-
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 just completed a trip to Sedona and I got crazy good efficiency in our 2016 P90d with 20's! I highly recommend taking 89 south from Flagstaff to Sedona, it's one of the most beautiful drives I've ever taken especially in an X. The X got under 200 Wh/mi for the 40 mile trip and our lifetime dropped to 380 Wh/mi. Not sure what the record is for a 30 mile trip efficiency, but this had to be close with a projected range of over 700 miles! lol
Royalpopat
Member
That has to be one of the best stats.... how much of it was down hill?
Do the figures in that image show usage of just the driving or it includes other consumption like aircon etc?
Royalpopat
Member
Downhill and flat they are very efficient. We have a tunnel here in Auckland about 2.4kms As there are no cross winds etc, the usage drops to under 70Wh/Km even if you do a constant 80kmph in the tunnel.
In my estimation, I don't think it's useful to try and tabulate any kind of pattern from the Wh/mi. It TOTALLY depends on how you drive (speed, acceleration) and the terrain. For instance, I pull a boat up and down hills going about 65mph on a 30 mile round trip, and I average 485-515 Wh/mi on those trips. But when I go for my coffee early in the morning, I can get as low as 200-215 on a 6 mile round trip by driving super slow and easy. Same driver and car, just vastly different driving conditions.
Royalpopat
Member
true that. the way I look at it the data provided by the car does not help in the long run but only on the that trip of the car. I have a fuelly account where record my charges and just like a normal ICE car it gives me the true efficiency of the car that I am getting in the real world use. Presently after doing 16K kms I am getting 4.17km/kWh (2.6m/kWh). This is what I am getting and what I will expect from my car realistically. Includes all kinds of battery drain and degradation. Though I would have loved it more if it was above 4.5
Model X 90D, 2016, AP1.
Test 1: Road is not straight, wind was N 10mph, net elevation 55, speed mostly at 56 mph, load 400 pounds + bike trailer with 3 bikes (thule). Left departure point with 95%, covered 225 miles, arrived 10%.
Test 2: same as given above, but distance is shorter. Please see attached screenshot for details. Calculating approximations, full range would give ~260 miles.
Test 1: Road is not straight, wind was N 10mph, net elevation 55, speed mostly at 56 mph, load 400 pounds + bike trailer with 3 bikes (thule). Left departure point with 95%, covered 225 miles, arrived 10%.
Test 2: same as given above, but distance is shorter. Please see attached screenshot for details. Calculating approximations, full range would give ~260 miles.
X 100D late 2019 with 20 inch wheels :
266 Wh/km over 13,000 km with winter tires and mostly highways
Last 800 km are down at 230 Wh/km with summer tires (mostly urban drive with some autobahn).
266 Wh/km over 13,000 km with winter tires and mostly highways
Last 800 km are down at 230 Wh/km with summer tires (mostly urban drive with some autobahn).
So that means ~425 kWh/mile? Seems a little high to me. I see numbers like that in the winter here, but 300-320 kWh/mile in summer is more typical.
Seemed also high to me reading the thread. I am based in Luxembourg and used to do a daily 130 km ride to Bastogne during winter mainly uphill and with temperatures between -5 and +8-10 Celsius.
The 230 I now have (eq. 370 Wh/m) are also high. I may review my driving habits. Tested a smooth driving at 75 miles/h on the autobahn (60 km) and got little under 200 Wh/km (320/mile).
Royalpopat
Member
that does sound satisfying. Just waiting now for the Phantom Drain issue to be resolved as loosing too much power daily and it is messing with the car's overall efficiency.
What do you mean "overall efficiency"? Are you calculating from something other than the tripmeters? The tripmeters only calculate during trips, and nothing that causes phantom drain would be off during trips to begin with.
Royalpopat
Member
I do not charge the car overnight every night. Just when the need be. My method is the same old school way taking 1kWh as 1litre of fuel. I know how much fuel I feed it and I know how many kms it did. Thus when the power is lost every night by the car it gets captured. So the real world true efficiency (and cost effectiveness) that I presently get from my 2019MX is 4.17kms/kWh. Which calculates to about 1/3rd cheaper than an ICE. Used to be half as cheap but the fuel prices dropped big time recently.
Last edited:
I see. Since it sounds like you're noticing a change, perhaps this thread might shed some light on it? Also, while using that methodology makes sense, I doubt it is relevant to the EPA estimates. I mean, I am guessing that the EPA estimate tests are based only on a drive and not having the vehicle sitting in the off condition for any significant period of time.
Royalpopat
Member
Thanks for the thread, I am following it as I had started it
You are right, the EPA tests are more on single run and the likewise for getting range etc. But I am after the real world usage cost and efficiency. As an ICE does not have any non-use loss while BEV has them, I feel forgetting the range and focusing on the real world cost of usage helps me more. In just over a year, with all the collected data, I see that the range is no where close to what is claimed and depends on way too many variables. Actually expectancy is around the values I get from my method so I decided to stick to it. Works well for me and I suggest others should try it as well.
Similar threads
