Tesla Launches Model S 70D – Eliminates Base 60 kWh Model S


Tesla Introduces The New Base Model S - 70D

Tesla Introduces The New Base Model S – 70D

The $75,000 Tesla Model S 70D is now the entry-level Tesla

It seems Tesla Motors is always tweaking its model lineup and making minor changes here and there to options, colors and so on.  This latest change brings us a new model, while eliminating Tesla’s cheapest offering.

The new model, the Model S 70D, replaces the 60 kWh Model S.  As the name implies, the 70D is a dual-motor AWD Model S that gets more range than the outgoing 60 kWh Model S.  However, the price for entry jumps a bit from ~ $71,070 for the base 60 kWh Model S, to $75,000 for the dual-motor, all-new 70D.

Tesla Model S

Tesla Model S

What does that extra $4,000 get you?  Well, how does 329 HP sound?  Top speed of 140 ain’t shabby. 0 to 60 MPH in 5.2 seconds is certainly respectable. And an EPA-rated range of 240 miles sure sounds swell.

Tesla's New Model S Lineup

Tesla’s New Model S Lineup

The 70D gets a few more options than the outgoing 60 kWh version too like:

  • Supercharging as standard
  • Keyless entry and navigation
  • Autopilot hardware comes standard (enabling it will cost $2,000).

There is no tech package, but also three new colors have arrived: Warm Silver, Obsidian Black and Ocean Blue. (pictured below)

Official EPA Range Data For All 2015 Tesla Models - City/Highway/Combined

Official EPA Range Data For All 2015 Tesla Models – City/Highway/Combined

Orders for the 70D can be placed starting today.  First deliveries will commence in the next month or two.


Full Tesla blog release on the 70D:

Tesla Model S Now Offered In 3 New Colors - $1,000 Premium On Each

Tesla Model S Now Offered In 3 New Colors – $1,000 Premium On Each

Introducing the All-Wheel Drive Model S 70D

-The Tesla Motors Team April 8, 2015

Today, we are introducing the Model S 70D, an all-wheel drive electric car with a 0-60 time of 5.2 seconds and a 250 mile range at 65 mph.

Even at a starting price of $75k, the Model S 70D offers a broad and compelling set of features. Moreover, when one factors in the cost advantages over an internal combustion engine vehicle, including fuel savings and incentives, the actual cost of owning Model S 70D comes to about $55k over five years (the average length of new car ownership).

In addition to having independently operational front and rear motors, the 70D includes Supercharging to enable free long-distance travel, Autopilot hardware, navigation, blind spot detection and many other features. As with every Model S, the 70D will receive free over-the-air updates that add functionality and improve the driving experience for years to come.

Starting today, you can also order any Models S in three new colors: Ocean Blue, Obsidian Black, and Warm Silver.

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

241 Comments on "Tesla Launches Model S 70D – Eliminates Base 60 kWh Model S"

newest oldest most voted


It’s a nice option, but it is unfortunate that they keep eliminating the lower trim options.

First it was the 40, now it’s the 60. The base cost for a Model S keeps increasing; I wish the opposite trend were occurring.

While the base price did go up, hardly anyone bought the absolute lowest spec Model S 60. Supercharger and tech package were very common options. The price for that version is now about the same (some tech package stuff got moved) but now you get AWD + 10 kWh of battery.

And an 8 year unlimited KM warranty.


What about the Model S 40 before that?

That car never existed. The few 40s that were made were actually 60s with programing to make them 40. Nobody wanted the 40 so that’s why they dropped it.

Part of the psychology of pricing is that people generally don’t buy the cheapest option. They should have a lower cost option because it will increase the sales of the next one up. Likewise there should always be a very shiny and hopelessly over-specified option (with too many features) that people can not-buy either.

What do you mean, “should be”?

Not true. There were S40s with a different battery pack. When Tesla eliminated them, the put software limited 60kWh packs in any existing orders with the option to unlock the full pack..

SEEMS TO ME: They are doing everything in their Power to avoid Coming up with anything News, on the Model 3…This S Car is Good!(((Look@ThatS.CarGo)))…l o l .. But I find This Model Too Expensive And too LARGE For My Liking…I wish Some Long Over Due,Model 3 News, Would Be Put Out There..People R Loosing Interest! Maybe., “It’s Never to Be”!?! I’m Not Holding My Breath Any Longer .If a Competitor Beats Them To the Punch with something I like ….So Be It ! I am Turning Blue!… I also Doubt That The Competition Will Beat them to the PUNCH, First! No Competition out there Serious is ENOUGH….The Competition Builds EV’s Etc: For “CARBON CREDITS ONLY” , So that Way., They Keep The “GREENLIGHT” 0n, to Build More BIG SMELLY GAS GUZZLINGS SQUEALLING PIGS ….

The Model 3 is just not possible without a significant drop in battery prices. So you are just going to have to wait until they get the gigafactory built and churning out batteries.

In meantime, Tesla is smart enough not to suffer the Osborne Effect by talking about the Model 3 other than saying they are working on it but it is several years away.

Looks like a good move to me. Model 3 is still 3 to 5 years away from reality. I see more P85D around than I do 60KWh cars. That is saying something in my book.

When Chevrolet announced the Bolt for 2016, people were saying the Model 3 would be competing at that time.

I guess the predictions of the Model 3 slipping schedule are coming true?

Since when has a Tesla car schedule NOT slipped?

The reality is that pretty much every schedule for every car from every manufacturer slips.

In fact, the same is true for pretty much every software product (EV’s have lots of software) and every electronic product more complex than a pocket calculator.

The difference is that most manufacturers never bother to tell consumers what their plans are in the first place. Most car companies just put out endless “Concept Cars” and only announce their plans officially when they are ready to go into production.

Delays go hand in hand with software and electronics and cars.

The Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf schedules did not slip.

The Chevy Volt schedule slipped like 10W-40. The Leaf was a big secret until it was ready.

Tesla’s own announcement targeted 2017 for the debut of the Model ≡. So any claim that the debut of the Model ≡ is “slipping” because the Bolt will (almost certainly) debut first… is rather misinformed, to say the least.

It’s very likely the actual debut of the Model ≡ won’t be in 2017. InsideEVs has predicted 2019. Realistically, we might possibly -hope- for 2018, as Tesla has lately said it has simplified plans for the Model ≡ in an effort to develop it earlier. But if I was a betting man, I’d still bet on 2019.

Even if Tesla had the Model ≡ in “beta test” development right now (and they don’t even have a concept vehicle yet), they still couldn’t debut the car next year. The Model ≡ will use the slightly large battery cells to be made at the Gigafactory, and those are not yet available. Every well-made BEV is designed around the battery pack, and the Model ≡ will be no exception. Those who say Tesla should start making the Model ≡ -now-, and add the new cells in when they’re available… those people don’t understand plug-in EV engineering at all.


I appreciate that is car is a better value than the current 60 model. But the base price has gone up . . . it is going in the wrong direction. This is just another option for rich folks and a step farther away from the masses.

I appreciate that they are under a lot of Wall Street pressure though. Lots of people with theories of demand for Teslas is dropping and thus cutting price would play into validating that theory. And a lot of pressure to improve margins.

So perhaps this kinda ‘splits the baby’ and handles both issues. It provides a better value so perhaps some people that were on the fence will go for this model. And assuming that their supply chain have reduced prices a bit and they are more efficient, this may improve margins since they get more revenue per car by just adding a few little things (10KWH more battery, a few options now standard, etc.).

They actually added a ton for $5000… supercharger included, 10 kwh more battery, increased warranty to same as S85, and many of the items that used to be “tech package” are now included. Stripped down base 60s probably made up less than 5% of their sales. I don’t blame them for having a more desirable base model and this is a very nice step forward.

it is really a “cheaper” 85D by $10K just don’t use those final 40 miles.


That’s a very good summary. And a reason why this will boost demand a little bit. Some people that wanted to buy a Tesla but found the 60KWH version too limiting (in range and no supercharger) and found the 85KWH version too expensive, now have what they want.

my math only comes up with a 30 miles difference between 70D and 85D. That’s an expensive 30 miles… it was my first thought too. Makes me wonder when we’ll se the 100D at the same price as today’s 85D.

