Calculate usable battery capacity based on rated miles values

[FlatSix911]

Great analysis ... when can we see the usable battery capacity in kWh for the Model 3?

First, a bit of a warning to those easily offended by anything negative about Tesla: I've posted several threads about the actual capacities of Tesla battery packs. Raw data with mixed reception. Unfortunately it seems like any time anyone posts a thread that puts Tesla in a negative light most of them tend to get overrun by posts that either aren't on topic or try incessantly to defend Tesla's failing. Bluntly, this thread is not the place for defending Tesla, explaining why they chose to operate as they do, etc. This is about the raw data. Let's gather it, share it, and discuss it logically. If you don't like the data, honestly I don't care. Facts are facts. I don't care if they don't "matter" to you or if you think they don't "matter" to others, and frankly I don't think anyone else cares either. Again, this is about discussing the data and the numbers. Not about how you feel about them. Anyway, sorry about that. The above is my best effort to not have this thread overtaken by nonsense. It's certain to fail, but worth a shot I suppose.

To the facts.

In a previous thread I posted this data about actual pack capacities after gathering data from multiple cars of each variety:


As it turns out, at or near 100% displayed charge the rated miles (not ideal) * the static rated miles value for the vehicle type/config matches the BMS's reported total usable capacity to within about +/- 1 kWh in nearly all cases I've checked on real cars. The disparity is mainly due to lack of significant figures beyond rated miles, the fact that Tesla rounded the rated miles number to a nearest 5 Wh, and the fact that the car seems to round up on reported rated miles. Also, the rated miles display is not refreshed constantly when the BMS value changes, so there is some latency there. Extrapolating from SoC under 100% results in numbers that are very close, but tend to be off due to other factors.

In general, what you need to calculate capacity are the exact static rated mile values for your type of configuration. And actually, they're pretty simple. Here they are:

• All RWD Cars (non-Performance and Performance): 295 Wh/Rated Mile
• All Pre-refresh Model S Dual Motor, non-Performance: 290 Wh/Rated Mile
• Refresh Model S Dual Motor, non-Performance under 100 kWh: 285 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, non-Performance under 100 kWh: 320 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model S Dual Motor, Performance under 100 kWh: 310 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, Performance under 100 kWh: 333 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, Performance 100 kWh: 342 Wh/Rated Mile

Quick notes: Rated miles are EPA miles. I'm unsure what systems are used in other parts of the world. Internally on the cars everything in miles and uses these numbers then calculates the values for other regions using these as a base.

These are the exact numbers pulled from the Tesla firmware. Rated miles are static Wh/mi. They do not change with driving style or anything else besides the configuration of the car as noted above. The car simply takes the estimated usable energy remaining as reported by the BMS, divides by the appropriate static number above, and displays the value. There is another static value for "ideal" miles, but I haven't bothered to gather it.

For example, at my last 100% charge on my X P90D I reached 245 rated miles. To get kWh usable I look at the list above, pick 333 Wh/Rated mile because it matches my car. Then, I take 245 * 333 to get Wh usable. Then divide by 1000 to get kWh. In this example, I end up with 81.6 kWh usable capacity. The BMS on this car reports 81.7 kWh full usable capacity, so pretty darn close.

For fun, lets use the EPA range numbers from Tesla's website for some examples. All for sale now are refreshed versions, so keep that in mind.

• Model S 60 (s/w limited 75): 210 rated miles * 295 Wh/mi = ~62 kWh usable
• Model S 75: 249 rated miles * 295 Wh/mi = ~73.5 kWh usable
• Model S 60D (s/w limited 75): 218 rated miles * 285 Wh/mi = ~62.1 kWh usable
• Model S 75D: 259 rated miles * 285 Wh/mi = ~73.8 kWh usable
• Model S 90D: 294 rates miles * 285 Wh/mi = ~83.8 kWh usable
• Model S P100D: 315 rated miles * 314 Wh/mi = ~98.9 kWh usable (* Estimated Wh/mi)
• Model X 75D: 237 rated miles * 320 Wh/mi = ~75.8 kWh usable
• Model X 90D: 257 rated miles * 320 Wh/mi = ~82.2 kWh usable
• Model X P100D: 289 rated miles * 342 Wh/mi = ~98.8 kWh usable

As you can see, these numbers actually pretty closely match the capacity values I posted previously. The refresh S 90D appears to make the capacity appear to be a little overrated vs actual capacity, and the X 75D seems to really overstate usable capacity. by over 3 kWh... I'm unsure the reasoning for this. Keep in mind that the rated miles Wh numbers Tesla uses are always rounded to the nearest 5 Wh... which over ~300 miles of rated range is a potential disparity of about +/- 750 Wh before accounting for other factors.

