Tesla Motors: PLEASE stop lying about specifications (60 to 75 upgrade)

[Vitold]

He wasn't "whining" about anything.

He was trying to point out, for anyone considering paying for the upgrade from a 60 to a 75, that they would be gaining about 10 kWh, not about 15 kWh.

That seems pretty straight-forward and easy to understand.

Few care about it because most look at EPA range not battery capacity. However, to say that Tesla is misleading with their specs is disingenuous - they just don't cater to geeks.

OP also forgets to mention that there are tolerances at play and Tesla meets or exceeds it's specs - that you get a bit extra should make you feel good instead of getting upset (as OP purports we should).

 

[Vitold]

YMMV doesn't apply when you buy a gallon of gas. It better be a goddamn gallon.

Actually gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons - you'll never get the same amount of energy from 1 gallon of gas.

C&EN: WHAT'S THAT STUFF? GASOLINE

 

[chillaban]

Then you would think you would get 80% degradation on a 60.

I just mean, my SW-locked 70D shipped with 235 miles. It is now down to 230 3 months and 11k miles later. I just mean you'll see proportional degradation. If your pack is 10% degraded you'll see 20 miles lower on your 60D's fake 100% charge, too.

 

[bonaire]

It's one reason many people want to de-rate down from 75 to 60. Rather than buy a 60 and field-upgrade it to a 75. The 60 is a far better value and fits most drivers' most common needs. And at $7500 less, more car for the money.

 

[chillaban]

Actually gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons - you'll never get the same amount of energy from 1 gallon of gas.

C&EN: WHAT'S THAT STUFF? GASOLINE

Plus YMMV tooootally comes into play too with gasoline engine displacements. Audi's "3.0T" is not 3.0 liters or turbocharged, and the 5.7L HEMI hasn't been 5.7 liters for 50 years, etc etc etc.

 

[Andyw2100]

...Tesla meets or exceeds it's specs - that you get a bit extra should make you feel good instead of getting upset...

Exceeds the specs like Tesla did when my advertised 691 horsepower P85D was actually capable of making less than 500 horsepower?

 

[stopcrazypp]

YMMV doesn't apply when you buy a gallon of gas. It better be a goddamn gallon.

Putting aside the whole "usable" thing, Tesla's use of "kWh" here is for a trim level differences, not purely kWh capacity of the pack (that's why there is the 5kWh increments).

Also when you buy gas, a "gallon" of gasoline doesn't actually give you a gallon of gasoline. You may actually be getting only 0.9 gallons of gasoline and 0.1 gallons of ethanol. This is an important distinction for people with gas lawn equipment (stations with "pure" gasoline is rare and getting harder to find). The actual energy content is lower too.

 

[Vitold]

It's one reason many people want to de-rate down from 75 to 60. Rather than buy a 60 and field-upgrade it to a 75. The 60 is a far better value and fits most drivers' most common needs. And at $7500 less, more car for the money.

Actually, the difference is 6.5k between 60 and 75 models.

 

[bonaire]

Actually, the difference is 6.5k between 60 and 75 models.

Thanks - used to be $7500.

 

[AWDtsla]

$6.5k or $7.5k that's a terrible deal. I got an extra 5kW for $3k which makes it cheaper than that. Although I've already lost 1.8 kWh of capacity, others have lost much much more.

 

[jaguar36]

OP also forgets to mention that there are tolerances at play and Tesla meets or exceeds it's specs - that you get a bit extra should make you feel good instead of getting upset (as OP purports we should).

What about the 85s that only have 80Kwh, or the 90s that only have 85kwh?
Bottom line is that Tesla lies in their specs. Funny thing is it really doesn't matter, if they had called the 85 an 80 from the start it wouldn't have changed anything.

 

[Saghost]

I supposed that's true from a $/kWh perspective, but then the approximate relative range you are gain didn't change (39 miles from 210 vs 249).

Do note Tesla advertises the upgrade in terms of miles of you gain, not the amount of "kWh," (they don't actually say you get "15kWh" more) which is relatively meaningless given the marketing convention Tesla uses to name their packs (5kWh increments with rounding up or down as fit for marketing purposes).

Tesla — 75 kWh Battery Capacity Upgrade

And back to the question of overall capacity, I guess it goes to the question of is it fair game for Tesla to under-advertise their base model. The core issue here is they marked the software limited "60kWh" as 60kWh rather than 65kWh (if following same usable convention as other models). This makes it so the "60kWh" got more kWh than they bargained for (while "75kWh" got exactly what they bargained for), but I don't think most people would find this unacceptable.

