Let's discuss Dual Motor range

[Promo714]

The totally weird part is that I would have ordered the RWD LR back in Dec17 when I got my invite if Tesla had been more transparent about some of this earlier. I think they would have had a large number of people pull the trigger sooner on the RWD.

Now some of this is, if not all, is my fault. I kept figuring, actually hoping, it would be like the AWD Model S, that it would get better range because of the efficiency of each motor. Elon, even posted that the front motor was more efficient in the Model 3, but did not equate that to range.

In my head I kept thinking I might get a 330 to 350 mile car. The extra acceleration was just gravy, which I like.

Now I am torn, since for a large part, to me range trumps everything. But since pulling the trigger on the AWD, I keep thinking how the AWD's acceleration might be somewhat close to a P85, which is really nice.

To cancel AWD for an extra 20 miles???. How much do I want to see 310 miles when I charge to 100%???

Does anyone actually see that?

I was doing the same thing. I waited for AWD because I assumed more range. I changed my order to RWD this past Saturday. Part of it was to get more range and the other was an aversion to paying for something I don't need (I do need range for work). While I would have enjoyed the acceleration, the RWD is still supposedly quicker than my Model S 85 (which I think 0-60 is 5.4 sec).

 

[commasign]

Now some of this is, if not all, is my fault. I kept figuring, actually hoping, it would be like the AWD Model S, that it would get better range because of the efficiency of each motor. Elon, even posted that the front motor was more efficient in the Model 3, but did not equate that to range.

Elon never said that about Model 3. I think all the speculation that Model 3 AWD would have increased range is purely based on a few sentences Elon said at an almost 4 year unveiling event of the dual motor Model S (which has quite different motor configurations than Model 3) plus a hefty dose of group think on the forums.

 

[FlatSix911]

The ultimate range test Tesla Model 3 unmanned on Autopilot travels 1,000 km on a single charge in new hypermiling record

Tesla Model 3 hypermiling record with a 622-mile (1,001 km) run with a twist: the Model 3 was also “unmanned” and on Autopilot.

For good measure, they decided to also attempt to break the Tesla Model S hypermiling record while they were at it.

They also did it by reaching a distance of 701 miles (1128 km) on a single charge with a Tesla Model S 100D.

Here’s another video for both attempts at the records:

 

[jsmay311]

To cancel AWD for an extra 20 miles???. How much do I want to see 310 miles when I charge to 100%???

Does anyone actually see that?

Just from reading anecdotal reports, it seems like some people see a bit more than 310, but more see a bit less.

Either way, I think Tesla will have to make the AWD battery display show ~310 miles when it's charged to 100% since 310 miles is what the official range rating and marketing will be. It will just be harder to achieve the rated range in the AWD. Which sounds super stupid, but I can't think of any other way they could do it.

(FWIW, I'm also considering switching. Not so much for the range but for the efficiency. I'm in the EV game for the environmental (GHG) benefits, so while the improved performance and winter traction would be nice, I'm loath to waste an extra 12% of energy the whole year round. Especially when I need to save that energy to go towards Tesla's inexcusable vampire drain! )

 

[Camera-Cruiser]

Elon never said that about Model 3. I think all the speculation that Model 3 AWD would have increased range is purely based on a few sentences Elon said at an almost 4 year unveiling event of the dual motor Model S (which has quite different motor configurations than Model 3) plus a hefty dose of group think on the forums.

He did, the day they unveiled the M3 AWD and perf option. Can I find it? I don’t know, (I did!, below as an edit) but he did talk about how efficient the front motor was. It was an implication back to the S AWD increased range. It was implied because he said it that way, but he didn’t give any numbers, or say that we would be surprised. So we were left with a statement about efficiency just dangling there. He new many would interpret that as more range in the non-P Model. As many here did.

Ah, and here is the link to his tweet: Elon Musk on Twitter

He said/wrote:
Tesla dual motor means there is a motor in front & a motor in rear. One is optimized for power & one for range. Car drives fine even if a motor breaks down. Helps ensure you make it to your destination & don’t get stuck on side of road in potentially unsafe conditions.

He actually used the word range. That to me implied an increase if I had it. Again, all tea leaves and wishful thinking on my part. But you can understand how many of us got here.

