Is it possible to increase range

[profunctional]

Just curious if a MX Performance can achieve the same range as the Long Range trim if driven mildly or some setting. With most cars driving faster and launching is what reduces gas mileage. And hardware-wise it seems the only diff is the brakes.

Is there a software setting or driving style that can get a performance close to the range of an LR?

 

[Uncle Paul]

What you see in the mileage rating is how those specific configurations scored on the EPA driving cycle. Usually computerized or calculated from an algorithm. Not sure what the real life mileage for each of them will be in your hands, but imagine pretty similiar.

Of course you can always get better mileage by driving mildly.

 

[cwerdna]

Driver slower and reduce HVAC usage.

Model S Efficiency and Range was published ages ago but the general principles apply to all EVs.

Roadster Efficiency and Range | Blog | Tesla Motors is a copy of the post he links to w/o busted images.

 

[Tdriver]

Air resistance is the enemy......but if you reduce speed, you increase mileage. The best way to monitor this is to read the energy graph on your screen. Set it to 5 mile scale. Then watch you projected miles on the right side as you change speeds. This is the best way to monitor range if you are concerned about reaching the next supercharger.

 

[jboy210]

This article goes into the test procedure How Vehicles Are Tested. Test are conducted on a dynomometer. Article is from the DOE.

This document goes into the specifics of the highway, city tests on different tabs. Detailed Test Information
One interesting thing to note on the highway test is the max speed is 60 mph. I think this because these test were devised in gas crisis of the Carter years. Back then they reduced the maximum highway speed to 55.

So drive at or below 60 mph if you want to replicate the stated numbers. Go slower to increase the range beyond the numbers.

 

[ewoodrick]

Just slow down

 

[mswlogo]

Tires, Tires, Tires. However the tire choices on Model X staggered are limited.

 

[profunctional]

Sorry let me clarify my question. Thanks for the general tips on extending range.

What I meant was if you take the two trims:

1. Long Range has 325 mile range
2. Performance has 305 mile range

The only difference physically between the two trims are the Brakes. It seems the main difference is in software.

Given the above, is it possible that the Performance trim can go just as far as the Long Range if driven equally.

Or if you drove both equally would the Long Range would still get 20 more miles over the performance?

 

[T3slaOwner]

Sorry let me clarify my question. Thanks for the general tips on extending range.

What I meant was if you take the two trims:

1. Long Range has 325 mile range
2. Performance has 305 mile range

The only difference physically between the two trims are the Brakes. It seems the main difference is in software.

Given the above, is it possible that the Performance trim can go just as far as the Long Range if driven equally.

Or if you drove both equally would the Long Range would still get 20 more miles over the performance?

I don't believe that the only difference is "software"... From wikipedia...

The standard AWD has 259 horsepower (193 kilowatts) on both the front and rear motors, while the performance edition has 259 hp (193 kW) front and 503 hp (375 kW) rear.[50][51]

While the motors are smaller, lighter and easier to manufacture than ICE motors, they are tricky to manage. So running the larger rear motor at low power makes it less efficient. I believe i read they shut down the rear motor on the highway to get better range. Can anyone confirm that?

 

[wdolson]

Sorry let me clarify my question. Thanks for the general tips on extending range.

What I meant was if you take the two trims:

1. Long Range has 325 mile range
2. Performance has 305 mile range

The only difference physically between the two trims are the Brakes. It seems the main difference is in software.

Given the above, is it possible that the Performance trim can go just as far as the Long Range if driven equally.

Or if you drove both equally would the Long Range would still get 20 more miles over the performance?

I'm not 100% sure about the Raven drivetrain, but the pre-Raven drive train used two small motors for the standard car and a larger motor in the back for the performance car. They still advertise a weight difference so I expect the rear motor is still larger. The larger motor is less efficiency, there is more mass to spin and that expends energy to speed up and slow down. It's also about 110 pounds heavier which means you're carrying an extra small adult in weight everywhere.

The reduced range comes from the larger motor in back.

 

[Saghost]

Sorry let me clarify my question. Thanks for the general tips on extending range.

What I meant was if you take the two trims:

1. Long Range has 325 mile range
2. Performance has 305 mile range

The only difference physically between the two trims are the Brakes. It seems the main difference is in software.

