Anyone have any guess as to how fast, 0-60 mph, a dual motor, 'ludicrous-type' configuration M3 will be?
3.3 sec 0-60 Ludicrous AWD
4.4 sec 0-60 regular AWD
I hope both times are faster, but that's my estimate with Tesla saying that the S is the superior car.
Any guess of acceleration times would be based on yet another guess of the battery size with another guess that there will be a "ludicrous" mode available on the guessed battery size.
2017 -- 5.4 seconds Model ☰ 60
2017 -- 4.2 seconds Model ☰ 75
2018 -- 3.7 seconds Model ☰ P75D Insane
2018 -- 3.2 seconds Model ☰ P75D Ludicrous
2019 -- 2.7 seconds Model ☰ P90D Ludicrous Plus
2022 -- 2.2 seconds Model ☰ P135D Hyperdrive Alpha
You for got the 2025 Mr Fusion "arrive before you leave" mode
For the same batter size, it feels like the model 3 should be faster than the model s due to its lesser weight.
Not sure if we know how much 3 will weigh? The model 3's lack of an aluminum body probably neutralizes the difference somewhat?
Many have speculated that the model 3s will be just a tad slower than model s, the "superior" car. I think this would be consistent with BMW for example, whose m6 is faster than the m3. I'm not sure I'm sold though. The model s has plenty more luxury finishes/features that will make it "superior".
Also I would assume that the top of the line model s will have a bigger battery than the top of the line model 3 which will mean the quickest model s would always be faster. Or they could stagger the battery sizes between models so that no model 3 and model s have the same battery sizes
The MS and M3 are different sizes (wheelbase and track width both) so the M3 will have, for any given battery technology, less room/lower capacity. By the time they get to a M3 P100, the S will be at something like a P150...
They might actually limit the acceleration in the Model 3, due to it being smaller and lighter, so as, not to outdo the Model S or X.
its been leaked that the base model 3 will have ~5.6s 0-60.
Obviously the 3 will not be as fast as the S in comparison, but a good guess would be closer to 3s 0-60 for the fastest optioned car.
M3 is a sitter to be the ultimate drag car though as it is lighter.
How will this be achieved?
although lighter, smaller battery & motor.
Elon Musk has already noted that the Model S will remain 'top dog' in acceleration at Tesla, at least until the NEW Roadster arrives. It isn't so much about 'limitation' as much as it is about priorities. Elon and JB Straubel want to convince buyers that what they need for daily driving is far less than the maximum possible capacity, at least for now.
They don't want a situation with Model ☰ to appear as had been the case with Model S, where for years on end people always bought the highest capacity battery pack out of fear caused by range anxiety. They want to replace as many ICE vehicles as possible with electric vehicles, and that requires volume sales at minimum battery pack capacity to get the range they want to see in their cars. It is better for Tesla as a company, and the goal of the mission itself, to offer 100,000 units of 60 kWh cars instead of 60,000 units of 100 kWh cars with the same resources.
Once they have expanded Production capacity significantly, have three or four automotive Gigafactories, and their internal costs for battery packs have gone down by an additional 25%-to-50% along with significant advances in energy density...? Sure, then you might see a Model S with a 170 kWh-to-220 kWh battery pack, while a Model ☰ might top out at 120 kWh-to-150 kWh, and all would be right with the world. It's... a strategy.
it would not be in Teslas best interest for the Model 3 to have a faster or equal 0-60 time as the vehicle they price 2-3 times higher than the upcoming Model 3.
Why not? I don't expect a luxury model from a manufacturer to be faster than the hot-rodded lower end. A BMW 740i is $20K more expensive than an M3, and is 1 second slower 0-60. Ludicrous speed isn't a top-3 item on the luxury car features list - they invariably have plenty of power, but "fastest 0-60 speed" isn't what they compete on.
It wouldn't surprise me if some Model 3 owners are able to get the base config to do a faster 0-60 than the 5.5 seconds currently listed as the S 75 time. It wouldn't surprise me if the upgraded battery, dual motor version ran slightly faster than the S 100 D. It would very much surprise me if the Ludicrous Model 3 ran faster than the P100DL.
andy.connor.e: Well, let's look at the numbers...
