4 ms·

> It’s likely the first non-Tesla vehicle to run FSD, and it achieves 258 Wh/mi — roughly matching the efficiency of an actual Model 3. This claim is implausib

by loeg 6mo ago

> It’s likely the first non-Tesla vehicle to run FSD, and it achieves 258 Wh/mi — roughly matching the efficiency of an actual Model 3. This claim is implausible, right? The Mustang is unambiguously less aerodynamic than the Model 3; there's no way it is achieving similar efficiency, especially at highway speeds.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
volkl48 6mo ago
The Mustang is from before modern safety laws (and feature expectations) and therefore weighed a lot less than your average modern car. A stock '66 Mustang hardtop had a curb weight below 3000lb, in the lightest configuration close to 2500lb. Less mass to move will do a lot for efficiency just like aerodynamics will. Of course, you will also die or be horrifically maimed in an accident in a 1966 Mustang that you might walk away without any serious injuries from in a modern vehicle.
- loeg 6mo ago
  But this conversion is basically just a Tesla model 3 with the shell taken off and a mustang shell installed over. It's mostly a model 3, including the heavy battery and drivetrain. And airbags.
  - volkl48 6mo ago
    Unless I've missed something here, there are clearly no airbags in the passenger seat or anywhere else in the upper shell (side curtain, etc) from skimming around the video/interior shots. I guess there's probably still one in the stock Tesla steering wheel/unit. You also have none of the heavy structure that makes it so you don't die in a rollover or side-impact in a modern car. Look at how skinny that A-pillar is. Hell, half of this interior is just the raw exposed sheet metal with no insulation/noise-dampening/softer materials either.
KaiserPro 6mo ago
Yes it is implausible. But I imagine that they are probably not running it at 70 mph everywhere, just pootling about in suburbia
NoLinkToMe 6mo ago
Not implausible he hit those numbers, electric car ranges depend on a lot of factors, and he likely had a very small and favorable sample to get him to 258 wh/mile. Some factors to consider: 1. Winter gets 20-25% less range 2. Poorly inflated tires get 3% less range 3. Driving at 60 mph requires 80% more energy per mile than driving at 20 mph So if you take it together, test drives around town with proper tires in a Tesla 3 in summer, can get 130% better range than a tesla in winter on a highway with poorly inflated tires. Most Tesla's average range is something between those two, say 260 wh/mi. But they can get below 200 in good conditions (summer driving at 30km/h). So if you take those good conditions and put a non-aerodynamic mustang body on it, it can do the same as a Tesla in average conditions.
- loeg 6mo ago
  I mean, you're agreeing with what I'm saying. It's implausible to achieve those numbers in an apples to apples comparison. Obviously you can achieve incomparable numbers using different conditions.

by loeg 6mo ago

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

volkl48 6mo ago

The Mustang is from before modern safety laws (and feature expectations) and therefore weighed a lot less than your average modern car. A stock '66 Mustang hardtop had a curb weight below 3000lb, in the lightest configuration close to 2500lb. Less mass to move will do a lot for efficiency just like aerodynamics will. Of course, you will also die or be horrifically maimed in an accident in a 1966 Mustang that you might walk away without any serious injuries from in a modern vehicle.

loeg 6mo ago
But this conversion is basically just a Tesla model 3 with the shell taken off and a mustang shell installed over. It's mostly a model 3, including the heavy battery and drivetrain. And airbags.
- volkl48 6mo ago
  Unless I've missed something here, there are clearly no airbags in the passenger seat or anywhere else in the upper shell (side curtain, etc) from skimming around the video/interior shots. I guess there's probably still one in the stock Tesla steering wheel/unit. You also have none of the heavy structure that makes it so you don't die in a rollover or side-impact in a modern car. Look at how skinny that A-pillar is. Hell, half of this interior is just the raw exposed sheet metal with no insulation/noise-dampening/softer materials either.

KaiserPro 6mo ago

Yes it is implausible. But I imagine that they are probably not running it at 70 mph everywhere, just pootling about in suburbia

NoLinkToMe 6mo ago

Not implausible he hit those numbers, electric car ranges depend on a lot of factors, and he likely had a very small and favorable sample to get him to 258 wh/mile. Some factors to consider: 1. Winter gets 20-25% less range 2. Poorly inflated tires get 3% less range 3. Driving at 60 mph requires 80% more energy per mile than driving at 20 mph So if you take it together, test drives around town with proper tires in a Tesla 3 in summer, can get 130% better range than a tesla in winter on a highway with poorly inflated tires. Most Tesla's average range is something between those two, say 260 wh/mi. But they can get below 200 in good conditions (summer driving at 30km/h). So if you take those good conditions and put a non-aerodynamic mustang body on it, it can do the same as a Tesla in average conditions.

loeg 6mo ago
I mean, you're agreeing with what I'm saying. It's implausible to achieve those numbers in an apples to apples comparison. Obviously you can achieve incomparable numbers using different conditions.