# MT 4.8 sec 0-60 and more



## Sandy

Not sure if posted elsewhere.

http://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-model-3-2018-car-of-the-year-finalist/


----------



## SoFlaModel3

Sandy said:


> Not sure if posted elsewhere.
> 
> http://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-model-3-2018-car-of-the-year-finalist/


We can sleep easy knowing that we will beat the Semi off the line if it isn't carrying anything.

That is unless they've sandbagged the numbers there as well


----------



## UncleMoose

SoFlaModel3 said:


> We can sleep easy knowing that we will beat the Semi off the line if it isn't carrying anything.
> 
> That is unless they've sandbagged the numbers there as well


And why does the article list a base price of 45 K dollars (and an as tested of 57,500)? Even if they are listing specifically for the LR model (which they reference in the article) it would be 49 K.


----------



## SoFlaModel3

UncleMoose said:


> And why does the article list a base price of 45 K dollars (and an as tested of 57,500)? Even if they are listing specifically for the LR model (which they reference in the article) it would be 49 K.


Maybe long range battery plus any color other than black?

Premium package won't be forced forever.

Just a guess though...


----------



## Kbm3

UncleMoose said:


> And why does the article list a base price of 45 K dollars (and an as tested of 57,500)? Even if they are listing specifically for the LR model (which they reference in the article) it would be 49 K.


45 is base price for the LR including destination.


----------



## ahagge

Along these lines, does anybody have a definitive answer as to the motor's output power? The Owners Guide lists 165 kW (or 221 HP) on page 136, but the EPA document shows 192 kW (257 HP) on page 14. Based on the claimed 0-60 times, I'm tempted to believe the latter.

Is this another Tesla undersell?


----------



## Sandy

ahagge said:


> Along these lines, does anybody have a definitive answer as to the motor's output power? The Owners Guide lists 165 kW (or 221 HP) on page 136, but the EPA document shows 192 kW (257 HP) on page 14. Based on the claimed 0-60 times, I'm tempted to believe the latter.
> 
> Is this another Tesla undersell?


It may be that the 221 was measured at the wheels and the 257 is the output at the motor. The difference (just like an ice car) is due to drivetrain losses.


----------



## chopr147

SoFlaModel3 said:


> We can sleep easy knowing that we will beat the Semi off the line if it isn't carrying anything.


 0-60 times may not be that important in the grand scheme of life but..................if a semi beats my Model 3 I will NOT be happy!


----------



## SoFlaModel3

chopr147 said:


> 0-60 times may not be that important in the grand scheme of life but..................if a semi beats my Model 3 I will NOT be happy!


I agree. 0-60 is actually completely meaningless to me. What's important to me is the instant torque ... the ability to get from
30 to 70 or 80 is much more valuable.


----------



## UncleT

ahagge said:


> Along these lines, does anybody have a definitive answer as to the motor's output power? The Owners Guide lists 165 kW (or 221 HP) on page 136, but the EPA document shows 192 kW (257 HP) on page 14. Based on the claimed 0-60 times, I'm tempted to believe the latter.
> 
> Is this another Tesla undersell?





Sandy said:


> It may be that the 221 was measured at the wheels and the 257 is the output at the motor. The difference (just like an ice car) is due to drivetrain losses.


Max RPM is different also.


----------



## Rich M

SoFlaModel3 said:


> I agree. 0-60 is actually completely meaningless to me. What's important to me is the instant torque ... the ability to get from
> 30 to 70 or 80 is much more valuable.


In these days of perpetual construction zones with too-short on ramps and stop signs instead of yield signs for "safety", 0-60 is quite important to me. It's the difference in being able to go now or waiting - sometimes another 20-30 seconds for a gap in traffic big enough to go.


----------



## Scuffers

Sandy said:


> It may be that the 221 was measured at the wheels and the 257 is the output at the motor. The difference (just like an ice car) is due to drivetrain losses.


there will be some losses in the single speed transmission, but nothing like this (14%), a single transverse gear like that would typically be in the ~1-2% losses range (unless the gears are made from cheese and machined by a rabid monkey)


----------



## Rich M

Scuffers said:


> (unless the gears are made from cheese and machined by a rabid monkey)


But enough about the 1988 Chevy Beretta transmission...


