Imagine This: AWD Tesla Model S and X With 100-Plus kWh Battery – Tesla CEO Hints At Future Arrival

Tesla Model S


Model S  Could Eventually Come With AWD and 100-Plus kWh Battery Pack

Model S Could Eventually Come With AWD and 100-Plus kWh Battery Pack

What the Tesla Model S really needs is a higher capacity battery pack, says perhaps only a handful of individuals.

The Tesla Model S 85 kWh carries the highest capacity battery pack of any passenger EV in mass-production today, yet that’s not quite BIG enough for Tesla.

Tesla has never been one to wait for the competition to catch up.  So, as other automakers are now beginning to promise longer range EVs within the next few years, Tesla is moving forward with an even longer range EV of its own.

Loosely hinted at in the video below, Tesla CEO Elon Musk says that an AWD Model S is coming (likely when the AWD-only Model X enters full-scale production in April 2015) and that a larger battery pack option could arrive as early as 2015.

So, put it all together and what do you get? We’re thinking the end result is this:

  • Tesla Model S AWD – 100 to 110 kWh battery pack option –  rear jump seats likely not available due to battery pack size – EPA range estimate of up to 350 miles
  • Tesla Model X AWD – 100 to 110 kWh battery pack option – EPA range estimate of up to 325 miles

And then, if we’re lucky, maybe even this:

  • Tesla Model S P 100 to P 110 – The ultimate performance Model S – rear jump seats likely not available due to battery pack size – EPA range estimate of up to 350 miles

Category: Tesla

Tags: ,

97 responses to "Imagine This: AWD Tesla Model S and X With 100-Plus kWh Battery – Tesla CEO Hints At Future Arrival"
  1. Jim says:

    ***MOD EDIT***

    As this is a second warning for multiple ID usage in a thread, and for posting unrelated content – you are now free to comment elsewhere

    ***MOD EDIT***

    1. ThombDBhomb says:

      That sounds really bad. You might be better off getting some lawyers and the NHTSA on it.

    2. Driverguy01 says:

      Dude, your paste and copy arguments are very one sided not very informative.
      An electric car needs electrical connections that are up to code. Period.
      stop ranting and convince me that a 240V plug cannot be made safe to use when everything is up to code and i will listen.
      The change has begun for EV’s and you cant stop it.

    3. Phatcat73 says:

      who is Tesla following? The Jetsons?

    4. CherylG says:

      Yes, as Jay Cole rightly pointed out, the Model S has had 5 fires in 5 months.

      Why does the Model S have fires occurring at a rate of one per month, yet all the other EVs combined have zero, nada, zilch during that same period ?

      Perhaps Tesla should spend more time trying to catch up to the competition and their lack of fires.

      1. Anon says:

        I’m so very proud you can count to five. But I guess the details of each incident, conveniently slip your grasp… For example; you’re seriously going to count a garage fire because it also happened to have a Model S parked in it?

        Trollbait. :p

        1. Ted Fredrick says:

          Don’t be a fanboy. If the car has a problem they should fix it. A fire is a big thing. If your kids or grandkids are belted in the back seat it is difficult to get them out in a hurry. I love electric cars as much as the next guy and the Tesla is my dreamcar. Fix the problem.

    5. James says:

      You have to be a bit older to remember those iconic: “Jane, you ignorant slut!”,
      Saturday Night Live, Weekend Update – Point –> Counterpoint bits.

      If you do, I’ll have mimic Dan Aykroyd’s virulent comeback to his debate
      opponent , Jane Curtain: “Jim, you ignorant nincompoop!” – lol

      Jim, your use of exaggeration and vague detail to press your opinion falls
      somewhere between idiotic and pure sensationalist. What “five fires”? Name
      them all. Are you including the Mexican car chase? Where the Model S was
      estimated by police to be traveling north of 100mph, then careened through
      a concrete wall and into a tree? Did you mention the driver then was well
      enough to exit said Model S and enter another motor vehicle and left the scene,
      to avoid arrest for drunk reckless driving? Are you quoting news articles re:
      garage fires you didn’t research before pontificating vitriol against Tesla?

      Nobody has ever been injured in a Tesla to anybody’s recollection. Name one
      other automaker who can say this. Even Chevrolet’s SS pacecar caught fire
      unexpectedly last Saturday while pacing NASCAR stock cars at Daytona during
      the Sprint Unlimited. Maybe that is symbolic of conventional gasoline cars that
      catch fire in the USA approximately 250,000 times per year. Have you seen
      people who created static electricity sliding across their driver’s seat only to
      erupt into flames at the gasoline pump? It happens with undue regularity. Or
      how about those poor folks that don’t touch the metal gas pump to ground
      themselves and cause a spark? – Oooh it’s nasty watching those folks duck,
      roll and cover as they erupt into flames! You spew hate for a alternative way
      of transportation wherein those dangers aren’t even an option. Nor do you
      mention the dangers of relying upon a fuel source still largely controlled by
      countries that pose a danger to our national security – and responsible for
      untold deaths of our enlisted military.

      So you come onto an EV website and spew drivel. This is what is known
      as a troll, and who knows who you work for, or what you represent. On the
      surface, it seems you just like to hear yourself bark at the wind.

