Official Post Anything Electric Vehicle Related Thread

[Jedi2155]

In power yes, but not unusual for a Tesla. Depending on which version of the Model S, your 0-60 time would vary between 2.8s (P90d with ludicrous speed upgrade) to 5.6s (original 60 kWh base). Presently your choice is the 70D versus P90D (2.8s to 5.2s) for AWD variants and 70 kWh RWD (5.5s).

[Malaphax]

You're only proving Ren's point.... There's a huge difference in shaving off 1-2s in 0-60 time. And considering the lowest end AWD model S is only hitting 5.6s I sincerely doubt that the model 3 will be hitting below that. I would assume the entry level model will be a bit above 6s and it might drop slightly for their AWD variants with bigger batteries.

[kuhla]

I may be wrong but I think Richard's only point was that Tesla has a precedent for having a single model with a wide range of 0-60 times depending "just" on features/extras/trim/software (Model S all the way from 2.8s to 5.6s).

[Jedi2155]

You're only proving Ren's point.... There's a huge difference in shaving off 1-2s in 0-60 time. And considering the lowest end AWD model S is only hitting 5.6s I sincerely doubt that the model 3 will be hitting below that. I would assume the entry level model will be a bit above 6s and it might drop slightly for their AWD variants with bigger batteries.

 

I believe his point was that it might be engineeringly (not a word xD), difficult to improve a vehicle by 1-2s in a conventional vehicle. My point was that on an EV it is not as much so as the primary limitation is based on the battery.

 

FYI, corrected my numbers a bit on the previous post for clarity.

 

 

Musk estimates that the base Model 3 will have around 215 miles of EPA-rated range and accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in less than 6 seconds. We revealed that the higher-end version will make 0 to 60 in less than 4 seconds.

http://electrek.co/2016/03/30/tesla-model-3-specs/

 

 

*edit*

Kuhla got my point.

[T1no]

what do you consider difficult to shave 1-2 sec?

[Malaphax]

We’ve now received more than 325,000 reservations, which corresponds to about $14 billion in implied future sales, making this the single biggest one-week launch of any product ever.

https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/the-week-electric-vehicles-went-mainstream

 

So keep in mind that means Tesla just crowd funded $325M in a week. Now even assuming something drastic like a 20% cancellation rate, that's still a ton of money Tesla managed to raise without even having a product available until next year (and more realistically 2018).

 

It's no surprise that their stock is doing well and I expect they'll start climbing back into the realm of ridiculous.

http://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=TSLA

[Jedi2155]

Went down 3% today...time to buuuuuyyyy

[ren]

what do you consider difficult to shave 1-2 sec?

 

Traditional ICE vehicles struggle with low end torque, this is probably the largest factor.

 

 

You're only proving Ren's point.... There's a huge difference in shaving off 1-2s in 0-60 time. And considering the lowest end AWD model S is only hitting 5.6s I sincerely doubt that the model 3 will be hitting below that. I would assume the entry level model will be a bit above 6s and it might drop slightly for their AWD variants with bigger batteries.

 

I believe his point was that it might be engineeringly (not a word xD), difficult to improve a vehicle by 1-2s in a conventional vehicle. My point was that on an EV it is not as much so as the primary limitation is based on the battery.

 

FYI, corrected my numbers a bit on the previous post for clarity.

 

 

Musk estimates that the base Model 3 will have around 215 miles of EPA-rated range and accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in less than 6 seconds. We revealed that the higher-end version will make 0 to 60 in less than 4 seconds.

http://electrek.co/2016/03/30/tesla-model-3-specs/

 

 

*edit*

Kuhla got my point.

 

 

The point I was trying to make was that there is typically a big price difference between a car that has 0-60 in 4s vs 6s just based on past history.

 

The way you worded your original statement made it sound like the lowest end model could feasibly be sold with a 4s 0-60.

 

Tesla has already shown that they can make a <3s car, but I'm very doubtful that they would release the low end model 3 with those kinds of performance characteristics. Not that they can't, but because it wouldn't make sense from a business perspective. A large premium typically exists on a car that can do 0-60 in 4s.

[T1no]

base tesla model 3 cost 35k prob wont do 4 sec

base golf r cost 36k + $600 dollar software. insta under 4sec.

[ren]

software mods shit on your fuel economy

[T1no]

slight increase actually; under normal driving condition obviously

[ren]

How does that work? I was under the impression software mods increased performance at the expense of fuel economy/emissions controls?

[kuhla]

software mods shit on your fuel economy

slight increase actually; under normal driving condition obviously

How does that work? I was under the impression software mods increased performance at the expense of fuel economy/emissions controls?

 

Emissions and fuel economy don't always directly correlate.

[Malaphax]

It could merely increase wear and tear on components. In the case of the VW 2.0 engines I know they use the same engines across a broad range of cars and considering the higher end goes up past 300hp and the lower end is well under 200, it makes some sense that you could theoretically use a different profile to increase performance when the engine is almost the same.

