Disappointing Range in P3D. Is this normal?

[UngaBunga1989]

Now that it is no longer cold here in the NY Metro Area I am routinely making 50-60 mile combined highway / city trips averaging 230-240 wh/mi on my M3P. I have the stock tires and wheels (20") and drive around 65-70 on the highway. I am careful about not mashing the accelerator (unless I want to for fun) and I have driven EV's for 8 years so maximizing range comes easily to me. My lifetime average over 3,500 miles is now down to 290 wh/mi and 3 of the 4 months since I got my car required heat -- which I used sparingly.

 

[Jedi2155]

I'm currently at 720 miles out of a 1400 mile road trip between SoCal, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona and I'm averaging 264 Wh/mi (mostly driving between 50-70 mph so this car can be quite efficient still and get the rated range at highway speeds still.

 

[ppower]

Frustrated over here. I, too, had expectation that reaching 310 miles should have been possible making it that I could go to the next city and back in a day on a single charge. That's impossible unless maybe driving 50mph on a turnpike which is beyond dangerous.

Took 2 round trips 122 miles away this weekend, so I'll break it down into 4 trips. Temps 80-86, driving on Chill, AC on auto but barely needing to blow due to weather.

1. 122 miles, 75mph on 75-80 miles of turnpike, used 60% of battery. That's 200 mile range and 375Wh/mi

2. (return possibly tailwind and net -500ft elevation) 110 miles from Supercharger, 47% battery used. 320Wh/mi, 234 mile range. 2 way average of 217 mile range vs 310!

Since I knew I'd have a Supercharger stop anyway, I decided to keep up with traffic better:
3. 122 miles, 80mph on turnpike, used 68% (damp roads on half trip increased friction), equates to 418Wh/mi, 179 mile range

4. 109 mile return, 80mph on turnpike, roads dry, 55% battery used, 378Wh/mi, so 206 mile rage. 2 way average 189 mile range!

Yes, 80mph is deemed fast for an EV, but maybe this is the Achilles heel that nobody wants to address. If I knew that keeping up with traffic would mean I have to take a 40%+ range hit and not even in winter, I probably wouldn't have done this. Around town, I don't care that I only get 320Wh/mi lifetime average. But to use it for road trips would be amazing, yet it's such a hassle.


I'm still trying to get a local person to swap me their 18's for a couple of days to 1) see if they fit with my rear spacers and 2) run tests and hope they would as well to see a RWD using the 20's. I'd buy a set of 18's even if it were just for road trips. As far as unsprung weight goes, it should be noted that the P brake rotors should save weight over the smaller 1 piece rotors of the other cars. The even larger MPP front rotors save 3+ pounds each. So while the 20's are about 4 pounds heavier than the 19's, the brakes could almost make up for that difference alone. Yes, the wheel rim being 10" from center vs 9" makes a bit of difference, but not cause 20%+ differential that owners are seeing.

Overall, I truly believe that there is a software issue that is not letting the front motor torque rest as it should. When in Chill, my understanding is that all cars are limited to 200hp. It should be no different than a RWD. Unless it needs power to the front, it shouldn't be consuming anything. Now that we're out of winter, I've been driving in Chill for a couple of weeks testing. Around town, I can get down to about 270Wh/mi virtually hypermiling. In town, virtually no highway, so it should maximize regen. to help me. I have even averaged 180 for a 5 mile average before bumping back up to 268-270Wh/mi average. I've driven the snot out of a RWD for a day that I rented before taking delivery of mine. I expected that if I drove similar, I should see similar efficiency. Not. At. All. Something is awry with the programming of the P's, and far too many RWD owners brush it off that you shouldn't care because you got a P (as they get better than advertised range), and then other P owners who amazingly don't care either. I didn't buy a SR or MR version. I wouldn't have pulled the trigger if that was my max range. I hold out hope that good ole Uncle Elon will be able to fix this with an OTA. In the meantime, my Y order is for a RWD w/ 18's.

 

[stickman]

Frustrated over here. I, too, had expectation that reaching 310 miles should have been possible making it that I could go to the next city and back in a day on a single charge. That's impossible unless maybe driving 50mph on a turnpike which is beyond dangerous.

Took 2 round trips 122 miles away this weekend, so I'll break it down into 4 trips. Temps 80-86, driving on Chill, AC on auto but barely needing to blow due to weather.

1. 122 miles, 75mph on 75-80 miles of turnpike, used 60% of battery. That's 200 mile range and 375Wh/mi

2. (return possibly tailwind and net -500ft elevation) 110 miles from Supercharger, 47% battery used. 320Wh/mi, 234 mile range. 2 way average of 217 mile range vs 310!

Since I knew I'd have a Supercharger stop anyway, I decided to keep up with traffic better:
3. 122 miles, 80mph on turnpike, used 68% (damp roads on half trip increased friction), equates to 418Wh/mi, 179 mile range

4. 109 mile return, 80mph on turnpike, roads dry, 55% battery used, 378Wh/mi, so 206 mile rage. 2 way average 189 mile range!

