Kinda disappointed that I have 5.5% degradation after 18k miles

[aerodyne]

I have asked before, but will stats show nominal full capacity of the pack in KwH?

That, less the buffer, then divided by the approx 250 Wh/mi EPA constant would be your current EPA range.

The difference between the new, advertised EPA range and current range, divided by the as new EPA range, then multiplied by 100 would be your rated range degradation.

My Usable capacity is 77 KwH. My EPA rated range from the car is 298-300 Wh/mi. I know this because when I drive at this consumption, the actual and rated lines merge on the energy display.

So, my range at EPA consumption is 77/.3=257 mi, but the car reports 267, because as mentioned by many others, Tesla cheats by using the nominal 81.5, not usable 77 in the rated range calc.

I would be curious if Tesla does the same thing with the M3.

BTW, only one trip between LA and Tahoe in the winter, but kept the batt between 30 and 90% and no problems.

 

[Incredulocious]

For what it's worth, my girlfriend's Model 3 of the same age has much less apparent degradation. [I'll update here with the statistic. I can't right now as she's on her phone.]

Too late to edit that post now so here it is: At 15,130 miles, she's seeing an estimated 293 rated miles for 100% or 5.5% loss. At those miles, I was seeing around 282 rated miles or 9% loss. These numbers are based on the rated range reported by the Stats app and I computed the percentage loss based on the original 310 mile rated range.

 

[Incredulocious]

I have asked before, but will stats show nominal full capacity of the pack in KwH?

Stats does not report capacity in kWh. It shows things like reported rated range over time, estimated range, Wh/mi over time and efficiency relative to all other Stats users, added kWh's per day, phantom drain rate over time and relative to other users, etc.

 

[aerodyne]

Stats does not report capacity in kWh. It shows things like reported rated range over time, estimated range, Wh/mi over time and efficiency relative to all other Stats users, added kWh's per day, phantom drain rate over time and relative to other users, etc.

Ok...neither does Teslafi.

SMT does, and there is a ios version available.

 

[ran349]

I have asked before, but will stats show nominal full capacity of the pack in KwH?

My Usable capacity is 77 KwH. My EPA rated range from the car is 298-300 Wh/mi. I know this because when I drive at this consumption, the actual and rated lines merge on the energy display.

So, my range at EPA consumption is 77/.3=257 mi, but the car reports 267, because as mentioned by many others, Tesla cheats by using the nominal 81.5, not usable 77 in the rated range calc.

I would be curious if Tesla does the same thing with the M3.

BTW, only one trip between LA and Tahoe in the winter, but kept the batt between 30 and 90% and no problems.

I think your EPA constant(or charge constant) is actually 290 Wh/mile for your car. You can see that by taking your nominal full pack divided by .290 and you will match your car SMT full rated miles value(when rounded to a whole number). For example, 77/.290 = 265.5, or 266 by SMT.

I don't know why the number on the energy graph doesn't line up exactly.

 

[aerodyne]

The SMT and Teslafi Rated Miles are straight from the Mothership BMS numbers, and agree with the car because they assume you can use the full nominal pack capacity including all of the buffer. I would never drive past zero, so I won't use the buffer, nor do I think anyone should.

So 73 out of 77 are usable in my specific case. At 300 Wh/mi, that is about 243 miles.

I am fairly sure, although lots say the number is 288-292, that the EPA consumption for my 85D is 300 +0, -2 Wh/mi.

EPA is 34 KwHper 100 miles, .34 per mile. Less 12% charging losses on a level 2 charger, is .299

 

[sorka]

I would never drive past zero, so I won't use the buffer, nor do I think anyone should.

Even if just for the reason of not wanting to be stranded on the side of the road, but even if you use the full rated capacity which will hit 0 remaining kwh at about 4kWh after you hit 0 miles, the pack will shut down with another 4kWh remaining.

An 85 pack is really 81.5 kWh with about 77.5 kWh usable when it's new. You'll hit 0 miles remaining after using 73.5 kWh (because Tesla steals the buffer from you as it discharges making the SOC drop faster than the rated used SOC diverge from the true SOC).

When the pack actually shuts down, you're nowhere near true 0 on pack charge. This biggest danger to damaging a pack from discharge is exposing any cells to negative polarity due to small balance differences. The unusable buffer at the bottom is meant protect the pack from physical damage.

 

[tomas]

"Contactors not part of pack."

OK, stipulated.

I’ll amend my post to say contactors are sufficiently accessible that they can be replaced at service center, and often are.

My intent was to correct the falsehood that battery must be removed and sent out for new contactors.

 

[tomas]

That's unfortunate for you. I'm at 5% after 5.5 years. I'm in the middle of normal for mileage and time.

Why the hostility and sarcasm? I’m perfectly happy with 5% loss in my 8 year old 2012 S, and 2 2018 3s because I am confident regarding those curves. Any loss on all cars has been undetectable since year 1. Spend your sympathy elsewhere.

 

[sorka]

Why the hostility and sarcasm?

Disagreement does not equal hostility.

Spend your sympathy elsewhere.

No worries there since it wasn't real.

 

[sorka]

OK, stipulated.

I’ll amend my post to say contactors are sufficiently accessible that they can be replaced at service center, and often are.

My intent was to correct the falsehood that battery must be removed and sent out for new contactors.

Sure, although the battery still must be removed to replace the contactors.

 

[sorka]

FYI, most of these not even close to the OPs degradation based on mileage or time:

7 years later what is your 100% on your 85kWh battery?

 

[SilverString]

The later updates not only dramatically slow down charging speed, but also run the pumps and fans at 100%. This, plus lack of regen above 95%, make the first 5% go pretty quick.

It seems there is no reason to ever go above 95%, except in emergency, when you absolutely cannot make the next charger otherwise.

Among other things, it has been shown charging to a high SoC dramatically slows speed on x country trips.

FYI, a few hours after placing the service request I received the 2020.16.2.1 update at a time when TeslaFi was reporting only 7 other vehicles, and before the major rollout occurred. This seemed to improve range by about 5 miles. A few days later I received this text from Tesla Mobile Service in response to my range loss concerns:

" Hi (name), The vehicle's estimated range displayed on the screen is a calculated estimate of energy remaining in the battery pack as tested by the EPA and does not reflect true driving distance remaining. The estimate is based on real-time battery measurements rather than driving habits.
In order for the vehicle to make the best possible estimate of the range it is best to use the Scheduled Charging feature in order to delay the charging cycle by 1-2 hours and then allow the vehicle to charge to 90% overnight. These "rest periods" before and after charging provide better data for the calculation. Note that once charging has completed the battery energy may drop by 5% before charging starts again to "top up" the battery. This can be perceived as an incomplete charge and reduced range.

The cells used in Tesla battery packs naturally experience a slight capacity reduction during the first months of use. This can result in a reduction in range displayed during the first months of use of the vehicle. Following this initial decline, the rate of capacity reduction levels off for years and miles.
The vehicle logs show that there was a slight imbalance within the battery pack due to the driving and Supercharging cycles without rest periods but the imbalance has corrected itself, leading to the increased range. The logs also show that more than 50% of charging is done on a DC charger such as a Supercharger or public charger. Using high speed chargers excessively can result in a loss of capacity.
For more information see Range Tips
A diagnostic inspection on vehicle vitals returned no alerts or errors, and the vehicle is operating as designed. No repairs are necessary at this time."

 

[aerodyne]

I am sure there is some truth there, except for the last few sentences. Because....

The SeC told me my car was fine and ready for pickup, and my CAN bus reader caused all the problems. Went to get the car, reader disconnected, car dead, 12v flat had to drive home without my car.

Warming the pack, calibrating the pack, reducing the cell imbalance do have an effect, but I have never seen more than 5% total variance.

I also agree that charging above 90% is not needed for calibration or cell balancing. The one time I took it to 98-99% I gained a mile at most, over my usual 70%.

This is based only on ancedotal data from my car. I recommend looking at the battery beta function on Teslafi to see how you car stacks up to others of the same type and mileage.

 

[SilverString]

I am sure there is some truth there, except for the last few sentences. Because....

The SeC told me my car was fine and ready for pickup, and my CAN bus reader caused all the problems. Went to get the car, reader disconnected, car dead, 12v flat had to drive home without my car.

Warming the pack, calibrating the pack, reducing the cell imbalance do have an effect, but I have never seen more than 5% total variance.

I also agree that charging above 90% is not needed for calibration or cell balancing. The one time I took it to 98-99% I gained a mile at most, over my usual 70%.

This is based only on ancedotal data from my car. I recommend looking at the battery beta function on Teslafi to see how you car stacks up to others of the same type and mileage.

The TeslaFi battery reports are what initiated my service request. As of the last test my car ranks in the lower 4% of like vehicles. Tesla's response was accurate as to my charging habits - I always tend to charge immediately after driving, and I have a high ratio of supercharging kW vs HPWC, even though 90% of my charges are at home. So I am using scheduled charging as suggested. I bought the car to travel and I am not changing that. At this point with all variables involved I still cannot tell that there is any noticeable range reduction when traveling the same routes on 1000+ mile round trips. I tend to arrive at the same points with the same battery percentage as always since the car was new.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Whatever man. I'm not going to argue about facts that I and others have seen and repeated time after time for years. Every Tesla I have owned and driven for any period of time has had it's indicated range go up and down in a predictable and repeatable way.

That's like saying it rains when I dance, so I will continue to dance when I need it to rain. There is absolutely nothing factual about your statement. Your observational conclusions flawed that have lead to incorrect conclusions.

Are you willing to also contradict Tesla's own statement regarding range? To wit:

"Displayed range is based on regulating agency certification (EPA) and is not adapted based on driving pattern. Your driving behaviors and environmental conditions can impact your car's efficiency, and therefore its range. To see estimated range based on personalized energy consumption, open the Energy app."

Even Tesla says you are wrong. But I guess you're still right because you "believe" it. In light of this reveal, I'm fairly certain the community considers your flawed, incorrect assertions to be 100% worthless.

 

[jelloslug]

That's like saying it rains when I dance, so I will continue to dance when I need it to rain. There is absolutely nothing factual about your statement. Your observational conclusions flawed that have lead to incorrect conclusions.

Are you willing to also contradict Tesla's own statement regarding range? To wit:

"Displayed range is based on regulating agency certification (EPA) and is not adapted based on driving pattern. Your driving behaviors and environmental conditions can impact your car's efficiency, and therefore its range. To see estimated range based on personalized energy consumption, open the Energy app."

Even Tesla says you are wrong. But I guess you're still right because you "believe" it. In light of this reveal, I'm fairly certain the community considers your flawed, incorrect assertions to be 100% worthless.

Tesla has never handed out incorrect information before.

 

[ucmndd]

Tesla has never handed out incorrect information before.

And now we've hit the "fake news" part of the argument, where authoritative evidence must be false because it contradicts what you think you observed.

Keep on dancing boss, it will rain soon I'm sure!

 

[jelloslug]

And now we've hit the "fake news" part of the argument, where authoritative evidence must be false because it contradicts what you think you observed.

Keep on dancing boss, it will rain soon I'm sure!

I'm sorry if my facts don't line up with your theory.

 

[Tesomega]

My Nominal Battery Capacity is 88 kW, its a 2017 July Model S 100 D with 32K miles, I have seen multiple people saw how their 2012 models have not lost much range.. but everyone knows Tesla constantly updates/upgrades their battery technology. This is my results. Your results may vary.. Most of the drops noticed were correlated with long trips where I had to charge the car multiple times DC charging in a single day. I am not happy with my battery degradation.

Note: I have more DC charging than AC Charging..