I'll believe it when someone independently measures it. I find it suspicious that the 60 and 85 have the same HP rating, now. This leads me to believe that they're now quoting the motor spec, without regard for external limiting factors, such as the battery, and nothing has actually changed for these models.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I'll believe it when someone independently measures it. I find it suspicious that the 60 and 85 have the same HP rating, now. This leads me to believe that they're now quoting the motor spec, without regard for external limiting factors, such as the battery, and nothing has actually changed for these models.
daviddpd
Member
Glad there is a thread on this too ... I noticed it the very first thing looking at the new specs on the models. None of the other press seemed to pick up on it.
I just had my drive motor replaced at ~12.5k miles ( < 6 months ) due to a noise that was said to be an indication of a bearing failing.
I was wondering if the new spec was an "upgraded" motor attempting to fix these motor failures.
I tend to agree with the thread theme here - it's a specification reporting change on the same hardware rather than a different motor ... thought would like an official explanation ... as there is something that isn't quite adding up. I believe there are legal requires on power output rating, and at least in the ICEs, insurance rates are often based on motor size and power. (Remember Mazda did a recall - paying people full price plus taxes and registration cost when they over spec'ed the HP rating of the first year of the RX8.)
I just had my drive motor replaced at ~12.5k miles ( < 6 months ) due to a noise that was said to be an indication of a bearing failing.
I was wondering if the new spec was an "upgraded" motor attempting to fix these motor failures.
I tend to agree with the thread theme here - it's a specification reporting change on the same hardware rather than a different motor ... thought would like an official explanation ... as there is something that isn't quite adding up. I believe there are legal requires on power output rating, and at least in the ICEs, insurance rates are often based on motor size and power. (Remember Mazda did a recall - paying people full price plus taxes and registration cost when they over spec'ed the HP rating of the first year of the RX8.)
How are you sure that's a battery power delivery limitation?
I've been under the impression that the yellow limiting line can be from a number of factors: battery power limit, inverter temperature, motor temperature, pack temp, etc...
wallet.dat
Member
I'm going to call it now and say real-world 1/4 times will be closer to 11.0-11.2 based on Tesla's history of underpromising and overdelivering.
85 kWh Performance Model S P01350 | Tesla Motors
Tesla sells preowned cars and lists a 2012 P85 with 470hp. This seems to confirm that all P85/P85+ have 470hp.
Tesla sells preowned cars and lists a 2012 P85 with 470hp. This seems to confirm that all P85/P85+ have 470hp.
It's always been known that P85 motor was 470hp, but as far as I understood, the inverter was the limitation, so it is/was impossible to take advantage of more than 420hp.
So the only difference is that a few months ago Tesla switched from listing actual HP, to listing HP the motor is capable of.
This.
It's even more clear with the S60 and S85, which suddenly got the same power rating late last year--and yet, despite the fact that they're lighter, the S60s didn't start outrunning the S85s.
This decision--to go with potential power rather than actual power--really bugs me. It's so cynical and ridiculous, and it deprives the customer of useful comparative information. What's next, going to the old Rolls Royce strategy of just listing "adequate?"
Wow. In what universe do you come from where 1/2 second isn't a massive difference in performance in trap times? BTW, the P85D slips I've seen or usually in the 11.6 range so the difference is even more massive at 7/10ths of a second.
- - - Updated - - -
Plenty of Dynojet dyno results of 430 to 436 rwhp of the P85, so 470 claim at the shaft is not that far off if at all.
SeminoleFSU
Voluntaryist
there was some talk about a firmware release perhaps making the P85 and even S85 a little bit faster... I'm guessing by allowing more power to be dumped onto the motor through the inverter? I wonder if this is still going to happen, or will it fade into obscurity like some of the other Elon "promises?"
Would definitely like to see this happen as it helps to prop-up/stabilize resale values of P85. You eliminate the market for that car if the 85D is just as fast.
MartinAustin
Active Member
Elon Musk on Twitter:
That was nearly three months ago. Question is... did 6.2 deliver that speed boost?
My car's tires are nearly worn out so I haven't been able to do any dragging tests lately.
That was nearly three months ago. Question is... did 6.2 deliver that speed boost?
My car's tires are nearly worn out so I haven't been able to do any dragging tests lately.
