-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
402 mi range — Wow!
- Thread starter MJP.P3D-
- Start date
LN1_Casey
Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus
The average ICE vehicle is 300-400 miles of range for a full tank.
Tesla, beating even ICE vehicles!
Tesla, beating even ICE vehicles!
Some need much more range, especially apartment dwellers but 400 is a good start.
Struja
“Frost”
Us northern folk with up to 40% range loss in the winter can say there is no such thing as too much range. So, 400 miles is awesome but at -30c, it’s more like 240.
Wol747
Active Member
I’m a bit confused: when I bought my S - LR three months ago the quoted range was 713Km, and now it’s 640Km. The *actual” 100% soc range is 580Km. So where do all the numbers converge into the real world?
Fishy Fish
Member
Looking at the potential state of your battery in terms of km of range would be kind of like looking at your smartphone battery's potential state in terms of hours of time left. It might say you have 20 hours, but that's with the phone just sitting there idling. Once you start using it, you'll end up getting way less than 20 hours. Same thing for the car. I imagine the battery management software dynamically changes the potential range depending on how you're driving it in the moment as well as historically. If you're always accelerating hard, it's going to show less range.
The 713km number when new might have only been because the car had hardly driven over 50kph. At that speed you could probably go 800km. If you want to actually get the 600km rated range, don't drive over 90kph
See here:
Last edited:
Wol747
Active Member
You rather illustrate my point: I realise the advertised range is based on ideal, roller-based data - but to make a big point of 400m range without saying what the criteria are is at best confusing.
My average over 50Km consumption is about 145Wh/Km, or 232 Wh/m, which is fairly close to the advertised 713Km range.
My average over 50Km consumption is about 145Wh/Km, or 232 Wh/m, which is fairly close to the advertised 713Km range.
Fishy Fish
Member
Same could be said in terms of gas car mileage ratings too though. Those ratings are arrived at after testing under quite specific conditions.
Those numbers also are not the manufacturers numbers. The 400mile rating that just came out did so because the EPA retested the car and approved the numbers. As Musk has said, the cars have actually had that capability since January, but they couldn't advertise it until the car was retested, certified and renamed to clarify that it was a different model. Hence the Long Range Plus name change earlier in the year.
LN1_Casey
Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus
You can't account for all variables of people. Someone got 670 miles in their 2017 model S. Should they use these numbers? No.
They use the EPA range because it's a very standardize test. It gives a proper benchmark as to where your mileage compares. Some are more, some are less, but it's key factor is it's standardized. And you can't say it's not a hidden figure as it says "EPA rated range" right on the car. They're hardly going to include a 2 page document on the testing standards another company does to get their range. We can look it up ourselves if we want, then compare those settings in the manner of our own driving habits and adjust accordingly.
It's the same for every country's range tests. There's the WLTP, which gives a different number because it uses different metrics. Same with the NEDC. Some are more or less accurate to "real world" mileage based upon their own standardized testing, but Tesla still uses them because it's the standard test to do so.
lets be honest though.. Tesla is definitely fluffing those numbers. even rolling out of the factory the range it shows is never the full advertised number. meanwhile the 200mile taycan has been easily doing 300 in the real world lol
I never understand these comments.
I have a 2015 70D and a 2019 3. Both cars hit rated range. The S hits it at about 68 mph and the 3 is a little lower - like 65. I have 100k combined on these 2 cars. The 70D was an example of nerfed range though - the EPA tested 246 and Tesla listed it at 240 (I could be wrong on the exact numbers).
I think a lot of the comments come from people with non standard tires. They get 21s and expect to get rated range. That doesn't work.
Remember they are EPA numbers. Not Tesla's. The best way to game the system is to design the car for the test and not worry about efficiency that the test doesn't measure. You can fault Tesla for vampire drain - which doesn't get tested by the EPA. And I believe heating and cooling - the EPA test doesn't use them. Now, the model S has a very efficient a/c but heat - not so much.
I suppose the other potential issue with the numbers may come from newer S's. It is possible that the newer S's are more efficient at EPA testing modes which would make their real world numbers worse. The newer techniques for efficiency may be really just gaming the EPA test. But as as a counter to that, cars that are more aerodynamic do relatively better than the EPA. Partly because the EPA tests at lower speeds then calculates a correction factor. More aerodynamic cars don't get a different correction factor. The newer S's are more aerodynamic than the older ones.
