Let's discuss Dual Motor range

[Troy]

OK, here is the new version. The purple column shows the advertised EPA rated range. The yellow column shows the actual EPA test score. The green column shows what I think the advertised range should be if it was based on only the highway score instead of city and highway. EPA rated range is calculated 55% from city and 45% from highway range. That's because the test was designed to measure MPG for gas cars but they use the same test to measure EV range.

The advertised EPA rated range is not always the actual score because of voluntary reductions. Here is a screenshot from an EPA document that says "Combined range voluntarily lowered to 310 miles." It also shows the actual score which was 334 miles.

You can see that Tesla uses voluntary reductions a lot but usually for minor adjustments except for the Model 3. The interesting thing here is that the Model 3 P is expected to score exactly 310 miles EPA. Therefore there won't be any voluntary reductions for this model.

Data source for this screenshot: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/epadata/17data.zip (Select the EV tab when you open the Excel file).
The full list of similar files can be found here: Download Fuel Economy Data

 

[Candleflame]

With Aeros.

Driving max 100kph XD

Exactly.

It seems people are upset they can’t have it both ways. Getting the higher performance dual motor variants with big fancy rims and also getting maximum range.

While speeds on Australia highways might approach 190 kph, the easiest way to extend the range of the car is simply slow down.

Or perhaps EV is not yet the perfect solution for this use case of driving hundreds of km at very high speeds with no DC fast charging solution yet in place.

I imagine many Aussies who do these drives in their petrol cars have a couple of gerry cans in the boot for fuel related emergencies.

With a modern Diesel there is no need. They can go 1000-1400km on one fueltank if they are european cars. Petrol... yeah. I usually take a 10L tank with me in the outback but that is just because I am stingy and drive the tank right down coz I dont want to pay 30% more for refueling in some remote village haha. I only do this once a year though if that.

190kph is unheard of in Aus because the roads just don't let you drive faster than 150ish. Also 2 lanes (one for you and one for opposite traffic though you would normally slow down if you see a car on the horizon) isnt really enough for such speeds. Not smooth enough. Down in South where population density is higher there is too many speed cameras, traffic and cops so 120 really max.

 

[Zoomit]

@Troy Your table seems to imply the 3LR testing for the EPA was done without the aero wheel covers. Can you explain why you think that is the case?

 

[diamond.g]

@Troy Your table seems to imply the 3LR testing for the EPA was done without the aero wheel covers. Can you explain why you think that is the case?

I thought that the EPA tests were done on a dyno. If they are, then maybe the efficiency savings of the aero wheels isn't accounted for?

 

[Troy]

My assumption is based on this photo during the EPA dyno test from page 4 here.

 

[electracity]

My assumption is based on this photo during the EPA dyno test from page 4 here.

Interesting that they don't fully provide airflow on an EV. I wonder what the EPA protocol says about airflow and ambient temp for testing.

 

[Zoomit]

Interesting that they don't fully provide airflow on an EV. I wonder what the EPA protocol says about airflow and ambient temp for testing.

The actual aerodynamic configuration of the car is irrelevant for the EPA test. The aero loads are replaced with predetermined road load coefficients for the dyno. What’s matters are the assumptions Tesla used to calculate those dyno coefficients.

 

[electracity]

The actual aerodynamic configuration of the car is irrelevant for the EPA test. The aero loads are replaced with predetermined road load coefficients for the dyno. What’s matters are the assumptions Tesla used to calculate those dyno coefficients.

Cooling, not aero. Consider an EV that needs to run the AC under these tests but not in real world driving.

 

[ℬête Noire]

Cooling, not aero. Consider an EV that needs to run the AC under these tests but not in real world driving.

They might need to run AC in the "real world", too. But the air volume past the radiator matters for AC energy use, as heatpump efficiency is directly linear to temperature differential and without air movement the local temp builds up quickly.

What we can't tell from a picture is what they've got the ambient room temp at, or if they've got some general room air circulation going on to help.

At the end of the day, given that Tesla is fudging the numbers down anyway, not sure it'll matter that much.

 

[TerrapinThief]

Here is a screenshot from an EPA document that says "Combined range voluntarily lowered to 310 miles." It also shows the actual score which was 334 miles.

