A longer range Tesla

[Kevin Harney]

Question: What if you take that extra 20K that is applied to the P85D Remove the P and add an E making the E85D (E for 'Extended' Range) I am sure there are some of us out there that would pay the extra cash for more range on the S (I really don't much care for 0-60 in 3.2... I am fine with my 5.2 seconds). So how much KW will 20K buy hell how much will 10K get you? Once that is figured out then we can figure out range... can it get close to 400? There are a few $110K luxury cars that can only go less than 400 miles per tank...

If you have a Roadster and wait a week or two you might just get your wish. Rumored 400 mile pack with supercharging capability may debut as early as next week Article Here

 

[Saghost]

Question: What if you take that extra 20K that is applied to the P85D Remove the P and add an E making the E85D (E for 'Extended' Range) I am sure there are some of us out there that would pay the extra cash for more range on the S (I really don't much care for 0-60 in 3.2... I am fine with my 5.2 seconds). So how much KW will 20K buy hell how much will 10K get you? Once that is figured out then we can figure out range... can it get close to 400? There are a few $110K luxury cars that can only go less than 400 miles per tank...

Are you buying range by improving efficiency, or by increasing battery capacity? If you assume Tesla keeps $2k for Superchargers on every car, then $8k buys you 25 kWh of battery at retail pricing in the current set up.

That would imply that if there was space/weight capacity in the design, and if Tesla wasn't battery limited right now, they'd probably be happy to sell you ~30 kWh more battery for $10k and ~60 kWh more for $20k. With 145kWh, if the efficiency wasn't compromised, you'd easily see more than 400 miles - actually around 450 EPA miles.

The problem is of course two fold - where do you put all the extra battery cells, and how much does the other ~800 pounds of battery affect acceleration, handling, and range. One possible answer to the first question is to fill the Frunk space - I think there's almost enough space there, but it would have undesirable effects on both handling and crash-worthiness.

From the sound of it, the 10-15% decrease in acceleration probably wouldn't deter you (6 second 0-60? Actually might be better than that since the battery can handle much bigger sustained loads) - and the effect on efficiency should be in the 5% range at freeway speeds (14% increase in weight, no change to aero - rolling resistance is less than half of losses at freeway speeds.)

The net effect of the added pack is like driving around with four heavy guys in the car with you all the time, so by and large it'll be fine if you're alone - I'm not sure how tolerant the car would be of the overload when you add another four heavy guys to it...
Walter

 

[AluminiumStork]

Saghost... you are correct... I didn't take into consideration where you would put the extra KW... maybe the Chinese long version could take it! Heck Jaguar makes one why not Tesla... I Know testing would cost a fortune to bring a long version on the market... Best I can hope for is a denser battery solution giving one around 15% increase plus the AWD gearing... Excited to see the Roadster... My cousin has an original one and that thing is a blast to drive but I am 6'2" 220 so its a bit tight for me...

 

[Red Sage]

With a Tesla Motors vehicle, your energy efficiency is controlled by your right foot. If you choose to operate your 85 kWh vehicle in a manner that will allow 400+ miles of driving, you can do so. Traditional automobile manufacturers take the choice away from you by setting their cars up with a very low top speed of 65-85 MPH and further limiting the acceleration map so that you can never exceed a certain maximum energy consumption, even if you stand on the accelerator with both feet. There is no need for an 'E' variant of Tesla Motors products.

 

[AudubonB]

With a Tesla Motors vehicle, your energy efficiency is controlled by your right foot. If you choose to operate your 85 kWh vehicle in a manner that will allow 400+ miles of driving, you can do so. Traditional automobile manufacturers take the choice away from you by setting their cars up with a very low top speed of 65-85 MPH and further limiting the acceleration map so that you can never exceed a certain maximum energy consumption, even if you stand on the accelerator with both feet. There is no need for an 'E' variant of Tesla Motors products.

No need, seemingly, for you. Remember that for some, it's disappointing that the D version takes so long to get to 60mph - they gottagottagotta get there quickerquickerquicker. Just so, there are some of us for whom a 400-mile range is at or below the low end of acceptable, and we won't be satisfied until we can have the 650-800 mile range, at reasonable speed and carrying capacity, that we currently possess in other vehicles.

For kicks and giggles, some dozen years ago I set up my 2001 F-250 so that I filled up with diesel in Corpus Christie, Texas, and drove back to Alaska - with a full load of equipment - without ever refueling. True story! Good thing the compliance officers didn't check me out - but that would be very rare for a non-commercial pickup truck.

 

[vinnie97]

^You are a high-miler! Which ICE vehicles typically achieve 650-800 these days? The Prius is typically in the 500-600 range if you drive it with the utmost hypermileage measures.

 

[AudubonB]

My 2006 VW Golf TDI consistently gets 46mpg, and if I drive conservatively I can stay at just under 50mpg. That gives me a 700 mile range.
My 2008 Ford F-350 used to provide me 23mpg if driving with no load; with its 39 gallon tank that's just under 900 miles. Adding on the two (absolute minimum. Usually 4-8) five-gallon tanks I always carry and I could get real distances. After 100,000 miles, it's performing quite poorly - I struggle to get 18mpg - but that still provides 700 miles of range, disregarding the spare tanks. That's empty - tack on a couple of thousand pounds' cargo and/or 10-20,000 lbs towload and the numbers are, of course, far lower. Particularly now that I'm having dpf issues - another topic entirely.
My 2004 Pisten Bully 280D gets 1mpg, so I guess it all evens out.....

 

[dhrivnak]

With ample Supercharger options I see little value above 300 miles. A 45 minute stop and one can drive for 4 more hours allowing for another 4 hours of driving. Since the Roadster can't supercharge the extra range is quite helpful. But if I could supercharge even our 200 mile packs would work.

 

[vinnie97]

My 2006 VW Golf TDI consistently gets 46mpg, and if I drive conservatively I can stay at just under 50mpg. That gives me a 700 mile range.
My 2008 Ford F-350 used to provide me 23mpg if driving with no load; with its 39 gallon tank that's just under 900 miles. Adding on the two (absolute minimum. Usually 4-8) five-gallon tanks I always carry and I could get real distances. After 100,000 miles, it's performing quite poorly - I struggle to get 18mpg - but that still provides 700 miles of range, disregarding the spare tanks. That's empty - tack on a couple of thousand pounds' cargo and/or 10-20,000 lbs towload and the numbers are, of course, far lower. Particularly now that I'm having dpf issues - another topic entirely.
My 2004 Pisten Bully 280D gets 1mpg, so I guess it all evens out.....

Gotcha, those tank sizes make all the difference. I'll have to check what the Golf capacity is.

EDIT: I just checked, 14.5 gal versus the 11.9 on my Prius C. That'll do it!