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

Model Year 2022 Refresh M3/MY

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
But you can't add front and rear power together. The rear Motor peaks at around 80kph and the rear motor somewhere around 95kph. The combined power is always lower therefore.
You absolutely can combine the power at a given speed through the run. I am screen recording the values as I accelerate and capturing them both at a given speed. These aren't absolute values given by the app. These are realtime variable values based on an individual speed.
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Lindenwood
You absolutely can combine the power at a given speed through the run. I am screen recording the values as I accelerate and capturing them both at a given speed. These aren't absolute values given by the app. These are realtime variable values based on an individual speed.
Ok. Fair enough. I have hidden the power bars to make room for the "stats for nerds" in my cars. Then your combined motor power is probably the highest value I have seen so far, but then it is rarely possible to be close to 100% and 50°C cell temp.

88kmh or 55mph is about right for the combined absolute Maximum Output.
 
but then it is rarely possible to be close to 100% and 50°C cell temp.
That isn't true actually. If you put it in track mode before charging at the track then it will cool the battery enough to where you can turn preconditioning back on for charging and before you do your run. I was able to get "temp mid" to 51.0 degrees C with 99% battery and 459 KW for "max Discharge" immediately before my run. Car pulled like a freight train then.:oops:;)

IMG_7038.PNG
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Lindenwood
View attachment 825420

MYP - DU CAT 3
View attachment 825421

M3P - DU CAT 2
View attachment 825422

Both are overshooting their stated torque in the papers. The MYP a little more than the M3P. Though the M3P was at around 90%, where the MYP was at 97% SoC.


You could question why there have been no performance changes when there was a switch from DU CAT 1 (3D1 Wire Winding) to DU CAT 2 (Hairpin Winding). Although it says the 3D6 has more torque there have been no changes in acceleration times for example.


This is all only reading Scan My Tesla values. So the same method and assumed error in electrical losses on both. On top also Dragy measurements as they translate better into real life comparison.

Regarding Maximum Motor Power in the papers:
From all the Tesla's, that I have connected my testing equipment to, there has been only one car that was exactly on the spot with all numbers, when compared to the registration documents and type certificate.
The Model 3 Standard Range from 2020-2021 with the LFP55 and LFP60 in combination with the 3D1 (DU CAT 1) motor. This car is stated to have 239kW and thats the power you saw in Scan My Tesla on every launch.
One car showed less power in SMT, the LFP55/LFP60 Model 3 SR with the 3D6 Motor. That one fell just short a couple of kW, but had better power at high speed.

All other Teslas showed higher values in Scan My Tesla. Some actually quite a lot more, like the Model 3 SR 2021 with the Panasonic 1L battery pack. 208kW -> 240kW and the Model 3 Performance with Panasonic. 377kW -> 435kW!

But then what is the point, when we know how much errors there were in the paperwork. Wrong battery capacities, wrong battery type designator, wrong wheel options, wrong type certificate revision...you name it. It might turn out that DU CAT 2 should have been declared as 393kW all along and that might be the answer or that the DU CAT 3 is a low voltage / high current layout...its all guessing.
Very interesting. There’s definitely a lot of unknowns with these variations in configurations. The graphs appear to show differences in how long the torque remains high for as well (assuming the scale along the bottom is the same).

With relying on the power consumption from the battery through the system to the motor we are missing the actual output of the motor. A dyno graph would be very useful here if those graphs aren’t already from a test like that.
 
With relying on the power consumption from the battery through the system to the motor we are missing the actual output of the motor.
The ECE R85 measurement of maximum power is the motor in isolation, without necessarily being powered by the battery.

It's difficult to understand how two motors with identical part numbers can be rated differently. Apart from being tested differently.
 
The ECE R85 measurement of maximum power is the motor in isolation, without necessarily being powered by the battery.

It's difficult to understand how two motors with identical part numbers can be rated differently. Apart from being tested differently.
My point is it is still the power consumption and not the power output. We don’t know what the differences are for these category 2 and category 3 drive units other than they have a different power output rating. Someone would need to put them on a dyno to understand the output more. I don’t know if we’ll ever find out the physical difference between them unless someone pulls them apart or we find some details from Tesla.
 
Last edited:
The graphs appear to show differences in how long the torque remains high for as well (assumi
The X-Axis is time and the cars were not accelerated to the same speed and on different slopes. This messes with the scale, but the peak torque of front and rear motor drops at the same speeds on both cars.
I don’t know if we’ll ever find out the physical difference between them unless someone pulls them apart or we find some details from Tesla.
I think you will never find the differences that you are looking for.

Tesla has always designed their cars so that most parts can be used on most cars. This keeps storage space and costs down.

The old 3D1 performance motor was used as a front motor in the Model S, as a Rear Motor in the M3SR, the M3LR and the M3P. All with different power ratings in the papers, but back on the days when the terminology Drive "Unit Category" wasn't even a thing yet. This term only started to come up when Tesla introduced the Hairpin Motors.

One motor with different power ratings (in the papers) is not a new thing therefore. 3D6 has three: 219kW, 235kW and 255kW. Their technical limits, and part numbers are all the same though.

You think Tesla is gonna ship three different versions of one motor to Europe to put in their storage in Tilburg, when in the past they could fix any model 3 with a selection of three different motors in total? Also, how are they gonna tell them apart if only one part number is showing up on the motor itself and in their EPC ordering system?

I have another theory for the different power ratings of DU categories, but that is something for later.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: CheapBastid
The X-Axis is time and the cars were not accelerated to the same speed and on different slopes. This messes with the scale, but the peak torque of front and rear motor drops at the same speeds on both cars.

