# EPA just posted officials AWD and Performance range and efficiency



## TeslaWhisperer (Jul 11, 2018)

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Pow...2018&make=Tesla&baseModel=Model 3&srchtyp=ymm


----------



## marusan (Jul 8, 2016)

Performance front engine rated at 147kW (plus 211kW rear). That's 480HP, folks

For non-performance, they down-rated the rear engine to 188kW.


----------



## KarenRei (Jul 27, 2017)

marusan said:


> Performance front engine rated at 147kW (plus 211kW rear). That's 480HP, folks
> 
> For non-performance, they down-rated the rear engine to 188kW.


Where are you seeing all this?


----------



## TheDom (Oct 28, 2017)

KarenRei said:


> Where are you seeing all this?


When you click on the vehicle name, on the next page click the "specs" tab.


----------



## Dinozero (Jul 15, 2018)

marusan said:


> Performance front engine rated at 147kW (plus 211kW rear). That's 480HP, folks
> 
> For non-performance, they down-rated the rear engine to 188kW.


I am sorry I don't know the math but can you tell me how many horsepower that is for the all-wheel-drive regular?


----------



## TheDom (Oct 28, 2017)

Dinozero said:


> I am sorry I don't know the math but can you tell me how many horsepower that is for the all-wheel-drive regular?


Just a hair shy of 450.


----------



## Asianxtreme (Jul 15, 2018)

This continues to point to the fact that the AWD and AWD+P have the same hardware, most likely just software limited. Regardless, I don't think Tesla will release the performance on the AWD; maybe down the line but $11k for software is pretty crazy.


----------



## TeslaWhisperer (Jul 11, 2018)

Asianxtreme said:


> This continues to point to the fact that the AWD and AWD+P have the same hardware, most likely just software limited. Regardless, I don't think Tesla will release the performance on the AWD; maybe down the line but $11k for software is pretty crazy.


That is what I thought too. But taking a look at AWD and Performance specs on the EPA site. It states that their motors are different:

AWD- 
147 and 188 kW AC 3-Phase
​Performance- 
147 and 211 kW AC 3-Phase
​LR RWD-
211 kW AC 3-Phase
​Unless these refers to software limitation to the motor, reported as a physical power difference. It seems like AWD has a different motor compared to RWD and Performance.


----------



## TeslaWhisperer (Jul 11, 2018)

marusan said:


> Performance front engine rated at 147kW (plus 211kW rear). That's 480HP, folks
> 
> For non-performance, they down-rated the rear engine to 188kW.


Is it a software downrate? Or a different motor all together? Im hoping it is all software because if it is a totally different motor, it'll mean I probably won't get my AWD anytime soon. Still holding out hope that AWD and Performance is just mainly software and they can quickly shift their assembly to satisfy AWD orders when Performance backlog dries up.


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

Asianxtreme said:


> This continues to point to the fact that the AWD and AWD+P have the same hardware, most likely just software limited. Regardless, I don't think Tesla will release the performance on the AWD; maybe down the line but $11k for software is pretty crazy.


the non P dual has a different rear motor. 188kw instead of 211kw.


----------



## msjulie (Feb 6, 2018)

> the non P dual has a different rear motor. 188kw instead of 211kw.


That feels software limited to me - would they really create a new rear motor for AWD?


----------



## TeslaWhisperer (Jul 11, 2018)

msjulie said:


> That feels software limited to me - would they really create a new rear motor for AWD?


Yeah. Have some manufacturing experience and I would think that the cost for developing a whole new motor would be higher than just utilizing existing one for RWD.


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

TeslaWhisperer said:


> AWD-147 and 188 kW AC 3-Phase
> Performance-147 and 211 kW AC 3-Phase
> LR RWD-211 kW AC 3-Phase


Interesting, so the motor-sizing for the three Model 3 variants ends up being similar to the way it was with the three Model S variants. Not sure why I was expecting both AWD motors to be higher-rated in the Performance configuration.



msjulie said:


> That feels software limited to me - would they really create a new rear motor for AWD?


