Model 3 Performance - charged to 100% shows 293 miles range. Why?

[AlanSubie4Life]

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.

By "it," I mean the adjustments to the range/charging constant based on wheel selection, and the unlocking of an apparent additional 1.7kWh of energy from the battery, which as far as I can tell only applied to 2020 Performance vehicles so far.

All the people reporting with Performance in a brief perusal of the first couple pages here had 2020 3P vehicles. It was associated with the 2019.40.50.1 update (see post above with that info).

There have been other 293 rated miles @ 100% reports (I saw one), but they are likely just coincidence. To know for sure, you (or people reporting such mileage) should take that picture of the Energy Consumption screen as shown above and assess what your constant is. If it's still 245Wh/rmi, and not 265Wh/rmi, then it's just simple degradation. You'd also presumably know that the constant hadn't changed because you wouldn't have seen a huge (~17 rated mile) step change in mileage immediately with an update (see a couple examples above). If you didn't see that, then it's also likely it's just gradual loss of capacity.

That constant is key. If you have 293 miles and you're stuck at it, but your constant is 265Wh/rmi, I wouldn't worry about it - your battery is in awesome condition (you have 2% more energy available than you started with - or they re-scaled kWh) - and it would be the first report that I've actually seen for a non-2020. If you have a one-year-old car and it's showing 293 out of the original 310 with the original 245Wh/rmi constant, I also wouldn't worry about it - it's capacity loss of 5%, which appears to be well within what is normal for that vehicle age/mileage.

Based on what I've seen, it would be quite unusual to have vehicle that's a year old that HASN'T seen any loss of available kWh.

FYI, I have a 2018 3P+ with 300 rated miles @ 100% (3% degradation). I saw no changes with 2019.40.50.x.

Also, as mentioned earlier, my guess is that this is just the first step in the rollout towards 299/304/322 for the Performance, and 322 for the AWD. They just have not yet rolled to AWD at all, and I suspect there will be further constant adjustments to get to the EPA numbers, even for the Performance (~260Wh/rmi20, ~256Wh/rmi19, ~241Wh/rmi18 would be my guesses).
I think they're probably being careful because they did (apparently) unlock additional capacity (which I'm sure they think is ok since they did the EPA compliant test with it in their Fremont lab presumably), but they just want to be sure. Based on the EPA documents (datafiles, calculating the recharge event energy) it actually looks like more like just 0.5kWh extra energy available, so maybe it is a combination of kWh reporting adjustments and battery capacity unlock. But the recharge event energy small change (0.5kWh vs. my hypothesis of 1.7kKWh above) could be smaller even with a larger 1.7kWh unlock, due to AC-DC charger conversion efficiency improvements (which would improve efficiency but not range). Would just need to be 1% more efficient...

 

[tomas]

Are you saying your hypothesis is unlock only for 2020s.

please don’t confuse me with 3 paragraphs!

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Are you saying your hypothesis is unlock only for 2020s.

please don’t confuse me with 3 paragraphs!

Yes! And furthermore, right now, the data I have seen says "Performance ONLY."

But that's what I said in my prior message that you responded to!!! I tried to keep it simple...:

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).

 

[tomas]

Yes! And furthermore, right now, the data I have seen says "Performance ONLY."

But that's what I said in my prior message that you responded to!!! I tried to keep it simple...:

Interesting. I’ve not heard that they changed any drivetrain components for 2020. But I haven’t been tracking religiously. Odd that only 2020 would get that change unless there was “increased capacity” drivetrain.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I’ve not heard that they changed any drivetrain components for 2020. But I haven’t been tracking religiously. Odd that only 2020 would get that change unless there was “increased capacity” drivetrain.

I don't know what the precedents are with Tesla, but my thinking was that with software-based efficiency improvements, they would not necessarily want to "inflate" prior model year rated miles numbers (which would make them "look" better to a less knowledgeable owner, without actually being better (in energy content, obviously efficiency would be better)). (Even though the warranty is based on energy content, I could see people being up in arms about Tesla trying to "hide" degradation by inflating the rated miles number - even though there would really be nothing nefarious about it.) There's some evidence that there are software-based efficiency improvements that have been rolled out over the last couple years which may well apply to all vehicles - and definitely apply to the 2020 vehicles.