Given the above, is it possible that the Performance trim can go just as far as the Long Range if driven equally.

Or if you drove both equally would the Long Range would still get 20 more miles over the performance?

There is some belief that the Performance Model 3 is software, which may or may not be correct.

The S and X are not. The performance models use an updated version of the original rear drive motor, which can handle twice the power and torque of the newer, smaller dual motor units.

Raven replaced the front motor with the switched reluctance unit that was the 3 rear motor, but as far as we know the rear motors are exactly what they were before - a small induction motor on the long range and a large induction motor on the performance.

So there's some inherent efficiency difference. I don't believe it is as large as the posted numbers show - my 300 rated miles in the car appears to be based on 320 Wh per mile, but the car is actually returning results that are almost 10% lower than my 2016 X75D, which had 232 reared miles based on 308 Wh per mile.

Without a doubt, it is way, way easier to hit EPA rated on my Ludicrous Raven than it was on my 2016.

 

[profunctional]

Ahh. That’s what I was looking for. Thank you so much!

 

[T3slaOwner]

Without a doubt, it is way, way easier to hit EPA rated on my Ludicrous Raven than it was on my 2016.

I had tried using range mode previously and didn't see much improvement if any. I've never been very clear on just what it can do to reduce power consumption without impacting utility. Like people say it doesn't run the heater as hard, but the heater is controlled by the heater settings and the thermostat, at least one would hope. So how can that be scaled back and still allow the controls to... well, control?

More recently I accidentally left range mode on or maybe an update turned it on and I'm seeing Wh/mi numbers as low as 250ish! That's on a trip with maybe half at 60 or above and the rest more like 50/55. But it seems to be pretty consistent. I still get crappy range. But with so many factors it is very, very hard to figure out what might be happening.

Bottom line is these cars will not provide the same sort of predictable fuel consumption as an ICE because there are so many things that draw down an EV battery, even when the car isn't on.

@danshapiro just like my grandma always said, never pass up a bathroom, a free meal, or a chance to charge your...

er, EV

 

[Saghost]

I had tried using range mode previously and didn't see much improvement if any. I've never been very clear on just what it can do to reduce power consumption without impacting utility. Like people say it doesn't run the heater as hard, but the heater is controlled by the heater settings and the thermostat, at least one would hope. So how can that be scaled back and still allow the controls to... well, control?

More recently I accidentally left range mode on or maybe an update turned it on and I'm seeing Wh/mi numbers as low as 250ish! That's on a trip with maybe half at 60 or above and the rest more like 50/55. But it seems to be pretty consistent. I still get crappy range. But with so many factors it is very, very hard to figure out what might be happening.

Bottom line is these cars will not provide the same sort of predictable fuel consumption as an ICE because there are so many things that draw down an EV battery, even when the car isn't on.

er, EV

View attachment 449806

I wasn't even talking about using range mode, which I mostly don't (I've turned it on a few times when the estimate at destination looked grim, before slowing down.)

The main thing they mention it doing is reducing the HVAC usage.

One thing I saw in a post years ago it does/did it's open up the allowable battery temperature range (which is one reason I don't use it routinely - I suspect that'll have impacts on longevity/degradation.)

Another obvious place for it to work is increasing torque sleep, which is especially effective on a Raven. In normal conditions, regen was 100% on the new high efficiency front motor at 70 mph, but as the speed fell to 50 mph, it was 80-20 split front and rear, presumably for handling feel. I wouldn't be surprised if range mode kept it 100% front. Likewise, the car rolls from a stop on all four normally - even with a mild rear bias.

 

[wdolson]

I had tried using range mode previously and didn't see much improvement if any. I've never been very clear on just what it can do to reduce power consumption without impacting utility. Like people say it doesn't run the heater as hard, but the heater is controlled by the heater settings and the thermostat, at least one would hope. So how can that be scaled back and still allow the controls to... well, control?

More recently I accidentally left range mode on or maybe an update turned it on and I'm seeing Wh/mi numbers as low as 250ish! That's on a trip with maybe half at 60 or above and the rest more like 50/55. But it seems to be pretty consistent. I still get crappy range. But with so many factors it is very, very hard to figure out what might be happening.

