Harry's Garage - YouTube
Discussion
ChocolateFrog said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
ChocolateFrog said:
I didn't realise Tesla no longer sold a performance version of the 3
...
That is literally about to change in the next day or so. All the big content creators were on a launch day a few weeks ago for the new Model 3 performance. It has circa 600bhp. Apparently they are already been produced in volume at their Shanghai factory. Global announcement should be very soon....
No doubt it'll be atleast £700pm on SS though.
https://youtu.be/52O3cYsyZMo?feature=shared
I’m of much the same mind as @RichardHMorris when it comes to Teslas and potential purchase. We finally do have a dealer here such as they are, but the customer approach seems much like an Apple Store without the same degree of quality of service. For me the biggest detriment to purchase is Musk himself as I cannot bring myself to support the man. The lack of visible product differentiation and choice would be next for me. Most I see are white, followed by black and occasionally red. Color is a good thing both inside and out. The cheapening of the controls/interfaces is another big negative. I am also not a particular fan of the styling. The Hatchback version looks like a turtle but the 3 is only slightly better and does very little for me. Oddly enough the driving experience and range would be fine for the way I use a car so that is not a concern. It is everything else
DoctorX said:
ChocolateFrog said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
ChocolateFrog said:
I didn't realise Tesla no longer sold a performance version of the 3
...
That is literally about to change in the next day or so. All the big content creators were on a launch day a few weeks ago for the new Model 3 performance. It has circa 600bhp. Apparently they are already been produced in volume at their Shanghai factory. Global announcement should be very soon....
No doubt it'll be atleast £700pm on SS though.
https://youtu.be/52O3cYsyZMo?feature=shared
$53k before federal incentives which apparently can take it down to $45k.
Bargain for the yanks.
I guess that means it'll be £55-60k over here.
ChocolateFrog said:
Just seen that.
$53k before federal incentives which apparently can take it down to $45k.
Bargain for the yanks.
I guess that means it'll be £55-60k over here.
£60k, but does a lot more to justify the price hike over the LR than the previous performance model did.$53k before federal incentives which apparently can take it down to $45k.
Bargain for the yanks.
I guess that means it'll be £55-60k over here.
New rear motor with power up to 550hp and 0-62 <3 seconds.
Sports seats with much more bolstering
Adaptive ride
Different front and rear bumpers
Staggered wheels (19" front, 20" rear)
The seats and adaptive ride apparently resolve 2 of the biggest problems I had with ours, so should be quite a compelling package.
SWoll said:
£60k, but does a lot more to justify the price hike over the LR than the previous performance model did.
New rear motor with power up to 550hp and 0-62 <3 seconds.
Sports seats with much more bolstering
Adaptive ride
Different front and rear bumpers
Staggered wheels (19" front, 20" rear)
The seats and adaptive ride apparently resolve 2 of the biggest problems I had with ours, so should be quite a compelling package.
But the range seems to have taken a massive hit? 16% down on the LR version and barely higher than the RWD version. That seems quite a lot worse to me, particularly considering the WLTP estimate will never be achieved. Thought it would do better than that on the test cycle.New rear motor with power up to 550hp and 0-62 <3 seconds.
Sports seats with much more bolstering
Adaptive ride
Different front and rear bumpers
Staggered wheels (19" front, 20" rear)
The seats and adaptive ride apparently resolve 2 of the biggest problems I had with ours, so should be quite a compelling package.
EddieSteadyGo said:
SWoll said:
£60k, but does a lot more to justify the price hike over the LR than the previous performance model did.
New rear motor with power up to 550hp and 0-62 <3 seconds.
Sports seats with much more bolstering
Adaptive ride
Different front and rear bumpers
Staggered wheels (19" front, 20" rear)
The seats and adaptive ride apparently resolve 2 of the biggest problems I had with ours, so should be quite a compelling package.
But the range seems to have taken a massive hit? 16% down on the LR version and barely higher than the RWD version. That seems quite a lot worse to me, particularly considering the WLTP estimate will never be achieved. Thought it would do better than that on the test cycle.New rear motor with power up to 550hp and 0-62 <3 seconds.