Yeah, it kind of makes me wonder whether the rear AWD motors are actually just RWD motors that have been binned in the opposite direction as the Performance motors.


----------



## TeslaWhisperer (Jul 11, 2018)

Bokonon said:


> Interesting, so the motor-sizing for the three Model 3 variants ends up being similar to the way it was with the three Model S variants. Not sure why I was expecting both AWD motors to be higher-rated in the Performance configuration.
> 
> Yeah, it kind of makes me wonder whether the rear AWD motors are actually just RWD motors that have been binned in the opposite direction as the Performance motors.


Unless Tesla has a wildly fluctuating variation, Binning should not make that much difference. (Also depends on how many motors they produce really. Cant effectively Bin if there isn't enough motor produced) If that is the case, software definitely plays a part.

Unless Tesla is hand building these motors, the manufacturing tolerance should be under 5% between top-shelf vs standard. I don't think binning is the whole story, may be a part of it.


----------



## Runt8 (May 26, 2017)

If the AWD actually has a smaller rear motor, wouldn’t we see higher efficiency numbers vs the P?


----------



## marusan (Jul 8, 2016)

For the sake of manufacturing, I would expect these motors are identical. If anything, they're putting the better (binned) ones in the AWD-P and RWD, and the AWD are getting the worse ones in the rear. The EPA kW rating is probably based on the current that software is allowing in the motor. It's no different than rating a gas engine based on a particular ECU flash.


----------



## Skipples (Aug 12, 2017)

Dinozero said:


> I am sorry I don't know the math but can you tell me how many horsepower that is for the all-wheel-drive regular?


1 KW to 1.34102 HP, generally.


----------



## Rick Rollens (Dec 10, 2017)

TeslaWhisperer said:


> Yeah. Have some manufacturing experience and I would think that the cost for developing a whole new motor would be higher than just utilizing existing one for RWD.


They did lower the cost of the AWD option to $4000.00. Could that mean they are using a different, cheaper motor?


----------



## PNWmisty (Aug 19, 2017)

Runt8 said:


> If the AWD actually has a smaller rear motor, wouldn't we see higher efficiency numbers vs the P?


Not necessarily. It's not analogous to ICE motors where they are most efficient at ~75% load. The LR Model 3 is already considerably more efficient than other EV's with much less powerful motors. So the excellent acceleration of the Model 3 is likely a side effect of choosing the motor that will be most efficient in regular driving.


----------



## calvan (Jun 29, 2018)

1sec 0-60 difference with only 30hp difference doesn’t seem right to me. Anyone speculate what torque ratings are? If they are that similar has to be software controlled correct?

Also didn’t Elon at some point say same motors just using the higher burn in rate ones for P?


----------



## JustTheTip (Jun 7, 2018)

Based purely on the numbers, it looks like the Performance upgrade and LR RWD have the same rear motor. I could see Tesla using the better testing rear motors in the LR RWD since it's the only motor that car will have.


----------



## Teslar (May 14, 2018)

After playing a lot with custom built racing drones, I know that motors are only part of the power formula
the electronic speed controllers i.e. the inverters make a lot more difference. from the programming (software) to the quality of the transistors and the conductors use all play a huge roll in getting the most out of a brushless motor.

from what I know the PM motor used in the RWD is the same as P-AWD. however a switched reluctance motor is used in the AWD instead of the PM motor.


----------



## Runt8 (May 26, 2017)

Teslar said:


> from what I know the PM motor used in the RWD is the same as P-AWD. however a switched reluctance motor is used in the AWD instead of the PM motor.


Source? Most people seem to believe the AWD and the Performance models use identical motors.


----------



## FlyNavy01 (Aug 31, 2017)

The rear motor is identical in all Model 3's. 

Tesla just derated it in the AWD model to keep it from approaching the P-AWD performance levels. They aren't manufacturing 3 different motors for this car.


