Here is proof of what is possible at low speeds (40-50 km/h), climate control off, temperature ~10 C, P90D. 169 Wh/km = 270 Wh/mi. In theory 90 kWh @ 169 Wh/km = 532 km. By contrast, in cold temperatures with the heat running and driving at highway speed and/or accelerating quickly, the result is more like 350-400 Wh/km (560-640 Wh/mi). "Rated" for the Model X appears to be 210 Wh/km. This is why I laugh when people ask "what's the range?"
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Model X: Average Wh/mile Tracker
- Thread starter MattXowner
- Start date
I had a service tech out here and I told him I drive this car like I stole it. He said yeah I noticed and I asked what he meant and he said he doesn't see many over the 500 wh/mi. The other day I was at 630 for the last 30 miles. But I am usually in the low to mid 5's. All the time people are seeing my teeth as I am smiling from ear to ear the entire time 
xkwizit
Member
X90D 20" tires 18K miles/12 months Avg 365kWh
On a full charge the car estimates 246miles range. This used to be 253 last year. In reality, with average 70-75mph highway driving typical NorCal weather, I get 78-82% of the estimated range. The 18-22% loss can be attributed to higher speeds, temperatures, rain and wind.
Keeping a 25-35 miles reserve power, I expect that I will plan to recharge at about every 160-170 miles.
On a full charge the car estimates 246miles range. This used to be 253 last year. In reality, with average 70-75mph highway driving typical NorCal weather, I get 78-82% of the estimated range. The 18-22% loss can be attributed to higher speeds, temperatures, rain and wind.
Keeping a 25-35 miles reserve power, I expect that I will plan to recharge at about every 160-170 miles.
Just changed from winter to summer tires and noticed on a typical 15 mile errand run 30-60mph on relatively flat ground, instead of consumption upwards of 400Wh/mi, I'm seeing numbers under 300 which I haven't seen for months. Average Wh/mi may actually get worse now as I start to drive summer speeds.
update 2300 miles @ 334 wh/mi. last 800 miles mostly up and down i95 corridor with range mode on and climate set at 68 on colder days and 74 on warmer days. weather has been better, may be that helped in improving performance. 70 to 75 mph on auto pilot.
This is Model X 75 D, standard wheels.
Also 5 seater or 6/7? Apparently there's a big weight difference that plays a significant role.
6 seater config no center console. mostly 2 to 3 people occupy on average/trip. of 2300 miles at least 2000 on high way.
Amp Dup
Member
That's a good point! I'd love to see a chart with curb weights by battery size & seating config. Weight of 20" vs. 22" wheels? The owner's manual just gives weight data for X 90D and X P90D.
Somebody weighted their 5 seater here: 5 seater | Tesla
Now we just need somebody to weight a comparable 6 and 7 seater.
Amp Dup
Member
This was interesting in the Tesla Forum: (From JAnnen)
"What is a 487 (out of 6768) pound weight reduction worth? That's 7% less.
Energy is needed to overcome three things
1. Inertia of mass,
2. Rolling Resistance mostly due to tires,
3, the big one Air resistance.
The first two are directly related to mass. If we double the mass we will double the inertia and the Rolling Resistance.
Above maybe 35 mph. the Air resistance starts to dominate. So let's guess the first two energy hogs combined are equal to the third at 35 mph. If that's true then the 7% less mass could translate into 3.5% more range at 35 mph.
Now 3.5% isn't much, and who pays over $100,000 for a car to only go 35 mph? ... Me. On that very rare trip when I might not make that next charging station, I will slow down just enough to make it work. That 3.5% will be there when I need it the most. It's just another tool in my toolbox.
The counter argument is get a Model S instead and save 16% GVWR AND less Air resistance (CdA)."
I guess saving weight is a good idea but it ain't gonna turn my 60 into a 75!
"What is a 487 (out of 6768) pound weight reduction worth? That's 7% less.
Energy is needed to overcome three things
1. Inertia of mass,
2. Rolling Resistance mostly due to tires,
3, the big one Air resistance.
The first two are directly related to mass. If we double the mass we will double the inertia and the Rolling Resistance.
Above maybe 35 mph. the Air resistance starts to dominate. So let's guess the first two energy hogs combined are equal to the third at 35 mph. If that's true then the 7% less mass could translate into 3.5% more range at 35 mph.
Now 3.5% isn't much, and who pays over $100,000 for a car to only go 35 mph? ... Me. On that very rare trip when I might not make that next charging station, I will slow down just enough to make it work. That 3.5% will be there when I need it the most. It's just another tool in my toolbox.
