Model 3 LR usable battery capacity?

[CO2CLEAN]

It seems like it shouldn't be too much to ask 270 miles out of a car that's "rated" for 334. I'll be departing a destination charger with 100%.

That 334 figure is based on 45% highway and 55% city driving. Only highway driving the pre-sandbagged number is 318 miles. 270 seems realistic to me, especially because you can always choose to slow down a bit when range is disappointing.

 

[ewoodrick]

I've been struggling to find a consensus on the usable capacity of the Model 3's battery pack. I'm trying to do trip planning and need to know the capacity for my trip calculations as far as what my max Wh/mile can be.

I've been using 70kWh as a conservative estimate. Has anyone extracted more than this on a single charge?

Instead of trying to calculate using power, why not just use the indicated miles? It tends to make things much easier.
A 270 mile shouldn't be an issue. It is definitely going to bring you in close to empty though.
Just yesterday I was driving a few hundred miles and did some tests between 70 mph and 65 mph. The slower speed gave me about 10% better performance. Since drag increases exponentially, the difference between 70 and 75 should even be more.

But on this trip, the car knows what it can do. At a faster speed, the car indicated that I needed to drive under a specific speed to make it to my destination. Aside from a destination charger, also check the J1772 chargers along the way. Basically know what your options are and then enjoy the trip.

 

[ratsbew]

Tomorrow is the big day! I'm at the destination charger in Russellville, AR now and will have a 100% charge for my departure tomorrow morning. I should be good to go for the 270 mile leg as long as I stay under 250Wh/mile. I'll post updates tomorrow.

 

[ratsbew]

Rain is falling along much of I-40 today....I hope that I can keep my consumption where I need it to be. I'm going to head off at a steady 65 mph.

 

[ratsbew]

100% charged and about ready to go!

 

[ratsbew]

I made it easily! This car is an amazing piece of technology!

As planned, I started the day at 65 mph and got right at 200Wh/mile. The wind was calm to a slight tailwind. Once I was sure I'd make it I sped up to 75 mph. And arrived at the Oklahoma supercharger with 12%. If I would have continued at 65 mph I think I would have gone about 320 miles or so.

274.1 miles on 88% battery capacity. At 50% the trip counter showed between 36 and 37 KWh used so 100% is around 73KWh. I'll be using 70KWh as my planning factor in the future.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Anyone care to do the math on this one?

The Tesla Model 3's Aero Wheel Covers Improve Efficiency

The consumption and predicted range don't seem to match the battery size we expect from a LR Model 3. The latest estimation on the battery pack is it's around 78.3KW of usable energy.

Has Tesla Finally Opened Up The Full Potential Of Its Model 3 Battery?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Anyone care to do the math on this one?

Not sure which math you are looking for.

The article does not explain how they came up with the projected range numbers. But we know for the 70mph test getting 253Wh/mi in an AWD you’d get at best 287 miles of range (310rmi*234Wh/rmi/253Wh/mi = 287mi) - to 0 rated miles (you could drive perhaps another 10 miles after that if you were very lucky). So they are not correct about that.

The battery capacity of the AWD is 79.2kWh when you have a new battery with 4000 miles on it. But you can’t compare this number to the number on the trip meter - some of the kWh don’t seem to make it to that meter for whatever reason. (You might see 76kWh there on a new car, *if you drive the car below 0%*, until it shuts down.)

The other article references a RWD vehicle. I agree that likely the 325-mile update probably just made some more of the buffer visible. It was likely always there (the EPA test of the LR showed ~78.3kWh of capacity in June 2017 before this update), but you would have had to drive for many miles with 0% showing on the battery gauge, using up the large buffer. (As I understand it, it is required that the automaker make all of the EPA energy available to the consumer, so it would have been usable, but perhaps not visible, before the update. Though I am not sure if you are allowed to scale energy available if you do a voluntary derating. (Tesla derated from 334 miles to 310 miles in that test.))

 

[Gasaraki]

I've been struggling to find a consensus on the usable capacity of the Model 3's battery pack. I'm trying to do trip planning and need to know the capacity for my trip calculations as far as what my max Wh/mile can be.

I've been using 70kWh as a conservative estimate. Has anyone extracted more than this on a single charge?

The battery pack is around ~74kw. 70 is a good conservative estimate.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Not sure which math you are looking for.

Looking for the math that explains the predicted range.

This is my math.

258Wh/Mile*312=80,496W

That's well above what the expected usable energy is within a Model 3LR

Every single one of there examples totals around 80.5kw, but we know there isn't that much energy available. Instead their efficiency across the board seems to be less what we'd expect.

In fact their experience is closer to what I experience on real roads with 20inch performance tires during the summer. As an example in the middle of June I went 200 miles with an average speed of 67mph, and I had an efficiency of 308Wh/mile.

That beats the efficiency they list for 18" tires with aero covers @ 70mph. Yet I was doing it on real roads with traffic slowing me down, and a large stretch of 75mph (where the speed limit is 70mph).

Now obviously the efficiency hit they experienced is because it's the winter. The predicted range they list is basically WAY off.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

258Wh/Mile*312=80,496W

Every single one of there examples totals around 80.5kw, but we know there isn't that much energy available. Instead their efficiency across the board seems to be less what we'd expect.

Yes. We know the battery capacity is less than 79kWh. And it is 76kWh when referenced to the trip meter.

As I said I have no idea how they came up with their range numbers (they’re kind of nonsense numbers they came up with from some 80.5kWh nonsense number. Garbage in, garbage out).

The relevant number here is about 76kWh since there is no way you’d ever see more than that on the trip meter (as clearly shown elsewhere), even when you have a brand new battery with 79kWh (EPA) and your drain it until it is completely dead without stopping once or spending any time in park.

Just use that number to calculate range given their efficiency- which is taken from the meter so it is what it is.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Yes. We know the battery capacity is less than 79kWh. And it is 76kWh when referenced to the trip meter.

As I said I have no idea how they came up with their range numbers (they’re kind of nonsense numbers they came up with from some 80.5kWh nonsense number. Garbage in, garbage out).

The relevant number here is about 76kWh since there is no way you’d ever see more than that on the trip meter (as clearly shown elsewhere), even when you have a brand new battery with 79kWh (EPA) and your drain it until it is completely dead without stopping once or spending any time in park.

Just use that number to calculate range given their efficiency- which is taken from the meter so it is what it is.

True, but keep in mind my primary motivation was to mock the article. Like the author should have known that things weren't adding up.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

True, but keep in mind my primary motivation was to mock the article. Like the author should have known that things weren't adding up.

Sorry did not really catch that subtlety in your post!