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

[brianman]

@wk057

As I understand it the original complaint was that Tesla was advertising "691 hp" while they were actually advertising "691 motor hp". Some didn't like this fine distinction. Later Tesla removed the "691 motor hp" description and now the issue seems to be evolving to "yah but at some point they advertised 691 motor hp". Setting that aside for a moment....

Do we know the rear motor (470 hp) is fairly rated/labelled? I believe "yes" from the original P85.
Do we know the front motor (221 hp) is fairly rated/lablled? I get the impression the answer is "yes" from the behavior of recent 85D firmware.

So are we currently at "language is easily interpreted as 'vehicle can apply 691 hp at once in some conditions" '?

I'm going to assume you would say "yes" for the moment.


Thought experiment: If Tesla offers 200 kWh packs in 2020 and one or more individuals manages to get that battery accepted by a 2015 P85D and it's able to deliver "691hp at once" under at least some realistic road conditions, is Tesla's original claim vindicated?

 

[wk057]

@wk057

As I understand it the original complaint was that Tesla was advertising "691 hp" while they were actually advertising "691 motor hp". Some didn't like this fine distinction. Later Tesla removed the "691 motor hp" description and now the issue seems to be evolving to "yah but at some point they advertised 691 motor hp". Setting that aside for a moment....

Do we know the rear motor (470 hp) is fairly rated/labelled? I believe "yes" from the original P85.
Do we know the front motor (221 hp) is fairly rated/lablled? I get the impression the answer is "yes" from the behavior of recent 85D firmware.

So are we currently at "language is easily interpreted as 'vehicle can apply 691 hp at once in some conditions" '?

I'm going to assume you would say "yes" for the moment.


Thought experiment: If Tesla offers 200 kWh packs in 2020 and one or more individuals manages to get that battery accepted by a 2015 P85D and it's able to deliver "691hp at once" under at least some realistic road conditions, is Tesla's original claim vindicated?

Not really sure where everyone else stands on this, but my personal aspect of the issue is that the 691 HP number existed in the first place and at no point could the car deliver this amount of power. This just seemed to be the thread where data on the subject was collecting, but my personal stance hasn't changed or evolved at all.

As for your thought experiment, whether or not in some future scenario with a future part the car delivers the advertised 691 HP is irrelevant. The car I purchased, which had this 691 HP number associated with it, currently does not under any circumstances deliver 691 HP. Even ICE vehicles that advertise motor HP numbers are able to achieve those numbers on the vehicle purchased before drive train losses at some point on their power curve. With the Model S we know that the car isn't even providing sufficient power to possibly be outputting 691 HP anywhere, motor horsepower or wheel horsepower or otherwise.

That'd be like Lamborghini selling me an Aventador with 690 HP advertised... but after I actually buy it, get it, find out it only puts out 450 HP of the advertised 690 HP they tell me, "Oh that's just what the motor can theoretically do if you gave it enough air and gasoline. The car you bought doesn't have the components to actually make that much power." Someone would sue their ****s off in a heartbeat. I think P85D owners so far have been more than generous so far on this issue, most of us probably expecting an update that resolves it or at the very least some official response from Tesla on the matter.

 

[sorka]

For the sake of argument, the KW reading through the REST API is not really evidence. What is evidence are dyno results, exit speed results from track runs, and gps/accelerometer based instrumentation from professional caliber performance meters. All of those line up fairly well in proving the P85D doesn't meet the claims or comes anywhere near close to meeting the claims.

- - - Updated - - -

No, this is NOT how SAE correction works. In fact, the SAE numbers you get from ICE motors do not really indicate how much daily power you will see. There are many areas were this went wrong. For example, SAE has atmospheric pressure corrections. If you have a turbcharged engine, of course this not longer applies if engine software increases relative boost pressure while allowing equal absolute pressure until the limits of the turbocharger are reached. blah blah blah, SAE numbers are NOT the numbers you dyno. All the _smart_ aftermarket engine tuners already know, the dyno is just a tool to help optimize power delivery, in absolute terms the number of HP is garbage, and usually highly dependent on the load characteristics the dyno hardware can provide. The same dyno's that Model S's keep either breaking or coming off the rollers.

There's absolutely NO telling what an SAE standard for electric might look like. They may try to do a comparison to ICE vehicles, as has been done with MPGe.

