Better range after 7.0 upgrade?

Yes, my stats before/after are exactly yours. It has me befuddled as I don't see any particular reason that this should be the case.

 

Yes, I am seeing better energy consumption on my S60 as well. I drove 60 miles the day after upgrading. In the past, a very good number I could have seen for this kind of drive would have been around 260 Wh/m. I ended the drive with 227 Wh/m with v7.

 

I think is the result of torque sleep for RWD cars

7.0 Torque Sleep Efficiency | TESLA OWNER

 

I noticed this the morning of the update. I started with 241 miles range and ended with 245 after the update. And now my Wh/mi are closer to the 300 range I'm chasing rather than the sub-400 I'd been getting. I think the regen seems better and if the a/c is more efficient, maybe that's helping as well?

 

I see no difference in my 85 (RWD) produced in March 2014.

 

I started seeing some trips below 300Wh/mi for the first time. I had a lifetime average around 340Wh/mi. I haven't had a trip average more than 320Wh/mi since I upgraded. If those are accurate, it seems likely this will translate to a substantial real-world range improvement for me.

"Classics" didn't get much good news with V7, but this seems like the best feature we received.

 

I had to do a double take when a typical 30 mile trip that normally ran around 320 wh/m was around 270. I'm tracking my usage before and after the update to see how this changes across a range of driving conditions.

But for me there has absolutely been a noticeable difference in my non-AP S85.

 

Have you west coasters been having warm temps this week?

Someone else posted a thread about v7 causing worse wh/mi (but on the east cost, it's been cold here).

 

Made my usual trip to Austin and back in my S60 a few days before the update, then repeated the trip yesterday post-update. Same driving conditions, route, speed, and even ambient temp (within 5 degrees or so), averaging around 355 Wh/mi before, about 325 after. Had 25 mi excess range after the update. A very noticeable improvement. Amazing that my S60 just keeps getting better with age

 

I did a 120 mile trip on Saturday in Bay Area traffic at Bay Area speeds and got 284 Wh/mi - much lower than normal - it amazed me and I couldn't understand why it would be better.

 

This is a great thread. None of the usual b*tching and moaning about stuff that has infected much of the discussion of v7. Change is hard, but when it comes with tangible improvements like this, I'll take it every time!

 

Before the 7.0 update, I had a conversation with a 7.0 beta tester who had an 85 rear engine. He was quite certain that rear motor torque sleep was implemented in the 7.0 beta for rear motor Model S cars. He noticed some of the best wH/m figures he had ever seen. He told me that the car can now "coast" as if in Neutral and not invoke regeneration on certain terrains. Perhaps this is what you are all noticing...

Torque Sleep was implemented for all Model S dual engine cars a while back as I recall.

 

Indeed in my car, 7.0 has provided quite an improvement in my Wh/mi, a reduction of about 20-30 Wh/mi average for equivalent weather conditions.

I'm still skeptical, though, as the way they've calculated things tends to change over time and I keep wondering if it's just due to a difference in some calculation, or whether we are truly getting better mileage. I don't have the benefit of a "regular commute" by which I can measure the utilization. Twiddler's anecdote, above, showing 25 mi more on a regular trip is a promising start, now we just need more people who do a "regular" commute to tell us whether they're regularly seeing a higher SOC at the destination on these routes with 7.0 compared to 6.2.

I would like to see Tesla re-run the EPA tests and tell us whether they have changed... that would be also a good determination.

 

The release notes say that the motor is de-energized at standstill. There is nothing about better cruising or better motor efficiency while driving. Only when you stand on a red light the motor won't use any energy. Since the motor never used much energy there anyways and the trip meter doesn't count energy usage at standstill I highly doubt there is such a significant difference now and it wouldn't show on the trip meter's energy usage. They did say the AC is now more efficient. But that only contributed maybe 5-10% of the energy usage. So even if they could improve AC efficiency by 1/3 (which would be amazing) it would only be 1/3 of 5-10% meaning it would overall only make 2-3% difference. Much smaller than reported here.

 

That's why I'm still a bit skeptical. My reported Wh/mi number is lower, but I don't have a regular driving pattern where I could correlate that with rated miles to determine if indeed I am saving miles, or if the car is just reporting a lower Wh/mi and it's not changing the ultimate range of the car.

I'm hoping others with regular driving patterns can tell us whether they're seeing a higher average range after taking a regular trip. For example, someone who's used to arriving at home after a round trip commute usually has 160-170 miles left is now seeing 180-190, etc.

Does torque sleep apply elsewhere? Perhaps on a rolling terrain when you change from power consumption to regen - is the more parabolic regen curve using torque sleep in the center part to save some energy here rather than jumping right to regen rapidly, where there can be an efficiency loss? Perhaps that's a contribution. I don't know, only speculating...

 

I've been skeptical as well, hence didn't post initially. Especially because my morning commute yesterday was colder than normal. But yesterday afternoon, and this morning also show 20-30 Wh/mi less for me on average... and the total range remaining for each of the ~35 legs was indeed another 10% greater or so.

Sample size is pretty small, however so I'll see how consistent that is...

 

Reporting in from Florida

Lower number with ac and without
20 to 40 less on Wh readout
but need to take one of my known routes to confirm
Millage left in battery