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

2021 Model X, Monroney Sticker Range Increase

ohmman

Plaid-ish Moderator
Feb 13, 2014
10,031
18,159
North Bay, CA
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.
You can't get full-drive data from the energy app, but you can compare a 30 mile trip to the IC trip app and see that they often don't match.

If you average 284Wh/mi in the energy app, you will see that your projected range (average, not instant) will be equal to your current rated range. In my limited experience (~3800 miles) with my LR+, hitting rated range in the energy app reflects a much lower number in the trip app, somewhere in the 250Wh/mi range.

Doing pure unit conversion:

(rated consumption in Wh/mi) * (rated range in mi) = (usable capacity in Wh for the purposes of EPA rating).

Thanks to the units, we must fit this equation. If Tesla is being untruthful about 284Wh/mi, then we will have to back out the true EPA rated consumption. Perhaps that's really what you're trying to do. Because otherwise we have two of the variables and can calculate the third.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: BM3B

BM3B

“beaver”
Mar 8, 2019
772
920
Los Angeles, CA
You can't get full-drive data from the energy app, but you can compare a 30 mile trip to the IC trip app and see that they often don't match.

If you average 284Wh/mi in the energy app, you will see that your projected range (average, not instant) will be equal to your current rated range. In my limited experience (~3800 miles) with my LR+, hitting rated range in the energy app reflects a much lower number in the trip app, somewhere in the 250Wh/mi range.

Doing pure unit conversion:

(rated consumption in Wh/mi) * (rated range in mi) = (usable capacity in Wh for the purposes of EPA rating).

Thanks to the units, we must fit this equation. If Tesla is being untruthful about 284Wh/mi, then we will have to back out the true EPA rated consumption. Perhaps that's really what you're trying to do. Because otherwise we have two of the variables and can calculate the third.
I just did a 15 mile test.
IC 352 Wh/mi
App 347 Wh/mi

It’s close enough for me.
 

BM3B

“beaver”
Mar 8, 2019
772
920
Los Angeles, CA
I have charged my -H pack about 4 times on V3. The highest power I have received is 203 kW. I don’t think I have charged with optimal conditions: 8-12% SOC and hot battery. Tesla said it’s capable of 250 kW.
 

Attachments

  • 0AC45036-C3E1-46CC-9C5F-4218EEE652F2.png
    0AC45036-C3E1-46CC-9C5F-4218EEE652F2.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 37

VikH

Supporting Member
Nov 23, 2015
1,026
858
Midwest, USA
I have charged my -H pack about 4 times on V3. The highest power I have received is 203 kW. I don’t think I have charged with optimal conditions: 8-12% SOC and hot battery. Tesla said it’s capable of 250 kW.

Does it hold higher kw longer than your 2018? That would be the real advantage.
 

MP3Mike

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2016
15,572
34,162
Oregon
Any of the H Pack owners supercharged at a V3 station yet? See link below which seems to imply that H packs get better Supercharging.

Tesla (TSLA) is getting new battery cells from Panasonic with faster charging capacity - Electrek

Of course the source didn't actually say that. It just said "excellent fast charging", which the prior cells could have had as well. (They could just be reinforcing that they were able to increase energy capacity without harming fast charging.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MorrisonHiker

VikH

Supporting Member
Nov 23, 2015
1,026
858
Midwest, USA
Of course the source didn't actually say that. It just said "excellent fast charging", which the prior cells could have had as well. (They could just be reinforcing that they were able to increase energy capacity without harming fast charging.)

Hence "seems to imply". Why would increasing capacity harm fast charging?
 

BM3B

“beaver”
Mar 8, 2019
772
920
Los Angeles, CA
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
Another long continuous drive last night with my X LR++ -H
I charged to 90% and drove without stopping for 3:08 and 212.8 miles.
Used 333-38 = 295 rated miles (RM) /370 RM = 79.7% of the battery.
Used 75.4 kWh
354 Wh/mi, 255 Wh/RM
Averaged 68 mph, mostly drove 70 mph the whole way.
Gives usable discharge capacity of 94.7 kWh, little bit higher than last long leg.
 

