Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Blog Model 3: Is The Long Range Battery Worth It?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
At $9,000 US, one of the pricier options for Model 3 is range. The Standard Range (SR) vehicle comes with 220 miles of EPA-rated range and a Long Range (LR) car has 310 miles. Is the long-range upgrade worth $9,000 for 90 more miles? Today, we’ll explore this question.

You need to understand your personal driving needs. If you’ll never use the additional 90 miles, you might as well save the money. If, however, you’ll use it or it would give you peace of mind and you can afford it, you should get the LR.

Faster Charging

In addition to the extra range, the LR will also charge faster when connected to Tesla’s High Power Wall Connector. The SR charges at a rate of 7.6 kW (about 30 miles per hour), whereas the LR charges at 9.6 kW (about 37 miles per hour). The slightly faster home charging is a nice add-on, but far from justifies the cost. The point of the LR is the additional range, let’s move to that aspect.

Battery Cost

I thought you said we were going to talk about range next; this is cost. Yes, I did. But the question we are asking is about value for money. So, let’s look at the cost value of what you’re getting.

The price of lithium-ion batteries has declined from an average of around $400 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in 2012 (when the Model S was launched) to under $150 today. For comparison, GM says when buying batteries for the Chevy Bolt, they pay LG Chem about $145 per kWh. This is, of course, just for the battery cells, it does not include the packaging, cooling, installation… The final retail price for any finished goods would be far above the cost of the raw components, but this gives you a starting reference.

Although Tesla has not released specific pack sizes for the two vehicles, there have been leaks that have let us know the that the SR has about 50 kWh of capacity and the LR has 75 to 80 kWh. So let’s assume that the extra $9,000 buys you 30 kWh more capacity. That is a retail price of $300 per kWh. From this perspective, Tesla is not giving us a bargain, but there are other ways to look at this too.

It’s All About The Range

If you just look at the price of the car and the range, you can make a simple table of price per mile. Our table will have the Model 3 LR and SR as well as a few other EVs for comparison. Note, these are base prices (not including incentives). If you want to buy leather seats, or dual motors, that’s up to you, but including it here would complicate the table.

Screen-Shot-2017-10-06-at-9.43.11-AM.png


* The 2018 Leaf data is not final/official at the time of writing, this may need an update when final pricing and EPA results are published.

Looking at the range this way, the LR is the best per mile bargain in the bunch. Only the Model 3 SR and Chevy Bolt are even in the same category for dollars per mile category.

Summary

The car you’ll like best is the one that meets your needs and your budget. Make sure you understand your driving habits. Open Google Maps and plot out your regular drives. For your longer drives, open the Tesla Supercharger map and see if there are any Superchargers along the routes for your longer drives.

Sidebar: Margins & Upgrade Options

Tesla has to make money on each car they sell. These funds go towards building out the production capacity, charging infrastructure, and more. The no frills SR car should be as affordable as possible to allow as many customers into the 200-mile plus EV market as they can. One way to do this is to keep the profit margin on the base model of the car low and then offer compelling upgrades (with higher margins). This allows the company to have a blended margin that is above that of the base model while keeping the door open to more price-sensitive customers. Tesla is far from the only automaker to use this scheme and it is a win for both the company and customers.

TMC Member Patrick0101 is a solar and electric vehicle advocate who blogs at Cards With Cords

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So even in pretty gloomy scenarios a daily commute of 100 km/65 mi vv should be range-anxiety free.

You are corroborating what I said - It is range-anxiety free city car that will fit your daily commutes and all your errands comfortably under all conditions. But it can never be a convenient long distance car, much the same way Leaf is not a long distance car, although technically I can keep charging every 80 miles and go from coast to coast.
 
You are corroborating what I said - It is range-anxiety free city car that will fit your daily commutes and all your errands comfortably under all conditions. But it can never be a convenient long distance car, much the same way Leaf is not a long distance car, although technically I can keep charging every 80 miles and go from coast to coast.
I see what you mean. the word 'city car' gave me the impression that you meant it would solely be useable for driving within cities.

