Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

SR now 215 mile range, 0-60 in 5.1 (AWD?)

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
C

ChrisH

Active Member
Jun 4, 2013
2,288
1,055
Milton, wa
#1
Havent seen this discussed anywhere yet? The new specs for the standard range model 3 is showing a range of 215 miles and a 0-60 of 5.1 seconds. The LR is now showing 0-60 in 4.5 seconds

Not a fan of the range downgrade albeit 5 Miles in minimal.

(Mod note: edited title to add AWD reference per following posts)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#6
chibi_kurochan said:
LR 0-60 in 4.5s does that mean they’ve made improvements to the motor already?? Or just updating the numbers?.?
Click to expand...
Dual motors has always been listed as 4.5 seconds.

IBUbj4r.png
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: SmartElectric, JPUConn, hoang51 and 2 others
#8
ChrisH said:
I can’t imagine the dual motor standard will have less range than the RWD version.
Click to expand...

Oh boy. Here we go again. ;)

See this thread. Let's discuss Dual Motor range

TL;DR, we’re still waiting on the official EPA numbers, but evidence suggests that the Model 3 AWD has less range than Model 3 RWD. To me, the fact that Tesla is advertising MT301 (Model 3 SR AWD) with a range of 215 miles vs MT300 (Model 3 SR RWD) with a range of 220 miles is pretty much confirmation that is true. Others are still holding out hope that somehow MT302 (LR RWD), MT303 (LR AWD), and MT304 (P) are different from an efficiency standpoint but most likely, Tesla just lowered their actual ranges to different degrees to get them all to the same 310 miles advertised range.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: UZJedi, Arpe, dgpcolorado and 2 others
#9
commasign said:
Oh boy. Here we go again. ;)

See this thread. Let's discuss Dual Motor range

TL;DR, we’re still waiting on the official EPA numbers, but evidence suggests that the Model 3 AWD has less range than Model 3 RWD. To me, the fact that Tesla is advertising MT301 (Model 3 SR AWD) with a range of 215 miles vs MT300 (Model 3 SR RWD) with a range of 220 miles is pretty much confirmation that is true. Others are still holding out that somehow MT302 (LR RWD), MT303 (LR AWD), and MT304 (P) are different from an efficiency standpoint but most likely, Tesla just lowered their actual ranges to different degrees to get them all to the same 310 miles advertised range.
Click to expand...

Lol right?

Just make the darn SR RWD please. I will still pay $46,000. I just don’t need the long range battery for my driving habits/needs. (Also would stretch me more thin financially to have to pay $3375-$5250 (adjusted after tax credits) extra for LR)
 
  • Like
Reactions: dhrivnak and commasign
#10
chibi_kurochan said:
LR 0-60 in 4.5s does that mean they’ve made improvements to the motor already?? Or just updating the numbers?.?
Click to expand...

Their website apparently isn't finished...

The comparison shows the P, LR AWD and LR with 3.5, 4.5 and 5.1s. But if you don't click on compare all, they just show the AWD versions, but not the RWD versions. That's why they show 3.5, 4.5 and 5.1 for P LR AWD and SR AWD. With the ranges 310, 310 and 215.

Not sure why they forgot to mention the only vehicle that's actually delivered right now.

Also interesting:
The Standard Range AWD vehicle is advertised with the same weight, as the RWD SR. So I guess there are more mistakes in there, than just that...
 
#11
R.S said:
Their website apparently isn't finished...

The comparison shows the P, LR AWD and LR with 3.5, 4.5 and 5.1s. But if you don't click on compare all, they just show the AWD versions, but not the RWD versions. That's why they show 3.5, 4.5 and 5.1 for P LR AWD and SR AWD. With the ranges 310, 310 and 215.

Not sure why they forgot to mention the only vehicle that's actually delivered right now.

Also interesting:
The Standard Range AWD vehicle is advertised with the same weight, as the RWD SR. So I guess there are more mistakes in there, than just that...
Click to expand...
Where do you see the SR AWD stuff?

edit: n/m reading helps. Yes, that's probably a typo. They've already changed this section once due to errors since it went live.
 
#12
JeffK said:
Where do you see the SR AWD stuff?

edit: n/m reading helps. Yes, that's probably a typo. They've already changed this section once due to errors since it went live.
Click to expand...

The German website still shows the old S vs 3 comparison and they didn't even bother to calculate miles into kilometers, or cubic feet in liter.

If there were a "lazy website administration award" Tesla could add another award to their trophy case...
 
  • Funny
Reactions: Dr. J and shrspeedblade
#18
Wish the AWD was offered when I first ordered the car. 0.6 second improvement + the benefits in stability with dual motor is well worth $4k. Still hoping they uncork the first production models to get closer to the dual motor performance. The Model S 75 vs 75d was only a 0.1 second difference after the uncork so I feel it should be possible with the 3 unless I'm missing something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UZJedi, dhrivnak and MarkinArch
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Model Y Competition: Rivian R2 Price & Specs Leaked! -- $47500, 0-60 3 Sec, 330 Miles Range
Replies
106
Views
4K
Electric Vehicles
patmurphey
P
Deaf Paul
Model Y Competitor Coming - Volvo EX30 0-60 in 3.4 Sec, Starts at $35K
Replies
28
Views
4K
Electric Vehicles
Apprunner
A
Proflig8tor
  • Article
24 Model 3 SR "Highland" review from an enthusiast's POV
Replies
10
Views
3K
Model 3
K.I.T.T.23
K.I.T.T.23
P
  • Article
Five Year Review -- Tesla Model 3 Dual Motor AWD
Replies
19
Views
4K
Model 3
zoros
Z
3
$65k for a PA 2021 Refresh Blue Model S LR with FSD only 12.5k miles
Replies
54
Views
7K
Model S
morbidz
M
Top
Back
Blog
New
Forum list
Marketplace
Menu