-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
-
On today's TMC Podcast, we ask the question "What is the Tesla Cybercab?". Join us on YouTube live at 1PM and participate in the chat.
Over day to decide: change my 85D to 90D?
- Thread starter cryptyk
- Start date
My P85D is allegedly going into production today. I was told that I cannot change my configuration (I was going to upgrade to Ludicrous mode).
I think that's a good thing, right? It's a $10k option on the build, but P85D owners can upgrade for $5k after delivery, right?
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
I wouldn't bother.
The difference between the 85D and the S85 was presented at about 30 miles back when Tesla first announced it (Tesla quoted 295 miles of range at 65 mph). Everyone improperly compared that to the 265 EPA range of the S85, thus 30 miles. Now Tesla has quoted 300 miles for the 90D (at 65 mph again). Elon said 15-20 miles of additional range. But comparing that to the 295 at 65 mph originally quoted for the 85D versus the 300 miles quoted for the 90D you're actually get 5 miles more. Elon's range estimate seems to be coming from adding 6% to the 85D EPA range (270*1.06) which comes out to 286.2 miles which is the difference in the battery (90/85 = 1.0588).
By the time we actually got the 85D the range difference between the S85 was much tinier than was suggested by the numbers Tesla quoted. I've tried to measure it and across several hundred miles I can't definitively say there is a range improvement. It's almost negligible. See my Real World Comparison of an S85 vs 85D thread.
Now I don't think the difference here will likely be so hard to measure. 270 over 265 is only 2% increase. So 6% should be a little more measurable and you're actually get 5 kWh more battery not just more range because AWD is more efficient. But I'm skeptical that anyone is going to actually see 15 miles of range more.
I'm also be cautious about getting a brand new battery chemistry. Tesla, based on battery results so far, seems to have done really well with the existing chemistry. Silicone anodes (what the new battery is quoted as using) is supposed to be a hard issue due the expansion and contraction of the silicone material. I'd like to think that Tesla had really done a great job on this, but for so little real benefit I'd be cautious here.
The jump from the 80 to 85D represented more than just a few more miles of range. The 85D presented a much better handling car on top of a few more miles of range. So I viewed it as a risk worth taking. But after nearly 17,000 miles on my 85D, I haven't felt the need for a bigger battery and so I don't see any reason to jump on a new chemistry for 15 more miles (that might turn out to be less).
That said I can entirely understand the allure of a bigger battery. I wouldn't blame anyone for tossing $3k at it.
The difference between the 85D and the S85 was presented at about 30 miles back when Tesla first announced it (Tesla quoted 295 miles of range at 65 mph). Everyone improperly compared that to the 265 EPA range of the S85, thus 30 miles. Now Tesla has quoted 300 miles for the 90D (at 65 mph again). Elon said 15-20 miles of additional range. But comparing that to the 295 at 65 mph originally quoted for the 85D versus the 300 miles quoted for the 90D you're actually get 5 miles more. Elon's range estimate seems to be coming from adding 6% to the 85D EPA range (270*1.06) which comes out to 286.2 miles which is the difference in the battery (90/85 = 1.0588).
By the time we actually got the 85D the range difference between the S85 was much tinier than was suggested by the numbers Tesla quoted. I've tried to measure it and across several hundred miles I can't definitively say there is a range improvement. It's almost negligible. See my Real World Comparison of an S85 vs 85D thread.
Now I don't think the difference here will likely be so hard to measure. 270 over 265 is only 2% increase. So 6% should be a little more measurable and you're actually get 5 kWh more battery not just more range because AWD is more efficient. But I'm skeptical that anyone is going to actually see 15 miles of range more.
I'm also be cautious about getting a brand new battery chemistry. Tesla, based on battery results so far, seems to have done really well with the existing chemistry. Silicone anodes (what the new battery is quoted as using) is supposed to be a hard issue due the expansion and contraction of the silicone material. I'd like to think that Tesla had really done a great job on this, but for so little real benefit I'd be cautious here.
The jump from the 80 to 85D represented more than just a few more miles of range. The 85D presented a much better handling car on top of a few more miles of range. So I viewed it as a risk worth taking. But after nearly 17,000 miles on my 85D, I haven't felt the need for a bigger battery and so I don't see any reason to jump on a new chemistry for 15 more miles (that might turn out to be less).