----------



## Teslar (May 14, 2018)

Runt8 said:


> Source? Most people seem to believe the AWD and the Performance models use identical motors.


Mr Musk himself

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998015873167208448


----------



## PNWmisty (Aug 19, 2017)

Teslar said:


> Mr Musk himself
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998015873167208448


That proves the rear motors are the same unit, simply sorted for highest output and burned in twice as long.


----------



## boriszima (Mar 24, 2018)

Thanks for the info. Still shows 310 miles for range. Likely same Motor but tested for higher output. Similar what Intel does with CPU, better capable were dual core that rest were celeron or no Hyperthreading. Power difference is from inventers and other parts that allow high output.


----------



## Long Ranger (Jun 1, 2018)

Teslar said:


> from what I know the PM motor used in the RWD is the same as P-AWD. however a switched reluctance motor is used in the AWD instead of the PM motor.


You seem to be assuming that the PM motor in the RWD isn't a switched reluctance motor. Everything I've read has indicated that it is. Example:
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/11/tesla-model-3-motor-in-depth/

I don't think there is any way that Tesla would have designed a switched reluctance motor and then only used it in one Model 3 variant.


----------



## Long Ranger (Jun 1, 2018)

TheDom said:


> Just a hair shy of 450.


Note that the calculations of 449 HP for the AWD and 480 HP for P assume that the front and rear motors are both allowed to operate at peak HP simultaneously. I think it's unlikely that the AWD software allows this. It could allow either motor to reach peak HP independently, depending upon conditions, but not both at the same time. Otherwise, it would be hard to explain the quoted acceleration numbers if the RWD is at 283 HP, with the AWD at 449 HP and the P at 480 HP. I know peak HP isn't everything, but this indicates to me that the AWD probably can't reach 449 HP and it must be software limited beyond just the 188 kW rear motor derating.


----------



## Alighieri256 (Oct 14, 2017)

calvan said:


> 1sec 0-60 difference with only 30hp difference doesn't seem right to me. Anyone speculate what torque ratings are? If they are that similar has to be software controlled correct?
> 
> Also didn't Elon at some point say same motors just using the higher burn in rate ones for P?


Your instincts serve you well. Any gearhead can tell you that the difference between 4.5s and 3.5s in 0-60 for a 4000lb car takes a lot more than 30hp.

It's important to recognize that the motor output is regulated a great deal by software. There are a lot of good reasons to limit it, not the least of which is to ensure warranty utilization stays within some threshold. Pushing the extra power that the P ultimately pushes generates a lot of heat in the motor itself, and perhaps more importantly, also in the battery. That likely accounts at least somewhat for the price difference as well.


----------



## Alighieri256 (Oct 14, 2017)

So, kinda not for nothing, but I noticed they're reporting 29kWh/100mi on the D and P. In order for that to equate to 310mi range, simple math puts the battery at 89.9 kWh. Thoughts?


----------



## jsmay311 (Oct 2, 2017)

Alighieri256 said:


> So, kinda not for nothing, but I noticed they're reporting 29kWh/100mi on the D and P. In order for that to equate to 310mi range, simple math puts the battery at 89.9 kWh. Thoughts?


That's wall-to-wheels efficiency, so it includes charging losses. I.e., the battery capacity isn't quite that big.


----------



## Alighieri256 (Oct 14, 2017)

jsmay311 said:


> That's wall-to-wheels efficiency, so it includes charging losses. I.e., the battery capacity isn't quite that big.


That's a good point. I didn't consider charging losses.


----------



## bergs (Jun 29, 2018)

I agree they chose to make the 18" Aeros stock to hit their range targets. Interestingly, the EPA requires optional equipment to be included if the connect rate is above a certain percentage. I believe it is 60%. According to @Troy 's spreadsheet, the connect rate for the AWD-P Powertrain is above 57% (57/99 P confirmations include the 20" wheels). I wonder if they will have to re-certify and revise the range down if the 20" wheel connect rate increases?