Yes, 80mph is deemed fast for an EV, but maybe this is the Achilles heel that nobody wants to address. If I knew that keeping up with traffic would mean I have to take a 40%+ range hit and not even in winter, I probably wouldn't have done this. Around town, I don't care that I only get 320Wh/mi lifetime average. But to use it for road trips would be amazing, yet it's such a hassle.


I'm still trying to get a local person to swap me their 18's for a couple of days to 1) see if they fit with my rear spacers and 2) run tests and hope they would as well to see a RWD using the 20's. I'd buy a set of 18's even if it were just for road trips. As far as unsprung weight goes, it should be noted that the P brake rotors should save weight over the smaller 1 piece rotors of the other cars. The even larger MPP front rotors save 3+ pounds each. So while the 20's are about 4 pounds heavier than the 19's, the brakes could almost make up for that difference alone. Yes, the wheel rim being 10" from center vs 9" makes a bit of difference, but not cause 20%+ differential that owners are seeing.

Overall, I truly believe that there is a software issue that is not letting the front motor torque rest as it should. When in Chill, my understanding is that all cars are limited to 200hp. It should be no different than a RWD. Unless it needs power to the front, it shouldn't be consuming anything. Now that we're out of winter, I've been driving in Chill for a couple of weeks testing. Around town, I can get down to about 270Wh/mi virtually hypermiling. In town, virtually no highway, so it should maximize regen. to help me. I have even averaged 180 for a 5 mile average before bumping back up to 268-270Wh/mi average. I've driven the snot out of a RWD for a day that I rented before taking delivery of mine. I expected that if I drove similar, I should see similar efficiency. Not. At. All. Something is awry with the programming of the P's, and far too many RWD owners brush it off that you shouldn't care because you got a P (as they get better than advertised range), and then other P owners who amazingly don't care either. I didn't buy a SR or MR version. I wouldn't have pulled the trigger if that was my max range. I hold out hope that good ole Uncle Elon will be able to fix this with an OTA. In the meantime, my Y order is for a RWD w/ 18's.

So why by the P if range is a primary concern of yours? My understanding is that the range estimates should be taken with a grain of salt just like all EPA mileage estimates, so why by the most powerful heavy version of the car if you want maximum range?
I was initially surprised by how far off the estimated range I was seeing when I bought the car but quickly realized how much impact HVAC had on range (took delivery in Jan) but yeah, I didn’t by the car to get 310 miles of range

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Frustrated over here. I, too, had expectation that reaching 310 miles should have been possible making it that I could go to the next city and back in a day on a single charge. That's impossible unless maybe driving 50mph on a turnpike which is beyond dangerous.

Took 2 round trips 122 miles away this weekend, so I'll break it down into 4 trips. Temps 80-86, driving on Chill, AC on auto but barely needing to blow due to weather.

1. 122 miles, 75mph on 75-80 miles of turnpike, used 60% of battery. That's 200 mile range and 375Wh/mi

2. (return possibly tailwind and net -500ft elevation) 110 miles from Supercharger, 47% battery used. 320Wh/mi, 234 mile range. 2 way average of 217 mile range vs 310!

Since I knew I'd have a Supercharger stop anyway, I decided to keep up with traffic better:
3. 122 miles, 80mph on turnpike, used 68% (damp roads on half trip increased friction), equates to 418Wh/mi, 179 mile range

4. 109 mile return, 80mph on turnpike, roads dry, 55% battery used, 378Wh/mi, so 206 mile rage. 2 way average 189 mile range!

Yes, 80mph is deemed fast for an EV, but maybe this is the Achilles heel that nobody wants to address. If I knew that keeping up with traffic would mean I have to take a 40%+ range hit and not even in winter, I probably wouldn't have done this. Around town, I don't care that I only get 320Wh/mi lifetime average. But to use it for road trips would be amazing, yet it's such a hassle.


I'm still trying to get a local person to swap me their 18's for a couple of days to 1) see if they fit with my rear spacers and 2) run tests and hope they would as well to see a RWD using the 20's. I'd buy a set of 18's even if it were just for road trips. As far as unsprung weight goes, it should be noted that the P brake rotors should save weight over the smaller 1 piece rotors of the other cars. The even larger MPP front rotors save 3+ pounds each. So while the 20's are about 4 pounds heavier than the 19's, the brakes could almost make up for that difference alone. Yes, the wheel rim being 10" from center vs 9" makes a bit of difference, but not cause 20%+ differential that owners are seeing.

Overall, I truly believe that there is a software issue that is not letting the front motor torque rest as it should. When in Chill, my understanding is that all cars are limited to 200hp. It should be no different than a RWD. Unless it needs power to the front, it shouldn't be consuming anything. Now that we're out of winter, I've been driving in Chill for a couple of weeks testing. Around town, I can get down to about 270Wh/mi virtually hypermiling. In town, virtually no highway, so it should maximize regen. to help me. I have even averaged 180 for a 5 mile average before bumping back up to 268-270Wh/mi average. I've driven the snot out of a RWD for a day that I rented before taking delivery of mine. I expected that if I drove similar, I should see similar efficiency. Not. At. All. Something is awry with the programming of the P's, and far too many RWD owners brush it off that you shouldn't care because you got a P (as they get better than advertised range), and then other P owners who amazingly don't care either. I didn't buy a SR or MR version. I wouldn't have pulled the trigger if that was my max range. I hold out hope that good ole Uncle Elon will be able to fix this with an OTA. In the meantime, my Y order is for a RWD w/ 18's.

