# [speculation] Model 3 slowed down with Update



## Agreco (Jun 8, 2018)

Model 3 RWD LR VIN 27xxx

Scanning through forums after I felt this recently that my model 3 has lost some of its power. There are a lot of reports of this. Apparently it stems back around the 18.3 update but can’t be sure exactly which update it was. But it seems Tesla slipped this in which has lowered the power of the motor. There have been many reports of how much better the car can do 0-60 with VBOX data. Getting 4.6s and 4.7s/4.8s respectively with 75-95% SOC. This now cannot be replicated as the motor has been muted a little. Now getting 0-60 around 5.3 seconds. Notice how Tesla has now changed the 0-60 times for the RWD on the order page to 5.4s (the old standard battery specs, if I’m correct) changed from the original posted 5.1 spec. What’s going on? If they were only muting the initial jerk and twist of the torque to protect the motor for warranty repair costs it wouldn’t change the 0-60 times by much at all. So I believe they have muted our vehicles to further differentiate the AWD and P models. AWD is spec’d At 4.7s and you can’t have two cars that have similar specs for sales. If this is all true I am disappointed. Because I didn’t ask for this. My car has definitely slowed down a bit. It doesn’t throw you back in the seats like when I first got it. I contacted Tesla, and they were angry that I would insinuate this and didn’t give me a straight answer but the VBOX data doesn’t lie. It’s almost a second slower now. 

Please inquire if you have experienced this. There is not a lot of in depth discussion about this topic but now that we have 3 model 3 trims out it seems like a business plan from Tesla to further push the faster more expensive vehicles.


----------



## SoFlaModel3 (Apr 15, 2017)

Agreco said:


> Model 3 RWD LR VIN 27xxx
> 
> Scanning through forums after I felt this recently that my model 3 has lost some of its power. There are a lot of reports of this. Apparently it stems back around the 18.3 update but can't be sure exactly which update it was. But it seems Tesla slipped this in which has lowered the power of the motor. There have been many reports of how much better the car can do 0-60 with VBOX data. Getting 4.6s and 4.7s/4.8s respectively with 75-95% SOC. This now cannot be replicated as the motor has been muted a little. Now getting 0-60 around 5.3 seconds. Notice how Tesla has now changed the 0-60 times for the RWD on the order page to 5.4s (the old standard battery specs, if I'm correct) changed from the original posted 5.1 spec. What's going on? If they were only muting the initial jerk and twist of the torque to protect the motor for warranty repair costs it wouldn't change the 0-60 times by much at all. So I believe they have muted our vehicles to further differentiate the AWD and P models. AWD is spec'd At 4.7s and you can't have two cars that have similar specs for sales. If this is all true I am disappointed. Because I didn't ask for this. My car has definitely slowed down a bit. It doesn't throw you back in the seats like when I first got it. I contacted Tesla, and they were angry that I would insinuate this and didn't give me a straight answer but the VBOX data doesn't lie. It's almost a second slower now.
> 
> Please inquire if you have experienced this. There is not a lot of in depth discussion about this topic but now that we have 3 model 3 trims out it seems like a business plan from Tesla to further push the faster more expensive vehicles.


It's definitely true the car was "nerfed".

That said long range RWD was always 5.1 and standard 5.6.

They only slowed the car to meet their posted specs.


----------



## Agreco (Jun 8, 2018)

I understand they may want to bring it back into specs. Just seems suspect. No one wants their cars slowed down. They were perfect from the factory. They recently changed the posted 0-60 spec on their order page? It’s now 5.4 changed from 5.1 as well.


----------



## Rich M (Jul 28, 2017)

They've scrubbed the '5.1' number from the press kit as well. It only shows standard battery acceleration of 5.6 and "as fast as 3.5" in the opening paragraph.


----------



## Agreco (Jun 8, 2018)

It’s just a let down. I’m not sure when you received your car, if you were shipped with the pre slow update but when you get in it one day and go to take an on ramp and it’s a slower car, it’s a disappointment.


----------



## LucyferSam (Sep 13, 2017)

Interesting, since my last update (26.1) I'd actually thought they'd increased the starting torque as I've been getting wheel slip on initial acceleration that I didn't get prior to it. I've never actually tested the 0-60, but the initial accel seems to have been boosted recently to me.


----------



## RichEV (Sep 21, 2017)

Rich M said:


> They've scrubbed the '5.1' number from the press kit as well. It only shows standard battery acceleration of 5.6 and "as fast as 3.5" in the opening paragraph.


https://www.tesla.com/model3 specs still shows this for Long Range.

*Acceleration*

*4.5-5.1 seconds 0-60 mph*


----------



## Tchris (Nov 22, 2017)

Agreco said:


> I understand they may want to bring it back into specs. Just seems suspect. No one wants their cars slowed down. They were perfect from the factory. They recently changed the posted 0-60 spec on their order page? It's now 5.4 changed from 5.1 as well.


I don't think they should be doing that. They sold the car with a 0-60 spec of 5.1. I'm no lawyer, but seems they may get themselves into some legal trouble with a move like that. I have the AWD on order. I definitely will not be happy if they change the 0-60 from 4.5 to something higher after I get the car. Now, I have no problem if they go lower!


----------



## Agreco (Jun 8, 2018)

They must of changed it again.
But still what I’m getting at is all models shipped are or were beating the posted specs. LR(5.1) best 4.6. AWD(4.5) best 4.3, Performance (3.5) best 3.18. Anyone would be mad if their car is slowed down and you can feel the difference


----------



## Agreco (Jun 8, 2018)




----------



## Tchris (Nov 22, 2017)

Agreco said:


> View attachment 13579


Are we confusing km/hr with miles/hr in this conversation?


