Tesla Model S P100D Actually Has More Range Than Stated – Voluntarily Lowered By Company


Tesla Model S p100D Range (From left to right - city, highway, combined)

Tesla Model S p100D Range (From left to right – city, highway, combined)

The EPA’s internal database has been updated to include range ratings for the Tesla Model S P100D. Oddly, the Model X P100D isn’t listed yet, but the specs are there for the S with the 100 kWh battery.

First…the numbers.

When you buy a Tesla Model S P100D you also get something a little "extra" when it comes to range

When you buy a Tesla Model S P100D you also get something a little “extra” when it comes to range

According to the EPA, the Model S P100D gets a city range rating of 305.9 miles, a highway range rating of 346.9 miles and a combined rating of 315 miles.

As one might notice, those two numbers (city/highway) are too high to achieve a combined 315 miles estimated range.  So, what gives?

That combined figure has been voluntarily reduced by Tesla to 315 miles. We’re not sure why, but we’ve seen this in the past with Tesla ratings.

The non-reduced figure (given the math on the P90D) should be ~323+ miles.

One other point of interest is how the P100D compares to the P90D. As you can see in the graphic above, the P100D whoops the 90 kWh version.

Even with the reduction, the 100 kWh version somehow manages to beat the 90 by a full 45 miles on the combined rating scale – without the Tesla-reduced number, that jumps to 54.6 miles.

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

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

Are we to believe that 10 kWh is all that’s needed to bump range up that much?  Or is the P100D packing something a little extra via the battery? Perhaps new internal workings to accommodate the higher motor output has also made the EV more efficient?

Regardless the reason, the end result seems to be that Tesla is managing the spread between the 100 kWh cars and its previous offerings still on sale.

The 90D, non-performance version, has a combined rating of 294 miles, but once you add the P into the equation, range drops to 270 miles.  However, the P100D version doesn’t seem to be affected to such a degree. Perhaps when the 100D launches we’ll have some additional information in regards to why Tesla voluntarily lowered the figure and why there’s such a huge discrepancy between the P90D and the P100D?

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

74 Comments on "Tesla Model S P100D Actually Has More Range Than Stated – Voluntarily Lowered By Company"

newest oldest most voted

Do you have the city and highway ranges juxtaposed? Hwy range should be lower than city in an EV? Right?

Not when it comes to Tesla, a Cd of .24 counts for something…and it has a lot of mass to haul around in the city, (=

Makes me wonder, what is the optimum speed to drive a Tesla?

It is still around 25 mph constant (giving you time to really enjoy your 625 mile/25 hour drive in the P100D). It’s the EPA test cycle procedure for “normalizing” typical city and highway driving that skew the numbers upwards into the highway camp.

Jay is correct. That speed, or slightly lower, is what the record-breakers are using to reach new distances in a single charge.

City driving isn’t just slower speeds its also stop and go. That has a big influence on such a big and heavy cars range.

Here’s a strong possibility. As Big Solar says, the actual size of the battery pack may be significantly larger. Why? This would yield important benefits for an EV. Let’s say the battery is actually 110 Kwh: 1. A true 100 Kwh battery would charge to 80 Kwh in 40 minute and to 100 Kwh in 75 minutes. BUT, a 110 Kwh battery labeled as 100 Kwh would charge to 80 Kwh in 35 minutes and to 100 Kwh in just 50 minutes. Nice improvements. 2. If the rumored increase in Supercharger power is real…and the larger battery and improved cooling can take the juice…then lop off another 15% in charging times. That is right at 30 minutes from discharged battery to 80 Kwh. Very nice. 3. As the battery loses capacity over time and cycles, chargers would continue to treat it as a 100 Kwh battery, so there would be no apparent reduction in capacity over life. That is highly desirable from the perspective of warrantees, consumer acceptance and countering a common anti-competitive message from ICE makers. It hides the natural degradation of Lithium Ion batteries over life. 4. This strategy is well-supported by Tesla’s plans to drive down battery… Read more »

Tesla being heavier and sleek aerodynamics, their hwy range is typically more than city range.

But as I understand it, the average speed for the EPA highway tests is 55 MPH. Drive at normal freeway speed, 65-75 MPH, and range will be significantly less. Consumer Reports gave the Tesla Model S85 a range rating of about 210 miles driving at highway speed, when the EPA range rating was 265 miles.