----------



## KarenRei

The nice thing about that 4,8s 0-60 is that you can now fairly compare M3 LR's 0-60 with the BMW 340i (while the SR is fairly compared to the 330i). You have two numbers for LR's 0-60 (4,8 and 5,1s), while the 340i has also been variously measured at 4,8 and 5,1s.

What comparison advantages does this give?

*Price comparison:* Model 3 LR begins at $44k. BMW 340i begins at $49k. Model 3 SR begins at $35k. BMW 330i begins at $40,3k.
*Weight comparison:* Model 3 LR's curb weight is 3814lbs. BMW 340i's is 3675-3704lbs. Model 3 SR's curb weight is 3549lbs. BMW 330i's is 3501-3541 lbs.
*Range comparison:* 3-series all have a 15.8-gallon tank. Model 3 LR has a city/combined/highway range of 347/334/318 miles, respectively (SR has not yet been tested). BMW 340i (manual transmission) mpgs are 19/23/29, corresponding to 300/363/458 miles, respectively. BMW 340i (automatic transmission) mpgs are 21/25/32, corresponding to 332/395/506 miles, respectively. BMW 330i (manual transmission) mpgs are 21/25/32, corresponding to 300/363/506 miles, respectively. BMW 330i (automatic transmission) mpgs are 23/27/34, corresponding to 363/427/537 miles, respectively.
*Operating cost comparison*: Model 3 LR works with 78,2 kWh usable (on a 80,5 kWh pack) and takes 89,4kWh to recharge, representing city/combined/highway energy consumptions of 258/267/281 Wh/mi (SR should be about 2,5%(hwy)-4%(city) lower). At US average residential electricity rates of 13,19 cents per kWh, that's $0,034/$0,035/$0,037 per mile, respectively for the LR, or for the average 13476mi/year, $459/$476/$499 for the LR (for the SR: $441/$461/$487). At US average gasoline prices per gallon of $2,561/gal, the 340i (manual) works out to $1816/$1501/$1190; the 340i (automatic) costs $1643/$1380/1079; the 330i (manual) costs $1643/$1380/$1079; and the 330i (automatic) costs $1501/$1278/$1015. This equates to LR annual savings of $1358/$1024/$691 (340i manual) and $1185/$904/$579 (340i automatic), and SR annual savings of $1202/$919/$591 (330i manual) and $1060/$817/$528 (330i automatic). Savings are roughly doubled in Europe, where the average electricity rate is $0,243/kWh and the average gasoline price is $5,465/gal.
Model 3, of course, not only wins on price, operating costs, and is surprisingly close in weight (and for LR, range), but also wins on the feature comparison front. And we're of course ignoring credits and maintenance.


----------



## Scuffers

I'm more interested in how it stacks up against the Audi A4/5 Quattro platform.


----------



## SoFlaModel3

Scuffers said:


> I'm more interested in how it stacks up against the Audi A4/5 Quattro platform.


Top end A4 hits $53k. It's a nice car no doubt, but I'll still take the Tesla all day everyday.

0-60 is 5.6 as compared to our 5.1 (possibly 4.8)
Warranty is much shorter
Maintenance costs are much higher 
Uses gas
Etc...


----------



## KarenRei

A4: we can rule out the "ultra" series, with its >7 second 0-60  The non-ultra gasoline engines slot in between the Model 3 LR and SR (and thus the 340i and 330i) in 0-60 times. MSRP is $40,5k, which is also between LR and SR (but about the same price as the 330i). Fuel economy is pretty good, 24/27/33 for manual and 24/27/34 for automatic. Annual fueling costs are $1442/$1282/$1049, yielding a cost increase over the SR of $1001/$820/$562 and versus the LR of $983/$806/$549. City range is similar to the 330i but highway range closer to the 340i - 367/413/505 mi (versus LR's 347/334/318).

It's the operating cost difference that kills the comparison for the gasoline vehicles - vs. all of them. I mean, that's a lot of money to get hit for, every year. And on average doubled in Europe.

