Horrible Range 2020 Model 3 LR, Dual Motor!

[ucmndd]

The parasitic losses on a Tesla are amazing. For those new to EV's trust me, this is unique to Tesla.

Eh? If you turn off all the configurable crap like sentry mode and cabin overheat, it’s next to nothing. Like 15 cents of electricity a day.

 

[MXLRplus]

Eh? If you turn off all the configurable crap like sentry mode and cabin overheat, it’s next to nothing. Like 15 cents of electricity a day.

Mine loses ~3 kWh a day, no Sentry, parked in my garage, no aftermarket apps.

In any case, I've yet to meet another EV that would consume a full kWh overnight unless it was heating the battery. One of mine lost ~1 kWh in 60 days, unplugged outside, and it has telemetrics active. Nothing special, just parked it there and let it sit.

 

[jjrandorin]

I usually don't care what range I get as I hook it up to the charger every night. However I do care about the range when I go on a trip, two much time at the charge stations. I don't make my driving a big game. I drive fast as it is safe and I have my mind on business matters more that I should. I don't charge over 85% as I need to get going and the charge rate is getting slower. I never drive to less than 20 to 30 miles range as I don't want any pressure. I want to choose where I am going to eat and not go walking around the charge station looking for some fast food place. My standard range model 3 is not for me. I am looking at the new 400 mile S. I would like to know how many miles the averge person gets between charges. Please Tesla super fans, don't reply.

There is no "between charges" as most of us charge every night. Based on your stated driving profile ("I dont charge past 85%, I drive fast as its safe"), you will never get near rated range on any tesla.

EDIT: Noticed you ment "on a trip" based on your description above. It mostly depends on what you mean by 'i drive fast". On a trip, you should start at 100%...

If I had to guess, I would guess that, if you got a model S with 400 mile range, you would likely get 310 miles or so between 85-10% based on your driving profile.

 

[vickh]

I had a loaner 2015 S 90D over the weekend. It seemed to give the rated/display range a lot better than my 19 SR, even on freeways and similar driving habits, ac etc (chill )

 

[ucmndd]

Mine loses ~3 kWh a day, no Sentry, parked in my garage, no aftermarket apps.

That’s a good deal higher than the rest of the fleet. What about Summon standby?

 

[MXLRplus]

That’s a good deal higher than the rest of the fleet. What about Summon standby?

It was consuming that much prior to updating to FSD. It's not a big issue for me, just surprising. 3 kWh is a lot of juice, 125w continuous x 24h. That's like leaving your headlights on in an LED car. I will say the car is always 13.8 vdc at the acc outlet. So the DC/DC inverter is always on.

 

[Krazaak]

It was consuming that much prior to updating to FSD. It's not a big issue for me, just surprising. 3 kWh is a lot of juice, 125w continuous x 24h. That's like leaving your headlights on in an LED car. I will say the car is always 13.8 vdc at the acc outlet. So the DC/DC inverter is always on.

The acc outlet being on constantly could be a result of sentry mode being activated. There's something wrong with your car if sentry mode is disabled and you're experiencing that loss. It's not a Tesla issue, that's not normal.

 

[MXLRplus]

... It's not a Tesla issue, that's not normal.

Not a Tesla issue?

 

[Krazaak]

Not a Tesla issue?

It's an issue with your Tesla, not an issue that affects all Teslas, hence my comment. I wasn't suggesting it wasn't a problem they should fix. The way you said it, made it sound like this is something Tesla owners just have to live with. It's not normal.

 

[toolman335]

During this pandemic I've lost 1-2 miles of range per day. Tops.
I find that people who stress about this the most are the ones who open the app on their phones every hour stressing about how much phantom power they're consuming

 

[camalaio]

I usually don't care what range I get as I hook it up to the charger every night. However I do care about the range when I go on a trip, two much time at the charge stations. I don't make my driving a big game. I drive fast as it is safe and I have my mind on business matters more that I should. I don't charge over 85% as I need to get going and the charge rate is getting slower. I never drive to less than 20 to 30 miles range as I don't want any pressure. I want to choose where I am going to eat and not go walking around the charge station looking for some fast food place. My standard range model 3 is not for me. I am looking at the new 400 mile S. I would like to know how many miles the averge person gets between charges. Please Tesla super fans, don't reply.

You'd probably get more relevant info in the Model S section of this forum (this thread is in a Model 3 area). That said, I must point out you're comparing a base Model 3 (which aimed to be a $35k car) to a Model S 100D, which is a completely different category (and price!) of vehicle. Wondering why not opt for the Model 3 LR? The Model 3 LR charges faster than the SR+ when on trips. I'd have to double check, but the Model S 100D might actually Supercharge slower than the Model 3 (especially in California where you have v3 Superchargers) in terms of range.