      Tesla is literally a tiny auto company in comparison to established auto giants
      that have made cars for many generations. Even behemoths like Toyota and GM
      have literally hundreds of thousands of recalls per year. Many of those, as are
      some in the news as of …yes, TODAY – are said to be connected with injuries
      and even deaths. Read the news, buddy. When Tesla states a need to
      offer software and hardware updates to negate any possible probability wherein
      a Tesla owner plugs in to a circuit not stout enough to support the car, yes, it
      is serious and needs attention. Tesla is stretched to extreme limits today
      developing new product to survive, thrive and compete, and building out an
      entire charging infrastructure here and in Europe to silence critics like
      yourself from stating the car is limited in nature.

      How many automakers can do all this with twice the personnel and budget?
      And, they are accomplishing all this in America, not a cheap place to do business.

      If Apple were to acquire Tesla, it would be all over for the domestic brands. They’d
      shift into panic mode and EVs would be popping out all over! As it is, we’ll wait
      several years until Model E to see whether or not Tesla will soar in the long haul.
      My prediction is – they will. In spite of naysayers and bobble-heads like yourself.

      1. James says:

        short version:

        Hilarious long version ( puts it in context ) :

      2. abhishekifmr says:

        I am so sorry on your ignorance.. For you Earth is still the center of universe.

      3. abhishekifmr says:

        Oh so sorry it was for Mr Jim not Mr James.

      4. Steven says:

        +1 For logical discourse
        +1 For NRFPTP reference
        -1 For not mentioning the Ford Pinto


    6. SeattleTeslaGuy says:

      troll. This person is full of inaccuracies and outright fabrications.

      For those that might actually believe this “person” let’s look at the Pinto comment. How many people died in Pinto fires? I’ll save you the effort – 27. How many people died in Tesla fires? I’ll give you a hint, it’s the same as the total number of people that have died in a Tesla, period. OK, it’s zero.

      In all the Tesla vehicle fires, it is interesting to note that every single occupant walked away unharmed. In the case of the 2 US ones, the car instructed the driver to pull over and exit before there were any smoke or flames. They literally had minutes to exit. In the Mexico crash, the driver fled the scene on foot. Compare that to a recent Ford SUV crash that killed a mother and her 3 children. They had no time to exit as the gasoline immediately exploded and engulfed the vehicle in flames. Had they been driving a Tesla, they surely would have survived. Oh, lest we not forget, the Model S has the highest crash test safety ratings of ANY car on the market.

      In the case of the charger fire, the jury is still out but there is a known problem with one of the adapters (the NEMA 14-50 one). That is what Tesla is replacing. There is no flaw in the car that caused this problem. However, they did issue a firmware update (that went to all owners) that reduced charging current when certain problems were noted by the charging system. Pretty amazing that they are able to actually mitigate some of the potential problems prior to distributing the fixed adapters. Tesla could be faster in getting them to us owners but I think the troll is barking up the wrong tree on this one.

      Finally, the cause last fire (In Toronto) is still unknown. I look forward to hearing the cause of it.

    7. winze says:

      Dude you are copy/pasting this comment in every tesla related news on the internet.
      Are you mental ill?

      1. Anon says:

        No, it’s a paid FudTroll. :p

    8. Spec9 says:

      Someone is losing a LOT of money on their short position.

    9. Al S says:

      Jim, you mention “bigger explosions.” Are you implying that Tesla vehicles or their batteries have exploded?

      I am not aware of any such incidents. Are you making this up, or can you provide references?

      1. Bill Howland says:

        The mexican collision was frightening to me. Interestingly there are TWO versions on you tube, one with the big flash and explosion muffled. The unmuffled one (!!!!!) to me is the frightening one. I cannot ascertain whether there were any projectiles in the passenger compartment at the time, but the flash seems to engulf it.

    10. Nix says:

      The Tesla hasn’t even been found to be the origin of the fire in the Toronto case. So it is premature to speculate on that fire.

    11. Jeff D says:

      As much time as you spend on various websites cutting and pasting the same argument into their comment sections, you think you could come up with a better argument than this tabloid drivel. If you don’t like Tesla that’s fine, don’t buy one, but you come off sounding foolish ranting about Tesla, and using tabloid arguments that don’t have backing in facts.

    12. ELROY says:

      I have long fantasized about a dual motor Tesla, but figured there isn’t enough battery capacity to handle 800+ HP. The MS already draws 320KW out of a 85kWh battery pack. So powering 640kw of motor could be impossible with anything near the current pack size. But hopefully they will make it substantially quicker to at least beat some of these German Super Sedans (E63/M5/RS6) which can clock 0-60 times as quick as 3.5 seconds. Trying to compete with those German sedans in top speed, which unlimited can nearly approach 200mph, will never be practical without some mega advancement in battery technology. But with AWD, a twin motor Tesla certainly may possibly be one of the quickest sedans in the 0-60mph range.

      1. James says:

        Actually I think what limits the top speed is the gearing on the electric motor. If they put in a second or even third gear and an auto shifter then the top speed could be significantly increased. However having a single reduction gear is way simpler, more reliable and cheaper. Plus sustaining 150+ mph speeds probably isn’t good for the battery as you say.

        1. Elroy says:

          I think a statement car.. A performance model with such staggering results that even the wealthy hard core performance nuts would drool over. At least in bench mark 0-60 and qtr mile times.

  2. Spec9 says:

    I think it is silly pointless overkill. But if someone is willing to buy it and it improves Tesla’s profits . . . do it.

