# Zero to Sixty times



## Wait4it (Aug 17, 2018)

I’ve got a long range all wheel drive non-performance model 3 that I picked up in September 2018. I’m excited that Tesla keeps updating the software and making my car quicker over the past year (original 0 to 60 time was 4.5 seconds I believe), but does anybody know exactly what the new 0 to 60 time is now? (After all the updates)


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

Not the exact you were looking for, but here's a rwd comparing before and after the 2019.36.2.1 update


----------



## 3V Pilot (Sep 15, 2017)

Great idea for a thread. I would love to see current and past 0-60 times from each Model 3 variant and software version posted here. Hopefully by someone with Vbox or other accurate method of getting the exact times.


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

Wugz posted a number of tests for the AWD:


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/dv7r5i/model_3_awd_tested_from_0160_kmh_peak_power_up_75/f7b23ye


----------



## Wait4it (Aug 17, 2018)

Thanks for all the replies. I was kind of hoping one of their brilliant Tesla engineers would whip out a couple math equations real quick and let me know if I am now sub four seconds for 0 to 60. I’m thinking I’ve got to be pretty close or getting there in the next couple of updates? Sub four seconds does have a nice ring to it 😊


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

3V Pilot said:


> Great idea for a thread. I would love to see current and past 0-60 times from each Model 3 variant and software version posted here. Hopefully by someone with Vbox or other accurate method of getting the exact times.


there is an ongoing thread with various Model 3 drag races here
https://teslaownersonline.com/threads/model-3-drag-races.6018/


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

Wait4it said:


> Thanks for all the replies. I was kind of hoping one of their brilliant Tesla engineers would whip out a couple math equations real quick and let me know if I am now sub four seconds for 0 to 60. I'm thinking I've got to be pretty close or getting there in the next couple of updates? Sub four seconds does have a nice ring to it 😊


the 0-60 time is 4.159 in the Reddit post that @JWardell linked to. (at least as a single data point)


> 0-60 mph decreased from 4.264s to 4.159s (-0.105s)


----------



## LeeCephas (Mar 16, 2019)

Dragtimes managed to get under 3 seconds post update.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

LeeCephas said:


> Dragtimes managed to get under 3 seconds post update.


Brooks had a single run at 2.998 seconds in four attempts.
Still, that's freaking awesome.


----------



## Dogwhistle (Jul 2, 2017)

MelindaV said:


> Not the exact you were looking for, but here's a rwd comparing before and after the 2019.36.2.1 update


Huh, that seems slow. I thought the LR RWD was already slightly under 5.0 before the .36 update.

Edit: Disregard, I see now that he was only at 70% charge for this test.


----------



## gary in NY (Dec 2, 2018)

I'd like to see the dual motor non-performance break 4 seconds (if not now, someday soon).


----------



## Wait4it (Aug 17, 2018)

Dogwhistle said:


> Huh, that seems slow. I thought the LR RWD was already slightly under 5.0 before the .36 update.
> 
> Edit: Disregard, I see now that he was only at 70% charge for this test.


Ya, It seems like there's so many variables in these tests that it's really hard to confirm.


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

Dogwhistle said:


> Huh, that seems slow. I thought the LR RWD was already slightly under 5.0 before the .36 update.
> 
> Edit: Disregard, I see now that he was only at 70% charge for this test.


LR RWD was 5.5 sec originally, then reduced to 5.0 in the first bump this spring. Need some warm weather to confirm it dropping into the 4.9s after the 36 update.


----------



## iChris93 (Feb 3, 2017)

JWardell said:


> LR RWD was 5.5 sec originally, then reduced to 5.0 in the first bump this spring. Need some warm weather to confirm it dropping into the 4.9s after the 36 update.


5.5 sec when announced in 2016 and 5.1 sec at the delivery event in 2017, I think.


----------



## SimonMatthews (Apr 20, 2018)

JWardell said:


> LR RWD was 5.5 sec originally, then reduced to 5.0 in the first bump this spring. Need some warm weather to confirm it dropping into the 4.9s after the 36 update.


