UPDATE – Tesla Model 3 AWD & Performance Rated With 455-Mile Range By CARB

AWD Tesla Model 3 being built in a tent


Info has just leaked out that CARB has posted a certificate confirming the range of the Tesla Model 3 Performance and Dual-Motor Variants.

***UPDATE – Musk, via Twitter, notes that deliveries of the Performance version should begin soon and says that 100 have been made for test drive purposes. See embedded Tweet below:

We’ve embedded the Tweet with the CARB certificate below:

We should note that the 455.32-mile rating is not a real-world or EPA figure, but rather it’s based on CARB methodology.

It’s highly interesting to see that the dual-motor variants have a shorter range, according to CARB, than the RWD counterpart, which under the same testing methodology received a range rating of 495.1 miles. We’ll dig deeper into this discrepancy soon.

We should point out that the official figures for the standard long-range Model 3 (non dual-motor, non Performance) are as follows:

City range of 321.9 miles and highway range of 295.5 miles. Combined range works out to 310 miles (the same figures Tesla’s been noting all along), but that figure was “voluntarily lowered” by the automaker

Tesla Model 3 Performance specs according to the automaker:

  • 0-60 mph in 3.5 seconds
  • 155 mph top speed
  • Range: 310 miles

Tesla is currently pushing the Performance variant of the Model 3 as it seeks to profit as soon as possible, so it’s no surprise to see this certificate pop up now, as it allows for the vehicle to be registered in California. Look to see a flood of Performance variants of the Model 3 hit California streets in the coming weeks.

Developing story…

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

77 Comments on "UPDATE – Tesla Model 3 AWD & Performance Rated With 455-Mile Range By CARB"

newest oldest most voted

Range O Plenty!

Hurry up with The Model Y AWD + Performance Please!

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

I want the Model T!!!
T = Truck Quad Cab 4×4

Ford definitely won’t go for that name by Tesla….

It will be Tesla T-150

They can call it whatever they want as long as they don’t put it on the vehicle there is really nothing to sue for.

Possibly the very reason there is no 3 on the Model 3.

Maybe Tesla will buy Ford…

The model Y will be a game changer

…but if you want to “play” and they take away the steering wheel, you’ll have to go someplace else.

Will it really? As far as I can tell, it’s the first segment Tesla will enter where they won’t be first to market, but rather will have to fight for market share beside other EV entrants…

Interesting. I would not have expected it to be almost 10% less range than the RWD model…perhaps it really is using the less efficient front Induction motor more often than anticipated (which makes sense I guess) resulting in lower range…

It is likely the induction motor. Recall that when the AWD Model S was introduced, it actually had more range than the prior, non-AWD model, but there it was induction -> induction. It’s a shame they had to compromise with an induction motor to achieve AWD.

There’s something fishy about the non-P and P getting precisely the same rating. That’s wasn’t true in the past, and shouldn’t be when one uses energy saving tires and the other uses high grip tires.

I think Tesla just didn’t bother doing a different test for the non-P, and the difference we see is mostly due to the tires.

The other factor is probably drivetrain losses (i.e. CV joints, front diff, gear reduction, and motor bearings). The induction motor itself can just freewheel without current (unlike a PM motor), so that can’t cause a range reduction.

In any case, this works out to 0.014kWh/mile, or one third horsepower. Not a huge difference.

+ extra weight of front motor, additional coolant, HV cables, etc. The Rear motor is hyper tuned for efficiency and power density. Alone the rear motor is great, with all the added weight the AWD gets hit on range. With the S and X induction rear motor, they are able to improve the overall efficiency by adding a front drive motor and tune it differently, optimizing which motor is doing work for different scenarios.

Hyper tuned, double burn in. How can you spout such nonsense with a straight face?

“Power density” describes batteries, not motors.

OT: At the lot I visited across the street from my local Tesla last night, was an entirely different scene than service center.
Service Center: Biz as usual, many vacant parking spots, maybe ~3 Model 3s.
Across Street, mostly out of view: Couple dozen M3s, among other new S and X vehicles.

