LR AWD now rated by Tesla at 322 miles of range

[Occar]

That's because the bump didn't give you anything besides software change that estimates the range further. You didn't actually gain more range.

The LR RWD was rated at 310, same as AWD, but EPA ratings for it is actually 331 miles. So they simply updated the estimated range.

What we're seeing now is different, it's actually claiming more range than EPA states for AWD. So I expect this bump up to have real range increase.

I see this thrown around a lot but the evidence does not support it at all. The change you're implying (a change to the Wh/m used on internal calculations) would have also increased the miles per hour charge rate displayed on our home chargers (at least if charging at 40 amp). This didn't occur. 40A@240V before and after the change are still 38 miles/hour. The change that you assert occurred would have pushed it up to 39.

The other (and more likely) theory is that the LR RWD originally had a software lock on part of the battery capacity to keep the range more in line with the AWD, and that was removed.

 

[TMThree]

I see this thrown around a lot but the evidence does not support it at all. The change you're implying (a change to the Wh/m used on internal calculations) would have also increased the miles per hour charge rate displayed on our home chargers (at least if charging at 40 amp). This didn't occur. 40A@240V before and after the change are still 38 miles/hour. The change that you assert occurred would have pushed it up to 39.

The other (and more likely) theory is that the LR RWD originally had a software lock on part of the battery capacity to keep the range more in line with the AWD, and that was removed.

That doesn't make sense.

LR AWD with 18" aeros performs 308 miles on the EPA test, listed at 310.

Performance with 20" rims performs 280 miles on the EPA test, listed at 310.

LR RWD with 18" aeros performs 331 miles on the EPA test, listed at 310.

For the LR RWD to get a 331 number, that means it already had that capacity. It couldn't have scored 331 without it. If it had unlocked additional capacity, it's range would be pretty fantastic. But no one had more range than before, which is why some people think the range increases stated by Tesla are a joke. All that happened is that this specific model was under rated.

In fact, even at 325 mile range, its the only car in the model 3 lineup that is under rated, it's still 2% over.

PS: Changing the estimate used for Wh doesn't change the voltage readings. That's just ridiculous. SR is lighter and has a lower Wh value than the Performance. The charger readings have nothing to do with it.

 

[Occar]

You totally misunderstood. It *would* change the result of the power divided by Wh/mile and the displayed charge rate in miles. Where on earth did you get voltage readings out of that?

Pre-change, we were able to charge at 38 miles of charge per hour (which the car calculates by dividing the power by the rated usage). You're saying they just reduced the rated power per mile by ~4.8% (what would be required to get the range display to go up by 5%. This change is enough that would have caused the miles per hour of charge to change from 38 to 39 at 40A@240V.


If the 5% extra range was just a change of the Wh/m constant. We would see that in the energy tab (people noticed that the "rated" line didn't change. It stayed exactly where it was.

 

[VT_EE]

I see this thrown around a lot but the evidence does not support it at all. The change you're implying (a change to the Wh/m used on internal calculations) would have also increased the miles per hour charge rate displayed on our home chargers (at least if charging at 40 amp). This didn't occur. 40A@240V before and after the change are still 38 miles/hour. The change that you assert occurred would have pushed it up to 39.

The other (and more likely) theory is that the LR RWD originally had a software lock on part of the battery capacity to keep the range more in line with the AWD, and that was removed.

You totally misunderstood. It *would* change the result of the power divided by Wh/mile and the displayed charge rate in miles. Where on earth did you get voltage readings out of that?

Pre-change, we were able to charge at 38 miles of charge per hour (which the car calculates by dividing the power by the rated usage). You're saying they just reduced the rated power per mile by ~4.8% (what would be required to get the range display to go up by 5%. This change is enough that would have caused the miles per hour of charge to change from 38 to 39 at 40A@240V.


If the 5% extra range was just a change of the Wh/m constant. We would see that in the energy tab (people noticed that the "rated" line didn't change. It stayed exactly where it was.

The rated line in the energy tab was moved from around ~240Wh/mi to around ~230 when the RWD LR got the last boost from 310 to 325. At some point late spring or early summer, mine went back to ~240Wh/mi. At the same time I lost about 15mi of max estimated range. I have a RWD and have not received the most recent update Musk has been talking about.

 

[Occar]

I think you are mistaken there. I still have the full range and mine seems to be at 240. I'll check it later today as my car is currently sitting at 244 Wh/m for the 5 mile range. I'll push it down to 239 if I can when I leave later (might be tough due to the weather though) and report back tomorrow/Monday.

