Remember the RWD range is sandbagged, the AWD variants are not. The AWD starts with barely 310 before the inevitable initial loss. The RWD starts with ~330 and has room to lose some miles before impacting the rated range.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Model 3 Performance Battery Degradation One Month (Story)
- Thread starter AMP3Dm3
- Start date
- Status
TT97
Active Member
Both cars rage estimates are based on 310 miles at 100% battery capacity, it doesn't matter what the EPA test results were.
ViviV
Member
I've had a Model 3 RWD since Feb and it still charges to 308-310 at 100% and 279 for 90%. No degradation at all.
I've had P3D since August and it only charges to 290 miles at 100% and 261 for 90%. It has not decreased. It was like this on delivery.
Both are driven and charged in similar manner, not that this matters for rated range but just to say it is not something I am doing.
Remote review of the P3D battery by the service center indicated a healthy battery -- no faults or bad cells.
See image below: top is RWD Model 3 and bottom is P3D.
The P3D also shows estimated miles, perhaps because it has version 9 software installed. This number changes, of course.
Interestingly, both say 65 of 72 kWh for estimated charge, yet the rated and ideal miles are different.
Thoughts on this?
I've had P3D since August and it only charges to 290 miles at 100% and 261 for 90%. It has not decreased. It was like this on delivery.
Both are driven and charged in similar manner, not that this matters for rated range but just to say it is not something I am doing.
Remote review of the P3D battery by the service center indicated a healthy battery -- no faults or bad cells.
See image below: top is RWD Model 3 and bottom is P3D.
The P3D also shows estimated miles, perhaps because it has version 9 software installed. This number changes, of course.
Interestingly, both say 65 of 72 kWh for estimated charge, yet the rated and ideal miles are different.
Thoughts on this?
Interesting. Seems odd unless the software has a different rated range calculation for each, which might not jive with the marketing. Specifically implies 233Wh/mi for the RWD and 249Wh/mi for the P3D in terms of rated range.
Do you have a P3D+ by chance? I guess I could imagine some sort of derating factor for tires - that might make things work out since P3D+ owners could always put tires on with less rolling resistance to get the advertised rated range. I always thought rated range was a constant, though.
My model 3 is a RWD that used to get the 310 miles display range but now only gets 296 after the 3200 miles and 4 months I've had it. I'm still not convinced that the problem isn't software or computer related. My milage aberation started after 34.2 and has continued thru 36.2 and is continuing into 39.4. Over that time, I've also seen the headlights turn off instantly when leaving the car and stay on for 3-4 minutes without any changes to settings. The warning popped up today telling me that surround view may be non-functional and to contact service if it persist. We were on the way to Costco so I rebooted, nothing changed. Parked and checked all cameras and nothing looked wrong so rebooted again, nothing changed so figured I would be calling service when we got home as the car still drove fine. Came out of the store and the problem never returned. If strange things are happening with other systems, then maybe my battery display range is doing weird stuff without it actually being a battery problem. I'm sure that there has to be some different software in AWD compared to RWD cars if for no other reason than controlling 2 motors. When my problem began with 34.2, the AWD cars were just getting widely released and that is when my problem started with my RWD car. Just wild guessing at this point but as good as any guess and I would rather it be a software/computer fix than a bad battery. My lifetime is 225Wh/mi so I'm pretty sure it's not that.
diamond.g
Active Member
I think the Energy display shows that the rated wH/mi is around 250, at least for my AWD. Need someone with RWD and v9 to corroborate.
ViviV
Member
As shown below, on my P3D+ the rated appears to be about 260 wH/mi. My RWD does not yet have v9 to compare.
Yes, but this shouldn't change the rated since the tires can be changed and the other features of PUP don't affect driving, it just means I will not get the rated miles. My understanding is that the battery should still charge to 310 miles rated, especially because not everyone with P3D+ has the issue I'm describing. Some P3D owners report charging to the expected >300 range.
I was wondering if Tesla included some sort of dynamically calculated derating factor related to measured tire rolling resistance. We do know Tesla can auto detect tire size at least based on videos of those who change wheel type. But if other P3D+ owners with Pilot 4S tires are close to 310 after driving a while then it blows that theory. A little bummed if I’ve already lost over 5% in the first month even if degradation is non-linear.