You need to correct ICE dyno results to sea level and what they've agreed upon are a standard temperature. No such correction is needed for an electric motor. HP is still HP and you can apply different standards to normalize it for various conditions. There are no conditions under which the P85D will generate the claimed power.

Now if you want to say the P85D produces as much horsepower as a normally aspirated ICE car that makes 691 hp at sea level but at 15085 feet instead, that's getting pretty close. At any rate, I wasn't saying that a wheel dyno is used to measure SAE hp. I was saying that wheel dynos when dynoing different cars at the wheels usually come very close to the manufacturers claimed hp after you factor in the typical drive train loss for the type of drive system, awd, fwd, rwd, etc. It's a tool for verifying the manufacturers claim when you can't stick the engine by itself on a dyno, and a tool tuning.

- - - Updated - - -

@wk057

As I understand it the original complaint was that Tesla was advertising "691 hp" while they were actually advertising "691 motor hp". Some didn't like this fine distinction. Later Tesla removed the "691 motor hp" description and now the issue seems to be evolving to "yah but at some point they advertised 691 motor hp". Setting that aside for a moment....

Do we know the rear motor (470 hp) is fairly rated/labelled? I believe "yes" from the original P85.
Do we know the front motor (221 hp) is fairly rated/lablled? I get the impression the answer is "yes" from the behavior of recent 85D firmware.

So are we currently at "language is easily interpreted as 'vehicle can apply 691 hp at once in some conditions" '?

I'm going to assume you would say "yes" for the moment.


Thought experiment: If Tesla offers 200 kWh packs in 2020 and one or more individuals manages to get that battery accepted by a 2015 P85D and it's able to deliver "691hp at once" under at least some realistic road conditions, is Tesla's original claim vindicated?

No, of course not. Just like with many cars that you can change intake and exhaust, headers, etc to produce more power. It's not what the car came from the factory with. On almost any turbo car you can up the power just by increasing the boost at the expense of reliability and fuel economy but the manufacturers never claimed the power that the engine could make if you suddenly increase the air/fuel volume whether it be forced induction or naturally aspirated. I'll leave cams out of this because that would actually involved modifying the motor while the aforementioned mods don't.

- - - Updated - - -

As for your thought experiment, whether or not in some future scenario with a future part the car delivers the advertised 691 HP is irrelevant. The car I purchased, which had this 691 HP number associated with it, currently does not under any circumstances deliver 691 HP. Even ICE vehicles that advertise motor HP numbers are able to achieve those numbers on the vehicle purchased before drive train losses at some point on their power curve. With the Model S we know that the car isn't even providing sufficient power to possibly be outputting 691 HP anywhere, motor horsepower or wheel horsepower or otherwise.

You beat me too it. Should have read your response before essentially duplicating it

 

[stopcrazypp]

My point is that they raised the ratings to be inline with what ICE counterparts measure on the dyno. Same with the other model variants....except the P85D which is not just out in left field but out of the parking lot.

Again this is not true at all. The 60kWh is the exact analogy with the P85D. The rating was based on the motor. Your statement: "There is no current or future standard by which the P85D could ever be rated anywhere near the advertised power" equally applies to the 60kWh rated at 283kW (assuming the standard considers the whole car; a motor only standard like IEEE 112 referenced in my document would be a different story). It peaks at ~240kW from data gathered by others (power meter and API). The 85 and P85 just happen to run close to the peak limit of the motors, (there's some back and forth about whether P85 peaks near 320kW or over the 350kW as viewed in the REST API), which is why you see that phenomenon.

Thought experiment: If Tesla offers 200 kWh packs in 2020 and one or more individuals manages to get that battery accepted by a 2015 P85D and it's able to deliver "691hp at once" under at least some realistic road conditions, is Tesla's original claim vindicated?

This thought experiment is not unrealistic at all. From the same article I linked, the owner there actually upgraded their pack from a 60kWh to 85kWh and all it required was a firmware update to get the same power as a 85kWh from the factory. The motor power number was likely trying to indicate that. If in the future a P100D comes out that can utilize the full power (assuming there is no further update coming that can release more power with the same 85kWh pack) such a pack upgrade may allow the car to do 515kW.

But because the 85 has a larger battery that can safely discharge more power, its inverter is programmed to feed more electrical energy to the motor in a given time. The result: more net power at the wheels.

(I've got some first-hand experience with this phenomenon: I originally bought a 60-kWh car, but later upgraded to an 85-kWh battery. Despite keeping the original inverter and motor, I got the increased performance of the 85 via a simple reprogramming of the inverter.)

