The Model 3 AWD is now has an EPA estimate of 353 miles. Has anyone been able to tell if this is a software or hardware increase. Really hoping our 2018 model got a bump with one of the two very recent software updates.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Is the latest change in the Model 3 AWD range due to software or hardware?
- Thread starter threadloom
- Start date
vsansal
Member
It doesn't look like software. It's probably the 5% improved battery that will be on the new models. We will know for sure soon once someone gets delivery and connects scan my Tesla to measure the nominal pack.
Just saw on reddit that someone is taking delivery of a Model 3 in the near future, and they contacted their delivery rep to ask about the increased range. The Tesla rep claims it will be pushed out to all Model 3's via software.
Take that with a huge grain of salt.
Take that with a huge grain of salt.
Probably both. Tesla staff has said that the 2021 Model 3 gets the heat pump system that was already in the Model Y.
Thanks for posting my question.
Speaking with Sales staff, the did not have a definitive answer but suspected a combination of software and heat pump.
Speaking with Customer Support, they also did not have any information regarding the range and performance increases, along with the M3 refresh.
At this time it sounds like we should expect an official announcement in the coming weeks or months. They are attributing the refresh to be classified as 2021 models but it was unknown whether those were being delivered within the 2020 year or not.
Uncle Paul
Well-Known Member
Lots of speculation, but like many things with Tesla, there could be many small changes that all add up to increased range.
My guess is we will get some more details next Wednesday on the investors conference call.
vsansal
Member
"A source familiar with the matter told Electrek that Tesla has equipped new Model 3 vehicles with a new “efficiency package” that improves on Tesla’s already industry-leading efficiency and resulting in the longer range."
No idea what that is.
My understanding of range ratings is that they are based on fairly ideal conditions and that any running of the AC/heat pump compressor is going to take away from the ideal range. It seems that the heat pump should mitigate range *loss* in colder climates. I also understand folks might be using the heat pump to refer to both the heat pump/octovalve system, what exactly in this system could contribute to an overall increase in efficiency (does it more effectively keep the battery/motor at ideal conditions for example?)? Or is there some other magic in this “efficiency package” in conjunction with the battery improvements that folks have been alluding to that result in the range increase. Would love to hear folks’ opinions on all this as any of my assumptions could be wrong, also be curious about potential retrofits. Having some of this retrofitted on a LR RWD would be very interesting.
The 5-cycle EPA tests includes one test with AC on in 95* sun, and another cold-weather run. So A/C and cold weather driving are part of the test and range ratings.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I suspect this improvement is due to 1) heat pump and 2) (maybe) new aero wheels.
It's possible they have increased the battery size but I doubt it at the moment (this will become extremely clear shortly if they have, from the EPA submissions - we just have to wait - the battery energy content of the test article is explicitly listed in the EPA submissions; there is no mystery at all).
But this is a guess.
Yes, in a roundabout fashion, these results impact the EPA range. A little explanation is in order. As far as I can tell, what Tesla does is:
Do a five-cycle test and modify the standard 0.7 scalar according to the results (there is a very complicated publicly available formula which I've never taken the trouble to go through, incorporating all the 5-cycle results, which arrives at this scalar). For Model 3, this scalar has been about 0.703. For the Model Y it was 0.756 or so (I haven't run all the numbers for the Model Y AWD - this is for the Model Y P). The main reason it is larger is likely due to the performance on the cold cycle test (heat pump!)
They then take the standard 2-cycle test results and calculate: (0.55*city+0.45*hwy)*scalar. That results in the EPA range, which they SOMETIMES adjust downwards (this is always clearly indicated in the EPA datafile).
The previous Model 3 2020 was 332 rated miles (not 322; it was derated voluntarily - could be PARTIALLY because they had a super juicy battery for the test article (they pulled 79.8kWh out of it!!!), and partially for marketing reasons).
Anyway, if you take the Model Y scalars as an example and scale the prior Model 3 results:
332*0.75/0.70 = 359 rated miles.
Or if you prefer to scale 322, you get 348 rated miles.
So I suspect that this new 353 rated mile range is entirely consistent with the Model Y range, and is primarily due to the new heat pump.
BUT, we will see.
The key items to look for in the EPA datafile to determine whether it is SOMETHING ELSE will be MPGe Highway and City, UNADJUSTED:
For the PREVIOUS 2020 Model 3, those values were:
176.5MPGe City, and 159.1MPGe Highway (again, unadjusted; these are raw cycle efficiency results).
If these values get better, they are likely mostly unaffected by the heat pump (since these are the old-school 2-cycle tests which are done at very moderate temperatures). (There could be some effect I guess if they don't turn off the climate control; I believe it is specifically stated to be off in the EPA docs for two-cycle testing only.) So that would imply a genuine efficiency improvement for some OTHER reason.
So, keep an eye out for the update, coming here, probably within a few months (download raw data file). It can take a while.
Download Fuel Economy Data
There are also CARB results often available earlier, on a rolling basis, which can provide information on the raw cycle performance (link not provided).
In the real world, what these MPGe results will tell us is whether the range in OPTIMAL conditions is actually much improved. You can (potentially) add 30 miles to the EPA range and it can have nearly zero impact on real-world range when you're not using AC or heat, because that range can come entirely from the scalar, which can be increased entirely due to the addition of the heat pump.
But if the MPGe (2-cycle HWY/CITY) numbers go up significantly, then that means an efficiency and range improvement even under those optimal conditions.
Looks like I'll have to add a new row to my Constant Spreadsheet for "2020 Model 3, version 2" - probably! My guess is the new constants will be 220Wh/rmi (including buffer, so for calculating battery capacity) and 210Wh/rmi (discharge, no buffer). But it is TBD. Amazingly these values would be about the same as the 2019 SR+!
