Made in China Model 3: Build Quality / Hardware Differences

[Adopado]

It's personal choice, each to their own, but it's not helpful to fob people off telling them to show % and ignore the discrepancy rather than answer the question as if its a superior thing to do.

It's not superior in any personal way. Clearly people will choose what works for them ..but.. percentage is actually superior as an indicator of reality! If the battery indicator says 50% then you know you have 50% of your battery remaining! If it indicates 150 miles it doesn't tell you how far you can drive until empty because it could be 90 miles you have in reality. The only way you can make a miles setting work for yourself is if you are doing a calculation in your head because you realise 150 is not realistic ... so for many of us (since you have to calculate it anyway) choose the consistent indicator of reality i.e. percentage. That means that your calculations at least have a consistent and reliable starting point.

 

[GeorgeSymonds]

It's not superior in any personal way. Clearly people will choose what works for them ..but.. percentage is actually superior as an indicator of reality! If the battery indicator says 50% then you know you have 50% of your battery remaining! If it indicates 150 miles it doesn't tell you how far you can drive until empty because it could be 90 miles you have in reality. The only way you can make a miles setting work for yourself is if you are doing a calculation in your head because you realise 150 is not realistic ... so for many of us (since you have to calculate it anyway) choose the consistent indicator of reality i.e. percentage. That means that your calculations at least have a consistent and reliable starting point.

Why is it superior? 50% is half of the battery which is unknown and changes due to temperature, degradation, etc vs a direct proxy for available kwh from the battery which is accurate?

The point is neither tell you how far you're going to go for lots of reasons, so they're exactly the same in that sense. If the car displayed kwh available and not miles would you prefer it because in reality thats what its saying just using different units? My Model S uses 330wh/m on that display so I could divide the displayed miles by 3 and get a pretty accurate available kwh number, thats more a measure of something than %.

I don't care what others display, people can use what they want, but why do some answer ever question about range, whatever it is, by saying "show %" as it doesn't explain whats going on or help educate the owner? Whenever there are polls on the subject its usually about 1/3 say % 1/3 say miles and 1/3 don't give a stuff.

 

[spdpsba]

It might not be strictly helpful in the "be the good you want to see in the world" sense, but it is the most productive.

if we accept that the advertised range is under absolutely ideal, artificial conditions - then it's probably fair to say that no one is going to get that exact range on a 100% charge. What good is it to know that the car may or may not be able to do 315 miles at 100% charge if you wouldn't (or couldn't) drive the way you'd need to in order to achieve that?

The last EV I had before buying a Tesla, a BMW i3, I put the range as miles because it seemed the obvious thing to do and I didn't know any better. What I found quite quickly is that the range shown was basically a guideline. it went down quicker than 1 mile per 1 mile travelled if I was pushing on or being less than optimal with inputs, etc, and in some cases stayed still or even went up if I drove really conservatively (the i3, unlike the Tesla I think, factors in recent driving in the range displayed).

All this basically meant is that I couldn't rely on the predicted range as an absolute number, and just developed an understanding in my head of how far it would go on a 100% charge. I essentially just ignored the range display except for the purposes of trying to game it on occasion to stay still or go up, like a little mini game while I'm driving.

I guess what I'm saying is that using miles as the range on a Tesla (or any EV) is pretty useless, and potentially dangerous - i.e. you could set off on the basis that the car is telling you that you'll make it to a given charger, but find that 75% of the way there you've used more power than the car had assumed you'd use, and have to make alternative arrangements.

I think this is true for even ICE cars. I had a Range rover prior to this and usually the predicted range I get as soon as I fill the tank is around 450miles but I know exactly I am not going to make up 450miles and the miles drop once I set off. The predicted range calculation in ICE cars are also made based on other numbers including the recent driving etc., So most of the ICE cars are similar to electric cars in terms of predicted range. The initial prediction in ICE cars (based on the driving, environmental factors) may be 400 but we normally end up with 300. We do not complain about this and only very rarely miscalculate and I have never had to carry diesel in a jerry can bcos of this predicted vs actual range in ICE cars. So it is not too difficult for me to think the same way as predicted vs expected range in electric cars. What I and other members who share the same view as mine find difficult is the range the new MiC M3 the car shows and the range Tesla says it should display. And we were trying to find the reasons for that rather than ignore the discrepancy.

I am familiar with how the ICE car companies says their XYZ car will give 87 mpg and advertise as such, but as soon as you fill up the tank you know it is going to show 50mpg and the real world mileage will be around 42mpg. We are all familiar with this.

I guess I don't understand on a fundamental level why someone would choose to use an absolute measurement like miles as their guide when that measurement will not necessarily decrease linearly by miles travelled.

I think it is called preference!

 

[Durzel]

Why is it superior? 50% is half of the battery which is unknown and changes due to temperature, degradation, etc vs a direct proxy for available kwh from the battery which is accurate?

