M3 MR vs Chevy Bolt (energy consumption)

[Twiglett]

didn't realize this thread had got so big.
I realized that after driving a leaf for years I had got used to things like stressing about the amount of power the radio amp was drawing.
Initially after getting my Model 3 I would do the same thing and shiver on cold drives.
Six months later I don't care and just drive the car wherever I want - 13000 miles into the adventure, never worrying about vampire drain or stressing over watts. Got better things to do, like enjoying the car and staying warm.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

didn't realize this thread had got so big.
I realized that after driving a leaf for years I had got used to things like stressing about the amount of power the radio amp was drawing.
Initially after getting my Model 3 I would do the same thing and shiver on cold drives.
Six months later I don't care and just drive the car wherever I want - 13000 miles into the adventure, never worrying about vampire drain or stressing over watts. Got better things to do, like enjoying the car and staying warm.

That's cool. We're just trying to figure out what the Model 3 efficiency is here, counting watts (watt-hours really) & such, and comparing to the Bolt overall system efficiency, and speculating on reasons for differences.

I think we're pretty dialed in now; the Bolt is a LOT more efficient than the RWD Model 3, in the city, unless you drive a LOT of Model 3 miles, at which point the Bolt will be a little bit more efficient (10% better or so). And that's ok with me (though would be nice to eliminate the waste). I'd rather have a Model 3, and I do have a Model 3; these efficiency numbers were for the most part expected/known prior to my purchase.

 

[apsen]

Wow, I guess you were on the edge of your seat!

Some people like details, others don't. It's cool.

Some people just have to push their agenda no matter of the evidence

You've been member of this forum longer than I so you should have noted the names of those who would insist Teslas have no flaws whatsoever to the point they achieve opposite result with their zealousy. The less you feed them the less noise from them so try just to ignore them.

For me knowing the extent of winter efficiency loss and stand-by/vampire drain would have flipped the balance of my comparison between ICE vehicle and Model 3. I've compared my expenses on my current ICE and projected expenses of the Model 3 and it came out roughly between 7 to 25 years before cost of Model 3 ownership evens up with it. With the extra electricity cost that would have flipped to practically never. Keep in mind that I'm one of those that would have been trading in a Civic if I did a trade in so I wouldn't be buying different $60k car but something significantly cheaper. Also that accounts for the fact that the first 2.5 MWh of electricity a year would cost me at about 0.03 $/kWh (rate the utility pays for solar overproduction) and only then 0.12 $/kWh would kick in.

Right now I'm glad I've bought the car but if I had done better research back than I would be waiting for a 35k version or buying another ICE if one of my current ICE cars called it quits before base model came out.

In any case a few years down the road when I need to replace another car I'll be looking into something cheaper to own than my current M3D. I do not expect that other manufacturers would have anything compelling to offer at that point yet so it could as well happen to be a standard RWD Tesla but with a bunch of models supposedly coming out soon something worthwhile could come out several years down the road.

So, yes, Tesla can't rest on laurels and need to fix their problems starting with their non-existent service.

 

[chronopc]

Just to provide a data point. I haven't charged my Model 3 for 7 days and noticed a lost of 21 miles of expected range. However, the efficiency of the miles I've been driven averaged 200 wh/mi. So the phantom drain is probably a little bit more than 21 miles. Adding to the confusion, I have also spent some time over the course of the week (~30 minutes) sitting in my car idling which also adds to the drain. Taking everything into consideration, the 1-2% that is listed in the manual appears to be accurate for me.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Some people just have to push their agenda no matter of the evidence

You've been member of this forum longer than I so you should have noted the names of those who would insist Teslas have no flaws whatsoever to the point they achieve opposite result with their zealousy. The less you feed them the less noise from them so try just to ignore them.

For me knowing the extent of winter efficiency loss and stand-by/vampire drain would have flipped the balance of my comparison between ICE vehicle and Model 3. I've compared my expenses on my current ICE and projected expenses of the Model 3 and it came out roughly between 7 to 25 years before cost of Model 3 ownership evens up with it. With the extra electricity cost that would have flipped to practically never. Keep in mind that I'm one of those that would have been trading in a Civic if I did a trade in so I wouldn't be buying different $60k car but something significantly cheaper. Also that accounts for the fact that the first 2.5 MWh of electricity a year would cost me at about 0.03 $/kWh (rate the utility pays for solar overproduction) and only then 0.12 $/kWh would kick in.

Right now I'm glad I've bought the car but if I had done better research back than I would be waiting for a 35k version or buying another ICE if one of my current ICE cars called it quits before base model came out.

In any case a few years down the road when I need to replace another car I'll be looking into something cheaper to own than my current M3D. I do not expect that other manufacturers would have anything compelling to offer at that point yet so it could as well happen to be a standard RWD Tesla but with a bunch of models supposedly coming out soon something worthwhile could come out several years down the road.

