How Long for a Tesla with 400 Mile Range ? Vs. 500 Mile Range in a Decade !

[JRP3]

Thought it would be worthwhile to explore progress and get opinions, in the battery efficiency and cost space, to project how long it will take Tesla to produce a 400 Mile Range EV..maybe with a Model 3 , which I expect will be the best candidate to get there fastest.

Disagree. The S is the more likely candidate for two reasons:
1. It's the flagship premium vehicle so should lead the way in range and can more easily handle the price premium the larger pack will demand.
2. It's greater size means it can more easily hold more batteries. For long distance highway driving aerodynamics plays a greater roll than weight.
So while I expect the Model 3 to be a more efficient vehicle I think the S will still be the first car offered with a 400 mile range.

 

[ToddRLockwood]

Thought it would be worthwhile to explore progress and get opinions, in the battery efficiency and cost space, to project how long it will take Tesla to produce a 400 Mile Range EV..maybe with a Model 3 , which I expect will be the best candidate to get there fastest.

If Elon thinks a 500 mile range Tesla is within reach in a decade, could a 400 mile range happen by year end 2020... I.e. within 5 years ?

I believe Elon and JB are focused on getting the range to 400 miles with a Model 3, pretty darn fast. Why ? Because not only would it be a huge competitive advantage, BUT it would be go a very long way to solving the range anxiety issue !

Even 350 mile range, for that matter, would be quite a boost, if doable by year end 2018.

As the Supercharger network keeps getting more robust, the importance of a 400-mile battery will diminish. Most people don't drive more than 200 miles without taking a break. Tesla's 130-150 mile Supercharger spacing mirrors the drive-to-stop cadence of most gasoline car drivers.

 

[esk8mw]

You guys must not talk to a lot of ev skeptics. There are exactly 2 things holding back the proliferation of evs, assuming the person can afford a similarly priced ice:

1. Charging time. For most people it is simply unacceptable to spend 30+ minutes fueling up because they are used to taking 5 minutes. Until charging can be reduced to 10 minutes or so this will remain the primary obstacle.

2. Longer range. You can tell someone that this is only applicable on road trips but it will fall on deaf ears. People want to see similar range to ice cars before they jump ship. Old habits die hard. I suspect we will need real world range of about 350 miles before you see a mass exodus to ev. These will be the top sellers initially, until buyers realize over time that the extra range is not needed, except in edge cases. I view this as less important than charging time since many ice buyers like myself are lucky to get 250/tank due to having a gas guzzler.

 

[SebastianR]

You guys must not talk to a lot of ev skeptics. There are exactly 2 things holding back the proliferation of evs, assuming the person can afford a similarly priced ice: 1. Charging time. [...] 2. Longer range. [...]

I know. I agree it comes up time and again. But wasn't it Henry Ford who said "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."? I see this as a similar issue. I also assume we need to spend another 10 years discussing range but I really wish we wouldn't need to.

(Of course there are still very legitimate reasons to work on longer range vehicles. Think the sales man, that regularly does the 1000 miles / day trips etc., but for >80% of the population the current ranges of the S85/S70 are perfectly fine. The problem is people think they need more than they actually need. But then again, people regularly buy bigger houses than they need, faster cars than they need etc. - so I guess in some sense this is a mute point. Longer ranges will come, people will buy it. If they actually "need" it or not, is irrelevant.)

 

[RobStark]

As the Supercharger network keeps getting more robust, the importance of a 400-mile battery will diminish. Most people don't drive more than 200 miles without taking a break. Tesla's 130-150 mile Supercharger spacing mirrors the drive-to-stop cadence of most gasoline car drivers.

Most people don't drive under ideal EPA conditions.

They drive in snow with heater on full blast with high fidelity stereo on.

Or in the middle of Summer with AC on full blast with high fidelity stereo on.

People buy what they want and can afford not necessarily on what they need.

 

[wdolson]

Most people don't drive under ideal EPA conditions.

They drive in snow with heater on full blast with high fidelity stereo on.

Or in the middle of Summer with AC on full blast with high fidelity stereo on.

People buy what they want and can afford not necessarily on what they need.

Heating and A/C are going to cut into range, in very cold weather the Model S also heats the battery which will eat into range even more. A lot of us are lead foots which also impacts range. Bjorn Nyland tested the stereo on range and found the effect was negligible to range, though hard on his hearing.

 

[ToddRLockwood]

You guys must not talk to a lot of ev skeptics. There are exactly 2 things holding back the proliferation of evs, assuming the person can afford a similarly priced ice:

1. Charging time. For most people it is simply unacceptable to spend 30+ minutes fueling up because they are used to taking 5 minutes. Until charging can be reduced to 10 minutes or so this will remain the primary obstacle.