But it does sound like the precedent has been to match the displayed rated miles for a model year to the EPA number for that year. So I do anticipate all the 2020s will eventually match those numbers (assuming they don't degrade before the software push, which isn't going to be the case for some vehicles of course). But we don't seem to be there just yet.

There have also been minor revisions of the motors on all the Model 3s (same part number in most cases though, just a different revision) and we have no idea what effect those have on efficiency, if any.

 

[tomas]

I cannot agree with your point about model year. Until 2020, Tesla never had model years. Updates happened whenever, and VIN year was strictly based on date of manufacture. 2020 was first time they’ve ever a) labeled (VIN) cars for next calendar year before tear end, and b) delineated a hardware update with with “model year”. So there’s no precedent wrt model years because up til now there were no model years.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I cannot agree with your point about model year. Until 2020, Tesla never had model years. Updates happened whenever, and VIN year was strictly based on date of manufacture. 2020 was first time they’ve ever a) labeled (VIN) cars for next calendar year before tear end, and b) delineated a hardware update with with “model year”. So there’s no precedent wrt model years because up til now there were no model years.

Fair enough. So there is no precedent in this regard. I guess now that they are making the distinction, I'll stick with my guess for now. It's definitely just a guess.

Other than the LR RWD Model 3 and this case, have they ever pushed an update to existing cars which increased the rated range, specifically by changing the constant? (I actually think for the LR RWD Model 3 they did not change the constant, they just unlocked more visible (not usable) battery capacity, though not sure about that.)

 

[tomas]

Fair enough. So there is no precedent in this regard. I guess now that they are making the distinction, I'll stick with my guess for now. It's definitely just a guess.

Other than the LR RWD Model 3 and this case, have they ever pushed an update to existing cars which increased the rated range, specifically by changing the constant? (I actually think for the LR RWD Model 3 they did not change the constant, they just unlocked more visible (not usable) battery capacity, though not sure about that.)

In the early days of the S, there were several software releases that impacted rated range. I do not think they ever changed the constant. As I recall, they ‘improved’ the accuracy of their estimation... perhaps more accurate measurement of voltage or some such thing. I also recall that they have messed with the size of the brick protection reserve.

I simply do not understand how they can ethically change the wh/mi constant. It is the result of EPA test loop, right? I can understand them getting more specific about the effect of different wheels, aero packages ( if they had them) etc. but if the P was rated with one body and drivetrain, there has to be one immutable baseline. It isn’t just 245 and then suddenly 260 with the same hardware

Hence I ask what changed in drivetrain for 2020.

Now they COULD open up more battery. And, they could do it selectively starting with 2020. But that shouldn’t change wh/mi; just the number of usable wh.

I don’t get it.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I do not think they ever changed the constant.

Thanks for that.

It is the result of EPA test loop, right?

Yes. But the EPA test loop results are dramatically different now than it was two years ago. It's 487 miles (P 18") and 470 miles (AWD 18") for the city loop now (2020) vs. 455 miles (AWD/P 18") before (2018). 3.5-7% more. Obviously actual result is a scaled weighted result of this and highway, but you get the idea.

Now they COULD open up more battery. And, they could do it selectively starting with 2020. But that shouldn’t change wh/mi

Correct.

It isn’t just 245 and then suddenly 260 with the same hardware

But it's not the same hardware in that case. Remember the Performance 20" fell under the 33% rule and they were able to just use the AWD result for that back in 2018. And now the AWD is no longer applicable for that rule (it no longer has the same drive unit), probably, so they tested them all separately. So the 245Wh/rmi compared to 265Wh/rmi is comparing vehicles with much different wheels & tires, different ride height, and a spoiler.

