P85D motor hp controversy starts also to show in U.S. media

[vgrinshpun]

You're welcome to make that assertion, but that's irrelevant to the discussion that we (Vitold, LetsGoFast, and myself) were having. You've lost context on that discussion apparently. Here it is:

It is very relevant.

In fact, you misunderstand/misinterpret JB post exactly because you are in denial that Tesla never claimed that P85D "delivers 691hp". JB did not claim in his post that motor net power rating "often exceed the battery electric horsepower available", he said that "combined motor shaft power" (as an instantaneous motor shaft power at certain range of speeds) "can often exceed the battery electrical power available".

The motor shaft power is less than battery electrical power available at lower speeds, but is limited by available battery electrical power at higher speeds. There were several posts about this, including by me.

 

[brianman]

you misunderstand/misinterpret ... because you are in denial

Yeah, okay, I'm done spending my time on your posts.

You're making it personal, and oddly not even correct when doing so.

 

[stopcrazypp]

View attachment 96327sorry for the extreme paint skills

I'm pretty sure the numbers you post are different as posted by others. It does not make sense for the big motor to have less power than the small one. I will have to dig it up.

For example, the EU certificate of conformity has 193kW for the small motor (same as your manual) and 350kW for the big one (different from the 145kW in your manual).

From P85D certificate of conformity:
27.2 Maximum hourly output: 66kW
27.3 Maximum net power: 193kW (front), 350kW (rear)
27.4 Maximum 30min power: 79kW (front), 90kW (rear)

Edit: here's a link to the screen shot of the manual that says the same as the EU certificate of conformity, as it should:

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...91HP/page155?p=1144859&viewfull=1#post1144859

 

[vgrinshpun]

Yeah, okay, I'm done spending my time on your posts.

You're making it personal, and oddly not even correct when doing so.

And I am grateful for this. BTW I thought you do not like rude posts...

 

[flathillll]

It is very relevant.

In fact, you misunderstand/misinterpret JB post exactly because you are in denial that Tesla never claimed that P85D "delivers 691hp". JB did not claim in his post that motor net power rating "often exceed the battery electric horsepower available", he said that "combined motor shaft power" (as an instantaneous motor shaft power at certain range of speeds) "can often exceed the battery electrical power available".

The motor shaft power is less than battery electrical power available at lower speeds, but is limited by available battery electrical power at higher speeds. There were several posts about this, including by me.

+1

now the debate is shifting to "well why didn't Tesla correct the media?" ignoring the fact that before the debate was "Tesla lied!"

You will notice now MOST of the media has been getting it right with the Model X and is only stating combined torque:

"The front motor produces 255bhp, and the rear 496bhp, while the combined torque output is 713lb ft."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/tesla/model-x/


"As you may already know, the Tesla Model X features two motors. The one in front is rated to 259 horsepower, the rear is 503. Combined torque is 713 lb-ft of torque which translates to a completely unreasonable 3.2-second 0-60 time and an 11.7-second quarter mile in “Ludicrous” mode."
http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/tesla-model-x-this-is-it-1733682873

"riven by an electric motor on each axle, the one at the front producing 259bhp, the one at the rear 503bhp.They create combined torque of 713lb ft – all available from 0rpm, naturally"
http://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/tesla-model-x-762bhp-7-seat-electric-gullwing-suv

"The combined torque for its front and rear engines motors, which produce 259 hp and 503 hp respectively, is more than 700 pound-feet."
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/09/teslas-model-x-egg-shaped-future/

 

[Krugerrand]

Off-topic. I think you want the Model X thread.

Nope, I didn't want the Model X threads.

 

[vgrinshpun]

+1

now the debate is shifting to "well why didn't Tesla correct the media?" ignoring the fact that before the debate was "Tesla lied!"