 

[TMThree]

The rated line in the energy tab was moved from around ~240Wh/mi to around ~230 when the RWD LR got the last boost from 310 to 325. At some point late spring or early summer, mine went back to ~240Wh/mi. At the same time I lost about 15mi of max estimated range. I have a RWD and have not received the most recent update Musk has been talking about.

I had the same thing happen to me. I started with 325 miles, an update took it away, and then they gave it back to me - but it took a while before it fully restored in the readings.

 

[Occar]

Yeah, that has happened to a lot of people, but the guy above is the first I've seen claim that the Wh/m line on the consumption graph was moving around.

 

[VT_EE]

I had the same thing happen to me. I started with 325 miles, an update took it away, and then they gave it back to me - but it took a while before it fully restored in the readings.

Wow. That is wild. I wonder what my deal is. Where is your rated line in the energy graph?

 

[Occar]

I have a LR RWD with the 325 range. 244 Wh/mi is above the rated line and 237 Wh/mi is below it. Your assertion that the 325 range comes with a 230 Wh/mi is demonstrably false. I will post images tomorrow. I won’t have access to a PC until then and posting from a phone is a pain.

 

[Rothgarr]

I'm not going to answer your question, but I will ask you a question. Do you think a 100% increase in power would mean a 0.0s 0-60 as well?

I don't know how it works. Why not just explain it?

 

[Rothgarr]

No. Does not work that way.

How does it work, then? Is there no increase in acceleration with the update?

 

[VT_EE]

I have a LR RWD with the 325 range. 244 Wh/mi is above the rated line and 237 Wh/mi is below it. Your assertion that the 325 range comes with a 230 Wh/mi is demonstrably false. I will post images tomorrow. I won’t have access to a PC until then and posting from a phone is a pain.

Really now? I'm glad you are so confident in the consistency of current and past Tesla software loads. I don't doubt your word as you apparently doubt mine. I'm sure your "rated" line in the energy graph sits at ~240 as you say.

 

[KenC]

I had the same thing happen to me. I started with 325 miles, an update took it away, and then they gave it back to me - but it took a while before it fully restored in the readings.

Yeah, but imagine how much you enjoyed seeing that line go up, week after week, month after month!

 

[M109Rider]

Better seats, more luxury, better service?

There's always a tradeoff somewhere.

lol. I have to ask why on earth you hang around here.
you seem to take every opportunity to negatively bash Tesla.
This is an open forum, so anything goes I guess, but most people are here because they are passionate about this car. It’s kind of the reason for the forum.
Are you here, to fill some need to bash Tesla. ?

 

[TMThree]

Yeah, but imagine how much you enjoyed seeing that line go up, week after week, month after month!

yes, nothing like seeing your car lose 5% range after 500 miles. lol

I knew it was just software. No way it dropped down to 310 by chance.

 

[run-the-joules]

lol. I have to ask why on earth you hang around here.
you seem to take every opportunity to negatively bash Tesla.
This is an open forum, so anything goes I guess, but most people are here because they are passionate about this car. It’s kind of the reason for the forum.
Are you here, to fill some need to bash Tesla. ?

I’m hoping someday they’ll offer good seats, which they won’t do unless they know people aren’t happy with the current ones.

For the record, I love the car overall but it’s far from perfect. I do not like Tesla as a company, though I’ll continue to buy from them until someone brings out a better product.

 

[S3XY]

lol. I have to ask why on earth you hang around here.
you seem to take every opportunity to negatively bash Tesla.
This is an open forum, so anything goes I guess, but most people are here because they are passionate about this car. It’s kind of the reason for the forum.
Are you here, to fill some need to bash Tesla. ?

He was very pro-Tesla until he had an issue with his car. I don't recall the details ATM.

 

[run-the-joules]

He was very pro-Tesla until he had an issue with his car. I don't recall the details ATM.

its 99.99% the way they’re handling FSD. Plus the seats and service

 

[Big Earl]

I’m hoping someday they’ll offer good seats, which they won’t do unless they know people aren’t happy with the current ones.

For the record, I love the car overall but it’s far from perfect. I do not like Tesla as a company, though I’ll continue to buy from them until someone brings out a better product.

I think the seats are great. Some of the best I’ve sat in... not that that’s important in a range discussion. *shrug*

 

[run-the-joules]

I think the seats are great. Some of the best I’ve sat in... not that that’s important in a range discussion. *shrug*

Yeah I don’t want to derail things too far. Suffice to say I find them lacking and the reasons why are a solved problem.