News
Should I Buy the Tesla Model S P85 or Standard 85kWh?
It is, perhaps, the biggest question many prospective hand-wringing owners of the Model S wrestle with – should I get the Tesla Model S P85 or stick to the Standard version?
After all, once you’ve talked yourself up the first $10k from a 60kwh to an 85kwh battery, what’s another $12K or so for the Performance version?
And if you don’t pay for the upgrade to the more powerful drivetrain, WILL YOU REGRET IT LATER?! Want to know the bottom line? My journey to owning the Model S led me to ask the following questions: Will you regularly drive over 180 miles/day? Will you use the Tesla for a road trip car? If the answer to both those questions is “No”, get the 60 kWh. Period. Done.
The 60 has comparable real world performance to the 85 and reportedly feels even more spirited because of less battery weight (though ballasted to match an 85, the ballast is apparently located differently somehow, according to reports from people who have driven both). The 60 is a superb in-town commuter car or medium distance tourer (with destination charging). If either those questions are answered with a “Yes”, get the 85kWh. By the time you pay the extra $2k to enable the Supercharging option on a 60 you’ve already started toward an 85 anyway. Like the evil dojo master in Karate Kid said, “Finish him!” Get an 85. Now don’t go crazy right to the P85+, let’s look at the upper extreme first.
The P85+ is apparently designed solely for the purpose of destroying tires – rear tires – every 5,000 miles or less. Unless you’re coming from a high performance car or plan to enjoy track days, fuggeddaboutit. It’s basically an even more expensive version of the P85 with staggered tires and other suspension tricks. Real world, this is overkill and more about badge ego than useful value (for the vast majority of non-professional racing drivers).
Speaking of real world, the performance difference for the P85 and the S85 exists primarily in one place: 0-30mph. That’s it. From 30mph and up they are virtually identical and both will silently roar around slower traffic with equal capability. Originally the Tesla Model S P85 upgrade only came with some other standard features that are a mixed bag (to me). Thankfully Tesla has decided to allow buyers the option of upgrading only the drivetrain. Still, that presents some problems. A P85 with the 19″ wheels just overwhelms them. Remember the only performance advantage it has is 0-30mph and that requires grip to actually enjoy it. For a variety of reasons (but chief among them rolling resistance and wind resistance) Tesla’s tires are taller rather than wider to increase their contact patch. A traditional sports sedan would get wider tires to increase grip but the Model S gets taller tires… ergo, a P85 on 19s just bounces off the traction control constantly. In a sunny climate that might not happen as often but here in pothole country you’ll get clunks and shudders from way back there at the wheels all the time as the traction control tries to reign in your lunacy. My friend Jake and I had several days with a silver loaner (read more about it here) and it was fun but also frustrating.
Unfortunately, if you’re living anywhere with four seasons you are NOT going to want to alleviate the traction problem by getting 21″ wheels. We have potholes. LOTS of them. BIG ones. And bridges with expansion joints that will turn those wheels into ovals. You know how when you go to the grocery store you always get a cart with that annoying wobbly wheel? Would you like to buy one for $90-100K? I didn’t think so. Speaking of expenses, many P85 owners report higher than average tire wear (regardless of wheel size).
I don’t know of a true head-to-head drag race video of all THREE versions of the Model S (60/85/P85)– amazed no one has done it yet– but the video above is very recent and posts a time faster than the Tesla website does. You can read more opinions on that video HERE.
Another recent video does offer a head-to-head of a standard Tesla Model S P85 vs S85 and you can see that after the first 30 feet or so, the S85 and the P85 match stride-for-stride. In fact, at the end of the 1/4 the trap speed on the standard 85 is actually higher. Skip ahead 26 seconds to catch the Tesla family feud.
One long-time P85 owner asserts the difference in launch speed really only exists at higher states of charge. As a result, maintaining that performance edge over the S85 requires more frequent and fuller charges of the main pack, potentially increasing long-term degradation. Ironically, the only times you really should charge the pack up to higher levels (for distance), you wouldn’t want to enjoy the harder launches because it would adversely affect your range.
So the S85 is a tad slower off the line. No one but a P85 owner is ever going to know that. And, frankly, the power delivery at launch is a lot smoother. The P85 is pretty brutal. Oh, it’s damn impressive– but it’s also jarring. I like the slightly tapered building on of WHOOSH that I get from the S85. I think it keeps my wife from realizing how often I’m toying with the other cars around us. James Bond, after all, wears a suit… not a karategi. <— brought that back to Karate Kid nicely, didn’t I? I have no idea why either.
