Model 3 specs

[tomsliw]

Hi everybody,

My 1st post

One question - what is maximum allowed load in lbs or kg (passengers + luggage) in model 3?
Hope that it is more than 400 kg.... How about Model S and X?

 

[Jack6591]

He had discovered a great law of human action, without knowing it - namely, that in order to make a man or a boy covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to obtain.

Mark Twain, "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer", Chapter 2

 

[DR61]

Hi everybody,

My 1st post

One question - what is maximum allowed load in lbs or kg (passengers + luggage) in model 3?
Hope that it is more than 400 kg.... How about Model S and X?

About 450 kg or 1000 lb for M3 according to a post by an owner on another forum (don't remember the exact figure). Good first post.

 

[dhanson865]

Hi everybody,

My 1st post

One question - what is maximum allowed load in lbs or kg (passengers + luggage) in model 3?
Hope that it is more than 400 kg.... How about Model S and X?

No more than 55 pounds in the frunk per the owners manual

Total passenger weight + cargo changes between 18" and 19" wheels and the owners manual tells you do see the door jamb label.

From the sept 12 version of the manual you can get from Model 3 Owners Manual

Load Capacity Labeling
It is important to understand how much weight your Model 3 can safely carry. This weight is called the vehicle capacity weight and includes the weight of all occupants, cargo and any additional equipment added to your Model 3 since it was manufactured.

Two labels attached to the center door pillar indicate how much weight Model 3 can safely carry. Labels are visible when the front door is open.

Warning: Overloading Model 3 has an adverse effect on braking and handling, which can compromise your safety or cause damage.

Note: Never load more than 55 lbs (25 kg) in the front trunk. Doing so can cause damage.

Caution: Never store large amounts of liquid in Model 3. A significant spill can cause electrical components to malfunction.

So it'd be nice to have a picture of the tire pressure / GVWR labels for both the 18" and 19" wheels. The owners manual tells you how to do the math for cargo and passengers but sends you to the car label for the GVWR to start the math.

It does give an example equation with 954 pounds including driver and passenger weight but without the label we don't know if the example is even close to accurate. Note available cargo weight could be near zero or even negative if you have 4 large adults in the car and that 954 pounds number is anywhere close to accurate. All it'd take is 4 people at 238 pounds and you have no cargo capacity left. If you have 5 people in the car at 190 pounds each you have no cargo capacity left.

 

[EQC_]

Just as a point of reference, many 5-passenger cars have a load capacity of 850lbs, so the 3 is already doing nicely if it is anything greater than that. Google tells me that 850 lbs is the rating for the Honda Accord, Ford Fusion, and Mazda 6.

I was surprised one day when I noted that my own very small 2008 Honda Fit had a sticker on the door jamb indicating load capacity of 850 lbs, while a relative's newer (2015?) and much larger Honda Accord had a sticker indicating an identical capacity at 850 lbs. I realized that while larger cars may give you more space, it might only be additional space to wiggle around, not carry more stuff.

I also had a 2003 Ford Escape at the time. A small SUV, but an SUV nonetheless. Dwarfed my Honda Fit. Max load on the sticker was 899 lbs...so even going to a more truck-ish vehicle didn't gain much in load capacity.

I currently have an 8-passenger Honda Odyssey van, and IIRC, the load sticker on that indicates something like 1200-1300lbs.

The average US woman is now ~160lbs and the average man is ~190lbs, so it is obvious that cars are not designed even to hold an average adult in every seat, much less include cargo on top of that.

That being said...carrying kids in the back seats is more common than a car full of squished/uncomfortable adults, so it seems to work out...

 

[DarthPierce]

I had previously devised a model that takes into account weight, rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag, and the characteristics of electric motors (flat torque until power limit, then flat power, then a slight taper as efficiency drops with high RPM). The major unknowns were what speed the vehicle switches from torque to power limited (presumably battery current limited) and the peak torque (deliverable - grip limited).

With motor-trend's published performance numbers, I was able to fill in those unknowns and generate curves that match their data. That in itself is not especially interesting, but if that data is used to extrapolate performance for the DLR, standard range, and DSR, I thought others would be interested.

