P85D - 463hp
P90D - 532hp
Just a little short of their 691 hp boast!
Yes. And less than 50 hp difference between P85D and 85D.
Those 50 horses cost me $20,000!
Is the P90D figure including the ludicrous?
Yeah, it sucks that the cars are so much slower now.
If Tesla has been dishonest with horsepower ratings, so has every other car maker.
Consider this. If we can handily beat a Hellcat with 707 HP or a Corvette ZO6 with 650, in a car that weighs substantially more, there's got to be some serious torque available which translates into acceleration. Horsepower gives you top speed, which, in our case is electronically limited.
Bruce...just because Tesla has been dishonest does not make all other auto manufactures dishonest-with HP. How do come up with that?
And horsepower does not only give top speed.
Does this imply that some future battery upgrade could release full motor potential? Imagine next gen swappable batteries custom designed for drag racing, and/or Nurburgring!
I don't know why Tesla lists HP at all. They just need to list performance numbers. HP is irrelevant. The car isn't any slower if you call it 10HP, 700HP or 10,000HP. An electric car with the same HP will be faster than an ICE car because an electric motor has a much flatter power cover so it can deliver more energy over the same amount of time.
Just for curiosity sake, I wonder what a 85D could do if you could use all 518hp at the same time. P90DL delivers more power than that so it's possible.
Tesla hasn't been dishonest. They always said "Total motor power".
SOunds like a dezl to me. Where else can you buy a horse for $400?
@tezzla, @luckyluciano and others who feel the same:
Your own limitless ignorance is not a justification to allow you to label Tesla or Tesla's numbers the way you do.
When you have no clue about some subject do not pretend you are an expert. You may think you know enough but you only know enough to be dangerously wrong, nothing more. Worse yet, you refuse to learn. We've explained this over and over again here on the forums and elsewhere.
First of all, you seem to have NO understanding what the meaning and effect of HP numbers. The peak HP rating you allow the ICE industry to lie about even though the effective, average, or any other HP is waaay lower than that. But you are used to the established lie and think they you can continue your bad habit. Sorry, it is you who has to change.
Second, show me cases of ICE vehicles that have two engines on independent axles but sharing the same tank and traction control and tell me their HP rating. When you do, learn from that and then come back. If you learn enough, we may be able to have a reasonable conversation.
Tesla has always clearly stated the motor powers. Those are true numbers. Tesla has also tried to explain to the likes of you what that means and that you don't get the sum of these the way your pink glasses desire. You ignore that too.
Most importantly, you ignore the fact that the car puts to shame every other with equal HP numbers however you look at them, even the sums. No, not for racing. This was never advertised as a race car. That alone should tell you how wrong your understanding of HP is.
And, no, neither Tesla nor the science needs to adjust to the likes of you. You are the one needing an adjustment.
From my vantage point, I see the following-
From driving the cars before I bought them, I knew MS did not accelerate like an ICE at higher speeds. From model aircraft experience, I knew that batteries designed for high sustained power output did not perform well from a longevity standpoint. My conclusion was that long range/long life BeV batteries do not support high power outputs for long durations. Put differently, there was no way an 8 year battery was going to out perform an ICE at higher speeds.
Tesla knew that quoting individual motor HP capability without regard for the battery's ability to source power would garner them press. They did this on purpose knowing the system as a whole was not capable of delivering the individual motor maximum capability simultaneously. JB's blog post says as much.
MotorTrend has come out with 1/4 mile and 0-60 numbers that can not currently be verified in the wild by owners. Tesla knows this as well yet there is no explanation. I suspect they are now comfortable with releasing the car's full performance and an OTA update will follow for cars currently in the field. Given this update will only deliver on a previous promise, there will likely be no big announcement from Tesla; it will just happen.
Only after MT's confirmation and Tesla's subsequent communication about MT's work has Tesla updated their site to reflect available battery power in addition to the motor hp numbers. This is not a coincidence not is it one that there was a Tweet about the MT results but no communication about the battery HP numbers.
These are all calculated moves. I suspect the marketing side of Tesla gets all ramped up on what engineering will do and when those results are delayed, the company ships anyway and fixes things over time. I take this into account when I make my purchase decisions. In the end, I am not disappointed and I end up with a much better product with much better value then any other option available. In short, I'm a happy customer.
coincidence nor is it one that
I am also not disappointed in my purchase and do not feel deceived by hp numbers. I would have purchased the car regardless. The only thing different I would do now is emphasize 0-60 numbers versus hp numbers when bragging to my friends...
