-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Vendor MPP 1.75″ Model Y Suspension Lift Kit
- Thread starter MountainPass
- Start date
No. There is a law that states that a vehicle manufacturer has to prove a modification caused the failure in order to deny warranty coverage. If you break a suspension spring or a shock, they probably won't cover it. If your battery or motor breaks, then they would have to cover you.
The increase in power consumption is on the order of 10% at highway speeds. But collecting power consumption data to accurately characterize the effect is challenging. The rigor required is outside of many people's skill set, even if they don't realize it.
For reference, at 75 mph, a 4% error in measured power consumption is possible by mistaking a 1 mph headwind for a 1 mph tailwind. For example, my roughly calibrated Model 3 LR model predicts a consumption of 290.2 Wh/mi at 75mph. With a 1 mph headwind it's 295.5 Wh/mi (+1.8%). A 1 mph tailwind results in 285.1 Wh/mi (-1.8%). If the wind is truly steady, this error can be mitigated by measuring in opposing directions, but any variability in wind speed or direction between runs can easily introduce errors of a few percent.
When comparing a configuration change that takes many hours to perform, that time introduces other effects that need to be accounted for, such as changes in air density or battery temperature and again it needs to assume similar wind conditions. If the ambient temperature heats up by 20 degF, the consumption will be 2.5% lower solely due to the lower air density reducing drag.
The Model 3 EPA application data provides a little insight to quantify the effect. The difference in highway range between an Model 3 LR AWD and Performance, both with 18" wheels, is 2.8% [319.2 / 310.6]. The cause for this is likely attributable to the 10mm lower suspension on the Performance. Assuming that everything is equal and linear with the Model Y, this infers a 45mm (1.75") ride height increase might decrease highway range by 12.6% [4.5 x 2.8%].
Unplugged Performance had someone do a CFD analysis on their lowering springs on a Model 3. The 38mm (1.5") lower ride height decreased aero drag by 8.1% at an unspecified speed. At highway speeds, aero drag causes about half of the total power consumption. So assuming that everything is equal and linear with the Model Y, this infers a 45mm height increase might decrease highway range by 5% [45/38 x 8.1/2].
These predictions are pretty far apart, but ~10% seems like a reasonable assumption for the reduced highway range.
Last edited:
I finally installed the lift; very nice! It took the better part of the day, but I'm going to do an instructional post on here that should make the install easier. I started a thread specifically for my lift, instructional, range testing and driving impressions. I haven't done a test under rigid conditions yet, but so far it's looking very promising for very little to zero range hit. Here's a link to my build thread: MPP Lift Kit Install On Model Y PUP
Oops! I started a new thread so I could get all of the information out at the top of the thread. I apologize for that. I planned to edit these posts as I was unaware editing posts was not allowed on this forum. Here's the new thread: MPP Lift Kit Install Instructions, Range Discussion & Driving Impressions It has my install instructions, driving impressions and range analysis.
We have been decking out a ton of Model Y's with these kits. So awesome! Here is our own development car in winter mode for your enjoyment:
You'll end up with around 0 degrees of camber or even slightly positive without camber adjustment.
For those of us uninformed, what is an ideal camber? If we were to install the lift kit with adjustable camber, would we be shooting for slightly negative for better handling?
That was exactly what got explained to me by MPP, UP, the folks that did my suspension, and my back of napkin geometry sketches.
as a neophyte to suspension but an engineer, I wouldn’t describe it, as “better handling”: a negative camber (wheels angled outwards as you get closer to the ground) makes it such that, under higher lateral centrifugal force of a turn, the outer wheel is forced to create more contact. This is compared to what would happen if it was straight down where contact would get less the more lateral gs you are pulling, which would make it loose grip and skid or something bad especially in quick turns eg moose test.
Maybe mpp can explain better the side effects of not doing it. I also appreciate that as a vendor they have to be cautious in their language about what is recommended, required, etc.
Similar threads
