Almost 15% range loss Model 3 Awd

[AlanSubie4Life]

40% charge used (90% down to 50%), 23 kWh used, 266 Wh/mi, 86.7 miles driven.

Your issue is that you are not counting any of the battery use while the car is parked. If you want a better explanation, report the rated miles used for a particular trip segment, and we can process accordingly. My prediction is that if your 100% charge is at 281 miles, valid extrapolations from the trip meter will predict battery capacity of 64.6kWh (230Wh/rmi*281rmi - but note this is NOT your actual battery capacity - it is actually somewhat higher than that as @TimothyHW3 says).

The number is around 153-154 Wh/km in km and around 245-248Wh/mile.
It is calculated based on the bases battery capacity which is 77kWh including 3.5kWh buffer. 77/3.10 equals the EPA consumption.
If your battery is degradated, for instance 75.5kWh(including buffer) you will only see 75.5/245 or roughly 301 miles at 100%.

I agree (approximately) with ALL of this (except for 77/3.1 equals EPA consumption - doesn't count charging losses - should be ~89/3.1 or so - but that's off topic). Definitely agree with the ~77kWh battery capacity. The only thing I am saying is that the trip meter will not match. This is not misinformation. Measure it yourself if you want (as I said before - you said it is because of BMS, etc., but please, measure it - it's an empirical datapoint - I'm not making claims about battery capacity based on the trip meter). I'm taking a road trip tomorrow, so I can gather data from some large discharges and tell you what I find. If you can post contradictory data from the trip meter (not from the CAN bus) I'm happy to see it - perhaps there are discrepancies between cars.

 

[TimothyHW3]

The trip matter will not match to what?! Please be more informative.

As I explained before, the constant uses the buffer, which is below 0%, so technically of course the trip meter and the mileage will not match to the capacity.
Think of it like this. 77kWh full capacity on a new battery. 310 miles or 100% based on 77kWh. BUT, you only have 77-3.5 buffer, so you don't have 100%, you have 95% even though it shows 100%.

So the 310 that are shown are 310 or minus buffer 100%-5%(roughly as the buffer changes) or roughly 95%. So the actual miles you can do at the rated EPA constant, if you manage to drive it, is around 295 miles, EVEN though the car shows 100% or 310 at the start.

This is why you will only get 310 miles on a new battery if and only if you drive below EPA rated consumption from 0-100%. I think Tesla does this for marketing. It is better to have 3 instead of 2 in the miles rated.
Hope this helps you.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The trip matter will not match to what?! Please be more informative.

You should really read my posts rather than just saying what you know - that's why I read your posts!

I am saying: For every 230Wh you see consumed on the trip meter for the AWD, you will see one rated mile on the battery gauge tick off.

Similarly, when charging the car, for every 245Wh that is added (on the charging screen), you will see 1 rated mile added to the pack.

Undegraded:
245Wh/rmi * 310rmi = 76kWh => implies 2-3kWh of reserve, based on EPA documents.

Trip meter:
230Wh/rmi * 310rmi = 71.3kWh => This is about the most you'll see on the trip meter for a continuous discharge from 310 rated miles to 0 (not below 0). You MIGHT see as much as 72.5kWh if the constant is closer to 234Wh/rmi as as some suggest. Does not say anything about actual pack capacity. It's just a number.

Think of it like this. 77kWh full capacity on a new battery. 310 miles or 100% based on 77kWh. BUT, you only have 77-3.5 buffer, so you don't have 100%, you have 95% even though it shows 100%.

Agreed.

So the 310 that are shown are 310 or minus buffer 100%-5%(roughly as the buffer changes) or roughly 95%. So the actual miles you can do at the rated EPA constant, if you manage to drive it, is around 295 miles, EVEN though the car shows 100% or 310 at the start.

Agreed.

This is why you will only get 310 miles on a new battery if and only if you drive below EPA rated consumption from 0-100%.
Hope this helps you.

Agreed. And that rated consumption to get that EPA result, as shown on the trip meter (NOT the CAN bus), is 230Wh/mi. If you target 245Wh/mi you won't get there, even if you exhaust your reserve.

Again, you do NOT have to believe me on the 230Wh/mi. You can check it yourself, very easily. Drive continuously to use 100 rated miles, and then look at what the trip meter Wh/mi * miles traveled tells you - just don't do the measurement with a downhill at the end (regen miles get temporarily hidden so could throw off the results). Just do a flat drive is the easiest way.