----------



## FF35 (Jul 13, 2018)

Agreco said:


> View attachment 13579


I just went to Tesla's website and it shows 5.1


----------



## Diamond.g (Jun 26, 2017)

Mountain Pass Perf car still seems to put out the same amount of HP it put out the first time they dyno'ed it. I think this is the first thread that claimed the 0-60 time changed. Most folks complained about the 0-20 acceleration feeling a bit muted.


----------



## Agreco (Jun 8, 2018)

My bad, i didn’t think the 3.5 kms mattered .3 seconds but I guess that’s Tesla’s numbers then. 

The concenses is that most owners are feeling their cars have slowed a bit


----------



## KarenRei (Jul 27, 2017)

Tchris said:


> Are we
> 
> Are we confusing km/hr with miles/hr in this conversation?


Let's say it together: "0-60 mph" does not equal "0-100 kph".

They're close. But not identical.


----------



## Tesla4Me! (Jul 29, 2017)

Tchris said:


> I don't think they should be doing that. They sold the car with a 0-60 spec of 5.1. I'm no lawyer, but seems they may get themselves into some legal trouble with a move like that. I have the AWD on order. I definitely will not be happy if they change the 0-60 from 4.5 to something higher after I get the car. Now, I have no problem if they go lower!


The Tesla website shows 3.5s 0-60MPH for the Model 3 performance version, and for "Long Range" it shows 4.5-5.1, but this covers both the RWD and the AWD. So it seems that it is still 5.1 for the RWD, and 4.5 for the AWD. The "Standard" version shows 5.1-5.6, but again this covers both the RWD and the AWD, so it seems the Standard RWD is 5.6s and the Standard AWD is 5.1s. It does not look like anything has changed to me!


----------



## Tchris (Nov 22, 2017)

Tesla4Me! said:


> The Tesla website shows 3.5s 0-60MPH for the Model 3 performance version, and for "Long Range" it shows 4.5-5.1, but this covers both the RWD and the AWD. So it seems that it is still 5.1 for the RWD, and 4.5 for the AWD. The "Standard" version shows 5.1-5.6, but again this covers both the RWD and the AWD, so it seems the Standard RWD is 5.6s and the Standard AWD is 5.1s. It does not look like anything has changed to me!


I'm not sure, but I believe someone was confusing km/hr with miles/hr. Apparently nothing has changed.


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

Diamond.g said:


> Mountain Pass Perf car still seems to put out the same amount of HP it put out the first time they dyno'ed it. I think this is the first thread that claimed the 0-60 time changed. Most folks complained about the 0-20 acceleration feeling a bit muted.


Yes, but they have also worked around the system to disable traction control and that could be where the slowdown is implemented. Are you still working on a Go Fast Button for us, @Sasha Anis ?


----------



## Diamond.g (Jun 26, 2017)

JWardell said:


> Yes, but they have also worked around the system to disable traction control and that could be where the slowdown is implemented. Are you still working on a Go Fast Button for us, @Sasha Anis ?


Maybe. It seems like we should be able to get the data via Draggy, but no one appears to be using it/have it.


----------



## MountainPass (May 15, 2018)

JWardell said:


> Yes, but they have also worked around the system to disable traction control and that could be where the slowdown is implemented. Are you still working on a Go Fast Button for us, @Sasha Anis ?


Our Model 3 is still making the same power as the day we picked it up. Yes, the traction/stability control defeat is coming! If it was something to do with TC it wouldn't show during our dyno pulls since we have it disabled.


----------



## Agreco (Jun 8, 2018)

Regardless of what it says on the website. Pre 18.3 update the car was consistently VBOXed at 4.7s 0-60. And now no one has replicated that. They are getting 5.1-5.3s is this not agreed upon?


----------



## SoFlaModel3 (Apr 15, 2017)

I don’t understand being upset. 

Tesla sold the car to us with a 0-60 of 5.1 seconds and the car gets 5.1 seconds. Sure it was faster at one point, but the car meets the specs we expected to have. 

What if overclocking (for lack of a better way to say it) the motor hurts reliability?


----------



## Agreco (Jun 8, 2018)

You're right. If it was a measure to protect from warranty costs and replacements then thats okay with me. One could look into it as Tesla trying to differentiate the models from each other more due to performance but it definitely could be to protect the motor. The service centres are super busy and cant suffer more repairs


----------



## SoFlaModel3 (Apr 15, 2017)

Agreco said:


> You're right. If it was a measure to protect from warranty costs and replacements then thats okay with me. One could look into it as Tesla trying to differentiate the models from each other more due to performance but it definitely could be to protect the motor. The service centres are super busy and cant suffer more repairs


But see even if it's just to differentiate the cars I'm not upset either because I got exactly what I paid for.


----------



## Samsaggace (Jul 27, 2018)

In fact, if we admit a constant acceleration at those velocities (around 60 mph) :
5,1 s for 0-60 mph = 5,3 s for 0-100 km/h
It is quite awkward to argue on a difference of 0,1 s !!


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

Agreco said:


> Notice how Tesla has now changed the 0-60 times for the RWD on the order page to 5.4s


where are you seeing 5.4? everything I see is 5.1 for rear motor, LR battery.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

MelindaV said:


> where are you seeing 5.4? everything I see is 5.1 for rear motor, LR battery.











(it does 0-100 kph in 5.4s)


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

so all this for a misunderstanding over a conversion?


----------



## GDN (Oct 30, 2017)

MelindaV said:


> so all this for a misunderstanding over a conversion?


Well I'm surprised it wasn't a tweet, you've seen what those can do. Can we just get rid of that app already.


----------



## dannyskim (Nov 14, 2016)

MelindaV said:


> so all this for a misunderstanding over a conversion?


No, there was confusion on the conversion but I think the OP is still disappointed that 0-60mph 4.6-4.7s reports are virtually non-existent now, and that the LR was nerfed.