2. Longer range. You can tell someone that this is only applicable on road trips but it will fall on deaf ears. People want to see similar range to ice cars before they jump ship. Old habits die hard. I suspect we will need real world range of about 350 miles before you see a mass exodus to ev. These will be the top sellers initially, until buyers realize over time that the extra range is not needed, except in edge cases. I view this as less important than charging time since many ice buyers like myself are lucky to get 250/tank due to having a gas guzzler.

(Charging time) Once you've driven your Model S for a few months, you will realize that this simple comparison between pumping gasoline and charging at a Supercharger does not tell the whole story. There are numerous additional advantages when driving a Tesla, such as not having to stand next to the car in sub-freezing temps while you "fuel" it. But perhaps the biggest difference is that local charging stations are irrelevant. In daily driving, there's no need to plan your route home around refueling. Unless you drive more than 200 miles on a daily basis, you will do 99% of your charging in your own garage while you're asleep. "Fueling" a Tesla is much more akin to charging a cell phone than filling a car with gasoline.

Here's another way to look at it: My Model S has 45K miles. In this were a gasoline car, I would have had roughly 15 oil change services by now. Figuring 2 hours of inconvenience in dealing with each of those oil changes, I would have wasted 30 hours of my time over the past 2-1/2 years. I have spent nowhere near that much time sitting at Superchargers.

(Longer range) The public's concern about range is based on the familiar gasoline station paradigm. Again, the straight comparison between 400 miles/tank and 260 miles/charge does not tell the whole story. It's all about perception and imagined problems. The Supercharger network does more to allay these concerns than it actually impacts owners' charging habits. Superchargers are probably a better marketing tool than the car itself is. When you occasionally need them, they are indispensable. But you won't need them the vast majority of the time.

 

[aronth5]

(Charging time) Once you've driven your Model S for a few months, you will realize that this simple comparison between pumping gasoline and charging at a Supercharger does not tell the whole story. There are numerous additional advantages when driving a Tesla, such as not having to stand next to the car in sub-freezing temps while you "fuel" it. But perhaps the biggest difference is that local charging stations are irrelevant. In daily driving, there's no need to plan your route home around refueling. Unless you drive more than 200 miles on a daily basis, you will do 99% of your charging in your own garage while you're asleep. "Fueling" a Tesla is much more akin to charging a cell phone than filling a car with gasoline.

Here's another way to look at it: My Model S has 45K miles. In this were a gasoline car, I would have had roughly 15 oil change services by now. Figuring 2 hours of inconvenience in dealing with each of those oil changes, I would have wasted 30 hours of my time over the past 2-1/2 years. I have spent nowhere near that much time sitting at Superchargers.

(Longer range) The public's concern about range is based on the familiar gasoline station paradigm. Again, the straight comparison between 400 miles/tank and 260 miles/charge does not tell the whole story. It's all about perception and imagined problems. The Supercharger network does more to allay these concerns than it actually impacts owners' charging habits. Superchargers are probably a better marketing tool than the car itself is. When you occasionally need them, they are indispensable. But you won't need them the vast majority of the time.

I always enjoy the perspective of actual owners. A comment and a question. The practice of changing your oil every 3k miles is long since past. Toyota for example has changed its policy for the first oil change at 10k miles and then every 7.5k to 10K after that.
How much do you adjust your travel plans in Vermonts cold winter?

 

[AmpedRealtor]

I think 5 years is about right. Elon has said that he expects 5-10% improvements in range every year. Taking a 7.5% midpoint:

282 (90D max range, approximately) * 1.075 = 303.15 in 2016
303.15 * 1.075 = 325.89 in 2017
325.89 * 1.075 = 350.33 in 2018
350.33 * 1.075 = 376.60 in 2019
376.60 * 1.075 = 404.85 in 2020

I don't believe Elon ever said 5%-10%. Elon only said 5% annually, on average. I think you are overestimating.

 

[ToddRLockwood]

I always enjoy the perspective of actual owners. A comment and a question. The practice of changing your oil every 3k miles is long since past. Toyota for example has changed its policy for the first oil change at 10k miles and then every 7.5k to 10K after that.
How much do you adjust your travel plans in Vermonts cold winter?

Some years ago, I recall hearing that the 7k-10k oil change intervals recommended by manufacturers were actually mandated by the EPA to reduce oil pollution, but that privately, auto engineers still recommended the old 3K standard (or 5K for synthetic oil). That's interesting about Toyota, with its 10k break-in oil. I'd be reluctant to keep the original oil in a car that long. While the car would be under warranty at that point, premature wear might not be apparent until years later.

