Tesla estimates up to 210 miles for a new, software limited RWD 60 and 249 for a new RWD 75. Dividing 210 by 249 yields 84%, which is pretty close to the 86% the OP discovered (62/72) -- and significantly higher than the 80% one would expect (60/75). So it seems to me Tesla's range estimates for the two models may be more "honest" than their kWh comparisons. I could see why some people would see a bit of deception though it doesn't seem too outrageous.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Motors: PLEASE stop lying about specifications (60 to 75 upgrade)
- Thread starter wk057
- Start date
-
- Tags
- drama Tesla Inc.
The outrageousness is more with 85 and 90 offerings which are missing various chunks of capacity after briking is taken into consideration. The new 60s have a bonus bit of capacity and unlocked to 75, are right in line with what's expected after briking.
This is what I understood of the matter which was discussed at length earlier in this thread.
hacer
Active Member
So I'm one of the few customers who ordered a 70D before the refresh was announced but got one of the first production refresh cars with a software-limited battery. So when I placed my order, I was ordering a car that (unbeknownst to me) had 68.8 kWh of driveable capacity. Tesla chose to install a larger battery in my car but software limited it to 65.9 kWh of driveable capacity.
It seems like Tesla could have given me the capacity that I ordered, but chose not to. Instead, since they made other improvements that increased the efficiency, they chose to limit the EPA range to that of the car I originally ordered. In that respect I got what I ordered (and more since I got a center console and LED headlights, but also a smaller frunk). However that is only for nice weather. The more efficient the car, the greater relative impact that weather has, so in cold conditions, I have less range than an original 70D would have. So it seems capricious and a bit unfair that they set the software limit to 65.9 instead of 68.8, especially in light of the generous capacity they gave to the 60 which was not offered when I placed my order.
It seems like Tesla could have given me the capacity that I ordered, but chose not to. Instead, since they made other improvements that increased the efficiency, they chose to limit the EPA range to that of the car I originally ordered. In that respect I got what I ordered (and more since I got a center console and LED headlights, but also a smaller frunk). However that is only for nice weather. The more efficient the car, the greater relative impact that weather has, so in cold conditions, I have less range than an original 70D would have. So it seems capricious and a bit unfair that they set the software limit to 65.9 instead of 68.8, especially in light of the generous capacity they gave to the 60 which was not offered when I placed my order.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
Interesting trade-off on the 70D classic/refresh ... I would take the larger real battery capacity vs. the new amenities
CuriousG
Active Member
The other notable change would be top speed. The original 70D has a top speed of 140mph, the refreshed version is 130mph for 60 and 60D unless you upgrade to 75D. So you may possibly have a software limited 130mph 70D.
hacer
Active Member
Interesting trade-off on the 70D classic/refresh ... I would take the larger real battery capacity vs. the new amenities
Yes. Me too, but I didn't have a choice.
This I don't care about and will never discover for myself.
While I also prefer mathematical correctness, I also learned that the accuracy of marketing in general is not really precise. And what you often cannot take from the marketing material and specifications is the real world data. And here the difference between 10.2-15kWh difference becomes even less relevant when you consider that typically you should not charge your 75 to 100% but to only 90% in daily live which makes the 75 (or 72.6) a rather 67.5 (or 65.4) while the 60 (62.4) remains a 60 (62.4) because you can charge it 100%. So even if the battery capacity would be exactly as the numbers indicate, the 75 would offer just roughly 10% more range in typical use cases ... which is around just half of the additional EPA range.
What is also not mentioned in the design studio as a relevant benefit (at least to me) is the faster charging of the 90 over the 75. I think that is pretty relevant information but that is hidden to some experts the same way as the real capacity is hidden.
Overall I agree and prefer to have more precise numbers and more technical details in first place but I don't see it as negatively and as cheating, but rather as marketing variation and instead of having the headline "... stop lying ..." would rather give it a headline "Great news / deal of the year, with the 60 you get more than expected" ... or even better "for the price of the 60 you get almost a 75 in daily use".
Since the 60 is out with the 75 battery I didn't see any reason to go for a 75. Either you get the 60 or you get the 90 for faster charging, better range, more performance. The price of the 75 is in the middle between the 60 and the 90 but in daily usage it offers little extra over the 60 but far less than the 90. So again for marketing it looks like the 75 is in the middle, but for the tech guys we know the 75 is way more close to the 60 than it is to the 90. Or actually thanks to wk057 we now know that the 60 could have been a 65 by spec and for daily use with taking 90% charging into account it behaves more like a 70.
What is also not mentioned in the design studio as a relevant benefit (at least to me) is the faster charging of the 90 over the 75. I think that is pretty relevant information but that is hidden to some experts the same way as the real capacity is hidden.