    1. Anon says:

      I think the idea is to INCREASE the pressure on the global auto industry to “wake the f*ck up”, and get serious about producing desirable, non-compliance EVs . This might also explain the recent increase in anti-Tesla FUD in multiple EV forums.

      Elon is stepping on some good o’l boy’s toes… 😉

      KEEP UP THE PRESSURE ELON!!! You da man! 🙂

    2. Mint says:

      Virtually all cars are silly pointless overkill. Hell, half our economy could be considered silly and pointless.

      But that’s the world we live in, and it’s even more pointless to sway people away from buying overkill. So, just as you suggested, do it Tesla!

  3. John Hansen says:

    Bravo Tesla!

    The move to 110kWh may be mostly marketing, but marketing is vitally important to the EV industry. All the people who continually insist that an 80 mile range is all that we really need aren’t in touch with reality. Tell a normal person what they “don’t need” and you’ll very quickly lose a sale. On the other hand, reassure people with a 350 mile range that they “will never need” and they’re much more likely to buy.

    Tesla is eliminating the naysayers by eliminating their talking-points. No apologism here!

    1. DaveMart says:

      I think they need a power boost for the German market to give them a higher top end and better sustained high speed cruising.
      I don’t think this will cut it there though, and IMO the German manufacturer’s are right for their home market which will favour PHEVs with unlimited high speed cruising but electric available for driving around cities.
      At German electricity rates pushing a big heavy motor like the Tesla at high speed costs around the same in ballpark terms as you would get from a diesel.

      1. Koz says:

        Heavy motor? Hardly. Heavy battery, yes.

        1. DaveMart says:

          I was using the term ‘motor’ in the sense of ‘car’.

    2. Anthony says:

      For the Model S it maybe marketing, but the Model X will get more utility out of a 100kWh+ pack. A 325 mile range on the Model S is going to end up being a 290 mile range on the Model X. But I still expect a lot of buyers at that Model X/100kWh+ level though.

    3. Jouni Valkonen says:

      It is not for marketing. Tesla 40 kWh was discontinued because there was almost zero demand. 85 version is selling 60 kWh version almost 10 to one. It is very likely that 100–120 kWh version will sell more than 60 kWh version.

      1. Suprise Cat says:

        You could never order the 40 kWh in Europe, so how would they know if it didn’t fit the market much better at the lower price? For example Netherland is only 200 km wide…

      2. Koz says:

        Do you have a link for the battery capacity sales breakdown? I haven’t seen this before other than Elon’s claim of low demand for the 40.

  4. Anthony says:

    I’ve been thinking about this for a while now 😉

    I think the pack volume wont increase, they’ll just use better batteries. I think by 2015 Panasonic might be ready to upgrade from the 3.6V/3.1Ah cells they’ve been mass manufacturing for the last 3 years. I’m guessing 3.4V/4.0Ah but I could be off the mark.

    I’ve been going back and forth on how Tesla should update its lines – if they should just add a new top-end model (105kWh pack for another $10,000, plus the existing 60 and 85), or if they should revamp to offer higher pack capacities at slightly higher price points (75/105kWh for $5000 more than the current 60/85). Each way has its pros and cons. The nerd side of me wants the 75/105, and the business side of me wants the 105 to just be added to the lineup.

    The EPA performance of a new 105kWh model would be around 325, and I think that is more than enough to relieve range anxiety, especially considering the pack would be capable of 135kWh supercharging, and more importantly, supercharged at higher rates for longer periods to get you back on the road faster to the next supercharger.

    1. Mike I says:

      This will probably be determined by whether Panasonic can cut over all the production to the new battery in a short period of time. If they need more time to ramp up new material pipeline, you will probably see the 105 added at the top of the line.

    2. DaveMart says:

      If Panasonic had a more energy dense battery remotely ready to go, then they would not plan to lose space by putting in a physically bigger pack.
      Musk would also have been sure to tell us about it in his plans for the Model E, but he said instead that he is expecting cost reduction but little technical improvement for the next 4-5 years.

    3. David Stone says:

      I agree on the volume issue.

      They could add a higher capacity for a higher sum, seeing as it would be good business sense to offer more options.

      As for the current capacities:
      I think they should keep the prices where they are – ajusted only for inflation – and increase capacity when it is cost neutral, as the cells advance.

      Just as next years model of many products are the same price as this year’s, but a bit better, the model s and x, and later e, would alway cost about the same, with the same pack volume and cell number, but have better cells when they because available, and therefore more range.

    4. DocDragon says:

      @Anthony: Since you are already talking about the capacity of Panasonic cells, I think Panasonic is already producing 3.6V/3.4Ah cells. You can find them on eBay when you search for “NCR18650B.” The older cells (3.6V/3.1Ah) are labeled as “NCR18650A.” I just happen to have bought the newer “B” versions only a couple of weeks ago for $10/piece, but wouldn’t know how to reliably test the true capacity.

      A capacity increase of 3.1Ah to 3.4Ah may not sound like a lot, but that’s nearly a 10% (9.6%) increase already…

  5. Gibber says:

    The car is already overpriced/under-contented. Tesla should not spend any money on a larger battery. The money should be spent on much needed improvments to the comfort, quality, sound insulation and features in the cabin, that will turn more potential buyers in the over $100k category into owners.

