New Tesla Model 3 Performance gets 510hp
Highly anticipated go-faster variant was six years in the making, says Tesla - it shows
The previous generation Model 3 Performance certainly made an impression on people. It reached more buyers at a much quicker rate than the slow-burn Model S (thanks to Tesla’s eventual mastery of mass production) and, for those who bought it as their first electric car, its 3.3-second-to-60mph performance was assuredly an eye-opener. But it wasn’t perfect. Tesla avoided over-complicating the model’s technical configuration while it got to grips with the thorny business of building many cars at once, so in many ways the first Performance merely did what it said on the tin.
Now, six years later, Tesla has finally put its shoulder into the job. Yes, the new dual-motor Model 3 Performance is quicker still: 0-60mph has shortened to 2.9 seconds thanks to the firm’s latest generation drive unit (dubbed Performance 4DU) on the rear axle, which contributes the lion’s share of 510hp and 547 lb ft of torque. Tesla says it delivers 22 per cent more continuous power and 32 per cent more peak power, and ‘drivers will sense more immediate and sustained acceleration out of corners’ - hardly something its predecessor lacked, but the result ought to be more rear-biased now.
At any rate, that's not the Model 3’s special sauce. Instead that has been ladled onto the chassis, which, as well as sharing the general improvements made to the latest version, also gets ultra-high strength steel springs, stiffer suspension top mounts, a ‘multi-sectioned’ anti-roll, and, for the first time, adaptive dampers with hollow piston rods. All are indicative of a higher level of intent, but it is the latter that Tesla calls attention to because it means the chassis response is now overseen by Tesla’s in-house software in real-time (or at the flick of an on-screen switch).
This obviously extends to its Standard and Sport settings, although it has also allowed the engineers to implement ‘a top-to-bottom re-calibration of handling balance, stability assist, region braking and ABS tuning’ in Track Mode V3, which now integrates motor controls, the adaptive suspension, powertrain cooling and the Vehicle Dynamics Controller under a unified system. Or, to put it another way, Tesla has joined everything up with the always-welcome intention of sending you around corners quicker - and hopefully happier, too.
To this end, it has also fitted forged and staggered 20-inch wheels with Tesla-specific Pirelli P Zero 4 tyres, targeting better traction from the larger wheel size at the back while also improving roll stiffness. All while delivering a lower rolling resistance, which remains as important as ever - especially as the manufacturer claims to have found a 2 per cent reduction in energy consumption versus the previous Performance model. The UK customer site suggests you’ll get a 328-mile range, assuming you drive it the WLTP way.
It also says you can expect to pay £59,990 - a £10,000 premium versus the dual-motor Long Range derivative. For that money, alongside the tangible performance upgrades, you also get new sports seats on the inside and a mildly tweaked exterior design that includes a different spoiler, front splitter and rear diffuser. It speaks to Tesla’s more meticulous approach this time round that even these subtle changes are said to earned the car a 5 per cent reduction in drag, a 36 per cent reduction in lift and a whopping 55 per cent improvement in front-to-rear lift balance. Assuming that hot pursuit of noticeable gains is reflected across the board, Tesla may have finally delivered a Model 3 Performance worthy of the name in more ways than one.
1. See the images below from Tesla’s US and UK websites. Seems cars out of the Shanghai factory have 50hp less than the California ones. Or do they as the 0-60mph times are identical?! The batteries are certainly different and that could impact performance or it might not. YouTube, do your thing.
2. My OCD is struggling with the naming convention here. Top Model S is called Plaid and features Plaid badging. This has Ludicrous badging (one rung below Plaid) but is called Performance?! Either change the badging or change the name. The latter makes more sense to me and aligns it with the S and X.
That said, it still looks like a mega package though - if the depreciation isn’t horrific (it will be) it even looks like pretty good value.
59 grand is a chunk of cash but it is cheap relative to other cars with that performance like an M3/4.
But, the Model 3 does have that air of something that a video game spawns too often nowadays, it’s kind of ended up like seeing Sierras in 1990, but with less detail.
Think the straight line speed novelty may wear off a bit and I would feel I sold my soul a bit getting one.
What does that OG sentence mean? I know it’s a desperate thing to make out you don’t follow modern times (which I don’t) and the usual passive aggressive response is to use google to find out yourself - but I did google it and it still makes little sense to me as used in the passage.
“Original Gangster” for those also in the dark.
I’m guessing it’s just how language evolves or something.
The car looks like it will be terrifically fast. Im sure it has other qualities on top. Just doesn’t appear particularly covetable. All just my opinion.
I read this evening in the Harry’s Garage thread talk about there being no obvious/traditionsl speedo. Also no HUD. That can’t be right, surely?
What does that OG sentence mean? I know it’s a desperate thing to make out you don’t follow modern times (which I don’t) and the usual passive aggressive response is to use google to find out yourself - but I did google it and it still makes little sense to me as used in the passage.
“Original Gangster” for those also in the dark.
I’m guessing it’s just how language evolves or something.
The car looks like it will be terrifically fast. Im sure it has other qualities on top. Just doesn’t appear particularly covetable. All just my opinion.
I read this evening in the Harry’s Garage thread talk about there being no obvious/traditionsl speedo. Also no HUD. That can’t be right, surely?
To respond to "covetable", Jason Cammisa (US journo who seems knowledgeable) was saying he would have this new M3P over the currently available alternatives, including the BMW M3. I will wait to see the opinion of a UK journalist I trust.
Finally, a lot of rubbish is talked about the speedo placement in Model 3's by people who haven't driven them for a long time. It takes you half an hour to get used to looking down and left rather than just down, then you forget about it. It's not as if no cars have ever had central speedo's - I'm old enough to remember the original minis. It's easy to tell what speed you are doing - complete non-issue.