That said I can entirely understand the allure of a bigger battery. I wouldn't blame anyone for tossing $3k at it.
I would think that even more than range is longevity. With a 5kWh larger battery your SOC stays higher giving you a longer lived battery. It hasn't been shown that the batteries degrade quickly but in this case longer is better. In addition, it should be able to charge faster at superchargers when they are able. Your charge rate is a function of capacity so a larger battery will charge faster. Having said that I haven't done the calculations as to whether a faster rate translates into a faster charge cycle.
Bryan
These silicon anodes have been heralded as having higher energy density potential for a while now, but at a cost of faster degradation.
As already stated, we don't know by what extent TM and Panasonic have solved the faster capacity loss issue . I don't think the slight range gain is worth the money and the risk you'll lose the edge over a 85 in a couple of years.
Zzzz...
Member
This. While I hope it is not the case, there is a good chance that on the long run 90 kWh pack after 8-10 years would have lower capacity than similarly stressed 85 kWh pack.
I've got this impression after reading(ok, more like scanning through) quite a few peer-reviewed li-ion papers. But again, as RiverBrick pointed out "we don't know by what extent TM and Panasonic have solved the" issue.
PS. I by no means a battery expert. But bleeding edge of battery developments interested me enough to spent some time on it, and to go beyond of popular science compilations. In fact some really interesting papers do not catch attention pop-science press.
I had to make this choice recently, and I went for the 85D. I actually spent most of my time debating between 70D and 85D, since really a 70D would do everything I want, but I decided to chicken out with the larger battery. But taking the next step to the 90 was just overkill...
The big thing for me is that Tesla just put a supercharger right along the route to my local ski hill, which really made even the 85D unnecessary.
The big thing for me is that Tesla just put a supercharger right along the route to my local ski hill, which really made even the 85D unnecessary.
bancroftc
Member
I also went through this decision recently and ended up at the 85D. I wanted to get the 90, but with all the options I chose I ended up giving on the 90 option. My thought process was similar to what others mentioned, the $3,000 for 15 miles felt like it was really hard to justify. That said, I never considered the other perspective in comparing the 85 to the 70 and the price difference per mile gained on that. That's primarily because I never even considered the 70, so in that light and in hindsight I might have bit the bullet and gone with the 90.
All that said, the guy at the showroom and my DS suggested the 90 might be better if you are doing a LOT of driving every day (like 100+ miles) and so therefore the extra range might come in handy. That is not my situation, and the 85 is plenty sufficient for both my daily driving and my longer road trips considering charger/supercharger availability.
If cost is no concern or you REALLY need those extra miles, just get the 90. Otherwise put that cash towards another option you're considering or the inevitable post-acquisition add ons that you'll likely be getting (see the "Hidden Cost of Ownership" thread).
All that said, the guy at the showroom and my DS suggested the 90 might be better if you are doing a LOT of driving every day (like 100+ miles) and so therefore the extra range might come in handy. That is not my situation, and the 85 is plenty sufficient for both my daily driving and my longer road trips considering charger/supercharger availability.
If cost is no concern or you REALLY need those extra miles, just get the 90. Otherwise put that cash towards another option you're considering or the inevitable post-acquisition add ons that you'll likely be getting (see the "Hidden Cost of Ownership" thread).
brucet999
Active Member
The 90 kWh battery has partly silicon anode, mostly carbon anode. Silicon anodes provide more power density, but have been problematic in that the anode swells as it charges and shrinks as it discharges, resulting in early failure inside the cell. If the carbon/silicon hybrid chemistry has been figured out - great, and Tesla wouldn't be producing it if lab results weren't good, but there is no real-world pack scale experience over time to prove its reliability.
I'm faced with this decision also. We test drove a 70D. Here in California we have good Supercharger infrastructure. I downloaded the supercharging spreadsheet from this forum, adjusted it to charge a 70 at 70/85x the rate and worked up a few comparisons. The 70 adds about half an hour downtime for supercharging to a 300-500 mile round trip. A lot of that comes in the first charge. If you have to drive 200 miles between charges, that's another case where the 70 will take longer to charge. But most supercharging spacing is 100-150 miles and there is almost no difference having a 70D with that spacing. These calculations somewhat argue for the 70D.
