Model 3 LR/P - 170 mile commute suitability

[Jeremy3292]

Those aero wheels and tires help considerably, so I'd expect more like 270-280Wh/mi for the LR for that scenario. (I don't have one, so I am definitely guessing.) My brother has a Stealth though, and this seems in the ballpark from the numbers I've seen him get for ideal, high-speed Seattle to Portland runs (250Wh/mi) - a little slower than 75mph on average though. Obviously other cars on the road here is a factor - I would not expect this low on a deserted highway.

For reference, I recently did a 2600-mile trip in my Performance from SD to Seattle & back (but was not on interstate most of the way (395 and east of Sierras/Cascades), so was usually at more like 65-70mph), and I averaged 270Wh/mi with a fully loaded vehicle. I had CrossClimate 2 installed which are not as good as the MXM4s for efficiency, and my wheels are not aerodynamic at all (Konig Dekagrams).

Anyway assuming 270Wh/mi, for the new 2021 "82kWh" LR you have 76.9kWh to work with (not including buffer) and 1% heat loss somewhere, so it ends up about (76.9kWh*0.99)/270Wh/mi = 282 miles.

But that's to 0% (but still, doesn't include the buffer), so if you go for 5%, which is not particularly stressful, you end up at ~268 miles (270Wh/mi, 100%->5%).

On prior generations of the car, this worked out to be 260 miles. With capacity loss, most of those cars can now do about 235-240 miles. (I can do about 235 miles at that consumption to 5%.)

Thanks for the well thought out answer. I’ve been playing around with ABRP and what you said seems to fall in line pretty much exactly with ABRP. I set the speed to a constant 75 mph, 85 degrees, and default 5% degradation. It’s saying you can make it about 255 miles from 100% to 0%. If I keep it at 0% degradation then you can get 270 miles. I’ve grown very fond of ABRP lately and the amount of customization you can do to get a result that works for you.

 

[Gasaraki]

I think 170 miles round trip is doable in the LR even in the winter. However if you have range anxiety and can't drop under 20% charge then no. In the winter time you will probably be down to 5% - 10% like ABRP says.

If I do the math, let's say the full battery can only do 300 miles not the whatever they say it is. In the winter you lose 30% range from that. 90% charge to 10% charge is only 80% of the battery usable.

300 x .7 (30% range lost in the winter) = 210 miles of range in the winter

90% -> 10% (Battery usage range, 80%)
210 x .8 = 168 miles

 

[wwu123]

This is one of those situations where, if range anxiety is going to kill the deal altogether, then by all means use the 100% charge option - every day if needed. The concerns about 100% charging are mainly if the car will be sitting like that for long periods, which is not the case here - not every single person needs to shy away from it.

First, since the car is going to be driven 170 miles daily, it won't be sitting at 100% too long each morning, and the start of timing each night can probably be figured out to safely keep that 100% down to a few idle hours while leaving ample time to ensure it gets fully charged. Second, in reality many times of year, the car will be coming home with 30-40%+ SOC, and can also learn to back off the charging to 90% until wintertime or later in car life when the range has lessened. Meanwhile, the long-term range degradation from daily 100% charging vs 90% is probably going to be trivial issue compared to the wear and tear and depreciation of putting 40,000 commute miles annually on the vehicle.

Regarding P versus LR AWD, if both indeed driven the exact same way, on the same commute, with the same tires, may have similar range and range buffer. But if traffic is more variable and the wife is a bit of a leadfoot, say flooring to 90 in the fast lane to get quickly around a big rig, then cutting back right and regen "downshifting" to 70-80, or using brakes to decelerate even faster, over and over, I could see the more rapid acceleration of the P being quite a bit more inefficient. Heck, my wife has just the LR RWD, and her wh/mi efficiency is terrible because she drives like that on the highway and not just the surface roads.

 

[GtiMart]

The second post suggested having the work site install a level2 charger and it seems like no one picked up on it? If they do, a 170mile commute becomes two 85 mile legs. 85 miles is never a problem, even for an SR+. Isn't that a possibility?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The second post suggested having the work site install a level2 charger and it seems like no one picked up on it? If they do, a 170mile commute becomes two 85 mile legs. 85 miles is never a problem, even for an SR+. Isn't that a possibility?

The OP said it didn’t seem promising, so I think we are just assuming it won’t happen. Obviously at some point, it might be possible and then there is no issue here at all, even with 120V/15A. And definitely would be good to push on it to see what is possible.

