Did the Model S get H pack earlier in the year when it hit 400 miles range? Or was that on the G pack?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
2021 Model X, Monroney Sticker Range Increase
- Thread starter ColdWeatherEV
- Start date
That was G. This thread is mostly about peoples dreams, not reality
I wonder if the MS LR+ gets to 420 miles range on H pack. The MS perf got a range bump with H pack.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
BM3B
“beaver”
I have one small data point on the pack size, I will try to get more data soon. The following data is from TeslaFi with no adjustments, I am not sure if the efficiency multiplier is correct, it may need to be updated.
98.63 mile continuous drive, consumed 122.79 rated miles, used 30.34 kWh battery or 33.0% of the battery.
This translates to 247 Wh/rated mile constant, and 91.9 kWh usable battery capacity.
I will try to do a long continuous drive and record the data both from the X trip and teslafi. I may need to change the rated mile constant, seems too low.
98.63 mile continuous drive, consumed 122.79 rated miles, used 30.34 kWh battery or 33.0% of the battery.
This translates to 247 Wh/rated mile constant, and 91.9 kWh usable battery capacity.
I will try to do a long continuous drive and record the data both from the X trip and teslafi. I may need to change the rated mile constant, seems too low.
Too inaccurate for any meaningful data. The usable portion is 97.8kWh for the G pack (and probably F).
BM3B
“beaver”
Can you share data (evidence) please? I have heard 92 kWh usable drive capacity from an expert, charging capacity (I measured 101 kWh) is higher due to electrical losses, and physical capacity (102-105 kWh not confirmed) is highest due to software-controlled buffer.
The datapoint is not the best, but it is a useful datapoint until people share more info.
Last edited:
Evidence is on your consumption tab. Do the math: (consumption * range remaining) / soc. Number is most accurate if the soc is 100% immediately after long balancing. Result is Whs of energy in your pack.
BM3B
“beaver”
Yes, I am trying to find time for a 265 mile straight drive from 100% down to about 10%. I have the -H battery pack.
You can do it at any soc, just the result will wobble about 1kWh. Average of few readings will be close
BM3B
“beaver”
I did a long continuous drive yesterday from 100%.
Used 287/370 rated miles
Used 72.8 kWh from 100% to 22.4%
gives 93.8 kWh discharge capacity (72.8/287/370) and 254 Wh/rated mile.
Average speed 75 mph, peak 88 mph for an hour roughly. 2:40 drive
Used 287/370 rated miles
Used 72.8 kWh from 100% to 22.4%
gives 93.8 kWh discharge capacity (72.8/287/370) and 254 Wh/rated mile.
Average speed 75 mph, peak 88 mph for an hour roughly. 2:40 drive
Attachments
How did it compare to the MCU energy graph while driving? I have found a discrepancy between them and do not trust the IC numbers, even when continuously driving and not using auxiliary power.
Remember that rated consumption is 284Wh/mi, which is evidenced by the line on the energy graph.
BM3B
“beaver”
Yes the system rated mileage is 284 Wh/mile (dashed line). But I have been told by @Bighorn that it is well known to experienced testers that the actual rated Wh/mile is different than that line in all Tesla’s.
The system Wh/mile (360) matched TeslaFi (360) exactly. What do you mean by IC? Internal computer? Yes this matched. 202 actual miles using 72.8 kWh is 360 Wh/mi. No discrepancy apparent to me yet. The energy graph looked correct though I didn’t study it. @ohmman I am very curious to see your data from the long days with several long legs per day towing in your new LR++, can you post them here?
284 vs 250 is a big difference. I suspect that the 371 mile range is just EPA gaming/ tuning. And the reason why -H got the additional range and not -G is that -H got EPA official testing so they can use the longer range number. I think the extra range is due to removing low Regen, which my wife prefers to use!
The system Wh/mile (360) matched TeslaFi (360) exactly. What do you mean by IC? Internal computer? Yes this matched. 202 actual miles using 72.8 kWh is 360 Wh/mi. No discrepancy apparent to me yet. The energy graph looked correct though I didn’t study it. @ohmman I am very curious to see your data from the long days with several long legs per day towing in your new LR++, can you post them here?
284 vs 250 is a big difference. I suspect that the 371 mile range is just EPA gaming/ tuning. And the reason why -H got the additional range and not -G is that -H got EPA official testing so they can use the longer range number. I think the extra range is due to removing low Regen, which my wife prefers to use!
Last edited:
BM3B
“beaver”
Anyone with -E or -G battery back willing to do the same long drive test from 100% and share the data? Then we can compare to see if there is any difference.
Also as you can see I charged to 100% and got 370 miles.
Also as you can see I charged to 100% and got 370 miles.
IC = instrument cluster. I am talking about the trip app, which you used. It reports differently from the energy app, which appears to make more sense.
TeslaFi estimates energy consumption based on rates miles consumed with a 1/3 mile granularity.
BM3B
“beaver”
How can I get useful full-drive data from the energy app? It only shows efficiency for last 30 miles. Next drive I will compare the Wh/mi on IC to app. It was similar, I never noticed a discrepancy but I will check. Why would they be different? Which do you think is more accurate? IC should be accurate.
Interesting. I've been looking at my data, but from the charging information. I charged from 38% to 80% yesterday and Tesla indicated 42.7 kwh added. So 42.7 kwh / 42% = 101.6 kwh. I plan to do this for the next few charging cycles and see how they compare. Any readers out there with a scan my tesla app and an OB2 adapter that can hook it up to a car with the H battery? I'm curious what the BMS is reporting as capacity.
It would be pointless comparison as those numbers depend on the discharge load, temperature, stops taken, ....
BM3B
“beaver”
Wrong. We are measuring usable battery discharge capacity. The Wh/mi will depend on all those factors you listed. But not the discharge capacity if you so your math correctly.
BM3B
“beaver”
You measured charging capacity, which is always larger than discharge by 6-10% due to drivetrain and motor losses. I measured 101.1 kWh charging capacity.
Similar threads