Against that are some personal factors. I'm a skier too, so the cold weather and hill climbing will call for higher range. The one route I noticed was home here in SoCal to Big Bear, then down to Cucamonga is a potentially close call in a 70D, and no one likes to get up early and then have to stop on the way up in the morning. The charge at Lone Pine to get up to Mammoth needs to be quite high too, especially if it's very cold. Like most skiers I also have a lead foot, and I'd go nuts driving a car with this level of performance and handling at 65 when flow of traffic is 75-80.
I was thinking about the 90 until I read about the silicon anodes. I'd rather not be one of the beta testers on that. So we're going with the 85D.
Against that are some personal factors. I'm a skier too, so the cold weather and hill climbing will call for higher range. The one route I noticed was home here in SoCal to Big Bear, then down to Cucamonga is a potentially close call in a 70D, and no one likes to get up early and then have to stop on the way up in the morning. The charge at Lone Pine to get up to Mammoth needs to be quite high too, especially if it's very cold. Like most skiers I also have a lead foot, and I'd go nuts driving a car with this level of performance and handling at 65 when flow of traffic is 75-80.
I was thinking about the 90 until I read about the silicon anodes. I'd rather not be one of the beta testers on that. So we're going with the 85D.
Zybane
Member
roblab
Active Member
They said that about the 85 when they first came out, too. Tesla does more pack testing than any other company, and it wouldn't be out there in a new pack unless Tesla was pretty sure they wouldn't be coming back in.
How about you plan for what you think you'll use? It's a good gamble overall.
I'm an odd person, so I have weird needs:
This morning, I drove 167 miles to work in my oil car, then 49 miles home. I don't know if work has electric charging, but I think it might. I have a designated work parking area, so going to charging spots would be a fireable offense, therefore I wouldn't do it (in my case, I could sneak over to the company across the street (VMWARE) and check if they have a spare EV charging spot, and walk/bike the last mile to work). I might be able to pay my boss for plugging into a 220-250VAC 50A outlet if I have my own meter (I could whip up a portable meter disconnect circuit breaker panel to stuff in my trunk with portable plug cords for not too much, probably $1K-$3K, no prob).
Right now, I'm planning on driving 33 miles round trip. I happen to know there's a Supercharger a few blocks from my destination. I could top up there just by leaving early and cleaning my car while waiting.
Then, I'm going 132 miles to a place that I don't think has any charging where I will be. Directly after that, I'm going 146 miles. Let me find out if there's any charging options along that route or destination charging right now ...
Looks like that last 278 miles has zero, nada, zip Superchargers. So for me, I'd need at least 278 miles range, including a few thousand foot climbs and plenty of 84MPH driving. I know that the Tesla would force me not to go 115MPH, 95MPH or 127MPH like my oil car is able to do. I am curious if I'm able to pass a 65MPH car if I want to be going 75MPH and only have a little space to do so, or if I would be encouraged to take larger slower higher lane count roads as an effect of driving a slower EV like a Tesla.
So, in my case:
1. I calculate that I would turn on the maximum effect of Autopilot, and take slower drives, but hopefully be more relaxed to do so.
2. I also calculate that I would need a 278 mile range, with heater and air conditioner in use, and around 79MPH-84MPH.
The 90D gets 286 miles range, whereas the 85D gets 270 miles range. In my case, I absolutely would never get an 85D now that the 90D exists.
But, I'm odd. I'm strange. I'm weird. You will have entirely different needs. You may want to go back and forth between some 100 mile destination, or even more normal, a 45 mile destination. The Leaf could do neither (without exceptional special support), but the Tesla 70, 85, or 90 could do both those trips without blinking (with exception of the 70 in a headwind with extreme air conditioning or heater, which would feel more comfortable in a 60 mile destination than a 100 mile destination). It's simple math. Take into account real world numbers having to do with driving speed, heater, air conditioning, headwinds, driving style, wear and tear on vehicle, etc.