This assumes that the power is limited by the battery (so the SR has about 67% the power) and that torque is limited by grip (so the Ds can generate twice the torque until power limited). I assumed a flat 50kg (110 lbs) for the 2nd motor. I find it interesting that the SR 0-60 comes in pretty close to the "official" numbers, and the DLR numbers are pretty close to what we've seen from test mule video footage. These both give me enough confidence to post my numbers. I don't have any real speculation on the performance model performance since I'd assume it would be using a battery pack capable of higher output power, but by how much is completely unknown. Please don't read too much into the # of significant digits, there are way too many variables to actually be that precise.

I couldn't figure out how to post on a grid (spreadsheet style) so it's an image, sorry...

 

[03DSG]

Just as a point of reference, many 5-passenger cars have a load capacity of 850lbs, so the 3 is already doing nicely if it is anything greater than that. Google tells me that 850 lbs is the rating for the Honda Accord, Ford Fusion, and Mazda 6.

I was surprised one day when I noted that my own very small 2008 Honda Fit had a sticker on the door jamb indicating load capacity of 850 lbs, while a relative's newer (2015?) and much larger Honda Accord had a sticker indicating an identical capacity at 850 lbs. I realized that while larger cars may give you more space, it might only be additional space to wiggle around, not carry more stuff.

I also had a 2003 Ford Escape at the time. A small SUV, but an SUV nonetheless. Dwarfed my Honda Fit. Max load on the sticker was 899 lbs...so even going to a more truck-ish vehicle didn't gain much in load capacity.

I currently have an 8-passenger Honda Odyssey van, and IIRC, the load sticker on that indicates something like 1200-1300lbs.

The average US woman is now ~160lbs and the average man is ~190lbs, so it is obvious that cars are not designed even to hold an average adult in every seat, much less include cargo on top of that.

That being said...carrying kids in the back seats is more common than a car full of squished/uncomfortable adults, so it seems to work out...

Are u calling us fat?

 

[9erDog]

Hope my wife doesn’t ask me if her butt looks big in the Model 3!

 

[EQC_]

Are u calling us fat?

Oh of course not! As a population, we have just evolved to be more big boned it would seem .

On another note:
Model 3 official ratings are up on fueleconomy.gov. Interestingly, if you compare it to the Model S and hit the "specs" tab, you can see that the Passenger Volume on the 3 is listed as 97 cubic feet, while the S only specs out at 94 cubic feet.

Hopefully this link works:
Compare Side-by-Side

 

[voip-ninja]

About 450 kg or 1000 lb for M3 according to a post by an owner on another forum (don't remember the exact figure). Good first post.

If anyone is looking for a comparison data point the max load weight on my 2016 BMW 340i with 18" sport wheels is 899 lbs.

 

[wdolson]

Oh of course not! As a population, we have just evolved to be more big boned it would seem .

Higher caloric intake has enabled some populations to get taller. The average for Caucasian men in the US in my father's generation (born in 1920) was 5' 8" and the average height for the same population of my generation (early Gen X) is around 6 ft or a little more. I'm not overweight, but I can't get into aircraft turrets on WW II aircraft that were designed for average sized men of the era.

I have a book of maps with various data on each map. One was about the drop in caloric intake in each European country during WW II. It showed the average daily intake in the late 1930s and how it had dropped by 1944. What I found interesting was the only country that had caloric intakes on par with the modern world (over 1800 calories a day I believe it was) before the war was the Netherlands. The Scandinavian countries were up there too. The tallest population in the world today (on average) is from the Netherlands. Except for a few years of starvation, they have had a modern level of caloric intake for the longest.

The map didn't show the US, so I'm not sure what the average intake was in the US before the war. The diet in North America was better from the days of the colonies. When the colonies were being established in North America, few Europeans lived past 70. In the first generation of colonists having people in their 80s in each village was not that uncommon and some people pushed 100. The main difference was the caloric intake went way up for the colonists, though farming soil that had never grown crops probably also meant the food was much more loaded with nutrients than back in Europe.

So technically, you are right. Though obesity in the US has become a problem too.

On another note:
Model 3 official ratings are up on fueleconomy.gov. Interestingly, if you compare it to the Model S and hit the "specs" tab, you can see that the Passenger Volume on the 3 is listed as 97 cubic feet, while the S only specs out at 94 cubic feet.

