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

Stop the Press! Tesla announces REAL HP numbers for P85D and P90L

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I'm sorry, but - video, video and video or it never happened :) And from multiple angels and in slow motion

Can you see the settings for the dyno mode?

Maybe when I'm close to needing new tires. I just changed them, so, not planning to waste them currently. These tires aren't cheap.

I've no idea what exactly any of the modes do. It's just a command that is sent to the inverter and stability control modules. What it does them it I have no idea, aside from being able to light up the tires in the obvious ones. I won't try "Dyno" not on a dyno, since I don't know what exactly it does.
 
So advertising power measured with Japanese emissions equipment was deemed misleading for people who bought it with US emissions. So how is publishing motor power measured while connected to an industrial power supply not misleading to people who bought it with a battery? Assume (Japanese emmisions = grid power) and (US emissions = battery power).
Advertising power measured with Japanese emissions equipment and selling with US emissions equipment means your power rating is literally false. Basically if you took a customer car in the USA and measured the engine using the same rating system as the Japanese emissions equipment was measured, you get a lower number with the USA engine than with the Japanese engine. Thus the power rating is literally false (not true even under automaker's own rating system, given the rating system includes the emissions equipment).

This is not the same in the Tesla case. If you took a customer's motor(s) and measured using the rating system Tesla used, it would measure that amount. The number is not false, just that some people expected it to include the battery, while it only included the motor(s). To have a case in a lawsuit, the plaintiff would have to demonstrate how many percentage of people would be misled by such a statement.

It is not as straightforward as the other cases where they only have to test a production engine using the manufacturer's rating method and immediately see that it does not get that power (because the equipment has changed).

In previous examples where power numbers were different due to rating systems, there were no buybacks. Examples I gave was the Camry "losing" 10% of power due to a rating change from SAE net to SAE certified. Also in the Norway case, it was pointed out that Nissan won a horsepower lawsuit on appeal when customer complained about power using dyno results (not just whp, the dyno operator calculated engine power by factoring in drivetrain losses) vs the government mandated test procedure.
 
Last edited:
If I had a way to contact all 2014 P85D buyers, I would certainly sponsor an official survey of this, lawsuit or not.
Not a lawyer, but from what I read, the target of the survey would not be existing buyers, but a representative random sample of the target audience of the advertising (which may be as wide as all Americans). Self selected existing buyers would not satisfy this. The survey question will also have to be written in a way that is not leading and has to factor in common misconceptions (for example there may be a big portion of people that think the power is measured at the wheels and survey must account for that, given that this would affect all competitors equally).
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1424&context=wmlr
 
Thanks.

The 550 number was what some of the knowledgeable people here had come up with as the max number possible long before Tesla published the 463 HP number. Some also think the Tesla number is actually conservative.

For my own estimates, they came from the horsepower channel calculation in the vbox software which turns out to be wrong.

They formula was based on:

Weight (lbs) * Long Acc (g) * Speed channel (mph) * 0.003054
Power, Torque and RPM Calculations - Racelogic

when in fact it should have been:

Weight (lbs) * Long Acc (g) * Speed channel (mph) * 0.002666

based on:
0



It means that the 500 hp I was getting at the wheels on a 90% charge was really 436 hp at the wheels. Coincidentally about what they dyno as well. If we believe their 463 number, it's about a 6% drive train loss from motor shafts to wheels which is spectacular for an AWD car but not unexpected given the lack of transmission, flywheel, and transfer case.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll note that the P85D in Insane mode is virtually uncontrollable with it set to "TcOffEspOff"... my poor tires...

P90DL below 11 seconds with drag radials then?????

I'm trying to catch up on your hacking thread but it's a lot of pages. Between getting the flu in early december, the holidays, then traveling to Romania on business for a few weeks, and then getting sick again with something else, I'm about well over 100+ behind on this thread. I suspect I'll never go back and catch up here because most of it will be the endless dog chasing tail rehash.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe when I'm close to needing new tires. I just changed them, so, not planning to waste them currently. These tires aren't cheap.

I've no idea what exactly any of the modes do. It's just a command that is sent to the inverter and stability control modules. What it does them it I have no idea, aside from being able to light up the tires in the obvious ones. I won't try "Dyno" not on a dyno, since I don't know what exactly it does.

Most likely dyno mode disables the radar and sensors like the accelerometers so the car won't freak on on the dyno due to funky radar obstacle data and lack of actual acceleration even though the drives are accelerating. The only successful dynos require pulling fuses to disable the stability module. It could also very well be for 4WD dynos which don't have their drums synchronized by a belt and need one PAU for each drum. Dyno mode may keep the axles synchronized via software. Not needed for an AWD dyno where both drums are physically connected so they act like the ground.
 
Maybe when I'm close to needing new tires. I just changed them, so, not planning to waste them currently. These tires aren't cheap.

