~550HP is not enough to get in to the upper 10s? Seriously just wondering what HP number it would take to get in to the 10s.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Torque and Horsepower upgrade kits on M3P?
- Thread starter butterscotch
- Start date
Well, old school drag calculators say you need 650 HP to run upper 10's in a 4200 LB car (Model 3 + Driver)
The same calculator pretty accurately hits 11.8 seconds for a 4200 lb car with 500HP (stock Model 3P)
Plus, that assumes you can keep the 650HP throughout the run, while a Model 3 drops off in power at higher speeds, and any mod may only up HP at lower speeds.
The plaid weighs 4,900 lbs, has 1000 HP throughout the run, and runs lower 9's.
My guess, like I said before, is a man-in-the-middle on the CAN bus.
They cut the CAN wires going to the DU. They receive whatever torque/power request came from the car to the DU, and they multiply it by 1.1 or whatever. The DU itself doesn't have a hard limit at 211kW (or whatever), but instead it's normally the request that is limited. So the DU happily does the 230kW requested.
There have been some observations that a Model 3P accelerates 0-60 in the same time going slightly uphill or downhill, and the power is different. This means it's not the motor limiting accel, but something else, and thus the motors are capable of more kW than they do on flat ground.
If it is as simple as that, the next complexity is that whatever else in the car may sense this and just back off the power request. It also doesn't mean the DU has no power limit, or much overhead at all. Which are all reasonable reasons why Manhart may have only published a peak power change, and no real performance numbers. It could be this only works from 15-23 MPH.
But it is really cool to see one of the first devices/companies claiming a performance boost to a Tesla that isn't just configuring it to believe it's a higher spec model. I really hope it's true. If the above is the way it works, It's very easy and cheap to do.
The downside is that it's also very easy for Tesla to have a firmware update that adds some other messaging, limits, or authentication that breaks this.
They cut the CAN wires going to the DU. They receive whatever torque/power request came from the car to the DU, and they multiply it by 1.1 or whatever. The DU itself doesn't have a hard limit at 211kW (or whatever), but instead it's normally the request that is limited. So the DU happily does the 230kW requested.
There have been some observations that a Model 3P accelerates 0-60 in the same time going slightly uphill or downhill, and the power is different. This means it's not the motor limiting accel, but something else, and thus the motors are capable of more kW than they do on flat ground.
If it is as simple as that, the next complexity is that whatever else in the car may sense this and just back off the power request. It also doesn't mean the DU has no power limit, or much overhead at all. Which are all reasonable reasons why Manhart may have only published a peak power change, and no real performance numbers. It could be this only works from 15-23 MPH.
But it is really cool to see one of the first devices/companies claiming a performance boost to a Tesla that isn't just configuring it to believe it's a higher spec model. I really hope it's true. If the above is the way it works, It's very easy and cheap to do.
The downside is that it's also very easy for Tesla to have a firmware update that adds some other messaging, limits, or authentication that breaks this.
Alan2000
Member
Why did Tesla go from 8.5 to 9" on the 20" rims for the M3P? I don't like that stretched tire look and curious what benefit is derived from that. Seems like that would just add slightly more aerodynamic drag while not increasing the contact patch with the road?
The reduction in mass does allow them to spin more. My PS4S on 18"s will spin on the street to the point traction control nerfs the power at least 50% for just a bit. If you have on slip start, it will spin and get a little drifty, but it at least goes. This is with a setup dropping 48 pounds from the oem 19 and rotors.
I would find such observations dubious. All Tesla cars seem to have four primary limits. In order from a standing start they are torque (both overall and per motor), power (overall motor, battery, inverter and per motor), back EMF (motor engineering) limits and top speed. Secondary limits like thermal and traction do not usually take effect.
You can observe these limit values on the CANBus.
Certainly Tesla can dial up three of these thresholds at will. The S75D uncorking for example was simply torque and power increases.
For Back EMF they have to engineer around limits like they did with carbon wrapped windings on the plaid.
Sometimes Tesla has set the limits to market differentiate their cars, like when the model 3 first shipped with 980 motors and inverters on both the performance and non models. It was simply cheaper than having two SKUs until they got to volume.
