Blog EPA Gives Range Rating for Model S Long Range

Tesla continues to erode range anxiety from consumers considering electric vehicles. The company’s 2021 Tesla Model S Long Range Plus has received a rating of 405 miles of range from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The vehicle also earned a combined city/highway MPGe of 120.

The figures are are an improvement over the 2020 Tesla Model S Long Range Plus, which had an EPA rating of 402 miles of range and 117 MPGe, as well as the 2020 Tesla Model S Long Range that was rated at 373 miles of range and 111 MPGe.

Tesla lists its performance “Plaid” version of the Model S at an estimated 390 miles of range, however, it has yet to receive an official rating from the EPA.

In the past, Tesla has unlocked additional range in vehicles via software updates. It will be interesting to see if the company will continue to improve those already impressive range figures over time.

 

[glide]

Bigger battery pack, higher MPG-E rating, lighter overall weight, yet effectively the same range as a 2020 LR?

Am I missing something here?

 

[Ofarlig]

Bigger battery pack, higher MPG-E rating, lighter overall weight, yet effectively the same range as a 2020 LR?

Am I missing something here?

Who says the pack is bigger? I am expecting it to be smaller based on the improvements they made and the very slight range increase.

 

[We Are Venom]

Who says the pack is bigger? I am expecting it to be smaller based on the improvements they made and the very slight range increase.

Same size pack with denser battery and area weight reduction of several components. better use of power is how its achieved.

 

[Ofarlig]

Same size pack with denser battery and area weight reduction of several components. better use of power is how its achieved.

If the pack was the same size and they decreased weight and their Cd number I would have expected a bigger improvement in range. The pack definitely seems smaller.

 

[croman]

Remember, real world range will be better just due to Palladium drivetrain efficiency and especially heat pump.

 

[Needsdecaf]

Remember, real world range will be better just due to Palladium drivetrain efficiency and especially heat pump.

.....because so many other Teslas achieve real world range greater than the EPA ratings, amirite?

Seriously, what am I missing about your statement?

 

[croman]

.....because so many other Teslas achieve real world range greater than the EPA ratings, amirite?

Seriously, what am I missing about your statement?

I have no issues achieving rated miles on road trips at 75mph. My average consumption is 320wh/mi. Its not quite rated, but I mostly get rated (even with fun driving) during non-winter months. Winter is an issue though and I think I could meet or exceed EPA rated with better winter efficiency.

 

[TespaceX]

I have no issues achieving rated miles on road trips at 75mph. My average consumption is 320wh/mi. Its not quite rated, but I mostly get rated (even with fun driving) during non-winter months. Winter is an issue though and I think I could meet or exceed EPA rated with better winter efficiency.

In a Model S or X you are getting rated range?

 

[croman]

In a Model S or X you are getting rated range?

S 75D.

 

[Needsdecaf]

I have no issues achieving rated miles on road trips at 75mph. My average consumption is 320wh/mi. Its not quite rated, but I mostly get rated (even with fun driving) during non-winter months. Winter is an issue though and I think I could meet or exceed EPA rated with better winter efficiency.

Congrats on being one of the few.

My model 3 Perf also does 320 Wh/mile on the highway. Unfortunately it gets it’s rated range at just under 260 Wh/mile. Whoops!

 

[GeorgeSymonds]

I think we can conclude that not much has changed on the battery capacity or motor efficiency. If a different wheel design can get them a few extra miles, the lower Cd certainly can.

The figures quoted for Plaid also look slightly worse than the outgoing Performance model

But it doesn't really matter, a few miles here and there when you rarely start at 100% and never want to plan arriving somewhere on empty (epecially not after a 400 mile drive) are irrelevant. Thats what the Plaid+ promised us, a notably uptick in range but we know whats happened to that.

 

[CWhite]

My 2020 MS LR+ can easily go 300 miles at 75mph. It can turn off the one induction motor and run just in the PM motor which is more efficient. The new model has all PM motors which are more efficient but can’t be turned off. Could be a reason the range dropped in comparison. I am very happy getting 270wh/mi at freeway speed

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

real world range will be better just due to

heat pump.

Paradoxically, this actually makes the gap between EPA and best possible real world range WORSE!

With the heat pump, they can increase the adjustment factor by a couple % (because the car does better on cold and hot cycle tests). So the EPA rated range will be higher for the SAME distance covered on the standard highway dyno test.

This means that in ideal road conditions, it's harder to make the EPA rated range, all else being equal (meaning: if your car didn't have the heat pump, the rated range would be lower, but with the heat pump, the real world range on the road does not change, since you're not making use of the heat pump advantage). The EPA range has increased but your real world efficiency has not improved.