----------



## tivoboy (Mar 24, 2017)

dannyskim said:


> No, there was confusion on the conversion but I think the OP is still disappointed that 0-60mph 4.6-4.7s reports are virtually non-existent now, and that the LR was nerfed.


This


----------



## dannyskim (Nov 14, 2016)

I'm also eagerly awaiting some recent posts that the LR still does better than 5.1s advertised, but I think I'm going to be disappointed as well. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an actual nerf even though people are saying it's still achieving the same dyno numbers.

If that is the case, I believe it to be for the most part marketing strategy, which I would hope would be reversed in the future.

Given the delivery times, it's become very apparent to me that a lot of the original 400k preorders are probably still waiting on the release of the 35,000 car, and if that's the case Tesla needs to do everything in it's power to sell as many expensive cars as they can for the rest of the year in order to become profitable. While I was super excited about the notion of 4.6s 0-60mph on my LR, I wouldn't want Tesla to not achieve profitability either.

For me, the evidence shows in the company's behavior that this is most likely the case. There are little strategy shifts that to me were very odd, for example placing the Model 3 as the prime spot in their website and then quickly reversing that decision weeks later back to the Model S. If P3D's were selling like hotcakes, I don't think this move would have been prudent.

All told, my personal plan is to keep the LR for a couple of years and scoop up a used P3D+ as I refuse to extend my budget any further than I already have.


----------



## oripaamoni (Jan 25, 2018)

My car has been stuck on 14.13 since the second day I got it back in April. Wish I had a VBox to get you guys some data.


----------



## Tesla4Me! (Jul 29, 2017)

oripaamoni said:


> My car has been stuck on 14.13 since the second day I got it back in April. Wish I had a VBox to get you guys some data.


According to McCaffrey in his latest Ride The Lightning podcast, Telsa Service told him that if your car has not received an update in the last month or two, then it is probably stuck and will need Tesla Service to correct the situation. It might be worth a call to them.


----------



## MGallo (Oct 29, 2016)

I have no empirical data (no VBOX or other tests), but anecdotally, it does _feel_ a tad bit slower to me than at delivery. Really wishing I had been more patient and waited for the Performance model, or at least the AWD. I'll know better when the Y comes out. Going to punish myself again today by test driving the Performance model again. Why, why do I do it?


----------



## BobLoblaw (Apr 4, 2017)

Easy explanation for why it doesn't feel so fast anymore....your baselines have shifted. Your new normal is what the uninitiated would rightfully call being "shot out of a cannon". There's two solutions. One - be happy with your recalibration, and enjoy the fact that it is now your everyday experience. Two - chase the dragon and buy the P.


----------



## firelegend (Jun 6, 2018)

Mine has felt muted as well...


----------



## Rich M (Jul 28, 2017)

BobLoblaw said:


> your baselines have shifted. Your new normal is what the uninitiated would rightfully call being "shot out of a cannon".


Not really. I drive two other cars. They don't feel any different. 3 is muted a little, but I also rarely charge over 70%. I'll pay closer attention next time I start out with 85 or 90%.


----------



## Diamond.g (Jun 26, 2017)

oripaamoni said:


> My car has been stuck on 14.13 since the second day I got it back in April. Wish I had a VBox to get you guys some data.


Quick someone get this person a draggy so they can test 0-60 before and after contacting the service center for and update.


----------



## MGallo (Oct 29, 2016)

Diamond.g said:


> Quick someone get this person a draggy so they can test 0-60 before and after contacting the service center for and update.


Was at Fremont today and one of the guys there said that it did slow down from like 4.8 to 5.3 when tested with a draggy. He said it went back down a little with the latest firmware. I think I'm actually going to get a draggy myself.


----------



## timc.tesla (Aug 20, 2018)

Another thread can be found at https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/did-tesla-just-slow-down-our-cars. I too feel my Model 3 is slower than delivery in April. Was neck to neck with a Mustang GT 5.0 a couple of months ago after the update. Pre update I felt I would of took him. It is a shame that Tesla did slow down our cars.


----------



## MelindaV (Apr 2, 2016)

timc.tesla said:


> Another thread can be found at https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/did-tesla-just-slow-down-our-cars. I too feel my Model 3 is slower than delivery in April. Was neck to neck with a Mustang GT 5.0 a couple of months ago after the update. Pre update I felt I would of took him. It is a shame that Tesla did slow down our cars.


you are quoting a forum post 1) from 4 months ago, 2) giving no more information than is already here within this site/thread. 
it is all antidotal until someone comes up with a change in code from the first Model 3s released to the code from the current firmware showing an actual intentional change Tesla made to the speed.

again 5.1 is what they have always said. There have always been stock cars able to beat the manufacturers specs. road, tires, temp, fuel (or battery level), weight, etc all play into it and the specs are given as the optimal, but likely not the all out max if conditions are right, so why is anyone surprised there can be a variation of tenths of seconds? if you were running an ICE car and one day it got a .2sec slower time than 6 months earlier, would you even question it?


----------



## Jay79 (Aug 18, 2018)

It would be self defeating for Tesla to slow their cars down after its been proven to run a little faster than advertised. Unless they found out that damage may occur and they need to take the initial bite off. I see all kinds of different times with the performance variant which is what I purchased from 3.18 to 3.7 0 - 60. Too many variables for everyone to run the exact same time, some will be quicker and some will be a bit slower. At the end of the day all M3's are bullets in raw acceleration. Enjoy what you have and stop complaining!


----------



## oripaamoni (Jan 25, 2018)

Diamond.g said:


> Quick someone get this person a draggy so they can test 0-60 before and after contacting the service center for and update.


Just ordered a dragy for myself, it gets delivered this sunday, my service appt is on 9/12. I will post my results once I get it.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

oripaamoni said:


> Just ordered a dragy for myself, it gets delivered this sunday, my service appt is on 9/12. I will post my results once I get it.


