FEERSUMENDJIN
Member
Does sound like a technical nightmare, and may be why some of the reports of an apparent poor cold range in MIC SR+ are coming from China.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
2021 M3LR Range only 330
- Thread starter Robmathieson
- Start date
In the UK Tesla a legally obliged to advertise the WLTP range figure ... the higher number. Your car has it's full capacity. Tesla use EPA range formula that gives a lower number. In practice you will get different ranges depending on lots of different factors. Obviously if you floor it most of the time you can end up with much less ... just as you get worse mpg in a petrol/diesel car. The range that shows beside the battery symbol on the screen is a recipe for disappointment unless all your driving is in perfect economy conditions! The car doesn't know how and where you are about to drive so the number is not terribly helpful. Many people choose to change the settings so that it shows percentage instead. If you want to know that you have enough charge for a real life journey put your destination in the nav and then use the energy graph in "Trip" mode. That usually makes a pretty good stab at giving accurate info and updates in real-time throughout your journey. (You don't need to dig through the screen settings to access the energy graph .. just press the right side steering wheel button and after the beep say "show energy graph" or "hide energy graph".)
SpareHeadOne
Member
Tesla advertise the WLTP combined maximum range figure as they are obliged to, that figure is obtained from four laboratory-based tests designed to simulate real driving cycles.
As I've noted in other threads some manufacturers publish all the results, but Tesla are one of the manufacturers who do not.
The tests are conducted at 20°C (ideal conditions for the battery), on a dynamo (no wind resistance) and without any interior heating or cooling running and as such are repeatable, but show the absolute best for each of the tests; the combined figure is then calculated from the results of those four tests.
The tests give a range of distances and as a result the final combined figure is also a range. The rules then say that if the difference in CO2 emissions between the lowest and highest figure is less than 5gm, then only the higher figure needs to be quoted - naturally all EVs fall into this situation and only have to show the higher figure.
Based on what we see from other manufacturers, Tesla's range for the combined test is likely to be 320-360 and even though we don't know their figures for the high consumption test (i.e. motorway speeds), based on numerous range tests you can find online their figures for that kind of driving are likely to be 240-290.
The figure your car is showing you right now is based on the driving and consumption you've been doing recently (last 30 miles I think, but someone will come along and correct me in a minute). As ambient temperatures go up in the next few months you should find that figure going up to get closer to the advertised figure and maybe even exceed it if you're lucky.
MrBadger
Badger out
As others have pointed out 360 miles is the official WLTP figure. It's not a real world range, just a standard combined figure to compare against other cars. I'm not sure what Tesla use these days to display range on the dash, but they used to have an option to display WLTP range or a slightly more accurate "Real world" range. But I've always set mine to percentage battery display as I find that easier to live with. If range ever becomes critical on a journey I then turn to the energy page, which has a far more accurate real-time range calculation than the simple battery icon. In day to day life I just charge the car when I see my battery percentage is low. A bit like how ICE drivers use a fuel level gauge.
So anyway your range shows 330 miles because that's what the car thinks it might be able to actually achieve in ideal conditions - however unlikely that may be in reality. But if you start driving and then turn to the energy page you will get a more real-time range estimation based on your driving style over the last 15-30 miles, weather conditions etc, etc. This estimation is usually very good. If you also put your destination in the nav it will predict your arrival state of charge too and warn you if you are not going to make it or re-direct you to a charger as required.
The displayed range discrepancy is due to European cars having either an LG battery, with less capacity than the original Panasonic, or an original Panasonic battery that has been soft locked. This is potentially to level up, or down depending which way you look at it, batteries across Europe. US cars do not have the LG battery and are not soft locked, hence showing the EPA rating of 353 when new.
I’ve just got the same car and I’m actually the same they advertised 360miles which please anybody reading this I totally understand you’ll never get that but it never charges to 360mile no more then 330 so where is the other 30miles gone
andylaight
Member
WLTP is not really what the car can realistically do it's simply a baseline to compare other cars tested under the same standard.
All it tells you is your 360 WLTP will go further than another manufacturers 300 WLTP. It does not tell you how far your car will go on a full battery, or even close, since it's a completely artificial test.
EPA is much closer to real world, and Tesla base their range estimates on that but even then you'd really only expect that in the summer driving carefully.
