Kind of off topic, but I actually always found it odd how everyone here in the US pulls forward into spots. I grew up in Japan where most people back into spots. Maybe because of that but I prefer backing into spots even if I wasn't driving a Tesla.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Kind of off topic, but I actually always found it odd how everyone here in the US pulls forward into spots. I grew up in Japan where most people back into spots. Maybe because of that but I prefer backing into spots even if I wasn't driving a Tesla.
chronopc
Active Member
The cable is super short. If the port was in the middle of the car in front, it wouldn't reach.
Also, I like have a frunk.
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Agreed. The more you drive the less vampire matters (though it will be approximately a fixed cost regardless of how much you drive). I actually suspect that once we remove vampire drain, there will still be at least a 30Wh/mi difference, though.
There's no evidence for this. You can read & parse page 122 in the owner's manual carefully and you'll see that they say nothing about battery conditioning with regards to this drain. It is for "system tests" and "to power the onboard electronics". It does not provide any direct battery longevity benefit, based on what Tesla has told us so far. (Their gathering of data might help them fine tune things to provide better long term battery life, of course - but it's not clear that this necessitates a constant draw of 40W.) They certainly aren't doing anything directly to the battery; any such activity (rebalancing or whatever) would take far more energy.
As I said above, from an efficiency standpoint only, the Bolt is much better. Most people own a vehicle just to perform tasks, though, not for driving dynamics. Personally, I would never buy a Bolt (though I was tempted when the Model 3 did not come out on time), because it just does not drive the same way at all. I have a Spark EV and the driving dynamics leave a bit to be desired...I've autocrossed both vehicles. Not surprisingly the Tesla P3D is better.
@Dan123 I know you mentioned these tests were done "over months," but can you be any more specific with the timeframes? Then we could subtract an approximate vampire drain number from the Tesla....
Last edited:
chronopc
Active Member
It's a lot better in regards to safety to back into a stall.Kind of off topic, but I actually always found it odd how everyone here in the US pulls forward into spots. I grew up in Japan where most people back into spots. Maybe because of that but I prefer backing into spots even if I wasn't driving a Tesla.
For Bolt I did it between 3/15/2018 and 6/4/2018. However, there were parts of that time frame (about two weeks) that I excluded from the test because I charged away from home and didn't want it to taint the results.
For Tesla I started it on 12/10/2018. Still recording it.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
***Edited to make sense...****
Ok, neglecting 39 days (approximate) vampire drain then (not neglecting standby drain). I'm going to go with 500Wh/day, even though I think that may be slightly low. Basically I had to fudge the number lower than what I think is possible to fit the data in the car (the Energy consumption per car MUST be lower than the energy put into the car times the charger efficiency). Unfortunately there are quite a few unknowns here (exact charger efficiency matters). So hard to determine precisely what the efficiency "would be" without vampire drain. Really you just have to leave vampire in to get the true number...like in the above post.
But anyway, fudging away.....
These adjusted numbers imply 146*0.93 = 135.8kWh actually used by the car, and the car displays 134kWh - generally this ratio is closer to 1 than I would expect. So probably the Tesla charger efficiency is a bit higher than 93%, that's my guess. Also we have no idea what the vampire drain really was...
***
Total Distance: 1187 miles
Energy Consumption Per Car: 253 kWh (0.2125 kWh/mile)
Energy Consumption Per Charger: 270.86 kWh (0.2280 kWh/mile)
For Tesla M3 MR:
Total Distance: 569.7
Energy Consumption Per Car: 134 kWh (0.2352 kWh/mile)
Energy Consumption Per Charger: 167 kWh (0.2934 kWh/mile)
En Con Per Charger Minus Vampire: 167kWh -0.50kWh/day*39days/(0.93) = 146kWh (0.256kWh/mi)
Bolt Range on a Full charge with this use scenario:
1187mi/(270.86kWh*0.93)*58kWh = 273 miles
Model 3 MR on a Full charge with this use scenario (neglect vampire):
569.7mi/(146kWh*0.93)*62kWh = 260 miles (vampire effects neglected - with vampire it was 227 miles)
Again, simplifying assuming 93% charger efficiency in both cases, which is probably not exactly correct for either vehicle (closer to 94% for the Bolt just based on the OP's numbers). Real range numbers are probably a couple % lower than these.
Ok, neglecting 39 days (approximate) vampire drain then (not neglecting standby drain). I'm going to go with 500Wh/day, even though I think that may be slightly low. Basically I had to fudge the number lower than what I think is possible to fit the data in the car (the Energy consumption per car MUST be lower than the energy put into the car times the charger efficiency). Unfortunately there are quite a few unknowns here (exact charger efficiency matters). So hard to determine precisely what the efficiency "would be" without vampire drain. Really you just have to leave vampire in to get the true number...like in the above post.
But anyway, fudging away.....
These adjusted numbers imply 146*0.93 = 135.8kWh actually used by the car, and the car displays 134kWh - generally this ratio is closer to 1 than I would expect. So probably the Tesla charger efficiency is a bit higher than 93%, that's my guess. Also we have no idea what the vampire drain really was...
