Do you mind posting your rang
Do you mind posting range and date of manufacture?
-
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 SR+ Mileage at Full Charge
- Thread starter Lakeshow24
- Start date
- Status
Do you mind posting your rang
Do you mind posting range and date of manufacture?
After mine was delivered in early April of last year it consistently charged to 240/216, then a couple of months ago a SW download happened and since then, I can't get 240/216 if I wanted to.. even after trying multiple times to calibrate the batteries. I don't want more power, I want my f'ing charge range back.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I definitely would have used the 7-day return policy on that one! That is 5% loss of capacity when brand new. I guess just checking the range before signing for the car is really the right call - the return policy is too painful. I definitely checked mine!
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
It doesn’t work that way (Tesla specifically says it does not)...though the temperature of the pack may be wildly varying this time of year, so it could easily create a confusing picture...
Can37
Member
The EPA has not tested the Model 3 as far as I can tell, the documents on the web are Tesla tests that the EPA approves. See https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=46584&flag=1
It is important to note that the manufacturer gets to choose the derating factor for the tests - Tesla used 70% for the 3LR and are now using close to 77% for the SR+. This appears to be a choice, the EPA does not seem to regulate these factors.
I simply don't believe the "EPA estimates" that Tesla publishes. My e-Golf will drive, charger to charger about 5% further than it's EPA range in good conditions, my record is 227 km, against a range of 201 km, my 3 has not really come close. I have a handful of drives at over 100% efficiency and none of them are very long. Tesla is choosing to overstate or game their EPA estimates in a way that other manufacturers do not.
The Taycan has been vilified for having a shorter than expected EPA range, but it seems to be far more conservative than Tesla's numbers.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
You can see the data in this thread referenced below. It has been pointed out to me that the scalars are probably based on the 5-cycle test results, which they have done on some vehicles - I think this does have to be approved by the EPA - or there's a standard formula for it. So they do a two-cycle test, then scale it by something other than 0.7 because of "better than expected" 5-cycle results. (Which I don't trust either!) Worth noting though that the SR+ is scaled by 0.7 (2019) and 0.7054 (2020) - it's not one of the ones that has a very large scalar.
That appears to be correct.
But in any case, in terms of energy available, that is independent of these scaling factors, and that is what is displayed by the rated range number (it doesn't have to be related to the stated range in the test - that stated range just determines the value of the constant used to divide up the available energy into equal pieces). So it's important to make sure before you sign for your car that it displays full rated range!
Here's all the raw 5-cycle and other 2-cycle data (this is the less complete spreadsheet, does not show all the columns - but elsewhere in that thread you can see it).
2020, 2019, 2018 Model 3 Battery Capacities & Charging Constants
In that same spreadsheet I have constructed a calculator that provides the % loss of capacity based on rated miles at 100%. I'll post it one of these days but still sorting some stuff out.
coconutboy84
Member
im getting around 400km when i drive it the way i drive it. im not saying the car range meter shows it, im saying im ACTUALLY getting almost rated range.
coconutboy84
Member
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
That's incorrect. If you had an undegraded battery (you don't) you would get:
52.5kWh*0.955 / 0.201kWh/mi = 249.4 miles (100% to 0%)
For 90% start point to 0%, you would get 225 miles at 201Wh/mi.
Since you're at 226 miles at 100%, your 2019 SR+ has a battery capacity of 226rmi*219Wh/rmi = 49.5kWh
So for 90% to 0% at 201Wh/mi, you would get:
49.5kWh*0.955*0.9/201Wh/mi = 212 miles
After your commute this morning, if you started at 90% (44.8kWh for your specific vehicle), you would now be at:
0.9*226rmi - (201Wh/mi*42.4mi)/(209Wh/rmi) = 162.6 rated miles. (36.2kWh)
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
You said "rated range," so what your were referring to was unclear. Projected range of course will depend on your driving habits!
Of course. At 204Wh/mi (assuming a battery that shows original rated range at 100% - yours looks like it would show about 246rmi/396km), you will get 52.5kWh*0.955/0.127Wh/km = 395km to 0% (413km if you unwisely attempt to use all of the 4.5% buffer).
coconutboy84
Member
what i meant was my actual driving range is close to or surpassing my "rated range" which i still think (and will fight to the death!) that its a stupid useless number lol.
coconutboy84
Member
Can37
Member
Rated range is just the kWh available / fixed efficiency, it does not change by how you drive, it is just a representation of available charge in the battery.
coconutboy84
Member
omg. lol. yes....i know....jesus communicating by text is infuriating. How can i make this more clear lol.
The actual distance that im driving my car, is meeting or surpassing what the rated range says. ei. rated range says i went 50km, i actuall drove 60km. so im beating what the rated range says because im driving slower and more mindful, things i learned driving a volt.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Yeah I understand (now). I originally interpreted this statement (incorrectly) as: "I am seeing rated range change based on my driving style."
I guess I would say "I am able to meet or exceed the rated range if my driving style is such that my consumption is lower than 124Wh/km (200Wh/mi)."
Technically, at 127Wh/km you'll be a little short of rated range if you only go to 0% (you will exceed it if you use all the buffer). If you drive 60km at that rate displayed on the trip meter, you'll see about 60km*127Wh/km/124Wh/rkm = 61.5km tick off (assuming you have a 2020...if you have a 2019 you'll see 59km tick off).
But based on your picture it's entirely possible you're getting lower than 127Wh/km for the trip you were referring to. To get 50rkm to tick off on a trip of 60km, you'd need to see average consumption of 103.5Wh/km (166Wh/mi) in a 2020 SR+. Something a Performance owner can only dream of!
Last edited:
coconutboy84
Member
yes that makes sense! ive seen it lower before too, around 110-115wh/km. cant wait to see in the summer with my snow tires off and aeros on. will be great im sure. my volt was rated for 85km, in the winter id get anywhere from 55 - 75km, in the summer it was around 100-120km. so cant wait to see what the tesla does.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
coconutboy84
Member
i usually try and use the backroads as much as possible. im usually travelling around 90km an hour. i find its a game of finesse on the pedal lol
- Status
