Model X vs. Model 3 Range

[KentuckyX]

I just completed a 1600 mile round trip journey; the first long road trip in my 2017 Model X since taking ownership one month ago. I traded in a 2018 Model 3 LR RWD with 18" wheels, which I had driven 70k miles in 25 months. That car went on MANY road trips and I got a good feel for its range characteristics. I've gotta say, I'm extremely impressed and happy with how the X performed on this trip. Battery usage seems much more efficient in this vehicle as opposed to the 3. For instance, I charged in Nashville (which is 180 miles from my home) on my return leg. I charged up to 207 miles. I can guarantee that 27 mile "buffer" would have been eaten up by my Model 3. Not only did I arrive with the buffer, it actually increased to 35 miles. I never had that happen in my 3. Never. I saw this behavior a few times during my trip. I was also impressed with the 314 wh/mi average I got during the trip. And this was a trip through the mountains of WV and MD. I think I'm really going to love this thing for the long haul.

 

[shikk]

Thanks for the comparison, great to hear from someone else who can compare the two. Glad you like the X! We have both (M3P and MXLR), and my wife and I have been arguing which one to trade for the cybertruck .

Now that we have the X, the 3 is relegated to my commutes and solo trips, but I did have the chance to take it on a similar route I've taken on the 3 before and what jumped out at me was a little different. The range was similar, but the 3 seemed to charge a lot faster at the same stops. I wish I had kept better track of the power the SC was outputting in each location, but it just felt like the X took longer to get to the point where I could leave. Or, it just felt that way with the kids yelling in my ear asking if we can leave yet :|. Similarly, using my wall charger at home running at 48 amps for each, the X takes about an hour longer to get to 90% SOC. I'm sure the battery capacity explains that, but something to consider on trips is that what you get in range you might lose in charge time.

I absolutely always drive faster on the M3P, so it's a given that I eat up more juice due to that so I only focus on charge time . Enjoy the X! It's in a different league when it comes to creature comforts and convenience.

 

[P85_DA]

Thanks for info ..I’m actually surprised to hear X is more efficient ..what size battery of X ? ...I would expect more the opposite ..my X gets horrible efficiency compared to previous S and I would expect for battery size the 3 is better .. my X P100 on 22s with autopilot set to 75 I’m lucky if I can make 200 miles given spacing of superchargers where I drive I rarely have to do that though

 

[KentuckyX]

Thanks for info ..I’m actually surprised to hear X is more efficient ..what size battery of X ? ...I would expect more the opposite ..my X gets horrible efficiency compared to previous S and I would expect for battery size the 3 is better .. my X P100 on 22s with autopilot set to 75 I’m lucky if I can make 200 miles given spacing of superchargers where I drive I rarely have to do that though

I've got a 100D. Like you, my AP is usually set to 75. The last leg, where I actually gained 8 miles of "buffer" over the 180 trip, I ran into a torrential rain for 15 miles or so. Even with that range killer, I still managed to pick up miles. I bought my Model 3 in May of 2018, so I "got acquainted" with the car during the warm months of the year. Even though I knew what the winter would bring, I was still kinda shocked at the range loss that first winter brought. I bought this Model X in May 2020. I'm sure I'm in for an even BIGGER surprise when next winter arrives. I've got to do that same Louisville-Nashville round trip (360 miles) tomorrow. I'll be curious to see if the results are the same.

 

[MrTomP]

so for a 2017 MX 100D that has a rating of 295 miles, 180-200 miles is what you can expect on average at a speed if 75mph?

 

[Zaxxon]

Thanks for info ..I’m actually surprised to hear X is more efficient ..what size battery of X ? ...I would expect more the opposite ..my X gets horrible efficiency compared to previous S and I would expect for battery size the 3 is better .. my X P100 on 22s with autopilot set to 75 I’m lucky if I can make 200 miles given spacing of superchargers where I drive I rarely have to do that though

it's definitely not more efficient than a 3. What OP seems to be saying is that the X tacks closer to its rated range in the real world, in his experience, than did his 3.

 

[posey_mvp]

This is pretty accurate Teslike.com

 

[P85_DA]

so for a 2017 MX 100D that has a rating of 295 miles, 180-200 miles is what you can expect on average at a speed if 75mph?

this is my experience on 22s XP100D​

 

[Sandiegodoug]

Our 6/17 x 100d with about 40k on it, 340 w/m
Our 1/18 rwd 3 about 25k, 225 w/m
These are life of vehicle average

 

[KentuckyX]

so for a 2017 MX 100D that has a rating of 295 miles, 180-200 miles is what you can expect on average at a speed if 75mph?

No, no, no...read my original post. I had 207 miles when I left Nashville last week to drive to Louisville (a 27 mile buffer over the 180 mile trip). I arrived at home with 35 miles on the ticker. I gained 8 miles of buffer. My car charges to 285 at 100%. I wasn't at 100% when I left Nashville.

 

[KentuckyX]

it's definitely not more efficient than a 3. What OP seems to be saying is that the X tacks closer to its rated range in the real world, in his experience, than did his 3.

Thank you; that's EXACTLY what I was trying to convey.

