Then of course, my car is parked in around 5c days and night and I am driving in temp down to...well Canadian Winter temperatures...
So hopefully, it has something to do with my numbers...keeping my fingers crossed and waiting for Spring !
-
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 - charged to 100% shows 293 miles range. Why?
- Thread starter LakeForestM3
- Start date
So hopefully, it has something to do with my numbers...keeping my fingers crossed and waiting for Spring !
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Definitely a factor. Can always do a long hard drive, then Supercharge, then look after you Supercharge. That’ll be closer to the summer result.
I am also quite new to Tesla, purchased a SP 90D 3 weeks ago. Fully charged I only achieved 360 km on battery estimate which seems way below the expected 500 km range, even allowing for battery degrading, vehicle is 2016 model. I was in contact with Tesla who was trying to explained all the factors that could affect your range pending on driving style, temperatures etc. I do accept these factors but still cannot understand why my battery will only charge to 360 km ( 224 miles) on maximum charge. That is not affect by driving. Was wondering if this is a common issue or maybe defect of battery?
My uneducated guess is if you are talking about the dispayed estimated range, is you are dealing with a deffective battery.
If there is a guarantee, go for it.
We are talking of 30% degradation in 4 years...on the model 3 it is a battery replacement if the mileage is bellow 160k.
Wrong. 90d max new was 290 miles. You say you are getting 224. That’s 77%, or maybe 23% loss. And it is winter, so most batteries measure low. So let’s say 75%. Not happy, but not 30%. However it is unusual. My 2012 S still gets 250ish max out of 265 new.
My 2020 LR AWD showed 279 the first time I charged it to 90. This can’t possibly be based on one day of driving and coincidentally reflect what would be 310 miles at 100 SOC. There clearly has been no visible increase over the 2019 model. Without this I am not sure how to actually asses whether the car truly has an increased range as advertised.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
The miles in the car are only loosely related to the miles advertised on the website. There is no requirement that they match when the car is new. Only the energy in the battery and efficiency matter. That being said, I don’t know why the website shows the 3P+ at 310 still (seems like it should be 299...).
It’s very hard to determine whether your car would have increased range or whether it matches what was tested by the EPA. All you can keep track of is your available energy (constant * rated miles). Efficiency is much harder to judge.
So you don’t find it odd that at 90% SOC I am at exactly 90% of the previously stated EPA estimate?
This is not true. At delivery, on spec battery should match or exceed rated advertised range. That’s what “rated” means. Over time, at least 5 things can happen: 1) estimator can get out of whack and need recalibration, 2) battery cells can get slightly out of balance and charge ends when any cell reaches max voltage. 3) cold weather can reduce battery’s ability to take a charge, 4) Tesla software changes can impact the parameters of the estimation, 5) battery can actually degrade. model S experience is that they degradecabout 5% in first year and little thereafter.
battery management system can take care of (1)(2) and (3) with occasional charges to 90+ and occasional discharges to 20- Occasional means a few times a year!
When every reported 3P seems to have gone down to identical number after a software release, sounds like (4). When there are variances around that number, it could be due to (1)(2)(3)(5).
My recommendation is that if you are seeing a 100% number less than 10% below new, do not worry. That means 3P down to 279 @100%.
IF any of it is actual degradation, it is not linear... you should get very little more after year 1.
It's not degradation with the 3P. You're getting what you can get out of the battery. I assume you guys have seen the infamous report on range per type of Model 3?
There are 3 types of Model 3P's.
The advertised EPA range is 310 on all of them.
The 18 inch wheels with aerocaps actually gets 308
The 19 inch wheels gets 296
The 20 inch wheels gets 280
From what I read if there is a model 3 that tested 310, then if all other versions of that model are within 30% of that figure they can keep the advertised number of 310 for all of them. That's brutal.
There are 3 types of Model 3P's.
The advertised EPA range is 310 on all of them.
The 18 inch wheels with aerocaps actually gets 308
The 19 inch wheels gets 296
The 20 inch wheels gets 280
From what I read if there is a model 3 that tested 310, then if all other versions of that model are within 30% of that figure they can keep the advertised number of 310 for all of them. That's brutal.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
In general, you're right, but the context of my comment is important - and the word "requirement" above.
As a specific example: Right now the 3P & 3P+ do not match the rated range numbers on the Tesla website. Nor do they match the EPA numbers. Nor do the AWDs match. But this does not necessarily indicate any funny business on Tesla's part, or under-delivery of range.
I emphasize the "requirement" here...and I stand by what I said - that it is not REQUIRED that the number match. Historically, it certainly has matched the EPA rating. But all that is required is that the available energy match the EPA results within some margin (don't know the variance allowed). So, you need to know the constant - always. When there are changes to the constant taking place, that can lead to poor conclusions. I said the above because there is often a sole focus on the rated miles. But that simply is not enough information on its own. The thing you can know, which you should keep track of, is available energy - and it's not enough (there are at least two counter examples with Model 3 showing this) to keep track of miles.
