2020 371m vs 2022 348m??

[AustroTom]

Hello All,
Shopping for a Model X and came upon a weird discrepancy:

Why would Tesla offer a 371 mile range battery pack for 2020 models and reduce it back down to 348 for the 2022 models?
Aren't they using the same if not more advanced battery systems??
Any advise greatly apreciated.
Thomas

 

[DCGOO]

Hello All,
Shopping for a Model X and came upon a weird discrepancy:

Why would Tesla offer a 371 mile range battery pack for 2020 models and reduce it back down to 348 for the 2022 models?
Aren't they using the same if not more advanced battery systems??
Any advise greatly apreciated.
Thomas

More advanced battery and more powerful motors means they can get away with less battery capacity. My 2022 weighs probably 500 lb less than my 2018, and has 170 more horsepower, due to the more efficient permanent magnet motors. the 2020 X only has one permanent magnet motor in the front.

 

[AustroTom]

But what does that have to do with range? Do people choose power over range nowadays?

 

[DCGOO]

But what does that have to do with range? Do people choose power over range nowadays?

My point was, the car is lighter and more efficient than earlier models. Which means it can run with a smaller battery, further improving efficiency. Plus the new motors deliver more horsepower. I submit that the difference in range, 371 vs 351 is hardly enough to notice.

One thing I’ve noticed with my 2022, is my “estimated“ range often exceeds the “rated” range reported by the vehicle. My car this morning, is sitting at 75% charge, reporting 259 miles both Rated and Ideal miles. Estimated range (based upon my actual driving) is 272 miles. My earlier cars, estimated range never exceeded rated range.

That being said, I don’t obsess over range, my tank gauge is set to show energy % full. The range numbers I quoted came from the Tesla Remote app. I am really looking forward to the return of the console energy display with an upcoming software rev (I’m currently on 2022.20.18).

 

[AustroTom]

That makes sense. It's just strange that a manufacturer would state a lower range on a newer vehicle, while I would imagine that they are not using a smaller battery pack, neither using more power on a newer vehicle, thus giving a lower range. Something just doesn't add up

 

[DCGOO]

That makes sense. It's just strange that a manufacturer would state a lower range on a newer vehicle, while I would imagine that they are not using a smaller battery pack, neither using more power on a newer vehicle, thus giving a lower range. Something just doesn't add up

Actually the battery IS smaller. Only 93 kWh

 

[AustroTom]

hmmm

 

[Richbot]

Refresh dual motor X (January 2021 production (lol) and beyond) has a slightly lower overall capacity battery pack, and much larger rear motor than the outgoing Long Range Plus. It's more apples-to-apples to compare a Refresh Dual Motor to the outgoing Performance models, because their performance is similar from anything but a hard launch from a stop. If you compare them "apples to apples" on a performance basis, the new one is significantly more efficient (old Performance was around 305 miles from a larger pack!), and of course, the new car charges much faster than the older car. The charging is where the big improvements were - the new cars charge way, way faster, which is what actually matters for road tripping.

 

[_jmk]

The new Xs smaller battery was enough of a reason for me to order a polestar 3 instead. It has 110kWh pack.

 

[ElectricIAC]

Rated miles are irrelevant, look for RW testing.

 

[DCGOO]

The new Xs smaller battery was enough of a reason for me to order a polestar 3 instead. It has 110kWh pack.

That larger battery will get you a car that will be significantly slower and gets significantly lower range. Also the Polestar 3 will not be here (.US) until 2024. might be sooner in .FI.

Personally, I’ll take my X that goes farther and is faster on its 93 kWh battery, over the Polestar and its 110 kwh pack

 

[_jmk]

That larger battery will get you a car that will be significantly slower and gets significantly lower range. Also the Polestar 3 will not be here (.US) until 2024. might be sooner in .FI.

It's not that much slower, if at all. Certainly slower than the plaid but 4.8s to 100km/h is fast enough for me (same as my current 10/2020 X).

Range should actually be better in real life. It just has less EPA number game. WLTP range is 620km vs 565 in my current long range ++. The plaid X will have around 550km WLTP range, so less and not 'significantly more'.

 

[DCGOO]

It's not that much slower, if at all. Certainly slower than the plaid but 4.8s to 100km/h is fast enough for me (same as my current 10/2020 X).

Range should actually be better in real life. It just has less EPA number game. WLTP range is 620km vs 565 in my current long range ++. The plaid X will have around 550km WLTP range, so less and not 'significantly more'.

I was comparing it to the X Long Range, not the Plaid. My point was the OP was going to buy a Polestar 3, because the battery at 110 kWh is larger. While that is true, a LR X with only a 93 kWh battery is faster, 0-60 in 3.8 seconds, top speed of 155; vs 4.6 0-60. top speed 130, and gets 351 miles of range vs 270. The X LR produces 670 HP, while Polestar3 produces 509 HP. The X is also larger, can tow more (5,000 vs 3,500). The X is probably heavier, although I could not find vehicle weight in the specs for the Polestar.

Basically the X Long Range is larger, faster, goes further, and produces more power, all with a battery that is 15% smaller than that on the Polestar 3. Now, since it is at least two years away from being available in .US, the specs could change. But based on what is being published today, the Polestar 3 is not particularly compelling at all, IMO.

Whether either vehicle will be adequate for a particular use case, is an entirely separate discussion.

 

[_jmk]

I was comparing it to the X Long Range, not the Plaid. My point was the OP was going to buy a Polestar 3, because the battery at 110 kWh is larger. While that is true, a LR X with only a 93 kWh battery is faster, 0-60 in 3.8 seconds, top speed of 155; vs 4.6 0-60. top speed 130, and gets 351 miles of range vs 270.

Speed is irrelevant (both are plenty fast enough) and the range is a lie from Tesla side - and lowballed estimate from polestar, actual rating hasn't been done yet.

Check the insideevs range tests, all 110kWh pack cars out there already beat LRX range hands down. As I said, this can be seen from the WLTP rating as well as it cannot be gamed like the EPA numbers. P3 WLTP rating is better than the LRXs. So, I can make a bet that Polestar will win the real life range test or at very least, difference will not be big either way.

 

[DCGOO]

Speed is irrelevant (both are plenty fast enough) and the range is a lie from Tesla side - and lowballed estimate from polestar, actual rating hasn't been done yet.

Check the insideevs range tests, all 110kWh pack cars out there already beat LRX range hands down. As I said, this can be seen from the WLTP rating as well as it cannot be gamed like the EPA numbers. P3 WLTP rating is better than the LRXs. So, I can make a bet that Polestar will win the real life range test or at very least, difference will not be big either way.

I found the EPA range pretty accurate on my Tesla, especially on my 2022 with a smaller battery. But since it will be at least two years before any Polestar 3 are available in .US, it is far too early for any meaningful comparison. I hope you are right.

 

[Richbot]

I don't think Polestar lowballs their ranges that much, at least that's not been the case on Polestar 2. It's about 20% off rated on the highway, similar to my model X.

But I agree you don't use the acceleration advantage in the real world that often. It's fun a few times a day but I never miss it when I drive my slow pickup

 

[ElectricIAC]

The PS2 is definitely a pig on power usage.