It's only gonna happen with a massive commitment from the govt. OR a massive commitment from one (or more) of the car companies to do what Elon did with the Superchargers. I just don't see Ford or GM laying out that amount of up front money, especially when Biden is talking about using the govt to ramp up charging infrastructure. But the Repubs are gonna fight tooth and nail against govt investment, so, yeah. . . . .that's where we are.
-
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+ showing 166 miles at 80% charge.. is that right?
- Thread starter RockandGrohl
- Start date
Yes, but not DRAMATICALLY worse. Also, the paradigm of mileage is exactly reversed in BEVs vs ICE. ICE vehicles routinely get better mileage on the highway and worse in stop and go. BEVs are opposite which I don't think is widely known to non-BEV drivers and may come as an unwelcome surprise when they figure out that there's no way they can use the rated mileage when figuring out how to charge for their long highway commute to work. God forbid it rains, then your mileage goes down even more in a BEV, something unheard of in ICE cars.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
It is strictly based on rated consumption and always exactly aligns with the BMS estimate. If you know the rated miles at 100%, you know the BMS estimate.
The way people claim that "you never get the EPA mileage" in your ICEV suggests that many of those who do notice have driving habits or patterns that result in significantly worse economy than rated. And that will likely carry over to what they see with an EV (when comparing city to city and highway to highway) -- just like what I see here on this forum.
Anyone looking at the Monroney sticker on an EV or FuelEconomy.gov - The official U.S. government source for fuel economy information. will see that the rated economy is better for city than highway for an EV, so it is hardly an unknown or a secret.
I have noticed that rainy weather makes ICEV economy worse.
S&B's M3
Member
Exactly... I have recorded daily and trip miles on my 2019 since it was delivered; actual miles driven versus kw miles consumed. I found that for every actual mile driven, I consumed between 1.4 and 1.6 kw miles, and I'm not driving like a maniac either. So even if I could fully charge to 240 miles, which I can't, I would only get somewhere between 150 to 170 actual miles.
So since I can only get 83% of the 240 range miles (which according to @AlanSubie4Life, this is normal), this means that real world actual miles, I will only get 124 to 142 actual miles on a "full" charge. A far cry from the advertised 240 miles that I based my purchased upon.
To put it into perspective, my KIA ICE holds 18 gallons, if I could only get 142 miles out of the tank, that means I would only be getting 7.9 mpg best case, worse case at 124 miles, I would only be getting 6.8 mpg. Would any of you folks buy a car that only gets 6.8 to 7.9 miles per gallon? Even a Lamborghini Huracan gets a combined 15 miles per gallon.
I know, I know, quit bitching and go sell it. That's not the point. However, if I had known then what I know now, I likely would not have bought the Tesla.
Black306
Active Member
That is the point. If range is that critical for you, then you should have done more research and possibly bought an LR. Even with ICE vehicles, MPG should be taken with a grain of salt; there are a lot of people that don't reach the rated MPG. And yes, people do buy cars with <10mpg knowing full well the range sucks. In those cases, range is not important. It seems to me you bought the wrong vehicle for your needs. Go sell it and get what you need.
My 21 sr+ shows about 238 miles at 100% after 15000 miles.
Let's keep track of what we're all discussing here in this thread...
Do batteries degrade? Yes
Do drivers get less than the brand new advertised range of their EVs? Almost always
Is it easier and faster to do road trips in an ICE? Yes it is
Can you pretty much go everywhere in North America in a Tesla? Yes if you're willing to spend more time on the road
Can you drive on long trips without planning ahead of time in an ev? You could but it wouldn't be optimal or feasible to do so 100% of the time
Personally speaking I did a lot of research and understood the implications of owning an ev and the realistic range and charging times for road trips. Do I love the fact that my car could realistically do like 140 miles between superchargers on the highway? No, I don't love it. But it's tolerable, and most importantly of all, usable.
For 95% of my drives locally, my sr+ is very convenient, I'm willing to put up with the down sides of longer road trips, I guess for people who expect to learn nothing and change none of their driving behavior coming from ICE cars, then EVs as they are today aren't for them.
Let's keep track of what we're all discussing here in this thread...