The counter argument is get a Model S instead and save 16% GVWR AND less Air resistance (CdA)."
I guess saving weight is a good idea but it ain't gonna turn my 60 into a 75!
Depends on your usage pattern. If you are stuck in stop-and-go traffic a lot - those extra hundreds of pounds would play a huge role. If you are on highway going a steady speed (no matter what that speed is, just needs to be steady) then it's not going to play any significant role, I imagine.
goneskiian
Active Member
Thanks! I was wondering why I hadn't entered your info. The second post explains it. I didn't know where to put it!
jgrgnt
Member
X 90D 5-seater, 22" wheels, fresh Goodyear Eagle F1 Asymmetric 3 summer tires.
Road trip from Irvine to San Francisco and back. Speeds above 75 for most of the trip, A/C or heater used normally (low temps on the drive up, high temps on the drive down), suspension on low or very low, 3 passengers including driver, ~50 pounds of luggage. Range mode on 50% of the time. (forgot to turn it on for the drive up)
455 wh/mi trip average.
Road trip from Irvine to San Francisco and back. Speeds above 75 for most of the trip, A/C or heater used normally (low temps on the drive up, high temps on the drive down), suspension on low or very low, 3 passengers including driver, ~50 pounds of luggage. Range mode on 50% of the time. (forgot to turn it on for the drive up)
455 wh/mi trip average.
Amp Dup
Member
I do very little stop and go. (In fact, this car will probably get used about 6000 miles per year. It's not a commuter.) But It would be an interesting data point: Average Speed over the same distances as Wh/Mi.
I think average speed is a somewhat poor proxy because there are plenty of roads with low speed limits.
Unfortunately there's no easy way to see a number of times a car stopped/had speed dropped below certain point (unless you run visible tesla/some other such thing).
Also I think if you have hilly roads - the mass would also play a role (going up = more energy to bring more mass up, going down - regen helps, but not 100% energy recapture, so still a net loss).
X Fan
Active Member
Has anyone yet had both the 20" Conti & Michelin tires (replaced one for the other) on their X yet and can commment on impact to Wh/mi plus handling/noise? Saw an OP linking to a tire site but no actual use.
It's time to replace my original set and am hearing mixed messages (one Ranger suggested Michelins, the other in territory the Contis) on what to go with.
It's time to replace my original set and am hearing mixed messages (one Ranger suggested Michelins, the other in territory the Contis) on what to go with.
I had the Conti's until one was damaged and then the Michelins. The Michelins were little quieter but definitely not all season and were very slippery after a light dusting of snow (and then were immediately replaced with winter tires). I would call the Ms a summer performance tire and the Contis a better all-around tire.
I've been running around in a P85D pre-face lift Model S last day or so whilst the X was having some work done.
Did a comparison test in a section of road works on the expressway (am in the UK, we have ALOT of road works).
The road works section 20 miles long, so I used last 15 mile energy use as I came to the end of the road works. In the P85D I set AP to 55mph and it varied between 50-55 depending on traffic. For my 60D X I changed the cruise control speed manual. Weather was the same, roughly same wind speed/direction.
Range mode was on in both cars, and climate control set to auto with interior temp 19 Celsius, P85 was on 21 inch alloys, X on 20 inch.
The P85D returned 257Wh/mile (3.9 miles per kWh),
The 60D X returned 266Wh/mile (3.75 miles per kWh)
From memory the LEAF over the same road works returned about 4.5 miles per kWh.
So at lower speeds the X is not to dissimilar to the dual motor 'P' S on larger wheels, but clearly I can see how a 'P' X on larger wheels will gobble up electrons quicker than my daughter a pint of milk before bed time!!!
Did a comparison test in a section of road works on the expressway (am in the UK, we have ALOT of road works).
The road works section 20 miles long, so I used last 15 mile energy use as I came to the end of the road works. In the P85D I set AP to 55mph and it varied between 50-55 depending on traffic. For my 60D X I changed the cruise control speed manual. Weather was the same, roughly same wind speed/direction.
Range mode was on in both cars, and climate control set to auto with interior temp 19 Celsius, P85 was on 21 inch alloys, X on 20 inch.
The P85D returned 257Wh/mile (3.9 miles per kWh),
The 60D X returned 266Wh/mile (3.75 miles per kWh)
From memory the LEAF over the same road works returned about 4.5 miles per kWh.
So at lower speeds the X is not to dissimilar to the dual motor 'P' S on larger wheels, but clearly I can see how a 'P' X on larger wheels will gobble up electrons quicker than my daughter a pint of milk before bed time!!!
Similar threads