You will notice now MOST of the media has been getting it right with the Model X and is only stating combined torque:

"The front motor produces 255bhp, and the rear 496bhp, while the combined torque output is 713lb ft."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/tesla/model-x/


"As you may already know, the Tesla Model X features two motors. The one in front is rated to 259 horsepower, the rear is 503. Combined torque is 713 lb-ft of torque which translates to a completely unreasonable 3.2-second 0-60 time and an 11.7-second quarter mile in “Ludicrous” mode."
http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/tesla-model-x-this-is-it-1733682873

"riven by an electric motor on each axle, the one at the front producing 259bhp, the one at the rear 503bhp.They create combined torque of 713lb ft – all available from 0rpm, naturally"
http://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/tesla-model-x-762bhp-7-seat-electric-gullwing-suv

"The combined torque for its front and rear engines motors, which produce 259 hp and 503 hp respectively, is more than 700 pound-feet."
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/09/teslas-model-x-egg-shaped-future/

Thank you for digging out these quotes!
This is exactly what I thought about claimed situation with Model S as well. I do not believe that majority of publications did get it wrong. They did not claim that Tesla "delivers 691hp".

 

[Andyw2100]

Thank you for digging out these quotes!
This is exactly what I thought about claimed situation with Model S as well. I do not believe that majority of publications did get it wrong. They did not claim that Tesla "delivers 691hp".

I'm not sure how you backed into a conclusion about what happened when the P85D came out based on what's happening now, when the X is coming out. If anything what you're seeing with the articles about the X could be due to the Tesla press releases the magazines are probably using as a starting point for the articles including the more accurate, more conservative, less misleading language. And that could very possibly be at least partially because of the noise the "whiners and complainers" like me and my pals here have been making.

And since you like solid evidence of things, let me provide you some, from the magazines that wrote about the P85D when it came out:

Road and Track
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a6358/first-look-tesla-model-s-p85d-dual-motor/

Headline: "Tesla Model S P85D: Dual motors, AWD, 691 hp, 3.2 to 60. The state of the art just got a serious upgrade."


Car and Driver:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-tesla-model-s-p85d-first-drive-review

"Tesla’s Model S P85D acts like a car built on the mantra “Waiting is for suckers.” This 691-hp battery-electric vehicle is for the impatient, the toe tappers, and the watch checkers."


Motor Trend:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/1411_2015_tesla_model_s_p85d_first_test/

"At 221 hp, it's smaller than the P85+'s existing 470-hp rear machine (total: 691), and for the non-Performance 60- and 85-kW-hr Dual Motor Model S, it'll be the rear motor, too."


Car Magazine:
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-reviews/tesla/tesla-model-s-p85d-2015-review/

"But the twin-engined, 691bhp Tesla Model S P85D, which now claims to be the world’s fastest-accelerating four-door, is one of the very few cars to have a distinct and not entirely pleasant effect on your anatomy."

 

[vip gts]

The original arguments here were that the true horsepower could not be measured but it truly does make 691 hp at some point simultaneously. Now they have changed to what motor power truly means and a justification for their use.
I wonder how many p85D buyers understood what the number meant. I don't believe the delivery specialists even knew.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The original arguments here were that the true horsepower could not be measured but it truly does make 691 hp at some point simultaneously. Now they have changed to what motor power truly means and a justification for their use.
I wonder how many p85D buyers understood what the number meant. I don't believe the delivery specialists even knew.

For me at least, that was never my argument. From the start, I already knew motor power did not mean 691 hp at some point simultaneously in the car itself. Straubel's post proved my argument was correct.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...to-691HP/page2?p=947848&viewfull=1#post947848

 

[sorka]

Actually no. 60mph = 26.8m/s. 1g = 9.8m/s/s, so 0-60 at 1g would take 2.7s (vs. 3.4s without the 1ft roll-out). What you missed is that P85D *peaks* above 1g, but nowhere near can it sustain it to 60mph. ;-)

- - - Updated - - -

WarpedOne, would it have been honest by you if they added all the motors in the car in that number (air suspension compressor, AC compressor, HVAC fan, power windows, power roof, winshield-washer nozzle pump, seat motors, wipers, power lift-gate, battery cooling/heating pump, etc.)?

By your logic, Honda Civic could advertise 500hp, which the engine could probably develop for some short time given the right fuel (with Nitrous) and fuel delivery system which of course doesn't come with the car (and which would void the warranty, but so would me plugging in a more powerful battery to my model S).

It would have been honest but still misleading if they hadn't added both motor power numbers up when both motors can't produce that motor power at the same time.

