-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
What is everyone's rated range on a full charge? I have a 60Kwh battery and my range has dropped from 170 to 139 in a little over a year. Telsa has told me the battery is fine with a CAC of 218 Ah. Their explanation about my range just includes comments about my daily driving habits. I consistently keep the Wh/Mi around 280-290 so I don't think I'm driving excessively harsh. Just wondering if this is normal or if my range is significantly lower.
Isn't that just inside of the warranty? I think they are trying to avoid a claim.
Brass Guy
Active Member
No question that those comments are BS. Tesla Rated Range does not take into account driving habits, climate use, hills, etc.
If you're looking at the Energy/trip graph, that's another story; but the range displayed on the charging screen or phone app has nothing to do with how you drive.
Over the years I've heard a bunch of incorrect statements from Tesla employees at the service center. I prefer to think they are misinformed rather than lying.
That was my concern. I think the warranty expires next month.
I just realized that the VIN# that the service department put on my invoice claiming the 218Ah CAC was NOT for my vehicle. I messaged service two days ago and no reply as of yet. I wonder if they will claim they just entered the wrong VIN as opposed to sending me the wrong measurement?
I must report I am blown away with my used 2016 Model S 75 efficiency. We took it for weekend get away to Jekyll Island GA from Atlanta area. And our average efficiency at the end of the trip was 288. Even when I was driving 90 efficiency was at 306. Also charging speed at 250kW station was at peek 138. Not bad at all.
In many threads, I have seen that the display in the dashboard be considered as accurate
My experience has shown that the displayed wh/mi is NOT accurate at all!
In a charge cycle for example, my car's battery depleted from 90% to 21% after driving 141.5 miles and the car's computer indicated that 50.2 kWh had been used, with an average 355 Wh/mi. Now the calculation is correct by doing the math 50,200/141.5, but in reality, my depletion dropped by 69% or 69kWh of a 100kWh battery!
The error here is a whopping 37%
My car used 69 kWh of energy for 141.5 miles (which were very conservative on acceleration and practically no AC, and high usage of regenerative braking) or about 488 Wh/mi
Why do we trust the used energy displayed? This instrument is proven very inaccurate, and I highly doubt the figures displayed. Has anyone else seen this type of discrepancy?
Another method would be to see how many miles are actually obtained vs the displayed range (under normal conditions, not track days)
Please provide some feedback, as I think that there might be something wrong with my car, or the batteries, since the energy management system is not accounting for the energy used
2017 Model S P100D
Thank you
My experience has shown that the displayed wh/mi is NOT accurate at all!
In a charge cycle for example, my car's battery depleted from 90% to 21% after driving 141.5 miles and the car's computer indicated that 50.2 kWh had been used, with an average 355 Wh/mi. Now the calculation is correct by doing the math 50,200/141.5, but in reality, my depletion dropped by 69% or 69kWh of a 100kWh battery!
The error here is a whopping 37%
My car used 69 kWh of energy for 141.5 miles (which were very conservative on acceleration and practically no AC, and high usage of regenerative braking) or about 488 Wh/mi
Why do we trust the used energy displayed? This instrument is proven very inaccurate, and I highly doubt the figures displayed. Has anyone else seen this type of discrepancy?
Another method would be to see how many miles are actually obtained vs the displayed range (under normal conditions, not track days)
Please provide some feedback, as I think that there might be something wrong with my car, or the batteries, since the energy management system is not accounting for the energy used
2017 Model S P100D
Thank you
On a side note, at about 20 cents/kWh the car uses about 9 cents per mile, which is equivalent to about 35 mpg cost of an ICE. Not that I spent the money for a Tesla to save money on fuel, but l don't want to be ignorant and think that driving on electricity is so advantageous
Before I cared about Wh/mi....my avg was over 400....between my heavy foot and my friends going for a spin, was not getting much range. Once I started to see how low I could get my Wh/mi...I started to see a major difference in range.
I am still at best getting 90% of stated range, but that is a lot better than the 50% I was getting.
Its a learning process, there is prob nothing wrong with your battery.
Hey there, thanks for your reply. As i mentioned, my analysis was done on a very light foot, almost no AC, and max regen. So this was not a 'joy ride' experiment. At the end of the day my argument is that the dash board is lying about Wh/mi, as if it actually read the truth, i would accept it. But there is a misleading figure of efficiency that is clearly untruthful. Tesla should be transparent, as it doesn't take much math skills to uncover their lie. I won't sell my Tesla even if it's as inefficient as it is, but Elon is insulting my intelligence here. Best regards
None of us can tell if theres an issue with your car...can only offer feedback from our own experience.
Like I said, my efficiency went from 50-90% just by adjusting my driving habits.
Good luck to you figuring this out, hope you get it settled.
