You posted numbers out of a magazine. You have no idea if the numbers were accurate or if the test conditions were truly comparable. It makes a huge difference. If it was head-to-head, that would be different. Otherwise, given the known characteristics of both vehicles it doesn't sound credible.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
You posted numbers out of a magazine. You have no idea if the numbers were accurate or if the test conditions were truly comparable. It makes a huge difference. If it was head-to-head, that would be different. Otherwise, given the known characteristics of both vehicles it doesn't sound credible.
Torque is a numbers game. It is an urban myth that torque controls acceleration. Average horsepower in the operational RPM window wins races. Torque helps easy operation.
Your 200ftlb @ 1700rpm is under 65hp.
Your 277ftlb @ 4800rpm is 253hp.
See the problem yet? Everything is fine unless you accidently drop RPM for any reason, or operate the car at any time under 4000 rpm.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Yes.
Objectively measured ones by professional car reviewers with professional measuring equipment.
All showing you're wrong at every single test point.
You, on the other hand, have posted literally no evidence of any kind to support your position.
Because you have none. Because there is none. Because you're factually wrong
And hp keeps climbing to 306 hp.
Generally the rpm range that is most important in a longer drag race is the area between peak torque rpm and peak power rpm. The car should be geared so that you shift 400-500 rpm beyond peak power, and the engine “falls back” to just beyond the peak torque point
Though again this will matter more in the 1/4 mile... for 0-30 the car never even has to shift- which is why the other guy continuing to point out the Tesla is a 1-speed transmission is so pointless... for 0-30 they are both 1-speeds.
That, combined with excellent gearing for the 0-30 (indeed all through 0-100 range), is what makes the car quicker than you might expect from merely the peak #s in that range- and slower much above 100 where virtually nobody actually drives outside a track.
As, again, objective test results demonstrate.
The refusal of people to accept real-world measured facts?
It's a drag race. In a car that (assuming decent tires) is not traction limited.
You floor the car and keep it there.
You can't "accidentally" drop RPMs unless you have some kinda bizarre muscle spasm pulling your foot off the accelerator pedal.
It's one of the reasons automatics offer such consistent results compared to manuals (and these days almost uniformly faster results, as computers shift a lot more efficiently and accurately than humans can)
Acceleration exists only in the context of time. It's feet per second per second.
Torque is pointless when discussing engine output or we'd all be racing farm tractors at Le Mans.
Drive a diesel car and a gas car. Usually the diesel has more torque, usually the gas engine is quicker.
My 1800ftlb tune for my truck is slower than my 1400ftlb tune. Why? The 1800ftlb tune peaks at 2000rpm, the 1400 tune peaks at 3000rpm. HOWEVER, when racing neither tunes ever sees peak torque. Why? You don't operate the engine below 3200rpm racing.
The refusal of people to accept real-world measured facts?
It's a drag race. In a car that (assuming decent tires) is not traction limited.
You floor the car and keep it there.
You can't "accidentally" drop RPMs unless you have some kinda bizarre muscle spasm pulling your foot off the accelerator pedal.
It's one of the reasons automatics offer such consistent results compared to manuals (and these days almost uniformly faster results, as computers shift a lot more efficiently and accurately than humans can)
In urban driving, the EV with less power often overtakes the ICE with more power. Throttle response and RPMs under 2000 aren't used much in dragracing. If fact, it can take me several seconds to stage as I wait to heat the turbochargers to build boost.
In a dragrace, single speed cars are the quickest, the top fuel dragsters. Try that method in your car.
I don't often find myself cheering you one. this time I do. The obsession with optimal auto marine testing and real world driving is the daily reality. Torque wins. Anybody who's accustomed to European common-rail diesel cars vs the equivalent gasoline ones knows. Both ar sluggish when compared with any BEV, even an iMiev, a Spark or, to be most extreme a Peugeot Partner Electric van. Any doubters should try the lowest power, slowest BEV to see what instant response actually does to driving experience.
Eventually @McRat, people will come to understand that you're correct.
IMO: It's something a driver has to experience for a few days of typical EV driving. Then get back into an ICE and do the same tasks. Wow. Now you notice.
If you keep it up for a month or more, then switch, that stupid gas station crap gets under your skin. Why do you need to do that??? Why didn't you just 'fill up' while you were sleeping?
I see EV powertrains as a Premium Luxury feature. It makes driving simpler and more fun when doing your normal driving.
HOWEVER... I love ICE cars on closed circuits. I'll be at Daytona on their track goofing off in a couple weeks. I can't wait. But in the meantime, my two teens and I will be AutoX'g this weekend. That always puts a grin on my face.
eladts
Member
Your claim was true if all cars had a fixed-ratio gear. Since ICE cars do have multiple gears, you can trade torque with rpm by using different ratios. Torque multiplied by rpm is power.
I posted this in another thread, but I apologize in advance for the repost. It concerns this topic and explains why EV tend to perform better than ICE cars of the same power to weight:
Automakers report ICE power as peak HP and peak TQ. EV makers are basically reporting average horsepower because the curve is "flat".
A car accelerates over a time interval based on the average HP, or "area under the curve". Here's what a common ICE engine power curve looks like:
View attachment 242308
Note that if operational rpm range is 4000-6500 rpm during max acceleration, your average is roughly 100kW but rated peak is 110kW.
Now an electric PMAC car:
View attachment 242309
Notice how during the operational acceleration RPM the HP is constant.
If there is a gear change in the ICE during the acceleration, there is a brief negative HP output that also comes into play.
