Long range Model 3 has 334 miles range according to EPA

[dsvick]

OK. In 6-8 weeks, we will know the true range and if Tesla is hiding other goodies about the Model 3.

I'd be very surprised if they suddenly change the stated range in a month or two.

 

[KarenRei]

It is possible that the new chemistry of the gigafactory cells has a rapid initial capacity loss. If you look at the data coming out of the Roadster v3 battery pack (which is yet another type of cell), you'll see rapid initial capacity loss. So maybe that's why Tesla is under reporting range.

3.0 Battery Longevity

Isn't the V3 battery 18650 cells?

Also, that thread doesn't seem to support your claim. I haven't gotten that far into it, but so far I've seen:

slcasner reports 2,5% degradation in 6 months, which is normal for, say, Model S.
Spaceballs reports 0,2% degradation in 6 months, which would be unusually low for a Model S, but within the range.
bolosky reports 6% degradation in 4 months, which would be unusually high for a Model S, but within the range.

Average degradation for a Model S is ~4% in the first year, and then it slows down to about half a percent per year after that, maybe a bit more. There is of course significant variation.

 

[T34ME]

If Tesla had been out there plugging combined mileage figures, people would be really mad when they got their cars, got on the highway, and found they couldn't actually go that far.

Especially when they drive 80 mph on the highway!

 

[internalaudit]

Show me a Tesla with abnormal degradation that is not linked to a direct failure of battery cells/modules. That's the cool part of science, you make your hypothesis and then you prove it with evidence. The Tesla fleet is starting to get old now and I have yet to see a flood of cars with severe range reductions because of battery aging issues.

Could it be fewer Tesla owners are complaining because the batteries are being replaced proactively?

With the Leaf, Nissan was forced to provide a capacity warranty after the class action lawsuit. I'm just wondering if for Tesla, there are just too many loyal owners who don't want to leak out the bad press.

 

[jelloslug]

Could it be fewer Tesla owners are complaining because the batteries are being replaced proactively?

With the Leaf, Nissan was forced to provide a capacity warranty after the class action lawsuit. I'm just wondering if for Tesla, there are just too many loyal owners who don't want to leak out the bad press.

I seriously doubt that people would just not say anything if there were real issues.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Isn't the V3 battery 18650 cells?

Also, that thread doesn't seem to support your claim. I haven't gotten that far into it, but so far I've seen:

slcasner reports 2,5% degradation in 6 months, which is normal for, say, Model S.
Spaceballs reports 0,2% degradation in 6 months, which would be unusually low for a Model S, but within the range.
bolosky reports 6% degradation in 4 months, which would be unusually high for a Model S, but within the range.

Average degradation for a Model S is ~4% in the first year, and then it slows down to about half a percent per year after that, maybe a bit more. There is of course significant variation.

Read until the end of the thread. But no, I don't believe the Roadster cells are the same as the Model S and X cells. They were sourced from a different manufacturer.

 

[internalaudit]

I seriously doubt that people would just not say anything if there were real issues.

When my brother was attending business school, his professor did mention how Rolls Royce would fix everything wrong about the cars and with that good will , not a lot of bad things about the company or cars go out.

Over at Tesla's own forum, a thread that speaks a little negative about the car is subject to deletion. You can tell here at TMC that there is not a lot of hatred, unlike over at other car forums where past owners linger and spread ill about the company. I would presume Tesla Model S and X owners are more mature and are typically more affluent that they would just move back to their original marquee brand instead of bashing Tesla on forums or blogs.

I'm not filthy rich and just middle class but would not make up negative stuff to tarnish the reputation of any person or company. But there are lots of trolls and silly people on the anonymous web.

 

[jelloslug]

When my brother was attending business school, his professor did mention how Rolls Royce would fix everything wrong about the cars and with that good will , not a lot of bad things about the company or cars go out.

Over at Tesla's own forum, a thread that speaks a little negative about the car is subject to deletion. You can tell here at TMC that there is not a lot of hatred, unlike over at other car forums where past owners linger and spread ill about the company. I would presume Tesla owners are more mature and are typically more affluent that they would just move back to their original marquee brand instead of bashing Tesla on forums or blogs.

There is an endless supply of threads here from people with problems. I'm not saying that Tesla is just ignoring everyone and just letting issues go unaddressed, I'm saying that if there was a systemic issue with degrading batteries, people here would be making spreadsheet and charts with production dates and miles and charging habits.

 

[gambit48]

There are plenty of Tesla "problem" videos on YouTube as well, but the problems are pretty scattered. It pretty much matches the randomness of stories on the web. Granted, there aren't exactly a ton of Teslas currently on the road (compared to say, the yearly production of a Toyota Camry), but still, if there was some huge trend like the Leaf batteries, I'm pretty sure people would have noticed. Especially considering the microscope Tesla is under.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

It is possible that the new chemistry of the gigafactory cells has a rapid initial capacity loss. If you look at the data coming out of the Roadster v3 battery pack (which is yet another type of cell), you'll see rapid initial capacity loss. So maybe that's why Tesla is under reporting range.

3.0 Battery Longevity

Ideally, the ~4k miles Tesla (any manufacturer really) puts on the car prior to EPA testing will help sort some of that out. Granted, there will still be capacity loss due to age, but the older/more cycles the car has, the smaller those losses tend to be.

 

[Snerruc]

If you can find a thread containing it, there is a plot of degradation of dozens or more Tesla batteries over time/ miles. Tesla batteries hold up extremely well according to actual data. There is one that lost only 6% in 206,000 miles. One data point: my s75 charged to 247 when new . Yesterday after 13 months, it charged to 243. Also, these numbers are an APPROXIMATION from a calculation, they need to be calibrated and compared to actual use.

 

[gregincal]

Why do people keep talking about 334, as if combined mileage is what matters for almost anyone? I don't get this.

Highway mileage is what matters. The difference is 318 vs. 310, not 334 vs. 310. If Tesla had been out there plugging combined mileage figures, people would be really mad when they got their cars, got on the highway, and found they couldn't actually go that far.

EPA range is EPA range. There is only ever one EPA range figure, unlike the MPGe figures, where there is City, Highway and Combined. The EPA defines what the EPA range figure means, not you. Whether it makes sense or not is beside the point. That said, the Model 3 appears to suffer more on the highway compared to the EPA range than the Model S and Model X (which both do better on the highway than the city), so that could be a reason why they decided to lower the EPA range figure.

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

I think Tesla learned this lesson from the original 85 cars.

Can you elaborate?

 

[brianman]

Model 3 appears to suffer more on the highway compared to the EPA range than the Model S and Model X (which both do better on the highway than the city), so that could be a reason why they decided to lower the EPA range figure.

Probably worthy of a new thread, but it would be interesting to hear some science-based theories on this point.

 

[transpondster]

Probably worthy of a new thread, but it would be interesting to hear some science-based theories on this point.

it's bad wording, actually 3 fixes city range inefficiency of S/X while still being very efficient in highway speeds, every other EV have higher city range...
I agree with Karen that probably Tesla lowered 3 rated range because highway range is all that matters and high city efficiency would inflate EPA range compared to S/X

 

[jhs_7645]

Why do people keep talking about 334, as if combined mileage is what matters for almost anyone? I don't get this.

Highway mileage is what matters. The difference is 318 vs. 310, not 334 vs. 310. If Tesla had been out there plugging combined mileage figures, people would be really mad when they got their cars, got on the highway, and found they couldn't actually go that far.

Very, very good point. In city mileage just does not matter for the VAST majority of Model 3 drivers

 

[gregincal]

Probably worthy of a new thread, but it would be interesting to hear some science-based theories on this point.

AFAIK the best guess is that it's because they switched to a permanent magnet motor like all the other EVs, and that's more efficient for city driving.

 

[Canuck]

It is possible that the new chemistry of the gigafactory cells has a rapid initial capacity loss. If you look at the data coming out of the Roadster v3 battery pack (which is yet another type of cell), you'll see rapid initial capacity loss. So maybe that's why Tesla is under reporting range.

Silicon was added to the batteries starting with the 90's and they showed faster initial degradation than the 85's. There's a long thread here about it. Does anyone know if silicon is still being added to S/X batteries and if it will be the 3's batteries?

It would be interesting to hear the 100% numbers from early 90's owners with silicon to compare with 85 owners without it.

Show me a Tesla with abnormal degradation that is not linked to a direct failure of battery cells/modules. That's the cool part of science, you make your hypothesis and then you prove it with evidence. The Tesla fleet is starting to get old now and I have yet to see a flood of cars with severe range reductions because of battery aging issues.

Did you even read my post? The "cool" part of science you talk about is here -- these are facts -- the hypothesis about lithium ion batteries have been proven with evidence. See the nice graphs? -- these come from testing, observation, then recording results. This is why Tesla has a "Daily Driving" slider.

These batteries have a certain lifespan that is directed related to (1) cycles (2) age and (3) manner of use. Unless there is no thermal cooling, like Nissan, 5 years is far too early to tell when it comes to the effects of battery degradation. To say 5 years is "old now" is laughable. I can still drive around the block on my 10 year old batteries in my Tahoe Hybrid that I bought new in 2008 and I plan to try to get another 10 years from them. My Tesla is coming up to 4 years and I am suppose to think in another year that the batteries are "old now"? I've only lost a few percentage and I don't expect much of a change in another year. We know the cathodes in each cell won't start to show more severe degradation for many years but like our bodies, how we treat them now will show up later. This is different from a battery failure but you seem to confuse the two when you talk about degradation and failure together. We will agree that battery failures are uncommon. As to degradation issues we will agree to disagree. I say it's far too early to tell, that we know the science and should follow it if it makes no difference to us (and not follow it when we need more range except to drive soon after charging to 100%), and that Tesla gives a slider for good reason and to use it -- and not to just set it at 90 and forget about it -- if battery degradation is a concern to you.

Your "science" of telling us about your battery and others, is not science at all. It's similar to saying that climate change science is a hoax because the weather is fine in my back yard, and I checked with all my friends and their weather is fine too.

 

[jelloslug]

Silicon was added to the batteries starting with the 90's and they showed faster initial degradation than the 85's. There's a long thread here about it. Does anyone know if silicon is still being added to S/X batteries and if it will be the 3's batteries?

It would be interesting to hear the 100% numbers from early 90's owners with silicon to compare with 85 owners without it.



Did you even read my post? The "cool" part of science you talk about is here -- these are facts -- the hypothesis about lithium ion batteries have been proven with evidence. See the nice graphs? -- these come from testing, observation, then recording results. This is why Tesla has a "Daily Driving" slider.

These batteries have a certain lifespan that is directed related to (1) cycles (2) age and (3) manner of use. Unless there is no thermal cooling, like Nissan, 5 years is far too early to tell when it comes to the effects of battery degradation. To say 5 years is "old now" is laughable. I can still drive around the block on my 10 year old batteries in my Tahoe Hybrid that I bought new in 2008 and I plan to try to get another 10 years from them. My Tesla is coming up to 4 years and I am suppose to think in another year that the batteries are "old now"? I've only lost a few percentage and I don't expect much of a change in another year. We know the cathodes in each cell won't start to show more severe degradation for many years but like our bodies, how we treat them now will show up later. This is different from a battery failure but you seem to confuse the two when you talk about degradation and failure together. We will agree that battery failures are uncommon. As to degradation issues we will agree to disagree. I say it's far too early to tell, that we know the science and should follow it if it makes no difference to us (and not follow it when we need more range except to drive soon after charging to 100%), and that Tesla gives a slider for good reason and to use it -- and not to just set it at 90 and forget about it -- if battery degradation is a concern to you.

Your "science" of telling us about your battery and others, is not science at all. It's similar to saying that climate change science is a hoax because the weather is fine in my back yard, and I checked with all my friends and their weather is fine too.

I'm not referring to my own experiences or even a hand picked sample lot as the be all to end all. What I said is there is currently no evidence of abnormal degradation related to charging habits thus far in the Tesla fleet.

 

[jelloslug]

Can you elaborate?

The 85 was rated at ~265 miles of range but at normal highway speeds you will see more like 240 miles. Also, even though it was called "85" it was more like "77".