Highland Range

[surfrasch]

Hi folks.....very happy with the Highland range so far. I've been consistently averaging under 200 Wh/mile around town for the first month.....highway driving at 75 to 80, closer to 240 Wh/mile.....significantly better than my 2018.

Today I had to do some highway driving, charged up to 100% before I left. Car BMS showed 333 mile range at full charge. After a few minutes driving I happened to check consumption for kicks, at my previous 30 mile average I was over 400 miles expected range. By the time I ripped out my phone to take a pic it had dropped under 400, but dang not bad!

Also, decided to do a battery size calculation when I returned.....attached the consumption pic, by my calculations it's showing 77.6 kW battery size, sound about right?? Loving this car.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

it's showing 77.6 kWh battery size, sound about right??

Yep, it has the low initial capacity LG pack which is around 78-79kWh when new. As compared to the 81-82kWh pack in the Performance and the Model Y.

Note the energy screen method is limited to a high limit of the degradation threshold. That is apparently ~77.6kWh (based on your data - thanks!) if your car is brand new and showing “correct” miles at 100%.

Actual capacity could be a little higher (maybe 78-79kWh?) and you won’t show range loss until you drop below the degradation threshold.

Sounds like you have real range of 310 miles at 75-80mph which is big if true.

0.955*78kWh/0.24kWh/mi = 310mi

 

[D Good]

Hi folks.....very happy with the Highland range so far. I've been consistently averaging under 200 Wh/mile around town for the first month.....highway driving at 75 to 80, closer to 240 Wh/mile.....significantly better than my 2018.

Today I had to do some highway driving, charged up to 100% before I left. Car BMS showed 333 mile range at full charge. After a few minutes driving I happened to check consumption for kicks, at my previous 30 mile average I was over 400 miles expected range. By the time I ripped out my phone to take a pic it had dropped under 400, but dang not bad!

Also, decided to do a battery size calculation when I returned.....attached the consumption pic, by my calculations it's showing 77.6 kW battery size, sound about right?? Loving this car.

Also coming from a 2021 LR owner, highland seems to get its “rated” range at a higher wh/mi, which is good. My car has that rated line at 220wh/mi, which is completely unachievable in most cases. Yours seems to be around the 240wh/mi mark, which is definitely achievable! Thanks new EPA testing!

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Yours seems to be around the 240wh/mi mark

Should be:

77.6kWh/333mi + 5Wh/mi = 238Wh/mi

Mile-for-mile rolloff at 77.6kWh/333mi*0.955= 222Wh/mi, of course.

 

[surfrasch]

Should be:

77.6kWh/333mi + 5Wh/mi = 238Wh/mi

yes actually was going to mention that....the EPA rated line isn't easy to identify on the consumption graph, I think it was 240 or 245 on my 2018 LR (Alan I'm sure you know), while driving I was keeping an eye on the consumption graph comparing the expected to rated range, it's right around mid 230's for sure....most definitely lower than my 2018.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I think it was 240 or 245 on my 2018 LR (Alan I'm sure you know),

250Wh/mi 2018/2019 LR AWD, 239Wh/mi 2018/2019 LR RWD

It’s just a formula. See above. Based on degradation threshold and EPA rated miles. Plus 5.

 

[pyrosci]

low initial capacity LG pack which is around 78-79kWh when new

Isn’t it 78 kwh usable plus 3.5kwh buffer and thus ~81.5kwh gross capacity?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Isn’t it 78 kwh usable plus 3.5kwh buffer and thus ~81.5kwh gross capacity?

No

 

[pyrosci]

So you claim there is no buffer under 0%? Thats a big claim.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

So you claim there is no buffer under 0%? Thats a big claim.

No. LG 78-79kWh when new, including the 4.5% buffer below 0% (~3.6kWh when new); usable is 75.4kWh when new, assuming pack capacity of 79kWh (they often start a bit low).

All very straightforward. Just have to know the full pack capacity and then everything follows.

Panasonic pack starts between 81kWh and 82kWh.

 

[pyrosci]

My usable started at 78.5kwh, and is now 77.5kwh, after 10,000miles.

M3LR 2023 MIC, so LG battery.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

My usable started at 78.5kwh, and is now 77.5kwh, after 10,000miles.

M3LR 2023 MIC, so LG battery.

That's incorrect. You'd have to supply information to support that.

Remember that some apps report usable that actually includes the buffer, which is not usable by the typical definition.

It's relatively easy to figure out how much usable (above 0%) you have if you do a long drive.

Or you can just believe me.

 

[pyrosci]

Whatever man, I don’t use any apps. Just the consumption screen calculations, standard afair. Good luck with whatever you are doing.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Whatever man, I don’t use any apps. Just the consumption screen calculations, standard afair. Good luck with whatever you are doing.

To be clear, the consumption screen calculation, which you are using, and which I worked with a couple of other people to post here, INCLUDES THE BUFFER.

It's detailed in the sticky as one of the caveats.

It is confusing as you'd think the energy screen (which shows allegedly when you'd get to 0 miles, which would mean it doesn't include the buffer) would not include the buffer, but surprisingly and unfortunately that's not the way it works.

The actual rated mile constant (meaning the energy content of each DISPLAYED rated mile) is 4.5% less than the rated mile charging constant. As detailed elsewhere. If you want further explanation I am happy to explain.

You're not the first to think the result does not include the buffer!

 

[pyrosci]

If true, the projected range at 0% charge would be about 25km (4% buffer).

I will check this at the next opportunity.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

If true, the projected range at 0% charge would be about 25km (4% buffer).

I will check this at the next opportunity.

The projected range at 0% will be zero. It is just the way it works.

I understand your confusion but it does not work the logical way you would expect.

If you drive at the efficiency it says, you don’t get the miles to 0% that it projects.

If you go through the math you’ll see it all works out. The key is that the charging constant that can be derived includes the buffer energy, but the displayed miles do not.

There are a few different ways to think about it, all of them equivalent.

 

[mpmeyer]

Just got my 2024 Model 3 LR AWD 18" Wheels. 100% charge shows 331 mi.
My 2018 M3 LR AWD 18" Wheels showed 308 mi. at 100% when I got it Aug. 2018. Last charge before saying goodbye showed 264 mi. at 100%.

I did pretty much the same trip in both cars about a month apart, small differences due to traffic, but the 24 show much better efficiency.

Captured with TeslaFi: