-
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 Wh/m rate
- Thread starter Coley50
- Start date
Morning all,
My average is 350WH/M but thought I'd do a little experiment going to work this morning. No heating, but used the heated driver seat, and drove 67mph on the motorway. Managed to get 269WH/M
My average is 350WH/M but thought I'd do a little experiment going to work this morning. No heating, but used the heated driver seat, and drove 67mph on the motorway. Managed to get 269WH/M
Yes @4Monty, driving slower with the heater off makes it much more efficient. I wouldn’t bother doing that unless I would struggle to make it to the next charger though. Turns an M3P into the luxury car equivalent of a hair shirt! 
I have only needed to be really careful once. That was in the first few weeks of ownership when I didn’t really understand the car and put no effort into planning a trip to the nether regions of west Wales. On that occasion, I made it back to the Sarn supercharger with just over 5% which was scary for me at the time. Ever since then, I use ABRP to plan an unfamiliar round trip using my normal (in)efficiency. I don’t find it often causes delay with extra or longer charging stops.
I think that’s rather the point with EVs. They just need to be efficient enough for your battery to easily let you drive for around two hours to the next charge and a break (that I would normally take anyway). Obviously that depends on availability of chargers, but it seems to work for me except in areas not well served by the Supercharger network. Then you must plan to have a little bit extra in reserve in case the public charger you hope to use doesn’t work (that has happened to me twice in Cornwall).
I expect efficiency of the cars and availability of chargers will improve over time.
I think the main limitation of the current tech is when you cannot plug in overnight. That forces you to put effort into planning trips when away from home that you would rarely have to do with an ICE car. For me at least, an EV would be unviable if I couldn’t plug in at home overnight.
I have only needed to be really careful once. That was in the first few weeks of ownership when I didn’t really understand the car and put no effort into planning a trip to the nether regions of west Wales. On that occasion, I made it back to the Sarn supercharger with just over 5% which was scary for me at the time. Ever since then, I use ABRP to plan an unfamiliar round trip using my normal (in)efficiency. I don’t find it often causes delay with extra or longer charging stops.
I think that’s rather the point with EVs. They just need to be efficient enough for your battery to easily let you drive for around two hours to the next charge and a break (that I would normally take anyway). Obviously that depends on availability of chargers, but it seems to work for me except in areas not well served by the Supercharger network. Then you must plan to have a little bit extra in reserve in case the public charger you hope to use doesn’t work (that has happened to me twice in Cornwall).
I expect efficiency of the cars and availability of chargers will improve over time.
I think the main limitation of the current tech is when you cannot plug in overnight. That forces you to put effort into planning trips when away from home that you would rarely have to do with an ICE car. For me at least, an EV would be unviable if I couldn’t plug in at home overnight.
Black306
Active Member
No need to explain. Just messin’ around.
I’ve seen pics of guys on here that have 600+Wh/mi (IIRC) cause they’re actually racing on a track.
Black306
Active Member
Gatsojon
Member
302 at a tad under 4000 miles. That's from March 2020 with a mixture of driving in the broadest sense of the word. I'd expect that to increase during he colder months.
What I realised that meant also, was that I got about 1,300 miles for my 1,000 free supercharge referral miles
What I realised that meant also, was that I got about 1,300 miles for my 1,000 free supercharge referral miles
I was at 286wh/m over 2K miles until a reset after a software update wiped all the counters, but this was over the summer months. Will be interesting the see what it is over the next 2K, I think around 320 could be about right so over a year hopefully average around 300. A lot depends on the temperature, wind, rain and road speed. In summer around town I could do less than 200. Cold days with wind and rain at high speed you can use twice that.
Alex987854
Member
284wh/m over 10,484 miles and 13 months. First 6 months was 299. Maybe having a P- with aeros makes a difference,
AndrewGR
Member
True Wh/mile
With the last few ICE cars I've owned I've checked the mpg claimed by the car's computers aginst the fuel supplied by the pumps. They have agreed within a few percent. Essentially, all the fuel that goes through the pump is used by the car.
I noted the charge (in)efficiency figures provided by TeslaFi and decided to fit a meter to the circuit supplying my chargepoint. For the relatively small amount of charging I've done on superchargers or at destinations since I fitted the meter, I've accepted the 'kWh used' figures provided by TeslaFi.
Over 2214 miles since fitting the meter, I've used 620 kWh at home and 137kWh away from home, a total of 757kWh giving a true Wh/mile figure of 342. Over the same period, the car is reporting 272 Wh/mile. So real consumption is about 26% above that reported. Very little pre-conditioning when the car is not being driven within those figures. Whilst there are clearly some cable resistance losses between the meter and the car, I don't believe they are anything like 26%. However, I can believe that the car does not include any of the charging losses - for which there is no equivalent in an ICE. What comes out of the pump is what goes into the engine - apart from a tiny amount of evaporation.
What else might it not be including?
