RWD Model 3 acceleration vs <$40k entry luxury sedans

[Donar]

Don't get too carried away. I believe those were performance "P" dual motor prototypes, and the when Elon said the production will be faster, he meant the P versions.

I would expect the normal dual motor versions to be only slightly faster as they are with the TMS 70 and 70d.

I expect We will see something like this:

TM3 60: 5.8s
TM3 60D: 5.5s
TM3 80D: 4.9s
TM3 P80D: 3.9s

I agree mostly; however, I expect Tesla will attempt to beat the 2018 BMW 3 series in 0-60 times.
Therefore, I think your estimates are a bit too high.

My estimates: 0-60 times
current 328i: 5.8 sec
-> T MS 70: 5.5 sec
-> T M3 60: 5.6 sec

current 328i xDrive: 5.7 sec
-> T MS 70D: 5.2 sec
-> T M 3 60D: 5.3 sec

current 340i xDrive: 4.6 sec
-> T M S 90D: 4.2 sec
-> T M 3 80D: 4.3 sec

current BMW M3: 3.9 sec
-> T M S P90D: 3.1 sec
-> T M 3 P80D: 3.6 sec
-> T M S P90D Ludcirous: 2.8 sec
-> T M 3 P80D Ludicrous: 3.3 sec

Just speculation of course
The Model 3 might be even quicker still.
I expect the Model S will see an upgrade in battery packs until the production of the Model 3 starts (80 and 100) and this will shave some more time off the aforementioned 0-60 times for the Model S.

That said, I agree 5-60 times are a better indicator of a car's driving performance than 0-60 times.
This truly is the reason electric cars are so much fun to drive.
I think the Chevrolet Bolt will be a lot of fun and the Model 3 even more so obviously.

 

[Snowdog]

I think Tesla would like preserve more performance differences between TM3 and TMS. You want some reasons for people to keep buying the TMS.

 

[Donar]

I think Tesla would like preserve more performance differences between TM3 and TMS. You want some reasons for people to keep buying the TMS.

I do think it's probably true that they want performance differences.

However, firstly I expect a Model S battery upgrade, which could reduce 0-60 times by 0.2-0.3 seconds for all models, since performance is said to be limited by the battery size.
A Model S P100D L might be able to accomplish 0-60 in 2.6 sec.
This would serve to make the gap between Model 3 and Model S larger, so people still buy the Model S.

Secondly, in my estimates there is still a significant performance difference between Model S P90D(L) and Model 3 P80D(L): 0.5 seconds.

Thirdly, not all car manufacturers do this, and people still buy the larger models.
BMW M3: 0-60 in 3.9 sec
BMW M4: 0-60 in 4.1 sec
BMW M5: 0-60 in 4.2 sec
BMW M6: 0-60 in 4.1 sec

And lastly, I think being better than the ICE competition is more important to Tesla than getting more people to go for the Model S instead of the Model 3.

I think they will find a good balance: The Model 3 will be quicker than all its direct competitors, but slightly slower than the Model S.

 

[Snowdog]

To me this is the kind of wishful thinking that sets people up for disappointment.

 

[Zoomit]

Since we're falling into this rabbit hole, here's where I'm at for the Model 3 and Model S:View media item 114639

 

[Chrisuk83]

I don't think tesla will be purposefully holding back the model 3 0-60 times just so the model s stays as the 0-30 king. I think the ludicrous model 3 is going to be very ludicrous indeed. All that free advertising of a mass p, roduced reasonable affordable electric car smoking m3's, lambos, Ferrari's etc... Tesla won't be able to resist. Look at all the videos of the p90d drag racing and beating (upto around 100mph) all sorts of exotics.

 

[Snowdog]

I don't think tesla will be purposefully holding back the model 3 0-60 times just so the model s stays as the 0-30 king.

Not Just so the Model S stays king.

But also to save on productions costs. Smaller/lighter/less powerful motors cost less to produce, contribute less to vehicle mass, require less powerful (less expensive) power electronics, potentially less strain on batteries, perhaps less cooling, etc. There are a lot of beneficial economic results from keeping the performance lower.

Building a car is an engineering exercise. Engineering is all about minimizing resources, and when you are aiming for the mass market, the most critical resource is going to be production cost.

 

[ZachF]

Since we're falling into this rabbit hole, here's where I'm at for the Model 3 and Model S:View media item 114639

I think by the time the 3 is out the base battery pack for the S will be 85KWh. If the gigafactory can reduce costs by 30%, even the 100Kwh pack will cost the same as the 70Kwh pack does today.

I also think the top pack for the 3 will be 70-75KWh.