The Vermont winters have been less of a problem for my Model S than I'd imagined. With two Superchargers between Burlington and Boston, it's really no big deal. I've made the Boston run (185mi) at -10F, cruising at 75mph, and I only needed one Supercharger stop at Hooksett NH. Daily winter driving, up to 80 miles from home, is just business as usual. No charging away from home required. If I'm going a fair distance, I usually make a point of pre-heating the car (using the Tesla phone app) while the car is still plugged in. 30-minutes of pre-heating is usually enough to get the battery fully warmed up, so the battery heater won't come on while you're going down the highway. When doing this pre-heating, I set the interior temp to 78F, then reduce it to 68 when I leave.

I highly recommend using Nokian Hakkapeliitta R2 snow tires on your Model S in the winter. They are by far the best snow tire I've ever experienced, and they're surprisingly quiet on dry pavement.

 

[JRP3]

Some years ago, I recall hearing that the 7k-10k oil change intervals recommended by manufacturers were actually mandated by the EPA to reduce oil pollution, but that privately, auto engineers still recommended the old 3K standard (or 5K for synthetic oil). That's interesting about Toyota, with its 10k break-in oil. I'd be reluctant to keep the original oil in a car that long. While the car would be under warranty at that point, premature wear might not be apparent until years later.

Many years ago Consumers Report did an extensive study where they drove a fleet of vehicles for 50K miles, half with oil changes every 3k, the other half every 6k. They then took apart each engine and measured each component. No measurable wear differences were found. 3k oil changes haven't made any sense in probably the last 30 years, if ever. I go 10K and use Mobil 1 synthetic just to be safe.

 

[CHGolferJim]

I've used Castrol Synthetic in my '02 Mercedes 320CLK for 135k miles, initially changing every 14-15k according to the onboard prompt. A few years ago the service shop started recommending to ignore the prompt and do it every 10k. In the last few years, it has needed topping off most cycles so I guess it's using a bit more oil.

 

[ToddRLockwood]

Many years ago Consumers Report did an extensive study where they drove a fleet of vehicles for 50K miles, half with oil changes every 3k, the other half every 6k. They then took apart each engine and measured each component. No measurable wear differences were found. 3k oil changes haven't made any sense in probably the last 30 years, if ever. I go 10K and use Mobil 1 synthetic just to be safe.

Good of Consumer Reports to do this! Another issue, though, is time. I have a couple of cars I keep around for my kids to use when they visit. These cars sit a lot of the time, one of them outside. My concern is with condensation getting in the oil. If I base the oil changes on mileage alone, we'd be talking 3-year intervals.

 

[ratsbew]

I'm hoping that the Model 3 and next-gen Model S packs are an extra inch thicker to allow for taller batteries. I wouldn't even notice if the floor was an inch higher, but that would be nearly 50% more length than an 18650 cell.

- - - Updated - - -

For me, 300 miles of range would cover most edge cases that aren't purely long-distance interstate travel. Sometimes I like doing roundabout day trips that aren't along Supercharger corridors. With that being said, I'd want 350-400 miles for extra comfort and shorter Supercharger stops (a 400 mile battery on a 600 mile drive only requires 200 miles of charging which could be split into 2-3 100 mile charges).

 

[JRP3]

Not likely since they've already said about 5-10mm taller. Plus an inch thicker pack would mean an even taller roof line, which is not conducive to good aerodynamics, which would hurt the range. To hit the $35K price point they need to get as much range as reasonably possible from the smallest possible pack.

 

[wdolson]

Many years ago Consumers Report did an extensive study where they drove a fleet of vehicles for 50K miles, half with oil changes every 3k, the other half every 6k. They then took apart each engine and measured each component. No measurable wear differences were found. 3k oil changes haven't made any sense in probably the last 30 years, if ever. I go 10K and use Mobil 1 synthetic just to be safe.

Some time ago I went to changing my oil once a year, which is about 6000 miles a year the last 15 years (I started working from home in late 2001). My car will be 24 years old next spring and still runs fine. The mechanic I take it too offered to buy it from me if I ever wanted to sell it, but unfortunately he died about 3 months ago (I was hoping to sell it to him when I got my Model S). He was a really nice guy too, I miss him. I've come to the conclusion the 3K or 3 months thing is just a schtick to sell more motor oil. At least these days. It was probably more important 50-60 years ago when tolerances weren't as tight and engines wore out more quickly.

 

[Mike Tuccelli]

I concur!

 

[Alfred]

From memory: A large producer and supplier of piston engine lubricants discarded surplus batches after six months storage. Those were not allowed to be sold anymore. The reason given was damage due to oxidation. Other typical damages are largely usage dependent, such as acidification (very much so in diesels) and damages resulting in changed viscosity (damage to additives). Synthetic lubricants suffer less viscosity change over time and are mostly a good bet, particularly where also cold start requirements are high.

It is wise to adhere to the advice in the car's manual. Older cars are special cases. I would contact the technical services of a lubricants specialist for those. The viscosity of some modern oils may be low for some engines (fluidity too high). Old specs have to be verified.