Make sure you don't update your software beforehand.
We're all counting on you.


----------



## Rich M (Jul 28, 2017)

oripaamoni said:


> Just ordered a dragy for myself, it gets delivered this sunday, my service appt is on 9/12. I will post my results once I get it.





garsh said:


> Make sure you don't update your software beforehand.
> We're all counting on you.


----------



## timc.tesla (Aug 20, 2018)

@oripaamoni, thanks for volunteering to do this for us. Can you make sure you test at different power levels, I remember reading one of the threads the torque and horsepower bands differ depending on much charge the model 3 has.


----------



## oripaamoni (Jan 25, 2018)

timc.tesla said:


> @oripaamoni, thanks for volunteering to do this for us. Can you make sure you test at different power levels, I remember reading one of the threads the torque and horsepower bands differ depending on much charge the model 3 has.


Ya for sure, I will do a run at 90% 70% and 50%


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

oripaamoni said:


> Ya for sure, I will do a run at 90% 70% and 50%


And 100%!!!!
Please do 100%


----------



## oripaamoni (Jan 25, 2018)

OK here are some initial results on 2018.14.13. Started at 100% today and went down to 90%, car seems to consistently run 5.3sec. The one time I got down to 4.9sec was with a ~-5% slope...


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

oripaamoni said:


> OK here are some initial results on 2018.14.13. Started at 100% today and went down to 90%, car seems to consistently run 5.3sec. The one time I got down to 4.9sec was with a ~-5% slope...


That's pretty useful.

Here's where things get interesting. It sounds like people were first reporting the "slowness" after upgrading *from* 2018.14.13 (14th week is first week of April) to 2018.18.3 (18th week is first week of May). So in theory, @oripaamoni should have been getting the faster numbers.

In our own forum, the first discussion I could find was here in July, but no mention of sofware version numbers.


----------



## Mayhem (May 25, 2018)

oripaamoni said:


> OK here are some initial results on 2018.14.13. Started at 100% today and went down to 90%, car seems to consistently run 5.3sec. The one time I got down to 4.9sec was with a ~-5% slope...


Using Dragy? If so need to take 0.25-0.3 sec away from your time to have parity with VBOX data. The VBOX results are usually report with 1ft rollout (a dragstrip thing -- google it if unfamiliar) but dragy reports 0-60 WITHOUT rollout calculation.

BTW: FWIW I have been looking at a lot of dragy data from various Model 3 configs on the dragy app. It would seem all prior S/X 'P' models have been advertised by Tesla 0-60 WITH rollout calc. The Model 3 (for what ever reason) has been advertised and is hitting quite accurately WITHOUT rollout calc, but only at 95-100% SOC. This if you're using Dragy, I'd predict with a flat surface and 95-100%SOC (do this at a supercharger so your battery warms up some) you should get 5.1 sec 0-60.

So it's not unreasonable to think DragTimes would get 4.7 sec with VBOX (4.95-5 sec on Dragy) under optimal settings (at a strip, high SOC in FL -warm, humid).


----------



## oripaamoni (Jan 25, 2018)

Mayhem said:


> Using Dragy? If so need to take 0.25-0.3 sec away from your time to have parity with VBOX data. The VBOX results are usually report with 1ft rollout (a dragstrip thing -- google it if unfamiliar) but dragy reports 0-60 WITHOUT rollout calculation.
> 
> BTW: FWIW I have been looking at a lot of dragy data from various Model 3 configs on the dragy app. It would seem all prior S/X 'P' models have been advertised by Tesla 0-60 WITH rollout calc. The Model 3 (for what ever reason) has been advertised and is hitting quite accurately WITHOUT rollout calc, but only at 95-100% SOC. This if you're using Dragy, I'd predict with a flat surface and 95-100%SOC (do this at a supercharger so your battery warms up some) you should get 5.1 sec 0-60.
> 
> So it's not unreasonable to think DragTimes would get 4.7 sec with VBOX (4.95-5 sec on Dragy) under optimal settings (at a strip, high SOC in FL -warm, humid).


Intertesting, I am primarily interested to see if the software update changes my 0-60 time, so as long as the draggy is precise and my method is repeatable I don't need the drag to be accurate.


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

oripaamoni said:


> OK here are some initial results on 2018.14.13. Started at 100% today and went down to 90%, car seems to consistently run 5.3sec. The one time I got down to 4.9sec was with a ~-5% slope...


Thanks for doing this! So level average around 5.3, I assume you still have your slippery stock tires.
Let's hope your update comes soon before temps change too much


----------



## oripaamoni (Jan 25, 2018)

JWardell said:


> Thanks for doing this! So level average around 5.3, I assume you still have your slippery stock tires.
> Let's hope your update comes soon before temps change too much


Yup, stock tires 18". I have my service appointment on the 11th to push the update.


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

Considering recent debate on regen, I wonder if you can test that at certain situations as well. For example, how far does the regen graph go left at 20/30/40 mph? Get a good feel for it in a well-defined place, then see if the latest software is noticeably different


----------



## MountainPass (May 15, 2018)

Sounds like we will be getting to the bottom of this very soon!


----------



## oripaamoni (Jan 25, 2018)

JWardell said:


> Considering recent debate on regen, I wonder if you can test that at certain situations as well. For example, how far does the regen graph go left at 20/30/40 mph? Get a good feel for it in a well-defined place, then see if the latest software is noticeably different


I will try to pay extra attention to the regen before and after. I will set up a mount and gopro and do a 60-0 with regen only that way we can compare that video to a video I will make after the update. Should be able to compare the 60-0 curve in draggy also as long as I do the test the same and in the same spot. Is there a way to export the raw data from draggy?