----------



## Asianxtreme (Jul 15, 2018)

MelindaV said:


> the non P dual has a different rear motor. 188kw instead of 211kw.


I would be *very* surprised if they didn't use all the same rear motors for all versions. Why would they change it just for AWD, non-P. Those are factory specs from Tesla.


----------



## JeffC (Jul 4, 2018)

Asianxtreme said:


> This continues to point to the fact that the AWD and AWD+P have the same hardware, most likely just software limited. Regardless, I don't think Tesla will release the performance on the AWD; maybe down the line but $11k for software is pretty crazy.


It's not just a software upgrade. The motors and motor controllers are selected and tested to be able to handle the higher power.


----------



## JeffC (Jul 4, 2018)

calvan said:


> 1sec 0-60 difference with only 30hp difference doesn't seem right to me. Anyone speculate what torque ratings are? If they are that similar has to be software controlled correct?
> 
> Also didn't Elon at some point say same motors just using the higher burn in rate ones for P?


147 + 188 >> 211. The difference between rear motor and dual motor non-Performance (114 kw) is a lot more than 30hp.

It's not just the absolute power difference. It's the fact the dual motors can do more work by using twice as many axles/wheels/tires. It's a more efficient interface for the motor torque to the road to have dual motor.

The Performance version of Model 3 gets motors and motor controllers capable of and tested to higher power levels.

The two main reasons for lower efficiency for Performance model may be the non-Aero wheels and higher weight.


----------



## JeffC (Jul 4, 2018)

TeslaWhisperer said:


> Unless Tesla has a wildly fluctuating variation, Binning should not make that much difference. (Also depends on how many motors they produce really. Cant effectively Bin if there isn't enough motor produced) If that is the case, software definitely plays a part.
> 
> Unless Tesla is hand building these motors, the manufacturing tolerance should be under 5% between top-shelf vs standard. I don't think binning is the whole story, may be a part of it.


The difference between 188 and 211 kw rear motors is about 11%. Definitely within the realm of binning. Some motors are going to perform better than others, so some will be be used for lower duty applications.

Binning is totally reasonable in manufacturing. All those different Intel CPUs are actually just a relatively few chips with different binning and feature locking in hardware.

What is binning? Please see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_binning


----------



## calvan (Jun 29, 2018)

JeffC said:


> 147 + 188 >> 211. The difference between rear motor and dual motor non-Performance (114 kw) is a lot more than 30hp.
> 
> It's not just the absolute power difference. It's the fact the dual motors can do more work by using twice as many axles/wheels/tires. It's a more efficient interface for the motor torque to the road to have dual motor.
> 
> ...


I was comparing awd and performance not rear wheel.


----------



## JeffC (Jul 4, 2018)

Runt8 said:


> If the AWD actually has a smaller rear motor, wouldn't we see higher efficiency numbers vs the P?


If it's the same motor, derated due to lower performance, then its efficiency could be less. Most electric motors are more efficient near their peak power. For example, higher voltage means lower losses per power compared to lower voltage.

(That said, motors in EVs mostly spend their time at low power for cruising, so high power efficiency may be less relevant to real world energy use.)


----------



## JeffC (Jul 4, 2018)

calvan said:


> I was comparing awd and performance not rear wheel.


Sure, but the 200hp (~150 kw) of the front motor can contribute a lot too.

P.S. kw and hp are different. kw are "bigger"; more powerful.


----------



## KarenRei (Jul 27, 2017)

JeffC said:


> The difference between 188 and 211 kw rear motors is about 11%. Definitely within the realm of binning. Some motors are going to perform better than others, so some will be be used for lower duty applications.
> 
> Binning is totally reasonable in manufacturing. All those different Intel CPUs are actually just a relatively few chips with different binning and feature locking in hardware.
> 
> What is binning? Please see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_binning


RWD, the cheapest, are all 211kW. Have they been throwing out lower-performing motors thusfar?