VikH

Supporting Member
Nov 23, 2015
1,026
858
Midwest, USA
Because changing the formulation normally has trade-offs. You can increase the energy capacity, but it often reduces fast charging/discharging capabilities.

You could be right, but Tesla's history shows the opposite. My 100 pack charges the same if not faster than a 70, 75, 85, or 90 pack.
 

MP3Mike

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2016
15,572
34,162
Oregon
You could be right, but Tesla's history shows the opposite. My 100 pack charges the same if not faster than a 70, 75, 85, or 90 pack.

That is because the 100 packs use more cells to get the extra capacity, not a formulation change. (It was the same formulation as the 75 and 90 packs.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: VikH

BM3B

“beaver”
Mar 8, 2019
772
920
Los Angeles, CA
I read a report based on shipping slip to EU in German that Model 3 now has 82 kWh battery pack, which is a 10% increase over previous 75 kWh pack. If these cells have higher capacity due to chemistry, perhaps the X. LR++ with -H pack has new chemistry too? 105 kWh up from 100 kWh? 371 miles *284 Wh/mile = 105 kWh. This makes sense since I measured 101 kWh charging capacity + 4 kwh bottom block for battery protection.

Model 3s on the way to Europe right now already have new Panasonic cells : teslamotors
 

Richbot

Member
Oct 16, 2020
287
190
STL
What’s everybody’s charge rate at the higher SoC on a supercharger? Just have V2’s in my area, so it peaks at about 145 below 30% SoC but it’s holding 50+kw through 80+%, I think when I disconnected last time it was at about 40kw at 84% when I shut it off

also, I am finding even in the sorta-cold (average around 34f) it’s relatively easy to hit sub 300 wh/mi with preconditioning on my 18-25 mile one way commutes.

I am using % on my ‘21 LR+ so no idea what the “miles” range actually is, but lifetime average over the first 1500 miles on the car (including all the new car whoooopeee zoomies) is below 350 now. Which with as many short trips and as cold as it’s been, I think it’s shaping up to be pretty decent come spring.
 
Last edited:

_jmk

Member
Sep 4, 2017
317
215
Finland
Here in the EU we have zero (or to be precise, negative) benefit of the V3 charger, so my numbers from 'G' pack charging from V2 charger: 145kW 5 - 38%, 120kW @ 50%, 90kW @ 60%, 67kW @ 70%, 52kW @ 80kW, 37kW @ 90%.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Nicebag

Oscarjperez

New Member
Jan 1, 2021
1
-2
Cypress TX
Wheel rim size has no change on milage, if you lay a tire mounted on a 20" rim on top of 22" rim with a tire mounted, you find they circumference are the same. Tires mounted on 22 have shorter tire wall where the 20 has a taller wall. If your where to mount a tire with the taller wall on a 22 you would have clearance problems turning the tire. So the outside diameter of tires mount on a 22 or 20 rim are the same. The 22 just looks cooler it would also be a rougher ride less give in the tire side wall.
 

BM3B

“beaver”
Mar 8, 2019
772
920
Los Angeles, CA
Finally someone had stated the LR++ pack size, no evidence but a claim. This is from Car and Driver and aligns well to my estimate of 104-105 kWh = 101kWh charging capacity + 4 kWh bottom block for battery safety.

“As configured, our test car's dual-motor, all-wheel-drive setup houses a 103.9-kWh battery pack beneath its floor that earns it an EPA-estimated range of 402 miles. At $70,620 to start, the Long Range Plus amounts to a roughly $10,000 discount versus the new Long Range model”
 

Richbot

Member
Oct 16, 2020
287
190
STL
Their claim comes from their interview of a Tesla rep, they say, there's a spearate story on the range test, only, that got posted about a week ago. Which is impressive that they got Tesla to talk to them at all.

This makes some sense.

Also, holy damn the LR+ Model S was a good deal at $69,420 + destination. I guess that means my 7seat poverty-white LR+ X was a good deal at $83.495 + destination, but it sure hurt a lot more. More performance (in some metrics anyway) and space than Taycan 4S for half-off. MERICA
 
  • Like
Reactions: X007X and BM3B

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top