Non Performance Version Of Model S 100D Could Go Up To 343 Miles On A Charge

AUG 31 2016 BY ERIC LOVEDAY 51

How Much Would Range Increase If P Was Removed?

How Much Would Range Increase If P Was Removed?

With the introduction of the new Tesla Model S P100D, the rated range was pushed to 315 miles (EPA estimated), but what if Tesla were to offer a non-Performance version of the 100?

…and really, how could they not

Say in a future Model S 100D or Model X 100D? Where then would maximum range stand?

Teslarati recently examined this and concluded the following:

“According to range specifications listed on Tesla’s Design Studio, the Model S will see a range increase from 270 miles, based on the EPA cycle for the P90D, to 315 EPA-rated miles on the new P100D. The extra 45 mile boost from the larger 100 kWh battery pack represents a 17% increase over the 90 kWh pack, or an additional 4.5 miles per single kilowatt hour.”

Current Tesla Model S and X Lineup Range Comparison for U.S. (August, 2016) - click to enlarge

Current Tesla Model S and X Lineup Range Comparison for U.S. (August, 2016) – click to enlarge

Well, since the non-Performance Model S 90D is rated by the EPA at 294 miles combined, then our napkin math of a 17% increase in range for 100 kWh pack would lead us to believe that a 100D version of the Model S could have a rated range of up to approximately 343 miles combined, give or take.

While the performance version of the Model S 100D surely is impressive in its own right, we think that 343 miles of range would be just as strong of a selling point (at a lower total cost) too.

Furthermore, by dropping the P from the Model X P100D, it too would be in the 300-plus mile range bracket, up from its current estimate of 289 miles combined for the P version.

With these numbers in mind, we think it’s just a matter of time before Tesla release both the S and X in non-Performance 100D versions. Keep your eyes peeled for a future announcement of the availability of these two range-topping versions.

Source: Teslarati

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

51 Comments on "Non Performance Version Of Model S 100D Could Go Up To 343 Miles On A Charge"

newest oldest most voted

This is great, but until Tesla starts dropping the price for these big battery packs, we are still a long ways from affordable EV’s. The difference between a 60D and a 90D is $18,500. So I’m assuming this will be at least a $6000 upgrade. We need Tesla to replace the 90D with a 100D for the same cost. Then that’s progress.

I would take the non performance version “HANDS DOWN” & get the extra Miles ..these car are TOO FAST as they are., Power one Cannot really use on a daily basis. Most people 95% + don’t want it or Need it, (((I FOR ONE))….ELON (if you are listening))MOST PEOPLE will take MORE RANGE over ludicrous speed. Concentrate more on efficiency than Power & Speed ..These cars have too much power as they are . ((((OFFER BOTH)))), I say, For me, tune them down for efficiency..

One of the best things about electric cars is that a big, powerful motor can be just as efficient as a small one. More efficient, even. You can both have your cake and eat it so to speak. Only donwside is slightly more weight.

Well that’s not entirely correct is it? Otherwise why would a 90D have more range than a P90D?

I take your point however, you don’t sacrifice a lot of efficiency for performance.

All Ps have the old, big motor in the back, with the old inverter and old gearbox. I suspect that if Tesla made a new version of that motor the range difference would be much less and could be explained by the weight difference.

Lay off the parentheses; you aren’t coding in LISP!

Lol! A Lisp joke!

And at least 3 people who know what is going on 😀

USER(1): (member ‘ha ‘(Vexar made a funny LISP joke ha ha ha)) ;

‘(ha ha ha)

Eduardo Pelegri-LLopart

‘cute

BTW, I discovered MacOS X does not have Lisp installed. The horror! I installed Clozure CL for old times’ sake.

+1 JimiJon

True. But, I wouldn’t expect that to happen until the Gigafactory comes online and/or there’s any competition in the space.

90D owners will probably offered an over the air upgrade soon to unlock to the hidden 10 KWh for only…

Whoa…I would be able to travel 20 days on a single charge with that kind of range. Awesome.