    1. Spec9 says:

      It is just an option . . . and if people are interested and willing to pay for a bigger battery then why not?

    2. Jouni Valkonen says:

      you are correct with your criticism, but Tesla is developing Model S evolutionary. E.g. it will bring new more comfortable seats within the next year. Also I would assume that they are working hard to improve noise insulation.

      Larger battery is good option and larger battery may improve demand by some 10–30 %. Especially for German autobahns Tesla’s current battery is just utterly too small, because you can drive only less than 40 mins at 200 km/h.

    3. Suprise Cat says:

      Tesla needs to reduce weight, not add more weight!

      1. Jouni Valkonen says:

        untrue. High weight can be compensated with larger battery and more powerful AWD.

        Tesla (2100 kg) is still lighter car than many of its competitors. E.g. Porsche Panamera hybrid (2150 kg), Audi A8 (2150 kg), Mercedes S550 (2200 kg). Therefore weight is definitely not a problem for Tesla.

        1. Al S says:

          Weight is a long-term problem for all the bridges and roads their cars drive on, though.

          It’s also a big deal for anyone who is unfortunate enough to get hit by a Model S.

          Yes, other cars are getting heavier and heavier too, but this doesn’t make it a good thing.

          1. David Stone says:

            Weight is actually not a problem for roads and bridges, at least when they are constructed properly.

            Cars a light compared to trucks and even they are not a problem.

            The real problem comes from the suspension not correlating with the weight.

            A truck with full of heavy cargo with a suspension ajusted to that weight will do less damage to a road than the same truck driving back much lighter after delivery if its suspension is not ajusted to the lower weight.

            The vehicle slams down on the surface instead of just rolling.
            This jackhammer effect is what destroys.

            1. Jouni Valkonen says:

              Actually, trucks are very big problem because the erosion of pavment increases greatly (exponentially?) with higher axel weight. But yet again, it is not too expensive to have highways resurfaced little bit more often (at least it creates jobs so it is not total loss…). This is why heavy trucks has so many wheels. And more importantly higher road maintenance costs due to higher car weight is dwarfed by reduced health care costs. People get worse injuries in lighter cars and injuries are very expensive for the economy.

              To my knowledge there has not been single severe injuries with Model S. And also other high weight premium cars are very safe in accidents.

              1. Tom A. says:

                Not for the people in the Model S, but have you seen what happened to “the other guy”? A pair in a Civic were pronounced dead at the scene.

  6. Josh says:

    If they have access to better cells at a similar cost, they could offer this without changing the packaging. I think the capacities of the S and X will grow larger to created a differentiation with the Model E in the future. I don’t expect this to happen until around the time of the Model E launch though, when the oft mentioned “Giga-Factory” goes into production. Maybe we will know more Wednesday.

  7. SeattleTeslaGuy says:

    Personally, if had a choice of 60, 85 or 100 KWH batteries, I’d take the 100 in a nano-heartbeat. Simple as that. More range is better. For me, the point of diminishing returns comes at about 400 miles.

    1. James says:

      Exactly. +1

      As sales and battery energy density increase, price per kwh will decrease. Who
      says there will be any difference in size for the added capacity? It shouldn’t be
      long at current pace, to see a P100, and I agree that at 400 miles, with the
      rapidly increasing number of available Superchargers, the death knell for
      status-quo gas burners rings louder and louder.

      Model E cannot arrive fast enough. Will it have to be built in China to
      keep costs low? We’ll have to see. To date, folks who lean more towards
      financial security will enjoy the near-perfection that is a Tesla Model S or X.

      We commoners will have to wait – unless Apple purchases Tesla, in which
      case the entire automotive world will explode with new EVs and PHEVs
      at more and more affordable prices.

      1. Nix says:

        James – It is rare that I see “Apple” and “more affordable prices” in the same sentence. Maybe Samsung….

      2. SeattleTeslaGuy says:

        I think it’s highly unlikely that Apple would buy Tesla. Stranger things have happened but other than both having great brands at the moment, I see no synergy in a union there.

        1. Rick says:

          I agree, STG. I don’t see what’s in it for Apple, and Elon certainly does not need the money. Unless Tesla is looking at Apple’s dealership network. 🙂

  8. Bloggin says:

    The more battery range, the more viable the EV. So 300+ miles will be great!!

    1. More Battery Range – is proven to be a hot seller, if it is true that the 85 kWh Model S outsells the 60 kWh copy at a 10 to 1 ratio!

      But when the cancelled the 40 kWh Design and made only the 60 kWh version with a software limit of 40 kWh usable – to save having to develop a whole other pack for just a few customers – they created a whole new concept – but failed to market it!

      They could today be selling 40 kW Model S sedans with a 60 kWh pack that is up-gradable by Credit card and phone call to switch the software switch to give you the full capacity at a later date! At a price of $10,000 Less – which you pay a bit more than that when you later upgrade, is no different that an after delivery supercharger upgrade for the 60 kWh Model S – it costs more than if ordered at the beginning, but – if your are nowhere near a Super Charger in their plans (Like – in Northern Saskatchewan) Might as well save the money on that – for the extra 10 kW AC charger! You could still add it in if you later moved to Toronto, or Calgary, for example!