There were some videos produced with the initial LR RWD cars that showed 0-60 times of about 4.5s, then a firmware update made it over 5 seconds.


----------



## zosoisnotaword (Aug 28, 2017)

JWardell said:


> LR RWD was 5.5 sec originally, then reduced to 5.0 in the first bump this spring. Need some warm weather to confirm it dropping into the 4.9s after the 36 update.


Here's a 4.9 run on a wet road at 89%. Also, LR RWD was always advertised as 5 seconds. The standard range was initially advertised at 5.5 or maybe 5.4. But in the beginning some people were getting quicker times out of the first production models. I think the highest I saw was 4.66. Tesla definitely slowed it down some in an unpopular update (I felt it), and it may have been slower than 5.0 after that. But it's good to have some extra power back after the two 5% bumps.


----------



## SMITTY (Jan 24, 2019)

Us owners of the super rare, highly collectable Mid-Range Model 3's deserve to know our performance figures! 

Haha... Any Mid-Range data out there?!


----------



## Hugh_Jassol (Jan 31, 2019)

SMITTY said:


> Us owners of the super rare, highly collectable Mid-Range Model 3's deserve to know our performance figures!
> 
> Haha... Any Mid-Range data out there?!


Seconded!


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

iChris93 said:


> 5.5 sec when announced in 2016 and 5.1 sec at the delivery event in 2017, I think.





zosoisnotaword said:


> Here's a 4.9 run on a wet road at 89%. Also, LR RWD was always advertised as 5 seconds. The standard range was initially advertised at 5.5 or maybe 5.4. But in the beginning some people were getting quicker times out of the first production models. I think the highest I saw was 4.66. Tesla definitely slowed it down some in an unpopular update (I felt it), and it may have been slower than 5.0 after that. But it's good to have some extra power back after the two 5% bumps.


Sorry, yes, my bad memory. 5.1 was reduced to 5.0. There was plenty of chatter about nerfing in early 2018 but I never really saw scientific proof. So maybe we are now just back to where they were originally.

The reality is Tesla is dialing more precise control of the motors, as well as some intentional _imprecise_ control to generate extra inefficient heat to warm the battery while driving for supercharging. Perhaps early on they were not as careful and experienced some failures and slowly found ways to bring it back more reliably. I would love to be a fly on the wall of their powertrain team (or you know...part of it)!


----------



## Nom (Oct 30, 2018)

Thanks for making this thread. Was very curious about the 0-60 improvement for the LR AWD. Looks like it is a bit less than 4.2 seconds now. If folks see more data points pls post. 

freaking awesome that the performance version is right near 3 flat. 

This kind of speed for this priced car is Unreal.


----------



## Dr. J (Sep 1, 2017)

JWardell said:


> I would love to be a fly on the wall of their powertrain team (or you know...part of it)!


I'll serve as a reference if that'll help! (It won't.)


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

Yesterday I went to a meeting a couple hours drive away. when I got there and chatting with a couple people while waiting for the others, they asked the typical Tesla questions: "how long have you had it?", "how far can it go on a charge?", "how long does it take to charge?", "do you like it?", etc, etc... I mentioned it'd just gotten this latest update and gained 5% more power. The one guy commented that it was crazy to think they can send updates out to the car (which I answered with it happening every few days to once a month) and the other was blown away that the car could gain power with a software update.


----------



## GDN (Oct 30, 2017)

JWardell said:


> Sorry, yes, my bad memory. 5.1 was reduced to 5.0. There was plenty of chatter about nerfing in early 2018 but I never really saw scientific proof. So maybe we are now just back to where they were originally.
> 
> The reality is Tesla is dialing more precise control of the motors, as well as some intentional _imprecise_ control to generate extra inefficient heat to warm the battery while driving for supercharging. Perhaps early on they were not as careful and experienced some failures and slowly found ways to bring it back more reliably. I would love to be a fly on the wall of their powertrain team (or you know...part of it)!


I'm surprised you aren't a Tesla team member. May simply be because you are on the wrong coast. They could benefit from you and I'm sure we would benefit form you being there. I'm sure you could crank out some special SW for your friends here.


