Not sure I have all the right numbers here but here goes something...

2021 Model 3 standard range: 3648lb/283hp=12.7 lb/hp
2022 GR86 manual: 2815lb/228hp=12.3 lb/hp

It's notionally slower than the 2nd gen twins?

Edit, C&D stats make it seem even heavier, but I think they might be mixing up their trim levels there?
https://www.caranddriver.com/tesla/model-3

Not to make this a model 3 thread or anything...

Power = Voltage x Current. Capacity is the amount of energy it holds. A simple example would be to compare water in a tank. The capacity of the tank is simply the size of the tank, or rather, is a measure of how much water is in the tank. The size of the hole/spout and how much the tank was tipped towards the spout would determine the flow out of the tank or the power.

I'm pretty sure you are thinking of the power of the motor and not power of the battery. In this case, the power of the battery is the rate of discharge. Put that into a motor that is capable of creating a strong enough magnetic field to create a lot of torque and you have the Tesla's powerful motor. Both the motor and battery will determine the torque to the wheels. The car analogy would be like engine displacement and the fuel pump, fuel regulator and fuel injectors. It doesn't matter how big the engine is if there is only enough fuel delivery to make a fraction of the potential of the engine. Most fuel systems are proportional to the displacement of their engines, and it is the same for the EVs with their motors and batteries.


Notionally? Did you mean notably? I think the 0-60 is 5.3 seconds, which is faster than the 6.1 seconds for the new twins, but I don't really get your point because the car is a compact sedan that competes with the BMW 3-Series and not the twins. Compare the dimensions, weight, 0-60 and 5-7 year cost of ownership to the BMW 330i, and the Model 3 Standard Range Plus is not significantly heavier or different. It definitely isn't 400 lbs different.

@Spuds

Just to add to that, the Nissan Leaf was fitted with a motor in the rear. The resulting powertrain made 300hp and 500tq presumedly with the same 62kWh battery.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/electre...tric-leaf/amp/

Looking at the Tesla Model 3 Long Range Plus or Performance model, the 75kWh battery pack and dual motors make either 346hp and 376tq or 450hp and 471tq. I don’t know if the extra hp/tq comes from software or hardware changes. The battery is 20% larger on the Tesla, so I don’t know what the Nissan would have for power and torque with the larger battery. I don’t know how the motors compare in efficiency. Either way, take it for what it is, but they achieved more torque with a smaller battery on a test vehicle.

It gets more confusing when we consider whether the quoted battery capacity is gross vs net, and it gets confusing when so much can be controlled with software. EV West sells a 500hp/800tq crate engine, but that requires a certain battery to achieve those numbers. Anything providing too much current could fry the motor too, so these things have to be sized right and have controllers. When range, recharge/discharge rate and battery longevity is all considered, what the powertrain could do and what it can do and what the manufacture allows it to do are often different things.

https://www.thedrive.com/tech/17505/...-battery-folks

https://youtu.be/aEW1TkXVUVk

I think the problem is that your chart was confusing with it's lack of labels describing what seems to be car output, rather than maximum rated output from the battery to which you seem to be referring. I did find your lecture on basic engineering quite amusing though. Haven't heard that one since freshman year.

---

Notional:
1 : theoretical, speculative.
2 : existing in the mind only : imaginary.
3 : given to foolish or fanciful moods or ideas.

I thought the conversation was steering in the direction of lightweight sports cars, for which it seems you offered the model 3 as a reasonable alternative. I wouldn't call any of those cars sports cars or light. I do admit I got the numbers wrong. Hence the "notionally".

Seems more like a mule than a Leaf to me.

Well, the chart was a flow chart showing manufacturers, battery type, capacity, which is another battery thing, and so on, so I guess I figured it was more obvious than I suppose it was.

Gotcha. I honestly have never heard or have read the word notionally that I can recall. Learn something new every day.

I was responding to this comment:

I was providing an example of the best apples to apples comparison I could come up with to refute that statement. We don’t really have a lot of cars to compare. We have a pretty old Tesla Roadster. What other electric sports car has there been that wasn’t some Rimac-Evija-style hypercar?