What would have been proper is to list the motor power for each motor(if they wanted) and at the very least list the actual horsepower delivered on a full charge with an * stating that power will decline below 90%. This is even more important on the P85D since the 85D and P85 don't decline power until they get near the bottom of their daily driving range.

- - - Updated - - -

JB Straubel called those who complain about acceleration big-bonned :biggrin::



Personally, I think those who complain want free Ludicrous upgrades!

This topic has been ranging on months before L was ever announced.

- - - Updated - - -

From the article:



If above is true, than at some point P85D does offer full advertised power. Both EV and ICE advertise peak power, no one expects that full power will be available at all speeds. ICE outputs full power at certain RPMs and so does EV like Tesla.

Now, I also heard an argument that P85D battery is unable to output 700hp which would change things. However, none of the two articles listed by OP mention that so I don't know if that's an issue here.

That just means the motors are rated for more power than the battery can deliver. The maximum hp from the battery logged at any point in time is 414KW (555 hp). That occurs around 36 MPH.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's what I don't understand. As long as the 0-60 is "as advertised" who really cares how many horse/motor power it takes to deliver it? I'm *not* saying HP/MP are meaningless numbers, but aren't they just a means to an end, namely performance? In an (obtuse sort of) way, this feels like grammar nazis going after a technically incorrect Oxford comma. Yes, you're correct and very smart and I agree with you from a technical perspective. But from a practical perspective, if it doesn't really affect the ultimate user experience is it really that big of a deal?

I'm personally happy with the 0-60 although I understand others have a legitimate beef with the 1 ft rollout. I'm not one of them. My issue is that the passing power of the P85D on the freeway is pretty slow compared to other performance sedans that it should be faster than but isn't.

- - - Updated - - -

Suggest P85D owners better test their top speed, it may be that you have other issues with Tesla than just the HP rating.

I think I'll decline to test that out If I was going to take it on a road course, this would be an issue. Last time I went over that speed was in my twenties in a 300ZX Twin Turbo in the middle of the night on a straight highway. It was a very very dumb thing to do.

 

[vgrinshpun]

I'm not sure how you backed into a conclusion about what happened when the P85D came out based on what's happening now, when the X is coming out. If anything what you're seeing with the articles about the X could be due to the Tesla press releases the magazines are probably using as a starting point for the articles including the more accurate, more conservative, less misleading language. And that could very possibly be at least partially because of the noise the "whiners and complainers" like me and my pals here have been making.

And since you like solid evidence of things, let me provide you some, from the magazines that wrote about the P85D when it came out:

Road and Track
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a6358/first-look-tesla-model-s-p85d-dual-motor/

Headline: "Tesla Model S P85D: Dual motors, AWD, 691 hp, 3.2 to 60. The state of the art just got a serious upgrade."


Car and Driver:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-tesla-model-s-p85d-first-drive-review

"Tesla’s Model S P85D acts like a car built on the mantra “Waiting is for suckers.” This 691-hp battery-electric vehicle is for the impatient, the toe tappers, and the watch checkers."


Motor Trend:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/1411_2015_tesla_model_s_p85d_first_test/

"At 221 hp, it's smaller than the P85+'s existing 470-hp rear machine (total: 691), and for the non-Performance 60- and 85-kW-hr Dual Motor Model S, it'll be the rear motor, too."


Car Magazine:
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-reviews/tesla/tesla-model-s-p85d-2015-review/

"But the twin-engined, 691bhp Tesla Model S P85D, which now claims to be the world’s fastest-accelerating four-door, is one of the very few cars to have a distinct and not entirely pleasant effect on your anatomy."

I do not see "solid evidence" that authors adopted your understanding of Tesla 691hp claim. The point I thought you and owners that think similarly were making is that authors of all articles were confused about the Tesla claim exactly in the same way you were, i.e. as meaning that Tesla "delivers 691hp" to the wheels. Three of the four articles you listed do not back this conclusion.

