TechSpot

Tesla's Model S and Model X are now even quicker (and have more range) thanks to new 100 kWh battery

By Shawn Knight
Aug 23, 2016
Post New Reply
  1. Tesla on Tuesday further solidified its reputation as the world’s preeminent electric vehicle manufacturer with the launch of a new battery pack for its Model S sedan and Model X SUV that boosts range and performance to unparalleled heights.

    With its new 100 kWh battery pack, the Model S P100D becomes the first production electric vehicle to cross the 300 mile range barrier with an estimated range of 315 miles on a full charge.

    With the Ludicrous mode upgrade, the P100D is able to accelerate from 0-60 mph in an astonishing 2.5 seconds. Tesla says this makes it the third fastest accelerating production car ever, second only to the limited-run LaFerrari and Porsche 918 Spyder two-seaters (neither of which you can buy new today).

    For those not into motorsports, that’s an incredibly quick 0-60 mph time that’ll ensure you’ll always be the first out of the gate at stop lights and on the drag strip.

    The Model X P100D, which can seat up to seven adults, sees its range extended to 289 miles and with Ludicrous mode, it can zip from 0-60 mph in 2.9 seconds. According to Car and Driver, it takes a Chevrolet Corvette Z06 with 650 horsepower a full 3.0 seconds to do the same from the factory (it’s a different story with slicks but the Tesla’s AWD system is an advantage that can’t be discredited).

    For existing P90D Ludicrous owners, upgrading to the new 100 kWh battery pack will set you back $20,000. For those that have a P90D Ludicrous vehicle on order but haven’t yet taken delivery, the price is cut in half to $10,000.

    Permalink to story.

     
  2. EClyde

    EClyde TS Guru Posts: 710   +182

    I'll bet ya a million bucks more fossil fuels are used to charge these things then to run a gasoline car
     
  3. VitalyT

    VitalyT Russ-Puss Posts: 3,156   +1,431

    I bet you don't have a million bucks.
     
    Reehahs and SirChocula like this.
  4. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 8,558   +2,900

    If he did, I bet he would loose it.
     
    Reehahs likes this.
  5. gazmatic

    gazmatic TS Member Posts: 16   +7

    easiest million dollars to lose.
     
    Reehahs and ikesmasher like this.
  6. ikesmasher

    ikesmasher TS Evangelist Posts: 2,561   +862

    not even close
     
  7. Kotters

    Kotters TS Enthusiast Posts: 46   +27

    Do you want to deposit to my checking or is Paypal fine?
     
    Reehahs and Skidmarksdeluxe like this.
  8. ETF Soldier

    ETF Soldier TS Guru Posts: 377   +81

    Use Paypal as homage to ol' Elon for founding it.
     
    Reehahs and Skidmarksdeluxe like this.
  9. Skidmarksdeluxe

    Skidmarksdeluxe TS Evangelist Posts: 6,514   +2,059

    Now this is the capacity of batteries I'd like to see in mobile devices.
     
    Reehahs and GalahadIV like this.
  10. EClyde

    EClyde TS Guru Posts: 710   +182

    Ha Ha Ha....
     
  11. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 8,558   +2,900

    I'm certain Elon Musk would let you strap one to your mobile device if you want. lol :p
     
    Reehahs likes this.
  12. Skidmarksdeluxe

    Skidmarksdeluxe TS Evangelist Posts: 6,514   +2,059

    You'd think that by now with all the fairy tales we've read about upcoming advances in tech and densities they'd be able to fit that capacity into something the size of a micro SD card by now. ;)
     
    Reehahs likes this.
  13. hclarkx

    hclarkx TS Rookie

    His $ million might just be safe. Consider that power plants are only about 50% efficient, that transmitting electricity involves losses from 5 to 8%, that the charger losses are several percent, that the lithium ion "turn around" efficiency is about 75%, that the electric motors are around 96% efficient, and you see the problem. Only about 30% of the energy in the fuel going into a power plant makes it to the wheels of the car. In an internal combustion engine car the engine efficiency is about 20%, and some of that does not make it to the wheels. Take into account the extra refining of fuel for the IC engine, and its distribution by truck, and you have about a stand-off overall efficiency-wise.
     
  14. Kotters

    Kotters TS Enthusiast Posts: 46   +27

    You're assuming a lot about the power generation. Even ignoring nuclear and renewable energy sources, you're forgetting the absurd amount of energy and consumption required to refine and ship gasoline around. It's not even close.
     