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

oripaamoni said:


> I will try to pay extra attention to the regen before and after. I will set up a mount and gopro and do a 60-0 with regen only that way we can compare that video to a video I will make after the update. Should be able to compare the 60-0 curve in draggy also as long as I do the test the same and in the same spot. Is there a way to export the raw data from draggy?


Great idea using the GoPro for timing. Record a few different situations and duplicate after update.
Thank you for being the awesomest guinea pig!


----------



## oripaamoni (Jan 25, 2018)

JWardell said:


> Great idea using the GoPro for timing. Record a few different situations and duplicate after update.
> Thank you for being the awesomest guinea pig!


So after not getting any updates since April my car finally updated itself! I am on 34.1, didn't get a chance to do the regen tests I wanted to do.


----------



## scaots (Sep 13, 2017)

I feel that at lower speeds and max acceleration that it is at the limit or the 18" tire traction. It is very subtle since traction control is so good, but it definitely usually slips a little for me. If the tires are the limit, then better tires (or surface) should help a little. I think one of the car magazine or consumer reports reviews noted how they had better performance with the 19" wheels, and this was before AWD was available. Would be interesting to do identical testing with 18" and 19".


----------



## PNWmisty (Aug 19, 2017)

scaots said:


> I feel that at lower speeds and max acceleration that it is at the limit or the 18" tire traction. It is very subtle since traction control is so good, but it definitely usually slips a little for me. If the tires are the limit, then better tires (or surface) should help a little. I think one of the car magazine or consumer reports reviews noted how they had better performance with the 19" wheels, and this was before AWD was available. Would be interesting to do identical testing with 18" and 19".


I get your point about the traction control being so good but I feel like the OEM 18" tires on good, clean, grippy pavement are giving me all there is to be had. The weight distribution is so good, and there is quite a shift in weight distribution over the rear wheels when accelerating hard, in a straight line, I don't think the traction control needs to kick in. This is at 41 psi on chip seal with sharp, angular composition. But definitely, if going around a corner or on smooth blacktop contaminated by ICE traffic, I definitely feel the traction control modulating the power.

It might pay off in shorter 0-60 times to lower the pressure some. While I don't think traction will be improved much, if any, it will provide slightly lower gearing.


----------



## oripaamoni (Jan 25, 2018)

Didn't have a chance to do all the testing after the update yet, but I did do 2 quick runs from the exact same spots as 2 other runs on 14.13. As far as I am concerned, myth busted. The 2 runs on 14.13 were done at 99% and 98% SOC, The 2 runs on 34.1 were done at 90% SOC.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Inlining @oripaamoni's images for ease of viewing.
The two runs on build 2018.14.13 (0-60 times of 5.30s and 5.04s):


>


And the two runs on build 2018.34.1 (0-60 times of 5.26s and 5.13s):


>


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

scaots said:


> I feel that at lower speeds and max acceleration that it is at the limit or the 18" tire traction. It is very subtle since traction control is so good, but it definitely usually slips a little for me. If the tires are the limit, then better tires (or surface) should help a little. I think one of the car magazine or consumer reports reviews noted how they had better performance with the 19" wheels, and this was before AWD was available. Would be interesting to do identical testing with 18" and 19".


The 18s absolutely can not handle the the torque and slip. I did not even notice this due to the outstandingly precise traction control. Turn on slip start and mash the pedal in a wide corner and it will quickly become very obvious they do not have enough grip (I assume most of you don't have the convenience of a big rotary in your front yard like me)

Remember they are eco tires, made to not only be quiet but also save efficiency by not sticking to the pavement so much. I upgraded to high performance tires recently and the grip difference is significant, but I also take a noticeable efficiency hit.

Unfortunately even with the grippier tires the acceleration does not have that instant punch in the first few milliseconds that is there on the S and I swear older 3 firmware. Still nerfed IMO


----------



## NJturtlePower (Dec 19, 2017)

JWardell said:


> I upgraded to high performance tires recently and the grip difference is significant, but I also take a noticeable efficiency hit.


What tires and size did you go with? Was thinking about going 245 or 255 if I stick with the 18" rims...if not they may become my winters.


----------



## Mayhem (May 25, 2018)

oripaamoni said:


> Didn't have a chance to do all the testing after the update yet, but I did do 2 quick runs from the exact same spots as 2 other runs on 14.13. As far as I am concerned, myth busted. The 2 runs on 14.13 were done at 99% and 98% SOC, The 2 runs on 34.1 were done at 90% SOC.


While I TOTALLY agree with your conclusion based on the limited objective data there still is that nagging question: Why do so many RWD owners feel that the acceleration is nerfed relative to earlier SW builds? It's _gotta_ be that they become accustomed to it, no?

Honestly I think this is a Thing™️: When I got my Model S 60 back in early April I was floored at how fast it was. "Punching it" was something my kids giggled at with joy. Months later I 'punch it' and it get no attention hardly whatsoever (other than a general acknowledgment). So I think soooo many new Tesla owners getting their first Tesla as Model 3 from Feb-May now feel (in unison) a little 'ho-hum' about it 5K or 10K miles later.... Thoughts?


----------



## SoFlaModel3 (Apr 15, 2017)

Mayhem said:


> While I TOTALLY agree with your conclusion based on the limited objective data there still is that nagging question: Why do so many RWD owners feel that the acceleration is nerfed relative to earlier SW builds? It's _gotta_ be that they become accustomed to it, no?
> 
> Honestly I think this is a Thing™️: When I got my Model S 60 back in early April I was floored at how fast it was. "Punching it" was something my kids giggled at with joy. Months later I 'punch it' and it get no attention hardly whatsoever (other than a general acknowledgment). So I think soooo many new Tesla owners getting their first Tesla as Model 3 from Feb-May now feel (in unison) a little 'ho-hum' about it 5K or 10K miles later.... Thoughts?


Well we saw Drag Times get 4.6 to 60 with the RWD so something happened.

