Forums

Model X P100

Model X P100

Going out on a limb here but I'm betting the top of the line Model X will be a P100D.
Evidence for this:

Battery technology improves by about 5-10% every year
Model S is using 2012 battery technology
Model X is going to be heavier and less aerodynamic and require a bigger battery for the same range
Model S 70D is the first example of updated battery technology (about a 17% improvement over 60)
Model X is already promised to have things that have not been announced yet.

Get ready for 0 to 60 in an SUV in less than 3 seconds as well as the same thing in the new Model S P100D which will also launch in Septemper.

pvetesla | 25. april 2015

I thought someone made mention that the 70D actually has more of the same batteries not better technology. But here's to hoping you're right.

Näky | 25. april 2015

I don't even need P model if lesser one beats Cayenne turbo's acceleration.

Näky | 25. april 2015

Oh, in above need should have been "need".

ian t.wa.us | 25. april 2015

I'm with you Naky (sorry, don't know how to add the accent on my iPad), will definitely "need" the P version!

Here's to hoping all these predictions of a higher capacity battery are correct!

Cheers!

Brian H | 25. april 2015

Nacky;
??

Brian H | 25. april 2015

Unless you meant quotes should have been included!

carlk | 25. april 2015

@alan.berk I tend to agree with that. Elon has already said base X will have 70kWh battery. It's hard to imagine that the higher model will only only 85.

@Näky I'd like to see my XP100D embarrasses Cayenne Turbo S instead of just beats it. Besides wife will be the main driver. I don't think she will race anyone but rather just to send the message don't even think about it. A 3 sec car will do that just fine.

Näky | 26. april 2015

Brian H:
Unless you meant quotes should have been included!

Yes, that I meant.

Näky in English is somethin like apparition or visio.

Carlk, that would be nice. But here car tax is ridiculous, so Cayenne turbo S starting price is about €305000 without options. Fully-loaded XP is likely less than half of that. Car tax is CO2 based 5-40%, 5% for EVs. We also pay car tax from sales tax.
Try: http://www.porsche.fi/hinnastot/#
First row is with 24% sales tax, next pure car tax and last total.

Here might be couple few years old imported as used turbo s cars around. So beat is enough for me. :)

raffael s. | 26. april 2015

If a 100wkh version should be announced with the X, it won't be delivered until 2016. They are developing a new superior cell at the moment and this cell will be the first one to be produced at the GF. The question is: when will the GF be operable? If its mid 16 maybe they will put in some more cells just to make the kWh rating higher, but if 15 kWh difference between the 70D and the 85D are equal to 30 miles, the 15 kWh between the 85 and the 100 won't bring the S100D up to 300 miles. The optimum for todays cells is somewhere between 60 and 90 kWh. I rather think they will cut the 85D price down to 80k (add a little extra for the X) and drop the S85. Shortly before the GF is ready, Panasonic will send some of their new cells, made in Japan, and the pack's energy will go up some 20-30%, leaving us with a new 85-90D and a 100-110D. The range of those cars will be something like 288-312 and 324-351. Prices will stay the same as before.

Brian H | 28. april 2015

raffael;
What're you toking?

raffael s. | 28. april 2015

@ Brian: taking, talking, or toking?
Talking: I am just assuming, based on, some of JBs comments on battery technology, things I think I know about battery technology and my experience in product line engineering . Then I did some calculations and the rest is pure guessing ;) please disagree, if you think I am wrong.
taking: I like to drink a glass of scotch from time to time, or sometimes a beer. I hope that had no major effect on my assumptions.
toking: I googled it, it means smoking cannabis or tobacco. If you want to know what I am toking, my answer would be tobacco.

vperl | 28. april 2015

Coffin nails, great.