----------



## RocketRay (Jun 6, 2018)

I got the update last night and it's noticeably faster. I really should get one of those track analysis tools so I can accurately measure my 0-60.


----------



## JDM3 (Jun 22, 2018)

The update arrived just as we were getting a dump of snow. I'm hoping to get some clearer roads in the coming days so that I can feel this power boost for myself. Excited to own a sub 5s 0-60 car.


----------



## TRSguy (Jan 5, 2019)

JWardell said:


> LR RWD was 5.5 sec originally, then reduced to 5.0 in the first bump this spring. Need some warm weather to confirm it dropping into the 4.9s after the 36 update.


LR RWD was 5.1 not 5.5. SR+ was 5.3 and SR 5.6


----------



## FF35 (Jul 13, 2018)

I was reading that the LR RWD is now 4.5 0-60. Can anyone confirm that?


----------



## Spiffywerks (Jul 30, 2017)

FF35 said:


> I was reading that the LR RWD is now 4.5 0-60. Can anyone confirm that?


I know my butt-o-meter tells me the RWD LR got a significant acceleration increase. It also makes a bit of a soft whine noise now on hard launches - something I've only heard on the Model S 75D and AWD Model 3s.

Previously the car would have a noticeable flat acceleration after about 40mph. It feels like now a limiter has been removed because it feels like it keeps pulling. I enjoy it very much.


----------



## 3V Pilot (Sep 15, 2017)

Here is a good article from Electrek that has the data on all versions. Looks like the original (and of course the best...) LR rear motor is right at 4.9 seconds now. Looks like that number has been verified by a number of Reddit and YouTube posts. Yes, I said it's the best because it's the one I own, move along now, nothing to see here.....LOL 

https://electrek.co/2019/11/17/tesla-model-3-0-60mph-times-then-and-now-all-trims-compared/


----------



## SMITTY (Jan 24, 2019)

Hugh_Jassol said:


> Seconded!


Check this article out...

https://electrek.co/2019/11/16/tesl...goes-0-60mph-in-4-9s-down-from-5-6-at-launch/


----------



## SMITTY (Jan 24, 2019)

3V Pilot said:


> Here is a good article from Electrek has the data on all versions. Looks like the original (and of course the best...) LR rear motor is right at 4.9 seconds now. Looks like that number has been verified by a number of Reddit and YouTube posts. Yes, I said it's the best because it's the one I own, move along now, nothing to see here.....LOL
> 
> https://electrek.co/2019/11/17/tesla-model-3-0-60mph-times-then-and-now-all-trims-compared/


Theres an article that shows the MID-RANGE Model 3 clocking in at 4.9... LONG RANGE should be quicker.

https://electrek.co/2019/11/16/tesl...goes-0-60mph-in-4-9s-down-from-5-6-at-launch/


----------



## FF35 (Jul 13, 2018)

SMITTY said:


> Theres an article that shows the MID-RANGE Model 3 clocking in at 4.9... LONG RANGE should be quicker.
> 
> https://electrek.co/2019/11/16/tesl...goes-0-60mph-in-4-9s-down-from-5-6-at-launch/


I agree but maybe that's too much torque to put on one motor. And don't forget, the mid range is lighter so it's not a stressful to the motor.......if it's the same as the LR RWD.


----------



## Latoso (Sep 28, 2019)

Does anyone know if there was an improvement to the 0-60 time on the Model 3 LR RWD with the latest software update that advertised the 5% power improvement? And if so what is the new time? Thanks.


----------



## Nom (Oct 30, 2018)

See other thread

https://teslaownersonline.com/threads/zero-to-sixty-times.14707/page-2#post-264010


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

SMITTY said:


> Theres an article that shows the MID-RANGE Model 3 clocking in at 4.9... LONG RANGE should be quicker.
> 
> https://electrek.co/2019/11/16/tesl...goes-0-60mph-in-4-9s-down-from-5-6-at-launch/


Actually the Long Range could actually be slower than mid range, because it has more weight due to the larger battery. (!)
Tesla will still have to nerf the mid range a little if they want to keep all of us happy that spent so much on the LR RWD...
I would love to verify, but the chances of having consistently warm temperatures and dry roads are dwindling.