A fun extrapolation: A Model S 100D would have a rated range of 337 miles.

It's also pretty interesting that given the internal static rated miles values the range numbers on Tesla's website pretty closely match actual usable capacity values. However, if you tried to go by the advertised capacity values (60,75,85,90,100, etc) to come up with a rated miles value you'd end up with something totally different in all cases. After taking the 4 or 2.4 kWh unusable portion into account (for the 85,90,100 or 60,70,75 packs respectively), the only cars still sold where advertised capacity doesn't match actual total capacity appears to be the 90. Previous 85 variants would also fall into this category as well. The 60, 75, and 100 actually appear to have packs of at least their advertised total capacities after taking the unusable portions into account. (Only opinion based portion of this post: On that note, perhaps Tesla is trying to actually match their name plate/advertised capacities on newer car variants. Doesn't really help people who own "85"s and "90"s that are short several kWh vs advertised, but, it's a start.)

Anyway, mainly wanted to put out the internal rated miles values so that people can calculate their actual available usable capacities. Should be interesting to see data from more than just the cars I've looked at.

-wk

Edit: Updated some data for 100 kWh variants.

 

[MarcG]

Great analysis ... when can we see the usable battery capacity in kWh for the Model 3?

Well, according to this article, Tesla bases the rated range of Model 3 on 237 Wh/mile.
So if you do the math, you'll end up with:

Base version: 220 mi * 237 Wh/mi = 52.14 kWh
Long range version: 310 mi * 237 Wh/mi = 73.47 kWh

Assuming these numbers roughly represent usable capacity, we could see the marketed capacities as 60 kWh and 80 kWh.
That would make it a nice line-up:

Model 3 60/60D
Model 3 80/80D/P80D
Model S/X 100D/P100D

 

[wdolson]

Well, according to this article, Tesla bases the rated range of Model 3 on 237 Wh/mile.
So if you do the math, you'll end up with:

Base version: 220 mi * 237 Wh/mi = 52.14 kWh
Long range version: 310 mi * 237 Wh/mi = 73.47 kWh

Assuming these numbers roughly represent usable capacity, we could see the marketed capacities as 60 kWh and 80 kWh.
That would make it a nice line-up:

Model 3 60/60D
Model 3 80/80D/P80D
Model S/X 100D/P100D

Tesla has played games with the actual KWh and the advertised capacity before, but it's usually rounded up or down to the nearest 5. I would expect if the pack is actually only 52 KWh, they will advertise is as 55 KWh. 55 and 75 makes more of a psychological difference than 60 and 75. They also want to entice as many people as possible into getting the larger battery car.

If they do actually achieve 237 Wh/Mi, that will be impressive.

 

[Lanber]

The 237 Wh/Mi is for the heavier 310 mile car.
Surely efficiency will be better on the lighter smaller battery. So likely a 50kwh battery?

 

[wdolson]

The 237 Wh/Mi is for the heavier 310 mile car.
Surely efficiency will be better on the lighter smaller battery. So likely a 50kwh battery?

For range calculations they currently use:

• All RWD Cars (non-Performance and Performance): 295 Wh/Rated Mile
• All Pre-refresh Model S Dual Motor, non-Performance: 290 Wh/Rated Mile
• Refresh Model S Dual Motor, non-Performance under 100 kWh: 285 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, non-Performance under 100 kWh: 320 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model S Dual Motor, Performance under 100 kWh: 310 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, Performance under 100 kWh: 333 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, Performance 100 kWh: 342 Wh/Rated Mile

From the first post in this thread. It may not be completely accurate, but they use the same numbers for range calculations on the refresh S90D and the S75D for example. I would expect they are probably using the same number for the Model 3, though the 237 could be for the AWD version and the RWD version will be higher.

 

[SageBrush]

The refresh S 90D appears to make the capacity appear to be a little overrated vs actual capacity, and the X 75D seems to really overstate usable capacity. by over 3 kWh.

