New Tesla Model S & Model X Get Performance Boost: Up To 1.2 Seconds Off 0-60 Times

3 months ago by Steven Loveday 73

Tesla

Tesla Model S and Model X at the factory in Fremont, California

It looks like Tesla is attempting to further separate new Model S and X vehicles from the upcoming Model 3, as upgrades are maximizing performance in base models.

Thanks to some heads-up work by Electrek, we can now see that Tesla late last night updated its website (see here – and graphic below) to show new Model S and Model X vehicles with entry level 75 kWh batteries now come with some significant performance acceleration enhancements.

New meaning that the current lineup won’t get an over-the-air update to unlock the new specs – as the upgrade consists of both software and hardware tweaks, so only those who buy a new vehicle today will enjoy the increased performance.

This is clearly another incentive to help people to chose to buy a new Model S or X instead of the upcoming Model 3; and of course to widen the performance gap between the upcoming model (arrived at month’s end) and the existing, more premium lineup.

Tesla Model X

Tesla Model X Interior With Seating For Seven

The update will specifically make the non-performance models significantly quicker.

The Tesla rep that spoke with Electrek didn’t divulge many specifics, other than the fact that the hardware and software upgrades are beginning to be put into new vehicles, and what exactly the enhancements will do.

The information obtained proves that the base models will see the biggest bump. Again, another reason to buy a base Model S or X instead of a Model 3.

According to Electrek, the updates will improve zero-to-60 acceleration as follows:

Model S 75: 4.3 seconds down from 5.5 seconds
Model S 75D: 4.2 seconds down from 5.2 seconds
Model S 100D: 4.1 seconds down from 4.2 seconds

Model X 75D: 4.9 seconds down from 6.0 seconds
Model X 100D: 4.7 seconds down from 4.8 seconds.

Tesla’s newly upgraded Model S and Model X offerings (click to enlarge)

The highest end Teslas (P100DL editions) are unchanged as we believe the maximum output has already been sussed out of the vehicles.

Additionally, Electrek reported that the Model X will soon offer a new 7-seat model that has flat-folding second- and third-row seats. This option would cost $3,000 and would allow for more passenger and cargo versatility.

Source: Electrek

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

73 responses to "New Tesla Model S & Model X Get Performance Boost: Up To 1.2 Seconds Off 0-60 Times"

  1. AddLightness says:

    Only 0.2 second difference between the S75 and the S100D. Dual motor and battery size used to have a major impact on acceleration. Now dual motor is less compelling with minimal range and acceleration improvement. And single motor has more than sufficient traction control for most people.

    1. Michael Will says:

      True unless you live where winter brings snow or like go to ski resorts visiting the snow like I do 🙂

      1. Kimmo57 says:

        It’s still sufficient.

        1. Tom says:

          Rear Wheel Drive sucks bad in snow. Always has, always will. FWD far superior to RWD and obviously AWD is better than FWD. But no serious car person has ever said there isn’t a major disadvantage to RWD in the snow. RWD does have advantages on dry pavement in acceleration and handling.

          1. alohart says:

            RWD works just fine in slick conditions if the car’s weight is balanced between front and rear wheels. This isn’t true of American cars which typically have a much higher percentage of weight over the front wheels. The BMW i3 with its motor over its rear driving wheels works well in slick conditions.

      2. Mikael says:

        It is true then too.

    2. R.S says:

      By that definition petrol car AWD adds close to nothing to a car, but lower fuel efficiency.

      Regular FWD cars handle well enough in the snow, at least for 90% of people that have AWD cars.

      But again, only the base models got better value, while the 100 kWh models didn’t (4.1 isn’t really a big improvement over 4.2)

      I think the 100D needs more performance now. Not sure if those 76 miles of range plus air suspension and the bigger charger is still worth 23k. Performance was a sales argument when you got 1s less 0-60. 0.1 seconds isn’t something I’d consider worth spending money on.

      1. Asak says:

        Honestly,1 second less 0-60 is still pretty ridiculous to pay $23K for. I mean how often do you just gun it when entering the freeway. At least for me it’s not all that often.

        I’m sure some people will pay for that, but it’s mostly those with more income than they know what to do with, or alternatively those with no sense.

