350 mile range Quad Motor rumored to be 1st trim launched

[PilotPete]

Elon like to produce the best vehicle without much compromises. If other OEMs are producing 4 motor variants, Tesla also needs to produce a 4 motor variant. The reasoning is 4 is better than 3, plain and simple. 3 motors is not going to cut it against the competition.

Do you buy your BEV based on how many motors it has? Would you buy a 4 motor Rivian for $90k that goes 0-60 in 3.0 seconds, or a tri-motor CT at $79K that goes 0-60 in 2.9 seconds? Is it the number of motors that sells, or the performance of the overall package? Is it better to have 4 300hp motors, or 3 410hp motors? All motors are not created equal.

Sponsored

 

[HaulingAss]

The 350 mile range Cybertruck will deliver less than 300 miles in real life driving. I can confidently say that with over 2.5 years and 40k miles of Tesla ownership.

That's a silly statement since "real life driving" is no more definitive than the EPA drive cycles that are used to deliver the City, Hwy, and combined efficiency ratings.

My wife only uses her 2018 Model 3 in "real life driving" and has a lifetime efficiency average well above the EPA combined efficiency rating. Your 2.5 years and 40K miles of Tesla ownership is no more definitive of what constitutes "real life driving" than my wife's useage of 5 years and 80K miles. She is definitely not a hypermiler and never worries about her consumption numbers.

My numbers, in my Model 3 Performance, are about the same amount under the EPA efficiency numbers as my wife's are above them. But that's because I don't hesitate to reach triple digit speeds and punch it whenever I feel like it. We both have some speeding tickets even though I avoid most of them with a radar detector.

I'm super impressed with the real-life efficiency vs. EPA estimated efficiency. In our experience, Tesla's EPA numbers are pretty easy to match as long as you're not cruising down the highway above 70 mph and always varying speeds and entering regen unnecessarily or otherwise driving in an inefficient manner.

The way I see this is simply that some people are naturally smoother drivers than others. Also, the settings you chose in the menu will impact your results just as certainly as the tire pressures you run. Every new car I've ever owned had a dedicated forum with some members claiming the EPA numbers were wildly optimistic and other members claiming the EPA numbers were pretty easy to meet or exceed as long as you drove the car in a sensible manner, mimicking the EPA test conditions. This isn't rocket science and your mileage may vary. Obviously.

 

[HaulingAss]

That would be a horse of a different color. I am suddenly glad that my truck is at best 9 months out from the start of production. That is plenty of time for Elon/Tesla to see the error of their ways and get my 500-mile Tri out the door.

It's pretty much a given that Tesla will let you delay your reservation (delivery) until they have the configuration you have been waiting for. But Elon has indicated the configurations originally offered will not be exactly the same as the configurations they are planning on now. The ranges may not line up exactly to the 250 miles, 300+ miles and 500+ miles originally indicated. And the number of motors offered might not be exactly 1, 2 or 3 motors.

But it's getting close to finding out. Today Elon Tweeted, " Something special coming soon". Who knows if it's Cybertruck related but...

Nice!

 

[HaulingAss]

Encouraging! The F150 Lightning starts under $50k for AWD, sounds like EM is aiming to beat that!

Nobody is paying $50K or less for a F-150 Lightning AWD! And the cheapest Lightnings are more stripped than a drunk stripper in Thailand. Even the least expensive Tesla's come loaded with cameras and with Autopilot and a host of safety and convenience technology features.

 

[HaulingAss]

Tesla will not build a truck with under 400 miles...wait and see. Batt tech has changed for the better in 4 YEARS.

That's false. One thing is certain: Tesla will have at least one configuration well under 400 miles. And Tesla knew what the battery density would be in 4 years with very little margin of error. Commercial batteries are very predictable as to what will be available in 4 years if you are in the battery industry.

Tesla knows the limiting factor in terms of how much range a truck needs to be practical is the power and density of the available charging network (and the amount of power the vehicles can accept). I have a reservation in for the top spec version but will instantly convert it to the first version available, even if it were only 305 miles. That said, I expect the first version available will have well over 300 miles (probably around 350 miles like the rumor suggests).

 

[ED_SFO]

3 motors is already cutting it, by current speculation of performance. There are other features to improve to achieve superiority.

Do you buy your BEV based on how many motors it has? Would you buy a 4 motor Rivian for $90k that goes 0-60 in 3.0 seconds, or a tri-motor CT at $79K that goes 0-60 in 2.9 seconds? Is it the number of motors that sells, or the performance of the overall package? Is it better to have 4 300hp motors, or 3 410hp motors? All motors are not created equal.

I think you guys are over thinking what I meant to say.

People who are buying the top tier variants want the best and can afford the best.

Knowing Tesla builds the most efficient BEV and power trains.

If Tesla's competition has a quad motor setup, then Tesla must have the same setup to assert their dominance. 4 motors is better than 3 period. If you want to be the best you need an apple to apples comparison and 4 motors is where it's at...a tri-motor is prob less needed at this point.

Not sure if Tesla needs a quad, tri and dual setup.

 

[PilotPete]

I think you guys are over thinking what I meant to say.

People who are buying the top tier variants want the best and can afford the best.

Knowing Tesla builds the most efficient BEV and power trains.

