BREAKING: Tesla Model S 90D & P90D Receive Official EPA Range Ratings


Range Upgrade Boosts Range By ~6%, According To Tesla

Range Upgrade Boosts Range By ~6%, According To Tesla

The official EPA numbers are in for both the Tesla Model S 90D and the performance P90D:

EPA Data Sheet

EPA Data Sheet – From Left To Right – City/Highway/Combined

According to the EPA, there is no range advantage for the 90kWh option.  However, as we’ve seen before with the Chevrolet Volt, it’s likely that Tesla didn’t submit the 90D or P90D for EPA testing, thus it’s stuck with same exact official figures as the 85 kWh version.

But Tesla does state time and again that the 90 kWh battery gets you approximately 6% more range, so figure a combined range of 286 miles for the 90D and 268 miles for the P90D.

90 kWh Battery Listed As Range Upgrade

90 kWh Battery Listed As Range Upgrade

Categories: Tesla

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

28 Comments on "BREAKING: Tesla Model S 90D & P90D Receive Official EPA Range Ratings"

newest oldest most voted

Why would EPA publish data that haven’t been measured?

The car has to have an EPA rating/Monroney sticker be sold, however the test itself is performed by the OEM and then submitted to the EPA (who can request to review it).

Like when GM did a small battery increase for the 2015 model, they did not retest the new car and instead used the same (previous tested) numbers as the 2014 – despite the 2015 having more range…which avoids doing the ‘dance’ again, is the quickest way to just get it done, and didn’t cause a “value division” between the years.

With Tesla, likely you will see new “90” ratings for the technical 2016 model year cars on January 1st (Tesla doesn’t assign particular model years to cars, just whatever year they happen to be delivered in), or when Tesla eliminates the 85 kWh cars completely – which I think most expect to happen shortly. With 90s out in a few weeks, it is likely Tesla is choosing the path of least resistance to get it done.

Thanks to aggressive defunding goals by members of federal House and Senate the NHTSA and EPA are short staffed and operate on reduced funding each year.

For better part of last couple decades, EPA has relied on manufactures to conduce tests, and only verifies a few spot checks.
eg: the recent cases were Ford PHEV and Toyota models had MPG readings downgrade after consumer complaints.
eg: no independent lab testing of air bags despite 20 years of reports of injuries.

As official government bodies (EPA & NHTSA) lacking support of elected representatives, the quality of published data is becoming a bit of a joke.

Which is why I say, why not just merge the EPA and NEDC testing? And NHTSA and NCAP?

It would work out better for everyone. There is no reason for cars to go through 2 tests. Merge them into 1 test, this way there will be more staff and more funding to handle issues.

Are you seriously complaining about funding at the Federal level? We are what, 16 Trillion dollars in debt now? And those “evil” cutbacks made a few years ago were something in the range of 3%, and even those have mostly been reversed now. If EPA hasn’t conducted the proper tests it isn’t for lack of funding, it’s because government fails to prioritze expenditures properly and can’t learn to live within it’s means like the rest of us have to. Sorry, you’ll get no sympathy from me when it comes to federal agency budgets.

18.2 trillion I believe…

Close, $18.3 trillion and rising:

I doubt defunding federal agencies is a good way to save money.

I’m sure not getting involved in unnecessary wars is. Seriously only 3 things matter, military, Social Security and Social programs, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment etc. Everything else is just noise.

EPA’s budget has stayed under an inflation adjusted $10 billion for quite a while (and recent years has been steady declines), so the trillion figure is largely irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is the budget right now is not able to handling all the new testing that everyone is demanding them to do, esp. with more cuts coming and staffing levels declining in recent years. Keep in mind even without a growth in new car models, right now EPA has been tasked with doing a lot more auditing given some recent controversies about gaming of the system. This is not a matter of re-prioritizing the budget.

The energy companies are well aware of this and are continually buying out politicians to push such cuts to both budget and staffing. Then on the other end they complain about the EPA being understaffed to handle all the permitting and then push for exemptions or repeal of EPA rules.

Yes, still paying for the unnecessary wars “paid for” on the credit.

Iraq and Afghanistan together were about $1 Trillion.
We are doubled in national debt to $18 T now since 2008.

We went from a balanced budget in 2001 to $1.5 trillion annual deficit after doubling the national debt in eight years. Since 2009, that annual deficit has been cut by 2/3rds. But Congress still isn’t willing to raise the money to fully fund the government and start paying off the debt. Government on the cheap just doesn’t work.

How is this possible? Is the new pack much heavier or what other reason could it be?

It could be possible Tesla chose not to retest the car (like what GM did with 2015 Volt), not necessarily that the numbers turned out exactly the same (highly unlikely, esp. to the same decimal point).

August 8, 2015 at 1:06 pm
How is this possible? Is the new pack much heavier or what other reason could it be?

Batteries cells improve their capacity with a rate of ~5% per year.
That’s the reason of the “Tesla Roadster range update”: between 2008 and 2014, battery capacity had an improvement of ~30%.

The 90kWh is just made with the lastest cells.

Interesting … here’s another theory. Just because the pack size increases doesn’t mean Tesla kept the same usable percentage of the pack. Tesla is constantly monitoring and has 1st hand knowledge of battery pack health across the entire fleet. Tesla may be taking steps to reduce the usable percentage of the battery pack to extend the number of cycles the pack can take.

If this was true Tesla wouldn’t call the 90 upgrade a “range extension”. They might call it a battery lifespan extension.

For a given milage, a large capacity pack will naturally use fewer charge cycles, thus longer life cycle.

What I find interesting is that if you look at the EPA highway range rating of the 85D it gets 285 miles which means that the 90D on the highway where range counts and which Tesla states will get 6% more range is capable of 302 miles!

Did tesla actively not pursue EPA highway tests? I find it hard to believe that tesla would throw away an opportunity to launch a p90 vehicle with 302 miles range in the same year that hydrogen cars are launched.

Maybe they thought that since the combined city/hwy rating wouldn’t come in over 300 it wasn’t worth it.

Or maybe they aren’t spending time on re-rating because they are saving it for some upcoming suprise upgrade. Maybe 100D?

techguy asked:

“Did tesla actively not pursue EPA highway tests?”

Apparently not. The EPA relies on auto makers to do their own testing, reportedly with the EPA just doing spot checks. If Tesla doesn’t submit new test results, then they get to use the old EPA numbers.

Why would Tesla not want to pursue an upgraded range rating? My guess — and this is only a guess — is that the Tesla team in charge of such testing is focusing on the Model X, and Tesla didn’t want to risk yet another delay in getting the Model X out by having the team devote time to testing the new versions of the Model S.

If I’m right, then we should see new EPA ratings for the 90 kWh Model S sometime after Tesla starts delivering Model X’s.

This seems pleasurable, with work on X and Roadster projects, it may not be a priority engineering wise to devote manpower to test and document data for EPA.

Perhaps Tesla will release updated data later for 2016 MY lineup covering S, X and Roadster extended pack?

They need to do a limited run of some models P90X and get Tony Horton to sponsor he crap out of it.

My guess, Tesla don’t want to relase higher milage: Model X will have the 90battery but will have lower mileage. So real numbers for Model X will be closer to M S numbers in this way.

That sounds pretty plausible.

Yes, they have to make the Model S seem a little less “good” to not upscale the Model X.

Since the EPA will never complain about under reporting, all they have to do is bang out over 270 miles on Model X with EPA testing.

Then, Model S-85/90D will report 270 miles
Model X-90D will report 275 miles, and 100/110D at 300 miles.