No, that's normal. First, not sure which software you're on. It's possible that the AWD constants have not yet been updated (we've had a lot of reports of changes from Performance vehicles). My point was that this is a software issue, and just telling us the number of rated miles does not allow us to assess whether your car is in good shape or not. We also need to know the charging constant.
If your car is a 2020, I think it's likely your car has 76kWh available currently, but that in the near future you will get updated to 77.6kWh. It's not clear what displayed range you will have at that point. And we won't know if your efficiency matches that of Tesla's article used for their range testing done in Tesla's Fremont lab (but I think we have to assume it does - and it's essentially unknowable so we should put that aside).
Yes, and that's what has happened here. It sounds like they have NOT updated the 3D (Dual Motor) software yet (only the 3P/3P+). Or, @jfinephilly has not updated to 2019.40.50.x yet. As we know, they are changing the constants on the 2020 vehicles based on wheel selection, and in addition they appear to have unlocked a bit more energy from the battery as compared to prior model years (about 1.7kWh - OR, they have rescaled their kWh... no way to know. What we know is the calculated number is about 1.7kWh larger.)
Agree that you should expect loss of capacity of less than 10% in most cases in the first year. But for a brand new car I would be concerned - and to allay that concern:
I would recommend for ANYONE with a brand new car, taking a picture of the Energy Consumption screen, with a warm battery, at a relatively high SoC, and capture (in the same image) recent efficiency, projected range, and the remaining miles on the battery gauge (or do this all with kilometers for more accuracy). You can take another picture simultaneously capturing the %. And keep this for your records. This information alone (those three numbers along with the projected 100% miles), will provide you the information on where your battery started.
Const = Proj Range * Recent Efficiency / Rated Miles remaining.
Battery capacity = Const * rated miles @ 100%
The other issue with the focus on the "miles" displayed in the car is that people might get the impression that if they drove the EPA cycle they would consume the EPA cycle length number of rated miles. This is not true. In fact, the rated miles displayed in the vehicle are about 4.7% less energy content than the true EPA rated miles, because of the buffer. When you get to 0 rated miles, you can drive further (it is absolutely not recommended to ever test this, and results may vary). But the buffer on a new vehicle is about 3.6kWh, and you will be able to consume close to all of that, if you are very careful and drive very slowly. That's what they do in the EPA test.
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
The warranty is on battery energy content.
293 rated miles (20") is the same as 313 rated miles (18") in this case. So there is no difference currently in capacity for these owners.
293 rmi20 * 265Wh/rmi20/248Wh/rmi18 = 313 rmi18
Tesla is never going to grant warranty claims based directly on the number of rated miles displayed - they'll base it on 30% reduction in energy content relative to the measured value from Tesla's Fremont lab test which generated the EPA numbers.
Last edited:
The issue for 3P owners is if they didn't do due diligence they will be disappointed with the range. You won't find 293 advertised anywhere on the Tesla website.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
That’s true. It’s a bit troubling that the website still has not been updated to display 299 miles (that is the actual correct value apparently). 293 doesn’t matter - it’s just a number. But the EPA number is not just a number - it’s the EPA range! That’s what should be advertised.
Msjulie
Active Member
I'd love for a software upgrade to 'give me back' some estimated range
More importantly, when it warms up (yes even in Ca it's cold sometimes) I'm hoping my ability to do our frequent weekend trip w/o a SC stop returns. I realize that is related to speed, using heat, etc.
I was watching the energy meter pretty obsessively this past weekend and the car was driving right around rated range but the truth is there was less % in the battery at the destination than was generally true before and while the trip can be made w/o the stop on return leg, it's otherwise too close ie in the yellow at home for me ie <= 20% when it used to be 30-33% arriving at home.
“293 rated miles (20") is the same as 313 rated miles (18") in this case. So there is no difference currently in capacity for these owners.
293 rmi20 * 265Wh/rmi20/248Wh/rmi18 = 313 rmi18”
I was one of the first to hypothesize this was about wheel size. Alan’s math is all correct, but I have P3D with 18” wheels showing the infamous 293. I’ve gone in and reset wheel config several times, but no change. So either it is Not about wheel size, or there’s a coding bug where the wh/mi constant is keying off of P and ignoring wheel size, thus treating all Ps as if they are 20”.
Wish I had the code!
293 rmi20 * 265Wh/rmi20/248Wh/rmi18 = 313 rmi18”
I was one of the first to hypothesize this was about wheel size. Alan’s math is all correct, but I have P3D with 18” wheels showing the infamous 293. I’ve gone in and reset wheel config several times, but no change. So either it is Not about wheel size, or there’s a coding bug where the wh/mi constant is keying off of P and ignoring wheel size, thus treating all Ps as if they are 20”.
Wish I had the code!
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Do you have a 2020 Performance? Seems to be the only place it has been applied so far. And may not be retroactive (would be slightly surprised if it is).
If it is a 2020 3P, not sure what to make of your issue. Seems like a work in progress anyway.
Last edited:
Not sure what you mean by “it”. Mine is a 2018, but I believe we are talking about software issue not hardware, and I am on 2019.40.50.7 which is latest release. I think if you look at thread, the mysterious 293 has been reported by many owners, not just 2020 cars.
Similar threads
- Question