The point is neither tell you how far you're going to go for lots of reasons, so they're exactly the same in that sense. If the car displayed kwh available and not miles would you prefer it because in reality thats what its saying just using different units? My Model S uses 330wh/m on that display so I could divide the displayed miles by 3 and get a pretty accurate available kwh number, thats more a measure of something than %.

I don't care what others display, people can use what they want, but why do some answer ever question about range, whatever it is, by saying "show %" as it doesn't explain whats going on or help educate the owner? Whenever there are polls on the subject its usually about 1/3 say % 1/3 say miles and 1/3 don't give a stuff.

It's "superior" because with percentage you're no longer relying or expecting to be able to drive an objective number of miles, you just have a sense of how far the car will go - based on previous long drives - and are deciding to find a charger at or around a given percentage, rather than thnking "it says I've got 50 miles left so I won't bother stopping here", then driving another 20 miles and finding you've suddenly only got 10 miles left (which also may or may not be inaccurate).

Battery percentage ought to go down more linearly than miles too if nothing else than simply because it is at most a 0-100 scale.

Each to their own but I tend to think people seeing a range stated in miles will naturally expect the car to be able to do that distance before needing to charge, which imo is dangerous and unproductive.

I am familiar with how the ICE car companies says their XYZ car will give 87 mpg and advertise as such, but as soon as you fill up the tank you know it is going to show 50mpg and the real world mileage will be around 42mpg. We are all familiar with this.

The problem is that range is a key thing in EVs. Because petrol stations are ubiquitous the MPG for an ICE car is mostly only relevant as a guide to how much you're going to be paying in fuel to run it. With an EV an extra 50 miles or something could be the difference between getting to a frequent destination, and charging there in comfort, or having to stop somewhere with your kids moaning, etc.

There are enough threads on here and everywhere else about people complaining about why they aren't seeing the rated range, worrying about degradation, etc for me to think that it is better for any EV customer to choose a car based on an expectation of doing ~75% of the quoted range, practically. Cold weather will have a big impact, as will numerous other consumers of power.

Perhaps the problem is a combination of both education and Tesla quoting laboratory setting ranges?

 

[Irata]

I think we getting caught up in personnal preferences here.

The car can show the battery level on two scales, one is 0-100 and the other is 0-(some other number). If the filled bit of the battery icon is full, it's full on both scales, if half it is half on both scales and if empty is empty in both scales. Whatever scale someone wants, it really doesn't matter. Neither scale means this is how far you can actually go.

I would say, however, I'm surprised they don't use in car the scale to WLTP range in Europe. I know it is pointless (as per my own comments above), but it does feel right to use the right "language" in the right country.

 

[spdpsba]

I think we getting caught up in personnal preferences here.

The car can show the battery level on two scales, one is 0-100 and the other is 0-(some other number). If the filled bit of the battery icon is full, it's full on both scales, if half it is half on both scales and if empty is empty in both scales. Whatever scale someone wants, it really doesn't matter. Neither scale means this is how far you can actually go.

I would say, however, I'm surprised they don't use in car the scale to WLTP range in Europe. I know it is pointless (as per my own comments above), but it does feel right to use the right "language" in the right country.

Of course. Hope Elan reads this thread. Much more easier to do a software update to show both % and miles in the same window.

Most of the ICE cars show an analogue measure for petrol/diesel in the tank and digital reading for predicted miles. So how hard it is!

 

[browellm]

I think we getting caught up in personnal preferences here.

The car can show the battery level on two scales, one is 0-100 and the other is 0-(some other number). If the filled bit of the battery icon is full, it's full on both scales, if half it is half on both scales and if empty is empty in both scales. Whatever scale someone wants, it really doesn't matter. Neither scale means this is how far you can actually go.

There is one important difference.

One unit of battery % isn't tied to any fixed reference - it's an arbitrary unit. A mile is a fixed, referenceable known unit.

Using miles creates an expectation of a known fixed range, because everyone knows what a mile is. This is both helpful and incredibly unhelpful at the same time, since that range is based on idealised conditions and driving.

 

[GeorgeSymonds]

There is one important difference.

One unit of battery % isn't tied to any fixed reference - it's an arbitrary unit. A mile is a fixed, referenceable known unit.

Using miles creates an expectation of a known fixed range, because everyone knows what a mile is. This is both helpful and incredibly unhelpful at the same time, since that range is based on idealised conditions and driving.

A % means wildly different things in different Models.
A mile doesn’t. I keep being told I’m wrong because I can look out the window, see it’s cold and I’m doing 70mph and thing I’ll need to allow a bigger buffer today by people who think not having a clue by showing % is better.

Each to their own but in over 5 years and over 100k miles of driving Tesla’s I’ve never felt showing miles was an issue. Do your own thing, just don’t tell me I’m wrong

 

[browellm]

A % means wildly different things in different Models.
A mile doesn’t.

