New Model 3 SR+ with rear motor 3D5 instead of 3D1

[Lyve]

Hey guys,

I'm coming over from a German Tesla forum where we have a huge discussion right now, some people suggested that we ask here to get more information.

Many people over here are getting deliveries in the next weeks, the cars should've been produced around June/July.

So far we've got our official documents and noticed that the power output of the SR+ models is reduced from 100kw to 88kw (maximum 30min power) and the maximum net power from 239kw to 208kw. Every car owner gets a document called "CoC" aka "Certificate of Conformity" for Europe that lists these values, not sure if something like this exists in the US, too?

After lots of guessing why we have less power we figured out that the SR+ models being affected now have a different engine code 3D5 instead of the 3D1 as in all older SR+ models. We assume that this change came together with USB type C connectors.

What we know is that 3D5 is the Long Range AWD rear motor while 3D1 is the Performance rear motor.

We're wondering if that will affect the SR+ in any negative way. We assume that some people in the US should have taken deliveries of these models already and if people noticed that the cars are affected performance wise in any way.

Help is very appreciated, thanks!

Best,

Nils

 

[badiban]

Would be interesting to see the 0-60 time differences. I'm in the USA, I'm not sure I got a document like the CoC. Would there be an easy way to see what motor I have?

 

[Gasaraki]

In the US we don't get the CoC.

 

[lbowroom]

I’m sure the car will meet the specified 0-60 acceleration. The acceleration is limited by battery current, not motor capacity. The original motors are over specified for the SR +

 

[Perscitus]

What we know is that 3D5 is the Long Range AWD rear motor while 3D1 is the Performance rear motor. Best, Nils

Hi Nils, willkommen, Europaer, naturlich ist das so, however perhaps you mean currrent/newer LR AWD vs Performance rear motors (990s vs 980s), correct? Because in the past (until early or mid 2019) they were one and the same (980s installed in both trims).

Sounds like more cost cutting and manufacturing 'optimization' measures by Tesla... the CoC specs still result in a full fledged SR+ or downgraded even beyond advertized spec?

I assume the 3D1 vs 3D5 designation is another identifier stamped on motor housing plates?

And yes, CoCs were discussed here a while back when the Model 3s first started to hit EU shores. This is when people noticed some interesting facts about Performance 3s vs LR AWDs and Stealth Performance as well as LR AWD to Performance reflashes and the AWD40 reflash throughout Europe.

 

[Lyve]

The thing is not really that we are worried about advertised specs not being met (5,6sec to 100 km/h => 62,13 mph), but that we're still losing performance with the new cars because, so far, the SR+ was much faster than being advertised. Measurements after the V10 software upgrade resulted in real world 0-100 times of around 5,2 / 5,1 seconds although only 5,6 are advertised. People in Germany fear that these acceleration numbers are no longer going to be met.

Yes, the 3D1/3D5 engine codes are the ones that are stamped on them. I have to admit that I have never heared about 990 or 980 numbers yet and I can't find them in the CoC document.

Changes compared to the old CoC for SR+ produced before mid of May 2020 are:

• Rear motor used to be the performance one (3D1) but is now the LR one (3D5)
• Maximum net power => Reduced from 239kw to 208kw
• Maximum 30min power => Reduced from 100kw to 88kw

Maximum speed is identical with 225km/h = ~139mph, as is the weight and the electric range, in our case specified as WLTP of 409km = 254 miles

0-100 / 0-60 times are not part of the CoC.

What people are worried about is that the acceleration above 60mph might be much slower now, given that 31kw of peak power output are now missing, even if it doesn't violate any specs as advertised.

 

[pl8dlikafiddle]

Sounds like Tesla was doing the purchasers off early-mid 2019 SR+ models a solid by giving them a car that outperformed the acceleration spec. Now they are bringing it back down to align with its published specs - I honestly don’t see a problem with this, but this might be where culture differences show.

Regarding 980 versus 990 designations - it can be found on the top number series on the motor tag. You can see the 3D5 designation on the bottom corresponds with the 990 motor (last three numbers).

As far as I know, this is the first time this has been brought up here. I do not believe the old 980 vs 990 thread even talked about the new SR+. Maybe the 990 motor is how they were able to get an extra 10 miles of rated miles (250) versus the previous version (240) with the 980 motor.

 

[Perscitus]

Agreed. Nothing wrong with what the manufacturer is doing. Some more good info on nominal and max pack capacity for SR+s via API in Scan My Tesla and similar app threads.


The official 100% (nominal?) kWh’s taken from the EPA test is 54.52kWh for the SR+ as states in this official Tesla EPA document but in reality a brand new SR+ API call shows values a tad lower. High 40s, low 50s.

 

[Venyo]

Agreed. Nothing wrong with what the manufacturer is doing. Some more good info on nominal and max pack capacity for SR+s via API in Scan My Tesla and similar app threads.

Imagine any other manufacturer changing the power output from 239kw to 208kw without telling the customers... Naturally, everybody thinks (s)he is going to get the same power output anyone got before.

But since it's Tesla, I hope we get some good news on battery day, like from now on, the new "million mile battery" is already used for production or they finally put a heat pump in the Model 3.