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...ower-numbers-for-tesla-model-s-whats-the-deal

 

[wk057]

Again this is not true at all. The 60kWh is the exact analogy with the P85D. The rating was based on the motor. Your statement: "There is no current or future standard by which the P85D could ever be rated anywhere near the advertised power" equally applies to the 60kWh rated at 283kW. It peaks at ~240kW from data gathered by others (power meter and API). The 85 and P85 just happen to run close to the peak limit of the motors, (there's some back and forth about whether P85 peaks near 320kW or over the 350kW as viewed in the REST API), which is why you see that phenomenon.


This thought experiment is not unrealistic at all. From the same article I linked, the owner there actually upgraded their pack from a 60kWh to 85kWh and all it required was a firmware update to get the same power as the 85kWh from the factor. The motor power number was likely trying to indicate that. If in the future a P100D comes out that can utilize the full power (assuming there is no further update coming that can release more power with the same 85kWh pack) such a pack upgrade may allow the car to do 515kW.


http://www.greencarreports.com/news...ower-numbers-for-tesla-model-s-whats-the-deal

This doesn't really work as an argument. The S60 and S85 have the exact same inverter and drive unit (same part). The P85 unit is slightly different. Yet all three of theses had/have different advertised HP and all reach that advertised HP one way or another as delivered. The P85D does not. So, I'm not really sure where your arguement is going. If Tesla advertised a P85D with 450HP and next to it a P100D with the same hardware except the battery at 691 HP, then it would make sense. But they advertised the P85D as 691 HP, so your argument is kind of pointless.

 

[sorka]

Again this is not true at all. The 60kWh is the exact analogy with the P85D. The rating was based on the motor. Your statement: "There is no current or future standard by which the P85D could ever be rated anywhere near the advertised power" equally applies to the 60kWh rated at 283kW. It peaks at ~240kW from data gathered by others (power meter and API). The 85 and P85 just happen to run close to the peak limit of the motors, (there's some back and forth about whether P85 peaks near 320kW or over the 350kW as viewed in the REST API), which is why you see that phenomenon.


This thought experiment is not unrealistic at all. From the same article I linked, the owner there actually upgraded their pack from a 60kWh to 85kWh and all it required was a firmware update to get the same power as the 85kWh from the factor. The motor power number was likely trying to indicate that. If in the future a P100D comes out that can utilize the full power (assuming there is no further update coming that can release more power with the same pack) such a pack upgrade may allow the car to do 515kW.


http://www.greencarreports.com/news...ower-numbers-for-tesla-model-s-whats-the-deal

Sorry, but there's no universe where the reasonable person is going to be believe that "hp motor power" is going to mean what the motor could output with more KW than is actually delivered. The P85D doesn't come close to producing the claimed hp no matter how you try to twist it. Period. Their hp claims on all other variants were underrated and when they revised them upwards, they were accurate. This is dyno proven.

Tesla has not made this twisted claim that since the individual ratings of each motor combined *could* make the claimed hp *if* it had enough KW input, then that's what they're going to advertise it as. I seriously doubt Tesla did this intentionally and I seriously doubt they appreciate the few who are trying to twist this into something it isn't. It just hurts their reputation, especially when those claims, as a few others on the tesla sponsored site have tried to imply as fact this is what Tesla meant when in fact they've made no such claim.

I strongly suspect, and this is based on the other MS variant hp claims being inline with reality, that they fully intended to deliver on the advertised claim but ran into technical difficulty or they're still working it out. I'm still giving Tesla the benefit of the doubt and figure they will fix this. They can't afford not to as it will seriously hurt their reputation when this goes media mainstream. I seriously doubt they intended this sort of trickery.

Correction on my previous statement, a 691 hp normally aspirated engine makes 200 hp less at 9648 feet.

 

[stopcrazypp]

This doesn't really work as an argument. The S60 and S85 have the exact same inverter and drive unit (same part). The P85 unit is slightly different. Yet all three of theses had/have different advertised HP and all reach that advertised HP one way or another as delivered. The P85D does not. So, I'm not really sure where your arguement is going. If Tesla advertised a P85D with 450HP and next to it a P100D with the same hardware except the battery at 691 HP, then it would make sense. But they advertised the P85D as 691 HP, so your argument is kind of pointless.

I think my argument flew over your head. They advertised the P85D as 691 "motor power". Given the right battery (again assuming no further updates to enable such power with the same 85kWh battery) I think there is a consensus the car can reach that power.

