Poll: AWD M3s software upgradable to performance edition some day?

[TurnFast]

If the motors were physically different wouldn't they look different in the configuration tool like they do for model S?
It seems like from a manufacturing stand point if they were going to make a different motor for one of the versions, wouldn't they make a bigger motor for the performance version instead of making a special smaller motor for the AWD?

 

[MXWing]

Tesla is sandbagging so as not to cannabalize the SP100D.

Obvious and correct answer.

The P100D is more than a buck or two over the 100D.

 

[MP3Mike]

If the motors were physically different wouldn't they look different in the configuration tool like they do for model S?
It seems like from a manufacturing stand point if they were going to make a different motor for one of the versions, wouldn't they make a bigger motor for the performance version instead of making a special smaller motor for the AWD?

Technically the RWD S and the P S shared the same large rear motor, just with a different inverter/firmware. The AWD S used a special smaller rear motor.

So I could fully see Tesla doing the same on the Model 3.

 

[Krash]

If the motors were physically different wouldn't they look different in the configuration tool like they do for model S?
It seems like from a manufacturing stand point if they were going to make a different motor for one of the versions, wouldn't they make a bigger motor for the performance version instead of making a special smaller motor for the AWD?

In the S the RWD and P have the same rear motor, and the AWD and P have the same front motor. Only in the 3 do the AWD and P have the same motors as each other.

So from a manufacturing standpoint, the S has three different motors that can be used and the 3 has two.

 

[MP3Mike]

In the S the RWD and P have the same rear motor, and the AWD and P have the same front motor. Only in the 3 do the AWD and P have the same motors as each other.

So from a manufacturing standpoint, the S has three different motors that can be used and the 3 has two.

The EPA docs show that the Model 3 is handled just like the Model S. I suppose the rear motor could be software limited on the AWD, but it could be a different one. We really don't know. But I guarantee it has a different part number, so from a manufacturing stand point it doesn't make much difference.

 

[commasign]

Examples of Tesla offering post-delivery "upgrades":
AP1 convenience features ($2500)
EAP ($6000)
FSD ($4000 to $5000)
60kWh Supercharging ($2000)
60kWh->75kWh capacity unlock (prices varied)
70kWh->75kWh capacity unlock (prices varied)
75kWh acceleration uncork (free for compatible VINs)
100kWh acceleration uncork (free for compatible VINs)
P85D Ludicrous hardware upgrade ($5000)
P90D Ludicrous software unlock ($10,000)
P85D acceleration improvement 3.2s->3.1s (free OTA)
P100D Ludicrous Plus mode (free OTA)
60kWh to 85kWh battery upgrade (only one documented example)
P85D to P90D battery upgrade ($20,000)
P90Dv3 to P100D battery upgrade ($20,000)
P85 performance plus suspension upgrade (prices varied)
LTE upgrade (prices varied)
Center Console (prices varied)
Premium Center Console ($1250)
Spoiler ($1500)
Red Brake Calipers ($2300)
HEPA Filter/Biodefense Mode

Examples of Tesla not offering post-delivery "upgrades" (where we're not aware of technical limitations):
All other battery upgrades (e.g. 85kWh to 100kWh)
Performance motor/inverter upgrades (e.g. swap Model S small rear motor for large rear motor and P inverter)
Partial autopilot features (e.g. TACC without autosteer)
Self-presenting doors on non-PUP Model X
Premium Center Console w/ rear USB ports

Will Tesla allow hardware and/or software upgrades from Model 3 AWD to Model 3 P (0-60mph in 3.5 seconds)? Probably not. They've never let non-P cars upgrade to P in the past so I don't see them opening that can of worms now. While there is certainly less difference in hardware between a Model 3 AWD and Model 3 P than there is between a Model S 100D and Model S P100D, I still don't think it makes any sense for Tesla to set a new precedent even if there are no technical limitations. Regardless, the upgrade price would have to be MORE than the price differential for a new car, i.e. ~$15,000 instead of $11,000.

Will Tesla at some point offer an uncorking of Model 3 AWD to improve acceleration (better than 4.5 seconds but not equal to the P)? Possibly. They've done it several times in the past.

 

[Knightshade]

The EPA docs show that the Model 3 is handled just like the Model S.

No they don't- there's physically different parts in the P drive units for the S (you noted this yourself- the inverters are different), not so the 3 (where the inverters are all SiC, and are part of the drive unit). And no lot sorting on the S either, since they're not the same parts.

I suppose the rear motor could be software limited on the AWD, but it could be a different one.

