Then your extensive background would know that modern cars would adjust power output based on a variety of factors. That is to say 91 vs 93 octane (so that Corvette in California won't make the same power as mine in Ohio with 2 more octane points). Additionally, elevation is a huge factory, as would be in general the air density as a result of that elevation. Even if you used the same dynamometer to test the same car (disassembly of dyno, transport across the country with same car, same fuel, and re-test) you'd get different results just based on the air. I think 2% is a big aggressive to assume... I'd expect more variation than that. Not 50% of course...



I don't think you can call this "marketing fluff" so much as just uneducated public. There becomes a VERY large grey area of what the manufacturer needs to explain versus what the general public needs to learn. The same argument could be made for the 265 miles my 85 is supposed to go. I picked my car up in Ohio in December, and for the next 90-days have averaged around 430 wh/mi. Do you see me on here writing complaints about how the car can't even go but maybe 50-60% of the claimed range?



No. Because I educated myself first (and this is my 2nd BEV, so I already had experiences for the last two years). But someone who walks into a store and buys a car needing every last drop of that range SHOULD understand that it is EPA rated, in the conditions that the EPA calls out. So while I would agree with you there needs to be more transparency in these figures, the argument as to whose responsibility it should be would vary greatly from one persons' opinion to the next. It would be wise for Tesla to educate their customers, of course... but I think that would be time better spent on matters like range, not horsepower.

Click to expand...