Sports seats with much more bolstering
Adaptive ride
Different front and rear bumpers
Staggered wheels (19" front, 20" rear)
The seats and adaptive ride apparently resolve 2 of the biggest problems I had with ours, so should be quite a compelling package.
loudlashadjuster said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
But the range seems to have taken a massive hit? 16% down on the LR version and barely higher than the RWD version. That seems quite a lot worse to me, particularly considering the WLTP estimate will never be achieved. Thought it would do better than that on the test cycle.
You don’t get something for nothing. The old Performance had less range than the LR variant, not sure why you’d expect any different?At the end of the day if range and efficiency are your priorities then you buy an LR and keep it on the standard 18's, as adding bigger wheels on that model also results in a significant drop.
SWoll said:
£60k, but does a lot more to justify the price hike over the LR than the previous performance model did.
New rear motor with power up to 550hp and 0-62 <3 seconds.
Sports seats with much more bolstering
Adaptive ride
Different front and rear bumpers
Staggered wheels (19" front, 20" rear)
The seats and adaptive ride apparently resolve 2 of the biggest problems I had with ours, so should be quite a compelling package.
The staggered wheel and tyre size is 20" all round, wider at the back. https://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/tesla/performa...New rear motor with power up to 550hp and 0-62 <3 seconds.
Sports seats with much more bolstering
Adaptive ride
Different front and rear bumpers
Staggered wheels (19" front, 20" rear)
The seats and adaptive ride apparently resolve 2 of the biggest problems I had with ours, so should be quite a compelling package.
Chasing Potatoes said:
It’s that a little like complaining that an M5 doesn’t return the same economy as a 530d?
Not really. Generally speaking, if you compare the previous Model 3 LR to the Performance the difference was ~10%. The Model S LR to Plaid is around ~6%. The Model X LR to Plaid is around ~6%.
The reviews were suggesting the range was going to be very close between this new model and the LR version, because of changes they had made to the tyre rolling tyre resistance etc. Also, previously they have used IIRC a slightly bigger battery in the prior Model 3 performance to reduce the difference in range.
So I think this time they have probably used the same pack size, and I bet they didn't realise quite how poorly it was going to do on the WLTP cycle. 16% difference is actually huge, and that is comparing the LR version the bigger wheels. The comparison to the LR version with standard wheels is 22% less range.
Chasing Potatoes said:
It’s that a little like complaining that an M5 doesn’t return the same economy as a 530d?
Indeed, at that level it seems a bonkers statement but to be honest that's the world of ICE where we all have a pretty sound understanding of the basics but also we need to consider that EVs are endlessly sold on 'efficiency' 'mpg', 'cost savings' etc etc. There has never been a fuller type of vehicle outside of the Honda Jazz for the sales technique. In fact it's far worse in reality as the efficiency and cost savings of the Jazz are peddled to the elderly where these benefits make sense but with EVs all this pensioner stuff of everything automated (due to mental and physical frailty?), every little penny saved (due to being trapped in pension or benefits?) in some never ending bizarre world which genuinely reveals the existence of consumers buying £50k+ cars and then worrying about the running costs!!!Even Harry bangs on endlessly when it comes to EVs about 'mpg' and 'efficiency'. Cost to fill up is a logical aspect to consider for Which and the products they shift to their demographic and the base Model 3 Harry tests is the budget EV for the long distance worker so it's efficiency is of particular importance but the Lotus and that BMW aren't being aimed at people on a budget or with no parking or only one car, they're non essential purchases where you don't care about 2miles per kWh any more than you would a Cayenne Turbo's 10 mpg.
EddieSteadyGo said:
Not really.
Generally speaking, if you compare the previous Model 3 LR to the Performance the difference was ~10%. The Model S LR to Plaid is around ~6%. The Model X LR to Plaid is around ~6%.
The reviews were suggesting the range was going to be very close between this new model and the LR version, because of changes they had made to the tyre rolling tyre resistance etc. Also, previously they have used IIRC a slightly bigger battery in the prior Model 3 performance to reduce the difference in range.