In cold conditions and possibly very hot conditions (depending on what they've done to insulate the vehicle, etc.), however, the heat pump will improve your results vs. not having one. So the (even larger than ideal conditions) gap to rated range will reduce with the heat pump, in THOSE conditions.

The EPA really needs to find a way to fix their tests to properly communicate this information and properly capture real world highway range.

The heat pump is good for efficiency, to be clear. But the advantage applies in only certain conditions (which are quite common in winter).

 

[croman]

Paradoxically, this actually makes the gap between EPA and best possible real world range WORSE!

With the heat pump, they can increase the adjustment factor by a couple % (because the car does better on cold and hot cycle tests). So the EPA rated range will be higher for the SAME distance covered on the standard highway dyno test.

This means that in ideal road conditions, it's harder to make the EPA rated range, all else being equal (meaning: if your car didn't have the heat pump, the rated range would be lower, but with the heat pump, the real world range on the road does not change, since you're not making use of the heat pump advantage). The EPA range has increased but your real world efficiency has not improved.

In cold conditions and possibly very hot conditions (depending on what they've done to insulate the vehicle, etc.), however, the heat pump will improve your results vs. not having one. So the gap to rated range will reduce with the heat pump, in THOSE conditions.

The EPA really needs to find a way to fix their tests to properly communicate this information and properly capture real world highway range.

The heat pump is good for efficiency, to be clear. But the advantage applies in only certain conditions (which are quite common in winter).

As I live in Chicago, I would see a lot of benefit. I concede it will be harder to achieve rated in previously good conditions (i.e. no wind and mild temps).

The thermal improvements also bring the benefit of less pack conditioning energy needed as ptc heat draw or cooling will also be more efficient. Tesla's active pack management harms range a lot in extreme weather especially in short trips.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I think we can conclude that not much has changed on the battery capacity or motor efficiency. If a different wheel design can get them a few extra miles, the lower Cd certainly can.

As you say, wheels matter a lot so that makes these conclusions difficult at this time. It's also good (to avoid confusion) to separate capacity issues (which can float around by a couple kWh from test article to test article, and confuse things by a couple %) from efficiency, and for that you have to look at the MPGe/ Wh/mi (and more importantly the RAW city and highway test results).

One direct comparison might be to the 2020 Model S Long Range (not the Plus).

In raw efficiency (before adjustment factor, so these AC numbers will be ~25% lower than one might expect (divide by 0.75), and help take the heat pump out of the equation for the new LR), that did:

2020 Model S Long Range:

City: 219 AC Wh/mi
Highway: 235 AC Wh/mi

The new Model S Long Range does:

City: 206 AC Wh/mi
Highway: 223 AC Wh/mi

That's the raw comparison, but you'd have to look at the tires equipped on each vehicle, etc., etc., to make it a valid comparison.

(BTW: The 2020 Long Range Plus did: 205 AC Wh/mi and 218 AC Wh/mi)

So I think the new Model S LR looks pretty decent, 5% better, both city and highway, and assuming it is equipped with good tires rather than ultra high efficiency tires, it's potentially an impressive result. 5% improvement with equal tires would be impressive.

Furthermore, I think Tesla could "find" another 1-2% over the next 6-12 months, since they're working with a new motor (like they did with Model 3).

As expected, MPGe/Wh/mi shows about 8% improvement, but that's because of the adjustment factor:

 

[AmpedRealtor]

It will never be able to achieve 405 miles in real world conditions. Tesla's EPA estimates are bogus as confirmed by Consumer Reports. There's a reason Tesla no longer discloses the battery pack capacity in its specs. Tesla's mission is to remove as much cost from the vehicle as humanly possible, but it doesn't want to tell you that.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

There's a reason Tesla no longer discloses the battery pack capacity in its specs

What is that reason?

FWIW: The precise pack capacity for all Tesla vehicles is published in the public domain at the EPA website. It is not there yet for these vehicles, but will be available within the next few months.

It will never be able to achieve 405 miles in real world conditions.

Yeah, probably about 300 miles on the freeway (at 320Wh/mi which is great for this type of vehicle) is what should be expected, which seems fine given the Supercharging rate.

 

[RayEJ]

Bigger battery pack, higher MPG-E rating, lighter overall weight, yet effectively the same range as a 2020 LR?

Am I missing something here?

Just using the EPA numbers, it appears the battery is a tad bigger, capacity wise: 405 miles * .28 kWh per Mile = 113.4 kWh battery capacity. The battery performance improvements could mean fewer cells and less weight, though.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Just using the EPA numbers, it appears the battery is a tad bigger, capacity wise: 405 miles * .28 kWh per Mile = 113.4 kWh battery capacity. The battery performance improvements could mean fewer cells and less weight, though.

Wall to wheels. Have to account for 11% round-trip losses that are not available for use.