@lola: Tesla always communicated that the numbers are "motor power". That is entirely correct. I have NEVER taken them to mean what some here want to interpret them as. There has been no misinformation here. There has, and continues to be, some misunderstanding. Tesla has done its job trying to address that as well:
The sensationalist OP wants to bring the subject in erroneous spotlight again. That tells something about the "OPer".
People get excited all the time about things they don't fully understand. There is no legal requirement that the companies must teach everyone the basics of science before they sell them the product. That is the responsibility of the customer. Know what you buy. Ask if you need more info. Learn.
With ICE, what does a "5 liter (displacement) engine" mean to anyone? How about 28 liter? How about two engines, 5 liters each? Do these numbers tell you anything about the final output performance of the car? Not enough, at best. Other numbers do. And, depending on what you are interested in, you may need MANY numbers, not one. This is the same with motor powers. They are maximum power INPUTS the motors can handle. A lot like that displacement volume in ICE. Except more true. That 28 liter motor produces now "measly" 290 HP.
You can have maximum COMBINED power OUTPUTs the CAR can do. That is maybe what you are interested in. That number wasn't published initially. Do you need to know it? Actually, no, you don't. That power tells you nothing about what you want to know - the torque. And even a single torque number tells you nothing. EVs have torque where absolute majority of us need or want it in absolute majority of cases. ICEVs have torque where only a few of us need and is available only in very short periods, in very special cases. Tesla Model S torque is a simple graph over speed because RPM to speed ratio is constant. With ICEVs torque depends on RPM which is separate from speed and depends on gears. ICEVs loose torque when gears are switched completely. ICEVs have lousy torque in all but the narrow range of "best" RPMs.
Oh, and @lola, I don't know which sources do you take for verification, but I've observed many reports online that either matched or exceeded every acceleration number Tesla has ever published.
I can not let Elon off that easy. He knew the combined hp numbers would garner press and also knew the battery could not supply that much power. Is it wrong, no. Is it slimy, well that is a matter of opinion but I do not think I would have been comfortable doing it. That said, I'm not responsible for carrying the weight of keeping interest in the company and product.
As for performance, I should have been more clear.
It has been my experience that Tesla has met or exceeded the 1/4 mile and 0-60 times on any of the cars I have purchased from them. I am from the US, understand how we quote 0-60 times for comparison car to car and thus know and accept the 1 foot roll out.
My comment about missing on performance was based on multiple owners confirming that the P90DL production cars delivered to date are incapable of coming within about a half a second of the published 10.9 second time. MT was able to reliably reproduce the 10.9 second 1/4 mile time. I call this a miss and a "press car". This is the only performance miss I am aware of and it is new for Tesla to miss on its performance claims.
It's been clear from the get-go how the industry has been expressing combined motor horsepower and how it doesn't equate with peak horsepower. I ridiculed P_Dave from the day he started crowing about wanting to own a 700 HP supercar. Here's where it started--Mercedes first electric 740 HP supercar that did 0-60 in 3.9 seconds.... Car mags are complicit because the HP race sells issues.
@lola: My thinking, trying to see what I would have done as an engineer, goes like this:
Now we have two motors but limited power supply? What do we show? Due to traction control we may direct all power to the front or all power to the back. Either motor may be maxed out at any time. Since we have, so far, shown that for each motor we should, for consistency, show that fact here. We need to show maximum powers for each motor, as any one of them may be used at any one time.
Now, we know that we don't feed both motors simultaneously to max power. But what is that power? We always size components for more than they need to handle. There is a significant buffer, but that depends on perspective and software version. We may for a millisecond have less of a buffer than at other times. Trying to come up with a single number that won't change with software updates or other c very complex conditions (that I, @sule, do not want to bring up here) is way too much for the public. Furthermore, traction control system decides how much power it will put out, out of that. We have no clue what conditions it may face out there. No number we put out there will be rock solid. So that one isn't good either.
How about the output number? Well, that number is all wrong for all cars anyway. It is also unfairly favouring ICE because it ignores their weak spot which is, actually, most important for most of the customers. We would rip the hearts out of any of the ICEs with a HP number rated that way. So that is also a bad number.
