[updated with *] P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. "Up to 691HP"

[legislator]

Enough already!

If this goes to court, Tesla gets BLOWN AWAY!

It's also interesting to note that the page still says 259+503 even if you buy a P85D without the L-upgrade.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Enough already!

If this goes to court, Tesla gets BLOWN AWAY!

Do you really think any judge is going to give Tesla the benefit of the doubt that they weren't attempting to let people believe the car made 691 HP when they never corrected any of the stories in publications printing 691 HP, they tweeted links to some of these stories, and Elon Musk was on TV answering questions like "Does the car make 691 HP" and saying "Yes?" (See the Australian 60 minutes show.)

I don't want Tesla to get sued.

I don't think Tesla intentionally misled people.

But I am tired of hearing about how this "motor HP" vs "HP" distinction is going to be the be-all end-all protection in a lawsuit if it happens. If there is a lawsuit, Tesla will lose, and Tesla will lose bigtime in the court of public opinion, which is probably even more important.

Thankfully, Tesla has not come up with this ridiculous defense themselves. I expect they will not, because it's more ludicrous than trying to charge current P85D owners $7000 or so for the Ludicrous Mode upgrade to bring our cars closer to the power output they were supposed to be capable of when originally delivered.

That is right: enough already! I've been following this thread on and off for a long time and was and was reluctant to post for a long time out of deference for the owners of P85D and their feelings. I am also well aware that Tesla made quite a few mistakes along the way. However, all the talk about all sorts of conspiracy theories is crazy.

 

[smac]

However, all the talk about all sorts of conspiracy theories is crazy.

No one mentioned that P90D is a reference to Page 90 subsection D of the NASA report into Roswell

d) Witnesses said the futuristic item shot off at a ludicrous speed

 

[JER]

... all the talk about all sorts of conspiracy theories is crazy.

That's a rather weak rebuttal to what is the most obvious interpretation of a very suggestive and now well-documented body of evidence:

• Specific claims and promises made.
• Claims measurably not met by the product.
• Promises not kept.
• Claims and promises redacted without explanation.
• Disclosure of technical details that explain the failure to deliver on claims and promises.

I would suggest you come up with an alternate explanation, rather than attacking the character of other members here.

 

[legislator]

There is clearly a need for some bulletpoints of actual facts of what you claim above JER. I would figure that claims on the buyers contract made without asteriks or any other sort of explanation is one of them. Free upgrades because of a "yes" on an australian tv-show or a non-scripted launchpartyspeech would not hold up in the courts I know about, but I don't know the US courts very well. You're also saying it's right that Tesla would get blown away this?

 

[sorka]

For some reason I cant help saying that I love the term motor power that Tesla has introduced. That rules out that it is wheel power and also that it is battery power.

This was my interpretation as well and since the other models produced the rated or more horsepower (understated on all other models except maybe the S60), there was no reason to doubt it.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm glad you responded first because I was going to respond to your other posts. Here's why the Mazda example doesn't apply. Mazda promised an SAE hp number. When tested under the SAE standard the RX8 doesn't achieve that number. Whereas Tesla simply promised a "motor power" number. There is no SAE power standard yet for BEVs and any advertising with the SAE standard would be voluntary (automakers are not required to advertise with SAE).

Show me one place where Mazda promised SAE horsepower. They don't say SAE because the industry standard is to specify horsepower in that manner. The P85D doesn't even produce 555 hp GROSS before applying any standard.

In a lawsuit, it won't be up to Tesla to use an "excuse". The facts are what matter. The judge will require Tesla to show documents on how they arrived at the "motor power" numbers and how they defined it internally.

You are not doing Tesla any favors. You're "facts" argument is complete and total BS. Period. Under that scenario, anyone could just make up any BS way of specifying horsepower even if that horsepower is never produced and just claim they meant something else all while telling the consumer that your product has x horsepower and all the while documentation says x horsepower without so much as a footnote to say that this isn't *REALLY* x horsepower. if this ever went to trial, it would be decided on whether or not the consumer was provided transparent data to make an apples to apples comparison against competing products. Tesla would NEVER use this as a defense.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually Tesla used to have a note that the horsepower was measured according to ECE R85, which seems to be the EV norm for stating hp (BMW uses it as well). It would be interesting to know why they removed it.