      In a similar sense – they could today also be selling a Model S with the 85 kWh Battery – with it software limited to 60 kWh and field up-gradable by a phone call and credit card payment! In that format – you could (using the design thinking they ended up delivering for the 40 kWh model), you could just buy a 60/85 today as a 60 and later upgrade when you had the $. Easier than going all the way down to California for finding a swap station to switch out a 60 kWh Battery pack for a bigger 85 kWh pack!

  9. Nix says:

    Here are the benefits that I can think of for a larger battery pack:

    1) Total life of the battery will be longer, because each cell will go through fewer complete charge cycles.
    2) Faster partial charging at Supercharger stations. This is because it takes longer to put 10 miles worth of electricity into a smaller battery as it gets full, compared to pushing that same charge into a battery that isn’t as full. You could drive around with the battery in the middle of its charge range for more time, charging faster in the middle of the battery’s capacity.
    3) More power on tap for potentially faster acceleration.
    4) More C-rating on tap for potentially higher regen braking rates (not sure about this one, it would depend upon a number of factors)
    5) More battery capacity available for stuff like SmartGrid connections where you might draw from your car to cool your house at peak demand/grayout/rolling blackout, and charge for cheap at night.
    6) More range.

    If they do this with higher capacity cells, and don’t see significant weight or space increases, I think it is a no brainer.

  10. Bill Howland says:

    A few comments:

    Most of the negative commentary here seems over the top. Not that it is untrue, just that it is putting Tesla and even Musk in an unfair light.

    I would guess all of us would have to make our own decisions as to the ‘parlous-ness’ of the car and make our own determination. Now, for me, I’ve tried to keep on top of reported problems with the “S” and have decided that I can live with a rickety charger cord since I just simply won’t use it that often, and then when the warranty runs out, I’ll just chop up the end and put my own reliable plug on it. As it is, the guy who designed the exisiting plugs knows nothing about the concept of current density…

    As far as the battery induced fires go, well, that’s a calculated risk I’m willing to take, so none of Tesla’s problems to date are preventing me from making the decision to purchase the vehicle. A 110 kwh battery (along with a much smaller trunk) is something I’d take a gamble on. Its more along the line of a vehicle I want to drive.

    What I would REALLY like is some other manufacturers to give some competition to Tesla. The BMW products which supposedly compete with them leave me stone cold. The closest thing is the Caddy ELR, and its really not a very close competitor, either.

    1. SeattleTeslaGuy says:

      Bill, the actual charger issue is with the adapter that plugs into the wall and then the charge cable plugs into that. It turns out that there is wear and tear between the adapter and the cable. People have been putting stress on it and that has lead to a couple of over heated adapters. The California fire still hasn’t been fully blamed on the adapter and the Toronto fire is even less understood. When ever you have 40 or more amps flowing through contacts, there is a potential fire. If the installation of the wall socket was bad, the fire could have started there. It could be a simple as not torquing down the wire clamp or using a smaller gauge of wire. That is why Tesla issued the firmware update – to catch at least some of the flaky wiring problems.

      For what it’s worth the other charger, the HPWC, from Tesla has no reported problems. I have one and use it every day. I regularly do a heat check on it and it’s never been more than lukewarm.

      1. Bill Howland says:

        Noted as I have repeated myself at least 4 times on this issue. Its a rickety design, the current density being way too high in the first place, besides the chinsyness of it. I’ve made my own assessment, and ‘lukewarm’ is a matter of opinion. To me, an attachment plug should run just a hair above , if not totally Stone Cold.

        As a matter of fact there have been problems with the HPWC, in that early tesla owners were told not to exceed 60 amps.

        We agree to disagree hopefully.

        The basic tennant of the critics I do not disagree with. Gm and Nissan make electric cars with 0 issues as has been mentioned. Tesla out and out lies from time to time, as when stating there has never been a death remotely related to a tesla product. Or being the safest vehicle. But lets agree to disagree since I can add little to what I’ve already said. If you have new information (there was no new info in your post, btw) , then please share it. Otherwise, Noted.

        1. Bill Howland says:

          “whenever you have 40 amps flowing through contacts”, etc. That is just plain wrongheaded. That sentence is 100% false. Intrinsicly safe constructions are only at well under 1 ampere.

        2. James says:

          GM and Nissan have no issues because their batteries hold only one third of the power in roughly the same volume. Less power dense chemistry’s are by default less volite and easier to handle. With the power to send a heavy car 250 miles down the road on a single charge, there is always going to be some risk, if only through the occasional manufacturing defect that slips through quality control. I’d still rather have a high power battery under me, than a large tank of exposive liquid though!

        3. Koz says:

          I have a Volt and a Tesla. The mobile charger on the Volt is a POS compared to Tesla’s. The weak link in Tesla’s is the adapter and for both is misuse by unplugging every day. They, nor the outlets are meant for this type of use. I do use both daily but leave them plug into the wall. The Volt’s is the second after the first was replaced under a voluntary recall. They beefed up the pig tail lead but it still runs hotter than the Tesla under max load and much hotter with a similar load. The car side plug also came loose on the Volt’s mobile charger not long after it was replaced. The J1224 interface is also much more problematic from a mechanical perspective than Tesla’s proprietary plug. There were numerous issues with the Volt’s mobile charger overheating which is why they replaced the cords and forced 8A as the default charge rate, burying 12A under some screen menus to be set every time you charge a 2013 or newer model.