What do we do? Admit that established HP rating is more about horseshit than horsepower and show what matters - our actual specifications and what you feel - 0-60 numbers.
Much ado about little.
Tesla is still prominently posting up and referring to "motor power" in their advertisement, and Motor Trend refers to 762 in their article.
This example is merely analogous to an ICE manufacturer voluntarily listing SAE HP in conjunction with RWHP
Only difference here, is that Tesla is listing "Motor Power" and "Battery limited maximum motor shaft power" .
That ICE manufacturer is still going to put the higher number into his ad copy, and allow publications to harp on his SAE horsepower.
Tesla has no apparent intention of scrapping their prior method and prominent use of referring to "Motor Power", and combining it. They also demonstrate that they will let the rags combine front and rear Motor Power in their publications, as well when referring to the P85D and the P90D.
That Motor Trend article proves that.
@tezzla: "Deceptive"? You can't call the result of ignorance a "deceit"!
a) It is clearly stated.
b) It is what is shown for comparable cars. You seem to expect Tesla to use numbers everyone else does for HP but different re rollout, always to Tesla's detriment. That is rather interesting. A lot, in fact.
c) Actual performance speaks for itself. Teslas beat every production car, every single one, in performance that most observe and care most of the time. Regardless of price. Period.
Tesla won't be asking people how they are going to advertise their numbers. They felt P85D will compete with performance cars so they used roll numbers. It's your personal opinion that they have been deceptive which I disagree with.
The more you talk, the clearer your character becomes.
@sule @ Bighorn +1 Us Tesla owners should understand better than anyone else that it's the pedal response not the horsepower number that made our cars special. It's time for us to stop beating this dead horse.
well said carlk. this horse and horse power talk is beyond rescucitation. no need to continue bruising egos y'all.
talking about pedal response, I am surprised we have not discussed more what I consider a major improvement in v7.0, at least on P85D. There is now a much better instant response than before, something I can only describe as a more "connected-ness" feel between the accelerator pedal and engine.
I don't think it is my imagination because I have been surprised a few times when I was not paying attention by the faster response of the pedal. My brain is still somewhat calibrated to the pre-7.0 response and it was surprised by the faster reaction. Has anyone else felt the same thing.
"Has anyone else felt the same thing." - same on my "old" P85... it was very responsive before, but even more responsive after 7.0.
Maybe it's just me, but this is how I view this issue(since I'm a programmer, I see everything as Boolean):
Here are the options/information we had 1 year ago:
P85D - 691 hp (0-60 in 3.2) for $125k
85D - 417 hp (0-60 in 5.2) for $105k
P85D - 463 hp (0-60 in 3.1)
85D - 417 hp (0-60 in 4.2)
I see the 1st option as deceptive.
@tezzla: Then you are a very bad programmer. I am a software architect. There are many more data types than Booleans to begin with. Furthermore, it is YOU who is being deceptive here, as you are both ignoring and omitting important information, something Tesla didn't do.
@sule - you're right, I should have said binary.
How large is/was your greatest ever HDD?
How large is your greatest SSD?
Use the proper units that do not require more than three digits. You are not allowed to qualify the units. I am allowed to misinterpret them any way I wish and challenge you on that.
@sule: The only winning move is not to play. (movie quote)
Exactly. And we need Tesla to play.
To others: You cannot save the entire content of main memory (RAM) or a USB stick or flash drive of size N on a hard drive (HDD or SSD) of same advertised size. Even though the units appear to be the same, they are not.
"And we need Tesla to play"
@sule: Well said.
Well said @sule.
I have a lowly P85 from 2013. Glad I don't have to worry about any of this...
I'm glad to see this whole matter put to rest.
And especially glad that those who did the most complaining about having been "duped", are still being just as "duped" as they ever were, and perhaps even more so.
That Tesla has not really given an inch on this matter, and has still left the door open for themselves and others to readily and easily use the term "motor power" to describe these cars, is completely lost on them.
That "hp" stuff, that nobody is going to use when describing either car, is literally a footnote, and it is outright designated as a footnote in their advertising materials by the asterisk that they applied to it.
Tesla has no intent of discarding their "motor power" terminology, nor of stopping magazines and others from doing so either.
