Will the Mod3 PXXD be quicker than the S?

[brianman]

There's no way Tesla will make the Model 3 faster than either the S or the X, for all the obvious sales/marketing reasons.

Disagree. As a future buyer of Model 3 and (potentially) another Model S, artificial lines shouldn't be drawn to stop any model from being lesser than it needs to be to differentiate it from its siblings.

 

[garsh]

Disagree. As a future buyer of Model 3 and (potentially) another Model S, artificial lines shouldn't be drawn to stop any model from being lesser than it needs to be to differentiate it from its siblings.

Agreed. I don't believe that Tesla will intentionally make the 3 slower than the S. They'll make a ludicrous 3 be as fast as they possibly can. I think it will still end up being a bit slower than an S due to technical differences.

 

[JeffK]

Many engineers will scoff at "technical difficulties" unless they explained it very clearly. Physics says the Model 3 should move much faster than the Model S.

 

[MuppetOwl]

Many engineers will scoff at "technical difficulties" unless they explained it very clearly. Physics says the Model 3 should move much faster than the Model S.

Do you know the weight of the car? yes its smaller but will be mostly steel that is much heavier than aluminum. Also weight does not have so much to say on acceleration as we can see on the small difference on the heavier Model X and Model S.
What give the great acceleration is a large battery, hight voltage and on the P model larger rear motor.
I think we only see the small drive units on Model 3. Also Tesla have confirmed smaller battery than 60 kWh for base model, and the larger one we don't know yet. But the battery is smaller in physical size. So I think it will have less cells and lower voltage.

My guess is that a Ludicrous Model 3 will do 0-60 in 3.4-3.8 sec range

 

[JeffK]

The engineers stated during the launch that the weight will be less than the model S

 

[malcolm]

Agreed. I don't believe that Tesla will intentionally make the 3 slower than the S. They'll make a ludicrous 3 be as fast as they possibly can. I think it will still end up being a bit slower than an S due to technical differences.

Interesting idea. But I'm not sure it will be slower.

Ludicrous is 2.8 seconds for the S and 3.2 for the X

Given that the base model 3's range seems to be 215 miles from a sub-60kWh battery (news which surprised all of us) there seems to be something clever going on with either a smaller drag coefficient/ smaller drag area - or with the "new technology" in the drivetrain that JB has hinted at. Or possibly both. I'm guessing that these will benefit all versions of the 3, not just the base model.

If Tesla do go below 2.8 for the 3 then I don't think the necessary upgrades for the S to beat it are going to be quick/cheap fixes on a level with simply buying a 75 (or 100) battery upgrade.

And if it is a drag area thing, then it can't be fixed without removing side mirrors. And that won't happen any time soon.

As for cannibalising S sales, it's already happening. Roughly 20,000 S's vs roughly 400,000 3's is no contest.

And yes I know that traditional ICE manufacturer's make more profit on their high-end vehicles - but that sales model doesn't apply to Tesla any more than the dealership model applies.

Tesla isn't making ICEs and they have no meaningful competition. They can charge what they like for Model 3 options.

Personally, I hope that Tesla fixes the 3 at 3.0 seconds for Ludicrous. Otherwise the S owners will explode.

 

[tomas]

My .02 on Ludicrous mode performance --

There's no way Tesla will make the Model 3 faster than either the S or the X, for all the obvious sales/marketing reasons.

So, I think that Ludicrous mode 0-60 will run somewhere between 3.5 - 4.5s. I suspect, if feasible, they'll try break 4s just for marketing/psychological reasons. So, a final guess would be 3.8 or 3.9s. That would keep it under 4s and also comfortably away from the S and X performance.

And, I really hope they can do that for ~$50K.

I think that's a good marketing plan for 3, but probably closer to $55k. Then put the performance that the drivetrain/chassis is capable of into a new roadster variant of 3 skateboard that out performs, but is price-equivalent to S or X. They could co-exist without cannibalization, because some people would want full sized sedan, others would want sports car. Everybody happy.

 

[djplong]

Perhaps the Model 3 will get an appropriate "Ludicrous" speed - maybe even faster than the S or X..

...but have we forgotten the forthcoming "Maximum Plaid" speed? *That* could be exclusive to S/X owners!

 

[tomas]

Personally I hope that the next step in acceleration (plaid) is paired with other performance characteristics such as 30-90 acceleration, top speed, sustainable track performance, performance suspension, etc. on a sports car (roadster) variant, probably on the 3 skateboard. Some of those things (high speed acceleration, top speed) could flow to the S/X/3. But what's the sense in putting *more* acceleration into the S/X, or even the 3? It's a cool novelty having a sub 3 0-60 lux-sedan, mid-sedan, or SUV, but really, what's the point? It should be part of a sports car.

 

[EinSV]

Before the Model 3 reveal I thought the Model 3 PXXDL would definitely be faster than the fastest Model S but now I am not so sure.

It depends on the largest batteries offered on the 3 and the S. If they just go with 55/75 kWh options for the 3 and 75/100 kWh options for the S, the Model 3 P75DL will very likely not be as fast as a Model S P100DL. It will still be very fast. Even a non-P, non-L Model 3 with a 75 kWh battery should be able to do about 4.5s 0-60, with a P75DL in the high 2s-low3s. This is without any new innovations over the next 1.5 years, which is unlikely.

Battery costs are going to be cheap after the GF is up and running ($130/kWh or less). Just as an example, Tesla could offer a 90 kWh battery for an extra $5000 over the price of the 75kWh version and still make >50% profit margins on the battery upgrade. That would provide even longer range (350 miles) and more speed -- about 3.5s 0-60 for the non-P, non-D version and mid 2s or better for a P90DL Model 3.

