Model 3 range increase to 325?

[FB49]

Did this Tesla software - (https://electrek.co/2019/03/13/tesla-model-3-range-increase-software-update/) - ever get sent out and/or updated? My (August) 2019 Long Range Dual Motor Model 3 came with a 310 mile range and all indications are that it is still 310 miles. Was this update for Performance models only?

 

[Msjulie]

To be honest and given the "in limits" lower range my car now shows, it feels like marketing and maybe newer software calculations on battery.... or just marketing?

Performance == AWD when just plain driven, all dependent on tires and wheels of course ie aero vs 19 vs 20 and stickier tires, weight of right foot etc for real world performance.

My car's range isn't even 300 indicated and it's just over 1 year old; I'm waiting for the 5% power/efficiency upgrade software to see how that calculates the range.. I have OEM 19" rims + tires on the car so not even super sticky but not the aeros either.

 

[DirtyT3sla]

This update probably won't change anything besides the displayed number.

But no, we're still waiting for the major rollout.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

My (August) 2019 Long Range Dual Motor Model 3 came with a 310 mile range and all indications are that it is still 310 miles. Was this update for Performance models only?

This March 2019 update applied only to the LR RWD vehicle - not the dual motor.

With software after 2019.36.1, you may see an increase to 322 rated miles for your AWD (which is not any more energy for you; the energy is just used more efficiently when propelling the vehicle - so the 322/310 ratio (4%) improvement will be considerably lower than that (in terms of how far you can travel for a given amount of energy) when your energy is being used to heat the cabin, gain elevation, etc.). It is likely a REAL change - a 4% improvement in drivetrain efficiency at highway speeds would be quite important if it proves to be real - but it does not change your energy available - which can be used in a number of ways.

Basically, one would expect that if your car shows 322 rated miles after a future update, you will find that each of those rated miles will contain less energy than it does currently (currently each of the 310 rated miles for your car contains between ~228Wh and ~234Wh, as displayed on the trip meter). So they'll likely just divide up that energy pool into 322 smaller parts rather than 310 parts. But, after the update, it will also take less energy to propel the car for a given mile at a given speed, all else being equal. We'll see exactly how it is implemented though - there are other possibilities - just have to wait and see.

 

[jjrandorin]

Did this Tesla software - (Tesla increases Model 3 range through software update - Electrek) - ever get sent out and/or updated? My (August) 2019 Long Range Dual Motor Model 3 came with a 310 mile range and all indications are that it is still 310 miles. Was this update for Performance models only?

As @AlanSubie4Life said, the "325" Update was for Rear wheel drive cars only. Not any tesla with 2 motors, of which your LR AWD has. We might see an update with the firmware alan is talking about.

 

[zdre]

For RWD LR Model 3s, the update did go out a while ago, and I saw my range increase from 310 to 325, but subsequent software updates deleted this improvement. We really need transparency in this issue.

 

[Bobbo8]

For RWD LR Model 3s, the update did go out a while ago, and I saw my range increase from 310 to 325, but subsequent software updates deleted this improvement. We really need transparency in this issue.

My M3 LR RWD is now at 320

 

[Az_Rael]

For RWD LR Model 3s, the update did go out a while ago, and I saw my range increase from 310 to 325, but subsequent software updates deleted this improvement. We really need transparency in this issue.

Same thing happened to me.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Same thing happened to me.

You should both measure your approximate discharge constants and compare to someone who still has close to 325 mile rated range with an LR RWD.

Assuming your constant ends up a bit higher value than the person with 325 miles rated range, the question would then be: is your car just as efficient as that other car (a harder thing to determine) - did you get the efficiency improvement that was claimed back then (I think it was claimed but not sure how legit it was)? If your car is just as efficient, and your constant is larger, it really does not matter then that your displayed rated miles are lower - you would have about the same energy and the same efficiency.

At a minimum with the discharge constant you can determine whether you have about the same energy available as someone with the 325-mile update, which is important.

Should be about 223Wh/rmi for an LR RWD with 325 rated mile range.

For an LR RWD still at the 310 rated range you’d expect closer to 234Wh/rmi. I’ve never seen it measured though.

Thinking about this more: much easier, no trip measurement needed: What value is used to calculate projected range in your car on the Energy Consumption graph?