 

[Jim R]

I don't follow the logic of the rolling start performance figures:


a. as a good comparison. Who goes to 5 mph and then does max acceleration?

b. We all stop at red lights and proceed when they turn green. If someone is going to accelerate at maximum, they are going to do it there. There are other test we see in car mags. The 50 mph to 80 mph for example. This is to show how a car cruising at highway speeds can pass the car in front when the road becomes clear. A useful statistic. I can't fathom anyone driving along at 5 mph and then having the need to accelerate at max to 60 mph.

c. As a comparison figure, how do you get good data with the rolling start? Some cars will have shifted to 2nd gear by then, some not. How will you ensure each car starts at exactly 5 mph?

Not knocking the excellent article, just trying to understand.

 

[DrPhoton]

I don't follow the logic of the rolling start performance figures:


a. as a good comparison. Who goes to 5 mph and then does max acceleration?

b. We all stop at red lights and proceed when they turn green. If someone is going to accelerate at maximum, they are going to do it there. There are other test we see in car mags. The 50 mph to 80 mph for example. This is to show how a car cruising at highway speeds can pass the car in front when the road becomes clear. A useful statistic. I can't fathom anyone driving along at 5 mph and then having the need to accelerate at max to 60 mph.

c. As a comparison figure, how do you get good data with the rolling start? Some cars will have shifted to 2nd gear by then, some not. How will you ensure each car starts at exactly 5 mph?

Not knocking the excellent article, just trying to understand.

In order to get the 0-60 time quoted in a car mag. for an ICE car when starting from a stop light, you would have to have the accelerator floored (engine roaring) and your other foot on the brake BEFORE the light turns green. If you wait until the light turns green and then stomp the accelerator, you're not going to experience anything near the 0-60 time quoted in published sources. It's going to be a lot closer to the 5-60 time instead.

 

[FranKim]

I don't follow the logic of the rolling start performance figures:


a. as a good comparison. Who goes to 5 mph and then does max acceleration?

b. We all stop at red lights and proceed when they turn green. If someone is going to accelerate at maximum, they are going to do it there. There are other test we see in car mags. The 50 mph to 80 mph for example. This is to show how a car cruising at highway speeds can pass the car in front when the road becomes clear. A useful statistic. I can't fathom anyone driving along at 5 mph and then having the need to accelerate at max to 60 mph.

c. As a comparison figure, how do you get good data with the rolling start? Some cars will have shifted to 2nd gear by then, some not. How will you ensure each car starts at exactly 5 mph?

Not knocking the excellent article, just trying to understand.

Rolling start stats, for example 5-60, attempt to give a more real-world indication of a car's day to day functional ability to accelerate. You can be rolling along at most any speed and choose to floor it (either for fun, to facilitate a passing maneuver, or as a defensive evasive action) and the comparative 5-60 times will give a useful indication of car's performance for these types of maneuvers. Magazine 0-60 times are not a realistic indication of a cars ability to do these type of everyday maneuvers because magazine 0-60 times are achieved by placing the car in its optimal power band prior to taking off. This is done either via the car's launch control or via old-school revving the car to 5-6K RPM and "popping the clutch." In day to day driving away from a stoplight, or while already rolling, one does not typically raise the RPMs into the power band prior to executing the maneuever. With an ICE, the powerband is narrow and it is key to its ability to accelerate optimally; with a BEV the powerband (torque curve) is relentlessly available at essentially any speed.

 

[Zoomit]

I don't follow the logic of the rolling start performance figures:


a. as a good comparison. Who goes to 5 mph and then does max acceleration?

b. We all stop at red lights and proceed when they turn green. If someone is going to accelerate at maximum, they are going to do it there. There are other test we see in car mags. The 50 mph to 80 mph for example. This is to show how a car cruising at highway speeds can pass the car in front when the road becomes clear. A useful statistic. I can't fathom anyone driving along at 5 mph and then having the need to accelerate at max to 60 mph.

c. As a comparison figure, how do you get good data with the rolling start? Some cars will have shifted to 2nd gear by then, some not. How will you ensure each car starts at exactly 5 mph?

Not knocking the excellent article, just trying to understand.

Thanks for the questions, Jim.

The primary benefit of the 5-60 rolling start test is that the results represent how a car is normally driven around town, or to put it another way, "real-world responsiveness". Like you said, nobody actually does a max acceleration from 5 mph, but the test gives us easily repeatable data on how quickly a car can accelerate at speeds up to 60 mph.

Even during aggressive road driving, such as accelerating vigorously from a stoplight, the rolling start test better represents the results. That is unless you activate launch control, or torque brake with an automatic or rev and drop the clutch in a manual; but who really does this routinely and on the street? If you do, you're at risk of getting famous on YouTube for the stupid results that can ensue.

Other tests are done to represent passing times. Car & Driver does pulls from 30-50 mph and 50-70 mph in top gear. Motor Trend does a pull from 45-65 mph. The results are a function of gearing, engine torque and transmission responsiveness. I rarely pay attention to these test results.