I think you will never find the differences that you are looking for.

Tesla has always designed their cars so that most parts can be used on most cars. This keeps storage space and costs down.

The old 3D1 performance motor was used as a front motor in the Model S, as a Rear Motor in the M3SR, the M3LR and the M3P. All with different power ratings in the papers, but back on the days when the terminology Drive "Unit Category" wasn't even a thing yet. This term only started to come up when Tesla introduced the Hairpin Motors.

One motor with different power ratings (in the papers) is not a new thing therefore. 3D6 has three: 219kW, 235kW and 255kW. Their technical limits, and part numbers are all the same though.

You think Tesla is gonna ship three different versions of one motor to Europe to put in their storage in Tilburg, when in the past they could fix any model 3 with a selection of three different motors in total? Also, how are they gonna tell them apart if only one part number is showing up on the motor itself and in their EPC ordering system?

I have another theory for the different power ratings of DU categories, but that is something for later.
Thanks. I know you are right, we will struggle to ever find the differences. It could be as you mentioned before a subtlety in the amp rating (maybe different mosfets of something like that) that are enabling the higher power output. Clearly the difference is subtle enough to only need the version change to PZP**** from PQP****. There will be a change in there but we aren’t talking anything huge.

I just received my CoC and it confirms the difference in power rating and also curiously I think the range is different, maybe someone can confirm what theirs says.


Maximum power: 65kW
Maximum hourly output: 158 kW (front); 235 kW (rear)
Maximum net power: 65 kW (front), 90 kW (rear)
Gearbox (type): Fixed Ratio
Gearbox: 9.04 (front), 9.04 (rear)

Electric energy consumption: 165 Wh/km
Range: 547 km
City: 671 km

Does the drive unit consist of just the electric motor or is it part of an assembly? It could be another part or parts of that the assembly that are different rather than the electric motor itself perhaps.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I know you are right, we will struggle to ever find the differences. It could be as you mentioned before a subtlety in the amp rating (maybe different mosfets of something like that) that are enabling the higher power output. Clearly the difference is subtle enough to only need the version change to PZP**** from PQP****. There will be a change in there but we aren’t talking anything huge.

I just received my CoC and it confirms the difference in power rating and also curiously I think the range is different, maybe someone can confirm what theirs says.


Maximum power: 65kW
Maximum hourly output: 158 kW (front); 235 kW (rear)
Maximum net power: 65 kW (front), 90 kW (rear)
Gearbox (type): Fixed Ratio
Gearbox: 9.04 (front), 9.04 (rear)

Electric energy consumption: 165 Wh/km
Range: 547 km
City: 671 km

Does the drive unit consist of just the electric motor or is it part of an assembly? It could be another part or parts of that the assembly that are different rather than the electric motor itself perhaps.
The Range was reduced because the battery capacity went down from 82kWh to 79kWh. The 3kWh less result in 20km less range. The new M3P was only tested with MCU3 which is supposed to consume more energy, but the old was was never tested with the new 3D6 motor, so this should even out at least.

The drive unit is the assembly of the motors only, not the battery pack. For BEV and PHEV there was the necessity to have some form of horsepower/kW rating to indicate the combined system power of a combustion engine with an electrical motor or two electrical motors in this case. In the M3P/MYP the battery pack was always the limiting factor. The motors can do a little more than a fully charged and hot Panasonic pack can provide. With higher speed it is the induction front motor (3D3) that is quickly loosing its "oomph".
 
The Range was reduced because the battery capacity went down from 82kWh to 79kWh. The 3kWh less result in 20km less range. The new M3P was only tested with MCU3 which is supposed to consume more energy, but the old was was never tested with the new 3D6 motor, so this should even out at least.

The drive unit is the assembly of the motors only, not the battery pack. For BEV and PHEV there was the necessity to have some form of horsepower/kW rating to indicate the combined system power of a combustion engine with an electrical motor or two electrical motors in this case. In the M3P/MYP the battery pack was always the limiting factor. The motors can do a little more than a fully charged and hot Panasonic pack can provide. With higher speed it is the induction front motor (3D3) that is quickly loosing its "oomph".
I wondered more beyond the battery what the drive unit is. Both drive unit and electric motor are referred to which suggests that drive unit is more than the motor. Perhaps this is where the difference is. Not the battery that we know has it’s own code 3L/5L etc. the drive unit has a reference that is not the motor reference. This points to the difference being part of the drive unit assembly rather than the electric motor itself.
 
Both drive unit and electric motor are referred to which suggests that drive unit is more than the motor.
The drive unit is the complete drive assembly which contains the casing, electric motor, reduction gears, oil pump, oil filter, heat exchanger, output shafts etc.

Tesla make improvements over time related to cost saving, reliability, production efficiency etc. not just for power/energy efficiency.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: delta0
The drive unit is the complete drive assembly which contains the casing, electric motor, reduction gears, oil pump, oil filter, heat exchanger, output shafts etc.

Tesla make improvements over time related to cost saving, reliability, production efficiency etc. not just for power/energy efficiency.
So it is possible the category 3 change is a part in this assembly, possibly then enabling the higher output in the CoC documentation. If there is a schematic for both of these assemblies we may be able to spot the different part number in there somewhere.
 
If there is a schematic for both of these assemblies we may be able to spot the different part number in there somewhere.
There obviously would be such a thing internally to Tesla but the EPC and workshop manuals only show a few of the components because the rest is treated as a complete sub-assembly that gets replaced if needed - e.g. there isn't an exploded view of the internal gears because they cannot be ordered separately.

So unless someone feels like doing a teardown of their new car to compared against some of the YouTube videos out there, we can only speculate.

1657284085235.png