How is this any different from the 283kW "motor power" rating for the 60kWh (to make this explicitly clear it was advertised with the same motor power as the 85kWh version)? The battery can only output ~240kW. It would take a battery upgrade to 85kWh for the car to make the "motor power" rating.

While you can disagree about the usage of a "motor power" rating in advertising (personally I don't think it's a good idea either), I don't see how the P85D is special case. Rather it was a marketing decision they applied equally to all models (where the S85 and P85 had the bottleneck at the motors/inverters and not the battery).

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but there's no universe where the reasonable person is going to be believe that "hp motor power" is going to mean what the motor could output with more KW than is actually delivered. The P85D doesn't come close to producing the claimed hp no matter how you try to twist it. Period. Their hp claims on all other variants were underrated and when they revised them upwards, they were accurate. This is dyno proven.

Can you try not to ignore my point about the 60kWh? If you fail to look that example, you fail to see my point about what Tesla was likely thinking when re-rating their entire lineup based on motor power. They have recently reversed this decision (note that the S85 went back to the previous 362hp rating) likely based on complaints here. But I have no doubt they mean exactly what I was saying: the "motor power" rating really is only referring to the motor(s).

I don't believe the evidence shows as you say that they were trying to match closer to the power numbers that the dynos were saying (otherwise, I see no reason why they have to revert back the S85's 380 hp rating to the previous 362 hp rating).

While, like you, I have hope that they will have another update that will get closer to the 515kW, this is a separate point from why they decided to advertise with "motor power".

 

[p85dk]

Why would Tesla advertise it with 691 hp if they did not want us to believe it has 691 hp? That makes no sense.

The car was introduced as a technical marvel replicating the out-of-this-world performance of Elons McLaren. It was a 5 door saloon that could sit 7 people and still do 0-60 in 3.2s and had a massive combined power of 691 hp. Introduced this way, why would I not expect it to have 691 hp, and why would Tesla introduce it this way if they did not want me to think it had 691 hp.

AND before people start arguing that they never said 691 hp at the introduction or whatever - nobody made up the 691 hp, the number comes from Tesla and it only relates to the P85D. Anything else is just arguing for arguing sake.

@stopcrazyapp - at launch I don't think they were talking about motorpower, neither on the design page for several weeks or even months. I'm I wrong? The term motorpower was introduced later - anyway, I think it is a very dishonest way to promote your product and if the P85D essentially only has 1,1 s faster acceleration over the 85D for the price of $20.000+ then advertise it as that and see how it would sell then.

 

[wk057]

Guardians of the Galaxy - Nothing Goes Over My Head Scene - YouTube

Ah well, regardless of how you want to spin it there is nothing I can do to this car to make it output 691 HP. In the case of the 60 vs 85, I can put an 85 pack in the 60 car and make it put out HP on par with the 85.... no such luck with the P85D.

I challenge you to find one other vehicle manufacturer that advertises a "motor power" that is not achievable as is when the vehicle is purchased. Given that this is complete nonsense, you'll never find one. Given that, Tesla should never expect people to presume differently. They say X HP, the car should put out X HP. Not X-200 HP. Not X-50 HP. X or more HP. If it can't do what they advertise when I buy it, then that's false advertising. Plain and simple. I'm not buying a motor. I don't give a crap what the sticker on the motor says. I'm buying a car, and I care about the performance and power output of the car. I don't care if the motors have a theoretical max output of 20,000,000 HP each. If they can't do that in the car when I buy it then that's a completely useless number. That said, where is the actual HP number advertised for the P85D? It's there for the others... (and 99% sure it was when I ordered too...)

Like I said, you won't find any other manufacturer doing this. They sell a car with specs on engine output, the engine outputs those specs. As far as I'm concerned if the lame "motor hp" vs "actual hp" excuse is the one they're going to stick with then where is the actual HP number advertised for the P85D? Pretty sure this would pretty easily fall under false advertising or a deceptive business practice when it comes down to it. At the very least Tesla is in for some legal headaches in the near future, regardless of who wins the case in the end.

As mentioned previously on this thread, no matter what spin is put on it, I personally feel pretty cheated on this and I'm sure others feel equally or more so. Had I known the actual output difference of the P85D vs the 85D was going to be minuscule I very well may have made a different purchase decision, especially since the power/speed was only part of why I jumped on the P85D (autopilot, more range..... two other things Tesla has yet to deliver, but that's another story).