Exciting times.

Yes, these cars are expensive. No, the company could not be built with low-cost, low-margin cars. Talk to the established companies about that… in fact they’re selling those cars today. Tesla doesn’t need to be in that market just yet. Let Tesla do their thing their way. What they’re doing is changing the entire industry. Think about that for a moment. A new company that came out of literally nowhere, is changing the way the entire industry thinks about their future offerings.

Indeed this 70D implies that 85D too will soon be discontinued.

At least, Tesla is following my advice that non-AWD electric cars do not make any sense in any price category.

While I sympathize with folks who want to buy a cheaper Tesla (I’m one of them), the reality is that the vast majority of you DID NOT BUY either the 40 or the 60.

That isn’t opinion or rhetoric. That is what the real order numbers were.

It is meaningless for Tesla to offer a lower priced car for sale that people do not buy, under the pretext that a lower price would allow more people to buy it.

If the lower price of the 40 and 60 brought in more buyers due to the lower price, more people would have bought them. It didn’t happen.

The market has spoken. Twice. Tesla listened. Twice. They have moved to building a model that they believe will sell more cars.

Selling more EV’s has always, and will always be the point of being an EV advocate. If the 70D sells more units than the 60, then Tesla absolutely made the right decision. The market will decide.


I probably would have bought a 40 if they still offered it. I didn’t want to buy the car sight-unseen and from a brand new car maker. But before I was satisfied that they would still be around, they pulled the 40KWH model.

So you bought a RAV4 EV, right?

Same Tesla drivetrain with a slightly bigger battery than the 40, similar range to the 40, lower price than the 40, same lack of supercharger access as the 40.

Everything you seem to value. They didn’t sell well.

No. The RAV4 was a RAV4 not a Model S (design & aerodynamics matter). It had several bugs. It was always going to be a compliance car. It had no DC-fast charge port at all.

I was a bit tempted when they were going for much less than the MSRP though.

I see.

Tempted to buy the 40, but didn’t buy.
Tempted to buy the RAV4 EV, but didn’t buy.
Didn’t buy the 60 when it was temptingly available.

Well, Tesla was also tempted to build lines of cars for buyers who are tempted to buy but never buy.

But Tesla got over that temptation. They are instead building cars for ready buyers with cash in hand, not for potential buyers who really, really strongly consider buying a Tesla or Tesla driven vehicle — but didn’t when they had the chance.

Perfect response Nix!

Yes, clearly a single datapoint drives all probability and statistics. By the same reasoning, if I find one person that doesn’t want a Model S 85D, we should cancel that too.

Simply stunning.

xman — I must admit I got the inspiration from a classic pilot’s joke:

Pilots & Mechanics — Pilot Problems and Solutions are recorded in the Aircraft logbook.

Pilot log: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.

Mechanic response: Almost replaced left inside main tire.


LOL Nix.

And with regard to the Rav4 EV: it flunks the safety test. Sell me an ev that size and price, but engineer it for saftey, please.


Well said.

I’m just telling you my thoughts, you don’t have to agree with them.

I really wanted to get an EV but I knew the market was going to change very fast. So I got a really great deal on a cheap EV so I am driving electric right now while I get to watch the technology evolve and pick up a better one when I feel that I’m getting a good value.

The 60 was never that tempting. Without the supercharger access, it seemed weak. Plus the performance is not as good. The 70D is a MUCH more attractive package that the 60, so I think it could sell well. But it is a bit out of my price range.

So you promise you really, really would have bought a 40, but you weren’t tempted to buy a 60 because “Without the supercharger access, it seemed weak. Plus the performance is not as good”. But the 40 would have had both those problems too, even worse. No option to buy supercharger access, and even worse performance. In the end you say you got a really, really cheap EV (normal for most “Price Point” buyers). The 40 wasn’t that either. It was never going to be cheap, just less expensive than the 60 or 85. Sounds like you would have bought exactly what you did buy anyways, whether or not Tesla ever put the 40 into production. That is what price point buyers do, and every car maker understands what price point buyers do. That’s why they created the term. That was always the 40’s problem. It wasn’t cheap enough to compete with cheap EV’s for price point buyers, and it didn’t have the range to compete with the 60 or 85 at a price that was already above most folk’s budget. It was already into the category where buyers are no longer price point buyers, so applying price point principles… Read more »

The Rav4 EV didn’t sell well? Toyota made a fixed number of copies that they were never going to increase. So they controlled demand with price.

I don’t think the Rav4 EV sales numbers are relevant, nor do I think the Model S 40 sales numbers are relevant. The former was supply constrained, and the latter wasn’t marketed/manufactured long enough to know true demand.

You read my post correctly. The RAV4 did not sell well.

Toyota was constantly behind on their sales targets, even when they intentionally limited supply. The realistically was only one sales person in the entire United States selling them. She got sales through resorting to leases with unlimited miles and massive 5 digit lease incentives.

The RAV4 EV was a sales flop, and not because it was supply constrained. The “days on lot” (average number of days a model sits on a dealer’s lot before it’s sold) was so bad for the RAV4 EV that Toyota quit reporting it and lumped it in with gas RAV4 stats. It was market constrained, it wasn’t supply constrained.

Much like you did above, you’re using small numbers to try and dictate broad statistics. The Rav 4 EV never had enough supply to allow for a meaningful days on lot number.

It took 5+ full months from the day the last RAV4 EV arrived in California for them to finally sell out. Don’t give me the supply constraint story, as if they had pre-orders stacked up and couldn’t build them fast enough. (like Tesla).

Clearly you aren’t going to be a rational debater. I hope you enjoy your RAV4 EV.

Haha. I am not a Rav 4 EV owner, believe it or not. Though the fact that you do not know which EV I own seems to reinforce that I am, in fact, being a rational debater, not swayed by bias.

You can’t just look at how long something sold to gauge demand. Supply affects demand, as does price. By your logic we should’ve abandoned LCD TV’s long ago, because in the first year they only sold in very small amounts.

Knee jerk decisions that don’t allow a product to mature through at least a 5 year lifecycle will never allow true demand to be evaluated… this is even more true for disruptive product introductions like electric vehicles.

You are deluded ! TOYOTA hates EV they only ever made any on the basis of regulation pressure then they always limited capacity and availability. TOYOTA will pay dearly for their hydrogen lunatic agenda.

Wait. I don’t think the 40 was ever tested in the market. Effectively it was never sold. The 60 was priced a little high, given how barebones it was with supercharger as an extra cost option. If the 60 had been priced better, the market response would have been different.
Tesla has pushed the high end in order to protect the stock price by maintaining a high ASP and gross margins.

Presumably they’ve done that to preserve or enhance their ability to raise capital. This all makes sense when you look at the GF and other capital outlays but by no means does it prove that the market would not be receptive to a lower priced model, if that model is a good value. The 60 was really priced to make the 85 look attractive. I mean it was OK, but not great. The 70 isuch better.

People were free to preorder the 40 the same as any of the other vehicles that anybody could have pre-ordered. People for the most part didn’t.

The pre-orders went on for months and months and months before Tesla cut the 40. The market had it’s chance, and it clearly spoke.

A chance at a sight-unseen car is not the same as a chance at a car that is on the market, you can test drive, and you have read reviews of.

+1, absolutely. Plus, you can’t extrapolate what “early adopters” want to what mass market consumers want. Way too many assumptions in the statistics there.

Just as sight unseen as all the other Tesla models.
It didn’t sell.

Everybody who pre-ordered was ordering sight-unseen. They were all in the same boat. Only 2% chose the 40 under exactly identical conditions.

The market spoke.

The early adopters. Not all the sales since. Lots of wild use of ‘statistics’ throughout this thread.