Model 3 volumes already exceed space at service centers. Just to buffer for the new delivery rate, they need it. Many cars had grease penned dates (delivery?) on their windshields. About a half dozen within the week. Also noticed greater use of rear view mirror numbered cards, with 3-digits as if new inventory system.

It’s a different sight to behold. Soon, Tesla’s advertising will be on wheels, like it has never been.

Power density applies to anything carrying power, including motors.

No. “Power density” is a meaningless term when applied to motors.

False. It may not be commonly discussed on EV message boards, but power density of a motor does have meaning. Would you prefer a motor that takes up a lot of space while delivering 200 kilowatts of power, or a motor that takes up just a little space? Power density is relevant and is one of the things the engineers are trying to optimize along with many other attributes of course.

Power density is power per volume. Motors have power and volume, so clearly they have power density, just like batteries. And it’s not meaningless, if you want to deliver good performance without taking up half the car.

(What’s more, albeit slightly incorrect terminology, “power density” is often used as an abbreviation for “gravimetric power density”, which would more correctly be called specific power… Probably what the original poster meant. This is clearly even more relevant.)

“hyper tuned”

Everything is hyper, mega, super, giga something these days! 🙂

“The induction motor itself can just freewheel without current”
You’d still have inertial losses, even if the motor is motor is “freewheeling”.

It does make sense. Until Tesla start producing duel motors in late 2014 they only had one motor, the only difference between 85 and P85 was the inverter. Then 85D come to market they had a new smaller and more efficient motor both in the back and in the front. The higher efficiency on both motor took out the higher weight. If you compare P85 to P85D where they only added a new motor the range when down. The same goes with Model 3, if you only add a second motor you get less range, especially if it was poorer efficiency.

Performance comes standard with the 18” Aeros.

I agree. It’s the less efficient front motor that is the culprit. The numbers here are UDDS=city so the front motor will be used a lot in this cycle.

HWy cycle hit may not be as bad as tesla can bias toward the rear motor more.

Tesla can run everything exactly the same as as the RWD, and shut off the front induction motor so it uses no power and causes minimal drag. That’s not the reason.

It’s tires and the moving parts of the drivetrain.

George Bower,

Why would Tesla use the front motor to run the UDDS cycle? The rear motor is more efficient, and has more than sufficient power to match the drive speed profile exactly.

I will bet that the front motor is not used at all. It is only needed for fast acceleration, or if rear wheel slip is detected.


PS. See comment above about P85 vs. P85D range for a hint of what is causing lower range with AWD. Another commenter suggested performance tires may have been used for both AWD and AWD Performance tests. It is suspicious that both models have the exact same range to five significant digits……

GSP, et al,
So, they balked at reporting a different number? It’s not a big difference that AWD has brought in the past, anyway. On TMC, are 75D vs 75 threads of reported range-charging, which show almost no one getting the EPA “259” (vs. RWD 249). All kinds of factors could be at play with Model 3 AWD, but I would encourage not getting worked up over the small efficiency gains and losses of the second motor.

Electric cars are still desired more for range, than efficiency. Let’s keep perspective. Overall KWh still matter most to people. To get ~80KWh in a car that costs <50k (after-tax), is an unbelievable deal. Then, whether RWD, or AWD, a Model 3 is 30-40% more efficient than a Model S. Enjoy.

I actually predicted it and got heavily down voted for it…

It’s actually just a misinterpretation of why the Model S AWD is more efficient and the difference between an induction machine and a motor with permanent magnets.

In the Model S, the regular AWD cars get a smaller front motor and a smaller rear motor. Smaller motor means it runs closer to max torque, which is more efficient. In the Model 3 the rear motor is still the same.

And you can’t just turn off a motor with permanent magnets in it. It will still produce losses and at higher speeds, “turning it off” would result in recuperation.

So since they didn’t change the rear motor, which still has to run all the time, there was no way for the AWD to be more, or even as efficient as the RWD model.