I've taken three long road trips in five years. I've found the range used per leg to be very close to what is reported. Less than 10% inaccuracy. How are you measuring the real energy you claim the car used? If you are going by how much energy the car took on at the supercharger, it may be you got a supercharger with a problem and there was high resistance loss while supercharging. ie your car actually took on about 50 KWH of energy while supercharging, but the supercharger put out 69 KWH and 19 was lost in the equipment. That is a problem with that one supercharger and not a problem with your car or anything endemic to supercharging.
Tesla is better with their superchargers now, but back in 2016 I spoke with a tech at a supercharger when I had problems with slow charge rates on my trip. He said they were having problems with superchargers aging too quickly and he spent most of his time replacing parts that were wearing out from excessive heat. As they broke down, one of the failure modes was they tended to develop higher electrical resistance, the cables and handles would get very hot (I ran into this) because of resistive heating.
Every model of Tesla needs to go through EPA testing where they put the car through a standardized testing regime. Other countries have their own testing regime for determining real gas mileage/range. Most manufacturers base their range/gas mileage claims on the results from the testing agency. Occasionally a car maker may sandbag and claim less range or poorer gas mileage than the tests, which I believe has been the case with some EVs. However I believe there are laws against claiming more than the testing agency reports.
Most cars sold in both Europe and the US have better claimed range/gas mileage in Europe because the European agency's tests are not as close to real world conditions as the EPA and they come up with better numbers. In most cases the difference is around 20% if I remember right, though I know it differs from car to car.
On the highway EVs tend to do worse than their EPA rating because the EPA test focuses more on how people tend to drive in cities than on highways and EVs get their worst efficiency when driving at high speeds, whereas ICE tend to get their worst efficiencies in stop and go traffic (than regen for that).
I have read the criteria of the EPA test and for EVs they take into account the losses while charging the car (though they only charge the cars on AC), so they look at how much energy the car drew from the power mains, not how much went into the battery.
AC charging and DC charging do have different losses. If you charged a Tesla at the same rate as you do with AC charging, it would be more efficient than AC because the electricity goes directly into the battery and bypasses the AC charging equipment which has some losses (though the latest generations of AC chargers are way up in the 90%s for efficiency). DC charging has losses from electrical resistance anywhere along the line. Supercharger cables are thicker than AC charging cables in an attempt to keep I^2R losses down.
Copper has the lowest resistance of anything we know of in the temperature range we humans live in. There are superconductors that have zero resistance, but the best superconductors quit working above the temperature of liquid nitrogen. Kind of useless for everyday uses. So we use a lot of copper for electrical uses. Copper still has resistance though and it mounts up when you put a lot of current through it, the power loss goes up with the square of the current.
Batteries also get hot when you charge them fast due to their own internal resistances. If you've hung around a Tesla while supercharging the cooling fans and coolant pumps start going nuts after about 10-15 minutes because they are pumping coolant through the battery pack to cool the batteries.
Relatively low power DC charging is very efficient, but at the sorts of powers you draw from a supercharger, there are losses. Though losing 19 KWH to get 50 is excessively high and tells me that something was probably wrong with the individual supercharger you used.
I have free supercharging, so I've never had any indication how much energy was used to put energy in my battery pack. I would not be surprised to see 5-10% equipment loss while supercharging, but over 30 tells me something was wrong with the charger. I would try and contact Tesla because you were overcharged for their faulty equipment.
I thought I was a pretty efficient driver when I got my car. The first year my Wh/Mi was around 320, but since my MCU upgrade it's under 270 (it bounces around in the high 260s).
Your battery has certainly degraded to some extent and there is part of the battery capacity that serves as a buffer and is not accessible for driving. So you are not accurate in saying that you used 69kWh. You used 69% of available capacity, according to the car. What is your estimated/displayed range at 100% charge versus when new? That will give you an estimate of degradation and remaining capacity. Subtract the buffer (estimated to be around 4kWh) and your display might be pretty close to actual. However there is no question that the car displays some strange readings. Reset the trip odometer and drive 30 miles. Your Wh/mi shown on the trip odometer will almost certainly not match the 30 mile average shown on the energy graph. Sometimes close, sometimes not so close and I would expect them to match exactly. So you are probably correct in saying the readings are inaccurate versus the real world, but not by as much as you currently think.
Last edited:
I could be wrong but I interpreted what @T100d- wrote to mean that the car said it used 50 KWH of energy, but they were charged for 69 KWH at a supercharger. If true, I think something was wrong with the supercharger. But I may have misinterpreted the post.
This didn't involve a supercharger. My battery level went from 90% to 21% of a 100kWh capacity, so that's where i got the 69 kWh. If i were to recharge my battery from 21% to 90%, one might think that my wall charger will supply 69 kWh of energy (barring loses in the wall charger and in the wire from my electrical panel)
I don't charge the battery to 100%. My limit is 90% with 278 available miles. The rating on the car is 315, so if the relationship of % is linear to range, then at 100% i should have 308 miles miles is about 2% off of it's rating. The car has 16000 miles on it
Similar threads
- Locked