Well, to me, the Tesla website is getting more confusing all the time.. First they say the car is $57000, but then the footnote says thats with $10000 savings of gas. At $2/US gallon, thats 5000 gallons or around 125,000 miles. And, of course, assuming your electricity is free. I wonder if someone in the Bronx, for sake of argument calculated the marginal cost of charging a Model S. Lets say, to compensate for more expensive gasoline, that $10,000 is 100,000 miles. The base electric rate in the bronx is 31 cents/kwh before taxes and fees. Not knowing what those are, I’ll add in what my taxes and fees in Buffalo, NY are, around 6%. So lets say 33 cents / kwh. I’m not sure what the battery loss is in the cold, not even after 3 years of articles. David Noland of Green Car Reports tried to do something along those lines in Cold weather, but his report was skewed by what was for some reason a notorius rash of supposedly all defective 12 volt aux batteries. I’ve never heard of so many batteries going bad for no reason, but whatever. Lets assume, summer and winter combined, that an… Read more »

“At $2/US gallon, thats 5000 gallons or around 125,000 miles. And, of course, assuming your electricity is free.”

Average price for gas in the US presently is about $2.40, probably closer to $2.70 for premium gas that comparable sedans would require.

If you look over the last 10 years, that average is closer to $3.00 and $3.30 respectively.


5 years at 15000 miles/year is 75000 miles, at 25 mpg that’s about 3000 gallons of gas. At $3.30 that lines up pretty nicely with Tesla’s claim.

Retail cost for electricity is slowly and steadily increasing. It’s risen from about 7.5 cents per kWh 10 years ago to 10 cents per kWh today (US average).


Model S gets about 3 miles per kWh, so 75000 miles will require about 25 MWh of electricity, or about $2700 USD assuming the average cost of electricity over the next 5 years goes up by about 10%.

I think your figures are low. One blogger here tried to say the overnight rate was 1.36 cents/kilowatt-hour. Turns out it is 14 cents/kwh before taxes and fees. And the non-TOU rate is 31 cents prior to taxes and fees.

And 3 miles per kwh is after you get the juice in the battery. I’m talking about the juice that goes through the utility’s revenue meter. Its a larger amount, but I can’t precisely define it since I’ve seen no good articles precisely describing the usage.

Why do you think Tesla should use some of the most expensive electricity in the US for its calculations? And where in NY can you buy $2.00/gal gas?

3 miles per kWh includes charging losses. The 101 MPGe rating from the EPA is measured from the socket, and 1 GGE = 33.7 kWh.

Another person who doesn’t know how to read a chart. The ten cents / kwh is ‘all sectors’. Residential is close to 12 and in years past has been over 12.

I think its safe to say that for electric car charging for individuals we are talking about charging at home…

In any case, I now understand the Dearth of electric sales in downstate NY.

Electrics have to be much lower in price to operate than gas powered cars, if ev sales are ever to increase. And people always use the capacity of the battery to say how much it costs to run, when the only figure that matters is the amount of electricity going through the utility’s revenue meter.

They have to stop doing those sleazy price things. They had gotten better, now it’s one step back again.
Just show the price.

I agree. Show the retail price and then show minus $7500 after tax-credit price but that is it. Stop with this gas savings stuff. Tout that as an advantage.

I agree with the pricing confusion.

When I buy a Tesla it won’t be replacing gasoline. It’ll be replacing my 4th vehicle that runs on electrons.

Speaking of charging, why does a 70 kwh model S take exactly as long to charge as an 85 kwh model s.

Why would a completely dead model S 70 kwh battery use exactly the same amount of electricity to refill its battery as a completely dead 85 kwh battery.

If InsideEvs is using the tesla website, it this a mistake on the Tesla Website?

Well, I’m sure they don’t take the exact same amount of time. But I suspect that the difference is not very much. The 85KWH probably charges at a faster rate for a bit longer but they both have a long slow ‘tail’ of charging such that difference isn’t probably very big. But you are right, they should fix that.

Regardless of how many or how few cells are -in- the battery pack, each cell can be safely charged only so fast. So in theory, all battery packs using the same cell type should charge at exactly the same percentage speed, regardless of size, if they are hooked up to a charger powerful enough to charge them at maximum safe speed.

In practice, of course, engineering differences will create slightly different minimum charge times.

Generally speaking, battery charge times are a function of capacity.

So Lithium Ion batteries you buy on the market usually have a 1-2C maximum charge rate, where C is the capacity of the cell.

In other words, a 100mAh battery can charge in an hour’s time at 100mA, and a 10000mAh battery can charge in an hour’s time at 10000mA. Neither are designed to charge faster than those stated 1C rates.

So the data may be accurate here with respect to the 70 and 85, and the similar charge times.

>> Seeing as most people would probably get the 4wd since supposedly it only gets 25 fewer miles range

The dual motor version gets *better* range than the single motor version.

Gas savings @ Tesla is based on $3.90 gallon gas, 20mpg ICE car and .12/kWh home electricity pricing. None of which really exists in one spot now in the USA. Well the 20mpg car does and may need Premium, or not. It is like saying “this gas savings works if you drive a BMW 740iL.

They are simply creating a perfect size market hole for the upcoming all new lower end model 3

model sevenD

Agree, great car and good to see Tesla following the Outlander PHEV move to twin motors and AWD. This is worth the extra money and sets a new standard, great range at 440km and 245kw of power.

Interesting move. More range, more hp, standard super charger access ($2000) and access to autopilot for $2000. I would buy this over the 85D

Is that a misprint on the excel range table?
City 70D -242.8 miles P85D – 242.3 miles

Nope. Those numbers are right.

As Per that Question:
“Is that a misprint on the excel range table?
City 70D -242.8 miles 85D – 242.3 miles”

There was a typo or miss read – in the question, that it seems Eric missed!

The Chart says >P85D< has a range of 242.3 Miles, the 85D has a Range of 257.1 (Right Below it) and the 242.8 is the 70 D Range right above the P85D (And yes – those are City Mileage Numbers!)

Does the 70D secretly have an 85kWh battery in it? The #’s are suggesting that.

I was always under the impression that the 60 was made from second tier binned cells (like how intel has different levels of chips that all come from the same die/wafer) plus a slight reduction in cell count. Perhaps yields have gotten to the point that they can guarantee a 70kWh pack now with the same number of cells.

no 60kWh was 350V and 85 – 400V, so i had less blocks, there are two possibilities 60Kwh were 70Kwh (unlikely), they were using 2 different 25V “blocks”, for 350V and 400 packs, maybe they changed configuration to use same length strings, although it would be 85 and 74kWh if 16 and 14 blocks

Seems very unlikely that any EV maker (especially Tesla!) mass producing battery packs would be using “factory second” li-ion batteries, considering that in a li-ion pack, the cells have to be well-matched so the cells can be voltage-balanced to prevent premature aging of the entire pack.

Also, the Model S60 weighs somewhat less than the S85, so presumably there are significantly less cells in the battery pack– not just a few less.

Under Powertrain:

“70 kWh or 85 kWh microprocessor controlled, lithium-ion battery”


My Exact Thought….This may Cut Into Their Very Own Market.That’s OK!.. On the other Hand ., They Will sell Much more of These Because They Are More Affordable…..They’re Moving In the RITE Direction …Now Make That Model 3 ASAP! & Make It @ A reasonable $$$ Price !

Can 85 or 85D orders be switched to 70D orders? That would be interesting to see.

You can switch if your order is not confirmed. I just switched mine.

Call sales @ 888 518 3752, they would know.

More curious is that the image talks about ’80A dual charger option’ when the UK website no longer shows options to buy the dual charger.

It’s now a service center installed option only, at least in the U.S., whereas it used to be available as a factory option. The minimum price increased a little vs. the old factory option, but the maximum price decreased a lot vs. the old aftermarket option.

I assume the UK situation is similar but I don’t know for a fact.

Lee are probably looking at the base Model ad drivetrain. Wonder what the big pack will look like?

Who will buy 20 miles more range for extra 10K (70D vs. 85D)? It seems that 85D doesn’t make that much sense now. Wonder if they’ll be able to make a 95kwh version instead of the 85 one…but hey, great for potential buyers…

20 miles more? Should be 30 miles more, per the specs on the Tesla ordering page (240 EPA miles for the 70D vs. 270 for the 85D).

