Lifetime Average Wh/mi

[ModelS1079]

View attachment 113515

Jerry, that's incredible mileage. Would love to see your average ambient temperature and average speed. Maybe we should ask Tesla to keep that data. First column Miles, 2nd column kWh, third column watthours per mile, Fourth column average ambient temperature, fifth column average speed…

 

[ModelS1079]

February (plus a few miles b/c I forgot to take a photo and reset until I was on my way to work!)

February:
851.4 Miles
267.5 kWh
314 Wh/mi

Lifetime:
64459 miles
19671 kWh
305 Wh/mi

If I can hold the 305 through March I should be able to get back down to 303-304 by next winter.

Good to see the Good Doctor Fusco continues to cruise in his Model S, and very efficiently, indeed . I should note that the mileage I posted above includes having a roof rack on the car for about 18 months.

 

[TMC Bubba]

S85D driver here since 12/14/15. I like blasting off from stop lights, but am otherwise pretty conservative driver. My highway driving is limited, I'm mostly driving 45 mph boulevards around town.

3259 miles
1023 kWh
314 Wh/mi

 

[ArtInCT]

Here is my first entry for the P90DL after one complete month of use:
Typical temps here in CT have been in the 50's

665 Miles
224 kWh
337 Wh/mi

Smiles = Infinite
Clearly the most fun car I have driven, it all works perfectly so far! I use heat, etc in a normal manner.
BTW I typically charge to 80% just prior to early AM use, and that results in a consistant 216 rated miles and has been at 216 since the first charge.
Lastly, the Bridgestone Potenza Pole Position S-04 tires are quiet and appear efficient as well as grippy.
Firmware = 2.12.126 since 3/3/2016

 

[jerry33]

 

[Sparrow]

 

[jerry33]

 

[efusco]

Good month, forgot to reset until I was about 100 miles into my drive today, but still not bad. Should be back to the 304Wh/mi range by the end of the month of may.

 

[ArtInCT]

For the end of my second month

1,786 miles and 335 Wh/m total
monthly data
1,120 miles and 334 Wh/m

firmware 2.17.37

 

[Khatsalano]

85D, 40,000 miles. 323 Wh/mi. 90% highway driving in Northern California, 21" wheels.

- K

 

[Sparrow]

 

[travwill]

I feel like you guys and your low numbers are putting me to shame! This has to be because I'm in Chicago somewhat, its cold here, and I'm liberal on cabin comfort - plus drive usually short distances most days on top of that so it never gets to equalize down much. Will be interesting now that its warming up to see where it is say this next September...

Basically at 400 kWh right now (for about half total miles owned so over colder months I think

)

 

[Daniel Scherer]

97,058 mi / 31058.6 kWh / 320 wH/mi

 

[Mikerad]

Late to the party here, and I have not read the entire thread. Posting mostly because I might have some new info to add to the mix.

Background: 90D, in a (so-far) very mild climate - Las Vegas in the Spring. No heat used, but a fair amount of air conditioning, ramping up rapidly now. No big trips yet. Daily commute is about 16 miles downhill, and uphill going home. With other driving, my average is around 46 miles/day. The reason I can possibly offer new info is that in addition to knowing my lifetime Wh/mi average, I also know precisely how much energy I have put IN to the car, because I have a dedicate Wh meter on my NEMA 14-50 outlet, which has been the sole source of power for the car in the nearly 3 months I've owned it. That means that I have a good handle on the charging efficiency of my car.

I typically charge to 60%, starting at around 5 am, in order to keep my average SOC as low as I'm comfortable with. I charge at 40A.

Executive Summary:​

323 Wh/mi over 3,187 miles. Total energy used in driving is 1029.3 kWh.
BUT.... Total energy injected into the car is 1360.7

That means that the car has 75.6% of the energy from the grid available to move itself.

Put differently, I actually paid for 426 Wh/mi, even if the car 'thinks' I used only 323 Wh.

I don't imagine there's a significant difference in charging efficiency from car to car, especially for those who charge more or less as I do; so you can get a fair idea of what you are actually paying for by multiplying your reported Wh/mi by 1.32

The pictures tell the story. First, the car reports...