No plugs/chargers are currently at the proposed work site and installation at work may be a stretch

 

[truckie6606]

Thanks all for the continued replies. Sounds like this may not be too far out of the realm of possibility. It's more of a case of getting spooked by some of the ABRP projections and the fear of the 'range anxiety wrath' lol. The P vs. the LR discussion is more looks for her and the performance for me. She loves the looks of her 3 series M sport, but drives fairly conservative. The performance side is for my benefit on Sunday drives through the Ozarks or Ouachitas. TBD on which model ultimately wins out.

I think L2 chargers at/near her future work site are probably doable in the future, but would probably be 6 months out after she has some time to influence policy decisions and point out funding opportunities. So, long term there probably won't be an issue. In the near term, we could certainly do as one poster suggested and charge to 100% using the scheduled departure time feature (at least on known extreme days) since that time should be fairly consistent.

Again, great discussion and thanks for the input

 

[Gauss Guzzler]

If aesthetics are a driving factor watch the F/S forum here for lots of the Performance Uberturbine wheels being sold. The OEM spoilers come up every so often too and there are several good (perhaps even better) aftermarket spoilers on the market. Those two items will aesthetically convert the LR into a Performance.

 

[Gasaraki]

Thanks all for the continued replies. Sounds like this may not be too far out of the realm of possibility. It's more of a case of getting spooked by some of the ABRP projections and the fear of the 'range anxiety wrath' lol. The P vs. the LR discussion is more looks for her and the performance for me. She loves the looks of her 3 series M sport, but drives fairly conservative. The performance side is for my benefit on Sunday drives through the Ozarks or Ouachitas. TBD on which model ultimately wins out.

I think L2 chargers at/near her future work site are probably doable in the future, but would probably be 6 months out after she has some time to influence policy decisions and point out funding opportunities. So, long term there probably won't be an issue. In the near term, we could certainly do as one poster suggested and charge to 100% using the scheduled departure time feature (at least on known extreme days) since that time should be fairly consistent.

Again, great discussion and thanks for the input

Yes. If you charge to 100%, 170 miles round trip is easy to do.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Performance Uberturbine wheels being sold

If these are takeoffs from the Performance, and not from the Tesla website, these will have the wrong offset for the LR, so will stick out a few more millimeters (~5) than they do on the Performance. Remember the rotors on the Performance are thinner. Not a huge issue but good to know, and will have some very small impact on efficiency probably.

Corollary (only applicable if buying the Performance and wanting a second set of 20" wheels for some strange reason - a second set of wheels should always be 18" of course, haha!): And of course the 20" ones from the Tesla website are not compatible with the Performance (the website doesn't give the exact specs so going off of what they say), you probably can't use them (not sure which issues exist, but potentially 1) not machined for the hub lip, and 2) the offset will be wrong (wheel will be inset too much). Both of these issues could be resolved with a thin spacer to clear the lip.

 

[Jeremy3292]

If these are takeoffs from the Performance, and not from the Tesla website, these will have the wrong offset for the LR, so will stick out a few more millimeters (~5) than they do on the Performance. Remember the rotors on the Performance are thinner. Not a huge issue but good to know, and will have some very small impact on efficiency probably.

Corollary (only applicable if buying the Performance and wanting a second set of 20" wheels for some strange reason - a second set of wheels should always be 18" of course, haha!): And of course the 20" ones from the Tesla website are not compatible with the Performance (the website doesn't give the exact specs so going off of what they say), you probably can't use them (not sure which issues exist, but potentially 1) not machined for the hub lip, and 2) the offset will be wrong (wheel will be inset too much). Both of these issues could be resolved with a thin spacer to clear the lip.

Alan - not to thread jack here but were you able to ever confirm the 82 kWh battery pack on the 2021 Model 3 LR? Nominal vs usable capacity, etc.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Again, great discussion and thanks for the input

I'm very happy you actually did ask and are doing all the ABRP checking. There are a lot of people who buy the car without doing the calculations in questionable circumstances, or fail to budget for capacity loss (a must!).

For ABRP, if you're careful and look, you can actually determine what battery capacity they are assuming for the car (do a long segment which uses a large percentage, and look at kWh used and divide by the % used). Always good to double check to make sure they're making a reasonable assumption.

For the Beta 2021 Performance, it looks like they are assuming 75kWh for 0-100% (so a 78.5kWh battery). So actually they are being a bit pessimistic, since it should be closer to 80kWh (when new). (I also think 340Wh/mi is pessimistic even at 80mph on the interstate - I checked my wheels with RE-71Rs (extremely sticky) recently, at 80mph, round trip on two freeway segments, and ended up at 340Wh/mi, with the AC on (probably adding 10Wh/mi at 80mph) - the PS4S will do somewhat better, they're designed to be more efficient - and more importantly, the 20" wheels are more aero than my wheels. I'll benchmark them sometime.)