This is what R&T article says: "The supercar-grade P85D, however, keeps the existing 470-hp motor in back for a monstrous 691-hp / 687 lb-ft combo." This does not indicate that author thought that P85D "delivers 691hp". It is consistent, however, with Tesla's claim about P85D having 691 motor hp (as defined by ECE R85)

The C&D article that you've referenced: "This 691-hp battery-electric vehicle is for the impatient, the toe tappers, and the watch checkers." Again, this is not a "solid evidence" that author adopted your understanding that Tesla "delivers 691hp"

The Motor Trend article: "Within the first degree of its first revolution, 100 percent of the motors' combined 687 lb-ft slams the sense out of you... You were there. Now you're here. The wormhole between the two is courtesy of a second motor on the front axle. At 221 hp, it's smaller than the P85+'s existing 470-hp rear machine (total: 691), and for the non-Performance 60- and 85-kW-hr Dual Motor Model S, it'll be the rear motor, too." No solid evidence here.

The Car Magazine article, the only one out of four you've referenced, does indicate that authors adopted your understanding of Tesla's 691 claim: "The P85D gets the 470bhp motor from the now-defunct P85+ range-topper, and a 221bhp front motor for a system total of 691bhp".

So once again, the "solid evidence" that all articles indicated that authors adopted your interpretation of the Tesla 691hp claim is just not there.The beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

 

[DoctorJJ]

It would have been honest but still misleading if they hadn't added both motor power numbers up when both motors can't produce that motor power at the same time.

What would have been proper is to list the motor power for each motor(if they wanted) and at the very least list the actual horsepower delivered on a full charge with an * stating that power will decline below 90%. This is even more important on the P85D since the 85D and P85 don't decline power until they get near the bottom of their daily driving range.

- - - Updated - - -



This topic has been ranging on months before L was ever announced.

- - - Updated - - -



That just means the motors are rated for more power than the battery can deliver. The maximum hp from the battery logged at any point in time is 414KW (555 hp). That occurs around 36 MPH.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm personally happy with the 0-60 although I understand others have a legitimate beef with the 1 ft rollout. I'm not one of them. My issue is that the passing power of the P85D on the freeway is pretty slow compared to other performance sedans that it should be faster than but isn't.

- - - Updated - - -



I think I'll decline to test that out If I was going to take it on a road course, this would be an issue. Last time I went over that speed was in my twenties in a 300ZX Twin Turbo in the middle of the night on a straight highway. It was a very very dumb thing to do.

Again, anyone who was paying attention should have easily recognized that it wasn't going to have to top end equivalent to other sports cars with similar power and weight. If it kills the other cars at 0-60 but then crosses the 1/4 at basically the same time, then you should know that it's not accelerating up top like the other car. The other car has to catch up somewhere along the way. Maybe my background in fast cars and 1/4 miles made that obvious to me but not to other people. I just don't understand the surprise.

 

[sorka]

Are we sure about that? My understanding was that the new 'smart' fuses with Ludicrous mode enabled 1500amps to be drawn from the battery... 1500a x 400v = 600kW; 600kW = 804HP.

I agree that maintaining 400v while pulling 1500 amps would be challenging... which is why that would likely only occur under absolutely ideal conditions.

I'm late to the party so I'm sure others responded.

At that current, the voltage drop is about 100 volts on the pack at 100% SOC. So that's (403 -100) * 1500 = 455KW which is just about identical to the maximum 456KW(611 hp) that has been logged from the battery in two P90DLs already. The P85D has maxes out at 414KW (555 hp).

 

[Jallum.pa.us]

I love my car.

I phoned in my upgrade request for my order from an S85 to a P85D on 10/11, the day after the event. I took delivery on 12/29. I know about software and electricity... lithium-ion batteries, discharge characteristics, motor power. I'm not a dope, and I didn't expect that the car would be able to make it's combined HP rating at every SoC, temperature, pavement condition, etc. but it was within the realm of possible. Knowing what I do about the type of batteries involved, it's very reasonable to think that it could achieve this for short periods of time. Passing! Launching! Fun!

I was super happy to get my red monster after a many-month wait. By that point they had made it pretty clear that it was a work in progress, and I'm an active cheerleader for the brand and the ideas behind it -- so I cut the car and the company both a lot of slack. When I took delivery, it was really cold on the east coast -- batteries don't work well when it's really cold, so that must be part of it, right? The software was obviously not finished, as the car simply ate electricity, so maybe that was part of it, too, right? Besides, they said they were working on it, and even promised at the end of December that we'd see performance improvements (especially at "high speed") via software update soon, "above what anyone outside of Tesla has experienced to date". Awesome!

