-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Anyone LR AWDs Showing 322 Miles Fully Charged?
- Thread starter diezel_dave
- Start date
- Status
Stellavator
Member
Mine ranged between 321 (and briefly up to 324) when new. Right now it's 319 with about 1200 miles on the car, but I've noticed it will revise the estimate upward as it starts charging. It was down to 313 when I started charging last night but is now up to 319 again when I checked the app.
Personally I'm erring on the side of keeping it at a lower SOC, even if that screws up the BMS range calculation. I'd rather have an inaccurate display than more actual degradation!
Scan My Tesla (SMT)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.emon.canbus.tesla&hl=en_US
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/scan-my-tesla/id1503080791
You need a Bluetooth OBD2 device and a cable adapter to add the OBD2 port that you plug into. You can find the info on the app sites linked to above.
Earlier Model 3s need a different adapter than later ones as the location changed.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
If you have any visible loss of capacity, you can also just multiply your miles at 100% by the appropriate charging constant (published elsewhere here for the 2020 Model 3) and get the kWh when full.
For example, my car has 15k miles, Nov 2018, 3P+, now has 290 miles at 100%.
So it has 71kWh of capacity, down from about 78kWh when new. 9% capacity loss (more than the nominal 6.5% mile loss would suggest).
Perfectly normal for a vehicle that has been carefully treated at this age.
Good to budget for 20% capacity loss just to be safe.
Last edited:
TimothyHW3
Active Member
Nah, that is way off at 15k. But it is probably a BMS issue, not real degradation.
I just passed 30,000km or 18000 miles, one year and 2 months of ownership and am at 75kWh nominal full (it actually went up the other day from 74.6 to 75 when charging very slowly to 100%).
I regularly charge 10%-90% and almost never charge daily so I guess my BMS is ok.
I have about 60% DC charge vs 40% AC (mostly Supercharger or HPC- 200kW Chargers)
I also tested the 100%-5% procedure to see if the SMT is reporting correct numbers and the BMS is ok and it came up 0.5kWh short (74.5), which is probably some little heat loss or a minor misscalibration of the BMS.
These are also the numbers I get from people around me. Bjorn Nyland is at 60,000km and has about 73-74kWh nominal full at 18 months of ownership (just 4 months shy of your car). And he beats the hell out of his P and charges on DC a lot.
Once again, 9% at 15k is not normal degradataion, sorry to burst that bubble again.
If you look at the charts published 9% is within 2 standard deviations but outside of 1. So this is bottom third, but better than the lowest 3%.
I’m sorry but unless you have access to a massive data base of model 3’s out there I’m not not sure how you can be so dismissive of what others are saying and keep touting this BMS vs real degradation. I even take what STATS reports with a grain of salt as we don’t know how big that data base is in regards to all the model 3’s produced. I know the people on this forum and other boards are a very small percentage of the model 3 owners out there. But there are plenty of people that experience lower displayed range....regardless if they do the same 10-90, keep it at 50, keep it at 90, supercharge 100% of time or never supercharge. Some experience higher stated ranges....also despite charging habits.
IMO I’m in the camp that there are some packs that are better than others...and that’s the variability that people are seeing. I’ve been using 18650’s in multiple led flashlights since 2013. There’s variability in 18650’s not only between manufactures but also within the same manufacturer. Considering there are thousands of cells in one module and mult thousands in a whole pack. There HAS to be some variability.
What does this all mean in the end? Regardless if it’s BMS misscalibration, real degradation, pack variability it all results in the same end user experience....LOWERED DISPLAYED RANGE. Can some do your 90-10 if it just BMS? Sure. Will it take some people over a week to even do a single 90-10.....sure. I for one got this car for its instant power....and driving in lower SOC isn’t fun for me. So I don’t care to keep doing 90-10 for 3 months....and do hope you’re right lol.
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
You seem extremely certain, lol! (BTW, I'm actually at 17k miles, not the 15k miles I quoted above. Was in a rush, gave the wrong number - was quoting my Toyota Highlander by mistake.)