Google that.

vperl | 01. kan 2015

Max P100D

Done deal

Kpg81 | 02. kan 2015

Max P100D

Order up 4 of them, done deal

vperl | 04. kan 2015

Done

georgehawley.fl.us | 04. kan 2015

How about this idea?
Tesla introduces the higher capacity (30%), lower cost (>30% less) new cells in 2H16. The Model S by that time will sell in 3 configurations S70D, S85D, SP110D. The 70 kWh pack will have 30% fewer cells than today. The 85 kWh pack will also have 30% fewer cells than today. The cost of the cells in the packs will be reduced by 50%. Tesla will be able increase the gross margin for the S70D and S85D and reduce the price at the same time. The performance model will continue to be priced as it is today but with rated range over 300 miles. The downside of the P will be the increased charging time but with substantially greater range there will be fewer stops.

The X70 will be phased out. There will be X85, X110, and XP110 models remaining by the end of 2016.
At that point Tesla will be offering battery pack upgrades to all interested S and X owners. They will extract the 18650 cells from the trade-in packs and recycle them into the PowerWall products, creating an incredibly low cost basis for that product line, as each recycled 85 kWh pack will supply enough cells for 8-12 home storage boxes. The trade-in battery pack housings and plumbing will be recycled into new battery packs, further lowering the cost basis of the MS and MX vehicles. By 2Q17 Tesla will be showing a GAAP net profit to everyone's astonishment.

Now about that toking...

vperl | 04. kan 2015

Been to Seattle or Denver last week again ?

raffael s. | 04. kan 2015

@george Almost right but with 30% more energy dense cells you need almost 77%, of the original size. (1/1.3=0.769). Its far easier to calculate the range of the 90kwh and 110kwh packs as you just multiply the EPA ratings by 1.3. But even a 85kwh pack would have almost 300 miles rated range. I don't really know when it will happen, but one thing is for sure: the cells will improve!

georgehawley.fl.us | 05. kan 2015

Ouch! Stayed up too late, I guess. Let's 1.3 x 85 = 110.5. That works.
23% fewer cells to get 70 and and 85. I think that means they need a 35% cost reduction to cut the cell cost in half. (That's greater than 30% but not much),

Thanks for the math lesson...

I think that you are right about the 300 mile range, implying that there is some marketing magic at that threshold.

110/85 times 240 = 310. This says that, assuming Elon was accurate in estimating the rated range of the MX to be 240 miles, it will take 110 kWh for the X to reach 300 miles

The S110D would blow 300 miles away (maybe a rated range of 350). That would be compelling to many. You could skip every other supercharger if your bladder could stand it. Iron butt time.

raffael s. | 08. kan 2015

@george: At this point, estimating the X range is very tough, I guess. 240 could be possible, I would even go as far as saying 250 could be possible too. The range limitation, should be a negative factor in X sales until every configuration safely goes over 300miles, or faster supercharging is available. Both can only, really be achieved by new cells, more energy dense or faster chargeable. I think the X could have the potential to outsell the S, but right now, as any additional range, still is very important to buyers the X might be lucky to if sales are split 50/50. If the X70 just gets a little bit more than 200 miles, it will face the same problems as the S60.

vandacca | 08. kan 2015

I re-watched the Model-S reveal video and it was indicated that there were 10,000 reservations holders before the first vehicle was released. Depending on cancellation rates, there currently appear to be 20,000 to 25,000 reservations holders (and climbing every day). Thats over double the Model-S.

I remember reading (in this forum) once, someone quoting that SUV vehicle sales are usually double to their sedan counter part (for ICE vehicles). Same seems to be holding true for Tesla, but I think its hard to compare sales based on demand for vehicle-style alone. Because of the Model-S, Tesla has more visibility and financial stability, which may explain part of the bigger number of reservations, rather than vehicle style.

Red Sage ca us | 08. kan 2015

The Mercedes-Benz GLK-Class starts at $37,900 -- I'm pretty sure the Tesla Model ≡ Crossover will compete against it and the BMW X3.

The Mercedes-Benz M-Class starts at $48,300 and, like the Porsche Macan, will be ignored by Tesla Motors -- just as are the 'sedan tweeners' -- BMW 5-Series and E-Class.