Using the A/C or cabin heater will also reduce range.

I disagree. For my 70D, 71 mph gets me EPA at 70 degrees.

Since EPA testing has a lot of acceleration, it puts additional emphasis on weight, and the Model S is heavy.


Not on a D. Dual motors.
Dual motors on highway is more efficient.
Because of how they manage it.
D is less efficient in city because it has extra weight from extra motor.

I’m guessing the 100 KW pack has heavier internal conductors for higher current with resulting lower internal losses. A few more miles are thus available instead of losing energy to heat.

Conductors don’t really have lots of influence on losses. Especially at those power levels. EPA does not test quarter mile consumption.

As I always suspected, EPA rating is mystery meat. Take it with grain of salt, probably within 10%. Then +5% of P90 and -5% of P100 would explain the discrepancy.

I prefer my range polynomial. It’s too bad I don’t have the money / time to buy and test P100DL. Maybe some lunatic will try to find the range of P100DL at 25 MPH. 🙂


Bjorn Nyland apparently has the time. Let him do it.

I was re-watching drag times P100DL video, and at 2:00 mark, it seems to show 12 kW at 67 MPH. That’s about 8.3 hours of driving at 67 MPH, or 558 miles range. I doubt that’s true, or is it?

If you assume it’d take SparkEV power of about 17 kW, it’d be 5.9 hours of driving for a range close to 400 miles. Does it really? Questions, questions…

That was an earlier static screen shot from some app. No way to know if it was taken on a downgrade or something.

Road load for a Tesla S at 67 mph should be ~16 kW. A 100 kWh pack with 90% efficient drive train can deliver 16 kW for 5.6 hours, or 375 miles. That may not be far from the truth for level ground, no wind, etc.

SparkEV figure takes what’s coming out of the battery, so all losses are accounted for. You’re saying Tesla display doesn’t take into account what’s coming out of the battery?

But 90% figure could be that Tesla only use 90% of the capacity, so your range figure is probably more accurate. Still, over 350 miles in one sitting in freeway would surely require wearing diapers.

1/(0.55/city + 0.45/highway)
90D = 1/(0.55/259.6 + 0.45/283.4) ~= 269.796
That rounds to 270.

100D = 1/(0.55/305.9 + 0.45/349.6) ~= 323.083

Don’t know why they rounded the 100D down. Maybe they adjusted for the expected tires or something.

While I understand why you’re using this equation (harmonic average and all), the EPA spreadsheet numbers reflect this equation:

55% * City Range + 44% * Hwy Range

I don’t know why.

It’s because the weightings are close enough and city and highway ranges are close enough that it doesn’t make that much difference which method you use. But as the gaps widen you see a bigger difference.

Range is proportional to mpge, and as with mpg, you can’t just use a simple average.

You can use an extreme example with a city range of 1 mile and highway range of 1,000 miles to make it clear.

Like I said, I understand using the harmonic average. It totally makes sense. I put both equations into the EPA spreadsheet and rounded to the ones digit. The EPA range column is clearly using the other equation. Please try it yourself.

Yup, just checked and you’re right. Illogical, but the EPA obviously doesn’t care.

Maybe they don’t want to spoil the USP for the non-P version. Did they reduce the 90D (non-P) as well?

On a separate note, why do they still say “with an 80A dual charger option”? The High Amperage Charger has been 72A since the facelift, IIRC.

Can’t get over the Bolt/Tesla reversal of efficiency, between City and Highway. I know it can be explained, but it’s a big gap. Highway is what most need, at these range values.

Looking at pricing, I’d speculate Q4 or Q1 ’17 will see a “75 and 100”, with the 60 dropped, and the 75 cheapened. The cheapest 90kwh is still “$89,500”, which makes me think they’ll simply give up the 100’s at that price, maybe a tiny bit more.

Considering one, it’s clear Tesla are discounting mostly the 75kwh, “$8,500” battery upgrade cost, on a big clump of inventory cars. Still, a tough pill for most to swallow on a daily driver.

I actually see Tesla making more things optional on the base 60 to bring the entry price down even further to bring more people in.

I agree.