The 85D specs also show significantly increased 0-60 performance vs. the 70D and unlike the P85D, the increase does not carry a range penalty. So there’s that. But I agree that the 70D looks like a pretty good deal; its performance is not exactly poor.

10kWh should at least be 30 miles. My Volt does that in the dead of winter using 10.4 kWh. In summer 40+ miles on the same 10.4.

You’re right, it’s 30 miles. So 30 miles more, 100 hp more and autopilot. Well, I say for those who don’t count every dollar, 85D makes sense too…

Yep, what this will kill probably is the regular 85 rwd. It gets 25 more mile range but is slower and rwd versus awd for $5000 more. For $5000 more you get rwd in the 85d and 0-60 shaves a full second. I expect 70d for those that think 5.2 seconds to 60 is fast enough, 85d for $10K more and drops 0-60 to 4.4 seconds, or $20K more to get the P85d with 3.2 0-60. My guess is most will buy the 70d with autopilot $71,000 after federal tax credit.

btw there is a mistake in the article autopilot software enabling is $2500 at time of sale, or $3000 to upgrade after, not $2000.

This is a great product to increase demand. I also think that if necessary, Tesla could introduce a Model S55 with 200 miles range, no supercharging, no sat nav, no keyless entry for 65-68K. Maybe towards the end of the Model S lifecycle…

The RWD 85 does have the larger frunk. Could be important to… umm… nobody?

(Well, maybe to somebody who wants to carry a spare wheel and jack. The old frunk was good for that, new one, not so much.)

Indeed. It looks like the single-motor S85 is gone from the design studio.

You can choose the 85D and option it with a single motor.

You need to explore the DESIGN STUDIO properly.

I would love to know the weight of the 70D in comparison to the other models. My guess, it’s the weight of the old S60 (maybe plus second motor weight) because of new batteries with better weight/capacity-rating…

thinking abouth the same, but dont have S60 weight:(

“Received a written reply from Tesla confirming curb weight and battery cell type for the 60 kWh cars. Recap of 85 kWh vs 60 kWh information:

-Curb weight: 4647 lbs 85 kWh, 4464 lbs 60 kWh”

source: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Cjm9aeGIyDUJ:www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/anyone-have-their-60kwh-weighed+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Next step wil be 100D and P100D

Interesting: Taking the Ratio of the 60 vs. 70 kWh Pack, and assuming – the upgrade is a new Cell Capacity (unconfirmed, but speculating) then the ratio for this cell in the 85 kWh Pack – takes it right up to 99.16 kWh (~100 kWh as you suggested!)

I am sure this is part of an upgrade chain leading us into the Model X, as it is going to need at least 200+ miles range with the little battery option! Can’t have it giving less range than the coming Model 3, now, can we? 🙂

Not for a while. Tesla wont move up capacity until gen 2 or they’re getting cells from the GF.

Thank you autocorrect…

We are…Model X

A check of the design studio shows all Model Ss are now Dual Motor AWD.

No you can still select the RWD option for the 85. It reduces the price by $5,000

Ah ok…

And that is why phones aren’t always the best computing devices.

Hah, True. ~$5,000 is also the price Tesla’s staple, the 85kwh Model S, just fell when you consider substantially all of them are ordered with the tech package. The ‘old’ $4,750 option is now essentially free, but for a couple items.

The big draws making the tech package so popular were Nav and Parking sensors, and perhaps less so, seat memory. All of these things are now standard equipment / FREE. Power Liftgate and Lighted door handles, while cool stuff, are sequestered into a new $5,000 ‘Premium Package’. -What price conscious person orders this?

I thought it telling how ‘Autopilot Conveinience..” is now separate, at $2,500. Another thing folks will drop, as who knows when lane assist will effectively let people take hands off the steering wheel, etc.

Tesla: What happened to “no big changes, for a year”?

maybe this is not considered big change. Cant wait for big change:)

So RWD is not an opt out thing instead of AWD being an opt in thing.

Of course, the 85KWH RWD doesn’t make all that much sense now considering that the 70D AWD version gets close to the same range.

Tesla just increased the battery size of their entry-level car by 17%. Me thinks MY16 is a good time for Nissan to follow suit. A 28kWh battery could push them tantalizingly close to an 100 mile range on the EPA sticker…

If Nissan increases the range they absolutely need to hit over 100 miles. Because they need to be in 3-digits of range. Even though the difference between 99 and, say, 105 miles is only 6 miles. Psychologically, anything with 3 digits will sell better!

Agreed. My initial thought was that Tesla is using a better battery although as others have pointed out, this may not be true. The 60 always had the same space available for the battery as the 85, it was just unused. Nissan, on the other hand, uses all of the available space for their battery.

Of course, the two companies use two different chemistries anyway, so an improvement in one does not necessarily indicate an improvement in the other.

I’m still hoping that Nissan will surprise us with 3-digit range for the 2016 (with an upgrade for sale for existing 2011-2015 owners) ahead of the refreshed 2017. But I’m not holding my breath.

Range is a slippery subject for Nissan.

Nissan has thrown out numbers like a bingo parlor for some time. With the impending release of the 2013 LEAF, they were suggesting to the press that a 2013 LEAF might go 250km (155 miles). Of course, the press just lap that up, as do EV advocates and EV consumers sometimes!

The reality is that any current model year LEAF will drive about 80-ish miles of range autonomy at 100km (62mph) on a dry, level, hard surface road with no wind or climate control, and without cabin climate control. The most important detail is the battery must be in like like-new condition at 70F / 20C temperature or higher.

How far that a 2017 or later may optionally and actually go is all just speculation. Here are the government test results:

Here the LEAF official government rated range worldwide:


124 miles = 200km Japan “EPA” rating for 2011-2012
142 miles = 228km Japan “EPA” for 2013


109 miles = 175km UK / Euro 2011-2012
124 miles = 199km UK / Euro 2013-2014


73 miles = EPA-USA 2011-2012 (EPA LA4 “city cycle” @ 19.59mph average, minus 30%)

75 miles = EPA-USA 2013 (EPA “5 cycle”, average of 66 EPA miles range for 80% and 84 EPA miles for 100%)

84 miles = EPA-USA 2014 (EPA “5 cycle” test, 100% charge only)

Seriously. The stagnant situation of the range for all the other EVs is sad. Only GM has really improved in that area. First from 35 miles up to 38 miles with a small Volt refresh. And now up to ~50 miles with the 2016 Volt.

Agreed, a very sorry state of affairs. It means if I want to get more range ANYWHERE I have to buy a newer Volt, and then that’s it. And even GM is going backwards supposedly with that 20 mile range Caddy.

Its too much to hope for a 100 mile leaf or a 300 mile model S, both of which INITIALLY were promised. I regularly get more than 35 miles in my Volt. I hope to say ‘regularly get more than 50’ in the new Volt.

With the BOLT I wonder if people will say ‘I regularly get more than 200 miles’?

I thought the 60 kWh model had a 85kWh battery pack that was detuned to use only 60kWh. Is that true? If thats true then 4k for a second motor & trans then, not a bad price upgrade.

Actually – it is a mind shift you have going on: The 40 kWh Cars were deliver with the 60 kWh Pack installed, but Software Limited (not De-Tuned, that is a performance thing, not a range thing, the 40’s got the performance of the 60, just not the range, unless you pay the spread and upgrade the pack, the can edit the limits out over the air for that upgrade!)

The 60 kWh Packs were a different Cell Count than the 85 kWh cars, also not ‘De-Tuned’ in the usual sense of the term.

Also – No Trans(mission) on these cars, since they don’t ‘Change Gears/Gear Ratios’ while driving, just Gear Boxes with Reduction gears to take the 12,000+ RPM of the motor down to reasonable levels!

A bit bizarre to decrease the speed from 12000 +, it would seem more intuitive to directly build the engine at exactly the maximum speed so it is equivalent to the wheel rpm, no to several times more. That appears as an unnecessary waste of energy, metal, mass and money. Perhaps they are working on that.