I agree with stopcrazypop. It would probably only be usable as an argument against Tesla if they had stated is as SAE or "power comparable to gasoline cars"

Because that standard only allows the test to draw as much current that doesn't exceed a 5% drop in voltage from the drivetrain battery. It also requires running the drivetrain at 80% maximum with the current motor and battery for 3 minutes prior to measuring horsepower. Under those circumstances, they would have to state a lot less horsepower than the 555 that the battery produces. Plus the fact that the battery never provides more than 415KW so even under 100% efficient conversion from the battery to the motor shafts it would only be 555 hp, not 691.

Did Tesla really list ECE R85 as the standard the used for the P85D or was it for another Model S variant? I never saw it stated. Was it only in Europe which would make sense since it's a European standard.

- - - Updated - - -

That's right, they never stated that P85D was a 691hp car, they said that it was 691 motor hp car.

Actually, it said "691 hp motor power", so yes, it still said 691 hp and I like how they clarified that it was at the motor and not the battery or the wheels.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Actually, it said "691 hp motor power", so yes, it still said 691 hp and I like how they clarified that it was at the motor and not the battery or the wheels.

I think that they should have listed total maximum output power, with whatever other power rating they wanted to list, but one can't assume that what they did state - 691hp motor power - is the same as total maximum output power.

 

[sorka]

I think that they should have listed total maximum output power, with whatever other power rating they wanted to list, but one can't assume that what they did state - 691hp motor power - is the same as total maximum output power.

Which the P85D comes nowhere near close to making.

BTW, how come the 85D, P85 and S85 all make more than the "motor power" claimed? How come there's only a 51 GROSS hp difference between the 85D and the P85D and even less difference at less than 90% SOC yet there *was* a 315 hp difference in the design studio before they removed the P85D combined horsepower rating?

 

[JER]

There is clearly a need for some bulletpoints of actual facts of what you claim above JER. I would figure that claims on the buyers contract made without asteriks or any other sort of explanation is one of them. Free upgrades because of a "yes" on an australian tv-show or a non-scripted launchpartyspeech would not hold up in the courts I know about, but I don't know the US courts very well. You're also saying it's right that Tesla would get blown away this?

You're quite big on the misrepresentation there. When did I propose any such reasoning, or say anyone would "get blown away"? (Hint: I didn't.)

Are you confusing me with someone else? Andy, perhaps?

You want me to go over the facts again? You want bullet points? Fine.

• The specific claims and promises made were in writing on the Tesla website for months. Specifically, the 691HP figure and the footnote about the "high speed" upgrade, both redacted by around May. Also, the 0-60 time originally quoted with no reference to 1-foot rollout, alongside figures for other models that are not quoted with rollout. (I'll remind you previous "P" models were not listed with rollout figures either.)
• The measurable deficiencies relative to announced specifications are the actual 0-60 times and actual power output, the former from instrumented tests under controlled condidions, and the latter both measured by the car's own sensors at the battery (that being the most generous measurement scheme possible for actual power output) and inferred from acceleration versus speed curves.
• The promise not kept is delivery of the "high speed" OTA upgrade mentioned above. A lesser upgrade was delivered instead, which still did not come close to achieving the announced performance.
• The disclosure of technical details was the (previously unknown) 1300A pack current limit, which along with known characteristics of the battery proves 691HP was never actually available in the P85D. Also, the measured performance of P90D (with Ludicrous) is precisely the 3.2s 0-60 originally announced for the P85D, and its actual power output far closer to the originally announced figure for the P85D.

Together, this leads to one very obvious conclusion: Tesla delivered P85D hoping to quietly remedy the performance defecit with OTA updates, much as they are doing with the announced Autopilot features. Some time later, they realised it was impossible without hardware changes. All references to the planned upgrade and 691HP were then removed. The combined software and hardware upgrade they developed was respun as "Ludicrous Mode" and rollout retroactively made their test protocol for "P" models.

I'd far prefer it if this wasn't true. However, lacking any other explanation that fits, I reluctantly accept it. If you can provide one then I'll gladly take it. It has to make sense though, and fit all the facts.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Which the P85D comes nowhere near close to making.

BTW, how come the 85D, P85 and S85 all make more than the "motor power" claimed? How come there's only a 51 GROSS hp difference between the 85D and the P85D and even less difference at less than 90% SOC yet there *was* a 315 hp difference in the design studio before they removed the P85D combined horsepower rating?