----------



## KarenRei (Jul 27, 2017)

I'll add: I do actually believe that Model 3 P is getting the best-binned motors. But I also don't believe that there's actually a significant difference between the best-binned and worst binned.


----------



## Tchris (Nov 22, 2017)

KarenRei said:


> I'll add: I do actually believe that Model 3 P is getting the best-binned motors. But I also don't believe that there's actually a significant difference between the best-binned and worst binned.


I have a hard time believing there would be a significant difference in motor performance as well. If so, seems there would be a problem in the manufacturing process somewhere. I'm no expert though.


----------



## JeffC (Jul 4, 2018)

KarenRei said:


> I'll add: I do actually believe that Model 3 P is getting the best-binned motors. But I also don't believe that there's actually a significant difference between the best-binned and worst binned.


There probably is some difference, like Intel CPUs.


----------



## JeffC (Jul 4, 2018)

KarenRei said:


> RWD, the cheapest, are all 211kW. Have they been throwing out lower-performing motors thusfar?


Not throwing them out. Grading them, and saving the lower binned motors for AWD models, which they appear to be building by the thousands now, judging by the VINs registered.

It's somewhat analogous to what they did with (non-P) dual motor Model S and X.


----------



## JeffC (Jul 4, 2018)

Tchris said:


> I have a hard time believing there would be a significant difference in motor performance as well. If so, seems there would be a problem in the manufacturing process somewhere. I'm no expert though.


They test them and save the motors that can handle more power over longer time for the Performance version. The lower testing ones go into regular Dual Motor. That's how I interpret Elon's tweet about the motor and controller in P:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998015873167208448


----------



## Tchris (Nov 22, 2017)

JeffC said:


> They test them and save the motors that can handle more power over longer time for the Performance version. The lower testing ones go into regular Dual Motor. That's how I interpret Elon's tweet about the motor and controller in P:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998015873167208448


Yes, I understand that is supposedly the case. I still don't believe there is any significant difference in the motors.


----------



## JeffC (Jul 4, 2018)

Tchris said:


> Yes, I understand that is supposedly the case. I still don't believe there is any significant difference in the motors.


The motors are probably the same design, but come out of production with different capabilities, very analogous to the different Intel CPUs. They're the same chip with different performance capabilities (clock speed, thermal performance, etc.) that show up in testing. Same with the motors.


----------



## Brokedoc (May 28, 2017)

Although the general designs of the motors may be the same, the P motor clearly has premium parts including the inverters and possibly conductors/harness wiring. People should not think that the standard D rear motors are "rejects". I suspect that during the initial burn in of an assembled motor/inverter assembly, it will show a higher sigma output and get pulled out to have the inverter upgraded and burned in a second time for "double burn in".

This is an oldie but goodie video from 2014 of the non AP Model S assembly. A large portion of the video shows the assembly of the AC induction motor which is similar to the front motor of the P/D Model 3. For the Model 3, the body panel stamping and painting should be identical. The roll test after assembly has been removed for the Model 3. https://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/how-its-made-dream-cars/full-episodes/tesla-model-s


----------



## Grrrreg (Sep 6, 2017)

I want Dyno results dammit!


----------



## JeffC (Jul 4, 2018)

Brokedoc said:


> Although the general designs of the motors may be the same, the P motor clearly has premium parts including the inverters and possibly conductors/harness wiring. People should not think that the standard D rear motors are "rejects". I suspect that during the initial burn in of an assembled motor/inverter assembly, it will show a higher sigma output and get pulled out to have the inverter upgraded and burned in a second time for "double burn in".


They're not rejects at all. The motors probably do not come out exactly the same every time. Tesla is selecting the higher performing motors for the Performance version.

I read the tweet as saying Performance gets motor controllers that use Silicon Carbide transistors both for front and back motors:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998015873167208448


----------



## Long Ranger (Jun 1, 2018)

Brokedoc said:


> Although the general designs of the motors may be the same, the P motor clearly has premium parts including the inverters and possibly conductors/harness wiring.


