Are you still able to do 0-60 in 3 secs with the all seasons or do the tires spin
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
250wh per pile to get performance rated range of 315 miles
- Thread starter gottagofast
- Start date
Fair enough, you have to do a little bit of math, but it lists the energy consumption separately.
2022 model 3 performance with 20 inch summer tires, that’s a huge difference in energy usage 270wh vs 229wh
which was already discussed. And noted that the calculated value is still an extreme overestimate. True range is closer to 70% of that.
EPA's site is also missing several cars like all 2024 Teslas and the Plaid (at least under the 2023 listing)
The EPA 'highway' test has a max speed of 60 and an average speed of 48.3. That is not fast at all. If you drive like that you will definitely get the EPA rated range.
The EPA "high speed" test has a good section of driving at around 70 mph but there is also a section in the test cycle of low speed which evens out the average speed to 48 again. I'm not sure what they thought that test would achieve.
www.fueleconomy.gov
But let's look at some real world data. Here are some longer drives I did recently. I picked longer drives (close to 100 miles) and there is almost no net elevation change. There are some hills so there is some up and down like there is no most roads.
I am comfortably able to get rated range on some of those driven even going faster than the EPA test. These drives were not done to be efficient on purpose. It's just whatever the traffic would allowed on that day/time. When the road was open I was always 10 above the speed limit. 100% efficiency means 'rated range'. Climate control was on auto. Since my tires are 3% larger than original, those numbers would actually be better by 3% but I didn't bother to convert them.
The EPA "high speed" test has a good section of driving at around 70 mph but there is also a section in the test cycle of low speed which evens out the average speed to 48 again. I'm not sure what they thought that test would achieve.
Detailed Test Information
EPA tests vehicles by running them through a series of driving routines, or schedules, that specify vehicle speed for each point in time during the laboratory tests.
www.fueleconomy.gov
But let's look at some real world data. Here are some longer drives I did recently. I picked longer drives (close to 100 miles) and there is almost no net elevation change. There are some hills so there is some up and down like there is no most roads.
I am comfortably able to get rated range on some of those driven even going faster than the EPA test. These drives were not done to be efficient on purpose. It's just whatever the traffic would allowed on that day/time. When the road was open I was always 10 above the speed limit. 100% efficiency means 'rated range'. Climate control was on auto. Since my tires are 3% larger than original, those numbers would actually be better by 3% but I didn't bother to convert them.
Sorry, but when you look at the "Rated" tab, that's the EPA-rated comparison. The "Trip" tab is the one you're thinking about.
I was going 50-55 and didn’t get the epa rated range going by my energy consumption, so epa must be slower than thatThe EPA 'highway' test has a max speed of 60 and an average speed of 48.3. That is not fast at all. If you drive like that you will definitely get the EPA rated range.
The EPA "high speed" test has a good section of driving at around 70 mph but there is also a section in the test cycle of low speed which evens out the average speed to 48 again. I'm not sure what they thought that test would achieve.
Detailed Test Information
EPA tests vehicles by running them through a series of driving routines, or schedules, that specify vehicle speed for each point in time during the laboratory tests.
But let's look at some real world data. Here are some longer drives I did recently. I picked longer drives (close to 100 miles) and there is almost no net elevation change. There are some hills so there is some up and down like there is no most roads.
I am comfortably able to get rated range on some of those driven even going faster than the EPA test. These drives were not done to be efficient on purpose. It's just whatever the traffic would allowed on that day/time. When the road was open I was always 10 above the speed limit. 100% efficiency means 'rated range'. Climate control was on auto. Since my tires are 3% larger than original, those numbers would actually be better by 3% but I didn't bother to convert them.
View attachment 1013620
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
This is not accurate. The EPA test is highly reproducible *if you drive like the EPA test* (AKA lower speeds with mixed driving). If you only care about something like constant 70mph, of course it doesn't compare, given that's not what the test is testing. It's fair to argue in terms of range, 70mph matters more, but that's different from saying EPA can't be reproduced.
I generally use, https://abetterrouteplanner.com to get an efficiency figure. It measures your Tesla's efficiency at 65mph. It gives me a baseline for comparison. You can register for free. As you can see 235Wh/mi @65mph would mean beating the EPA rating driving at slowish highway speeds. Of course, now that it's winter, I just looked, and that figure is 259Wh/mi. Anyway, it's just a tad bit more scientific, safer and easier to let ABRP calculate your benchmark efficiency rather than trying to drive slowly on the highway.
Is ABRP's measure real? Sure, here's a trip from Denver to Maine I did, in 3 days, which shows I drove 2300miles and got 274Wh/mile, and I set my speed at 115% of speed limit, which means I often was driving 86mph. This efficiency level seems realistic given my baseline efficiency was 235Wh/mi at 65mph.
Is ABRP's measure real? Sure, here's a trip from Denver to Maine I did, in 3 days, which shows I drove 2300miles and got 274Wh/mile, and I set my speed at 115% of speed limit, which means I often was driving 86mph. This efficiency level seems realistic given my baseline efficiency was 235Wh/mi at 65mph.
I tested this at the track and I was still turning 3.06 0-60 mph with weight reductions. I haven’t done any pulls on regular surfaces but it doesn’t seem like traction is an issue at all with these tires.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
You didn't account for variables like headwind, elevation changes, air temperature/density, tire inflation etc. Also, the EPA test includes a lot of stop and go traffic, so a steady speed does not replicate the test fully.
The EPA test is done on a dyno and a multiplier is applied to the result. It's not representative of real world driving in the slightest and in most cases can't be replicated.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
You can figure it fairly trivially by using the combined MPGe figure. Inside EVs used to do this, but it seems they may have abandoned it and most publications don't bother.
Just to use that example: 358 mi / 131 MPGe * 126 MPGe = 344 mi EPA highway.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
In my experience it's fairly trivial to meet EPA consumption by driving in mixed driving with heavy traffic (which is what it replicates). There have rarely been any efforts to replicate the EPA cycle by the media. If you have seen the tests that do, please link it. All of them instead do a variation of steady 70mph, and then complain EPA doesn't match, when that's not what it tests.
Yeah I know how to do basic math. But the point is the number isn't advertised anywhere, and the calculated result is still an incredibly optimistic result. You won't hit that on the highway ever.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
You probably easily can in most cases if you replicate the cycle (which as another pointed out is a max of 60mph and average 48.3 mph in flat terrain at 75F). The image shows the cycle better (it's not steady state):
That again of course does not replicate 70mph, but it tends to get closer as it eliminates the slowest city sections.
So I drove to work today, left the house with 218 miles range, drove 33 miles to work arrived with 184 left so I used 35 miles in 33
Now this is what I don’t get, the car has been parked outside for 4 hrs now and it says the range left is 172 miles so I some how lost 12 miles of range in 4 hrs since I got to work, is this unusual?
And I don’t have sentry mode or overheat protection on
Now this is what I don’t get, the car has been parked outside for 4 hrs now and it says the range left is 172 miles so I some how lost 12 miles of range in 4 hrs since I got to work, is this unusual?
And I don’t have sentry mode or overheat protection on
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Check summon standby also.
You can take a picture of your energy screen to see it break down what percent is consumed by what.
Also check that your screen turns off when the doors are all shut. Some people have a defective driver seat sensor and the car is kept awake due to that. You may also try rebooting to see if there is something preventing the car from sleeping.
12 miles over 4 hours does seem a bit excessive. In my SR+ it consumes about 1-2 miles per hour even with Sentry on. That said sometimes the estimate varies because battery capacity estimate is calibrating (in which case you may even see range go up).
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
