-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
-
Tesla's Supercharger Team was recently laid off. We discuss what this means for the company on today's TMC Podcast streaming live at 1PM PDT. You can watch on X or on YouTube where you can participate in the live chat.
JPP
Active Member
Much of the above discussion is predicated on your own local cost for motor fuel and electricity (day or night, solar or not), your past/current experience with an ICE vehicle (vehicle fuel economy/cost per mile), etc. In NoCA, with PG&E, if you charge at peak rates you pay $0.35-0.40/kwH, and off peak (overnight) you pay $0.11/kWh (TOU plan). For me, overnight means I pay about $1.00 for 30 miles of driving. Premium fuel in the SF Bay Area was at one point over $4.00/gallon, now down to about $3.00/gallon (...and will probably go down as the world oil glut increases). You do the math for an equivalent MPG/$ per mile. There is clearly a $$/pain point for many current and future Tesla owners who only focus on cost/mile (cost of fuel). it never ceases to amaze me that at the local Dublin supercharger (usually delivering the highest or 2nd highest number of kW/day of all Superchargers if you look at the Supercharger map on the wall) there are locals who are hogging spots or topping up (...and note that construction is currently underway to add several more stalls to a current 12 stall (plus the existing 3 or 4 HPWC) setup). Tesla clearly knows who is charging up (by VIN), when, where, etc. Like it or not, the system as planned will help all of the above. Is the expected 'pain' of paying some $$ to drive longer distances (exceeding 1000 miles/year) worse than the current pain of overcrowded/abused superchargers? Not for me. YMMV.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
That's a bit stretching. The person quoted has absolutely no reason to fabricate that. His statement is also supported by the fact that the part numbers are different and that service centers always order a Performance unit to service a P model (which sometimes leads to significant delays).
I think the point of @suraj1194 is that if you want Tesla to do a upgrade from S85 to P85, they would swap your drive unit physically with a performance/sport unit, which I think was actually where this discussion started. The special case of a DIY person doing only a software change is a different case.
I make no claim to percentage of certaininty. I presented a Tesla upgrade cost reference and Tesla battery and motor power data. The numbers do not back up any claim that a P-level battery output can by sustained on an S-motor. You have someone claiming two different part numbers are in fact just smoke and mirrors and are actually the same part. I would never trust my own life in a car uprated on the basis of any such informal assertion, and neither should anyone else.
It's the same 1200 amp 400 volt battery. With the voltage drop to 320 at 1200 amps, that's 384KW. Both the S and P 85 are software limited. Neither sees the maximum current that the battery can provide. The S is limited more than the P.
There's more to battery power than merely the battery capacity. All the 85 models have the same battery (ignoring such things as iterative battery pack version enhancements that are not model specific), as far as I know. The specification data shows that max batter power is different, which indicates the power electricals differ. The motor max power is also different; the P battery max power exceeds the S motor max power by quite a lot, indicating it cannot reliably drive that motor without risk of premature failure. There's no Tesla-offered software-only upgrade from S to P and there's never been, as far as I know. Considering the P models are a high margin profit center for them, that would have been readily available if it were possible to do in software.
Gizmotoy
Active Member
This is interesting. All the info at the time was that while the batteries were the same, the P had a different motor. I had to wait 4 months for my drivetrain replacement because while the SC had the regular 85 motor, the P motors were in short supply. Was that an artificial limitation, or was it removed later in the production run? Seems like Tesla would have popped that 85 motor in and hit the firmware upgrade button if that were a real possibility.
The specifications are simply just that and don't follow any sort of reality as CANBUS and Powertools logging as proven time and again that the actual specs aren't what the cars are putting out.
Remember last year when the 85D good a huge boost in power and it's 0-60 went from 5 seconds down to 4 seconds with just a software update? No hardware changes there. It was just software.
There's no way to really know. The inverter could actually indeed be different or at the very least they could have been binned which would trigger different part numbers for each.
WK057 absolutely proved that the performance and battery power after the hacked P85 upgrade was absolutely the same as a regular P85.
We're talking two different things. I am stating the Tesla does not support an S->P model upgrade in software. This is an official upgrade, with every last concern addressed, from reliability to warranty, OFFICIALLY. They've offered it as a hardware upgrade, at substantial cost.
There are multiple people asserting that Teslas can be hacked to produce more power. That is indisputable. Any good design should be over-engineered, and within that over-engineered margin, it's possible to extract more power. Your example of the P model having additional power margin is an example of this.
But it comes at an implicit liability, and Tesla has not shown that the cars are sufficiently over-engineered that they can *officially* switch from S to P models in software alone. They've just demonstrated that the P models have some further headroom.
There are multiple people asserting that Teslas can be hacked to produce more power. That is indisputable. Any good design should be over-engineered, and within that over-engineered margin, it's possible to extract more power. Your example of the P model having additional power margin is an example of this.
But it comes at an implicit liability, and Tesla has not shown that the cars are sufficiently over-engineered that they can *officially* switch from S to P models in software alone. They've just demonstrated that the P models have some further headroom.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I didn't miss that. You are making a false equivalency in your comparison.
On the one hand, you have highedu that got a quote from Tesla for an upgrade from S85 to P85 and on the other, you have wk057 speculating the only differences between the parts is just the part number (based on successfully doing a software-only change in one instance).
You are claiming that highedu completely fabricated the quote from Tesla and is outright lying.
@suraj1194 is only claiming that what wk057 says about part numbers being the only difference is only his speculation.
The two sides are clearly not at all equal.
And more importantly, back to the original point: while there is plenty of evidence of Tesla converting 40kWh to 60kWh with the supercharger/DC option enabled for the CPO fleet, there is zero evidence Tesla had ever done any software-only upgrades from S85 to P85 for their CPO fleet.
Last edited:
I'm never made a false equivalence. I also never said they were equal. I said if he can do X, I can do Y. I never said X = Y (if you go to the store, I'll go to the bank. store != bank).
I have no reason to doubt highedu's quote from Tesla. But I also have no reason to doubt wk057's analysis (analysis is the key word, not speculation). wk057 could be wrong. But Tesla has also given out false information time and time and time and time and time again. So I wouldn't treat a comment from 2014 as gospel either. Tesla also goes through numerous hardware changes (weekly?).
I'll go back to what I said many posts ago. "They could be the same. They could be different."
We don't know for sure and arguing further without any new data is really pointless. Because unless someone can prove with 100% certainty that they're the same or with 100% certainty that they're different, all we're doing is armchair quarterbacking --> and my above comment stands - "They could be the same. They could be different."
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
We may not be able to 100% say the parts are the same or the parts are physically different (other than part number), but it seems pretty clear for the purposes of the argument, Tesla treats them differently and that's all that matters. If you want a P85 with warranty from Tesla, it'll have the performance/sport version of the drivetrain and won't simply be a S85 with a software update. I think that was the point of @suraj1194 also.
The bolded I agree with.
Actually it's not all that matters. If Tesla treats them differently because they are different - then yes, for the purpose of this argument that answer it. But if Tesla treats them differently for profit purposes, then no, you can not definitely answer anything. (Tesla doesn't like to retrofit things, and tends to charge a lot more than it would cost, since selling you a new car is a lot more profit than retrofitting your existing car with new hardware)
Similar threads
- Question