What you seem to be missing is that (maximum) motor power rating is the rating of *one component* of the propulsion system - motor. It is *not* an overall maximum power rating of the propulsion system. This rating is analogous to the engine maximum power rating of an ICE based propulsion system. The difference is that for an ICE propulsion system, known and commonly used for more than 100 years, it is a common knowledge that published maximum engine rating is not an overall maximum power rating of the system, and it is also a common knowledge that in order to obtain overall maximum power rating of an ICE based propulsion system one need to subtract transmission and drive shaft losses.

For an electrical propulsion system, in addition to the reduction due to transmission (reduction gear) and drive shaft losses, the overall power rating is also defined by the power rating of the battery and power rating of the power conversion module (inverter).

So once again maximum motor (engine) power is not equivalent to the overall propulsion system power rating, neither in the propulsion system based on ICE, nor the electrical propulsion system. This is well understood and intuitive for an ICE based system, but not so (yet) for the electrical system.

As to answering your questions, I am not sure what you mean by saying that 85D and S85 make more power than motor power claimed, so you need to clarify your question. 85D claims 259hp front and rear motor, so combined rating of the two motors is 518hp. The overall maximum power rating of the system, however, is lower than the combined maximum power rating of the motors - Tesla claims 417hp. In case of P85D the combined maximum power rating of the motors is 762hp (259+503), but overall power rating of the system is not published.

I am not sure what you mean by the 51 GROSS hp difference between 85D and P85D, but I think you might be missing the fact that performance (acceleration) of the car is not defined by only the maximum hp rating of an overall system, but also by the shape of the power curve. For example area of the triangle and rectangle with the same base and height (maximum power rating) is not the same - area of the rectangle is two times bigger than area of the triangle. Since acceleration is proportional to the area under the power curve, performance of the car is *not* defined by just the maximum power rating, but the shape of the power curve as well.

------------------------------------------------------------
The attention given to the maximum power rating of the propulsion system is BTW totally irrational. This is just one point on the power curve. It does not by itself define how quick the car is. The acceleration of the car is defined by the whole power curve, car weight, and the various losses. So the true integral measure of the car performance is acceleration, as it encompasses all of the above to uniquely define performance of the car.

 

[JER]

vgrinshpun, what you seem to be missing is that engine power ratings are a measure of the peak shaft output actually presented to the transmission.

There’s nothing in a P85D that ever delivers 691HP to anything else. Not even cumulatively with another thing in parallel.

 

[jerjozwik]

*shower thought*

what if... since tesla already lets you upgrade your battery, the cars are advertised with motor power today because that is the best they can do, but tomorrow when they come out with a larger output battery your can run the motors close to there final design specs? meaning your car can get faster and faster every few years.

*you may return to your endless discussion.*

 

[vgrinshpun]

vgrinshpun, what you seem to be missing is that engine power ratings are a measure of the peak shaft output actually presented to the transmission.

There’s nothing in a P85D that ever delivers 691HP to anything else. Not even cumulatively with another thing in parallel.

You need to go back and read my post again. Tesla did not publish maximum power rating of the propulsion system in P85D. The 691hp is combined maximum power rating of two motors - has nothing to do with the overall power rating of the system and Tesla does not claim this.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Actually, that's kind of the point. x was promised, <x was delivered.

It's more like x, y, z was promised and <x, <y, >z was delivered (in your prespective). Or depending on your argument x, y, >z was delivered, but the customer thought a, b, z was promised. The discount Tesla gave on ludicrous is mea culpa for making people think x means a and y means b.

Also, as I have already explained, the positive you mention was already implied in the footnote - or at least implied to anyone who understands any physics.
...
However, if you won't take my word for it, how about Elon Musk's word? (Taken from the July press conference.)

That's inference from you taking one number: 691 hp "motor power", not something Tesla can be held to because there are many assumptions you can make. Elon's statement makes absolutely no reference to a peak power increase. It only talks about a current increase (the actual power still depends on the voltage sag). Even if you assume 691hp is the shaft power, if the car hits that peak and immediately ramps down that is completely different from an ICE that ramps up all the way to the rpm limit or a battery limited EV (where it ramps to a peak and is stuck there).

