I'm just curious if anyone has any idea about what the faster Model 3's 0-60 will be.
I'm going to have to go with yes.
The top line performance model will do it in less than 3.5 secs. They could go faster easily, but won't in order to not poach S and X sales
I am guessing it will be 3.4 secs. How did I come to this. The standard M≡ or rather the impression Elon gave was that the M≡ will do 0-60 in under 6 seconds, which probably mean 5.8/5.9. Now the difference between a S70 and a P90D is 2.4 seconds. So if that spread follows true for the M≡, a PM≡ should be able to do 60 in 3.4 seconds.
Also, I am sure Tesla is concerned about poaching MS and MX sales. Those cars are completely different in size and function. You can't assume that everyone bases their buying decision on accelerations times.
There is no reason that Tesla cannot put the same motors into the Model 3 as are in the S. Since the batteries will be the new form factor and chemistry, they can also be higher performance batteries. Put these in a significantly lighter car, with a lower cd and frontal area, and the maths says you will have a significantly faster accelerating car. I do not think Tesla is worried one iota about poaching the few S sales that would be affected. I am predicting that the fastest Model 3 will be significantly under 3.0 seconds. I will even suggest it will be closer to 2.5 than 3.0.
It all has to do with battery pack capacity. The higher the capacity, the more power can be supplied to the motors. If a Model S P90D can do 2.8 seconds to 60 MPH, then a Model ☰ P100D, P120D, or P135D would do so in 2.5 seconds or less. And that would still be Ludicrous Mode. When Maximum Plaid arrives for the Model R, it will be much, much quicker. If the maximum battery pack capacity is 80 kWh or less, then the Model ☰ is unlikely to achieve the mark below the 3.0-to-3.5 second range.
I'd like to know how much faster the dual-motor 3 with the standard pack will be.
I believe Elon Musk was being cagey when he said 0-60 MPH would be 'under six seconds'... Many will expect it to be on the top half of that, around 5.7-to-5.9 more-or-less. If the base rear wheel drive Model ☰ is around 5.2-to-5.4 or so... I'd expect the base dual motor all wheel drive version to get 4.7-to-4.9 as a 0-60 MPH metric.
@Red Sage ca us
You cannot base the maximum power deliverable from the Model 3 pack based on the S pack. They are different form factors and chemistry. Lithium batteries can already deliver power several times what Tesla's pack currently delivers.
Plus the 3 is lighter than the S, so you'd think it would take less pack power to get it to 60 anyway.
bb0tin: I agree with you and others that this car will end up being quite a rocket in the Tesla line up at 3 .5 sec, with the Roadster at 2.5 secs. The S and X will be at the luxury and technology end and give up on pace just like Merc S class and BMW 7 series.
I am predicting that the fastest Model 3 will be significantly less than 3 seconds i.e. faster than the fastest Model S.
@ Mos-Unveil 2 I'm sure will have that figure. Impatience is a killer-it gets worse as you get older.
I don't want a model 3 that goes 60 in 2.5 seconds-I'll rear end people easily. 4 seconds is about as fast as I would want to car to go floored. 74 yrs old-not 18 anymore. Drove Paul Newman's Porsche at Limerock-it was fast but in no way was it 2.5 seconds and a $218k engine. It'd be impressive though.
The Model 3 will likely have Auto Pilot software which will prevent you rear ending someone. Given the rapid advances in AI and sensors/processing, I think the next Autopilot will blow your mind.
bb0tin: I hope you're right about an under 3 sec M3, but where would that leave the Roadster?
Like everyone here, I don't know that they can simply put the same size motor/drive unit in the M≡ as the MS/MX. The M≡ is a much smaller car. Now, granted Jaguar stuffed a V-12 in the engine bay of the XJS which was designed for a straight 6.........
Model ≡ will have the safety items of the AP system. That was made clear by Elon/the screen behind Elon and the M≡ page. The driver's aid items of AP are what will be an option. So to bb0tin's point, the M≡ will have crash avoidance, however with that said, physics are physics.
"R17, where R represents a reasonable speed", and R17 is obviously very fast.
The "other" luxury auto companies usually reserve the quickest times for the small and mid sized cars, while the larger cars tend to have more HP (because they need it to push the larger car) but run slower 0-60. The BMW M3/M5 and the C63/E63 AMG come to mind. That said, I'm hopeful that the Tesla M3 will pack a mind numbing punch in the highest performance range.