 

Chipping cars is becoming increasingly common, you can basically get a stage 1 upgrade out of a different profile on the ECU. I would be concerned about the car passing smog with those chipped profiles though. I've heard the more advanced stuff actually involves loading multiple ECU profiles and being able to toggle between them, this allows you to do everything from add a valet mode, to having a performance profile for a track day while being able to quickly load back to stock for daily driving.

 

This is one of the advantages of having cars become more computerized. Overclocking your car is now a reality.

[Jedi2155]

They might get higher thermodynamic efficiency by maximizing the fuel burn. Turbo/supercharging commonly increases fuel efficiency by allowing more of the fuel to be burned by increasing the air content and a higher volume of fuel/air would result in a hotter combustion which in turn allows a higher carnot efficiency. Higher temperatures and pressures results greater stresses i.e. more wear and tear.

[ren]

 

software mods shit on your fuel economy

slight increase actually; under normal driving condition obviously

How does that work? I was under the impression software mods increased performance at the expense of fuel economy/emissions controls?

 

Emissions and fuel economy don't always directly correlate.

 

 

True, but they can and often do correlate.

 

It could merely increase wear and tear on components. In the case of the VW 2.0 engines I know they use the same engines across a broad range of cars and considering the higher end goes up past 300hp and the lower end is well under 200, it makes some sense that you could theoretically use a different profile to increase performance when the engine is almost the same.

 

Chipping cars is becoming increasingly common, you can basically get a stage 1 upgrade out of a different profile on the ECU. I would be concerned about the car passing smog with those chipped profiles though. I've heard the more advanced stuff actually involves loading multiple ECU profiles and being able to toggle between them, this allows you to do everything from add a valet mode, to having a performance profile for a track day while being able to quickly load back to stock for daily driving.

 

This is one of the advantages of having cars become more computerized. Overclocking your car is now a reality.

 

I'm not a ME so I can't comment as to how well components hold up to being driven past spec, but I'd assume its not just the engine I'd be worried about. Other critical components in your powertrain are also specced for a certain performance criteria (trans, exhaust, cooling). I guess the point is I wouldn't draw too many parallels to overclocking your PC just yet.

 

my question was more akin to what these "profiles" actually modify. sure torque/rpm curves but that doesn't actually change the performance characteristics of your car that much. you can't get an extra 50 hp for free is what I'm saying.

 

They might get higher thermodynamic efficiency by maximizing the fuel burn. Turbo/supercharging commonly increases fuel efficiency by allowing more of the fuel to be burned by increasing the air content and a higher volume of fuel/air would result in a hotter combustion which in turn allows a higher carnot efficiency. Higher temperatures and pressures results greater stresses i.e. more wear and tear.

 

turbocharging increases your (effective) compression ratio power output by introducing already compressed air. a car without a turbocharger has a set compression ratio that is a property of the mechnical design of the engine. point being if you don't have a turbocharger on your car, theres not really any way to mimic this effect with a software mod (that I know of)

 

I think you're referring to the fuel/air ratio for engine combusion. In which case, yes, running rich is a simple way to get more performance out of your car, but destroys your fuel economy (my first comment). running lean has the opposite effect.

[T1no]

why cant you get extra hp for free?

if the component hold up why not. 50hp is alot. and plus most Engines are detuned anyway.

 

regardless youre tuning up or down. engine components require services and bound to fail someday anyway.

 

and i think getting up to 120k miles is pretty respectable. and most of these car run ive seen beyond 100k miles mostly with original parts + tune

[ren]

it's not free, right?

 

to get more hp out of the same components there has to be more input energy(fuel) and/or increased wear on your components because they were not spec as such.

 

the engine may be detuned but what about other components in your powertrain. it's extremely unlikely the manufacturer will overspec every component in your pt. oems take great effort to cut every cost. that's why engines nowadays are less reliable than in the past- they're typically run near performance limits.

[T1no]

https://youtu.be/vs_X29DzUfo

[T1no]

 

Interesting video

the model X is the best looking teslas imo

the updated S front is much better than the current ones.

the model E is just weird to me. too tall and the glass body ratio is just odd. i think it would look much better if it was a hatch back design/shooting brake.

[ren]

if model e was a hatchback or crossover I'd consider preordering.

 

but wait im in michigan I can't order a tesla.

[Jedi2155]

Thinking about selling my Spark and getting a '17 Volt now due to my Spark's high residual value (relative to the price I paid). If I wait for the Model 3 to come out my Spark's residual would drop substantially....decisions decisions...

[kuhla]

Thinking about selling my Spark and getting a '17 Volt now due to my Spark's high residual value (relative to the price I paid). If I wait for the Model 3 to come out my Spark's residual would drop substantially....decisions decisions...

 

Changing out to a '17 Volt makes more sense in my mind.

[kuhla]

article - http://electrek.co/2016/05/11/tesla-model-s-crashed-own-summon/

 

I'm not even sure how to feel about that.

[T1no]

Richard... shia JUST DO IT

 

regarding that autopilot thing.

 

i dont understand how they can have stuff like that passed regulations. from what i understand they gave limitations to just use the system on the highway. ive watched multiple videos where its fine and useful and cool and videos where the system failed and can caused accidents. im interested how insurance deal with this autonomous crashes and accidents.