The AC Propulsion drivetrain was putting out 200 hp peak around 10 years ago.  A quick web search finds a figure of 368 hp measured on a dynamometer for the Model S.

How strange, my comment disappeared.  Trying again:

Telsa's drivetrain originated with AC Propulsion, an enterprise financed by EPRI.  The first version was called AC-150, because it had 150 kW (roughly 200 hp).  The current version is much improved; a quick search finds several claims of 386 horsepower measured at the wheels.

Yes, the AC Propulsion drive train produced 150 kW peak, continuous was less than half of course. But I never felt a need for more power with that thing.

AC propulsion has played an important role in Tesla's birth as a company. This quote from Wiki boils it down well.

"Before Tesla had developed the Roadster's proprietary powertrain, the company licensed AC Propulsion's EV Power System design and Reductive Charging patent which covers integration of the charging electronics with the inverter, thus reducing mass, complexity, and cost. Tesla then designed and built its own power electronics, motor, and other drivetrain components that incorporated this licensed technology from AC Propulsion. Given the extensive redevelopment of the vehicle, Tesla Motors no longer licenses any proprietary technology from AC Propulsion. The Roadster's powertrain is unique."

I may add that the more or less hand build Roadster engine has been further developed into the mass producible induction motor that now powers the Model S. Tesla call than engine their 2. generation engine whereas the Roadster's engine was their 1. generation engine. Tesla will make a new engine called the 3. generation engine to be used in the Model E (which it will not be called for sure as it give the wrong impression that this car will be an economy class vehicle when it in fact is a luxury class vehicle competing with other 40,000 to 50,000 USD combustion vehicles).

I do not know it for a fact but the power controller that Tesla now sell to Benz could be a precursor for the 3. generation power controller that will also be used for the "Model E". Benz has probably ordered Tesla to be able to supply up to 50,000 units per year of that controller because it is unprofitable to launch a 40,000 USD car that can't sell in these quantities.

they dont need whole 5G$, because it wont be tesla only, and I believe 5 is for full capacity, which they dont need at 2017, probably solar/wind crap is calculated in those 5 too which can be build later

Good point, Herman, regarding the massive investment in the Giga battery factory. "What to do now?" you asked?

What to do now is for Tesla to use their relationship w/ Daimler-Benz and Toyota to order existing 1-liter turbocharged engines to make PHEV's that will need only 10-15 kWh per car instead of 60-85 kWh per car. Those engines are already commercially available, so no major investment there. Tesla should have no problem hiring auto engineers who can work on the integration of the ICE with the electric drive train to make a PHEV.

In this way, the supply of the 2 billion NCA 18650 cells from Panasonic will last for quite a while and the Giga battery factory can wait until more cash flow from the sales of PHEV's and from more investors.

A PHEV with a 1-liter 3-cylinder turbocharged engine capable of 90 kW and a pair of electric motors of 45 kW each with a 10-15 kWh of battery surely can be profitable at $40,000 USD, because Ford and GM have done it! With Tesla's fabulous and super-ergonomic styling design and electrical powertrain, it (the Tesla PHEV) surely will be a major hit and will propel Tesla into the major league with perhaps sales of millions of unit yearly! All this w/out any sizable new investment at this time.

Roger Pham ,

Tesla PHEV canceled PHEV idea several years ago and they Musk definitely will not turn back. Two issue are limiting:

1. The lesser kWh in the battery results lower kW. The lesser kWh results in harsher cycling and dramatically affects lifetime. Making PHEV battery involves complicated battery chemistry optimizing therefore Tesla has no battery for PHEV and obtaining it quite different story.
2. The involvement of ICE makes design really complicated involving lot of traditional ICE maintenance. That would be even against supercharger network strategy.

I think traditional car makers GM and Toyota should try implement PHEV or EREV strategies more intensively and TESLA should be persistent on their strategy. Although for the moment no profitability and positive cash TESLA's approach is more viable than anyone's else on the market.

Putting an engine on board the car means the vehicle needs emissions certification, up to the end of the emissions warranty period.  This is an expense Tesla does not have and certainly does not want.

If Tesla wanted to go with a range extender, I bet they'd provide a means of pulling a generator trailer and deal with that separately.  That would keep the vehicle apart from anything involving fuels or combustion.

@E-P,

While it is true that emission certification fees from the EPA can be expensive to the tune of some millions USD per car model per year, when 10,000 units are built yearly, the cost divided over this many units will means only some hundreds of USD per unit. When 100,000 units are sold yearly, the cost per unit will be only some tens of USD.

Trailerable Extended range extender is not applicable for daily driving when the goal is to reduce the size of the battery pack on board in order to make 6-8 times as many vehicles for a given amount of battery available.