Clearly I could go on and on about my configuration thought processes– and how they’ve evolved since taking delivery– but that’s a topic for another time. If you haven’t already read about my “Journey to Tesla” then check it out for some insights into how I got this car in my driveway and how you can too. It starts by clicking RIGHT HERE.
Read more at www.TeslaPittsburgh.com and check out the videos on our YouTube channel at www.YouTube.com/NZCUTR.
Investor's Corner
Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming
Tesla’s Cybercab line now builds robotaxis faster than Tesla can deploy them, Lars Moravy says.
Tesla’s Cybercab line in Texas can now build the two seat robotaxi faster than the company can put it into service, according to Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering. “We don’t run every day because the line can run so fast. It’s currently outpacing our deployments,” Moravy said in a new Cybercab deep dive from Munro Live. “So, it’s a bit of a race right now. Who’s going to go faster? Right now the manufacturing line’s ahead.”
Tesla’s official Robotaxi account shared a Cybercab analysis video on X on Monday, calling it a “Cybercab engineering deep dive.” Moravy’s comments go further than what he told analysts on the Q3 earnings call last week, when he said the Cybercab line’s listed capacity of more than 125,000 units a year undersells what it can actually run.
The tour shows where that speed comes from. Tesla’s unboxed process splits the Cybercab into front, rear, side and center modules that are built and tested on their own before they meet on a short final line. That final line has just 25 fully automated stations, which Tesla’s team estimated is a fifth to a tenth of what a Model Y needs. The full line is about 78% automated, the framing line is already at 100%, and the layout uses roughly 50% less floor space per vehicle. The stated goal is “100% automation in 10 second cycle time,” or one finished Cybercab every 10 seconds.
Tesla also deleted the paint shop. Only the side modules are coated, and the exterior panels get their color inside the molding machine. Engineers said the car is designed to run at least 500,000 miles, which matters for a vehicle that will spend most of its day carrying riders.
The battery got the same treatment. The Cybercab uses an 88S6P pack of 4680 cells in a steel enclosure, a first for Tesla, with each module potted separately so a single failed module can be swapped instead of the whole pack. Wireless battery management boards replace a wiring harness, and new contactors are fast enough to drop the pyro fuse entirely. Tesla’s battery director graded the pack an A minus, compared with a D for the Model Y structural pack and a B minus for Cybertruck. Up front, the drive unit runs an 11:1 gear ratio versus roughly 9:1 on most Teslas, since the Cybercab does not need a high top speed.
Cybercab engineering deep dive — Robotaxi (@robotaxi) October 26, 2026
The deployment side is now the bottleneck Moravy described. Tesla had more than 50 Cybercabs working the Formula 1 weekend in Austin, and Texas records show 463 Cybercabs registered. Tesla said on its earnings call that Cybercab service will launch in Dallas next month, and Moravy said the company is aiming to get Cybercabs to customers by the end of 2026. Every unit built so far has gone into Tesla’s own fleet since the line moved into volume production in April.
Munro Live also asked when it could get a Cybercab to tear down. Tesla’s answer: “Not yet.”
SpaceX’s Raptor engine family has steadily increased sea-level thrust while simultaneously reducing mass, turning iterative engineering gains into substantially higher performance for the Super Heavy booster. CEO Elon Musk shed more light on how powerful Raptor 4 will be, and it’s pretty crazy.
Raptor 1 delivered 185 metric tons of thrust at roughly 2,080 kilograms, while Raptor 2 raised that to 230 tons while cutting mass to about 1,630 kilograms. SpaceX data for Raptor 3 lists a target of 280 tons at 1,525 kilograms (with further reductions in associated vehicle hardware), while operational flight ratings have been cited near 250 tons.
This morning, Elon Musk stated that Raptor 4 is expected to reach 300 tons of sea-level thrust at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3. Across these versions, thrust has risen by more than 60 percent from the first engines while engine mass has fallen, producing a sharp improvement in thrust-to-weight ratio. This is a true testament to how great SpaceX engineering has been:
🚀 Elon says Raptor 4 will make 300 tons of thrust at sea level at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3.