My kWh meter (more info below) reports:

I use an EKM Wh meter which uploads my usage data to a server, where I can access it via the Web in many different ways. The (still unpainted!) installation looks like this:

The yellow/blue twisted pair wires run to a "Push" box that handles the data uploading (ignore the Netgear device):

- Mike.

 

[emir-t]

Wow Mike excellent report thanks for sharing.

It's kind of surprising to see your efficiency levels at 75%. Norwegian Bjorn Nyland recently has done a charging efficiency test with both single phase and three phase charging. His numbers were around 89%. You can check it out below.

 

[Boatguy]

Executive Summary:​

323 Wh/mi over 3,187 miles. Total energy used in driving is 1029.3 kWh.
BUT.... Total energy injected into the car is 1360.7

That means that the car has 75.6% of the energy from the grid available to move itself.

That's pathetic charge efficiency, actually too low to be possible.

The Trip meters don't capture vampire loss which is in the range of 1-2kWh / day depending on whether Energy Saving is on/off; I assume you have selected "Always Connected". Adding 80kWh of vampire loss would move the CEF up to 81%, but still very low.

I have a dedicated electrical meter for my EVs so I can track my usage from my power company on a daily basis. I came home from a couple hundred mile drive earlier this week and charged that night so it should be a good data point. The power company lags by a couple of days so I'll check it over the weekend and see what my CEF turns out to be.

 

[mark80908]

I'm envious of your lifetime average power calculations. The Denver service center told me to reset the trip odometers to try to address a problem where the center console occasionally freezes or reboots on it's own. "...make sure that your Trip History has been cleared. The navigation system stores up quite a bit of memory, and every time the car starts up, it’s trying to process all of that stored data." I responded asking for clarification and got "To clarify, Aurora was referring to your Trip A and Trip B data. If they have never been reset there is a lot of data stored on the computer, which can potentially cause glitches." This was on a car with 6 months and less than 8000 miles. How do ICE cars manage to maintain Trip A and Trip B without problems?

 

[jerry33]

I'm envious of your lifetime average power calculations. The Denver service center told me to reset the trip odometers to try to address a problem where the center console occasionally freezes or reboots on it's own. "...make sure that your Trip History has been cleared. The navigation system stores up quite a bit of memory, and every time the car starts up, it’s trying to process all of that stored data." I responded asking for clarification and got "To clarify, Aurora was referring to your Trip A and Trip B data. If they have never been reset there is a lot of data stored on the computer, which can potentially cause glitches." This was on a car with 6 months and less than 8000 miles. How do ICE cars manage to maintain Trip A and Trip B without problems?

That was bad information that was given by some Service Centres. At 70K miles and no trip resets, it's not a problem.

 

[Boatguy]

Here are some numbers from a recent trip home from Yosemite.

Consumption since last charge = 56.4 kWh
From the grid per utility company = 59.17
Less BMW i3 charge on the same night = .7kWh (just a top up to replace vampire loss while away and unplugged)
Net Tesla from grid = 58.47kWh
CEF = 96.5%

On a night when the MS was not plugged in, the utility company reported 5.98kWh and the i3 charger reported 5.94, so I think both the utility reporting and the i3 charger(JuiceBox) reporting are good numbers.

A couple of other sources suggest a similar CEF for lithium ion batteries.

Linear Technology claims up to 96% for their chargers
Victron Energy claims 92% efficiency for the entire charge/discharge cycle

I'll check this again, but I think we should all be experiencing charge efficiency well north of 90%.

 

[jerry33]

I'll check this again, but I think we should all be experiencing charge efficiency well north of 90%.

Those companies (and Tesla) start by using the energy at the point where it enters the EVSE (Tesla would start where the the energy enters the onboard charger), and don't consider vampire drain as part of the charging efficiency (strictly speaking that's a load, not charging). The folks who get lower numbers measure from the wall and include any load such as vampire drain and preconditioning. Neither is wrong, but they aren't measuring the same things.