Perhaps, if he is hoodwinked by a smart lawyer. However, what should be relevant to a judge is that Tesla promised "691HP" and the car does not ever deliver this.

Again, you are missing that Tesla specifically promised "691hp motor power". They did not promise simply "691hp".

Not in any part of the powertrain, under any conditions or measuring scheme.

The known voltage and sag characteristics of the battery, along with the now-disclosed 1300A limit, show beyond all doubt the P85D was never a 691HP car.

There is such a scheme, which is what I pointed out: the motor power shows the motor/inverter capabilities without taking into limitations of installed battery into account. Very far back in the thread, I showed examples of other automakers who did the same: Fisker with its 300kW number taken from two 150kW rated motors (even though the battery/generator can't output that much after tweaks for NVH reasons) and Ford Energi with its 88kW motor rating even though the battery can't output that much.

 

[JER]

You need to go back and read my post again. Tesla did not publish maximum power rating of the propulsion system in P85D. The 691hp is combined maximum power rating of two motors - has nothing to do with the overall power rating of the system and Tesla does not claim this.

I understand your post just fine. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of engine power ratings.

There was no indication anywhere from Tesla that the P85D's motors never deliver their rated power as installed in the car. There still isn't. For many months, the summation was there in print with no indication that other system limitations made the rated output unattainable.

If you think that's not a problem, I'll invite you to buy that hypothetical 1000HP electric supercar I mentioned earlier. You know, the one with the 150HP limit due to the battery pack. The one that actually goes like a cheap sedan. Can I count on your custom, and your not suing me when you realise you've been mislead?

No? Well, there's a surprise.

You see, there are reasons why the SAE are so pedantic about standardising dyno tests. To be any use, they must be representative of the capabilities of the system that actually goes in the car - and motor manufacturers have been very creative about gaming the standards in the past.

Helping yourself to 150HP that doesn't exist in reality is not okay. You can bet that if this practice is not illegal yet, it will be in a few years.

 

[vgrinshpun]

I understand your post just fine. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of engine power ratings.

There was no indication anywhere from Tesla that the P85D's motors never deliver their rated power as installed in the car. There still isn't. For many months, the summation was there in print with no indication that other system limitations made the rated output unattainable.

If you think that's not a problem, I'll invite you to buy that hypothetical 1000HP electric supercar I mentioned earlier. You know, the one with the 150HP limit due to the battery pack. The one that actually goes like a cheap sedan. Can I count on your custom, and your not suing me when you realise you've been mislead?

No? Well, there's a surprise.

You see, there are reasons why the SAE are so pedantic about standardising dyno tests. To be any use, they must be representative of the capabilities of the system that actually goes in the car - and motor manufacturers have been very creative about gaming the standards in the past.

Helping yourself to 150HP that doesn't exist in reality is not okay. You can bet that if this practice is not illegal yet, it will be in a few years.

Here we go again - please go back and read my post one more time. The fact that Tesla stated combined and individuall motor HP is in no way an indication of total maximum power rating of the system, and they did not state this in any form or shape. Moreover, your insistence on knowing the total maximum power rating of the system is totally irrational. This is *one* point on the power curve. You can have car A with total maximum power rating that is higher than total maximum power rating of the car B, but having 0 to 60mph time that is *more* than car B with the lower max. power rating. So once again what I need to know to decide which (quicker) car to pick among these two cars is 0 to 60mph acceleration time.

If you follow your logic, you'll end up selecting car A, while I would select car B. If we then go on the drag strip, I will cream you in car B with lower maximum power rating every time.

 

[sorka]

What you seem to be missing is that (maximum) motor power rating is the rating of *one component* of the propulsion system - motor. It is *not* an overall maximum power rating of the propulsion system. This rating is analogous to the engine maximum power rating of an ICE based propulsion system. The difference is that for an ICE propulsion system, known and commonly used for more than 100 years, it is a common knowledge that published maximum engine rating is not an overall maximum power rating of the system, and it is also a common knowledge that in order to obtain overall maximum power rating of an ICE based propulsion system one need to subtract transmission and drive shaft losses.[/QUOTE

I'm not missing anything. You're trying to imply that when Tesla said "691 hp" that they didn't really mean that the vehicle as delivered would make 691 hp. Consumers assume that when they buy a car that says "x hp" that the car will actually make that and that it's not a theoretical maximum that could be achieved given different inputs. They may not understand SAE net horsepower but what they do understand is that if a car makes x horsepower and is compared to another car that makes y horsepower that there is a system in place that allows an apples to apples comparison.

