M3 MR vs Chevy Bolt (energy consumption)

[hacer]

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!

I'm sure from your moniker that you're disappointed and would gladly trade your car for the more efficient Bolt. Or perhaps you've been driving it like you stole it.

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.

So 570 miles in 38 days, or 5,476 miles per year; average daily mileage is 15 miles. But you are definitely going to be strongly affected by vampire drain since your car is parked on average 23 hr and 17 minutes each day. I think in Florida you'd be better off with a bicycle.

Edit: For your case you might get significant saving if you used the "power down" option in the service menu when you park your car.

 

[chronopc]

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?

I think both matters. What you're getting at is cost per mile. However, consumption after charging also matters because that's going to effect range.

 

[StealthP3D]

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.

You're not making sense. Without evidence to back up your claim that "Tesla is taking advantage of a loophole in the the test ", I'm going to have to dismiss that claim. You say a lot of things that have no supporting evidence and then, when called to support your claims, you change the subject. It makes me wonder what your purpose in posting is.

You talk about comparing Tesla's "real world" efficiency with other comparable EV's as if Tesla would lose, but you have no data to back up your claims.

 

[Cycle11111]

I had a Bolt and now a M3. The Bolt really got clobbered up here in Truckee CA during the winter vs the M3 following best practices - precondition, use seat heaters and mind HVAC heater usage has much lower cold weather impact for me. However the almost zero vampire drain on the Bolt was awesome and is super irritating on the M3. Lastly the seats in the Bolt are simply horrible for long drives and spoils what is otherwise a great little car - oh no Frunk either.

 

[Superspectral]

I'm surprised that the P3D- and the 3D+ was more efficient than the 3D-.

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.

 

[MP3Mike]

I'm surprised that the P3D- and the 3D+ was more efficient than the 3D-.

Huh? What is a 3D+ and 3D-?

The poor 3D efficiency was probably just the result of poor driver technique. (4.5% difference from the P3D-.)

 

[Atari2600]

Can you power down any Tesla to stop vampire drain?

 

[StealthP3D]

Can you power down any Tesla to stop vampire drain?

You can reduce it by turning off data sharing and turning the car off and not using various apps to wake the car but it's never going to zero (all cars have SOME vampire drain regardless of what some will claim).

To me, it's a non-issue. The amount of vampire drain some people claim to see is far beyond anything I've ever noticed in our two Model 3's.

 

[StealthP3D]

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?

So, when you calculate the MPG for a gas car, you should throw in some extra to cover the oil and filter changes? Because that's what you're actually paying for? Oh, and if you drive out of your way to fill-up you should not count that distance when you calculate the MPG (because that's a built-in inefficiency).

You're not making a whole lotta sense. Wh/mile is an efficiency/consumption metric per unit of distance. You're trying to make it something it's not.

 

[Daniel in SD]

So, when you calculate the MPG for a gas car, you should throw in some extra to cover the oil and filter changes? Because that's what you're actually paying for? Oh, and if you drive out of your way to fill-up you should not count that distance when you calculate the MPG (because that's a built-in inefficiency).

You're not making a whole lotta sense. Wh/mile is an efficiency/consumption metric per unit of distance. You're trying to make it something it's not.

I'm talking about MPGe not wh/mi. MPGe is a made up metric for wall-to-wheel efficiency. The window sticker also includes an average cost to charge the car. This number does not include energy consumed outside the test which seems very deceptive. OP had the reasonable expectation that two cars with same MPGe would use about same amount of energy (just like one would expect for two ICE vehicles with the same MPG!).
You probably think this is no big deal as you charge at home every night but for people who plan on using expensive public charging and supercharging I think we will start seeing more complaints especially if Tesla releases the SR model.

 

[StealthP3D]

The window sticker also includes an average cost to charge the car. This number does not include energy consumed outside the test which seems very deceptive. OP had the reasonable expectation that two cars with same MPGe would use about same amount of energy (just like one would expect for two ICE vehicles with the same MPG!).

