JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Isn't that nice of Tesla to "upgrade" the car so that it performs as advertised? And they'll let you keep it too and pass it on to the next owner! :biggrin:
Come on Tesla marketing, let's reel it in a bit....
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Isn't that nice of Tesla to "upgrade" the car so that it performs as advertised? And they'll let you keep it too and pass it on to the next owner! :biggrin:
Come on Tesla marketing, let's reel it in a bit....Isn't that nice of Tesla to "upgrade" the car so that it performs as advertised? And they'll let you keep it too and pass it on to the next owner! :biggrin:
Those speeds are often as much about tires as anything else. I'm thinking this might be "if you buy 155 mph rated (Z Rated?) tires, we'll update the speed limiter to allow 155 mph at any time during the car's life."
Of course, that assumes the current tires aren't rated for 155 mph. If they are, I have no idea.
Walter
Michelin Pilot Sport 2 is absolutely rated >155MPH. I have the same tires on my 911 Turbo, which has a top speed of almost 200MPH.
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
Reasonably sure. The updated version just adds a few sections about the Multi-Cycle Testing and extends some sections to explain how Multi-Cycle Testing impacts it. I didn't for instance compare the documents word for word. The current version is all of 26 pages though. So it's pretty easy to skim through for differences.
Well, that's comparing new cars with cars that have some miles on them. For a variety of reasons, cars with some miles on them have lower energy use than cars fresh from the factory. The difference is not always minimal either.
To be clear I'm not looking to lynch anyone. I was pretty optimistic about the confusing EPA numbers and I've actually been playing a wait and see, expecting that nay sayers would be disproved; however, the first batch of numbers do suggest a higher consumption even on the highway. I wasn't aware that consumption reduces over time ( other than new drivers improving) but some of the owners who are reporting these numbers are fairly experienced Tesla owners and presumably would know what their consumption used to be. As I said earlier, it's possible we will see some new data points that contradict these early numbers but I'm pinning my hoes on future software updates improving range.
Sorry if I got in your grill, gpetti. This issue is going to raise a lot of hackles before it's resolved, one way or the other.
I do remember that in the early days of ownership, my Sig S had significantly higher Wh/mi numbers than it does now, at 36,000 miles. In my first six months I averaged 328 Wh/mi; my lifetime is 312 Wh/mi. Some of it may be due to driver technique, but some is no doubt what Jerry referred to.
All that being said, the consumption numbers being reported by new P85D owners are not encouraging.
I do remember that in the early days of ownership, my Sig S had significantly higher Wh/mi numbers than it does now, at 36,000 miles. In my first six months I averaged 328 Wh/mi; my lifetime is 312 Wh/mi. Some of it may be due to driver technique, but some is no doubt what Jerry referred to.
All that being said, the consumption numbers being reported by new P85D owners are not encouraging.
Don't know what to believe anymore. This sales person claimed the original 285 was theoretical (numbers on paper). Talk about deceptive marketing.
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
I don't think the Tesla employees are very well informed on this. I'd sent an email to my Owner Advisory (have an 85D order in) about the range numbers and after not getting a reply sent another email and got a response yesterday. He seemed surprised that the EPA numbers were on their website (and have been since the 7th of December). He continued to quote 295 for the 85D and compared that to the 265 on the S85.
To be clear I don't think this is a problem with the specific employee. I think Tesla hasn't adequitely communicated internally on what's going on with these numbers.
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
Finally, that all makes sense. I'm wondering if that means it can idle either the front or rear motor depending on which would be most efficient (otherwise he would have said "going to full idle on the rear motor" or "going to full idle on the front motor"?).
Exactly what I thought. The best part about a Tesla is that they can software upgrade for efficiency, econo mode, etc etc. Hang tight folks, the best part about this car is that it can keep improving!
Here is the article on the P85D I quoted.
2014 Tesla Model S P85D: First Drive Of All-Electric AWD Performance Sedan (Page 3)
And the one on the Nissan Leaf
2014 Nissan Leaf Electric Car: 84-Mile Range, RearView Monitor Standard
I'm not convinced that the P85D doesn't actually have worse range. The numbers just don't add up for me. P85 MPGe 89 = 265 =/= P85D MPGe 89 = 242.
Arguably we should see the P85D with a significantly less MPGe of about 82... 265/89=2.977528, 242/2.977528=81.27547
The fact that the Nissan Leaf was able to increase their EPA rated range by eliminating the 80% charge, is compelling evidence to an adjustment.
I'm very interested in real world testing. But a couple of factors are important that may not be accounted for that can significantly affect MPG. New tires are worse. Tire pressure is important. Type of tire is important too. Alignment can be an issue too...
For a real world test you almost need to take a set of broken in tires run on a track with cruise control and swap that set of tires.
If I remember what Elon said at the D event, he said there would be a "Normal, Sport and Insane" mode. Maybe this is the "Normal" mode he referred to, as it is wired since he said that it currently only has SPORT and Insane... so it kind of makes sense.
MartinAustin
Active Member
It would make sense that in cruise control you would get the benefit of one of the motors totally turning off, once the car is keeping itself at a steady speed.
Not sure how they would make one of the motors turn off when your foot is varying its position back and forth on the pedal.
(but I will be happy to find out)
- - - Updated - - -
Great idea.
Not sure how they would make one of the motors turn off when your foot is varying its position back and forth on the pedal.
(but I will be happy to find out)
- - - Updated - - -
Great idea.
Similar threads
- Article