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.

 

[dpeilow]

All 310 miles range? Confirms that one or all of them have been arbitrarily lowered.

 

[Sigma4Life]

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.

 

[AMDPower]

I think it is more likely that the standard LR is ACTUALLY capable of near 350 miles.

 

[ThosEM]

I read a claim somewhere that Tesla asked EPA to reduce the range rating of the Model 3, and they complied. That's a funny game to play, for reasons that aren't clear.

 

[SOULPEDL]

Actually, the Model 3 LR is capable of 622 mi range on a single charge. Depends how you drive
Tesla Model 3 unmanned on Autopilot travels 1,000 km on a single charge in new hypermiling record
Cool that Starman has a little brother named Spacy. Where's Sister Sandy from Gravity?

 

[scottm]

Ahh.. back to the normal world where AWD / 4WD cars consume more energy per mile, not less, as was the case for Model S.

As you would expect from more rotating gear and more mass.

But Tesla could warp our minds again if they put a permanent magnet motor up front in the 3, instead of the induction motor it got (for more pep), and geared the front motor differently (higher ratio) than the rear .. and torque vectored accordingly (favor the front for everything unless traction or power was demanded).

Heck, Tesla could really warp our minds for extended range if they just put a 2-gear box in RWD cars and skip the 2nd front motor altogether, saving a little weight. I know, I know, the original Roaster had its issues with 2 gears and that's why they stopped doing that... but maybe things have gotten better in the last 10 years?

 

[scottm]

I read a claim somewhere that Tesla asked EPA to reduce the range rating of the Model 3, and they complied. That's a funny game to play, for reasons that aren't clear.

The reason is clear: it helps in preventing cannibalization of selling higher-end cars by Tesla suggesting they go just as far as the existing LR (RWD) car. The LR car is really an amazing range thing. If range is your game (and range anxiety is still probably the top concern for first time EVers) then you get the LR and skip the dual. Less profit.

Dual is in the name of performance, for you. And profit, for Tesla. It would have been hard to make a performance monster by making the front motor a permanent magnet motor, which would have been more efficient. It might have gone a little faster, maybe if they geared it lower, and it would still have AWD traction (the usual reason for wanting a 4x4 vehicle), but it wouldn't be the monster. Heavier for sure... and 4x4 traction ...but probably not enough payback to justify the extra motor unless it was an A/C motor for the value of the initial kick for drag racing, tracking, etc.. getting groceries faster.

Dual motor gives you:
- more even tire wear
- better kick
- better traction
- less efficiency

Is the drop of 3 kWh/100 mi. efficiency worth it to you? Is the question. As someone pointed out already, this amount is in the realm of applying some judicious use of hypermiling techniques to get it back, probably without going too crazy. Like just ease up a bit on the pedal on the highway, and don't race up hills to maintain speed but allow a little speed loss. Put regen to Low on the highway to conserve momentum. And you've probably gained it back.

 

[voip-ninja]

I read a claim somewhere that Tesla asked EPA to reduce the range rating of the Model 3, and they complied. That's a funny game to play, for reasons that aren't clear.

The reason should be obvious.

They don't want to lose more profitable dual motor sales by demonstrating that dual motor has lower range. By having the EPA lower the range of the LR RWD they can claim that RWD and DM have "same" range.

 

[dgpcolorado]

The reason should be obvious.

They don't want to lose more profitable dual motor sales by demonstrating that dual motor has lower range. By having the EPA lower the range of the LR RWD they can claim that RWD and DM have "same" range.

I think it might have had something to do with allowing the S100D to claim the range crown in the Tesla stable.

 

[Brando]

But Tesla could warp our minds again if they put a permanent magnet motor up front in the 3, instead of the induction motor it got (for more pep), and geared the front motor differently (higher ratio) than the rear .. and torque vectored accordingly (favor the front for everything unless traction or power was demanded).

Heck, Tesla could really warp our minds for extended range if they just put a 2-gear box in RWD cars and skip the 2nd front motor altogether, saving a little weight. I know, I know, the original Roaster had its issues with 2 gears and that's why they stopped doing that... but maybe things have gotten better in the last 10 years?

