Brand spanking new model 3 LR AWD first full charge (460/499 km) range

[axar]

Brand spanking new Model 3 LR AWD EPA rated range is 499 km or 310 miles. I have added about 560km on odometer and this is 2nd charge. I charged the car to 100% and its reporting only 460 km range.

Now that's about 8% difference for a car with less than 600 km on it. Do I need to drain the battery to 5% and then recharge to 100% to see if there is anything to be worried about?

I haven't been hammering it or anything the odometer reads all time 164Wh/km.
Which may translate to 460km.. if my math is correct.. ( 75kWh/16kWh) * 100km = ~ 468km.

I just drove about 50km on it and the battery is reporting at 82% which should be around 409 but it's around 380.

Shed some light please.

Thanks

 

[KenC]

Why are you charging to 100%? That's for long trips when you'll start driving promptly. Set it on somewhere between 80% and 90%, like it instructs, and leave it plugged in, when not in use.

 

[axar]

Just to see what k

Why are you charging to 100%? That's for long trips when you'll start driving promptly. Set it on somewhere between 80% and 90%, like it instructs, and leave it plugged in, when not in use.

Just to see what it reports at 100%. Was surprised to see it at 460 i was hoping anywhere on the 490 at least.

 

[jjrandorin]

If you take it to tesla, they are going to tell you that it takes time for the car to calculate its range, and that if there is something wrong with your battery that the car will tell you.

My car only charged to 306 miles when it was new, and I panicked just like it sounds like you are doing. I took it to tesla after discharging and charging to 100 etc, they told me the above, I didnt believe them...

But now, after 11k+ miles, if I charge to 100% its 309 instead of 305/306.

Its almost certain that you have no problem with your battery. Drive it for at least 2k miles before starting to worry about that number would be my advice based on my experience.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

First, wouldn't worry about your battery. Drive a bit first. The car will tell you if it's broken.


rkm = rated km below... (Rated km are a measurement of energy.)

I haven't been hammering it or anything the odometer reads all time 164Wh/km.
Which may translate to 460km.. if my math is correct.. ( 75kWh/16kWh) * 100km = ~ 468km.

Not correct, but close. You're assuming the meter in the car is accurate (there is no evidence that it is). And that you have a 75kWh battery. (You don't - it's about 78kWh.)

A bit complicated...but...

164Wh/km (264Wh/mi)

For AWD, you need to get 143Wh/km (230Wh/mi) to get one rated km to click off for each km traveled.

At 164Wh/km, your car (with max battery of 460rkm) would have a range of 460rkm * 143Wh/rkm / 164Wh/km = 401km (249 miles).

I just drove about 50km on it and the battery is reporting at 82% which should be around 409 but it's around 380.

This definitely seems a bit unexpected - there appear to be battery calibration issues. If I understand correctly, you used 18% of your battery (which has a max capacity of 460rkm * 143Wh/rkm = 65.8kWh). (If it had max range of 499rkm it would have capacity of 71.3kWh. Aside: This doesn't match the 78kWh I mention above because the meter always measures low - it's not really displaying actual kWh use.) So you used 18% of 65.8kWh, 11.8kWh, to go 50km.

That's 236Wh/km, or 380Wh/mi. Do you happen to know what the indicated Wh/km was in the car for those 50km? Was the 82% recorded right after the drive? (It hasn't been sitting overnight with Sentry on or anything?)

However, 380rkm @82% is consistent with 460rkm @ 100%. So that part makes sense.

Now is a good time to mention (as has been mentioned hundreds of times elsewhere): Energy use on the meter in the car is only tracking energy use when the car is not in Park. You can lose many many rated km of energy just sitting in Park, when you're away from the car. Doesn't sound like the issue here, but FYI.

 

[timk225]

Like any EPA rating, the only way you'll ever come close to it is if you drive like a little old lady in chill mode all the time, max regen, never over 55 mph, never use the heater, etc.

 

[mswlogo]

Like any EPA rating, the only way you'll ever come close to it is if you drive like a little old lady in chill mode all the time, max regen, never over 55 mph, never use the heater, etc.

How you drive it has nothing to do what a new battery should show when fully charged.

