Hmm, are they allowed to advertise an EPA rated range that is greater than the actual EPA rated range?
The actual EPA score is what they achieve during the dyno test but that's not the score EPA certifies. Instead, they offer two options:
Option 1:
Voluntary reductions to lower the score.
Check out the screenshot
here. It says voluntarily lowered in 5 places. The screenshot is from an EPA document you can download
HERE. After you open the file, select the EV tab and scroll to the right.
Option 2:
Alternative multipliers to increase the score.
In the table in my previous message, I converted the dyno scores to city range and highway range using the default 0.7 multiplier. However, car manufacturers don't have to use this. They can come up with their own multiplier. Tesla uses this option a lot for marketing purposes. For example, in this instance, they adjusted the multiplier just enough to achieve exactly 310 with the AWD version. They used 70.32% instead of 70.0%. The screenshot below is from
THIS document. The orange columns are formula columns that I added. You can see the formula I have used. If you divide column E by F, you get the multipliers.
Isn't that what Hyundai got in trouble for?
No. Hyundai got into trouble because the advertised MPG numbers were too optimistic. In the past, GM was also sued because of MPG numbers. EPA doesn't want the car manufacturers to get into trouble. Therefore when voluntary reductions or alternative multipliers are used, the MPG numbers remain unaffected.
The problems for Tesla with the accuracy of the EPA range started in 2012 when EPA made the test more difficult. Before that, the Roadster had achieved 245 mi EPA which was too optimistic. Using the same test, the Model S 85 should have scored over 300 miles. In fact, in 2012 before Tesla started production, they were already talking about 300 miles. (
source). However, because EPA changed the test, the actual score was only 235 miles. Tesla played with the multipliers to increase the score to 265 miles. They used 79.6% when everybody else was using 70%. In the next two years, they improved the car and the score would have been 244 instead of 235 miles had they re-tested the car but they didn't. Outside of North America, the S85 displays 400 km (249 mi) which is pretty accurate.
The biggest mistake people can make is to buy a used Model S 85 instead of the $35K Model 3 SR. These two cars have the same range. To be more precise, a used S85 with 4% degradation (which is typical) has the same highway range as the Model 3 SR with Aero covers on. You might say, we don't know the SR's test scores. That's correct but we know the cell counts for both Model 3 battery sizes. The LR pack has 4416 cells and the SR has 2976 cells (
source). We also know that the LR pack has 78.27 kWh usable capacity (source: page 6 footer
here). Therefore the SR is expected to have 78.27 * 2976/4416= 52.75 kWh usable capacity. We also know the weight numbers of both cars and we know the dyno scores of the LR. Therefore it's possible to calculate the SR's range. I recommend looking at the range table
here.
@Troy Doesn’t the 2018 EPA data (cells FG46 and FH46) infer a 330 mi EPA rated range for the Model 3 LR along with 345 city, 311.7 highway?
2018 Model 3 LR numbers are questionable. Something seems to be messed up. If you look at these two documents, on page 6 both of them show 06/16/2017 as the test date. In other words, there was only one test. The 2018 model was never re-tested. I recommend comparing the AWD scores to the 2017 LR scores instead of 2018.
2017 Model 3 LR
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=39792&flag=1
2018 Model 3 LR
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=42148&flag=1