Still, the new motor is probably still better, than having two induction motors. Only a smaller rear motor would add a bit of driving efficiency.

Yes, you can turn off a PM motor. You just have to make sure there is no load connected to it all. You will still have friction and windage losses but you have that with any motor.

You can’t eliminate demagnetization losses in a motor with permanent magnets, like you can in an induction machine.

And since it’s a SiC MOSFET inverter, you’d either need 18 MOSFETs on a 3 Phase motor, instead of 6 plus 6 diodes. With always 2 in series carrying current instead 1 on each phase. So you need twice as big MOSFETs.

So in the end it is possible, but rather expensive and inefficient to disconnect a motor from the load.

You could also use a slower solution than thar, which would be cheaper, two relays for example, but then the dynamics are gone.

On the P model I would expect it. In real world I would not expect any difference between long range and rwd and awd models. The UDDS test is based on driving in LA in the 1930s, not anything like people will be driving the cars. If it was accurate I would love it – 455 miles of range 😉 My guess is the less efficient front motor is used more for low speed, stop and go, city driving. The key to range is really longer stretches of moving. I doubt we will know real world differences until the D’s get out in the wild in October. The P version may have been tested for both by carb. I look forward to when tesla puts the cars in its range calculator so we can see the real world range in hot/cold longer trips.

About 10% less than RWD, not bad at all given performance level. My hunch is mostly extra weight and maybe tires.

Exactly. George and I estimated the AWD P version will weigh about 200 lb more when we did our acceleration/HP modeling. If I plug in a “stickier” performance tire rolling-resistance value into our dynamics model, it works out to about 10% range loss (we found the RWD calc’ed at 330 miles EPA. The AWD P calcs out with the weight and sticky tires to 302 miles EPA). So spot-on match with the CARB de-rating %-wise.

I recall that on gm-Volt, a lot of Volt owners found experienced 10% range loss when they changed the stock Goodyears to a much-grippier performance or winter tire.

Even the non-performance AWD model exhibits the range loss. That will have the same tires as the non-AWD models.

The Model S AWD was heavier than the RWD S, and yet it had more range.

The difference is likely the motor. Induction kind of sucks for efficiency.

Its not just that. Yes, the SR motor in the rear is very efficient, but its also a matter of gearing. Part of the reason for the range gains in the D Model S were due to the front motor being geared to be in the optimum efficiency range in the motor’s RPM curve at highway speeds.

It seems as though the rear motor in the 3 might be the one geared for highway efficiency.

The induction motor was most likely used in the front for the regen advantages it has over the SR motor, especially at lower speeds. Regen characteristics are much more important in the front than the rear, due to braking forces being heavily biased towards the front of cars. IIRC, its around 90/10% front/rear in most cars.

An explanation I recall (sorry no reference) was that the Model S AWD had the usual induction motor on the rear and a more efficient AND smaller PM motor in front.
On longer range, fairly constant speed, highway driving the car typically would be in front-wheel-drive mostly.
Hence more efficient overall and with improved kWh/mi.
The model 3 AWD seems to reverse the motor efficiencies. So it’s anybody’s guess what the motor power split strategy is. But that may explain the apparent discrepancy.

Sorry, but that’s incorrect. The Model 3’s Permanent Magnet motor is the first time Tesla has used a PM motor.

Ooops! I stand corrected.

My guess is that the smaller front motor in the S was nonetheless a bit more efficient by virtue of its “smallness” and likely geared and employed optimally for highway use resulting in a small improvement in overall kWH/mi.

Interesting how my brain conjured up a PM motor out of nowhere for the Model S.
Life ought to actually work like that!

Even on an ICE, Winter Tires drop total Tank Range, & add Noise!

People tend not to notice on an ICE as they don’t micro manage the gas tank 😉

HVACman said:

“If I plug in a ‘stickier’ performance tire rolling-resistance value into our dynamics model, it works out to about 10% range loss…”

Congratulations on the accuracy of your computer model for the Model 3’s performance and energy efficiency. You and George deserve a hearty “Bravo, well done!” Good to see your hard work has not been in vain!

