Will performance be similar for AWD and RWD ?

[asianxtreme]

Can I just say that I would pissed if the AWD model 3 ends up being similar performance (0-60, 1/4 mile) as the RWD.

The RWD is already at 4.6-4.7 sec 0-60. If the AWD is 4.5 that would be enraging. At the same time, Tesla listed those specs and they are meeting them, so can't exactly sue them. I'm also worried because AWD was reduced from $5k to $4k option; maybe they figured out it wasn't going to perform much better than RWD so lowered the price.

This thought was triggered because Elon mentioned 3.3 for the AWD+P version. I was expecting much better - i.e. 0.4-0.5 sec reduction across all all variants - RWD, AWD, AWD+P.

I would ideally like to see these 0-60 numbers: 4.7 (RWD), 4.1 (AWD), 3.1 (AWD+P).

 

[brkaus]

The numbers are posted. The RWD happens to currently do better. No guarantee in the others.

Get the RWD. Seams like the best value.

 

[ulrichw]

[...]
Get the RWD. Seams like the best value.

I would beg to differ. I think the plain non-P AWD is probably the best deal of the currently available models.

Per this thread: New AWD Motor Info from fueleconomy.gov, here are the front/rear motor configurations for the three models:

RWD: 211 kW (rear)
AWD: 147 kW (front), 188 kW (rear)
P: 147 kW (front), 211 kW (rear)

The AWD has a total of 335 kW vs. the RWD's 211 kW - extremely unlikely that it under-performs the RWD, and if it does, it's likely due to software limits that will get adjusted.

Also, in all likelihood the AWD's rear motor is the same as the RWD's and the P's, simply derated via software to 188 kW from the 211 kW in the P and the RWD. It's speculation, but there's a chance that Tesla will allow this to be "uncorked" some time in the future (probably not until a higher-performing P model is available, though)

So basically, for $4,000 you're getting essentially the same drivetrain that the P has with the added benefit of AWD. IMO that's the bargain.

Disclosure: I ordered the performance model because I want the performance and don't care about the value

 

[apacheguy]

The 4.6 s 0-60 has been disputed by a number of folks. Consumer reports obtained 5.3 s and other auto magazines have been closer to 5 s.

Indications are that the 4.6 number was with rollout and may have been down a slightly declined road.

 

[Knightshade]

The 4.6 s 0-60 has been disputed by a number of folks. Consumer reports obtained 5.3 s and other auto magazines have been closer to 5 s.

Indications are that the 4.6 number was with rollout and may have been down a slightly declined road.

Yup. 4.8 with rollout is a lot more realistic, which is what motortrend got.... similarly I'd expect the AWD around 4.2-4.3 with rollout.

Where it's interesting is, for the S the 0-60 times for the P models are reported with rollout, and the NON P models without it. This makes the Ps look quicker than they really are in comparison to the non-Ps.

If they're doing the same with the model 3, the AWD does, indeed, look the best bang for the buck by a significant margin.

Where it all gets more interesting is Elons comment that the P, with the 20" Tesla-specific PS 4s tires, doesn't have enough tire, and could probably knock off 0.2 or more from its 3.5 0-60 if it did.

Consider that 3.5 is on an apparently so-so version of a performance summer tire.

The 4.5 (sans rollout we think) on the AWD is on... crap all seasons.

So the AWD might pick up another tenth or two with some non-tesla PS 4s tires- especially if you can fit 265s on the aeros without rubbing.

 

[EVDRVN]

I would beg to differ. I think the plain non-P AWD is probably the best deal of the currently available models.

Per this thread: New AWD Motor Info from fueleconomy.gov, here are the front/rear motor configurations for the three models:

RWD: 211 kW (rear)
AWD: 147 kW (front), 188 kW (rear)
P: 147 kW (front), 211 kW (rear)

The AWD has a total of 335 kW vs. the RWD's 211 kW - extremely unlikely that it under-performs the RWD, and if it does, it's likely due to software limits that will get adjusted.

Also, in all likelihood the AWD's rear motor is the same as the RWD's and the P's, simply derated via software to 188 kW from the 211 kW in the P and the RWD. It's speculation, but there's a chance that Tesla will allow this to be "uncorked" some time in the future (probably not until a higher-performing P model is available, though)

So basically, for $4,000 you're getting essentially the same drivetrain that the P has with the added benefit of AWD. IMO that's the bargain.