For an electrical propulsion system, in addition to the reduction due to transmission (reduction gear) and drive shaft losses, the overall power rating is also defined by the power rating of the battery and power rating of the power conversion module (inverter).

Yes, and the P85D maxes out at 415KW (555hp) and has never been seen higher and even then it's only that above 90% SOC. When a new SAE NET measurement standard is finalized, you can bet that maximum horsepower won't be allowed to measured at 100% SOC most driving done will never be anywhere near that. Until that happens, most of use would be fine with GROSS hp like manufacturers used to do prior to 1972 but at a GROSS 555 hp before any conversion losses, we're way below 691.

So once again maximum motor (engine) power is not equivalent to the overall propulsion system power rating, neither in the propulsion system based on ICE, nor the electrical propulsion system.

This statement makes no sense. When car manufacturers specify horsepower in their ICE systems, those engines produce that horsepower at some RPM with all the accessories attached including the intake and exhaust. Prior to 2004, the J1349 assumed a 15% loss from accessories. After 2004 that moved to actual measurement which is why some ICE motor power ratings changed even though there had been no difference. Again, this is NET not GROSS which the P85D isn't even close to 691 GROSS.

This is well understood and intuitive for an ICE based system, but not so (yet) for the electrical system.

What do you base this claim?

As to answering your questions, I am not sure what you mean by saying that 85D and S85 make more power than motor power claimed, so you need to clarify your question.

The 85D maxes out at 376KW (504 hp) while the P85D maxes out at 415KW (555 hp) but only at 100% SOC. Tesla claims 417 HP but in reality the 85D makes almost 80+ more than that.

85D claims 259hp front and rear motor, so combined rating of the two motors is 518hp. The overall maximum power rating of the system, however, is lower than the combined maximum power rating of the motors - Tesla claims 417hp. In case of P85D the combined maximum power rating of the motors is 762hp (259+503), but overall power rating of the system is not published.

Adding up both front and rear motor ratings is completely irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking about the horsepower rating of the vehicle as delivered and this is what the consumer assumes when they see one combined number which is no longer listed for the P85D.

How come they list a combined number for the 85D and all the other variants but no longer the P85D?

I am not sure what you mean by the 51 GROSS hp difference between 85D and P85D, but I think you might be missing the fact that performance (acceleration) of the car is not defined by only the maximum hp rating of an overall system, but also by the shape of the power curve. For example area of the triangle and rectangle with the same base and height (maximum power rating) is not the same - area of the rectangle is two times bigger than area of the rectangle. Since acceleration is proportional to the area under the power curve, performance of the car is *not* defined by just the maximum power rating, but the shape of the power curve as well.

A point that I've made many times:

Heck, even an Audi RS7 in a 50-70 MPH pass crushes a P85D and the Audi only has 560 hp. It might be lighter, but on paper, the P85D is supposed to have the superior power to weight ratio but in fact is far worse power to weight ratio than the Audi.

The start of that graph is *why* the P85D goes like stink to 60 because the power it does generate it generates sooner hence the insane torque low down and the crazy g's that are front loaded.

Here's one with a P85D at 80% first compared with an S85 at 84% second:

View attachment 90200

View attachment 90201

There's only about a 100 hp difference between the S85 and P85D at the wheels but look how much *MORE* power the P85D makes early on. It's all about the power put down integrated over time under the curve, not peak power. This is important when you're talking about taking off from a standstill rather than a 50 mph rollin where you're able to make peak power immediately in the P85D vs almost immediately in an ICE(might have to downshift). The S85 doesn't even make it's peak until 50 MPH while the P85D is flattening out after 36 MPH.

If you search for my name and "under the curve", you'll see I've mentioned this 7 times in the past under variety of cotexts.

This is why the P85D kills just about everything from a 0-30 but is killed itself from a 50 MPH rolling start against a 560 hp RS7 where that car's multi speed transmission allows the ICE to stay near it's peak but it has to get to that peak first which means moving through the RPM starting from a standstill. Launch control with torque converters or clutch slipping try to compensate and do so hit and miss and why it's so hard for your normal every day driver to achieve the speced 0-60 times of most cars yet grandma can do it in the P85D every time.