Time passed.

I've had my car for nearing up on a year now and over 20 thousand miles, and it's hands down better than any I've ever owned... but it's really come as a surprise to find out that it will not meet some of it's specs under any conditions. It's beyond obvious now that as-built, it's simply not capable of meeting the numbers that were widely touted at the time by the media and Tesla employees alike. Car buffs, experts and noobs... these numbers were was all anyone was talking about. I know I'm not alone here. To those that ordered much later, or never did, I don't really expect that you'll understand just how pervasive these particular numbers were and how excited everyone was about it all.

In retrospect, it's easy to see why things didn't turn out the way they wanted: The fuse and contactors simply couldn't (reliably) handle the amperage they were hoping to push through them with a software change. The ratings for the fuse and contactors were not a commonly known fact until very recently. Had I known that the parts in question are limited to ~1300A, I wouldn't have upgraded my order -- the math just isn't favorable to meeting the expectation. It's common knowledge (now) that these are the parts that need to be changed out to deliver what's now known as "Ludicrous" mode. The real-life performance characteristics of the "Ludicrous" cars are more in-line with the expectations that surrounded the P85D at it's release, so it's natural for some disappointment to set in. These parts are buried in the battery pack and I'm sure they're a bitch to replace... special tools, training, time, etc. Joy.

I understand that any potential remedies will come at a cost to someone -- software isn't enough to fix this problem. Handing my car back isn't something I want to do - did I mention that I love it?!? - but neither is selling it to replace it. Legal remedies -- well, I'm just not that guy. $5000... plus another $2500, feels like a lot of loot to pay for something I thought I already owned.

I don't think that people who find themselves unhappy with the situation are wrong to be. People that are fine with it, well, I'm cool with you, too.

 

[Andyw2100]

I do not see "solid evidence" that authors adopted your understanding of Tesla 691hp claim. The point I thought you and owners that think similarly were making is that authors of all articles were confused about the Tesla claim exactly in the same way you were, i.e. as meaning that Tesla "delivers 691hp" to the wheels.

Again with the wheels? Please show me a single post where I talk about 691 HP at the wheels.

Your pointed to a bunch of stories about the X where the authors quoted front and rear horsepower separately, and never combined them. You inferred from that somehow, inexplicably, that the same had occurred with the P85D release. My point, proven by the articles and excerpts I included, was that every one of those listed the power as 691 HP. They did not list it as 691 motor power. They did not merely give the front and rear numbers, without combining them. All four articles, and many others at the time, used the 691 HP figure, with no qualifiers.

Seeing how consistently differently the publications are reporting the figures not, my guess is there was probably a Tesla press release or a Tesla press kit that provided that information. If and when this winds up in court, and if such a document exists, I think it will prove to be the proverbial smoking gun.

 

[vgrinshpun]

I love my car.

I phoned in my upgrade request for my order from an S85 to a P85D on 10/11, the day after the event. I took delivery on 12/29. I know about software and electricity... lithium-ion batteries, discharge characteristics, motor power. I'm not a dope, and I didn't expect that the car would be able to make it's combined HP rating at every SoC, temperature, pavement condition, etc. but it was within the realm of possible. Knowing what I do about the type of batteries involved, it's very reasonable to think that it could achieve this for short periods of time. Passing! Launching! Fun!

I was super happy to get my red monster after a many-month wait. By that point they had made it pretty clear that it was a work in progress, and I'm an active cheerleader for the brand and the ideas behind it -- so I cut the car and the company both a lot of slack. When I took delivery, it was really cold on the east coast -- batteries don't work well when it's really cold, so that must be part of it, right? The software was obviously not finished, as the car simply ate electricity, so maybe that was part of it, too, right? Besides, they said they were working on it, and even promised at the end of December that we'd see performance improvements (especially at "high speed") via software update soon, "above what anyone outside of Tesla has experienced to date". Awesome!

Time passed.

I've had my car for nearing up on a year now and over 20 thousand miles, and it's hands down better than any I've ever owned... but it's really come as a surprise to find out that it will not meet some of it's specs under any conditions. It's beyond obvious now that as-built, it's simply not capable of meeting the numbers that were widely touted at the time by the media and Tesla employees alike. Car buffs, experts and noobs... these numbers were was all anyone was talking about. I know I'm not alone here. To those that ordered much later, or never did, I don't really expect that you'll understand just how pervasive these particular numbers were and how excited everyone was about it all.