Sorry you are frustrated.

There are several threads on this. Partially I've resurrected some of them, but not because I am upset with the range - I expected lower range, and I think I can comfortably get 260miles range driving the speed I need to in order to be safe (75mph on Southern California freeways), and 270 miles without difficulty if there's some traffic. It's well within what I expected. I resurrected the threads because I am also considering range wheels (with MXM4s and an 18" which can somehow be rigged with something aero), and I wanted to see just how much benefit I was likely to be able to get. It's also close to "no AC no heat" season now, so we can really see how the vehicle does from many people.

Rough values - I'm getting about 280Wh/mi on the freeway travelling 75-80mph with traffic (mild drafting, following distance 4-5), with no HVAC (AC off, temp set to LO, fan sometimes on, sometimes not). (Average speed worked out to 61mph.) I was not using Chill mode. Also not using AP too much (only when traffic was light).

(My brother in a P3D Stealth, for comparison, gets ~248Wh/mi under similar conditions & speeds, but with less drafting - with Aeros and MXM4s.) So I think that's pretty much the difference between PS4S and MXM4s - about 30Wh/mi (which is what I wanted to know).

Note you need to be at about 230Wh/mi on the in-car display (according to that meter, 71.3kWh appears to be available from 310 to 0, not 75kWh (242Wh/rmi)) to make the rated range, so even with that efficiency you won't quite make it - but I think it is acceptable.

My results seem to be significantly better than yours, so I do wonder if there is a vehicle issue in your case. A few questions:

1) You have PS4S, right?
2) Do you have any abnormal wear on any tires? It's possible you have excess toe and are doing a lot of scrubbing of the tires.
3) What PSI are you running? I run 45PSI cold (~48PSI when warmed up).
4) For the numbers you quote above, what were the indicated Wh/mi on the trip meter? It looks like you were not quoting those numbers, instead you were quoting what you thought you were effectively getting. That will give you higher numbers than I am quoting (I am quoting what the car says - which I don't necessarily trust in an absolute sense, but is what I have to go on - and I do think it reads a bit low).

To improve your efficiency, the only thing I can suggest is: MINIMIZE use of regen (but do NOT run in low regen mode), but also do NOT use the brakes. So, you need to anticipate traffic ahead, and try to minimize the length of the green bar. You could run temporarily in low regen mode to get a feel for minimal regen, but in general you should run with standard regen.


BTW, my lifetime average is 287Wh/mi - but it has been steadily coming down as I don't use the power as much, and the weather is also warmer (though I basically never used the heat, intentionally). I don't think it will go below 280Wh/mi though - it's hilly in San Diego and I am FORCED to use regen, which is not efficient. This also includes 7 miles of autocross which increased the lifetime average by about 2Wh/mi.

 

[jjrandorin]

I have over 7000 miles now on my Model 3P (with stock 20s), picked up on 12/04. Most of my miles are commute to and from work. I set one of my trip meters' name to "lifetime dont reset" based on a recommendation I saw here to track lifetime efficiency. I didnt do this until I had around 450 or so miles on the car, so its 500 miles short. During the winter (dec / jan) my kWh per mile average on that lifetime meter was 307. It has been steadily dropping as the weather has warmed up (and I got used to how to drive in an EV).

That lifetime meter is now down to around 264 or so, from memory. Some of this is weather ( I get much worse stats when its raining for example), and some is me not jackrabbit starting. Some of it is the realization that there is a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference in efficiency in driving 65 MPH and 80 MPH. The local freeway by me has a speed limit of 70 MPH, and if traffic allows, the average speed on this freeway is 80 MPH (flow of traffic).

No EV is going to get its rated mileage (nor is a ICE car) driving at 75 MPH. @ppower s issue just from eyeballing it is the speed. Not going to get anywhere near rated range at that speed. @ppower would not be getting anywhere near rated MPG on an ICE car at that speed either... he just wouldnt care because he would just go fill up. EVs magnify this feeling because it takes longer to get mileage.

Tires, air pressure in those tires, not jackrabbit starting, driving "efficiently" as @AlanSubie4Life mentions with limiting time spent in regen and driving "smoothly". All those help.

 

[dfwatt]

I have over 7000 miles now on my Model 3P (with stock 20s), picked up on 12/04. Most of my miles are commute to and from work. I set one of my trip meters' name to "lifetime dont reset" based on a recommendation I saw here to track lifetime efficiency. I didnt do this until I had around 450 or so miles on the car, so its 500 miles short. During the winter (dec / jan) my kWh per mile average on that lifetime meter was 307. It has been steadily dropping as the weather has warmed up (and I got used to how to drive in an EV).

