Tesla Introduces New Performance Enhancements to Model S and Model X

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Tesla is rolling out new software and hardware changes for the Model S and X that will improve their acceleration. The Model S 75 and its dual motor version are both gaining a full second of acceleration from 0 to 60 mph (4.3 seconds down from 5.5 seconds and 4.2 seconds down from 5.2 seconds, respectively), while the Model S 100D gets a slight improvement at 4.1 seconds down from 4.2 seconds. The Model X 75D and X 100D boasts 4.9 seconds down from 6.0 seconds and 4.7 seconds down from 5.2 seconds.

It’s another example of Tesla regularly introducing upgrades to its vehicles without waiting for new model year. Interestingly, those upgrades are also coming just ahead of the launch of the Model 3 and since they are most important on the base versions of the vehicles, it looks like Tesla might be looking to further differentiate its higher-end models, Model S and Model X, with its newest less expensive Model 3. Tesla CEO Elon Musk has been guiding “less than 6 seconds” for the Model 3’s 0 to 60 mph, but that’s only for the base version of the car. It will also feature quicker acceleration for the performance versions, which are expected later.
 
Anything below 7 seconds for a daily driver is kind of pointless. I'd be more interested if they could show the same improvements in range.
 
M76 said:
Anything below 7 seconds for a daily driver is kind of pointless. I'd be more interested if they could show the same improvements in range.
Click to expand...
Says you, I enjoy hitting the speed limit very quickly on the great many 80+ roads we have here. Not that I would not mind the option to get more miles, instead if I so chose.
 
M76 said:
Anything below 7 seconds for a daily driver is kind of pointless. I'd be more interested if they could show the same improvements in range.
Click to expand...

You can keep your 7-seconds-to-60 car. I mean I don't go crazy with supercharging and changing the exhaust and race chip, but I definitely appreciate the sub-5 second range. If you like cars at all and spend decent money on a car it's actually rare to be able to find one that slow... even a Fusion has a 5 second version.

I've been thinking about getting a Model S recently.. the range is the killer, I drive 200 miles a day which is a lot of wear on a battery.
 
Vercinaigh said:
Says you, I enjoy hitting the speed limit very quickly on the great many 80+ roads we have here. Not that I would not mind the option to get more miles, instead if I so chose.
Click to expand...
I was talking about daily driving not having fun. A tesla is not a car I'd imagine having fun with anyway.
I can count on one hand when I used full acceleration potential of my car in the past 10 years. And even then I didn't do it because I needed it, I did it just for kicks.
Doing it every time wouldn't just be extremely pointless, but wasteful as well. The quicker you accelerate the sooner you have to break for traffic.
 
I don't have a Tesla (yet) but as a car guy I love the instant and zippy acceleration of my 2017 Volt. Some people crave the feeling of acceleration, some people just view the car as a thing that gets them from A to B. Neither is wrong to have an opinion on the matter.

The fact that Tesla is pushing free updates on older model cars is impressive nonetheless.
 
M76 said:
I was talking about daily driving not having fun. A tesla is not a car I'd imagine having fun with anyway.
I can count on one hand when I used full acceleration potential of my car in the past 10 years. And even then I didn't do it because I needed it, I did it just for kicks.
Doing it every time wouldn't just be extremely pointless, but wasteful as well. The quicker you accelerate the sooner you have to break for traffic.
Click to expand...
Again that's you mate. I drive the shit out of my Mr2 on a daily basis. Why buy a fast car to put put around, plenty of gas savers for that. Tesla is a fast car, drive what you bought, that's my take. Your opinion is exactly that and not everyone here or anywhere is going to share that. Plenty of people are going to appreciate this added value for them I sure would.
 
Some of the most expensive Tesla models can run the 1/4 mile deep into the 11 second range which is damn impressive for a car that isn't marketed as a performance vehicle.

That said if your goal is to go fast then generally you won't be buying an electric car. At least not yet anyway. A used late model mustang with a blower can be had for half the cost of a Tesla and blow it's doors off. And can be driven to work, the grocery store, etc..
 
Sometimes I wonder what the direction of HardOCP is. A software upgrade to a car is worthy of a article/link? I don't get it. My Tacoma just upgraded Entune - is that worthy?
 
Submarinesailor said:
Sometimes I wonder what the direction of HardOCP is. A software upgrade to a car is worthy of a article/link? I don't get it. My Tacoma just upgraded Entune - is that worthy?
Click to expand...