If we imagine sales of 60,000 units of Model S per year worldwide, with an average sale price of $110,000... That comes to $6,600,000,000 in revenue. If perhaps 30% of that is profit, then Tesla makes $1,980,000,000 on those Model S vehicles all told. Not too bad.
Now, if we expect 500,000 units of Model 3 to be sold per year, with an average sale price of $42,000... That comes to $21,000,000,000 in revenue. If Tesla manages 20% as profit, then the Model 3 would earn them $4,200,000,000 each year. I don't see that as a problem at all.
The Model S would still be the flagship, but the Model 3 would be a very productive cash cow. You would have to sell on the order of 127,272~ Model S per year to gain an equivalent amount of revenue as Model 3 manages with 500,000 units. Thus, you would have to sell 187,000+ units of Model S per year to eliminate the need for Model 3 in the lineup.
But the Model S was never meant to be a mass market car at all. It would be immensely difficult to find nearly 200,000 buyers per year of a car that averaged $110,000 per sale. And the configuration pages had to be greatly simplified just so that Tesla has a hope of exceeding 80,000 units in 2017, and hopefully getting to 100,000 units of Model S and Model X combined this year.
Further, if you presume as many as 10% of Model S buyers would be getting the top-of-the-line version... Spending an average of $150,000 per unit at a 35% profit margin... Those 6,000 vehicles would make for $900,000,000 in revenue... and about $315,000,000 in profit. Respectable.
But what if only 5% of Model 3 buyers got the full Performance version of the car... Spending as much as $75,000 (but averaging around $60,000) at a 25% margin... Those 25,000 vehicles might bring in as much as $1,875,000,000 in revenue on the high end (but at a lower ASP, around $1,500,000,000)... For a very nice $468,750,000 ($375,000,000 on the low end) profit.
This is why Tesla should not worry about hurting anyone's feelings if they buy a top-of-the-line Model S and it gets its butt handed to it by the maxed out Model 3.
"It isn't so much about 'limitation' as much as it is about priorities. "
It isn't so much about priorities as it is about Physics. After putting big motors, thick wires, smart fuses, etc. in, the limitation will be battery pack size. A P100DL will always do better than a P75DL even if they are in different car models. The power requirements between the S and 3 just aren't that different.
Thank you kindly.
Elon said the Model 3 will never be as fast as the Model S. So my bet is it may get into the 3 second range ..... but not into the 2's like the Model S
ReD eXiLe -- you do have a lot of time on your hands....
topher: With a given capacity of available energy, a Model ☰ should be able to both have a greater range and quicker performance than a Model S... Unless Tesla doesn't want it to. At no point above, or anytime before, have I either stated or suggested that a Model ☰ P75D would be quicker or faster than a Model S P100D. I do think it might be about as quick as the Model S P85D was and became.
Production of a mass market Model 3 also gives Tesla a production floor to massively reduce Model S costs so that they can put more of the $100K cost into new cool things like camera's that make your car recognize you as well as old yeller, possibly even voice recognition where only you can tell your car to go park (No fob or cell phone). There is more to an amazing car than 0-60 speed. I actually drive in a world where other cars are in the way.
Computers allowed people to develop programs. Smart phones allowed people to create Apps. I wonder what a robotic, programmable, quickly adjustable plant will allow the creative minds at Tesla to create?
I've always felt the Model 3 was a BMW 3 Series killer. If that's the case the base will be mid 5 second range and the upgraded initial battery option will run sub 5 seconds (my guess - 4.8) Once we see a P - bye bye BMW M3!
Here are my educated guesses for the Model 3 configurations:
60 - 270hp, 4000lbs, 0-60 - 5.6 sec
60D - 281hp, 4178lbs, 0-60 - 4.8 sec
75D - 348hp, 4472lbs, 0-60 - 4.2 sec
P75D - 447hp, 4472lbs, 0-60 - 3.0 sec
The challenge in taking on the BMW M3 is more in lateral acceleration - the ability to hold the road - and in braking.
A P75D *should* be able to do it, assuming that the "P" package includes suspension updates and really good brakes
It'd be tough - the BMW M3 will be close to 1000 pounds lighter than the Model 3. The CG will be lower, so that helps, but I doubt you'll be able to toss it around the same way you could an M3. Of course, if you want to toss something around, the Miata has a 1000 pound advantage over the M3....
