Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

2018 New LR Model 3 EPA Filing Shows Changes, 130 MPGe Now vs. 126 MPGe for 2017

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.

SteveG3

Active Member
Supporting Member
Sep 21, 2012
4,014
15,470
US
Bozi Tatarevic on Twitter

City MPGe up by 5, highway by 3. Tesla continues to use the lower 310 mile range figure than the higher range from actual test results.

Year to year EPA filing also shows changes to,

240V charge time with a standard charger: from 12 hours to 10 hours

Luggage volume: from 17 cubic feet to 15


Again, these are the EPA figures. I haven't paid any attention to what Tesla has said in their own materials re the charging time that changed in these documents, but, as to luggage capacity, if I'm not mistaken, 15 cubic feet is what Tesla has always said.

Apparently no new information at this point re the Model 3 with the standard battery.
 
Bozi Tatarevic on Twitter

City MPGe up by 5, highway by 3. Tesla continues to use the lower 310 mile range figure than the higher range from actual test results.

Year to year EPA filing also shows changes to,

240V charge time with a standard charger: from 12 hours to 10 hours

Luggage volume: from 17 cubic feet to 15


Again, these are the EPA figures. I haven't paid any attention to what Tesla has said in their own materials re the charging time that changed in these documents, but, as to luggage capacity, if I'm not mistaken, 15 cubic feet is what Tesla has always said.

Apparently no new information at this point re the Model 3 with the standard battery.

EPA must have adjusted their math.
 
EPA must have adjusted their math.

That's a possibility. Also possible that Tesla tweaked something between the time they filed the EPA paperwork and now... whether several months ago or weeks ago, and they just choose not to bother to revise the 2017 filings. Just one example off the top of my head, what if the regenerative breaking programming was tweaked a little for more energy recovery between last spring/summer when they filed these reports and now.
 
Hah! Now the Model 3 beats the Hyundai Ioniq Electric for highway mileage. I believe that makes it the most efficient production car at highway speeds.
Not for long ... the Model 3 SR is on the radar ;-)

Screen Shot 2018-01-13 at 8.36.52 AM.png
 
Lol on the Prius Prime MPGe rating!
The Prius Prime would surprise you. I drive one (while waiting for my Model 3) and have to say it is the best ICE* I have owned. I use it for my 90 mile work commute and over the year have averaged 0.9 gallons fuel + 6.3 kWh per 90 mile commute. That average includes winter driving where I average 1.05 gallons fuel (85 mpg) + 6.3 kWh per 90 miles.

I added it to the list because its dimensions, weight and Cd are very close to the Model 3. In terms of efficiency those three cars lead the field overall, while the Prime is king of the hill in winter driving.
 
Last edited:
Not for long ... the Model 3 SR is on the radar ;-)

View attachment 273070

I get a kick out of that MPGe for the Prime. It cannot complete the test cycles on electricity, so it's electric range is 0-25 mph depending on the test loop.
For the combined MPGe 'Gas+Electricity' number, it says 0.0 gallons of gas. ie - they are giving you only the EV number for the tests it can complete and do not reduce it by the economy achieved on tests that use some gasoline.

So at partial power (12.xxx seconds to 60mph) it can get a great EV number for 25 miles as long as you don't allow the ICE to turn on.

While the Chevrolet on paper appears to be less eco friendly than the Prime, it is actually more eco-friendly for a 40 mile trip, especially if you need to use full rated output at some point. So for our applications, the Volts are more 'fuel' efficient since we use both WOT operation, and often travel over 25 miles between recharging.

I typically get 120+ MPGe in Volts on pure EV. Flooring a Volt does not turn on the gas. Friday, it was a 58.4 mile loop, mostly freeway with 1,200' of altitude change and hills, which used 12.7 kWh and 0.00 gallons of gas. Due to our demand based electric tariffs, in the middle of the day, charges for $0.065/kWh (under a buck for 58 miles).

However, the reason for the Volt is it operates like an EV for my application. It is usually 2-3 months before I add some gas to it.
 
Last edited:
Lol. Wtf? Good news, I guess, but hella confusing.

Here's the source: Compare Side-by-Side

The charging time with the "standard charger" decreased, but the time with a "80A" charger remained the same.

Check the "specs" tab for the cargo volume.
Looks like the 2018 Tesla models aren't yet certified for the federal EV tax credit (as of the date of this post). Let the hand-wringing begin! :D
 
My money is on the higher charge rate being the reason the milage went up. The EPAs MPGe takes the charging efficiency into account. The new numbers showed the charging time went from 12 hours to 10 hours. The decreased charging time might have been at a higher rate, but was likely more efficient, pulling fewer kWh from the wall, resulting in a higher MPGe....
 
My money is on the higher charge rate being the reason the milage went up. The EPAs MPGe takes the charging efficiency into account. The new numbers showed the charging time went from 12 hours to 10 hours. The decreased charging time might have been at a higher rate, but was likely more efficient, pulling fewer kWh from the wall, resulting in a higher MPGe....

Interesting connection- that could be it.

The MPGe improved by 3.2%. Anyone have a sense of whether the wall to battery efficiency of past Tesla’s, and the realistic scale at which that might have been improved, could make for a 3.2% improvement in MPGe by itself?
 
My money is on the higher charge rate being the reason the milage went up. The EPAs MPGe takes the charging efficiency into account. The new numbers showed the charging time went from 12 hours to 10 hours. The decreased charging time might have been at a higher rate, but was likely more efficient, pulling fewer kWh from the wall, resulting in a higher MPGe....
Doing the math - it works out just about perfectly in terms of charging time if you assume that the 2017 numbers were charging at 40A and the 2018 numbers were charging at 48A. Charging 20% faster could easily result in 3% greater efficiency from the wall as well.
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: SteveG3
EPA did their original calculations based on 89,4 kWh being charged from the socket - thus adding 15% (or 11,1 kWh) to the 78,3 kWh of usable energy.
If more efficient charging allows fully charging the battery with only 87 kWh it adds up to 130 mpg. That would mean that the extra charging is reduced by 2,4 kWh - which is an effeciency increase on charging of 22%.
I am not able to assess whether that is realistic?
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: SteveG3