Regular S vs Performance

Regular S vs Performance

I've reserved but haven't configured yet. Near as I can tell, the only difference between a comparably equipped S and the Performance model is 1.2 secs in 0-60. Is that correct? My test drive was in a Performance model and it was super fast. Will I be disappointed with a "plain" S?

andykeller | 7 janvier 2013

I've been considering the same thing. I think the only other differences are a spoiler and performance interior which is leather + alcantara, which looks really nice.

In terms of 0-60 times, I currently drive a BMW 328 and the difference between the regular and performance appears to be about the same as the difference between a 328 and an M3.

I drove a performance model S last week and it was super fun, but flooring it scared my wife and mom and made me feel like I had just dropped down the first hill on a roller coaster.

nickjhowe | 7 janvier 2013

There is no way you will be disappointed with a 'plain' S. I have the performance and it is scary fast, but the linear, no-gear-change, punch-it-at-any-speed of the electric power train in both models is the thing that differentiates the S from everything else on the road.

Remember that even the non-perf out accelerates most things on the road, and when accelerating to overtake at highway speed will blow away pretty much anything.

rcc | 7 janvier 2013

You will not be disappointed in a standard unless you are absolutely an acceleration junkie. Or need to drag race from stop lights a lot :-).

The acceleration on the standard S is enough to make my 2nd grade son say "whoa" even when I didn't completely floor it.

Jamon | 7 janvier 2013

@dmaescher: I specifically requested a non-perf car for my test drive because I didn't want to be tempted to upgrade. It had incredible power and was far-and-away the best car I've ever driven. After finalizing my configuration for a 60kWh (non-perf), I went back and test-drove a performance S just for comparison. I could hardly tell any difference between the two in normal driving conditions. I'm sure you would lose some drag races in the non-performance car, but assuming that's not worth the extra money, you won't be dissapointed with the non-performance.

petero | 7 janvier 2013

dmaescher. It all comes down to your expectations. What is important to you? 1.2 seconds and approx. $15K is a big difference. If the price isn't an issue get the Performance, this way you will not regret not getting something you really wanted.

To me, the Performance 'S' isn't worth it because I don't race on the streets. I may not be the perfect person to poll since I ordered a 60kWh battery.

dashrb | 7 janvier 2013

@Jamon, that was exactly my reason for driving the non-perf during the Get Amped event, too! I didn't want to get tempted into something I couldn't afford, and I too finalized on the 60 kWh. I have yet to drive/ride in a Performance. My delivery is within a month!

BYT | 7 janvier 2013

I purposefully test drove the none-perf. knowing that I am getting the Perf. model, and I love my P85.

"You will not be disappointed in a standard unless you are absolutely an acceleration junkie. Or need to drag race from stop lights a lot"

That last sentence describes me totally. Has anyone rolled the front windows down when you punch it?? The car is so quiet, you don't realize how fast you are going, when you roll down the window and both hear and FEEL the wind struggle to get out of your way, man, it's so much fun!!

TeslaModelSOwner | 7 janvier 2013

I can perhaps provide an interesting posint of view. I currently drive a v10 M5 and test drove the 85kwh non-performance S. The accerleration both off the line and while crusiing was a different feeling and still gave me the acceleration I desired. I am not one to forgo performance for the sake of economy, I finalized a non-performance S because it still gave me the thrill you get in an M5.

rd2 | 7 janvier 2013

I have a non-Performance version, but test drove the Performance at the factory tour. There is a difference, albeit slight, at takeoff. The Performance throws you back immediately, and the non-Performance throws you back but it takes a fraction longer to happen. That was the only real difference I could sense. The 0-60 times are probably overestimated by Tesla, as Motor Trend got 3.9 s out of the Performance, but hasn't reported a non-Performance time, which I am guessing is right around 5.0 s from my own crude testing :)

This past weekend, I floored the car with 4 passengers and golf clubs in the back, and it threw everyone back in their seat and planted them there, with varied screams of delight and terror from the passengers. It was awesome, and I don't regret not having the Performance version at all. I also think the Performance version without the 21" wheels is kind of a waste of $, and those tires won't get the mileage I need for my purposes.

Getting Amped Again | 7 janvier 2013

Talk about "unnoticeable", the 60 kWh battery gets you 0-60 mph in 5.9 sec vs. 5.6 in the non-performance S. That's Bang For The Buck for us 60 kWh reservation holders!

Actually, 6.5 sec for a standing start 0-60 is damn fast. I think even the 40 kWh cars are going to be quicker than people anticipate (except for you M owners and other speed junkies).

tork | 7 janvier 2013

@E60 M5 Owner

Oh really? you drive an M5? I had no idea =P

BYT | 7 janvier 2013

I was driving behind an M5 yesterday in the Bay Area with plates that read, "NICE TRY"

I wanted to give him a try against my P85 but the traffic was too heavy... :(

lph | 7 janvier 2013

Rd2 has it right about the perceived performance, however Motor Trend did test the standard model S too so we have hard numbers.
The results are standard P85 vs Perf P85.
0-30 2.3 vs 1.7
0-40 3.1 vs 2.4
0-50 4.0 vs 3.1
0-60 5.0 vs 4.0
0-70 6.1 vs 5.0
0-80 7.4 vs 6.3
0-90 8.9 vs 7.7
1-100 10.8 vs 9.5
45-65 1.9 vs 1.7
1/4 mile 13.2 at 110.9mph vs 12.4 at 112.5mph.