That lifetime meter is now down to around 264 or so, from memory. Some of this is weather ( I get much worse stats when its raining for example), and some is me not jackrabbit starting. Some of it is the realization that there is a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference in efficiency in driving 65 MPH and 80 MPH. The local freeway by me has a speed limit of 70 MPH, and if traffic allows, the average speed on this freeway is 80 MPH (flow of traffic).

No EV is going to get its rated mileage (nor is a ICE car) driving at 75 MPH. @ppower s issue just from eyeballing it is the speed. Not going to get anywhere near rated range at that speed. @ppower would not be getting anywhere near rated MPG on an ICE car at that speed either... he just wouldnt care because he would just go fill up. EVs magnify this feeling because it takes longer to get mileage.

Tires, air pressure in those tires, not jackrabbit starting, driving "efficiently" as @AlanSubie4Life mentions with limiting time spent in regen and driving "smoothly". All those help.

Plus one on all that. It's amazing the amount of upset and frankly - some of the time - whining about issues that are simply due to the physics of all this. One of the things that the model 3 exposes is how your efficiency is inversely proportional to your speed. This is because most of your energy expense is devoted to overcoming drag. Drag is proportional to the square of the speed, rolling resistance is apparently not. In any case you're going to use almost exactly twice as much energy per mile at 80 as you are at 40. This means that your great energy consumption of 185 to 195 Watt hours per mile at 40 miles per hour craters or actually I should say doubles to 370- 380 watthours per mile, but this is still greater than 85 mpge. Try hitting that number in any conventional ICE sedan at any speed

The car is actually staggeringly efficient , turning approximately 90% of the battery energy into kinetic energy, and you can contrast that with a typical internal combustion engine efficiency of around 15%. but it can't change the rules of physics.. what tends to obscure these basic principles in an ICE car is that these are only efficient or more efficient anyway in top gear. This means that an ICE car gets its best mileage at about the lowest speed you can drive in top gear. This is not true for the model 3 it probably gets more and more efficient as speeds drop but of course it's not practical to drive at 10 miles an hour to gain some range.

It's unfortunate that people take EPA number so literally. We have gotten more than 310 miles of rated range driving around town where it's easy to get your watt hours per mile down to 200, or even under 200. But we've long accepted that highway mileage is a different story, particularly given the speeds that people are driving on the highway. If you're driving at 70 there are a large sections of Interstate where you're the slowest car on the road.

The other thing people fail to consider is that the battery pack holds the equivalent of about just over 2 gallons of gasoline as there is about 33.7 kilowatt hours in a gallon of gas if you burn it completely. This means the car gets its range from an efficiency that ICE Vehicles can't even get close to. We will see incremental bumps in range and kilowatt hour capacity in the battery packs for Tesla vehicles. I would predict by the time our battery packs are degraded to 90% of their original capacity we will be able to buy a new battery pack that has four or five hundred miles of EPA range. While I understand that a whole lot of literally minded people want to get 310 miles of range driving at 85 miles an hour on the highway, that actually would require a 500-mile EPA range number.

If you understand all this instead of being sucked in by advertising you're less likely to be disappointed and succumb to inappropriate outrage at Tesla that they haven't given you what you thought they promised. They actually didn't promise anything other than the EPA number which the car actually hits in the test cycle. But that's not at 85 miles an hour.

 

[67King]

So why by the P if range is a primary concern of yours? My understanding is that the range estimates should be taken with a grain of salt just like all EPA mileage estimates, so why by the most powerful heavy version of the car if you want maximum range?
I was initially surprised by how far off the estimated range I was seeing when I bought the car but quickly realized how much impact HVAC had on range (took delivery in Jan) but yeah, I didn’t by the car to get 310 miles of range

Um......the longest range option only has a 5% greater rated range. Range is A factor, but it doesn't have to be THE factor. I am not speaking for the guy you quoted, but at 310 mile rated range, I expected to be able to make the Knoxville to Atlanta and Knoxville to Nashville trips without stopping. Those trips are about 200 and 180 miles, respectively.

I think my car will be ready for me in the next couple of days. I have to drive to Bloomington, IN in about a week and a half. Have been hoping to take the Tesla, and stop in Louisville (250 miles from here, 100 from Bloomington) to recharge. Granted, I already have some 19" wheels/tires for the car, so I won't be looking at 20's. But it doesn't look very likely that I'll be able to make that trip wiht a single stop. Looks like it will take two (there is a Supercharger due to go online in Bloomington, but it isn't there, yet - if it were, I'd stop in Lexington, and be good to recharge at my destination).

At any rate, I'm not buying the car for one primary reason. It is the whole package. The range is one of those considerations.

 

[mswlogo]

Frustrated over here. I, too, had expectation that reaching 310 miles should have been possible making it that I could go to the next city and back in a day on a single charge. That's impossible unless maybe driving 50mph on a turnpike which is beyond dangerous.

Took 2 round trips 122 miles away this weekend, so I'll break it down into 4 trips. Temps 80-86, driving on Chill, AC on auto but barely needing to blow due to weather.

1. 122 miles, 75mph on 75-80 miles of turnpike, used 60% of battery. That's 200 mile range and 375Wh/mi

2. (return possibly tailwind and net -500ft elevation) 110 miles from Supercharger, 47% battery used. 320Wh/mi, 234 mile range. 2 way average of 217 mile range vs 310!

