Sammy and I are cut from the same cloth, I think. Sometimes our seams just don't line up perfectly
Super Ludicrous and 400+ Mile Range Model 3...
- Thread starter mrbulk
- Start date
Sammy and I are cut from the same cloth, I think. Sometimes our seams just don't line up perfectly
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
if by "new" you mean "same car they've been selling since January and now got the EPA to test correctly, sure
I can name a lot of dedicated sports cars that have a significant mass in front called an engine and are rear wheel drive and will handle better than a model 3. I would rather have more battery than my frunk. I've never used it.
We don’t need math to think that 100kwh would achieve more than 400 mile range in a model 3
the model S now has a 402 mile range with 100kwh..
the model S now has a 402 mile range with 100kwh..
SammichLover
Banned
And their curb weight?
The Model 3 gets away with the mass it has largely because it is located roughly “mid-engine” style.
raphabarreiros
Member
Guess that ends that discussion. Cool - that Model S has 402 miles of range now. Quite an accomplishment. Love that car!
XLR82XS
D M C
Beat me to it. With the Maxwell cells in the pipeline there is no plan to change/replace anything with the current Model 3 packs.
The model 3 is not an amazingly heavy car. I don't know why people always think that.
Model 3 - 3,552 to 4,100 lbs
Mustang - 3,520–3,800 lbs.
Camaro - 3,351 to 4,120 lbs.
Challenger - 3,858 to 4,429 lbs
To be accurate, the MS has had 400 mi since earlier this year; EPA rater left the door open overnight which cause 2% vampire drain
SammichLover
Banned
Thanks for help making my point. There is nowhere in this world where the Challenger is considered a nimble car.
Also, I'm not sure where those Camaro's numbers are coming from??? 4,120lb is an SS with 3 dead bodies in the trunk?
Last edited:
Thanks for help making my point. There is nowhere in this world where the Challenger is considered a nimble car.
Also, I'm not sure where those Camaro's numbers are coming from??? 4,120lb is an SS with 3 dead bodies in the trunk?
Just don't put anything in the trunk or frunk of your car because its balance will be off then.
Bye...
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
True, but surprisingly close.
Highway driving is only affected by rolling resistance = m * g * ƒ ; aero resistance stays the same. If ƒ = 0.009, one additional kWh adds ~ 0.6 Kg mass (until a beefier suspension is also required), and that 0.6 Kg adds 0.6 * 9.8 * 9/1000 Newtons. This equals 0.053 Wh/km = 0.085 Wh/mile. So 20 kWh more battery is ~ 1.7 Wh/mile more consumption
City driving is affected more although that is not where range matters, and the penalty is markedly mitigated by regen braking. The olde rule of thumb based on ICE vehicles that a P increase in fractional mass leads to ~ P/2 increase in energy consumption is more along the lines of P/6 for a Tesla.
SammichLover
Banned
A few hundred pounds, it absolutely will. And it'll feel very different to drive and make it a lot harder to rotate the vehicle through corners.
"Don't let the door hit you on the way out." - basic physics and the field of automobile design
Elon, you sly dog, of course it isn't a larger pack, it's a more energy dense one of the same size. I see what you did there.
I was thinking they were testing "battery day" -type batteries in prep for Battery Day (see what I did there?) and if so, those batteries are purportedly more energy dense and thus able to be shoehorned into the 75kwh battery compartment of the Model 3...if true this makes me REALLY look forward to the Model S redesign...and may help explain the 500-mile range of the "much heavier" CT (which is still supposed to do a 0-60 time of 2.9 sec).
