Almost 15% range loss Model 3 Awd

[TimothyHW3]

Oh, this is SR+?! You are in an AWD thread...
Your car is perfectly normal for that Supercharger abuse.

 

[CGlennon]

Doing a quick search it seems a bunch of SR+ are seeing 220-230 @100%. So it doesn’t seem like your 100% is out of the norm. Do you have 20” wheels? Did you stop on that drive to work? If not it looks like your avg speed was less than 60mph and 303 wh/mile seems high. Unless you had the heater blasting maybe...but with temps at 57deg I wouldn’t presume so. I’d expect that wh/mile from a p3d+ maybe but not a rwd with aero wheels.

I did a drive through at Starbucks (right off the highway and no one was in the drive through so it was a ~5 minute detour). My car is a SR+ (RWD) with the 18” aero wheels, however I have the covers off because they look bad IMO. My average was about 65mph on the way to work and my temper 90% of the time is 74 degrees, which was the same case as this morning.

 

[CGlennon]

Oh, this is SR+?! You are in an AWD thread...
Your car is perfectly normal for that Supercharger abuse.

I couldn’t find a SR+/RWD thread talking about range issues, and this thread seemed more applicable. So, because of supercharging, this is going to be common for me?

 

[mtndrew1]

It was charge from 100% which yielded the 228mi back in December. And I very rarely do a charge from 65% to 90% but I did that day just to find out that information posted above.


Information as of yesterday/this morning:
I supercharged from 17%(“37mi”) to 70% then drove to my friends house down the street and left my car to charge to 100% via his 220v. I got to the car this morning and this is what is happening:
100% somehow jumped to “226mi” which is the highest I’ve seen in weeks (did a 100% charge via supercharging about a month ago and that was somewhere in the 180-190mi range).
Display: 100% = 226mi
**Drive to work: 74.8mi**
Display: 50% = 113mi
74.8mi/23kWh/303Wh/mi

Everything looks normal to me. Your Wh/mi is higher than EPA which explains why your range is lower than EPA, and this could be caused by the heater, low tire pressure, high average driving speeds, 19” wheels, or any combination thereof.

Maybe the 240V charge allowed the pack to balance or something, someone wiser than me can comment.

Side note, I can’t imagine owning an EV without at least a 120V daily charging source. In any event, nothing out of the ordinary and your car is behaving as expected.

 

[N54TT]

I couldn’t find a SR+/RWD thread talking about range issues, and this thread seemed more applicable. So, because of supercharging, this is going to be common for me?

Model 3 SR+ Mileage at Full Charge

 

[robl45]

Hi, I have read about people losing range over time in their model 3s. In most cases its about 10-20 miles. For me the story is a bit different, right now at 100% charge I get about 267 miles. That's over 40 miles that I have lost. It has been happening slowly over time, I have had the car for about 6 months, and almost every week the range reading at 90% dropps with 1 or 2 miles. So it seems that it is steadly going down, but sadly it doesn't stop. I have contacted Tesla and been to the Sc several times and they keep telling me every single time that it's because of driving style and that the range reading adapts to my driving, this is not true as you probably know.

I have tried several times 100%-0%-100%, nothing helps. Tesla did actually do a diagnostics but found nothing, and they do not wanna help me anymore because they don't see this as a problem. Anyone experience THIS much range loss?

I have a LR AWD

did anything ever happen with this? I have a performance and the range is done 6 miles at 90 percent over 1 month, its like every time I charge to 100% I lose another mile. Yours of course is a worse than mine, but still at this rate, its going to be much lower quite soon.

 

[TimothyHW3]

UPDATE!!!

I scheduled a new SC appointment yesterday. Today I got an sms saying that they looked into my car and that the battery modules are unbalanced. I knew cells could be unbalanced but not whole modules, interesting.... Someone had this problem?

Yes, it would be great if you can write us back what happened.

 

[aerodyne]

I don’t think it is a coincidence. If the calculations are the same for the model 3 as the model S, which it appears they might be, then you will see that result in every case. The SOC that the car displays, also called SOC from the CAN, is using the exact formula you showed in your earlier post. Assuming that the display and CAN SOC were 54%, then the SOC that you would use for the remainingkWhnom value would be about 56% ( The same calculation with the buffer from the numerator and denominator removed). I think this is called SOC UI from the CAN. In that case, the remainingkWhnom would be around 41.3 kWh, not 40 kWh, assuming a 3.3 kWh buffer like you were using in your numbers.

So I don’t believe you need a new charge constant to explain the CAN data, but it is difficult to understand exactly why Tesla does certain things the way they do.

I believe that Tesla is cheating, and using the nominal pack energy for RR, and not the usable pack range. This has been amply shown on several threads on the MS forum.