Since I knew I'd have a Supercharger stop anyway, I decided to keep up with traffic better:
3. 122 miles, 80mph on turnpike, used 68% (damp roads on half trip increased friction), equates to 418Wh/mi, 179 mile range

4. 109 mile return, 80mph on turnpike, roads dry, 55% battery used, 378Wh/mi, so 206 mile rage. 2 way average 189 mile range!

Yes, 80mph is deemed fast for an EV, but maybe this is the Achilles heel that nobody wants to address. If I knew that keeping up with traffic would mean I have to take a 40%+ range hit and not even in winter, I probably wouldn't have done this. Around town, I don't care that I only get 320Wh/mi lifetime average. But to use it for road trips would be amazing, yet it's such a hassle.


I'm still trying to get a local person to swap me their 18's for a couple of days to 1) see if they fit with my rear spacers and 2) run tests and hope they would as well to see a RWD using the 20's. I'd buy a set of 18's even if it were just for road trips. As far as unsprung weight goes, it should be noted that the P brake rotors should save weight over the smaller 1 piece rotors of the other cars. The even larger MPP front rotors save 3+ pounds each. So while the 20's are about 4 pounds heavier than the 19's, the brakes could almost make up for that difference alone. Yes, the wheel rim being 10" from center vs 9" makes a bit of difference, but not cause 20%+ differential that owners are seeing.

Overall, I truly believe that there is a software issue that is not letting the front motor torque rest as it should. When in Chill, my understanding is that all cars are limited to 200hp. It should be no different than a RWD. Unless it needs power to the front, it shouldn't be consuming anything. Now that we're out of winter, I've been driving in Chill for a couple of weeks testing. Around town, I can get down to about 270Wh/mi virtually hypermiling. In town, virtually no highway, so it should maximize regen. to help me. I have even averaged 180 for a 5 mile average before bumping back up to 268-270Wh/mi average. I've driven the snot out of a RWD for a day that I rented before taking delivery of mine. I expected that if I drove similar, I should see similar efficiency. Not. At. All. Something is awry with the programming of the P's, and far too many RWD owners brush it off that you shouldn't care because you got a P (as they get better than advertised range), and then other P owners who amazingly don't care either. I didn't buy a SR or MR version. I wouldn't have pulled the trigger if that was my max range. I hold out hope that good ole Uncle Elon will be able to fix this with an OTA. In the meantime, my Y order is for a RWD w/ 18's.

I find Auto on HVAC is fairly dumb (as in very inefficient). Set it to manual and experiment a bunch. Recirculate saves a ton, but there are situations you can’t use recirculate (when windows are fogging).

I suspect your tires are a big contributor. Rim size doesn’t matter. It’s what rubber you have on them. Sticky tires cost range. I don’t think you mentioned tire pressure.

Also 4 pounds at the rotor is not the same as 4 pounds out at the tire.

It seems odd around town your doing that bad. I have a performance with 19” OEM wheels non OEM tires. I usually get around 210 wh/mi around town. Or better. That’s with very little HVAC. I don’t think it’s software.

If you can, get a base line of what you car can do with HVAC off around town.

 

[ppower]

So why by the P if range is a primary concern of yours? My understanding is that the range estimates should be taken with a grain of salt just like all EPA mileage estimates, so why by the most powerful heavy version of the car if you want maximum range?
I was initially surprised by how far off the estimated range I was seeing when I bought the car but quickly realized how much impact HVAC had on range (took delivery in Jan) but yeah, I didn’t by the car to get 310 miles of range

Because it was rated the same 310 mile range as the RWD that people were seeing exceed that figure. Even if there were a 10% loss from wheels as mysterious Tesla engineer told last year, it should have been at 300 miles seeing numbers that RWD owners were getting last spring. Even now, the rated difference of 310/325 is minimal. They use the exact same rear motor unlike the P of the S and X. It should only be using the rear motor unless it NEEDS the front motor. In Chill, they use the same power level. So in theory, the P should be getting the same or very near the same efficiency as the RWD. As for the additional weight, it is no different than having 1-2 passengers. A 5% weight increase does not create even 5% efficiency loss.

Why should I want a car that gives me a 200-220 mile range for a road trip? It is the best driving car for road trips, but the lack of chargers in my area on top of the extra time it takes is making it a chore. Looking at data from S & X owners, the P isn't getting anywhere near this low of real world range vs rated. The P3D is definitely an outlier.


@AlanSubie4Life yes, I use those tricks. Most of the numbers I gave were the Average Wh/mi from the trip computer. The 418Wh/mi is the only time I've ever had that the trip showed in the mid 300's, but the math didn't compute at all. Once on the trip, the trip estimate for final battery percentage always stayed on track. Minimal AC, 45psi cold, minimize regen (it's constant on a highway), but no drafting. I find that AP is jerky with power delivery when following another car. I was going slower than most traffic both times meaning not really anybody TO draft.