If Tesla's competition has a quad motor setup, then Tesla must have the same setup to assert their dominance. 4 motors is better than 3 period. If you want to be the best you need an apple to apples comparison and 4 motors is where it's at...a tri-motor is prob less needed at this point.

Not sure if Tesla needs a quad, tri and dual setup.

And I think you might be over thinking it.

I think Tesla buyers are results oriented. I know I am. I want bleeding edge tech in my next vehicle. I want blinding performance. If that comes from 3, 4, 5, or 12 motors, I don't care. If it come from one motor and a really pissed off squirrel, I want it. The CT is the ONLY thing stopping me from buying an S Plaid. The S does sub 2 second 0-60 times. That is the draw. Results.

 

[SlegMD]

I think you guys are over thinking what I meant to say.

The rest of your statement basically repeats your original comment.
I think we are all aware that 3+1=4, and thus more performance.
However, that is not the shortcoming of the CT at this point.

 

[WormtownKris]

I think you guys are over thinking what I meant to say.

People who are buying the top tier variants want the best and can afford the best.

If Tesla's competition has a quad motor setup, then Tesla must have the same setup to assert their dominance. 4 motors is better than 3 period. If you want to be the best you need an apple to apples comparison and 4 motors is where it's at...a tri-motor is prob less needed at this point.

Not sure if Tesla needs a quad, tri and dual setup.

I think there are very few Tesla buyers who are insistent that the CT has the same amount of motors as the Rivian. Do you feel that if the Hummer EV has a 225 kWh battery pack, then the CT has to have one too? As Pete said above, we are driven by performance, not by how much who has the most motors or batteries.
If Tesla "must assert their dominance" via motor count, then shouldn't they have five motors since no one else has five?

 

[Cyberostachu]

I'll be waiting for the 500 mile version then.

I'm very disappointed with 350-mile range. I wanted to get the tri motor 500-mile range. If that's the case history repeats itself on me. I have a Model 3 rated 330 miles that cannot get 230 miles, now, this 350 miles will only do 250 if I'm lucky? Not again. I thought 500 would at least get 350 miles and that's acceptable. I'm a positive type person but with my experience, I'm not sure. Unless, 350 is 350 for everybody.

 

[FutureBoy]

If Tesla "must assert their dominance" via motor count, then shouldn't they have five motors since no one else has five?

Counting the motor for the BAW makes 5. That motor must be about the same torque as the ones running the wheels.

 

[Cyberostachu]

I think there are very few Tesla buyers who are insistent that the CT has the same amount of motors as the Rivian. Do you feel that if the Hummer EV has a 225 kWh battery pack, then the CT has to have one too? As Pete said above, we are driven by performance, not by how much who has the most motors or batterieo bes.
If Tesla "must assert their dominance" via motor count, then shouldn't they have five motors since no one else has five?

Kris, you seem to be practical and logical. I read somewhere in the internet that the whole battery pack is not all usable for us owners. Do you know in % how many % are held for other purposes?

 

[Cyberostachu]

They jumped to quad motor when they heard 350 miles?

I don't think it'd be that. more likely to be the dual motor like originally announced.

But if it was the quad motor, honestly, that'd be dope. I would feel bad for the trailer tots but my model Y with just barely 300 is enough for me. And this would save my wallet.

I agree. If a quad would only go 350 which I am skeptical that it's not really 350, I'll go for the model Y and save money and garage issues.

 

[WormtownKris]

Kris, you seem to be practical and logical. I read somewhere in the internet that the whole battery pack is not all usable for us owners. Do you know in % how many % are held for other purposes?

I'm actually not really up on that. Tesla has historically used all or nearly all of its battery pack, whereas its competitors seem to keep more of it in reserve.
I believe that is because Tesla's robust batteries can be worked hard and do not deteriorate (much?) if used to the last electron, while other OEMs provide a cushion because they anticipate reduced battery life and performance if they use the entire battery. So, when you run a Taycan out of range, there is still, say, 10kWh of the battery that you cannot use that has not discharged.
This all got a lot fuzzier when the Model 3/Y came out, because rather than expressly calling out a 65kWh, 85kWh battery size, they just went to Short Range and Long Range, and then they added different battery chemistries. So, you'd buy a "265 mile range" car, not a car with a specific battery size. Hard to know if the full battery was being used if you don't even know what the full battery size is.
Recently there has been a lot of debate about Tesla's EPA range claims. Some have theorized that Tesla's range shown in the UI is less than the EPA range so that you have an "emergency reserve" if you try to stretch your Tesla past "0 Miles Remaining". So in that case, is it unused battery or "off menu secret reserve battery capacity?"
But bottom line is, I do not know if or at what % Tesla keeps part of its batteries in reserve. (Note that I am neither a chemist nor an engineer, so this was all more of a layman's interpretation of what I hear and read).

 

[cvalue13]

This all got a lot fuzzier when the Model 3/Y came out, because rather than expressly calling out a 65kWh, 85kWh battery size, they just went to Short Range and Long Range, and then they added different battery chemistries. So, you'd buy a "265 mile range" car, not a car with a specific battery size. Hard to know if the full battery was being used if you don't even know what the full battery size is.

Don’t forget the model variants that have identical pack sizes but were/are software locked to differentiate range

Feels like the sort of thing that, if Tesla *werent* doing it but another OEM did, the fanbois would rain hell upon

Sponsored