CARB uses UDDS cycle to calculate the range. EPA range is about 70% of UDDS.

What a strange article, asking for the 35k base version as if it was q1-2019 already. The numbers for AWD also only show up now that it is actually being produced.

Also not sure how relevant the 455 mile range number is, we all know for all practical purposes it is 310 mile real world range when the car drives on the road.

The interesting part here may be that the all wheel drive version is lower while still being advertised as 310 mile real world range. So that may fuel the rumors that the 310 is actually a cap lower than technically possible real-world range, which could be there in order to be able to guarantee the 310 range in more adverse conditions and also after some degradation of the hardware over the years. If that is the case, it could also be used to hide the higher consumption from AWD, which likely results from one motor being an induction motor instead of both being permanent-magnet motors.

Exactly, base tires with aero wheels might really have EPA rating of 330 or more, but they list them all at 310. Is that what you were meaning?

Either way it is really nice. Fast supercharging, good range, great all around car.

“Also not sure how relevant the 455 mile range number is, we all know for all practical purposes it is 310 mile real world range”

The “54mpg” CAFE standard is known to be about 38mpg real-world. This is roughly in proportion to what Tesla is reporting.

Well, I’ll be disappointed somewhat if my Model 3 AWD (non-P) ends up with 10% less range than the RWD, or about 280 miles. I guess as disappointed as one can be when driving a super kick-a$$ AWD EV that goes zero to 60 in 4.5 seconds and still has more range than any other non-Tesla EV! 🙂

Ok now I just want my darn car already!

Non-P AWD is mostly useless.

Not when you live in Austria.

I’ll come out and say Tesla’s problem may be proving the opposite.

There were obvious hardware differences, between “P” and non-P Model S AWD.

This was before the ~4,700lb 85 AWDs (85D) were updated to 4.1 0-60 times.

Tesla will be able to turn a ~3,900lb AWD M3 into a P3D, almost entirely Over The Air.

Are you suggesting the Performance and non-performance AWD versions of the TM3 have the same inverter?

Maybe not impossible, but I would be surprised if that’s true.

The AWD also knocks 10% off of the 0-60 time according to official Tesla 0-60 numbers. It sounds like most things in life, there is a trade-off for performance.

As I understand it the front wheels do most of the braking and this makes regeneration better for AWD vehicles. Does this UDDS cycle have very little braking in it?

Yes, very little braking.

I was guessing that test cycle had very little regenerative braking in it, because otherwise the addition of the front motor, which allows a significant increase in energy recapture from regen, should go a long way towards improving the overall combined city/highway energy efficiency. Not so much the highway-only energy efficiency.

Thanks for confirming my guess! 🙂

There is definitely a lot of regen potential in UDDS, hence the vast difference between hybrids and non hybrids in the EPA city cycle.

However, it’s soft braking and low speed, so rarely is regen over 15kW needed, and the rear motor can capture that.

The front motor will be more important in the real world, where people drive faster and regularly decelerate at 0.2-0.4g, depending on the driver. At 70 mph in a 4000lb car, 0.2g deceleration saps kinetic energy at an initial rate of 111kW.

Wouldn’t 0.2g deceleration take the same power regardless of speed (ignoring losses)?

No. Acceleration is velocity change per time, but energy is square of velocity, i.e. the same velocity change means more energy added/removed per time at higher speeds. Breaking from 200 km/h to 100 km/h will take the same time as breaking from 100 km/h to 0, given constant g; but 200->100 will release three times the amount of energy as 100->0.

Even a fairly low-powered motor can give very good low-end acceleration, given enough torque; but good high-end acceleration requires a lot of power. Same for breaking.

In addition to what antrik said, Tesla’s cars are limited in the amount of regen they can do. Regen only happens when you let up on the accelerator. If you use the brake pedal at all, it engages the friction brakes, so all that braking energy is lost as heat.

