116MPGe has me on the fence, thinking of RWD now

[Knightshade]

Yep, Las Vegas, Nevada to Twin Falls, Idaho.

494 miles the quick and efficient way.
636 miles via superchargers.

Does a range of 334 instead of 310 change those numbers?

If not it's not a particularly useful or relevant example.

Damn. Non-P ratings just got posted online. No better than AWD-P.

The P and non P use literally the same motors and batteries

So why wouldn't they get the same "mileage"?

• RWD limited to 500A.

Still waiting for a better source on that claim besides "some comment on reddit from somebody that everyone keeps repeating"

Especially since you'd think software gimping the more efficent of the 2 motors would cause the "mpg" of the non-P to be worse than the P if it were true... (though maybe the testing protocols don't cause much draw from either motor or something?)

 

[nwdiver]

It would be interesting to see a life cycle analysis of PM vs induction. How much extra energy is used making a PM motor with neodymium?

I just don't think <500kWh/yr rises to the level of 'make or break'... if you want AWD... get AWD...

 

[Jedi2155]

Does a range of 334 instead of 310 change those numbers?

If not it's not a particularly useful or relevant example.




The P and non P use literally the same motors and batteries

So why wouldn't they get the same "mileage"?

They don't use the same tires, Elon has mentioned the performance uses Michelin Pilot Sport 4S tires which are an extremely grippy tire that may impact range significantly. The stock Aero wheels come with low rolling resistance tires. The 19" continentals are not low rolling resistance.

The Tesla Model 3 Wheel and Tire Guide

18" Model 3 Aero Wheel: Tire Spec: Michelin Primacy MXM4, 235/45-18, 98W
19" Model 3 Sport Wheel: Tire Spec: Continental ProContact RX, 235/40-19, 96W
20" Model 3 Sport Wheel: Tire Spec: Michelin Pilot Sport 4S, UNCONFIRMED SIZES (235/35-20 92Y Front, 275/30-20 97Y Rear)

 

[Jedi2155]

It would be interesting to see a life cycle analysis of PM vs induction. How much extra energy is used making a PM motor with neodymium?

I just don't think <500kWh/yr rises to the level of 'make or break'... if you want AWD... get AWD...

I wanted AWD for efficiency and performance. I don't need it actual utility ( I have never been in or driven in snow roads in my 31 years of life.... )

 

[goto10]

This resolves the minor niggling regret I had at buying the RWD a few months ago rather than waiting for AWD. Where I live (Utah) there are still plenty of places that are interesting to go to but have no Superchargers and every mile counts. I did a 290 mile drive through the mountains on a 90+ day a couple weeks ago that an AWD may not have been able to handle if its real-life range takes the same 11% hit as the EPA range.

 

[SSonnentag]

Does a range of 334 instead of 310 change those numbers?

If not it's not a particularly useful or relevant example.

But that wasn't your question.

 

[SSonnentag]

What the longer range does do, particularly when traveling through CA, is skip the more congested superchargers for the more accessible rural ones when driving across the state.

 

[goto10]

They don't use the same tires, Elon has mentioned the performance uses Michelin Pilot Sport 4S tires which are an extremely grippy tire that may impact range significantly. The stock Aero wheels come with low rolling resistance tires. The 19" continentals are not low rolling resistance.

The base wheels on all models are 18" aeros. The 20" performance *option* will be less efficient, but I haven't seen any reason to believe that the EPA tests are being done on non-base models. It would be great if we could see the full EPA report.

 

[Knightshade]

They don't use the same tires

Yes, they do.

The base P and the AWD both come with 18s with the same all season tires.

, Elon has mentioned the performance uses Michelin Pilot Sport 4S tires which are an extremely grippy tire that may impact range significantly.

No, the additional $5000 20" wheel upgrade package on the P comes with those. The base P does not.

