-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Calling P85D owners world-wide for survey and complaint letter
- Thread starter kseitzberg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
Put the info on a public website if you want people to take this seriosly. Did read the site but the info is truly lacking. if you cannot share officiallt this is FUD.
For sure not signing up on a website to read the specs and result...
Admin close and remove this thread! ;-)
For sure not signing up on a website to read the specs and result...
Admin close and remove this thread! ;-)
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I think he is trying to say that the data that the OP's site collects should be listed publicly so that it is easy for everyone to see if the claims they are making matches with the data. Right now you have to sign up before you can view the data, so it's a black box to the public other than the initial claims.
http://teslaforum.dk/p85d/
No, no you can't. And no car manufacturer at the world reports actual horsepower, they ONLY report horsepower at the crank, while sitting on a bench. That results is then fudged using a mathematical model before making it as a spec. Also, there's only a single car I know of that even attempts to report horsepower in real time (other than a Tesla), which is a Bugatti Veyron. Why doesn't a Dodge Hellcat come with a power gauge? Because then maybe you'd discover how completely variable moment to moment power output of an ICE is, it's horrible. Oh the knock sensor thought it heard something, -50 horsepower.
No. They do report actual horsepower at the crank in SAE Net Horsepower. In 1972, American manufacturers phased in SAE net horsepower. This is the standard on which current American ratings are based. This rating is measured at the flywheel, on an engine dyno, but the engine is tested with all accessories installed, including a full exhaust system, all pumps, the alternator, the starter, and emissions controls. Both SAE net and SAE gross horsepower test procedures are documented in Society of Automotive Engineers standard J1349. Because SAE net is so common, this is the standard we will use to compare all others.
The accessories, intake, and exhaust are the actual ones used in the production car. If they change any of the things that effect the horsepower at the crank, they re-certify. This occurs frequently with CARB restrictions where a new model year must follow some more stringent requirement which often results in an exhaust change that lowers power. The engine is the re-certified with the new part.
Many for years have called upon the industry to change this practice and report power at the wheels, but that will probably never happen. So the best the best apples to apples comparison you can make is motor shaft to motor shaft which makes apples to oranges at the wheels due to the drivetrain loss of different configurations after the driveshaft.
Some will say the above standard doesn't apply to EVs so Tesla can't specify a valid horsepower rating. That's BS. The standard is there to make sure that the horsepower that the engine produces does so with all things that could effect the engine's ability to make power. There are other factors that don't apply to EVs as well such as correcting for atmospheric conditions. Does there need to be a new standard? Yes if only to clarify how EVs are tested with the existing standard and to spell out things like not needing to apply atmospheric correction.
Yeah, I bought a car in 2004, ~2 years later according with SAE standards it lost nearly 3% HP. Not because the car changed, because the SAE test was revised. Of course, it rarely produced that much power in real world conditions. So an imaginary number changed. Of course if that engine had been naturally aspirated and I drove up to Park City, I would have lost ~21% in actual engine power. Since it was turbocharged, you can't even estimate it. Add in that awful california-style 91 octane, and I lose who knows how much more power as the ECU pulls back it's ignition timing maps to compensate. Now we're at a number that really bears no relationship to the SAE number at all.
I'm not much for letters of protest to large corporations. I do have a bad taste in my mouth from the things that were promised and not delivered with my P85D. My response will be to not buy another Tesla. That sends a much stronger message than a petition. When it comes time to replace the P85D, I'll definitely let Tesla know why I'm not sticking with their brand.
I am in the complete opposite camp about my P85D. I don't feel at all misled, am very happy, and can't imagine my next car will not be a Tesla.
However, I really like your response. If that is how you feel you should definitely not buy another and indeed let them know, hopefully this will get noticed. I sincerely hope before you do trade it in you will be able to enjoy the car, which I understand might be difficult if you feel you were misled and tricked into buying it.
Nope not for special people only, but as you can see from the forum discussions, we don't need all kinds of discussions around the actual data and what we write or do not write to Tesla. So, as stated in the first post, IF you are not satisfied with your P85D, join us, provide your data if possible and then of course you may see our letters to Tesla Motors. If you don't have a problem, then you won't have a problem not seeing everything.
The more we are the better, and the more pressure we can apply, and we will apply pressure, believe me. This is not for fun guys.
Really? How do you know this? What car was this and please show me a scan of your dyno run.
And when you discovered this and collected the evidence that there was something wrong with your car, what did you do to have it fixed?
I've dynoed every turbo charged car I've owned in california and everyone has put out more power than the manufacturer claimed.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I actually stumbled across this article explaining the difference between gross and net horsepower (basically there was a 20-30% difference in the numbers) and the history behind it.
http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/
Gross horsepower:
Before 1972, most American engines were rated under the methodology laid out in Society of American Engineers (SAE) standards J245 and J1995, which calculated the output of a ‘bare’ engine on a test stand with no accessories, free-flowing exhaust headers (no mufflers), and optimal ignition timing, with a correction factor for standard atmospheric conditions.
Net horsepower:
In its place they adopted the SAE net rating methodology, described by SAE standard J1349. “Net” horsepower ratings are still made with the engine on a test stand, but with stock ignition timing, carburetion, exhaust, and accessories: in short, a closer approximation of how much power an engine produces as actually installed in the car.
It seems like a perfect analogy between "motor power" (similar to gross horsepower) vs the system power number (similar to net horsepower).