The Mercedes-Benz GL-Class starts at $63,600 and moved 26,597 units in the US during 2014. That is practically 1:1 with the S-Class, which sold 25,276 in 2014. However, the year before it was different, with 29,912 GL-Class sold, and only 13,303 S-Class during 2013. In fact, the last time S-Class sold over 25,000 in the US was 2007. However, the S-Class hadn't crossed the 14,000 mark since 2008. Meanwhile, the GL-Class has outsold the S-Class every year since 2007 and has moved at least 25,000 units since 2011.

In the five years spanning 2009-2013, the Mercedes-Benz S-Class sold 62,162 units. During the same time frame, the GL-Class sold 116,048 units. Not quite a 2:1 ratio, but not far off the mark. The GL-Class doesn't steal sales from S-Class, it adds to Mercedes-Benz' bottom line.

The Mercedes-Benz G-Class starts at $115,400. This behemoth, designed to contend with Range Rover's best offroad warrior, has pitiful sales. It barely managed 3,090 sales in 2014, up from only 2,494 in 2013. Each was a substantial improvement over sales of less than 1,400 per year going back to 2005. The last time it crested 3,000 units was 2002. I don't expect the Model X to compete directly with such large SUVs, but it will certainly outsell them.

raffael s. | 09. kan 2015

The big SUVs outselling the sedan theory, isn't as easy as it is stated most of the time. The GL and the S -Class is an example that works. Sadly, often, the biggest SUV is compared to the biggest sedan and the biggest SUVs sell a lot better most of the time. Cayenne Panamera is an example that doesn't work, in the Tesla context. The Panamera is a lot more expensive than the Cayenne, which can't be said about the X and the S. The other big thing will be range. Range has close to no effects on ICE sales, but right now range has a big effect on EV sales. I guess once every Tesla, X or S, has more than 300 miles and supercharging gets a bit faster, the X will sell better than the S. Until then lots of potential X buyers will ether stay with their ICEs or maybe some will switch for the S. In my opinion the EV is better in every way than the ICE, but most people have never experienced living with an EV and lots of range is a good argument for making the switch. I could be happy with 150 miles, sadly most people won't.

Red Sage ca us | 10. kan 2015

The Panamera is pretty much right in step with pricing for the Model S until you choose either the 'Executive' versions, or decide to go overboard with the luxury options packages -- which cost far more than the premium options for Model S.

As such, a top-of-the-line Cayenne Turbo S, fully tricked out, starts at $157,300. A similarly outfitted Panamera Turbo S is $180,300.

You have to either: 1) be a really big Porsche fan; or 2) be so rich your children have never worn the same pair of socks twice; to bother paying that for a Panamera in a world where the Tesla Model S P85D exists. I expect a fully loaded Tesla Model X will total under $140,000 -- a relative bargain.

5,740 Panamera and 16,205 Cayenne were sold in the US during 2014. A 2.82:1 ratio. During 2010 through 2014, Porsche sold a total of 71,578 Cayenne, and 33,395 Panamera in the United States of America. That's a 2.14:1 ratio.

Sure, the least expensive Cayenne is $58,300, while the most expensive Panamera Exclusive is $263,900... So what? There is still a significant overlap in their price ranges ($78,100 to $157,300, a $79,200 window, plus options) and each represents the epitome of Porsche's offerings as sedan and SUV. Given the choice, more people buy the Cayenne. Not that either is lighting up the sales charts.

vandacca | 11. kan 2015

@Red Sage, those are purchase price numbers you're quoting. If you consider the Total Cost of Ownership, the Model-S/Model-X becomes a steal compared to the Panamera/Cayenne!

Red Sage ca us | 11. kan 2015

vandacca: Precisely! I believe that with a test drive and a bit of comparative research under their belts, people will begin to order the Model X in droves. Building it at a 1:1 ratio with Model S is a very conservative goal. But before this time next year it will be readily apparent that demand for Model X in North America is much higher than for Model S, and that neither will diminish.