I'm not sure I believe it, but I have read that the EPA range test has the car drive the combined 2-cycle route until it runs out of power and then reads off how many kWh are consumed to bring the SoC up to 100%. My skepticism starts with a test that forces the tester to drive 300 miles, but relevant to your unexplained discrepancy, the cycles have varying power and load demands through the test and allowing the test to end at different points on the test is sure to introduce artefacts.

The work done here does point out that in general (7/9 by my count), Tesla badges come within 1.5 kWh of usable capacity. I was under the impression that the badge was based on nominal capacity. I'm happy to be wrong.

 

[David99]

I'm not sure I believe it, but I have read that the EPA range test has the car drive the combined 2-cycle route until it runs out of power and then reads off how many kWh are consumed to bring the SoC up to 100%. My skepticism starts with a test that forces the tester to drive 300 miles, but relevant to your unexplained discrepancy, the cycles have varying power and load demands through the test and allowing the test to end at different points on the test is sure to introduce artefacts.

The work done here does point out that in general (7/9 by my count), Tesla badges come within 1.5 kWh of usable capacity. I was under the impression that the badge was based on nominal capacity. I'm happy to be wrong.

The EPA test is done to when the car shuts off not when the display shows 0 miles. I think that causes some confusion. And yes then the car is charged to 100% and the energy from the grid is measured. So the charger efficiency is part of the equation.

 

[Boatguy]

For range calculations they currently use:

• All RWD Cars (non-Performance and Performance): 295 Wh/Rated Mile
• All Pre-refresh Model S Dual Motor, non-Performance: 290 Wh/Rated Mile
• Refresh Model S Dual Motor, non-Performance under 100 kWh: 285 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, non-Performance under 100 kWh: 320 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model S Dual Motor, Performance under 100 kWh: 310 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, Performance under 100 kWh: 333 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, Performance 100 kWh: 342 Wh/Rated Mile

From the first post in this thread. It may not be completely accurate, but they use the same numbers for range calculations on the refresh S90D and the S75D for example. I would expect they are probably using the same number for the Model 3, though the 237 could be for the AWD version and the RWD version will be higher.

Tesla plays a lot of games with these numbers.

I have a pre-refresh S90D. The energy display has a solid line at 300Wh/mi labeled "Rated". My empirical measurements on about 5,000 miles of road trips is that I lose 1 rated mile for every 275Wh of reported consumption (from the trip meter). That number is very consistent and is of course exclusive of vampire loss.

FWIW, my 2017 BMW i3, which weighs just 2,700lbs, but has a CD of .29, used 222Wh/mi today in about a 60/40 mix of 70mph freeway and city traffic.

I could see the M3 achieving 237Wh/mi. But the only way to know is to drive it 1,000 miles and measure the actual loss in rated miles versus the reported kWh's consumed. Everything from Tesla is bogus.

 

[ohmman]

Tesla plays a lot of games with these numbers.

I have a pre-refresh S90D. The energy display has a solid line at 300Wh/mi labeled "Rated". My empirical measurements on about 5,000 miles of road trips is that I lose 1 rated mile for every 275Wh of reported consumption (from the trip meter). That number is very consistent and is of course exclusive of vampire loss.

FWIW, my 2017 BMW i3, which weighs just 2,700lbs, but has a CD of .29, used 222Wh/mi today in about a 60/40 mix of 70mph freeway and city traffic.

I could see the M3 achieving 237Wh/mi. But the only way to know is to drive it 1,000 miles and measure the actual loss in rated miles versus the reported kWh's consumed. Everything from Tesla is bogus.

I apologize but I'm having a hard time following. You say that you are using 275Wh/mi legitimately or is it that you're using 275Wh for each rated mile, despite actual travel?

My P85 single motor S is listed at 295Wh/mi. I have lifetime consumption reported at 298Wh/mi and that appears to jive with actual consumption on road trips. To me, that doesn't seem like Tesla is playing games, but it could just be my particular vehicle or just that I'm missing something.

 

[AWDtsla]

Tesla plays a lot of games with these numbers.

I have a pre-refresh S90D. The energy display has a solid line at 300Wh/mi labeled "Rated". My empirical measurements on about 5,000 miles of road trips is that I lose 1 rated mile for every 275Wh of reported consumption (from the trip meter). That number is very consistent and is of course exclusive of vampire loss.