So, yes, Tesla can't rest on laurels and need to fix their problems starting with their non-existent service.

The best thing for Tesla will be competition. The Bolt is not a similar vehicle, and does not have nearly the highway range (as others have noted, they care about how far they can go - even the MR has more range than the Bolt at highway speeds), even though it is at least 10-30% more efficient to operate in typical circumstances (most driving).
The Porsche will not be helpful for providing competition to Tesla amongst those who care about costs.
Hyundai - maybe - we’ll see, they seem to possibly have their act together.
My hope is that once the competition comes, these Tesla warts will become obvious to all and to the extent they can be fixed in software and are not limited by the hardware, they’ll be fixed. Existing owners could see better results.

Unfortunately vampire drain in particular is insidious and I don’t hold out hope it will be properly compared & covered by news media. They have a hard time getting anything right. It should come out of long term testing by Consumer Reports but I have not been paying attention.

 

[chronopc]

The best thing for Tesla will be competition. The Bolt is not a similar vehicle, and does not have nearly the highway range (as others have noted, they care about how far they can go - even the MR has more range than the Bolt at highway speeds), even though it is at least 10-30% more efficient to operate in typical circumstances (most driving).
The Porsche will not be helpful for providing competition to Tesla amongst those who care about costs.
Hyundai - maybe - we’ll see, they seem to possibly have their act together.
My hope is that once the competition comes, these Tesla warts will become obvious to all and to the extent they can be fixed in software and are not limited by the hardware, they’ll be fixed. Existing owners could see better results.

Unfortunately vampire drain in particular is insidious and I don’t hold out hope it will be properly compared & covered by news media. They have a hard time getting anything right. It should come out of long term testing by Consumer Reports but I have not been paying attention.

It'll be a while before Tesla faces a true competitor. No one else is taking EV production seriously.

While the Hyundai Kona is a pretty good car for the price. It is essentially a compliance car with the low volume they are planning to produce. The Kona is really just an ICE vehicle retrofitted to be an EV.

 

[apsen]

The best thing for Tesla will be competition. The Bolt is not a similar vehicle, and does not have nearly the highway range (as others have noted, they care about how far they can go - even the MR has more range than the Bolt at highway speeds), even though it is at least 10-30% more efficient to operate in typical circumstances (most driving).
The Porsche will not be helpful for providing competition to Tesla amongst those who care about costs.
Hyundai - maybe - we’ll see, they seem to possibly have their act together.

I have personal bias against Bolt so that is that otherwise it could have suited my needs. But I'm not talking one or two years but rather closer to five so it is hard to say how the things will develop.

Unfortunately vampire drain in particular is insidious and I don’t hold out hope it will be properly compared & covered by news media. They have a hard time getting anything right. It should come out of long term testing by Consumer Reports but I have not been paying attention.

I have my reservation regarding even Consumer Report's abilities to properly test complex systems due to the stuff not related to cars. So their car testing may be ok and I do not have enough insight to judge it but it makes me wonder. I'm still subscribing but mostly for the reliability statistics and the simpler stuff.

 

[sandeen]

I'll add my numbers, for a Model 3 LR AWD we bought at the very end of 2018.

• Wall meter: 543 Wh/mile: 2262 kWh for 4164 miles driven
• Car: 363 Wh/mile: 1507 kWh for 4164 miles driven

All but 2 charger sessions were at home, so actual energy in is only slightly higher than the 2262kWh above. Clearly lots of energy used which did not propel the car.

 

[StealthP3D]

Clearly lots of energy used which did not propel the car.

Just be glad it's MUCH better than gasoline.

 

[mswlogo]

Over winter the Vampire Drain was just horrible on the Model 3. Sometimes 20 miles a day. With some really dumb "cold weather" features and bugs.
Since newer builds and warmer temps it's been often (but not always) in the 2 miles a day range. So we know what it can do and to me that is nearly insignificant.

Also keep in mind that if you are comparing say a SR model with a Bolt for a fairer comparison, it's still somewhat apples and oranges. Since the M3 was built with the capability of a 75kwh battery and the capability of AWD, even the SR pays a price for that. If Tesla targeted a SR model from the ground up I suspect it would meet or beat all performance metrics with a Bolt. So there is no way really to fairly compare the two. Until a Bolt can reach 325 mile range. Then we'll see how efficient it really is. And by then the Model 3 will be 400 miles range.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I'll add my numbers, for a Model 3 LR AWD we bought at the very end of 2018.

• Wall meter: 543 Wh/mile: 2262 kWh for 4164 miles driven
• Car: 363 Wh/mile: 1507 kWh for 4164 miles driven

All but 2 charger sessions were at home, so actual energy in is only slightly higher than the 2262kWh above. Clearly lots of energy used which did not propel the car.