***
Total Distance: 1187 miles
Energy Consumption Per Car: 253 kWh (0.2125 kWh/mile)
Energy Consumption Per Charger: 270.86 kWh (0.2280 kWh/mile)
For Tesla M3 MR:
Total Distance: 569.7
Energy Consumption Per Car: 134 kWh (0.2352 kWh/mile)
Energy Consumption Per Charger: 167 kWh (0.2934 kWh/mile)
En Con Per Charger Minus Vampire: 167kWh -0.50kWh/day*39days/(0.93) = 146kWh (0.256kWh/mi)
Bolt Range on a Full charge with this use scenario:
1187mi/(270.86kWh*0.93)*58kWh = 273 miles
Model 3 MR on a Full charge with this use scenario (neglect vampire):
569.7mi/(146kWh*0.93)*62kWh = 260 miles (vampire effects neglected - with vampire it was 227 miles)
Again, simplifying assuming 93% charger efficiency in both cases, which is probably not exactly correct for either vehicle (closer to 94% for the Bolt just based on the OP's numbers). Real range numbers are probably a couple % lower than these.
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Model 3 MR:
Energy Consumption Per Car: 134 kWh (0.2352 kWh/mile)
Bolt:
Energy Consumption Per Car: 253 kWh (0.2125 kWh/mile)
Another simpler way to look at it, obviously, if you want to focus on battery to wheels efficiency - the 134kWh reported by the Model 3 is the absolute best case (true consumption number even neglecting vampire is almost certainly a couple kWh higher). But for true driving efficiency 134kWh is the right number.
So the true driving efficiency delta between Bolt and Model 3 MR is about 20Wh/mi. That isn't too surprising given the stickier Model 3 tires and the likely effects of a high standby load to power onboard electronics (poor budgeting from Tesla is my guess). Obviously assumes similar driving for both observation windows.
I think “standby losses” are larger than people think. Way more than vampire. At least in cold climate it is.
I wish there was an option to only turn HVAC on when in Drive. Like when I’m packing or in packing the heat is going full blast and so don’t need it.
The moment you touch the handle to the momemnt you clear of the car the heat is going often without the car moving.
Although in the particular comparison with the Bolt I don’t think heat was huge factor. But if HVAC was in Auto A/C could have been unnecessarily running.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Yeah, Miami this time of year is probably a pretty ideal time to do this test. Really takes a diligent experimenter to leave climate control off all the time. From the OP it sounds like his use was pretty minimal (which I would expect at this time of year).
They definitely can be very high. But I'd expect them to be similar for the Bolt/Model 3 to the extent they are due to heating. It would be nice to have an option where the climate control was always off when you got in the car, though I think that would be used by only a very small minority of people, as it's exactly what most people don't want.
Kind of off topic, but I actually always found it odd how everyone here in the US pulls forward into spots. I grew up in Japan where most people back into spots. Maybe because of that but I prefer backing into spots even if I wasn't driving a Tesla.
I think that is the difference of folks being anxious to get to work vs those being anxious to leave work
I think the Tesla leans very towards comfort with little concern for efficiency when it comes to the HVAC. I think it could be a heck of lot smarter in Auto too, minimize A/C and possibly regulate outside air as opposed to all on vs all off. It’s always recirculate off and A/C on when in Auto. Which is often excessive energy use.
Granted I’m not sure how much that impacts this one test. Or how aggressive Bolt is around comfort vs efficiency. You can certainly be comfortable in either. It’s just how aggressive it is to minimize waiting or minimize fiddling around with HVAC. Auto will certainly work at making you comfy.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
City range is not very important. What matters is the range on the highway going 70 mph, that's when people care about range. And the Tesla is going to win this one. The rated range is a mix of city and highway driving.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Certainly agree that for highway the Tesla will do better (and the higher the speed the better it will look). Greater energy consumption per mile & greater usage per unit time makes the baseline load and the vampire load much less important. But, there are plenty of people who have use situations where the city range matters. As already said here, the faster you put miles on the car, the less important these other factors are (they're an approximately fixed cost).
Well, in places where electricity is expensive, this can make a difference.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Prius and the Camry Hybrid are pretty much the lowest cost vehicles to operate right now already (even with electricity at $0.10/kWh), and the vampire drain makes it a no-brainer. (At least, it is really close....) Didn't realize gas was below $2/gallon in much of the country (heard on radio this morning)! Live in California and don't visit gas stations...
Not nearly as nice to drive though.
EDIT: At $0.10/kWh guess the crossover is gas at $1.50/gallon. But in some places it can be hard to get that electric rate. Anyway, super off-topic.
Not nearly as nice to drive though.
EDIT: At $0.10/kWh guess the crossover is gas at $1.50/gallon. But in some places it can be hard to get that electric rate. Anyway, super off-topic.
Last edited:
chronopc
Active Member
At 25 cents per KwH it's going to take a lot of distance before it makes a significant difference monetary wise. I would imagine people who drive a ton on highways are the ones who will see the most $ savings vs. those who mostly do city driving.
EPA ratings are for the car moving according to the schedules, not parked. That's really what you care about once you unplug/leave the gas pump.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
That is incorrect. Look at the window sticker for the Model 3. MPGe supposed to be wall to wheel efficiency (it includes charging losses) and they include an estimated yearly cost based on average electricity price and mileage. Probably because ICE vehicles and other EVs do not have significant vampire drain they did not include it in the test.
chronopc
Active Member
ICE don't have vampire drain but they have being stuck in traffic lost. I'm pretty sure an ICE vehicle doesn't get anywhere near the EPA rated range either.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
True if you don't drive like the test you won't get the same mileage as the test. They're trying to make one number represent normal usage. I'm not sure how much, if any, extremely low speed driving is in the test.
A Prius will get way more than the rated MPG when stuck in traffic from my experience. It does seem like the Model 3 doesn't do all that well in super slow traffic because the computer uses so much power.
It would be cool if they forced manufacturers to submit a computer model for their cars energy usage and you could input a log of your driving pattern and get exactly what your energy usage would be.
Similar threads