Btw for me the initial range of 330 km/205 mi is enough for long distance travel within Europe. I usually stop every three hours anyway, so no problem there. I will not be buying a model 3 until 2020. By then I hope we will see much quicker charging and many more stations. If the range of the SR also improves over time, just like the model S has, I'm sure that the base version of the model 3 will be sufficient for me.
 
But it can never be a convenient long distance car, much the same way Leaf is not a long distance car, although technically I can keep charging every 80 miles and go from coast to coast.
I just plugged in the numbers in abettertripplanner to see if there is some truth to this (comparison of M3 to Leaf aside).

I found the SR is only about 8 hrs and and five extra supercharger stops less convenient on a coast to coast run from San Diego CA to Jacksonville FL than the LR:
SR = 55 1/2 hours total driving/charging time, with 23 supercharger stops
LR = 47 1/2 hours total driving/charging time, with 18 supercharger stops

And as the supercharger network expands, and on shorter than coast to coast runs, the inconvenience of the SR only diminishes. I remain of the position if a driver has a long daily commute, travels xc often, or often drives in winter conditions, LR is the way to go. And also that the SR is a more than viable road trip machine.

IMO Tesla knows exactly what they are doing, build out infrastructure so the average distance between superchargers is ~130 miles, making it just about perfect for a 220 mile range M3. Drive 130 miles, arrive at low SOC, fill to another 130miles range in ~35 minutes, repeat.
 
You forgot to calculate the buffers. This range is from 100% -> 0%. Add in 10% at the top (charge to 90%) and have 10% left when you get home will be a 20% reduction from this numbers.

It always bugs me when people say this. You leave it charged at 90% normally because that's almost always enough range, and letting the car sit at 100% charge for extended periods of time is bad for the battery. Any time you need the range you charge to 100%, and it's no problem. So talking about max range should always be from a 100% battery (at least from home. From superchargers you also need to take into account the extra time it takes to charge to 100%).
 
Any time you need the range you charge to 100%, and it's no problem.
... and no problem with calculating to return home - or arrive at the destination - with 0% charge?

You NEED some buffers. You can argue that you do not always need the 10% buffer above 90% - true, but not when you are calculating your daily usage. There are exceptions - like extended trips or bad weather - where it is OK to remove the top buffer. If you are always calculating to arrive with 0% charge left, you are in for some trouble. Therefore it is wise to always subtract some range as "buffers" when you are calculating how much range you have disposable, and that was my point. I leave it to you to decide how much buffer you want to use in your calculation, but do not just leave them out.
 
... and no problem with calculating to return home - or arrive at the destination - with 0% charge?

You NEED some buffers. You can argue that you do not always need the 10% buffer above 90% - true, but not when you are calculating your daily usage. There are exceptions - like extended trips or bad weather - where it is OK to remove the top buffer. If you are always calculating to arrive with 0% charge left, you are in for some trouble. Therefore it is wise to always subtract some range as "buffers" when you are calculating how much range you have disposable, and that was my point. I leave it to you to decide how much buffer you want to use in your calculation, but do not just leave them out.

If your daily usage is anything at all close to the max range you need a bigger battery. And I said nothing about leaving a 10% buffer at the bottom. Of course you want to do that. I just object to people who say that you should subtract 10% off of the max range of a Tesla because you only charge it to 90%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KJD and dgpcolorado
If your daily usage is anything at all close to the max range you need a bigger battery. And I said nothing about leaving a 10% buffer at the bottom. Of course you want to do that. I just object to people who say that you should subtract 10% off of the max range of a Tesla because you only charge it to 90%.
Yes, for the *max* range you can get, you are right. But nowhere in that post I did replay to was there any mentions about *max* range. Just "range". And that was what I did react on, I would not let anyone leave the impression that the max possible range is what to expect and calculate from on a daily usage when they decide witch battery to get.

But at least he got both the degradation and the weather subtraction right - 2 out of 3 is not bad ;)
 
Yes, for the *max* range you can get, you are right. But nowhere in that post I did replay to was there any mentions about *max* range. Just "range".
The word 'range' as it is used here and in f.e. EPA range, typical range, ideal range, real world range etc, is always max range. It is simply a number that tells you how far you can get at 100% charge with a certain energy consumption.
No buffer is taken into account.
 