BTW I get an average 230 wh/mi (5% better than EPA - Estimated 326 miles range) for the last 2000 miles with some AC, AWD, 19" Wheels doing 65-70 mph on highways. I don't do 80-85 mph like many folks do.

You don't have to drive like an old lady to get that either. Just drive smart and understand how to get the most out of the HVAC.

I agree with others advice to drive it a couple thousand miles and then check it again.
I think the OP is perfectly justified to be a tiny bit concerned, but no reason to panic yet or attempt to contact Tesla yet.

If you do charge to 100%, just make sure you don't leave at 100% to long.

My first 100% charge was on a SC within the first week and it hit 310 on the button.
I've done 100% 4 times in 9 months and 9K miles it hit 310 (SC), 309(SC), 307(WC), 309(UMC).
I think 100% is the only way to fully check it (not by extrapolating 90%).

BTW was the 100% charge on a SC or at home Level 2?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

BTW I get an average 230 wh/mi (5% better than EPA - Estimated 326 miles range)

That is very good (excellent), but to be clear, at that efficiency, in the AWD, you will get 310 miles of range for a 310 rated miles to 0 rated miles discharge. It may be possible to drive a little further below 0 miles. But you will not be able to get 326 miles of range on a trip with greater than or equal to 0 elevation gain at 230Wh/mi. You would need to get about 220Wh/mi (displayed) on the AWD to get 326 miles.

Easy to verify if you don't believe me, of course.

I agree with others advice to drive it a couple thousand miles and then check it again.
I think the OP is perfectly justified to be a tiny bit concerned, but no reason to panic yet or attempt to contact Tesla yet.

Agreed. I do think the behavior seems a bit odd. Hopefully it will work itself out shortly. I think if something is wrong it will likely get worse.

I think 100% is the only way to fully check it (not by extrapolating 90%).

Sure, but the extrapolations have always seemed pretty accurate to me. I haven't tried charging to 100% recently (have a couple times before), but the somewhat reduced numbers at 90% that I see now lead me to believe that I probably won't see 310 at a full charge anymore, on this software. No way to know fully without charging up of course.

 

[mswlogo]

That is very good (excellent), but to be clear, at that efficiency, in the AWD, you will get 310 miles of range for a 310 rated miles to 0 rated miles discharge. It may be possible to drive a little further below 0 miles. But you will not be able to get 326 miles of range on a trip with greater than or equal to 0 elevation gain at 230Wh/mi. You would need to get about 220Wh/mi (displayed) on the AWD to get 326 miles.

Easy to verify if you don't believe me, of course.

Agreed. I do think the behavior seems a bit odd. Hopefully it will work itself out shortly. I think if something is wrong it will likely get worse.

Sure, but the extrapolations have always seemed pretty accurate to me. I haven't tried charging to 100% recently (have a couple times before), but the somewhat reduced numbers at 90% that I see now lead me to believe that I probably won't see 310 at a full charge anymore, on this software. No way to know fully without charging up of course.

You can argue over exact numbers all you want but I never plan to ever run my battery anywhere near 0 miles left (i.e. a dead battery) regardless of how efficient it's running.

Even if you got 100 wh/mi your "battery" meter (on the main display under your MPH, display in miles units) the car will not let you drive past 0 miles range. In fact, the car could die anywhere below 15 miles (5%) battery left. If you are getting better wh/mi you will just approach 0 miles left a little slower (it's not gonna go past or be negative). 0 miles left is a dead battery, no matter what your wh/mi is or was, you cannot drive any miles with a dead battery, unless down hill

The battery meter is just an absolute measurement of "fullness", regardless of efficiencies. This is why some people argue to set the display in % rather than miles. 0 miles is 0% battery.

Regarding 100% "test". Only if you go to 100% does the car go through a full battery equalization. And only then you'll really know the total capacity and condition. I'm sure 90% can be a good estimate on some batteries (ones probably in better condition), or one that was recently charged to 100%, but not others.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

the car will not let you drive past 0 miles range.

Not suggesting that anyone try...and I have not...and it's a really bad idea to try...but here is my source...

Elon Musk on Twitter

And yes, for this reason, even if you're getting 230Wh/mi, you realistically have only a maximum of about 295-300 miles of range, to ensure you have 15 miles of range to spare.

