M3 MR vs Chevy Bolt (energy consumption)

[chronopc]

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.

I don't think the computer uses that much power. I notice a significant increase in efficiency when I'm stuck in traffic. If I'm averaging less than 50mph I can easily get over 310 miles with my LR Model 3.

 

[Daniel in SD]

I don't think the computer uses that much power. I notice a significant increase in efficiency when I'm stuck in traffic. If I'm averaging less than 50mph I can easily get over 310 miles with my LR Model 3.

Yeah, I guess it would probably only matter if you were in LA 5mph traffic. Obviously the power to run EAP is totally worth it.

BTW the average speed of the EPA city cycle is 21mph: FTP-75 - Wikipedia

 

[insaneoctane]

So for Chevy Bolt:
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)

Here's my LR data:
Total Distance: 16,112.0
Energy Consumption Per Car: 3,797.5 kWh (0.2465 kWh/mile)
Energy Consumption Per Charger: 4,417.2 kWh (0.2850 kWh/mile)

And to confirm the inaccuracy of the dash indicated numbers, my "per car" above is via the API, the in-car display shows 0.227 kWh/mi for this same period!

 

[StealthP3D]

Here's my LR data:
Total Distance: 16,112.0
Energy Consumption Per Car: 3,797.5 kWh (0.2465 kWh/mile)
Energy Consumption Per Charger: 4,417.2 kWh (0.2850 kWh/mile)

And to confirm the inaccuracy of the dash indicated numbers, my "per car" above is via the API, the in-car display shows 0.217 kWh/mi for this same period!

That's great! I don't track it as closely as you but I'm always pleasantly surprised how efficient our two Model 3's are. We have a separate electrical service/meter/panel just for our carport where we charge both our LR and P3D and the bill for charging/carport lighting is ridiculously small compared to what we were spending on gasoline.

The efficiency comparisons between the Bolt and Model 3 are interesting from an analytical perspective but as far as financial impact goes, well, I don't think it's going to change too many peoples lifestyle in any measureable way. Maybe if I lived in Hawaii where the rate is three times as much, even then, I would be more concerned about all the extra oil the electrical co-op needed to burn (at least until the solar build-out is more mature).

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Here's my LR data:
Total Distance: 16,112.0
Energy Consumption Per Car: 3,797.5 kWh (0.2465 kWh/mile)
Energy Consumption Per Charger: 4,417.2 kWh (0.2850 kWh/mile)

And to confirm the inaccuracy of the dash indicated numbers, my "per car" above is via the API, the in-car display shows 0.217 kWh/mi for this same period!

Looks to me like the API is still missing something, though, because 3797/4417 = 86% would be pretty uncompetitive charger efficiency. Presumably vampire drain but no idea. Don’t know the details of what the API can see. You’d think it would be possible for it to keep track of that, just with state of charge, but maybe there are loopholes.

 

[lolder]

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.

I think you may be incorrect. MPGe on the window sticker is tank or battery to wheels, not "wall" or well to wheels per Wikipedia: Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent - Wikipedia

 

[lolder]

The OPs 25 miles/day is about 6 kwh. The M3 residual of 1%/day is about 0.750 kwh. That's the 12.5% that is being mistakenly attributed as the M3's poorer charger inefficiency. The OP is saying it costs more to run the M3 in his situation. He's not saying that the Bolt is more efficient on the road which it isn't. After you unplug, how far the car will go on the next drive is probably more important to most people. The $ 0.075 ( at SF $0.10/kwh incremental cost ) per day is probably not. The Bolt is a good commuter car. It's slower fast charging, lack of fast charging network and higher highway energy use make it less competitive with the M3 for trips that require a charge during the trip.

 

[SageBrush]

Tesla people are unhappy with the vampire losses while owners of EVs from other manufacturers are unhappy with their car apps that are poorly responsive or not at all.

Pick your poison.

 

[StealthP3D]

Tesla people are unhappy with the vampire losses while owners of EVs from other manufacturers are unhappy with their car apps that are poorly responsive or not at all.

I like to think of my wife and myself as "Tesla people" considering my wife and I each have a Model 3.