As for feature-by-feature comparisons, like most manufacturers, they break "PUP" up into smaller packages, in which some things that are standard on Model 3 slot into on them; it makes it harder to do comparisons. And of course there's also various value judgment things - for example, Audi is fond of sticking dead cows in their cars, while I'm not  But some pretty sizeable things are tucked into options packages, IMHO - anything more than FM/bluetooth radio, driver info display (only 7" at that), remote start (still can't run it in enclosed spaces, vastly fewer remote features), alarm, 18" wheels are an extra, rear side airbags (Model 3's curtain goes all the way back), collision warning, automatic emergency braking, lane assist, etc, and some things many consider essentials aren't even available as options (dual motor awd + air suspension, performance package, EAP/FSD (they have their own "EAP" but it's not as capable)). But, you get the aforementioned dead cows standard, power seats standard (though power steering adjust isn't an option), more paint colour options, more car components heated standard (maybe? mixed info), and a few other things that are hard to quantify versus the things that Model 3 comes with standard (lots of value judgments involved - for example, does "vented glovebox" sound better than "valet-lockout glovebox"?).

Oh, and their rain sensor probably works  _*bazinga!*_


----------



## Love

I don't know why anyone isn't comparing the Model 3 to the most obvious car to compare it to. The 2012 Kia Optima EX with its 0-60 time of 8 seconds*, 1/4 mile time of 16.2 seconds*, this is the car we should all be considering, right? I mean...I currently own one but that isn't relevant. 

*hahahaha, yeah right. Maybe when it was new.


----------



## Prodigal Son

SoFlaModel3 said:


> Top end A4 hits $53k. It's a nice car no doubt, but I'll still take the Tesla all day everyday.
> 
> 0-60 is 5.6 as compared to our 5.1 (possibly 4.8)
> Warranty is much shorter
> Maintenance costs are much higher
> Uses gas
> Etc...


If tesla completely crapped the bed on the ramp and my current car needed an immediate replacement, a loaded A4 (except for rear airbags [I don't sit back there, why spend the money?] and upgraded wheels [zzzz]) was going to be my backup car. Now that there's a reasonable chance of getting my Model 3 in the next 2-5 months (supposedly a Jan-Mar window... I'm not confident but it's at least possible) I'm hoping it won't come to that (hopefully the current car cooperates).

The A4 does have ventilated seats as an advantage though, which I wish tesla could figure out how to do properly. Also AWD, but it's not Tesla's fault that I'm not willing to wait another year for that.


----------



## Scuffers

Maybe I should have been more specific!

I am currently driving round in an A5, I have had a string of A/S/4/5's so have a pretty good handle on what they are like.

What I am interested in is how the 3 stacks up in terms of space, build quality, seating, fit & finish, road holding, handling, usability, etc etc.

For me, the interior is going to be key, I'm all for a minimalistic approach, the question is just how well put together will they be and what quality of materials they use.

My single biggest gripe with the S is the interior, I don't really like the design, but the bigger problem is it looks/feels low-volume aftermarket in both fit and finish, the current X is better, but still have issues with choice of materials and design (based on my personal preferences!)

I kind of forgive the S as it's clearly an American styled car, (and being blunt, I don't like any US designed saloon car, and going by overseas sales, I'm not alone!), the 3 really needs to get this right, and from pictures/video's seen so far, I think it's certainly got a excellent chance of meeting my expectations, however, I really want to see/play with one first hand.


----------



## KarenRei

Scuffers said:


> Maybe I should have been more specific!
> 
> I am currently driving round in an A5, I have had a string of A/S/4/5's so have a pretty good handle on what they are like.
> 
> What I am interested in is how the 3 stacks up in terms of space, build quality, seating, fit & finish, road holding, handling, usability, etc etc.
> 
> For me, the interior is going to be key, I'm all for a minimalistic approach, the question is just how well put together will they be and what quality of materials they use.
> 
> My single biggest gripe with the S is the interior, I don't really like the design, but the bigger problem is it looks/feels low-volume aftermarket in both fit and finish, the current X is better, but still have issues with choice of materials and design (based on my personal preferences!)
> 
> I kind of forgive the S as it's clearly an American styled car, (and being blunt, I don't like any US designed saloon car, and going by overseas sales, I'm not alone!), the 3 really needs to get this right, and from pictures/video's seen so far, I think it's certainly got a excellent chance of meeting my expectations, however, I really want to see/play with one first hand.


Hopefully we'll all get to shortly  Here's to hoping that the stores get their first shipments in soon!


----------



## danzgator

SoFlaModel3 said:


> I agree. 0-60 is actually completely meaningless to me. What's important to me is the instant torque ... the ability to get from
> 30 to 70 or 80 is much more valuable.


