There are inconsistencies between the rated range numbers for the various configurations on the Model S and X. I'm posting this in case anyone has any theories explaining the inconsistencies. Using the EPA range on the Tesla and EPA FuelEconomy websites for the Model S & X with the same battery packs: 60D: 218 (S), 200 (X) - S gets 9% more range 75D: 259 (S), 238 (X) - S gets 9% more range 90D: 294 (S), 257 (X) - S gets 14% more range P90D: 270 (S), 253 (X) - S gets 7% more range 100D (estimated): 335 (S), 289 (X) - S gets 14% more range P100D: 315 (S), 289 (X) - S gets 9% more range If the S gets 9 % more range, with the same battery pack and drive train, then there could be something wrong with some of the range values for the 90D, P90D or 100D. Comparing in non-performance to performance versions, with should be the same drive train and battery packs: S: 294 (90D), 270 (P90D) - non-performance gets 9% more range X: 257 (90D), 253 (P90D) - non-P gets 2% more range S: 335 (100D), 315 (P100D) - non-P gets 6% more range X: 295 (100D), 289 (P100D) - non-P gets 2% more range These numbers don't appear to make much sense. Why would a non-performance S get 9% more range than the performance version with the same battery pack, while the non-performance X gets only a 2% range increase over the performance version? If we assume that the S gets 9% more range than an X with the same battery pack and drive train (which can be explained by the increased weight of the X), and we assume that a non-performance car gets 9% more range than the performance version with the same battery pack, then some of the numbers would change: 60D: no change 75D: no change 90D: X increased to 270 P90D: X reduced to 248 100D: S increased to 343; X increased to 315 P100D: no change These changes make all of the numbers consistent. And, if true, the S 100D gets a few extra miles of range, while the X 100D gets 20 miles more range, breaking the 300 mile range barrier. The only negative is a slight reduction in the range for the X P90D. Assuming that all of the published EPA numbers are based on actual measurements (and not projections), any theories why there are what appears to be inconsistencies in the numbers???