-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Battery Replaced Under Warranty - 30+ miles below rated range
- Thread starter robertmanning
- Start date
I have not experienced this. Looking at the CAN bus, the range is always based on the same numbers/math based off available energy. The BMS calculates how many kWh the battery has and divides it by the rated consumption (determined by the EPA test cycle). I have never seen anything different in my Model S. Maybe the Model 3 does it slightly different. Tesla does ease into rapid changes, though. For example when they deployed the software that limits the charge voltage it took a few weeks for the effect to fully show. It was a gradual decline.
To be fair, there is a difference between available energy (kWh) and how much you can get out of the battery. It does depend on several conditions. Internal resistance can build up more or less depending on driving style or time. I did many tests and found that there are discrepancies between how much energy is left and how much you can take out. It varies from 1% to 4%. But that has nothing to do with range calculation.
I claimed that my cars display of range is concealing battery degradation because: The display of full charge range is within 5-10 miles of when brand new (and other 90D's displayed the same full charge range). And this like-new display of range persists despite the fact that my battery has only 72-73 kwh of usable capacity.
It is very possible that my 2016 Model S BMS and displays of range are different from that of newer cars.
How are you calculating the usable capacity? (hint: the trip meter does not accurately report how much total energy is used, so you can't use it.)
Here's the listings on Zillow:
10930 Chalon Rd, Los Angeles, CA 90077 | Zillow
10911 Chalon Rd, Los Angeles, CA 90077 | Zillow
$9.5 mil for the Gene Wilder house.
$30 mil for the mansion.
The CAN bus read-out and multiple observations of the trip computer have always and repeatedly showed 72-73 kwh of usable capacity. For example, if I take a trip which takes the battery from 80% to 30%, the kwh used will be 36 kwh. Any portion of the battery divided into the kwh used always results in 72-73 kwh. I recently got he CAN bus device and app. The 72.x kwh was displayed there as well.
What makes you think that the cars trip computer display of kwh used is inaccurate?
The trip meter doesn't count energy used whole the car is in P. If you drive without stopping, the trip meter is accurate. So it can be accurate if you do a continuous drive but for most people that drive small distances and then park their cars it is not correct. The trip meters also only count the energy taken out of the battery, so charging losses are not accounted for.
I have long suspected that energy used while parked might not be counted in that trips page. So all of my measurements of battery capacity have had no or trivial Park times. This is pretty easy to do considering that while in park (with HCAV off) my battery loses about 1% of capacity in 24 hrs.
Keeping everyone updated. I had to file a warranty dispute with Tesla as they were taking in circles and then simply stopped responding. Once I filed the dispute, my phone started ringing again, but please read on. Tesla was in touch with me all last week saying they were going to remotely solve the problem. They had me change some settings of the car and I was asked not to use the app while the engineers were remotely working on a "battery module" fix. After four days, nothing on the car had changed. On Tuesday, May 19th, 2020, I received a call from a Tesla manager saying that he was sorry the fix is taking so long and that he was making sure I wasn't forgotten about.
I received a call yesterday, Wednesday May 21st, 2020, from a tech at the Orlando service center. I asked him if they had solved the problem and he said that the "problem" the engineers were looking for didn't apply to my car. He then started with the same old questions and saying the battery was fine and that my new battery had much more capacity than my old. I asked the tech what those numbers were and he told me he wasn't allowed to say. I informed him that he can't just "say" the new battery has more capacity and I informed him that if that was the case, then the new battery would have more range than my old battery. He then started fishing for range numbers of my previous battery and I told him again that my old battery had more "range" than the new battery. I then made my point about the math, and that my old battery demonstrated more capacity than the new battery. The new battery is demonstrating 45-46kwh capacity, and that is unacceptable. When I told him that his call was an attempt to "fish" for me to say something contradictory to my complaint, he quickly got off the phone after saying that he was in my corner and was only trying to ascertain the problem.
When I asked why the replacement battery is only demonstrating 45-46kwh of capacity he said, "....."
Crickets.
So what seemed promising last week has brought me right back to square one this week.