My best guess based on potential weight savings in the 3 and battery advancements. would be yesterday. In otrher words it should be fast enough to crack the time barrier.
bb0tin: Near as I can tell, I only mentioned the word 'power' once above. I wrote, "The higher the capacity, the more power can be supplied to the motors." Please explain what is incorrect about that statement.
None of the motors that Tesla Motors has offered thus far has ever been maximized in output from the battery packs they have offered thus far. Each motor is far more capable than the energy supply it uses. Hence the reason for the designation of 'motor power' in Tesla's specifications.
@kzod - I would love to see a new "Back to the Future" movie using a Model 3 as the time-machine! wooohoooo
Looking at the 0-60 times of other vehicles in the class (A4, 3 series, etc), here are my estimates:
Base = 5.6 sec (because 328i and A4 are in the 5.8 sec range)
Dual Motors = 4.4 sec (because 335i does 4.6 sec)
Performance = 3.4 sec (because the M3 can do 3.8 sec and M5 can do 3.6 sec)
Reading through the thread, there seems to be some misunderstanding.
When you move an object from one place to another, work is done. The energy required to do that work is the same over time. It is still necessary to have the energy available to accomplish the feat, no matter how long it takes. So, whether you expend the energy to cover a distance in 38 seconds or 12 seconds or 4 seconds -- the same amount of work is done.
When you move an item, not to a particular place, but to a specified rate of constant movement, it is a little different. The amount of energy required to move an item from 0 MPH to 60 MPH in 60 feet is more than it takes to reach the same speed in 120 feet. You still reach the same constant rate of speed, but the initial application of power is compressed the sooner you want to reach that rate.
Of course, it's been a long time since 10th grade physics class... I may be using these terms incorrectly. Still, I hope you get my meaning.
@Red Sage ca us
You said "Near as I can tell, I only mentioned the word 'power' once above. I wrote, "The higher the capacity, the more power can be supplied to the motors." Please explain what is incorrect about that statement."
I already did when I said:
"You cannot base the maximum power deliverable from the Model 3 pack based on the S pack. They are different form factors and chemistry. Lithium batteries can already deliver power several times what Tesla's pack currently delivers."
You said "I hope you're right about an under 3 sec M3, but where would that leave the Roadster"
The current quickest production car is the Porsche 918 Spyder at 2.2 seconds. I expect the Model 3 to be above 2.5 seconds. The R and 3 are also quite different markets.
"I hope you're right about an under 3 sec M3, but where would that leave the Roadster"
Musk said that Tesla doesn't make slow cars. It's a whole different ballgame compared to the wide range of acceleration you see in gas cars. There isn't as much of a cost penalty for getting fast acceleration in an EV and so the budget cars are going to be faster than equally priced ICE vehicles, beyond which it just gets into smaller and smaller differences.
bb0tin: Uhm... No. Because the case you presented in your supposed 'explanation' has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote.
Maximum power to the motor depends upon the amount of energy in the battery pack. That's it. Different formulations of chemistry are of no consequence... At least not beyond the fact that some are more reliable, have greater longevity, are more resistant to temperature fluctuations... But, for one quick run in acceleration, energy is energy.
@Red Sage ca us
Absolute maximum power from an energy source, including lithium batteries, is not determined by the amount of energy in that source. Relative power between sources of the same type, but different capacities due to a different number of 'cells', will be though. A capacitor can output enormous power for a short period of time, and has relatively little energy. There are lithium batteries which output far more than Tesla's 1500 amps at about 375-400V. An example is the A123 battery which would output over 7000 amps at the same voltage. Tesla will currently be limiting the power to 1500 amps for various reasons. A different battery form factor, chemistry etc can have a markedly higher power. Tesla needs to balance, cost, longevity, heat, electronics capabilities etc when determining the power that their pack outputs.
A metaphor is a swimming pool with a hole in it. If I double the length of the pool, then the flow of water out of the hole does not change. I have doubled the capacity but the power is the same. If I increase the size of the hole then I increase the power without increasing the capacity. If I double the number of pools then I double the capacity and double the power.
bb0tin: Wait... Hunh? What?!? An empty battery pack isn't going to move anything. The amount of energy present absolutely matters!
@Red Sage ca us
And an empty pool will not leak either. Nor will an empty battery pack no matter what it's capacity. The amount of energy present does not matter. It is the rate that the energy can be delivered which determines power, as I have already explained.