@bighorn " I ridiculed P_Dave from the day he started crowing about wanting to own a 700 HP supercar. "
I invited that ridicule while rhapsodizing about the claimed 691 hp on the car I had just ordered last October. What you don't say is that I was laying on my back at Hopkins after a post-valve embolism, under the influence of heavy narcotics and cute busses.
The fact is that Tesla and Elon Musk intentionally implied very strongly that these cars were to be compared with supercars with 600+hp power trains. We had to order them without test driving in order to be among the earliest owners. The only thing we had to go on in terms of value compared to, say a Ferrari or Porsche Turbo, was the overstated 691 number essentially put out there by the media as a direct result of the way that Tesla put the base numbers out there. The way they were outsourcers intentional, encouraging misinterpretation to gain headlines.
As sule loves to point out, the real numbers were there, no legal claims were violated, but there was a lot of PT Barnum-like marketing-speak in hindsight, now that the sleight of hand has become obvious. The shame is that this duping was not necessary. I still would have bought the car with better transparency, and would feel better now about how Elon and TM operate. The only way to get at the real numbers and high speed performance a year ago would have required being a cynical skeptic, and not accept what was presented by Tesla and their media disciples at face value. I am often accused of being TOO cynical and questioning of Musk and Tesla's claims, but bought into this one hook line and sinker, partly because of the drugs, but also because I wanted it to be true - I wrote many delirious posts about what a bargain a 691-hp supercar was on a relative basis, at only $130k. In that respect, I was duped and misled. And @bighorn was correct to ridicule me as an unmitigated fanboi at that time. I was a willing mark, but make no mistake, Elon knew exactly what he was doing, and it was artful marketing.
The $5k upcharge for L only gets us closer to the place that he essentialy said that we would already be - that is nearly theft. We all get violated at some point, and I am still trying to decide whether to assume the position. Tesla seems to realize it is in a precarious moral position, as it initially put the L upgrade on the accessory page for $7,500, and has now reduced it to $5,000 contiguous with admitting its formerly misleading (or at least incomplete) performance numbers.
Cute nurses. Damned autocorrect.
Damn whiners now my car has less on paper power. How can I brag about it. The whiners have taken away the only thing that really mattered. So a couple of whiners got what they wanted and thousands of owners that could care less about actual in use performance now have less on paper power to brag about.
Thanks for nothing.
I don't know how I can continue smoking look at me cars knowing something changed in the paper descriptions. Do I have to give notice to all the humbled super cars that I smoked them with less power than I thought I had.
Oh the horrors. How can I go on living.
At least Tesla felt my extreme pain and gave me a discount on the treatment.
Thank you for your interest in the Tesla Model S Ludicrous retrofit.
As a result of continued improvement on the parts and processes needed to raise the max current from 1300 Amps (Insane) to 1500 Amps (Ludicrous), we are pleased to announce a reduction in the price of the Ludicrous retrofit from $7,500 to $5,000.
The upgrade represents an estimated 10% increase in power over the already insane P85D and provides a 0.2 second improvement over both the 0-60 mph and the quarter mile time versus the performance of your current Model S. Please note the retrofit does not offer the exact performance spec as a new P90D."
I may have to sell a bottle of Grey Poupon just to fund this extreme upgrade cost. Oh the horror.
Hey I can take off your hands the HP-challenged Ds. For a nominal price reduction.
You've quickly erased memories of your lengthy convalescence with your recent iron-butt achievements. Context matters, so I'll give you a bye on the 691 hysteria based on the opioid haze. The truthiness that remains is your status as chief fanboi. Equine equivalents have little relevance going forward--G forces, on the otherhand...
Well said Pungoteague_Dave +1
What a bunch of bombastic, arrogant, defensiveness! A forum should be a place for ALL voices to be heard, with at least the consideration that there may me some percentage of truth to whatever is being voiced. Not gonna find anything trustworthy in this exchange..
463 hp?? That's even less than I predicted at 550 hp. Sule and PDQ, your arguments don't hold up to reality.
Still happy to be buying my MS.
I have to say that I don't like the 'misleading' advertising though... Trust is a precious commodity and had they concentrated on the 0-60 rather than adding the two motor HPs when they knew well the batteries would never be able to deliver the max to both motors they'd still have been promoting an exceptional car. Question now is can we believe all the other stuff or do we have to second guess what they really mean.....