Model 3 range is really about 220 miles

[SR22pilot]

I would agree if you are on a trip. Since I am charging at the house at the end of the day it becomes a none issue other than the extra electricity being used. The electric plan I am on, it's costs are low enough at night that I can still justify my spirited driving.

Agreed. My incremental electric cost is 6.151 cents per KWH. I calculated my yearly costs. At that point I decided to not worry about how I drive locally The car never gets close to tight for range. Long trips are a different story which is why the LR RWD on Aeros is the trip car. The AWD is my daily driver fun car.

 

[mswlogo]

I would say my LR RWD on Aeros gets over 325 if I drive it easy and stay at 70 or below. Below 60 it will definitely do that. The AWD on 19" rims is more like 280. I highly suggest reading this table carefully:

Tesla Range Table - Teslike.com

That stupid table is why I hesitated on going with 19” vs Areo’s. And I bought a second set of Aero’s too (Winter and Summer).

In good weather, no heat or AC, keeping it under 70 mph I can do over 325 miles range easy on 19” AWD. The Pirelli P7+ over the OEM 19” Continental tires might be part of the reason. Not sure.

 

[mswlogo]

Just about to order the LR AWD, and getting a little nervous based on some of these threads.
Assuming I stick with the 18' tires with aero, I'm only losing around 20 miles or to to the RWD, yes?

Yes, officially Tesla says 325 on RWD ( recent change) and even though EPA says 310 on AWD Aero’s the UI in the car gives a slight deviation from that. The live energy graph has a reference line to give you a sense if your on the efficient side or less efficient side. They don’t label it with Range or Wh/mi. It’s just a line. Your live/active efficiency line is labeled with range and wh/mi. Tesla’s “reference” line is drawn at 310 in RWD cars and it is drawn at 295 on AWD. I assume they moved (or will move) that to 325 on RWD.

You’ll be fine.

Keep in mind some people are lead foots and the car is so easy to lead foot that it has turned non lead footers into lead footers. My friend with a RWD typically gets way worse wh/mi than me. I also don’t like driving with him now with abrupt acceleration he now always does. It eats tires too. It’s not easy to train yourself to take it easy. Lead footers are having fun and most don’t care.

 

[Twiglett]

I own a tesla m3 long range dual motor and I believe it's actual range is a lot less than 310 miles. Correct me if I am wrong here. I charge my 3 to 90% or about 279 miles according to the guage. This is pretty much the max tesla suggests charging it even on long trips. Interestingly I get about 262 miles using about 250 watts per mile. Some days due to the weather or terrain I use close to 280 watts per mile which brings down the max range to less than 250 miles. No one I know drives their car to empty on any kind of regular basis. I personally look real hard for a gas station if my tank gets below an eighth of a tank. Even assuming great weather and pretty flat terrain that means 13% of say 260 miles or about 35 miles remaining in the "tank". That leaves about 200-225 miles as the actual driving range.

you're missing the point.
You're driving an EV not a gas car.
If your destination is to get home, you can arrive with 1 mile of range and plug back in to charge up. No gas car can do that unless you own your own personal gas station.
If your outward destination is a hotel with destination charger, same applies, arrive with 1mile of range left.
Just have to get rid of your ingrained gas car mentality, which takes some getting rid of. It took me a few years.

As an aside, now I'm using navigate on autopilot, I'm seen 210-220 watts per mile regularly.

 

[Wennfred]

Come from a Nissan Leaf, it’s all about conservative driving, I try hard not to speed and keep it in Chill mode, for me it’s all about Range. My wh/mi stays way under 250.. more like 218 ... all manual driving no AP or FSD.

Fred

 

[outdoors]

I would say my LR RWD on Aeros gets over 325 if I drive it easy and stay at 70 or below. Below 60 it will definitely do that. The AWD on 19" rims is more like 280. I highly suggest reading this table carefully:

Tesla Range Table - Teslike.com

Getting on the road less traveled route. 55 mph and below. Town to town across the country can be a real range eye opener. I can stretch that range with the 18's. Really amazing. Stock tires, but Titan 7 rims.

 

[vikkyrk]

Agreed, I have the P and my lifetime Whr/mi is ~310 (it's current dropping) and most of the miles I've driven have been cold weather.

In freezing conditions @70mph with some cabin heat (65f) and seat heating, I'll get 330 - 350Whr/mi Whr/mi more or less depending on wind speeds. In the summer, with A/C rather than heat, that's more like 270 Whr/mi. Drop the speed to 65 and I can just about get the full EPA range, around town I can beat it.