  15. EClyde

    EClyde TS Guru Posts: 710   +182

    I'm right but none of you ostriches will really look into cause ya don't want to. Coal Forever. Oil, a renewable inexpensive resource.
     
  16. GalahadIV

    GalahadIV TS Member

    Are you kidding me ? I can't watch my ten thousand hours nyan cat compilation with such a small battery...I demand 200 kWh at least!
     
  17. wiyosaya

    wiyosaya TS Evangelist Posts: 1,045   +276

    There is quite a bit of stuff in the laboratory. Unfortunately, it seems most of the time what is developed in the laboratory stays in the laboratory. ;)

    IMO, Musk would do well to hire a team that looks at these laboratory developments and tries to commercialize them. I think it would be a small outlay to Musk's corporations to invest in commercializing some of the more promising developments. I would not be surprised if research labs often do not have the money to move forward with commercialization. That said, it is not always easy to commercialize something that works in the lab, and we probably do not hear of many of these developments again due to the difficulty in commercializing them.

    Then again, if SUV bodies were made of carbon fiber, they would get on the order of 60 MPG; however, CF is so expensive that car companies do not want to invest in it. If CF were commercialized by vehicle makers it would bring the cost down, but CF is too expensive for vehicle makers to commercialize (wait, didn't I say that already?). Well, I am sure you get my drift - it is a catch-22 situation.
     
  18. Skidmarksdeluxe

    Skidmarksdeluxe TS Evangelist Posts: 6,514   +2,059

    I'm surprised carbon fibre is still so expensive considering it's wide usage, and it's existed for years now
     
  19. wiyosaya

    wiyosaya TS Evangelist Posts: 1,045   +276

    It is definitely in wide use in the aircraft and sporting goods industries, but it is nearly non-existent in the vehicle industry.

    To me, that situation is all the more depressing because IF it were used in the auto industry as a component of sandwich structures, CF-balsawood_core-CF, or CF-honeycomb_core-CF, vehicle bodies would be far less bendable than any metal used in vehicle body construction likely meaning that in cases where people lose their lives now, the chances of people losing their lives in similar crashes in a vehicle body built using CF sandwich structures is far less. Not only would CF usage significantly reduce fuel consumption, it would also significantly increase vehicle safety.

    But praise the almighty currency!!! There is nothing more important in life than the almighty currency.
     
    Skidmarksdeluxe likes this.
  20. Kotters

    Kotters TS Enthusiast Posts: 46   +27

    I find it amusing we're becrying capitalism for not saving the gasoline vehicle. CF doesn't make sense on something as cheap and complexly-shaped as a personal vehicle. It's a difficult material to craft, and once damaged, rapidly loses strength and is absurdly complicated to repair.
     
  21. hclarkx

    hclarkx TS Rookie

    Sorry, I've been in the power business since 1966 and have visited most of the worlds largest refineries as a consultant though have in recent decades worked more on the utility side. I've designed the power plants for refineries and I know the electrical power they use and that they burn their own fuel for heat. It's a lot, but they also produce millions of gallons per day so on a per gallon basis it's not as bad as you make it out to be. Shipping is miniscule; pipelines are very efficient. A truck getting 4 mpg and hauling 10,000 gallons 200 miles (round trip) uses only a half percent of what he delivers. So even trucking the last 100 miles isn't all that bad. My assumptions about power plants are right-on. I work with power plant efficiency numbers often so didn't assume anything. The combined cycle plants that provide most of the electrical energy we use today are pushing 50% (though the efficiency is actually dropping because the plants must be run a part load in order to cover the drop in output of wind and solar plants when a cloud comes over or the wind dies).

    So, it is quite close. I'm hoping for a cleaner future for my grand children but the hoax of a clean environment from electric cars is just that, a hoax. Lots of people are making money at our expense with this hoax.
     
  22. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 8,558   +2,900

    The hoax is people like you making that comment.
     
  23. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 11,703   +1,887

    The US government is controlling the market on CF, so they'll have enough to build aircraft you can't see on radar.

    Come to think of it, aircraft you can't see on radar, come in so far over budget it gives government oversight committees nightmares along with sh!t fits.

    The moral of the story is, maybe the cost of carbon fiber is prohibitive after all.

    Plus even if it's not, cars you couldn't see on radar could go as fast as their owner chose, since the State police couldn't get a lock on them with their radar guns.

    So for now, the speeding ticket free car, will have to be a dream, and a dream in the minds of the few ultra rich who could afford one at that...:(
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2016
    Skidmarksdeluxe likes this.

Similar Topics

Add New Comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...