Disappointing range on new Tesla 3

[jjrandorin]

You don't live in a real cold climate do you? You can't substitute heated seats for heat because the Windows will often fog up (depends on dew point and number of passengers how often / quickly this will happen).

I tend to leave recirculate On, A/C On and heat at 68F. It's comfortable and windows stay clear. It will use about 50 (give or take) wh/mi though (after things settle). I could run it lower but why be uncomfortable? I hate having a cold nose breathing cool air

There are days I could fiddle with heat to not run A/C but I don't want to have to mess with the heat every day. These settings generally work over a wide range and are comfortable and don't chew up to many watts. If left on Auto it will jump to 100 wh/mi.

No, I dont.. I live in the same climate the OP does though.

 

[jjrandorin]

The solution is to go into the settings, and change the battery meter to % instead of miles.

This is actually the best suggestion. The "mileage left" display makes people focus unduly on the mileage, and wonder why they had 200 miles range when they left, drove 40 miles, and only have 150 miles left. Lots of wondering "if there is something wrong with my car", lots of analysis about seat heating etc.

All well and good if one wants to do that, but from reading these boards, MOST (not all) just want to know when they need to charge, and have some sort of assurance that the car is performing "normally".

My ICE cars had a "miles to empty" too, but I didnt tend to focus on that.. because I knew filling up took 5-10 minutes. All of this is part of the "range anxiety" for most people.

Some really want to dig into the numbers and find the most efficient, but many more just want to know that "its working ok" and know when they need to charge. Changing to percent left will help people like that not focus on a nebulous mileage number. The tesla service center by me actually recommended changing it but I said no I will change myself if I want to... but I think people should try changing it to percentage when they start thinking "WTF why did my car use 51 miles when I went 45????"

 

[zer0cool]

I know it's bad for marketing, but as the car becomes more wide-spread, they really need to better inform potential consumers that people should expect a 1/3 to 1/2 reduction in range in the winter depending on how cold their winters are and other weather conditions.

It would suck for someone to buy a car thinking he/she can go 300 miles only to realize in the first winter that the car can only go 180 when he/she actually needs to go 200 miles...

On the other hand this could push a lot of people to go for LR instead of the eventual SR as well... People think 210 is enough not realize in that if they are in the north (not even that north) this could mean 120 in the winter.

 

[mtndrew1]

I know it's bad for marketing, but as the car becomes more wide-spread, they really need to better inform potential consumers that people should expect a 1/3 to 1/2 reduction in range in the winter depending on how cold their winters are and other weather conditions.

It would suck for someone to buy a car thinking he/she can go 300 miles only to realize in the first winter that the car can only go 180 when he/she actually needs to go 200 miles...

This could push lots of people to go for LR instead of eventual SR as well... People think 210 is enough not realize in that if they are in the north this could mean 120 in the winter...

GM’s EV displays are truly excellent at conveying what part of the drive is gobbling up the power. The Bolt EV in particular has a beautiful graphic showing a pie chart of the various culprits. I wouldn’t mind another tab in the energy screen showing something similar on Teslas.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

GM’s EV displays are truly excellent at conveying what part of the drive is gobbling up the power. The Bolt EV in particular has a beautiful graphic showing a pie chart of the various culprits. I wouldn’t mind another tab in the energy screen showing something similar on Teslas.

Definitely. It would reduce a lot of these discussions to one about how to access that display... It's kind of silly that we have to bend over backwards to conduct various "experiments" to determine how much energy things use. Of course, I guess you could argue that one should just forget about it and drive, but I think that's dismissive of people who really want to understand and know how to control their energy usage. Even the Spark EV makes it trivial to see what is using energy. And it has the instantaneous kW readout which is nice too. All we have is a little regen bar in the Tesla...

 

[mtndrew1]

Definitely. It would reduce a lot of these discussions to one about how to access that display... It's kind of silly that we have to bend over backwards to conduct various "experiments" to determine how much energy things use. Of course, I guess you could argue that one should just forget about it and drive, but I think that's dismissive of people who really want to understand and know how to control their energy usage. Even the Spark EV makes it trivial to see what is using energy. And it has the instantaneous kW readout which is nice too. All we have is a little regen bar in the Tesla...

I wouldn’t mind an HVAC usage bar in a different color just above the power/regen meter on the Model 3. Just 0-100% HVAC rating would get the message across and show new drivers where the energy is going.

