-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
As a "car buff" you should know that things vary with what manufacturers claim. Real world is all that matters, you can still take virtually any car off the line. Not sure what's the big deal. The 0-60 time is still excessive on 4 door family sedan that takes 0 gas.
- - - Updated - - -
It's been since day one. You always hear people with Lambos and Ferrari's saying I have xx and X horsepower. Oh you do? At what rev range do you get the full power? When do you get full torque. Nobody digs into that.
Jaff
Active Member
Oh, so we're only allowed to make a fuss over issues that would cause us to return the car? That's just silly.
From the article:
If above is true, than at some point P85D does offer full advertised power. Both EV and ICE advertise peak power, no one expects that full power will be available at all speeds. ICE outputs full power at certain RPMs and so does EV like Tesla.
Now, I also heard an argument that P85D battery is unable to output 700hp which would change things. However, none of the two articles listed by OP mention that so I don't know if that's an issue here.
If above is true, than at some point P85D does offer full advertised power. Both EV and ICE advertise peak power, no one expects that full power will be available at all speeds. ICE outputs full power at certain RPMs and so does EV like Tesla.
Now, I also heard an argument that P85D battery is unable to output 700hp which would change things. However, none of the two articles listed by OP mention that so I don't know if that's an issue here.
The fact, that at some point in power curve P85D is not battery limited, doesn't mean it delivers 691 hp. To my understanding, when starting from full stop and flooring the pedal, at some point during acceleration car is not battery limited but torque limited, but at that point motors are not producing 691 hp.
Most certainly! Even I can see THATT (and I am blind in one eye and can't see out of the other one).
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
I make the distinction between complaining and I bought this XYZ based on ABC and they lied to me.
you're missing the whole point.....Tesla advertises the P85D has X, I purchased the vehicle based on Tesla's representation but the vehicle only produces Y. This has nothing to do with, "cars is that they poison life on Earth and dangerously" or "criminally warm the atmosphere"
A 600 CFM muffler attached to an engine that can only generate 300 CFM in exhaust is still a 600 CFM muffler. Just because the engine cannot fill the pipe doesn't change the muffler specification. Isn't this an analogous situation?
- - - Updated - - -
Welcome to marketing...
- - - Updated - - -
The European Union, in which you live, requires by law that Tesla advertise motor power. That is exactly what they did. I think your issue may be more with your governments than with Tesla.
Here's what I don't understand. As long as the 0-60 is "as advertised" who really cares how many horse/motor power it takes to deliver it? I'm *not* saying HP/MP are meaningless numbers, but aren't they just a means to an end, namely performance? In an (obtuse sort of) way, this feels like grammar nazis going after a technically incorrect Oxford comma. Yes, you're correct and very smart and I agree with you from a technical perspective. But from a practical perspective, if it doesn't really affect the ultimate user experience is it really that big of a deal?
This is silly. If owners really think they can sue as a class, they have to show damages "as a class." I'm unaware of any residual value hit anyone would take if horsepower is 550 or 650 and not 691. When I slam mine it's still a thrill to me and any suspecting or unsuspecting passenger whether I am doing 3.1 or 3.3 seconds to 60. If there is an acceleration/power performance difference between various Tesla models (70D vs P85D as an example) Tesla can justify the price difference. The price is independent and totally unrelated as to how it compares to a Hellcat or RS7 or Panamera Turbo. Now if the Ludicrous upgrade doesn't produce any measurable performance improvement over the standard P85Ds that most of us have while charging a $7,500 upgrade, it would present a different "damages" argument.
I sold an Audi A8L to buy the Tesla. It was an Audi Exclusive model with a $30K upgraded interior over a standard Audi. I bought it with 6,000 miles on it and didn't pay a dime more for the upgraded interior. When I sold it, I didn't get a dime worth of consideration for the upgrade either. When we sell our Teslas they are going to be worth what they are worth and I doubt the value will be driven either way by a 100HP or .2 second 0-60 time. If someone is possessed with 0-60, quarter mile results or measured horses they should buy a Viper. I drive the Tesla because I viewed it as a beautiful, high end sedan with incredible performance with all wheel drive, not a Corvette. I believe I got what I wanted.
I sold an Audi A8L to buy the Tesla. It was an Audi Exclusive model with a $30K upgraded interior over a standard Audi. I bought it with 6,000 miles on it and didn't pay a dime more for the upgraded interior. When I sold it, I didn't get a dime worth of consideration for the upgrade either. When we sell our Teslas they are going to be worth what they are worth and I doubt the value will be driven either way by a 100HP or .2 second 0-60 time. If someone is possessed with 0-60, quarter mile results or measured horses they should buy a Viper. I drive the Tesla because I viewed it as a beautiful, high end sedan with incredible performance with all wheel drive, not a Corvette. I believe I got what I wanted.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
While I disagree with the details about the P85D motor controversy, I think owners do have a right to complain to Tesla no matter how small the issue is relative to the overall car.
If we're talking about Tesla's representations, I'd be more upset about the claim that the net cost (after savings) is under $600/mo. But then again, I've never purchased a car where the most important consideration was horsepower and being able to reproduce the manufacturer's specification.
For most of us, it's not an issue of buying a p85d or a ICE, it's 85d vs p85d, upgrade now from p85+ or wait.
Any link to to where that law is written, if its the law why was it perfectly ok to not advertise that motor power on the earlier models like the P85? And why is the only power that Tesla specify to the government and the only shown on our car registration card is continuous power?