All it tells you is your 360 WLTP will go further than another manufacturers 300 WLTP. It does not tell you how far your car will go on a full battery, or even close, since it's a completely artificial test.
EPA is much closer to real world, and Tesla base their range estimates on that but even then you'd really only expect that in the summer driving carefully.
This is a 5 page thread that explains exactly why, read up.
Drew57
Active ember
A little anecdote about range:
Some years before I retired my employer decided that fleet fuel costs needed attention so brought in a policy to automatically bill the company fuel card to the driver & then reimburse all mileage except private based on a formula linked to the latest official Gov't advisory rates (manufacturer mpg minus 10% tolerance so a car rated at 50mpg should average a little higher or better than 45 mpg for the driver to come out 'even' )
If a driver was careful (many long journeys, gentle driving style, fill up at the cheapest sites etc) it was just about possible to achieve cost neutral for business miles or even a slight 'profit'. However those driving numerous short journeys or if regularly filling up on motorways etc were frequently subsidising company mileage from their own pocket.
During that time I drove a Mondeo estate, a BMW and a Hybrid Lexus & apart from the BMW I was never able to fully recoup business mileage until financial year end when I had to go through either a reclaim process via the company or via my tax returns.
So in every case, even allowing for a % reduction in the official rated mpg & driving conservatively it was extremely difficult to come out evens or ahead. Quite a clever policy for the employer as their overall business mileage fuel bill dropped substantially & most employees then chose more efficient models to minimise being penalised. That policy is still in place many years later & there are increasing numbers of EVs in the fleet including Teslas.
As with ICE petrol, diesels, hybrids - EVs not achieving WLTP are in a similar situation (logical if you think about it but still surprises many new owners)
EDIT: After retirement, my initial purchase was a new Range Rover Evoque & even retaining the driving style I had become accustomed to I couldn't get near its rated mpg.
Some years before I retired my employer decided that fleet fuel costs needed attention so brought in a policy to automatically bill the company fuel card to the driver & then reimburse all mileage except private based on a formula linked to the latest official Gov't advisory rates (manufacturer mpg minus 10% tolerance so a car rated at 50mpg should average a little higher or better than 45 mpg for the driver to come out 'even' )
If a driver was careful (many long journeys, gentle driving style, fill up at the cheapest sites etc) it was just about possible to achieve cost neutral for business miles or even a slight 'profit'. However those driving numerous short journeys or if regularly filling up on motorways etc were frequently subsidising company mileage from their own pocket.
During that time I drove a Mondeo estate, a BMW and a Hybrid Lexus & apart from the BMW I was never able to fully recoup business mileage until financial year end when I had to go through either a reclaim process via the company or via my tax returns.
So in every case, even allowing for a % reduction in the official rated mpg & driving conservatively it was extremely difficult to come out evens or ahead. Quite a clever policy for the employer as their overall business mileage fuel bill dropped substantially & most employees then chose more efficient models to minimise being penalised. That policy is still in place many years later & there are increasing numbers of EVs in the fleet including Teslas.
As with ICE petrol, diesels, hybrids - EVs not achieving WLTP are in a similar situation (logical if you think about it but still surprises many new owners)
EDIT: After retirement, my initial purchase was a new Range Rover Evoque & even retaining the driving style I had become accustomed to I couldn't get near its rated mpg.
Last edited:
I find that WLTP is achievable with petrol and hybrid vehicles - much more so that the NEDC system which was virtually impossible to get near. Unfortunately WLTP for EVs is totally unrealistic.
SpareHeadOne
Member
I'm not surprised, I spoke to someone from JLR quite a few years ago about fuel economy on the XF when it was doing the rounds for pre-launch test drives. He said that what most people don't realise is that not only are the tests carried out on a rolling road (not sure if that's still the case) so environmental factors are removed, but they are also carried out on the base specification. That usually means skinny tires and very little equipment, so unless you buy that specification you're going to add weight (maybe 100-200kg) and perhaps a lot of rolling resistance if you go for bigger wheels.
I also found that JLR engines tend to be very "tight" when new and don't loosen off until they're over 35k miles at least - sometimes over 70k. My 2010 XJ got around 10% better between 55k and 60k, but my 2016 one managed that trick at about 37-40k - it would easily do 50+mpg on a long run with four adults and luggage
Jason71
Well-Known Member
No it isn't. Read the thread you just posted on page 5 of and all will become clear.
Similar threads
- Locked
