Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

P85D and P90D horsepower disagreement

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
While I'm sure this thread is being carefully followed by TM already - how about outlining a letter of complaint or something which those who have the same view can individually send to them? Or something like that? At least that would make them respond and take a clear position on this topic. I haven't really heard anything from TM yet. On the other hand - I haven't formally complained yet. I guess a well articulated and fact based letter could help me and others to take the step to complain.
 
I was only 8% off.

1300 amps * 3.7V * 96S * ~~.90 (eff of inv/motor/gearbox) = 416kW or 500-550hp.
^^ that's at full SOC... cells will sag lower then 3.7V at anything less then 95% SOC.

Congrats on only being a little off. On the sag, I have no idea how it translates to 18650's, but similar 3.7v rated hobby cells, of about the same size, charge to 4.2v and if I remember right, with my son, would be set to shut down at 3.5-3.6v. I don't know whether to consider the v-drop as linear to run time, but sag below 3.7v is at much lower than 95% SOC, in that application.

I just found this RE: 18650 (3.7V)
Server Error

Based on the above, I'd ask if a higher voltage ought to be used to calculate available power at 95% SOC?
 
While I'm sure this thread is being carefully followed by TM already
Tesla knows about this thread. While I was in line for the buffet at Connect (event name dropper!), I happened to get in line behind Ted Merendino (name dropper!). IIRC, it was Zex that walked up to ask a question "near" the horsepower question (but not directly) and got interrupted by someone else that came by to say something. Ted turned back to the table (on the opposite side of me) and I noted that Zex is "probably talking about a thread we have on TMC about the 691hp ...". He politely interrupted me mid-sentence to comment that he (/they) are aware of the thread, and that there's nothing he could say on the topic. I didn't push further.
 
Tesla knows about this thread. While I was in line for the buffet at Connect (event name dropper!), I happened to get in line behind Ted Merendino (name dropper!). IIRC, it was Zex that walked up to ask a question "near" the horsepower question (but not directly) and got interrupted by someone else that came by to say something. Ted turned back to the table (on the opposite side of me) and I noted that Zex is "probably talking about a thread we have on TMC about the 691hp ...". He politely interrupted me mid-sentence to comment that he (/they) are aware of the thread, and that there's nothing he could say on the topic. I didn't push further.

This is a minor point, but that would have had to have been one of the other 691 HP threads being referenced, not this one.

The first post in this thread was made on 07/17, after the Ludicrous announcement. TMC Connect ended on 7/12, assuming the dates on the website are correct.

That being said, it's probably safe to assume that if Tesla is aware of one of the 691 HP concern threads, they are probably aware of all of them.
 
This is a minor point, but that would have had to have been one of the other 691 HP threads being referenced, not this one.
You're correct. I should have been clearer. At the time of the comment, there was really only one thread with "691" in the title -- at least that was active. There was no ambiguity. Also the P90D and Ludicrous didn't go public until "long after" (over a week!) Connect '15. :)
 
I can't answer your question.

There is nothing on the chart to indicate motor power without the Ludicrous Speed Upgrade.

Isn't this a clear indication by Tesla that --BEFORE-- there was a Ludicrous Speed Upgrade, the P85D was supposed to be capable of the 691, since now they are showing new HP numbers, indicating that the motors are capable of additional HP?

If the argument is that Tesla was only showing what the motors were capable of independent of battery and other considerations before, then these numbers shouldn't have changed, right?

85Ds have been logged at 376 KW vs the P85D at 414 KW. So there is a difference but nothing like what the hp numbers said when they were still publishing combined hp for the P85D.

- - - Updated - - -

...they're not displaying combined power of course because doing that is what started these stupid debates, but if what you said was true, then how come they've suddenly change those numbers? If the previous numbers are what the motors *could* make if you gave them enough food, then how come their now saying it's a whole lot more. It means the previous numbers weren't the actual maximum potential of those motors despite their diet.


Has it occurred to anybody that perhaps these numbers are a direct response to threads such as this one? Nuanced messaging that we "don't know what we're talking about" and there are other engineering considerations we aren't privy to? Not saying that's necessarily true, but food for thought.

Also, the 85D went DOWN, from 422 to 417. Perhaps the motor power was the amount they "could" unlock it to at some point, and now it's the actual programmed power with room to grow? Either way that's inconsistent messaging.
 
I sent a query about this 3 months ago through the owner feedback section. I heard nothing back. I drafted a more formal letter and sent it through their contact form 6 weeks ago. I heard nothing back. I've sent dozens of other bug reports, feature requests, questions on a variety of topics and have received prompt replies on everything.....except the two direct queries related to the hp issue.

It's obvious that the CS folks reading these letters aren't allowed to respond and that they just send those higher up.

Obivously Tesla is monitoring every single one of these threads related to this issue. I work for a company that has had half the company talking about threads related to sticky issues showing up in the forums.
 
But only if you attach the intake and exhaust that they used to rate that motor on the brake dyno. The LS7 and other crate motors are used in other chevy products that have different ratings for the same motors in different models of cars based on the type of exhaust, shape of exhaust pipes to get around obstacles, type, shape, and size of intake.

When a manufacturer sells a crate motor, they can attach anything they want and rate at the bhp measured. They can also just bypass that testing and give you the bhp it measured when it was measured for an actual vehicle. I've seen manufacturers to both. But that's completely irrelevant here because ........

Manufacturers rates cars by the power the engine actually makes at the motor shaft in that model of car based on how it's configured. Manufacturers often give different ratings to the same motor when sold separately based on what was bolted to that motor at the time. But we're not buying electric motors. We're buying a vehicle that has a horsepower claim as it is delivered from the factory.