Eh? If you turn off all the configurable crap like sentry mode and cabin overheat, it’s next to nothing. Like 15 cents of electricity a day.

That's entirely true, but many people that got an EV (myself included, though less of a percentage of Tesla owners specifically) got them for "green" reasons. It's not about money, clearly. Replacing incandescent household lightbulbs becomes so pointless in comparison to the car sucking back 1kWh every day for the privilege of parking it. That bulb comparison is also a bit dated of course - I habitually turn off lights I'm not using, replace some 10W bulbs with 7W bulbs. I'm maybe "saving" 0.1kWh every day with these actions while my car happily burns through power for no comprehensible reason or benefit to the average owner.

And like another poster mentioned, this problem is fairly unique to Tesla. It's entirely avoidable, just not the choice they made.

Mine loses ~3 kWh a day, no Sentry, parked in my garage, no aftermarket apps.

In any case, I've yet to meet another EV that would consume a full kWh overnight unless it was heating the battery. One of mine lost ~1 kWh in 60 days, unplugged outside, and it has telemetrics active. Nothing special, just parked it there and let it sit.

Yeeeaaah that's a bit too much. That implies your Tesla is awake for half the day. Something isn't right. Can you monitor if it's trying to do uploads on WiFi or something like that? (see activity on the router)

It was consuming that much prior to updating to FSD. It's not a big issue for me, just surprising. 3 kWh is a lot of juice, 125w continuous x 24h. That's like leaving your headlights on in an LED car. I will say the car is always 13.8 vdc at the acc outlet. So the DC/DC inverter is always on.

I find it surprising you know this, what do you have plugged in there? That could be consuming power, right?

If you take the 60W median I mentioned earlier, that implies you're only an additional 65W over typical behaviour FWIW.

 

[mreynolds767]

Bought a new 2020 model 3 LR, 19" wheels, duel motor in Dec. I have never got more than 130 mile per charge from 90% to about 30%. No matter how I drive. I been trying to accelerate gradually and to not speed up and slow down as much as possible. I live in San Francisco where the climate is cool. I have tried soft reboots but nothing seems to help. Is there a problem? does anyone have any good advice?

To the OP:
For the type of driving and charging you are doing I think everything is normal.
Your car will get much worse numbers on short drives and you are losing power leaving the car uncharged at work and at home all of those days.

The range rating is based on 1 continuous drive and even then things like strong winds, extreme temps, going above 75 MPH, etc... can make the rated range impossible to achieve.

 

[MasterC17]

You are most certainly not going to get near advertised range doing a bunch of short drives. The main reason being that the cooling system needs to heat up the motors and battery while also cooling (or heating) the interior when you first begin a drive. That consumes A LOT of energy. Once the interior is at a good temperature and the battery and motors are in their efficiency range, your consumption will be generally consistent and considerably less than at the beginning of the drive.

There is also a perfectly good reason the car's consume energy while idle - they maintain battery temperature. Again, to do this the cooling system in the car needs to turn on, generate energy to either heat or cool the battery or the cabin (depending on your settings). Sure competitors don't do this, which is why you may see 20% battery degradation in the first year, or 50% or more after 5 years.

I would know, I own a 2016 VW eGolf. The good part is that it doesn't lose energy while sitting. The bad part is I lost 18% of my charging capacity in the first year, another 6% the second year, and another 3% the third year. At 36,000 miles it has almost 30% degradation. Meanwhile, my four year old Model S had about 6% degradation in TOTAL.

 

[mreynolds767]

I usually don't care what range I get as I hook it up to the charger every night. However I do care about the range when I go on a trip, two much time at the charge stations. I don't make my driving a big game. I drive fast as it is safe and I have my mind on business matters more that I should. I don't charge over 85% as I need to get going and the charge rate is getting slower. I never drive to less than 20 to 30 miles range as I don't want any pressure. I want to choose where I am going to eat and not go walking around the charge station looking for some fast food place. My standard range model 3 is not for me. I am looking at the new 400 mile S. I would like to know how many miles the averge person gets between charges. Please Tesla super fans, don't reply.

You should look at how far spaced the SC are in the locations you would like to road trip to and see what type of range would be needed.
It really varies throughout the country. In the North East / Atlantic area I can say confidently the Model 3 AWD range is more than sufficient for trips.

Most of us spend approx. 20 minutes at a SC ; it really is not enough time to get something to eat most of the time and you will be charged idle fees if you leave your car at one after it is charged. The time works out just about right to watch a Youtube video or two or a short Netflix show and then be on your way.

 

[Krazaak]

There is also a perfectly good reason the car's consume energy while idle - they maintain battery temperature. Again, to do this the cooling system in the car needs to turn on, generate energy to either heat or cool the battery or the cabin (depending on your settings).