NO, metallurgy hasn't changed that much. Add a 2nd gear and dual clutch?? not worth the money. "Perhaps a speed shop"
will try?
BUT torque and power only seem to increase over time. Gear boxes are so last century. The highest speed limits that I know of are out West US at 85 mph/135 Kph. So already Tesla cars can go 60% over the speed limit. Why add complexity ??

Someday, I hope Tesla can offer an efficiency first [they already offer performance first, right?] with a super safe very efficient and very affordable car. Perhaps the Swedes - Uniti - An electric car to redefine urban mobility which seems a fine "city car" we shall see how safe.

IF you can plan your life with no car and use electric bikes and walk, you safe a small fortune.

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

I read a claim somewhere that Tesla asked EPA to reduce the range rating of the Model 3, and they complied. That's a funny game to play, for reasons that aren't clear.

It’s called lying. To make money

 

[Candleflame]

It’s called lying. To make money

i agree with that. it is clearly done on purpose.
It's like BMW trying to make their fuel consumption for their 316/18 appear higher so people buy a 320 or 325. In Europe fuel consumption is a very important part of the decision to buy a car.

 

[Brando]

It’s called lying. To make money

get real
no one does that
just ask anyone on Wall St. or Madison Ave.

 

[Maximilien]

It’s called lying. To make money

True, but at least Tesla is downplaying their numbers.

This is not anything new. Model S P100D is advertised as 0-60 2.5 seconds instead of the actual 2.3 seconds.

If Tesla overplay their numbers than it can deliver, then it can be an issue, like how German auto makers lied their fuel efficiency.

 

[voip-ninja]

I think it might have had something to do with allowing the S100D to claim the range crown in the Tesla stable.

Possible. Both could also be true.... both reasons being Tesla attempting to protect profit margins.

 

[david_42]

The EPA number for the RWD is 334 miles. It will be interesting to see what the efficiency for the SD version will be with the lighter battery.

I doubt Musk was too concerned about losing AWD or Performance sales when he lowered the LD range. People who want those versions really want them.

 

[ℬête Noire]

I doubt Musk was too concerned about losing AWD or Performance sales when he lowered the LD range. People who want those versions really want them.

However purchasers of the top end of that scale, Performance and especially the P100D Model S (and to some extent the 100D and of course the top end of the MX), generally want them to be The Best, clearly and in all ways possible. Because they are playing a huge premium.

Even as the Model 3 shipping Tesla's ad copy was explicitly highlighting the top end of the Model S has having the highest range (I'm not sure it's still there, now that Tesla has shifted focus to the Performance). You really think it was coincidence of the LR's range listed 5 miles below the P100D's 315 miles? That was a lot of revenue with a much bigger margin on the line there with each sale, and it wasn't even all buy the Model 3 or the P100D, it was feeling good enough about the P100D to lay out the $125K or whatever for it.


P.S. Underpromising to coax the customer upscale is kinda slimy but I agree as suggested above it's not nearly as bad as over-promising.

 

[SageBrush]

Yes tastes on wheels are subjective, but there's a reason most wheels have been silver since the invention of the car. It matches the most paint colors. Dark grey wheels only match the dark grey car. Silver would have matched them all. Dark wheels are just a temporary trend, like chrome wheels were 20 years ago. And who wants chrome wheels anymore?

I think it is more likely that the standard LR is ACTUALLY capable of near 350 miles.

I read a claim somewhere that Tesla asked EPA to reduce the range rating of the Model 3, and they complied. That's a funny game to play, for reasons that aren't clear.

The EPA number for the RWD is 334 miles.

IIRC, the range test by EPA is combined highway and city. It may not be exactly half of each but it is pretty close.
So starting from 334 miles real tested result for LR range,
And using
130 MPGe for LR
116 MPGe for D

The D EPA range then is 334 * 116 / 130 = 298 miles
I suppose with rounding errors most of the missing 10 miles might be found, or perhaps Tesla performed the actual drive cycles rather than just multiply the raw EPA result by 0.7

As a practical matter though, the D models will have very close to LR range on the highway since the mass difference only leads to about a
0.009*150*9.8 = 13 Newton increase in rolling resistance = ~ 2 - 3% less range

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

get real
no one does that
just ask anyone on Wall St. or Madison Ave.

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