@jjrandorin I knew that I wasn't going to get full range. This isn't my first rodeo with testing this. Maybe I haven't posted my other testing in here. I have found that I need to drive at a constant 48mph with no wind, elevation, 75 degrees to get 245Wh/mi. That's not realistic for cross country travel. Hence, there needs to be appropriate city range and highway range labeled/advertised. If you start blasting out truth that keeping up with traffic on the highway can give you a 40%+ drop in range and more if it were below 80 degrees, you make an even harder sell.

@dfwatt I don't care what my MPG is other than if it actually even saves anything $/mi once efficiency drops. Still cheaper, but the loss sure cuts it down a bit. I didn't get it for that reason anyway, but those savings certainly went into justification. The P has the same aerodynamic drag as the RWD. Even if the wheels themselves are 10% more aerodynamic, that doesn't mean the car is 10% more aerodynamic and equally more efficient. So aerodynamics should be quite close between them. The P wheels should even be more aerodynamic than the 18's w/o covers. As for getting 180Wh/mi at 40mph, that doesn't happen at all. Which car do you have? So sure, if driving 40 gets me 220Wh/mi, then 440 at 80mph is getting close to correct. I never said I want to get 310 miles at 85mph, but 200 miles given 65% of the trip is at 75-80mph is a lot different.

@67King Exactly that range isn't the only reason, but it is a consideration.

@mswlogo We have humidity in OK where it isn't reasonable to not use air conditioning. In fall/winter, I did plenty of tests without heat, and yes, that affects it greatly. AC is not supposed to affect it nearly as much. See, this is yet another asterisk of fine print for what the car's range is. If I had done this weekend trip in the winter with the heat on and cold temp affecting the battery, what range I have had? There are many caveats to range.
.
.
.
.
.
So in the end, the biggest factor now to try and improve is wheel/tire combo. Has anybody confirmed if the 18's fit over the rear brakes with use of a wheel spacer? I have heard it mentioned that it did but have never seen it done or an actual post of somebody saying they have tested it. I know I'm not in a Tesla hotbed like CA, but even within the local Tesla Owner Club, I can't get anybody to even meet up and let me see if an 18" will fit. If so, it could be worth me spending $1500 for a set. So far, I don't see a point in getting lightweight forged wheels if the aerodynamics without a cover are going to make it worse or the same. Weight/inertia would be improved, but that isn't supposed to affect it as greatly as aerodynamics at constant highway speed.

 

[jjrandorin]

Since the front motor has weight, even being there will reduce range compared to the RWD car. Seems to me that tesla rounded down on the RWD car and rounded up on the AWD car. Anyway, certainly not trying to get into a range argument. Its definitely more than 200-220 for me though, in the same car you are in.

 

[mswlogo]

Since the front motor has weight, even being there will reduce range compared to the RWD car. Seems to me that tesla rounded down on the RWD car and rounded up on the AWD car. Anyway, certainly not trying to get into a range argument. Its definitely more than 200-220 for me though, in the same car you are in.

Right. In fact, if you look at the "Reference Line" on the Energy App is has no label on the "Y Value" (wh/mi on the left and range on the right). But... on a RWD that line is drawn at 310 miles range and on AWD it's drawn at 295 !!

I believe with the RWD 325 mile range correction update, they have or will move that reference line to 325 on RWD cars.

BTW some people think that the RWD was battery limited such that EPA would arrive at 310 rating (not just labeling it 310 on the UI and Website but actually limiting the battery). And the range "change" was removing that limiting. I'm not sure which is the case, but it actually makes some sense.

 

[mswlogo]

@mswlogo We have humidity in OK where it isn't reasonable to not use air conditioning. In fall/winter, I did plenty of tests without heat, and yes, that affects it greatly. AC is not supposed to affect it nearly as much. See, this is yet another asterisk of fine print for what the car's range is. If I had done this weekend trip in the winter with the heat on and cold temp affecting the battery, what range I have had? There are many caveats to range.

So far I'm not sure about the cost of AC yet. It can use a lot if you run it full blast. But I have used a "modest" level and have seen no impact. But it's not nearly as hot it's going to get yet.

If it's Humidity your fighting, you really want Recirculate On.
If your in Auto I think Recirculate is always Off (at least every time I've tried it, it has) and it's greyed out from you controlling it.
So you are constantly cooling and dehumidifying outside hot and humid air (that's expensive).

On any car I've had before, if you hit "Max A/C" Recirculate is On.

 

[SR22pilot]

The change in range on the RWD was just updating what was displayed in the car for max range. The car initially tested at over 330 with the EPA. Tesla requested the lower number. I think it was to prevent people buying the cheaper RWD due to greater range.

I like the chart at Tesla Range Table - Teslike.com

Here are some nuggets. I don't own a Performance model but I have an AWD with 19" and a RWD Aero and the numbers match what I see. They are 70 degree day, no wind, no HVAC numbers as best I can tell.

EPA Performance with Aeros (old car without Brembo brakes) 309
EPA Performance 20" 273.

So, tires and rims (not just rims) eat 36 miles. Stickier tires mean less range. Not much difference in the hit between 19" and 20". The Aeros have Michelins designed for range rather than traction.