Is there any evidence that the car actively cools the battery while parked? It definitely doesn't warm it, because it can and does freeze. The normal operating temperature of the battery is well above normal outdoor temperatures, (50C+) so even sitting in the sun it shouldn't need to be actively cooled, since it doesn't have the same greenhouse effect as the cabin.

The rest of it though, Sentry, Summon Standby, cellular and WiFi connections all consume more power because they rely upon fairly powerful computers for even minor tasks. Tesla has chosen to implement features in software where other manufacturers may use purpose built (and lower power) hardware or not implement at all. Take something as simple as automatic wipers where Tesla's using a neural net and GPU vs. an infrared sensor in a traditional car. It all makes negligible efficiency difference while driving, but even with power saving computing features, it adds up to a lot while parked.

I wonder if anyone's tried a 12V cutoff switch for long term inactivity. I've used one on recreational vehicles to prevent low level vampire drain from killing the battery when stored for weeks at a time. You obviously give up all of the connected features with a modification like that, but if saving energy is your primary focus, it might be worth it.

 

[MXLRplus]

I find it surprising you know this, what do you have plugged in there? That could be consuming power, right?

If you take the 60W median I mentioned earlier, that implies you're only an additional 65W over typical behaviour FWIW.

A Model X LR+ comes with only one open USB port in the front. So you install a Cigar Lighter USB. Mine displays voltage. I doubt it draws a quarter watt.

 

[strider]

That's entirely true, but many people that got an EV (myself included, though less of a percentage of Tesla owners specifically) got them for "green" reasons. It's not about money, clearly. Replacing incandescent household lightbulbs becomes so pointless in comparison to the car sucking back 1kWh every day for the privilege of parking it. That bulb comparison is also a bit dated of course - I habitually turn off lights I'm not using, replace some 10W bulbs with 7W bulbs. I'm maybe "saving" 0.1kWh every day with these actions while my car happily burns through power for no comprehensible reason or benefit to the average owner.

And like another poster mentioned, this problem is fairly unique to Tesla. It's entirely avoidable, just not the choice they made.

Because Convenience. Tesla's never really go into deep sleep. The computers are constantly on and running, monitoring the battery and ready to roll at a moment's notice. If they allowed the car to go into deep sleep, people would be on this board, complaining about how "The car takes FOREVER to wake up when I want to drive! Tesla sucks! What if I were being chased by a Monster!? I can start an ICE faster than a Tesla wakes up!" and on and on.

It's rather like the fact that no one ever turns off their phone, computer, TV, etc. They just leave them on, constantly drawing power. Nevermind the OUTRAGEOUS waste of energy/carbon/general pollution that is required to keep the "cloud" running globally 24/7 so "green" people can post pictures of their fake meat burger to instagram.

 

[camalaio]

You are most certainly not going to get near advertised range doing a bunch of short drives. The main reason being that the cooling system needs to heat up the motors and battery while also cooling (or heating) the interior when you first begin a drive. That consumes A LOT of energy. Once the interior is at a good temperature and the battery and motors are in their efficiency range, your consumption will be generally consistent and considerably less than at the beginning of the drive.

There is also a perfectly good reason the car's consume energy while idle - they maintain battery temperature. Again, to do this the cooling system in the car needs to turn on, generate energy to either heat or cool the battery or the cabin (depending on your settings). Sure competitors don't do this, which is why you may see 20% battery degradation in the first year, or 50% or more after 5 years.

I would know, I own a 2016 VW eGolf. The good part is that it doesn't lose energy while sitting. The bad part is I lost 18% of my charging capacity in the first year, another 6% the second year, and another 3% the third year. At 36,000 miles it has almost 30% degradation. Meanwhile, my four year old Model S had about 6% degradation in TOTAL.

There's a lot of common misconceptions here. One of them I find kind of funny because Tesla really relies on it to get their perceived expertise!

• Outside of fairly cold temps (Winter), no heating of the battery or motors is occurring for a regular drive. It should be noted that for Model 3/Y, the motors are only heated to supply heat to the battery (shared coolant system), not because the motors need to be heated. But yes, if this occurs, it is a heck-ton of energy, far more than heating the cabin! As far as cooling the battery goes, it usually can cool it passively with the radiator just fine when occasionally necessary.
• The battery temperature is not really being altered in any meaningful way 90+% of the time while parked. They do as much as they can passively (without running the AC compressor and/or heating via the motors), which really doesn't require much power. It's a few coolant pumps and maybe a radiator fan for short burst. As far as anyone can tell, the grand majority of "awake" consumption is actually from computers. Ask any PC nerd what they can do with 200+W of computing power - that probably doesn't need to be running when the car is parked and not using sentry mode etc.
• The reason other EVs have historically degraded much faster is by far a function of their battery pack size, not their lack of active battery care.

