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

[ran349]

capacity. All the while, my cars display of full charge range is still around 270 miles (down from the original 280).

I thought the original 90D had a rated range of 294 from EPA. I think they estimated 288 before the EPA test was done, but I never remember 280 as the EPA value.
If that is true, then your 72-73 kWh of usable range makes sense for your car with 270 rated miles. I know that new S85 cars only achieved about 74 kWh of usable range (trip meter value).

Of course, how close you come to achieving rated range is a completely separate issue.

 

[aerodyne]

So you know the ambient temps for the last three months at my house now also? An you call me the one with magical powers...

Hello, let me try to understand...your point of view..

First, with better knowledge of the car, and better habits, for sure it is possible to see increase in efficiency, and to go longer between charges. I guess you could call that actual achieved range. I enjoy doing this, others perhaps not.

I have been charging before a trip, and keeping it below 80%, plus watching how I use HVAC and range mode and regen.

I am down to 285 from 303 wh/mi over a few thousand miles.

This does not mean your car is getting more efficient, or the battery capacity is going up. You might see a few percent due to combined effects of rounding and pack temp changes, calibration and balancing, but 7%, no way.

In other words, there is nothing that you can do to affect Rated Range, or usable pack/EPA consumption, short of a newer pack with greater capacity.

If you were to sell me your car, I would want to see pack capacity and cell balance and DC charging totals and SuC rates data. Not your RM, Actual miles, etc.

 

[jelloslug]

Hello, let me try to understand...your point of view..

First, with better knowledge of the car, and better habits, for sure it is possible to see increase in efficiency, and to go longer between charges. I guess you could call that actual achieved range. I enjoy doing this, others perhaps not.

I have been charging before a trip, and keeping it below 80%, plus watching how I use HVAC and range mode and regen.

I am down to 285 from 303 wh/mi over a few thousand miles.

This does not mean your car is getting more efficient, or the battery capacity is going up. You might see a few percent due to combined effects of rounding and pack temp changes, calibration and balancing, but 7%, no way.

In other words, there is nothing that you can do to affect Rated Range, or usable pack/EPA consumption, short of a newer pack with greater capacity.

If you were to sell me your car, I would want to see pack capacity and cell balance and DC charging totals and SuC rates data. Not your RM, Actual miles, etc.

I never said that my car was getting more efficient. I said that the range estimate shown on the screen is not a static calculation and is not an reliable indication of battery degradation.

 

[Peter Lucas]

I thought the original 90D had a rated range of 294 from EPA. I think they estimated 288 before the EPA test was done, but I never remember 280 as the EPA value.
If that is true, then your 72-73 kWh of usable range makes sense for your car with 270 rated miles. I know that new S85 cars only achieved about 74 kWh of usable range (trip meter value).

Of course, how close you come to achieving rated range is a completely separate issue.

In the summer of 2016, the new Model S 90D cars in the showrooms displayed a full charge Rated Range of around 280-285 miles.
The usable capacity of these batteries when new was described in several places as 81-82 kwh. 72-73 kwh is certainly not a normal usable capacity for the 90 kwh battery. (Why would you suggest that a "90" kwh battery would be normal with 72-73 usable kwh and then say that the "85" kwh battery had 74 kwh?)

 

[ran349]

In the summer of 2016, the new Model S 90D cars in the showrooms displayed a full charge Rated Range of around 280-285 miles.
The usable capacity of these batteries when new was described in several places as 81-82 kwh. 72-73 kwh is certainly not a normal usable capacity for the 90 kwh battery. (Why would you suggest that a "90" kwh battery would be normal with 72-73 usable kwh and then say that the "85" kwh battery had 74 kwh?)

I am talking about a "new" 85 battery usable capacity as defined by actual trip meter readings, compared to a 90 battery that has some degradation such as yours that still shows 72-73 kWh actual usable.
It may have been reported that 90 batteries had 81-82 kWh usable, just like the 85 batteries supposedly had 78 kWh usable, but what people actually achieved was less than those values, at least when going by what the trip meter reads. For the new 85 batteries, achievable range was around 74 kWh, so maybe the 90 batteries showed around 78- 79 kWh.

To calculate what your actual usable was when new you would have to compare your 270 rated miles now to the new EPA value. For example, if your EPA rating new was 294, then 270/294 = about 8% degradation. In that case, I think your 72-73 kWh makes sense for a 90 kWh battery given the current amount of degradation.

 

[Peter Lucas]

I am talking about a "new" 85 battery usable capacity as defined by actual trip meter readings, compared to a 90 battery that has some degradation such as yours that still shows 72-73 kWh actual usable.
It may have been reported that 90 batteries had 81-82 kWh usable, just like the 85 batteries supposedly had 78 kWh usable, but what people actually achieved was less than those values, at least when going by what the trip meter reads. For the new 85 batteries, achievable range was around 74 kWh, so maybe the 90 batteries showed around 78- 79 kWh.