Disclosure: I ordered the performance model because I want the performance and don't care about the value

The rear motor is the same in all cars in basic terms, the inverter in the P and RWD is larger. What is not know is if they are removing some electronics or just software regulation, there is a cost benefit to leave the hardware off. Otherwise they are all basically the same drive. Those total kw numbers seem too high to me on all but perhaps the P.

 

[Swampgator]

The numbers are posted. The RWD happens to currently do better. No guarantee in the others.

Get the RWD. Seams like the best value.

Test drove the LR RWD yesterday. I'm going AWD. the RWD is slow for first half second or so. Not fast enough, but that's me. The AWD should pull harder off the line. 0.6 seconds to 60 is significant.

 

[brkaus]

Test drove the LR RWD yesterday. I'm going AWD. the RWD is slow for first half second or so. Not fast enough, but that's me. The AWD should pull harder off the line. 0.6 seconds to 60 is significant.

Me too. Not for performance, but I prefer the sure footedness of AWD.

 

[Knightshade]

the inverter in the P and RWD is larger.

There is no evidence at all to support this claim to my knowledge. Do you have any?

The inverter in the 3 is part of the drive unit, it'd make a ton more sense to use the same one in all rear motors.

What is not know is if they are removing some electronics or just software regulation

... ?

You just claimed they used a different inverter, now you're saying it's not known if they're just adjusting it in software?

, there is a cost benefit to leave the hardware off.

Not really.

Creating an entirely different inverter and having to track additional parts throughout the MFG proccess and supply chain would likely be more costly than simply using the same one in all rear motors and using software to shape output.

A large amount of the cost savings in the design and build of the Model 3 is from reducing differences as much as possible to simplify manufacturing and supply chain.

 

[EVDRVN]

There is no evidence at all to support this claim to my knowledge. Do you have any?

The inverter in the 3 is part of the drive unit, it'd make a ton more sense to use the same one in all rear motors.



... ?

You just claimed they used a different inverter, now you're saying it's not known if they're just adjusting it in software?



Not really.

Creating an entirely different inverter and having to track additional parts throughout the MFG proccess and supply chain would likely be more costly than simply using the same one in all rear motors and using software to shape output.

A large amount of the cost savings in the design and build of the Model 3 is from reducing differences as much as possible to simplify manufacturing and supply chain.

It's not an entirely different inverter it's a few power components off the board which can add up to big bucks on tens of thousands of cars.

 

[Knightshade]

It's not an entirely different inverter it's a few power components off the board which can add up to big bucks on tens of thousands of cars.

Again- do you have any evidence whatsoever to support that claim?

Because more cars doesn't help the argument... the more cars they build the more the complexity of having different versions of parts adds to both manufacturing and supply chain issues as adding a second version of a similar part means they now have double the part numbers they have to insure are in the right place at the right times in the right quantities for huge numbers of cars- rather than just putting the same part in all cars.

A lot of the parts and manufacturing simplifications done for the 3 were exactly because they'd be building so many cars.

 

[ulrichw]

It's not an entirely different inverter it's a few power components off the board which can add up to big bucks on tens of thousands of cars.

That kind of optimization would make sense to me if they were focused on optimizing their margins (as they would probably have to if they were manufacturing the SR). But given that their primary focus is on ramping volume, it would seem that the relatively small margin impact of a change like you suggest wouldn't nearly justify the added complexity for the line. (I suspect the "lot binning" they talk about is mostly lip service as well).

I'm no manufacturing expert, but it seems to me the simplicity of having a single rear engine across all three configurations would be well worth a little added cost.

 

[Daniel in SD]

The more you produce the more money you’ll save by going with a different part for the AWD. That’s manufacturing 101. When they designed the AWD Model S they made a smaller rear drive unit for it and kept the larger unit for the P model. So it would make sense for them to do the same on the Model 3. No idea if they did though.

 

[Knightshade]

The more you produce the more money you’ll save by going with a different part for the AWD. That’s manufacturing 101.

It's really not that simple.

Supply chain is complex. Doubling the number of parts doubles that complexity. Ditto on the manufacturing side.

Especially when trying to scale production up quickly as they are.

If you save a few cents on the "cheaper" part but cost yourself time in the factory by now having to build 2 different drive units, store and sort and move and track 2 different units throughout the factory/build, and run supply chain for components on both, and track and source those components, and have replacement parts down the support chain for both, you're likely costing yourself money over just using the slightly more expensive part in everything. Especially when 2 out of 3 configs are getting that one by default anyway.

