Blog EPA Releases Rating for Tesla Model 3 Dual Motor and Performance Cars

The EPA has released its official efficiency rating for the Tesla Model 3 Dual Motor and Performance versions, which comes in at 116 MPGe.

Both the Performance and non-Performance Dual Motor versions received the same rating of 120 MPGe for city driving and 112 MPGe for highway driving.

Range is rated at 310 miles on a single charge.

The issuance of an EPA rating is a good sign that Dual Motor and Performance cars are soon to roll out for delivery. Tesla started last week delivering Performance Model 3 vehicles to showrooms for test drives.

 

[Brando]

Or all those people who were jailed after the GFC.....

GFC = Global Financial Crisis
[look for Nomi Prins former Goldman Sachs executive for more information]
or Simon Johnson for realistic solutions - but we got Dodd-Frank 700 pages instead and recently much of those were "rescinded" just this year.
must be the Russians, right?

 

[JPWhite]

Does anyone know what wheel size and tires were used for the AWD tests?

 

[ℬête Noire]

Does anyone know what wheel size and tires were used for the AWD tests?

There's a picture of them using 19" rims but it's on a dyno. However, because it was done on a dyno whatever fudge factor Tesla selected for aerodynamics is what matters. We don't really know that, although IIRC traditionally it's done with base, non-optional gear so that'd be the much better 18" aeros.

 

[JPWhite]

There's a picture of them using 19" rims but it's on a dyno. However, because it was done on a dyno whatever fudge factor Tesla selected for aerodynamics is what matters. We don't really know that, although IIRC traditionally it's done with base, non-optional gear so that'd be the much better 18" aeros.

If the tests where done with 19" wheels, that would explain poorer efficiency.

 

[ℬête Noire]

If the tests where done with 19" wheels, that would explain poorer efficiency.

No, it wouldn't. Because it is the 18" aerodynamics that provide most of it's advantage (a little bit of weight but that's relatively minor), and that won't factor in on a dyno run.

What was chosen as the air drag number (and the vehicle mass) to program in as resistance on the dyno is what matters.

 

[JPWhite]

No, it wouldn't. Because it is the 18" aerodynamics that provide most of it's advantage (a little bit of weight but that's relatively minor), and that won't factor in on a dyno run.

What was chosen as the air drag number (and the vehicle mass) to program in as resistance on the dyno is what matters.

With the X an increase in rim size from 20 to 22 increased consumption about 5%, and that was done on the dyno as well. An extra inch may affect efficiency by 2-3%?

 

[SageBrush]

No, it wouldn't. Because it is the 18" aerodynamics that provide most of it's advantage (a little bit of weight but that's relatively minor), and that won't factor in on a dyno run.

What was chosen as the air drag number (and the vehicle mass) to program in as resistance on the dyno is what matters.

The dyno is programmed with coast down data.

 

[ℬête Noire]

The dyno is programmed with coast down data.

Right, and which aerodynamic profile are they assuming? 18" (w/ or w/o caps) or 19"?

 

[SageBrush]

Right, and which aerodynamic profile are they assuming? 18" (w/ or w/o caps) or 19"?

I'm not sure, but when this discussion popped up last year it was mentioned that EPA requires wheel choice based on sales fraction. IIRC, if the less efficient wheel is > 1/3 of sales it has to be the one tested.

 

[SageBrush]

With the X an increase in rim size from 20 to 22 increased consumption about 5%, and that was done on the dyno as well. An extra inch may affect efficiency by 2-3%?

AND the difference the aero hubcaps provide.

 

[JPWhite]

I'm not sure, but when this discussion popped up last year it was mentioned that EPA requires wheel choice based on sales fraction. IIRC, if the less efficient wheel is > 1/3 of sales it has to be the one tested.

Tesla have a unique advantage of having reservations to gauge future sales. Not sure how a sales fraction is meant to work for a brand new model with no recorded sales. An odd requirement for sure.

 

[JADCa]

I remember reading a ton of complaints on the S forum that the car can't get the advertised 265 miles rated range. How dare Tesla lie that it is what the EPA claims. Real world range is more like XXXX. Now Tesla is getting complaints because the 310 miles is a more accurate real world range and still there is nothing but complaints. They really can't win.

 

[Brando]

I remember reading a ton of complaints on the S forum that the car can't get the advertised 265 miles rated range. How dare Tesla lie that it is what the EPA claims. Real world range is more like XXXX. Now Tesla is getting complaints because the 310 miles is a more accurate real world range and still there is nothing but complaints. They really can't win.

So right you are!

Notice that even even in the early days of InternalCombustionEngine vehicles, people weren't obsessed with "mileage". I do remember when people did carry "jerry cans" of extra fuel [yeh, mostly jeeps]. Perhaps people will carry solar panels. [search for "flexible solar panel" you already have options] Some already do on their RecreationalVehicles.

Distance is always a constraint and we all learn to deal with it. Very few petrol users drive until their vehicle stop running.
SEARCH: fuel mileage contests
May surprise you. How We Won the Insight Fuel-Economy Challenge. Without Cheating. Much

When ever my Saab gets to 1/4 tank, I start looking for the next fuel up spot - I don't obsess about.

 

[brianman]

I remember reading a ton of complaints on the S forum that the car can't get the advertised 265 miles rated range. How dare Tesla lie that it is what the EPA claims. Real world range is more like XXXX. Now Tesla is getting complaints because the 310 miles is a more accurate real world range and still there is nothing but complaints. They really can't win.

I'm not sure which "complaints" you're referring to. If you're referring to opinions and concerns expressed in posts on a fan forum dedicated to exploring the Tesla offerings ad nauseum, yah there are some concerns that the underlined is being repeated for the Performance flavor of the Model 3. That's not a new issue about being "more accurate". Quite the contrary, it's the same issue.

Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point.

 

[azred]

My rudimentary calculations say the AWD versions have a 90 kWh battery while the non-performance long range version has an 80 kWh battery.

29 kWh / 100 mi requires an 90 kWh battery to hit 310 miles per charge.

26 kWh / 100 mi requires an 80 kWh battery to hit 310 miles per charge.

You'd think that was the case, if the numbers were real. But it's much more likely the LR rear drive range was artificially lowered as was reported many months ago. I am sure it would have leaked by now if the battery size was larger.

I suppose it doesn't really matter much but I am surprised the EPA would allow their test data to be manipulated.

 

[Brando]

You'd think that was the case, if the numbers were real. But it's much more likely the LR rear drive range was artificially lowered as was reported many months ago. I am sure it would have leaked by now if the battery size was larger.

I suppose it doesn't really matter much but I am surprised the EPA would allow their test data to be manipulated.

government and manipulated data?
ever heard of official 9/11 building collapse?

if 9/11 were to be investigated as a crime

side note: Most everyone pro or con seems to suspect climate data manipulated.
Well since everyone is running models, I guess by definition it is all about manipulation of data, right?

 

[narayan]

I tend to get 10-20% higher mileage than EPA numbers at least with my Leaf and my style of driving. I expect the same from the M3 AWD.