It's good to leave the margin, just in case the battery suddenly does not have the energy it thinks (though I think this is probably the exception rather than the rule - otherwise we'd be hearing a lot of stories...)

Only if you go to 100% does the car go through a full battery equalization.

I've heard this. I don't know anything about the details of Tesla's rebalancing algorithms, so I don't know whether it is true. But I would think rebalancing would have to always be taking place (but I have no idea). Otherwise everyone would have battery balance issues. That being said, going to 100% perhaps allows the car to determine approximately what 100% is, which might be hard to know via any other method, no matter how much rebalancing has been done.

In any case it's still a little concerning what the OP is seeing here. He'll have to keep us in the loop. Hopefully it will resolve itself.

 

[axar]

How you drive it has nothing to do what a new battery should show when fully charged.

BTW I get an average 230 wh/mi (5% better than EPA - Estimated 326 miles range) for the last 2000 miles with some AC, AWD, 19" Wheels doing 65-70 mph on highways. I don't do 80-85 mph like many folks do.

You don't have to drive like an old lady to get that either. Just drive smart and understand how to get the most out of the HVAC.

I agree with others advice to drive it a couple thousand miles and then check it again.
I think the OP is perfectly justified to be a tiny bit concerned, but no reason to panic yet or attempt to contact Tesla yet.

If you do charge to 100%, just make sure you don't leave at 100% to long.

My first 100% charge was on a SC within the first week and it hit 310 on the button.
I've done 100% 4 times in 9 months and 9K miles it hit 310 (SC), 309(SC), 307(WC), 309(UMC).
I think 100% is the only way to fully check it (not by extrapolating 90%).

BTW was the 100% charge on a SC or at home Level 2?

Home Tesla wall charger at 48A.

 

[axar]

thanks everyone for reply. I will drive to around 2500km and give it another 100% try. This time I will ensure all extra features are turned off like sentry, data, temp control etc.

 

[mswlogo]

Not suggesting that anyone try...and I have not...and it's a really bad idea to try...but here is my source...

Elon Musk on Twitter

And yes, for this reason, even if you're getting 230Wh/mi, you realistically have only a maximum of about 295-300 miles of range, to ensure you have 15 miles of range to spare.

It's good to leave the margin, just in case the battery suddenly does not have the energy it thinks (though I think this is probably the exception rather than the rule - otherwise we'd be hearing a lot of stories...)



I've heard this. I don't know anything about the details of Tesla's rebalancing algorithms, so I don't know whether it is true. But I would think rebalancing would have to always be taking place (but I have no idea). Otherwise everyone would have battery balance issues. That being said, going to 100% perhaps allows the car to determine approximately what 100% is, which might be hard to know via any other method, no matter how much rebalancing has been done.

In any case it's still a little concerning what the OP is seeing here. He'll have to keep us in the loop. Hopefully it will resolve itself.

I agree on most of your points.
But I disagree with what you think the estimated range is at 230 wh/mi

Note the energy app display below, that so happens to be at an average of 230 wh/mi Note how much it estimates the predicted range is (252 miles) relative to the main screen battery meter (237 miles).

The Energy app estimates I’ll get 252 miles range at 230 wh/mi with 237 (rated) miles left on the battery. That’s 252 predicted miles on a battery that is only 76% full.

So how am I doing relative to rated range, easy, 252/237 = 1.063 or I’m getting about 6.3% over “rated range”. 6.3% over the rated range is just another way of stating 230 wh/mi.

Now, if the battery was full (i.e. Battery at 310 rated miles (100% charged) or close to it) the energy app would display 310 * 1.063 = 329.6 miles predicted range if I was doing 230 wh/mi on a full battery. All I did here is apply the same efficiency (230 wh/mi or 6.3% over rated range) to a full battery to get the full range of a full battery.

So even with 15 miles safety (which almost nobody factors in when comparing numbers) I’d still get 315 miles range.

Are you saying the Energy App is wrong?

And no, I’ve never tested the Energy app down to 0 miles left.

Interesting tweet by Elon, also don’t believe it. To many posts of folks in trouble with positive single digits left on battery that got stranded. Battery is to fragile at those levels. If you goose the throttle below 5% for any reason you could be stranded.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I agree on most of your points.
But I disagree with what you think the estimated range is at 230 wh/mi

Understood, and I completely understand your data and why you think what you think. I also have never tried a trip to 0 rated miles, but I have done this:

Do a trip of ~100-150 miles, look at the trip meter (the card on the left hand pane of the display), look at the starting rated miles, and the ending rated miles.

If I then calculate what my trip meter says I used for energy, and look at how many rated miles I used, I find in order to get 1 mile travel per rated mile rolloff on the energy meter, I would need to be getting 230Wh/mi on that trip meter (to be clear, I'm talking about the trip meter - not what is displayed on the consumption graph - I've never checked to see whether these two data sources agree (say, over a 30-mile interval)!).

I have done the above multiple times, and at least for me, I always end up with the 230Wh/rmi constant (in a P3D+ - though I've verified it in an AWD as well).

I cannot explain why the consumption graph does not agree. I am fairly sure that with 230Wh/mi displayed on the Trip Meter for your 252-mile trip, if you had 237 rated miles left at the beginning of the trip, you would NOT be able to travel 252 miles.

One of these days, when I have a longer trip, I'll take some more pictures of that estimate on the Consumption page, the Trip page, etc., to see how they all tie together.

In any case, it is easy to verify/disprove my claim. You don't necessarily have to do a 100-mile trip. Even gathering data carefully for a 20-30 mile trip should get you pretty close on that 230Wh/rmi constant, and you'll see what I mean.

In the end, the battery meter is the "master" - that's why I focus on that. What the graph says could be wrong.

 

[mswlogo]

thanks everyone for reply. I will drive to around 2500km and give it another 100% try. This time I will ensure all extra features are turned off like sentry, data, temp control etc.

Again, efficiency and phantom drains have nothing to do with what the battery meter shows. Those affect how many kilowatts you need to feed it, not how many kWh the battery should hold.

I have zero proof of this, but try a couple SC on a low battery. I think varying what the battery sees is healthy and helps the calibration of the battery capacity display. The battery does have some “learning/calibrating” that goes into its translation of volts to miles of range.

I think it’s also good to test that the car can properly handle the 120 kw (or higher) charge rates.

 

[mswlogo]

Understood, and I completely understand your data and why you think what you think. I also have never tried a trip to 0 rated miles, but I have done this:

Do a trip of ~100-150 miles, look at the trip meter (the card on the left hand pane of the display), look at the starting rated miles, and the ending rated miles.

If I then calculate what my trip meter says I used for energy, and look at how many rated miles I use, I find in order to get 1 mile travel per rated mile rolloff on the energy meter, I would need to be getting 230Wh/mi on that trip meter (to be clear, I'm talking about the trip meter - not what is displayed on the consumption graph - I've never checked to see whether these two data sources agree (say, over a 30-mile interval)!).

I have done the above multiple times, and at least for me, I always end up with the 230Wh/rmi constant (in a P3D+ - though I've verified it in an AWD as well).

I cannot explain why the consumption graph does not agree. I am fairly sure that with 230Wh/mi displayed on the Trip Meter for your 252-mile trip, if you had 237 rated miles left at the beginning of the trip, you would NOT be able to travel 252 miles.

One of these days, when I have a longer trip, I'll take some more pictures of that estimate on the Consumption page, the Trip page, etc., to see how they all tie together.

In any case, it is easy to verify/disprove my claim. You don't necessarily have to do a 100-mile trip. Even gathering data carefully for a 20-30 mile trip should get you pretty close on that 230Wh/rmi constant, and you'll see what I mean.

In the end, the battery meter is the "master" - that's why I focus on that. What the graph says could be wrong.

I have compared those some. In fact when I test tires and mudflaps I use a 30 mile test loop (to exclude any net elevation change). And the left hand pane has jived with the energy graph. I reset the trip computer and watch when I hit 15 miles and turn around, then watch for 30 mile mark and the pane average should match the Energy app.

I’ll watch more closely. It’s easy to confuse yourself that you are comparing apples to apples. The only time the pane will match the energy graph is when the distance covered is the same on both (5, 15, 30).

It’s all relative. Don’t care too much about absolutes as long as I know I’m running “good” I’m happy. But sometimes my curiosity gets the best of me.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The only time the pane will match the energy graph is when the distance covered is the same on both (5, 15, 30).

Yes, of course. Anyway, feel free to gather the info above when convenient, if you care, and if the 230Wh/rmi seems out of line, let me know.

 

[mswlogo]

Yes, of course. Anyway, feel free to gather the info above when convenient, if you care, and if the 230Wh/rmi seems out of line, let me know.

I think I finally understand what your doing with 1 miles traveled and 1 mile rated drop.

I never use the rated miles (battery meter) delta, the one in the mph pane top left, for efficiency calculation. I only use it as how full is my tank is (which grossly displays in miles at some arbitrary assumed efficiency).

That “battery meter” includes everything. Phantom drains, App Wake-ups, uploads, updates, cabin overheat, Sentry, HVAC the moment you touch the door handle the battery starts draining (faster than a full sleep). I try pretty hard to minimize all those but you can’t avoid all of it.

Now if your watching real time while driving, to see what wh/mi would put those in sync, that’s extremely hard to do accurately. Now if your doing wide deltas that’s not so hard if it’s only measured over pure driving. As soon as you park a bunch of other overhead comes into play (which of course isn’t free or insignificant).

I see why your doing it that way but I don’t think many other folks do and it’s hard to compare what your saying with others.

Like I said it’s all relative. I know 230 wh/mi is better than 250 wh/mi (from the trip computer). I also know that to get the Energy app or trip computer to give me 310 miles of range (by it’s optimistic formulas) I’d have to do about 240 wh/mi. My rule of thumb is if I can do 240 wh/mi or better on an AWD I’m doing great. Regardless of what the real numbers might be. And for convenience and ease of discussion that’s what most every one else uses (what ever the trip computer says).

The trip computer is strictly energy used while in drive. And the energy app predicts based on the same math.

If you really wanted factor in the real cost you should have a watt meter on your charging circuit and use your odometer to calculate the real numbers.

Now if you are doing your measurement over pure driving non stop (e.g. reasonably wide 100-150 miles ) and the trip computer extrapolates to 240 wh/mi to reach 310 range and your method comes out to 230 wh/mi I am curious of where the discrepancy is why it exists.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Now if your doing wide deltas that’s not so hard if it’s only measured over pure driving. As soon as you park a bunch of other overhead comes into play (which of course isn’t free or insignificant).

Yes, they do. It would be useless to do the experiment if you spent any time in park.

Now if you are doing your measurement over pure driving non stop (e.g. reasonably wide 100-150 miles ) and the trip computer extrapolates to 240 wh/mi to reach 310 range and your method comes out to 230 wh/mi I am curious of where the discrepancy is why it exists.

I have always done my empirical data gathering over pure driving, non-stop. My method will always come out to right around 230Wh/rmi. It's easy to verify. Note that errors due to vampire (which I'm not counting because I am careful about my method) would bias the resulting number to a LOWER value, anyway. Not a higher value. Minimizing non-driving losses gives you the HIGHEST constant because it minimizes the denominator.

Based on your picture above, I definitely think there is a discrepancy with the Trip Computer 30-mile average page.

But it would be easy enough to verify my number.

Now if your watching real time while driving, to see what wh/mi would put those in sync, that’s extremely hard to do accurately. Now if your doing wide deltas that’s not so hard if it’s only measured over pure driving. As soon as you park a bunch of other overhead comes into play (which of course isn’t free or insignificant).

As I said, it's easiest and most accurate to do a long trip. But you can get pretty close even with a shorter drive if you're careful about how you gather the data to eliminate rounding errors.

The only thing that is relevant is pure driving. That's the value of the constant. All those other overhead losses really add up, but they never matter for range because you're usually just going to plug in when you're looking at a time scale where they become significant.

I'm focused on range here - not efficiency. And for range, all that matters is how those rated miles click down, in relation to the trip meter. This relationship is described by the 230Wh/rmi constant.

 

[KenC]

Only skimmed the above convo, but I did take a pic of my car when it passed 5 miles driven, and the 5 miles Average graph. The Wh/m is the same.