Hopefully this link works:
Compare Side-by-Side

The passenger volume of the 3 is probably a bit better because of the different roof line. The backseat headroom in the S is rather poor for a large sedan and some people have complained about the front seat too, though it's fine for me.

 

[FlatSix911]

The Dual motor cars do not double the Torque output ... for reference see the Model S and X specs

I had previously devised a model that takes into account weight, rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag, and the characteristics of electric motors (flat torque until power limit, then flat power, then a slight taper as efficiency drops with high RPM). The major unknowns were what speed the vehicle switches from torque to power limited (presumably battery current limited) and the peak torque (deliverable - grip limited).

With motor-trend's published performance numbers, I was able to fill in those unknowns and generate curves that match their data. That in itself is not especially interesting, but if that data is used to extrapolate performance for the DLR, standard range, and DSR, I thought others would be interested.

This assumes that the power is limited by the battery (so the SR has about 67% the power) and that torque is limited by grip (so the Ds can generate twice the torque until power limited). I assumed a flat 50kg (110 lbs) for the 2nd motor. I find it interesting that the SR 0-60 comes in pretty close to the "official" numbers, and the DLR numbers are pretty close to what we've seen from test mule video footage. These both give me enough confidence to post my numbers. I don't have any real speculation on the performance model performance since I'd assume it would be using a battery pack capable of higher output power, but by how much is completely unknown. Please don't read too much into the # of significant digits, there are way too many variables to actually be that precise.

I couldn't figure out how to post on a grid (spreadsheet style) so it's an image, sorry...
View attachment 263148

 

[DarthPierce]

The Dual motor cars do not double the Torque output ... for reference see the Model S and X specs

Well, there are no single motor X to compare, and with the S there is a different gearing ratio between front and rear as well as different motors used in the rear between models (the 85 has a big rear motor and an 85D has similar sizes front and rear both smaller than the rear drive only motor).

I'm making the assumption that they are actually using the same motor for both axles since it seems they're using that motor everywhere going forward, also there's less incentive to have a different gear ratio as well since the PMAC has a flatter efficiency curve than induction and the 3 has a lower top speed....

There's pretty much no way to get the performance numbers the tested 3s put out without them being traction/torque limited until about 55kph/35mph, and there's no reason to think the D won't address that. I'm still comfortable with my assumptions.

The actual big assumption is that Tesla doesn't artificially limit performance to make the S look better at least until the S refresh....

 

[FlatSix911]

Well, there are no single motor X to compare, and with the S there is a different gearing ratio between front and rear as well as different motors used in the rear between models (the 85 has a big rear motor and an 85D has similar sizes front and rear both smaller than the rear drive only motor).

I'm making the assumption that they are actually using the same motor for both axles since it seems they're using that motor everywhere going forward, also there's less incentive to have a different gear ratio as well since the PMAC has a flatter efficiency curve than induction and the 3 has a lower top speed....

There's pretty much no way to get the performance numbers the tested 3s put out without them being traction/torque limited until about 55kph/35mph, and there's no reason to think the D won't address that. I'm still comfortable with my assumptions. The actual big assumption is that Tesla doesn't artificially limit performance to make the S look better at least until the S refresh....

I am afraid your logic may be flawed ... Tesla uses a small and large motor on all Dual motor cars and does not multiply torque by 2X

 

[wdolson]

I am afraid your logic may be flawed ... Tesla uses a small and large motor on all Dual motor cars and does not multiply torque by 2X
View attachment 264036

Only the Performance cars have the large rear motor. The standard dual motor cars have the same smaller motor front and rear.

 

[FlatSix911]

Only the Performance cars have the large rear motor. The standard dual motor cars have the same smaller motor front and rear.

Correct, and the Standard dual motor cars do not double the torque values:

• 70/70D torque is 325/387 lb-ft.
• 85/85D torque is 325/485 lb-ft.

and the Performance dual motor cars do not double the torque values:

• P85/P85D torque is 443/687 lb-ft.