It is until you have the car. You'll find yourself trying to get to the front of every stoplight line so that you can blow almost any car off the line and be two blocks ahead of everyone before they know what's going on. It never gets old. I got a loaner this morning and literally pulled over 3 lanes from a dead stop to be up front.

It's also torquier at low speeds. Once you get to 70 or 80, it's not that impressive because there's only one gear.


----------



## Prodigal Son

KarenRei said:


> Hopefully we'll all get to shortly  Here's to hoping that the stores get their first shipments in soon!


Out of pure selfishness I'm still hoping they don't ship any to stores until I've got mine. Every one that goes to a store is a tiny bit longer wait…


----------



## SoFlaModel3

ermagerd said:


> If tesla completely crapped the bed on the ramp and my current car needed an immediate replacement, a loaded A4 (except for rear airbags [I don't sit back there, why spend the money?] and upgraded wheels [zzzz]) was going to be my backup car. Now that there's a reasonable chance of getting my Model 3 in the next 2-5 months (supposedly a Jan-Mar window... I'm not confident but it's at least possible) I'm hoping it won't come to that (hopefully the current car cooperates).
> 
> The A4 does have ventilated seats as an advantage though, which I wish tesla could figure out how to do properly. Also AWD, but it's not Tesla's fault that I'm not willing to wait another year for that.


I used to drive and love an A4... until my warranty ended and it became the car from hell. Left a bad taste in my mouth for sure.


----------



## Prodigal Son

SoFlaModel3 said:


> I used to drive and love an A4... until my warranty ended and it became the car from hell. Left a bad taste in my mouth for sure.


Oh I would absolutely sell it before the warranty ended. I'll do the same with the Model 3. I don't think Tesla has earned enough trust to learn what it's like to own one out of warranty.


----------



## SoFlaModel3

ermagerd said:


> Oh I would absolutely sell it before the warranty ended. I'll do the same with the Model 3. I don't think Tesla has earned enough trust to learn what it's like to own one out of warranty.


I learned that one the hard way. Literally as soon as I my A4 hit 50k miles, an immediate $1,800 repair followed not to long after by a near $4,000 repair. All before the timing belt would have come calling as well. Brutal!


----------



## danzgator

ermagerd said:


> Oh I would absolutely sell it before the warranty ended. I'll do the same with the Model 3. I don't think Tesla has earned enough trust to learn what it's like to own one out of warranty.


Yeah, I'm coming up on the end of my Model S 100k mile warranty soon and I'm torn as to what to do. I don't want to get rid of the car, but I know that once the warranty runs out, repairs will be very expensive.


----------



## Scuffers

SoFlaModel3 said:


> I learned that one the hard way. Literally as soon as I my A4 hit 50k miles, an immediate $1,800 repair followed not to long after by a near $4,000 repair. All before the timing belt would have come calling as well. Brutal!


I assume that was many years ago? Timing belts went out with the Arc!

Not saying I have never had an issue (My last S5 manual box ate a bearing!), but that's about it for the 9 I have had so far.

That said, I will always extend the warranty, replacing the gearbox on them is NOT CHEAP (Quattro A4/5) and Audi warranty extensions are not big bucks (and I do a LOT of miles!)


----------



## ölbrenner

Scuffers said:


> I assume that was many years ago? Timing belts went out with the Arc!


They had model year 2018 vehicles way back then?


----------



## Scuffers

ölbrenner said:


> They had model year 2018 vehicles way back then?


I may be wrong, but I can't think of a single 2017/2018 a4 with a cam belted engine?


----------



## SoFlaModel3

danzgator said:


> Yeah, I'm coming up on the end of my Model S 100k mile warranty soon and I'm torn as to what to do. I don't want to get rid of the car, but I know that once the warranty runs out, repairs will be very expensive.


Has your S required a lot of service to date?



Scuffers said:


> I assume that was many years ago? Timing belts went out with the Arc!
> 
> Not saying I have never had an issue (My last S5 manual box ate a bearing!), but that's about it for the 9 I have had so far.
> 
> That said, I will always extend the warranty, replacing the gearbox on them is NOT CHEAP (Quattro A4/5) and Audi warranty extensions are not big bucks (and I do a LOT of miles!)


Yes, it was a 2002 A4 (first year on the B6 platform).


