Please understand, I am not questioning your results, but to me your results as to you my results are the same as Facebook news. I am just opposed to using some (commercial) websites as source for objective information about the range of the cars, and I pointed to the fact that for any "information" showing low range (Edmunds) one can almost always find another "information" site (CR) reporting a higher range.
I agree, we can and probably should criticize the EPA tests, but do we really have a source of MORE consistent range information?
I don't have Facebook or Twitter, but a quick search tells me that yes, Facebook has a news service. What I refer to as Facebook news are "news" sourced from personal posts on Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc.
WLTP is even WORSE than EPA for accuracy. Electric Vehicle Range Testing: Understanding NEDC vs. WLTP vs. EPA
As an owner who has never gotten close to EPA on highway, but can easily beat EPA around town, the answer seems obvious. ('19 SR+ 18" w/out aero covers, 40-42psi OEM Michelins) ...and NO, I don't think it's because they are paid shills, lol. What's that old saying?... "Never attribute to malice that which can adequately explained by stupidity"...and/or differences in speed... which may also turn out to be stupidity on my part. My $0.02- Edmunds simply drives faster than "you, in your car" and the other 'magazine' or youtube testers. Why I think this- Around town, commuting via residential surface streets, I can reliably hit 140-180Wh/mile for a roughly 16 mile trip. (does an SR+ really have 300+ mi range, no, it doesn't does it.... but 140Wh/mi trips get you that projection with 50kWh usable pack capacity) However, when I commute nearly the same exact distance (15.3 miles vs. 15.7 miles), but using freeway, I avg. >300-400Wh/mile for the slightly longer trip. This has been consistent across all of my commuting since purchase, even if I switch it up, taking FWY up to Snottsdale and surface streets back down to PHX, and vice versa. The biggest variable besides avg. speed appears to be temperature. Temps <50° F have an outsized impact on consumption, regardless of avg. speed, so I'm thankful I don't live where real cold is frequent. PS- I *thought* I read somewhere else that Edmunds is using total kWh into the car, as reported via their Juicebox or equivalent wall connector. This indicates to me that Tesla may not be factoring total energy into the car, where other manufacturers might be showing this as part of the consumption, and think that would further amplify the differences in their reported results between manufacturers. Likewise for other pack strategies, where they have much larger total pack capacity / buffer. It doesn't have to be an anti-Tesla conspiracy for the cumulative scenarios to make it seem that way to the inherently suspicious and defensive.
No, that is defined by the EPA test not by a car manufacturer. Here is a brief summary. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/EPA%20test%20procedure%20for%20EVs-PHEVs-11-14-2017.pdf
Well my model 3 P exceeds both Edmunds and EPA numbers. I am getting 4.07 miles/kwh. That comes out to 24.57 kwh/100 miles. It is much better than what Edmunds or EPA get in their cars. I am sure is I run the car out of electrons I can get around 300 mile range out of it. I drive mostly freeway (since Covid) and limit my speed to about 67-68 mph.
@alexgr Thanks for the link. I remembered that the EPA did that, as well as let the car marinate overnight before testing... as part of their SOP for BEV efficiency testing. Honestly, the sitting overnight thing is odd, like they expect user to treat it just like gas/ICE vehicle? "Honey, gotta get gassed up for the trip to aunt Jackie's tomorrow..." Basically, I didn't recall whether or not Edmunds also tracked every kW into the car and let it marinate overnight before testing...