And for what then is it? Damage a new company?
Sell if you do not like the car and walk away.
Obviously faulty dynos, no other explanation fits such data.
The horrors: Powertrain performance graphs
A few random samples:
- BMW Z4, 252kW speced, only 236kW at the wheels (-7%)
- BMW M3 coupe, 252kW speced, ony 223kW at the wheels (-12%)
- BMW 645 Ci Aut, 245kW speced, only 210kW at the wheels (-14%)
- BMW 530i Aut -03, speced 170 kW, only 142kW at the wheels (-17%)
- Audi TT 3.2 S tronic, 184kW speced, only 154kW at the wheels (-16%)
- Audi S6 Avant aut, 320kW speced, only 259kW at the wheels (-19%)
- Audi RS4 ('06), 308kW speced, only 257kW at the wheels (-17%)
- Audi RS4 ('07), 308kW speced, only 245kW at the wheels (-21%)
- Audi A6 Avant 4.2q aut -05, 246kW speced , only 197kW at the wheels (-20%)
- Mercedes-Benz SL 500 Aut, 225kW speced, only 190kW at the wheels (-16%)
- Mercedes-Benz E320 Avantgarde Aut, 165kW speced, only 138kW at the wheels (-17%)
- Chrysler 300C Hemi Aut, 250kW speced, only 207kW at the wheels (-17%)
- Chrysler Grand Voyager LX V6 Aut, 128kW speced, only 104kW at the wheels (-19%)
- Hyundai Sonata 2.4 Aut, 105kW speced, only 86kW at the wheels (-18%)
- Jaguar S-Type 4.0 Aut, 203kW speced, only 165kW at the wheeels (-19%)
- Lexus RX300 Aut, 148kW speced, only 116kw at the wheels (-21%)
- Lexus LS 460, 280kW speced, only 233KW at the wheels (-17%)
- Porsche 911 Tiptronic S, 210kW, only 170kW at the wheels (-19%)
- Porsche Boxster Tiptronic 2.5, 150kW speced, only 124kW at the wheels (-17%)
So much about SAE measurements at the shaft (pure BS).
And so much about horrors of not understanding a thing about mechanics and cars.
Last edited:
Everyone know that cars are rated power at the shaft and not the wheels so what is the point? Tesla have max 420 kW from the battery before the engine makes power.
- Tesla P85D 515kW spec, only 350kw at the wheels (-31%)
My old car a 2003 Subaru Sti did dyno 451hp at the wheels (510 engine hp) and is so much faster above 70mph I regret I did sell it and buy a new expensive car with 700 BS HP. The Subaru is also faster to 60 mph when it dont lose traction.
My old car: Subaru sti 0-220 km/h - YouTube
The Tesla P85D and my old tuned Subaru sti should have almost the same HP/weight ratio if 700hp for the Tesla was correct. But my old car is about 4-5 sec faster to 200 km/h (125mph). I did buy the Tesla because I wanted a new modern car with about the same hp/weight ratio as my old car.
- Tesla P85D 515kW spec, only 350kw at the wheels (-31%)
My old car a 2003 Subaru Sti did dyno 451hp at the wheels (510 engine hp) and is so much faster above 70mph I regret I did sell it and buy a new expensive car with 700 BS HP. The Subaru is also faster to 60 mph when it dont lose traction.
My old car: Subaru sti 0-220 km/h - YouTube
The Tesla P85D and my old tuned Subaru sti should have almost the same HP/weight ratio if 700hp for the Tesla was correct. But my old car is about 4-5 sec faster to 200 km/h (125mph). I did buy the Tesla because I wanted a new modern car with about the same hp/weight ratio as my old car.
Last edited:
Far from it. Where would everyone learn this?
The specs are quiet about how the stated power was 'measured'. There is only "max power: XYZ kW". Not a word about where and how and what it means. Not a word about how much of it get to the wheels.
Tesla never said anything like that, they've said 'combined motor power', not "max power", not "power".
It is not their fault, if people are illiterate.
One thing is to make a mistake. A different thing is sticking to the mistake and crying about it.
World will not change, only you can. Sell the tesla, I will gladly take the burden off your back at the right price.
- - - Updated - - -
And same battery was in P85 and P85D. Who in their right mind expected 500kW from that same battery?
Where tesla clearly used different words describing power as before "combined motor power", as before they simply said "max power".
It is possible to get much more from the battery. As Ludicrous upgrade do show.
Im happy with the rest of the car
the only down side is the missing power. I will pay for the Ludicrous upgrade to get about 650 hp. But Im not happy that I have to pay more money to get almost what Tesla did promise when I did order the car.
Im happy with the rest of the car
the only down side is the missing power. I will pay for the Ludicrous upgrade to get about 650 hp. But Im not happy that I have to pay more money to get almost what Tesla did promise when I did order the car.
Oximoron.
If it was possible to get much more from the battery, there would be NO need for HW upgrades to the battery.
But there is such a need.
Why would Tesla then have the need to tell us that the P85D has more power than the P85 if they knew it was not possible? And it may have been clear in other countries with the motor power, however in Denmark used to word 'Ydelse' which translates to Performance, No motor or anything in front. So it stated 700 hk performance. So they actually did say it would have 515kW
But hey, we are just a bunch of illiterates, right? Well, that may be, but sometimes illiterates are right to and this may just be one of these situations. But thank you for your almighty all knowing input and lecture