Riptide_NVN said:
I sort of agree with that. I think the gray area here is that Tesla is in some way considered a "tech" company and not just a car company like Toyota.
Click to expand...

Its more than likely because "Musk" is the "Torvalds" of the car industry. Musk is a tech guy: Paypal, Space-X, and all of tech things that he has on the table.
 
Drakensoul said:
You can keep your 7-seconds-to-60 car. I mean I don't go crazy with supercharging and changing the exhaust and race chip, but I definitely appreciate the sub-5 second range. If you like cars at all and spend decent money on a car it's actually rare to be able to find one that slow... even a Fusion has a 5 second version.

I've been thinking about getting a Model S recently.. the range is the killer, I drive 200 miles a day which is a lot of wear on a battery.
Click to expand...

Lol a Toyota Sienna minivan can hit 60 in 7 seconds. Actually my old '88 BMW 750iL also took that long, and I admit it was fun in its time. One of the nice things is that a tesla gets up to speed with no fuss. My old '98 GS400 was the quickest automatic sedan that year and it needed a bit of braking at 3k to break 6 seconds otherwise it bogs. My current STI needs to be launched carefully to break 5 and you have to be planning in advance. But test driving a Tesla (60D 5.5 0-60), that power is available instantaneously, no turbo lag or downshift lag. It's much more usable since it's just available on demand. I think that makes the power much more usable in normal driving when you suddenly need to deal with the unexpected. Btw base model S gets 260 ish miles, but A/C, heating, and a lead foot could drop that a lot. But wear and tear isn't too bad, they have a very conservative battery chemistry, which is why people replace them with LG batteries for maximum performance in custom vehicles. The panasonic cells are optimized for longevity.
 
Last edited:
The crazy fast times are for the "P" (Performance) models (or cars with the P option package I guess). He's referring to the bump to non-P cars.

SomeoneElse said:
Im confused here....it says 0-60 in 4.2 seconds is that in normal mode? The insane mode already blows that out of the water and this was known a while ago.....http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...5/tesla-model-s-p100d-ludicrous-acceleration/
2.28 seconds....thats been the standard for a while from Tesla. So either they are talking about normal everyday driving mode or this article is misleading.
Click to expand...
 
dvsman said:
The crazy fast times are for the "P" (Performance) models (or cars with the P option package I guess). He's referring to the bump to non-P cars.
Click to expand...
Ahhh i didn't catch that is wasn't the P100 or the P75 versions....that makes sense.
 
Vercinaigh said:
Again that's you mate. I drive the shit out of my Mr2 on a daily basis. Why buy a fast car to put put around, plenty of gas savers for that. Tesla is a fast car, drive what you bought, that's my take. Your opinion is exactly that and not everyone here or anywhere is going to share that. Plenty of people are going to appreciate this added value for them I sure would.
Click to expand...
The Tesla S is not a fun car to drive. It is fast in a straight line up to about 100 mph. But that doesn't make it a sports car. That's why range would be much more appreciated as added value compared to a few tenths in acceleration that's only realized in ludicrous mode with a fully charged battery.
 
M76 said:
The Tesla S is not a fun car to drive. It is fast in a straight line up to about 100 mph. But that doesn't make it a sports car. That's why range would be much more appreciated as added value compared to a few tenths in acceleration that's only realized in ludicrous mode with a fully charged battery.
Click to expand...

Agreed. For their weight class however, they handle GREAT, but should not be considered a sports car at all, even though many people make that assumption based on straight line numbers all the time. For a DD, that power can be fun and even helpful, the lower numbers here are getting close to what my Miata does 0-60, though way lacking in handling. However, unlike the Miata, you will not be planting your foot all the time, because of range, unless you are short/local only and can get away with it, as range, just like in a ICE car, plummets when you start hammering on them, and they can't keep up with that sort of abuse either, as it's a known problem when pushed that the motors/battery over heat and go into limp mode when pushed for extended periods. With that said, a free after the fact performance gain should never be hated on, used or not, it's there and available to the driver, which is all that matters.
 
Lizard Testes said:
Which one is that?
Click to expand...

Fusion Sport 2017, 2.7L twin turbo AWD and magnetic suspension. I have one and it's nice, doesn't stand out too much and has plenty of power... I like it very much so far.
As other mentioned above, some are fine with slow daily cars but some like when they can have fun with their cars and some do have fun with those :)
 
M76 said:
The Tesla S is not a fun car to drive. It is fast in a straight line up to about 100 mph. But that doesn't make it a sports car. That's why range would be much more appreciated as added value compared to a few tenths in acceleration that's only realized in ludicrous mode with a fully charged battery.
Click to expand...
But isn't the design fit more of a sport luxury car anyway? Not surprised that the performance isn't all around excellent.
 