The rolling start test is easy. First realize that 5 mph is really very slow. The car will be in 1st gear and lugging along at idle. Five mph is about as slow as a car will go in gear at idle before the engine quits. Because there's no power spike, like you'd get from dropping a clutch at a dragstrip, the car's tires and the pavement surface play less of a role in the outcome. Also since the car's gearing defines the engine speed, there's no ability for the driver to rev the engine or otherwise use techniques to maximize the results. Hence, being more independent from driver skill, launch control software, pavement stickiness, tire stickiness, etc the test is much more repeatable and therefore a better metric to use as a comparison of responsiveness.

If you're racing, then 0-60 and quarter mile times are definitely a better but clearly different test. They show the maximum the car can do under those circumstances, with all the tricks available depending on whatever technology is in use. To characterize what a car will feel like during normal driving, the rolling start test is much better.

 

[MP3Mike]

I think by the time the 3 is out the base battery pack for the S will be 85KWh. If the gigafactory can reduce costs by 30%, even the 100Kwh pack will cost the same as the 70Kwh pack does today.

I also think the top pack for the 3 will be 70-75KWh.

Highly unlikely. The next step for the Model S/X will be that the 90 kWh pack becomes standard as they release the next larger one. (Or shortly after.)

I suspect the Model 3 options will be 60 kWh and 80 kWh. (Using the new, larger, cell size.)

 

[asus389]

All of those current 2.0t cars are pretty much miserable to drive with their complicated automatic gear boxes and various modes. The RWD, BMW with a manual is probably the best of the bunch (maybe tied with the ATS) but its not great compared to its predecessor the E90, or the E46 that came before that. All entry level to mid range ICE cars are being tuned (or de-tuned - depending on how you look at it) to meet emissions and fuel economy numbers. It used to be that you could buy an entry level 3 series and it would be a fun car. Now you almost have to get a 335i or M3 to have any sort of rewarding experience. Electric cars do away with all of this. They are inherently efficient and they don't have transmissions to ruin things. Now if only Elon could get the Tesla steering to feel like an BMW M3 in the Tesla M3.

 

[Zoomit]

Now if only Elon could get the Tesla steering to feel like an BMW M3 in the Tesla M3.

No doubt-- Targeted as a "sport sedan," I'm not worried about the Model 3's acceleration, motor responsiveness, top speed, cornering grip, braking effectiveness, brake feel or driver position.

The car could lack some nimbleness due to battery weight, but the steering feel has me mildly concerned. I'm curious about the "spaceship steering controls" but I would rather Elon said it feels like a Lotus Seven.

 

[EVnut]

I am expecting the Model 3 to be a combination of the benefits of both. It will have the immediate torque at low-mid 'RPM' (even though there aren't RPMs) like a na V-6 but also the torque will remain at higher 'RPMs' like the 2.0T.

It will be far better than either. The torque doesn't come on at "low-mid" RPM. It comes on like a hammer at zero. You described it at "immediate torque" and that's what it is. Well beyond what any ICE can achieve. If you've not driven a high performance EV, you are in for something special. If you have driven one... you have forgotten what it is like. Even the mundane EVs on the road today are impressively fun to drive.

 

[FlatSix911]

Well done!

Since we're falling into this rabbit hole, here's where I'm at for the Model 3 and Model S:View media item 114639

 

[tpoltron]

It seems not enough of you have daily driven good electric cars. Once you do you realize how lame all this discussion of turbo lag or downshifting is. When you press the go pedal in an EV electrons instantly flow at a tenth the speed of light through copper wires. Over the past 5 years I've had 3 modern turbo Audis and a big engine Merc and none of them are as responsive as my daily driver Fiat 500e and all pale in comparison to our 'base model' Model S. I'd never go back.

 

[hdgmedic]

Holy Beejebus! If they make one (Model 3) that goes under 3 seconds, I will be forced to purchase an upgrade, that will be completely unnecessary, for the sake of it. Will it be practical? No! Please, Tesla! Do not tempt me with such things! You have hooked me with your beguiling ways when I drove your P85D, w/ insane mode. If part 2 has a presentation like what people in this thread are suggesting, you better be ready for orders that come.

 

[juanmedina]

Don't get too carried away. I believe those were performance "P" dual motor prototypes, and the when Elon said the production will be faster, he meant the P versions.

I would expect the normal dual motor versions to be only slightly faster as they are with the TMS 70 and 70d.

I expect We will see something like this:

TM3 60: 5.8s
TM3 60D: 5.5s
TM3 80D: 4.9s
TM3 P80D: 3.9s

I hope the TM3 is faster than that. A 35k Ford focus RS AWD has a 0-60 of 4.7s with 350hp. My Lexus IS-F RWD with 416hp run the 0-60 per C&D in 4.1s........ I need the TM3 to be in the low 3 SSC range to meet my requirements