TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

LA Times "Sublime" P85D Review... Positive?

Discussion in 'News' started by SteveG3, Feb 20, 2015.

  1. SteveG3

    SteveG3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,684
    Location:
    US
    Review: The sublime Tesla Model S P85D - LA Times

    I found this to be a puzzling review, and would be very interested to hear what P85D owners think of the review. While quite a positive tone, there were some points that just don't seem right, all in an unflattering direction on some significant aspects of the car:


    on handling, not the sense I got skimming over some new P85D owners' comments here on TMC, but those of you with the car, what do you make of this?

    "The Tesla, however, might find it to hard to follow those cars [Audi RS7 or Mercedes CLS63 AMG] through turns. At just under 2-1/2 tons, the battery-laden P85D is a very heavy car.... But the steering is vague and the handling is numb when you really push it."

    why would a professional reviewer just imagine how the car took such turns rather than giving it a go as part of the test drive?



    on range 150 miles? perhaps before torque sleep was added at the beginning of the month, but now?

    "Tesla estimates an EPA rating on the P85D at 253 miles of range on a full charge. But those estimates are based on traveling at a constant 65 mph on flat ground, with no headwinds, and without using the air-conditioning.

    Our test car achieved about 150 miles on a charge in aggressive driving."


    on charging,

    "Our P85D came with a $1,500 option that allows users to charge the car more quickly. While charging at the Century City and Oxnard superchargers, the range gauge in the car’s dashboard showed increases of 127 miles and 163 miles, respectively, during half-hour charging sessions."

    to me the (incorrect) implication is that without the $1,500 option, the car would not have SuperCharged this fast.
     
  2. Saghost

    Saghost Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,038
    Location:
    Delaware
    Yeah, the only outright mistake I saw was the range comment, where they incorrectly confuse the EPA estimate with the constant 65 mph measurement, which is actually supposed to be 275 miles.

    I didn't take the charging piece that way (though now that you point it out it is a possibility,) and I don't have a perspective on the handling, not having driven one myself.

    Overall I do see it as a positive review, though the repeated emphasis on things being late at the end of the article tempers it somewhat.
    Walter
     
  3. brianman

    brianman Burrito Founder

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    15,487
    Use your words please. Confusing how?
     
  4. Mr X

    Mr X Future Owner

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    855
    Location:
    Simi Valley, CA
    nice pictures
     
  5. SFOTurtle

    SFOTurtle Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,039
    Location:
    Los Altos, CA
    I haven't read the review, but the strong suggestion from the excerpt that there is a connection between the speed of charging with (AC) with dual on board chargers and the speed of (DC) Supercharging is simply incorrect and unfairly misleading. The suggestion is that you need to spend $1500 to take advantage of Supercharging, instead of saying that Supercharging is free for life and does not require the purchase of the second on board charging unit.
     
  6. smac

    smac Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,121
    Location:
    Nottinghamshire
    This bit made me chuckle:

    "As the original Model S shows, and this subsequent D version reiterates, Tesla can produce beautiful, groundbreaking cars.
    Now if only it were that good at meeting deadlines."

     
  7. Mayhemm

    Mayhemm Model S P85+ "Lola"

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,939
    Location:
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    I'm not sure I see their point here. Are the RS7 and CL63 not also heavy 2-ton+ cars?
     
  8. mchk

    mchk Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    125
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    It's a positive review:

    "..The list of complaints is short and trivial. The smallish rear doors are a little tight for tall people, but there’s still plenty of room inside. The center console and doors could use some storage pockets. The cruise control display is confusing. The back seats have no center armrest."


    .."While charging at the Century City and Oxnard superchargers, the range gauge in the car’s dashboard showed increases of 127 miles and 163 miles, respectively, during half-hour charging sessions." (Maybe they edited the article, I don't see mention of the $1500)



    Even in a positive review I do expect them to point out a couple things they didn't like, but overall it's a very positive review.
     
  9. svp6

    svp6 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    298
    Location:
    MN
    150 miles seems accurate for aggressive driving, or for driving in extreme cold. It translates into ~500 Wh/mi, which is not too much if you keep doing insane launches, or commute in 0F or below with heating on and driving 75 mph.
     
  10. SteveG3

    SteveG3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,684
    Location:
    US
    I'd thought about that, but,

    1. This was Los Angeles Times review, and I think it would take an unusually bitter cold day in Chicago (perhaps -20) for cold alone to take range that low (I estimate that based on the range tool on TM's website, people who actually own the car could give a more accurate estimate... but the point is, clearly some kind of extreme weather, or driving up a mountain, one would not assume for a test of the car's range, especially from an LA Times reporter).

    and,

    2. This may simply be carelessness, but if it were a gasoline car, do you think any qualified automobile reviewer would report mpg numbers based on a driving sample that included dozens of unforgettable 0-60 pedal to floor launches?
     

Share This Page