You can see that Tesla uses voluntary reductions a lot but usually for minor adjustments except for the Model 3. The interesting thing here is that the Model 3 P is expected to score exactly 310 miles EPA. Therefore there won't be any voluntary reductions for this model.

Data source for this screenshot: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/epadata/17data.zip (Select the EV tab when you open the Excel file).
The full list of similar files can be found here: Download Fuel Economy Data

The 334 number is updated to 330 in the 2018 spreadsheet.

 

[Zoomit]

The 334 number is updated to 330 in the 2018 spreadsheet.

The 334 number is not in the EPA spreadsheet but came from the Tesla EPA filing. What column are you referring to in the 2018 spreadsheet that shows 330?

 

[Moderatefan]

There's new P number, not sure if people already saw Tesla Model 3 Performance gets EPA rating, Supercharging referrals extended

Performance shows the car's EPA rating of 116 MPGe.

That's down 14 MPGe, or almost 11 percent from the base long-range Model 3's rating of 130 MPGe

 

[TerrapinThief]

The 334 number is not in the EPA spreadsheet but came from the Tesla EPA filing. What column are you referring to in the 2018 spreadsheet that shows 330?

Same spot as Troy’s screenshot. You can see the value as part of the formula for the cell. I can’t easily access right now, so unsure of cell number.

 

[apacheguy]

View attachment 317106
Someone on FB posted the full sticker!

@Nuclear Fusion The 2018 Model 3 LR RWD gets 136 city, 123 highway 130 combined.

I'm hopeful that this is a result of the EPA forcing Tesla to include their ridiculous vampire drain in MPGe numbers
I was hoping that the highway efficiency number would be closer. I wonder how much is due to the 20" wheels with summer tires.

Did the EPA use the 20” tires to rate the efficiency?

 

[jsmay311]

Did the EPA use the 20” tires to rate the efficiency?

It doesn't look like it. The EPA efficiency ratings for both the P and non-P AWD variants are now posted online and are they're both identical (116 MPGe or 0.29 kWh/mi), and the 20" wheels aren't available on the non-P AWD.

Gas Mileage of 2018 Tesla Model 3

I still don't get how the math works out on them both having a 310 mile range. 334 mi * 116MPGe / 130MPGe = 298 miles

Someone somewhere online (forget where) had reported that the improvement from 126MPGe for MY2017 to 130MPGe for MY2018 was due to improved charging efficiency and not improved driving efficiency, so that same improvement should be present on the AWD variants. But if that "reporting" was wrong and the improvement was specific to the RWD vehicle, maybe that could explain it. 334 mi * 116MPGe / 126MPGe = 307.5 miles (close enough that some fortunate rounding could get you up to 310 miles).

 

[ℬête Noire]

I still don't get how the math works out on them both having a 310 mile range. 334 mi * 116MPGe / 130MPGe = 298 miles

It's been covered further up this thread. I'm not sure how to simplify it any more than it has been.

 

[jsmay311]

More interesting info. Not sure if this was reported already or not, but looks like the non-P AWD rear motor is slightly de-rated:

Compare Side-by-Side

 

[diamond.g]

More interesting info. Not sure if this was reported already or not, but looks like the non-P AWD rear motor is slightly de-rated:

Compare Side-by-Side
View attachment 317416

Lol ~450hp vs ~480 hp. Me thinks the torque curve for the P starts muuuuch earlier than the regular AWD.

 

[Knightshade]

More interesting info. Not sure if this was reported already or not, but looks like the non-P AWD rear motor is slightly de-rated:

Compare Side-by-Side
View attachment 317416

Well there's your software lock that keeps the AWD slower than the P despite having physically the same battery motor

Bonus- those numbers seem to debunk the "500a" claims that kept being tossed around...as that's vastly less a gimp than removing 3/8ths of the rear motor power would imply.

Or to swap those into mechanical HP numbers-

RWD (rear only)= 283 hp
AWD (combined)= 449 hp
P-AWD (combined)= 480 hp


I thought the EPA originally rated the RWD at 192kW (258HP) though? It was widely reported they did anyway....

 

[jsmay311]

I still don't get how the math works out on them both having a 310 mile range. 334 mi * 116MPGe / 130MPGe = 298 miles

It's been covered further up this thread. I'm not sure how to simplify it any more than it has been.

I've read the whole thread and didn't see any convincing explanation. I guess I'm just a dummy. Maybe you could humor me and spell it out clearly for me?