What's your 90%?

[apacheguy]

I suppose that's true, and I'm not trying to be argumentative, but Tesla used to say the the standard cars and the performance (P) cars got the exact same efficiency if driven the same. So in that case a smaller (non-P) motor wasn't more efficient for some reason??? I wonder what it is about the D cars that makes the front motor that much more efficient. Electric motors are already quite efficient, and it's the same energy requirement to power the car down the road in either case.

Well the P has the same motor, just a different inverter.

 

[jerry33]

I suppose that's true, and I'm not trying to be argumentative, but Tesla used to say the the standard cars and the performance (P) cars got the exact same efficiency if driven the same. So in that case a smaller (non-P) motor wasn't more efficient for some reason??? I wonder what it is about the D cars that makes the front motor that much more efficient. Electric motors are already quite efficient, and it's the same energy requirement to power the car down the road in either case.

Because Hiroshi is in Japan, the numbers used are based using JIS. Initially the 2004 Prius was touted at 85 mpg. We later learned that the 85 mpg was based on the 10 mph cycle and the Imperial gallon.

 

[russman]

S85 - March 2013 - 34k+ 90% is 230, was 231, but dropped recently...

 

[hiroshiy]

Because Hiroshi is in Japan, the numbers used are based using JIS. Initially the 2004 Prius was touted at 85 mpg. We later learned that the 85 mpg was based on the 10 mph cycle and the Imperial gallon.

Hi, Jerry, that's not my point. Japan Model S seem to have the same or very similar software as European Model S. So I guess Euro P85 typical range at 100% is smaller than P85D typical range.

How about in the U.S.? Is Rated range at 100% bigger with dual motor cars than with single motor cars? Maybe as you mentioned in the previous post, the definition of typical and rated might have been changed. But wonder why? Why did Tesla need to increase typical / rated range for dual motors, when in fact P85D has shorter range than P85??

 

[Ssssly]

Dec '14 239
Aug '15 236 (1.2%) @ ~6500 miles
Dec '16 235 (1.7%) @ ~9500 miles

I rarely charge to full and therefore can't provide those data points.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

I suppose that's true, and I'm not trying to be argumentative, but Tesla used to say the the standard cars and the performance (P) cars got the exact same efficiency if driven the same. So in that case a smaller (non-P) motor wasn't more efficient for some reason??? I wonder what it is about the D cars that makes the front motor that much more efficient. Electric motors are already quite efficient, and it's the same energy requirement to power the car down the road in either case.

This was true only when comparing the S85 and P85, both of which had identical rear motors but different inverters. The P85 inverter provided more current than the S85 inverter, but the motors were the same.

 

[atechsnob]

Dec 2015
85D 241 or 243 miles

 

[SMC-LO]

85d RHD at HK
Dec 2015 -- 363 km v6.2
Jan 2016 -- 383 km v7.2

 

[Polly Wog]

Well, after 7.1 knocked me down to 236, two weeks and 2 range charges later my 90% is back to 239 rated miles.

 

[mknox]

This was true only when comparing the S85 and P85, both of which had identical rear motors but different inverters. The P85 inverter provided more current than the S85 inverter, but the motors were the same.

I had thought that the electric motor was already very efficient. Could the newer front motor be that much more efficient such that it delivers more range? You're still pulling the same mass down the highway in either case. Remember, these aren't ICE engines operating around 18% efficiency where an improvement there could actually be material.

 

[jeffro01]

S90D - Acquired 11/25/15

90% - 247 miles
100% - NA, never have range charged...

Jeff

 

[jerry33]

I had thought that the electric motor was already very efficient. Could the newer front motor be that much more efficient such that it delivers more range? You're still pulling the same mass down the highway in either case. Remember, these aren't ICE engines operating around 18% efficiency where an improvement there could actually be material.

There's motor efficiency, inverter efficiency, and drivetrain efficiency. Perhaps not fully powering the inverter is where the savings lies.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

I had thought that the electric motor was already very efficient. Could the newer front motor be that much more efficient such that it delivers more range? You're still pulling the same mass down the highway in either case. Remember, these aren't ICE engines operating around 18% efficiency where an improvement there could actually be material.

The reason two motors provide longer range than a single motor is partly due to torque sleep whereby Tesla only engages the smaller, front motor at freeway cruising speeds. This allows greater efficiency in that band. There is also the fact that when you have two motors doing the work of what was previously a single motor, you are sending less current to each motor and incurring fewer resistive losses. But I'm a Realtor, I'm not supposed to know about these things! lol

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Well, my 90% is down from 227 a few days ago to 223 today. I'm on the yo-yo plan lol!

 

[MrBigSmiles]

S85D @ 90% ~ 235-237 miles range. I've got over 15K miles on a 1yr old car.

 

[tinm]

With overnight temps in the tens and teens lately, my 90% has fallen to 227. I hate it. I hope it comes back to 232-234, which is where it was last fall.

2013 Classic Model S 85

 

[JvdS]

70D pick up in sept 2015: range at 90% is 322 km (200 miles)

 

[Lerxt]

85 Dec 2015 =339km

 

[Yodeller]

251-255 miles at 90% with S 90D. It varies. I have never range charged or run the battery below 70 miles.

 

[smartypnz]

Still same as in Sept '15 but with a few more miles 74,000 221-222 miles per 90% charge