It maybe semantics - but Tesla just publishes the results. They can't (legally) fluff the numbers. And it sounds like the newer S was actually EPA tested which is not usually the case (most of the time, the manufacturer tests the car to EPA standards).
I have a 2015 70D and a 2019 3. Both cars hit rated range. The S hits it at about 68 mph and the 3 is a little lower - like 65. I have 100k combined on these 2 cars. The 70D was an example of nerfed range though - the EPA tested 246 and Tesla listed it at 240 (I could be wrong on the exact numbers).
I think a lot of the comments come from people with non standard tires. They get 21s and expect to get rated range. That doesn't work.
Remember they are EPA numbers. Not Tesla's. The best way to game the system is to design the car for the test and not worry about efficiency that the test doesn't measure. You can fault Tesla for vampire drain - which doesn't get tested by the EPA. And I believe heating and cooling - the EPA test doesn't use them. Now, the model S has a very efficient a/c but heat - not so much.
I suppose the other potential issue with the numbers may come from newer S's. It is possible that the newer S's are more efficient at EPA testing modes which would make their real world numbers worse. The newer techniques for efficiency may be really just gaming the EPA test. But as as a counter to that, cars that are more aerodynamic do relatively better than the EPA. Partly because the EPA tests at lower speeds then calculates a correction factor. More aerodynamic cars don't get a different correction factor. The newer S's are more aerodynamic than the older ones.
It maybe semantics - but Tesla just publishes the results. They can't (legally) fluff the numbers. And it sounds like the newer S was actually EPA tested which is not usually the case (most of the time, the manufacturer tests the car to EPA standards).
I got our third Model S (LR) in March 23rd 2020 Over here in Switzerland. How can I find out when it was produced. Any of you guys have a new Model S and see the increase in range ? Mine still shows 580km (360 mi) at 100% SOC.
LN1_Casey
Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus
The range we're speaking of is listed on the website. According to Musk's account, the effective range has been since January. If you had it or not, it'd not change as reflected in the on board computer, as that's adjusted for the particular vehicle.
You should be able to find the manufacturing month in the inside door jam. Should be MM/YYYY format.
Again, EPA. If one drives calmly and at speed limits, range can be met and even exceeded.
f205v
Member
Unfortunately this is valid only for US/Canada cars.
Here in Europe there is no production date anywhere on the car.
Maybe there is a way to guess it from the VIN number...
Wol747
Active Member
>>I got our third Model S (LR) in March 23rd 2020 Over here in Switzerland. How can I find out when it was produced. Any of you guys have a new Model S and see the increase in range ? Mine still shows 580km (360 mi) at 100% SOC.<<
I picked mine up in February: 585Km @ 100% SOC then probably a little less now.
I picked mine up in February: 585Km @ 100% SOC then probably a little less now.
tonybelding
Active Member
Here’s my own personal “real world” data point… On a recent trip here in Texas, warm weather, flat terrain, speed limits up to 75 MPH on the highway (but not everywhere), I was reading about 280 WH/mi. Do the math and that would equate to about 357 miles from a 100% charge. If I routinely charge overnight to 80% (for battery health), then I’m starting my every day with 285 miles ready to go. And you know what? That’s amazing. In practical terms, that is overkill.
I have no doubt that I could get the official 402 miles out of it if I really needed to. I could charge up to 100% and then keep my speed under control. I mean, 60 MPH on the highway — a bit annoying (both to me and others), but not impractically slow hyper-miling. I’m not sure under what circumstances I would ever be compelled to do that, but it’s good to know that I could.
That’s how I have always read the EPA rating. It’s not what you can expect every day, but it’s what you can get if you try.
I have no doubt that I could get the official 402 miles out of it if I really needed to. I could charge up to 100% and then keep my speed under control. I mean, 60 MPH on the highway — a bit annoying (both to me and others), but not impractically slow hyper-miling. I’m not sure under what circumstances I would ever be compelled to do that, but it’s good to know that I could.
That’s how I have always read the EPA rating. It’s not what you can expect every day, but it’s what you can get if you try.
Similar threads
- Marketplace listing
