Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Model 3P-D 0-60 prediction?

Model 3 Performance AWD 0-60 Prediction (Tesla advertised) ?


  • Total voters
    229
  • Poll closed .
This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Lest we go to extremes, acceleration is one factor and only one. Quite a few manufacturers have their quickest acceleration with vehicles that are not their most expensive ones. The world will not stop orbiting then sun if P3D out-accelerates P100D. I don't think that will happen. However I do think the next generation of Model S and X will have many improvements in efficiency and performance as a result to applying experience form Model 3, among other things. All auto models go through a replacement cycle and the most recently reengineered is the most advanced technically. Why agonise about S, 3, X or Y comparisons?
 
Lest we go to extremes, acceleration is one factor and only one. Quite a few manufacturers have their quickest acceleration with vehicles that are not their most expensive ones. The world will not stop orbiting then sun if P3D out-accelerates P100D. I don't think that will happen. However I do think the next generation of Model S and X will have many improvements in efficiency and performance as a result to applying experience form Model 3, among other things. All auto models go through a replacement cycle and the most recently reengineered is the most advanced technically. Why agonise about S, 3, X or Y comparisons?

Yes it will. The world will definitely end if the P3D out-accelerates the P100D Model S. Ask the people in this forum.....they'll tell ya.

As a matter of fact....maybe one day next year we can line all of the Model 3's in the world against the rotation of the earth and hit our accelerators simultaneously to see if we can get the earth to spin the other way. That'll show them the power of EV's......AND it won't make much noise.

Of course we should do it the day before the word ends. lol
 
  • Funny
Reactions: jbcarioca and cizUK
I find it's interesting that while the majority of voters think 3.1-3.5 sec is most likely, more folks think it'll be slower rather than faster than that....

60 vs 60D: -0.3 sec
70 vs 70D: -0.3 sec
75 vs 75D: -0.1 sec


X 100D vs P100D: -1.8 sec
S 100D vs P100D: -1.6 sec
S 90D vs P90D: -1.2 sec
S 85D vs P85D: -1.0 sec

So thinking 'D' gives you a nominal bump, and 'P' decreases by ~ 1.6-1.8 sec in the latest cars, it doesn't seem far fetched to expect 3 - 3.5 sec 0-60 times.

I know, I know.... battery tech, motor diff, etc all play into the equation. But, these are the expectations set by prior models precedent.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: FlyNavy01
I find it's interesting that while the majority of voters think 3.1-3.5 sec is most likely, more folks think it'll be slower rather than faster than that....

60 vs 60D: -0.3 sec
70 vs 70D: -0.3 sec
75 vs 75D: -0.1 sec


X 100D vs P100D: -1.8 sec
S 100D vs P100D: -1.6 sec
S 90D vs P90D: -1.2 sec
S 85D vs P85D: -1.0 sec

So thinking 'D' gives you a nominal bump, and 'P' decreases by ~ 1.6-1.8 sec in the latest cars, it doesn't seem far fetched to expect 3 - 3.5 sec 0-60 times.

I know, I know.... battery tech, motor diff, etc all play into the equation. But, these are the expectations set by prior models precedent.

The model S 75D has a 0-60 of 4.2 sec
The model 3 75D being 1000lbs less should be able to kill it.
 
About a year ago. Something along the lines of “the Model S will always be our premium vehicle & the quickest”

that doesn't mean the quickest Model 3 must be slower than the slowest Model S...
Hopefully we'll see a performance version of the 3 that lays the smack down on all cars in it's class in a straight line... i'd love to see upgraded brakes and suspension to notch the handling up even more, but maybe now i'm just dreaming. i'll bet the S refresh gets even quicker and more luxurious than it's current iteration, but the 3 will probably always out handle the bigger heavier car.
 
that doesn't mean the quickest Model 3 must be slower than the slowest Model S...
Hopefully we'll see a performance version of the 3 that lays the smack down on all cars in it's class in a straight line... i'd love to see upgraded brakes and suspension to notch the handling up even more, but maybe now i'm just dreaming. i'll bet the S refresh gets even quicker and more luxurious than it's current iteration, but the 3 will probably always out handle the bigger heavier car.

I believe the 3 will out handle the bigger and heavier car, however concerning performance....the model 3 has different motors than the model S and it has 3,000 fewer battery cells.
 
But the model 3 has different motors and about 3,000 fewer battery cells.

Don't you think those 2 factors will make a significant difference in performance?
Who cares about the number of cells?

The physical number of cells playes no role in maximum discharge capability. Cathode size can be much larger in physically larger cells allowing for lower IR numbers.

You act and state as fact that a single cell has a fixed output no matter it’s size, that is completely false and it’s why cells are rated in C not capacity when speaking about discharge capability. Oh right, that’s “in the weeds”.

Your last long post about “in the weeds” betrayed the fact that you are saying in the weeds when you mean “I think and don’t have technical data to back it up.” You confused kWh with power, that’s kind of damning.

If you have the technical data on the 2170 in the 3 as you claim. Show me its Tesla given C rating and it’s chemical composition.

The 2170’s could have a greater C rating than the 18500’s, they could have less, but the number of cells plays no part in that. The chemistry and cell manufacture does.

If I were guessing, I’d guess that the 75kWh battery in the 3 has a lower power rating than the Model S pack since Tesla probably used a chemistry with emphasis on energy density over output power. Either way the number of cells does not matter.

-Jim
 
Who cares about the number of cells?

The physical number of cells playes no role in maximum discharge capability. Cathode size can be much larger in physically larger cells allowing for lower IR numbers.

You act and state as fact that a single cell has a fixed output no matter it’s size, that is completely false and it’s why cells are rated in C not capacity when speaking about discharge capability. Oh right, that’s “in the weeds”.