Also Norway is not at part of the European Union (EU)
Yes Norway is in Europe but we are not a country that is a member of EU so we don't have to follow the rules like example Denmark and Sweden does. But we follow some of them if we want European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The principle area where the inaccurate horsepower rating affects the performance of the car is 40-80. If the car delivered the advertised horsepower, it would accellerate more quickly through that range.
Most car enthusiasts do know that is true. The problem is that there is no part of the range where the P85D delivers 691hp ever.
It is an issue. The car never, ever approaches 691hp under any condition. Strubel's blog post is misleading because it is technically true that the battery is sometimes the limitation that prevents the car from reaching 691hp, but it is always true that the battery will prevent the car from reaching 691hp. It just happens that sometimes the car is limited to an even lower number of horsepower by something else (usually traction).
A false advertising claim would not rely on diminished value analysis. In 2002 Hyundai was sued for inflating horsepower numbers. The amount of error ranged from 5-20hp. They settled and reported that they would pay between $76 and $127 million in damages. A few years ago a group of lawnmower manufacturers settled a class action regarding inflated horsepower claims also for several million bucks. If someone could prove that Tesla advertised an inaccurate horsepower rating, it is likely to prove very expensive for Tesla.
Tesla might prevail under an argument that it was too hard to provide accurate horsepower information, I don't know. They may be able to say that they were fine to advertise the motor's potential horsepower ratings and add them together even though they knew there was no possibility to produce that amount of horsepower at the same time in the car. I have no idea and I'm not remotely interested in pursuing it. Nonetheless, it was wrong of Tesla to advertise a number that was misleading at best. The way they advertise now by expressly labelling it as "motor power" and no longer summing the two numbers together is better, although still not ideal.
I love my car, signed up for the ludicrous update the first day it was announced and put down my deposit within minutes of learning the web page was up. The car absolutely delivers the 0-60 performance and quarter mile performance they claimed and I'm happy to be able to pay them to make it even faster. It is an amazing car and I'm even glad that Tesla offers features that please the folks like Freudianly, although I don't assign very much value to them personally. I'm not exactly sure why its cool for him to describe people who value the performance of the car as "stupid and emotional" but I've been called much worse.
The car is so phenomenal that they should have just advertised the absolutely amazing measurables and provided accurate system horsepower outputs or made it clear from the outset that 691hp was a theoretical maximum output of the two motors on a bench that was physically impossible in the actual car.
I also have not yet seen anyone who can explain how the car was capable of 691hp "motor power" before the ludicrous updgrade and is now capable of 762hp "motor power" after the upgrade, when the engines are 100% unchanged. If the previous number was the result of bench testing unconnected to the battery pack, how come they now generate a higher number when the only thing that changed was the battery pack? It seems to me that you can't have that both ways.
Any link to to where that law is written, if its the law why was it perfectly ok to not advertise that motor power on the earlier models like the P85? And why is the only power that Tesla specify to the government and the only shown on our car registration card is continuous power?
Also Norway is not at part of the European Union (EU)
European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
JB's own blog post is the reference, to wit: "The motor shaft horsepower, when operating alone, is a more consistent rating. In fact, it is only this (single or combined) motor shaft horsepower rating that is legally required to be posted in the European Union." Based upon this statement, I don't think Tesla even has to say "motor power" in the EU. It can simply say "HP" because that HP rating in an EV is assumed to mean "motor shaft horsepower" per the EU regulations. I have no idea what the regulations are in Norway or Denmark.
- - - Updated - - -
Tesla could have easily updated some of the power electronics, or even just the firmware, to allow the motor to accept higher current loads thereby increasing the theoretical HP even though the battery cannot deliver enough current to satisfy the motor's new theoretical limit. I'm just guessing, of course.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I just wanted to point out that from day one of dual motor launch they advertised with "motor power" (only exception pointed out so far was in Denmark where they used "hp performance" because of a bad translation). It was not a recent change. The removal of the summing happened in the March-April 2015 time frame.
I have explained that in many occasions. The 85D went from 188 hp to 259 hp with only a software update to motor controller with 6.2. The P85D front motor spec being updated from 221 hp to the same exact 259 hp should not be a surprise. The tests being discussed, while not including the battery, does include the motor controller and inverter.
More P85D problems for Tesla, check this thread:
My P85D doesn't go past 133MPH. I thought the limit was 155MPH?
Looks like there are a bunch of P85Ds out there with bad speed sensors that will not allow the car to exceed 133 MPH, yet Tesla is not notifying affected owners and letting them know about a service bulletin to address the problem. Some who have taken their car in for annual service also did not have the issue remedied by service, and only became aware of the problem when the car did not achieve the advertised top speed.
Tesla, why are you being secretive with your P85D owners and why are the service centers not proactively applying this service bulletin to all affected P85D cars?
Suggest P85D owners better test their top speed, it may be that you have other issues with Tesla than just the HP rating.
My P85D doesn't go past 133MPH. I thought the limit was 155MPH?
Looks like there are a bunch of P85Ds out there with bad speed sensors that will not allow the car to exceed 133 MPH, yet Tesla is not notifying affected owners and letting them know about a service bulletin to address the problem. Some who have taken their car in for annual service also did not have the issue remedied by service, and only became aware of the problem when the car did not achieve the advertised top speed.
Tesla, why are you being secretive with your P85D owners and why are the service centers not proactively applying this service bulletin to all affected P85D cars?
Suggest P85D owners better test their top speed, it may be that you have other issues with Tesla than just the HP rating.
Similar threads