I read this evening in the Harry’s Garage thread talk about there being no obvious/traditionsl speedo. Also no HUD. That can’t be right, surely?
1. See the images below from Tesla’s US and UK websites. Seems cars out of the Shanghai factory have 50hp less than the California ones. Or do they as the 0-60mph times are identical?! The batteries are certainly different and that could impact performance or it might not. YouTube, do your thing.
2. My OCD is struggling with the naming convention here. Top Model S is called Plaid and features Plaid badging. This has Ludicrous badging (one rung below Plaid) but is called Performance?! Either change the badging or change the name. The latter makes more sense to me and aligns it with the S and X.
That said, it still looks like a mega package though - if the depreciation isn’t horrific (it will be) it even looks like pretty good value.
In order to get a true 0-60 (without rollout) in 2.9s I would think the actual power is nearer 600bhp. That would also tally with the rear motor being increased by 33% (old front at ~200bhp + new rear at 1.33*300bhp is 600bhp). We will have to wait for someone to dyno it. I'm also interested in the quarter mile time.
TX.
In order to get a true 0-60 (without rollout) in 2.9s I would think the actual power is nearer 600bhp. That would also tally with the rear motor being increased by 33% (old front at ~200bhp + new rear at 1.33*300bhp is 600bhp). We will have to wait for someone to dyno it. I'm also interested in the quarter mile time.
The motors have a single gear and below 60 mph operate in a fixed torque regime.
Without loss of traction, it is impossible to reach peak power below 60 mph.
The purpose of this is to deliver an (almost) fixed torque at the driven wheels for the 0-60 run.
Fixed wheel torque = fixed acceleration, with power rising linearly with road speed.
The reason powertrain designers want power to rise linearly is that kinetic energy is proportional to speed squared.
Providing too much power at low road speed will simply break traction or force traction control to kick in and is entirely unnecessary to accelerate the car.
(I can guarantee that someone brought up on ICEs will be along to dispute this...)
Anyway, at some speed, the motor controllers enter into a fixed power regime, above 60 mph.
Above this speed the motor (and wheel) torque will decay.
If that speed is lower in one car than the other but both have the same wheel torque up to 60 mph, they will both accelerate at the same rate up to 60 mph.
The universal formula to calculate the power require to accelerate the car is 6 bhp per ton per mph per g.
Once drag kicks in, the total power required will increase in excess of this value.
Drag power is proportional to speed cubed and the CdA of the car, so it takes a bit more info to assess the impact of drag.
For the sake of 0-60 mph discussions for rapid acceleration of a high mass car, it can pretty much be ignored.
The rolling resistance of the tyres adds a fixed 1% to the power required to accelerate at 1g, independent of speed, so it can also be ignored.
TLDR: power only tells half the story.
Acceleration is defined by the torque at the wheels OR in alternative terms, by the instantaneous power divided by the road speed.
Unless you know at what speed the peak power is being delivered at, you cannot use the power rating alone to determine acceleration.
The motors have a single gear and below 60 mph operate in a fixed torque regime.
Without loss of traction, it is impossible to reach peak power below 60 mph.
The purpose of this is to deliver an (almost) fixed torque at the driven wheels for the 0-60 run.
Fixed wheel torque = fixed acceleration, with power rising linearly with road speed.
The reason powertrain designers want power to rise linearly is that kinetic energy is proportional to speed squared.
Providing too much power at low road speed will simply break traction or force traction control to kick in and is entirely unnecessary to accelerate the car.
(I can guarantee that someone brought up on ICEs will be along to dispute this...)
Anyway, at some speed, the motor controllers enter into a fixed power regime, above 60 mph.
Above this speed the motor (and wheel) torque will decay.
If that speed is lower in one car than the other but both have the same wheel torque up to 60 mph, they will both accelerate at the same rate up to 60 mph.
The universal formula to calculate the power require to accelerate the car is 6 bhp per ton per mph per g.
Once drag kicks in, the total power required will increase in excess of this value.
Drag power is proportional to speed cubed and the CdA of the car, so it takes a bit more info to assess the impact of drag.
For the sake of 0-60 mph discussions for rapid acceleration of a high mass car, it can pretty much be ignored.
The rolling resistance of the tyres adds a fixed 1% to the power required to accelerate at 1g, independent of speed, so it can also be ignored.
TLDR: power only tells half the story.
Acceleration is defined by the torque at the wheels OR in alternative terms, by the instantaneous power divided by the road speed.
Unless you know at what speed the peak power is being delivered at, you cannot use the power rating alone to determine acceleration.
Work = force x distance
Power = work / time
Therefore
Power = force x speed
In a rotating system this is torque x rpm.
Electric motors can produce close to max torque at zero rpm, but until the car starts to move, are producing zero power; if the torque is fixed, power then rises linearly with speed. It’s torque at the wheel hub, which translates to force at the contact patch, which challenges traction rather than power (power being a speed-dependent variable).
Electric motor torque falls off at higher speeds, which with a single-speed transmission will correspond to a fixed vehicle speed. So whether due to electric motor characteristics or software design, the power could stay constant above a certain speed if the torque drops off at a rate proportional to the increase in rpm. The car theoretically could be producing 510 hp by 60 mph, which then stays constant until 163 mph.
If this is what happens, there must be software intent as my limited understanding is that electric motor torque falls off higher up than from 38% of peak speed. Don’t understand why they’d design it to do that though.
I suspect it will be a better daily over the Ioniq 5N but far less entertaining on track - I’m sure only a tiny percentage will ever see the track.
No EV is tempting me away from ICE quite yet but the progress is welcome. I can see us swapping our Model 3 for a used one of these in a few years time.
Has the love of ICE finally be reduced to a hobby for the old generation?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff