Serious question - why does it bother you so much? Does it really matter? It doesn’t make any sense to me to get upset about something so pedantic. I didn’t realize I was the only person on Dragy running a 3.2 0-60 or 3.0 with rollout, but if I’m able to do it I’m sure many others are as well. The only thing I did was remove the aero covers to lighten the wheels and just floored it, so there really isn’t a lot of skill involved. Both versions are super fast and both have plenty of solid times logged for real world performance comparisons. At the risk of taking some life off my snows, I’d like to do some runs in my car on X-ice tires in less than perfect conditions to see what the times are, and I suspect they won’t be too far off the summer times.
-
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
Serious question - why does it bother you so much? Does it really matter? It doesn’t make any sense to me to get upset about something so pedantic. I didn’t realize I was the only person on Dragy running a 3.2 0-60 or 3.0 with rollout, but if I’m able to do it I’m sure many others are as well. The only thing I did was remove the aero covers to lighten the wheels and just floored it, so there really isn’t a lot of skill involved. Both versions are super fast and both have plenty of solid times logged for real world performance comparisons. At the risk of taking some life off my snows, I’d like to do some runs in my car on X-ice tires in less than perfect conditions to see what the times are, and I suspect they won’t be too far off the summer times.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Because it's dishonestly presenting the actual difference between the cars. Which means, especially since they removed the fine print where they were admitting the deception, the typical potential new customer is getting a false narrative about the relative quickness of each vehicle.
For that matter, I personally know at least 1 people who had specifically ruled out the LR AWD based on Teslas less-than-honest numbers, that when I explained it was actually 4 flat moved the car back onto their list to consider and ended up ordering one- there's a second who has some months left on a lease before making a decision but might also go into that bucket)....
Neither would've dropped the extra 8k on the P (which is why Tesla is being dishonest about this of course- in hopes folks will think they're really getting a larger improvement over the AWD for the money) so in those 2 cases at least this would've cost Tesla a potential sale.
It did to the guy who would've otherwise ended up in an ICE vehicle I mention and the other now considering a Tesla (and I can't imagine those are the only 2 guys in the world like that.... in fact I expect if the new 5% bump gets the LR AWD to 3.9 it'd be even more people... perception wise there's a BIG difference between 3.9 and 4.4)
There's already tons of FUD and flat out false commentary regarding Teslas that hurt potential sales... it's a shame to see Tesla themselves being dishonest about their cars comparative performance...especially when I know for a fact it's costing them at least some sales.
(Disclaimer- it's possible Tesla has run the math on this and decided sales lost to this are more than made up for by the deception increasing the P take rate.... but given how incompetent they've shown themselves to be on most actual being-a-business fronts and how much $ they keep leaving on the table elsewhere, I wouldn't bet much on that)
Tesla is currently offering a paid update to go from the AWD to P. All you have to do is go on the Tesla website and input your cars VIN and a couple other details and then order the performance model you should have bought originally, pay a trade difference and boom you have now gotten the paid performance update you keep asking for.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Man why are you always on here arguing with people?
I'm not the one arguing.
I've simply stated the same documented facts a bunch of folks before me mentioned about how Tesla misrepresents the P versus non-P performance differences.
It's other folks who seem to want to "argue" about if these facts are facts (they are- as cited by screenshots from tesla themselves, and then confirmed by numerous calibrated measurements from both owners and car magazines)... and then when that argument fell apart they now want to argue if this dishonest is "important" or not.
How much? The P owner part of me needs to know how mad to be about it being cheaper, and the Tesla stock holder part of me wants to know how much marginal revenue this could produce.
Side note, are you in the KC tesla club by chance?
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
How much? The P owner part of me needs to know how mad to be about it being cheaper, and the Tesla stock holder part of me wants to know how much marginal revenue this could produce.
Side note, are you in the KC tesla club by chance?
re-read his post a bit more closely.
He's suggesting AWD owners order a new P and trade in their existing AWD cars at a loss.
Which doesn't even get most of them what they want- since the only P you can get that way has the boat anchor 20s and the street-useless big brakes for an $8000 upcharge... versus the better P3D- model that doesn't and is only a 2-3k upcharge from AWD if you can find one in inventory (but they're not orderable)
I would be very surprised if anyone decides to buy an ICE car because Tesla says the Model 3 AWD goes 0-60 in 4.4 seconds instead of 4.0 or 4.1 seconds. If a prospective buyer cares that much about the acceleration, they're going to be watching Youtube videos and googling to find more data, and they will find out Tesla might be "sandbagging" the numbers for the AWD model. Just like BMW and many other car companies and models (Supra and C8 Corvertte come to mind) sandbag their horsepower ratings. I think most consumers would be thrilled to learn their car is actually faster than reported/expected instead of the other way around.
knightshade is butthurt he didnt get a performance and now wants to convince everyone his awd is nearly as fast .
The awd felt much slower compared to the performance IMO ..I dont care if its with or without a rollout and what kinds of times you think the awd does. it feels slower
The awd felt much slower compared to the performance IMO ..I dont care if its with or without a rollout and what kinds of times you think the awd does. it feels slower
For anyone that may be interested, I plotted (poorly) the results from MPP's dyno of the LR RWD onto this same chart. To me, having the RWD data on there further emphasizes how unusual the AWD's long, flat power curve really is.
So the P3 and AWD are marketed at different segments.
P3, you really care about the performance. So you want to see the best numbers available. Want to see the number you will get if you took it to a drag strip.
AWD. More concerned with a Balanced feature set of the car. Less likely to take it to the track, but want to know about real-world performance in the road.
So P3 gets a 'drag-strip' time with 1ft rollout estimate, (which you could argue isn't really that accurate as a real-world number) but lower is better.
