-
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 Super Sport (a proposal)
- Thread starter IraB
- Start date
Agreed. Even the plaid and it's amazing power doesn't make up for that chassis overall sluggish and ponderous feel. Even MPP with their suspension Magic could not create a car that is as light on its feet as the Model 3 ' see Sasha's comments here: Remembrance, Looking Forward, And Plaid - Mountain Pass Performance
Well good news is 4680 is on the horizon for 2022 mass volume. First in the model Y but if we're lucky maybe the model 3 Performance gets it by end of next year along with new motors to take it to the next level. Either late 2022 or 2023 it will.
And being structural, these batteries will mean an even LIGHTER, FASTER, longer range M3P. I'll enjoy mine for the time being.
And being structural, these batteries will mean an even LIGHTER, FASTER, longer range M3P. I'll enjoy mine for the time being.
jackmott
Member
Maybe, the history of automotive design teaches us that even as new fabrication techniques and lighter materials enter the market that vehicles still tend to get heavier. The mass market doesn't care about light weight, they care about many other things. So the new Teslas may very well weigh the same but have more range or more safety or more room or more features or some of the expensive lightweight things may be replaced with cheaper ones, etc etc etc
I'd rather have somewhat more battery capacity for track than weight decrease. Large battery can be used longer, charge faster, gives more power, can do better regen and overheats less. All that is now more valuable than marginal weight loss. Assuming Plaid motors and average power consumption after regen of 500kW - 20 minute session would eat above 160kwh of charge. You need 200kwh battery and above 500KW charger to be able to make it to the next round... We are not yet there.
jackmott
Member
Current MP3 battery is 82kwh at1060lbs. So if you bumped the mass of the car from 4000lbs to 4,500lbs you get 123kwh battery but now you need bigger tires and that will eat into some of the extra energy. Or you keep the car at 4,000lbs and hope that 4680 battery packs bump you up to 100kwh, which is also kinda marginal. If you just have a level 3 supercharger at the track you are pretty well off, even though not at gasoline track car convenience. The cars go from low to 80% really quick.
Alan2000
Member
Similar to the OP, before my M3P I had a tuned CLS63 AMG, and before that a BMW. AMG had at least 150 more HP than the M3P. It was RWD only traction limiting 0-60 to 3.6'ish on a good day which wasn't shabby. Yet, to me, after driving the M3P, my CLS felt very dated and sluggish. Now on the freeway once you approached and exceeded triple-digit territory the CLS was much more fun and would eat the M3P. But how many people drive at those speeds and how often can you do that? The M3P already beats almost anything at triple the price in the city at "normal" driving speeds. So I'd say it would not make much sense for Tesla to get more performance oriented than they already are. As much as I would be willing to pay for more performance for the M3P, I think we are a very small minority of the market. If anything, it would make more sense for Tesla to play catch up to put in better creature comfort features and better technology in the M3 to catch up to others, even if it meant a slower drivetrain. But still hoping for an OTA boost option to buy to shave maybe .4 or .5 seconds off my 0-60. 
GreenHokie
Member
I would pay $100,000 (or perhaps a little higher) in a heartbeat, if Tesla offered the Model 3 with a tri or quad motor… as long as it can do 0-60 in the low 2’s.
It’s not a $100,000 solution. Right now , Tesla could easily bump up the P in the Performance with some general weight savings, ultralight forged wheels, and Electronically controlled dampers with adjustable, adaptable suspension modes. That really shouldn’t cost more than $5000-8000 over the LR model. It really shouldn’t be more than another $5000 over the current model where you don’t get a whole lot for the $$$ on the P model. It was still desirable to me.
Later maybe a launch/ridiculous mode, a bit better and or lighter battery pack that all Teslas will get, and you’re there. Perhaps 1-2 P exclusive exterior colors, and some upgraded front seats as add ins and you’re even farther. None of these things would need to change any major manufacturing of the model 3.
Later maybe a launch/ridiculous mode, a bit better and or lighter battery pack that all Teslas will get, and you’re there. Perhaps 1-2 P exclusive exterior colors, and some upgraded front seats as add ins and you’re even farther. None of these things would need to change any major manufacturing of the model 3.
GreenHokie
Member
Of course, it does not need to be a $100,000 solution. This price is simply what I would personally accept and be willing to pay for a tri or quad motor variant of the Model 3, that would presumably have pretty much the same insane acceleration as the Model S Plaid (0-60 in about 2 seconds).
The current price on the Model S Plaid starts at $130,000.
So, in my opinion, if Tesla were to produce Model 3 ”Plaid” that has the same or similar performance/acceleration as their $130,000 Model S Plaid, then why not price that M3 around $100,000? This price point would make perfect sense to me from a marketing & supply/demand point of view.
Of course, this is all a pipe dream, because Tesla would never make a Model 3 with the same performance as their flagship Model S Plaid. However, it’s fun to dream…
You are right, just looked the part up and MPP's website.
How labor intensive do you think it would be to actually install such aftermarket part?
From Model 3 / Model Y - Technische Veränderungen und Details
So it's hairpin motor and new LG battery. Not RS model 3, but it's still an improvement - 22PS more power and less drop at lower SoC.
Still need a significantly improved cooling circuit and Plaid power vs speed curve. I'm quite sure that would not come before 4680 would cover initial demand for cybertruck, semi, roadster and model 2, so not another 2-3 years. But it's looking more and more reasonable to consider upgrading 19 year version to 22.
Similar threads