Way back in the day, before SAE standards were put in place to prevent this kind of fraud, manufacturers would dyno their motors with open exhausts, intakes, without accessories attached like ac compressors, alternators, and such, and then claim the car made that horsepower even though it didn't. They're not allowed do to that anymore. They have measure the motor with *exactly* what is going to be attached as inputs and outputs.
So I guess we now have agreement on what Tesla means with "motor power"?

Again, I'm not sure if I'm making it clear, but I'm not arguing on if it is misleading or not, right or wrong, or if it follows standard ICE industry practice. I get your argument that ICE manufacturers nowadays follow SAE standards (I should note that SAE standards for rating EV power is not finalized yet); I already got that argument from way back in the other thread. All I am pointing out is what Tesla really intended to portray when they put out those "motor power" ratings. It is abundantly clear when they have both numbers on the same page.

This is a separate issue from if it is misleading or not, or if Tesla is wrong for putting out numbers like that.
 
Last edited:
What is so hard for people (almost 100% of whom did not buy the car, so have no skin in this game) to understand about the fact that we can like our P85Ds very much, but still be concerned about the fact that we paid for something we thought we were getting but did not get? That is, for me, the bottom line. I like to get what I pay for.
+ 10,000.

It's not that the car isn't crazy quick, and almost causes me to pass out when punching it (will the upgrade require actual g-suits?) It's that I ordered a car being promised certain things (autopilot, 691 HP) and never got them.
 
While I'm sure this thread is being carefully followed by TM already - how about outlining a letter of complaint or something which those who have the same view can individually send to them? Or something like that? At least that would make them respond and take a clear position on this topic. I haven't really heard anything from TM yet. On the other hand - I haven't formally complained yet. I guess a well articulated and fact based letter could help me and others to take the step to complain.

They will not respond, because they can't respond any way without making their situation worse.
 
+ 10,000.

It's not that the car isn't crazy quick, and almost causes me to pass out when punching it (will the upgrade require actual g-suits?) It's that I ordered a car being promised certain things (autopilot, 691 HP) and never got them.

I think people understand that. First time I bought a hard drive and formatted it to learn I lost about 5% of the capacity I thought that form of advertising was a little shady but it's industry standard. That's what Tesla did here. That doesn't make what they right and they shouldn't be doing it. It looks like they are changing how they display horsepower but again if the 60+mph performance was a key decision in the purchase it might have been worth it to find out what the 1/4 mile time was before ordering. Either was Ludicrous speed is an option to address that. I know people want it for free but they aren't giving it to new owners for free either. If Tesla introduced the new P85D with Ludicrous speed and dropped the old P85D for the exact same price you'd have a much better case.
 
Last edited:
I think people understand that. First time I bought a hard drive and formatted it to learn I lost about 5% of the capacity I thought that form of advertising was a little shady but it's industry standard. That's what Tesla did here. That doesn't make what they right and they shouldn't be doing it. It looks like they are changing how they display horsepower but again if the 60+mph performance was a key decision in the purchase it might have been worth it to find out what the 1/4 mile time was before ordering. Either was Ludicrous speed is an option to address that. I know people want it for free but they aren't giving it to new owners for free either. If Tesla introduced the new P85D with Ludicrous speed and dropped the old P85D for the exact same price you'd have a much better case.

I see this more equivalent to the 85 kWh battery not having all of it's capacity to drive. You don't really get to use 85 kWh. Some of it is held in reserve for anti bricking. Formatting a hard drive doesn't reduce it's capacity. It just uses some of it that you can't use for other storage. In this case, the Tesla didn't say you could use all 85 kWh for driving. Instead, they let the EPA rate how far you can drive. In my case, I always beat that rating which is rare.

However, with hp ratings, manufacturers don't rate vehicles by what their engines make. They rate them by what their engines make after they've been *formatted* for use by attaching accessories, intake, and exhaust. The accessories suck out a certain percentage and you don't get to use that hp for acceleration.

In Tesla's case, they gave an hp rating that can't be achieved as the car was delivered under any circumstances. The way they're wording it now my be a little misleading but it's not technically wrong. They only list power ratings of each motor and not combined. It's possible for each motor to achieve that power level now if the software so lets it as there's no hardware limitation.

But before, they were listing a combined hp which was never possible under any circumstances since the battery was only outputting 555 hp at most at 100% SOC.
 
Part of the media storage size confusion has been what exactly is a GB stemming from what is 1K. 1000 bytes or 1024 bytes. A GB is 1024^3 bytes but manacturers report it as 1000^3 while system tools or drive tools will report 1000^24. So marketting always shows the actual bytes in 1000^3 terms but when you right click on the drive to get info on it, it will report it like 1024^3.

This results in about a 6.7% reduction in less storage than what is marketed. It's not really deceptive. That 6.7% less in the drive tool is just because it's counting bytes in 1024^3 terms. If you convert it back to 1000^3 terms it will increase to the advertised size.
 
First time I bought a hard drive and formatted it to learn I lost about 5% of the capacity I thought that form of advertising was a little shady but it's industry standard. That's what Tesla did here.

I think this analogy would only work if they consistently overrated all models. However P85D is the only model where they're showing an impossible figure, all other models can actually achieve (and sometimes even beat) their advertised figures.
 
I think this analogy would only work if they consistently overrated all models. However P85D is the only model where they're showing an impossible figure, all other models can actually achieve (and sometimes even beat) their advertised figures.
That is not true. An S60 cannot make 380hp, nor a S60D make 376hp, nor can a S70 make 382hp. The non-performance 85kWh versions tend to be able to make it close to the "motor power" ratings, but that's only because the motor is well matched to the battery there.

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...eement/page4?p=1076026&viewfull=1#post1076026

Tesla applied the "motor power" consistently to all the models, it's just that no owners of the other models took issue with it.