Edit: Bolt EV energy screen added.

 

[mswlogo]

I know it's bad for marketing, but as the car becomes more wide-spread, they really need to better inform potential consumers that people should expect a 1/3 to 1/2 reduction in range in the winter depending on how cold their winters are and other weather conditions.

It would suck for someone to buy a car thinking he/she can go 300 miles only to realize in the first winter that the car can only go 180 when he/she actually needs to go 200 miles...

On the other hand this could push a lot of people to go for LR instead of the eventual SR as well... People think 210 is enough not realize in that if they are in the north (not even that north) this could mean 120 in the winter.

It's not anywhere near 50% hit. I see 20%-30% below EPA when it's in the 20's F. Now, there might be additional penalties like 20" tires and driving like you stole it that you get down to 50% below EPA. But heat alone (which is the primary culprit when it's cold) does not cost 50%.

Yes, they could inform folks better.

 

[Zcd1]

...Yes, they could inform folks better.

And isn't it fantastic that Teslas are the only cars on the market where that type of change might actually happen without new hardware or a service visit?

 

[David29]

By coincidence, just before I saw this post I posted something myself, indirectly related to this. I think Tesla is doing a less-than-satisfactory, and more accurately, a poorer job than they used to, of informing people of expected range and how it will vary. I posted the comment in the Model S forum because that is what I drive, but it applies to all three Tesla models.

The point I made is well-illustrated by the OP's question -- the OP is concerned and was not given sufficient information by Tesla. Yes, he could have done more "research" as someone above said to him, but I fault Tesla at least in part -- they could do a much better job of educating their customers and prospective customers about the facts of battery range

Does Tesla tell buyers enough about range?

 

[David29]

I know it's bad for marketing, but as the car becomes more wide-spread, they really need to better inform potential consumers that people should expect a 1/3 to 1/2 reduction in range in the winter depending on how cold their winters are and other weather conditions.

It would suck for someone to buy a car thinking he/she can go 300 miles only to realize in the first winter that the car can only go 180 when he/she actually needs to go 200 miles...

On the other hand this could push a lot of people to go for LR instead of the eventual SR as well... People think 210 is enough not realize in that if they are in the north (not even that north) this could mean 120 in the winter.

Bingo! I agree 100%. Tesla is doing a less-than-satisfactory job of educating its buyers.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

By coincidence, just before I saw this post I posted something myself, indirectly related to this. I think Tesla is doing a less-than-satisfactory, and more accurately, a poorer job than they used to, of informing people of expected range and how it will vary. I posted the comment in the Model S forum because that is what I drive, but it applies to all three Tesla models.

The point I made is well-illustrated by the OP's question -- the OP is concerned and was not given sufficient information by Tesla. Yes, he could have done more "research" as someone above said to him, but I fault Tesla at least in part -- they could do a much better job of educating their customers and prospective customers about the facts of battery range

Does Tesla tell buyers enough about range?

Do you remember the animation they used to have on the website? You could indicate speed, temperature, etc. and it would show the expected range. I suppose it could've been removed long ago.

 

[Big Earl]

I have it at 64 degrees, lol. I thought that was pretty good. I'll have to suck it up more or just not care about the consumption.

That's my approach unless something is really unusual. If you think your 3 is being an energy hog, take a Model X for a spin. No matter how you slice it, it beats the pants off of a gasoline or diesel car, even in the dead of winter.

It might be nice for several of us to write to the EPA and request that they improve their EV test procedures, perhaps providing numbers for both summer and winter.

 

[TexasEV]

Do you remember the animation they used to have on the website? You could indicate speed, temperature, etc. and it would show the expected range. I suppose it could've been removed long ago.

Yes I thought that was really helpful. It would have been more helpful though if you could set the speed variable higher than 70 mph. We have 80 mph highways in Texas and other western states, and even a short stretch of 85 mph near Austin. Most prospective or new owners don’t realize that energy use increases exponentially with speed and that section of the website would be a good demonstration. Maybe that’s why Tesla dropped it.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Tesla does not set the rated range. The EPA does that.

If you start out with a cold car and battery, the car will use energy to warm up the battery and interior. This will often reduce the rated range, especially on a shorter trip.

A little trick it to charge the car a little, from your home charger. This way the interior and battery can be warmed up from the charger, instead of from your batteries.

