Lifetime Average Wh/mi

[juliusa]

Sorry if this has been discussed.

1. I'm pretty sure the wh/mi only reports the wh consumed while the car is on. So preconditioning the cabin, camp mode, and other energy uses when the car is off are not included. Charging losses are not included. This is different than ICE cars - people usually calculate MPG based on the amount of fuel put in the car, so it accounts for all fuel uses.

2. I have noticed a change when supercharging - it seems the kW reported in the car is how much is going into the battery, while the kW reported in the app seems to be how much is being delivered by the supercharger. The difference would be the battery heater and cabin heating, and perhaps charging losses.

Is this what others are observing?

 

[zoomer0056]

wh/mi

I don't know for sure, but looking at the units I'm in agreement with you ... only rolling down the road applies.

 

[zoomer0056]

wh/mi

I don't know for sure, but looking at the units I'm in agreement with you ... only rolling down the road applies.

 

[John Archuleta]

I’m about 423.

 

[Newfoundland]

I bought a 2018 100D 3 year lease return from Tesla 1 year ago. It had 30K miles. I've put on 25K in 1 year driving around North America in the winter as well as all season driving. 26K mile average around 330Wh/mile. Recently put on a hitch and towing 2000 lb trailer RV, and if I'm lucky in perfect driving conditions, 55-60mph, 650Wh/mile when towing.

 

[paulchou]

Insane driving mode. Overall efficiency at 237 wh/mi. w/ the last 13k miles at 219 wh/mi. And I punch the accelerator from time to time.

It seems they slightly improved the efficiency this year?!? I've gotten as low as 183 wh/mi on 20+ miles round trips before.

I do think sub 200 wh/mi life time average is possible - though mostly reserved for Teslas in nice year-around climates.

 

[wdolson]

Insane driving mode. Overall efficiency at 237 wh/mi. w/ the last 13k miles at 219 wh/mi. And I punch the accelerator from time to time.

It seems they slightly improved the efficiency this year?!? I've gotten as low as 183 wh/mi on 20+ miles round trips before.

I do think sub 200 wh/mi life time average is possible - though mostly reserved for Teslas in nice year-around climates.

View attachment 949981

Also for people living in flat places. I don't think a lifetime of better than 200 Wh/Mi is possible, even for the most efficient Model 3. I am sure it's impossible for a Model S. Especially an older one.

 

[black knight 3]

Insane driving mode. Overall efficiency at 237 wh/mi. w/ the last 13k miles at 219 wh/mi. And I punch the accelerator from time to time.

It seems they slightly improved the efficiency this year?!? I've gotten as low as 183 wh/mi on 20+ miles round trips before.

I do think sub 200 wh/mi life time average is possible - though mostly reserved for Teslas in nice year-around climates.

View attachment 949981

man, Congratulations! That is impressive indeed. It looks almost like Model 3 numbers and not Model S because of the heft of the model S. I don't see any way possible to achieve that level of efficiency for my '22 model S LR. My lifetime at 16K is 286 Wh/mi. And I live in the Bay Area which is about as good as it gets for mild climate. I could probably achieve 265 Wh/mi if I left A/C off, ran chill mode, no heater, grandma like slow acceleration and max use of regen. But that's not me. I would feel like the car would be emasculated. and for what purpose would the Model S serve? I bought the car to enjoy it. I would have bought a Bolt if I were looking to save a few bucks to be as efficient as humanly possible.

 

[black knight 3]

man, Congratulations! That is impressive indeed. It looks almost like Model 3 numbers and not Model S because of the heft of the model S. I don't see any way possible to achieve that level of efficiency for my '22 model S LR. My lifetime at 16K is 286 Wh/mi. And I live in the Bay Area which is about as good as it gets for mild climate. I could probably achieve 265 Wh/mi if I left A/C off, ran chill mode, no heater, grandma like slow acceleration and max use of regen. But that's not me. I would feel like the car would be emasculated. and for what purpose would the Model S serve? I bought the car to enjoy it. I would have bought a Bolt if I were looking to save a few bucks to be as efficient as humanly possible.

and also disabling cabin overheat protection, sentry mode, dashcam, set tesla app and phone key to only allow location access while use tesla app, avoid frequent use of tesla app to check car, avoid use of 3rd party apps to ping car, etc, etc, long list...

 

[paulchou]

man, Congratulations! That is impressive indeed. It looks almost like Model 3 numbers and not Model S because of the heft of the model S. I don't see any way possible to achieve that level of efficiency for my '22 model S LR. My lifetime at 16K is 286 Wh/mi. And I live in the Bay Area which is about as good as it gets for mild climate. I could probably achieve 265 Wh/mi if I left A/C off, ran chill mode, no heater, grandma like slow acceleration and max use of regen. But that's not me. I would feel like the car would be emasculated. and for what purpose would the Model S serve? I bought the car to enjoy it. I would have bought a Bolt if I were looking to save a few bucks to be as efficient as humanly possible.

