264 miles not update from 256

[seanQ6]

I read they increased
The mid range model 3 to 264 miles on a fulll charge. Is any owner seeing this? Is this an update? I can’t find much info on this. I still only get 256 on a full 100% charge..

Thanks!

 

[ewoodrick]

It may be a software update that changes it, it may only show on new cars, or it may stay the same. It really doesn't matter, since you'll never get that. Look at the energy graphs for real estimates.
I wish Tesla would just remove that number, since it is pretty bogus.
Even the EPA numbers themselves aren't true.

 

[Rocky_H]

The mid range model 3 to 264 miles on a fulll charge. Is any owner seeing this? Is this an update? I can’t find much info on this. I still only get 256 on a full 100% charge..

It probably already did. I guess you haven't discovered this yet, but the display showing a reading 5 to 10 rated miles below what is supposedly considered "full" is pretty normal. Estimating the energy content in a battery is not like being able to just look at the ounces of something in a measuring cup. In the first couple of months, that estimate is generally going to start reading a little bit low if the battery isn't getting used toward the upper and lower ends of it much, so it kind of loses some ability to sense that total range by a little bit.

 

[seanQ6]

Thank you. I was guessing it was not 100% accurate. I just was curious as nothing changed on my car. It charges to 256 each time I let it go to 100% (not often). I was just expecting to see a difference from what I was reading.

 

[Rocky_H]

Thank you. I was guessing it was not 100% accurate. I just was curious as nothing changed on my car. It charges to 256 each time I let it go to 100% (not often). I was just expecting to see a difference from what I was reading.

I think the change was only something like 3 rated miles higher than it was before, or something like that? So I'm not sure it was really anything that was done in the cars, but maybe more of a paperwork filing thing.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I imagine they’ll stick with the 242Wh/mi scalar they use for all other Model 3s, which for a 62kWh pack (usable) gives 256 miles. That’s the source of the number.

Arguably less confusing that way. Not sure what the legal requirements are for what is displayed in the vehicle; this has been touched on elsewhere but don’t remember the details. It seems like you could make it look worse than the EPA range in the car, if you want. That’s what they did for the LR RWD.

You can definitely hit the rated range under the perfect conditions. If you do it all at once.

 

[baton]

I read they increased
The mid range model 3 to 264 miles on a fulll charge. Is any owner seeing this? Is this an update? I can’t find much info on this. I still only get 256 on a full 100% charge..

Thanks!

Same thing here! I have not gotten yet a 260 miles on full charge. I am expecting there will be a software update so that we get at least 260 miles if not 264 miles on full charge.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Same thing here! I have not gotten yet a 260 miles on full charge. I am expecting there will be a software update so that we get at least 260 miles if not 264 miles on full charge.

You guys realize what it says your range is changes nothing, right? It’s just a number and does not change what you purchased.

Or are you trolling everyone?

Eventually there may be some range update for optimal range, as apparently there is more Model S, but I would not hold my breath.

260 miles on a charge...it’s certainly possible, but extremely unlikely for most LEMR drivers, at least at this time of year.

 

[baton]

Buddy we just want to get accurate readings on our battery charge. We depend on these readings and they should be accurate. Not much to ask is it? Or according to you as long as the gage is in the ball park area it’s okay? Or why have a gage at all, we already know the battery’s capacity - it changes nothing!

Elon himself announced the 4 mile increase to the whole world. Pretty important for the customer, don’t you think?

Please don’t try to give a lecture that the update changes nothing on the actual battery range. Yes we know nothing

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Buddy we just want to get accurate readings on our battery charge. We depend on these readings and they should be accurate. Not much to ask is it? Or according to you as long as the gage is in the ball park area it’s okay? Or why have a gage at all, we already know the battery’s capacity - it changes nothing!

Elon himself announced the 4 mile increase to the whole world. Pretty important for the customer, don’t you think?

Please don’t try to give a lecture that the update changes nothing on the actual battery range. Yes we know nothing

Actually, that is not what I was saying, if you look at my prior post. Your battery charge is accurate already at 256 miles, using the 242Wh/mi scalar. That will give you 62kWh for a full charge.

If you would prefer, you can change the display to %, and that will be better (though you lose resolution, and you also lose the ability to see battery degradation).

You should not be "depending on these readings" - at least not in terms of how far you can go, since it is only very loosely correlated. Think of it as an energy available meter, not a measure of how many miles you can go. You can use that energy to plow snow, you can use it to heat the cabin, you can use it to move rain out of the way, you can use it to sit stationary, you can use it to deform and roll your nice sticky extreme performance tires, you can use it to deform and roll your winter tires, or you can use it by leaving the car in the garage, you can use it to move your car to the top of a 2000-foot mountain (charge for that is ~12 miles), etc. My point is that it's not really an indicator of how far you can go. It's not intended that you use it for that purpose, at least not without a LOT of caveats & interpretation of that number.

It is likely (probable) that under good conditions, you'll be able to do better than 242Wh/mi in the LEMR. So your actual range is likely much greater than the stated 256 miles in ideal conditions.

