Perf gets higher top speed, RWD more range, but no love for AWD???

[MagnusMako]

The latest change from advertised 3.3s to 3.2s actually represents a power increase.

I would agree this is probably the case but the fact that the AWD non-P hasn't shown any change on the listing is a disingenuous marketing move to me if they're trying to put a bigger wedge between the P and non-P. They should be consistent across the board in their testing and results.

 

[Knightshade]

I would agree this is probably the case but the fact that the AWD non-P hasn't shown any change on the listing is a disingenuous marketing move to me if they're trying to put a bigger wedge between the P and non-P. They should be consistent across the board in their testing and results.

Tesla has been similarly dishonest with the Model S P almost the whole time it has existed- using rollout for one trim of the same car but not the other.

With the 3 they briefly, maybe by accident, were actually truthful and measured them the same way- hence 4.5 and 3.5....that didn't last long though before they went back to measuring the same thing differently depending how much it cost.


If they're being honest prior to now it was either 4.5 and 3.5, or 4.3 and 3.3.... and I'd bet both are dropping 0.1 with the upcoming slight bump in power even if they won't update the page to reflect it for the AWD.

 

[12yan]

Tesla has been similarly dishonest with the Model S P almost the whole time it has existed- using rollout for one trim of the same car but not the other.

With the 3 they briefly, maybe by accident, were actually truthful and measured them the same way- hence 4.5 and 3.5....that didn't last long though before they went back to measuring the same thing differently depending how much it cost

Could you link to where Tesla specified this? I’ve seen this claim quite a few times but have never seen the source.

 

[ngogas]

It's coming. Non P AWS long range will get a power increase. See the other thread that quote Elon. March 15 software update to uncork some performance. My guess would be 4.5 down to around 4.0 or 4.1 seconds.

 

[MagnusMako]

It's coming. Non P AWS long range will get a power increase. See the other thread that quote Elon. March 15 software update to uncork some performance. My guess would be 4.5 down to around 4.0 or 4.1 seconds.

The power increase is for all model 3s current and new. Read the Tesla blog post from yesterday. If the 4.5 gets lower, then the one shown for the P3D should get lower as well as the rest of the lineup.

 

[mrpetrov]

All of them are getting a 5% power bump, which is 0.1s off the 0-60. Sadly, there is no reason to expect a drop from 4.5s to either 4.1s or 4.0s 0-60 on the non-P LR AWD.

 

[12yan]

Sadly, there is no reason to expect a drop from 4.5s to either 4.1s or 4.0s 0-60 on the non-P LR AWD.

Right. AFAIK acceleration scales with the square root of power.

 

[robski]

3.3sec is without the spoiler. All new deliveries come with a spoiler so it's 3.2 of course. Sheesh, have to'splain everything around here.

 

[MagnusMako]

All of them are getting a 5% power bump, which is 0.1s off the 0-60. Sadly, there is no reason to expect a drop from 4.5s to either 4.1s or 4.0s 0-60 on the non-P LR AWD.

Well, I can already get 4.1 (stock) using the 1 ft rollout so I think it's entirely possible. But I'm hopeful for something more significant.

 

[preilly44]

I came to this thread to read about increased range and performance and 80% of the threads are people crying about what Tesla owes them

 

[Matt L]

I came to this thread to read about increased range and performance and 80% of the threads are people crying about what Tesla owes them

That’s 80% of the Tesla customer base. It’s amazing.

 

[Lifeinabox]

That’s 80% of the Tesla customer base on TMC. It’s amazing.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Knightshade]

Could you link to where Tesla specified this? I’ve seen this claim quite a few times but have never seen the source.

I've already posted it a bunch of times (and itself was a repost of others posting of it)- it was spelled up super clearly on the Model S page back in the day but Tesla makes it a lot harder to notice their dishonestly now.

It's only obvious with the 3 since they initially did NOT do it and showed them as 3.5 and 4.5- then went back into dishonest mode by changing the 3P to 3.3 without actually changing any performance on the car.

See attached for when it was clearer with the old version of the S page.

 

[12yan]

It's only obvious with the 3 since they initially did NOT do it and showed them as 3.5 and 4.5- then went back into dishonest mode by changing the 3P to 3.3 without actually changing any performance on the car.

Thanks for posting, but that is super weak evidence for your claim. Even if we assume they are currently doing this 1ft roll out only with the P versions but now aren’t posting it (as opposed to the more sensible option of doing it with all or none) the typed-in part that having 1ft or roll out decreases 0-60 time by 0.4s sounds absurd.

Look at it this way: 0-60 time scales with power and we know the P has 30% more power than AWD. So take the 3.2s of the P and multiple by 1.3 and you get 4.2s. So there’s a discrepency of 0.3s. Part of this would presumably be attributed to the higher grip tires of the P that allow for higher initial torque. At the least it would be irrational to think the AWD can get below 4.2s when it has less grip. Given the 5% increase in power for the AWD we should expect it to get an updated spec of 4.3s, which makes perfect sense iff the stock tires have sufficient grip ...and that is not clear.

