-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
[updated with *] P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. "Up to 691HP"
- Thread starter krisg81
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
scottf200
Well-Known Member
But you did know and test the P85 so you knew the P85 HP numbers on the Tesla website did not match what you were able to test with your P85s, right?
The P85 numbers were correct when I bought my P85 and I found them to be accurate in all of my testing up to that point.
- - - Updated - - -
IIRC, they actually didn't switch to the motor power numbers until the P85D was available to purchase, then shortly after the P85 was discontinued. (Edit: Checked my notes. P85 discontinued on 2014-11-06.)
scottf200
Well-Known Member
Well, if Tesla provided *me* with data (and maybe a "test car") and encouraged me to write a prominent article based on data they would walk back from a day later ... in order to advance their marketing effort ... I would feel abused, whether or not they were advertisers. It may be however that it didn't happen that way, or that it did and MT just thought facts shouldn't stand in the way of a good article that would sell magazines. As to influence, the fact that Tesla supported the story (probably reviewed it pre-publication) and provided a car, to MT, before doing so to, say C&D or Autoweek, suggests currying some favor with Tesla has some value.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Again, I'm pretty sure the "naysayers" (of which I'm sure I count as one of them in your book) never claimed that the system power was 691hp. As I said in a similar response before, the argument is over the use of "motor power", not the system power.
Browsing back through this thread, here is my first comment on this issue in March 23, 2015 and I said pretty explicitly that the system power is not 691hp, well before anyone did any detailed math or analysis on this.
The 691 hp number was removed in response to complaints on this thread on May 2015. Looking back I find it funny people expected the thread to be closed back then, with similar comments as the reaction now (given that, I suspect this thread will still have long life ahead).
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...691HP/page68?p=1007850&viewfull=1#post1007850
As for the legitimacy of "motor power", note that the motor power numbers are presented higher up with the battery-limited number having the asterisk (not the motor power having it, as this thread title suggests). I also note that the torque numbers are given higher prominence (of which the original combined motor power was suggested to be a proxy to).
Last edited:
I don't think that was the case. I don't think your "what happens if they go straightforward and honest in their webpages" conclusion was brushed off at all. I think the counterargument was something different: "Honesty is better, regardless of the short-term conseqeuences."
- - - Updated - - -
This is incorrect and, IMO, condescending and insulting to anybody you don't put in the "Early" camp.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Tesla switched all models to motor power on the same day they announced the dual motor cars: on October 9, 2014.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/10/20141010-tesla.html
The P85 rating was changed from 416 to "470 motor power". The thing I personally noted was that the S60 and S85 both were rated at 380 hp motor power, which immediately told me the number doesn't factor in the battery.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news...ower-numbers-for-tesla-model-s-whats-the-deal
Last edited:
I'm surprised nobody has talked about this yet:
Do we expect the torque to be the same for P85D, P85Dw/L, P90D, and P90Dw/L?
If not, can one of the more vocal thread members (on either side) give some informed thoughts on what range of numbers we should expect?
| P85D | 85D | 70D | |
| Torque | 713 lb-ft | 485 lb-ft | 387 lb-ft |
Do we expect the torque to be the same for P85D, P85Dw/L, P90D, and P90Dw/L?
If not, can one of the more vocal thread members (on either side) give some informed thoughts on what range of numbers we should expect?
That's what I said...?
Random articles that I've never seen before don't help much.
Keep in mind that at the time I had no reason to look at the specs for the other models nor much reason to question Tesla on this as I wasn't much interested in the other models given the specs of the P85D and the earlier delivery time that was, at the time, great for my tax situation. For the new P85 figures I had guessed, like many others, that they had been able to get some more power out of the car somehow on the newer models. Maybe a better fuse or a software update. The discrepancy was ~53 HP/~40kW, which wouldn't be out of the question for a small update of some kind. I also had no reason to suspect that Tesla hadn't updated the pack fusing and such on the P85D pack to allow for additional power flow and/or other such modifications to allow for the advertised power rating, especially when photos of packs labeled "DUAL MTR" started to surface.
As a loyal customer at the time, I had no reason to question these things much. They said they're selling me a car that could produce 691 HP, I believed them. Magazine and other publications that I read where the car was tested confirmed this (without qualifiers) along with the performance specs. Things sounded pretty good overall. I even specifically asked about the added horsepower improving performance at highway speeds and was told that it definitely would, since, you know, this is something that having 275 more horsepower would do, right? In conversations with people at Tesla the "motor power" term did come up, and was assumed to be "motor power at the output shaft" and was even compared by someone I spoke to (without my prompting to clarification or anything) that it was comparable to ICE output at the flywheel. Made perfect sense to me, and even would explain the change in the P85 numbers.
I never expected 691 HP at the wheels. I did expect to be able to produce it somewhere though, and the car does not and I don't believe ever will be able to.
Shame on me for trusting advertised specs and conversations with non-commission sales employees and representatives of the company I guess.
EarlyAdopter
Active Member
I ordered my car in October 2014 as well, on the night of The D event. Took delivery in Seattle on December 22nd, 2014.
P85D test drives were available in Seattle at least as early as December 13th, when I did my test drive.
Note, this wasn't my local store, which would be Bellevue, so it was a bit out of the way for me, but there was no way I was going to drop $130k on a car without test driving it first.
I remember being on the fence about taking delivery or not and that test drive sealing the deal. Not so much about the performance as much as the improved seats, fit and finish, and handling over my early P85.
Were they really not available in Southern California by that point? I find that hard to fathom they would be here in Seattle but not there in CA.
Totally understand other parts of the country and certainly overseas, but not SoCal.
This is the problem. It does not feel ok to me. It doesn't seem accidental. It isn't bad communications.
The (STILL) is mine, but you make an excellent point and one which I made earlier either in this thread or the other.
Those who wanted the asterisk, got their asterisk, but it's not on the 691. The battery-limited number, is nothing more than a token footnote, and is treated as such.
Nothing going on here but the rent. Tesla is still prominently using the "motor power" description in their advertising material, and the magazines are as well. Take note of the Motor Trend article. Still using 762 when describing the P90D Ludicrous.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Similar threads