Do batteries degrade? Yes
Do drivers get less than the brand new advertised range of their EVs? Almost always
Is it easier and faster to do road trips in an ICE? Yes it is
Can you pretty much go everywhere in North America in a Tesla? Yes if you're willing to spend more time on the road
Can you drive on long trips without planning ahead of time in an ev? You could but it wouldn't be optimal or feasible to do so 100% of the time
Personally speaking I did a lot of research and understood the implications of owning an ev and the realistic range and charging times for road trips. Do I love the fact that my car could realistically do like 140 miles between superchargers on the highway? No, I don't love it. But it's tolerable, and most importantly of all, usable.
For 95% of my drives locally, my sr+ is very convenient, I'm willing to put up with the down sides of longer road trips, I guess for people who expect to learn nothing and change none of their driving behavior coming from ICE cars, then EVs as they are today aren't for them.
S&B's M3
Member
My Kia ICE's window sticker gave me a rating of 21 to 30, and by golly that's exactly what I get and I have 80k miles on it. My SR+ only has 13,662 on it.
People that "knowingly" by a car that gets less than 10 mpg, as you state "people do buy cars with <10mpg knowing full well the range sucks" are fully aware of that point at the point of purchase. But I didn't. My Kia delivers within the range on my MSRP and I expected my SR+ to deliver at least close to the indicated range, but it hasn't.
I realize there are folks, perhaps like yourself, that bought their Tesla so they can do 0-60 in 3 seconds, if so, great, you got with you paid for, I didn't. You also have a Cobra, so clearly range is not your concern, 0-60 is.
As for your "Go sell it and get what you need." statement, this is what you guys say when you have no empathy for other people's concerns, cold and callused. I have owned mine outright since day one, I'm not going to sell it at this point. Elon needs to come up with a realistic range, worst case and best case, with a similar mileage caveat as my Kia does, and publish it in lieu of the fictitious range on the Tesla website so people that are after range can make an informed decision.
As for your statement "If range is that critical for you, then you should have done more research and possibly bought an LR.". I did my research back in 2018 and if I was getting anywhere near the 240, I wouldn't be complaining today. At the time I ordered mine there was only a SR at 220 miles and a mid range (I think it was called a mid range) at 264 miles, but for the sake of 24 miles, it wasn't worth the thousands more in price. Again, if I was getting anywhere near the 240, I wouldn't be complaining today.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Wrong way to think about it.
More like a hypothetical Kia with a 4.7-gallon tank (142/30). (Call it 6 gallons for some margin to empty.)
I would not buy a car with a 6-gallon tank personally, but 9 gallons would be ok (with average efficiency).
Except your SR+ has more like a 1.3 gallon energy equivalent tank, though that is not really here nor there.
Last edited:
Ok. Since nobody seems to be listening to the fact that charging to 100% and seeing what the projected range says IS MEANINGLESS I've looked up the more detailed explanation that I was referring to.
Read this. Try it. Then, after giving your system a chance to properly calibrate and give you a true indication of range and capacity, come back and complain about it. Oh, and even after that go out and drive the car from 100% to 0% and see how much range you actually get.
tesla-info.com
Read this. Try it. Then, after giving your system a chance to properly calibrate and give you a true indication of range and capacity, come back and complain about it. Oh, and even after that go out and drive the car from 100% to 0% and see how much range you actually get.
Tesla battery management system (BMS) calibration
Tesla battery management system (BMS) calibration instructions
tesla-info.com
I sympathize with uninformed consumers who take the range rating at face value, and I wish the EPA range ratings would more accurately reflect real world driving and charging conditions.
However, in this day and age of easily accessible information on forums like this one and Youtube, maybe people should take a bit of personal responsibility instead of staying willfully ignorant before a $40-100k purchase. The Model S had been out for years when the 3 came out. It's no secret even back in 2018 what an EV would do in the cold or high speed driving, or suffer a bit of battery degradation.
All that said, I agree with @S&B's M3 that the EPA rating should perhaps be presented with 3-5 years of battery degradation, at 80% battery capacity, at 75mph, at 32f. That would give a much more realistic range rating for the kind of driving people actually do in their EVs in America.
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
It’s not meaningless, it is what the car thinks you have.
People can try these things and I do think it is likely to increase capacity in some cases, but in many cases it will have no effect at all. (Can see many examples of that here.)
Is it worth a try? Sure. The BMS will be pessimistic and if it gets a chance to provide a better estimate based on what it has seen, it may help a couple percent. (I think 5% would be about the limit).
Could it be 12% loss rather than 17%? Sure. Though I haven’t seen many recoveries like that.
oneformula@gma
Member
I think I'm getting dumber reading this thread. And I'm amazed how many people don't know that their Ford's and Chevy's can show DTE.
Cachris
Member
Yes I would agree with your statement about driving habits and mileage. However if I compare my M3 to my Tacoma. The Tacoma with lets say 100 miles on it before the gas light comes on. I can go about 100 miles, +/- a mile or two. With my M3 same 100 miles I might only 80/85ish miles on the odometer. That's a huge difference!
We all have to remember we are trying to get the masses to move over to EVs, and to that we need to be honest. Maybe over build the battery packs to have a buffer then have software adjust for all the variables.
Black306
Active Member
[Research] mistake #1 was assuming 240 rated miles; already stated that. [Research] mistake #2, I didn't previously mention, is not factoring battery degradation. Even if the car was getting 240 miles when new and everything else being equal (ie how the car is used), there is a possibility range would go down to 168 miles before a warranty replacement is triggered. Tesla is clear about 70% retention before covering a battery replacement. So at the very least, if range is a concern, then 168 miles should have been the number used to determine if it meets your needs, not rated range. Simply looking at rated range is not "research," IMO. Live and learn.
Can't speak about others, but from me it's not coming from being cold or callused; it's coming from being realistic. Something is currently not meeting your needs. Either stay in the situation you're in and suffer, or move forward and get to a better situation. How is empathizing by saying something like 'man, that really sucks you're not getting rated range!' going to help you? Notice I didn't say you have to get a Tesla (LR) or get another EV. (Tesla is not the only manufacturer that [seemly] overstates their range, BTW; many other EV manufactures do it too.) I said, get what you need; even if that means getting another ICE vehicle. Complaining about Elon is (1) not going to help and (2) is not focusing on the root problem. If anything, EV manufacturers should make more clear the 'rated range x minimum battery retention' range. That'll give people a more realistic expectation of range for the life of the vehicle.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Yes.
- Be consistent in your test conditions -- say each spring. Pay a lot more attention to the trend than to a single test
- Charge up to whatever suits you and note the SoC
- Reset for a new trip
- Drive as usual, to a low-ish SoC. Note that value
kWh consumed divided by SoC change is battery capacity in kWh from 0 - 100%
A few things to be aware of:
- There is usable capacity below "0% SoC" you are not taking into account. Pay attention to the trend !
- This calc is the car battery pack, and should not be confused with ratings that also include charging losses. Pay attention to the trend !
If your car has an LFP battery and you rarely charge to 100% SoC, the BMS experiences calibration drift leading to artefactualy low reported range.
Actually, the EPA is the one that came up with those ranges.
I get the argument that BEVs don't get their rated range, and most consumers will be surprised by that at first.
That said, let's remember that everyone here would rather drive an EV than an ICE even knowing all of this. The average consumer will feel the same way. It's just better. 99% of driving isn't bothered by the "less than EPA range" problem, and for the long trips - fast DC charging is sufficient (better than ICE in my opinion).
Per the article I posted, 100% is not truly 100% unless it has sat on the charger for an extended period. However, if you get in your car at say 70% after it has been sitting, I think that gives you a more realistic estimate. I did this today. Car was at 68% SOC and said 197 miles in range. Take the range / percent (197 / 0.68) = 289 @ 100%. My M3P was rated 299 new, and is a mid-2019 with 40k miles on it. Totally acceptable degradation, assuming it is even accurate. I haven't done any of the steps related to recalibrating because I don't see any benefit.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
A mid-2019 (meaning not a 2020 model) was rated for 310 miles (and actually was effectively 317.5 miles (77.8kWh/245Wh/rmi) if you account for the degradation threshold).
It is ambiguous, the way you describe your car - it could have been a very early 2020 Performance, in which case the displayed rated miles will depend on your wheel selection (and at 77.8kWh would be 322/304/299 for 18”/19”/20”).
I have a 2018 Performance showing 300rmi@100% which would be the same as 2019 and would be 5.5% capacity loss - but it has been as high as 9%.
It's a 2019 (Sept build date) M3P with the PUP package (so 20" boat anchor wheels and performance tires). So 299 rated new.
Similar threads