If it were me, I would offer a bigger battery (90 or 100 kWh), which would not only completely crush the competition in the speed department but provide even better range. My guess is that is what Tesla will offer a "large" battery on the Model 3, but I am not really sure at this point. "Reveal 2" will be very interesting!!

 

[JeffK]

1500 Amps is 1500 Amps.... The larger battery is mainly for range but also makes it heavier.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Personally, I hope that Tesla fixes the 3 at 3.0 seconds for Ludicrous. Otherwise the S owners will explode.

It's been pointed out several times, but the BMW M3 is faster than the M5/6. It makes little sense for Tesla to hobble the 3, just so their much larger premium sedan can maintain its faster times.

The performance version of the 3 is going to have healthy margins, and the Model S will continue to sell well despite the 3 being faster.

 

[melindav]

The performance version of the 3 is going to have healthy margins, and the Model S will continue to sell well despite the 3 being faster.

agree. I don't understand why people want to put the Model 3 up as direct competition to the Model S. they have a totally different market. Even if the Model S was priced equal to the 3, I would still wait for the 3. I have no interest in a car the size of the S. If it weren't for the tax credit requiring 5 seats, I would prefer the Model 3 to be smaller than it is, but understand why it is 'as large' as it is.

 

[EinSV]

1500 Amps is 1500 Amps.... The larger battery is mainly for range but also makes it heavier.

Model S70D has a 0-60 of 5.2 seconds, and Model S90D has a 0-60 of 4.2 seconds. So with the Model S a 28% increase in battery capacity results in about a 20% faster 0-60 time. I assume the same basic principle will apply with the Model 3, although the figures may be slightly different.

 

[voip-ninja]

Model S70D has a 0-60 of 5.2 seconds, and Model S90D has a 0-60 of 4.2 seconds. So with the Model S a 28% increase in battery capacity results in about a 20% faster 0-60 time. I assume the same basic principle will apply with the Model 3, although the figures may be slightly different.

You are mistaking higher performance with larger battery pack size, when, as has been reported over and over again (to deaf ears apparently) as long as the battery can deliver 1500 amps then the bottleneck is not the pack size but other components. So your theory is wrong. If you'd actually like to better understand, I've snipped the relevant bit for you below;

The fuse on the P85D’s battery pack melts when a high level of amperage is run through it, creating a performance bottleneck wherein 60 mph is attained in a “mere” 3.1 seconds, according to Tesla. (It should be noted that we’ve been unable to match Tesla’s claim, with our quickest zero-to-60-mph time for the P85D landing at 3.3 seconds.) Eager for more acceleration, Tesla designed a new fuse with “its own electronics and a tiny lithium-ion battery” that can handle 1500 amps versus the 1300 of the old fuse. According to Tesla, this drops the zero-to-60-mph time of the P90D to just 2.8 seconds; the quarter-mile time breaks the 11-second mark at 10.9 seconds. Needless to say, we’re looking forward to trying to verify those times.

 

[EinSV]

You are mistaking higher performance with larger battery pack size, when, as has been reported over and over again (to deaf ears apparently) as long as the battery can deliver 1500 amps then the bottleneck is not the pack size but other components. So your theory is wrong. If you'd actually like to better understand, I've snipped the relevant bit for you below;

Then how do you explain the 20% faster 0-60 times for a Model S90D over a Model S70D? Or the slower 0-60 times for a 55kWh Model 3 (5.9 seconds (or less)) v. 5.2 seconds for a heavier Model S 70D.

 

[tomas]

Then how do you explain the 20% increase in 0-60 times for a Model S90D over a Model S70D? Or the still lower 0-60 times for a 55kWh Model 3 (5.9 seconds (or less)) v. 5.2 seconds for a heavier Model S 70D.

correct. Larger battery can deliver more kW. Both of you are right, fuse also removed power bottleneck.

 

[voip-ninja]

correct. Larger battery can deliver more kW. Both of you are right, fuse also removed power bottleneck.

I still don't think you get it. The bottleneck is simply how many amps can be delivered to the motors. If a 10 kW pack could somehow deliver the needed 1500 amps then the car would be just as fast (faster possibly due to the lower weight) it would just have a flat battery very quickly.

I have read nothing that indicates that if a higher capacity battery is delivering the same 1500 amps as a lower capacity battery that the higher capacity battery would somehow be faster. The earlier performance bottleneck at 1300 amps was eliminated by using a specially designed fuse that would go to 1500 amps without melting.

 

[MuppetOwl]

You are mistaking higher performance with larger battery pack size, when, as has been reported over and over again (to deaf ears apparently) as long as the battery can deliver 1500 amps then the bottleneck is not the pack size but other components. So your theory is wrong. If you'd actually like to better understand, I've snipped the relevant bit for you below;

How do you know the model 3 battery can deliver 1500A?

The model S 70D is slower than the 90D because it has less cells and therfore lower voltage. Less weight on the 70 does not help because the 85 and 90 battery can deliver 400V. 70 pack only 350V and have less performance even if the fuse and motors are the same.

 

[ucmndd]

The model S 70D is slower than the 90D because it has less cells and therfore lower voltage. Less weight on the 70 does not help because the 85 and 90 battery can deliver 400V. 70 pack only 350V and have less performance even if the fuse and motors are the same.

Circuits 101. Well said. Was about to type essentially the same thing but realized I had nothing to add.