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.
What size battery is this? The 64kWh Kona is rated for 300 miles and costs about the same for the top spec model.

300 miles? Maybe on the more mild NEDC, but the Hyundai currently estimates 250 miles in their US press release (http://www.hyundainews.com/en-us/releases/2507).

Even at 250mi on a 64kWh pack would be 3.9 miles/kWh or roughly 256Wh/mile. Seems a little optimistic.
 
What size battery is this? The 64kWh Kona is rated for 300 miles and costs about the same for the top spec model.
The long-range battery is 80 kWh (according to teardowns).
334 miles range, down-rated (at Tesla's request) by EPA to 310 miles range.
The AWD and Performance models probably reduce range by 8 miles.
The 19" and 20" wheels probably reduce range down to ~310 miles or even lower (up to 10%).

The short-range battery is 50 kWh.
220 miles range (assuming the aero wheels & wheel covers which increase range 4-5%).

If you believe Korean mileage estimates (battery OR gasoline), you're just as smart ...
As those clowns who believe their diesel VW engine is low-pollution!
Same thing goes for Subaru buyers - that's another company that fudges numbers, badly ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: JPUConn
They just updated the site and fixed the errors.

View attachment 316632

Weight still unknown to the website admin. Poor guy, Elon probably gave him a handwritten note on what to put on the website and all we do is point out his lack of information.

But apparently the AWD is really less efficient. That’s probably why the LR RWD is rated lower voluntarily, so they can sell more LR AWD and P cars.
 
300 miles? Maybe on the more mild NEDC, but the Hyundai currently estimates 250 miles in their US press release (http://www.hyundainews.com/en-us/releases/2507).

Even at 250mi on a 64kWh pack would be 3.9 miles/kWh or roughly 256Wh/mile. Seems a little optimistic.

Hyundai are using the WLTP test which is pretty accurate. 3.9m/kWh is reasonable based on the Ioniq. Even the new Leaf can manage it with relatively little effort.

Anyway, Tesla are claiming about 4.1m/kWh for their numbers!
 
Doh. You are right. Someone needs to redesign that portion of the website.

It does say 215 for the standard battery now though. I can’t imagine the dual motor standard will have less range than the RWD version.

It's saying 215-220 miles. Could depend on options.

AWD could be less efficient in the SR. It adds weight and the front induction motor will be less efficient than the rear PM motor. Tesla isn't indicating that the L3D will have more range than the L3, although as another poster noted, they could just be sandbagging. At 310 miles 5 miles isn't going to make much difference. It would make a bigger difference for the SR, so Tesla might specify the difference.

But, my well-developed Tesla cynicism suggest that when it goes from 220 to 215-220, expect the next step to be 215. :p
 
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.
I just watched a YouTube video (dated Jan. 2018) by "Vehicle Virgins" that tested the model 3 with the big battery. Their results, after two runs, 0 - 60 mph in 4.4 sec.
 
It's saying 215-220 miles. Could depend on options.

Not quite. See the other thread cited in my previous post.

MT300 (SR RWD) - 220 miles
MT301 (SR AWD) - 215 miles
MT302 (LR RWD) - 310 miles
MT303 (LR AWD) - 310 miles
MT304 (LR AWD P) - 310 miles

The options don't affect the advertised range. It's the actual car (i.e. MT300 vs MT301).
 
  • Informative
Reactions: ItsNotAboutTheMoney
It's saying 215-220 miles. Could depend on options.

AWD could be less efficient in the SR. It adds weight and the front induction motor will be less efficient than the rear PM motor. Tesla isn't indicating that the L3D will have more range than the L3, although as another poster noted, they could just be sandbagging. At 310 miles 5 miles isn't going to make much difference. It would make a bigger difference for the SR, so Tesla might specify the difference.

But, my well-developed Tesla cynicism suggest that when it goes from 220 to 215-220, expect the next step to be 215. :p

It said 215 at the time of my posting. They updated it to 215-220 which appears to be RWD vs AWD
 
Flat road, single male driver, average weight (approx. 175 lbs).

The Tesla Model 3 Does 0-60 MPH In 4.4 – 4.6 Seconds, Way Faster Than Tesla’s Claims

Testing the car on what seems to be a mountain pass, the Model 3 was able to consistently hit 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds, a full 0.70 seconds faster than Tesla’s claimed performance for the car. It should be noted, however, that Parker’s run was conducted on what appeared to be a downhill slope, which could explain the 0.20-second difference between his run and the one performed by Brooks
 

Also one important factor here, all of them measure with 1 foot rollout, which can easily mean .3s on a 0-60 time. Even a car with an initial average acceleration of 1.2g it takes 0.23s for the first foot. And that's already P100D territory (which takes 0.24s for that first foot).

Since most car manufacturers don't use the foot rollout, when giving 0-60 and even Tesla only really uses it for their top vehicles, I wouldn't call 5.1, instead of 4.9 and a bit, too much sandbagging.

Sure, being below 5 might make the AWD car seem even more attractive, than "just" being 10% quicker, but still that's cosmetics.
 
Also one important factor here, all of them measure with 1 foot rollout, which can easily mean .3s on a 0-60 time. Even a car with an initial average acceleration of 1.2g it takes 0.23s for the first foot. And that's already P100D territory (which takes 0.24s for that first foot).

Since most car manufacturers don't use the foot rollout, when giving 0-60 and even Tesla only really uses it for their top vehicles, I wouldn't call 5.1, instead of 4.9 and a bit, too much sandbagging.

Sure, being below 5 might make the AWD car seem even more attractive, than "just" being 10% quicker, but still that's cosmetics.

To add a bit more info to my post:
Drag times has posted a 0-60 with 1 foot rollout of 4.663 s, if we assume a bit more than 0.3 s for that first foot, we are probably already at 5s.

From their posted V-Box data you can see, that the car actually crosses the 60 mph at about 5.1s, since you usually round up with things like that, I'd say 5.1s is actually not sandbagged at all.

Bildschirmfoto 2018-07-14 um 11.45.48.png
 
  • Informative
Reactions: FlatSix911