 

[gecko10x]

Trip meter:
230Wh/rmi * 310rmi = 71.3kWh => This is about the most you'll see on the trip meter for a continuous discharge from 310 rated miles to 0 (not below 0). You MIGHT see as much as 72.5kWh if the constant is closer to 234Wh/rmi as as some suggest. Does not say anything about actual pack capacity. It's just a number.


Agreed. And that rated consumption to get that EPA result, as shown on the trip meter (NOT the CAN bus), is 230Wh/mi. If you target 245Wh/mi you won't get there, even if you exhaust your reserve.

If I understand you correctly, that seems very misleading on Tesla's part.

You are saying that: if I drive at the rated consumption (as shown on the energy graph), it is not possible to get the rated miles shown on the main display, without going negative?? So, 310 <> 310? (Or x <> x)

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

If I understand you correctly, that seems very misleading on Tesla's part.

You are saying that: if I drive at the rated consumption (as shown on the energy graph), it is not possible to get the rated miles shown on the main display, without going negative?? So, 310 <> 310? (Or x <> x)

I think that is correct. It just means the meter reads wrong (it's just a meter!). The battery contains the same energy as in the EPA test. If you fill up an undegraded battery, it will contain ~77-78kWh of energy (just like the EPA test article did). And you will be able to complete the same number of miles as the EPA test if you drive that cycle. HOWEVER, the meter in the car will read about 73.5kWh if you drive that cycle, and completely discharge your battery (including the reserve below 0 rated miles). Obviously I've never driven until dead, so I can't say that for sure, but extrapolating significant numbers of observations at a higher SoC, that's what you'll see. I could be wrong. I only care about extrapolations within the range of battery charges that I use, so what happens below zero is not that important to me.

Quite separate from any meter issues, you can't get the EPA range without going negative. Keep in mind that the EPA test runs until the vehicle stops moving - as with any EPA test. Every mile counts in the EPA test, even if the battery gauge in the car has read 0 miles for the last 5-8 miles, and it is warning you to stop driving immediately.

 

[gecko10x]

I think that is correct. It just means the meter reads wrong (it's just a meter!). The battery contains the same energy as in the EPA test. If you fill up an undegraded battery, it will contain ~77-78kWh of energy (just like the EPA test article did). And you will be able to complete the same number of miles as the EPA test if you drive that cycle. HOWEVER, the meter in the car will read about 73.5kWh if you drive that cycle, and completely discharge your battery (including the reserve below 0 rated miles). Obviously I've never driven until dead, so I can't say that for sure, but extrapolating significant numbers of observations at a higher SoC, that's what you'll see. I could be wrong. I only care about extrapolations within the range of battery charges that I use, so what happens below zero is not that important to me.

Quite separate from any meter issues, you can't get the EPA range without going negative. Keep in mind that the EPA test runs until the vehicle stops moving - as with any EPA test. Every mile counts in the EPA test, even if the battery gauge in the car has read 0 miles for the last 5-8 miles, and it is warning you to stop driving immediately.

What you're saying makes sense... I guess my problem with it is that if it's true, the rated range shown on the car won't move in a linear fashion as you go down in SOC.

(I think)

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I guess my problem with it is that if it's true, the rated range shown on the car won't move in a linear fashion as you go down in SOC.

That's possible, but nothing about what I said implies that that must be true. (Except, of course, for below 0 rated miles, where you presumably get infinite (undefined; denominator is zero) Wh/rmi.) Before that, it's just a linear scaling (apparently), based on the set of observations I have gathered between 100 rated miles and 310 rated miles.

 

[gecko10x]

That's possible, but nothing about what I said implies that that must be true. (Except, of course, for below 0 rated miles, where you presumably get infinite (undefined; denominator is zero) Wh/rmi.) Before that, it's just a linear scaling (apparently), based on the set of observations I have gathered between 100 rated miles and 310 rated miles.

So, I guess it could still be linear, but a 1% move on the display wouldn't be 1% of 310 as one would expect.
Say there's a 5% buffer. Then I would have to assume the display would scale the miles by 2.95 for each 1% (310/105). 50% would show 148 (147.6) instead of 155 as you would expect.

 

[TimothyHW3]

You should really read my posts rather than just saying what you know - that's why I read your posts!
way.

I actually do read your posts, but your formulation is sometimes not appropriate. This is why I was able to explain your question with my previous post - the difference comes from the buffer being included in the EPA rating and charged capacity.

If I understand you correctly, that seems very misleading on Tesla's part.

You are saying that: if I drive at the rated consumption (as shown on the energy graph), it is not possible to get the rated miles shown on the main display, without going negative?? So, 310 <> 310? (Or x <> x)

Yes, that is perfectly correct -100% is not 100% but 95% +buffer. This is why when you go to 0, you actually have the buffer and can drive 20 or so miles at negavite% according to the BMS.

Now, misleading is a "strong" word
It is not optimal, but I think Tesla needed to get over 300 miles just for psychological reasons.

And when you say this is "misleading" you are not giving Tesla enough credit. Don't know what you will call VW, BMW and the others, who will "mislead" you by a 30-50% margin
For example: my older BMW was rated at X and I never, ever reached that! The closest I could get was to about 15% difference on a perfect evening driving relatively downhill on constant low speed of about 40mph.
On a Tesla, I can actually go about 10% below EPA, easily! Even with 55-60mph.

You also haven to consider that Gas cars are probably calculating a buffer too(gas light) So when they say X they mean X+ buffer. And not only that - they are extremely dumb: on a gas car you have the calculation based on what you drove the last X miles or so, then it does that while you drive.

On Tesla, under Energy, you get a full roadmap based on elevation, speed, traffic, road construction and probably even more to a point where you end up missshoting it by 3-4% tops. When I got the car I didn't really know what it did, and was astonished when it calculated a steep climb and decline almost exactly to the mile with almost perfect %. I was looking at the energy meter going up and down as I was perfectly matching the Regen and speed. It is amazing, not sure if any other EV has it, but I doubt it.

Like I said before, Tesla needs to explain the energy meter in great detail when they deliver the cars. But when I see how people struggle with basic stuff, maybe they think this will be too much to ask from some folks.

As for the misleading part- Tesla is fighting a hard right. You think Audi is honest when they use WLTP instead of EPA to advertise their Etron? Of course not! And when journalists quote the cars, they quote what they are fed from the data sheets. Hell, most "journalists" don't know what kW or kWh is, how are they going to explain to their readers what SOC, rated EPA or the energy meters are - they don't understand that either.

I am probably going to do a video on the topic, because a lot of people are confused by this, but to summarize it - yes, to get the 310 miles you need to drive 5-10% below EPA of 245Wh/m or so.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

So, I guess it could still be linear, but a 1% move on the display wouldn't be 1% of 310 as one would expect.
Say there's a 5% buffer. Then I would have to assume the display would scale the miles by 2.95 for each 1% (310/105). 50% would show 148 (147.6) instead of 155 as you would expect.

No. You are misinterpreting what I am saying. I am only talking about the trip meter reading.

This is all for the AWD:

1% movement on the display will be 1% of 310 (only for an undegraded battery that shows 310 at 100%).

Forget about the buffer stuff - but there is a buffer. But each 1% (as far as I can tell) is 3.1 rated miles for a vehicle that has 310 miles at 100%. The buffer is below that, and is hit when you reach 0 miles.

There is:
1) Buffer (some energy below zero rated miles)
2) Energy above zero rated miles (between 0 and 310 rated miles). For charging, you'll see each rated mile take 245Wh. For discharging, on the trip meter, you'll see each rated mile takes ~230Wh.

Whether this happens all the way down to 0 rated miles, I do not know; the lowest I have measured it has been to about 100 rated miles.

I was able to explain your question

Which question? I am making a claim for how the trip meter reads consumption, and I do not quibble with your numbers for battery capacity. People quote the Wh/mi (and total kWh used) shown on the trip meter, so it's important to be able to take that number and translate it to rated miles used (never mind that it does not show use while in Park...). That's what I use the 230 Wh/rmi constant for (for the AWD). That's what I observe. I understand that if you look at the CAN bus you will see different results.

Again, for AWD:
But I can assure you: If I consume 23.5kWh on the trip meter (102 rated miles), it will take 23.5kWh * 245/230 = 25kWh on the charging page, to charge back up to my original rated miles (adding 102 rated miles). (Assuming, of course, no time spent in park, where the trip meter does not count usage.)

This is all very easy to check yourself, as I keep saying. You do NOT have to believe me (and clearly you don't - and that's ok! Happy to be proven wrong with a documented result!) .

 

[TimothyHW3]

Yes, once again, this is due to the difference between 100% including buffer(245) and 100%, real 100% being 95%(without buffer)
So 95%*245 is your number

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Yes, once again, this is due to the difference between 100% including buffer(245) and 100%, real 100% being 95%(without buffer)
So 95%*245 is your number

So I do have a question then:

Let's say I consume 102 rated miles (I don't care about the actual distance), and the trip meter reads 23.5kWh.

How many kWh will the charging screen show me, to replace those 102 rated miles?

This is why I don't like this formulation (which I think you're suggesting?) that some of the energy is "put in a buffer" as you drive along (I am sorry if that is not what you're saying). I could imagine a scenario where for every 230Wh used on your meter, 15Wh was put in a "reserve." However, if you didn't actually use the energy, you wouldn't have to replace it. But, the charging screen shows you do have to replace it. So, my conclusion is that there is ~5% that is not shown (not measured) on the trip meter.

I agree that once you get to zero rated miles, you will still have a buffer (of about 2-3kWh). If you charge back up all the way from not below 0, but 0, to 310 rated miles, you'll add 310rmi*245Wh/rmi = 76kWh (as shown on the charging screen). Admittedly, I've never drawn it this low - so weird things COULD happen at very low mileage. I'm more speaking about what happens for "reasonable" states of charge (say above 50-100 rated miles) and then extrapolating.

But, it's definitely possible I'm missing how this buffer works - you have explained it before but I'm not quite following. But however we handle thinking about this buffer, I want our understanding of the energy we used to match the available energy we add back in to the battery. I know there are heat losses, etc. during charging - I don't care about those; they're accounted for completely separately in the EPA test anyway. I'm assuming the meter on the charging screen shows energy available added to the battery - it definitely uses the 245Wh/rmi constant (which extrapolates to 76kWh for a full charge, plus some reserve, which matches the EPA measured discharge of 77-78kWh).

And I'm totally fine with the energy being "used" (as measured on the meter) not matching the available energy put back - because the meter doesn't have to read correctly. We do know that the EPA test measures energy taken from the pack though (with multiple current clamps) - and that is 77-78kWh for a discharge including the buffer.

Anyway, I'll have some good data tomorrow. I expect to do some continuous 90%-100% to 10% discharges. Hopefully I won't have to use the reserve!

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

yes, to get the 310 miles you need to drive 5-10% below EPA of 245Wh/m or so.

I would state it as follows:

For a Model 3 AWD vehicle starting with 310 miles of rated range, with BMS in good shape, to travel 310 miles without driving with reading of 0 on the battery gauge, you need to drive with an efficiency of ~230Wh/mi, as indicated on the trip meter, driving continuously, without spending time in park. That summarizes my current understanding.

 

[TimothyHW3]

So I do have a question then:

Let's say I consume 102 rated miles (I don't care about the actual distance), and the trip meter reads 23.5kWh.

How many kWh will the charging screen show me, to replace those 102 rated miles

I don't know, because I don't know what your nominal full including the buffer is now(aka degradation)

I will use my real numbers and hope this will help you.

At the moment I have a full nominal capacity at around 76kWh(it is a bit less, but rounding). I believe, from other data of cars build around my VIN in Europe, that I had 77kWh when brand new. The 76kWh total is total including a buffer.
The BMS shows 3.5kWh buffer. This is the part that goes below 0%.

So, available I have 76kWh-3.5kWh=72.5kWh

When I charge I am shown 100% which is exactly 72.5kWh, but the car shows me 310m/500km based on 77kWh, which in terms at the moment is around 494-95km at 100%(76kWh after degradation)

100%=72.5kWh capacity available
But EPA miles shown at 100% = 77000/154=500km not correct!

So if I drive the EPA at 154kWh/km or close to that(77kWh/154=310/500km rated), I can only do 72.5/154 which is around 470-471km, even though I have used 100%. The buffer of 3.5kWh will be used below 0km if available depending on speed, heat, weather etc.

So technically, the 100% is my available capacity of 72.5 and I calculate my range based on the current consumption and heat loss while driving.

So far I guess is clear?

Now, if you want to do the same with your car, you have to know your degradation and kWh available without the buffer.

The buffer is not a constant - I have seen it range from 3.3 to 3.5kWh brand new. Mine is at around 3.4 now. I think Tesla will release a bit from it with degradation and time.

The buffer is also available if you get to 0km so that you can get yourself out of it, if you must. It might also be available if you push the car a bit(heat loss)
Heat loss is not only in the cables, it occurs inside the pack too. If you drive around 80- 100mph, you will experience a pretty significant heat loss. Not only are you going to have higher consumption (the kWh used shown in the trip meter), but you will have less capacity available.

So if the guy here drives at 300Wh/m, not only will he have more consumption and use 30kWh per 100 miles, but the total available capacity will go to below 72.5(maybe around 70kWh or lower. You can guesstimate it by calculation of how far off you are from the EPA constant and calculate the % heat loss based on the EPA consumption 245 and yours). So effectively he will have 70kWh/300Wh/m=233 miles from 0-100%.

And to illustrate a bit from a recent trip I mentioned:
I started at around 82% and ended at 11-12%(rounding errors), so around 70% used. I traveled at a very steady pace so no heat loss or minimal. I am not sure regarding Regen, but it was steady pace so not much if any.

Trip meter showed 362km driven, at 141Wh/km consumption and almost exactly 51kWh used.

If we take the 100% SOC being 76kWh-3.5kWh=72.5kWh available on my car, 72.5*70%(used based on the car info) is exactly 51kWh with rounding errors. This matches perfectly the trip meter.

If I continued to travel at this pace, I could have driven a total of 514km, beating the EPA from 0-100%. Or 463km from 0-90%. Which I ended up doing on another trip, where I did 433km with 85%.

So even though the estimate of 100% being 500km on EPA is "misleading", if you know your car you can achieve even more.
Hope this helps you in your journeys

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The BMS shows 3.5kWh buffer. This is the part that goes below 0%.

Does this buffer size change, depending on the state of charge (is it smaller the lower you SoC gets?)? Or is it always the same size for a given discharge?

But EPA miles shown at 100% = 77000/154=500km not correct!

310m/500km based on 77kWh, which in terms at the moment is around 494-95km at 100%(76kWh after degradation)

Is your 100% charge at 310 miles or not? Has it degraded? It sounds like you are saying it has, I just want to know how many miles/km your 100% charge is...so I can understand. It sounds like you are saying it is 310miles/500km. But I am confused about how that can be if your battery has come down in capacity from new, to 76kWh instead of 77kWh.

I don't know, because I don't know what your nominal full including the buffer is now(aka degradation)

The answer is 102rmi * 245Wh/mi = 25kWh. It is not dependent on my degradation.

51kWh with rounding errors. This matches perfectly the trip meter.

This is my question (for you): How many kWh did it take you (as shown on the charging screen) to charge back up to 82% (or, specifically, to add 214 rated miles for your vehicle.)? How many kWh would it take you to go from 1 rated mile to 310 rated miles (add 309 rated miles)? How do you square that answer with your 72.5kWh of capacity available?

I would estimate 52.5kWh for the 214 miles (which does not match the trip meter). You should check it sometime, the next time you do this sort of experiment.

 

[brianman]

I assume the S LR has a 100 kW hr battery

Based on the sub-forum and post title, he's talking about a Model 3 not a Model S.

 

[brianman]

support page:
"Why is my displayed estimated range decreasing faster than miles (kilometers for EMEA) driven?
The range displayed is not adapted based on driving pattern or other factors that impact range. When fully charged, the driving range displayed is based on regulating agency certification (Environmental Protection Agency - EPA). To view estimated range based on average consumption, open the Energy app."

Reference:
https://www.tesla.com/support/range

 

[TimothyHW3]

Does this buffer size change, depending on the state of charge (is it smaller the lower you SoC gets?)? Or is it always the same size for a given discharge?


.

1. The buffer is not the same. It changes based on the degradation and battery temperature over time. Mine is 3.4 it used to be 3.5 Not sure if SOC, but don't think so. Might change if the battery is more degradated. But since you don't know your degradation this information doesn't give you any value.

2. I don't know my 100%, because I rarely do 100%, but last I checked it was 497. Based on my estimate it should be 494-495 now.

3. No, this is not the answer, because, once again, it IS dependent on the heat loss and your degradation. If you used 23kWh, but there was 25kWh used due to heat loss or even 26kWh, you will see 26kWh.

Also, the amount shown inside the car when charging in kWh uses some rounding errors. If you have an external meter at your home or at the HPC, it will also show a different number depending on the cable heat loss of around 8-15-20%

I am out

 

[299792458]

Your issue is that you are not counting any of the battery use while the car is parked. If you want a better explanation, report the rated miles used for a particular trip segment, and we can process accordingly. My prediction is that if your 100% charge is at 281 miles, valid extrapolations from the trip meter will predict battery capacity of 64.6kWh (230Wh/rmi*281rmi - but note this is NOT your actual battery capacity - it is actually somewhat higher than that as @TimothyHW3 says).



I agree (approximately) with ALL of this (except for 77/3.1 equals EPA consumption - doesn't count charging losses - should be ~89/3.1 or so - but that's off topic). Definitely agree with the ~77kWh battery capacity. The only thing I am saying is that the trip meter will not match. This is not misinformation. Measure it yourself if you want (as I said before - you said it is because of BMS, etc., but please, measure it - it's an empirical datapoint - I'm not making claims about battery capacity based on the trip meter). I'm taking a road trip tomorrow, so I can gather data from some large discharges and tell you what I find. If you can post contradictory data from the trip meter (not from the CAN bus) I'm happy to see it - perhaps there are discrepancies between cars.

I fully understand there is phantom drain. I have a very predictable and repeatable routine, for which I have seen definite changes in max capacity and usage estimates recently. I just did a 17.1 mile segment at 340 Wh/mi and used 9 percent capacity. If my battery is degraded for whatever reason to 281/310 = 90.6% capacity remaining, this would be approximately 69.8 kWh. The equivelent 9 percent of 69.8 kWh Is about 6.3 kWh. Yet my display tells me I used 17.1 mi x 340 Wh/mi = 5.8 kWh, which is very roughly an 8 percent difference. So I have a supposed degraded battery capacity, plus my usage and efficiency disagrees by an additional notable margin.

It seems like this thread has some people that are talking past each other. Something has changed in SW recently that is causing a lot of confusion.

Edit: feel free to rip this up, I got no problem acknowledging there is a margin of error that I can't fully account for (i.e. even in my usage percentage I could be off by up to 1 percent), but I have made these observation consistently that directly conflict with my experiences doing range, mileage, and capacity estimates 8 months ago when the numbers matched much closer to what is expected.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I just did a 17.1 mile segment at 340 Wh/mi and used 9 percent capacity. If my battery is degraded for whatever reason to 281/310 = 90.6%

That small a discharge, it is very hard to extrapolate accurately.

However: I would expect a 17.1mi*340Wh/mi = 5.81kWh discharge to result in 5.814kWh/230Wh/rmi = 25.3 rated miles used.

This is 9% of 281 rated miles. (25.3rmi /0.09 = 281 rated miles)

So that all lines up. Perfectly. However, to some extent it is happenstance that it lined up this time - typically a 9% discharge will not project out so perfectly to what you think your 100% is.

In my view (yes, we are definitely talking past each other, though I am trying not to; I am trying to base things on hard observable (for the general user) data), what this means for you:

Maximum discharge on the trip meter possible (to 0 rated miles): 281rmi * 230Wh/rmi = 64.6kWh

Maximum charge event energy (from 0 rated miles, not below): 281rmi * 245Wh/rmi = 68.8kWh.

So your battery (not including the reserve) has ~69kWh of energy (90.6% of 75.9kWh, a new battery). Your battery appears to be lacking about 9.4% of its original capacity.

281/310 = 90.6% capacity remaining, this would be approximately 69.8 kWh

Looks like you used 77kWh for this calculation. I would use 75.95kWh, 310rmi*245Wh/rmi (you can say 76kWh obviously).

281rmi(now)/310rmi(orig)*75.95kWh = 68.8kWh (matches the number extrapolated above of course)

but I have made these observation consistently that directly conflict with my experiences doing range, mileage, and capacity estimates 8 months ago when the numbers matched much closer to what is expected.

I believe you. Your numbers make perfect sense for an AWD. Happened to extrapolate perfectly this time, but yes, a longer discharge would typically be desired (or just quote rated miles used rather than % to be able to do the calculations - the resolution is better so less rounding inaccuracy).