I received a call yesterday, Wednesday May 21st, 2020, from a tech at the Orlando service center. I asked him if they had solved the problem and he said that the "problem" the engineers were looking for didn't apply to my car. He then started with the same old questions and saying the battery was fine and that my new battery had much more capacity than my old. I asked the tech what those numbers were and he told me he wasn't allowed to say. I informed him that he can't just "say" the new battery has more capacity and I informed him that if that was the case, then the new battery would have more range than my old battery. He then started fishing for range numbers of my previous battery and I told him again that my old battery had more "range" than the new battery. I then made my point about the math, and that my old battery demonstrated more capacity than the new battery. The new battery is demonstrating 45-46kwh capacity, and that is unacceptable. When I told him that his call was an attempt to "fish" for me to say something contradictory to my complaint, he quickly got off the phone after saying that he was in my corner and was only trying to ascertain the problem.
When I asked why the replacement battery is only demonstrating 45-46kwh of capacity he said, "....."
Crickets.
So what seemed promising last week has brought me right back to square one this week.
Very interesting. So; what range are you getting with this new battery? (achieved range. Not displayed range). And at what wh/mile? What were those numbers on the original battery?
We just did a road trip from NY to Florida so we have a very recent experience with range and our old battery. We were getting approximately 190 miles with between 310 and 320 wh/mile. The replacement battery is giving us 172-174 miles with approximately 270 wh/mile.
I literally have the exact car that Tesla used for its EPA submission in 2014. Tesla submitted 208 miles with 350 wh/mile new.
I've stressed to Tesla that I don't expect the battery to perform like a new battery, but I do expect it to perform as well as our old battery. They come up silent when I ask them why the replacement battery is demonstrated such a limited capacity.
Those numbers tell a clear story.
Original battery, new:
350 wh/mi x 208 mi = 72.8 kwh
Original battery, ultimately:
315 wh/mi x 190 mi = 60 kwh
Replacement battery:
270 wh/mi x 173 mi = 47 kwh
Looks like your "new" battery is performing far below reasonable expectations. I don't know what is the best way to pursue this. But it sure looks like Tesla has come up short.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Your conclusion is that his “new” 60kwh battery was actually 72.8 kWh?
Don’t think he’s gonna get too far with that math.
aerodyne
2 of 3 EV's - Defect Free!
Pretty sure that the EPA consumption was less than 35 KwH per 100 miles, that number included losses when charging from the wall.
My losses over the last year are 12%, which at 34 KwH per 100 miles gives 299.2 KwH.
My rated and consumption lines on the energy display merge at between 298 and 300 Wh/mi.
You have a strong case and it could be a landmark for all the current cars that have a degradation warranty.
You might want to drive and look at the energy graph to see what the rated consumption is exactly, using the technique I mentioned.
aerodyne
2 of 3 EV's - Defect Free!
So if the munrony sticker said 35 KwH per 100 miles at the wall, that is actually about 30.8 KwH per 100 miles used by the car.
208 miles x .308kwh/mi = 64 KwH.
Joining late, but read the thread.
I also have "range" problems related to the May 2019 software castration.
However, this has allowed me to understand that the word "Range" is absolutely misunderstood. As has been pointed out in this thread, the real world range or any other estimated range can dramatically change based upon the average wt/mi, and these number are available within the main screen or could be based upon lifetime usage. (After 120k Miles, my average is 321.6 wt/mt).
HOWEVER- in the drivers screen, the range displayed is based upon a set value programmed by Tesla, and as I understand it, on a 2014 Model S85, that figure is 296 wt/mi. I cannot say how the number of 350 wt/mi was available, but I do know that when discussion range, it important to articulate that you are using the drivers screen range, which uses a static, hardwired ( not based upon driving habit) range factor.
I also have "range" problems related to the May 2019 software castration.
However, this has allowed me to understand that the word "Range" is absolutely misunderstood. As has been pointed out in this thread, the real world range or any other estimated range can dramatically change based upon the average wt/mi, and these number are available within the main screen or could be based upon lifetime usage. (After 120k Miles, my average is 321.6 wt/mt).
HOWEVER- in the drivers screen, the range displayed is based upon a set value programmed by Tesla, and as I understand it, on a 2014 Model S85, that figure is 296 wt/mi. I cannot say how the number of 350 wt/mi was available, but I do know that when discussion range, it important to articulate that you are using the drivers screen range, which uses a static, hardwired ( not based upon driving habit) range factor.
Similar threads