It's possible they have increased the battery size but I doubt it at the moment (this will become extremely clear shortly if they have, from the EPA submissions - we just have to wait - the battery energy content of the test article is explicitly listed in the EPA submissions; there is no mystery at all).
But this is a guess.
Yes, in a roundabout fashion, these results impact the EPA range. A little explanation is in order. As far as I can tell, what Tesla does is:
Do a five-cycle test and modify the standard 0.7 scalar according to the results (there is a very complicated publicly available formula which I've never taken the trouble to go through, incorporating all the 5-cycle results, which arrives at this scalar). For Model 3, this scalar has been about 0.703. For the Model Y it was 0.756 or so (I haven't run all the numbers for the Model Y AWD - this is for the Model Y P). The main reason it is larger is likely due to the performance on the cold cycle test (heat pump!)
They then take the standard 2-cycle test results and calculate: (0.55*city+0.45*hwy)*scalar. That results in the EPA range, which they SOMETIMES adjust downwards (this is always clearly indicated in the EPA datafile).
The previous Model 3 2020 was 332 rated miles (not 322; it was derated voluntarily - could be PARTIALLY because they had a super juicy battery for the test article (they pulled 79.8kWh out of it!!!), and partially for marketing reasons).
Anyway, if you take the Model Y scalars as an example and scale the prior Model 3 results:
332*0.75/0.70 = 359 rated miles.
Or if you prefer to scale 322, you get 348 rated miles.
So I suspect that this new 353 rated mile range is entirely consistent with the Model Y range, and is primarily due to the new heat pump.
BUT, we will see.
The key items to look for in the EPA datafile to determine whether it is SOMETHING ELSE will be MPGe Highway and City, UNADJUSTED:
For the PREVIOUS 2020 Model 3, those values were:
176.5MPGe City, and 159.1MPGe Highway (again, unadjusted; these are raw cycle efficiency results).
If these values get better, they are likely mostly unaffected by the heat pump (since these are the old-school 2-cycle tests which are done at very moderate temperatures). (There could be some effect I guess if they don't turn off the climate control; I believe it is specifically stated to be off in the EPA docs for two-cycle testing only.) So that would imply a genuine efficiency improvement for some OTHER reason.
So, keep an eye out for the update, coming here, probably within a few months (download raw data file). It can take a while.
Download Fuel Economy Data
There are also CARB results often available earlier, on a rolling basis, which can provide information on the raw cycle performance (link not provided).
In the real world, what these MPGe results will tell us is whether the range in OPTIMAL conditions is actually much improved. You can (potentially) add 30 miles to the EPA range and it can have nearly zero impact on real-world range when you're not using AC or heat, because that range can come entirely from the scalar, which can be increased entirely due to the addition of the heat pump.
But if the MPGe (2-cycle HWY/CITY) numbers go up significantly, then that means an efficiency and range improvement even under those optimal conditions.
Looks like I'll have to add a new row to my Constant Spreadsheet for "2020 Model 3, version 2" - probably! My guess is the new constants will be 220Wh/rmi (including buffer, so for calculating battery capacity) and 210Wh/rmi (discharge, no buffer). But it is TBD. Amazingly these values would be about the same as the 2019 SR+!
Last edited:
But the battery pack is heated during cold weather driving, and the heat pump would be used for that more efficiently than using the motors inefficiently to heat it.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I'm also not even sure the claim is true for the 20F FTP 75 cycle (that's what they run). I recall digging up this info at some point. I believe the climate is turned on for that test (as of course it should be, it's freakin' 20 degrees!). I will see if I can dig it up again. Unfortunately I can't find the source.
EDIT: Had it in my efficiency folder. It's an old document, but I think it makes the requirement pretty clear. there are probably other ways to verify that the heat is required to be left on. It may even be annotated in some of Tesla's more recent EPA submissions (or failing that, the submissions of other EV manufacturers).
Document Display | NEPIS | US EPA
Last edited:
Folks, I could be wrong but the new range says EPA est. - it never said that before and it doesn't say that for other models. I'm thinking this huge increase is due to a different reporting of the range: EPA est. vs. Tesla usual stating of the range. This could be nothing or only a small increase in range, but I bet the 30 mile increase is just the old range method vs. EPA est. I hope I'm wrong!
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
This is normal, and has happened before, before Tesla fully completes the EPA testing and gets an official sticker (I think it says "I Am Proud Of You") from the EPA. It will be right in the ballpark. In the past it has even gone up a couple miles I think (Model Y), but I don't remember the exact history, and it'll be close, anyway.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
One interesting thing that @TimothyHW3 pointed out is that apparently the WLTP cycle doesn't use any heat. And that only added 20km to the range (580km now I guess rather than 560km)? I can't verify any of these facts other than it being 580km now.
Timothy's post
However, that could still be due to improvements due to the heat pump in terms of temperature management overall, and other slight efficiency improvements (it's only a 3.5% improvement).
Timothy thinks the battery capacity is larger, but I'm still leaning strongly towards simple efficiency improvements (due to design, heat pump, and possibly aeros). We shall see.
Seems like a lot of work to boost battery size when all these other (known to able to add tons of range) improvements are on the table - and they actually boost efficiency which is much more important than battery size.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I forgot it was so late in the year! Of course, this is a 2021 Model 3, not a 2020.
Keep an eye out here (select 2021, Tesla Motors) for the EPA submissions. Currently there is nothing. That is why this is an "estimated" value.
Basic Search | Document Index System | US EPA
And here is where the leading edge documents will likely hit first (CARB Executive Orders):
On-Road New Vehicle & Engine Certification Program
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Question