A lot of depends on the type of driving you do. Around town (the bulk of my regular driving), I can easily hit 170-190 wh/mi. I take my time on road trips, largely driving the speed limit (65 here, with stretches of 55 where I'll usually do 60), and 200-210 wh/mi is no problem. I consistently push beyond the rated range of my SR+ and have not charged above 90% yet (but would do so if I needed to). I came from owning a Leaf, so I'm used to maximizing range and also keep heat/AC off unless really needed (AC is needed for most of the summer here, but I can get by without heat almost all the time, particularly if I use the seat heaters). I have no problem getting down to the single digits of battery capacity on a road trip if needed. To me, having access to precise consumption data lets me optimize my efficiency, which I enjoy just as much as exploring the power and responsiveness of the car from time to time.

For folks who are doing a lot of fast highway driving, then the experience will be completely different.

What is the display range you see at 90% for your SR+ and how much range to you get at the 200 - 210 wh/mile?

 

[MrMassTransit]

What is the display range you see at 90% for your SR+ and how much range to you get at the 200 - 210 wh/mile?

It's been a few weeks since I've charged to 90% - I'm not taking the car out everyday, so I keep it at a lower level unless I'm going on a longer trip. I seem to recall seeing 218 as the display range at 90%, but I'll check next time I get up that high. I'm assuming by "display range" you mean the unadjusted range displayed by the car, not the adjusted figure displayed on the energy chart.

At 200 wh/mi, I usually see about 245 in range at 90%. Around town when I'm below 200, I'm seeing much larger figures: sometimes 260-280 miles at 90%, sometimes, exceeding 300. But that's after 30-50 MPH driving, primarily in the DC suburbs. In the city I'm closer to 190, since there's a lot more stop and go.

 

[Wooloomooloo]

What is the display range you see at 90% for your SR+ and how much range to you get at the 200 - 210 wh/mile?

This is my data from TeslaFi

 

[BEPA400]

Come from a Nissan Leaf, it’s all about conservative driving, I try hard not to speed and keep it in Chill mode, for me it’s all about Range. My wh/mi stays way under 250.. more like 218 ... all manual driving no AP or FSD.

Fred

Too funny... I come from driving a leaf and I’m just looking forward to some spirited driving and not caring about my range anymore! $3 more in electricity each month is no big deal! I’ll probably go back to old stingy energy habits when on a trip but otherwise... me relaxing does not involve ‘chill mode’

 

[Nocturnal]

Agreed, I have the P and my lifetime Whr/mi is ~310 (it's current dropping) and most of the miles I've driven have been cold weather.

In freezing conditions @70mph with some cabin heat (65f) and seat heating, I'll get 330 - 350Whr/mi Whr/mi more or less depending on wind speeds. In the summer, with A/C rather than heat, that's more like 270 Whr/mi. Drop the speed to 65 and I can just about get the full EPA range, around town I can beat it.

Yeah, when it's nice out I can definitely hit the rated range. I have a lead foot though. My lifetime whr/miles include 2 track days and the worst winter Kansas has had in 20 years. And of course in local driving I don't worry about cranking the heat or pre-warming.

 

[DannyHamilton]

Also note that on the LR RWD, going from cruising at 60 to cruising at 80 drops range from 381 to 270 . . . The fastest way to get somewhere is often to drive slower and skip a supercharger.

That doesn't seem to be true in the vast majority of real-world cases?

If I drive 375 miles at 60 mph without stopping at a supercharger, it will take me 6 hours and 15 minutes.

If I drive 375 miles at 80 mph, I'll spend 4 hours and 42 minutes driving. Are you suggesting that it takes 1 hour and 33 minutes for a supercharger to add the extra 111 miles to the battery? In my experience, if I stop at a supercharger with 10% of range remaining, I can 111 miles (less than 36% of rated range) in less than 30 minutes? Even if it takes me 5 minutes to get off the expressway to the supercharger, and 5 minutes to get back on the expressway, that's still a total travel time (including the time to charge) of less than 5 hours and 22 minutes.

The only time it's likely to be faster to drive slower is on very short trips starting with a very low charge, such that the time gained driving faster isn't enough to make up for the time going out of your way to and from the supercharger. For example:

Starting a 37 mile trip with only 10% (31 miles) of rated range. Using your numbers, 80 mph will only get you 10% * 270 = 27 miles, whereas 60 mph will get you 10% * 381 = 38 miles. 37 miles at 80 mph will take 27 minutes and 45 seconds. 37 miles at 60 mph will take 37 minutes. That leaves you only 9 minutes and 15 seconds to get off the expressway to the charger, add the extra 11 miles of range you need, and get back on the expressway. It might still be faster to drive 80 instead of 60 (it will depend on how far out of your way you need to drive to get to the charger), but it almost certainly won't be faster to drive 70 instead of 60.

The shorter the length of the trip, and the less difference between the slower speed and the faster speed, the more likely it is that driving slower will get you there faster than stopping at a supercharger along the way.

 

[mike123abc]

That doesn't seem to be true in the vast majority of real-world cases?

