Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Is this battery performance normal?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
what are your Fleet Battery Data Settings?
1627869264305.png
 
Last edited:
I found playing with the Teslafi fleet settings on mine changes the number of similar cars markedly , but has an insignificant effect on where my car ranks. Whichever way I cut it I am in the bottom 20%. If I understand it correctly our cars are only being compared to other RHD cars which is a shame as that also reduces the pool by ~ 90%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeroy
If I understand it correctly our cars are only being compared to other RHD cars
I think it covers more than just right hand drive cars, for 2 reasons...
1) The "Fleet Battery Data Settings" screen has this....
1627879419056.png

2) In the "Fleet Battery Data" section (underneath the settings), if you drill into the cars you are comparing against, you get LHD and RHD cars..
For me, here is one from Sweden...
1627879569864.png

From a random sample of 15 cars I looked at, they are Euoprean (+ UK) or Australian.
 
Sorry brain fade. That is what I meant. European API cars, not just RHD.
Point being it excludes the vast majority of Teslafi cars, which are in North America. Teslafi shows >10,000 contributing model 3s and that comes down to 1500 for me when the system filters out all the non European API cars. Less for you as your config is rarer. Therefore they are excluded from our comparisons. Would be better if we could ignore the API region.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anubis
That's only the driving component and does not take into account the overheads like air con, sentry, lights, screen, USB usage, battery warming, etc..



@SandyP and @dgh853, what are your Fleet Battery Data Settings? (See below for mine)
I have less than 20 "similar" mileage cars for comparison, where as your cars have greater then 190 cars...

View attachment 690845
Here they are:

1628221633426.png


Using @Anubis settings it has the worst range of 21 similar vehicles:

1628221769190.png
 
I had Tesla do remote diagnostic on my battery. According to their diagnostic the battery is performing above 95%. It is just that in real-world driving I get a little over 200km (@80%) for a car which has WLTP rating of 448km and EPA rating of 423km (@100% charge). I guess everyone knows the range claims by EV manufacturers are outlandish but I am still surprised by the sheer size of the difference.

How do we get from 400 to 200? And more importantly, how do EV companies continue to get away with these claims?

Australia's ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) has been pretty tough on certain industries. They have been breathing down the neck of telcos for years (mostly for good measure) handing fines at the slightest perception of misinformation. The last one was hilarious, they fined a bunch of telcos for using unlimited data plans for mobile plans that had speed caps beyond their included data. At least one crafty telco did not give up and started using 'endless' data plans instead! I diverge.

Looking forward to ACCC turning their attention to EV industry and get them to cleanup the house a little bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miggy
I had Tesla do remote diagnostic on my battery. According to their diagnostic the battery is performing above 95%. It is just that in real-world driving I get a little over 200km (@80%) for a car which has WLTP rating of 448km and EPA rating of 423km (@100% charge). I guess everyone knows the range claims by EV manufacturers are outlandish but I am still surprised by the sheer size of the difference.

How do we get from 400 to 200? And more importantly, how do EV companies continue to get away with these claims?

Australia's ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) has been pretty tough on certain industries. They have been breathing down the neck of telcos for years (mostly for good measure) handing fines at the slightest perception of misinformation. The last one was hilarious, they fined a bunch of telcos for using unlimited data plans for mobile plans that had speed caps beyond their included data. At least one crafty telco did not give up and started using 'endless' data plans instead! I diverge.

Looking forward to ACCC turning their attention to EV industry and get them to cleanup the house a little bit.
Was your diagnosis done locallly or from the US?
 
I had Tesla do remote diagnostic on my battery. According to their diagnostic the battery is performing above 95%. It is just that in real-world driving I get a little over 200km (@80%) for a car which has WLTP rating of 448km and EPA rating of 423km (@100% charge). I guess everyone knows the range claims by EV manufacturers are outlandish but I am still surprised by the sheer size of the difference.

How do we get from 400 to 200? And more importantly, how do EV companies continue to get away with these claims?

Australia's ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) has been pretty tough on certain industries. They have been breathing down the neck of telcos for years (mostly for good measure) handing fines at the slightest perception of misinformation. The last one was hilarious, they fined a bunch of telcos for using unlimited data plans for mobile plans that had speed caps beyond their included data. At least one crafty telco did not give up and started using 'endless' data plans instead! I diverge.