Performance on 20" cruising at 60 mph = 313 miles
Performance on 20" cruising at 80 mph = 222 miles

I can attest that each 5 mph increase in speed bites into range.

 

[clostridium]

Lots of good points by others in this thread. Other than the definite impacts on what tire you use and how spirited you drive, there is no doubt that ambient temperature and vehicle speed are huge factors.

It's important to bear in mind that low ambient temperatures still impact range negatively even if you aren't using the heater. That's because of air density being higher and I also believe (but can't yet prove) that it's related to how the car is heating the battery. In the 3 there isn't a discrete battery heater like in the S and X. Instead it runs the powertrain in a less efficient mode to generate more heat for the battery. The downside to that is it greatly reduces the efficacy of preheating the car like I used to do in my S in really cold weather. The S would run the battery heater while on shore power. It appears - but correct me if I'm wrong - that the 3 will not do any battery heating while not running except whatever happens passively because you are charging.

Using the cabin heater of course makes efficiency even worse. It looks to use about 6 kW at max heat.

Here's my temperature efficiency plot from TeslaFI - it's pretty stark what a difference it makes. I didn't completely turn off the heat in the winter but I keep it between 60-65 and use the seat heaters. A/C appears to have a very small impact on efficiency though I don't have enough data at higher temps to be sure - on my S it was a tiny difference and I'd expect the same to be true of the 3.

My average lifetime speed is about 50 mph because most of my driving is on highways at 65-75 (commute is 65-70, longer drives 70-80) except for some slow few miles at beginning and end of my commute and other driving activities. So my efficiency is reduced due to speed though maybe not as much as people who live in places where the freeways are commonly running 70+.

 

[Paddy3101]

You can get Better than the rated range.

Here is a commute I did a week or so ago. It was 45mins for 36.1 miles. (Took 5 mins to get into garage/parked, and get the photo) Which includes about 5 miles of stop-lights and local traffic. Rest was on freeways at approx 65mph (which was what the traffic was doing).

Aircon was on auto, set to 68, but since outside was 68, not heating or cooling very much.

Average 207Wh/mi. The last 30miles show 188Wh/mi. Starting from 'cold', being parked up all day at work.
Elevation Change net is -96ft. BUT there is ALOT of climbing/decending, by no means is it flat. You can see the hills in the Consumption trace.
This is a P3D+ with standard 20s and tires.

I DO HAVE A CF SPOILER, but that's not going to make any difference. ;-)

It's NOT at an average of 75/80 on a freeway, and it's not for 300 miles, but that's the traffic I get, and the commute I have, and the results I CAN get. MOST of the time I'm not in Chill, and averaging 250-270 Wh/mi.

I have a loop of 300+ miles that I am planning on doing, but need the time, weather, lack of traffic to make it worth doing as a representative example.

The 'Rated' line is measured on the Wh/Mi range, and is approx 250Wh/mi. If average is below that, then (in theory) should hit the 310 rated mileage on a full charge. (From 100% at supercharger with battery already up to temp, and driving so as to not lose efficiency at the start when regen is turned off/down).

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

As I said in the other thread, this really is a remarkable result given the amount of time you spent at 65mph. I have no idea how you did it - maybe it is that CF spoiler, I don't have it yet.

'Rated' line is measured on the Wh/Mi range, and is approx 250Wh/mi. If average is below that, then (in theory) should hit the 310 rated mileage on a full charge.

This is not true as far as I can tell (you cannot get 310 miles at 250Wh/mi). I've been paying very close attention to this lately. Very consistently, I have seen 1 rated mile reduction for every approximately 230Wh used according to the trip meter. I have confirmed this over a few hundred miles, and with a single trip of 122 miles. So, you need to get better than 230Wh/mi to achieve the rated range (without going negative on the rated miles, anyway - which you can easily do of course (you can go about 6 rated miles according to Elon), it's just a little stressful). You can check this yourself very easily. It has to be a fairly long trip to make rounding errors insignificant and get the full 3 significant figures, but you should be able to relatively easily verify it within 2 significant figures (230, 240, or 250) for a 30-40 mile commute. Just check your rated miles just as you put it into drive and right as you take it out of drive. And then calculate (Miles Traveled * Wh/mi indicated)/(Rated Miles used).

I have a loop of 300+ miles that I am planning on doing, but need the time, weather, lack of traffic to make it worth doing as a representative example.

I am very interested to see how your proposed 15-163-8-5-78 loop goes. I guess you are planning to go clockwise. Also have to wait for a time for the winds to drop. It's like winter around here.

Elevation Change net is -96ft. BUT there is A LOT of climbing/descending, by no means is it flat. You can see the hills in the Consumption trace.

The net elevation change gives you about 5Wh/mi for this drive. The up and down actually should not make any difference at typical freeway speeds, to first order, as long as the up and down is not steep enough to mandate regen. This is because regen is an inherently inefficient process. Whereas if it is gentle grades it is just slightly modifying how much power you have to put out to maintain the freeway speed. At slower speeds where those same gentle grades mean you go into regen, then the up and down can matter a lot more. So at freeway speeds, for modest grades, usually it is only the NET elevation change that matters - not the cumulative. This is to first order - obviously the internal I^2*R losses are nonlinear with power output so those will increase on a gently undulating drive relative to a perfectly flat drive, but that's not nearly as significant as a hill which forces you to regen (which is highly inefficient).