SomeoneElse said:
But isn't the design fit more of a sport luxury car anyway? Not surprised that the performance isn't all around excellent.
Click to expand...

There are lots of other luxury sport cars that do it all, most are also cheaper. Just because it's classed in luxury doesn't mean it by default gives up handling.
 
M76 said:
Anything below 7 seconds for a daily driver is kind of pointless. I'd be more interested if they could show the same improvements in range.
Click to expand...


Well... improving range every year is hard.


Making the batteries dump faster... not so much.
 
M76 said:
Anything below 7 seconds for a daily driver is kind of pointless. I'd be more interested if they could show the same improvements in range.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree, but I'd probably say 6 seconds, not 7. Sometimes you just need to the power to get up to speed to merge onto a busy highway, or to pass someone.

If I had a Model S, I wouldn't be saying "no thanks" to this, but I probably wouldn't be using it all that often, as it just wastes juice, and wears everything (most notably tires) out faster.

I'm just disappointed that the Model S retains its value as well as it does. I was hoping to buy a 3 year old CPO model by now, but they cost almost as much as new ones...

My requirements being a Dual Motor version (once you've tried AWD in the winter, there is no going back) and the Subzero package I can rarely find a CPO Model S for under $71k.

According to my calculations, I'd save enough on gas to subtract enough out of financing payments to make the real price of the car about $15k cheaper, but $56k is still A LOT for a used car, CPO or not.

I'd go for a Model 3, but they are likely too small for me judging by other cars in that size class (6'3" here...). I could be wrong, but how would I know? There is no way I could have test driven one, and if I wanted one today, I would have had to pre-order it like 2 years ago, site unseen. (How anyone does that, I don't understand at all)


I'm just tired of my insane commute costing me 36 gallons of gas a week...
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I mostly agree, but I'd probably say 6 seconds, not 7. Sometimes you just need to the power to get up to speed to merge onto a busy highway, or to pass someone.

If I had a Model S, I wouldn't be saying "no thanks" to this, but I probably wouldn't be using it all that often, as it just wastes juice, and wears everything (most notably tires) out faster.

I'm just disappointed that the Model S retains its value as well as it does. I was hoping to buy a 3 year old CPO model by now, but they cost almost as much as new ones...

My requirements being a Dual Motor version (once you've tried AWD in the winter, there is no going back) and the Subzero package I can rarely find a CPO Model S for under $71k.

According to my calculations, I'd save enough on gas to subtract enough out of financing payments to make the real price of the car about $15k cheaper, but $56k is still A LOT for a used car, CPO or not.

I'd go for a Model 3, but they are likely too small for me judging by other cars in that size class (6'3" here...). I could be wrong, but how would I know? There is no way I could have test driven one, and if I wanted one today, I would have had to pre-order it like 2 years ago, site unseen. (How anyone does that, I don't understand at all)


I'm just tired of my insane commute costing me 36 gallons of gas a week...
Click to expand...
There's been a big price drop in CPO models if you don't care about autopilot. But the model 3 is probably big enough, the S is absolutely huge, it just looks like a normal sedan in pictures but is really SUV sized.
 
Miikun said:
There's been a big price drop in CPO models if you don't care about autopilot. But the model 3 is probably big enough, the S is absolutely huge, it just looks like a normal sedan in pictures but is really SUV sized.
Click to expand...

I don't care about autopilot, but if I go to the EV CPO Hunter, and enter my requirements (must be D model, must have subzero package, must have smaller 19" wheels so they are less vulnerable to pothole damage, and must qualify for 4 year 50k warranty program) the cheapest I wind up with right now is $81k. It fluctuates though, and I've seen it as low as 71k recently.

If it gets down to the 50's I'll start seriously thinking about it, but at this price it is just ridiculous.

The Model 3 may be large enough, but it may not. But seriously, who agrees to buy a car they've never test driven? That just blows my mind.

The fact that they are backordered for - what - 3 years of production already, and no one's even driven one? That's insane.
 
Riptide_NVN said:
A fanboy zealot?

How much would these cost without subsidies?
Click to expand...

A bit hard to calculate, as the company receives breaks and funding, as well as development for tech and carbon offsets, then add in federal and state/local rebates when buying the car and then the subsidy for charging stations etc etc.
 