For your eGolf, the numbers I could find are 83 miles to a charge, and 24.2kWh. For EVs today (and many Li-ion cells in general), cycle count is fairly comparable. While everyone lauds Tesla for paving the way with their Model S packs (shown to get ~1250 cycles lifetime), Nissan Leaf wasn't that far behind even in 2013 (~1000 cycle lifetime). As many know, the Tesla has active cooling and heating while the Leaf is entirely passive. However, if you compare miles lifetime of these packs, they're incredibly different and the Nissan looks terrible. Tesla gets around this by slapping huge batteries under their vehicles (which also mean their discharge and charge rates are probably comparatively nicer on the battery, extending lifetime even more). Even if Tesla got only 500 cycles (half of Nissan), they would still have a longer lifetime in miles.

So your eGolf is implied to be around 434 cycles if all your energy was put to driving only. That's low for 27% reduction, but the degradation did slow down as expected. Teslas have this too (check all the "suddenly lost 10%" threads at early mileage, and Tesla hides the first part of this degradation), it's just part of life for Li-ion batteries. They have an initial dip, level out, then drop like a rock at end of life. I'd guess your actual cycle count is higher, as things like heating take a lot of the energy budget in a relatively small battery. Bigger batteries help in many ways.

Because Convenience. Tesla's never really go into deep sleep. The computers are constantly on and running, monitoring the battery and ready to roll at a moment's notice. If they allowed the car to go into deep sleep, people would be on this board, complaining about how "The car takes FOREVER to wake up when I want to drive! Tesla sucks! What if I were being chased by a Monster!? I can start an ICE faster than a Tesla wakes up!" and on and on.

It's rather like the fact that no one ever turns off their phone, computer, TV, etc. They just leave them on, constantly drawing power. Nevermind the OUTRAGEOUS waste of energy/carbon/general pollution that is required to keep the "cloud" running globally 24/7 so "green" people can post pictures of their fake meat burger to instagram.

Other EVs are all ready to go at a moment's notice too! Actually, Tesla is probably the worst for that. The number of times I try a handle a number of times before succeeding? The black screens when I enter for ~2 minutes while it reboots? I'm 100% sure with other EVs you just unlock without thinking and drive away, and everything works. There is no advantage in roll-away time that Tesla is getting by keeping the car awake - other manufacturers clearly don't have to do this.

As for your cloud point, the thing is people actively use those resources. It's not like Instagram is running idle servers - they actively provide a service most of the time. And the data centers behind them are always looking at ways to save power - aside from the obvious cost savings, there's secondary benefits like decreasing the cooling power needed. While the power needs for server farms are incredible, they get a lot done per watt.

 

[BEPA400]

One of mine lost ~1 kWh in 60 days, unplugged outside, and it has telemetrics active. Nothing special, just parked it there and let it sit.

I don’t believe this.
Telemetry on your EV averaging a draw of 0.7 watts??? what EV is this?
My leaf held its charge great sitting doing nothing. But it was OFF off.

 

[strider]

Other EVs are all ready to go at a moment's notice too! Actually, Tesla is probably the worst for that. The number of times I try a handle a number of times before succeeding? The black screens when I enter for ~2 minutes while it reboots? I'm 100% sure with other EVs you just unlock without thinking and drive away, and everything works. There is no advantage in roll-away time that Tesla is getting by keeping the car awake - other manufacturers clearly don't have to do this.

My point is not to compare Tesla to other EVs. I'm saying that if Tesla made changes to cause the car to sleep more deeply in order to save parasitic losses, people would be here complaining about startup or app connection delays.

Could make their code more efficient? Of course! You are fairly new here. The list of inefficient choices that Tesla has made on the hardware and software side is long and distinguished.

But the bottom line is that most of Tesla's customers are petulant children. Just browse this board. So Tesla is making decision that will upset the fewest number of people...

As for your cloud point, the thing is people actively use those resources. It's not like Instagram is running idle servers - they actively provide a service most of the time. And the data centers behind them are always looking at ways to save power - aside from the obvious cost savings, there's secondary benefits like decreasing the cooling power needed. While the power needs for server farms are incredible, they get a lot done per watt.

I am sorry but you are wrong. I work for a SaaS company. We have to always keep resources online to handle additional load. Even with a global footprint there are ebbs and flows during the day and/or between days. Yes, we try to optimize the number of running systems but we must keep idle systems available for the next customer that may need it. When you multiply this times every SaaS, IaaS, and every other provider out there, there are many, many, systems sitting idle at any given point, waiting to handle a new customer that may or may not appear. The alternative is to give someone a "wait" screen for a few seconds or minutes while instances are spun up. People will complain about this so the providers don't do it, no matter what it does to the environment.