Tesla Motors: PLEASE stop lying about specifications (60 to 75 upgrade)

[chillaban]

I believe it is partly a coincidence that the EPA rating matches the rating given by Tesla to the driver. EPA does a certain test cycle that might require a different consumption to what Tesla believes is realistic for EV user behavior. This becomes more obvious if you take the European NEDC rating which doesn't match realistic driving at all. Neither for ICEs nor for EVs and especially not for Hybrids. According to NEDC the range of the 60 is above 400km (250mls), around 20% more than according to EPA. And that is the value you see on the website / design studio. That would relate to 150Wh/km (240Wh/mile), so I rather prefer to see a more realistic rating of Tesla over some unrealistic brochure values according to some outdated test cycles. So US buyers are lucky that EPA rating matches Tesla rating and realistic consumption pretty well.

Well the matching is no coincidence. The EPA also regulates EV manufacturers from advertising a range that is greater than what can be computed by dividing the battery capacity into the EPA combined efficiency rating. Furthermore, the EPA also places restrictions on advertising ranges that are based off a charge percentage (e.g. 100%) that is said by the manufacturer to damage the vehicle. If you present a recommended and a maximum charge level, you are limited to advertising the average of the two.

So in the USA, legally, a Tesla "rated mile" as shown in the dash (and advertised on the website) must be either the same as or more pessimistic than the mile range shown on the window sticker.

 

[Snerruc]

Back to battery degradation and locked batteries, the 40s, which are a locked 60, degrade in proportion to the actual degradation of the battery. No reason to think locked 60 will be different.

 

[TJtv]

That may be true. But charging a software limited battery to "100%" does not cause anywhere near the level of degradation that charging a non-software limited battery to 100% does.

 

[googlepeakoil]

I am not sure that is the crux of the argument, though.

I think there has evolved three different cruxes of the argument, so to speak:

1) wk057 expressed that representing a 62 kWh usable new 60 kWh model was misleading, when the 75 kWh model is only unde 73 kWh usable. The difference of an upgrade thus is not 15 kWh as advertised, but a little over 10 kWh.

2) Some have expressed questions/have issue over high-end batteries seemingly (if wk057 is correct) being marketed with inflated kWh figures: 85 kWh being actually 81 kWh (of which 78 usable) and 90 kWh being 86 kWh (of which 82 is usable). If wk075 is right, it would have been more in line to advertise these models as 80 and 85, instead of 85 and 90.

3) And yes, some have expressed dismay over the usable kWh being less in most of the Tesla models compared to the advertised or total kWh. Personally I don't have issue with this, though I would like it to be consistent. As I suggested, new 60 kWh should really be advertised as 65 kWh to be consistent with the other models, if wk057's info is correct.

A fair assessment of the different issues being discussed? But I do not think it is just one issue, anyway.

For point 1. I think Tesla needs to be very careful with how they "sell" the 60 -> 75 kWh. If anywhere they start saying you're getting 15kWH more charge capacity in your car - imagine how far it will take you with that extra 15kWh of driving / range - then that's misleading / class action lawsuit territory when people get home and find that actually the range is 10kWh more. Alternatively they can say pay X and get the XXX EPA range vs the standard XXX EPA range of your model - that's fair enough.

Am fine with their being built in buffers - and usable being less than full calculated capacity. But expect consistency.

 

[Dan43]

This overhead only applies to the 60kW, this means all X75D (as 60 was discontinued) are also in this area of true kW use and availability.

The 60 will be a battery no longer supported soon, once the S100D lands smallest kW will be a 75, probably.

 

[Andyw2100]

I wonder if this thread had anything to do with the price reduction mentioned in this post:

Might not be news for everyone but I just logged in to My Tesla and see the upgrade went from $9k to $7k:

View attachment 210294

Interesting. I would've thought they would never touch the price as it would make people who purchased at high price pretty pissed off. Either way, it's still not worthwhile for me to purchase...

 

[Dan43]

Does that change the thinking on the 60-75 upgrade now it is $2000 cheaper?

 

[fasteddie7]

Does that change the thinking on the 60-75 upgrade now it is $2000 cheaper?

Getting there in my opinion. I would seriously consider at $5000 and I wouldn't blink at $3500-$4000. If there was ever a "flash sale" I wouldn't hesitate at those prices.

 

[Snerruc]

Probably for the people who spent $2000 more under the new price for the60. $7000 plus $68000 equal the price of a 75.

 

[Chopr147]

The 60 pricing was the reason I even started contemplating an S , checking the numbers etc................. Of course I then started adding options but that's what happens
I hope they keep the 60kwh which worked great for me. Too bad I don't think it is here to stay

 

[u00mem9]

Probably for the people who spent $2000 more under the new price for the60. $7000 plus $68000 equal the price of a 75.

Seems to be for everyone. I bought before the $2k increase but the upgrade is discounted for me to $7k now (was $9k)

It's still a terrible deal.