----------



## SMITTY (Jan 24, 2019)

JWardell said:


> Actually the Long Range could actually be slower than mid range, because it has more weight due to the larger battery. (!)
> Tesla will still have to nerf the mid range a little if they want to keep all of us happy that spent so much on the LR RWD...
> I would love to verify, but the chances of having consistently warm temperatures and dry roads are dwindling.


Even though heavier... Doesn't larger battery "typically" mean more powaaaa?


----------



## FF35 (Jul 13, 2018)

SMITTY said:


> Even though heavier... Doesn't larger battery "typically" mean more powaaaa?


More power to pull a heavier vehicle.


----------



## SMITTY (Jan 24, 2019)

There is a 134lb difference between the Standard Range and the Mid Range with a substantial performance increase...

There is a 128lb difference between the Mid Range and the Long Range RWD so I would assume a performance increase would scale similarly.

All just assumptions on my part... And we all know what assumptions mean.


----------



## 3V Pilot (Sep 15, 2017)

I wish it meant we had a faster 0-60 time than the lowly Mid-Range cars. However, we all know that Tesla doesn't play by the same rule book as everybody else.....Thank God! In this case though I think we are stuck with the same 4.9 time. Maybe they will uncork us a bit more someday when the realize both cars are hitting the same performance numbers.


----------



## Vin (Mar 30, 2017)

I'm slightly confused. Was the LR RWD originally advertised as 5.1 seconds? If so, since there were two 5% power increases since last year when it came out, wouldn't that be a 10% total power increase? 5.1 sec to 4.9 sec doesn't seem like a 10% relative increase (and I realize it's not a 10% faster 0-60 or that would be like 4.59 sec (but i don't know the formula or how the "power" increase was incorporated since it's not my expertise, but maybe someone can help me clarify, and if LR RWD did actually receive about a 10% increase?) Thx


----------



## Klaus-rf (Mar 6, 2019)

x * 1.05 * 1.05 = more than 10%, but not much. Like compound interest.

Example:
Two 5% separate increases:
400 * 1.05 = 420
420 * 1.05 = 441

One 10% increase:
400 * 1.10 = 440


----------



## FF35 (Jul 13, 2018)

Vin said:


> I'm slightly confused. Was the LR RWD originally advertised as 5.1 seconds? If so, since there were two 5% power increases since last year when it came out, wouldn't that be a 10% total power increase? 5.1 sec to 4.9 sec doesn't seem like a 10% relative increase (and I realize it's not a 10% faster 0-60 or that would be like 4.59 sec (but i don't know the formula or how the "power" increase was incorporated since it's not my expertise, but maybe someone can help me clarify, and if LR RWD did actually receive about a 10% increase?) Thx


They can program the car to distribute the power increase in different places, not just in the 0-60 range.


----------



## Vin (Mar 30, 2017)

Klaus-rf said:


> x * 1.05 * 1.05 = more than 10%, but not much. Like compound interest.
> 
> Example:
> Two 5% separate increases:
> ...


Thx, that formula makes sense, but in the case of 0-60 times does 5.1 to 4.9 equate to about 10% increase in power or does that seem like too small a difference for LR RWD (and it should be a lower 0-60 time?)


----------



## Vin (Mar 30, 2017)

FF35 said:


> They can program the car to distribute the power increase in different places, not just in the 0-60 range.


Then that definitely makes more sense that a LR version would have less of a decrease in 0-60 as a MR due to weight (as mentioned earlier in thread). I do feel the power but not necessarily all in speed. I mentioned in another thread that my LR RWD seems to cut through rain a little better and maybe that's why).


----------



## Klaus-rf (Mar 6, 2019)

Vin said:


> Thx, that formula makes sense, but in the case of 0-60 times does 5.1 to 4.9 equate to about 10% increase in power or does that seem like too small a difference for LR RWD (and it should be a lower 0-60 time?)