The chart actually started with the car model, not the manufacturer. So I assumed it was talking about the cars, which happen to have battery packs as part of the system, and not battery packs themselves. I didn't think manufacturers would publish maximum safe power output of the battery pack.

Seems like what they say it is: same battery, 2nd motor and inverter and an AWD computer to control the system.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news...e-and-traction

I made a point to say manufacturers instead of make and model because I believe they were highlighting different manufacturers for a reason, even though they could have made a list with multiple models from one manufacturer. For instance, Tesla varies the battery chemistry of its models depending on the model and the country.

I didn’t find it surprising. I’ve seen stuff like this though:

https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/...rthamerica.pdf

I've never understood this proverb: the early worm gets eaten.

https://rennlist.com/forums/718-gts-...l#post16683176

The lightest 718 configurable from the factory is 3200lbs lol (that guy has PCCBs and bucket seats, -80lbs between the two). Pretty sure most 718s on the road are closer to 3300, so it's not a big difference to get to 3600.

The lightest water cooled Porsche ever was I think the 987 Boxster Spyder at 2850ish actual (2700 claimed).

EDIT: I'm wrong, the Boxster Spyder M/T is apparently 100lbs less, and the normal Cayman is a little over 3100lbs.

It says 718 GT4. I would say it is the other way around, meaning it is the heavier 718 model (6-cyl vs. 4-cyl).

This illustrates the difficulties comparing; the torque output and lack of shifting in a BEV (even if it could be increased with a higher output battery...) just makes them FEEL so different, even with the added weight. Heck, our Volt just moves in a way the BRZ does not. Peak number comparisons just don't tell the story.

I'm not sold on pouch design batters being an overall net weight gain. They're still heavy, but not at all structural; Additionally, they may require a heavier and more costly approach to heat management. The way Tesla is going structural with their batteries I wouldn't be surprised if they end up being lighter. Of course, if you just put them in a box in the trunk (so to speak) then that changes things... but now the design is just trying to be cheap by not requiring as many design/approach/production line changes.
As for developing nations - that's a very slippery slope. IF they have infrastructure for petrol, it might be cheaper to stay that way... but solar is so very portable and can go places with no infra of any kind (even mars!) and has lower maintenance costs... so I'd argue BEV is a better option.
We often wish we'd just gone straight electric rather than the Volt. There are a few road-trips we typically take in the winter where it's good to have (I don't change the brakes on the BRZ so it's emergency-only in the winter... but also wife doesn't know how to drive it). It'd probably turn into an overnight, or plan to add a 15-20min pause to a 3hr drive out (drive back is at night). Right now it's annoying because the car is insisting on emptying the gas tank. 99% of the rest of its driving is straight electric.

I love lightweight sports cars. Hence, owning an FRS. However, in day to day driving, a BEV is superior in almost every way. Weekend driving? The only thing ICE has over BEV is engine sound, and if you want to, you can simulate it. I don't buy cars for the engine sound. Hence, owning an FRS.

For BEV:
More efficient
Faster acceleration
Lower fuel costs
Lower COG
Better packaging/interior space
Never have to go to a gas station - refuels overnight in the garage
Vastly better for the environment
Lower maintenance costs

For ICE:
Faster refueling.
A real engine sound? Only matters in a Ferrari or McLaren, I'd say.
Good for apartment dwellers in a time of poor charging infrastructure
Good for people who regularly drive 400+ miles a day and don't take lunch or pee breaks.
Still good for track driving when the infrastructure is such ass.

Plugin Hybrids:
A stopgap measure when you don't have enough batteries.

I've owned 4 BEVs (currently 2) and 8 ICEs. If I ever buy another ICE, it will be some especially interesting ICE vehicle. GT3, McLaren, Ferrari, and similar. The only one I'd ponder new right now is a GR Yaris, and we can't get them. 20+ years from now when we can, there will be little EV runabouts that will be more fun and perform better.

As for fun, the Fiat 500e is easily as fun as the FRS.