You’re forgetting about Tesla’s infamous vampire discharge problem.

Evaporation!

i used to drive my S85 only once or twice a week and I never noticed any vampire loss.

Probably because you never unplugged it? The car never truly turns off, unless you’re rebooting after a firmware update…

VAMPIRE LOSS IS SIGNIFICANT! I have ‘always connected’ off and I still lose milessss everyday when not plugged in. I love my Model X, but I would not recommend it to someone who drives infrequently. There is a good chance that person could burn more miles PARKED than while in motion. The good thing is that Tesla may fix it at some point- especially when the Model 3 appears and ‘common’ folk start griping. Tesla tells us that if mileage falls too far, it will go into some kind of ‘life support’ mode and not turn into a brick. My question is WHY NOT DO IT ALL THE TIME??? My Volt can be parked for WEEKS without a range loss. This IS doable!

“Burn more miles parked, than while in motion.”
I personally don’t believe that for a second! Got any proof of that, or are you just engaged in hyperbole??

flmark I was under the impression this ‘vampire loss’ was greatly reduced years ago, but you are saying it is still significant?

Could you put any rough numbers on this? And, if you happen to park the vehicle when it is very cold, does it get much worse?

As far as 343 miles goes, with Tesla’s you can’t make that extrapolation.

For instance, an old 85 kwh battery didn’t give that much of an improvement over a 60 kwh battery, and I’ve heard explanations as to why that was, but I’ve never heard a good one.

Vampire losses? Try garlic.

PV on the car’s roof could compensate that and probably provide some extra electricity to the battery as well.

The question that the author fails to ask is “how did Tesla achieve a 17% increase in range for an 11% increase in battery capacity?”

Only after answering that question you can start pondering on how far a non-P 100D might go. Maybe they optimised the P drivetrain and decreased some inefficiencies related to that. So it might be the non-P version does not increase 17% in range. Then again, it might also be that they upped the usable capacity or made efficiency gains that affect both models equally. In which case the 343 miles will become a reality.

It’s all guesswork right now.

I agree that the imbalanced percentages don’t make sense. Without a good draft 4.5 mi/kWh is not readily achievable with my LEAF, let alone the much larger S.

Well these day, mild summer wiht easy or no A/C, I do just a bit over that.
7.5 kilometer per kWh.
Roughly better than 4.5 miles per kWh.
I sometime do close to 5 miles per kWh.
This is 60 mph highway with a Leaf that isn’t very aerodynamic.

Teslas kWh ratings have been rather optimistic in the past. So it could be that the kWh really increased by 17%, but they still called it 100, instead of 105.

What is the max kwh that could get stuffed into … and range that could be had from … a Model 3? Has anyone cyber-sleuthed that one out ?

Am I wrong? Based on the math above, a Model 3 will require a 48kWh battery.

Depends on a lot of things, like the final weight (steel vs Aluminum), and the final aerodynamics of the latest production intent front / body, and what size wheels and covers you get.

The Model 3 will be using a new battery size and chemistry — so not directly comparable, though it could be even better.

You sure chemistry is in the near-term plan? Isn’t it just 2170 sizing and battery placement/arrangement in the pack that helps with capacity on its own?

Tesla already stated that they will aim for less then 60kWh in base Model 3.

48kWh is a bit extreme though.

40 should be fine for base. I mean – who is driving 300+ miles a day and cannot charge mid-day? This is all a mental game.

40 would not provide 300 miles not even 200 miles and it would even less warrant 200 miles in somewhat adverse bad or cold weather. Elon said it would 200 miles minimum. The more when you do stop when doing a 300 miles trip you suppose there is automatically a supercharger available to recharge the car but that is not the case. If you go to the beach at 130 miles you stop there but there is no supercharger and you are already lucky to find a parking place or at contrary you are out in the dunes somewhere and it is out in the wild. You go at the sea shore and your car is not charging. When you go back home you better still have 130 miles left or you won’t make it. Beware that the word range here doesn’t stand for military action radius but for the single way maximum distance you can drive. If you want to drive back home the real action radius is the range divided by two. There many many places where I definitely need 300 miles to have an action radius of 150 miles.