 

[wdolson]

Correct, and the Standard dual motor cars do not double the torque values:

• 70/70D torque is 325/387 lb-ft.
• 85/85D torque is 325/485 lb-ft.

and the Performance dual motor cars do not double the torque values:

• P85/P85D torque is 443/687 lb-ft.

Yes, it's not a linear curve. That sort of thing never is, the law of diminishing returns ends up kicking in.

 

[DarthPierce]

Correct, and the Standard dual motor cars do not double the torque values:

• 70/70D torque is 325/387 lb-ft.
• 85/85D torque is 325/485 lb-ft.

and the Performance dual motor cars do not double the torque values:

• P85/P85D torque is 443/687 lb-ft.

Thanks for those numbers to play with, you actually prove me right, unknowingly.

Well, the rear motors in the non P non D cars are only used in RWD non-P cars, so of course it's not a doubling - the motors are different for the Ds.

If you look at the P85 and P85D, however, you'll see that there is a gain of 244 lb-ft from adding the front motor. If you take that same 244 lb-ft front motor, and put it in the rear as well, guess what you get? 488lb-ft. Is that mighty, mighty close to the 85D (non-P) why yes it is. From teardowns, does the 85D use the same front motor as the P85D and use it for both the front and rear? why yes, it does.

Why is the 70D only 387? Software. Remember when the 75Ds magically dropped around a second off their 0-60 times while the 100's only dropped 0.1? that's because they stopped software limiting the torque.

 

[wdolson]

Thanks for those numbers to play with, you actually prove me right, unknowingly.

Well, the rear motors in the non P non D cars are only used in RWD non-P cars, so of course it's not a doubling - the motors are different for the Ds.

If you look at the P85 and P85D, however, you'll see that there is a gain of 244 lb-ft from adding the front motor. If you take that same 244 lb-ft front motor, and put it in the rear as well, guess what you get? 488lb-ft. Is that mighty, mighty close to the 85D (non-P) why yes it is. From teardowns, does the 85D use the same front motor as the P85D and use it for both the front and rear? why yes, it does.

Why is the 70D only 387? Software. Remember when the 75Ds magically dropped around a second off their 0-60 times while the 100's only dropped 0.1? that's because they stopped software limiting the torque.

The 70D and 75D also have fewer battery cells and thus the pack can source less current.

There are many factors involved in the torque and the acceleration. The whole car is limited by the weakest link. The factors include how much instantaneous power the battery can produce, the wiring, the inverter capacity, and the motors. The P cars got Ludicrous mode with a new fuse that allowed more power out of the battery. With a 200 KWh battery in the new Roadster they are able to get even more out of the pack at one time. The limit on the large pack non-P cars is the smaller front motor. The small pack cars are pretty much the same as the large pack non-P cars except the battery has fewer cells. The 70 pack has both fewer cells per module and fewer modules, while the 75D has the same number of cells as the 90 pack, but still has fewer modules. The small packs are 350V and the large packs 400V.

The cars they were able to uncork have some sort of upgrade that allows more instantaneous power close to the non-P large pack cars. Tesla has said this came from using the new Model 3 inverter. The non-P large pack cars got essentially no boost in performance because they are limited by the motors.

They can't boost the older cars because they don't have the new hardware.

Now it is possible they were also doing some limiting via software in the smaller pack cars all along, but I doubt it. A number of hackers have been in the firmware for years and nobody has ever found any limits on the performance for the older small pack cars. They have found a number of other things, but not that.

 

[FlatSix911]

Thanks for those numbers to play with, you actually prove me right, unknowingly. Well, the rear motors in the non P non D cars are only used in RWD non-P cars, so of course it's not a doubling - the motors are different for the Ds.
If you look at the P85 and P85D, however, you'll see that there is a gain of 244 lb-ft from adding the front motor. If you take that same 244 lb-ft front motor, and put it in the rear as well, guess what you get? 488lb-ft. Is that mighty, mighty close to the 85D (non-P) why yes it is. From teardowns, does the 85D use the same front motor as the P85D and use it for both the front and rear? why yes, it does.
Why is the 70D only 387? Software. Remember when the 75Ds magically dropped around a second off their 0-60 times while the 100's only dropped 0.1? that's because they stopped software limiting the torque.

Interesting ... how do you explain your torque values for the Model 3?