I assure you my experience is well within the normal variability. I've never said that any particular vehicle will match mine. I am simply giving reasonable values to EXPECT (with margin - because obviously you want to end up with more range than you budget for!!!). I personally know of one other vehicle that is for sure lower than mine, and obviously I've heard of many here that are considerably lower than mine. So, if you expect and budget for 20% degradation (I think 15% is probably also ok to budget for), you don't have to worry about anything; unless your battery goes bad, you'll very likely do better than this for a long time.
I was at 74kWh at 14 months (13k miles), so do check yours in another 7 months. It's entirely possible my actual BMS kWh is something like 72kWh (or even 72.5kWh!) rather than 71kWh, but there's no need to split hairs over minuscule amounts of energy. It seems fairly certain that it's not 74kWh. I will of course at some point do several full 100-95% to 5% cycles (I'm going on a road trip soon), but I am not expecting some miraculous recovery to 74-75kWh, as that has never happened for me in the past. I see +/-1kWh bouncing around the value I quote, but not much more than that. If I settle to 73kWh or something, I would be super happy (I don't expect that).
9% is perfectly normal at 21 months age. That is to say, many people will have better than that value at that age, but quite a few people will do a bit worse. It's well within the normal range of variability!
Again, check in in 7 months (when the battery is warm, of course - might have to make it more like 9 months, for your spring time).
Anecdotally, I do think that vehicles built between August and November of 2018 seem a bit worse than others. But I don't have data to support that other than anecdata. So this particular claim might not be true.
Consider my bubble of battery buffoonery NOT BURST.
I'm old enough to remember the halcyon days of 2019 when your car had 75.7kWh at a full charge! Besides, we've already done the AC charging measurements from near empty, timed & calibrated (with voltage and current) extremely carefully, with no excess accessory use, and compared between vehicles, to demonstrate that an SR vehicle that shows substantially reduced range necessarily takes less AC energy to recharge (and when accounting for the well controlled and very well known charging losses, will exactly match the BMS value...). Obviously, that could be an issue with the zero point not being well known to the BMS, but at the moment we have no real evidence of that, and practically speaking it doesn't matter since no one is driving to that point, so it's the available energy above 5% that everyone actually cares about (which can be measured (and then calculated by converting to DC) with a timed charging event!).
@Stellavator for your 2020 Model 3, the constant is ~241Wh/rmi, ~255Wh/rmi, ~260Wh/rmi for 18"/19"/20", respectively. So charge to 100%, or at least over 95%, extrapolate from 95% to 100%, take that number of rmis, multiply by the constant. It'll give nearly exactly the same value as SMT (less than 0.5kWh difference).
Last edited:
TimothyHW3
Active Member
I do have a massive database. There is a German forum I follow with about 40 pages and different people posting data from Scan My Tesla. Based on total km and years of ownership. There are also at least a dozen if not more Youtubers now having access to SMT and they report their data. I am yet to see such high degradation at so few miles, km.
The only one close to what Alan is reporting is a guy that has about 470km of range and he just did a 100-2% run and he only got about 66kWhso it seems this is real Degradation. I think he is at about 30-40,000km too, but he does a lot of DC and does a lot of 5-100%. But still more than Alan in terms of KM total
I really can't imagine a real degradation of 9% at just 17000miles. From what I see, and from S and X experience that is the degradation you can expect at about 100k miles. And no matter how often you guys repeat that - it is not normal degradation.
As for Stats, no, you should not trust that app as it just does some reverse math based on the %. If you do a lot of short charges like most people do, then the app is way off.
TimothyHW3
Active Member
I have seen a lot of charts, not a single one places 7%at 17,000 miles. Care to post? I also have a massive S and X chart that places 9% at close to 100k miles
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Link? Has someone made a spreadsheet so you can actually look at the distribution?
It's not just the miles, it's the age.
I assure you my situation is not unusual at all. My battery is doing extremely well as far as I can tell. I know a guy with an LR RWD with 300 rated miles (that works out the same as mine, basically), at about 30 months of ownership.