  2. SparkEV says:

    Welcome news! Are they trying to upgrade them so that all of them are quicker than high optioned Tesla 3?

    Raising the bar, indeed!

    1. Miggy says:

      For the rest of the world 0 – 100 kph
      Model S 75: 4.6 seconds
      Model S 75D: 4.4 seconds
      Model S 100D: 4.3 seconds

      Model X 75D: 5.2 seconds
      Model X 100D: 4.9 seconds

  3. Acevolt says:

    Having Model X with 2nd and 3rd row fold flat seats for only $3000 is a really nice option with much more utility.
    Hopefully next change will be standard doors for $3000 savings instead of falcon wings.

    1. Just checked: Model X 2nd & 3rd row seats folding flat in USA & Canada web sites!

      Choose 7 Seat Interior! (Canadian option price is $4,300.00 cash, & they don’t seem to show a per month cost, like shown in the US site!)

      OK now, will this become the new Model X Roving Motel?

      Maybe by December they will offer a 2 Seat all utility variant?

      1. GoergeS says:

        Robert, acevolt

        Can we get fold flat seats in the 5 seat configuration?

        1. floydboy says:

          Yes, now the 5 and 7 seat configs fold flat. I’m wondering how they’re doing third row access now in the 7 seat setup?

        2. BenG says:

          5 seat has been fold-flat since it was introduced, if I’m not mistaken

  4. Don Zenga says:

    Wow. This puts Model S in the league of Benz-AMG, BMW-M, Audi-S while offering 7 seater facility.

    259 mile range in 75D is a very high range which can be stretched to 280 miles if needed. This gives more motive to buy these cars.

  5. pjwood1 says:

    Tesla has both gone better, and worse, than specs they advertise like this. For instance, nobody was getting the 10.9 quarter mile times and everybody who bought the first 85Ds were getting better acceleration than first advertised. The first 85’s, if I remember, were measured close to 4.9 to 60, yet always advertised closer to 5.5 I think.

    One way to look at this is the Tesla fully letting the dogs out, up to full motor and battery limits. I understand they basically use only two motors. Two different sizes (P and non-P) in back, and the same one for all cars in front. 85D’s (AWD) have always been known for their low 4 second capability, to 60mph. They were accepted as “motor limited” cars. So, the 100KWh battery’s higher available current won’t make much difference (and specs above bear this out). The 75D’s loss of a couple tenths may just be marketing, unless it is reaching it is battery-limited ability to drive both smaller motors.

    Having a P85D, with guys like WK057 around, means the possbility of P100D specs sometime after warranty is over and >10k is lying around to swap in a used 100KWh battery. P85D and P90D have always been “battery-limited” cars, relative to the biggest motors Tesla has yet used.

    Model 3? We found out it might have 300 miles of range, from a recent pic. That may also mean that what is effectively a third motor will be limited in power, in exchange for the efficiency gains that might allow 75KWh to produce such a high range figure.

    1. JR says:

      Having a 85D to(Aug 2015), i asked Tesla service today if it was possible to change battery to the 100KWH
      They said not possible, but maybe in future, something with connectors, sure would be nice with a software update to boost performance!

    2. unlucky says:

      That pic means nothing. It’s a prototype and you can get very high readings from cars if you drive them nicely.

      I’ve seen far more than 300 miles remaining on my Bolt before. This despite 238 miles EPA range.

      1. Chris says:

        mileage remaining counters are always “guess-o-meters”.

        The accurate way to judge this is to look at battery SOC.

      2. pjwood1 says:

        Tesla’s range is effectively an SOC meter. If you charge one up in the dead of winter, it will show the same available range as it does in summer (where bolt/volt go down to a more accurate expected range). That said, if you actively use the ‘projected’ range function, you can witness what I think you’re talking about. I don’t believe that is what was being displayed in the pic.

        85D has two smaller motors. If it ever can update to 100KWh, I’d bet it will only be about range and maybe top end, roll-on, acceleration above ~60mph. That was always a difference between the 60KWh and 85KWh, using the same single large rear motor.

  6. floydboy says:

    Looks like they stuck that new inverter in the rear motor.

  7. floydboy says:

    By the way Steven, that picture of the seven seat configuration, is the old arrangement. The new middle row is the bench type seating of the 5 seater.