So I think this time they have probably used the same pack size, and I bet they didn't realise quite how poorly it was going to do on the WLTP cycle. 16% difference is actually huge, and that is comparing the LR version the bigger wheels. The comparison to the LR version with standard wheels is 22% less range.
And as above, if your priority is range you buy the LR. If your priority is cost you buy the RWD. You have choice.Generally speaking, if you compare the previous Model 3 LR to the Performance the difference was ~10%. The Model S LR to Plaid is around ~6%. The Model X LR to Plaid is around ~6%.
The reviews were suggesting the range was going to be very close between this new model and the LR version, because of changes they had made to the tyre rolling tyre resistance etc. Also, previously they have used IIRC a slightly bigger battery in the prior Model 3 performance to reduce the difference in range.
So I think this time they have probably used the same pack size, and I bet they didn't realise quite how poorly it was going to do on the WLTP cycle. 16% difference is actually huge, and that is comparing the LR version the bigger wheels. The comparison to the LR version with standard wheels is 22% less range.
The changes they've made to the performance in order to make it a better drivers car and distinct from the other models have affected efficiency, which seem a fair trade off to me. Assuming it'll still do 3-3.5 miles/kWh in the real world then 250 miles should be achievable, which IME is perfectly acceptable.
Harry's obsession with efficiency has never made any sense to me. Assuming you can charge at home then even the most inefficient EV is a cheap as chips to charge, and very few drivers are doing 200+ mile trips regularly enough for absolute range to be anything more than an occasional nuisance that can easily be planned for.
SWoll said:
And as above, if your priority is range you buy the LR. If your priority is cost you buy the RWD. You have choice.
The changes they've made to the performance in order to make it a better drivers car and distinct from the other models have affected efficiency, which seem a fair trade off to me. Assuming it'll still do 3-3.5 miles/kWh in the real world then 250 miles should be achievable, which IME is perfectly acceptable.
Harry's obsession with efficiency has never made any sense to me. Assuming you can charge at home then even the most inefficient EV is a cheap as chips to charge, and very few drivers are doing 200+ mile trips regularly enough for absolute range to be anything more than an occasional nuisance that can easily be planned for.
There was obviously always going to be a difference between the efficiencies of the two cars. That wasn't my point. I was just surprised at the size of the difference, which as I've referenced, is unusually large. The changes they've made to the performance in order to make it a better drivers car and distinct from the other models have affected efficiency, which seem a fair trade off to me. Assuming it'll still do 3-3.5 miles/kWh in the real world then 250 miles should be achievable, which IME is perfectly acceptable.
Harry's obsession with efficiency has never made any sense to me. Assuming you can charge at home then even the most inefficient EV is a cheap as chips to charge, and very few drivers are doing 200+ mile trips regularly enough for absolute range to be anything more than an occasional nuisance that can easily be planned for.
EddieSteadyGo said:
Not really.
Generally speaking, if you compare the previous Model 3 LR to the Performance the difference was ~10%. The Model S LR to Plaid is around ~6%. The Model X LR to Plaid is around ~6%.
The reviews were suggesting the range was going to be very close between this new model and the LR version, because of changes they had made to the tyre rolling tyre resistance etc. Also, previously they have used IIRC a slightly bigger battery in the prior Model 3 performance to reduce the difference in range.
So I think this time they have probably used the same pack size, and I bet they didn't realise quite how poorly it was going to do on the WLTP cycle. 16% difference is actually huge, and that is comparing the LR version the bigger wheels. The comparison to the LR version with standard wheels is 22% less range.
Shall we wait and see the real world figures?Generally speaking, if you compare the previous Model 3 LR to the Performance the difference was ~10%. The Model S LR to Plaid is around ~6%. The Model X LR to Plaid is around ~6%.
The reviews were suggesting the range was going to be very close between this new model and the LR version, because of changes they had made to the tyre rolling tyre resistance etc. Also, previously they have used IIRC a slightly bigger battery in the prior Model 3 performance to reduce the difference in range.