Looking forward to ACCC turning their attention to EV industry and get them to cleanup the house a little bit.

i am not sure what you are describing. The EPA and WLTP cycles are official cycles and very useful. They are not range indicators, they are to yield comparison between vehicles.
For all I care the Model 3 range could be 200km or 2000km on the EPA cycle. thats not what its for.

Your Mercedes AMG also doesnt use 6L/100km.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vostok and Hairyman
It seems to me if they advertise it does 448km on the WLTP test cycle, then as long as it actually does so on that test cycle, there's not really a problem. I've currently got a rental Hyundai Tucson, they claim it does 8.1L/100km but real world I'm finding it struggles to get under 11.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vostok and Hairyman
For range, I find the battery indicator in the Telsa to be very good - within ±10% for real-world, highway speed driving. Sometimes it’s optimistic, sometimes pessimistic. Certainly way better than the “guess-o-meter” on my LEAF.

As @Candleflame mentions above, don’t read in to the EPA, NDC or WLTP figures anything other than a number produced as the result of a specific test.

I mean just consider the “Monroney” sticker on a new Tesla - for LR it declares a range of 620 km and an energy consumption of 209 Wh/km. That means Model 3 LR has a 130 kWh battery in it 🤣🤣

9853B3F6-B9C0-49AA-9BF2-2799645FBD03.jpeg
 
It seems to me if they advertise it does 448km on the WLTP test cycle, then as long as it actually does so on that test cycle, there's not really a problem. I've currently got a rental Hyundai Tucson, they claim it does 8.1L/100km but real world I'm finding it struggles to get under 11.
But how would you feel if the actual consumption was twice the stated sticker number, closer to 17L/100km?
 
For range, I find the battery indicator in the Telsa to be very good - within ±10% for real-world, highway speed driving. Sometimes it’s optimistic, sometimes pessimistic. Certainly way better than the “guess-o-meter” on my LEAF.

As @Candleflame mentions above, don’t read in to the EPA, NDC or WLTP figures anything other than a number produced as the result of a specific test.

I mean just consider the “Monroney” sticker on a new Tesla - for LR it declares a range of 620 km and an energy consumption of 209 Wh/km. That means Model 3 LR has a 130 kWh battery in it 🤣🤣

View attachment 695080

Paradoxically on sluggish 100km/h motorways in Australia the model 3 can actually recieve rated kms. Normally you reach it at 90km/h but given that lanes are always blocked in Australia and people dont leave a safety gap that probably helps to bridge those 10km/h of windresistance.

I dont get those monroney stickers either. The consumption is actually completely wrong. no Model 3 uses 209 wh/km. To reach that you have to drive 140-150km/h. It is a typo.
 
Last edited:
But how would you feel if the actual consumption was twice the stated sticker number, closer to 17L/100km?

The actual consumption is not twice the stated sticker number. On the WLTP cycle the Model 3 Long range performance does 139 Wh/km or the Long Range (with 18" wheels) uses 124 wh/km. That is low and real life figure is probably around 40% higher if you drive around 130km/hish on the motorway with infrequent slowdowns, overtaking etc. Also remember that you have 4.5% reserve sub zero you have to count towards the total range.

A BMW M3 is meant to use like 7L on the highway WLTP cycle or 10L on the combined cycle. But we know that in real life it will probably use around 13-14L. Around 40% higher.

The cycle is exactly the same for all cars. It is meant for comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hairyman
The actual consumption is not twice the stated sticker number. On the WLTP cycle the Model 3 Long range performance does 139 Wh/km or the Long Range (with 18" wheels) uses 124 wh/km. That is low and real life figure is probably around 40% higher if you drive around 130km/hish on the motorway with infrequent slowdowns, overtaking etc. Also remember that you have 4.5% reserve sub zero you have to count towards the total range.

A BMW M3 is meant to use like 7L on the highway WLTP cycle or 10L on the combined cycle. But we know that in real life it will probably use around 13-14L. Around 40% higher.

The cycle is exactly the same for all cars. It is meant for comparison.
Well my sticker said 448km and I only get 200km.

In the same manner that telcos have to report their average internet speeds in the evening, I think EV companies should be required to report their real world average range. With the sort of information they collect they can even report these numbers in the local geography for even better accuracy.