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

Performance Data for 85 KWh Battery vs. P85 KWh Battery

Discussion in 'Model S' started by Cattledog, Nov 13, 2012.

  1. Cattledog

    Cattledog Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,708
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    This from the Motor Trend website announcing the COY, first number is for standard 85KWh battery, second is for Performance 85 KWh. If you were having angst about buying a standard 85KWh battery, sleep a little better tonight - 0-60 in 5.0 seconds. Cool.

    0-30 2.3; 1.7 sec
    0-40 3.1; 2.4
    0-50 4.0; 3.1
    0-60 5.0; 4.0
    0-70 6.1; 5.0
    0-80 7.4; 6.3
    0-90 8.9; 7.7
    0-100 10.8; 9.5
    PASSING, 45-65 MPH 1.9; 1.7
    QUARTER MILE 13.2 sec @ 110.9 mph; 12.4 sec @ 112.5 mph
    BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 124; 113 ft
     
  2. mnx

    mnx 2013 P85

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,281
    Location:
    Ancaster, Canada
    I'm guessing the differences in the 60-0 MPH braking and the 0-30 acceleration are due to the 19" all season tires. Thoughts?

     
  3. rogbmw

    rogbmw Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2012
    Messages:
    786
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Thanks for putting these numbers up. The wife keeps telling me that we "only" need the standard 85, and not the Performance 85 battery. I actually think that she realizes that she would have to redo her makeup more often with the Performance, as everything would probably get blended togethether more often :smile::biggrin::eek::mad:
     
  4. ElSupreme

    ElSupreme Model S 03182

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,279
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    I imagine that braking is 100% tires. Which means there could be some acceleration loss due to tires also.

    I'm going to see how long the OEM All-Season tires last. But I imagine that I will have 19" sport tires on my car after the first set wears out.
     
  5. stevezzzz

    stevezzzz R;SigS;P85D;SigX

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2009
    Messages:
    6,062
    Location:
    Colorado
    Thanks for posting this, Cattledog. I can live with those non-Perf numbers. :biggrin:

    Being nit-picky, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all the 85kWh battery packs are identical and that the differences lie in the motor and PEM.
     
  6. contaygious

    contaygious Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,001
    Location:
    Marina, San Francisco
    5 seconds is no slouch. They really should update tesla's actual marketed numbers. They would get a lot more interest from hardcore drivers comparing performance numbers to ice cars like bmws and audis p.
     
  7. stevezzzz

    stevezzzz R;SigS;P85D;SigX

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2009
    Messages:
    6,062
    Location:
    Colorado
    Don't Tesla's numbers have to reflect performance at rated gross weight, with a full load? That could be at least part of the difference.
     
  8. contaygious

    contaygious Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,001
    Location:
    Marina, San Francisco
    Really? But then why does an m5 get to report 3.7?
     
  9. qwk

    qwk Model S P2681

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    2,817
    The current numbers are better for insurance rates. GM used to do this quite often. The word that a car's performance is understated spreads like wildfire usually resulting in a big following.
     
  10. mnx

    mnx 2013 P85

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,281
    Location:
    Ancaster, Canada
  11. tenstringer009

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2012
    Messages:
    211
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    It'll be good news if Tesla underestimates the acceleration times for the 40 & 60kwh battery packs as much as the 85 and P85 ones (~9%). If that's the case, 40kwh cars might get to 60 in 5.9 seconds (vs. 6.5 advertised) and 60kwh cars in 5.4sec (vs. 5.9 advertised).
     
  12. Boltz

    Boltz Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    16
    Location:
    Aurora, Canada
    For comparison - other fast 4 door ICE sedans:

    Porsche Panamera Turbo S Cadillac CTS-V


    0-30 (sec): 1.4 1.8
    0-45 (sec): 2.3 3.0
    0-60 (sec): 3.7 4.3
    0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 3.5 4.0
    0-75 (sec): 5.2 6.1
    1/4-mile (sec @ mph): 11.9 @ 117.2 12.4 @ 114.7


    30-0 (ft): 29 27
    60-0 (ft): 112 104
    Skid pad lateral accel (g): 0.96 0.89
    Slalom 68.9 69.2
     
  13. aviators99

    aviators99 Model S - R140

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,453
    Location:
    Weston, Florida, United States
    More like this (except a car as opposed to an "Airplane!")

    lipstick.jpg
     
  14. Cattledog

    Cattledog Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,708
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Feels faster to me. Hyperspace, or perhaps Elon's hyperloop.
     
  15. ModelS1079

    ModelS1079 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    837
    Location:
    Suburban Boston
    I am feeling that theses times are faster since the 4.1 software upgrade, which left me feeling the car had new wings the day I was updated.
     
  16. Cattledog

    Cattledog Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,708
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Agree. It would be nice to get some verification.
     
  17. MikeL

    MikeL some guy

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,042
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UTAH USA
    Oh man, You made me Laugh Out Loud! ML
     

Share This Page