Cool. Good to see this data. Minnesota is a rough place for an EV! I assume you used cabin preheat while plugged in a fair amount? (I would not count cabin preheat as vampire drain, personally - it's just part of the energy cost (and the benefit) of having an EV. As you say, it's just energy that is used to not propel the car, but clearly it is of benefit, and relatively inexpensive.) Be sure to check in again once you have a few months without having to use the heat...obviously the driving efficiency will be much better, but curious about the delta.

 

[sandeen]

Just be glad it's MUCH better than gasoline.

Whether it's "MUCH" better depends on fuel costs and the mpg you're comparing to.

543 Wh/mile is 1.84 miles/kWh. At $0.15/kWh that's 8.2 cents/mile.
A 30mpg car with gas at $2.90 is $2.90/30 = 9.7 cents/mile.

So it's a bit better than an average car for me. Off peak charging rates would help. What I find more interesting is my real-life net "fuel efficiency" of 543 Wh/mile vs. the EPA rating of 270 Wh/mile.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

What I find more interesting is my real-life net "fuel efficiency" of 543 Wh/mile vs. the EPA rating of 270 Wh/mile.

Your average over the year is going to come down quite a lot. The A/C is much more efficient. You'll never hit the 270Wh/mi number (as an annual average) of course, but that is just the way the EPA cookie crumbles.

EDIT: To be fair, assuming one of the drivers of your high 543Wh/mi number was cabin pre-heat, if you did the same with an ICE, you'd be doing somewhat worse than the ICE EPA numbers as well (though nowhere near as badly, in percentage terms, compared to an EV - since the driving efficiency of an ICE in cold dry conditions is really not that different than in summer...but the preheat would cost some fuel).

 

[sandeen]

Cool. Good to see this data. Minnesota is a rough place for an EV! I assume you used cabin preheat while plugged in a fair amount?

Some yes, not a ton. And yes, it was a rough winter.
Since 4/25 my numbers have been:

• Wall meter: 371 Wh/mile: 129 kWh for 348 miles driven
• Car: 267 Wh/mile: 93 kWh for 348 miles driven

 

[StealthP3D]

Whether it's "MUCH" better depends on fuel costs and the mpg you're comparing to.

Cost doesn't even enter into the equation of energy efficiency. Gas prices fluctuate but what remains a constant is the very poor thermodynamic efficiency of internal combustion engines that just keeps getting worse as the engine wears out.

 

[MP3Mike]

A 30mpg car with gas at $2.90 is $2.90/30 = 9.7 cents/mile.

But of course you never get rated mileage on an ICE car either. So you have to down-rate that to some extent as well.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Some yes, not a ton. And yes, it was a rough winter.
Since 4/25 my numbers have been:

• Wall meter: 371 Wh/mile: 129 kWh for 348 miles driven
• Car: 267 Wh/mile: 93 kWh for 348 miles driven

This is surprisingly bad for this time of year (for the Wall meter). Still using any preheat? Any Sentry use? I would have expected a wall use of closer to 320-330Wh/mi for the above car data. (Simple rule of thumb is in spring/summer, you should see basically a 20% adder to the indicated car efficiency if you drive about 10k miles a year. But this assumes nothing "unusual" as far as losses go.)

 

[sandeen]

Cost doesn't even enter into the equation of energy efficiency. ... the very poor thermodynamic efficiency of internal combustion engines that just keeps getting worse as the engine wears out.

Oh, well - of course. I wan't trying to get into the big picture of well-to-wheels or mine-to-wheels or turbine-to-wheels efficiency. I'm just interested in how real life wall-to-wheels efficiency for my car compares to EPA efficiency numbers, and how that impacts cost of ownership.

 

[sandeen]

This is surprisingly bad for this time of year (for the Wall meter). Still using any preheat? Any Sentry use?

Not too much of either. Preheat really only 2-3 mins before departure. Cabin overheat protection is off. Stats-gathering apps have been disabled.

(Of course having said this, TODAY my wife turned on cabin preheat, then rode with her co-worker instead, and I got a notice 4hrs later that the car had decided it was time to turn off the climate control - but that is not at all a regular occurrence. )

 

[StealthP3D]

Your average over the year is going to come down quite a lot. The A/C is much more efficient. You'll never hit the 270Wh/mi number (as an annual average) of course, but that is just the way the EPA cookie crumbles.

The EPA rating doesn't include the energy consumed when pre-heating the cabin. It's the same with a fossil car, the MPG number represents the mileage for specific drive cycles that don't include warming the engine/cabin up.

Our Long Range Model 3 is one week shy of its 1 year birthday and it's lifetime average consumption is 236Wh/mile. It's driven mostly normally with the flow of traffic and we don't hesitate to use the heater and A/C to maintain a comfy cabin.