Bottom line is these cars will not provide the same sort of predictable fuel consumption as an ICE because there are so many things that draw down an EV battery, even when the car isn't on.

er, EV

View attachment 449806

Additionally EVs are so much more efficient to begin with that losses you don't notice with an ICE make a big impact with an EV. Wind resistance works the same way with an ICE as with an EV, it's even worse with most ICE because the aerodynamics are worse, but you don't notice because if wind resistance is hitting your efficiency 20%, 80% of 20% base efficiency of the engine drops you to 16%. An EV is closer to 90% efficient when all factors are working for you, so something like wind resistance taking 20% would drop you to 72% efficiency.

ICE also need to stay in a narrow range of RPM for both efficiency and just running OK. If the RPMs go too low it stalls and if it goes too high it rips itself apart. ICE also have a very narrow band of RPMs where they are most efficient. Hybrids try to squeeze more energy out of an ICE by running the ICE at it's most efficient conditions as much as possible and then do everything else with electric motors. Most ICE are geared to be at their peak efficiency at typical highway speeds, which offsets the aerodynamic losses. Transmissions are getting more and more gears in an attempt to stay in that sweet spot for RPMs as much as possible.

EV motors are about the same efficiency from the range where they are turning fast enough to overcome static resistance to very high RPM, so a transmission is optional.

EVs also need to have electric heat of some kind and ICE produce so much heat on their own heating the car is done with waste heat. In cold weather EV efficiency drops between needing to drain off energy to keep the people from freezing combined with batteries not working as well when they are cold.

Air conditioning is about an equal load between an EV and an ICE, but you notice heavy air conditioning with an EV more because, like aerodynamic drag, the EV is more efficient to start with so every loss has more impact.

 

[T3slaOwner]

Additionally EVs are so much more efficient to begin with that losses you don't notice with an ICE make a big impact with an EV. Wind resistance works the same way with an ICE as with an EV, it's even worse with most ICE because the aerodynamics are worse, but you don't notice because if wind resistance is hitting your efficiency 20%, 80% of 20% base efficiency of the engine drops you to 16%. An EV is closer to 90% efficient when all factors are working for you, so something like wind resistance taking 20% would drop you to 72% efficiency.

I find that a funny way to look at it. "EVs are so much more efficient to begin with that losses you don't notice with an ICE make a big impact with an EV". I don't see how "efficiency" has anything to do with it other than heating for free with waste heat. I'm pretty sure the way you are trying to use the numbers is not correct. The 20% hit from wind is still a 20% hit, no matter which car you apply it to. Combining it with the 75% loss in the heat engine would be like trying to combine it with the 45% loss to an EV in winter driving. It's 20% to whatever is left.

There are plenty of ICE cars with great aerodynamics.

ICE also need to stay in a narrow range of RPM for both efficiency and just running OK. If the RPMs go too low it stalls and if it goes too high it rips itself apart. ICE also have a very narrow band of RPMs where they are most efficient. Hybrids try to squeeze more energy out of an ICE by running the ICE at it's most efficient conditions as much as possible and then do everything else with electric motors. Most ICE are geared to be at their peak efficiency at typical highway speeds, which offsets the aerodynamic losses. Transmissions are getting more and more gears in an attempt to stay in that sweet spot for RPMs as much as possible.

Ok, but how is this relevant? The point is the ICE has been around for some 130 years, is well understood and highly optimized. Bottom line is it works pretty durn well other than the fact that it produces CO2. The issues you refer to about bands of efficiency and power have been dealt with in many ways and largely are not noticed by the drivers (including the guy who gave me a ride the other day in his manual transmission truck and was lugging the motor nearly every inch of the way).

Other than not liking ICE I'm not getting your point.

EV motors are about the same efficiency from the range where they are turning fast enough to overcome static resistance to very high RPM, so a transmission is optional.

EVs also need to have electric heat of some kind and ICE produce so much heat on their own heating the car is done with waste heat. In cold weather EV efficiency drops between needing to drain off energy to keep the people from freezing combined with batteries not working as well when they are cold.

With a 45% loss that is an understatement.

Air conditioning is about an equal load between an EV and an ICE, but you notice heavy air conditioning with an EV more because, like aerodynamic drag, the EV is more efficient to start with so every loss has more impact.