But why WOULD it be?

Software limiting is free. A different physical part is a lot of cost and complexity for literally the same result.

The rear motor in the RWD has been produced with no issues for a year now, and is the same one going in the P too. Why in the world would it make any sense to create a "new" rear motor JUST for the AWD that only has like 10% less output- instead of just software limiting output by 10?

We really don't know.

I mean- we kinda do- but people seem awfully desperate to deny it.

But I guarantee it has a different part number, so from a manufacturing stand point it doesn't make much difference.

Of course it does. Drive units are made up of a number of parts. If they're different parts for different versions of the 3 that adds a ton of complexity (and cost) to supply chain.

If on the other hand every single rear motor coming off the line is physically identical, and they handle output differences in software, that's vastly simpler and cheaper.

And doesn't require any different part number between RWD and AWD either. The car knows what it is, so Motor PN 123 goes in both- and in the RWD it restricts output to X, and in the AWD it restricts output to X minus 10%. Cheaper, easier, simpler.

Ditto front motors for AWD/P.

The binned P motors might get a different PN AFTER the lot sorting, only to insure warranty replacements get a binned part-but that's after the fact, all the parts inside are the same, but you'd not add a ton of complexity to anything that way.

You keep saying that, but we don't know it for a fact.

We know for a fact there has been zero factual evidence to suggest or in any way support the idea they're different, and considerable evidence they're the same (including Elon literally stating the complete drive units are what they lot sort.- which is impossible if they're physically different)

And it's a fact that from a manufacturing, cost, and supply chain point of view it's vastly more likely to be software than hardware.

So for "same" we actually do have a decent bit of evidence....for not same we have literally 0 besides wishful thinking.

Y
The rear motor could be different between the AWD and Performance, but shared between the RWD and Performance. So there is still something to sort.

Could? Sure. Just no reason for it to be, and plenty for it not to be.

I mean, they COULD be batch sorting the seats and putting the ones with the firmest side bolsters in the P too- but we've got exactly as much evidence for that as the motors being physically different.

Lots of coulds. Zero evidence to support them.

 

[TurnFast]

... I thought we had settled the seat debate. They are definitely bin sorting the P seats with double the butt time.

 

[Krash]

... I thought we had settled the seat debate. They are definitely bin sorting the P seats with double the butt time.

Well it really is the Butt Dyno we are discussing.

 

[EVDRVN]

No, there aren't.

If they were physically different there'd be nothing to bin sort.

The output difference (which for 2018s only exists in the rear motor between P and AWD.... the RWD is identical to the P) is entirely software as far as anything Tesla has ever said about how they do the motors.


And the warranty concern is also a non-issue. If you think you'll get a 3% higher failure rate on AWD->P conversions you just price that cost into the conversion.

Heck, they software upgraded the model S by a full 1 second improvement at -0- cost them the market competition demanded it.

The PM motors are pretty maxed out unlike the induction motors in the S. Earlier unpublished specs are different than those above and I expeteded alterations but I am suspect of such a small kw difference between the AWD and the P.

 

[PTinetti]

I would spend 5k to drop to a 4sec 0-60 (because it would probably be slightly less than that in real world). That is $5k in Tesla's pocket for a software unlock.

My hypothesis:
I don't think this would happen until a couple things. I would think the best time to unlock the performance of the model 3 is when the federal credit is gone, the S and X have better batteries/drivetrain making them faster and the model 3s have enough miles on them to prove reliability. Then offer an upgrade, get the free money from all the model 3 owners willing and discount the new model S and X to make up for the lacking federal credit.

 

[ℬête Noire]

If it becomes an option, I'm thinking it might void the warranty or some stipulation around it. Since the performance is supposed to have the highest rated ones with double the burn-in period.

I suspect I've already done more "burn-in" equivalent on my AWD drive-train than Ps get in the factory.
The extra $10K or whatever would be including the insurance premium covering the extra warranty risk....not that I expect it to ever be offered by Tesla aftermarket.

 

[lmaccaro]

So.... Tesla parts catalog came out, and the front and rear motors are the same part (with inverter apparently built into the assembly) for all AWD LR cars.

Anyone want to change their vote?

https://epc.teslamotors.com/#/systemGroups/47412

https://epc.teslamotors.com/#/categories/36/subcategories/24924

 

[super20g]

If they don't want to sell the P3D- anymore, perhaps that adversely changes the likelihood that they would want to offer the software uncork for 3D to P3D-?