  8. Pete says:

    Still the Bolt has more range than the X75D.

    1. Bar says:

      And still a lot more ugliness too.

      1. floydboy says:

        HA! Now now, be nice Bar!

    2. floydboy says:

      I’m thinking the 75D has a BIT more weight to deal with, a TAD more storage, seating and towing capacity and a TAD BIT more power on tap, than the Bolt!

      1. Roy_H says:

        And a TAD more $.

        1. Asak says:

          More than a tad.

    3. Tech01x says:

      Not for 7 adults.

    4. Tech01x says:

      Actually, the EPA range is identical between the Bolt and the Model X. Which means on the highway, the Model X will have better range, as the MPGe increases from 91 city to 95 highway. The Bolt decreases from 128 city to 110 highway. Therefore the Bolt’s range is less than an X75D on the highway given identical EPA range with combined ratings.

    5. Klaus says:

      Well, that depends I suppose. If get a Bolt and start driving north, east or west out of my metro area, the bolt’s total range is 235 give or take. However, with a model x I could continue driving and charging and make it to either coast or Canada, so I see it’s range as much greater. ymmv.

    6. William says:

      The Bolt has more range on the highway or interstate, to its final destination, “Stranded-Ville”.

      1. floydboy says:

        There’s a lot of places a Bolt can recharge. Certainly far more than a Mirai anyway!

  9. Nada says:

    I love speed more than most but having non performance oriented family size and oriented cars do 0 to 60 in 4 some seconds is retarted they should be geared for range and spare the performance for price…
    Now the performance version doing 0 to 60 in 2 seconds is great…

    1. floydboy says:

      They Are geared for range. They just happen to have ‘BABs'(Big A$$ed Batteries) from which to draw a LOT of power if so desired.
      But yes, driving frugally can get you quite good range, even in these heavy electrics.

    2. SparkEV says:

      “0 to 60 in 4 some seconds is retarted”

      Comparably priced Mercedes / BMW does about that. You want to pay all that money and have acceleration of iMiEV? I guess some people forever want EV to be slower than gassers. Nissan might be one of them.

    3. Roy_H says:

      That’s gas-mobile thinking. I ICEs extra performance is accomplished by larger pistons, higher rpm, longer stroke, more cylinders. Take your pick, all of these result in more friction and lower efficiency. Electric motors do not have the same penalties, and there is no trade-off of performance for efficiency or range. In fact the more powerful electric motor is capable of recovering more regen on braking (especially for front wheel drive) and results in better efficiency for more power not less.

  10. Peter says:

    The best part is the Model X getting new seats that fold so you get a flat floor to loud on.
    That is what I have been waiting for.

  11. FISHEV says:

    I get that Tesla doesn’t want EV’ers suffering from stoplight envy just because they drive and EV but the reason for EV’s, but the reason most buy them (Tesla’s Mission Statement) is to not create green house gas emissions.

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to stop with the Eddie and the Cruisers angle and put the efforts toward getting more range vs. more acceleration.

    Tesla’s are already borderline unsafe for the average driver due to the acceleration capability.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      There’s nothing borderline about this being yet another Tesla bashing post from a serial Tesla basher.

      If a driver chooses to drive a car faster than is safe for the road he’s on, is that the fault of the auto maker? No, it’s the fault of the driver. Any highway-capable car can be driven in an unsafe fashion, if the driver is foolish or careless enough.

      1. FISHEV says:

        “If a driver chooses to drive a car faster than is safe for the road he’s on, is that the fault of the auto maker?”

        It promotes aggressive driving which is a major cause of accidents.

        It is beyond the capability of all but a few who are trained and have the reflexes, unsafe for likely 99% of Tesla drivers.

        For EV’s it comes at the expense of range which is where Tesla should be focusing not on adolescent acceleration displays.

        1. Mark.ca says:

          This is one of the stupidest arguments ever!
          You do realize that you don’t have to floor the accelerator every time you pull ahead, right? You can drive a Tesla prius style if you like.

          1. FISHEV says:

            “AAA is poised to raise its insurance rates on Tesla Inc. vehicles based on data showing higher-than-average insurance claims and costs for the Model S and Model X, according to a report by Automotive News over the weekend.”