Last edited:
ViviV
Member
update -- Rated for P3D is 256 Wh/mi [drove until the rated and dashed line were superimposed on energy display]
diamond.g
Active Member
We really need a RWD person (or you) to get v9 and chime in. Basic math says that out of a 75kWh battery to get 310 miles you have to average 241.9 Wh/mi. Where the line is for AWD and Perf would imply that we need bigger batteries to get the same range.
You have to remember that the EPA test rated the LR RWD Model 3 to something like 333 miles and that Tesla asked them to de-rate it to 310. (Probably so that all LR models would have the same EPA rating.) The rated consumption figure should be the same in all LR Model 3s, but you will get a different drivable range, over the same terrain, based on tires, wheels, and if you have RWD or AWD...
You can see that in the energy usage numbers that the EPA reports:
The AWD Model 3s use ~12% more power than the RWD Model 3. (And the 2018 RWD Model 3 is ~4% more efficient than the 2017 RWD Model 3.)
If that's the case the perf3 would really be more like 292 miles right? I'd much happier knowing my rated range is lower due to inefficient wheels than to my battery rapidly degrading or never having the storage it should have.
dhrivnak
Active Member
While most EVs take into account the driving history including the Model S and X this changed with the 3. Personally I like it but that is my preference.
And while it seems wheels make a difference (the aero wheels give about 15 more miles 5%) the range estimates do not account for it.
Last edited:
After 5400 miles, I was down to 291 extrapolated 100% charge range. Then, doing a 10-100% cycle, my RWD eventually showed 300 range. So, if initial true range is 330-ish . . . . I've lost at least 30 miles then? Obviously, some amount of "calibration" did happen after my 10-100% cycle, which got me back up to 300, but not back to full 310. This seems to lead to the conclusion that all the "room to lose" has seemingly been lost and then some. It seems premature for an advertised 310 range car, that actually goes 330, to be well below 310, at all, for at least the first year (since that buffer itself is a full 5%-plus degradation buffer, literally). Why is this? I don't know the answer, but I do know I'm not the only RWD that's getting no better than a 300 mi stated range (a bunch are getting in the low 290's).
I don't know what to make of all this yet, but I do find it strange that otherwise healthy RWDs would be dipping below 310 even by one mile, even after 5k miles, when they're secretly supposed to have a 330 mile range.
The Model S&X do not take into account your driving history for the remaining range displayed on the IC.
One thing that could explain all this, is if Model 3's actually did base range on energy actually used for some trailing amount of miles driven, as do many other EV's (and same with ICE range indicators - many look at something like the last 50 miles of driving, to calculate range remaining). But, I've seen a million times over in every single forum, that this is not how Tesla does it. It's a rated range, based on some static wh/mi, and no amount of fast (or slow) driving will change the range estimation. So I guess that's not it then. What is it, though?
dhrivnak
Active Member
I've heard this said a million times at this point - it's a Rated Range that does not take into account driving history. But . . . . Do we have a definitive cite to something from Tesla that states this? Not to diminish the collective wisdom of all of the posters on all of the forums, but wouldn't it be nice to have a definitive cite for this?
(Part of the confusion for me, is I've seen Tesla employee statements posted by forum participants, where they received the info from their Tesla SC, that contradict the stated conventional wisdom on this, too. Not that those Tesla employee folks are right always - seem not right more often than you'd expect - but again it would be great to put this to bed with a definitive cite to something from Tesla. That's gotta exist, right?)
No the range remaining reported on the IC never uses driving history. (They energy app on the CID does use driving history.)
ViviV
Member
Exactly! Which is what my range is showing at 100%, 292. Also taking into account that Remote S shows my RWD and P3D+ having the same estimated kWh battery size (72k), this would lead me to believe that the reason my range shows 290-292 at 100% SOC is some software issue. I've seen other people post pictures of their Remote S battery estimated size as ~77 kWh -- which would be closer to expected (I just can't remember which model this was, I think a performance 3).
Logic tells us that both RWD and P3D can't get the same 310 range with different Wh/mi rating and same battery size. Therefore, there must be something setting that determines if the battery is a RWD or AWD/P, so that the AWD/P is effectively bigger to achieve the 310 mile range in the AWD/P (i.e. battery softtware limited in the RWD).
This is just conjecture, but what if my car's battery is set as a RWD car but with a rating of 256 Wh/mi? -- in this case I will get the 292 I am seeing and would also be consistent with the Service Center confirming my battery is healthy and appears normal. I don't know the rating for RWD because it has not updated to v9 yet.
Is this plausible?
- Status
Similar threads