Your last long post about “in the weeds” betrayed the fact that you are saying in the weeks when you mean “I think and don’t have technical data to back it up.” You confused kWh with power, that’s kind of damning.

If you have the technical data on the 2170 in the 3 as you claim. Show me its Tesla given C rating and it’s chemical composition.

The 2170’s could have a greater C rating than the 18500’s, they could have less, but the number of cells plays no part in that. The chemistry and cell manufacture does.

If I were guessing, I’d guess that the 75kWh battery in the 3 has a lower power rating than the Model S pack since Tesla probably used a chemistry with emphasis on energy density over output power. Either way the number of cells does not matter.

-Jim
Look.
LiNiCoAlO2 cathode (~9% Co), graphite anode is what they are using and are working to get rid of the Cobalt on that Anode, however as we know Cobalt is an excellent stable storage medium when sandwiched with Li.

1C; 2.50V cut off. Discharge current above 1C shortens battery life. As well as the C-Rate charge over 1C tears a battery up. It does matter what battery you use or its capacity....lithium recycle rate drops to nothing when being charged or discharged above 1C. That holds true for all batteries that utilize Lithium.

So...with that said..... The more batteries you have in a pack allows you to pull 1C out of more batteries at once. For instance if you had a single gigantic cell at 75kwh...you could only pull 1C out of it. If you have 3000 cells @ 75kwh in sum...you can achieve at least 30C if you properly keep your parallel / serial / cooling circuits configured properly.
One reason I believe Tesla uses round cells as apposed to flat cells as in the Leaf and other EV's is because there is more surface area to cool thereby being able to keep the C-rate up.

The number of cells matters dramatically when talking about C rate because of temperature. You can't pull high C rates from a single battery because you won't be able to cool the inner-core. Even if a single cell can charge and discharge at 3C you won't be able to prevent thermal runaway of Lithium because you won't be able to cool it.

Now that we are a little further in the weeds.....google the properties of controlled lithium when cobalt is on the anode.
 
Model 3 LR has a 74kWh useable capacity and the onboard BMS states a max discharge of 370kW for the pack. This correlates to exactly 5C max discharge rate.

Model S P100D has a max discharge rate of 600kW (~5.8C in reality after losses, aka 580kW peak power output). Therefore, Tesla's software currently allows a 20% higher C rate in the 18650 cells.

This makes sense as many have speculated the 2170's are NMC chemistry (higher energy density), whereas the 18650's are NCA (higher power density). There's more to it than that, but for the sake of keeping this post brief, the 2170's prioritize lower cost and better cell cycle life over peak power output.

Using the same ~5% system losses in the Model 3 yields a peak power output of 350-355kW for the P Model 3. Doing rough math, that could potentially accelerate a ~4,100lb vehicle to 60mph in 3.1 seconds. Possibly 3.0s under ideal conditions if they include the Ludicrous Plus easter egg. Obviously this is all speculation on my part, just like everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Model 3 LR has a 74kWh useable capacity and the onboard BMS state's a max discharge of 370kW for the pack. This correlates to exactly 5C max discharge rate.

Model S P100D has a max discharge rate of 600kW (~5.8C in reality after losses, aka 580kW peak power output).Therefore, Tesla's software allows a 20% higher C rate in the 18650 batteries.

This makes sense as many have speculated the 2710's are NMC chemistry (higher energy density), whereas the 18650's are NCA (higher power density). There's more to it than that, but for the sake of keeping this post brief, the 2170's prioritize lower cost and better cell cycle life over peak power output. Using the same ~5% losses in the Model 3 yields a peak power output of 350-355kW for the P Model 3. According to my rough math, that could potentially accelerate a ~4,100lb vehicle to 60mph in 3.08 seconds. Possibly 2.9 seconds under ideal conditions if they include the Ludicrous + easter egg. Obviously this is all speculation on my part, just like everyone else.

Although I don't completely agree with all of those numbers......lets go with them for the sake of the conversation.

Soo......how is it possible to have higher acceleration from 3000 fewer batteries that have a lower C rate accompanied by a Permanent Magnet motor?


____________________________

These are the numbers I have.

Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide: LiNiCoAlO2 cathode (~9% Co), graphite anode
Short form: NCA or Li-aluminum. Since 1999
Voltages 3.60V nominal; typical operating range 3.0–4.2V/cell
Specific energy (capacity) 200-260Wh/kg; 300Wh/kg predictable
Charge (C-rate) 0.7C, charges to 4.20V (most cells), 3h charge typical, fast charge possible with some cells
Discharge (C-rate) 1C typical; 3.00V cut-off; high discharge rate shortens battery life
Cycle life 500 (related to depth of discharge, temperature)
Thermal runaway 150°C (302°F) typical, High charge promotes thermal runaway
Applications Medical devices, industrial, electric powertrain (Tesla)
Comments Shares similarities with Li-cobalt. Serves as Energy Cell.
 
Soo......how is it possible to have higher acceleration from 3000 fewer batteries that have a lower C rate accompanied by a Permanent Magnet motor?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. The P100D has hit 0-60mph in ~2.3 seconds under ideal conditions. The Model 3 Performance will have 800-1000lbs less mass and still slower to 60mph by a significant margin. That is still more than enough in my opinion. Not trying to argue with anyone here.
 
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. The P100D has hit 0-60mph in ~2.3 seconds under ideal conditions. The Model 3 Performance will have 800-1000lbs less mass and still slower to 60mph by a significant margin. That is still more than enough in my opinion. Not trying to argue with anyone here.

You answered my question in your response: The model 3 will be slower to 60mph by a significant margin. - Even though its "much lighter"....

My point has been that "much lighter" Model 3 isn't the only contributing factor that we must look at to determine what the OP is polling.