You get better HP to weight ratio at higher revs. Gearing multiplies torque.

Tesla 85kWh battery specs

3100mah Panasonic 18650 cells

7104 total cells = 74 * (6 * 16), or 74 * 96 cells in series

16 battery modules are connected in series. There are 6 sections in one module also in series, and each section of 74 cells is connected in parallel.

74 modules at 4.2 volts each in parallel * 6 * 16 = 403.2 volts pack voltage (max charge / regen)

74 modules at 4.15 volts each in parallel * 6 * 16 = 398 volts pack voltage (max resting)

74 modules at 4.1 volts each in parallel * 6 * 16 = 393.6 volts pack voltage (normal charge)

Changing from 60 to 70 kWh is actually quite simple for Tesla.

As you outline, the 85 kWh is 16 blocks, each with 6 sets of 74 cells in parallel. 60kWh is 14 blocks, each with 6 sets of 60 cells in parallel.

So 70kWh was easy to do by simply filling some of the empty spots in the 60kWh battery.

Humorous and frustruating.

Humorous because for years we frozen northlanders have begged for AWD EV options, only to be told how dumb we were, and that RWD really is awesome despite all the problems we have with it.

Today, we see that AWD outperforms the RWD in every metric, from performance to efficiency… in summer weather and in winter.

Frustrating because Tesla vehicles are becoming ever-more expensive by the day.

Have they lost their original vision, of an EV for the masses? Is this just a short term earnings gimmick to keep revenue high so that Wall Street stays happy, giving them time to finish the Gigafactory allowing production of the Model 3? Is it a marketing gimmick to take people’s eyes off the struggles of the Model X?

I personally would have bought a Tesla 40D. it’s all I need, and I can pseudo-justify it.

But paying $75k for the base car pre-add ons is too much… even after the $7500 rebate.


Elon Musk has not lost original vision…have patience Model 3 for the masses is on the way.

Masses? Let’s review. The primary auto transaction in the USA is a used-car sale. Then, you have new car leases which account for a huge portion of new car transactions. Then you have financed buyers buying a car. Then you have cash buyers. The masses want $20K new and $9-11K used cars. $35K starting price (probably will be $40K) will not reach the masses because many of the masses fall below the average income line of about $40K/USD per year (family income of about $55K or so). if your idea of masses is the top 10-15% income earners, maybe that is what we should consider the masses. When I made $100K a year, I did buy a $32K new car for myself and it was a stretch having the $450-500 a month payments with other family demands (two kids in private school, wife staying home, a vacation here or there). The masses are no where near $100k family income. I make far more than that now and think $40K after taxes for a car is a silly financial decision. The target market of a $35K to 40K base price electric vehicle is someone who either wants to lease it at… Read more »

Might be easier to think of this as the “masses of new car buyers.” Makes sense then. Millions if new cars are sold each year. And the average new car price is higher than that of a Nissan Leaf.

I agree that Tesla is not out to make a $10k car for *everybody*.

I have really strong doubts that a Base Model 3 (which Musk deems as “pretty premium”) will not be $35K sticker but more like $40K unless they use 30 or 35 kWh of batteries.

EV advocates like to cite $35k as a promised price for the Tesla Model ≡, but if you look at actual quotes from Tesla spokesmen, they usually say “35 to 40 thousand”, and I even saw one quote at “40 thousand”.

It’s pretty universal that as plug-in EVs approach actual production, the claimed range goes down and the estimated price goes up. I strongly suspect the Model ≡ will have a base price not much if any below $40k. I think there’s a much better chance it will be a bit -over- $40k than substantially under it.

They have to make enough money on Model S and X to afford the production capacity for Model 3. You are paying for supporting Tesla’s vision right now.

The good news is this will almost certainly mean there will be an AWD version of Model 3.

Hopefully, means the single motor FWD unit is the drivetrain that will go into the Model 3.

“Hopefully, means the single motor FWD unit is the drivetrain that will go into the Model 3.”

I hope that not the case. Make it a BMW 3 series competitor with RWD and a awd option. I will by a $40k rwd Tesla Model 3 coupe. I will not buy a $40k fwd 4 door…

Yeah. Guys like to think they are pro racers, with the backend hanging out in the turns. However, most of us will be going down the road backwards without computerized traction control, in bad weather, in a RWD car.

I agree Warren. FWD is very practical and works great in snow. RWD can be fun but so many idiots end up in the ditch because they don’t know what they are doing with a RWD car in a tricky situation.

It is harder for a novice to make a big mistake with FWD the way you can with RWD.

Patrick, I pity people that grew up with FWD cars.
Anybody that thinks that having one set of wheels handle all the steering, all the power and most of the braking has been seriously duped. FWD was made for one reason only; to save the automakers money in assembling cars.
When those front tires break away, like in the snow and the rain or hard cornering, you have nothing. No control at all.
Ironically, EVs with batteries in the floor and a much more even weight distribution might make FWD *slightly* more viable, but only slightly.

Wow. Wrong from start to finish. First: It’s cheaper to build cars as rear-wheel drive only. Making wheels that both steer and provide traction is harder and more expensive. Two half-shafts driving the front wheels are more expensive than a single driveshaft plus a differential. Second: I grew up learning how to drive in rear wheel drive cars. My own first car was an early Honda Civic, which was front wheel drive. I was very pleasantly surprised to have a new experience: When there was snow on the road, the front wheels would -pull- the car in the direction I actually wanted to go, rather than the rear wheels -pushing- whichever way the whole car was pointed, often in the wrong direction for a RWD car, as it slides around on snow and slush. I remember giving a friend of mine a ride when he wasn’t willing to go out in his RWD car; he was impressed too! With snow so deep in places the car bottomed out, I simply backed up and took another run at it. A RWD car would have been stuck. Third: For an EV, the lack of a heavy engine in front means a FWD… Read more »

Wrong. FWD cars are cheaper to assemble. That’s why FWD was foisted on the driving public. “Handles better in snow” is marketing BS, just like “SUVs are safer.”

Wrong. I also had an early Honda Civic, and I know exactly how they “handle”.

Same here, but Tesla needs to stay alive first, only that way they’ll be able to bring Model 3. They just really increased the value of their base model, AWD, 30 miles more range, supercharging, that’s awesome, hopefully the demand will pick up and they’ll be able to deliver that 40K Model 3 I’m waiting for. Or hopefully used Teslas will come down a bit now…

They haven’t lost sight of an EV for the masses- they just realized that the Model 3 pricing will overlap a similarly equipped Model S, and the Model X probably won’t get their minimum target range out of the 60kWh pack- and it doesn’t make sense to only equip the S with the 60kWh pack.

This is also indicative of a higher than expected price on the Model 3. We’ll probably also see longer range on the Model S and Model X soon. 100kWh?

If the battery energy content goes to 100 KWh instead of 85 KWh, we may also see a more powerful supercharger since the new battery will be able to take it (160 KW ?).

Why is bigger battery systems necessary? Charging an 85 with 120KW or 100 with 150KW – what you are doing is just adding more miles per minute of charging. But it is not solving a problem. Just making refueling slightly faster. Do we really need to tie up 100 kWh of batteries in one car to do that? Seems excessive.

Why is it “excessive” to have an EV battery pack which gives an EV a good range and allows relatively fast charging? It’s not like batteries are a finite and diminishing resource, like gasoline.

What we need is even bigger battery packs, not smaller ones. Let’s see some 350+ mile range EVs! Sooner or later, of course, we will.

For years – everyone is saying the factor holding back EVs is battery price. So why stick in more than is needed into an EV? Install what most people need and then offer large upgrade packs. Don’t try to get everyone using a large number of cells. Spread out the love / the batteries. Most MS85 drivers could be fine with 40 kWH on board with an occasional need, rarely maybe, for a need for more range. But Tesla kept touting “we are production constrained” – early on it was batteries, then seats and then now, who knows. I doubt they are production constrained at all at this point. Hence the new product.