M76 said:
The Tesla S is not a fun car to drive. It is fast in a straight line up to about 100 mph. But that doesn't make it a sports car. That's why range would be much more appreciated as added value compared to a few tenths in acceleration that's only realized in ludicrous mode with a fully charged battery.
Click to expand...
You just don't get the your OPINION part, do you? I'm sure plenty who own them or want to appreciate the added performance.
 
I've seen quite a few in
Zarathustra[H] said:
I don't care about autopilot, but if I go to the EV CPO Hunter, and enter my requirements (must be D model, must have subzero package, must have smaller 19" wheels so they are less vulnerable to pothole damage, and must qualify for 4 year 50k warranty program) the cheapest I wind up with right now is $81k. It fluctuates though, and I've seen it as low as 71k recently.

If it gets down to the 50's I'll start seriously thinking about it, but at this price it is just ridiculous.

The Model 3 may be large enough, but it may not. But seriously, who agrees to buy a car they've never test driven? That just blows my mind.

The fact that they are backordered for - what - 3 years of production already, and no one's even driven one? That's insane.
Click to expand...
I've seen quite a few local private listings in San Francisco in that price range but I don't think you'd find the wheels you are looking for very often, may just have to buy a set of winter rims. But the model 3, yeah wait and see, it's a lot more palatable and frankly the smaller car will use less energy per mile which makes good sense.
 
BlueFireIce said:
There are lots of other luxury sport cars that do it all, most are also cheaper. Just because it's classed in luxury doesn't mean it by default gives up handling.
Click to expand...
Right but my point is this wasn't built to be a sports car, so the handling isn't expected to be top of the top. its 5000 lbs so the fact that the car doesn't handle well is not much of a surprise to me. It was built with luxury in mind more than sport...they just throw a high output motor on the car to get the increased speed.
 
SomeoneElse said:
Right but my point is this wasn't built to be a sports car, so the handling isn't expected to be top of the top. its 5000 lbs so the fact that the car doesn't handle well is not much of a surprise to me. It was built with luxury in mind more than sport...they just throw a high output motor on the car to get the increased speed.
Click to expand...
Its a GT car. Fast, cushy and sleek like a Jaguar XK, Bentley or big AMG Merc which pampers your spine at 150mph. All too heavy to be agile but there's a market for that. Just like its much better to live with a 550 over an M5 or 525 in New York City, there's a place for fast and cushy.
 
SomeoneElse said:
Right but my point is this wasn't built to be a sports car, so the handling isn't expected to be top of the top. its 5000 lbs so the fact that the car doesn't handle well is not much of a surprise to me. It was built with luxury in mind more than sport...they just throw a high output motor on the car to get the increased speed.
Click to expand...

Big surprise.

A 5000 pound large sedan isn't a sports car.

That being said, it does out handle most cars in it's grabs touring segment dye to its low center of gravity, resulting from the battery placement.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Big surprise.

A 5000 pound large sedan isn't a sports car.

That being said, it does out handle most cars in it's grabs touring segment dye to its low center of gravity, resulting from the battery placement.
Click to expand...

No....No it doesn't.

Cars in it's segment and price range almost all do better, unless you want to rule out sport touring cars for some reason. Center of gravity can only do so much, and making up for 1-2k extra pounds it cant. When pushed the tires don't care where that weight is unless it's in the form of aero downforce, outside of that, the more weight the tires have to cope with, the less absolute corner speed you are going to be able to carry. The Tesla's did "ok" on the track (before over heating and going into limp mode) mostly because of higher dynamic acceleration, meaning, like a motorcycle, it's corner speed is slower than other cars, but it's acceleration out of the corners was high enough to hide that fact a bit, but if the straight was long enough the Tesla also started to run out of steam, so it gets reeled in, then out braked into the next corner and the other cars carry a higher peek corner speed, the longer this goes on, the wider the gap gets.
 
M76 said:
Anything below 7 seconds for a daily driver is kind of pointless. I'd be more interested if they could show the same improvements in range.
Click to expand...
In my opinion it's about how efficiently a car can get up to speed. If you're expelling all the energy a car puts out to get up to speed everywhere then that's kind of pointless. I drove a 4 cylinder Fusion the last time I had work done to my car and I ended up pretty much flooring it everywhere I went. Got worse gas mileage than my tuned V6.
BlueFireIce said:
No....No it doesn't.