And AWD gets the 'real world' REAL 0-60 number quoted, because that's really what you would see on the road.
Either way you measure it, the actual difference between the 2 cars is very significant in terms of percentage. 4.0->3.2 is an 20% difference. Which is very significant.
I don't think Tesla is sandbagging, or under representing anything, or trying to make the P3 look good. They are just straightforwardly giving a measure which is applicable to the market segment that is interested in the model.
P3, you really care about the performance. So you want to see the best numbers available. Want to see the number you will get if you took it to a drag strip.
AWD. More concerned with a Balanced feature set of the car. Less likely to take it to the track, but want to know about real-world performance in the road.
So P3 gets a 'drag-strip' time with 1ft rollout estimate, (which you could argue isn't really that accurate as a real-world number) but lower is better.
And AWD gets the 'real world' REAL 0-60 number quoted, because that's really what you would see on the road.
Either way you measure it, the actual difference between the 2 cars is very significant in terms of percentage. 4.0->3.2 is an 20% difference. Which is very significant.
I don't think Tesla is sandbagging, or under representing anything, or trying to make the P3 look good. They are just straightforwardly giving a measure which is applicable to the market segment that is interested in the model.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Let me know when you're in the area, I'll introduce you to such a person
They previously had a scat pack charger and weren't going to even consider a Tesla as they wanted their next car at least half a second quicker- so they were specifically looking for stuff that:
Could run about 4 flat
Cost under 50k
Since they wanted to get away from dodge that had left them with basically just Chevy and Ford (camaro and mustang)- once I pointed out the actual tested times (including a link for him to the car mag article about it) on the LR AWD was 4.0 he put it back on the list- went and drove one- and bought one.
knightshade is butthurt he didnt get a performance and now wants to convince everyone his awd is nearly as fast .
Ah, personal attacks, the last resort of the incompetent and out of arguments
I didn't want a P because it'd be a useless waste of (at the time) $11,000 for me. I'm not sure I'd pay for the allegedly possible unlock to P even at the 2-3k price some have speculated for it.
I literally don't hit any stoplights I could be fast and furious from on my entire daily drive in either direction.
95% of the my driving is at highway speed, where the P isn't appreciably quicker... (see again how the difference 0-60 is roughly 0.9-1 second apples to apples, and the difference to reach double that speed in the 1/4 mile is... still only about that same 1 second...the P doesn't really gain any time in the 60->~115 range compared to the AWD)
Not sure what any of that has to do with you being fine with Tesla being dishonest in listing specs, but you do you I guess
Not unusual at all once you understand the AWD is just a software limited P.
I bought the performance over the AWD. I don't care how they measured the 0-60 or the fact that the awd is very slightly closer in acceleration. I still wouldn't have bought the slower car.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Right, it measures at the wheel. It can only measure the force that is applied, and plot that vs. the velocity at which that force is applied (and it apparently doesn't do a good job of measuring force for wheel speed less than about 20mph). Everything else is translation. To get the "490ft-lb" and "460HP" numbers, clearly they had to apply information about the final drive ratio and the wheel diameter. And if they're doing that, I assume there is a field in the software program that generates the curves that allows you to include "drivetrain loss".
The thing is, let's assume those numbers are no drivetrain loss. We do know that the drive reduction is 9:1 (within 1%, I think it is very slightly greater than 9; I read or watched a video somewhere). And we know the wheel radius is 13.26 inches.
So that would mean 9* 490ft-lb*12in/ft / 13.26in = 3991 lbs of force applied to the wheels.
My VBOX data (after the first power boost), posted elsewhere, shows constant acceleration between 5mph and 40mph (torque is therefore constant in this region and proportional to this acceleration). For a 3.17sec (3.47s including rollout time) 0-60 run (which implies it must have been a roughly flat course (which it was) since this is basically the rated number and what people see), it takes 1.84s to go 5mph to 45mph (and each 5mph interval was equal time within 4% (rounding error), so the torque was constant in this region). This was a stock Performance + PUP vehicle with all excess weight removed, with a 160lb driver. (So 4072lb + 160lb = 4232lbs). (Here's another picture showing that torque is definitely constant between 10mph and 40mph - torque is flat - and the acceleration is 0.87g)
This is: 35mph/1.84s - Wolfram|Alpha
So, 0.87g. For that weight that means about 3680lbs of force.
If you can reconcile these numbers (3991/4232 = 0.94!) without concluding that there must be drivetrain loss included in the dyno result, I will have learned something today. I am not accounting for the contribution of wheel rotational kinetic energy, but I know that is a very small effect. I am not accounting for wind resistance, but that can also be calculated (~200Wh/mi drag loss at 70mph is 100lbs of drag, and between 5 and 40mph it will be much smaller of course).
Last edited:
gcmak
Member
I did multiple runs this morning on my usual testing route. It's not a prepped drag strip etc.
From the initial figures compared to what I was reliably getting from V9 of my P3D, I'm reliably getting ~0.01 seconds faster 0-60.
I'm going to try again later in the day when warmer with a higher SOC. I tested this morning ~60% SOC. My old test was ~85% SOC on V9.
3.40s is the new time.
The old time is 3.41s.
From the initial figures compared to what I was reliably getting from V9 of my P3D, I'm reliably getting ~0.01 seconds faster 0-60.
I'm going to try again later in the day when warmer with a higher SOC. I tested this morning ~60% SOC. My old test was ~85% SOC on V9.
3.40s is the new time.
The old time is 3.41s.
Attachments
Last edited:
gcmak
Member
Thanks, edited my post - indeed, it'd be a significant difference if it was 0.1s difference. I should be able to get a few runs in later today above 85%. If not, definitely sometime this week.
I think you're using the word dishonest incorrectly. Just one opinion.
Similar threads