This is one reason why I believe that the 211 kW number for RWD might simply be an EPA typo. It seems like it should be rated lower than the P.

Also, I believe the 2017 EPA report for RWD quoted 258 HP. That translates to 192 kW, which is much closer to the 188 kW quoted for AWD.

Another reason I'm suspicious of the accuracy of the EPA power numbers is that they quote a fast charging time using 80A dual chargers. Dual chargers aren't an option for the 3, right?


----------



## JeffC (Jul 4, 2018)

Long Ranger said:


> This is one reason why I believe that the 211 kW number for RWD might simply be an EPA typo. It seems like it should be rated lower than the P.
> 
> Also, I believe the 2017 EPA report for RWD quoted 258 HP. That translates to 192 kW, which is much closer to the 188 kW quoted for AWD.
> 
> Another reason I'm suspicious of the accuracy of the EPA power numbers is that they quote a fast charging time using 80A dual chargers. Dual chargers aren't an option for the 3, right?


Regarding motor powers, those probably come directly from Tesla's government filings. They're probably correct. Ignore the HP number. kW is more meaningful anyway.

Model 3's internal AC charger can handle 9.6 kW (40 Amps) for Long range, 7.7 kW (32 Amps) for Standard Range. Reference:

https://electrek.co/2017/08/02/tesla-model-3-charging-options/

(Remember, for AC, the "charger" you see on the wall is not a charger at all, but an EVSE with ground fault intrrupter, contactor and some electronics. The AC charger is in the car. For DC fast charging, the charger is external and it connects relatively directly to the DC battery pack.)


----------



## Long Ranger (Jun 1, 2018)

JeffC said:


> Model 3's internal AC charger can handle 9.6 kW (40 Amps) for Long range, 7.7 kW (32 Amps) for Standard Range. (Remember, for AC, the "charger" you see on the wall is not a charger at all, but an EVSE with ground fault intrrupter, contactor and come electronics. The AC charger is in the car. For DC fast charging, the charger is external and it connects (nearly) directly to the DC battery pack..) Reference:
> 
> https://electrek.co/2017/08/02/tesla-model-3-charging-options/
> 
> Regarding motor powers, those probably come directly from Tesla's government filings. They're probably correct. Ignore the HP number. kW is more meaningful anyway.


No, the LR charger is rated up to 48A, not 40A.
https://www.tesla.com/support/home-charging-installation#on-board-charger

Ignore HP? Not sure exactly what you mean, it's a simple 1.34 multiplier to convert from kW. They are just different units of power. Anyway, I've verified that the 2017 EPA data listed 192 kW for the RWD motor.

The EPA report also claims the RWD car has regen on both axles.

I just don't trust all the auxiliary information in the EPA reports beyond fuel efficiency.

EDIT: added EPA link. See 2017 and 2018 data file.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml


----------



## JeffC (Jul 4, 2018)

@Long Ranger Points taken. I'd hope they got the motor power correct, however.

Tesla could help a lot by publishing more complete specifications. Presumably things are somewhat in a state of flux, and they're always subject to change, given how many rolling changes Tesla tends to make. That said, basics like motor power and to a somewhat lesser extent battery capacity should be stable for a while. In particular the motor designs should not be changing radically for a quite a while. They need to produce many of them and gain economies of scale.


----------



## Runt8 (May 26, 2017)

JeffC said:


> @Long Ranger Points taken. I'd hope they got the motor power correct, however.
> 
> Tesla could help a lot by publishing more complete specifications. Presumably things are somewhat in a state of flux, and they're always subject to change, given how many rolling changes Tesla tends to make. That said, basics like motor power and to a somewhat lesser extent battery capacity should be stable for a while. In particular the motor designs should not be changing radically for a quite a while. They need to produce many of them and gain economies of scale.


It seems to me that Tesla is taking the same approach to the motors as they are with batteries. Instead of revealing actual specifications, they instead quote speed (same as giving out range numbers instead of battery size). That way they can change the specs in the future.

