Use ABRP since there is a break even point where driving an EV faster will actually be slower because of the charge times.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Range Loss Over Time, What Can Be Expected, Efficiency, How to Maintain Battery Health
- Thread starter KK_RedM3
- Start date
Shelburne
Member
Other factors to consider in addition to your speed are the amount of people and luggage in your car, hills, and headwinds vs tail winds. As an example, it is 8.7 miles from our house to the nearest supermarket. Our house is at just over 800 feet above sea level. The supermarket is 250 feet above sea level. Our M3 LR with 19" wheels uses an average of 7.8 miles of range going down to the supermarket and an average of just over 11 miles of range on the way back, with a trunk full of groceries
jackmott
Member
- You will definitely not get 250-275 miles of range driving super aggressively, unless you chill out and go the speed limit +/- 5mph once on the highway.
- Accelerating aggressively wastes more energy than gently
- Energy wasted pushing wind out of the way goes up supra-linearly. So Going 90 instead of 80 will have more of a range hit than going 80 instead of 70, for instance.
- For a 64mph round trip you can do whatever you want, you will have plenty of range.
Last edited:
rpiotro
Active Member
When I started selling heavy trucks it was before we had computers. I had to do demand horsepower calculations manually using charts and a hand held calculator. It instilled in my brain how much speed, grade, frontal area and CD played a role.
Rolling resistance increases linearly as speed increases. Air resistance increases exponentially. You are going to suck up a lot more juice at 80 than at 65. A change in elevation will also have a profound effect. As a side note. Concrete pavement has slightly less rolling resistance than macadam.
Those outside rear view mirrors cause more drag than people realize. They need to be eliminated and replaced with cameras. But the wheels of government turn slowly. Very slowly.
Rolling resistance increases linearly as speed increases. Air resistance increases exponentially. You are going to suck up a lot more juice at 80 than at 65. A change in elevation will also have a profound effect. As a side note. Concrete pavement has slightly less rolling resistance than macadam.
Those outside rear view mirrors cause more drag than people realize. They need to be eliminated and replaced with cameras. But the wheels of government turn slowly. Very slowly.
I drive 112mph on 53mi freeway part of my common 65mi ride and it eats 50-53% of my 82kWh (estimated 76.5kWh usable) M3P battery (my batt has now 100%=492km=1.4% degradation).
techzelle
Member
Yea, I drove along with an ICE car from on a 450 mile trip. I was doing 85mph so we could drive together. They filled up once. I charged like 3 times (began with a 50% charge) , like 20 mins, 20 mins, 35 mins. That dictated when we took our restroom breaks, snack breaks, and meal break.
They filled up on my last charge, still with 3/8 tank full. No sweat on their part.
Meanwhile I'm driving supercharge to supercharger watching the map, checking my energy usage and the estimated percent charge for the next stop.
It wasn't a pain to charge though, as each stop was productive - doing things, not just sitting and waiting.
Steve446
Dusty Crophopper, M3 LR 2021 Midnight Silver
It's true, to say that in the US you have the potential for much longer road trips, so having to stop several times can become the reality of using an EV, even with the smooth experience of Tesla Supercharging. In Europe, unless you're planning a holiday marathon like from France to Spain or similar (~1000 Km), then you will likely will not need to SuC more than a couple of times if you start full (purely an example) and any inconvenience goes away since you can combine those stops with bio-breaks and a coffee. Mind you some people are never satisfied...
On the other hand, I'm not sure I would like to do that with a non Tesla EV given the patchy charger coverage, lower charging speeds, cost and reliability many non Tesla owners complain of...Bad choice. If you choose a place where the supermarket is much higher and you buy heavy loads of stuff, you can produce electricity and never need to charge.
techzelle
Member
Yea, I did a long drive, charging every couple hours, and mapped to the 250KWh superchargers. That's works out great.It's true, to say that in the US you have the potential for much longer road trips, so having to stop several times can become the reality of using an EV, even with the smooth experience of Tesla Supercharging. In Europe, unless you're planning a holiday marathon like from France to Spain or similar (~1000 Km), then you will likely will not need to SuC more than a couple of times if you start full (purely an example) and any inconvenience goes away since you can combine those stops with bio-breaks and a coffee. Mind you some people are never satisfied...
A non-tesla with lower range and lower charging speeds would be more challenging.
Shelburne
Member
So are you suggesting that I choose where to live by the relative altitude of my house and the supermarket? That is far from brilliant, especially when you consider that I make this trip only once a week. And, by the way, there is a free charger at the supermarket. If I spend 45 minutes buying groceries, I get enough free miles of charge to make the round trip for free.Bad choice. If you choose a place where the supermarket is much higher and you buy heavy loads of stuff, you can produce electricity and never need to charge.
HelloTak
Member
Hey all,
I'm curious about something. I am looking at a M3 LR 2018 with 67k miles on it. The owner says that at 100% it's at 280miles. Does recalibrating really help this number?
I'm curious about something. I am looking at a M3 LR 2018 with 67k miles on it. The owner says that at 100% it's at 280miles. Does recalibrating really help this number?
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
No, not usually. That vehicle if RWD has lost 14% capacity, or 10-12% capacity if it is AWD. Very normal.
No significant change from recalibration (maybe it would go to 285 or something on a good day - could also go down to 275 with recalibration - recalibration very rarely does anything).
Picked up my new Model 3 about a month ago. I have almost 900 miles on it and the efficiency is disappointing. My old 3 total efficiency is always around 258 - 260 Wh/mi, moving a bit up and down due to weather. My new 3 is at 278 Wh/mi.