Nah. the key factor is to keep it below 65. At <45mph, it's almost indistinguishable what type of efficiency I get, provided that I use regen brake mostly and I don't punch it all the way all the time. Grandma slow doesn't give you anything extra efficiency wise. I do mostly city driving - even if I want to go fast, my speed would be limited by the cars ahead. I would typically accelerate up to 40 quickly, and then mostly keep it there. It's well known that Model S's brakes are undersized for its weight and acceleration ability - so regular brake for me is really only an emergency measure. To me regen brake offers far more efficient and smoother experience for everyone in the car (and less wear and tear too). I suppose I just don't understand why ppl would fly pass me only to brake hard when there's a clear red light 1000 ft ahead.

I don't ever use Chill mode, as I like to punch it from time to time, and I have sentry mode, COP all turned on at all times. Believe it or not, COP/sentry has zero effect on wh/mi, as they are not included in the wh/mi calculation at all. I also have tesla app access location at all times - that only affects phone battery.

AC does affect efficiency, but I've fond on longer trips at speed ~60mph, the additional efficiency drain is minimal (like <10 wh/mi), unless you dial up AC all the way of course.

To each his own. I want to keep my S for a while and I don't intend to change my tires every 18 month. And I like to understand and have full control of all the levers that are at my disposal. This is how I get the most enjoyments out of it.

And for the occasional annoying loud hot rods who pull up next to me? I show them who's the boss too.

 

[Bugeater]

In my 2012 MS P85/90 I get 360Wh/mi lifetime 87K+ miles. Since last charge is currently 307 and current trip is 297. I am always impressed when I get below 300!

 

[85MS]

319 Wh/mi since Tesla did my MCU2 upgrade 33k miles ago and reset it. 2015 85 19" wheels with 156k total miles.

 

[seenhear]

unless you dial up AC all the way of course.

So I think this varies depending on what generation of car and which model you have. I have heard many different versions of what is most efficient use of HVAC.
For cooling the cabin below ambient temp, say it's 85F outside and you want 68F inside:
I think with heat-pump HVAC cars, you can just set it and forget it for the most part, and the further below outside temp you set it, the more power it takes. So with outside at 85F, setting to 62F inside would take more power than setting to 68F inside.

But some cars (I've been told mine is one of these) the car actually uses full AC all the time (it's basically on or off, no medium settings), and then mixes in warm air if you want some temperature above the "LO" setting. This is obviously pretty inefficient. So the recommendation is (if you have the patience) to leave it at "LO" and then just cycle it on/off to your liking. For sure, if you set it to LO the energy use is the same regardless of fan setting (well except for the minimal additional power more fan takes). But if you set it to 68F, it's running the AC at full (basically the only way to have AC on) and then mixing warm air with it. I don't know if the warm air is outside air, or (even worse) air heated by the car's resistive heater.

 

[Bugeater]

So I think this varies depending on what generation of car and which model you have. I have heard many different versions of what is most efficient use of HVAC.
For cooling the cabin below ambient temp, say it's 85F outside and you want 68F inside:
I think with heat-pump HVAC cars, you can just set it and forget it for the most part, and the further below outside temp you set it, the more power it takes. So with outside at 85F, setting to 62F inside would take more power than setting to 68F inside.

But some cars (I've been told mine is one of these) the car actually uses full AC all the time (it's basically on or off, no medium settings), and then mixes in warm air if you want some temperature above the "LO" setting. This is obviously pretty inefficient. So the recommendation is (if you have the patience) to leave it at "LO" and then just cycle it on/off to your liking. For sure, if you set it to LO the energy use is the same regardless of fan setting (well except for the minimal additional power more fan takes). But if you set it to 68F, it's running the AC at full (basically the only way to have AC on) and then mixing warm air with it. I don't know if the warm air is outside air, or (even worse) air heated by the car's resistive heater.

I really doubt that Tesla has AC on any car that is on or off! I have a 2012 MS P90 and it has never been like that. I'm pretty sure that the AC units have only gotten better!

 

[Beandoc]

334 wh/mi. I think I can get that number higher.

 

[wdolson]

So I think this varies depending on what generation of car and which model you have. I have heard many different versions of what is most efficient use of HVAC.
For cooling the cabin below ambient temp, say it's 85F outside and you want 68F inside:
I think with heat-pump HVAC cars, you can just set it and forget it for the most part, and the further below outside temp you set it, the more power it takes. So with outside at 85F, setting to 62F inside would take more power than setting to 68F inside.