You just literally repeated my point back to me.

 

[Irata]

There is one important difference.

One unit of battery % isn't tied to any fixed reference - it's an arbitrary unit. A mile is a fixed, referenceable known unit.

Using miles creates an expectation of a known fixed range, because everyone knows what a mile is. This is both helpful and incredibly unhelpful at the same time, since that range is based on idealised conditions and driving.

Well... people have been driving cars with a unrealistic projected milage for many many years. Nothing new here, kinda got use to it by now.

 

[browellm]

Well... people have been driving cars with a unrealistic projected milage for many many years. Nothing new here, kinda got use to it by now.

Then riddle me this: why do these threads keep coming up over and again?

 

[Irata]

Then riddle me this: why do these threads keep coming up over and again?

They also do with ICE cars, been very similar discussions everywhere for many years. With the same responses as well.

That's why they changed the system, albeit not to one that's been hugely better.

I think it's down to wanting to feel people got what was "marketed".

 

[Jibjab]

There are two "range" topics which are constantly conflated.

- The range the car says and the range the car can actually do are seldom the same. The car uses a fixed amount per mile in its display and real world driving varies due to a host of factors, weather speed etc,

- The range the car says and the rated range Tesla said it should display. and why they differ The only explanations I've heard of for the differences are a, they use the US tested efficiency rates and not the EU ones which are different and so the range in miles that is displayed will be more like the US one than the EU one, b, a cold battery just can't hold/release the charge a warm battery can and so its capacity is down which will result in the reported range being down slightly, c, the BMS calibration drifts over time and towards the conservative side although this can be fixed by leaving the car at lower states of charge over night to get a number of accurate readings across the spectrum from which it interpulates, and d, there is some genuine degradation. Picking through those 4 reasons to end up getting back to the rated figure is a challenge but its usually wrapped up in one or more of them.

Personally I show miles. I don't stress over it, I know what its telling me and its telling me more than % does. I've come to accept I'll not do it in practice but I still find it useful. It's personal choice, each to their own, but it's not helpful to fob people off telling them to show % and ignore the discrepancy rather than answer the question as if its a superior thing to do.

The issue with the refresh models is that they have never displayed even the EPA range with a box fresh, warm battery. Advertised EPA range for a LR is 353 miles epa, which is displayed on US models. Models delivered from both Fremont and China to Europe display circa 330-335 miles. Refresh Fremont supplied cars have had both LG and Panasonic batteries installed. The LG doesn’t have as high capacity as the Panasonic, circa 3kwh less, and hence why the EPA for the LR can’t be displayed. The European cars with the Panasonic battery have been soft locked to match the LG.

It’s not an ideal situation for European customers, but nothing can be done about it as I believe legally there is no requirement for Tesla to display EPA or WLTP ranges within Europe, happy to be corrected though. Neither is there a requirement for Tesla to disclose the manufacturer or kWh of a battery installed.

 

[GeorgeSymonds]

You just literally repeated my point back to me.

Apologies

 

[spdpsba]

The issue with the refresh models is that they have never displayed even the EPA range with a box fresh, warm battery. Advertised EPA range for a LR is 353 miles epa, which is displayed on US models. Models delivered from both Fremont and China to Europe display circa 330-335 miles. Refresh Fremont supplied cars have had both LG and Panasonic batteries installed. The LG doesn’t have as high capacity as the Panasonic, circa 3kwh less, and hence why the EPA for the LR can’t be displayed. The European cars with the Panasonic battery have been soft locked to match the LG.

It’s not an ideal situation for European customers, but nothing can be done about it as I believe legally there is no requirement for Tesla to display EPA or WLTP ranges within Europe, happy to be corrected though. Neither is there a requirement for Tesla to disclose the manufacturer or kWh of a battery installed.

Not so sure about the legal requirements to display EPA in Europe but I think that is a attractive proposition for Tesla to display 353 miles if the MiC batteries have the same EPA. Not sure any of the popular members in the group can tweet Elon as he normally responds to these kind of tweets.

I think based on the cars (both SR+ and LR) - even box fresh with a warm battery - the EPA's are around 243 for SR+ and 330 for LR. This is almost 30 miles less than what Tesla displays in US. We all agree we will never get this mileage in real world (irrespective of how you display % or miles) but it would help to know that the difference is b'cos of the locked LG batteries or some other factors we are not aware of!

 

[Durzel]

There is one important difference.

One unit of battery % isn't tied to any fixed reference - it's an arbitrary unit. A mile is a fixed, referenceable known unit.

Using miles creates an expectation of a known fixed range, because everyone knows what a mile is. This is both helpful and incredibly unhelpful at the same time, since that range is based on idealised conditions and driving.