Bonaire said: “For years – everyone is saying the factor holding back EVs is battery price. So why stick in more than is needed into an EV?” Apparently you think what is “needed” is more short range, slow-charging EVs which will keep the EV revolution stuck in the “early adopter” stage. I think most EV advocates will disagree; certainly -I- do. “But Tesla kept touting ‘we are production constrained’ –- early on it was batteries, then seats and then now, who knows.” They almost certainly are still constrained by battery supply. Just because one Tesla spokesman said once, early last year, “We are no longer constrained by battery supply”, doesn’t mean that situation lasted. Tesla upgraded the Fremont assembly plant capacity by 25% -after- that statement. Did Panasonic increase battery supply by 25% following? Seems rather doubtful! Note Tesla was in talks late last year with Samsung for a supplemental battery cell supply. “I doubt they are production constrained at all at this point.” Yeah, that’s why Tesla is spending more than $2 billion of its own money to build a battery Gigafactory; because they don’t need more batteries than they’re getting. Oh, wait… “I doubt they are production constrained… Read more »

I agree, Bonaire, I think 100KWH is excessive. That is just lugging around extra weight that you rarely ever use. If people demand it and they can make some premium bucks on it then they should sell it. The customer is always right.

But I don’t think I’d ever waste my money on 100KWH of battery unless the price of batteries absolutely crashes down real low. It just lacks the value per dollar.

640K ought to be enough for anyone

100 KWh is not a lot of mass, actually as a mass it is only 4 micro grams, it is our present lack of technology that tend to add mass to it. As technology improves, the present half a ton we associate to contain that 4 micro gram of energy will shrink down to perhaps 50 kilogram or even 50 gram.
To put things into perspective, a nuclear device of a similar weight of half a ton can now already store 0,2 Kg of deliverable energy so a battery that is storing only 4 micro grams of deliverable energy leaves a lot of room for improvement.

By the way an ev battery only starts to become excessive above 150 KWh not at 100 KWh, so we are not quiet there yet.

There is also the option of a CPO Model S, which is a very tempting deal.

the supercharger network is built to support a minimum of 206 mile range. a P40 would not make it between stops.

If you just need a city car, and want an EV, lease an i3.

i3 is RWD

there is a 0% chance I’ll buy a RWD car in MN, even with the possible difference in driving due to weight distribution vis a vis an RWD ICE.

I’ve been waffling about what to sacrifice. Do I sacrifice AWD? EV? Price?

why oh why can’t they make an attractive AWD EV hatchback or smaller CUV with 200 mile AER for under $20k. (smile)

You said, “Do I sacrifice AWD? EV? Price?”, but you forgot Time.

If you wait 3 or 4 more years, Tesla will build what you want or Mitsubishi may even release the Outlander PHEV here by then 😉

“AWD outperforms the RWD in every metric”

Wow, do I disagree:
-P85D miles per kwh underperforms P85
-Same for 85D, shown here:

I go by what people report, and the P85D vs. P85 threads make this even more clear. AWD loses more kwh around town. Granted, this doesn’t matter for the range obsessed, but is true if you read what people say. EPA shows better MPGe City for AWD, and I’m saying it doesn’t jive. In fact, 95 MPGe vs. 88 MPGe (rear drive) doesn’t look right, at all, if you read that thread the numbers practically flip. If anyone doesn’t agree, please link to a test that comes close to 85D being (95/88), or 8%, more efficient in the city. You won’t!!!!

-RWD is cheaper
-RWD, with snows and Tesla’s traction control, is fine. (7 feet of snow, later)
-I’ll wave the checker, here, and also say RWD is a lot more fun than AWD.

Tesla dropping one more RWD option, is Tesla getting one step further away from fun cars.

With all due respect here, I drove24,000 miles with an S85 2013 Tesla and saw an overall power draw of around 335 watts/mile.

I now have 2500 miles on my 2015 P85D, and even with doing “demo launches” at least 6X/week to the uninitiated, I am showing a cumulative power draw of 305 watts/mile. Most of my actual miles are freeway commuting (15 miles each way) and a couple so far of 80 mile short trips). The P85D is drawing only 250-280 watts/mile at 65-68 mph freeway cruise speeds–about 5-8% more efficient than my single motor 2013 S85!

And I had the P85D at the local drag races about a week ago, did 5 runs and consistently ran under 11.9 seconds in the quarter….

“I’ll wave the checker, here, and also say RWD is a lot more fun than AWD.”

If RWD is more fun you can bet that Tesla will provide an RWD mode on their AWD cars.

The only thing I think is clear, from reading the confusing and sometimes contradictory test results and personal reports of S85 vs S85D ranges, is that which gets the better range depends on what speed you’re driving at, and possibly other factors such as how lead-footed you are in stop-and-go traffic.

It’s a cheaper car. It’s an incredibly elegant way to lower prices. Why? Because who could possibly order a 60 without supercharging enabled? That’s 2K right there. So you are paying less than $2,000 for AWD, more range, and more power.
Think about it. For less than $2K you are adding nearly half the range of a Nissan Leaf. That’s a crazy good deal.
Unlike the 60, which needed the supercharger option, the 70D is good to go at base price. I would add nothing to it at all (except, if I lived in a cold climate, for the winter package), so basically there is no price change. I could not afford the 60 with supercharger, and I can’t afford the 70D, but the 70D is a better deal, no question. The price difference doesn’t move the needle at all.

“who could possibly order a 60 without supercharging enabled?”

Anybody who’s buying it as their second Model S. (But this is probably a pretty small market.)

Exactly. It’s a BEST BUY, if you don’t need rocket or insane acceleration.

“Have they lost their original vision, of an EV for the masses?”

I think they are going to stretch the “EV for the high-end” market for as long as they can to maximize revenue. Why build a cheaper model when you have plenty of demand for the expensive model and virtually no competition? And Tesla really needs as much revenue as possible considering:
-All the new hires
-Tooling up for the Model X
-Designing the Model 3
-Big roll-out of more supercharger stations around the world
-Building the very expensive Gigafactory

So for now . . . they remain a cool toy for the rich. But rich are helping fund the EV for the masses (by supporting the Model 3 designing and the Gigafactory construction).

Car prices for the real masses are in the $15-25k range. It is doubtful Tesla will ever make high volume/low profit cars in that price range. They have established themselves as a high-end marque, just one more amazing thing Tesla has accomplished in such a short span of years.
I think pretty much, Tesla’s idea of a “car for the masses” is the generation after the Model ≡, that may have a $25k base price, but which practically everyone will option up to @ $30-35k.
After all, high-end chefs don’t work at Lenny’s… er Denny’s. 🙂

Even before Elon Musk took over the company, Tesla’s “mission statement” has been to take advantage of the continuing drop in battery cost, by offering a series of car models with ever-lower prices. (From that viewpoint, the Model X is a side development of the Model S, not a truly new model.)

Tesla would certainly -like- to sell an “everyman” car in the price range of the best-selling gas guzzlers: $18k-25k. If and when battery prices come down far enough to make it possible for Tesla to make a profit at that price point, it is very likely that if they’re still in business, they will indeed offer an “everyman” car.

Tesla is spending more than $2 billion of its own money to build a battery Gigafactory, specifically so it -can- expand out of the “high-end marque” niche!

They probably needed a 70kw pack to get a good epa range on the base model x and they’re not going to have mone e than 2 battery sizes. I would expect the 85 to be replaced by the 100 shortly. A true 300 mile epa range would be sweet. Used base teslas just got cheaper today

Ah, very interesting theory! Perhaps bumping up to 70KWH gets them their desired 200 mile range for the Model X. And instead of waiting for the Model X launch to introduce this new feature, they are launching it on the Model S now . . . just like they did with the AWD option.

I think you are probably right.

I don’t think X would work with a 60 kWh battery. 70 is more like it and likely why this is happening.

I wonder if any of the addition battery capacity comes from an improvement in cell chemistry. I find it a bit troubling that only GM/LG has passed chemistry improvements on to their customers. Are improvements in battery technology really goin to be this slow?