An EV at a given power to weight ratio will normally out accelerate an ICE with the same power to weight.
Here's a classic example of EV power vs ICE power in cars with similar performance:
Volts run in pure EV mode during 0-60 mph testing. They are rated at 149 HP (cough) and weighs 3523lb, assume 150lb driver, 3673lb or 24.7 lb/hp. C&D says 7.5 seconds, 0-60 mph.
The Toyota 86 Automatic (Subaru BRZ) is pure ICE with a 200 HP rating. With driver it weighs 2961lb, so it has a 14.8 lb/hp ratio.
So the 200HP, (and 560lb lighter) Toyota creams it, right? Nope. 7.7s 0-60 mph due to the ICE HP curve and automatic shifting time.
Must be traction. Once moving, the ICE Toyota will kill it, right? Nope, both 'automatics' yield the same 5.1s 50-70 mph high speed passing time. The Toyota is quicker in the 1/4 mi by 0.1 seconds though.
This holds true for most EVs, at least up to 80 mph. They punch well outside their weight class.
Automakers report ICE power as peak HP and peak TQ. EV makers are basically reporting average horsepower because the curve is "flat".
A car accelerates over a time interval based on the average HP, or "area under the curve". Here's what a common ICE engine power curve looks like:
View attachment 242308
Note that if operational rpm range is 4000-6500 rpm during max acceleration, your average is roughly 100kW but rated peak is 110kW.
Now an electric PMAC car:
View attachment 242309
Notice how during the operational acceleration RPM the HP is constant.
If there is a gear change in the ICE during the acceleration, there is a brief negative HP output that also comes into play.
An EV at a given power to weight ratio will normally out accelerate an ICE with the same power to weight.
Here's a classic example of EV power vs ICE power in cars with similar performance:
Volts run in pure EV mode during 0-60 mph testing. They are rated at 149 HP (cough) and weighs 3523lb, assume 150lb driver, 3673lb or 24.7 lb/hp. C&D says 7.5 seconds, 0-60 mph.
The Toyota 86 Automatic (Subaru BRZ) is pure ICE with a 200 HP rating. With driver it weighs 2961lb, so it has a 14.8 lb/hp ratio.
So the 200HP, (and 560lb lighter) Toyota creams it, right? Nope. 7.7s 0-60 mph due to the ICE HP curve and automatic shifting time.
Must be traction. Once moving, the ICE Toyota will kill it, right? Nope, both 'automatics' yield the same 5.1s 50-70 mph high speed passing time. The Toyota is quicker in the 1/4 mi by 0.1 seconds though.
This holds true for most EVs, at least up to 80 mph. They punch well outside their weight class.
shrspeedblade
Rideshare Monkey
You can still love ICEngines while still acknowledging the inherent advantages in electric drivetrains, as McRat has knowledgeably demonstrated.
My Miata never felt fast (duh!) and in normal acceleration it feels downright slow after driving my Volt for a year and a half, but I still love wrapping it up to 7k rpm!
My Miata never felt fast (duh!) and in normal acceleration it feels downright slow after driving my Volt for a year and a half, but I still love wrapping it up to 7k rpm!
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Tend to? Sure.
Always? Not so much.
You left out things like gearing, torque converter multiplication, suspension (which impacts weight transfer and ability to launch), etc.
it's why in your example the EV won, but in mine it lost.
- My clutch was slipping.
- The left lane is bad.
- I had the sun in my eyes.
- I wasn't ready.
- I must have got a tank of bad gas.
- Somebody got water on the lane.
- You must have a bottle hidden.
- Something blew across the track so I lifted.
- That was just a shake-out run, now I'm ready.
Pick one or more.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Pick one or more.
- My clutch was slipping.
- The left lane is bad.
- I had the sun in my eyes.
- I wasn't ready.
- I must have got a tank of bad gas.
- Somebody got water on the lane.
- You must have a bottle hidden.
- Something blew across the track so I lifted.
- That was just a shake-out run, now I'm ready.
That's the great thing about using closed-track professional measurements- there's no such BS excuses available to the car that lost (in my example- the Tesla... in yours the Toyota 86 (which might actually be a worthwhile car if they'd put a more powerful engine in it)... nor does it leave any validity to those who insist their "butt dyno" told them different results
That said it's worth noting this is using a 70D as a stand-in for the M3LR because it had the most identical 0-60 time, and 0-60 is the only performance measurement we have for the M3LR. It's certainly possible given the different motor used and other factors that while the two Teslas have the same 0-60 performance elsewhere will be different enough to change results versus other ICE cars.
It's something we likely won't know for a bit yet until they get into the hands of non-tesla employees.
Shawn Snider
Member
I keep seeing posts about 0-60 times and disappointment, if you want 0-60 times buy a Model S........ Model 3 is made for the majority of the market, not race-heads looking to drag-race something.
There's a reason the Model S has the numbers/parameters it does... I think the Model 3 is just fine, people just have to get used to change.
There's a reason the Model S has the numbers/parameters it does... I think the Model 3 is just fine, people just have to get used to change.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
Then don't post in the 0-60 related threads... There are hundreds of others you can post in depending on what interests you. That's the beauty of a forum like this, diversity of opinions, view points, and expertise.
Obviously lots of people do care about the topic and would like to have a rational discussion involving something other than "if you don't like it, spend $40k more".
While they may be the minority, the fact is that some prospective model 3 buyers are "race-heads. Case in point- this thread.
Similar threads