I'm sure there are some batteries at the same age as mine with just 3-4% degradation, but that's basically the same as my 9%. It's all in the noise. Everyone is part of the distribution!
Remember, you've lost about 2kWh in the last 10 months. So there's no reason to expect that you won't be at 72kWh or so in another 10 months (though degradation does slow down at some point, of course). That puts you right around where I am currently. Check in then!
I was at 74kWh or so about 6 months ago.
Last edited:
TimothyHW3
Active Member
Look, think whatever you want. I am telling you how it is. 8 months difference don't matter so much that you can justify 5-6% difference. Plus I told you I know a guy with almost same degradation as you, but he has twice the miles and the car is maybe 4 months younger...
The only place age will matter is if you live somewhere in Thailand where it is humid and very hot.
I also don't understand what the purpose of this exercise is? You want to feel good about your degradation? You are Tesla shareholder and you don't want Tesla to look bad? Both? Something else?
What is the purpose of you defending that high degradation where hundreds of people are statistically reporting better values?
And yes, the 75,7 was at about 10,000 miles. Loosing 0.7kWh to 1kWh in double the time and 8 months later is perfectly normal. In your case exceptionally well...
And no, loosing 2kWh at the top end is not the same as loosing 2kWh down the road after 75. The first 1kWh you basically loose at around the 2-3K miles mark is what I have seen consistently, almost 100% of the reported cases. The top kWh are just there as an initial buffer.
This is roughly what I have seen happen.
20-30,000km reports are between 73.5-75
30-60,000km - goes down to about 72-73.5/74
60-100 - roughly 71-72.5
Those are my stats so far, I can link you to all the videos and pages.
The only place age will matter is if you live somewhere in Thailand where it is humid and very hot.
I also don't understand what the purpose of this exercise is? You want to feel good about your degradation? You are Tesla shareholder and you don't want Tesla to look bad? Both? Something else?
What is the purpose of you defending that high degradation where hundreds of people are statistically reporting better values?
And yes, the 75,7 was at about 10,000 miles. Loosing 0.7kWh to 1kWh in double the time and 8 months later is perfectly normal. In your case exceptionally well...
And no, loosing 2kWh at the top end is not the same as loosing 2kWh down the road after 75. The first 1kWh you basically loose at around the 2-3K miles mark is what I have seen consistently, almost 100% of the reported cases. The top kWh are just there as an initial buffer.
This is roughly what I have seen happen.
20-30,000km reports are between 73.5-75
30-60,000km - goes down to about 72-73.5/74
60-100 - roughly 71-72.5
Those are my stats so far, I can link you to all the videos and pages.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
But that's EXACTLY what I'm saying! This example proves my point! Everyone is part of the distribution! Your experience with your vehicle is EXACTLY the same as mine. You are just (possibly) on a different part of the distribution, that's all.
Please do so.
This isn't complicated. There are lots of batteries out there, and they will vary. That's the point of this exercise. 9% degradation is perfectly normal, expected, etc. It's what people should expect after a few years of ownership. If they do better (and many will - maybe even more than half!), great!
I'm a Tesla stock owner, but this has nothing to do with me defending Tesla. This behavior is normal for any electric vehicle. It's not like Tesla has miraculously "solved" the battery capacity loss "issue." It's just part of owning an electric vehicle. Goes with the territory. My Chevrolet Spark has lost at least 15% of its capacity after four years.
20% capacity loss? No, I would not be happy. But I don't expect to exceed much more than 10-11% capacity loss in the Tesla over the next couple years; as you say, it definitely slows down (I said that explicitly as well, above).
TimothyHW3
Active Member
Ok here is one. Not posting more as I don't want to waste time.
72.1kWh at 65,000 miles, car is older than yours, fits perfectly into my chart. Think whatever you like. Also, please don't spread your false information about EVs. I also have a Youtuber with an IONIQ that lost 1kWh at 125,000km. Bjorn also has tested an IONIQ that ahd almost zero degradation around the 100,000km mark. Tesla HAS solved the battery problem, they have one of the best batteries. PLEASE don't spread false information about degradation on TheEVs... only high degradation I have seen are Leafs in very hot climate. And Leafs have generally bad degradation not sure why. Koreans and Tesla are better
72.1kWh at 65,000 miles, car is older than yours, fits perfectly into my chart. Think whatever you like. Also, please don't spread your false information about EVs. I also have a Youtuber with an IONIQ that lost 1kWh at 125,000km. Bjorn also has tested an IONIQ that ahd almost zero degradation around the 100,000km mark. Tesla HAS solved the battery problem, they have one of the best batteries. PLEASE don't spread false information about degradation on TheEVs... only high degradation I have seen are Leafs in very hot climate. And Leafs have generally bad degradation not sure why. Koreans and Tesla are better
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
This is from December 2019. It's the same age as mine as far as I can tell (at the time of that video). He bought his vehicle in May 2018 (
As I expected, no distribution data from you. If you actually collect SMT distribution data that doesn't have a sampling bias, you will see a bell curve distribution of battery capacities for vehicles of a given age.
Let me know if anyone ever publishes this data from SMT. It wouldn't be difficult to generate - you don't need THAT many data points. Distributions based on extrapolated miles are definitely problematic, as you have said.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I'm not spreading false information. I am a strong proponent of EVs, and educating people about capacity loss is an extremely important part of encouraging people to buy them! If they can quantify and understand what will happen, that eliminates uncertainty and fear. The fact is, there is not generally significant enough capacity loss to worry about it.
I'm providing FACTS. I have a Chevy Spark - 15% loss (two of them did this; I still own one). Tesla Model 3 - 7-9% loss. Normal. A friend of mine has consistently had 285 rated miles for about a year now on his 2018 AWD Model 3 (10-11% loss). It doesn't change when he does hundreds of miles of road trips. He lives at the coast in SoCal (I'm slightly further inland but the car is kept pretty cool) so it's basically 60-80 degrees year round; good conditions for good battery performance and longevity. Normal.
It's fine. There's nothing to worry about here. As you have said, MANY people will do better. Everyone is part of the distribution. But it's no big deal if you have 10% loss, vs. 3% loss. It doesn't matter. All part of the distribution. All of these values are well within the body of the distribution (within about 2 standard deviations), so that makes them "typical."
If you ever come across age-stratified and mileage-stratified SMT data, please let me know. Good to have uniquifiers on the data so you're not getting confused with multiple data points from the same vehicle.
Last edited:
TimothyHW3
Active Member
Here is one data source, feel free to score it.
Wieviel Reichweite zeigt euer Model 3 bei 100 % an?
Here us another
ScanMyTesla & TM-Spy
You can just Google degradation and Tesla and scan my tesla on YouTube, you will find at least 20 Youtubers.
For IONIQ here are two.
And Bjorn Nyland did an IONIQ test too.
The IONIQ does have a buffer they don't let you use, but still impressive
Wieviel Reichweite zeigt euer Model 3 bei 100 % an?
Here us another
ScanMyTesla & TM-Spy
You can just Google degradation and Tesla and scan my tesla on YouTube, you will find at least 20 Youtubers.
For IONIQ here are two.
And Bjorn Nyland did an IONIQ test too.
The IONIQ does have a buffer they don't let you use, but still impressive
Stats uses the temperature dependent SOC, so part of the Rated Range degradation could be real deg, some could be BMS drift, and some is temperature in Winter and the shoulder months.
How many vehicles in this database?
We can’t exactly use historical data from S and X as they use 18650 cells....which have been around for quite some time. Model 3 uses newly developed 2170 cells which don’t have the track history as the 18650’s. There is no normal degradation right now...we’re all the guinea pigs. But I have read posts from previous S and X owners stating increased perceived degradation in their model 3’s....regardless of same driving and charging habits. BMS or real degradation? I guess we’ll find out in a few more years.
- Status
Similar threads