So I think this time they have probably used the same pack size, and I bet they didn't realise quite how poorly it was going to do on the WLTP cycle. 16% difference is actually huge, and that is comparing the LR version the bigger wheels. The comparison to the LR version with standard wheels is 22% less range.
EddieSteadyGo said:
You know the real-world figures by extrapolating from the WLTP and EPA figures.
So that's a no then.The point above stands. If you want the performance you give something else up. That's always been the case. You're having a different discussion about an efficiency gap compared to other models.
You also seem to be missing this bit - Tesla says it delivers 22 per cent more continuous power and 32 per cent more peak power
So that may well account for that efficiency gap. I guess it's called Performance and not Performance Long-Range for a reason?
Edited by Chasing Potatoes on Wednesday 24th April 09:24
loudlashadjuster said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
SWoll said:
£60k, but does a lot more to justify the price hike over the LR than the previous performance model did.
New rear motor with power up to 550hp and 0-62 <3 seconds.
Sports seats with much more bolstering
Adaptive ride
Different front and rear bumpers
Staggered wheels (19" front, 20" rear)
The seats and adaptive ride apparently resolve 2 of the biggest problems I had with ours, so should be quite a compelling package.
But the range seems to have taken a massive hit? 16% down on the LR version and barely higher than the RWD version. That seems quite a lot worse to me, particularly considering the WLTP estimate will never be achieved. Thought it would do better than that on the test cycle.New rear motor with power up to 550hp and 0-62 <3 seconds.
Sports seats with much more bolstering
Adaptive ride
Different front and rear bumpers
Staggered wheels (19" front, 20" rear)
The seats and adaptive ride apparently resolve 2 of the biggest problems I had with ours, so should be quite a compelling package.
Chasing Potatoes said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
You know the real-world figures by extrapolating from the WLTP and EPA figures.
So that's a no then.The point above stands. If you want the performance you give something else up. That's always been the case. You're having a different discussion about an efficiency gap compared to other models.
You also seem to be missing this bit - Tesla says it delivers 22 per cent more continuous power and 32 per cent more peak power
So that may well account for that efficiency gap. I guess it's called Performance and not Performance Long-Range for a reason?
I stand by my original point that a 16% reduction in WLTP range compared to the LR version with the larger wheels and a 22% reduction vs the LR with standard wheels is a *much* larger reduction than I was expecting. I think anyone who follows the detail would realise that.
However, the EPA figures (which are usually much more accurate than WLTP) show something different. It is showing a 3% reduction in range compared to the LR version (with larger wheels). That would actually be very good, and much more in line with what I was hoping for.
So it seems more likely that the real world difference between the two version is likely to very low, and this reduction in WLTP range is somewhat misleading, probably due to some kink in the WLTP test cycle.
EddieSteadyGo said:
Actually, I am going to change my mind (or conclusion at least).
I stand by my original point that a 16% reduction in WLTP range compared to the LR version with the larger wheels and a 22% reduction vs the LR with standard wheels is a *much* larger reduction than I was expecting. I think anyone who follows the detail would realise that.
However, the EPA figures (which are usually much more accurate than WLTP) show something different. It is showing a 3% reduction in range compared to the LR version (with larger wheels). That would actually be very good, and much more in line with what I was hoping for.
So it seems more likely that the real world difference between the two version is likely to very low, and this reduction in WLTP range is somewhat misleading, probably due to some kink in the WLTP test cycle.
Good digging into the EPA detail - wasn't aware of that. If they have managed that 3% reduction with the increases above that's impressive.I stand by my original point that a 16% reduction in WLTP range compared to the LR version with the larger wheels and a 22% reduction vs the LR with standard wheels is a *much* larger reduction than I was expecting. I think anyone who follows the detail would realise that.
However, the EPA figures (which are usually much more accurate than WLTP) show something different. It is showing a 3% reduction in range compared to the LR version (with larger wheels). That would actually be very good, and much more in line with what I was hoping for.
So it seems more likely that the real world difference between the two version is likely to very low, and this reduction in WLTP range is somewhat misleading, probably due to some kink in the WLTP test cycle.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff