Tesla cuts 60kWh Model S, entry-level Model S is now 70D.

[ecarfan]

Reasons:
1. Lower price
2. Only one motor means less maintenance
3. Larger frunk

Agreed. I think here is a significant market for the RWD S. Not convinced that Tesla is actively trying to force the market towards AWD. But I could be wrong. Note the German website shows all four S configurations by default. Would like to know what the other country websites show.

 

[JST]

The situation is clearly not a simple one. But in fairness, companies play games with ICE HP ratings as well. Do they use HP at the flywheel? Do the consider other parasitic losses? There are more losses between the flywheel and the rubber in an ICE than there is between the motor output shaft and the rubber in a Tesla.

The P85D performs right up there with any 600-700 HP AWD car. I wouldn't mind knowing what the real output on a dyno is, but it's pretty much just academic. The numbers are high and the car performs appropriately for the numbers. Nobody who sits in it for a 3.2/3.1 second run is going to think that 691 is an inflated number.

I agree that bench racing is not the world's most interesting pursuit, and the P85D has nothing to apologize for in terms of performance. It's clearly very fast. Is it as fast as a 700 hp ICE car? Eh. Out of a hole shot, sure, because of the insta-torque and the traction. But it doesn't have the top end that something like the Hellcat does. I think its performance is probably closer to the Panamera Turbo S or 911 Turbo S, at least to 60 (3.6 and 2.9, respectively)--both of those are between 550 and 600 hp (though both are a good bit lighter than the P85D, they obviously have very different torque curves).

I'm not sure that it matters too much, except that I just hate to see meaningless numbers being quoted. If nothing else, giving us the actual power ratings for the P85D would allow us to compare it to the other Model S configurations and see what the P85D really offers for the extra money over an S85, 85D, or 70D--but maybe that's precisely the problem.

 

[scott jones]

I JUST SAW A 70D. It was at the body shop in Indianapolis (I totaled my car). The 70 had arrived there a day or two ago and they said it was headed for the mall store. They didn't know about it till the day before it arrived so Tesla is very good about not say much to anyone.

Visually it was no different then the other models except it just said model S there was no 70 and it was also a version without the automatic liftgate (black color). Sorry I didn't get a picture I was still depressed about crashing my S 85

 

[dirkhh]

I agree that bench racing is not the world's most interesting pursuit, and the P85D has nothing to apologize for in terms of performance. It's clearly very fast. Is it as fast as a 700 hp ICE car? Eh. Out of a hole shot, sure, because of the insta-torque and the traction. But it doesn't have the top end that something like the Hellcat does. I think its performance is probably closer to the Panamera Turbo S or 911 Turbo S, at least to 60 (3.6 and 2.9, respectively)--both of those are between 550 and 600 hp (though both are a good bit lighter than the P85D, they obviously have very different torque curves).

I'm not sure that it matters too much, except that I just hate to see meaningless numbers being quoted. If nothing else, giving us the actual power ratings for the P85D would allow us to compare it to the other Model S configurations and see what the P85D really offers for the extra money over an S85, 85D, or 70D--but maybe that's precisely the problem.

What's quite evident is that 30-60 or 40-80 the P85D is quite a bit slower than cars that are on paper comparable. I got easily outaccelerated by a 911 Turbo S going from 30 to 60 - wasn't even close.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Those can easily be attributed to the dual motors and the lower weight of a 60/70 pack versus a 85 pack, there is absolutely no need to introduce a better cell chemistry to get there. Unless proven otherwise, it's really a rumor that only has traction on the very special echo chamber that the TMC (investor) forum is.

No, they can not.

The 85 has EPA range of 265 miles and portion of the battery not reserved for bricking is 85 *.95=80.75kWh. The Wh/mile is 80.75 / 265 = 305
The 60 had EPA of 208 miles. The Wh/mile is 60 * .95 / 208 = 274

The difference in energy consumption per mile (60 is more efficient than 85) is due to the fact that 60 is lighter than 85.

The 85D has EPA range of 270 miles. The Wh/mile is 80.75 / 265 = 299
The 70D has EPA range of 240 miles. The Wh/mile is 70 * .95 /240 = 277

If 70D has the same energy density of cells as 60, additional 10kW capacity will increase weight of the car and energy consumption will be proportionally increased. It should lie on a line on the Wh/mile vs. kWh graph that connects energy efficiency in Wh/mile of 60 and 85D, but it is not. In fact the 70D Wh/mile efficiency is not even close to fall on this line, it essentially the same as for 60. This does not square with the increased weight of 70D as compared to 60 as a result of bigger battery (not to be confused with the increased weight due to second motor). The only explanation then is that the weight of the 70D battery was not appreciably increased as compared to 60 battery pack. Hence my suggestion that the increase of the capacity of the battery pack in 70D is because TM used the same quantity of cells as in 60, each weighting approximately the same, but packing 16.7% more energy.

 

[hans]

What's quite evident is that 30-60 or 40-80 the P85D is quite a bit slower than cars that are on paper comparable. I got easily outaccelerated by a 911 Turbo S going from 30 to 60 - wasn't even close.

The 911 has a seven-speed transmission and the Tesla has one. That's the problem with comparing cars (or anything else) based on just one spec rather than the entire system.

 

[sandpiper]

What's quite evident is that 30-60 or 40-80 the P85D is quite a bit slower than cars that are on paper comparable. I got easily outaccelerated by a 911 Turbo S going from 30 to 60 - wasn't even close.

Sure. But you have to remember that the P85D is crippled by having only one gear.

If that was the goal, Tesla could make rather short work of the Porsche by including even a 2 or 3 speed transmission. But that would destroy some of what makes the car great.

 

[dirkhh]

Sure. But you have to remember that the P85D is crippled by having only one gear.

If that was the goal, Tesla could make rather short work of the Porsche by including even a 2 or 3 speed transmission. But that would destroy some of what makes the car great.

I guess it wasn't clear from my post. I wasn't complaining. I was just observing. I understand the reasons / limitations. And make no mistake, the P85D is blinding fast from 30-60. Just not as fast as some other cars, cars that the P85D beats 0-60.
The corollary of this is that obviously 0-30 the P85D is in a league of 1

 

[Panu]

Note the German website shows all four S configurations by default. Would like to know what the other country websites show.

It shows all four in US site too: Model S | Tesla Motors. German order page shows 3 models like others.

 

[Uncle Paul]

On reason that the Tesla often leaps ahead of other cars in street racing, is that most other cars start off in their cruising gear, and it takes a little time for their automatic transmissions to kick down into the performance range of their motors.

I believe the single speed transmission gives the far superior driving experience, with instant throttle response to hasten the drivers intent.

For a race, where the ICE driver has a few moments to shift down into a lower gear before the race begins, that often will win them the race.

Same with most cars launch mode. The driver must first go into a series of adjustments to allow their car to launch with optimum settings. Stop the car. push and hold a button for a couple seconds, step on the brake, floor the accelerator, then foot off the brake when the signal is given. For Tesla, it is simply mash the throttle.

 

[ecarfan]

It shows all four in US site too: Model S | Tesla Motors. German order page shows 3 models like others.

Thanks, now I understand why people,e are seeing different things.

On the Design Studio page only three versions are shown Model S Design Studio | Tesla Motors

On the main Model S page four versions are shown Model S | Tesla Motors

So if someone goes to the Tesla homepage and then clicks"ORDER" (the red button) they will go directly to the Design Studio page, and on that page if they do not click on the 85D box they will not realize that for the 85 there are two choices; AWD and RWD.

The website designers are assuming that site visitors will go to the main Model S page first and scroll down that very long page and see that there are four versions of the Model S.

I consider that a UI flaw.

 

[Cyclone]

You mean there is another page other than the order page to get details from?!?

 

[schonelucht]

It should lie on a line on the Wh/mile vs. kWh graph that connects energy efficiency in Wh/mile of 60 and 85D, but it is not. In fact the 70D Wh/mile efficiency is not even close to fall on this line, it essentially the same as for 60.

You're not accounting for the fact that the dual motor setup is inherently more efficient than the single motor setup.

 

[brucet999]

I feel the same way Rifleman… my S85 may have just lost 10k in value, but I'll be loving it every day for at least 7 years… dream car drive every time.

Gas cars look more and more antiquated every day! We can pass them so effortlessly it's like it's not even fair :tongue: . like that movie "The Final Countdown" where F-14's were leaving propeller planes in their jetwash lol.

I take it from your comment that you think someone about to order should buy the 70D instead of 85 RWD, given that range difference is only about 22 mi on a 90% charge?

- - - Updated - - -

Since Jalopinik says the obsidian black is "really black", I was wondering if they're just joking or if its truly a deeper black (if that's poss.) w/metallic flake. If so, that would look sick with 19' tsportlines (like yours yobig :smile

I saw the new black paint sample today in sunlight. It has a slight amount of pearlescent - not metallic - in it. Meh. It might not show dust as much, since it is not pure black to start with.

In fairness, my opinion shouldn't carry much weight since I do not like black paint for a car.