This is a different situation from if the 60kWh followed previous usable conventions (for example 57.6 kWh usable, 2.4 kWh reserve), but the 75kWh didn't (for example actually 67.6 kWh usable and 2.4 kWh reserve). In this situation Tesla would have over-advertised the 75kWh and more people would find this situation unacceptable.

The distinction between the two situations may be somewhat subtle (and would be unclear to new people where that haven't followed previous discussions on capacity), but I think it's an important one.

I'm pretty sure the nominal full pack energy he cites isn't the usable battery - every 10% used in my X75D seems to consistently correspond to 6.75 kWh on the trips, which points to a total usable capacity of 67.5 kWh, in line with past traditions.

Although we've never had it directly from the car before, what wk057 just told us shouldn't have been a surprise - a simple comparison of the EPA ratings told us that the 60s were significantly more than 80% of the 75's useable capacity.

 

[N5329K]

If Tesla's "approximations" irritate you, you'll pop a vein over how European regulators establish EV ranges.
Robin

 

[stopcrazypp]

Exceeds the specs like Tesla did when my advertised 691 horsepower P85D was actually capable of making less than 500 horsepower?

That's kind of my point why I made my posts about the subtleties. This situation is not the same.

This is more akin to how the old 2013 S60 was advertised at 0-60 in 5.9 seconds, but people got well under that (5.1 seconds from the below)
Tesla Model S 60 kWh vs Tesla Model S 85 kWh Performance

Are the old 60kWh owners supposed to be happy about getting more performance than they bargained for or are the owners of the other models supposed to be angry?

 

[chillaban]

If Tesla's "approximations" irritate you, you'll pop a vein over how European regulators establish EV ranges.
Robin

I would more burst an aneurysm over the Tesla "approximation" number not being real numbers (like in the literal mathematical sense), namely that the ratios between 60, 75, 85, and 90 are not at all linearly proportional. That can't even be said about the EU NEDC ranges. They are just inflated based off unrealistic testing conditions, but relative ratios between two cars on the NEDC scale generally line up.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm pretty sure the nominal full pack energy he cites isn't the usable battery - every 10% used in my X75D seems to consistently correspond to 6.75 kWh on the trips, which points to a total usable capacity of 67.5 kWh, in line with past traditions.

Although we've never had it directly from the car before, what wk057 just told us shouldn't have been a surprise - a simple comparison of the EPA ratings told us that the 60s were significantly more than 80% of the 75's useable capacity.

wk057 said in this post the usable was the 72.6 kWh number, which does not include the 2.4 kWh reserve on the bottom:

This should be good. I'll be in the lunchroom making popcorn!

Is the nominal full figure of 72.6 kWh the actual battery capacity or just the usable capacity?

Usable. does not include 2.4 kWh unusable bottom capacity. (4 kWh on 85/90)

Also, on the whole UI based SOC vs range/consumption, it had never lined up perfectly. Beyond the locked out reserved, there is also the "below zero miles" reserve, that plays into that. However, wk057 is looking at this from the diagnostics screen, which eliminates that complexity.

 

[SageBrush]

Although we've never had it directly from the car before, what wk057 just told us shouldn't have been a surprise - a simple comparison of the EPA ratings told us that the 60s were significantly more than 80% of the 75's useable capacity.

Bingo

Although at the time it was unclear if the 75 kWh model was under-specc'd or the 60 kWh over-specc'd. I for one am quite glad it is the latter.

 

[GasKilla]

Dear Tesla Motors,

Over the past couple of years I've called Tesla out several times for misleading or flat out falsely advertised specs. The 691 "HP" issue, the 285 miles of range on a P85D, the 81 kWh 85's, etc. Well, adding another one to the pile:

Upgrading a software limited "60" to a to "75" actually buys you 10 kWh, not 15 kWh.

See this photo of a section from Tesla's own dev/diagnostics screen of a brand new 60D with < 30 miles:

-wk

I have a 70D (not upgradable) and I'm curious what the usable kWh is on a 70 pack.

 

[Andyw2100]

Although we've never had it directly from the car before, what wk057 just told us shouldn't have been a surprise - a simple comparison of the EPA ratings told us that the 60s were significantly more than 80% of the 75's useable capacity.

Bingo

I think the point that you guys miss is that while this may not be a surprise to people who scour TMC, and really like to dig into the data, it probably is new information for the more casual observer, and for the more casual Tesla customer. It is those people who will be helped the most by wk057 spelling things out in simple terms.

 

[Vitold]

Bingo

Although at the time it was unclear if the 75 kWh model was under-specc'd or the 60 kWh over-specc'd. I for one am quite glad it is the latter.

This is also why being outraged about it does not make sense.