I'm hopeful. The Model S that I test-drove was remarkably nimble for its size. If the M3 continues that trend and has the tires/brakes/suspension to go with the torque and acceleration, it could happen.
Miatas are beasts on autocross. :-) Sadly, my overly-long frame tends to put the top of my head higher than the top of their roll-bars, which is not a happy feeling...
The Fiat 500, on the other hand, has some real potential...
Except of course that it's not a Tesla...
eeb9: C'mon, MAN... Wait... You believe that 'lateral acceleration' will be a significant advantage for the BMW M3...?
Frank99: Holdonasec... You do realize that the Performance iterations of cars in the 'entry level luxury' class of cars are not exactly lightweights, don't you...?
Both: I have believed for quite some time that the Tesla Model ☰ will weigh in at something between 3,700 lbs and 4,100 lbs. It turns out that in relation to the Performance iterations of its primary contemporaries, that will be rather competitive. I have also noted several times that in the past five years or so, multiple opponents have been able to dethrone BMW as the 'benchmark' of handling performance, both as far as 3-Series as well as M3. I firmly believe that Tesla will be able to have similar results when it comes to instrumented tests. So, I present evidence to support that belief...
WEIGHT/LBS ___ VEHICLE (Roadholding, Braking 70-0 MPH)
___ 3,822 ____ Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio (1.00g, 143')
___ 3,662 ____ BMW M3 (0.98g, 155')
___ 3,839 ____ Cadillac ATS-V (0.99, 150')
___ 3,958 ____ Mercedes-AMG C63 S (0.97, 156')
The results are pretty tight when it comes to skidpad rating. Even so, both the Alfa Romeo and the Cadillac weigh considerably more than M3, but manage to get a higher roadholding result. When it comes to braking, the M3 does well for itself, but stops only one foot shorter than the Mercedes-AMG, while finding itself five feet further than the Cadillac, and sliding twelve feet longer than the Alfa Romeo. That is even though the BMW is the lightest vehicle of the three.
Look again at the chart. The difference in weight between the BMW M3 and Mercedes-AMG C63 S in terms of weight is about what I expect to see between an M3 and a Performance rated Model ☰. I do expect the results to be reversed though, with the Model ☰ coming closer to what the Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio can do at the track, and besting the BMW M3 as it does.
By the way...? Even before I found these results, I ~*KNEW*~ that the BMW would lose to SOMEONE. And I'm not surprised that weight has little if anything to do with it. In fact, the Alfa Romeo and Cadillac each have smaller brake rotors, front and rear, than both the BMW and the Mercedes-AMG, but get better braking results despite their weight. I believe that such results have been noted by Tesla, and that they will build the Model ☰ accordingly, to exceed expectations on multiple levels.
www.caranddriver DOT com/comparisons/alfa-romeo-giulia-quadrifoglio-vs-bmw-m3-cadillac-ats-v-mercedes-amg-c63-s-comparison-test-final-scoring-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-6
Yep, Tesla can beat the BMW M3 with a performance-oriented Model 3, if they decide to do so.
Key point, that..
Ditto everything else on that chart.
And mass does matter - it takes more work to get it moving and more work to stop it. There are lots of ways to accomplish both, and Tesla has*really* good engineers.
So it's not a question of can or can't.
It's a question of will or won't
Depends on the Market they want to reach. I personally look forward to seeing Tesla beat every car on that list. Decisively
Elon Musk has said it is not enough for Tesla's cars to be just like those from other automobile manufacturers. They have to be better than all of the other cars, or no one will have a reason to buy them.
One question keeps coming to my mind. People frequently point out the AWD fallacy of better road holding with the catchphrase, "All cars have four-wheel brakes." I've said it myself. AWD gets a lot of its ability by being able to actively or passively direct power to where it's needed. The more rapidly and accurately it can do this the better the effect. Also, there are times when being able to direct the force vector of the front wheels can give more control.
I know that in an ICE AWD, using engine braking maintains that active 4-wheel distribution of braking power.
I wonder if the high regen capabilities fast response, and fine control of the brake system (such as is used in the traction control system) could make the AWD Model 3 even better handling overall? The longer you can hold the calipers off the brake discs, the longer you stay in control. It should be rare to engage the mechanical brakes outside of a panic stop.