          1. pjwood says:

            Lots of complaints about mostly secondary market 240v EVSEs, that break on the 366th day, but the 8A issue wasn’t fixed for this reason, AFAIK, it was fixed for homes not up to 15A / 110v code. GM wised up about fires in the walls, where more power hungry BEV chargers have actually started fires in them.

            Not the BEV’s fault, but we all know who gets blamed, and its Chevy with the public abuse trophy.

          2. Bill Howland says:

            I also own a Volt and a Tesla (Roadster in my case). My original volt evse ran flawlessly. My replacement EVSE (had to replace it per GM to keep the warranty in effect) also is operationally flawless, but one of the LED’s now doesn’t light. Both ran quite cool at 12 amps.

            Since both models have # 16 AWG car J1772 cords, both have to be COMPLETELY removed from the storage before running the unit at 12 amps otherwise the cord is in danger of melting. This is only common sense, but I wished GM
            had mentioned this was a mandatory action in the owner’s manual.

            I did not buy Tesla’s UMC ($1500) for the Roadster. A friend who did has burned out 2 under warranty, and has since spent another $1950 (all these plus sales tax, and installation) for a clipper creek charger. He has also spent $750 plus sales tax on a TSL-01 (roadster to S) adapter cable, since he is worried (without me commenting on it previously – he made the decision previously all on his own) about problems with the S umc.

            So without more detail Koz, I can only surmise you are not properly using your Volt EVSE since I charge my volt at 120 volts 12 amperes every day (the 240 evse gets hogged by the Roadster in the Wintertime since the heater drains the battery down so much necessitating daily charging), and it never gets above tempid (I was going to say cold, but its not quite stone cold)..

            But then, I’m correctly fully uncoiling the cord. If your unit is heating after PROPERLY uncoiling the cord, I’d have it replaced under warranty, since the only device that heats on the whole system is the #16 AWG car cord, and when properly used, is no where near the EVSE.

            So from My friend and I’s experience with One volt and Three Teslas (he also has an S – of which due to a problem with the HPWC for the S, initially he couldn’t go above 60 amps), there hasn’t been the slightest trouble with the GM product with either version.

            ON the contrary, the only thing that Tesla had that was Trouble-Free was the Roadster Home Connector (Clipper creek actually), and the S adapter cable.

  11. ffbj says:

    Something to compete with i8 from Bmw. A super premium s.e. Tesla sounds cool to me.

  12. JakeY says:

    “rear jump seats likely not available due to battery pack size”
    This is a really bad assumption. Tesla designed their battery pack to be swappable. If it takes up the rear seats it’s not going to be swappable anymore (because a part would have to go on top of the motor/inverters). The largest possibility is that Tesla will use more energy dense cells and keep the pack size exactly the same. The 3.1Ah (or 3.4Ah depending on who you ask) cells Tesla is using is already a few years old. Panasonic is planning a release of 4.0Ah cells, so Tesla should be able to incorporate those.

    1. James says:

      I’m fairly sure I heard somewhere that the current pack design can actually hold more cells than the 85kwh pack has in it. However for reasons of cost (and weight?) they decided that 85kwh was enough.

      1. JakeY says:

        I’ve seen the inside diagram of the pack and also pictures of the open 60kWh pack from the NHTSA; there is no more space. There’s even a section that sticks up near the front and even that has two battery modules (it’s empty in the 60kWh pack). I find it highly unlikely Tesla will increase the amount of cells when they can just as easily pick more energy dense ones and keep the same design.

        1. Ocean Railroader says:

          The batteries they have been using in their battery packs are the same type they have been using since at least 2009 so something more dense has most likely come along at least.

          1. DaveMart says:

            It doesn’t tend to work like that.
            Battery energy density largely increases in jumps, rather than increments.
            If they had a better battery ready to go, why did Musk say that he doesn’t expect major improvements in the next 4-5 years in Amsterdam?
            He would surely have mentioned it if he felt that he would have better batteries available for Gen III.

            1. JakeY says:

              A ~20% improvement is not a “major improvement” in Elon’s eyes. That’s just the natural annual improvement (yes you are right, it goes in increments, but the increments match a 8% per year trajectory). It’s not going to take another 4-5 years to reach that given the Model S is using at minimum 2 year old technology (at maximum 4 years old if they are using 3100mAh).

              I think Elon’s talking about metal air technology, which Tesla is preparing for (judging from their patents for hybrid battery packs). That’s not going to happen until 4-5 years.

    2. Koz says:

      I agree and would be shocked if the didn’t use the current pack architecture.

      1. Tom A. says:

        As I understand it, the higher-density batteries are already available. You can get 4.1Ah 18650s cheap online from China, and Panasonic has better, more reliable 4.1Ah cells (NMC chemistry, I think). I assume that the higher-capacity Model S/X and the Model E will have these cells.

  13. James says:

    100kW is huge waste of resources. I live in Phoenix, a 500 sq mi metro area, and the40kW battery on our RAV is more than sufficient for 100% of our driving here! and we have no access to a supercharger or even Chademo. In fact, we never charge outside of our house, except for a bit of vanity charging.

    With two or three superchargers (and access), I could easily make it to Los Angeles. I only hope the Model E comes in a 40 kW flavor.

    1. Ocean Railroader says:

      If Tesla is coming out with a larger battery pack I think they might shift all the battery pack sizes down a notch to where the 110 kilowatt takes over the role of the 85 kilowatt and the 85 kilowatt takes over the role of the 60 kilowatt while the 60 kilowatt becomes the lowest end battery pack and makes it’s way into the model E.

      1. Koz says:


        The E will likely be lighter and cost is job #1 for it. Tesla may choose not to make a 40kwh version but I sure hope they do. Not having a lower cost version will leave a gaping hole in the market, IMO, but maybe they feel they need a pack size capable of taking advantage of the Supercharger network in order to compete. Hopefully that isn’t the thought process as it short changes their ability and desire to produce favored automobiles.

    2. Mint says:

      All $100k+ cars are a waste of resources. If there’s demand, then let people buy it.

      Better for that waste of resources to be burning electricity for 20+ years than doing 15 mpg.

  14. Ocean Railroader says:

    Tesla really doesn’t need any super battery break though tech to make a 110 kilowatt battery pack and all that it would need would be a 25% improvement in battery power density which is fairly easy and most likely happened a few years ago. If Tesla wanted to build a 120 kilowatt battery pack they would need a battery improvement of 40% over existing tech which would not be that unrealistic vs them going out and saying we have a battery that gets three times the range in the same mass over the old one.

    Another thing that we should look at here is Toyota is coming out with a hydrogen powered car that goes 300 miles on a tank of fuel. If Tesla can get a 350 to 400 mile range EV out on the road by next year or the year after that it would be the death blow to the hydrogen fuel especially if Tesla keeps the free supercharging stations. Also cars with higher capacity batteries would free up space at existing supercharging stations in that people would skip supercharging stations more often.

    1. Bill Howland says:

      Haha!!! Point taken that Toyota’s Hydrogen Powered car with be the only mass market car in existence that is EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE than a 110 kwh Model S!

      1. DaveMart says:

        I would be interested to read the costings for the Toyota FCEV if you have access to them!
        Please share!
        Or is this just a random unsubstantiated comment, since you don’t fancy FCEV? 🙂

        1. Bill Howland says:

          Well, please indicate exactly where any bit of what I said is inaccurate. If you have hard evidence that the sale price of the Toyota will be under $120,000 unsubsidized (that’s the key word), please share it.

    2. DaveMart says:

      ‘a 25% improvement in battery power density which is fairly easy and most likely happened a few years ago.’

      What an extraordinary notion.
      How come that all the cars are using this improved battery if it is all that simple?
      How come BMW spent hundreds of millions setting up carbon fibre production facilities to take weight out of their EV when they could just have ramped the battery size?

      I think battery engineers would be astonished to learn that it is all so easy!

      1. JakeY says:

        It’s correct in the context of 18650s.

        It does not apply to other manufacturers which use large format automotive cells. Those are still at least a generation behind in energy density (esp. given they are mostly power optimized and designed more for thermal stability). For example, the Leaf will almost catch up with the current Model S with their next generation NMC packs (similar to the NCA chemistry the Model S has been using for 2 years already).

    3. Ocean – the Toyota FCEV won’t go 300 miles between New York and Pittsburgh, for some time – since there is no fuel there! It also won’t go 300 miles between Oshkosh, WI and Sault Ste. Marie – likely for even longer! Same Reason – Infrastructure – even more expensive than a Tesla Battery Swap Station!

  15. scott moore says:

    350 = 5.4 hours driving at 65 MPH
    350 = 4 hours driving at 85 MPH

    Ie., even at illegal speeds commonly found on deserted Nevada highways, this is clearly more
    range than people want to drive at one sitting. It makes some sense if you are attempting to
    save having to charge (a whole nuther issue), but then that also means that the car is wasting
    a lot of power to drag around half empty batteries.

    1. Bill Howland says:

      Some of us have comittments and need to drive 800-1000 miles on some very long days. My Tesla service guy one day drove to my house and back on a single day (around a 20 hour day after fixing my car), His round trip mileage was almost exactly 1180 miles…

      His ‘ Tesla company Car ‘ was a Mercury Mariner. I believe I’m speaking accurately for him when he was *NOT* in the mood to take any car charging breaks. The 3 – 4 minute stops to fill up the tank at the gas station were more delays than he wanted already.

      So you see, for some of us there is a *NEED* for several hundred kwh, when the technology, weight, compactness, and pricing permit.

      1. Koz says:

        That case is n extreme outlier. It will likely be a long time before batteries can offer 300 miles at an affordable price, let alone more range. If Tesla can do it sooner, more power to them. In the mean time, their shortest path to lower cost and higher volumes is to match range to the needs of shorter regular travelers. Not much of the population needs more than 120 miles on a regular basis but most think they do. Once those people with limited budgets (not Model S customers for the most part) seriously consider an EV and they have a choice between a 120 mile car and a similar 200 mile car for $10k then those buyers and the market will learn what range is truly desired.

        1. There is a Business Model Not yet considered: Larger Battery Packs installed – but generally with a less than full capacity ‘Paid for’ – a bit like the solution Tesla used in the delivery of the 40 kWh Model S – using an existing 60 kWh Pack Design, and software Limiting the range to that given by the 40 kWh pack (simply counting kWh used – and managing the range in that fashion.)