 

[xav-]

Somebody really have to explain to me EPA numbers..
How can « 26 kWh for 100 mile » translate into 334 miles, let alone 310 miles (I am referring to the RWD LR)?

I am lucky if I get 220 miles of range when I average 260 watts per mile... (which is pretty much my average). From my experience unless I drive 230 watts per mile or less the range remaining goes at a much faster rate than the distance driven

I apologize if I am off topic.. but back to AWD.. my advice would be to really think twice especially for thos who don’t want to stick to aero wheels / base tires. Because 11 percent range loss from AWD + 10 percent range loss from performance tires + vampire drain... things are starting to add up real quick

 

[clostridium]

Somebody really have to explain to me EPA numbers..
How can « 26 kWh for 100 mile » translate into 334 miles, let alone 310 miles (I am referring to the RWD LR)?

I am lucky if I get 220 miles of range when I average 260 watts per mile... (which is pretty much my average). From my experience unless I drive 230 watts per mile or less the range remaining goes at a much faster rate than the distance driven

I apologize if I am off topic.. but back to AWD.. my advice would be to really think twice especially for thos who don’t want to stick to aero wheels / base tires. Because 11 percent range loss from AWD + 10 percent range loss from performance tires + vampire drain... things are starting to add up real quick

EPA numbers are from the wall so include charging losses. They aren’t getting 260 wH/mi indicated on their display while driving. They are likely getting 90% of that which is 244 Wh/mi.

It is a bit puzzling that you would only get 220 miles when you do 260 Wh/mi though since my S75D gets more than 260 miles at that efficiency. You should get 280+ miles of range.

 

[brianman]

It is a bit puzzling that you would only get 220 miles when you do 260 Wh/mi though since my S75D gets more than 260 miles at that efficiency. You should get 280+ miles of range.

xav didn't specify his current vehicle, which (I'm guessing) has a different configuration than your vehicle (and different EPAish-based calculation for range).

Isn't 260 Wh/mi lower than the EPA rating number used for the S75D?

Edit:
Let's discuss Dual Motor range
2018 Model S 75D 19" -- 259 mi advertised

Tesla’s hacked Battery Management System exposes the real usable capacity of its battery packs
72.6 kWh usable

=> 280 Wh/mi

Yah, at 260 Wh/mi you're running more efficiently than the tuning number Tesla put into your car's firmware so that range exceeds the advertised 259 mi.

 

[clostridium]

xav didn't specify his current vehicle, which (I'm guessing) has a different configuration than your vehicle (and different EPAish-based calculation for range).

Isn't 260 Wh/mi lower than the EPA rating number used for the S75D?

He referenced the epa numbers for the Model 3 rwd and is posting in the model 3 forum which leads me to assume that he has a model 3 rwd.

I get better efficiency in warmer weather with my S. I’m well aware of what the car is rated but it’s quite possible to beat that in good conditions. I average over 300 in winter and 260’s in warm weather.

The battery packs are very similar sizes between the two vehicles. Which is the only variable remaining when comparing the range of two different vehicles when you know their efficiency. I was quite aware that he had a different vehicle when I made the post.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

I'm coming from an S85, and going into a (recently-decided-to-upgrade-to) Model 3 P w/18 aeros.

At 70mph, I'm going to be able to go 62 miles further, and when charging, 30 minutes at the Supercharger will get me an extra 63 miles.

Yea....I can live with that.

 

[commasign]

He said/wrote:
Tesla dual motor means there is a motor in front & a motor in rear. One is optimized for power & one for range. Car drives fine even if a motor breaks down. Helps ensure you make it to your destination & don’t get stuck on side of road in potentially unsafe conditions.

He actually used the word range. That to me implied an increase if I had it. Again, all tea leaves and wishful thinking on my part. But you can understand how many of us got here.

Yeah, I still don’t see how that could imply that AWD would have more range than RWD. Remember that the Model 3 RWD has a motor too, the one optimized for range as we’ve known for quite a while now (hence the 334 mile range with a still impressive but not quite neck-snapping 0-60mph of 5.1 seconds). A lot of discussion about that RWD motor already, with regard to the choice to go with a permanent magnet rather than an induction, etc., So AWD is just adding a motor optimized for power.

I feel like this is similar to the HUD situation. Elon said “Wait until you see the real steering controls and system for the 3. It feels like a spaceship.” Yet due to a little speculation and a lot of group think, that turns into “Model 3 will have a HUD”.