ABRP

ABetterRouteplanner is the world's most popular consumer EV routeplanner - both for beginner and experienced EV drivers. And of course for anyone curious about EVs.

abetterrouteplanner.com

lan - not to thread jack here but were you able to ever confirm the 82 kWh battery pack on the 2021 Model 3 LR? Nominal vs usable capacity, etc.

Yes, the recent 2021 Model 3 LR in the US seem to all come with the 2170L battery. Always trust but verify, though (my only evidence is what people have posted here). This is the appropriate thread to discuss that, and it has details of how to take a picture of the pack label before taking delivery, or how to decode the VIN, possibly. But I think it is pretty safe to assume that new LR will have 82.1kWh FPWN (usually these end up at 79-80kWh though - the reason for the discrepancy vs. the Performance is unknown - or perhaps some/most do come in at 80-81kWh and we just have too small a sample size). The displayed range still maxes at around 353 rated miles, due to the degradation threshold still being set to 77.8kWh. But that just means those rated miles are really juicy when new. If I were buying a new LR I would take these recommended steps, just to be certain of the 2170L pack, rather than just assuming I am right.

I'd guess for the 2022 Model 3 LR they'll adjust the threshold and say it's got ~370 miles of range without actually changing anything (since it now has a 2170L pack instead of the 2170C used for the EPA test that did 353 miles).

MASTER THREAD: 2021 Model 3 - Charge data, battery discussion etc

One more thing is this onboard computer upgrade to HW4.0 this should also be included in SR+ isn't? I'm curious to see if all Q4 will actually have this battery upgraded. One more thing that leans me to Q4 is hook that apparently needs to be added in factory so If I change order that would mean...

teslamotorsclub.com

 

[Jeremy3292]

Yes, the recent 2021 Model 3 LR in the US seem to all come with the 2170L battery. Always trust but verify, though (my only evidence is what people have posted here). This is the appropriate thread to discuss that, and it has details of how to take a picture of the pack label before taking delivery, or how to decode the VIN, possibly. But I think it is pretty safe to assume that new LR will have 82.1kWh FPWN (usually these end up at 79-80kWh though - the reason for the discrepancy vs. the Performance is unknown - or perhaps some/most do come in at 80-81kWh and we just have too small a sample size). The displayed range still maxes at around 353 rated miles, due to the degradation threshold still being set to 77.8kWh. But that just means those rated miles are really juicy when new. If I were buying a new LR I would take these recommended steps, just to be certain of the 2170L pack, rather than just assuming I am right.

I'd guess for the 2022 Model 3 LR they'll adjust the threshold and say it's got ~370 miles of range without actually changing anything (since it now has a 2170L pack instead of the 2170C used for the EPA test that did 353 miles).

MASTER THREAD: 2021 Model 3 - Charge data, battery discussion etc

One more thing is this onboard computer upgrade to HW4.0 this should also be included in SR+ isn't? I'm curious to see if all Q4 will actually have this battery upgraded. One more thing that leans me to Q4 is hook that apparently needs to be added in factory so If I change order that would mean...

teslamotorsclub.com

Thanks for that info Alan. So basically Tesla has "locked" 4 kWh of the pack that they then can "unlock" if degradation becomes an issue?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Thanks for that info Alan. So basically Tesla has "locked" 4 kWh of the pack that they then can "unlock" if degradation becomes an issue?

No, that's not how the degradation threshold works. It just hides the degradation. Setting aside potential initial LR pack underperformance (no idea on the reasons for that or if it even exists - it could be a Tesla limit, not sure), let's say they all come in (Performance and LR) at 80.5kWh. The degradation threshold for the Performance is ~80.6kWh, while the LR has 77.8kWh (just as it was in 2020).

Both have 80.5kWh of energy. However, the Performance will start displayed rated range loss immediately, as it loses capacity from the starting point of 80.5kWh (rated miles at 100% will no longer be 315). Meanwhile, the LR will need to lose 2.7kWh of capacity before the rated miles at 100% reduce from 353! But you've lost a lot of real capacity before you start seeing that (unless you have SMT of course).

Just because you have 353 rated miles doesn't mean you only have 77.8kWh (it means you have at least that). The way it is hidden is the rated miles contain more energy per rated mile when the vehicle is above the 77.8kWh threshold. The proof of this is actually buried in the other thread a month or two ago (people with SMT confirmed without a doubt that this is how it works).