Overall I agree and prefer to have more precise numbers and more technical details in first place but I don't see it as negatively and as cheating, but rather as marketing variation and instead of having the headline "... stop lying ..." would rather give it a headline "Great news / deal of the year, with the 60 you get more than expected" ... or even better "for the price of the 60 you get almost a 75 in daily use".
Since the 60 is out with the 75 battery I didn't see any reason to go for a 75. Either you get the 60 or you get the 90 for faster charging, better range, more performance. The price of the 75 is in the middle between the 60 and the 90 but in daily usage it offers little extra over the 60 but far less than the 90. So again for marketing it looks like the 75 is in the middle, but for the tech guys we know the 75 is way more close to the 60 than it is to the 90. Or actually thanks to wk057 we now know that the 60 could have been a 65 by spec and for daily use with taking 90% charging into account it behaves more like a 70.
Dan43
Member
Late to this thread and I have a new S75 arriving next few days so this is quite a little puzzling thread when skim reading in its entirety but essentially the 75kW is less available kW than a 60kW but has the same percentage mileage difference if looked at either way?
So the end result is the 75 delivers 75kW worth of mileage same in maths terms as the 60kW delivers but they sit somewhat differently in their kW in actual available usage terms?
I'm just hanging on to the idea that the 75kW actually delivers expected mileage or not.
Man maths
210m range/60kW = 3.5miles per kW
3.5miles per kW x 75kW = 262.50m range
249m range/75kW = 3.32miles per kW a 0.18 mile per kW difference.
So the end result is the 75 delivers 75kW worth of mileage same in maths terms as the 60kW delivers but they sit somewhat differently in their kW in actual available usage terms?
I'm just hanging on to the idea that the 75kW actually delivers expected mileage or not.
Man maths
210m range/60kW = 3.5miles per kW
3.5miles per kW x 75kW = 262.50m range
249m range/75kW = 3.32miles per kW a 0.18 mile per kW difference.
timk225
Active Member
If you have a car with a 20 gallon gas tank, do you only fill it when it runs totally empty, so you can add the full 20 gallons, or can you live with adding ONLY 18 or 19 gallons at a time?
Aight then.
Aight then.
I really don't care about the S60 vs S75 available battery capacities. I bought an S60 back in 09/16 and ended up needing just a bit more range to make some routes comfortably doable instead of being close calls. I was very happy to pay for the upgrade instead of having to sell such a new car and take another "drive off the lot" depreciation hit on the replacement car.
Dan43
Member
S75 range seems fine for most people who have that battery, 225-250 miles on a charge feels very good to me and will fit my driving and needs fine.
I have a once a week 130mile drive round trip (260 in total) with two days town driving in between, one charge will not be enough but 1 x SuperCharger stop there or back will see me fine.
I'm happy with the maths and just a little curious as to why there is such discord as to the 60v75 differences which to me, on the surface, seem quite small and minor?
I have a once a week 130mile drive round trip (260 in total) with two days town driving in between, one charge will not be enough but 1 x SuperCharger stop there or back will see me fine.
I'm happy with the maths and just a little curious as to why there is such discord as to the 60v75 differences which to me, on the surface, seem quite small and minor?
If you read back, you will see that the problem is that the "60" actually has 84 % of the range of a "75". Tesla wanted to keep the rated range of both S and X over the 200 mile mark. All Tesla batteries have an anti bricking reserve that is counted in the total, so a 75 has 72 available while locked 62 is available. Tesla is not cheating anyone, but 60 ownersget a bonus. $9000 is the discount Tesla gave on the excact same car when locked as a loss leader. If you decide you want a 75, then you have to pay for a 75. Tesla has always quoted the correct range figuers so you could see what you were getting on the order page. I guess some people either don't read, or want a freebe. I unlocked my 60 and now it is a 75 and I paid for a 75. I'm satisfied.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
That statement is very much open to debate.
Excuse me. I should have said anyone who reads and understands a contract before they sign it. It clearly says the range of a75 with no degredation is 249 miles and a60 is 210. You get 39 miles (less degradation) for $9000. That is exactly what I got. No one is twisting your arm to buy, so ,if you don't like the terms, just don't buy.
Last edited:
Chopr147
Active Member
The difference is $9000 for about 40 miles more per charge. But then you factor in the 100% charge every day for the 60 and and 90% for the 75 , now we're only talking about 15 miles daily usage for again , $9000 more!
Not minor to me and the reason I went with the 60
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
You missed my point. See below.
(I paid for an 85kWh pack and received a 81.5kWh pack.)
hacer
Active Member
How do you apply that to my experience? Tesla Motors: PLEASE stop lying about specifications (60 to 75 upgrade)
Dan43
Member
Yes I see what you are saying they are a lot closer, but don't most 75 users only need the extra range on the odd longer journey, so 100% charge is there when you need it. A constantly filled 100% 60 has nothing extra left to offer?
Similar threads