FWIW, my 2017 BMW i3, which weighs just 2,700lbs, but has a CD of .29, used 222Wh/mi today in about a 60/40 mix of 70mph freeway and city traffic.

I could see the M3 achieving 237Wh/mi. But the only way to know is to drive it 1,000 miles and measure the actual loss in rated miles versus the reported kWh's consumed. Everything from Tesla is bogus.

I didn't own a tesla when the P85D efficiency-gate was going on, but I wonder if this was their software fix for it. The numbers are fudged to make the P*D models seems like they have better range than they do, while the normal models are made to seem worse. The gulf is cavernous. As long as you plug in every night and never actually check you'll never know. Of course, yet another thing *if I had known* I would have never bought a P model. On Tesla's website it seemed there was only a 10-15 mile hit in range, if I recall correctly.

Also, I still don't believe 100D vs P100D is only a 20 mile hit in range. I bet if you validate it under controled circumstances the difference will be much larger.

 

[Boatguy]

I apologize but I'm having a hard time following. You say that you are using 275Wh/mi legitimately or is it that you're using 275Wh for each rated mile, despite actual travel?

My P85 single motor S is listed at 295Wh/mi. I have lifetime consumption reported at 298Wh/mi and that appears to jive with actual consumption on road trips. To me, that doesn't seem like Tesla is playing games, but it could just be my particular vehicle or just that I'm missing something.

Yes, it's a confusing subject separating rated miles and power consumed from odometer miles and power consumed per mile.

I'm saying that I use 275Wh per rated mile, irrespective of actual odometer miles.

Here is a hypothetical example:

• Drive 100 odometer miles
• Trip meter reported total power used is = 30.5kWh
• Trip meter reported power / mi = 305Wh/mi
• Rated miles consumed = 30,500 / 275 = 111
• So I would have driven 100 miles on the odometer, but the rated miles on my dash would have decreased by 111.

I have no idea what the 300Wh/mi on the Energy display is used for, or where it comes from as it doesn't match my measured loss of rated miles, nor does it match what @wdolson reports as the EPA consumption.

​

Of course actual consumption of energy/mi is a function of driving style, weather, terrain, etc and varies from leg to leg, but does average out over a longer trip. My lifetime average is 306Wh/mi, but my last 2,000mi trip only used 293Wh/mi. Maybe I'm slowing down?

I didn't own a tesla when the P85D efficiency-gate was going on, but I wonder if this was their software fix for it. The numbers are fudged to make the P*D models seems like they have better range than they do, while the normal models are made to seem worse. The gulf is cavernous. As long as you plug in every night and never actually check you'll never know. Of course, yet another thing *if I had known* I would have never bought a P model. On Tesla's website it seemed there was only a 10-15 mile hit in range, if I recall correctly.

Also, I still don't believe 100D vs P100D is only a 20 mile hit in range. I bet if you validate it under controled circumstances the difference will be much larger.

One possibility to explain the real world difference is that owners with a "P" car lean harder on the GO pedal.

 

[wdolson]

Yes, it's a confusing subject separating rated miles and power consumed from odometer miles and power consumed per mile.

I'm saying that I use 275Wh per rated mile, irrespective of actual odometer miles.

Here is a hypothetical example:

• Drive 100 odometer miles
• Trip meter reported total power used is = 30.5kWh
• Trip meter reported power / mi = 305Wh/mi
• Rated miles consumed = 30,500 / 275 = 111
• So I would have driven 100 miles on the odometer, but the rated miles on my dash would have decreased by 111.

I have no idea what the 300Wh/mi on the Energy display is used for, or where it comes from as it doesn't match my measured loss of rated miles, nor does it match what @wdolson reports as the EPA consumption.

​

Of course actual consumption of energy/mi is a function of driving style, weather, terrain, etc and varies from leg to leg, but does average out over a longer trip. My lifetime average is 306Wh/mi, but my last 2,000mi trip only used 293Wh/mi. Maybe I'm slowing down?



One possibility to explain the real world difference is that owners with a "P" car lean harder on the GO pedal.

One thing that is confusing is the car doesn't keep track of vampire loss when parked when calculating the energy used. So the range can drop a couple of miles in a few hours parked, but as far as the energy used calculation goes, it isn't recorded. I've found I can end up with 280 Wh/Mi average when I get home from running errands, but my total range used is a few miles more than rated range would be. A few weeks ago I took a picture of the dash when I parked going to an appointment. 1 1/2 hours later I got in the car and the range had dropped 3 miles, but the energy used was the same as when I parked.