 

[Knightshade]

Thanks for posting, but that is super weak evidence for your claim. Even if we assume they are currently doing this 1ft roll out only with the P versions but now aren’t posting it (as opposed to the more sensible option of doing it with all or none) the typed-in part that having 1ft or roll out decreases 0-60 time by 0.4s sounds absurd.

That really depends on the car.

For the Model 3 P it was only 0.2 for example (where they changed it from 3.5 to 3.3 without actually changing the performance in any way)

You don't really need any further "evidence" of my claim beyond the fact they knocked 0.2 off the spec without changing the actual car. Only way to do that is start using a different measurement. But they only do it for the P (which is why none of the other trims changed)

Look at it this way: 0-60 time scales with power and we know the P has 30% more power than AWD. So take the 3.2s of the P and multiple by 1.3 and you get 4.2s. So there’s a discrepency of 0.3s. Part of this would presumably be attributed to the higher grip tires of the P that allow for higher initial torque.

Not sure why you'd assume that- since we know for a measured fact even the P is not traction limited with all-season tires, let alone the AWD.

At the least it would be irrational to think the AWD can get below 4.2s when it has less grip.

Again, no model 3 is traction limited. Folks with a P3D- who switched from the same tires the AWD comes with to PS4s saw no significantly change in 0-60.

A few guys have detailed logs and g data backing this up if you want to search for it.

4.26 is the quickest 0-60 I've seen posted for AWD- but it's measured using rollout like the P is measured to get to 3.3.

Which again reinforces the fact they're only about 1 second apart despite Teslas dishonest marketing numbers.

Given the 5% increase in power for the AWD we should expect it to get an updated spec of 4.3s

Sure. Except they updated the P and RWD to be 0.1 faster with the 5% thing (before even releasing it) but didn'tupdate the AWD number at all.

because, again, they want the AWD to look worse than it is compared to the P for marketing reasons.

, which makes perfect sense iff the stock tires have sufficient grip ...and that is not clear.

No, it's pretty clear. Even the P with the MXM4s have enough grip.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Thanks for posting, but that is super weak evidence for your claim. Even if we assume they are currently doing this 1ft roll out only with the P versions but now aren’t posting it (as opposed to the more sensible option of doing it with all or none) the typed-in part that having 1ft or roll out decreases 0-60 time by 0.4s sounds absurd.

It's not that absurd if you look at the physics

Distance = 1/2 * acceleration * time^2
So for 0.5g acceleration and 1 foot you get time = 0.35 seconds
So for 1g acceleration and 1 foot you get time = 0.25 seconds
That's why 1 foot rollout is always about 0.3 seconds.
Calculation: Wolfram|Alpha: Making the world’s knowledge computable

 

[boriszima]

This thread did turn into complaining. Those who bought early got higher Federal Credit if qualified. I am too was hoping for some bump in something for AWD, Maybe next round.

 

[Eno Deb]

Could you link to where Tesla specified this? I’ve seen this claim quite a few times but have never seen the source.

Tesla starts advertising quicker 0-60 mph acceleration for Model 3 Performance

"We asked Tesla if the quicker acceleration time is due to updated software or hardware, but the automaker says that it is not the case.
The company decided to update the time to match what several reviewers and auto publications, like MotorTrend, have been getting: 3.3 seconds.
Those publications’ tests exclude the first foot rollout time, which has become somewhat standard in the industry."

 

[12yan]

No, it's pretty clear. Even the P with the MXM4s have enough grip.

This is not correct. I think we can agree that the torque produced by either version of the car is enough to spin out the wheels of either tire, so it is the tire that fundamentally determines the amount of torque that can be applied at low speeds. This is a significant factor and relates to this roll out concept.

It's not that absurd if you look at the physics

Distance = 1/2 * acceleration * time^2

...

It’s clear from the 0-60 time for the P that it is producing about 1g on average and clearly much more at lower speeds. This is much more significant when considering the 0-2.4s time of the S performance version. So yeah, 0.4s is absurd. Maybe 0.2s ...but that doesn’t even address my point that Tesla should mesure in a consistant way unless otherwise mentioned. To do differently would be unethical. So where is the evidence thay they use different metrics currently for P versions? Moreover, what as to my argument that from a simple power output point of view the times makes sense?

 

[bigroccrek]

You're right, it's $4900 total because I purchased EAP with it which is why i said "same configuration". Hopefully Tesla/Elon will throw us recent purchasers a bone and offer a price difference refund or hook us up with FSD. They did it recently with the performance model purchasers, only time will tell right??

How about us early adopters getting a bone from Tesla. We are the ones who made it possible for you to be a recent buyer!!