Maybe they'll change the scalar for you guys to 235Wh/mi (62000Wh/264mi), and that would give you a 264mi full charge. But that would be inconsistent with their prior treatment of rated range for the Model 3. And it would be a little weird to decouple adjustments to this number from changes in the pack capacity due to age. (Really this full charge number is the only way to determine how much energy is in your pack - but you have to know the scalar Wh/mi to figure it out...)

If they make it too good, it'll be like in my P3D+ - where I get a lot less than the rated range. It is quite common to get 300Wh/mi, so really the full charge should be "250mi" (75000Wh/300Wh/mi). But they leave the full range at ~310 miles.

Also note that the max charge (in miles) that you see will come down over time as the battery degrades (right now we have no idea how much degradation will occur).

 

[seanQ6]

Actually, that is not what I was saying, if you look at my prior post. Your battery charge is accurate already at 256 miles, using the 242Wh/mi scalar. That will give you 62kWh for a full charge.

If you would prefer, you can change the display to %, and that will be better (though you lose resolution, and you also lose the ability to see battery degradation).

You should not be "depending on these readings" - at least not in terms of how far you can go, since it is only very loosely correlated. Think of it as an energy available meter, not a measure of how many miles you can go. You can use that energy to plow snow, you can use it to heat the cabin, you can use it to move rain out of the way, you can use it to sit stationary, you can use it to deform and roll your nice sticky extreme performance tires, you can use it to deform and roll your winter tires, or you can use it by leaving the car in the garage, you can use it to move your car to the top of a 2000-foot mountain (charge for that is ~12 miles), etc. My point is that it's not really an indicator of how far you can go. It's not intended that you use it for that purpose, at least not without a LOT of caveats & interpretation of that number.

It is likely (probable) that under good conditions, you'll be able to do better than 242Wh/mi in the LEMR. So your actual range is likely much greater than the stated 256 miles in ideal conditions.

Maybe they'll change the scalar for you guys to 235Wh/mi (62000Wh/264mi), and that would give you a 264mi full charge. But that would be inconsistent with their prior treatment of rated range for the Model 3. And it would be a little weird to decouple adjustments to this number from changes in the pack capacity due to age. (Really this full charge number is the only way to determine how much energy is in your pack - but you have to know the scalar Wh/mi to figure it out...)

If they make it too good, it'll be like in my P3D+ - where I get a lot less than the rated range. It is quite common to get 300Wh/mi, so really the full charge should be "250mi" (75000Wh/300Wh/mi). But they leave the full range at ~310 miles.

Also note that the max charge (in miles) that you see will come down over time as the battery degrades (right now we have no idea how much degradation will occur).

Thanks for taking the time to explain this.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Or why have a gauge at all, we already know the battery’s capacity - it changes nothing!

Primary reason for the gauge is so that you have an idea of how much energy is currently in the pack; it's a measure of energy, not miles (though the units are miles - I know, it's confusing...). The secondary reason to have it is so you can track the change to the energy capacity of the battery over time. If it were a % you could not do both.

Thanks for taking the time to explain this.

No problem.

 

[baton]

We are going off topic here so I don’t want to elaborate more, but if I’m getting 240wh/miles that is a pretty good indicator that I will be getting 260 rated miles. This is what I care and how I gage any planning trips, and it has worked great so far.

As far as charging, I haven’t seen my car charged at 100% yet. It goes to 98% and it stops there and with that I get 255 miles range, which is 98% of 260 miles. I’m not concerned about it, but I will bring it up next time I take my car to service.

If im not mistaken im glad to know that with the new rating at 240wh/mile usage we will be getting 264 miles at 100% charge, and that’s what we are hoping for to see in the future software release. And from what I understood that was the reasonable concern Sean brought up, going back to the topic.
Thanks

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

but if I’m getting 240wh/miles that is a pretty good indicator that I will be getting 260 rated miles. This is what I care and how I gage any planning trips.

Yes. That's correct. However, I would think it would be difficult to get that number currently in Massachusetts, but it depends on the weather & your cabin heat setpoint. I would recommend using the Navigation estimates & the "trip" page of the energy screen (as well as the 30-mile average predictions on the main energy screen) to get a better handle on how many miles to expect (state of charge at destination). It's not particularly complicated, but you kind of have to figure out your current baseline usage to figure out your range.

It goes to 98% and it stops there and with that I get 255 miles range, which is 98% of 260 miles

Make sure you're using a high wattage charger, make sure the car is in a warm place, leave it plugged in for longer (overnight), and also try a discharge down to 10% and try again. Some of this has to do with state of charge estimation and rebalancing of the pack. It's complicated but big picture is to draw down the battery and then recharge, and also not to worry about that too much. If you're going on a road trip and want the full 100%, prepare with a somewhat deeper discharge and then set the charge limit to 100% the night before leaving (and make sure it has plenty of time to get to 100%). Avoid routinely recharging to 100%. Anyway, not all packs will charge to precisely the same number of miles, even if they are the same age & mileage; there is natural manufacturing variation in pack capacity - you could have a car with a couple more miles, or one with a couple less. Doesn't matter - any differences will be very small.