The Tesla Model 3 Wheel and Tire Guide

18" Model 3 Aero Wheel: Tire Spec: Michelin Primacy MXM4, 235/45-18, 98W
19" Model 3 Sport Wheel: Tire Spec: Continental ProContact RX, 235/40-19, 96W
20" Model 3 Sport Wheel: Tire Spec: Michelin Pilot Sport 4S, UNCONFIRMED SIZES (235/35-20 92Y Front, 275/30-20 97Y Rear)

The 20s at that link are pre-alpha wheels from several years ago- they do not exist on any production model 3.

The P 20s (which again, are an option, not included in the base P) are 235s on all 4 wheels (same width as the 18s and the 19s, though different tires).

 

[diamond.g]

Damn. Non-P ratings just got posted online. No better than AWD-P.

Gas Mileage of 2018 Tesla Model 3
View attachment 317407

If the tested range of the RWD was 334 miles and the AWD efficiency is 11% worse than RWD, I don't get how AWD can still have a 310 mile rated range.

it should be seen as a miracle that the AWD with ~450hp is only 11% less efficient than the RWD model.

Does a range of 334 instead of 310 change those numbers?

If not it's not a particularly useful or relevant example.




The P and non P use literally the same motors and batteries

So why wouldn't they get the same "mileage"?






Still waiting for a better source on that claim besides "some comment on reddit from somebody that everyone keeps repeating"

Especially since you'd think software gimping the more efficent of the 2 motors would cause the "mpg" of the non-P to be worse than the P if it were true... (though maybe the testing protocols don't cause much draw from either motor or something?)

EPA is saying the AWD rear motor is derated to 188kW vs the 211 kW it could put out (as seen in the RWD and P-AWD). 188 kW is 470A at 400V which corroborates the 500A limit (assuming pack is 400V).

 

[jsmay311]

The P and non P use literally the same motors and batteries

So why wouldn't they get the same "mileage"?

There was some earlier speculation that the AWD-P might've been tested with 20" wheels.

it should be seen as a miracle that the AWD with ~450hp is only 11% less efficient than the RWD model.

That's a very "non-Tesla" view of AWD vehicle variants. This is literally the first non-P AWD Tesla vehicle ever made that's not more efficient than its RWD counterpart.

 

[chillaban]

There was some earlier speculation that the AWD-P might've been tested with 20" wheels.



That's a very "non-Tesla" view of AWD vehicle variants. This is literally the first non-P AWD Tesla vehicle ever made that's not more efficient than its RWD counterpart.

Except it's looking more and more like it is essentially a P AWD.

With the S/X, the P models get a larger rear motor compared to the regular dual-motor. And the RWD also has a larger single rear motor. It's likely the use of two smaller motors that gives the S/X dual-motor a small efficiency advantage over their RWD counterparts. If Tesla limited the acceleration of a P100D, it likely would not be more efficient than the 100D.

So, that all begs the question: Will Tesla ever make an AWD Model 3 that uses a different rear motor design? Right now it seems to be a power-limited version of the same rear drive unit, plus a new drive unit up front.

I would suspect this is a production simplification.

 

[diamond.g]

Except it's looking more and more like it is essentially a P AWD.

With the S/X, the P models get a larger rear motor compared to the regular dual-motor. And the RWD also has a larger single rear motor. It's likely the use of two smaller motors that gives the S/X dual-motor a small efficiency advantage over their RWD counterparts. If Tesla limited the acceleration of a P100D, it likely would not be more efficient than the 100D.

So, that all begs the question: Will Tesla ever make an AWD Model 3 that uses a different rear motor design? Right now it seems to be a power-limited version of the same rear drive unit, plus a new drive unit up front.

I would suspect this is a production simplification.

And it could potentially set Tesla up to allow a software unlock of the additional 23kW for a hefty fee later on. At least until they create a separate drive unit for the AWD model.

 

[chillaban]

And it could potentially set Tesla up to allow a software unlock of the additional 23kW for a hefty fee later on. At least until they create a separate drive unit for the AWD model.