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

It should only be using the rear motor unless it NEEDS the front motor. In Chill, they use the same power level. So in theory, the P should be getting the same or very near the same efficiency as the RWD.

You still have to spin the axles, and the gearbox, even if the front motor is providing zero resistance. This takes considerable energy. These parts do not exist on the RWD.

The P3D is definitely an outlier.

Not really. It's the tires. The P3D Stealth can do 248Wh/mi with MXM4s+aeros with significant portions of the drive at 77mph. I think this is inline with AWD results.

I find that AP is jerky with power delivery when following another car. I

I would not recommend using AP if you want to be efficient.

I have heard it mentioned that it did but have never seen it done or an actual post of somebody saying they have tested it. I know I'm not in a Tesla hotbed like CA, but even within the local Tesla Owner Club, I can't get anybody to even meet up and let me see if an 18" will fit.

They will not fit. The issue is clearance of the barrel to the REAR brake caliper, from what I understand. You also need the spacers to get the offset correct. I think you MAY be able to run them on the front with spacers (but I am not sure). The correct information is available elsewhere on this forum.

So far, I don't see a point in getting lightweight forged wheels if the aerodynamics without a cover are going to make it worse or the same. Weight/inertia would be improved, but that isn't supposed to affect it as greatly as aerodynamics at constant highway speed.

You are putting far too much weight on the importance of aero covers. They absolutely matter at freeway speeds, and will help, but they are definitely secondary to your tire choice. I think putting MXM4s on your car will likely get you at least 70% of the way to the P3D Stealth + Aeros, from where you are at. Obviously the aeros matter more the faster you go. And they won't help at all around town.

MXM4s will reduce the safety of your vehicle by increasing stopping distance. They probably are also inferior in wet conditions. The PS4S tires are the best I have experienced in wet (not cold!) conditions; they just seem to stick.

The 418Wh/mi is the only time I've ever had that the trip showed in the mid 300's, but the math didn't compute at all.

This is an insanely high result, if you weren't using heat and not going all uphill. Anyway, as I said, to me your results seem AWFUL, even for a P3D+. I would:

1) Check your Tire PSI. Use 45PSI cold. Certainly use more than 42PSI cold. Slightly higher PSI will protect your wheels a bit probably anyway.
2) Do the calculation (Miles Traveled * Wh/mi used from Trip meter)/ (Rated miles used) and make sure it lines up at about 230Wh/mi for a trip of greater than 30-40 miles. It's possible for you your in-car meter is just reading way high (I don't know whether this is something that happens). I suspect this is not happening because your % of battery used also appears to be really high, but worth a check.
3) Check for excessive tire wear on any of your tires - you want to make sure you aren't just scrubbing them away.

In the meantime, my Y order is for a RWD w/ 18's.

The Model Y RWD will likely be less efficient than the Model 3 RWD, especially at freeway speeds. Just something to keep in mind. Whether they will pack in more battery long term...we will see.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

50-60 mile combined highway / city trips averaging 230-240 wh/mi on my M3P

I'm curious what the answer for you would be for: (Trip Meter Miles * Trip Meter Wh/mi) / (Rated Miles Used) would be for you, for one of these 230-240Wh/mi trips.

My lifetime average over 3,500 miles is now down to 290 wh/mi

Hooray, my lifetime average is still better than yours. I guess I'm an efficient driver in spite of my forced regen. . In fact, here is my round trip to from/to work yesterday/today. My commute is essentially optimal other than the forced regen (335Wh/mi one way, 140Wh/mi the other way) - no freeway, average speed about 30mph and does not exceed about 50mph, main surface arterial so not too much stop and go - sometimes. So 230 Wh/mi seems conceivable (not on the freeway where range is relevant though), and 200Wh/mi is probably possible with MXM4s with AWD.

I'm averaging 264 Wh/mi (mostly driving between 50-70 mph so this car can be quite efficient still and get the rated range

At 264Wh/mi I expect you should get (230Wh/rmi*310rmi)/(264Wh/mi) = 270 miles from 310 rmi to 0 rmi. This is not that close to the rated range given the relatively low 50-70mph speed. Is this ~270miles per full charge what you saw on your road trip? If not, curious what your calculation of (Trip Meter Miles * Trip Meter Wh/mi) / (Rated Miles Used) works out to. Just wonder if there is some variation on the trip meter indicated Wh/mi from user to user.

 

[mswlogo]

The 'Rated' line is measured on the Wh/Mi range, and is approx 250Wh/mi. If average is below that, then (in theory) should hit the 310 rated mileage on a full charge. (From 100% at supercharger with battery already up to temp, and driving so as to not lose efficiency at the start when regen is turned off/down).

The "rated" line is at 240 Wh/mi on RWD to achieve 310 (before the 325 RWD range update).
The "rated" line is at 250 Wh/mi on AWD to achieve 295 (not 310 !!).

You need to be below 240 Wh/mi to get more than 310 range (on any LR Model 3).