The low entry prices will probably continue until the Model 3 is in production. Then maybe the lower priced versions can be dropped.

Nope, prices gonna drop. People realized they are overpriced for the poor quality given

Yes, people realized that and stopped buying Teslas. That’s why sales have been dropping every year by 50% since 2013.

oh wait…

The base “60” already gives up 15kwh of sunk cost, plus the Autopilot hardware. I don’t see the base price going up, so much as the 75 coming down. If they get behind estimates, inventory price adjustments are showing up as the pattern.

pjwood1, I don’t know why you keep focusing on the tiny percentage of Tesla cars that are “inventory”. Nearly all Tesla cars are made to order; why focus on the relative few which aren’t? Generally speaking, the only thing that a discount on “inventory” cars indicates is that Tesla wants to sell off any outdated demo units and service loaners quickly, so they can provide prospective customers with test drives using the newest versions as soon as possible. There are sometimes exceptions to that rule, at the end of a quarter or (especially) the end of the year, when Tesla is pulling out all the stops to maximize sales as much as possible. In such cases, Tesla has sometimes doubled the tiny discount* it gives to its few “inventory” cars. *In the last report I saw on this subject, the regular discount was $1/mile, and as I recall, some additional modest reduction in price for every month of age, but I don’t recall what that was. Any claim that Tesla is giving “steep” discounts on “inventory” cars is nothing but anti-Tesla FUD. Let’s keep in mind that for a car with an average sale price of $100,000, even a $1000… Read more »

Now when you configure a car for purchase on Tesla.com, the webpage shows you an inventory car with similar specs and big discounts as an purchasing option.

And that proves what?

That Tesla found a new way to stick it into the eye of old competitors and their re-seller networks? 😀

Seriously, You expect real people to bad mouth Tesla for that extra effort to show cheaper version of the car?

Or are You convinces that Tesla investors will demand stopping such unimaginable actions to early engage those 350 000 of new Tesla customers?

pjwood1 said:

“…Tesla are discounting mostly the 75kwh, ‘$8,500’ battery upgrade cost, on a big clump of inventory cars.”

Why do we keep seeing false claims like this? There is no such thing as a “big clump” of inventory cars from Tesla.

As a reminder, for Tesla, “inventory cars” available for sale include only demo units, service loaners, and any abandoned sales which they don’t put into use as either demos or service loaners.

Would anyone care to estimate how many cars that is? I’d guess it’s not more than 1-2% of Tesla’s production.

PP, Why are you so in the tank, for Tesla? There was no need to accuse me of spreading false info.

Go look at the inventory and see for yourself how many of the identical low-optioned configurations are available, at a variety of discounts, with only 50 miles. In the past, inventory demos were heavily optioned cars. Same for service loaners. That’s what you “demonstrate” with. Cancelled orders were custom spec’d, many sitting in inventory with weird configurations. This is not even close to what current inventory (at quarter end) looks like on CPO-consolidator.

I point you to the inventory because it reveals one of several new methods Tesla are using to generate sales volume. It is intuitive that most all these cars would have AP activated, because like I said, it’s a sunk cost. How they push those cars reveals a blend of what’s popular and where Tesla can add options where their internal costs are likely lowest. These weren’t ordered cars.

People need to take a breath, on both sides of Tesla. Let test drives do the talking, and stop presuming we matter.

LOL 315 with 100 kWh battery. The Bolt would do 400 with that large battery. Glad real manufacturers started building EVs

Sadly no. The increased weight of a 100kW battery would keep the Bolt EV range far below 400 mi.

IMO the 100 kWh battery would crush the uni-body chassis and suspension of the BOLT. I think the BOLT ought to just stick to its 60 since that will be hard enough to quick charge with the low powered Quick Chargers… by comparison to the Tesla Superchargers.

Yup. That ridiculous Tesla bashing post by “Jack” ignores the fact that a considerably larger battery pack would require a larger, and heavier, car; one with a beefed-up frame/unibody and suspension.

Most anti-Tesla FUD posts, such as that one, are aimed at unwary readers, who don’t exercise critical thinking about what they’re reading. I’m hoping that’s only a very small percentage of InsideEVs’ readership.

That’s one of the issues. A 100 kWh pack using solid state technology would likely be doable. With current technology you could probably deal with the mass, especially since it’s sprung, but there just isn’t enough space.