Cars in it's segment and price range almost all do better, unless you want to rule out sport touring cars for some reason. Center of gravity can only do so much, and making up for 1-2k extra pounds it cant. When pushed the tires don't care where that weight is unless it's in the form of aero downforce, outside of that, the more weight the tires have to cope with, the less absolute corner speed you are going to be able to carry. The Tesla's did "ok" on the track (before over heating and going into limp mode) mostly because of higher dynamic acceleration, meaning, like a motorcycle, it's corner speed is slower than other cars, but it's acceleration out of the corners was high enough to hide that fact a bit, but if the straight was long enough the Tesla also started to run out of steam, so it gets reeled in, then out braked into the next corner and the other cars carry a higher peek corner speed, the longer this goes on, the wider the gap gets.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that the Tesla is going to go into protective mode very quickly when driven hard to prevent overheating the battery system. The quick acceleration up to 100 counts for nothing if you can only do it once.
 
Armenius said:
In my opinion it's about how efficiently a car can get up to speed. If you're expelling all the energy a car puts out to get up to speed everywhere then that's kind of pointless. I drove a 4 cylinder Fusion the last time I had work done to my car and I ended up pretty much flooring it everywhere I went. Got worse gas mileage than my tuned V6.

Not to mention that the Tesla is going to go into protective mode very quickly when driven hard to prevent overheating the battery system. The quick acceleration up to 100 counts for nothing if you can only do it once.
Click to expand...

There have been a number of tests that have been done before taking something like an M3 and a Prius and driving them more aggressively, more like people do on the street. The BMW was more or less idling through the whole test, but the Prius was high throttle most of the time, at the end, the BMW got better MPG. Now, it was not about hating on hybrids or trying to say they are not more efficient (they can be), but it was about showing how big of an impact driving habits have on MPG, and that you didn't need to give up power and other features to get better MPG, just controlling your right foot can do wonders. As I myself do the same thing, my DD is a Focus, but my weekend car is a turbo Miata that has traction problems into 3rd, needless to say I have to watch myself in the DD because I fond myself just going WOT all over because it feels so slow.

The Tesla is shown in races ALL the time, so many YT videos on it, but every single one is of 1/8 or 1/4mile races and they are not even done back to back, people also forget that to get those speeds the battery pack has to be almost fully charged and put into a special mode that "gets the batteries ready", that on it's own can take up to 30mins before its ready.

I don't hate on it for this though, I just find it funny people harp on "it can beat a lambo!!!" etc etc as a huge notch in its belt, but when people point out the facts of the matter, it's always "but it's not a sports car"... You can't have it both ways.
 
Armenius said:
In my opinion it's about how efficiently a car can get up to speed. If you're expelling all the energy a car puts out to get up to speed everywhere then that's kind of pointless. I drove a 4 cylinder Fusion the last time I had work done to my car and I ended up pretty much flooring it everywhere I went. Got worse gas mileage than my tuned V6.
Click to expand...
I've driven dozens of cars, and I've never seen one that I'd have had to constantly floor. It's kind of pointless to floor anything when you have to stop at the next traffic light again.
 
BlueFireIce said:
No....No it doesn't.

Cars in it's segment and price range almost all do better, unless you want to rule out sport touring cars for some reason. Center of gravity can only do so much, and making up for 1-2k extra pounds it cant. When pushed the tires don't care where that weight is unless it's in the form of aero downforce, outside of that, the more weight the tires have to cope with, the less absolute corner speed you are going to be able to carry. The Tesla's did "ok" on the track (before over heating and going into limp mode) mostly because of higher dynamic acceleration, meaning, like a motorcycle, it's corner speed is slower than other cars, but it's acceleration out of the corners was high enough to hide that fact a bit, but if the straight was long enough the Tesla also started to run out of steam, so it gets reeled in, then out braked into the next corner and the other cars carry a higher peek corner speed, the longer this goes on, the wider the gap gets.
Click to expand...

Well, let me be clear. I've never driven a Tesla Model S or any of its competitors in it's class.

I just vaguely remember reading in early launch reviews that the low center of gravity greatly improved handling over similar vehicles.

Been years since I read this though, so I cant remember where, or which similar vehicles they were comparing it to. 2012 model year BMW 7, Merc S and Audi A8 maybe?
 
Armenius said:
Not to mention that the Tesla is going to go into protective mode very quickly when driven hard to prevent overheating the battery system. The quick acceleration up to 100 counts for nothing if you can only do it once.
Click to expand...

Well, IMHO track performance is irrelevant. I'm talking about handling characteristics that help you negotiate the road and avoid accidents.

The percentage of people who take their cars to tracks, even among those who buy sports cars is vanishingly small to the point to make it almost completely irrelevant as a requirement for a street car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top