 

[MarcG]

Well, according to this article, Tesla bases the rated range of Model 3 on 237 Wh/mile.
So if you do the math, you'll end up with:

Base version: 220 mi * 237 Wh/mi = 52.14 kWh
Long range version: 310 mi * 237 Wh/mi = 73.47 kWh

Assuming these numbers roughly represent usable capacity, we could see the marketed capacities as 60 kWh and 80 kWh.

According to the following article, the long-range version of Model 3's battery total (not just usable) capacity is about 80kWh, as I guessed above:

New Tesla Model 3 details revealed by EPA: ~80 kWh battery pack, 258 hp, and more

Nonetheless, for those interested in the actual energy capacity of the pack, Tesla disclosed in documents for its EPA certification (embedded below), that the long range Model 3 battery pack has a total voltage of 350 volts and a capacity of 230Ah, which results in 80,500 Wh or 80.5 kWh.

 

[AWDtsla]

One thing that is confusing is the car doesn't keep track of vampire loss when parked when calculating the energy used. So the range can drop a couple of miles in a few hours parked, but as far as the energy used calculation goes, it isn't recorded. I've found I can end up with 280 Wh/Mi average when I get home from running errands, but my total range used is a few miles more than rated range would be. A few weeks ago I took a picture of the dash when I parked going to an appointment. 1 1/2 hours later I got in the car and the range had dropped 3 miles, but the energy used was the same as when I parked.

Tesla is already "hiding" a bunch of consumption, before we even get to discussing the accuracy of the reported numbers. Not only vampire drain, but doesn't even count consumption while in park mode.

One possibility to explain the real world difference is that owners with a "P" car lean harder on the GO pedal.

This obviously gets very subjective, but I don't think so. Not only can you reduce the throttle response and max power by using the performance easter egg, but you can also let the car autocruise, which will limit the maximum throttle inputs. There's no hope of achieving claimed consumption in autocruise when there even a moderate amount of cars on the road with you. You have to hypermile the car to get consumption that low, and of course if you did it in a non-P model you consumption would be even lower. I would say this should be the benchmark.

 

[wdolson]

Tesla is already "hiding" a bunch of consumption, before we even get to discussing the accuracy of the reported numbers. Not only vampire drain, but doesn't even count consumption while in park mode.

I lump losses while parked under the whole umbrella of vampire losses.

 

[Ski_]

First, a bit of a warning to those easily offended by anything negative about Tesla: I've posted several threads about the actual capacities of Tesla battery packs. Raw data with mixed reception. Unfortunately it seems like any time anyone posts a thread that puts Tesla in a negative light most of them tend to get overrun by posts that either aren't on topic or try incessantly to defend Tesla's failing. Bluntly, this thread is not the place for defending Tesla, explaining why they chose to operate as they do, etc. This is about the raw data. Let's gather it, share it, and discuss it logically. If you don't like the data, honestly I don't care. Facts are facts. I don't care if they don't "matter" to you or if you think they don't "matter" to others, and frankly I don't think anyone else cares either. Again, this is about discussing the data and the numbers. Not about how you feel about them. Anyway, sorry about that. The above is my best effort to not have this thread overtaken by nonsense. It's certain to fail, but worth a shot I suppose.

To the facts.

In a previous thread I posted this data about actual pack capacities after gathering data from multiple cars of each variety:


As it turns out, at or near 100% displayed charge the rated miles (not ideal) * the static rated miles value for the vehicle type/config matches the BMS's reported total usable capacity to within about +/- 1 kWh in nearly all cases I've checked on real cars. The disparity is mainly due to lack of significant figures beyond rated miles, the fact that Tesla rounded the rated miles number to a nearest 5 Wh, and the fact that the car seems to round up on reported rated miles. Also, the rated miles display is not refreshed constantly when the BMS value changes, so there is some latency there. Extrapolating from SoC under 100% results in numbers that are very close, but tend to be off due to other factors.

In general, what you need to calculate capacity are the exact static rated mile values for your type of configuration. And actually, they're pretty simple. Here they are:

• All RWD Cars (non-Performance and Performance): 295 Wh/Rated Mile
• All Pre-refresh Model S Dual Motor, non-Performance: 290 Wh/Rated Mile
• Refresh Model S Dual Motor, non-Performance under 100 kWh: 285 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, non-Performance under 100 kWh: 320 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model S Dual Motor, Performance under 100 kWh: 310 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, Performance under 100 kWh: 333 Wh/Rated Mile
• Model X Dual Motor, Performance 100 kWh: 342 Wh/Rated Mile

Quick notes: Rated miles are EPA miles. I'm unsure what systems are used in other parts of the world. Internally on the cars everything in miles and uses these numbers then calculates the values for other regions using these as a base.

These are the exact numbers pulled from the Tesla firmware. Rated miles are static Wh/mi. They do not change with driving style or anything else besides the configuration of the car as noted above. The car simply takes the estimated usable energy remaining as reported by the BMS, divides by the appropriate static number above, and displays the value. There is another static value for "ideal" miles, but I haven't bothered to gather it.

For example, at my last 100% charge on my X P90D I reached 245 rated miles. To get kWh usable I look at the list above, pick 333 Wh/Rated mile because it matches my car. Then, I take 245 * 333 to get Wh usable. Then divide by 1000 to get kWh. In this example, I end up with 81.6 kWh usable capacity. The BMS on this car reports 81.7 kWh full usable capacity, so pretty darn close.

For fun, lets use the EPA range numbers from Tesla's website for some examples. All for sale now are refreshed versions, so keep that in mind.

• Model S 60 (s/w limited 75): 210 rated miles * 295 Wh/mi = ~62 kWh usable
• Model S 75: 249 rated miles * 295 Wh/mi = ~73.5 kWh usable
• Model S 60D (s/w limited 75): 218 rated miles * 285 Wh/mi = ~62.1 kWh usable
• Model S 75D: 259 rated miles * 285 Wh/mi = ~73.8 kWh usable
• Model S 90D: 294 rates miles * 285 Wh/mi = ~83.8 kWh usable
• Model S P100D: 315 rated miles * 314 Wh/mi = ~98.9 kWh usable (* Estimated Wh/mi)
• Model X 75D: 237 rated miles * 320 Wh/mi = ~75.8 kWh usable
• Model X 90D: 257 rated miles * 320 Wh/mi = ~82.2 kWh usable
• Model X P100D: 289 rated miles * 342 Wh/mi = ~98.8 kWh usable

As you can see, these numbers actually pretty closely match the capacity values I posted previously. The refresh S 90D appears to make the capacity appear to be a little overrated vs actual capacity, and the X 75D seems to really overstate usable capacity. by over 3 kWh... I'm unsure the reasoning for this. Keep in mind that the rated miles Wh numbers Tesla uses are always rounded to the nearest 5 Wh... which over ~300 miles of rated range is a potential disparity of about +/- 750 Wh before accounting for other factors.

A fun extrapolation: A Model S 100D would have a rated range of 337 miles.

It's also pretty interesting that given the internal static rated miles values the range numbers on Tesla's website pretty closely match actual usable capacity values. However, if you tried to go by the advertised capacity values (60,75,85,90,100, etc) to come up with a rated miles value you'd end up with something totally different in all cases. After taking the 4 or 2.4 kWh unusable portion into account (for the 85,90,100 or 60,70,75 packs respectively), the only cars still sold where advertised capacity doesn't match actual total capacity appears to be the 90. Previous 85 variants would also fall into this category as well. The 60, 75, and 100 actually appear to have packs of at least their advertised total capacities after taking the unusable portions into account. (Only opinion based portion of this post: On that note, perhaps Tesla is trying to actually match their name plate/advertised capacities on newer car variants. Doesn't really help people who own "85"s and "90"s that are short several kWh vs advertised, but, it's a start.)

Anyway, mainly wanted to put out the internal rated miles values so that people can calculate their actual available usable capacities. Should be interesting to see data from more than just the cars I've looked at.

-wk

Edit: Updated some data for 100 kWh variants.

Ok, I’m using this to help on my decision on a MX 90d vs MX 100d...

Per @wk057‘s math above: “Model X 90D: 257 rated miles * 320 Wh/mi = ~82.2 kWh usable”

Should I assume the same 320 Wh/Rated mile on the x100d? If so, I assume the formula is:

Model X 100D: 295 rated miles * 320 Wh/mi = ~94.4 kWh usable
Or 12.28% better range on the MX 100d. Does the above math look correct?

As part of setting my pre-purchase range expectations (not accounting for speed, or hills, etc.)-- I know best practice is to only charge to 90% for standard daily (non-long trips) use. Also, I’ll try to not really let the battery get below 10% (let’s also just consider the ~5% battery loss over time as part of this number).

So, I would calculate the daily standard usability as follows:
Model X 90D: 257 rated miles * 320 Wh/mi = ~82.2 kWh usable * 0.8 = ~75.62 Usable for std daily use
Model X 100D: 295 rated miles * 320 Wh/mi = ~94.4 kWh usable * 0.8 = ~86.85 Usable for std daily use

Any thoughts, errors in my math, or other things I should consider in terms of range I should consider between the two?

Thank you for this post @wk057!

 

[ran349]

Ok, I’m using this to help on my decision on a MX 90d vs MX 100d...

Per @wk057‘s math above: “Model X 90D: 257 rated miles * 320 Wh/mi = ~82.2 kWh usable”

Should I assume the same 320 Wh/Rated mile on the x100d? If so, I assume the formula is:

Model X 100D: 295 rated miles * 320 Wh/mi = ~94.4 kWh usable
Or 12.28% better range on the MX 100d. Does the above math look correct?

As part of setting my pre-purchase range expectations (not accounting for speed, or hills, etc.)-- I know best practice is to only charge to 90% for standard daily (non-long trips) use. Also, I’ll try to not really let the battery get below 10% (let’s also just consider the ~5% battery loss over time as part of this number).

So, I would calculate the daily standard usability as follows:
Model X 90D: 257 rated miles * 320 Wh/mi = ~82.2 kWh usable * 0.8 = ~75.62 Usable for std daily use
Model X 100D: 295 rated miles * 320 Wh/mi = ~94.4 kWh usable * 0.8 = ~86.85 Usable for std daily use

Any thoughts, errors in my math, or other things I should consider in terms of range I should consider between the two?

Thank you for this post @wk057!

I think what you really are interested in is the actual achievable range, regardless of the usable capacity. I am not familiar with the model X, but if it is similar in achievable range to the S, then I would assume about 80% of rated range for actual mileage, so the calculation would be .8 of usable kWh x .8 of achievable range = .64 x 257 or 165 miles for the 90, and .64 x 295, or 189 miles for daily usable mileage. If range is at all a potential issue, you should get the 100, if you can tolerate the price.

 

[Peter Lucas]

My 2016 S90D always shows a range of 275 miles per 100% charge. My actual range is 200 miles (for a 100% charge). If I drove like a a little old lady, I might get 220 miles. My wh/mile shows about 330-350. My calculated battery capacity is repeatedly 72 kWh (using the cars display of energy used since last charge).
A service tech reviewed downloaded data from my car and claims that everything is normal.

Thus it is "normal for an S90D to have a range that is 72% of advertised.
And a battery capacity that is 80% of advertised.
As a bonus; the cars display of range bears no resemblance to reality.

 

[wdolson]

My 2016 S90D always shows a range of 275 miles per 100% charge. My actual range is 200 miles (for a 100% charge). If I drove like a a little old lady, I might get 220 miles. My wh/mile shows about 330-350. My calculated battery capacity is repeatedly 72 kWh (using the cars display of energy used since last charge).
A service tech reviewed downloaded data from my car and claims that everything is normal.

Thus it is "normal for an S90D to have a range that is 72% of advertised.
And a battery capacity that is 80% of advertised.
As a bonus; the cars display of range bears no resemblance to reality.

I don't know what's wrong with your car, but something isn't right. I do lose range when the car is parked somewhere and it doesn't show up on the energy used. I'll get rated range going someplace, park for a couple of hours and when I come back, the estimated range is a couple of miles less but the energy used is the same as when I got out of the car. That can contribute to getting less than the rated range and make the battery capacity look low.

The 330-350 is very high for an S 90. I go up and down hills all the time around here and even if I lead foot a bit I'm rarely above 300 Wh/Mi when I get home except in the winter where my energy usage can go up to 330 Wh/Mi. I have a post refresh 2016 S 90D.

 

[apacheguy]

330-350 does not seem that high to me. Lifetime average in my S85 is 339. The 90D is only ~4% more efficient.