Stats is reporting my average driving efficiency around 80%. And this is with me babying it the last 150 miles. My wife has a 2021 Y (August car). She is aggressive, uses the brake a lot, always uses AC/heat and her driving efficiency is 105%. My 3.6 yr old 3 has a driving efficiency of 102%. Her Y efficiency is 269 Wh/mi.
I still have my old 3 so I can compare. Drive to work in old 3 is around 300 Wh/mi with AC/Heat on. It's high due to elevation gain. Drive to work in new 3 without AC/Heat has been right around 300 Wh/mi as well.
New: Model 3 AWD Long Range w/ 19" wheels
Old: Model 3 AWD Long Range w/ 19" wheels
Same tires.
I'm in SoCal so the weather has been normal spring moderate temps. Rarely use heat and often just fan, no AC.
Tires are a couple lbs too low, but that's typical for my other two Teslas.
I've been through this before. My first M3 had even worse efficiency when new. At a few thousand miles it was hovering around 310 Wh/mi. After many many frustrating trips to service, I finally convinced them something was wrong. They eventually got engineering involved and found the rear brake cylinders were sticking just slightly closed. They replaced both and the efficiency numbers dropped like a rock.
A friend of mine got his new 3 a week before mine, and his numbers are significantly better - lower than my old 3 as I would expect. Also SoCal. So I don't think "break in" is something we're dealing with here.
Stats is reporting my average driving efficiency around 80%. And this is with me babying it the last 150 miles. My wife has a 2021 Y (August car). She is aggressive, uses the brake a lot, always uses AC/heat and her driving efficiency is 105%. My 3.6 yr old 3 has a driving efficiency of 102%. Her Y efficiency is 269 Wh/mi.
I still have my old 3 so I can compare. Drive to work in old 3 is around 300 Wh/mi with AC/Heat on. It's high due to elevation gain. Drive to work in new 3 without AC/Heat has been right around 300 Wh/mi as well.
New: Model 3 AWD Long Range w/ 19" wheels
Old: Model 3 AWD Long Range w/ 19" wheels
Same tires.
I'm in SoCal so the weather has been normal spring moderate temps. Rarely use heat and often just fan, no AC.
Tires are a couple lbs too low, but that's typical for my other two Teslas.
I've been through this before. My first M3 had even worse efficiency when new. At a few thousand miles it was hovering around 310 Wh/mi. After many many frustrating trips to service, I finally convinced them something was wrong. They eventually got engineering involved and found the rear brake cylinders were sticking just slightly closed. They replaced both and the efficiency numbers dropped like a rock.
A friend of mine got his new 3 a week before mine, and his numbers are significantly better - lower than my old 3 as I would expect. Also SoCal. So I don't think "break in" is something we're dealing with here.
Interesting, wonder if there's an easy way to detect sticky brake calipers without an expensive thermal camera.
Alignment can also make a difference, too.
Drive on the freeway at speed for a few miles, and then pull off and stop using as little brakes as possible. (Preferably none.) Then put your hand near, but not touching the brake rotor. It should not be putting off heat. (And you can compare how much heat each rotor is giving off to find if any are significantly different.)
Or you could use a cheap infrared thermometer...
Here's what contributed to figuring out last time.
- Car randomly, and intermittently pulled to one side or the other.
- Occasionally car spelled like burning brakes.
- Car sometimes would suddenly brake less hard when braking, when the cylinder "unstuck" itself.
- Using IR camera showed inconsistent rotor temps.
- Drastic changes in efficiency, not explained by other factors, such as temp, speed, etc...
I'm a bit unsure why my post was moved to this thread. This isn't range loss over time. It's lack of range from day 1.
Hello Guys...
Currently own since new a 2020 M3P, and never have I been close to rated range, I only get about half.
The situation is as follows:
I charge at 85% take it down to about 15% over four days and only get 156 miles and trip computer says it used 42KW... Im still missing around 30 more KW .
The car lifetime consumption is at 240 watts per mile. And has about 6,000 miles only, Estimated battery capacity is 68KW by doing formula on the sticky above.
Thanks!
JC
Currently own since new a 2020 M3P, and never have I been close to rated range, I only get about half.
The situation is as follows:
I charge at 85% take it down to about 15% over four days and only get 156 miles and trip computer says it used 42KW... Im still missing around 30 more KW .
The car lifetime consumption is at 240 watts per mile. And has about 6,000 miles only, Estimated battery capacity is 68KW by doing formula on the sticky above.
Thanks!
JC
It takes a lot of energy to cool the car down at the start of each trip. That energy is not accounted for in the car's trip odometer, and thus is not reflected in the displayed 240 Wh/mi (which is very good, by the way). The trip computer also doesn't account for usage when not driving, such as Sentry Mode, Cabin Overheat Protection and cabin preconditioning.
EPA rated range is really only achievable on one contiguous trip, with favorable weather, and at low speed (under 60 MPH). That's obviously hard to do, especially in Texas where speed limits are quite high.
Battery capacity is measured in kWh (kilowatt hours). Charging power is measured in kW (kilowatts). The trip computer displays in Wh/mi (watt hours per mile).
EPA rated range is really only achievable on one contiguous trip, with favorable weather, and at low speed (under 60 MPH). That's obviously hard to do, especially in Texas where speed limits are quite high.
Battery capacity is measured in kWh (kilowatt hours). Charging power is measured in kW (kilowatts). The trip computer displays in Wh/mi (watt hours per mile).
Similar threads
