Rear-wheel drive got a range bump. My all-wheel drive car never got that increase.Since the 18 M3LR got a range bump to 325 shouldn't that number be used for degradation calculations? I have the 18 M3LR also and I'd like to know.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Rear-wheel drive got a range bump. My all-wheel drive car never got that increase.Since the 18 M3LR got a range bump to 325 shouldn't that number be used for degradation calculations? I have the 18 M3LR also and I'd like to know.
Yeah I was going to say that as well. My 2018 AWD stays at 310. I think the first 6 months or so, my 90% (the % I charged at home) was 279 so that would make my full at 310. It went down from there and the biggest drop was after one of the firmware update (forgot which version) and it dropped by a lot.Rear-wheel drive got a range bump. My all-wheel drive car never got that increase.
Oh no!! Do you know what caused the battery failure?The OP's deg seems normal.
You'll be happy to know, my 5yr-old 3 has finally decided to show less than 310 miles:
To be clear, this was all for the RWD - since that was the question I was answering.Yes. Actually use 332 miles or so (77.8kWh/234Wh/rmi) to be more accurate.
(76kWh corresponds to 325 miles (76kWh/234Wh/rmi), but it is well established with many SMT captures and the EPA test result that the vehicle started with more than that.)
Also the EPA rating for the vehicle was over 330 rated miles before voluntary reduction. Check the EPA data file for the exact number.
234Wh/rmi corresponds precisely with the 239Wh/mi on the energy screen. (But of course can be easily derived a couple other ways.)
Heh, this is like a play on words, with kind of double negative. "Reduction in degradation". Are you saying below 55% causes more or less degradation.There is data (search for all the threads and posts about degradation). Generally lower is better. But 80 vs 90 is of minimal difference in degradation. The biggest reduction in degradation is staying below about 55%.
Below 55% reduces the rate of capacity loss by 40-50%, very roughly.Heh, this is like a play on words, with kind of double negative. "Reduction in degradation". Are you saying below 55% causes more or less degradation.
Reduce means lessHeh, this is like a play on words, with kind of double negative. "Reduction in degradation". Are you saying below 55% causes more or less degradation.
The only data is a study of about 12.5 Teslas always charged on SC with minimal to normal degradation.I was thinking maybe there is more data that supports more range loss pushing to 90 more often?
That most likely exists to try and curb supercharger use.Not to hijack the thread but I'm kind of disappointed with Tesla's new advice of 80% for daily driving. The performance model is noticably different at 80 vs 90 SOC.
The full rated value is calculated but I'm not sure how SMT does it. I think your nominal full pack is right on the cusp of the degradation threshold of 76 kWh. Do you remember the maximum NFP you have seen?Oh my god, I spoke too soon. My battery has decided it was only kidding:
Yep, agreed. I only got the OBDII dongle and SMT, a year and a half ago, so the highest I saw was aroundThe full rated value is calculated but I'm not sure how SMT does it. I think your nominal full pack is right on the cusp of the degradation threshold of 76 kWh. Do you remember the maximum NFP you have seen?
@AlanSubie4Life could verify if that is the case. If your rated constant is 245 Wh/mile, then your actual full rated range is 309.4 miles.
But if that is the case, I don't think you have any reason to panic about your degradation after 5 years.