The Model S already outsells both the Panamera and Cayenne. The Model X will eclipse all three due to the perceived benefit of getting 'more for your money' that permeates the SUV/CUV market in North America. It certainly won't hurt that in the case of Model X, that will actually be true.

raffael s. | 11. kan 2015

@red You have a point, but I still think the Cayenne sells better partly because of the lower base price. If you look at car sales they should resemble a gaussian bell curve with sales over price. The lower the entry price the more cars sold, in simple terms. The BMW 5 series sold about 52k times the X5 47k times , the E-Class 66k the M-Class 46k. Audi A6 24k Q7 18.5k. These are also comparable cars the X5 for example starts at 50 grand the X5 at 53 grand. I still don't think the X won't sell very very good, but I can't see why it should sell a lot more than the S. I think this SUV sells better than sedan math works only if the sedan version is more expensive.
If my sales figures should be wrong, please correct me. My only source was http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/audi-q7-sales-figures.html and I don't know how reliable they are.

Red Sage ca us | 11. kan 2015

I use GoodCarBadCar as well.

Your point supports mine: If your $40,000 entry level vehicle is outsold by your $100,000+ flagship, there is something seriously wrong.

That's why I was comparing the most expensive SUVs (that I expect to be direct competitors to Model X) against the most expensive sedans (that are direct competitors to Model S) within a marque. I was not comparing the highest selling SUV to the lowest selling sedan. Those comparisons would yield different results in most cases.

The Tesla Model S does NOT compete against the AUDI A6, BMW 5-Series, or Mercedes-Benz E-Class. It competes against A8, 7-Series, S-Class, and Panamera.

For some reason, almost no one buys a BMW X6, Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class, or Maserati Ghibli/Quattroporte... So I don't use those as comparators to Tesla Motors products.

The A8, 7-Series, S-Class, and Panamera are all outsold by their respective stablemates: Q7, X5, GL-Class, and Cayenne. And those are the vehicles that will all be targeted by the Tesla Model X. Thus, I predict the Model X will enjoy similar success, by outselling the Model S in the United States of America.

georgehawley.fl.us | 15. kan 2015

visited Fremont plant a couple of days ago. nice tour. Had to sign an NDA so can't reveal what I saw inside the factory. Outside the enormous parking lot is filled completely. The company has set up overflow parking served by shuttle buses. I wonder how long it takes to program new robotic manufacturing systems? After the tour, I'm thinking that I won't get my Reservation # 9378 X this year. :-((

ian t.wa.us | 15. kan 2015

NDA SchmeNDA spill the beans george! ;-)

How about a sub 4000 reservation?

vandacca | 15. kan 2015

George, are you not getting your #9378 reservation due to the delay of the last-minute decision to implement lenticular 3D reverse camera? ;-)

Really, an NDA for a factory tour? Did they really show you something that you can't reveal...???

vperl | 16. kan 2015

Georgie, NDA, really..

But your right. 5K MX produced in 2015.

Feb2016:for you

Or your full of "it"; and it is 2015 Christmas.

Time.... Is the answer

timf2001 | 16. kan 2015

The NDA is standard procedure for everyone who takes the factory tour. I highly doubt he saw anything as exciting as the final Model X design, but perhaps it was something along the lines of "here is where we are building the Model X body shop" and it was in complete disarray and nowhere near ready for production.

grant10k | 16. kan 2015

Oh, timf, you worry over nothing. I took a picture of the Model X body shop. Looks like it's coming along just fine.

Brian H | 16. kan 2015

voerl;
you're

Your confusion is consistent, or you're trying to change the language.

vperl | 16. kan 2015

Brian, there you R. Got your green card, a sponsor ?

Thanks

Brian H | 16. kan 2015

Unnecessary and unwanted.

georgehawley.fl.us | 17. kan 2015

@timf: perhaps you are correct.

Looks a lot better than @grant10's photo however.

@vperl: I bow to your convoluted wisdom.

@Dan: bummer. Steve Jurvetson had a family emergency and had to go home. Didn't get an opportunity to tell him about your idea. All I saw was a photo of him on a slide... Suggest you float the idea directly with Tesla, if you are serious. BTW, I thought it was autostereoscopic. I didn't get the lenticular part. You had two lenses with parallax barrier operation???

vandacca | 18. kan 2015

George, thanks for trying. Lenticular; autostereoscopic; they're synonymous. I'm not convinced it would work well enough to put a lot of effort into it. My concern is the difficulty on being able to adjust the image for different sized drivers and how difficult it would be if the viewer is at an angle from the screen.