Well good luck trying to fit a 100 kWh battery pack into the chassis of the smaller Bolt. Also with the added weight of the battery the Bolt wouldn’t keep its current MPGe rating.

A Tesla S60D has the software limited larger 75 kWh battery pack and is a much larger fullsize vehicle and it gets 218 miles EPA.

Even if you could magically let the Bolt keep its 9% advantage in range over the S60D that has a similar battery size by ignoring the physics of adding the extra size and weight of the extra 40kWh of batteries and then ignore that the Model S is a bigger fullsize car, the Bolt would still only get a 344 mile range.

Accounting for physics the difference would be negligible. In fact on the highway the Tesla 100 gets 346 miles of range in reality. The Bolt with its worse aerodynamics probably wouldn’t get this range on the highway even with 100 kWhs.

Really, you obviously don’t know Jack.

“Real” manufacturers would not be building anything more then crippled compliance EVs if it wasn’t for Tesla’s leadership in the sector and the pressure that Tesla is bringing with new models.


“Real” cheating manufacturers don’t have any other way to go if they want to avoid to be the next Kodack…At last, they stopped laughing about Tesla!

Perhaps Jack is thinking that one of the “real” manufacturers is delivering the first 200 mile range affordable BEV. Likely with something more than the build quality of a Yugo.

Realistically you can’t expect a real manufacturer to spend all its development efforts on a segment that isn’t likely 2% of the market and which isn’t exactly growing by leaps and bounds. Most majors are likely looking at Nissan, which went big, and deciding that a cautious approach is better. Not all CEOs are as secure as Ghosn.

You know, as an incessant Tesla-hater you sure are consistent as you drive around in your heavily discounted ELR which is a failed product as far as the bean counters who continue to dominate GM are concerned Everyone with half a brain knows that without Tesla pushing the boundaries their would be no Bolt which undoubtedly came out of the GM study group on Tesla. As it is, GM showing signs of half-assing Bolts in the US by not including DCFC (on a big battery EV?) as standard equipment and instead charging $750 for something that probably costs no more then &200. I couldn’t help but notice that GM will be selling the EXACT SAME Bolts in Canada with DCFC included for thousands of dollars less which means that US customers are getting jacked by your beloved GM! Then you have the problem of the stealership business model which will jack the prices even most of them will not want to stock and sell them. In any case, I hope GM and their stealerships get their heads out of their butts and fix those issues and sell the hell out of the Bolt for the sake of the planet. In… Read more »

Sorry for the punctuation/grammatical errors in my post above as I typed it from my auto-correcting phone while riding on a bouncy bus.

I think the price in the US is now higher than in Canada due to soon (2 years) expiring incetives for GM. After the expired incentive i expect GM to reduce the price of the Bolt by at least 5.000$.

Nobody decided to play it safe. Exactly because their positions are not as safe as Ghosen’s. Tesla devastate luxury segment eating all the others after some time on the market.It’s total disaster to other brands. So other either present aggressive plans to attack Tesla with electric cars or loose CEO positions. Because investors will demand not only securing current shares but aggressive attack on other’s market shares. Small, green (like in knows nothing), underfunded upstart can claim #1 spot in luxury segment over 5 years? You kidding me? NEVER. But it happened. Done deal. Now everybody knows that others simply slept over possibility to do it by themselfs. Fiat? Could be #1 with their own Fiat S. Volvo? Could be #1 with their own Volvo S. Citroen? Could be #1 with their own Citroen S. Volkswagen? Could be #1 with their own Volkswagen S. So EVERY CEO need badly electrification plan to keep his post. Why we do not see 180 degree shift is because of 3 factors: a) Platform life cycle. S required big cash, and its hard to justify NOT milking existing platforms as much as possible. b) Osborne effect (like Nokia ex-CEO). Talking about new product that… Read more »

Do you think it’s a new chemistry and there is even more unlockable? Maybe they are holding out on some range to make it look like they keep upping the range as we get closer to the model 3 launch?

No, the 90 to 100 change was at the pack module level, not at the cell format/chemistry level.

When the M3 launches with this pack/module format and the new format/chemistry we may see a big step change in terms of Wh/kg and Wh/l.

