a false impression to some people), and is consistent with all the evidence.

 

[neroden]

I would have to say that the money Tesla receives for the Performance upgrade is pure profit, and from a logical standpoint is the single most wasteful option a car buyer could spend money on. From an emotional standpoint, I get it, and everyone's wants are different, but $11K (or even $9K) is an awful lot of money to spend on a "flip of the switch".

Even on the Roadster where the Performance motor was "hand wound" for higher performance, the extra labor cost (maybe an hour's work?) was a miniscule fraction of what Tesla charged. I assume Tesla makes over 90% gross profit margin on all Performance options.

 

[mattjs33]

Maybe half of them (maybe 3/4 of them! maybe 99% of them!) are good enough to be used in Performance models. Far less than half of buyers are buying perfomance models. So most of the drivetrains which are "good enough" for Performance are used for AWD instead.

So the implication is that many standard AWD cars might have Performance-grade motors in them. Are there any standard AWD cars out there putting down Performance-grade 0-60 times? If not, then how does Tesla limit them?

If you say the overwhelming majority of the motors are "good enough" for Performance (99%??), then it still suggests that standard cars are limited by software, and they are all built pretty much the same.

Either way you're still paying $11K for code. Or the removal of said code, as it shall be.

 

[neroden]

So the implication is that many standard AWD cars might have Performance-grade motors in them. Are there any standard AWD cars out there putting down Performance-grade 0-60 times? If not, then how does Tesla limit them?

If you say the overwhelming majority of the motors are "good enough" for Performance (99%??), then it still suggests that standard cars are limited by software, and they are all built pretty much the same.

Either way you're still paying $11K for code. Or the removal of said code, as it shall be.

Sure. Same thing happens with computer chips, which is why I'm not bothered.

 

[clostridium]

I’m not sure why you are obsessing about this. You are paying for the extra performance. Does it really matter how they get it as long as they deliver what they promised and support it appropriately? The decision each person makes is whether they think the additional cost for the additional performance makes sense for them. How Tesla gets there doesn’t really matter.

So the implication is that many standard AWD cars might have Performance-grade motors in them. Are there any standard AWD cars out there putting down Performance-grade 0-60 times? If not, then how does Tesla limit them?

If you say the overwhelming majority of the motors are "good enough" for Performance (99%??), then it still suggests that standard cars are limited by software, and they are all built pretty much the same.

Either way you're still paying $11K for code. Or the removal of said code, as it shall be.