 

[Dan43]

Seems to be for everyone. I bought before the $2k increase but the upgrade is discounted for me to $7k now (was $9k)

It's still a terrible deal.

So net cost (with increase after you bought on Model S) is $5000. Price in UK has come down also.

There seems to be a huge negative to this 60-75 (41 miles increase), way beyond 75-90 (35 EPA miles range increase) and 90-100 (21 miles range increase) price to upgrade.

It is an interesting thread but really seems to have upset so many people who may not have even wanted to upgrade, is the upset from those who wish to upgrade but the price is too much for what you get?

Is the same issues for 75 owners who bought a 90, 90 owners seem very happy although they have paid a hell of a lot more for their mileage uplift per mile than the 60-75 upgraders.

Just really curious, and not meaning to bog down the thread wth frivolous comments if above already well covered?

 

[Drucifer]

Plus YMMV tooootally comes into play too with gasoline engine displacements. Audi's "3.0T" is not 3.0 liters or turbocharged, and the 5.7L HEMI hasn't been 5.7 liters for 50 years, etc etc etc.

And the Volvo XC90 T6 has 4 cylinders and the XC90 T8 also has 4 cylinders.

 

[brkaus]

Seems to be for everyone. I bought before the $2k increase but the upgrade is discounted for me to $7k now (was $9k)

It's still a terrible deal.

It's a terrible deal if you don't need the range. It's priceless if you need the range.

 

[timk225]

If the 60 was really a 60kWh pack, or if the unusable area was at the bottom, you'd have a point.

Since the 60 is really a 75 kWh pack with the top blocked off, charging it to "100%" is physically only charging the cells to ~83% - less impact on aging than the real 75 kWh charging to 90%.

How do we know that it is the TOP end of the cell charging range that is blocked off? Maybe it is the bottom end. Or some of both the top and bottom?

 

[u00mem9]

It's a terrible deal if you don't need the range. It's priceless if you need the range.

If you need the range with any regularity, that means you are charging over 86% regularly, and that means you are paying 7k for the privilege of harming your own battery. No thanks.

If you regularly need the range, a 90 may be the only solution that makes sense. But remember for any long distance travel via the Supercharger network, charging points are spaced to accommodate the lowest common denominator (a 60 S/X with 200 mile range)

I would be interested to hear the details from any buyers who determined they needed the 75. Try to be objective.

 

[Chopr147]

How do we know that it is the TOP end of the cell charging range that is blocked off? Maybe it is the bottom end. Or some of both the top and bottom?

Much discussion was had about this with the consensus being top end blocked. Then wk57 did some "tinkering" that appears to have proved this correct. Check the threads and you will find this issue has beaten the dead horse into the grave

 

[Snerruc]

It is established that charging to 100%is not harmful if you drive it righr after charging. See the thread on the battery that was charged to 100% twice a day for 200,000 mi.. as for 60 vs 75 or 90, 90 is one third more than a S 60. For me the 75 was worth it, but 90 is too rich as you have to take stuff I don't want like dual motors. In my case, I determined that the extra 40 miles was worth it as it allows a trip a 60 can't make without diverting for a splash charge. Visitors on a short trip get upset when something takes a couple of hours out of their time that they don't understand. Come visit and I'll show you.

 

[avesraggiana]

It is established that charging to 100%is not harmful if you drive it righr after charging. See the thread on the battery that was charged to 100% twice a day for 200,000 mi.. as for 60 vs 75 or 90, 90 is one third more than a S 60. For me the 75 was worth it, but 90 is too rich as you have to take stuff I don't want like dual motors. In my case, I determined that the extra 40 miles was worth it as it allows a trip a 60 can't make without diverting for a splash charge. Visitors on a short trip get upset when something takes a couple of hours out of their time that they don't understand. Come visit and I'll show you.

My confidence in choosing the 75D configuration was shaken considerably, while I read through the previous seventeen pages. I was very nearly persuaded to downgrade to the 60D. In the end, I’ve decided to stick with my original decision. In my case, that extra 41 miles is PRICELESS, as a previous poster commented. Once a week, I drive 290 miles roundtrip between the south end of San Diego and LAX. I know I’ll be charging somewhere on that roundtrip loop, whether I get the 60 or 75. Given the vagaries of traffic, unexpected lengthy detours, common human failings like forgetting something at home, turning back and then turning around again to race back to work with no time to charge because now I’m really pressed for time, it’s worth it to me to cough up the $6500 premium, just so I can make that outbound 145 mile trip to work with no worry or fuss, no matter what obstacles fall my way.

 

[Dan43]

I also have a 75 and feel it is the best range for me and doesn't make me suffer too much anxiety on longer runs. I have a 260 mile roundtrip weekly and also can make it there and only need one stop on the way back, or on the way there and no stopping for the home leg.

I also built in tiredness, laziness, wishing to go home quicker and the 75 fitted my needs just right, plus the 75 I got was on a good deal inventory so made even more sense.

No regrets on a 75 here, and thats reading all the arguments for the 60.