            Same can be said of other muscle cars but the fact is they are statistically more dangerous and, as you see above, Tesla’s are starting to show higher rate of accidents in addition to high repair costs.

            That Tesla promotes an unnecessary and dangerous feature to extremes is disappointing. Limiting the acceleration to increase range would be the way to go.

        2. Nix says:

          If you don’t want to go fast, don’t put it into a performance mode, like ludicrous or plaid. Select the “I want my mommy” button.

          1. FISHEV says:

            Well you are more likely to get Anne Coulter vs. Mommy when you hit that particular button.

        3. David Cary says:

          The trade off of range and acceleration is probably real but not very significant. And some of that would cost more on the manufacturing side by having more differences between P version and others.

          The most obvious performance vs range issue is tires. The tires could be smaller of course but wouldn’t be able to put power down to pavement.

          But think about this, the Model 3 will be more efficient so most greenies will get that.

          My lowly 2015 70D – I have red light envy… I did almost get a 90D for the acceleration.

        4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “It is beyond the capability of all but a few who are trained and have the reflexes, unsafe for likely 99% of Tesla drivers.”

          I’m sorry that you personally are unable to stop yourself from stomping the accelerator all the way to the floor every time you take off from a stop. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of drivers don’t suffer from your disability. One might even say, less than 1% of drivers share your inability to regulate acceleration to match driving conditions.

          /snark

          Those who want to drive like speed demons will be more likely to choose a high performance car, whether it’s a Tesla or a Porsche or even a Ferrari, Lamborghini, or some other brand. To blame speed demon driving on the auto maker is most definitely a case of confusing cause and effect. You’ve got the tail wagging the dog!

          1. FISHEV says:

            Building cars too dangerous for the capabilities of 99% of the drivers on the road (the 1% capable of controlling it would never use it on the road) is of course the mfgs responsibility.

    1. Jay Cole says:

      Yes you are right, should be 4.8 seconds on the old time. Thanks Justin! Fixed!

  12. Someone out there says:

    So it turns out making the cheap version very quick wasn’t really a great idea after all

    1. floydboy says:

      HUH?

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      WTF are you talking about?

  13. Jason says:

    I think they should be targeting the non performance vehicles for range and the performance vehicles for acceleration. Typical person would prefer more range, and 0-60 in >6sec seems plenty fast enough for daily driving.

    1. Viktor says:

      Faster acceleration don’t mean shorter range, Tesla are making progress in several areas and implements the improvements in there cars. I believe they got the better acceleration with the new inverter that they have been developing for Model 3. If that inverter is better and cheaper then the one they use to have, why not implant it in there cars and improve acceleration?

      https://electrek.co/2016/06/29/tesla-model-3-exclusive-leak-specs-300kw-inverter-architecture-power-capacity-model-s/

      1. unlucky says:

        Yes it does. Sure, there are a lot of variables in play. But faster acceleration means bigger motor, stickier/fatter tires, heavier hardware to transmit the electricity and the mechanical torque energy.

        When all the other variables are held the same faster acceleration does mean shorter range.

        1. floydboy says:

          No unlucky. You don’t need those things. Faster acceleration means simply means, more aggressive throttle application. The 100D can accelerate like a performance car without the bigger motor, heavier wheels or stickier tires. Even the P100D gets excellent range, if you can resist the temptation to be ‘Road Zeus’. Your last sentence was the correct response. It all comes down to how you drive them

          1. Tom says:

            You missed Unlucky’s point. He’s not speaking of what amount to software variations in Model S. He’s talking about the fact that if for instance you were to make the Nissan Leaf a higher performance vehicle, this would require a bigger motor and beefier everything which would add weight to the vehicle. It would also add price. The bolt and i3 have more than adequate ‘sporty’ performance. Adding unnecessary power and weight would drive up cost and drive down range.

            1. Viktor says:

              If you want to drive down the cost you would want to build as few variants as possible of the motors wish is the reson Tesla only have two types for all there models, one big for RWD and one smal for AWD.

