EPA is not good, we need a new standard.

[shahryaran]

The problem with EPA range model is that EPA uses a unit of distance (miles) to reflect a unit of energy. This could be misleading for consumer because the consumer would think the number offered in EPA is more or less the distance the car could travel.

But we all know that in really this is not the case. My 2020 M3LR can't even get 180 miles of traveled distance.

We need a new standard that offers two numbers for the capability of distance traveled. A minimum and a maximum. A minimum for the worst condition and maximum for the best condition. And these numbers should reflect distance traveled, not energy that could be converted to move the car.

 

[Spdrcrj]

I think it’s a valid number from the EPA. It’s the same with petrol cars. There are variances that will effect miles per gallon just like the variances that effect miles per charge. When I had my model 3 LR and P I would just take whatever range it gave me and subtracted 24%.

 

[shahryaran]

I think it’s a valid number from the EPA. It’s the same with petrol cars. There are variances that will effect miles per gallon just like the variances that effect miles per charge. When I had my model 3 LR and P I would just take whatever range it gave me and subtracted 24%.

Did you ever get more than 200 miles traveled distance?

 

[ATPMSD]

It is far too dependent on how you drive and where you drive. The purpose of the EPA sticker is to allow consumers to compare one EV to another. The distance shown is based on a standard test. Almost no one with an ICE car gets the stated EPA range, so should be also fix that?

I appreciate your frustration, but this is not going to change. Unfortunately, far too many people who buy EVs don’t bother to do their homework to understand them. EVs and ICE cars are very different in so many ways.

 

[GtiMart]

You can't compute a minimum, it would be zero miles. You could use all your battery for cabin cooling/heating if you wanted to.

 

[MasterC17]

This is just my two cents.

If you want to hit the EPA Rated range it's entirely possible. Charge to 100%, drive on a highway at 55 to 60mph in moderate ambient temperatures (50f-75f), don't use the HVAC, and drive to true zero (not displayed 0%). In fact, doing the above, you should beat the EPA estimate. The issue is that most people (for good reason) don't use the ~5% buffer at the bottom of the pack, most people drive 70mph+ on the highway, and most people crank the HVAC.

At the end of the day, most people aren't willing to make the compromises to hit EPA Rated range.

That all being said, I'm not sure it much matters. At 30 years old with a toddler, the maximum distance I am ever going is maybe 180 miles between stops. The Superchargers are fast enough these days, and have been for a while now, that stopping isn't inconvenient.

 

[GtiMart]

The two real problems are education and the fact that other manufacturers reduce the number they publish as EPA. That makes them look better in the real world, achieving or maybe even surpassing that number whereas a company publishing the real EPA number (like Tesla) will appear bad in comparison. The real problem isn't Tesla in this case. EPA is EPA, you shouldn't fudge it. You can say "estimated real world range" instead if you want, but fudging EPA means buyers cannot use the value for comparison.

 

[E90alex]

The problem is just inconsistency. There’s a 2 cycle test and a 5 cycle test. The 5 cycle tests yields better numbers, but most only use the 2 cycle test. Manufacturers can also voluntarily reduce the test results by whatever they want to show a more realistic number.

So now you get Tesla with a hyper optimistic range number and cars like the Taycan which has a hyper pessimistic range number. Looking at the range figures, one would think the Model S completely blows the Taycan out of the when in the real world testing they are much closer and comparable.

So in order for the EPA numbers to be truly comparable on paper they need to specify everyone needs to do the same test cycles and take the same reduction amount.

 

[shahryaran]

I think it’s a valid number from the EPA. It’s the same with petrol cars. There are variances that will effect miles per gallon just like the variances that effect miles per charge. When I had my model 3 LR and P I would just take whatever range it gave me and subtracted 24%.

Using percentage on the display drives the consumer better distance estimate that miles

 

[Unclepaul]

EPA estimates are just that...estimates.

It is useful (but not exact) to compare the EPA estimates between different vehicle to make you buying decision.

