Something to try before you throw out your old P85 for a +....

[KenEE]

With all these P85+ > P85 reports I thought I might add my experience with my own P85

Haven't driven a P85+ but I recently restored my tired old Performance S with 21" Conti's to it's original sure footed self.

When I first got my P85 in last days of 2012 (VIN 1919) it was rock solid in road feel and manners. The guy who did my initial inspection said the only car he had driven that was as strong and sure footed was a Rolls Royce Phantom. (haven't driven one of those either, but I took it as a great compliment )

Anyway after a few month and about 5k miles things were not so sure anymore. Changing lanes gave a bit of wobble and any hard acceleration just didn't feel as sure footed and solid as I'd remembered.

So anyway a little less than a month ago I got the call to bring my S in for the rear facing seats. (a GREAT HIT BTW!)
While there they did a number of TSB warranty operations. One was to inspect and add washers to the rear axle. On the workorder it says "SB-12-31-001 Rear Axle Nut Installation"

I also asked them to rotate the tires which they did as well as inflate the tires to 45 PSI.

So I don't know for sure if any one particular item did the trick, but the sure footed manners are back! It's held for these three weeks, so I hope its permanent.

The point is, that if your S is not as sure footed as you remember or would like it to be you might take it in for service.

There is a chance the washer fix or the new lug nut torque spec will fix you up. Probably not quite a P85+, but might put the smile back on your face like it did mine.

 

[wycolo]

Drop em to 37 lbs and all that joy you miss so much will return! The world is indeed circular.
--

 

[deonb]

Drop em to 37 lbs and all that joy you miss so much will return! The world is indeed circular.
--

Can you explain?

 

[AnOutsider]

The guy who did my initial inspection said the only car he had driven that was as strong and sure footed was a Rolls Royce Phantom. (haven't driven one of those either, but I took it as a great compliment )

He must not have driven much else

Anywho, will check this out with local SC

 

[brianman]

One was to inspect and add washers to the rear axle. On the workorder it says "SB-12-31-001 Rear Axle Nut Installation"

Similar activity on mine:

Correction: Rear Axle / Hub Bearing Assy - 1
Replaced RR hub/bearing assembly. Installed nuts on both axles.

Part	Qty
RR SUSP HUB AND BEARING ASSY PERFORMAN (6006796-01-A)	1.00
NUT HF M24x1.5 [8.8] ZnFl-W (1020297-00-A)	2.00
WASHER ASSY LCK M24x39 ZnFl-W (1020296-00-A)	2.00

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

Can you explain?

more cornering traction at lower psi because you will use a bit more tire. You just don't want it to roll all the way over past the tread edge.

correct me if I'm wrong, I just learned all this recently

 

[yobigd20]

It's not the washer - its the new torque specification for the lug nuts. Tesla updates the torque spec last month from 103lb/ft to 129lb/ft. All cars being serviced now are getting the lug nuts re-tightened to the new spec. The original improper torque spec was causing this "wobble" and retorquing it to the new spec makes the car grip to the road a hell of a lot better. See this thread http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...el-S-torque-specification-for-mounting-wheels

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

It's not the washer - its the new torque specification for the lug nuts. Tesla updates the torque spec last month from 103lb/ft to 129lb/ft. All cars being serviced now are getting the lug nuts re-tightened to the new spec. The original improper torque spec was causing this "wobble" and retorquing it to the new spec makes the car grip to the road a hell of a lot better. See this thread http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...el-S-torque-specification-for-mounting-wheels

At Fremont I was told that this was a TMC fallacy and the spec was always 180 Nm. Not sure what they told Todd on the other side.

 

[mnx]

At Fremont I was told that this was a TMC fallacy and the spec was always 180 Nm

/\ This, when I got my car in February they definitely used 129ft-lbs to put my winter wheels on.

 

[AnOutsider]

At Fremont I was told that this was a TMC fallacy and the spec was always 180 Nm. Not sure what they told Todd on the other side.

I was pretty much told the same.

 

[KenEE]

The moral of the story is that your original tight handling can be restored. I just think comparing a "loosened" older P85 with a hot off the line P85+ isn't necessarily a fair comparison. A new off the line P85 (non-plus) would have also felt and reviewed much better than my P85 at about 2-3 months. But now that it's back to it's factory fresh tight feel, it would fare much better.

And the main thing is I'm having a great time enjoying the improvement.

 

[dennis]

The moral of the story is that your original tight handling can be restored. I just think comparing a "loosened" older P85 with a hot off the line P85+ isn't necessarily a fair comparison. A new off the line P85 (non-plus) would have also felt and reviewed much better than my P85 at about 2-3 months. But now that it's back to it's factory fresh tight feel, it would fare much better.

If the handling deficiencies in the P85 could be corrected by new tires (Continental or Michelin) there would have been no reason for Tesla to create the P85+ suspension package with revised bushings/dampers/sway bars.

 

[brianman]

If the handling deficiencies in the P85 could be corrected by new tires (Continental or Michelin) there would have been no reason for Tesla to create the P85+ suspension package with revised bushings/dampers/sway bars.

"Placebo"?

 

[dennis]

"Placebo"?

Have you driven a P85+?

 

[brianman]

Have you driven a P85+?

Yes. For over a hundred miles, in both dry and wet.

 

[dennis]

Yes. For over a hundred miles, in both dry and wet.

So I don't understand the "placebo" comment.

 

[brianman]

So I don't understand the "placebo" comment.

Let me trim the quote to hopefully clarify:

there would have been no reason for Tesla to create the P85+ suspension package with revised bushings/dampers/sway bars.

I gave a reason: as a placebo for those complaining.

Some might make the same claim about Superchargers and/or battery swapping.

I'm not saying I agree that's the reason they did it, but it's clearly a viable reason.

 

[dennis]

I'm not saying I agree that's the reason they did it, but it's clearly a viable reason.

I would agree with you that offering the P85+ suspension would be a placebo if the complaints about Model S handling were not valid. But I believe there is enough evidence of owner (and Elon) dissatisfaction with the standard suspension to warrant Tesla providing an upgrade that solves real deficiencies in the base P85. As such it is not a placebo, just as offering the P85 is not a placebo for owners who want more straight line performance than the standard 85.

 

[GSP]

Clearly the Performance Plus package does not fit the definition of a placebo. It is not a sugar pill, it has actual technical changes that are proven to be effective. A placebo must clearly have no such changes.

However, there will be two things that affect the driver's perception of the improvement, the real improvement, and as Brianman's pointed out, a placebo effect as well. This is true for any real drug, and I can't think of a more powerful drug than a P85+! :smile:

GSP