This approach also hides degradation of the pack.

As I understand it (Not an M3 owner) the M3 warranty protects against a capacity loss of over 30%.

I would get a CAN Bus reader and see exactly what my degradation of usable pack capacity is from new. (My WAG is 75KwH for M3)

Don't let Tesla get away with making you live with degraded Batts!

 

[ran349]

I believe that Tesla is cheating, and using the nominal pack energy for RR, and not the usable pack range. This has been amply shown on several threads on the MS forum.

This approach also hides degradation of the pack.

As I understand it (Not an M3 owner) the M3 warranty protects against a capacity loss of over 30%.

I would get a CAN Bus reader and see exactly what my degradation of usable pack capacity is from new. (My WAG is 75KwH for M3)

Don't let Tesla get away with making you live with degraded Batts!

I agree that Tesla is doing that, using the nominal pack energy (includes buffer) for rated miles, and then they use the usable (not including buffer) for the SOC calculation. Those two methods are not consistent with each other and thus create discrepancies that so many have observed, such as driving at the rated constant but not achieving rated miles.

Is it cheating though? I guess you could say that, but Tesla might be able to legally justify it because in the EPA test they drive (or dyno test) the car until it stops, and they probably ensure that the whole buffer gets used in that case.

But I would agree, they shouldn't do it that way. They should calculate the rated miles based on usable, but of course, that wouldn't be as impressive a number for rated range, even though the car would have the exact same capacity when driving to 0%.
But most people would assume that it would mean less actual range.

I don't think it hides degradation though, if you use rated miles as your metric for degradation. That is because degradation of the full pack would be directly proportional to loss of rated miles, assuming the charge constant for rated miles has not been changed.

For example, a 30% loss of nominal full pack energy would translate to a 30% loss in rated miles.

 

[aerodyne]

I agree that Tesla is doing that, using the nominal pack energy for rated miles, and then they use the usable (nominal - buffer) for the SOC calculation. Those two methods are not consistent with each other and thus create discrepancies that so many have observed, such as driving at the rated constant but not achieving rated miles.

Is it cheating though? I guess you could say that, but Tesla might be able to legally justify it because in the EPA test they drive (or dyno test) the car until it stops, and they probably ensure that the whole buffer gets used in that case.

But I would agree, they shouldn't do it that way. They should calculate the rated miles based on usable, but of course, that wouldn't be as impressive a number for rated range, even though the car would have the exact same capacity when driving to 0%.
But most people would assume that it would mean less actual range.

I don't think it hides degradation though, if you use rated miles as your metric for degradation. That is because degradation of the full pack would be directly proportional to loss of rated miles, assuming the charge constant for rated miles has not been changed.

For example, a 30% loss of nominal full pack energy would translate to a 30% loss in rated miles.

Only if you can use the full nominal pack! How likely is it you can or would do that, driving past zero miles? Consider an older car, where pack imbalance and related issues would not allow the BMS to use the buffer..

In my case, (Sorry, not an M3) the car and Teslafi agree my RM is 261, decrease of 4% from new EPA RR of 270.

However, CAN bus shows 71.5 KwH usable, a 12.5% degradation from 81.5KwH.

MS warranty does not cover degradation. The reason for posting here is that M3 warranty does, and I expect Tesla will try to weasel out of filling warranty claims.

 

[Siciliano]

I might as well offer my $0.02...I have a 2018 LR AWD w/17k miles, and at 90% charge I get 270 miles.

I've never charged to 100%, but if I move the slider to 100% in the app, it estimates 303 miles. For 2018' LR AWD's, a full charge is listed as 310 miles, whereas for 2020's it was bumped up a slight bit to 322.

~7 miles total range loss in 17k miles/2 yrs seems good to me.

 

[TwoK4drSi]

I'm down to 245 miles at 90% after a year. Just wrote to Tesla about it.

I'm in the same boat. What did they say?

 

[wbhokie]

I'm in the same boat. What did they say?

They said it was within normal specs. It has gone up a bit after a few patches but hasn't degraded further.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

but hasn't degraded further.

Well that’s good at least. @TwoK4drSi and you at 245 (275 @ 100%) in pre-2020 AWD are close to the worst results I’ve heard of without some sort of other issue. I’m at 290 and think I’m doing somewhat below average, but just fine.

In my case, (Sorry, not an M3) the car and Teslafi agree my RM is 261, decrease of 4% from new EPA RR of 270.

However, CAN bus shows 71.5 KwH usable, a 12.5% degradation from 81.5KwH.