II fail to see how this is any different from the MPG rating in an ICE car. For example, if the car is parked 23 hours/day but it is idling to provide cabin heat/cooling, that is not counted in the MPG rating, same as in an EV. Also, even if the engine isn't running, ICE cars have losses while parked. If you open the door/trunk a light comes on. This is not free energy. When you start the car the alternator is harder to turn because it is recharging the battery. That loss is not accounted for in the MPG figure so you will pay more to fuel your ICE car than the MPG figure would imply. Lead acid batteries self-discharge, that is part of the vampire drain in a Tesla that is not accounted for in the MPGe figure. Likewise, ICE cars have this same lead-acid self-discharge but the MPG testing is done with a fully charged battery so that loss never shows up in the MPG figure. Another loss that never shows up in the ICE cars MPG rating is the radiator fan that can come on after the car is parked on a warm day. Of course EV's have fans/pumps that can come on after the drive cycle is completed that are not accounted for.

The MPG and MPGe numbers are trying to appraise how much energy it's going to take to go somewhere, not how much it's going to cost if you go nowhere. The more hours/day you drive, the less vampire loss there will be.

I simply cannot get upset over a few pennies a day worth of electricity when driving the car is what consumes the vast majority of energy. Maybe you should lobby the EPA to apply "energy Star" ratings to EV's and ICE cars that only measure the energy consumed while parked. This could be a rating that is independent of MPG and MPGe. In any case, consumers are still going to care most about the MPG and MPGe because that's typically 99% of the energy consumed. The more you drive, the more it costs.

 

[Daniel in SD]

II fail to see how this is any different from the MPG rating in an ICE car. For example, if the car is parked 23 hours/day but it is idling to provide cabin heat/cooling, that is not counted in the MPG rating, same as in an EV. Also, even if the engine isn't running, ICE cars have losses while parked. If you open the door/trunk a light comes on. This is not free energy. When you start the car the alternator is harder to turn because it is recharging the battery. That loss is not accounted for in the MPG figure so you will pay more to fuel your ICE car than the MPG figure would imply. Lead acid batteries self-discharge, that is part of the vampire drain in a Tesla that is not accounted for in the MPGe figure. Likewise, ICE cars have this same lead-acid self-discharge but the MPG testing is done with a fully charged battery so that loss never shows up in the MPG figure. Another loss that never shows up in the ICE cars MPG rating is the radiator fan that can come on after the car is parked on a warm day. Of course EV's have fans/pumps that can come on after the drive cycle is completed that are not accounted for.

The MPG and MPGe numbers are trying to appraise how much energy it's going to take to go somewhere, not how much it's going to cost if you go nowhere. The more hours/day you drive, the less vampire loss there will be.

I simply cannot get upset over a few pennies a day worth of electricity when driving the car is what consumes the vast majority of energy. Maybe you should lobby the EPA to apply "energy Star" ratings to EV's and ICE cars that only measure the energy consumed while parked. This could be a rating that is independent of MPG and MPGe. In any case, consumers are still going to care most about the MPG and MPGe because that's typically 99% of the energy consumed. The more you drive, the more it costs.

I think that's a bit silly, any reasonable person would assume that their car burns gas while idling. ICE vehicles do not have enough vampire drain to affect their MPG numbers. A Tesla cycles it's lead acid battery multiple times a day while parked! That's why the lead acid battery life is significantly shorter than an ICE vehicle even though it's a deep cycle battery not exposed to extreme heat.
At current supercharger rates in California vampire load is about $100 per year. It's about 10% of the energy use for a person who drives 15k a year. Is that nothing? I say let the consumer decide. That's the whole purpose of having a number to allow people to compare efficiency. Obviously you could also include more detailed numbers for people to figure it out for their own driving. Look at the window sticker, it says annual fuel cost (fuel? haha) is $500. I say that number and MPGe should incorporate standby power.