I'm starting to change my mind and believe in this possibility too. Just like the temporarily locked 48A chargers on the facelift S/X. That lasted for a few months and then Tesla actually released a 48A charger that's different from the 72A one.

 

[Moderatefan]

Today's numbers are so confusing...

- why rwd/awd/p are all rated @310 miles, is there a SW limit on RWD that prevents it from getting 334 miles or you actually get 334, it's just Tesla does not want to advertise it?

- how is 334 miles -11%=310 miles and not 297?

- the Monroney sticker that is shown on 1st page of this thread says 116 MPGe, but also shows 20" tires on it, does it mean the number is incorrect and will be lower for 20" tires?

- delivery estimates going 1 month down today across the board for new orders, but my estimate for 6/28 order is not updated(3-5 months).

- if they can serve all current demand in 4 months, does it mean there are only 80-90k LR orders or less? I.e. >50% are waiting for SR then?

Honestly, -11% if that's a real number makes me doubt my AWD choice too...

 

[Thomas Edison]

This resolves the minor niggling regret I had at buying the RWD a few months ago rather than waiting for AWD. Where I live (Utah) there are still plenty of places that are interesting to go to but have no Superchargers and every mile counts. I did a 290 mile drive through the mountains on a 90+ day a couple weeks ago that an AWD may not have been able to handle if its real-life range takes the same 11% hit as the EPA range.

This is exactly why I'm undecided.

 

[TerrapinThief]

In the "Let's discuss Dual Motor range" thread, there seems to be some evidence that the range loss is closer to 8%, not 11%, and that the rest of the discrepancy in the MPGe numbers is due to a difference in the charging efficiency number the EPA used.

 

[jsmay311]

- the Monroney sticker that is shown on 1st page of this thread says 116 MPGe, but also shows 20" tires on it, does it mean the number is incorrect and will be lower for 20" tires?

No. (I'm 99.9% sure, at least.) The Monroney sticker lists all of the options on a specific vehicle for sale, but that doesn't mean that the efficiency/range test results came from a test vehicle with the exact same options. In this case, the AWD and AWD-P vehicles have identical efficiency/range results, and 20" wheels aren't available on the non-P AWD, so the only logical conclusion seems to be that the test vehicle used 18" wheels.

 

[moridin2002]

I'm still particularly concerned about this aspect. I put my order in on June 30th with the AWD, EAP/FSD and seriously debating switching back to RWD due to the following concerns:

• Efficiency drop of up to 10% in UDDS (this detail may change once we get more highway test results)
• RWD limited to 500A

I'm probably going to wait until August 1st to see what details come out before I finally do the switch and if non-performance AWD is really that much worse. The $4000 cost isn't as big of an issue to me as the efficiency drop....

I'm an efficiency nut that has been driving EV's since 2008 so every bit matters to me and a huge reason why I went AWD in the first place. I was getting 50+ miles ev range on my 1st gen Volt, and my current Spark EV regularly get 5 to 7 mi/KWh (140 to 200 Wh/mile). Switching to an EV that uses 300 Wh+/mile is going to be somewhat painful.

Why not get a Hyundai Ioniq Electric then?

 

[Jedi2155]

Why not get a Hyundai Ioniq Electric then?

I already have a very efficient EV but range and overall quality of the vehicle is nothing compared to the Tesla. I also enjoy performance (was tempted to keep it

Range a huge desirability for me. I plan to do drives from Los Angeles to San Francisco and other potential road trips. With the extra range and efficiency, I hope to minimize the number of super charger trips, as well maximize overall efficiency. I just like having as big as a buffer as possible as the range loss will eventually occur over 6 to 10 years. For reference my Spark EV has experienced 18% usable capacity degradation over 5 years (Manuf. Sept. 2013).

So while the the Model 3 might make a 250 mile trip for the first 5 to 7 years, I would start to question its range capability at 8+ years. I don't want to shoot myself in the foot early on paying extra for a feature I don't really need but immediately has efficiency losses (and associated costs), and later on potential range concerns.