According to Tesla’s website the Model S 90D already gets 366 miles (590 km) range if you can slow down to 55 mph (90 kph).

Or 500 if you can drive 25-30 🙂

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvV3nn_de2k

For those commuting 150 miles each way to work – this is great news.

However, isn’t the average driving day for a typical driver 40?

You wanna have enough range in reserve so you can focus on more important stuff besides checking battery range every hour.

Yes, average use is 40, so be sure to buy something with 42 miles of range. Good decision making!

We bought 90D with 286 miles when it was available. If the 100D was available at the time, we would have bought that. We take ours interstate and the extra range always comes in handy.

That’s not the point. If your average is 40 but you buy 300 miles worth of batteries, you “take away” the batteries from someone else who could have a car. It’s like buying a four bedroom house but 2 people live there. You might use the rooms but you are buying more than you need. 300 miles of electric batteries is far different than a “bubble of steel” in the form of a gas tank. 300 miles is necessary only if the cells cannot take 3000-4000 cycles of charge and need far more in one battery to allow for 1200-1500 charges in a lifetime – or if the one or two times a month (or year?) you need to drive far, the 300 miles is on-board. 300 mile EVs is “infrastructure on board”. it is because we have no serious national high-powered re-fueling EV infrastructure. SCs are scattered but not prevalent. If we had 10,000 superchargers, we would be fine with 100 mile EVs. Because we always leave home with enough charge in the mornings for a normal driving day (double the 40 average). Want to go far? rent a 300-miler. Or rent an ICE. Or fly.

There is no shortage of batteries, so saying “you take away someone else’s batteries” is meaningless. Everybody can buy the battery he wants just like everybody can have the computer he want.

Rent an ICE means you are still in the gas tolerant mind. In Brussels you are now gas intolerant because you know it financed the bombs that killed people at Maelbeek and Zaventem. You simply don’t want to fill that evil juice anymore, not for 40 miles, not for 100 and not for 300. Perhaps you still tolerate the plane to use it and then again you rather fly on Virgin Airline with recycled vegetable oil. Middle age terrorists oil is simply off limits. Add global warming and pollution and you quickly put fracking gas and coal in the same basked. Renewable electricity and all electric is now the way to go.

That is already pretty amazing. When commuting to my last job I almost always got stuck behind some semi for most of the way, going 45mph … or less.

Combined range actually isn’t even what matters – for cars with way more range than you will ever need except on long trips. And the highway range for Tesla is considerably higher. Great aerodynamics and heavy cars both ensure its combined range is relatively low compared to its highway range.

+1

That’s precisely what’s wrong with the inflated range figures for cars like the Leaf and Zoe. Bad aerodynamics hits you when you most need it.

This range version really makes sense… especially for the Model X with tow pkg. I really would love Tesla to do a RangeMaster option… Aero Wheels… rear wheel skirts (clear)… Air Suspension… programmable governor for range or especially for when you loan car to your new drivers and valets. I would expect to see the S100D and X100D by next year when the Model III arrives or is imminent as it clearly positions the capabilities of the older cars well above the III.

I wonder if they’re waiting for the Model 3 final reveal to bring out the non-p 100s. Emphasizing their long range, while keeping those models in the spotlight.?

Is it possible? The increasing ratio of battery pack is only 11%, but there is 16% increasing range. I wonder how they can make it possible.

After 15 months when they use 21700 cells I want to see Model S 115D with 400 miles of range.

I don’t know the timing but when they do the change to the new 21-70 it is likely that they have a significant increase above the cell chemistry improvement. It could also benefit from further packing increase through the use of another cooling configuration (perhaps pin cooling). So 115 KWh is plausible, we will see.

With Model S 100D we can expect 622miles/1000km distance record without charge.