Note how quick the standard is after 30mph.

Although not as fast as the performance version these are really fast and once beyond 30 mph (and probably less) in the BMW M5 league.

lph | 7 janvier 2013

Oh and 30-90 is 6.6 vs 6.0! This standard MS is only .3 sec slower than the 2013 BMW M5 at 6.3sec. That is hardly noticeable.
Almost anyone would be happy with performance like that. Also it saves about $13,500.

TeslaModelSOwner | 7 janvier 2013

I know everybody has seen the P85 vs. M5 video, just remember that is 0-100 mph, past 100 mph, in a half mile, mile, or track the M5 will dominate.

eltonf | 7 janvier 2013

It's true that the M5 will dominate past 100 mph, but in reality none of us ever need to drive that fast. For 99% of real world driving scenarios the Model S is the faster car.

TeslaModelSOwner | 7 janvier 2013

Depends on the individual, I quite regularly take the M5 past 100, and occasionally track it. With a top speed above 200 mph, its a force.

That being said, I am getting an MS and believe its a sign of the times not just from an eco friendly perspective, but also performance

eltonf | 7 janvier 2013

Since you go to tracks that extra oomph over 100 mph does make a difference :) | 7 janvier 2013

I ride motorcycle & enjoy sports cars. The top end of a vehicle isn't as fun for me as getting from 0-speed limit & passing quickly. I test drove the S & SP before deciding on the SP. I couldn't tell much of a difference but generally go for my vehicles fully loaded. At this point I may be selling my motorcycle come Spring. The joy of accelerating in the S is meeting my needs for speed(& I have Winter wheels on). I am confident that S & SP owners are having the same experiences.

aa012a | 7 janvier 2013


Sold my Yamaha YZF-R1... and the money is going towards my MS! :)

TikiMan | 7 janvier 2013

All I can say is...

Seriously, the MS Peformance is stupid quick in real-world driving, and very little can overtake it (even exotics), because the torque is so instant. In Germany, on the Autoban, I am sure most V8's will overtake in in the long-run, however, I don't live in Germany, and where it counts in typical eveyday driving, the MS Peformance destroys EVERYTHING (Lambo's, 911GT's, M's, etc).

Brian H | 7 janvier 2013

Here're the 30+ deltas from that table:

0-30 2.3 vs 1.7 (+0.6)
30-40 0.8 vs 0.7 (+0.1)
40-50 0.9 vs 0.7 (+0.2)
50-60 1.0 vs 0.9 (+0.1)
60-70 1.1 vs 1.0 (+0.1)
70-80 1.3 vs 1.3 (+0.0)
80-90 1.5 vs 1.4 (+0.1)
90-100 1.9 vs 1.8 (+0.1)
45-65 1.9 vs 1.7 (+0.2)

Captain_Zap | 7 janvier 2013

The interior details tipped the scale for me. I don't care for perforated leather and that is the only leather option available in the standard model. I liked some of the other interior details as well.

rcc | 7 janvier 2013

Unless the folks at Tesla made a horrible mistake assembling my car, the standard has non-perforated leather.

The Perf interior has the alcantara accents on the seats, the alcantara headliner and the piping. I'm told lots of folks move up to the Perf to get the red piping that goes with the black leather interior.

lph | 7 janvier 2013

Thanks Brian H,
You saved me from having to do it myself. I got a bit lazy with my last table.

Captain_Zap | 7 janvier 2013

Maybe the perforated leather only applied to the Signature models. I see that they took down the specifications for the Signatures on the webpage so I couldn't check to see if that was the case.

jkirkebo | 8 janvier 2013

My main reason for going with the performance version is that the carbon fibre is the only interior option I really like. I also like the Alcantara accents on the seats and the dark wheels. The actual performance upgrade is nice, but I wouldn't pay $10k for that alone.

And the perforated leather was only delivered on the Signature non-perf cars.

JThompson | 8 janvier 2013

This is one of the most informative threads in the forum - thanks!

DC@Tesla | 8 janvier 2013

Very useful thread indeed! Are there any performance numbers for the 60 kwh? I am assuming the above non-perf numbers a from the 85 kwh model s. Are those getting the 60 and 40 kwh going to have the same fun passing cars?

lph | 8 janvier 2013

I don't have the actual numbers because the P60 has not been tested. However extrapolating from the data that Tesla has provided (just two numbers plus HP and torque) and a factor for the difference between Tesla results and Motor Trend results.. Here is my best guess (using a curve fitting technique) if MT had tested it.
0-30 2.4 sec
0-40 3.2
0-50 4.2
0-60 5.3
0-70 6.6
0-80 8.2
0-90 10
0-100 12.2
1/4 mile 13.8 at 105.5
45-65 2.1 sec

Note that the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are less than Tesla... this is because MT has come in with shorter times in their tests for the P85 and S85 (partly because MT uses a 1 foot rollout as most other testing agencies do, which I believe Tesla did not.

lph | 8 janvier 2013

The acceleration curves I provided were relatively easy to calculate for the P60 car. The acceleration curve will likely be indicative of the real thing although not exact because of not having enough data points. I have not even attempted to do the P40 however, because the acceleration curve is harder to extrapolate and is likely to be off by a considerably larger margin.

It will be interesting to see what the real test data shows.