Especially given the listed output difference in the rear motor is only ~10% it's highly unlikely they'd be able to save enough on parts to make having different parts worthwhile.

And especially when they could just control motor output in software to differentiate as needed basically for free.

When they designed the AWD Model S they made a smaller rear drive unit for it and kept the larger unit for the P model. So it would make sense for them to do the same on the Model 3. No idea if they did though.

I'm entirely willing to consider they're somehow saving enough to make doing it worthwhile, but the fact nobody can provide anything to back that up makes it pretty tough.[/QUOTE]

 

[Daniel in SD]

I'm entirely willing to consider they're somehow saving enough to make doing it worthwhile, but the fact nobody can provide anything to back that up makes it pretty tough.

I'm not saying they're doing it. There is no evidence that they are. I'm just saying that they did it before so I wouldn't be surprised if they did again even if they're not currently doing it. The drive unit is an expensive component so it makes sense to lower the cost if they can. Think about the number of parts that will have to be changed for the non PUP interior. It's nothing that car manufacturer don't deal with all the time.

 

[Knightshade]

I'm not saying they're doing it. There is no evidence that they are. I'm just saying that they did it before so I wouldn't be surprised if they did again even if they're not currently doing it. The drive unit is an expensive component so it makes sense to lower the cost if they can. Think about the number of parts that will have to be changed for the non PUP interior. It's nothing that car manufacturer don't deal with all the time.

But they're not actually making the non-PUP interior.

Presumably they will at some point... but given they just dropped that for the S and X entirely to simplify manufacturing maybe not.

Avoiding making separate motors might well be another example of Tesla learning from previous mistakes where saving a few cents on a part wasn't worth the trouble it caused in added complexity for the factory and both up/down stream supply chain.

 

[Daniel in SD]

But they're not actually making the non-PUP interior.

Presumably they will at some point... but given they just dropped that for the S and X entirely to simplify manufacturing maybe not.

Avoiding making separate motors might well be another example of Tesla learning from previous mistakes where saving a few cents on a part wasn't worth the trouble it caused in added complexity for the factory and both up/down stream supply chain.

They need to differentiate the Model S more from the Model 3 so it makes sense to move it more upmarket. I don't think there will ever be a $35k Model 3 either but not to simplify manufacturing. Tesla is selling more Model 3s than any other car in its class and its competitors all seem to manage their supply chain just fine even though they have more variants. We all know that Tesla has problems in this regard but they'll probably eventual work them out.
Anyway given that the AWD and P have the same weight and EPA rating they're almost certainly identical.

 

[Sg911]

The 4.6 s 0-60 has been disputed by a number of folks. Consumer reports obtained 5.3 s and other auto magazines have been closer to 5 s.

Indications are that the 4.6 number was with rollout and may have been down a slightly declined road.

Vehicle virgins tested it at 4.4

Yup. 4.8 with rollout is a lot more realistic, which is what motortrend got.... similarly I'd expect the AWD around 4.2-4.3 with rollout.

Where it's interesting is, for the S the 0-60 times for the P models are reported with rollout, and the NON P models without it. This makes the Ps look quicker than they really are in comparison to the non-Ps.

If they're doing the same with the model 3, the AWD does, indeed, look the best bang for the buck by a significant margin.

Where it all gets more interesting is Elons comment that the P, with the 20" Tesla-specific PS 4s tires, doesn't have enough tire, and could probably knock off 0.2 or more from its 3.5 0-60 if it did.

Consider that 3.5 is on an apparently so-so version of a performance summer tire.

The 4.5 (sans rollout we think) on the AWD is on... crap all seasons.

So the AWD might pick up another tenth or two with some non-tesla PS 4s tires- especially if you can fit 265s on the aeros without rubbing.

 

[ronin]

Test drove the LR RWD yesterday. I'm going AWD. the RWD is slow for first half second or so. Not fast enough, but that's me. The AWD should pull harder off the line. 0.6 seconds to 60 is significant.

That's my experience as well. I was kinda disappointed, especially coming from an S4. The P85D I tested a few years back gave me this insane take off.

Any evidence that the non-P AWD has that instant pull off the line? Or even the P3D?

 

[Swampgator]

No but with 450 hp and 0.6 seconds to 60 faster, it has to.