No they are not slow, just evolving in a step-wise fashion.

There is battery capacity improvements but the car companies keep pocketing the difference in weight saved and the number of less battery cells needed. This makes the cars more profitable.

It looks like LG Chem must be offering a lot of car companies good prices to keep passing on the difference in raised cell capacity.

“I find it a bit troubling that only GM/LG has passed chemistry improvements on to their customers.”

Well, I think Tesla *is* passing on chemistry improvements to their customers. They only raised the price by a relatively small amount but they are providing more battery, more options standard, AWD, and free life-time supercharger access. Those things cost more that $5K as options.

But I agree that it is very disappointing to see the base price go up.

This seems like a bargain. The 60 needed Supercharging to be useful, so this is only $3000 more for an extra 32 miles of range and AWD. I previously had my mind set on the 85 standard, but now I can get a 70D for 4k less. That’s effectively a price drop for me.

Plus you now get most of tech pkg included standard, and the unlimited mileage warranty on the battery and drivetrain that was only available on the 85 before. Many many improvements on the previous entry car for only 4k more. Also, pano roof price dropped by $1,000. That’s now a no-brainer option IMO

“The 60 needed Supercharging to be useful”

Not for everyone. My Leaf is just enough for my daily commute and I don’t do road trips. If I need to go somewhere far, I’ll get on a plane. So, for me, a 40D would be more than awesome.

A 40 would definitely not need supercharging, or be able to use it effectively due to lack of range. A 40 would be a kind of super Leaf. Very nice, but a different class of car.

The 60 does have supercharger range though, so it did not make sense without supercharging. Sure, you need to drive a little slower and plan a little more carefully, but it is a road trip capable car. Not getting the supercharger option makes sense only in very specific cases, so to most people the 60 was only 8K less than the 85, not 10K.

Not sure why anyone would order the S85 now…its 6k more than the 70D and you only get 40km more range, plus the 70D is faster and has AWD! Might as well ditch it and make the whole lineup AWD

They have some ‘on the lots’ to get rid of before doing that :O)

I won’t agree w/all-AWD lineup, but agree for the company’s sake that the smaller dual motors give Tesla a lot of configuration flexibility. It may now be that 85d (front/rear), p85d (front only), 70d (front/rear) all use the exact same electric motor hardware.

I thought 85d had 5.2 second 0-60, before today’s 4.4. Can anyone confirm right/wrong?

Confirming “right”, and previously understated:

4.4 0-60 is seriously fast, for a lux car that isn’t even marketed as “Performance”. Tesla, you amaze us.

Yeah, IIRC the late lamented P85’s 0-60 number was 4.2, very close to the new 85D number.

I don’t think they will be offering more than 85 kWh anytime soon. Afaik they still use the same cells as before, they just filed up more of the empty space inside the old 60 kWh pack. The 85 kWh is full and can’t accomodate more cells.

Had Tesla shifted to newer, more energy dense cells, they would have announced the upgrade for both models at the same time. And there would have been a tantalizing Musk tweet. You know, never waste a good opportunity for (free) publicity.

Actually they said a long time ago they could have fit more than 85 in the park, but they didn’t for cost reasons. Now they likely will. 70 to 85 is not much different.


I agree. I expect to see the 85 bumped to ~100 and over 300 mi range. Justifies a ~ $5-6k price increase, the combo of the two increase rev and margin nicely, while delivering a more desire able product and seriously keeping the heat on the competition.

Just the kind of thing you’d want to before raising some more money to complete the GF.

These guys are smart. Go Tesla!

Good move. I may actually buy this one…

What a smokin deal!

AWD + 10kWh extra + Supercharger for $4g!



It is a very nice value improvement. But that said, it is very sad to see the base price go up.

When I look at the Tesla forums, the biggest problem is that people seem to be unable to spend enough on their cars … just the number of folks ditching their brand new P85+ so they could get a P85D was staggering, and so many just tick all the options, plus vinyl wraps and after market rims …

+4 +10 == +4

Yeah it’s a good deal, but no insane mode. Oh well.

First thing that strikes is actually the total surprise of this news. The second is that the Model S 60 KWh suddenly went into non existence on all the sites. No warning tweet, nothing, almost frightening.


Yeah, it is a bit annoying. First the suddenly killed the 40KWH option. Now they quickly and quietly killed the 60KWH option.

It is nice to get the 70KWH version but disappointing to see the base price go up thus moving Tesla further away from the masses.

if the 70D increases overall sales (or even just income) then it is moving toward the masses not away from them. MS and MX will fund model 3.

Gonna guess Model X forced them to boost the range on their smallest battery offering on that platform. This will also open up some space for Model III later on, in their lineup…

Still sad there isn’t a lower cost Tesla, like the 40 kWh version S. 🙁

I don’t rate this a improvement in that Tesla jacked the price of their car by $5,000 dollars which in away brings it more away form reality. Now I feel glad that a lot of states are setting price caps on EV’s in terms of tax credits in that it appears Tesla doesn’t really care one way or another about pricing.

I really think this is sort of arrogance in that as they jack the price up they lower their pool of customers.

I bet the model 3 will have some type of crazy features on it that will never need that will make it a $80,000 car.

… Is it just me, or is the regular 85 gone too now?

nevermind… I see where 2wd is a price reducing option.

The motivation here seems obvious. The base Model X would not have hit 200 miles of range with a 60 kWh battery. They needed 70 to be the new base, strictly for this purpose. Other than that, this is a relative non-event.

Yeah, now that you mention it, that makes perfect sense.

I didn’t expect them to actually do it, but yes, I’m sure that was the driving motivation behind the change.

I always assumed the Model X would only be offered with the 85 kwh battery because of that exact issue. But you are right, this would indeed give the X more realistic battery options.

That 75000 price does not include destination and doc fees, which I believe the old 71070 number did. So this really is a $5k increase and not $4k as the article states.

Total combined power of the 70D is actually 514 hp.


As others have speculated, I agree that the logical next moves will be the following:
1. Building every Model S with dual motors.
2. The 85KWH cars become 100KWH cars.

But as to battery technology, I could be wrong, but it seems like Panasonic has been “stuck” on 3.4AH as the premier 18650 cell for the past couple of years, after many years of annual or biannual incremental increase in 18650 cell AH: does anyone have any insight into this?

jzj — Panasonic had announced their intention to produce 4.0 Ah battery a few years ago:


However, Panasonic has become much more secretive about what they are doing since those days, and they don’t talk about their battery roadmaps like that anymore.

So for all the naysayers who comment on how much it costs for the battery alone, let’s look at a $3930 price increase of $3930 for 10 kwh battery. IF you ignored the other goodies, it would be $393 per kwh. After you factor in the Supercharger access not costing $2000 extra, it just went to $193 per kwh. The extra motor and related hardware wasn’t free. Keyless entry should’ve been standard as well as the Nav on a $70k car. So, for the battery pack, ~ $160 kwh.

For the Leaf size packs out in the wild, the pack should be about $3840. the iMiEV or Smart size pack about $2560. SWEET!

That is interesting but probably very misleading and inaccurate conclusions. This may have been an intentional value increase to increase customer demand while slightly reducing margins.

and/or reduction in production costs or non-battery parts costs across the entire vehicle.

They could have added a new chemistry to make the batteries more dense. Going from 60 kilowatts to 70 kilowatts would be in line with this idea you would only need to make the batteries 15% more energy dense to use the same pack. Tesla is most likely cashing in by simply raising the price.

meanwhile in consumer world Panasonic’s 18650 rating increased to 3600 from 3400, but only 150mAh if you read spec. So just 5% increase.

Now we know why Tesla killed the 60D soon after they announced it. They killed it in anticipation of the 70D.

When 60D came out, the 2nd motor was a $4k option at that time as well for 85D orders. Now, $5k.

There is ONE reason the 60kWh battery was scrapped for a 70kWh battery:

The 60kWh battery is not sufficient to drive the Model X over 200 miles range.

I don’t think this is indicative of a pending increase in the 85kWh battery. I see this announcement as a nice step towards the pending Model X announcement.