Having both front and rear wheels (and motors) doing regen will allow the Model 3 to do stronger regen, recapturing more of the energy. This is doubly true since most braking power is done by the front wheels, not much from the rear, in any 4-wheeled car… including the Model 3.

Good point!


This is not at all surprising. Tesla sandbagged the Model 3 LR RWD model by voluntarily lowering the EPA range number so that they could claim that the AWD and P-AWD had the same range. By the standard methodology, the 3 LR RWD should have an EPA range of about 330 miles. Too close to the S 100D. They had to make the Model S look better.

Tesla also reduced the official range of the 100D from actual test results too. So your conspiracy theory doesn’t hold water. Nor has Tesla actually announced what range they will be giving the AWD and performance versions, and they will likely voluntarily lower those numbers too.

They actually base this on science. The EPA uses 5 different test cycles and gives the results of each test cycle a weight that they use to calculate a combined set of City/Combined/HWY numbers. Tesla takes the US06 high acceleration/aggressive driving test, and the SC03 extreme temperature test cycle results, and give them more weight in the reduced numbers they submit. They aren’t just pulling numbers from their hat, they are projecting how much more often each model will be driven hard, and in hot/cold weather. Then Tesla is using test data numbers to extrapolate their expected range based upon what they expect real world driving in places like CA will be.

Let’s not forget the unsprung weight; it has larger and heavier wheels and tires…

Nope. 18” Aeros are standard on all trims.

It makes sense. It’s an induction motor up front and the same pm in the rear. You can’t benefit from that and you only have more weight.

It’s the Dual Motor Badge. Automatic loss of 10% range due to added mass and drag…

Another Euro point of view

10% less range seems a high price to pay for AWD and added performances. IMO the added performances are not really needed and the AWD is handy in snow conditions and that’s about it.

You don’t need it, until you do.

Not really, tires can easily eat 10% off the range. It is all trade offs. Many 4wd trucks trade more like 20% range as they add ground clearance and increase drag accordingly. 10% isn’t actually that much. If it feels too much for you, the obvious solution is RWD.

I’m surprised that the author isn’t aware that EVERY identically-tested AWD vehicle has shorter range that its 2WD varient. The most often offered reasons are the added weight of the extra hardware and power transmission losses to the second driving axle. Added to that, when the primary motive driver is optimally sized for the base vehicle weight, the added weight can cause it to operate in a less efficent part of its peformance curve. Depending on vehicle design, added hardware can increase drag and impede cooling.

We’re surprised you don’t know the AWD Model S and X are more efficient than the RWD.

It’s because it is dual induction motors.

Miles or km 😜

Just one comment, the same I have said since the name Tesla came out. Can yous give a full charge in 15 mins or less–no wait?
Until you hit that this is all some rich guys 3rd, 4th or 5th car.
OBTW the battery and technique to fill a battery of this size in about 90 seconds is OWNED by Hyundai and when they finally introduce that–bye bye Tesla. It was reported in the science mags–but NOT fake news media. Funny that…..

Yes it is absolutely possible and actually much faster. 5 seconds each morning and evening 7 days a week for a month to plug it in and unplug it in my garage. That is 4 minutes and 40 seconds. So actually your 15 minute time covers 3 months of charging.

Filling a battery this size in 90 seconds requires 3 megawatts. Do you have any idea what kind of cabling this would imply?…

Amazingly enough, in the real world a large fraction of BEV owners have never had to wait at all for their car to charge. According to a survey a few years back, 55% of plug-in EV owners have never used a public charger. When you charge at home or at work, you don’t have to wait. Not even the two minutes it takes to fill a gas tank!

As with most ant-Tesla FUD, your attempt at “alternative facts” and denying reality is a…


Stock is $324.23 now ….I hope the Shorts Lose Their Shirts ! & Pants, & Underwear & So On & So on …etc; etc:.. Hoping this is to Be the Burn of the Century