I don't think it's the placebo effect. My car feels slower than when I got it for sure.


----------



## Mayhem (May 25, 2018)

SoFlaModel3 said:


> Well we saw Drag Times get 4.6 to 60 with the RWD so something happened.
> 
> I don't think it's the placebo effect. My car feels slower than when I got it for sure.


MAYBE....

But go back in this thread and read my prior post. Has to do with dragtimes using VBOX (excludes rollout) vs Dragy (includes rollout time)

Take 5.04 gotten above and minus the typically 0.25-.3 sec rollout time you're at 4.79-4.74 sec. -- or the 5.13 and you get 4.88- 4.83. The longer times above were on 90 vs >95% SOC. Again, as in my original post, put this on a proper dragstrip (that is level) with >95% SOC in that nice warm FL weather you guys have...... well then we are talking 4.76 sec vs 4.83 sec by dragy.

You gonna make a stink over 7/100ths of a sec?


----------



## oripaamoni (Jan 25, 2018)

Mayhem said:


> MAYBE....
> 
> But go back in this thread and read my prior post. Has to do with dragtimes using VBOX (excludes rollout) vs Dragy (includes rollout time)
> 
> ...


Yup totally agree!

Every car I have ever owned has felt slower after the first few months. I think you just get use to it.


----------



## scaots (Sep 13, 2017)

PNWmisty said:


> I get your point about the traction control being so good but I feel like the OEM 18" tires on good, clean, grippy pavement are giving me all there is to be had. The weight distribution is so good, and there is quite a shift in weight distribution over the rear wheels when accelerating hard, in a straight line, I don't think the traction control needs to kick in. This is at 41 psi on chip seal with sharp, angular composition. But definitely, if going around a corner or on smooth blacktop contaminated by ICE traffic, I definitely feel the traction control modulating the power.
> 
> It might pay off in shorter 0-60 times to lower the pressure some. While I don't think traction will be improved much, if any, it will provide slightly lower gearing.


Right, tire pressure is also an import factor. In fact I don't think that I originally noticed the slight slip as much as after I increased my cold pressure from 41-42 to 46 psi. (BTW, I didn't notice any ride comfort difference, but the economy did improve noticeably with this change.)



JWardell said:


> The 18s absolutely can not handle the the torque and slip. I did not even notice this due to the outstandingly precise traction control. Turn on slip start and mash the pedal in a wide corner and it will quickly become very obvious they do not have enough grip (I assume most of you don't have the convenience of a big rotary in your front yard like me)
> 
> Remember they are eco tires, made to not only be quiet but also save efficiency by not sticking to the pavement so much. I upgraded to high performance tires recently and the grip difference is significant, but I also take a noticeable efficiency hit.
> 
> Unfortunately even with the grippier tires the acceleration does not have that instant punch in the first few milliseconds that is there on the S and I swear older 3 firmware. Still nerfed IMO


I just tried slip start tonight. It was wet out and I wasn't in a spot to really try anything but obviously being wet could definitely spin a little. Can't wait to try this on dry road and see if I can get a tire chirp from maybe 25-30mph...

While I want as much as I can get form the car, I will rarely enjoy it like that. I mainly have this for economy and comfort and drive 95% highway so doesn't matter to me. As is it is great for merging onto highway or jumping into the fast lane and autopilot for the rest of the drive.

One other thought... Performance 3s are now getting the best motors. Perhaps the early ones could handle more and they are limiting to protect some of the now RWD motors. Or found that max was a little too much and might cause issues, but I don't buy that if P3 can take it and it has same rear motor power.


----------



## scaots (Sep 13, 2017)

oripaamoni said:


> Yup totally agree!
> 
> Every car I have ever owned has felt slower after the first few months. I think you just get use to it.


S5 didn't feel slower to me until I had the 3. Although wife typically drives S5 and before I was going between a big SUV and it.

The 3 still feels about the same to me, but I didn't get it until June so probably missed the early firmware that might have been better.


----------



## RichEV (Sep 21, 2017)

perhaps someone should change the thread title to Proof? instead of Proof!


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

NJturtlePower said:


> What tires and size did you go with? Was thinking about going 245 or 255 if I stick with the 18" rims...if not they may become my winters.


Continental ExtremeContact DWS 06 235/45-18


----------



## SoFlaModel3 (Apr 15, 2017)

Mayhem said:


> MAYBE....
> 
> But go back in this thread and read my prior post. Has to do with dragtimes using VBOX (excludes rollout) vs Dragy (includes rollout time)
> 
> ...


That's a good point! I'm certainly not making a stink, the car is plenty fast as is and meets the expectation set when I configured!


----------



## Mayhem (May 25, 2018)

SoFlaModel3 said:


> That's a good point! I'm certainly not making a stink, the car is plenty fast as is and meets the expectation set when I configured!


To be fair, though this is just my guess -- I'm making an argument for what I think might be going on. I'd like to see it played out for real and see if dragtimes could reproduce those VBOX 4.6-4.7 sec numbers with the latest SW builds on the same hardware/car.


----------



## scaots (Sep 13, 2017)

JWardell said:


> Continental ExtremeContact DWS 06 235/45-18


That's what I'm looking at for future use. You said better grip. How do you think they compare to the stock ones for comfort and quiet and how much different is your effeciency? Thanks


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

scaots said:


> That's what I'm looking at for future use. You said better grip. How do you think they compare to the stock ones for comfort and quiet and how much different is your effeciency? Thanks


I'm impressed with them. They seem much grippier, and yet clearly have a better tread for snow as well. They are not much noisier at all. I have them mounted to different rims so I'm sure that is part of the drop in efficiency, looks like I've gone from about 240 to 280 wH/mi on the highway.