Go and do some research on lithium battery packs. Perhaps start with A123 spec sheets, then move onto the Pike's Peak electric cars and check their power and capacity. You will be able to confirm yourself that you are incorrect in your view.
@Red Sage ca us, "Maximum power to the motor depends upon the amount of energy in the battery pack. That's it. "
No. bb0tin's pool analogy is correct.
Look at a standard 12V battery, on it there are 2 values, the Ah (proportional to the amount of energy) and the A (maximum output current). And in the end it's the current that made the motor turning and "create" the torque. The Ah just tell you how long it will turn.
I think the power needed to increase acceleration from say 2.8 to 2.5 could easily be double, given the same body aerodynamics. (You will correct me if I am wrong lol).
With gas cars, sometimes putting in a larger engine achieves sweet all because of the extra weight.
Same with batteries I guess. There must be a sweet spot somewhere.
Elon has spoken about the desirability of getting good aerodynamic numbers, so given that AND his sense of humour, my guess is a more slippery pocket rocket will be built to thrash any MS you can throw at it. And McLaren.
While TM is not into building racecars as a main game (they are a by-product), I think TM will have its fun trying for a 2.5. A 4 door sedan, 4 seats, same as Granma drives...
Expect a special formula for racing Unmodified Tesla Models 3.
Then when the Roadster arrives with Plaid, expect the unexpectable. Aim at 2.0. Up against Ariel.
@ Ross: Maybe not right but the right way of thinking. :) We humans think linearly when almost all systems in the world woke exponentially. For instance what is half way between 1 and 9? 5 or 3??? :)
O tell me more...
I am not sure if I wake linearly or exponentially.
Ex I think.
So which is half way? For the benefit of the gallery.
Have fun: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/105280/acceleration-power
For the Model X, the times are 6, 4.8 and 3.2. That by itself means nothing. The X is heavier, the battery packs will be different, and so will the motors. But it's also likely that the motors will be smaller on the 3, and it might not be cost effective to design it with too many options or motor sizes. It's likely that the sub 6 second time is for RWD, and the AWD will be faster. 4.8 would probably be good enough and way better than the competition. Designing it so it either has a second motor in front or it doesn't might make more sense than designing it so it either has a second motor in front and a larger one in back, or it has a standard one in back.
There might be people who want it to do 0-60 in 3.5 seconds, but it might come down to whether those people would buy the car anyway if it does it in 4.8, whether they'd buy a Model S instead, or whether they'd buy a car from a competitor. The latter is doubtful since competitors won't have anything in that price range with that performance.
If people would buy it anyway, then in order to make a business case, the extra effort to design and implement something else would have to factor in how much extra revenue would be needed to make it profitable, as well as how much it might slow down the assembly line. If it slows down the build process by a few cars a day, it would have to make up for that in revenue. I don't have the data to make a business case or show that it's not feasible, but Tesla would have to do it based on projections. It might come down to a definite no for the first release, with perhaps a new option after a year or after there's little backlog.
It is $35k car. Why are we expecting supercar or exotic car performance. Anything close to 4 seconds would be more than fast enough for me. I don't plan to drag race people from stoplight to stoplight nor want to since I'm not in my 20s.
warrentt: At $35,000 it doesn't have to provide 'supercar' or 'exotic car' levels of Performance. But it should provide Performance superior to anything that can be had within $15,000 of that price point. It has to be better than all of the other cars, otherwise no one has a reason to buy it. And the specific Performance iteration of Model ☰ should demolish anything available for under $100,000 -- for a fully loaded price point of $70,000 or less.
As for the Street Light Grand Prix... I enjoy laughing at the people with really loud engines that guzzle gasoline when they are just getting caught at every signal light on Rosecrans no matter how quickly they accelerate. Typically, after noticing they can't leave me, they will choose one RED light to simply... RUN.
People who are expecting that level of performance are likely assuming that a fully loaded car, which might have $25k worth of options, would have that level of performance.
Musk's drive is to develop EVs no matter who builds them. Competition per se is not a driver.
What is a driver is that an EV being driven at disruptive rate is a disruptive driver and a compelling driver to drive other manufacturers to build compelling vehicles to drive.
"That level of performance" will not go unnoticed. It would put every ICE car ever built in the shade. The unsinkable auto industry will become the unthinkable when ICE goes down.
Which brings me to Project Titan(ic).