It's also the reason why a P85D pulls very slowly against an 85D or P85 on from a 50 MPH roll-on yet crushes both those cars from a dead start.

I know you said you were late to the discussion and I don't blame you for not reading all the posts, but these points have been made over and over again and if you've read my posts you know that I don't have a beef with the 0-60 performance of the P85D. I think it's exceptional. My beef is with passing speed on the freeway where the P85D only performs like a car that has 1 hp for every 9 lbs rather than 1 hp for every 7 lbs as was originally claimed but has now been removed from Tesla's site.

 

[JER]

It's more like x, y, z was promised and <x, <y, >z was delivered (in your prespective).

Perspective doesn't come into this.

By Tesla's own account, P85D owners who order Ludicrous aren't getting new drive units (though they are getting new PEM firmware.) They're getting new contactors and a smart fuse for their battery pack. No new motor windings. No change to pack voltage. In short, nothing you would expect to influence the power fade factor due to shaft speed.

Given that changing one variable - peak current - is bringing the P85D close to what would unambiguously be meeting the originally announced specification, what do you think that suggests?

Elon's statement makes absolutely no reference to a peak power increase.

A peak current increase directly implies a peak power increase.

the actual power still depends on the voltage sag

That would be the "known properties of the battery" I referred to. Go see wk057's posts for more details.

Even if you assume 691hp is the shaft power, if the car hits that peak and immediately ramps down that is completely different from an ICE that ramps up all the way to the rpm limit or a battery limited EV (where it ramps to a peak and is stuck there).

So far, so obvious. We're not comparing it to any ICE car, or to a BEV with rapid power fade at speed. In any case, I expect the motors in P85D to exhibit power fade at high speed due to back-EMF, exactly like any other induction motors. None of this is relevant to the disputed figures.

Again, you are missing that Tesla specifically promised "691hp motor power".

Meaning it is reasonable to expect that the car is fitted with motors that will, at some point in the performance envelope, actually output 691HP. If they don't, that's something that ought to be mentioned explicitly - especially given that all previous Tesla vehicles had done precisely this and all ICE vehicles are legally required to.

There is such a scheme, which is what I pointed out: the motor power shows the motor/inverter capabilities without taking into limitations of installed battery into account.

Which is misleading, and a betrayal of the normal intent of engine power ratings.

 

[sorka]

You need to go back and read my post again. Tesla did not publish maximum power rating of the propulsion system in P85D. The 691hp is combined maximum power rating of two motors - has nothing to do with the overall power rating of the system and Tesla does not claim this.

Oh geez. You really are late to the discussion. This is reminding me of the early April arguments.

Tesla will never use that as an excuse because it will look intentionally deceptive and it's better from a damages standpoint to simply be wrong than deceitful. Do you *REALLY* think that publishing "691 hp" wasn't going to be perceived by the consumer as actually making 691 hp rather than simply adding up to maximum rating motor ratings? Don't you think that if this is what they intended they should have posted a disclaimer and said "this is not really 691 hp"? Why does the 85D make 504 hp at the battery while the P85D only makes 555 hp at the battery? Why did Tesla remove 691 from their site but not remove 417 from the 85D?

You are Tesla's worst enemy and you're not doing them any favors.

 

[JER]

Here we go again - please go back and read my post one more time.

Quite unnecessary I assure you.

The fact that Tesla stated combined and individuall motor HP is in no way an indication of total maximum power rating of the system

That is precisely the problem. It is a direct betrayal of the normal intent of engine power figures, and one ICE manufacturers would not get away with.

ICEs have to actually present their rated power at the shaft, or the claim is illegal.

There's nothing in a P85D that presents 691HP to anything else, even cumulatively in parallel with another thing. (Actually, I suppose the brakes would count if you allow thermal energy - but that's nothing to do with this.)

Moreover, your insistence on knowing the total maximum power rating of the system is totally irrational.

Your stating something is irrational does not make it so.

This is *one* point on the power curve.

Actually, with the P85D there is *no* point on the power curve that meets the specification.

If you follow your logic, you'll end up selecting car A, while I would select car B.

That's not my logic. It's a straw man you erected in my place.

We're not talking about comparing car A with car B having radically different power curves. We're talking about actual P85Ds versus P85Ds that meet their specification.