----------



## oripaamoni (Jan 25, 2018)

scaots said:


> That's what I'm looking at for future use. You said better grip. How do you think they compare to the stock ones for comfort and quiet and how much different is your effeciency? Thanks





JWardell said:


> I'm impressed with them. They seem much grippier, and yet clearly have a better tread for snow as well. They are not much noisier at all. I have them mounted to different rims so I'm sure that is part of the drop in efficiency, looks like I've gone from about 240 to 280 wH/mi on the highway.


Nice, I am thinking of putting Mich 4S 265/40/18 in the back and a 235/45/18 in the front. Car really needs the extra grip.


----------



## KenF (Jul 3, 2018)

SoFlaModel3 said:


> I don't think it's the placebo effect. My car feels slower than when I got it for sure.


Everything feels slower once you've driven the Performance Model 3.


----------



## SoFlaModel3 (Apr 15, 2017)

KenF said:


> Everything feels slower once you've driven the Performance Model 3.


Even that felt slow after driving the runaway freight train Model S P90DL


----------



## PNWmisty (Aug 19, 2017)

JWardell said:


> The 18s absolutely can not handle the the torque and slip.


Whether your acceleration will be traction limited depends upon the road surface. As a motorcyclist my entire life, I know there is much more variability in the pavement types and conditions than between different street rubber. The grippiest pavement I've experienced is a certain type of all-weather chip seal made with relatively large, angular gravel. It's hell on tread life but it grips like nothing else. And you're going to be traction limited on smooth, oily blacktop, contaminated with ICE drippings regardless of what street tires you put on there.


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

PNWmisty said:


> Whether your acceleration will be traction limited depends upon the road surface. As a motorcyclist my entire life, I know there is much more variability in the pavement types and conditions than between different street rubber. The grippiest pavement I've experienced is a certain type of all-weather chip seal made with relatively large, angular gravel. It's hell on tread life but it grips like nothing else. And you're going to be traction limited on smooth, oily blacktop, contaminated with ICE drippings regardless of what street tires you put on there.


Well they slip on every pavement I've tried...but maybe the roads by you are paved in sticky mouse traps


----------



## Rich M (Jul 28, 2017)

JWardell said:


> Well they slip on every pavement I've tried...but maybe the roads by you are paved in sticky mouse traps


Yup. Somewhat regret not getting AWD. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the long-life eco Michelins, but accelerating from a stop while turning on even a slightly dirty or wet intersection and it is fighting hard for traction while trying to keep the ass end in line. The '87 Subaru Justy behind you will be wondering what the hold up is.


----------



## oripaamoni (Jan 25, 2018)

Rich M said:


> Yup. Somewhat regret not getting AWD. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the long-life eco Michelins, but accelerating from a stop while turning on even a slightly dirty or wet intersection and it is fighting hard for traction while trying to keep the ass end in line. The '87 Subaru Justy behind you will be wondering what the hold up is.


Same here, but justified the RWD by reminding myself our other 3 cars are AWD. Also at the time I didn't think I would be able to wait for the AWD and still receive the full tax credit.


----------



## Mayhem (May 25, 2018)

oripaamoni said:


> Same here, but justified the RWD by reminding myself our other 3 cars are AWD. Also at the time I didn't think I would be able to wait for the AWD and still receive the full tax credit.


And enjoying since 4/2018 while some of us have been enjoying our reservation numbers and hitting F5


----------



## PNWmisty (Aug 19, 2017)

Rich M said:


> I'm sure it has a lot to do with the long-life eco Michelins, but accelerating from a stop while turning on even a slightly dirty or wet intersection and it is fighting hard for traction while trying to keep the ass end in line.


Mine does that on a turn also. But if you're testing 0-60 times I would hope you do it on good clean, dry pavement (and in a straight line, LOL). I've never found a tire that wouldn't slip on a car with significant power if the pavement was dirty or wet! And that was my point, the pavement has more variability in different conditions (dirty, wet, etc.) than the tires rubber compound.


----------



## Dinozero (Jul 15, 2018)

I think a lot of this issue has to do with the various types of reporting 0-60 times. W or w/o 1ft rollout 



I’ve had my AWD for two weeks and when I first got it I swear the acceleration put my head back into the seat. 

Now I do burst without my head touching the headrest. You become more used to it.


----------



## Daniel S (Jul 17, 2018)

Any1 confirm if the 0-60 time is slower or not ? for LR first production ?


----------



## PNWmisty (Aug 19, 2017)

Rich M said:


> I'm sure it has a lot to do with the long-life eco Michelins, but accelerating from a stop while turning on even a slightly dirty or wet intersection and it is fighting hard for traction while trying to keep the ass end in line. The '87 Subaru Justy behind you will be wondering what the hold up is.


That's funny because a 1987 Subaru Justy AWD would be lucky to break 12 seconds in the 0-60 mph in perfect conditions. The LR RWD Model 3 can beat that by a large margin, even in the rain. Of course, that's in a straight line but, even around a corner my money is on the Model 3. The MXM4 Michelins on the Model 3 are so superior to whatever tire the 1987 Justy came with, it's not even funny.


----------



## Rich M (Jul 28, 2017)

PNWmisty said:


> That's funny because a 1987 Subaru Justy AWD would be lucky to break 12 seconds in the 0-60 mph in perfect conditions. The LR RWD Model 3 can beat that by a large margin, even in the rain. Of course, that's in a straight line but, even around a corner my money is on the Model 3. The MXM4 Michelins on the Model 3 are so superior to whatever tire the 1987 Justy came with, it's not even funny.


Winking face implies sarcasm.


----------



## Sandy (Jun 3, 2017)

LR RWD 19" Sport wheels, stock Conti's. This is the best I could get on my Dragy. This run was in mid-Oct, dry roads. This may be new but Dragy now publishes 1 ft rollout time as well as shown in the bottom pic. Slope was uphill very slightly:

5.3 shown here:










5.01 shown here (1 ft rollout):


----------



## TheHairyOne (Nov 28, 2018)

M3P here and was definitely faster and more aggressive regen before I did the updates. Second week with car.