An onboard ICE that can apply torque mechanically to the wheels will halve the size of electric power train and will result in significant savings in production cost. For example, with 90 kW of turbocharged 1-liter 3-cylinder ICE, you will need only another 90 kW of electric motor to make 180 kW of total power. Ordinary daily driving will do fine with 90 kW of power on a 3,000-lb curb-wt vehicle. However, the 180-kW of power is necessary to command the status of luxury sport vehicle and hence the $40,000+ price tag in order to compete with the likes of Cadillac, Lincoln, Lexus, BMW, Mercedes...etc.

Now, to really out accelerate other entry-level luxury sedans, a two-speed automated manual transmission will be needed in order for the turbo to spool up to deliver the torque below 60 mph, but that can be offered on subsequent models or as an option.

The beauty of the turbocharger is that torque will increase proportionally with higher engine speeds while hp will increase with the square of engine speed to combat the aerodynamic force that increases as the square of the speed. For example, the car can cruise at 60 mph at 3,000 rpm and will do 120 mph at 6,000 rpm without needing gear change, which there may be no gear shift available. The engine torque will "keep on coming" with higher engine speeds. "Oh what a feeling!..." when the power keeps on coming, as you go faster and faster!

@As Aha,

I'm more than happy to provide the link to you:

http://mtrl1.me.psu.edu/Document/ZhangY_JES_2009.pdf

Note that this came from the prestigious Penn State University and not just an obscure "BS" college that you can easily discredit!

@Herman,

Gen III will come whenever it will come. Right now, customers are very satisfied w/ Model S as they are, and will be perhaps even more satisfied w/ the coming Model X.

With the 2G battery deal with Panasonic, and assuming an average Tesla BEV car will contain about 6,000 cells, then the 2G number of cells will enable about 333,333 units! At a rate of delivery of about 30,000 units yearly, this 2G-cell-deal will last 10 years.

However, if Tesla will decide to do Gen III as PHEV, each w/ only 1000 cells each, then splitting the 2G cells into 1/2, with 1G cells going to PHEV, then Tesla can make 1 MILLION PHEV's, and can deliver as many as 200,000 PHEV's yearly, enough to propel Tesla into the Big League!

Assuming the same $ profit (or higher profit) for each PHEV sold in comparison to each BEV sold, due to the lower production cost for PHEV's having much less battery and 1/2 the electric power train, then Tesla will be able to make many folds more profit per # of cells down the line. The increase in cash flow will allow Tesla to be able to build the Giga battery factory much faster!

The PHEV model will be important ONLY if Tesla will ever want to break into the Big League with large production numbers yearly. Otherwise, Tesla is already very successful with BEV right now and may be safer to remain as a high-end producer of limited number but very high quality BEV's.

Roger, I think I have depended on the implicit point being clear, and it's not. My fault. Here it is restated.

The imminent introduction of a "mainstream", "practical range" (read 150-200mi), $30,000 BEV sedan has been an article of faith in the EV world for years. As late as 2010, Tesla execs were stating the car would show up in as a production item late '15/early '16. Then it became 2017 (at about the same time as the Model X moved from '13 to '14). Now while no year is being stated, we know that any serious engineering effort won't start until Spring of '15 at the earliest, pretty much coincident with the actual rate production of X, also moved out another year. That takes Gen III to 2018 IF Tesla is able to make financial sense of the project (which, BTW is now no longer being referenced as "half the price of the S"). I'm saying that "financial sense" will be much harder to achieve as the company produces only very modest financial results, and the self-fueled capital raising machine that depends on a very high multiple will break down.

Does that mean Tesla will collapse? Of course not. But the oft discussed Musk model of using the money from an exotic sports car to fund luxury cars to in turn fund a mainstream car is finally shown for what it really is: untrue. The Roadster never "made money", and the Model S in the net has not, either. Tesla has "made money" by raising it from investors in the original company, in the first issued shares, in subsequent issuances, and in bonds. When that engine is not running at redline, they cannot raise the funds to compete on a multi-hundred auto per year basis.

What this means for the industry as a whole: A delay to 2019-20 means that the perceived pressure on mainstream manufacturers to produce BEVs to the putative GenIII performance metric and market space is further reduced, the impetus to move past pure compliance vehicles is diminished, and continued improvement of ICE technologies and truly PRACTICAL electrification aimed at affordable idle elimination and braking recuperation will bring us to US CAFE standards without trauma.

As for Tesla's savior being a fuel-burning range extender: it'll never happen. Remember Musk's words of inspiration to his company and the press in 2012 "Here’s to creating the greatest car company of the 21st century, and to moving us off fucking oil as fast as possible". That guy will never, EVER put a fuel-burning device in a car with the Tesla badge.

and thus my correction hangs in the air without the original comment, which has been deleted -- I don't understand but anyway will try to do the first one again.