Model 3 LR RWD Range Shown at 100% Charge?

[CCIE]

Trying to see how many people are seeing 325 miles of range with the new software version (2019.5.15) when charged to 100% for their LR RWD Model 3.

I leave my display on percentage because the EPA rated range number is generally useless. But, I was curious with the recent firmware change, so I switched it to EPA range mode and charged to 100%. The car only showed 312 miles range. I have 10,000 miles and purchased the car in August. I guess my battery has degraded a bit. How are others fairing? Note your car’s age, mileage, and software version in the comments.

 

[timk225]

I'm still on 50.6, the last time I 100% charged it a couple months ago it got to 308. I got my 3 in May and it has 23K miles on it now.

 

[gaswalla]

90% was 284 this morning .. was 278 prior to software update. 15 months new with 30k
Prior to update: if it said 278 miles, could get 95% of state range.. Now seems like our Model S where the stated range is a bit exaggerated.

 

[azred]

I seldom fully charge my year old LR 3 but the last time got about 310, I think. I don’t know if skeptics are right that the 325 is just a PR move to come closer to the original LR EPA rating from a year and a half ago. That may or may not be true but what should be more apparent is the alleged 5% power increase. That should help low end pop which noticeably lags my S.

 

[gaM3changer]

318 miles @ 100% charge on 2019.5.15. Car is 4 months old with 6k miles.

 

[gilscales]

Just updated and car was at 250 miles range before the update and 257 after, I will charge to 100% just to see what I get tonight

 

[gilscales]

Just charged to 100%, car shows 321,TeslaFi shows 320.51
April build and 19,899 miles, not bad.

 

[timk225]

I just got my 5.15 update this morning, I will do a 100% charge sometime soon and report back the numbers I get.

I think Tesla may have moved the buffer capacity amounts a little. They are claiming a 15 mile increase, at 250 wh/mile that'd be 3.75 kw of extra power being used, I think that would be quite a lot for them to cover just by fudging the numbers of "reported" miles.

 

[gilscales]

I just got my 5.15 update this morning, I will do a 100% charge sometime soon and report back the numbers I get.

I think Tesla may have moved the buffer capacity amounts a little. They are claiming a 15 mile increase, at 250 wh/mile that'd be 3.75 kw of extra power being used, I think that would be quite a lot for them to cover just by fudging the numbers of "reported" miles.

EPA reported 334 miles, it is widely known that Tesla held back that number to 310 for the LR RWD car, 325 is the number they are using now, you will not gain any range, if they found a "magic pill" to add range then they would add it to ALL cars.

 

[gavine]

I just got my 5.15 update this morning, I will do a 100% charge sometime soon and report back the numbers I get.

I think Tesla may have moved the buffer capacity amounts a little. They are claiming a 15 mile increase, at 250 wh/mile that'd be 3.75 kw of extra power being used, I think that would be quite a lot for them to cover just by fudging the numbers of "reported" miles.

So why only the RWD then? Does that mean they had already done this to the AWD version from the get-go?

 

[Uncle Paul]

There will always be a difference between the EPA rated range and your individual display.

Same thing with Gassers. YMMV.

 

[CCIE]

There will always be a difference between the EPA rated range and your individual display.

Same thing with Gassers. YMMV.

That would make sense. But I’m reality, the range shown next to the battery is strictly based on EPA rated efficiency (wh/mi), charge level, and battery capacity. That’s why I say it’s generally useless.

So, for those with earlier firmware, a value lower than 310 at 100% charge indicates battery degradation or a mistake calculating charge level. Same story for current firmware, just using 325.

If you want to see predicted range based on recent efficiency changes, you have to open the energy graph.

 

[SR22pilot]

LR RWD 326
LR AWD 292

Originally the AWD was at 308 and the RWD at 310

 

[Polly Wog]

LR RWD on 5.15 is 322 at 100%, was 307 prior to the software update.

 

[suwaneedad]

310 prior to 2019.5.15.
325 with 2019.5.15. (N.B. this is 260@80% which equals 325. I haven't had a need to take it to 100% yet.)
The concept of driving my car for a year, and putting 24k miles on it, without any sign of capacity degradation, is blowing my mind a bit.

 

[Crib]

So why only the RWD then? Does that mean they had already done this to the AWD version from the get-go?

No. Remember that the AWD model 3 is less efficient than RWD, so the originally indicated 310 range was already acurrate. The RWD was just always understated, so as to not make the AWD look inferior to the RWD.

 

[Crib]

That would make sense. But I’m reality, the range shown next to the battery is strictly based on EPA rated efficiency (wh/mi), charge level, and battery capacity. That’s why I say it’s generally useless.

So, for those with earlier firmware, a value lower than 310 at 100% charge indicates battery degradation or a mistake calculating charge level. Same story for current firmware, just using 325.

If you want to see predicted range based on recent efficiency changes, you have to open the energy graph.

I agree, I’m not sure why most people don’t understand the concept of EPA rated range. It’s such a simple concept; effectively just an equation with two variables. They set the denominator at the EPA watt hours per mile (they have some control over this within EPA guidelines-can easily just decide to over-state est use/mile, which is what they did on RWD), and the numerator is simply the current state of charge (total currently availabile watt/hrs in the pack).
While Tesla has in the past acutually improved algorithmicly controlled battery to motor efficiency, this wasn’t the case with the LR RWD, as they just changed the denominator in the equation.
I love my Tesla’s, but they need to be more transparent, because in the long term, these games they’re playing with range calculations could come back to bite them.

 

[JLove]

only got 312 at 100% the other day. 15K miles, picked up in July. Have had 3 software updates in the last week and a half, up to 8.3 right now and range has stayed the same each time.

 

[North75]

I would really love to know why some cars are not showing any change in capacity. I got 302 at 100%, although I did get 248 at 80% which would be 310 at 100%. 7000 miles on the version I’m not supposed to say (9.0)

 

[Tocunvt]

LR RWD M3
VIN XXX71085
v9.0 2019.16.2
10,000 miles
324mi @ 100%