100% range on new Model Y LR with 3 miles on it calculates to 301 miles

[AlanSubie4Life]

BMS indicates 81.74 kWh after a full charge to 100% for me now. So it’s definitely the same 82 kWh nominal battery as previous years.

And as expected, we max out at 304 miles still.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1785908572016001373

Thanks for the info, thanks for resolving this question, what tool was this?

With this capacity, if you were to try to determine consumption required for "mile-for-mile rolloff," and calculate energy per displayed mile, you should get about 81.7kWh/304mi = 269Wh/mi => 0.955*269Wh/mi = 257Wh/mi

(In other words if you measure the energy each rated mile contains using the trip meter and carefully monitoring how many rated miles are consumed in a single continuous trip, this is what you will get.)

This will plateau at 79.6kWh/304mi*0.955 = 250Wh/mi, once you start showing range loss.

 

[thefrog1394]

Thanks for the info, thanks for resolving this question, what tool was this?

Tessie with direct telemetry enabled (Uses Tesla's new fleet API). Assuming this lines up with the CAN data 1 to 1 but haven't actually confirmed myself.

 

[AAKEE]

Tessie with direct telemetry enabled (Uses Tesla's new fleet API). Assuming this lines up with the CAN data 1 to 1 but haven't actually confirmed myself.

What does the i say that is attached to the term energy?

 

[thefrog1394]

What does the i say that is attached to the term energy?

 

[CoolBuddy]

BMS indicates 81.74 kWh after a full charge to 100% for me now. So it’s definitely the same 82 kWh nominal battery as previous years.

And as expected, we max out at 304 miles still.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1785908572016001373

For what it's worth, if they had lowered the advertised range to 304 prior to purchase, would it have impacted your decision? For me the answer is no. The question is - is this actually for all Fremont and Austin cars or was there a batch of cars that had some defect resulting in a lower top range? If other new Ys are being delivered with advertised range, do they have the same drive efficiency compared to one with stated lower range? It may be just a display issue and if you took two new ones - one with 304 top range and one with 310 top range and drove them side-by-side, the efficiency may be higher for the 304 mile one. I know my driving efficiency sometimes goes over 100% and is in the high 90s. I don't remember seeing that with my 3.

 

[thefrog1394]

For what it's worth, if they had lowered the advertised range to 304 prior to purchase, would it have impacted your decision? For me the answer is no. The question is - is this actually for all Fremont and Austin cars or was there a batch of cars that had some defect resulting in a lower top range? If other new Ys are being delivered with advertised range, do they have the same drive efficiency compared to one with stated lower range? It may be just a display issue and if you took two new ones - one with 304 top range and one with 310 top range and drove them side-by-side, the efficiency may be higher for the 304 mile one. I know my driving efficiency sometimes goes over 100% and is in the high 90s. I don't remember seeing that with my 3.

Given full charge capacity is reported as nearly 82kWh, this seems to be a case of an adjustment to rated efficiency rather than a battery capacity defect. Rated range doesn't really matter to me. I actually prefer the lower rated range so that it is closer to real world. This is a curiosity more than a concern at this point at least from my perspective.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The question is - is this actually for all Fremont and Austin cars or was there a batch of cars that had some defect resulting in a lower top range?

As discussed above, this is a nonissue.

The energy is there. Read the prior posts.

 

[gsl120]

Hello,
My MY is a month old and just about 1KMiles. If I pull the charge to 100%, and look at the miles it shows 259, not 260. 80% shows 207 not 208. a mile probably doesn't matter, but shall I be worried or it this normal.

 

[Sophias_dad]

That's so very normal. If anything its LESS mileage lost than expected.

 

[Skavatar]

i've had mine for 2 month (over 3,000 miles) and have not charged to 100%. i have mine on % charge instead of miles left.

also, there is a margin of error, several youtubers have shown you can drive a few miles past 0% charge.

 

[Silicon Desert]

That's so very normal. If anything its LESS mileage lost than expected.

RIGHT. agree. AND too many people are expecting an incredibly high degree of accuracy in the display of miles when we all know there are too many variables. In this case, displaying 259 instead of 260 is expecting a measurement accuracy of less than .4%. @gsl120 don't get hung up on these tiny differences. Just drive the car and forget looking at the miles or % variations.

 

[jjrandorin]

No, you shall not (or should not) be worried. Even if you want to be worried, there is absolutely NOTHING that tesla can or will do unless or until your car loses 30% of its range as measured by the information coming from the car.

If rated range for your car when new is rated at 260, then you shouldnt be worried until it gets to 30% less than that. Of course, people worry about this stuff all the time, even if they cant do anything about it, but even if you want to worry about it, its just you worrying, because tesla can and will do zero, unless it hits that 30% threshhold.