To calculate what your actual usable was when new you would have to compare your 270 rated miles now to the new EPA value. For example, if your EPA rating new was 294, then 270/294 = about 8% degradation. In that case, I think your 72-73 kWh makes sense for a 90 kWh battery given the current amount of degradation.

Sorry Ran. I am just not understanding most of what you are saying. At 6 months of age, my cars battery had 72-73 kwh of usable capacity. And my achievable range was 70-75% of the displayed Rated Range (200-220 miles). So, lots of things wrong and would not be expected. First, not able to get anywhere close to Rated Range, when I was told that Rated Range should be achievable with normal, modest driving. Second, significant battery degradation too early in the life of the car. Third, the displayed Rated Range did not reflect the battery degradation. Specifically, there was about 12% battery degradation, and the displayed rated range decreased by just a few percent.
These deficiencies are significant. Prospective buyers should know these things. I wish that I had known about them before purchase. I was misinformed that battery degradation in these cars is very small over many years. I was misinformed that the displayed Rated Range would be achievable with normal modest driving. If I had known the truth about these things, I likely would not have purchased at that time.

 

[aerodyne]

I am sure the three things are valid in your case, and that is disappointing for sure.

But they are three different things, with different causes!

First problem is not getting consumption at say steady 65mph. See the Teslike charts to see if the EPA consumption is overstated for your cars type and wheels.

Then, look and see if there is other variables under your control - Battery temp, range mode, regen setting, etc.

You have some control over the first problem, the others not so much.

 

[ucmndd]

Sorry Ran. I am just not understanding most of what you are saying. At 6 months of age, my cars battery had 72-73 kwh of usable capacity. And my achievable range was 70-75% of the displayed Rated Range (200-220 miles). So, lots of things wrong and would not be expected. First, not able to get anywhere close to Rated Range, when I was told that Rated Range should be achievable with normal, modest driving. Second, significant battery degradation too early in the life of the car. Third, the displayed Rated Range did not reflect the battery degradation. Specifically, there was about 12% battery degradation, and the displayed rated range decreased by just a few percent.
These deficiencies are significant. Prospective buyers should know these things. I wish that I had known about them before purchase. I was misinformed that battery degradation in these cars is very small over many years. I was misinformed that the displayed Rated Range would be achievable with normal modest driving. If I had known the truth about these things, I likely would not have purchased at that time.

The way by which you're calculating usable battery capacity and extrapolating that to degradation is completely nonsensical.

 

[aerodyne]

Just found this thread from Jason. It sheds some light on things...see post 1116:

Tesla's 85 kWh rating needs an asterisk (up to 81 kWh, with up to ~77 kWh usable)

If I take my Usable Capacity from the BMS, add 2KwH buffer instead of 4, divide by 0.299 KwH/mi.....I get.... EXACTLY what the car, app, and BMS report as full rated range.

So, I said things that were wrong. 85 capacity is 80.7, not 81.5. Buffer is 4, but will let you use 2 KwH of that unless you battery is seriously out of wack.

 

[dk10438]

even more discouraged now..
Range at 100% is only 292 and it was 315 when new. That's about 7.5% degradation for a car that only has 21k miles. I've discharged to 6% and then charged to 100% and that didn't do anything. Guess I just got a dud.

 

[cduzz]

even more discouraged now..
Range at 100% is only 292 and it was 315 when new. That's about 7.5% degradation for a car that only has 21k miles. I've discharged to 6% and then charged to 100% and that didn't do anything. Guess I just got a dud.

I'm not sure if this is reassuring or not, but I think the very worst degradation happens in the first year or two; my 2016 S 90D has had roughly the same battery capacity for the past year / 9000 miles. If anything it's gotten ever slightly better.

 

[Peter Lucas]

even more discouraged now..
Range at 100% is only 292 and it was 315 when new. That's about 7.5% degradation for a car that only has 21k miles. I've discharged to 6% and then charged to 100% and that didn't do anything. Guess I just got a dud.

When you say that the range is 292 miles, is that the actual number of miles that you can get? Or is it the cars display of range? Important difference. For example, my cars display of range was 275 miles. At that time, the real life achievable range was only 200-220 miles. Worse, usable battery capacity was down to 72-73 kwh. The cars display of range failed to reveal some considerable battery degradation.

 

[dk10438]

Displayed range...
I’m sure I’m within what’s considered “normal” but clearly I’m below average...

I tried really hard to take care is the battery too so I can verfiy that that doesn’t make a difference.