But some cars (I've been told mine is one of these) the car actually uses full AC all the time (it's basically on or off, no medium settings), and then mixes in warm air if you want some temperature above the "LO" setting. This is obviously pretty inefficient. So the recommendation is (if you have the patience) to leave it at "LO" and then just cycle it on/off to your liking. For sure, if you set it to LO the energy use is the same regardless of fan setting (well except for the minimal additional power more fan takes). But if you set it to 68F, it's running the AC at full (basically the only way to have AC on) and then mixing warm air with it. I don't know if the warm air is outside air, or (even worse) air heated by the car's resistive heater.

What age is your car? I have a refresh 2016 and the AC definitely has different levels. I've found that when it's very hot and the AC needs to run on high I see a clear hit in range. If it's not that hot and the AC is just cooling a bit I don't notice any drop in range.

 

[aerodyne]

After a longish road trip, I'm up to 245 lifetime, one year and 6k miles on my '22 MSLR with 19" wheels.

I don't think matching rated consumption of 241 is possible at or above 70 mph.

 

[DayTrippin]

I am at 350 Wh/mi for 9k miles. I have PS4S on 21" wheels and a 2022 Plaid. Almost no time is either heat or AC not on. There are a lot of short trips which just kill the average. AC is a larger part of the energy consumption than the actual drive is in my summer trips less than 5 miles. I am around 1000 Wh/mi for the first mile. Temps over 100F all day long don't help.

When on the highway, the car will spend a lot of time at 80+ mph as speed limits are pretty high here. Again the AC is on almost all the time.

 

[David29]

So I think this varies depending on what generation of car and which model you have. I have heard many different versions of what is most efficient use of HVAC.
For cooling the cabin below ambient temp, say it's 85F outside and you want 68F inside:
I think with heat-pump HVAC cars, you can just set it and forget it for the most part, and the further below outside temp you set it, the more power it takes. So with outside at 85F, setting to 62F inside would take more power than setting to 68F inside.

But some cars (I've been told mine is one of these) the car actually uses full AC all the time (it's basically on or off, no medium settings), and then mixes in warm air if you want some temperature above the "LO" setting. This is obviously pretty inefficient. So the recommendation is (if you have the patience) to leave it at "LO" and then just cycle it on/off to your liking. For sure, if you set it to LO the energy use is the same regardless of fan setting (well except for the minimal additional power more fan takes). But if you set it to 68F, it's running the AC at full (basically the only way to have AC on) and then mixing warm air with it. I don't know if the warm air is outside air, or (even worse) air heated by the car's resistive heater.

That does not seem to make sense to me. I should think that the AC compressor would cycle on and off as needed, just as in a gas car. The only difference would be -- I assume-- that a mechanical clutch does the switching in an ICE car versus an electrical switch in an electrical car. Why would Tesla run the compressor non-stop? But I admit that I do not hear the compressor switching on and off and don't have direct evidence...just my engineer's common sense.

 

[seenhear]

That does not seem to make sense to me. I should think that the AC compressor would cycle on and off as needed, just as in a gas car. The only difference would be -- I assume-- that a mechanical clutch does the switching in an ICE car versus an electrical switch in an electrical car. Why would Tesla run the compressor non-stop? But I admit that I do not hear the compressor switching on and off and don't have direct evidence...just my engineer's common sense.

I'm also an engineer (Mech E), and it bothers me to no end. I don't know for sure, but the behavior seems to support the description that the compressor runs non stop and they just add warm air to achieve a temp warmer than "LO." My evidence is this: say the inside of my car is HOT, like 90F or so. I set to LO, let it run for a minute to reach max cool temp, and get a feeling (with my hand) for the temp of the air coming out. Then with my hand still feeling the cool air coming out (and inside temp is still VERY HOT say maybe 85F now) I set the temp to 65F. The air coming out of the vents instantly gets a tad bit warmer, but is still cool. The only explanation I can think of for this is that the AC compressor is still running, but they are adding some warm air. And this is WELL before the inside temp is even CLOSE to the set temp. This is just wrong on so many levels. But this is the behavior I observe in my Oct.2017 Model S75 (standard HVAC system, no HEPA / biodefense). I am not sure if/when the compressor runs when heating the car in the winter, but I assume it's running if the "AC" button is turned on.

This bothers me so much that when cooling the car, I end up just always leaving the AC at "LO" and I manually cycle it or simply adjust the fan to modulate inside temp. If the AC compressor is going to be running all the time anyway, I might as well manage it myself and not have warm air mixing in. It's just the principle of it, really. LOL.