 

[p85dk]

Guardians of the Galaxy - Nothing Goes Over My Head Scene - YouTube

That said, where is the actual HP number advertised for the P85D? It's there for the others... (and 99% sure it was when I ordered too...)

Like I said, you won't find any other manufacturer doing this. They sell a car with specs on engine output, the engine outputs those specs. As far as I'm concerned if the lame "motor hp" vs "actual hp" excuse is the one they're going to stick with then where is the actual HP number advertised for the P85D? Pretty sure this would pretty easily fall under false advertising or a deceptive business practice when it comes down to it. At the very least Tesla is in for some legal headaches in the near future.

As mentioned previously on this thread, no matter what spin is put on it, I personally feel pretty cheated on this and I'm sure others feel equally or more so.

+1

I have never seen it advertised as anything else than 691 hp or 221 hp front and 470 hp rear. I agree that they should just advertise it with the actual hp and not this misleading 691. But then it would just look stupid charging $20.000 more for only 10 hp more and 1.3s faster 0-60. They will keep advertising it with 691 hp as that reinforces the super car image they want to project - plain and simple

But we can debate this on and on and on and nothing will change - what should we/who do about it?

We have established that it does not have 691 hp, so did we or Tesla get it wrong and how do we establish who is wrong?

 

[thegruf]

surely one of the more seasoned Tesla-philes here could put this in a constructive way to Jerome as it does very much look as though Tesla can be damaged by this, even if only in owner perception.
I do think it is worth Tesla heading this off sooner rather than later.

 

[sorka]

Guardians of the Galaxy - Nothing Goes Over My Head Scene - YouTube
I challenge you to find one other vehicle manufacturer that advertises a "motor power" that is not achievable as is when the vehicle is purchased. Given that this is complete nonsense, you'll never find one.

Well that not exactly true, but those examples where it wasn't true ended up badly and expensively for the manufacturer. Just look what happened to Mazda when they overstated the power by a mere 10 hp on the RX8.

 

[wk057]

Well that not exactly true, but those examples where it wasn't true ended up badly and expensively for the manufacturer. Just look what happened to Mazda when they overstated the power by a mere 10 hp on the RX8.

I did hunt around a bit and couldn't find any currently advertised vehicles in the Model S price range that fit this.

I did see the past cases where some manufacturers lost badly when they misrepresented, however...

 

[LetsGoFast]

I did hunt around a bit and couldn't find any currently advertised vehicles in the Model S price range that fit this.

I did see the past cases where some manufacturers lost badly when they misrepresented, however...

Horsepower numbers have been the subject of some funny business in the past, but that has been cleaned up, primarily as a result of efforts by the SAE. It is significant to note that AWD drive cars typically actually put down 20-25% less horsepower at the wheel than they do at the crankshaft, wheras the Tesla is going to massively more efficient at applying the power to the wheels. So a AWD performance car that was rated at 691 bhp might dyno at 518 whp. It is going to be difficult to get apples to apples numbers when comparing the two technologies -- if you simply use the formula of watts consumed divided by 746, you are going to severely penalize electric cars when you compare two vehicles with the same rated hp, because the electric car is going to deliver probably 95%+ of the horsepower to the wheels and it is going to have that horsepower at virtually all rpms.

I eventually surrendered my efforts to make the point that stopcrazypp was making here, but the fact is that the only thing even close to a standard when talking about electric motors is the horsepower rating that they provided -- it is extremely common that electric motors output significantly different power in situ than they are rated for. Because electric motors haven't been common in cars, no one has really promulgated an effective standard for cars thus far, so Tesla is going to be very difficult to sue when they used the industry standard way to refer to the motor's capacity, although I do agree that it is misleading.

 

[p85dk]

Well that not exactly true, but those examples where it wasn't true ended up badly and expensively for the manufacturer. Just look what happened to Mazda when they overstated the power by a mere 10 hp on the RX8.

There have been cases like this before? Any links?

If that is true Tesla needs to get on top of this, since we are not talking overstated by 10 or 50 hp but like 60%+ overstating

 

[p85dk]

Horsepower numbers have been the subject of some funny business in the past, but that has been cleaned up, primarily as a result of efforts by the SAE. It is significant to note that AWD drive cars typically actually put down 20-25% less horsepower at the wheel than they do at the crankshaft, wheras the Tesla is going to massively more efficient at applying the power to the wheels. So a AWD performance car that was rated at 691 bhp might dyno at 518 whp. It is going to be difficult to get apples to apples numbers when comparing the two technologies -- if you simply use the formula of watts consumed divided by 746, you are going to severely penalize electric cars when you compare two vehicles with the same rated hp, because the electric car is going to deliver probably 95%+ of the horsepower to the wheels and it is going to have that horsepower at virtually all rpms.

