Car & Driver Instrumented Test: Model S 70D

[anticitizen13.7]

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-tesla-model-s-70d-instrumented-test-review

Performance #'s:

Zero to 60 mph: 5.1 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.4 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 31.0 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.1 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.0 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.8 sec @ 101 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 140 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 176 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 g


FUEL ECONOMY:


EPA city/highway: 101/102 MPGe
C/D observed: 90 MPGe

The article in its entirety is a short but good read on their impressions of the newest Model S.

Overall, Car & Driver was fairly pleased with the 70D's performance, handling, and interior comfort. They noted that at in acceleration at typical legal speeds, specifically 30-50 and 50-70, the 70D outperformed the RWD Mercedes Benz S550 (449 horsepower RWD).

 

[Ed Chan]

That's a pretty spot on review... I still don't understand why they compare to the S-class... I always viewed this car is competing in the 4-door coupe market-- CLS, 6 series Gran Coupe, or A7...

 

[0Q991]

Thanks for posting!

The lurch from the rear should hopefully be fixed via and OTA update?

Sounds like this review answers the question regarding performance of the 70D versus the S85. Also, the improved sound deadening from the cars they tested a couple of years ago.

 

[Joules Verne]

Rear visibility

A low beltline and well-designed roof pillars yield good visibility except for a blockage created by the center rear-seat passenger’s fixed headrest. Although folding the back seat can eliminate that impediment, doing so adds to the rear-axle tire noise entering the interior via the open hatchback area.

Ive been wondering about this myself. The rear window is small to begin with, but the next gen seat design seems to have added an obstruction that cannot be folded down (or removed).

Anyone find the rear center headrest to cause a visability problem?

Do you have to rely on the camera instead of the rear view mirror?

 

[JohnQ]

Interesting that the standing start and rollout times to 60 are identical. I wonder if that's an error in the copy or not. Given that the $2,500 additional was for the turbine wheels, not just the 19" wheels as stated in the review makes me think that it might be an error. Overall a good review, though.

And they're right about the car being "clumpy" over expansion joints and potholes. One of my biggest complaints with the air suspension.

 

[kuttakamina]

Interesting that the standing start and rollout times to 60 are identical. I wonder if that's an error in the copy or not. Given that the $2,500 additional was for the turbine wheels, not just the 19" wheels as stated in the review makes me think that it might be an error. Overall a good review, though.

And they're right about the car being "clumpy" over expansion joints and potholes. One of my biggest complaints with the air suspension.

What does clumpy even mean? Sounds like clammy hands from Ferris Buellers Day off!

 

[steph280]

Interesting that the standing start and rollout times to 60 are identical. I wonder if that's an error in the copy or not. Given that the $2,500 additional was for the turbine wheels, not just the 19" wheels as stated in the review makes me think that it might be an error...

$2500 is the cost for 19" Cyclone wheels. Turbine wheels are $4500. So they are correct.

 

[MsElectric]

That's a pretty spot on review... I still don't understand why they compare to the S-class... I always viewed this car is competing in the 4-door coupe market-- CLS, 6 series Gran Coupe, or A7...

Most "4 dour coupes" (is there even such a thing?) seat only 4 and the Model S seats 5 comfortably. We weren't interested in the E class based CLS and the car we compared the Model S to is a Mercedes S class so the comparison is valid. At least for us...

 

[chriSharek]

Interesting that the standing start and rollout times to 60 are identical. I wonder if that's an error in the copy or not. Given that the $2,500 additional was for the turbine wheels, not just the 19" wheels as stated in the review makes me think that it might be an error. Overall a good review, though.

And they're right about the car being "clumpy" over expansion joints and potholes. One of my biggest complaints with the air suspension.

JohnQ, what makes you think it had the SAS? Based on the options listed in the article it was on coils.

 

[JohnQ]

$2500 is the cost for 19" Cyclone wheels. Turbine wheels are $4500. So they are correct.

I was objecting to the $2,500 for 19" wheels since they come standard. I would have preferred that they call out that the upcharge was for the cyclone style. My mistake in calling it turbine ... I always get them mixed up.

JohnQ, what makes you think it had the SAS? Based on the options listed in the article it was on coils.

You're right, it's not listed in the options. I simply made the assumption based on my experience with SAS. I don't know if they listed all the options but I expect that SAS would have been noted if it was on the car.

What does clumpy even mean? Sounds like clammy hands from Ferris Buellers Day off!

My front end will literally make a "clump" sound when on expansion joints and rough roads.

 

[PatD]

Ive been wondering about this myself. The rear window is small to begin with, but the next gen seat design seems to have added an obstruction that cannot be folded down (or removed).

Anyone find the rear center headrest to cause a visability problem?

Do you have to rely on the camera instead of the rear view mirror?

All new cars are coming with the higher headrests (And they have been for a while.) This is not a next gen only thing. I have a loaner P85D right now that has standard seats and the visibility is exactly the same to my next gen seats (And SOOOO glad I did the next gens after driving the loaner for a day now!)

To each his own - I'm sure many will say the high headrests are a visibility "problem". I can still use my rear view mirror without issue as I'm really only looking for the "big stuff" back there. You're not going to miss a car or truck back there. You WILL miss a kid, etc., but that has nothing to do with headrests and is why all new cars (Soon) are required to have rear view cameras. I use both my camera and ALL mirrors, as everyone should.

 

[SmartElectric]

Car & Driver was fairly pleased with the 70D's performance

I should say so!

My 1996 Camaro Z28 pulled hard off the line, 0-60mph in mid 5 seconds and 1/4 mile in late 13's.
That was about the fastest car you could buy 20 years ago for ~ $40K (CDN).

Here we are in 2015 with a 5 passenger sedan that uses no gas and smokes that top of the line muscle car.
And this is the "bottom of the range" Model S. ;-)

 

[ThosEM]

A big fuss is made in the comments about the article's statement that 14 charges were "required" to go a total distance of 630 miles, compared with far fewer fillups needed when testing ICE cars. Unfortunately, the article was silent on the means used for charging and whether the testing occurred over multiple sessions, between which partial charging was done as is common for EVs. Too bad the author doesn't seem inclined to respond with a clarification.

 

[ecarfan]

Anyone find the rear center headrest to cause a visability problem?
Do you have to rely on the camera instead of the rear view mirror?

In my 2013 S I primarily use the rear view camera for rear and rear quarter visibility and only rarely use the rear view mirror even though I have the lower rear headrests. I leave the rear view camera display on all the time.

 

[ThosEM]

A big fuss is made in the comments about the article's statement that 14 charges were "required" to go a total distance of 630 miles, compared with far fewer fillups needed when testing ICE cars. Unfortunately, the article was silent on the means used for charging and whether the testing occurred over multiple sessions, between which partial charging was done as is common for EVs. Too bad the author doesn't seem inclined to respond with a clarification.

Update: the author did reply and explain that so many charging episodes were not "required" but were spread out over several days. Car and Driver evidently have not gotten the EV rhythm yet.

 

[brianman]

Ok, who's Mr C.? My signature was quoted in the comments section without credit!

T.E.S.L.A. (Truly Electric Spaceship Like Adventure) Shout out Nikola