The word 'range' as it is used here and in f.e. EPA range, typical range, ideal range, real world range etc, is always max range. It is simply a number that tells you how far you can get at 100% charge with a certain energy consumption.
No buffer is taken into account.
Yes the EPA range is about max range you can get, and does not take any user-buffers, wind, rain, winter or degradation into account. This thread is about which battery to choose. What range is enough for "my" use? Can I live with the range (not "max range" - realistic day to day range) of the SR battery or do I have to get the LR battery/is the LR battery worth the $9k?

And in that spirit you did right by subtracting some range for "winter/rain/wind" and some range for degradation. So you was no longer talking about "max range" but "realistic range", but - as I pointed out - forgot about the buffers. And when calculating the realistic day to day range you have to calculate them in, as you did with the other factors.

When I tries to find out what battery I should get I do take that EPA "max range as new" and subtract some for "user buffers", some for "winter/rain/wind" and some for degradation. What I'm struggling with is not IF I should have all this 3 factors, just how many % to subtract for each. At the moment I'm at 20%/20%/10%, and that gives a realistic day to day range for the SR of 204km/127miles in the winter time some years down the road. And that is what I need, and is about right for SuC to SuC range...
 
Soooo....I am looking at this "range" thin a little differently. I plan on this car lasting for as long as I can possibly drive it, hopefully 10 years or more. That said, long term health of the car is a concern for me. I am told that the optimum battery usage for the long term health of the battery is between 40-70% of full charge. Yes, yes, I know it is perfectly acceptable to charge above and below these levels on a regular basis, but I said "optimal" as in the very best for long term battery health.

With this in mind, if I regularly charge to 70% each night and then use what I need during the day, the "optimal" range from a battery health standpoint becomes, SR Model 3 - 66 miles and LR Model 3 - 93 miles. This is how I would use the car 90% of the time. Sure on days where I am traveling and need more range I would charge accordingly but for every day, day after day use, I would probably use it as stated above. The difference between 66 and 93 miles then becomes much more significant.

It will be long range for me. Just my $.02 of course.

Dan
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vern Padgett
Yes the EPA range is about max range you can get, and does not take any user-buffers, wind, rain, winter or degradation into account. This thread is about which battery to choose. What range is enough for "my" use? Can I live with the range (not "max range" - realistic day to day range) of the SR battery or do I have to get the LR battery/is the LR battery worth the $9k?

And in that spirit you did right by subtracting some range for "winter/rain/wind" and some range for degradation. So you was no longer talking about "max range" but "realistic range", but - as I pointed out - forgot about the buffers. And when calculating the realistic day to day range you have to calculate them in, as you did with the other factors.

When I tries to find out what battery I should get I do take that EPA "max range as new" and subtract some for "user buffers", some for "winter/rain/wind" and some for degradation. What I'm struggling with is not IF I should have all this 3 factors, just how many % to subtract for each. At the moment I'm at 20%/20%/10%, and that gives a realistic day to day range for the SR of 204km/127miles in the winter time some years down the road. And that is what I need, and is about right for SuC to SuC range...

I think the number of people who need a day to day range more than what the SR battery provides will be extremely tiny. But yes, you definitely need to calculate your daily range needs differently than your road trip needs.
 
Last edited:
I think the number of people who need a day to day range more than what the SR battery provides will be extremely tiny.
Maybe. But I'm at the edge my self. Based on the numbers above I will be fine, but just a bit more degradation then calculated, or if I experience some more weather-loss of range then calculated I may fall over to needing the LR. Or just if a greater part of my daily driving had been on some highway with a 110km/h (68mph) speed limit or more...
 
I just had a eureka moment. I might as well go LR and skip the PUP. Delta is just $4k USD.

The reason I wanted the PUP is mainly for the heated steering wheel, which isn't available anyway. The heated seats are nice to have but with the cabin heat running (without any range anxiety), that will keep us nice and warm. Only things I'll be missing besides the heated seats are the heated side mirrors and memory driver seat.

I'll likely opt for LR and AWD and stick with black. This way, I don't go over the imaginary budget. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: KJD
I also had a eureka moment. I will take the SR and keep my seven year old Toyota Hybrid Corolla in stead of trading it in.