              Maybe there would be a few pounds lighter if they have a 150 kW motor instead of 300 kW but I don’t think the differens would be so huge. The motor and inverter in Tesla Model S weights about 350 pounds so we are talking about a weight saving of less then 100 pounds if they have made it smaller. Have you read reports that Tesla owners loss a lot of range only because they have a passenger with then in the cars?

              1. pjwood1 says:

                There’s a lot of spinning inertia in the larger motors, that makes their being 100lbs heavier bring a greater loss of efficiency than adding a 100lb passenger.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Viktor said:

        “Faster acceleration don’t mean shorter range…”

        That statement needs some qualifiers (and also a grammar correction). As it reads, it’s factually incorrect.

        Now, it’s true that if you drive an EV that’s built for faster acceleration, but don’t actually accelerate faster, then it won’t shorten the range. In fact, it’s been pointed out that in an electric car — unlike a gasmobile — a car engineered to accelerate faster may actually have better energy efficiency, because the motors don’t have to work as hard when driven and accelerated at moderate speeds, and stay within higher efficiency operating parameters at those speeds.

        But all else being equal: If you do consistently accelerate faster, then it most certainly will shorten the range, even in an electric car.

      3. pjwood1 says:

        From Victor’s link: “The dual motor inverter architecture, the one for the new smaller front motor, is rated at a peak power capability of over 250 kW.”

        Model 3 won’t be coming at 500KW, pretty much guaranteed. My BS antenna are going up about what we’re going to hear from Tesla, today. Nothing matters beyond total system performance. Tesla have attempted to warp the impression of their cars capabilities (and they’re powerful enough that why?). Today, we may hear more about inverters, or “how massive this chainlink is over here” without emphasis on another link over there. It’s still one chain.

        I don’t think Tesla will overstate performance times, but I’d be ready for a lot of snow, like this link, otherwise.

  14. Shotel says:

    Me thinks Tesla can’t have any of their line models rated slower than a Cadillac 2017 CT6-PHEV. Currently 5.2 seconds 0-60 (rumored over-the-air update in the fall will take it to 4.9 seconds 0-60). Imagine GM touting a *quicker* Electric vehicle than Tesla in the same price range?

    1. floydboy says:

      Methinks Tesla is not so much worried about Cadillacs out-accelerating Model Ss, as base Model 3s doing so.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Right. Tesla isn’t worried about people comparing the acceleration time of the Model S or X with any Cadillac. If people are comparing a Tesla with a Cadillac, they very likely are looking at other things, such as interior comfort or how “sexy” they think the car makes them look.

        And yes, Tesla obviously has been, of late, trying to increase the disparity between the Model 3 and its more expensive models, for a very clear market distinction.

    2. Tech01x says:

      The CT6 is a sloth on electric power with limited real world range. No thanks. Few will pay the extra for the plug-in version.

    3. pjwood1 says:

      In the CT-6’s price range, its time to no longer tout the Volt’s power train and recognize that, like BMW’s PHEV, a 4-banger will be flailing away in order to deliver advertised performance.

      One thing we never talk about on this board, is how easily modulated, or what I’d call “dosed”, the Tesla’s throttle application is. You can chose the level of acceleration, and adjust it, very finely against the sloth-like internal combustion engine next to you.

      This isn’t just about numbers 😉

  15. leafowner says:

    Here is what I think – Base Model 3 was in the 5.6 (0-60) range from rumors. The performance version was in the mid-high 4’s and they did not want any Model 3 be quicker than any Model S.

    Here’s hoping the performance (not the ludacris) is available standard with the larger battery — which will hopefully be the FIRST ONES MADE!!!!

    1. R.S says:

      I think you mean the bigger battery version, not performance, since the performance version will be AWD.

      I guess the bigger battery version will be somewhere in the 4s range, so making the base Model S quicker definitely makes sense.

  16. bws says:

    In order to get these performance numbers, are the 75kWh cars now carrying 100kWh batteries that are software limited (and also software limiting acceleration so as to not best the full 100kWh cars)?

    I didn’t think they could achieve this performance without the higher voltage in the larger packs.

    1. David says:

      Good question.

  17. Brian says:

    There are a lot of new Model S 75D listed for sale in the new inventory section of Teslas website currently. They are all showing as 4.4s cars, not the 4.2s in this article. I would love to see an update on the article about those inventory cars with the slower times.

Leave a Reply