I've no idea what exactly any of the modes do. It's just a command that is sent to the inverter and stability control modules. What it does them it I have no idea, aside from being able to light up the tires in the obvious ones. I won't try "Dyno" not on a dyno, since I don't know what exactly it does.

I would not mind lending you my tires, but I'm in Denmark ... Would just love to see a 4 wheel burnout with the P85D
 
Advertising power measured with Japanese emissions equipment and selling with US emissions equipment means your power rating is literally false. Basically if you took a customer car in the USA and measured the engine using the same rating system as the Japanese emissions equipment was measured, you get a lower number with the USA engine than with the Japanese engine. Thus the power rating is literally false (not true even under automaker's own rating system, given the rating system includes the emissions equipment).

This is not the same in the Tesla case. If you took a customer's motor(s) and measured using the rating system Tesla used, it would measure that amount. The number is not false, just that some people expected it to include the battery, while it only included the motor(s). To have a case in a lawsuit, the plaintiff would have to demonstrate how many percentage of people would be misled by such a statement.
Ok, let me see if I understand this. So Nissan can claim that a 2017 Leaf can go 300miles on a single charge, then all they have to do is set a test procedure with the Leaf being towed behind a tow truck (external power source), and not disclose the test procedure to anyone. Then, when customers who get their new Leafs try to go court over false claimed range, they would have no legal recourse since they could also tow their Leafs 300 miles on a single charge?
 
Ok, let me see if I understand this. So Nissan can claim that a 2017 Leaf can go 300miles on a single charge, then all they have to do is set a test procedure with the Leaf being towed behind a tow truck (external power source), and not disclose the test procedure to anyone. Then, when customers who get their new Leafs try to go court over false claimed range, they would have no legal recourse since they could also tow their Leafs 300 miles on a single charge?

I believe customers could sue by using the "truth in advertising" clause
 
Ok, let me see if I understand this. So Nissan can claim that a 2017 Leaf can go 300miles on a single charge, then all they have to do is set a test procedure with the Leaf being towed behind a tow truck (external power source), and not disclose the test procedure to anyone. Then, when customers who get their new Leafs try to go court over false claimed range, they would have no legal recourse since they could also tow their Leafs 300 miles on a single charge?
In that specific example, Nissan's hands are tied because the EPA has a mandated test procedure for EV range (so regardless of what automakers advertise, the new car sticker is legally required to post a number based on that test procedure).

No such procedure exists for testing power (whether for ICE or EV cars). No US power standard exists for EVs. And in the ICE world, automakers can use SAE gross, SAE net, SAE certified (or even their own method) without explicitly specifying which they used. It is not legally mandated that horsepower tested in a certain way, be posted on the new car sticker.

However, assuming that there is no EPA mandated range testing, I'm not saying a consumer would have no legal recourse. I am saying the lawsuit is different between:
1) A claim that is literally false (as in the Ford Mustang Cobra, Mazda RX8, Mazda Miata cases)
2) A claim that is true but may be misleading (as in the Tesla case)

For a literally false claim, it is pretty straight forward: all the plaintiff has to demonstrate is a production engine doesn't make the advertised power under the test procedure used by the manufacturer to determine that number. Ford and Mazda knew they would lose because they tested using different parts and then changed it in the cars sold to the customers (while the test was inclusive of those parts).

In the latter example, you have to establish that the claim would be misleading to the target audience of the advertising, which is usually done using surveys. It will not be based purely on facts, but also on perception.
 
Last edited:
How much for a full, or half, page spread in NYT or Car & Driver or...? That's a statistically random subset
The C&D example definitely is not statistically random as you are limiting your subset to C&D readers, which is quite narrow. NYT may have a larger readership that is closer, but not sure if it meets the standard.

I think coming up with the survey question is a lot harder. It can't be biased or lead the person to a certain answer, and must be able to directly address the issue.
 
In that specific example, Nissan's hands are tied because the EPA has a mandated test procedure for EV range (so regardless of what automakers advertise, the new car sticker is legally required to post a number based on that test procedure).

Funny you should bring that up.

So what do you think should happen if, say, an EV car manufacturer advertised a certain range, and then printed a lower range on the new car sticker, in compliance with the EPA test results??
 
Funny you should bring that up.

So what do you think should happen if, say, an EV car manufacturer advertised a certain range, and then printed a lower range on the new car sticker, in compliance with the EPA test results??
They have already done that multiple times. Nissan advertised 100 miles, Tesla advertised 300 miles. They can't say that is EPA range, but they are free to advertise a higher number. No one really cared.
 
They have already done that multiple times. Nissan advertised 100 miles, Tesla advertised 300 miles. They can't say that is EPA range, but they are free to advertise a higher number. No one really cares.

So wait wait wait.

You just said they cant advertise some bogus number because the EPA test exists.

Then on the same page of posts you say they can?

Which is it? They're either allowed to or they're not.