Thanks to this thread I realised that a buffer of 15-20% is a good idea to be safe. This means that my idea of using the model 3 for long distance travel (mainly holidays up to 1600 km/1000 miles) would be difficult. So now I will use my Toyota for these longer trips and my model 3 for short distances within the Netherlands.

I'll likely opt for SR and EAP in black. This way I hope to keep the purchase of a two year old M3 below 35k euros, estimating the price of a new model in the Netherlands at 47k incl VAT.
 
Last edited:
Definitely not worth it for me. The only real road trips I take are to Manhattan, KS (w/ SC in Topeka) and to the parents house in Wichita, KS, which once the SC in Emporia is built, there will be no need for the longer range, save the once in a blue moon trips. I am not paying 9k for something I might use 1 time every 2-3 years. Much more cost effective to just rent a car then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Railhawk52
I just had a eureka moment. I might as well go LR and skip the PUP. Delta is just $4k USD.

The reason I wanted the PUP is mainly for the heated steering wheel, which isn't available anyway. The heated seats are nice to have but with the cabin heat running (without any range anxiety), that will keep us nice and warm. Only things I'll be missing besides the heated seats are the heated side mirrors and memory driver seat.

I'll likely opt for LR and AWD and stick with black. This way, I don't go over the imaginary budget. :)

....and if it turns out that heated *front* seats are included in the standard interior, then you'll be pleasantly surprised. :)
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: internalaudit
Definitely not worth it for me. The only real road trips I take are to Manhattan, KS (w/ SC in Topeka) and to the parents house in Wichita, KS, which once the SC in Emporia is built, there will be no need for the longer range, save the once in a blue moon trips. I am not paying 9k for something I might use 1 time every 2-3 years. Much more cost effective to just rent a car then.
I agree that people get all out of whack over maybe 2 long trips a year..
With the Sr at $9000 less I can deal with a couple 15-30 min stops twice a year... and if not car rentals are CHEAP these days!
 
I just plugged in the numbers in abettertripplanner to see if there is some truth to this (comparison of M3 to Leaf aside).

I found the SR is only about 8 hrs and and five extra supercharger stops less convenient on a coast to coast run from San Diego CA to Jacksonville FL than the LR:
SR = 55 1/2 hours total driving/charging time, with 23 supercharger stops
LR = 47 1/2 hours total driving/charging time, with 18 supercharger stops

And as the supercharger network expands, and on shorter than coast to coast runs, the inconvenience of the SR only diminishes. I remain of the position if a driver has a long daily commute, travels xc often, or often drives in winter conditions, LR is the way to go. And also that the SR is a more than viable road trip machine.

IMO Tesla knows exactly what they are doing, build out infrastructure so the average distance between superchargers is ~130 miles, making it just about perfect for a 220 mile range M3. Drive 130 miles, arrive at low SOC, fill to another 130miles range in ~35 minutes, repeat.
Your analysis looks accurate. What is missing is my belief most drivers do not feel comfortable driving on the last 1/8 of their gas tank. (Of course I can’t prove that statement, but it seems like a pretty safe assumption.) That’s why LR makes sense to me and many others. I believe resale values for the SR will plunge solely because the competition including Teslas will routinely eliminate range anxiety and a rated range of 220 won’t. So what’s the range anxiety cut off? 300 maybe, 400 for sure as at that point EV range will match many ICE vehicles. Of course hybrids can achieve 500+ but I doubt many people buy hybrids for that reason.
 
Your analysis looks accurate. What is missing is my belief most drivers do not feel comfortable driving on the last 1/8 of their gas tank. (Of course I can’t prove that statement, but it seems like a pretty safe assumption.) That’s why LR makes sense to me and many others. I believe resale values for the SR will plunge solely because the competition including Teslas will routinely eliminate range anxiety and a rated range of 220 won’t. So what’s the range anxiety cut off? 300 maybe, 400 for sure.
Well, if charging rate of DC-stations as well as the number of stations could be doubled or even tripled the coming years, range anxiety would be zero for even the smallest battery cars.