-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
P3D horsepower?
- Thread starter 3LE-TRK
- Start date
What are you trying to say here? The Performance is not faster than the AWD? My stealth performance runs 0-60 in 3.06 and the quarter mile in 11.52, so there is a significant and material difference between the 2 models.
Urbancowboy
Member
Yep he’s saying the AWD is faster than the Performance
He’s saying the advertised 0-60 for the Performance is measured with a 1-foot rollout while the AWD is not, which makes the advertised speed difference bigger than in reality.
Yep he’s saying the AWD is faster than the Performance
He’s saying the advertised 0-60 for the Performance is measured with a 1-foot rollout while the AWD is not, which makes the advertised speed difference bigger than in reality.
The original message was incredibly unclear if that is what he was trying to say. Regardless, that is incorrect as I’ve achieved 0-60 in 3.06 seconds with rollout and 3.27 without rollout multiple times in 100% stock condition.
Urbancowboy
Member
Nice. Can’t wait to upgrade my AWD soon
And what you’re saying still doesn’t change the fact that Tesla publishes 0-60 numbers to artificially inflate the delta between Performance and AWD.
Dan203
Active Member
MagnusMako
Member
Sorry I should have said the delta between the times. The large majority of P3 owners are typically 3.2 with rollout. Look at the Dragy historical leader-boards and you'll know this. You are literally the only person on Dragy with a 3.0x time in stock P3.
My AWD is almost 0.47s faster than their site lists with roll-out. Your P3 (which is already the fastest on Dragy leaderboard from Oct), is 0.2s faster. Also Tesla used to list the P3 time at 3.5 then changed it to 3.2 which is the common time with rollout. This is a known practice with Tesla as they have done it in the past with the P85D and they still do it now with the Raven S Performance. This topic has been covered ad naseum - it is definitely true. I should also mention you're in Denver so it doesn't surprise me your time is better than most at a mile above sea level.
With all that said, I look forward to seeing what this update has in store for AWD and the possibility of getting to 4 flat without rollout.
Attachments
They changed the 0-60 time after the last 5% update which you could actually feel the difference above 40+mph. Not saying you're wrong but I'm curious how does that play out because if you say the 3.2 is with rollout and if the the 0-60 is essentially the same when they first listed the 0-60 time (3.5s), how does the car feel faster yet is still 3.5?
Nice. Can’t wait to upgrade my AWD soon
And what you’re saying still doesn’t change the fact that Tesla publishes 0-60 numbers to artificially inflate the delta between Performance and AWD.
I’ve raced 3 AWD Model 3’s from a dead stop to various rolling speeds in my P3- over the last 2 months. We also each switched cars as the AWD owners wanted to drive it.
There were no stop watches and we weren’t on the track. All I can say is the 4 of us all agree, the “delta” is significant. 2 of those AWD owners already purchased the P3-. The third one couldn’t convince his wife at the time, but after I saw the thread that the model might be coming back he’s going to try and do it.
The AWD car is extremely fast and an amazing vehicle. The Delta between the two is significant when behind the wheel.
Depends if they decide to make outrageous claims that are demonstrably false. We’ll see.
All we know at this point is, Tesla did. It sounds you are suggesting what Tesla did is industry practice. It is not and that is why they paid for it. Literally.
Urbancowboy
Member
Nobody is going to argue with you on this. The point is not that the P isn’t materially faster than the AWD. It’s that Tesla uses different measurement techniques for their advertised 0-60 times in order to make the difference seem even bigger than it is.
As for your buddy who hasn’t upgraded, hopefully both of us get the option for a paid software upgrade to our AWDs soon...
SammichLover
Banned
The Dynojet measurement, done with the initial software, had peak torque at about 490ft-lb and peak horsepower at about 460HP for the Performance (390ft-lb, 370HP for the LR-D). I can't find the post-first-bump dyno that was done, but my recollection is that the LR-D didn't get much change other than extending the torque plateau further giving about a 8% HP bump while the Performance's change actually raised the torque curve beyond just extending it.
A dyno inherently measures at the wheel. Do we have any details about that test that say they used a fudge conversion factor to try quote the numbers in "crankshaft" terms? I've got the PDF on my computer but having difficulty finding the post here. Otherwise that should be assumed as at-the-wheel numbers.
P.S. Keeping in mind that dyno'ing is a tricky process, and is even tougher given the unusual nature of the Model 3's drivetrain in how it differs from ICE vehicles that is where most of the experience in using a dyno is rooted in.
Last edited:
WilliamG
Hinge Fanatic
I’m not making that suggestion. I’m suggesting Tesla could publish accurate figures.
MagnusMako
Member
I don't know where the original post was for the extrapolated conversion but I believe it was brought up again and discussed in this post here.
Accelerometer data from @SleeperService after the first 5% boost here. And dyno from Dynojet Research after the first 5% also here.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
The figures are accurate, in that they're accurate measurements for the car using a specific (different for each) method..
The issue is that you can't validly compare them since they're different measurements.
Industry practice to my knowledge is you measure and list specs for all your cars the same way.
To my knowledge Tesla is the only car company that doesn't do that and instead makes the P (S, X, and 3) look like it's quicker relative to the non-P versions by using a different measurement for it than all other versions.
WilliamG
Hinge Fanatic
I’ve not read of any definitive proof that this is true. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t make it so. Again, not saying it’s not true - but I’d like to see some publications prove it.
Plus what has that got to do with measuring power output?
SammichLover
Banned
It has been measured innumerable times, tons of post here that in the aggregate make it very clear that is what they are doing. This was established within weeks of the vehicles shipping last year.
Last edited:
SammichLover
Banned
Hmmm, maybe the one I linked is from post-bump, then? Because it matches the one in the last link you have. The file is dated February 9th on my computer, wasn't the power bump after that? Or was that when the bump happened?
Here's one that is dated Dec 2, 2018. Pretty sure that last link is showing the curve BEFORE the first "5%" bump but claiming it is post-bump.
Similar threads