Sorry, it takes a lot of energy to move the car down the road. Swapping the drive train doesn't change that. If anything, an EV will weigh more requiring more energy. So the hit from A/C, headlights or whatever will have the same impact on an EV as it does any other vehicle unless there is something else different between the vehicles.

I will say it is amazing how much heat an ICE puts out when it's running. The Tesla does the same thing when it is charging. Gosh it makes so much noise and blows so much heat when at the Supercharger. It blends into the background when charging at a Sheetz. Actually, it stands out because the ICE turn off their engines when refueling.

 

[jerry33]

I
With a 45% loss that is an understatement.


Sorry, it takes a lot of energy to move the car down the road. Swapping the drive train doesn't change that. If anything, an EV will weigh more requiring more energy. So the hit from A/C, headlights or whatever will have the same impact on an EV as it does any other vehicle unless there is something else different between the vehicles.

I will say it is amazing how much heat an ICE puts out when it's running. The Tesla does the same thing when it is charging. Gosh it makes so much noise and blows so much heat when at the Supercharger. It blends into the background when charging at a Sheetz. Actually, it stands out because the ICE turn off their engines when refueling.

The most efficient ICE only get 40% efficiency. No way do they only have a 45% loss.

The hit from lights and A/C is more like a rounding error in a Tesla; heat is the only real energy hog.

There really isn't that much difference in vehicle weight between ICE and EV when you compare equal vehicle classes.

No way does the Tesla (or any EV) get up to 2000+ degrees when charging.

 

[Saghost]

No way does the Tesla (or any EV) get up to 2000+ degrees when charging.

Well, this one did

Tesla Model S Burns Down at Supercharger in Norway

But I agree it certainly isn't part of a normal charging session. For that matter, the massive heat buildup it's cranking all the fans to dissipate is probably on the order of 15 kW - or just slightly more than a typical ICE car dumps at idle, and half what they throw overboard at low freeway cruise.

 

[rayfound]

Tires, Tires, Tires. However the tire choices on Model X staggered are limited.

I've kind of wondered what a "max range" tire might be around that would be narrow but still have the weight capacity needed for the fat-bottomed-girl (model x).

 

[wdolson]

I find that a funny way to look at it. "EVs are so much more efficient to begin with that losses you don't notice with an ICE make a big impact with an EV". I don't see how "efficiency" has anything to do with it other than heating for free with waste heat. I'm pretty sure the way you are trying to use the numbers is not correct. The 20% hit from wind is still a 20% hit, no matter which car you apply it to. Combining it with the 75% loss in the heat engine would be like trying to combine it with the 45% loss to an EV in winter driving. It's 20% to whatever is left.

There are plenty of ICE cars with great aerodynamics.

Inefficiencies multiply together. If wind resistance is a 20% loss, you are getting 80% left. If the car is 90% to begin with the new efficiency is 0.8*0.9 = 0.72 or 75%. If you are starting with 20%, then you get 0.8*0.2 = 0.16.

There are ICE with aerodynamics comparable to Tesla's, but they are mostly sports cars. The bulk of cars on the road are aerodynamic bricks in comparison. That's a major reason why the range of the iPace and eTron are so bad. Jaguar and Audi wanted something that looked like an ICE SUV/CUV.

The most efficient ICE only get 40% efficiency. No way do they only have a 45% loss.

The hit from lights and A/C is more like a rounding error in a Tesla; heat is the only real energy hog.

There really isn't that much difference in vehicle weight between ICE and EV when you compare equal vehicle classes.

No way does the Tesla (or any EV) get up to 2000+ degrees when charging.

Most of the time the A/C is a minimal hit on range, but I've noticed when temps get up around 100F and the A/C has to crank up to max the range does take a hit. Most of this summer has been in the 80s here and the A/C can lope along at low settings, but we had a mini-heat wave last week (two days of 100F and the rest of the week in the 90s) and otherwise driving like I normally do my energy usage went from around 285 Wh/Mi to 330 and one time 350.

I believe Honda has announced a gasoline engine capable of 39% efficiency, but it isn't in any cars yet. I think the best non-hybrid gas powered ICE is around 25%. Diesels are better and hybrids can be up around 40%.