All sorts of speculation out there on other forums about this meaning that S100D is coming about any day now. I think this is just a little bigger pack, like you said, for the MX70D. Using the same pack simplifies things. MX85D to use other same pack. Simplicity is good.

Alonso Perez said: “I don’t think the 40 was ever tested in the market. Effectively it was never sold.” Huh? The initial offer of the Model S had a 40 kWh battery pack as an option. Only about 2% of orders were for that, so Tesla understandably cancelled the option for those who had not already locked in their order. As I understand it, those who had their order locked in were contacted and offered a “deal”, in an attempt to persuade them to upgrade. In fact, one guy says they upgraded his S40 to an S60 at no charge, altho clearly that was an exceptional case. However, some customers who had ordered an S40 did receive what was actually an S60 electronically limited to 40 usable kWh, with the option of unlocking the rest at a future date for a fee. Now, it would be reasonable to claim Tesla never actually -produced- the S40, but it’s nonsense to claim it was never tested in the market. It was tested and -failed- to produce enough orders to justify Tesla making the smaller battery pack. Heck, from what I’ve read even the S60 got only 7% of orders; all the rest… Read more »

I was kind of hoping the 60 changed to 85 and 85 to 110 with no price increase across range.

Since the new 70 kWh base Model S is available -only- in the “D” dual motor version, it seems inevitable that the single-motor S85 will be phased out before long.

Makes me wonder about the Model ≡. Will it be available in a single-motor, rear-wheel-drive version, or will it be AWD only?

Using the single motor, FWD unit makes the most sense. It is the cheapest, safest setup for a reasonable priced family car. But Tesla , like BMW, will probably go with RWD and traction control to appeal to their macho fan base.

I wish it will be AWD computer controlled two in-wheel motors for the rear and a single central motor for both front wheels.
In-wheel motor are up to 30% more efficient, therefore an hypothetical Model 3 will need less batteries, will be lighter and cheaper.

Note that 30% improvement on something that’s already quite good, is not a huge improvement. Not to the point of being able to lop off large chunks of battery capacity, at least.

Still. We like efficiency.

Lustuccc said:

“I wish it will be AWD computer controlled two in-wheel motors for the rear and a single central motor for both front wheels.
In-wheel motor are up to 30% more efficient…”

Given that the AC motors used in -all- modern production EVs are around 90% efficient, give or take 1-2%, it’s hard to see how anyone could improve efficiency by “up to 30%” in the motor.

Even Tesla can’t build a perpetual motion machine!

And in-wheel motors may look better on paper, with slightly less mechanical loss in the drivetrain as a whole (but still nothing approaching 30%!); however, in practice they’ve proven so problematic and expensive that nobody uses them in mass produced cars.

TMC has calculated the costs of everything

The 70D is more value and less cost than other other configuration

u have to be kidding: i have to scroll to bottom to post a comment? obviously it’s the awd and far better control in winter that is the 70D’s greatest advantage over old 60

and ur comment system is buggy on my iphone 5 s too. u need a new one

There usually aren’t this many posts on stories here. Usually “all the way to the bottom” isn’t very far to go….

Forecasting ahead the dropping of the 85 rear wheel drive is next.

Any idea why the 70D gets similar range for city and hwy (242 vs 246) while the 85D does way better on the hwy (246 vs 285)?

It also doesn’t make sense that the 70D gets nearly the same city range as the 85D. Even if the 85D is a bit heavier, the 21% larger pack should more than make up for that.

The extra weight is a big penalty in the EPA’s city driving cycles. Same reason why the P85D missed the P85 range numbers.

On the highway, the D models are more efficient than the single motor versions.

Bonaire said:

“For years – everyone is saying the factor holding back EVs is battery price. So why stick in more than is needed into an EV?”

Apparently you think what is “needed” is more short range, slow-charging EVs which will keep the EV revolution stuck in the “early adopter” stage.

I think most EV advocates will disagree; certainly -I- do.

“But Tesla kept touting ‘we are production constrained’ – early on it was batteries, then seats and then now, who knows.”

They almost certainly are still constrained by battery supply. Just because one Tesla spokesman said once, early last year, “We are no longer constrained by battery supply”, doesn’t mean that situation lasted. Tesla upgraded the Fremont assembly plant capacity by 25% -after- that statement. Did Panasonic increase battery supply by 25% following? Seems rather doubtful! Note Tesla was in talks late last year with Samsung for a supplemental battery cell supply.

“I doubt they are production constrained at all at this point.”

Yeah, that’s why Tesla is spending more than $2 billion of its own money to build a battery Gigafactory; because they don’t need more batteries than they’re getting.

Oh, wait…

Great News. We should really appreciate their ideas, engineering and pricing.

So for just $4,000 you can get extra 10 KWh + 2nd Motor. So even if the motor cost $1,000, its just $3,000 for 10 KWh and thats just $300 / KWh. So the battery price keeps falling.

So, a while back, they took away two of the more unique and interesting color choices (brown and green) and have now replaced them with… wait for it… ANOTHER blue and ANOTHER black?

I think the current color palette for Model S is extremely boring, and how with some virtually duplicated colors. Two blues, two blacks, and two whites.

I suppose the new “warm silver” (aka, “gold”?) is a nice addition, but I wish they would bring back the brown (I really liked it) and/or diversify the color choices.

red and pearl white the only nice colors

Ocean Blue,i.e. electric blue, is not boring at all. Red and Ocean blue are the only colorful colors as of now.

Warm Silver has more brownish tones than yellow ones. So Bronze is more apt than Gold. Part of the neutral collection at Tesla much like Mercedes S Class.

When you have a classy looking, extremely well designed car, you don’t use wild colors. The car itself is enough. What color would you want there to be anyway? Yellow? Purple? Orange? Yuck

No, not orange or purple. Did I say that?

Personally, I’d like a Model S in a dark chocolate brown (browner than what they used to have, although I liked it better than any of the other colors).

All the current greys, and blues, and blacks and whites are so boring. A now there are TWO choices of each boring color. The only currently “exciting” color is red, followed by the new blue.

Come to think of it, a mellow yellow actually wouldn’t be so bad on a Model S. A lighter blue might also be good.

Tesla introduces a new Pack-size.

– 200< comments 😀

I guess I am one of the people that was/is affected by the 70d. We bought a Fusion Energi but did wait a year on SC’s to come to Canada which none did now of course there are.

The base 60 was almost double the Fusion then did not have the unlimited warranty of the 85. The range was not good enough and with no SC’s here there was no reason to even pay for the option.

I am not a big option buyer but I have to admit the 70d is a way better deal! Unlimited warranty, big deal, included SC, big deal, tech package big deal, AWD big deal, extra range big deal!

It all adds up to a LOT more car for not much more money. It would have tipped us to stretch from the Fusion Energi to the 70d.

I agree, 70D is a tempting amount of value with everything they have included now.

And my wife loves the new Warm Silver color…can’t wait to get her to see one in person and see if it sways her.

To me the biggest thing with EV’s is the superior drive.

After having the Fusion Energi for one winter I was shocked how much heat requirement there is that just comes without thought in normal gas car. Love the car but with combined gas and electricity costs not sure how much cheaper to run than regular hybrid. Thank goodness for the rebate.

I think Tesla should take all that gas savings off the website.

Did the Ford have a heat pump? I don’t think they do, just electric resistor heaters? I don’t know.

I would suggest making sure the next EV you try has a heat pump. It will make a significant difference.

Tesla is giving more car for the money for sure but cars like the Focus electric have shaved $11,000 off the price in the same time. The Volt is increasing range and lowering price same with the Leaf.

Tesla has so far been able to give more car for more money and avoid giving the same car for less money or more car for the same money.

Tesla has also proven there is a market for EV’s that do not make financial sense.

Most (all?) luxury cars don’t make financial sense.

A week ago I just ordered and confirmed a Tesla S85 with the tech package for delivery late June.
Is it true that the value of my coming car has just dropped a couple thousand $ even before it has been produced?