 

[Perscitus]

We can only wish. That plus OE air suspension, etc.

Legacy ICE manufacturers pull this kind of bs all the time, either over (mostly) or under (rarely) reporting output or changing it a fair bit model year to model year without reflecting it in the marketing materials at all.

 

[lbowroom]

They aren’t changing the power output of the car, just the max output capability of the motor, which the SR+ doesn’t approach

 

[Venyo]

They aren’t changing the power output of the car, just the max output capability of the motor, which the SR+ doesn’t approach

New Model 3 SR+ is slower from 0-60 than before (5.6 seconds instead of ~5.2). And if you say "but Tesla did not promise 5.2 - that's not the point. It is a drop in power output. Without telling the customers. Resell values are going to be worse if there is no "compensation" like a better battery or heat pump.

Legacy ICE manufacturers pull this kind of bs all the time

Tell me an example where the 0-60 time worsened by about 0.4 seconds.

 

[Utking]

New Model 3 SR+ is slower from 0-60 than before (5.6 seconds instead of ~5.2). And if you say "but Tesla did not promise 5.2 - that's not the point. It is a drop in power output. Without telling the customers. Resell values are going to be worse if there is no "compensation" like a better battery or heat pump.


Tell me an example where the 0-60 time worsened by about 0.4 seconds.

So by giving the early adaptors better 0-60 times, and giving them a car that costs more than what they paid for Tesla isn't doing it the right way?

By this logic they should actually send an OTA to all the other SR+ owners and nerf the 0-60 times to not do any difference between them.

What about all the other things they've taken away from the early adopters like lights in the door, frunk mat etc to reduce costs, should they also go the earlier cars and take them away? I can't see any problem by this tbh, if you want a faster car than the SR+ then buy an performance model.

 

[Venyo]

So by giving the early adaptors better 0-60 times, and giving them a car that costs more than what they paid for Tesla isn't doing it the right way?

By this logic they should actually send an OTA to all the other SR+ owners and nerf the 0-60 times to not do any difference between them.

What about all the other things they've taken away from the early adopters like lights in the door, frunk mat etc to reduce costs, should they also go the earlier cars and take them away? I can't see any problem by this tbh, if you want a faster car than the SR+ then buy an performance model.

A person who got the Model 3 in spring this year (no power drop) is not an early adopter.

By this logic, Tesla should tell the customers what they get, nobody wanted to nerf early adopter's cars.

Frunk mats cost a few dollar, ridiculous to compare this to a motor upgrade.


Why would anyone defend Tesla for this obsessively? Customers suddenly get the same car for the same price with a weaker drivetrain and they weren't informed. This is crazy.

 

[lbowroom]

New Model 3 SR+ is slower from 0-60 than before (5.6 seconds instead of ~5.2).

What’s the source of this claim? Where is it presented?

 

[Knightshade]

The thing is not really that we are worried about advertised specs not being met (5,6sec to 100 km/h => 62,13 mph), but that we're still losing performance with the new cars because, so far, the SR+ was much faster than being advertised. Measurements after the V10 software upgrade resulted in real world 0-100 times of around 5,2 / 5,1 seconds although only 5,6 are advertised.

Tesla advertises 0-60 without rollout on all non-P models. I'm assuming the measured 5.1/5.2s are WITH rollout?

Similarly they advertise 4.4 for the LR AWD, but real world testing with 1' rollout produces 3.9 second times (this is without the added 2k boost, which drops it to 3.5).

So doesn't sound like any performance change from just that by switching to the less capable 990 motor.


Honestly I'm somewhat surprised this didn't happen MUCH sooner, given the 990 has to be cheaper than the 980 to produce.

 

[Utking]

A person who got the Model 3 in spring this year (no power drop) is not an early adopter.

By this logic, Tesla should tell the customers what they get, nobody wanted to nerf early adopter's cars.

Frunk mats cost a few dollar, ridiculous to compare this to a motor upgrade.


Why would anyone defend Tesla for this obsessively? Customers suddenly get the same car for the same price with a weaker drivetrain and they weren't informed. This is crazy.

Except this isn't true! Tesla used another motor earlier on, maybe they were out of the slower one, limited supplies etc.

Tesla promised the time from 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, they who got the first batches were just lucky! Now the car is the way it should be, there's no need to cry over it. Ofc they couldn't list the time faster, it would cannibalize the sales of the others car.

It's just the same with the AWD owners who got the 980 motor in the start. Now they changed it to the 990 motor, but you cannot complain because you got what you paid for!

 

[lbowroom]

Again, where is the evidence that there is a change in acceleration other than the test method that knightshade describes? Roll out vs not.

 

[dmurphy]

Customers suddenly get the same car for the same price with a weaker drivetrain and they weren't informed. This is crazy.

No!

Customers are getting exactly what they paid for. The fact that others may have gotten more than they paid for means NOTHING.

It's like going to the store, and buying 1 kilo of, say, walnuts. If the store owner gives you a 1.25 kilo package for the same price, does that mean the next customer has the right to demand the same? OF COURSE NOT!

As long as you're getting what you paid for, the shopkeeper owes you nothing extra.

 

[lbowroom]

Still no evidence that the 5.2 and 5.6 times aren’t just different methods of measuring the same car.