New owners also tend to get fewer miles than experienced owners, as there is a learning curve to driving smoothly and using regeneration fully. New owners also tend to want to experience the Tesla thrust, and play with it a bit more, than those who are already accustomed to the thrill.

 

[docdeb27]

I will take some responsibility for not enough research, however, this is easy enough to fix and one of the BEST features of our Tesla's is that they CAN and DO improve/update at no cost or hassle to us. No buying a new car to get the latest feature. (See PIN codes, heated seats in app, HO HO HO mode etc.)

 

[Uncle Paul]

Interesting that you mention the OTA updates.

Since I purchased my X in Jan 2017 major improvements have been been added to my car.
1. The falcon wing doors open and close twice as fast.
2. Automatic windshield wipers have been added.
3. Sound system is much fuller.
4. Automatic headlight dimming has been added
5. Power has been added through uncorking. 0-60 times reduced from 6.1 seconds to 4.9 seconds.
6. Creep has been added.
7. Autopilot has been vastly improved. Used to ping pong down the road. Not it holds a set in the middle of the lane. Used to work only at slow speeds, but gradually has been ramped up to be used at all legal speeds +
8. The phone app is much more useful. Can now summon and set service appointments from the app.
9. Easter eggs have appeared to allow the car to dance to Christmas music, play simple video games and add romance to a supercharger stop.
Best of all, thousands of new supercharger stalls have been added, as well as additional showrooms and service centers.

This is all beyond my wildest expectations when I first picked it up at the Fremont factory.

 

[mswlogo]

2. Automatic windshield wipers have been added.
3. Sound system is much fuller.
4. Automatic headlight dimming has been added

That's all great and I hope and expect enhancements.

But, don't you think a $100,000-$150,000 car should have had these all out of the gate?

My $50K ICE Jeep does all 3 of those items much better than any Tesla does, TODAY.
The radio has quite a few other major flaws as well.

#2 and #4 use the Neural Net stuff to implement both and they are horrible at it.

USB Music operation, Bad. FAT32 (you kidding me?). Almost unusable.
Voice Commands, Bad.
Mobile Phone integration Bad (Text to Voice Notifications, Voice to Text).

I hope these eventually get fixed, but it's really surprizing how many basic things the Radio lacks and how many years it might take (based on reports from folks owning Model S) to bring them up to par with much cheaper vehicles.

 

[VT_EE]

View attachment 366945

You’re welcome.

On the energy screen there are two pages that will help teach you how to achieve the EPA’s range number on the car.

If you have a GPS destination set, there is a page titled “TRIP” (seen above) with a graph that predicts what the car should consume with moderate driving and minimal HVAC use. If you are meeting the prediction the dot will follow the path on the graph as you drive. If you exceed or miss the prediction a second path will show the deviation and you can determine what element of your driving is causing the deviation.

I have found this tool very valuable for achieving the EPA rated range.

I just learned something new. Thanks!!

 

[docdeb27]

That's all great and I hope and expect enhancements.

But, don't you think a $100,000-$150,000 car should have had these all out of the gate?

My $50K ICE Jeep does all 3 of those items much better than any Tesla does, TODAY.
The radio has quite a few other major flaws as well.

#2 and #4 use the Neural Net stuff to implement both and they are horrible at it.

USB Music operation, Bad. FAT32 (you kidding me?). Almost unusable.
Voice Commands, Bad.
Mobile Phone integration Bad (Text to Voice Notifications, Voice to Text).

I hope these eventually get fixed, but it's really surprizing how many basic things the Radio lacks and how many years it might take (based on reports from folks owning Model S) to bring them up to par with much cheaper vehicles.

A Jeep? Really? One of the most unreliable cars ever produced.

 

[JBare]

A Jeep? Really? One of the most unreliable cars ever produced.

Maybe some time ago but I don't think that's the case over the last few years.
I came from 4-door Wrangler that I specifically built how I wanted it (just like the Tesla) and had delivered in 5.5 weeks. Unfortunately I totaled it 27 months later but in that time I had zero issues with it. Just like on these forums there are tons of complaints about reliability and major issues all over the numerous Jeep sites. Unfortunately for Jeep this is their reputation so people cling on to that notion without really knowing anything. Hopefully the Model 3 can continue it's good reputation and spread to the masses