The 2020 P 18" constant looks like it's only changed to 248Wh/rmi vs. the 245Wh/rmi constant it has been up to this point.

Note, that's bigger! That is going the wrong way...obviously. But I'd expect that to settle eventually to 241Wh/rmi with 322 rated miles @ 100% (same energy). It's only 2% lower (not 7%), partly because of the increased capacity, and partly because the 2020 P 18" is voluntarily derated by about 3% to match the 2020 AWD with 18".

 

[turns2stone]

How do I check my Wh/mi? None of the figures in my energy graphs align to what you guys are discussing here. I have a 2020 Performance.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

How do I check my Wh/mi? None of the figures in my energy graphs align to what you guys are discussing here. I have a 2020 Performance.

Wh/mi (not Wh/rmi, the units of the charging constant, which is totally different) is on your trip meter, which is on the left hand side, left most card at the bottom (swipe from left to right). You can scroll up and down and rename certain trip meters (Lifetime is popular).

 

[turns2stone]

Wh/mi (not Wh/rmi, the units of the charging constant, which is totally different) is on your trip meter, which is on the left hand side, left most card at the bottom (swipe from left to right). You can scroll up and down and rename certain trip meters (Lifetime is popular).

Terrific, I was not aware of this screen. Granted, my car is just a couple of weeks old but my "lifetime" is as follows:

277.1 mi
95kWh
343Wh/mi

 

[turns2stone]

20" should be 270 Wh/mi my photo shows my avg at 268 Wh/mi and its right below the rated range line.

Why is my average always 350+Wh/mi? Is it because I drive like a madman?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Why is my average always 350+Wh/mi? Is it because I drive like a madman?

Partially, but mostly it is because you have the heat on (probably fairly low).

Without the heat 280-300Wh/mi is more typical on the freeway.

 

[turns2stone]

Partially, but mostly it is because you have the heat on (probably fairly low).

Without the heat 280-300Wh/mi is more typical on the freeway.

I see. So what would be the scenario where I would be shooting for ~250Wh/mi to see if my 2020 M3P is truly able to get the best efficiency as you've been describing?

 

[ElectricIAC]

I see. So what would be the scenario where I would be shooting for ~250Wh/mi to see if my 2020 M3P is truly able to get the best efficiency as you've been describing?

I’ve gotten that staying below 70....with a tailwind..Most boring drive of my life.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I see. So what would be the scenario where I would be shooting for ~250Wh/mi to see if my 2020 M3P is truly able to get the best efficiency as you've been describing?

There is tons of discussion of this, and a bit off topic for this thread. If you have a 3P+ then you need to get about 252Wh/mi for one-to-one rolloff of miles (not 265Wh/mi). To do this, find a flat spot, turn off climate control, and drive about 55mph. Do a round trip if there are any modest elevation changes.

 

[buccsmf1]

in my p3 w 20' wheels the battery display seems to be calibrated for 265 wh/mi. this is in contrast to my wives LR RWD w 19' wheels which is calibrated at about 235 wh/mi.

 

[tomas]

There is tons of discussion of this, and a bit off topic for this thread. If you have a 3P+ then you need to get about 252Wh/mi for one-to-one rolloff of miles (not 265Wh/mi). To do this, find a flat spot, turn off climate control, and drive about 55mph. Do a round trip if there are any modest elevation changes.

Huh? My last 30 miles was 238 wh/mi, climate on, 70 on highways. Key is to drive smoothly, try to anticipate stops and use regen not brakes, and not floor it... I was not driving aggressively, but neither was I in granny mode.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Huh? My last 30 miles was 238 wh/mi, climate on, 70 on highways. Key is to drive smoothly, try to anticipate stops and use regen not brakes, and not floor it... I was not driving aggressively, but neither was I in granny mode.

You have a Stealth - makes a considerable difference, due to skinny slippery tires and aero wheels. And if you're not counting a round trip it's hard to say. Obviously if you draft modestly you can also do better. I just quoted parameters which would assure the result for a 3P+.