Maybe one day I have some time, I'll buy a used Nintendo 3DS from eBay and play around with it.

vperl | 18. kan 2015

Rumors of MX P115D abound.

Unicorns and Bigfoots are on the move.

raffael s. | 18. kan 2015

@vperl: Where did you hear about 115?

EQC | 18. kan 2015

raffael s.:

At least on this forum, vperl is the source of that rumor. Not sure where vperl gets information outside the forum though.

My brain latches onto numbers, so vperl's posts have been sticking out in my head and I've been "following" them when I can. Every once in a while, in different discussion threads, vperl pops up to tell a little bit of this story.

First was here:
http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/when-should-model-s-get-battery-s...

"vperl | February 26, 2015: You never heard of the 170 kWH battery secretly being built off campus? Due for the MX. Just perfect to tow my 20 ft. Travel trailer"

Then a month or so later in the same thread I found:

"vperl | March 31, 2015: Only the X should get battery upgrade. The bigger, tow capable vehicle needs is more. The announcement will be 125 kWh pack option for the X."

Then a few days later was a post in this thread:
http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/new-battery-1

"vperl | April 9, 2015: Tesla, will increase the density of the new LI battery to 115 kWh, for the MX"

and then:

"vperl | April 11, 2015: Poor people who think that Elon will not present the MX that has range of 240 epa miles are not listening.
Expect a major increase 13- 17% maybe more."

and now in this thread, we have:
"vperl | May 18, 2015: Rumors of MX P115D abound. Unicorns and Bigfoots are on the move."

-----

So the initial prediction was 170 kWh, which may or may not still exist...but then the note dropped to 125 kW after a month. A few days later, 115 kWh...but it seems to have held constant there for over a month now.

I just wish vperl would stick around long enough to tell us more info, and where the info is coming from. I still can't tell if it is a "prediction" or if it is based on "inside info."

vandacca | 18. kan 2015

@raffael s, don't trust anything that @vperl says. The easy way to do this is to filter her posts, like I do.

170 kWh pack is absolutely ridiculous, and would break the laws of physics with current technology and even with technology advancements for the next 10 years. You couldn't physically fit 170kWh worth of any kind of batteries in the existing battery pack. Same thing holds true for the 115kWh "prediction". Maybe in 10 years we might have a 115kWh pack with sufficient advances in battery chemistry, but that's really pushing it.

I predict that the most they can get with the next-gen batteries is around 95kWh - 105kWh. Its unclear to me if the next-gen batteries will be available before end of 2015, or if we have to wait for the GigaFactory to come online.

Brian H | 18. kan 2015

Inside info. But it's dark and sticky in there.

vperl | 18. kan 2015

Brian, that is the correct answer, but wait, it's " coming soon".

Trust me, the Unicorns and Big feet do.

georgehawley.fl.us | 18. kan 2015

I have a feeling that @vperl's vsource of random kwh numbers is very vclose to his vest.
But. unlike other speculators, he keeps his vpredictions vconcise and vspares us the elaborate rationalizations and arithmetic supported by obscure Elon quotes.
Trust me :~}

raffael s. | 19. kan 2015

@EQC: Maybe if someone just says it frequently enough, it will happen. ;)
@vandecca: I don't think 115 is something only achievable in 10 years, but I don't think it will be sooner than 5 years. J.B said at a press conference last year, 400 miles will be achieved sometime around 2020, and for 400 miles you will need at least 115 kWh. But as you said 170 is something not possible with any cell we know of today.
@george: shouldn't it be: trust vme?

vperl | 19. kan 2015

Doubters beware, my Unicorns and Bigfeet are ready to make the move.

No MX P15D for U .

vandacca | 19. kan 2015

you are all To blame for the Rantings and ravings. the more you respond, the bigger the reaction; here is a pearl Of wisdom: ignore it and it shaLL go away (in time).

vperl | 20. kan 2015

Yea, of little faith in Tesla.

Shame

Pages