Tesla Model S Range Update: Now Up To 294 Miles

2 years ago by Jay Cole 45

New Tesla Model S Refresh + 90 kWh Range Updates Released Tuesday

New Tesla Model S Refresh + 90 kWh Range Updates Released Tuesday

Now With Up To 294 Miles Of Range

Now With Up To 294 Miles Of Range

It has been a busy day for Tesla.

The company not only opened the online order/configurator system on the Model X to the public, announced a new 75D model for the all-electric SUV, but also started production on a refreshed Model S (full details here).

But as part of all the update, it appears Tesla has now taken the time to re-certify the 90 kWh Model S EPA ranges, now that the 85 kWh cars are no longer available.  Currently the EPA lists the 85 kWh battery data for both option levels.

Here are the adjusted numbers:

  • Tesla Model S 90D: 294 miles – vs 270 miles EPA listed (85D/90D), and from their own 288 previous estimate
  • Tesla Model S P90D: 270 miles -vs 253 miles EPA listed (P85D/P90D), consistent with earlier “estimate”
New Tesla Model S Range Specs For 90D and P90D

New Tesla Model S Range Specs For 90D and P90D

Currently (as of press – April 12thm 2016), the EPA still lists the Model S 85 kWh and 90 kWh versions as having identical range results – hopefully it will be updated to reflect actual results soon:

EPA Efficiency Listings For Model S (85/90 kWh)

EPA Efficiency Listings For Model S (85/90 kWh)

Tags: , , , ,

45 responses to "Tesla Model S Range Update: Now Up To 294 Miles"

  1. Anon says:

    Did they wait to update the range after cleaning up the design of Model S front? The cleaner design might help?

    1. Rich says:

      Tesla never updated the EPA rated range for the pack increase from 85kWh to 90kWh. I assume the 294 mile range finally reflects the actual EPA number for 90kWh dual motor.

    2. evcarnut says:

      I NEED MORE COWBELL!

  2. Pete Repete says:

    I wonder what happened to doorpockets (nice to have), vented seats (even nicer), the 100Kwh batt?? and maybe even British Racing Green? Ohh well maybe next time.. looks really good though.

    1. Driverguy01 says:

      YES!, I’m not the only one wanting a British Racing Green!
      Please Tesla, i want my green M☰….

      1. TomArt says:

        It has been my observation that mass-market cars tend to have more color options, including brighter-hued options. I can imagine that a somewhat different, wider range of color and finish will be available for the Model 3.

  3. Michael says:

    The ‘hacker’ trolling Elon may have delayed the 100kWh battery introduction ?

    1. gizmo84 says:

      I wouldnt expect the 100kwh battery until July. they introduced the 90kwh battery in july of 2015. So it would make send for it to be upgraded a year later. Elon said before that they would do yearly battery upgrades (5% increase) although 100kwh is more than 5%. no one will be complaining.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookecrothers/2015/07/17/tesla-announces-battery-pack-upgrade-ludicrous-mode-for-model-s/#8f075e1362a4

    2. pjwood1 says:

      What’s funny is Jason (WK057) also hacked that the 85kwh is actually ~81kwh, and the 60kwh was something over that. If his P100D hack was before Tesla knew some people were onto actual cell counts, it could stop them from introducing a rounded up design. Better to be truthful, if its only a P97D, etc.

      1. MikeG says:

        The usable capacity from a “85” battery pack is 75.9 kWh.

        Tesla can say whatever size they want, the only thing that matters is the EPA range.

        1. Bul_gar says:

          76.8kWh from MS 85

  4. Kdawg says:

    I like this front end a lot better than the nosecone. I hope the interior got some updates too.

    1. Speculawyer says:

      I prefer the nosecone. But as an engineer, I appreciate them getting rid of the nosecone to reduce the number of parts.

      I like the Model 3 anti-grille the most though. Get rid of it! (The small amount of air for the AC condenser & whatnot can be scooped up low.)

      1. pjwood1 says:

        I’ll like the new aesthetic with a plate, but a nose cone is $300 where a front bumper cover is closer to $1,000 (unpainted).

        1. Speculawyer says:

          Yeah, I worry about that with the Model 3 too.

          Get into a little fender bender and it is going to cost a lot to fix.

          I thought the insurance companies had regulations about having a bumper at a certain height and can withstand X amount of impact. Perhaps they need to add that it needs to be a replaceable part.

  5. speaksthetruth says:

    The “previous” numbers are from before the last update.

    http://insideevs.com/tesla-85-kwh-battery-option-discontinued-worldwide/

    1. Jay Cole says:

      Yes, we should mentioned the mid-upgrade mile estimates as well. Thanks. Really the focus is on the full bump from the current EPA base.

  6. Sublime says:

    Being the type A personality Musk is, I bet getting the range rating only 2% away from an even 300 miles is driving him nuts.

    1. TomArt says:

      He wouldn’t be the only one…

      1. Sublime says:

        Elon the first time he see’s this 294 mile number in big print on showroom wall:

  7. Speculawyer says:

    So close to breaking 300! Just a few more optimizations and/or small battery increase.