How far Raptor has come:
Raptor 1: 185 tf, 2,080 kg
Raptor 2: 230 tf, 1,630 kg
Raptor 3: 250 tf, 1,525 kg
Raptor 4: 300 tf33 on Super Heavy = ~9,900 tf, nearly 3x Saturn V https://t.co/HQDswZhyvL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
With 33 engines on SuperHeavy, the jump from earlier versions to a 300-ton Raptor 4 would produce roughly 9,900 metric tons of total liftoff thrust, nearly three times the Saturn V’s approximately 3,400 metric tons from its five F-1 engines.
This is not just a larger number on a data sheet, either, as sea-level thrust is the force available the moment the vehicle leaves the pad. This is when it is heaviest and still deep in Earth’s gravity well and dense atmosphere.
Higher levels of sea-level thrust directly improves the initial thrust-to-weight ratio of the full stack. A higher ratio produces faster acceleration off the pad, which shortens the time the rocket has to spend fighting gravity, and gravity losses during the first minute or two of the flight are a major drain on total available delta-v. Every second shaved off of that early climb preserves more propellant energy for reaching orbital velocity or for carrying extra payload.
Because Super Heavy’s engine count is constrained by vehicle diameter and packing density, increasing thrust per engine is the most straightforward way to raise total liftoff performance without redesigning the booster structure or design.
The same-mass target for Raptor 4 is equally important. Holding engine mass roughly constant while raising thrust improves the engine’s own thrust-to-weight ratio and reduces the structural and propellant mass fraction that must be carried solely to support the engines.
Earlier Raptor iterations also simplified or eliminated extensive vehicle-side hardware such as heat shields. These gains compound: more force for less installed mass leaves additional capacity for propellant, payload, or operational margins such as engine-out capability.
For Starship’s architecture, the practical effects are large. Greater liftoff thrust supports heavier vehicles, larger propellant loads, and higher payloads to low Earth orbit, figures SpaceX has targeted in the 100-plus-ton reusable range. That capacity underpins orbital refueling, lunar missions, and eventual Mars cargo and crew flights.
Continued growth in sea-level thrust therefore tightens the gap between theoretical rocket performance and the high flight rates and reusability needed to make large-scale space transport practical.
Tesla has expanded its Tesla Assisted Driving (TAD) suite to its tenth European country, as Latvia joined a growing list of European Union member states authorizing the company’s advanced driver assistance technology.
Tesla Europe announced this morning that the system is now approved in Latvia, with a software rollout to begin soon.
The approval and rollout follow recognition of a provisional European type approval originally granted by the Netherlands’ RDW authority on April 10.
🚨 Latvia has just received approval for Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised)
This is the 10th country in the EU to gain approval:
1. Netherlands — 10 April 2026 (original RDW approval)
2. Lithuania — 20 May 2026
3. Estonia — 29 May 2026
4. Denmark — 9 June 2026
5. Belgium — 10 June 2026
6. Slovenia — 7 September 2026
7. Czechia — 21 September 2026
8. Croatia — 29 September 2026
9. Slovakia — 16 October 2026— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
Latvia’s Road Traffic Safety Directorate (CSDD) evaluated the Dutch documentation, coordinated with the other national authorities, and reviewed updates from Tesla. These included tightened limits on speed offsets, automatic resets of any manual speed adjustments after each trip, and stronger driver monitoring.
In Europe, the feature is marketed as Tesla Assisted Driving after a recent rule change that labeled the name “Full Self-Driving” as misleading.
The system remains an SAE Level 2 driver assistance tool, not unsupervised autonomy. It can control speed, steering, braking, lane changes, and intersections while following a navigation route. Drivers need not keep their hands on the wheel at all times, yet they must continuously monitor the road and be prepared to intervene immediately.
The sequence of EU recognitions began with the Netherlands in April and continued through Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia, Czechia, Croatia, and Slovakia. Most have relied on mutual recognition of the single Dutch provisional approval rather than independent national testing.
These national clearances do not yet constitute bloc-wide authorization. An EU-wide decision requires a qualified majority in the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles: at least 15 of 27 member states representing 65 percent of the EU population. Larger markets, like Germany, France, and Italy, remain under review, and a vote is expected this December.
However, for Latvian Tesla owners with compatible vehicles and software, the imminent rollout expands access to the supervised system while underscoring that attentive human oversight remains essential.
Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming
How SpaceX Is raising Raptor’s sea-level thrust while holding engine mass steady