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

TheHairyOne said:


> M3P here and was definitely faster and more aggressive regen before I did the updates. Second week with car.


This would be the first case of a Performance or AWD Model 3 getting slower after a software update. The owners here reporting slower acceleration after receiving an update several months ago (18.3?) all have RWD.

Can you elaborate on (and/or quantify) those changes, and which update caused them? Which wheels and tires do you have? And have you been running the same wheel/tire combo this whole time?

EDIT TO ADD: See @Lovesword's message below. Battery level and temperature can have a significant impact on power and regen available, so it's important to ensure that you're comparing performance at similar charge levels.


----------



## Love (Sep 13, 2017)

Bokonon said:


> This would be the first case of a Performance or AWD Model 3 getting slower after a software update. The owners here reporting slower acceleration after receiving an update several months ago (18.3?) all have RWD.
> 
> Can you elaborate on (and/or quantify) those changes, and which update caused them? Which wheels and tires do you have? And have you been running the same wheel/tire combo this whole time?


Don't forget SOC and status of the battery (cold vs warm). Has a big impact on launch acceleration


----------



## Rich M (Jul 28, 2017)

Lovesword said:


> Don't forget SOC and status of the battery (cold vs warm). Has a big impact on launch acceleration


SOC definitely, but it was my understanding that if battery temperature were affecting acceleration, there would be dots on the right side of the accel/regen meter, and I have never seen any, only on the regen side.


----------



## Wizard (Sep 30, 2018)

Perhaps speed did get nerfed:

April 2018:





November 2018:


----------



## KarenRei (Jul 27, 2017)

0.2 seconds is well within the margin of error for varying factors that can modify performance.


----------



## BabyJ (Sep 22, 2017)

I just requested that Drag Times rerun the 0-60 test and they've agreed to do so after I shared this and other similar threads. January 2018 they clocked a 0-60 of 4.66. It will be very interesting to see what they come up with and hopefully this puts the speculation to rest...good or bad.


----------



## Daniel S (Jul 17, 2018)

Thanks for the update,

Let us know how it goes because In my opinion it does feel a lot slower.

I only measured 5.1-5.4 on speed tests (Never measured it when I got it) , it definitely felt like they nerfed the LR.

It seems they found out that having a single rear drive unit pushing 4.5-5.1 will cause unnecessary wear and they patched it to save money. It was good publication for them when they first released it because they knew everyone would be talking about it.


----------



## firelegend (Jun 6, 2018)

still lame sauce but the car goes plenty fast. Would be a nice conciliation for not having performance or AWD as an option when I ordered.


----------



## PaulK (Oct 2, 2017)

firelegend said:


> still lame sauce but the car goes plenty fast. Would be a nice conciliation for not having performance or AWD as an option when I ordered.


It would be nice if us "early adopters" who purchased before AWD/P were an option, could get an upgrade for some nominal fee as thanks for waiting.

The mounts are already there, maybe even the wiring harnesses? Would then be just a matter of bolting in the motor, driveshafts and flash the firmware. Only once the service centers get caught up and have capacity, of course.

Yeah, I know, pipe dream.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

PaulK said:


> The mounts are already there, maybe even the wiring harnesses?


Nope, the wiring for front motors is not present. And all of the coolant lines would need to be added and connected as well. And then you need to add front half-shafts and new hubs. And parts of the front suspension are different for AWD as well. There are going to be a LOT of labor hours involved for anyone who tries to perform such an upgrade.

It's just not going to be worth the time or cost. The best and easiest (and most likely, least-expensive) way to get an upgrade is to trade in your old car for a new one.

This exploration of the empty front-motor area should provide a better idea of what is missing, as Ingineer explains where various front-motor components *would* go.


----------



## JWardell (May 9, 2016)

garsh said:


> Nope, the wiring for front motors is not present. And all of the coolant lines would need to be added and connected as well. And then you need to add front half-shafts and new hubs. And parts of the front suspension are different for AWD as well. There are going to be a LOT of labor hours involved for anyone who tries to perform such an upgrade.
> 
> It's just not going to be worth the time or cost. The best and easiest (and most likely, least-expensive) way to get an upgrade is to trade in your old car for a new one.
> 
> This exploration of the empty front-motor area should provide a better idea of what is missing, as Ingineer explains where various front-motor components *would* go.


If they had a DIY kit shipped in a big Tesla box, I would totally go for it!
I'm sure I would fail after a few days of swearing and eventually get Rich Rebuilds to tow it with a uHaul trailer up to @EVTuning


----------



## victor (Jun 24, 2016)

PaulK said:


> It would be nice if us "early adopters" who purchased before AWD/P were an option, could get an upgrade for some nominal fee as thanks for waiting.
> 
> The mounts are already there, maybe even the wiring harnesses? Would then be just a matter of bolting in the motor, driveshafts and flash the firmware. Only once the service centers get caught up and have capacity, of course.
> 
> Yeah, I know, pipe dream.


You would also have to change a VIN plate as well as your registration paperwork and all references to that VIN in Tesla and government databases.

*Digit 8:* Motor/Drive Unit
1= Single Motor - Standard
3= Single Motor - Performance
2 = Dual Motor (standard)
4 = Dual Motor (performance)
A= Single Motor - Standard
B= Dual Motor - Standard


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

victor said:


> You would also have to change a VIN plate


No. That's how you get sent to prison. Never change the VIN plate on a vehicle. 


> as well as your registration paperwork and all references to that VIN in Tesla and government databases.


You should notify your state of any significant changes that you make to a vehicle, such as an engine swap. I think that adding an electric motor qualifies as well.


----------