Neither of us is unhappy with the "vampire" losses, not even a little bit. We recognize that powerful computers, remote connectivity and superior battery management are all functions that we are willing to spend a few cents a day to have their benefits.

So it's baffling to me why you claim "Tesla people are unhappy with the vampire losses" when it is mostly just a very vocal few who claim they care. Probably the number one thing that impresses me about the Model 3 is its range and overall efficiency. This is especially impressive when you consider that other manufacturers still haven't been able to match it, let alone beat it, at least not with a car with comparable capacity and performance.

And before one of the more vocal ones claims that it would be all well and good if the normal vampire losses were necessary, but that we could have the same functionality without them, please document exactly where the electricity is being consumed, and how that could be avoided, before casting blind stones. Because I don't think the "vampire drain" brigade knows what they are talking about relative to the electrical engineers at Tesla.

In the meantime, my wife and I will continue to pay the (small) electrical bill for the new meter installed in our carport and marvel over how we can drive such spectacular cars with such low operating costs. If you think I might be a "Tesla fanboi", there are two very good reasons for that and they are both sitting in our carport.

 

[SageBrush]

^^ I was not implying that the complainers are a majority, or even a large fraction. I do want them to understand that a trade-off is involved.

 

[Daniel in SD]

I think you may be incorrect. MPGe on the window sticker is tank or battery to wheels, not "wall" or well to wheels per Wikipedia: Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent - Wikipedia

For EPA, this considers the tank-to-wheel for liquids and wall-to-wheel energy consumption for electricity, i.e. it measures the energy for which the owner usually pays. For EVs the energy cost includes the conversions from AC to charge the battery.

From the link you posted.

 

[StealthP3D]

From the link you posted.

The "wall to wheels" EPA rating is not "wall to idle time to wheels", it's charge and go. So, no, it doesn't include any significant idle vampire drain.

 

[Daniel in SD]

The "wall to wheels" EPA rating is not "wall to idle time to wheels", it's charge and go. So, no, it doesn't include any significant idle vampire drain.

Exactly. That's my real beef. Vampire drain should be included in MPGe. IMHO Tesla is taking advantage of a loophole in the the test because a metric of wall-to-wheel efficiency should include all energy consumption (especially if it's necessary as you claim).
It's especially galling because the window sticker includes an average yearly cost that does not include standby power.

BTW I'm an EE so I know that engineers suck at what they do (including me!).

 

[StealthP3D]

Exactly. That's my real beef. Vampire drain should be included in MPGe. IMHO Tesla is taking advantage of a loophole in the the test because a metric of wall-to-wheel efficiency should include all energy consumption (especially if it's necessary as you claim).

I find your characterization that Tesla is "taking advantage of a loophole" in the EPA test to be rather odd. There is no provision in the test for adding in idle vampire drain so they can't add it in. Furthermore, Tesla didn't write the test, the EPA did with feedback from all manufacturers. I don't know if Tesla (or any other manufacturer) suggested the test should include idle vampire drain but I strongly doubt it. If they (or one of the many other manufacturers) did suggest that, obviously the EPA decided it wouldn't make the test more useful for what they were trying to represent. Tesla did not make this decision, the EPA did.

Why do you cast Tesla in a negative light by characterizing the following of prescribed test procedures as "taking advantage of a loophole in the test"? That seems very strange to me unless your primary goal is to portray Tesla in the most negative light possible (and without regard to the fact that Tesla does not have the authority to modify the prescribed test procedure).

 

[Daniel in SD]

I find your characterization that Tesla is "taking advantage of a loophole" in the EPA test to be rather odd. There is no provision in the test for adding in idle vampire drain so they can't add it in. Furthermore, Tesla didn't write the test, the EPA did with feedback from all manufacturers. I don't know if Tesla (or any other manufacturer) suggested the test should include idle vampire drain but I strongly doubt it. If they (or one of the many other manufacturers) did suggest that, obviously the EPA decided it wouldn't make the test more useful for what they were trying to represent. Tesla did not make this decision, the EPA did.

Why do you cast Tesla in a negative light by characterizing the following of prescribed test procedures as "taking advantage of a loophole in the test"? That seems very strange to me unless your primary goal is to portray Tesla in the most negative light possible (and without regard to the fact that Tesla does not have the authority to modify the prescribed test procedure).

There have been a lot of claims that the vampire drain is due to battery balancing. If they are doing battery balancing after charging the battery instead of while charging the battery that seems like a clear violation of the spirit of the test. How do you know that Tesla isn't moving operations that could be done while charging to times when the energy is unmetered?
You are right though, my real beef is probably with the EPA and I should see if I can get them to change the test. You would think other manufacturers would want to add idle drain to the test since Tesla is the only manufacturer with significant vampire drain. I suspect that it wasn't added to the test simply because it was not a significant source of energy consumption when the test was written.
If you look at history, MANY auto manufacturers have cheated EPA tests so it's not like it would be out of the ordinary.

 

[StealthP3D]

If they are doing battery balancing after charging the battery instead of while charging the battery that seems like a clear violation of the spirit of the test. How do you know that Tesla isn't moving operations that could be done while charging to times when the energy is unmetered?

How do I know that Tesla didn't sneak battery balancing into idle times? Well, I'm not the one who is claiming that Tesla is violating the spirit of the test.

A much better question is, why would you claim Tesla is doing this without evidence to back up your claim? Remember, you are the one who claimed "Tesla is taking advantage of a loophole in the the test". I have seen zero evidence this is the case and yet you speak of it as if it's a reality. My father taught me not to speak negatively unless I had the facts to back it up.

I strongly doubt there is any truth to what you are claiming. If you have evidence to the contrary, lay it out.

 

[Daniel in SD]

How do I know that Tesla didn't sneak battery balancing into idle times? Well, I'm not the one who is claiming that Tesla is violating the spirit of the test.

A much better question is, why would you claim Tesla is doing this without evidence to back up your claim? Remember, you are the one who claimed "Tesla is taking advantage of a loophole in the the test". I have seen zero evidence this is the case and yet you speak of it as if it's a reality. My father taught me not to speak negatively unless I had the facts to back it up.

I strongly doubt there is any truth to what you are claiming. If you have evidence to the contrary, lay it out.

You're the one that said idle drain is due to some essential functions known only to Tesla engineers. Yet it doesn't seem suspicious to you that Tesla is able to do way better in the EPA test than is suggested by real world numbers when compared to other EVs? OP shows his Model 3 uses 28% more energy than his Bolt when the EPA test says the Model 3 is more efficient.
My personal opinion is that it is just a combination of incompetence, no regulatory reason to fix it, and no marketing reason to fix it. You are the one who suggested that there is a good reason for it.
I say it violates the spirit of the test because MPGe is supposed to represent wall-to-wheel efficiency. Most people interpret that to mean that if a car has higher MPGe it will use less energy than a car with lower MPGe. That is not the case for average usage (15k miles a year) of a Model 3 relative to the Chevy Bolt (and probably many other EVs). To me that is a loophole or a flaw in the test.

 

[MP3Mike]

Bjorn just did a test with 8 cars all driving the same 77 mile route at the same time with different cars to test efficiency. It is too bad that they didn't have a Model 3 MR to test.

Here is the video:

And a summary of the efficiencies:

232 Wh/mile Model 3 LR RWD w/ 18" Aero wheels
238 Wh/mile Ionic
244 Wh/mile Model 3 Performance w/18" Aero wheels
246 Wh/mile Model 3 LR RWD w/19" Sport wheels
255 Wh/mile Model 3 LR AWD w/18" Aero wheels
278 Wh/mile Model 3 Performance w/20" wheels
287 Wh/mile Bolt EV
321 Wh/mile Model S P85+ w/21" wheels with sticky tires

So you can see that in actually driving that the Model 3 is significantly more efficient than the Bolt EV.

 

[Daniel in SD]

So you can see that in actually driving that the Model 3 is significantly more efficient than the Bolt EV.

I think you're missing the point. Why does the number displayed on the dashboard matter if the total amount of electricity used to charge the battery is what you're actually paying for?

 

[seattlite2004]

If that Ionic dont have no "vampire drain"...that could be the most "efficient" (wall to wheel) EV that's on the Bjorn video. Wonder how the Kona/Niro will do.