- - - Updated - - -

Now that I've slept on this, I'm not sold on the 70D - FOR ME IN FLORIDA. Why would I need the AWD and lose the frunk space? I don't think it makes sense. I'm sticking to my S85 configuration.

You will pay $5000 for 7" more (perhaps 1.5 x volume) frunk plus microwave?

 

[vgrinshpun]

You're not accounting for the fact that the dual motor setup is inherently more efficient than the single motor setup.

I most definitely do - try to read my post again.

In the second part of the post I am suggesting to draw a line from the point indicating energy consumption per mile for 60 to the point indicating energy consumption for 85D (the fact that this point is for D variant accounts for dual motor setup). Both of these points should be drawn on a Wh/mile vs. kWh chart. So the difference between energy consumption of 60 and 85D is due to adding cells (and weight) to go from 60kWh to 85 kWh battery pack **and** adding dual motor drive.

If battery pack of 70D is obtained just by adding additional cells, like it is done for 85D, the efficiency for 70D should be located on or close to above line. The efficiency of 70D, however, is essentially the same as 60, indicating that 70D and 60 battery weight is very similar, which is possible only if additional 10kW of capacity in 70D are obtained using the same quantity of cells, each of which have weight similar to cells in 60, but 16.7% higher volumetric energy density.

 

[Sad]

I don't think it's a typo.

Compare Side-by-Side

The most efficient Model S and the only one over 100 mpge in city and highway.

Any idea why the 85D is significantly more efficient than the 70D on the highway (106 vs 102), with the same engines and presumably more weight? Different gearing maybe? But then, why then use the more highway-efficient gearing for the bigger battery?

 

[mdevp]

The 85D has two 220hp motors, what does the 70D have? Are they the same motors as the 85D but tuned lower? Apologies if already discussed.

 

[Cottonwood]

You will pay $5000 for 7" more (perhaps 1.5 x volume) frunk plus microwave?

Is the available frunk volume larger on the 70D/85D than the P85D? I know that the volume of the frunk in a P85 is almost 2x that of a P85D. They took a lot of volume for that high power front motor.

 

[chickensevil]

So I don't know where you get the EPA number of 305 from

From the EPA website:
Compare Side-by-Side

So you can see that according to the EPA it is:
70D: 330wh/mi
85D: 340wh/mi
60: 350wh/mi
P85D: 360wh/mi
85: 380wh/mi

What doesn't make sense to me is how the P85D is somehow *more* efficient than the 85, yet it gets lower mileage???

Clearly their numbers are either A: accounting for some kind of loss in charging. B: totally made up??? C: Someone made a typo on the P85D (seriously it is the only one that doesn't make any lick of sense)

Anyway, throwing out the P85D because something just isn't adding up there, you can see that the efficiency difference based on EPA numbers is 8% for the 85->60 (380 -> 350) (obviously weight savings gives you the 8%) and from the 85D -> 70D (340 -> 330) is 3% efficiency gain. So based just on the numbers posted by the EPA, and assuming that whatever charging inefficiency they are hitting you on here is equal across all cars (which might not actually be the case I admit that) I am actually on the side that says it isn't being contributed to some kind of weight savings.

That doesn't necessarily mean they aren't better cells. For all we know, they have either A: Been using better cells for a while now across all cars, or B: the better cells didn't improve the weight and in fact made the cells heavier, they just fit more power in a smaller package (which is somewhat important all by itself, more power but increased weight, same volume, and if they are *cheaper*??? why wouldn't you use them?). In any case 3% for a 10kWh drop vs 8% for a 25kWh drop any minor non-matchup here is likely attributed to the more efficient motors than anything.

- - - Updated - - -

If 8% is equally dropping per pound then going from 60 to 85 cost them 1% per 3.125kWh. Similarly in going from the 70D to 85D it cost them 1% per 5kWh.

Is the Dual Motors really that much more efficient that the added weight doesn't make as large of an impact to efficiency?

Let's look at a different comparison to find out. 85 vs 85D. This is 380 -> 340 which is an efficiency gain of 11%!!! With a smaller motor in the back to make up for a small motor in front, I would bet that there isn't too much weight difference between the two. Even if there was, that is still 11% being gained *straight* from adding the dual motor. I am willing to believe that 1% efficiency loss per 5kWh number up above as the motors are making the car more efficient in a big way, in-spite of the weight difference.

 

[Robert.Boston]

You will pay $5000 for 7" more (perhaps 1.5 x volume) frunk plus microwave?

The extra range on the S85 over the S70D is small but potentially important--it's important to me, in any case. I'd be hard-pressed to choose between them, and the bit of extra frunk storage weighs towards the S85.