 For a VERY rough guide - using just power and weight, look here:

https://www.carspecs.us/calculator/0-60


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

SMITTY said:


> Even though heavier... Doesn't larger battery "typically" mean more powaaaa?


More power from the battery, yes, but you are limited by the weakest link in the chain, which could be the wiring or a fuse, but most likely is just the motor or inverter. Especially considering the same battery is used for AWD and performance, the single motor is most likely the limitation. If they are the same between the two models, then the SR/MR could be faster than LR.
The other question is if Tesla actually downgraded the FETs in the inverter for the SR/MR, which would be more likely to be a limit and slow those down. I think the LR, AWD, and P all use the same higher rated inverter.


----------



## Klaus-rf (Mar 6, 2019)

JWardell said:


> ... then the SR/MR could be faster than LR.


 Quicker. Could be quicker,.

Top speed (faster) is soft/firm ware limited and the AWD is [rated to a] faster [top speed] than any of the RWD models.


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

Vin said:


> Was the LR RWD originally advertised as 5.1 seconds?


the reveal listed it as less than 6 seconds.


----------



## Rich M (Jul 28, 2017)

Here is my recollection of events as told by scanning the forums and verified by my butt dyno, for my LR RWD.
*Delivery May 2018:* Every bit of advertised power present, with significant torque down low.
*Early summer 2018:* Something happened with an OTA update and power was reduced across the board. I especially noticed lack of torque under 30 MPH and under 80% battery
*Late 2018:* Some acceleration came back with an update, noticeable at battery levels in the 60-80% range.
*First 2019 "5%" bump:* Seemed pretty even increase across the board, but not mind blowing, felt like less than 5%.
*Current 36.2.1 "5%" bump: *We're back baby! While I don't think torque under 30 is what it was at delivery, 30-60 MPH has gobs more power, and 60-80 passing speeds have a noticable bump as well. Feels like more than 5%.


----------



## tivoboy (Mar 24, 2017)

Rich M said:


> *Current 36.2.1 "5%" bump: *We're back baby! While I don't think torque under 30 is what it was at delivery, 30-60 MPH has gobs more power, and 60-80 passing speeds have a noticable bump as well. Feels like more than 5%.


Definitely agree with this point, I've been down about the same road and I think the latest is the best version I've had of the car since LATE May 2018


----------



## pdx_m3s (Aug 1, 2019)

Mountain Pass Performance confirmed the 5% power increase for SR+. All of the gains were at and after field weakening begins, which is around 40 MPH. This is awesome, because it is exactly where Teslas can use the extra power boost (after field weakening begins).

I'm curious what the SR+ will do 0-60 now under 2019.36


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

Temperatures reached nearly 60 today and sunny, so I knew it was my only chance to record some 0-60 runs in my original spot. 

I recorded 4.84 sec in my LR RWD. The previous firmware bump I recorded 4.999 sec in the same spot. This is of course with no runout, but dependent on a 20ms speed signal.
Still, a nice improvement from the original 5.1x seconds for zero cost.


----------



## slasher016 (Sep 12, 2017)

JWardell said:


> Temperatures reached nearly 60 today and sunny, so I knew it was my only chance to record some 0-60 runs in my original spot.
> 
> I recorded 4.84 sec in my LR RWD. The previous firmware bump I recorded 4.999 sec in the same spot. This is of course with no runout, but dependent on a 20ms speed signal.
> Still, a nice improvement from the original 5.1x seconds for zero cost.


What did you use to measure it?


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

slasher016 said:


> What did you use to measure it?


Just recorded the car's own speed signals on the CAN bus.


----------



## Rush (Sep 22, 2019)

RocketRay said:


> I got the update last night and it's noticeably faster. I really should get one of those track analysis tools so I can accurately measure my 0-60.


The Stats App on the App Store has a 0 to 60 timer in the settings. Comming back from Phoenix to Tucson by way of Florence today with my NEW Standard Plus, I tried it a few times, and best I got was 6.55 sec and it should be in the 5.3 sec range. I guess I need to charge it up fully and warm up the battery pack...


----------



## gaduser (Jun 5, 2019)

AND FUN!

0 to JAIL in about 3 seconds.


----------