 

[Knightshade]

If they don't want to sell the P3D- anymore, perhaps that adversely changes the likelihood that they would want to offer the software uncork for 3D to P3D-?

I would think the opposite... since they're no longer selling what is essentially just a software-corked AWD as a P, offering an AWD uncork is now LESS likely to cannibalize sales of the P, since folks who care about the brakes (and maybe track mode) would still not get those things with an AWD uncork.

 

[super20g]

If a P3D- gets track mode I would think a 3D converted to a P3D- would as well you would think since they would have the same parts.

I can see your point as well. I just figured perhaps they decided it was better to have the unleashed car with the actual performance upgrades. It's a big uhh ohh when you go faster than you think you're going and can't stop quick enough or overheat the brakes... Just speculation though. It's probably about money though, usually is.

 

[Knightshade]

If a P3D- gets track mode I would think a 3D converted to a P3D- would as well you would think since they would have the same parts.

It's still unclear if the P3D- gets track mode, or if the P3D- gets the option to "upgrade" to 3D+ brakes to get track mode... Remember when they first said only the 3+ gets it they also said

We’re working to provide an aftermarket Performance Upgrade Package when Track Mode becomes available

So possibly 3D- buyers get this for free.

Uncorked AWD folks I suppose could get the offer to pay for it (if uncorked AWD becomes a thing).

The cost would need to be more than $11,000 for both things though or you're back to cannibalizing P sales

I
I can see your point as well. I just figured perhaps they decided it was better to have the unleashed car with the actual performance upgrades. It's a big uhh ohh when you go faster than you think you're going and can't stop quick enough or overheat the brakes... Just speculation though. It's probably about money though, usually is.

You're not going to fade the stock brakes in a single stop on public roads, so other than on a race track the "actual performance upgrades" don't really do anything other than the tires (which you'd get better performance putting on the stock 18" rims anyway)

 

[Atari2600]

As evidence of that look at the EPA numbers.

The RWD motor (which isn't binned, and has been going in RWD cars for a year now) lists the same kw output as the P rear.

The AWD front motor (which supposedly is binned) lists the same kw output as the P front.

Perhaps the motor is binned for both performance and RWD while AWD gets the seconds. I brought that up here: Are Dual Motor 3 rear motors basically RWD 3 rejects?
I originally ordered a P but changed it to AWD which I received early September. I still wonder if I have a reject RWD motor because that's pretty much the only logical conclusion if binning is going on *AND* RWD and performance rear motor has the same power.

 

[Krash]

... that's pretty much the only logical conclusion if binning is going on *AND* RWD and performance rear motor has the same power.

The conclusion I draw is that Tesla is producing one part well above spec for all the models and is software limiting each at different levels, just like they do on the S/X, and just like so many other manufacturers who find it easier to overspec some parts than to engineer, test and stock different parts for each. If by binning you mean that Tesla is observing the thermal results of the motor tests and relegating some of the motors to AWD or RWD, I think that is very unlikely or very rare.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The conclusion I draw is that Tesla is producing one part well above spec for all the models and is software limiting each at different levels, just like they do on the S/X, and just like so many other manufacturers who find it easier to overspec some parts than to engineer, test and stock different parts for each.

Yeah. Elon never said that the AWD motors weren't lot sorted and don't receive double the burn-in. He just said that the Performance motors DO get this. So I agree with the idea that maybe they simply increased their motor/converter/inverter yield by placing out-of-spec motors in the AWD. And furthermore it may be that they don't have to do this anymore as the process window tightens. I assume that if they had a spread on performance it was primarily the SiC inverters that were the issue.

And presumably they set the pass/fail current drive limit at a point above the current max current drive set in software. That way they can uncork the motors a little bit more in the future (increase max torque (motor winding current) at lower RPM - it's unlikely the max power draw from battery will change much, but that only affects motor HP, not the torque). I doubt they're going to make much change to the AWD acceleration in future for this reason - motor units (at least the early VIN ones) are probably closer to failure/melting or whatever the failure mode would be.

To some extent I'd expect a better performing inverter to be slightly more efficient, so it would be interesting to know how efficiency of an early-VIN AWD vehicle compares to a P3D* (new nomenclature!), all else being equal. Probably not noticeable if driven efficiently though as the discrepancy/extra loss might be more noticeable near the AWD limits.

Probably no way to know unless they come out and say what they're doing. Just speculation. Motors could also be all the same, with whatever production variation there may be. Elon wouldn't be lying if ALL motors receive double the burn in and are lot sorted, and any that don't pass are discarded. Again, he never said they weren't putting such motors in the AWD.