In retrospect, it's easy to see why things didn't turn out the way they wanted: The fuse and contactors simply couldn't (reliably) handle the amperage they were hoping to push through them with a software change. The ratings for the fuse and contactors were not a commonly known fact until very recently. Had I known that the parts in question are limited to ~1300A, I wouldn't have upgraded my order -- the math just isn't favorable to meeting the expectation. It's common knowledge (now) that these are the parts that need to be changed out to deliver what's now known as "Ludicrous" mode. The real-life performance characteristics of the "Ludicrous" cars are more in-line with the expectations that surrounded the P85D at it's release, so it's natural for some disappointment to set in. These parts are buried in the battery pack and I'm sure they're a bitch to replace... special tools, training, time, etc. Joy.

I understand that any potential remedies will come at a cost to someone -- software isn't enough to fix this problem. Handing my car back isn't something I want to do - did I mention that I love it?!? - but neither is selling it to replace it. Legal remedies -- well, I'm just not that guy. $5000... plus another $2500, feels like a lot of loot to pay for something I thought I already owned.

I don't think that people who find themselves unhappy with the situation are wrong to be. People that are fine with it, well, I'm cool with you, too.

It appears that you've missed quite a few posts that show that the car specified to have 691 motor horsepower, as defined by the one and only pertinent regulation, ECE R85. It defines how to rate EV drivetrain and the method does not include any consideration of the battery possibly limiting the total output of the battery-drivetrain system.

 

[Andyw2100]

It appears that you've missed quite a few posts that show that the car specified to have 691 motor horsepower, as defined by the one and only pertinent regulation, ECE R85. It defines how to rate EV drivetrain and the method does not include any consideration of the battery possibly limiting the total output of the battery-drivetrain system.

And it seems you've missed that many of us don't care about what that regulation may or may not say. What we care about is what Tesla allowed us and the world to believe about the car. All the magazines were writing about 691 HP. All the buzz was about 691 HP. Tesla wasn't yelling, "Wait, wait--it's motor HP. It's not what you're thinking!" They were sitting back, counting the money, and letting their customers buy the car with the wrong expectations.

But keep supporting them, and keep telling us all how we're wrong to feel like we didn't get what we paid for, and how we should have done more research.

The ironic thing is that if there are lawsuits, all of your posts, and all the posts being made by people on your side of this fight are going to be one of the reasons behind them. Every time you post something I take issue with, I'm going to post why I've taken issue with it. It takes two to debate. Your side has forced my side to lay out the entire case for the attorneys who will undoubtedly eventually take this on. You're giving them every possible argument Tesla could make, and the people on my side are giving them all the arguments that they need to make.

Good job!

 

[vgrinshpun]

Again with the wheels? Please show me a single post where I talk about 691 HP at the wheels.

Your pointed to a bunch of stories about the X where the authors quoted front and rear horsepower separately, and never combined them. You inferred from that somehow, inexplicably, that the same had occurred with the P85D release. My point, proven by the articles and excerpts I included, was that every one of those listed the power as 691 HP. They did not list it as 691 motor power. They did not merely give the front and rear numbers, without combining them. All four articles, and many others at the time, used the 691 HP figure, with no qualifiers.

Seeing how consistently differently the publications are reporting the figures not, my guess is there was probably a Tesla press release or a Tesla press kit that provided that information. If and when this winds up in court, and if such a document exists, I think it will prove to be the proverbial smoking gun.

I do not care about the "wheels", and that was not my point. Delete the "wheels" or substitute it with any word you'd like.

My point was *not* to prove that articles you quoted referred to motor horsepower. The point I was making is that only one out of four articles had "solid evidence" that authors thought that car "delivers 691hp".

 

[Andyw2100]

My point was *not* to prove that articles you quoted referred to motor horsepower. The point I was making is that only one out of four articles had "solid evidence" that authors thought that car "delivers 691hp".

They all described the car with the term "691 HP" (or bhp for the overseas publication.) How much more evidence than that do you need?