Good datapoint. Works similarly in the Model 3 where rated miles contain more energy when the car is new, as far as I can tell. Maybe on Model S they have excess above 100%, I don’t track that. Not on Model 3 though. Just swollen rated miles when new.

So for example, 303 of 310 rated miles on Model 3 is about 6% degradation, not 2.3%.

~7 miles total range loss in 17k miles/2 yrs seems good to me

Yeah that is pretty good. I was at about that point (2.3% which is actually 6%) until a couple months ago but my car is 22 months old. Now I am at 290, which is about 10% loss. (Not 20/310 = 6.5%, of course!)

Seems well within the bounds of a normal result.

 

[atswimtwoirds]

OCT 2018 AWD LR 10K miles
did a trip yesterday
left @ 90% charge
arrived @ 31%
180.7 miles 230wh/mile
180.7/59 multiplied by 100 = 306 miles range at 100%

 

[wbhokie]

Well that’s good at least. @TwoK4drSi and you at 245 (275 @ 100%) in pre-2020 AWD are close to the worst results I’ve heard of without some sort of other issue. I’m at 290 and think I’m doing somewhat below average, but just fine.

Since it has been a while I am going to tag up with them again and see if their tune changes. They did give some long blurb about re-calibration and how the software guesses the range blah blah... of course everyone else's Tesla car does that, so it should be apples to apples. After about a year, if it is still happening on just my car, safe to say, probably the battery At least it hasn't kept degrading. Just needs to hold on until I get my Cybertruck

 

[Wilko]

I have a Model 3 LR which I bought because, well.....I wanted to own a Tesla for most of the reasons people on here buy one here, but I bought the LR to do a relatively long weekly commute that I have, which is circa 215 miles, oh how naive I was!. I was initially very disappointed that the car wouldn't do the distance. I manged it once, and that was after charging to 100% and arriving home at 1%......needless to say I didn't try it again, way too stressful! It taught me to drive more slowly and steadily and also to plan a stop, which in ways is no bad thing. Recently though I have noticed a significant drop in range, leading to more disappointment and an increase in range anxiety. TBH it just leaves a feeling of overall disappointment because I want the car to be great (there have been quite a few other niggles not relevant to this thread). Posting the TeslaFi curve picture to show teh degredation. I didn't get the TeslaFi app from the very beginning, but at ODO of circa 700. The car now has 7,200 miles. Surely a car with WLTP range of 348 should not have a range of 290 miles after 7,200 miles of driving?!?!

 

[robl45]

It's because Tesla is BS ing people. People can claim all they want that it's EPA rated but everyone laughs at that when they buy an ice vehicle. That ice vehicle still goes 300 plus miles though.

The wh/miles is nonsense. I'm at like 280 in sedate driving. People do need to use air conditioning and Tesla needs to realistically tell people what range they can expect

 

[aerodyne]

I have a Model 3 LR which I bought because, well.....I wanted to own a Tesla for most of the reasons people on here buy one here, but I bought the LR to do a relatively long weekly commute that I have, which is circa 215 miles, oh how naive I was!. I was initially very disappointed that the car wouldn't do the distance. I manged it once, and that was after charging to 100% and arriving home at 1%......needless to say I didn't try it again, way too stressful! It taught me to drive more slowly and steadily and also to plan a stop, which in ways is no bad thing. Recently though I have noticed a significant drop in range, leading to more disappointment and an increase in range anxiety. TBH it just leaves a feeling of overall disappointment because I want the car to be great (there have been quite a few other niggles not relevant to this thread). Posting the TeslaFi curve picture to show teh degredation. I didn't get the TeslaFi app from the very beginning, but at ODO of circa 700. The car now has 7,200 miles. Surely a car with WLTP range of 348 should not have a range of 290 miles after 7,200 miles of driving?!?!

Degradation often happens quickly, then levels off. Range as reported by the car includes the buffer, which is not usable in many cases, you would have to drive past 0 miles..

Suggest you look at the battery beta tab on Teslafi. It will compare the rated range with other cars of your type and mileage.

 

[Shap]

It's because Tesla is BS ing people. People can claim all they want that it's EPA rated but everyone laughs at that when they buy an ice vehicle. That ice vehicle still goes 300 plus miles though.

The wh/miles is nonsense. I'm at like 280 in sedate driving. People do need to use air conditioning and Tesla needs to realistically tell people what range they can expect

That is why you have "real world" range youtube movies MY is getting about 250-270 real-world miles on 100% charge. 80% charge - - 210-215 miles. This is the real day to day range. M3 is a bit better.

I agree that Tesla somehow tricks EPA testing. Kona EPA matches real-world tests for example. Not sure why EPA vs Real-world testing can be different for Tesla but not for Kona/I-PACE