This is to my mind the best summary of it. Far more succinct than I could manage.

A mile is something people know, so if the car says it'll do 300 miles when they get in it's reasonable to expect and rely on that number, particularly if you're new to EVs and aren't familiar with how everything that uses power, or temperature, has a disproportionate effect on range, relative to an ICE car.

if the car just said you had "300 Tesloids" of range then I'd be fine with that, because a "Tesloid" would be a unit of distance that is greater or less than a mile.

Phones, computers, etc all give you a battery percentage remaining, not time (unless it's approximate). You could open a game on your phone when it's on 10% and cain that remaining battery in less than 5 minutes, when the other 90% had just been ticking down normally browsing the web, etc.

Anyway, I've just realised this has got almost nothing to do with MIC cars at all, so I'll shut up.

 

[SeanyG]

It might not be strictly helpful in the "be the good you want to see in the world" sense, but it is the most productive.

if we accept that the advertised range is under absolutely ideal, artificial conditions - then it's probably fair to say that no one is going to get that exact range on a 100% charge. What good is it to know that the car may or may not be able to do 315 miles at 100% charge if you wouldn't (or couldn't) drive the way you'd need to in order to achieve that?

The last EV I had before buying a Tesla, a BMW i3, I put the range as miles because it seemed the obvious thing to do and I didn't know any better. What I found quite quickly is that the range shown was basically a guideline. it went down quicker than 1 mile per 1 mile travelled if I was pushing on or being less than optimal with inputs, etc, and in some cases stayed still or even went up if I drove really conservatively (the i3, unlike the Tesla I think, factors in recent driving in the range displayed).

All this basically meant is that I couldn't rely on the predicted range as an absolute number, and just developed an understanding in my head of how far it would go on a 100% charge. I essentially just ignored the range display except for the purposes of trying to game it on occasion to stay still or go up, like a little mini game while I'm driving.

I guess what I'm saying is that using miles as the range on a Tesla (or any EV) is pretty useless, and potentially dangerous - i.e. you could set off on the basis that the car is telling you that you'll make it to a given charger, but find that 75% of the way there you've used more power than the car had assumed you'd use, and have to make alternative arrangements.

I guess I don't understand on a fundamental level why someone would choose to use an absolute measurement like miles as their guide when that measurement will not necessarily decrease linearly by miles travelled.

To be honest I just look at the expected mileage and just take 80% of that to get what I think the real range should be, assuming I’m not thrashing the car around which I occasionally do because it’s so fun .

But yeh I also view it as you can’t rely on the expected miles but I was just so puzzled as to why it was 325 and not say 340 even if you just allow for the differences in battery size between the LG and the larger Panasonic for eu cars.

I guess it could be that EU cars use the EU tests as GeorgeSymonds says above but I thought the EU numbers were WLTP and they state 360 miles? So confusing ... Anyway felt more comforted when I have noticed that all the other LG EU cars also say around 325 to 330 as 100% SOC expected range...

 

[SeanyG]

To be honest I just look at the expected mileage and just take 80% of that to get what I think the real range should be, assuming I’m not thrashing the car around which I occasionally do because it’s so fun .

But yeh I also view it as you can’t rely on the expected miles but I was just so puzzled as to why it was 325 and not say 340 even if you just allow for the differences in battery size between the LG and the larger Panasonic for eu cars.

I guess it could be that EU cars use the EU tests as GeorgeSymonds says above but I thought the EU numbers were WLTP and they state 360 miles? So confusing ... Anyway felt more comforted when I have noticed that all the other LG EU cars also say around 325 to 330 as 100% SOC expected range...

That said inkote the point above that said the Panasonic batteries have been soft locked for the Eu cars so maybe it’s just difficult for Tesla to maintain this consistency...

 

[Llama.]

That percent VS mileage exchange was a proper rabbit hole in a MIC thread! Come on. Stay focused Tesla people.

I would love it if you could just toggle percent / range / Tesloids by touching anywhere it is displayed in the car or app.

My MIC M3 LR is currently showing a projected maximum of only 327 miles at full with just under 1000 miles of mostly motorway driving on the clock.

I wasn’t expecting to show it reading a projected 360 miles as advertised , but 327 seems a bit low.

While I would prefer that Tesla worked to ‘exceed my expectations’ like Porsche do with the Tuscan range, ultimately I am happy the range my MIC M3 LR can achieve.

From where I live in Leeds I can get to Whitby or the Lake District and back home with 20% battery remaining with no charging.

 

[spdpsba]

There is some info regarding the 2021 SR+ mileage by Bjorn Nyland. Sounds like on average he got around 180miles in real world. But he has some information around EPA etc.,

here is the link

2021 Tesla Model 3 SRP Range Tested By Bjorn Nyland

The brand new 2021 Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus was recently range tested by Bjørn Nyland in Norway.

insideevs.com