 

[baton]

Make sure you're using a high wattage charger, make sure the car is in a warm place, leave it plugged in for longer (overnight), and also try a discharge down to 10% and try again. Some of this has to do with state of charge estimation and rebalancing of the pack. It's complicated but big picture is to draw down the battery and then recharge, and also not to worry about that too much. If you're going on a road trip and want the full 100%, prepare with a somewhat deeper discharge and then set the charge limit to 100% the night before leaving (and make sure it has plenty of time to get to 100%). Avoid routinely recharging to 100%. Anyway, not all packs will charge to precisely the same number of miles, even if they are the same age & mileage; there is natural manufacturing variation in pack capacity - you could have a car with a couple more miles, or one with a couple less. Doesn't matter - any differences will be very small.

For two months owning the car I have done 100% charge probably about 4 times. I have a level 2 charger from charge point installed in my garage where it never goes below freezing. Last time, (just as you recommended) I left the car discharge to below 10% at about 18 miles then I have left the car charge in my garage overnight but in the morning it said charging complete at 98% / 255 miles. I’m not so worried about it, I hope that it will readjust in the near future.

My apologies for being out of topic!

 

[David99]

If the Model 3's BMS works anything like the Model S/X, it is overstating range by a good amount. In the S/X the range calculation uses the entire battery capacity as a basis to calculate rated range. But since the BMS reserves a certain amount of energy at the bottom to protect the battery, the usable capacity is a smaller. As you drive the car counts down miles a little faster than it should based on rate range energy consumption. That's how it ends up showing 0 miles left when you reach the safety buffer. There is lots of data from the X/S showing that. I haven't seen CAN bus data from the 3 yet, but wk057 hinted the Model 3 operates the same way.

 

[Dana1]

We are going off topic here so I don’t want to elaborate more, but if I’m getting 240wh/miles that is a pretty good indicator that I will be getting 260 rated miles. This is what I care and how I gage any planning trips, and it has worked great so far.

As far as charging, I haven’t seen my car charged at 100% yet. It goes to 98% and it stops there and with that I get 255 miles range, which is 98% of 260 miles. I’m not concerned about it, but I will bring it up next time I take my car to service.

If im not mistaken im glad to know that with the new rating at 240wh/mile usage we will be getting 264 miles at 100% charge, and that’s what we are hoping for to see in the future software release. And from what I understood that was the reasonable concern Sean brought up, going back to the topic.
Thanks

1 kw= 4.13 miles theoretically. 310 miles/75 kw battery. 1000 watts/ car’s wh/mile gives you your miles per kw, e.g., 1000/ 230 = 4.34 miles per kw. You’d have a 326 mile theoretical range with a 75kw battery (4.34*75). That’s the value of the energy consumption graph. If your energy consumption is 300 you yield 3.33 miles per kw. Multiply that by whatever kw remains in your battery for range. But temperature will have an effect, too, so theoretical is an estimate. But you can get a sense of what speed you can drive to get a particular range given your car’s wheels, luggage rack, interior weight, etc.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

But since the BMS reserves a certain amount of energy at the bottom to protect the battery, the usable capacity is a smaller.

This is perhaps a little too in the weeds for this thread topic, but do let us know if you get access to this data. So far, my extrapolation of usage (using declared rated miles consumption) for significant runs with minimal time in park indicate that the metering of energy in the vehicle is very close extrapolating to 75kWh for a full 310-mile rated mile charge (and I've heard the true battery capacity is a bit larger - but not aware of the teardown info on that). As everyone knows, the metering does not account for energy used in park, of course!

For example, I discharged ~60kWh per the in car meter and went from 282 rated miles to 31 rated miles (251 miles). This extrapolates to 74kWh (310mi/251mi*60kWh). But I did spend about 10 minutes in park with the AC on and 2-3 minutes with the heat on in park. So there is a little error on the measurement which would bias result to the low side.

Admittedly not getting to the very ends of the range, etc., where there might be some non-linearity/error/faster dropoff of rated miles. But it seems close to providing total energy of 75kWh as advertised.

 

[pipestem]

YES ! My 90% charge went up from 233 to 237. First time I charged after the new version. Wow, these software updates really do improve the cars :>

 

[mswlogo]

It may be a software update that changes it, it may only show on new cars, or it may stay the same. It really doesn't matter, since you'll never get that. Look at the energy graphs for real estimates.
I wish Tesla would just remove that number, since it is pretty bogus.
Even the EPA numbers themselves aren't true.

What do you mean you’ll never get that?

I beat that number by 10% in my first 1000 miles in October. lifetime now is 260 wh/mi (AWD rating is 251) with 4000 miles. That’s with 3 months of Winter driving.

Lots of folks exceed the rated value. I think it will be routinely beat come spring.

I don’t know how conservative the MR is, but I suspect it’s conservatively rated as well.

If you drive 90 mph with heat on Auto under 32F you won’t get that number.