TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC
Start a Discussionhttps://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/tags/

Inconsistences in EPA rated range numbers

Discussion in 'Model S: Battery & Charging' started by bob_p, Mar 5, 2017.

  1. bob_p

    bob_p Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,718
    There are inconsistencies between the rated range numbers for the various configurations on the Model S and X. I'm posting this in case anyone has any theories explaining the inconsistencies.

    Using the EPA range on the Tesla and EPA FuelEconomy websites for the Model S & X with the same battery packs:

    • 60D: 218 (S), 200 (X) - S gets 9% more range
    • 75D: 259 (S), 238 (X) - S gets 9% more range
    • 90D: 294 (S), 257 (X) - S gets 14% more range
    • P90D: 270 (S), 253 (X) - S gets 7% more range
    • 100D (estimated): 335 (S), 289 (X) - S gets 14% more range
    • P100D: 315 (S), 289 (X) - S gets 9% more range
    If the S gets 9 % more range, with the same battery pack and drive train, then there could be something wrong with some of the range values for the 90D, P90D or 100D.

    Comparing in non-performance to performance versions, with should be the same drive train and battery packs:
    • S: 294 (90D), 270 (P90D) - non-performance gets 9% more range
    • X: 257 (90D), 253 (P90D) - non-P gets 2% more range
    • S: 335 (100D), 315 (P100D) - non-P gets 6% more range
    • X: 295 (100D), 289 (P100D) - non-P gets 2% more range
    These numbers don't appear to make much sense. Why would a non-performance S get 9% more range than the performance version with the same battery pack, while the non-performance X gets only a 2% range increase over the performance version?

    If we assume that the S gets 9% more range than an X with the same battery pack and drive train (which can be explained by the increased weight of the X), and we assume that a non-performance car gets 9% more range than the performance version with the same battery pack, then some of the numbers would change:
    • 60D: no change
    • 75D: no change
    • 90D: X increased to 270
    • P90D: X reduced to 248
    • 100D: S increased to 343; X increased to 315
    • P100D: no change
    These changes make all of the numbers consistent. And, if true, the S 100D gets a few extra miles of range, while the X 100D gets 20 miles more range, breaking the 300 mile range barrier. The only negative is a slight reduction in the range for the X P90D.

    Assuming that all of the published EPA numbers are based on actual measurements (and not projections), any theories why there are what appears to be inconsistencies in the numbers???
     
  2. bob_p

    bob_p Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,718
    This morning, our S100D is showing 309 miles at 90% - which would put the 100% charger around 343.

    Which matches the predicted S100D range, if the S100D gets the same 9% range boost over the performance model as the 90 battery pack.
     
  3. commasign

    commasign Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,270
    Location:
    Davis, CA
  4. bob_p

    bob_p Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,718
    I'm actually OK with Tesla being overly conservative on the numbers. Especially since we will likely see some battery degradation over time (I've had 5% loss with our 4 year old S P85).

    Going to enjoy the extra range today - a 175 mile road trip that required a supercharger stop with our "classic" S P85 - which we should easily be able to make on a 90% charge!
     

Share This Page