Once you own your car, you will note that the Tesla on board computer will constantly be adjusting your range, due to variabilities encountered, in real time. That is the real range your vehicle will obtain with you driving it, and the conditions it will be experiencing.

Do not get hung up on EPA estimates. They are of course only estimates, and as stated...Your Mileage may vary.

Some fast driving owners of course will not obtain the "average" while dedicated hyper-milers will exceed the average.

 

[shahryaran]

Bought a used 2020 M3LR AB from Tesla and after 3 months of ownership and on average i can't get more than 150 miles of range.

I tried:
43 psi
No cabin protection
No sentry
No app check
No slam the pedal
chill mode

I usually charge 20 to 80 and for several times that I charged to 100, the farthest I went was 180 down to 10%.

The energy app shows that I always consume about 20-50 more miles than distant traveled.

A full charge shows 292 and after balancing it shows 300 which is about what it might be giving 3 years of degradation.

Most of my driving is in city.

So the question is, is 150-180 realistic range normal?

Thank you.

 

[GtiMart]

Your car's charge at 100% seems reasonable for a car that age and within norm. If you really want to test the car's range, do a single drive on the highway around 50-55mph and see how far you go. In your city driving you probably do multiple small drives. Each drives requires significant AC energy initially and then you park the car where it stays awake for a while. You shouldn't try to judge total range from that type of use.

 

[rayrevolver]

BLUF: I think 150-180 miles would be reasonable.

60% of 300 miles is 180 miles. So your 80%->20% drive could be 180 miles per the EPA estimated range.

That is 3 miles per 1% of battery.

What are you getting for Wh/mi?

My best guess, using ABRP vs my real world, and then tweaking the ABRP efficiency numbers, my 2020LR gets 2.7 miles per 1% for a road trip at 55-65 mph.

My EPA range at 100% is 288 miles.

How hot is it? Aircon use on short drives would probably reduce your range pretty good.

Are you driving 150-180 miles a day?

 

[jjrandorin]

So the question is, is 150-180 realistic range normal?

If you mean "in several separate trips" then the answer is "yes".

 

[shahryaran]

60% of 300 miles is 180 miles. So your 80%->20% drive could be 180 miles per the EPA estimated range.

No. I get 180 mile on a full 100% charge down to 10%

What are you getting for Wh/mi?

280-310

 

[rayrevolver]

Ouch.

I'm relatively new here, but in my short time I have done 2 four wheel alignments, and both times it was needed. First when I bought the car, second after FUCA replacement.

They made a difference.

Even now with newish tires that are not supposed to be as efficient as MXM4 tires, I am averaging 239 Wh/mi.

With the cooler temps now, my local driving averages are closer to 210 Wh/mi. I also am trying my tires at 44psi cold, and I am liking it better. Again, NOT using the MXM4s, which seems to get harsh with higher pressures.

Not sure why you are using so much electricity.

 

[rayrevolver]

Did you ever get more than 200 miles traveled distance?

My longest road trip, 214 miles. 46 kWh used, and 214 Wh/mi was the trip average. Assuming I have about 70 kWh at this point, means I had plenty of miles left.

Left on Friday, parked all day Saturday. Drove home Sunday.

I think I charged to 100% and I don't remember being worried about energy on the way home.

My next longest trip:
186 miles, used 44 kWh, and averaged 234 Wh/mi.

 

[3sr+buyer]

The energy app shows that I always consume about 20-50 more miles than distant traveled.

What does it say the consumption is from? Driving, climate, etc.?

If you use the consumption tab on the energy screen, is the consumption line mostly above or below the line for the rated consumption?

What brand and model tires are on the car?

 

[Lindenwood]

Just so we are clear, the reason we don’t have more practical EPA range tests is because Detroit lobbied to keep the “highway” test at 48mph so their 7000lb bricks can be advertised at getting 21mpg on the “highway.”

This is not a Tesla problem, other than a more robust gasoline infrastructure makes running out of gas early not as big a deal. Even then, your Tesla will tell you exactly where to stop and unless you have some pathological need to pick the absolutely furthest points between stops, you’ll make it.

 

[shahryaran]

Agree