----------



## danzgator

SoFlaModel3 said:


> Has your S required a lot of service to date?
> 
> Yes, it was a 2002 A4 (first year on the B6 platform).


Warranty repairs here and there. Nothing major, but parts are expensive. I don't know whether the repairs would have cost a few hundred or a few thousand.


----------



## ölbrenner

Scuffers said:


> I may be wrong, but I can't think of a single 2017/2018 a4 with a cam belted engine?


I apologize, I did not know your comment was Audi specific (due to Audi's not being around during the Ark either). I just know some of the current ICE vehicles I have looked at do have timing belts.


----------



## Kizzy

Scuffers said:


> I assume that was many years ago? Timing belts went out with the Arc!


How do timing belts compare to timing chains?


----------



## Scuffers

Kizzy said:


> How do timing belts compare to timing chains?


Timing belt are cheap which is why every manufacturer went down that route, timing chains require a lot more engineering and cost a lot more to produce however they don't snap and effectively last the lifetime of an engine (100,000 miles).

Other big difference is that when timing belt fails it's catastrophic with zero warning, a timing chains rairly fail without giving a lot of warning in terms of noisy operation and slapping before getting anywhere near the point of failing.


----------



## Guest

165kW of power fits Model 3 top speed. Around 160-170kW is required for 250km/h.
EV drivetrain losses should be few percents.
Motor might be rated for 192kW, but it can't give that in many scenarios.
Definitely not possible at maximum rpm nor with smaller batteries.
For example, SR M3 might have different kW number compared to LR M3.
And Semi, with almost unlimited power (200kWh pack per one motor),
should be able to reach 192kW due to "non-existent" voltage drop more easily.



Kizzy said:


> How do timing belts compare to timing chains?


BMW uses chains even today. Mine has ran for 242 thousand miles and still going strong


----------



## Scuffers

arnis said:


> 165kW of power fits Model 3 top speed. Around 160-170kW is required for 250km/h.
> EV drivetrain losses should be few percents.
> Motor might be rated for 192kW, but it can't give that in many scenarios.
> Definitely not possible at maximum rpm nor with smaller batteries.
> For example, SR M3 might have different kW number compared to LR M3.
> And Semi, with almost unlimited power (200kWh pack per one motor),
> should be able to reach 192kW due to "non-existent" voltage drop more easily.


Appreciate the smaller battery will not support the same power output as the LR version, but no matter they both should be capable of more than 200KW without issue, I do not believe the battery is the limiting factor here, I'll put money on Tesla deliberately limiting the power, the fact the engines torque suggest a much higher power capability given it's rev range.



arnis said:


> 165kW of power fits Model 3 top speed. Around 160-170kW is required for 250km/h.
> BMW uses chains even today. Mine has ran for 242 thousand miles and still going strong


BMW like the others went through a period of using belts (specifically, the M40 engines), almost nobody does now as it's hard to prove their life for 100,000 miles.


----------



## KarenRei

I disagree. The battery is almost certainly the limiting factor. These motors are designed to be universal across Tesla's upcoming line, including very high power vehicles. Heating in the rotor will be minimal, due to the lack of induction currents. Cooling in the stator can be as much as they want - as fast as heat will flow through alumium or copper (which is very fast). I seriously doubt the motors are the limiting factor. If anything might be "limited" about the motor, I'd wager it's the wiring and cooling to them, not the motors themselves.


----------



## Scuffers

KarenRei said:


> I disagree. The battery is almost certainly the limiting factor. These motors are designed to be universal across Tesla's upcoming line, including very high power vehicles. Heating in the rotor will be minimal, due to the lack of induction currents. Cooling in the stator can be as much as they want - as fast as heat will flow through alumium or copper (which is very fast). I seriously doubt the motors are the limiting factor. If anything might be "limited" about the motor, I'd wager it's the wiring and cooling to them, not the motors themselves.


That's not what I said, (or more precisely, what I was getting at).

We know that new 2170 cells have a higher charge/discharge capability than the old 18650 cells, and that the S75D with the old cells supports much higher battery loads (>250KW).