Usually though, Tesla sets the values lower to keep warranty costs down, which is totally reasonable.
Each drive unit definitely has individual torque and power limits, but those limits may not be imposed in the DU firmware. One argument that the limits are hard coded is that the 75D uncorking required direct access from the service center and couldn’t be find over the wire like a software update.
Last edited:
For the carbon in the plaid motors, I thought they said that was to keep it from expanding under high rpm. How does that translate into a concern about emf?
Not sure how the magnetic field that produces back EMF happens, but the result is amazing. There is is little torque reduction on the new motor at high rpms, whereas previously it was pronounced.
Yes, this new design is amazing, but the carbon overwrap has nothing to do with back EMF. A non-conductive, non-ferrous material impacting EMF?
The carbon overwrap is about mechanical strength at high RPM, and is specifically designed to have no impact on the magnetic fields.
The lack of power change at high RPM is due to a method called flux weakening, which is a combo of the controller and motor design, but has nothing to do with the overwrap.
And also the motors aren't even turning close to what they would consider "high rpm" yet, it's still almost 40mph shy of max. if it's similar to the M3 setup, 40mph would be about 4,250 rpm more.
High RPM is relative. The Model 3 can do 15,000 RPM, which most people from ICE would already call phenomenally high. But yes, do 200 MPH, Plaid gets close to 20K RPM. I don't know a lot of people that would call 15K "not even close to high RPM" but 19,250 clearly high RPM.
Like I said earlier:
That's the real issue- centripetal loads are the square of RPM.
agree, but a 25% bump in speed is significantly higher under any consideration.
Coming back to the OP and thread topic.... this abomination from Manhart has an aftermarket power upgrade for Performance cars:
The MHTronik Powerbox extracts more juice from the dual motors of the already quite powerful Tesla Model 3 Performance. As a result, the electric powertrain produces a combined 543 hp (405 kW / 550 PS) and 720 Nm (531 lb-ft) of torque transmitted to all four wheels. This is a healthy hp 37 hp (27 kW / 37 PS) and 60 Nm (44 lb-ft) boost over stock output.
Manhart Is Offering A Tuned Tesla Model 3 Performance With 543 HP And A Grille Decal For $90k | Carscoops
Manhart's Tesla Model 3 comes with a modest power boost, a set of 21-inch wheels and lowered suspensionwww.carscoops.com
meant to circle back on this the other day - does anyone think that Manhart is doing what Ingenext has done by maybe spoofing the signals to make the M3 think it's a MY and getting the extra power that way? Not familiar with the MY, but seems like there's quite a few posts about how it has more HP.
23:1 isn't that much. Check out a turbine helicopter with a 180 RPM rotor
Lots of cars do 40:1 in 1st gear too.But agreed on rotating assemblies. Even production turbochargers routinely hit 250,000 RPM today. It's all relative.
Bummer....Tesla is dragging their feet at this point.
3.3ish 0-60 was fast in 2016 with the reveal of the 3....
In 20201? It's "quick" but the industry has caught on a lot.
The model 3 PERFORMANCE is now slower than non-performance ones like the new S...and likely new X.
Not to mention some gas cars are now CLOSE which is just embarrassing.
Tesla needs to uncap the existing 3 already and hurry up on refreshing the motors on 2022 versions. But with the crazy backlog and demand....they don't have to and probably won't.
3.3ish 0-60 was fast in 2016 with the reveal of the 3....
In 20201? It's "quick" but the industry has caught on a lot.
The model 3 PERFORMANCE is now slower than non-performance ones like the new S...and likely new X.
Not to mention some gas cars are now CLOSE which is just embarrassing.
Tesla needs to uncap the existing 3 already and hurry up on refreshing the motors on 2022 versions. But with the crazy backlog and demand....they don't have to and probably won't.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Where?
Far as I can tell it's still the fastest car on the market at its price, or within at least 10-20 grand of it, except arguably the C8 vette which won't actually launch that quickly nearly as reliably.
Which cost tens of thousands of dollars more.
Some gas cars have always been close (or faster).
Just the ones that are legitimately close or faster cost more. And still do.
Nothing really changed.
There remains no evidence there's anything left to uncap apart from inconsistent 3/Y data showing maybe 20ish more hp.