With the last few ICE cars I've owned I've checked the mpg claimed by the car's computers aginst the fuel supplied by the pumps. They have agreed within a few percent. Essentially, all the fuel that goes through the pump is used by the car.
I noted the charge (in)efficiency figures provided by TeslaFi and decided to fit a meter to the circuit supplying my chargepoint. For the relatively small amount of charging I've done on superchargers or at destinations since I fitted the meter, I've accepted the 'kWh used' figures provided by TeslaFi.
Over 2214 miles since fitting the meter, I've used 620 kWh at home and 137kWh away from home, a total of 757kWh giving a true Wh/mile figure of 342. Over the same period, the car is reporting 272 Wh/mile. So real consumption is about 26% above that reported. Very little pre-conditioning when the car is not being driven within those figures. Whilst there are clearly some cable resistance losses between the meter and the car, I don't believe they are anything like 26%. However, I can believe that the car does not include any of the charging losses - for which there is no equivalent in an ICE. What comes out of the pump is what goes into the engine - apart from a tiny amount of evaporation.
What else might it not be including?
MrBadger
Badger out
26% is way adrift of what I would expect [added for clarity] (from TeslaFi reported values).
What is TeslaFi reporting for 'used' and 'added' for each charge compared with the meter?
I am of the understanding that [added for clarity] (charge) 'used' should be similar to meter reading and the sum of all the kWh lost/used across drives, idles, sleeps should be similar to [added for clarity] (charge) 'added'.
The kWh reported in the trip meter would then be similar to the 'kWh used' for the sum of the drives.
What is TeslaFi reporting for 'used' and 'added' for each charge compared with the meter?
I am of the understanding that [added for clarity] (charge) 'used' should be similar to meter reading and the sum of all the kWh lost/used across drives, idles, sleeps should be similar to [added for clarity] (charge) 'added'.
The kWh reported in the trip meter would then be similar to the 'kWh used' for the sum of the drives.
Last edited:
Jason71
Well-Known Member
Actually that is low
I did the same calculation when I had all the data and I was at about 30% over the winter last year over 6000 miles So that figure is probably right.
The W/m figures we talk about are good only for calculating range on a single long journey. Not for total energy use or cost.
The car records ALL the energy used while being driven so anything else makes up that difference.
There will be a 10% loss ( 12%+ for UMC) between what passes through the charger and what ends up in the battery due to AC/DC conversion losses, resistance etc
Then there is:
Preheat
Sentry
Vampire Drain ( 1% per day)
and any other energy used when the car is not moving:
Get in the car. heater turns on. Until you put it in drive that use does not start to count towards the wh/m
Get out of the car. Car takes 20 minutes to sleep during that time it uses 100w/h.
Check the app. Car wakes up. takes 20 minutes to go back to sleep another 100w/h
It all adds up
This is why I take all the efficiency data from apps like this with a pinch of salt. They all approximate the actual power consumed. That’s probably good enough for comparison between periods over the lifetime of the vehicle.
When I was trying to understand the costs of charging during my first three months of ownership, I got the data off my smart home charger, supercharger history and public charger history. I satisfied myself that the Tesla was unbelievably cheap compared to diesel and that my car was performing as expected. I then chose to forget about analysing it afterwards (though I can understand why that appeals to many).
When I was trying to understand the costs of charging during my first three months of ownership, I got the data off my smart home charger, supercharger history and public charger history. I satisfied myself that the Tesla was unbelievably cheap compared to diesel and that my car was performing as expected. I then chose to forget about analysing it afterwards (though I can understand why that appeals to many).
This raises a really interesting point for an accurate efficiency comparison, Ignoring preheating options for a moment, ICE cars use zero fuel when parked.
The equivalent is thinking that a ICE car looses 1% or more of the fuel in it's tank each day.
The equivalent is thinking that a ICE car looses 1% or more of the fuel in it's tank each day.
Jason71
Well-Known Member
it is a valid point. The one that really gets me though is that with a petrol pump you get charged for the fuel that is delivered and its very well regulated. pumps have to be regularly calibrated etc.
on a Rapid charger. They charge you for the AC consumed not the DC delivered to your car. So all of the AC/DC losses in the charger and the internal resistance you pay for. The more inefficient the equipment the more money they make. As far as I am aware there is no regulation on this.
The only exception to this is the supercharger because the Car measures the DC delivered to it and that is what you are billed for. So if comparing SuC prices to other DC chargers you need to add probably 15% to the other prices before comparing
I have been there too. Although for me it was usually the coolant that I lost when parked up.
Just goes to show though, it's really difficult to get any true comparison as it's comparing two very different engineering solutions. The biggest difference is probably just that one fuel is taxed significantly more than the other.
Just goes to show though, it's really difficult to get any true comparison as it's comparing two very different engineering solutions. The biggest difference is probably just that one fuel is taxed significantly more than the other.
Similar threads