    Not that I really think 300 matters to me personally but it will shut up all the people that say “a car needs to go 300 miles blah blah blah”. To me 300 is just excess weight to lug around 99% of the time.

    1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

      Breaking 300 would be enough to hold back the 100kWh to a separate reveal.

    2. Sublime says:

      If the NHTSA would let them replace the side mirrors with cameras they’d more than be there. Heck they’d be there if they’d let them replace only the passenger side one, which I think everyone agrees would be safer than the existing physical mirror.

      1. Driverguy01 says:

        the bigger the battery, the bigger the power, P100DL: 0-60 in 2.6sec ?

        1. Sublime says:

          That’s probably the main complaint for the P90DL, it’s just not fast enough 😉

          1. Speculawyer says:

            It is probably not a complaint but more of a request. I think Tesla makes some good money from really rich people that JUST NEED the fastest version. There are people that got the P85+. Then turned it in for the P85D. Then turned that in for the PD90DL.

            So I wouldn’t be surprised if Tesla continually does little tweaks that add 5% more performance every now & then.

        2. EVdude says:

          I think the problem with increasing the 0-60 time is traction, i.e. actually transferring that power into movement rather than having the wheels just spin.

          1. pjwood1 says:

            Elon has said traction was a limiter to 30mph, with 1,300 Amps. The extra 200A of 1500A Ludicrous take their dump between 30-100+. At some point above 40-50mph, there may be room to exceed 1,500A, but we aren’t talking about the battery’s maximal discharge rate. From discussions, I believe it is coming down to the fuses.

            Above 100kwh, unless its about higher weights, I think much of the bennefit will accrue to range, more rapid charging, more delay to when that 115kw supercharge begins tapering down. That kind of thing.

      2. Speculawyer says:

        I completely agree and it really annoys me. Especially as someone that rarely uses the side mirrors at all. Replacing those side mirrors would give them the low single digit added efficiency that would push them over the 300 mark!

        I think it is coming eventually. With the mandate of a rear view camera now coming, that will push the price of cameras displays down even low their their current low cost such that the car makers will push to eliminate the side mirror requirement. That will make it easier for them to meet CAFE requirements on their gas cars!

      3. Speculawyer says:

        I NEVER use my passenger side mirror. I leave it folded in. I just don’t find it useful. I used the rear view mirror and I turn my head. The passenger side mirror has a huge blind spot.

        I don’t know if removing just 1 mirror would push them over the top though.

        But those side mirrors really do matter. A friend with a Porsche was trying to see how fast his car could go. When he removed the mirrors, he did beat his previous record.

        1. s says:

          The passenger side mirror is especially useful in avoiding cyclists when making a right turn. On nice summer days the number of bikes on the road around here is ridiculous.

    3. jelloslug says:

      If you want a 300 mile range, you should buy a Fuel Cell car.

      And then drive in circles around the handful of pumps.

      1. TomArt says:

        LOL

    4. Mikael Larsson says:

      370 miles (or rather 600 km) is my personal stopping limit. That is the point where I personally feel I would always prefer reduced price/weight/size above increased energy capacity.

      That is at about 120 kWh, another year or two and Tesla will be the first to break into that area.

      60 kWh is my lower limit for a main or only car in the household.

      Everyone has different preferences but I’m pretty sure that most non-early adopters or crazy millionairs on a spending spree will end up in the 60-120 kWh area and I don’t think there will be many BEVs above or below that unless we see some massive battery break-through with amazing new chemistries or so.

  8. Jacked Beanstalk says:

    Beautiful. Far better than the original faux grill.

  9. floydboy says:

    So guys, what do you estimate the range is going to be with the 100 kwh pack?

    I’m thinking 325-330 miles.

    1. jelloslug says:

      I think you are correct on that estimate.

    2. Sublime says:

      Back of the napkin calculation:
      70D: 3.43 mi/kWh
      90D: 3.26 mi/kWh (95% of 70D)
      100D: (est) 3.18 mi/kWh (97.5% of 90D)

      Means 318 miles of range. It’s diminishing returns, either need more aero efficiency or more kWh/lb to get to the 350+ mile range.

      1. MTN Ranger says:

        Yes, 100D will mean a solid 300 EPA miles. It breaks a big psychological barrier.

      2. Nom de Plume says:

        How would these numbers translate to a smaller, lighter car like the Model 3? Or is there a point at which the battery is so heavy that it cancels out additional range?

      3. Lindsay Patten says:

        310 miles is 500 km so anything over that looks good.

  10. pjwood1 says:

    Another funny, is how Tesla can have “691hp” repeated in so much press after the 2014 AWD “announcement”, and then in the window above state “463hp”, and have nobody notice.

  11. Benz says:

    95 kWh in 2016, and 100 kWh in 2017.

    1. mr. M says:

      And finally 120kWh in 2020. yay 😀