 

[lolder]

From the link you posted.

It doesn't say wall to wheel for EPA MPGe Monroney lables. It says battery to wheels. The wall to wheel is the CAFE measurement which is different.

 

[ℬête Noire]

Why do cable boxes use 50W when they're off? That's what's so insidious about vampire drain, it's hardly ever an engineering priority and most people don't notice but when you add it all up it's a significant portion of this countries electricity usage.
I bet if it were included in the MPGe number Tesla would fix it.

Priorities placed over this level of vampire drain:
1) battery protection for longevity
2) OTA and various other features

Living in SE Texas, the lack of vampire drain on our Bolt actually has me concerned about a few years out.

There is some vampire drain on the Model that is software defect related (much less than say early 2018, though). It is also heavily exasperated by owners that have 3rd party applications pinging the car, that could be dropped but a lot of the energy for the vampire drain is HVAC doing an important job. The other part has to do with just how primitive the Bolt's computer systems are, and by extension the features that it provides.

Strikes me as a fair trade-off.

On my NYC trip I left my Model 3 parked in NJ unplugged for 4 days. I pinged it a few times to check in on it, as I'd never left it unplugged that long before. Ambient temps were between about 32F and 55F, in a mostly tree shaded area. It lost only about 5 miles total from when it was parked warm, so a little over 1kWh total for 4 days and that included lose from being chilled.

No heat and me not walking around it with BT disturbing it lead to very little vampire drain.

 

[mswlogo]

I had a Bolt and now a M3. The Bolt really got clobbered up here in Truckee CA during the winter vs the M3 following best practices - precondition, use seat heaters and mind HVAC heater usage has much lower cold weather impact for me. However the almost zero vampire drain on the Bolt was awesome and is super irritating on the M3. Lastly the seats in the Bolt are simply horrible for long drives and spoils what is otherwise a great little car - oh no Frunk either.

Preconditioning will make your numbers worse at the “wall outlet”. Which is what’s being discussed (energy consumption). Most efficient thing you can do is, get in and go. If your goal is range or nice looking stats in the car, by all means precondition. Charge when it’s cheapest or warmest battery (like when you get home from a commute).

 

[ℬête Noire]

Preconditioning will make your numbers worse at the “wall outlet”.

But if you're concerned about range at all, which tends to be much more a concern in Winter, it is still the thing to do.

Also the thing to do if you have the LT trim without the Comfort package and don't like having chilled buns for the first while.

 

[Daniel in SD]

It doesn't say wall to wheel for EPA MPGe Monroney lables. It says battery to wheels. The wall to wheel is the CAFE measurement which is different.

The window sticker is supposed to be wall to wheel. How would you get a range of 310 miles with 270Wh/mi usage and a 75kwh battery? It includes charging losses.
The baseline vampire drain in ideal circumstances is 30-40W. That’s way more than should be required for OTA updates cellular and Bluetooth (my iPhone has a 30mW standby power!). I’m just saying that cars with the same MPGe should have similar energy costs for the average user. Right now unless you drive the EPA test 24/7 the Model 3 will use more electricity despite having a better rating. Anyway I should really take it up with the EPA instead of arguing with people on a forum.

 

[Zoomit]

The window sticker is supposed to be wall to wheel.

The EPA MPGe data *IS* wall-to-wheel per SAE J1634. @lolder, no need to continue to argue this.

 

[mswlogo]

But if you're concerned about range at all, which tends to be much more a concern in Winter, it is still the thing to do.

Also the thing to do if you have the LT trim without the Comfort package and don't like having chilled buns for the first while.

The OP Topic is about energy consumption.

It's a no brainer that preheating the cabin and battery from the wall before you get in will get you further in any EV.

 

[ℬête Noire]

The OP Topic is about energy consumption.

When the vehicle is used.

In actual, practical use.