          I would guess that Tesla has the team of engineers – that they could either ‘Rent’ the extra 20 kWh of that bigger pack – say – for a weekend trip, just the same as they currently can just call, and give a credit card payment over the phone, to make the upgrade from the limited 40 kWh available – to the full total 60 kWh pack capacity for good! The Software ‘pushed’ out to the car to do the upgrade for a one time upgrade – like the weekend trip scenario, would be different – but I think not that much, than the full upgrade process.

          Imagine – if you had a rented car at an airport, saw some nice logging roads you wanted to check out – and could just make a phone call and get a Jeep dropped of to you in 5 minutes – But – it had the same dash and controls as you were familiar with!

          Let’s just say that there will be a lot of new ideas – both in hard products and in acquisition processes – to come in the future! Self Driving Cars – will change things a lot, but even before that – there are statements of how many car sharing cars reduce the demand to buy cars individually.

          Imagine if you could buy one car – at a much lower cost, that did all of your daily drives, but when a weekend or business trip came up – you just ‘Ordered the extra performance (Range), for the duration of that weekend or business trip!

          Let’s just say – for example – it was the 85 kWh P85 Tesla under the skin – but you paid just for a 85 mile range – everything you need for weeks on end, but not for summer holidays! Would it not be nice to just make a call and give a credit card number and ‘unlock’ the P85 performance for a week long trip, and then be back to just what you need when your are back to commuting?

          For myself – I have three or four basic driving scenarios: Daily – less than 5 miles a day; Weekly – about 25 – 60 miles, one time; about once every 3-5 months – a 4 hour trip, 2 hours each way; and finally – Summer (or Winter) Vacation – 600 – 700 miles one way to Oshkosh for the Airshow, or a trip from Ontario to Florida over Christmas, or in one case – a trip (after going to Oshkosh) down to West Texas, and back to Ontario!

          An Adaptable P85 (or the suggested P100 in this story) could be managed by software in a few variations for situation like this. Good for me, but – would it be good for Tesla? Tesla is working to become the car company that makes solutions – even – Single Car Solutions! If they could make a business case out of my situation I think they wold put it in place. I would guess that the target 200 mile range 3rd generation car might be part of the mix!

          What if you could just buy the 3rd generation Tesla – but on occasion – rent from them – the big Brother – the model S or X with a big battery? I would guess that could happen sooner than my 4 way distance model would dictate – as paying 100 grand for mostly driving under 60 miles is a bit much! (And selling it to me for just 25 grand [The Price of the Smart ED, which would cover my daily and once a week drives] is no way for them to make money – even if I rent the larger ranges on predictable, but not very frequent, routines.)

          How would they price a 4 hour drive rental? By the hour? What if I’m late? Maybe – by the Day? 24 hours only? How about my Summer or Winter Vacations? By the Day? Per Mile Driven? Would I still get Supercharger access – for free? Fun to think about and postulate on, but a bit harder to manage 100,000+ such vehicle situations that are all over the map!!

      2. Suprise Cat says:

        The real problem is, that Tesla has too few service stations.

        Also his driving without stops would be illegal in most countries of the world.

  16. Koz says:

    Expect the larger pack size and AWD in performance model to have some jaw dropping stats.

  17. Priusmaniac says:

    On a physiological basis 400 miles is a sweet spot because that is what you can do in one go. Afterwards you need to stop for a while anyway, like at least have some lunch. In that lunch time you can supercharge. So 400 miles would indeed be a major mile stone.

    1. Brian says:

      I find it amusing that whenever range numbers are given, somebody picks a value as a “sweet spot”, physiological or not. But that value is different for everyone. So maybe the answer is to offer any number of options, and let people pick what is right for them.

      For my family of two cars, I would be 100% content with two BEVs: one with 75 mile range and the other with 250 mile range. I would need to use public charging maybe once every 5 years!

      1. Priusmaniac says:

        I am also in favour of free choice. After all we used to choose the displacement volume in our old days pure thermals, so why not choose de battery energy in the new cars.

  18. Albertico says:

    A 110 kWh battery on the Model S would have an EPA range of 322 miles. If such an option were offered, it would cost 7 to 10 thousand more dollars than the current base 85 kWh option, or around 90,000 dollars.

    I think it could sell very well. 322 EPA miles would all but eliminate range anxiety.

  19. Brian – “For my family of two cars, I would be 100% content with two BEVs: one with 75 mile range and the other with 250 mile range. I would need to use public charging maybe once every 5 years!” Nice Number – a 2012 LEAF and a 85 kWh Model S!

    For Me – the numbers are in 4 steps – Daily to work – I only need a car with a 20 mile range. Once a week or there about, not more than twice, and sometimes – once every two weeks, I would need a car with maybe about 60 miles range. About 3 – 5 times a year – I would need about 250 – 260 miles range (maybe less if there was some form of quicker charging at the halfway point of that since that is the outbound destination point). And Finally – what every range you can give me – When I am driving 600 – 1200 miles: Meaning – Long Range + Quick Charging + Battery Swaps = All good!

    Only need a car for two people over 90% of the time!

    This translates out into a Smart ED for to work and grocery Trips, and the once a week runs, but needs a different car for the 4-5 hour trips sometimes done, and also for the Vacation Trips! I think I will start with the Smart ED (unfortunately with NO DCQC Option, the only thing that bugs me about it!), and hold out for the Third Generation Tesla – to drop my Prius, which will get a lot less use when I buy the Smart ED!