Hopefully eventually that will be true. The problem of course now is that there are not a lot of superchargers. So, you may not be able to stop when you need a charge. Slowing down may be needed to get to the next supercharger.

Supercharging is really only fast for the first 50% or so of the charge cycle. So, if you are forced to stop and top off a lot to be sure that you can make it to the next supercharger you can waste a lot of time.

Any other charging method (i.e. 48 amp HPWC) is a lot slower than a supercharger. If you have to fill 111 (from your example above) miles on a HPWC that is about 25 kWh needed, or about 2 hours.

 

[iaflyer]

Hopefully eventually that will be true. The problem of course now is that there are not a lot of superchargers. So, you may not be able to stop when you need a charge. Slowing down may be needed to get to the next supercharger.

There aren't as many Superchargers are there are, say, gas stations. But the network is filling in nicely.

Here is a map with 165 mile circles: supercharge.info
which should be attainable with almost any weather conditions, if you start out fully charged (or close to it). I only see a spot in northern Montana without coverage at 165 miles.

 

[DannyHamilton]

Hopefully eventually that will be true. The problem of course now is that there are not a lot of superchargers. So, you may not be able to stop when you need a charge. Slowing down may be needed to get to the next supercharger.

Sure. But the comment I was replying to wasn't about slowing down to make it to the nearest supercharger. It specifically stated that it was faster to slow down so that you can SKIP a supercharger.

Supercharging is really only fast for the first 50% or so of the charge cycle. So, if you are forced to stop and top off a lot to be sure that you can make it to the next supercharger you can waste a lot of time.

Not A LOT. The point is that slowing down will not get you there faster. Certainly if you stop "a lot" (everytime you get below 80%?) and then charge all the way up to 90% or 100%, you are wasting a lot of time charging and not driving. But that has nothing to do with driving slower to get somewhere faster.

Any other charging method (i.e. 48 amp HPWC) is a lot slower than a supercharger. If you have to fill 111 (from your example above) miles on a HPWC that is about 25 kWh needed, or about 2 hours.

ABSOLUTELY! However, again, the comment that I was responding to specifically stated that it was faster to DRIVE SLOWER TO SKIP SUPERCHARGERS. (That is almost always the wrong advice)

 

[mike123abc]

I suppose my supercharger issues are because of my location in Oklahoma... For example if you wanted to drive i40 between OKC and Little Rock, you would be out of luck (unless you divert to Dallas). Same thing on a route I do between OKC and Abilene, have to through Dallas instead of down I44...

All of these issues are of course covered in Tesla's coming soon map. If they ever get around to building them.

 

[ammulder]

I don't know why you would include reserved battery as not part of your range.

380Whmiles is high. I'm at 360 which is higher than most other Performance owners from what I've seen.

Oops. Last night it said I was over 600 for my drive until I ended up behind some slower traffic.

But it's my first week with the car! Surely there's some slack cut for that!

 

[DannyHamilton]

if you wanted to drive i40 between OKC and Little Rock, you would be out of luck (unless you divert to Dallas).

That particular trip is a close one. Driving at a slower speed (60mph?) in a LR M3 you should be able to get from OCK to Little Rock (350 miles) in 5:50. That range depends a lot on the weather though.

If you divert through Tulsa to use the Supercharger (why Dallas instead of Tulsa?), you add 48 miles to the trip. At 80 mph this leaves you 49 minutes to charge up in Tulsa for a break-even total trip duration. In this case, whether the time it takes to charge up in Tulsa is more or less than 49 minutes will depend a lot on the weather.

With bad weather, you may use more battery on the way to Tulsa (requiring more charging time), however, in that weather, you might not have enough range at 60mph and would need to drive even slower to "skip the supercharger". As such, using the supercharger might still be faster than the direct route (the two routes will be really close in duration, but the Tulsa diversion will have a lot less range anxiety).

With good weather, you may use less battery on the way to Tulsa (requiring less charging time), however, in that good weather, you might be able to drive a bit faster than 60 mph and still "skip the supercharger". As such, the direct route might be a bit faster than the diversion (the two routes will be really close in duration, but the Tulsa diversion will have a lot less range anxiety).

So, depending on weather, it MIGHT be a minute or two faster on a 6-hour trip to "drive slower and skip the supercharger" in some circumstances, but, really, it's practically the same amount of time and stopping to charge will provide a lot more "wiggle room".

All of these issues are of course covered in Tesla's coming soon map.

Agreed. If they build just 1 of the 3 superchargers that are planned along that route, it will make a huge difference in your ability to drive the I-40 path and charge along the way (cutting up to half an hour off the travel time). In that case it will absolutely NOT be faster to drive slower and skip the supercharger.

If they ever get around to building them.

We can only hope.

 

[tccartier]

1000 ft. elevation raise costs 6-7 miles.

Only if it's uphill both ways or you don't come back down ... Ever..

 

[lolder]

You get about 5 miles back coming down.