Look, we are told the 3 motor has 3,700Nm (/9) = ~411Nm = ~303Lbft

to then say it's limited to 165KW (= 221.27Bhp) means it reaches max power at only 3,832 Rpm motor speed, doing the numbers, that works out as ~426Rpm wheel speed = ~32Mph.

we are also told the motors max rpm is 17,900, this equals some 151Mph

Getting back to the 2170 cells, best I can find on the these is they are rated at between 15 and 20A (some even claim 30A) the 3LR has 46 of these per brick, = 690-920A which at pack level (355V) is ~245-325KW.

Sorry, this all looks/smells like a SW programmed limit, my guess is the motor can do 200+KW as can the battery (how long for is a different question) - they have already told us there's an AWD version and a performance version coming, are you suggesting these will have a different battery?


----------



## Guest

Even though battery can give 200kW, what will be the voltage at that load?
What will be the voltage when SOC is 30%? Vehicle performance shouldn't fluctuate 
according to SOC (except maybe ludicrous mode). Voltage drop definitely matters.
What about temperature difference between cell core and surface.
The higher the peak output, the higher deltaT will be. 2170 is thicker than 18650.

Power electronics (inverter, not motor itself) and wiring is limited by amps.
Also number we talk about right now is peak power. It appears motor electronics is
limited to 800A for short duration. That seems to be reasonable.

Tesla definitely limits M3 to predefined maximum peak power to save costs, make it last longer and
to make vehicle behave the same in wide range of scenarios, like fluctuating
battery SOC, battery temp, battery age.
I'd rather have lower power output at wider range of scenarios (incl rpm) than having a peak
performance in a narrow window. Latter one will give very limited benefits and will require beefier
wiring, fuses, cooling capacity, bearings, reduction gear dimensions etc.


----------



## Dogwhistle

ahagge said:


> Along these lines, does anybody have a definitive answer as to the motor's output power? The Owners Guide lists 165 kW (or 221 HP) on page 136, but the EPA document shows 192 kW (257 HP) on page 14. Based on the claimed 0-60 times, I'm tempted to believe the latter.
> 
> Is this another Tesla undersell?


And even better numbers according to MotorTrend.


----------



## chopr147

SoFlaModel3 said:


> I agree. 0-60 is actually completely meaningless to me. What's important to me is the instant torque ... the ability to get from
> 30 to 70 or 80 is much more valuable.


I tell this to people all the time. The ability to pass in the blink of an eye on the highway is intoxicating. 
I still cannot believe how quickly a car is 1000 feet behind me.


----------



## NRG4All

Are there any results coming in about the M3 cabin heater? The technology of having the drive motor stationary while running electricity through it to generate heat is very different from the heat pump technology. I understand that state of the art heat pumps lose much of their heating capability approaching zero degrees F, so the Tesla method may be an improvement. However, is there a price to be paid for using the motor windings to generate heat (i.e. over time have some insulation wear off and cause a short circuit)?


----------



## GregRF

NRG4All said:


> Are there any results coming in about the M3 cabin heater? The technology of having the drive motor stationary while running electricity through it to generate heat is very different from the heat pump technology. I understand that state of the art heat pumps lose much of their heating capability approaching zero degrees F, so the Tesla method may be an improvement. However, is there a price to be paid for using the motor windings to generate heat (i.e. over time have some insulation wear off and cause a short circuit)?


There is still an electric resistive cabin heater (PTC).

The motor winding heating is just for battery heating I believe


----------



## KarenRei

NRG4All said:


> However, is there a price to be paid for using the motor windings to generate heat (i.e. over time have some insulation wear off and cause a short circuit)?


The amount of power running through them to generate waste heat for the battery is nothing compared to the power running through them for driving. Just cruising at highway speeds is something like 17kW, with about 1kW of waste heat. At full throttle it's nearly 200kW with ~10-15kW of waste heat. It has to be designed to remove large amounts of heat regardless.


----------



## NJturtlePower

In two runs this latest Model 3 track review only managed 5.3s 0-60 in both runs and pretty poor braking on the 18's. Then again no mention of equipment used


----------



## SoFlaModel3

NJturtlePower said:


> In two runs this latest Model 3 track review only managed 5.3s 0-60 in both runs and pretty poor braking on the 18's. Then again no mention of equipment used


I guess 19s are faster (ducks)


----------



## NJturtlePower

Here's the Car and Driver Model 3 (#7288) review to add to the others... 0-60 MPH in 5.1s - See full review notes attached 

https://www.caranddriver.com/tesla/model-3

And compared to my 300S Hemi


----------