I don’t think so. My guess is that Tesla has made a marketing decision to under-report range, because range is most important when taking long distance trips, and most long distance trips are taken at freeway speeds of 65-75 MPH. That is considerably faster than the speeds which the EPA uses for highway range testing.

Under-reporting the range will bring the EPA rated range closer to the real-world highway driving range.

And as Anthony said, the 100 kWh battery pack reportedly doesn’t represent an improvement in battery chemistry; apparently it’s a result of reconfiguring the pack architecture to reduce empty space between rows of cells.

Can someone share a link to the EPA database? I came up empty searching for it.

Thanks. Initially when I looked I wasn’t able to find any BEV values.

must be a 107 kwh pack or so??

The truth is probably that the 90 models store less than 90kwh and maybe the 100’s a bit more than 100kwh.
They chose the 85,90,100 names partially as marketing strategy to justify pricing.
Now it’s obvious that the difference between the so-called 90kwh battery and the 100 is in fact more than 10% so they try to hide this by lowering the EPA rating to avoid people feeling spoiled.

Believe the same; 90 is a tweaked 85, whereas the 100 has a new setup, which explains the bigger jump.

A 100D would do 360+ miles instead of 348 miles.

Perhaps 375 miles, which would be exactly 600 Km.

“Oddly, the Model X P100D”

Well perhaps that’s why…Tesla may not want to scare away Model X buyers with too big of a range differential…Tesla is using what to tow it’s mobile design studio?

The premium package on the S is $3000 while is $4500 on the X…The base X has 5 seats, most will add more seating…A 6 person seat($3000) or a 7 person ($4000) seat and both require you to get the air suspension ($2500)…Also might as well get the hitch and buy a your hitch accessories from Tesla…

FWIW, they’re listing the Model X P100D as 289 mi (estimated) EPA range.

In the cases where there’s both an S & X (60D, 75D, 90D, P90D, and P100D), they all differ by 8-9%, except for the 90D, for which the S has 14.4% more range (294 vs 257).

This is great for all those looking forward to a non-performance 100D model at the end of this year. Seems like 350 miles of range may be on tap. I can see why Elon said the other day that they will stop at 100kWh for the time being. It makes sense, how often will someone use that 351st mile of range, compared to the cost, weight, and other constraints.

Its more important to make the car better, reduce the costs to increase gross margin, and focus on the Model 3.

Yes, and as the cell energy density increases they could just reduce the number of cells in the pack thus making it lighter which translates to more range.

That may not be possible without compromising structural integrity of battery pack. Its integral part of body after all.

What could happen though is that each cell is shorter, and there is more internal room thx to that.

That’s cool. None of those are the range you’re actually going to get.

Real range is driving conservatively most of the time with occasional or more frequent acceleration stomps while the AC on.

And with the P100D range drops fast if you stomp the pedal.

But high 200’s sounds accurate. 300+ if you drive like grandma. Which I don’t think anyone will be doing with a 2.5 second 0-60.

“That combined figure has been voluntarily reduced by Tesla to 315 miles. We’re not sure why,…”

It’s obvious. It’s so much better for Tesla to exceed EPA numbers and get praise across the board, than have a consumer or an unofficial test not reach that range and complain….and complain…..and complain anywhere the words can be typed.

Well Done Tesla!

Maybe they added more silicone to the cell chemistry and cranked up the energy density and power output.

My guess is a more efficient heating and cooling system with the new pack. The current Tesla is known to use quite a bit of energy on the first few miles in the cold. The EPA test includes a cold loop in the sequence. If it is better heating the battery it is probably better cooling in the heat as well. I understand a thermal management upgrade was a major part of the 100Kwh pack.

Sounds suspicious to me. If an EV has a certain verifiable range then state it and stand by it. Range is a critical performance attribute for any EV.

Car manufacturers have been understating things like horsepower for years. They do this to (1) appease customers who happened to get a low-horsepower engine and (2) to make customers feel like they got more than they paid for. It’s marketing.

Tesla may be doing it for marketing, or they may want to keep the worst-case scenario (subzero temperatures and highway speeds) from eating too far into the range of the car.

I’m curious to see the braking performance of the S P100D. AFAICT, this car is significantly heavier than the P90D; its GVWR is greater than a X P90D.