While I can understand this approach for the battery (where it makes sense when comparing to how ICE vehicles are sold; I've never seen the size of the gas tank being advertised), I feel like HP is a very common number given when purchasing a new car and Tesla should reveal the equivalent value.


----------



## JeffC (Jul 4, 2018)

Runt8 said:


> It seems to me that Tesla is taking the same approach to the motors as they are with batteries. Instead of revealing actual specifications, they instead quote speed (same as giving out range numbers instead of battery size). That way they can change the specs in the future.
> 
> While I can understand this approach for the battery (where it makes sense when comparing to how ICE vehicles are sold; I've never seen the size of the gas tank being advertised), I feel like HP is a very common number given when purchasing a new car and Tesla should reveal the equivalent value.


Keep in mind that kW/hp numbers are hard to relate to the actual driving experience of an electric motor vs ICE. In large part this is because the torque delivery is so different. Not even talking turbo lag here, but flywheel inertia, crankshaft inertia, driveline lash (slop), gear changes, etc., that ICE have but EVs don't.

Two cars with the same kW/hp number will feel very different due to the 100% torque of an electric motor at 0 rpm. An ICE with the exact same kW/hp needs to rev hard to reach full power, and will have a relative lot of lag when pressing the throttle. ICE also has much less torque at low rpms. It's pretty apples and oranges. They honestly don't compare too well, even with the same power number. How the torque is delivered makes more difference. With EVs torque is instant at all times, and 100% at low to medium speeds. (It's hard to find anyone who doesn't like instant torque.)

It's great to have a power number, but it doesn't really compare directly for the actual driving experience across the different motor types. However when comparing two EVs of similar mass, it would be more meaningful.


----------



## Gavyne (Jul 7, 2018)

Elon thinks you can get 0-60 at 3.3 secs with optimized tires & rims.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1020107968589676545


----------



## JeffC (Jul 4, 2018)

Yes, the relatively narrow rear tires are probably optimized more towards better efficiency.

Every design decision in engineering is a tradeoff towards some goal or another.


----------



## Canuck42 (Jul 8, 2018)

In the configuration page the motors have a different look to them at least, or is that my eyes


----------



## marusan (Jul 8, 2016)

Canuck42 said:


> View attachment 11894
> In the configuration page the motors have a different look to them at least, or is that my eyes


Nope they're different kinds of motors.



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998015873167208448


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Canuck42 said:


> View attachment 11894
> In the configuration page the motors have a different look to them at least, or is that my eyes


We believe that most of that red-highlighted portion is the reduction gear housing. The motors themselves are just a small part of that. Here's a picture that highlights in orange the part that's expected to be the motors.

[edited for clarity]


----------



## Alighieri256 (Oct 14, 2017)

garsh said:


> We believe that most of that highlighted portion is the reduction gear housing. The motors themselves are just a small part of that.


The reduction housing is probably the other side, i.e. the side which extends to the axles. The axles plug directly into the differential, and the outer ring gear on the differential determines the final drive ratio.

Here's a link with a picture showing the reduction in a Model S. The fourth photo shows the gearing with the differential removed.

http://edisonmotors.net/blog/topsy-...model-s-high-efficiency-next-gen-drive-unit-1


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Alighieri256 said:


> The reduction housing is probably the other side


Yeah, my wording was terrible.

In the picture I added, the orange part is the motor, most of the red part is housing of the reduction gears.


----------



## Alighieri256 (Oct 14, 2017)

Another source indicating the gearbox position.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/11/tesla-model-3-motor-in-depth/



garsh said:


> Yeah, my wording was terrible.
> 
> In the picture I added, the orange part is the motor, most of the red part is housing of the reduction gears.


Got it. When I read 'highlighted' I assumed you meant yellow.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Alighieri256 said:


> Got it. When I read 'highlighted' I assumed you meant yellow.


Yeah, I meant in the original picture, before I found & added a picture to my own post.


----------