Just calculate the unknown from the two numbers shown on the graph and battery gauge number:

constant = (projected range * current efficiency) / Rated miles left

You can do this anytime and swap between 5/15/30 miles to make sure the answer is the same. For more accuracy you can change to km temporarily.

What does it work out to be for you? For an LR RWD with the 325 mile update, this value works out to be 234Wh/rmi. (While the discharge “constant” is around 223Wh/rmi as I said.)

I expect for you it will turn out to be 245Wh/rmi, but I am curious! I’ve never seen it checked in this case...

 

[Az_Rael]

What does it work out to be for you? For an LR RWD with the 325 mile update, this value works out to be 234Wh/rmi. (While the discharge “constant” is around 223Wh/rmi as I said.)

I get 234 wh/mile based on those calculations for my car with 308 max range.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I get 234 wh/mile based on those calculations for my car with 308 max range.

Good to know. Sounds like you likely have the update. Did your range ever exceed 310 rated miles?

Honestly, not sure whether the constant ever changed on the LR RWD - it may have always been lower than the AWD (that would make sense...)

What this means about the original range boost and how it was done, I have no idea. I don’t have enough information and do not have an LR RWD.

Maybe they did that boost by using more of the pack on the LR than they originally did. I have no idea. Maybe someone here knows for sure what happened on their car?

Kind of sounds like your pack may just have lost some capacity though. It would not be that abnormal a % decrease.

 

[Az_Rael]

Did your range ever exceed 310 rated miles?

Yes, I had the 325 range for quite a while. It went down to 308 overnight after a software update.

Kind of sounds like your pack may just have lost some capacity though. It would not be that abnormal a % decrease

If it had happened gradually, sure. I have suspicions that my battery has been voltage capped though. I am waiting on a CANbus cable to verify.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Yes, I had the 325 range for quite a while. It went down to 308 overnight after a software update.

Ah. For some reason got the impression you never got it (allegedly there were so who didn’t). All makes sense now.

With the CAN cable, going to be hard to determine what your voltage was before the software update that sapped your range, isn’t it?

 

[Az_Rael]

Ah. For some reason got the impression you never got it (allegedly there were so who didn’t). All makes sense now.

With the CAN cable, going to be hard to determine what your voltage was before the software update that sapped your range, isn’t it?

Yes, I wont know what it was. But based on the Model S thread, it should be 4.2V at 100% for the cells.

 

[snowcrash]

For RWD LR Model 3s, the update did go out a while ago, and I saw my range increase from 310 to 325, but subsequent software updates deleted this improvement. We really need transparency in this issue.

My range went up to 323 for a while, then stepped down to 317, now it's back to 309.

 

[Vega Bluestar]

I was trying to get some answers on this - I've got a RWD LR and never got the range increase. Still at 310. Not a huge deal - I use % and it's likely that the miles are just calculated linearly where 100% is 310 but if an EPA test were to be done again, it would hit 325. That is, I think the update probably made a difference in efficiency even though the car doesn't advertise it. I've been tracking efficiency monthly, but that's such a small amount of range that it is hard to see against changes in weather and terrain.

 

[OCR1]

I was trying to get some answers on this - I've got a RWD LR and never got the range increase. Still at 310. Not a huge deal - I use % and it's likely that the miles are just calculated linearly where 100% is 310 but if an EPA test were to be done again, it would hit 325. That is, I think the update probably made a difference in efficiency even though the car doesn't advertise it. I've been tracking efficiency monthly, but that's such a small amount of range that it is hard to see against changes in weather and terrain.

I did receive the update and at one point was showing 325 miles at 100% on my LR RWD. But now with battery degradation after one year of usage my 100% is only 312.

 

[nicksp]

Hate to revive an old thread but was the 325 range upgrade indeed wiped out in subsequent updates?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Hate to revive an old thread but was the 325 range upgrade indeed wiped out in subsequent updates?

No. It’s 325. 325rmi*234Wh/mi = 76kWh.

Vehicles started with about 78kWh so actually had closer to 330 rated miles of range (but max displayed was about 325).

 

[nicksp]

No. It’s 325. 325rmi*234Wh/mi = 76kWh.

Vehicles started with about 78kWh so actually had closer to 330 rated miles of range (but max displayed was about 325).

It's 234wh/mi a baseline or something? I asked the original question since a few here said their range was reduced shortly after the update.