I eventually surrendered my efforts to make the point that stopcrazypp was making here, but the fact is that the only thing even close to a standard when talking about electric motors is the horsepower rating that they provided -- it is extremely common that electric motors output significantly different power in situ than they are rated for. Because electric motors haven't been common in cars, no one has really promulgated an effective standard for cars thus far, so Tesla is going to be very difficult to sue when they used the industry standard way to refer to the motor's capacity, although I do agree that it is misleading.

Well the P85D is not a traditional awd, so less power at the wheel because of awd is not an issue.

I would almost buy into your arguments except that it is only one of the cars that are rated way off, if it was all of them you could argue different ways of calculating power, but not when it is only one of them. Furthermore, if you enter an established market with new technology and you use the established way of displaying power, then everybody would expect you to convert whatever scale you are using to the established standard OR be very explicit about how your calculations differ from the standard.

 

[brianman]

where is the actual HP number advertised for the P85D? It's there for the others... (and 99% sure it was when I ordered too...)

To my recollection, only "motor power" was ever listed on the website for the P85D. I recall multiple posts on various threads asking why that row was omitted for P85D from the get-go.

 

[sorka]

Don't have time to do the charts yet but did several more runs. So far, these are the peaks KWs for each SOC:

90% = 413 KW
89% = 411 KW
81% = 396 KW
70% = 383 KW
66% = 376 KW
60% = 366 KW

A nice linear drop off.

Although that 90% corresponds to about 553 hp, 90% is not a daily charge for me. The only time I go above 80% is for a long trip and in that case I'm not going to be driving fast or aggressively as I'll be trying to maximize my range.

I wonder if these numbers are KW off the battery or coming out of the inverter? I'd like to think the latter. Also, it's probably true that the drive line losses aren't as high with Tesla's driveline going through a simple reducing gear rather than a transmission, torque tubes, and in the case of autos, a torque converter and further in teh case of AWD, an additional transfer case. A typical AWD car is going to lose 20 to 25% by the time the power gets to the wheels while the Tesla is going to be much less. A front wheel drive ICE is in the 10% range and a P85D should be less than that as there's no transmission to go through. Would it be too conservative to estimate only a 5 to 7% total drivetrain loss? If so, any motor or inverter losses would a lot less than typical ICE drivetrain losses. Additionally, Tesla has a far fatter power curve than an ICE.

But even giving Tesla credits for less power lost in the driveline as a way to compensate for less than advertised power and still call it equivalent, it's no where near close enough. For typical states of charge for daily driving the P85D is putting out way less than advertised power.

I'll wait for a real trip before trying 100% but if the relationship holds, 100% would be about 434 KW.

Adding another data point.

32% = 353 KW

So it does flatten out. There's not a lot of peak difference between 32% and 60% but there is a ramp up difference. At 32% from a start, it takes longer to hit the peak than at 60%.

 

[Matias]

I'm not able to use wayback machine to check Tesla's older site version. Wayback machine says it can't show versions because of "robot.txt".

Is this new?

edit: oops. I used wrong adress.

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't it strange, that Tesla tells on design studio, that 70D has 329 hp and 85D has 422 hp, but Tesla doesn't say how many hps P85D has?

I guess one could mail Tesla and ask, what is the combined hp on P85D.

 

[sorka]

I'm not able to use wayback machine to check Tesla's older site version. Wayback machine says it can't show versions because of "robot.txt".

Is this new?

edit: oops. I used wrong adress.

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't it strange, that Tesla tells on design studio, that 70D has 329 hp and 85D has 422 hp, but Tesla doesn't say how many hps P85D has?

I guess one could mail Tesla and ask, what is the combined hp on P85D.

Good luck with that. Until they figure out how they're going to handle the situation, they'll remain completely tight lipped. I use the owner feedback form daily to shoot them bug reports, make suggestions, and specific feature requests. Within a day they always respond with an email saying they've submitted a feature request or a bug report or simply responding to the question I asked.

I've sent them two letter regarding the hp issue and in both cases, not a single response.