I would throw in the variable that I might be able to stage my oil car someplace when the Tesla can't make it. But, where? Not near a supercharger: I can't park a Tesla charging at an SC and leave for a few days. It'd have to be at home or a friend's. But it does offer options. I could take Tesla as a commuter car and then use the oil car for weekends. Or I could do one weekend a month in the Tesla, and 3.3 weekends a month in the oil car. That would entirely change the distance math.
I'm weird, so I think I'd still go with the longest range, but technically, given what I described, I could go with a 60 and probably do OK, and they don't even make those anymore -- they're just CPO. Which might be exactly what I get. I would use the 60 part time and my other car the rest of the time.
I'm an odd person, so I have weird needs:
This morning, I drove 167 miles to work in my oil car, then 49 miles home. I don't know if work has electric charging, but I think it might. I have a designated work parking area, so going to charging spots would be a fireable offense, therefore I wouldn't do it (in my case, I could sneak over to the company across the street (VMWARE) and check if they have a spare EV charging spot, and walk/bike the last mile to work). I might be able to pay my boss for plugging into a 220-250VAC 50A outlet if I have my own meter (I could whip up a portable meter disconnect circuit breaker panel to stuff in my trunk with portable plug cords for not too much, probably $1K-$3K, no prob).
Right now, I'm planning on driving 33 miles round trip. I happen to know there's a Supercharger a few blocks from my destination. I could top up there just by leaving early and cleaning my car while waiting.
Then, I'm going 132 miles to a place that I don't think has any charging where I will be. Directly after that, I'm going 146 miles. Let me find out if there's any charging options along that route or destination charging right now ...
Looks like that last 278 miles has zero, nada, zip Superchargers. So for me, I'd need at least 278 miles range, including a few thousand foot climbs and plenty of 84MPH driving. I know that the Tesla would force me not to go 115MPH, 95MPH or 127MPH like my oil car is able to do. I am curious if I'm able to pass a 65MPH car if I want to be going 75MPH and only have a little space to do so, or if I would be encouraged to take larger slower higher lane count roads as an effect of driving a slower EV like a Tesla.
So, in my case:
1. I calculate that I would turn on the maximum effect of Autopilot, and take slower drives, but hopefully be more relaxed to do so.
2. I also calculate that I would need a 278 mile range, with heater and air conditioner in use, and around 79MPH-84MPH.
The 90D gets 286 miles range, whereas the 85D gets 270 miles range. In my case, I absolutely would never get an 85D now that the 90D exists.
But, I'm odd. I'm strange. I'm weird. You will have entirely different needs. You may want to go back and forth between some 100 mile destination, or even more normal, a 45 mile destination. The Leaf could do neither (without exceptional special support), but the Tesla 70, 85, or 90 could do both those trips without blinking (with exception of the 70 in a headwind with extreme air conditioning or heater, which would feel more comfortable in a 60 mile destination than a 100 mile destination). It's simple math. Take into account real world numbers having to do with driving speed, heater, air conditioning, headwinds, driving style, wear and tear on vehicle, etc.
I would throw in the variable that I might be able to stage my oil car someplace when the Tesla can't make it. But, where? Not near a supercharger: I can't park a Tesla charging at an SC and leave for a few days. It'd have to be at home or a friend's. But it does offer options. I could take Tesla as a commuter car and then use the oil car for weekends. Or I could do one weekend a month in the Tesla, and 3.3 weekends a month in the oil car. That would entirely change the distance math.
I'm weird, so I think I'd still go with the longest range, but technically, given what I described, I could go with a 60 and probably do OK, and they don't even make those anymore -- they're just CPO. Which might be exactly what I get. I would use the 60 part time and my other car the rest of the time.
I'm a little surprised that there's not more technical information on the Tesla web site regarding the batteries used in the 90 version. There's a lot of real world experience now with the batteries used in the other models, so I've chosen to stick with the 85 kWh pack for mine. It will be interesting to see how the 90 battery packs age compared with the others.
chriSharek
Member
I agree with this too. I am in Florida, which has terrific supercharger coverage.
Having said that, I'm intrigued with getting the latest and greatest and don't want to be disappointed if my $100k 85D becomes the old 60!
- - - Updated - - -
Not in Florida!
Similar threads
- Article
