HungryHound
Well-Known Member
Like you said, it really depends on how FCA designed the system. Torque is not as important in a Tesla as it is in a Jeep, IMHO, because this vehicle is designed for off-road use. Proper use of voltage regulators can give you 100% torque to near-death battery levels.Your post/experience conflicts with nearly everything I've read as well as my own testing with Tesla cells and their output.
Tesla Model 3 drag times tested by battery %
100% charge = 11.4X
78% charge = 11.65
56% charge = 11.87
25% charge = 12.28
Now, the Model 3 weighs around 4,000 lbs, and using the calculator here:
https://www.ajdesigner.com/fl_horsepower_elapsed_time/horsepower_elapsed_time.php
They estimate running an 11.4 to a 12.2 quarter for a 4k lb car is a difference of 533 HP vs 435 HP (nearly 20% drop in HP). Yes, it's rough math, but 100% unbiased.
One of the many discussions on the Tesla forums of their power/torque dropping as the battery % declines:
https://forums.tesla.com/discussion/68867/model-s-acceleration-slower-as-battery-depletes
Ultimately it comes down to how the Jeep system is engineered, as far as how much overhead it has and how conservative it's tuned. However, I'd bet they're not over engineering it, due to it also having a 2.0 gas engine they're expecting most to use, given the low range, and it will lose power with each % of battery loss (more than the Tesla). Not only that, but probably up to 10% battery capacity with each 30,000 miles driven. We'll see, though! It's at least a step towards something I'd be interested in.
Sponsored