And by the way the new LRs may show as high as 354 rated miles when charged to 100% - not sure exactly what it is, but whatever it is, that's what sets the degradation threshold (in conjunction with the charging constant).

Beyond that, whether these 82.1kWh packs can actually be charged to give you 82.1kWh or higher (rather than the more typical 81kWh, sometimes as high as 81.5kWh), no one really knows, though the evidence (voltage at 100%) suggests they can't - but there could be a voltage limit on the low side which they could exploit for 2022, no one has checked it.

 

[Jeremy3292]

No, that's not how the degradation threshold works. It just hides the degradation. Setting aside potential initial LR pack underperformance (no idea on the reasons for that or if it even exists - it could be a Tesla limit, not sure), let's say they all come in (Performance and LR) at 80.5kWh. The degradation threshold for the Performance is ~80.6kWh, while the LR has 77.8kWh (just as it was in 2020).

Both have 80.5kWh of energy. However, the Performance will start displayed rated range loss immediately, as it loses capacity from the starting point of 80.5kWh (rated miles at 100% will no longer be 315). Meanwhile, the LR will need to lose 2.7kWh of capacity before the rated miles at 100% reduce from 353! But you've lost a lot of real capacity before you start seeing that (unless you have SMT of course).

Just because you have 353 rated miles doesn't mean you only have 77.8kWh (it means you have at least that). The way it is hidden is the rated miles contain more energy per rated mile when the vehicle is above the 77.8kWh threshold. The proof of this is actually buried in the other thread a month or two ago (people with SMT confirmed without a doubt that this is how it works).

And by the way the new LRs may show as high as 354 rated miles when charged to 100% - not sure exactly what it is, but whatever it is, that's what sets the degradation threshold (in conjunction with the charging constant).

Gotcha. So your point below was that they EPA tested under 2170C batteries at 353 miles which has "less energy" than 2170L batteries. So they can simply EPA test under the 2170L batteries for the 2022 model and say ~370 miles with all other things being equal.

"I'd guess for the 2022 Model 3 LR they'll adjust the threshold and say it's got ~370 miles of range without actually changing anything (since it now has a 2170L pack instead of the 2170C used for the EPA test that did 353 miles)."

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Gotcha. So your point below was that they EPA tested under 2170C batteries at 353 miles which has "less energy" than 2170L batteries. So they can simply EPA test under the 2170L batteries for the 2022 model and say ~370 miles with all other things being equal.

"I'd guess for the 2022 Model 3 LR they'll adjust the threshold and say it's got ~370 miles of range without actually changing anything (since it now has a 2170L pack instead of the 2170C used for the EPA test that did 353 miles)."

Yes. And assuming the efficiency didn't change (it might), they would do this with just a change in the degradation threshold. (370 miles would require 81.5kWh so it might not be that high.)

 

[Jeremy3292]

Yes. And assuming the efficiency didn't change (it might), they would do this with just a change in the degradation threshold. (370 miles would require 81.5kWh so it might not be that high.)

Thanks Alan.

Back to you regularly scheduled programing now!

 

[Gauss Guzzler]

If these are takeoffs from the Performance, and not from the Tesla website, these will have the wrong offset for the LR, so will stick out a few more millimeters (~5) than they do on the Performance.

Yes, the Performance wheels will sit 6mm (1/4") further outboard when mounted on a 3 with standard silver brakes (offset changed from 35mm to 34mm in 2021). This will not have a noticeable change in range or steering feel (scrub radius) but it might make the car slightly more sporty looking. And it doesn't matter where you get them, they only make one version. The only wheel that Tesla offers with 2 offset choices (34mm/40mm) is the Zero-G Track Package (a.k.a. Referral).

Other than the slight offset differences all Model 3 wheels fit all cars just fine with the single exception of the 18" Aeros not fitting over the rear brakes of the Performance model (though most aftermarket 18's fit). The hub lip issue mostly applies to early aftermarket wheels that hit the market before the Performance model was released and is generally no longer a concern.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

And it doesn't matter where you get them, they only make one version

Last one on this, don’t want to get too off topic. Do you know why they say the 20” don’t work on the Performance? (Implies a different version to me!)

 

[Gauss Guzzler]

Yes, because the offset is different as you noted. They only list OEM fitments and don't want to get into all the subtleties of mixing/matching parts so anything that's not a factory configuration will have a compatibility warning.

 

[Skotty]

I did a lot of 250 mile round trips in my 2020 M3 Performance (Stealth, with 19" wheels and Continental ProContact RX tires). Realistically, it couldn't quite make the round trip without a charge (definitely not in winter). I think 170 would have been doable, but I agree with others that say in winter it could be a white knuckler close call at times.