 

[voip-ninja]

I was doing the same thing. I waited for AWD because I assumed more range. I changed my order to RWD this past Saturday. Part of it was to get more range and the other was an aversion to paying for something I don't need (I do need range for work). While I would have enjoyed the acceleration, the RWD is still supposedly quicker than my Model S 85 (which I think 0-60 is 5.4 sec).

I hope as many people as possible make this switch so those of us who have legitimate climate needs for AWD get their cars sooner.

 

[ohmman]

mod note: 5 posts moved to snippiness.

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

The totally weird part is that I would have ordered the RWD LR back in Dec17 when I got my invite if Tesla had been more transparent about some of this earlier. I think they would have had a large number of people pull the trigger sooner on the RWD.

Tesla could have simply been honest at the time & stated, “the AWD will have marginally less range, but will be quicker & with better road holding”

 

[geometro]

Tesla could have simply been honest at the time & stated, “the AWD will have marginally less range, but will be quicker & with better road holding”

"The AWD will be quicker and offer superior road holding in exchange for some kW".

 

[TurnFast]

So the whole statement about "double burn in" etc is all bullshit then right? Every rear motor in the RWD cars handles the same load (211 kw) as rear motors in the PAWD, and every front motor in the AWD and PAWD handle the same load (147kw) too. There is nothing special about the PAWD motors. I think this looks like purely a software lock.
Which gives me hope that someday my ordered AWD can be software upgraded to a PAWD, though probably for like 12k. It seems like an easy way for tesla to rake in even more cash a year from now when the demand for the performance version has died down.

 

[ord3r]

So the whole statement about "double burn in" etc is all bullshit then right? Every rear motor in the RWD cars handles the same load (211 kw) as rear motors in the PAWD, and every front motor in the AWD and PAWD handle the same load (147kw) too. There is nothing special about the PAWD motors. I think this looks like purely a software lock.
Which gives me hope that someday my ordered AWD can be software upgraded to a PAWD, though probably for like 12k. It seems like an easy way for tesla to rake in even more cash a year from now when the demand for the performance version has died down.

Keep in mind those KW numbers are single datapoints. The power curve may look significantly different for the P motors. In fact, it must be if the 0-60 times are accurate, since the P motors only have around 30 more horsepower than the non P AWD but a 1 second faster 0-60.

But overall I agree, I think the extra testing and sorting is of marginal to no use. The "double burn in" is really just "double testing time", more likely to find an issue if it exists, so you may have less chance of a dead motor or other drivetrain issues in a P.

 

[Knightshade]

So the whole statement about "double burn in" etc is all bullshit then right? Every rear motor in the RWD cars handles the same load (211 kw) as rear motors in the PAWD, and every front motor in the AWD and PAWD handle the same load (147kw) too. There is nothing special about the PAWD motors. I think this looks like purely a software lock.
Which gives me hope that someday my ordered AWD can be software upgraded to a PAWD, though probably for like 12k. It seems like an easy way for tesla to rake in even more cash a year from now when the demand for the performance version has died down.

I mean, it was always gonna be mainly a software lock... I'm sure they DO batch test/sort, but as several people have noted, with modern manufacturing tolerances you're probably talking about "this drive unit scored 0.4% better than this one, it goes in a P!"

Which might mitigate Tesla warranty costs marginally- but won't really make a difference to the end user.

 

[ℬête Noire]

So the whole statement about "double burn in" etc is all bullshit then right?

I actually have little doubt that "double burn in" is actually happening, and that's a good thing for verifying durability. But it isn't going to make anything go faster, outside of less likelihood of the motor breaking down leaving you sitting by the side of the road moving at the speed of zero.

 

[xav-]

EPA numbers are from the wall so include charging losses. They aren’t getting 260 wH/mi indicated on their display while driving. They are likely getting 90% of that which is 244 Wh/mi.

It is a bit puzzling that you would only get 220 miles when you do 260 Wh/mi though since my S75D gets more than 260 miles at that efficiency. You should get 280+ miles of range.

It is frustrating. I drove an S as a rental and got 280 watts per mile and it seemed that I would not see these kind of inconsistencies between range and actual distance driven.

Tesla inspected my battery pack and did not find anything. I am considering going back and escalating. I basically use 200 miles of range every 160 miles driven. It’s very annoying.