 

[Qbenjamin]

Interesting, my M3 was MUCH more efficient than my X by leaps and bounds. With 19" wheels and speeds around 75mph, I only saw a 10% range loss. I can barely make it 140 miles on the same trip with 22's on the X (90% is around 205).

 

[KentuckyX]

Interesting, my M3 was MUCH more efficient than my X by leaps and bounds. With 19" wheels and speeds around 75mph, I only saw a 10% range loss. I can barely make it 140 miles on the same trip with 22's on the X (90% is around 205).

Again, it’s not necessarily the efficiency of the battery itself, but rather, the efficiency of the range indicator. The 3 has a 74 kWh battery; the X, 100. All I’m saying is that the 100 kWh battery seems to be a better predictor of how far you can travel on any given charge. I’ve only had my car for 5 weeks, so I may be telling a whole different story later.

 

[alexdav]

I assume you're on 20" wheels, which makes a big difference as well. I've had the 22" wheels on my X since about 7500 miles (at ~22k now) and it's been pretty accurate, except in winter. But haven't made a road trip in awhile.

I'm surprised, though, we also have a 3 LR RWD. Perhaps there's just more data out there now that the LR RWD is "legacy"?

 

[KentuckyX]

I assume you're on 20" wheels, which makes a big difference as well. I've had the 22" wheels on my X since about 7500 miles (at ~22k now) and it's been pretty accurate, except in winter. But haven't made a road trip in awhile.

I'm surprised, though, we also have a 3 LR RWD. Perhaps there's just more data out there now that the LR RWD is "legacy"?

Yes; 20” wheels. They’re the Silver Helix wheels. I’ve wondered whether the Helixes are more or less efficient but I’ve never found a post anywhere about that topic. They’re pretty uncommon, so that may be one reason I’ve never seen anything about them.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Some of this difference is that the X has a 100 kWh battery, while the 3 has only a 75 kWh battery.

Takes longer to charge the bigger battery.

The 3 is smaller, lighter and can charge a bit faster than the X, but with the larger battery the X can go further between charges.

3 has better aero, so the faster the speeds, the bigger advantage it has over the X.

The X is by far the better long distance runner due to a quieter and more comfortable ride than the low slung 3.

 

[Dechidus]

I just did a road trip of over 1600 miles myself on a 2017 75D with 22s and i was getting like 390-400 w/m. Speeds i had were constant 75+mph. It was getting like 130-140 miles before the next charge. I knew before i bought that 75d with 22s would suck but i rarely do road trips and it wasnt that bad anyway. I loved it. I needed the stops anyway with a toddler

 

[Bigriver]

The model 3 is definitely more efficient than the model X in terms of it using less energy per mile. The lifetime trip meter display on my 2018 AWD model 3 is 264 Wh/mile after 16,000 miles. My 2017 100D model X is 344 Wh/mile after 36,000 miles. Theses would be even more different with the model 3 being less and the model X being more if they were used at the same time of the year. My model 3 has the most miles in the 30 F to 50 F range, while the model X has over half of its miles in the 65 to 85 F range.

Teslafi uses the word efficient to be a comparison of the actual miles driven to the change in rated miles. The plot below shows data from over 100 drives in my model 3 and over 100 drives in my model x, comparing the Wh/mile displayed in the trip meter with the efficiency (actual miles/rated miles) of that trip segment. For both cars, I get actual miles anything from 70% to 120% of the rated miles, depending on conditions. The biggest variable for me is outside temperature.

The vertical lines on my graph show the Wh/mile shown in the Tesla energy plot as the rated Wh/mile. It is 250 Wh/mile for the model 3 and 338 Wh/mile in my model X. For both cars, I need the trip meter display to show a notably lower Wh/mile than these “rated” values to have my actual miles equal to my rated miles. Roughly 230 Wh/mile and 315 Wh/mile, for the model 3 and model X respectively, are my golden targets when I’m wanting to feel great about my efficiency.

 

[rohitgarewal]

Does anyone know how many KWH are actually available to the 2018 X 100D? I’ve got 23.5K miles on mine, and over the past few days I’ve noticed something strange (on a 1000 mile road trip spread over 5 days).

Two days ago I charged my car to 80%. I drove 98 miles over the 2 days, and it said I used 35 KWH to do so. However, my battery showed 24%, a 56% loss. Even assuming my car only has 90 KWH accessible, thats a 56% loss for 35KWH of driving. I thought I had something driving huge phantom drain.

However, today I charged to 90%, drove 24 miles, and it showed I had used 7.7 kWh and my battery was at 80% (instead of the 82% I was expecting). If I lose 2% every 10, that would mean I really only have 80 KWH available to me, right?

The numbers don’t seem to be adding up - my cars only showing me a rated range of 276, which seems like almost a 8% drop in just 2 years. Is this normal or should I take it into service?

 

[Bigriver]

@rohitgarewal, I’m not seeing anything in your numbers that causes me concern.

Your full charge range of 276 miles is similar to my 280 mile range for my late 2017 model X. There are definitely those out there with closer to the original 295 miles rated range, but I don’t think ours are notably bad or indicative of a problem with the battery.

Regarding your 98 miles driven over 2 days in which your battery was down by 56%..... your drive itself got 357 Wh/mile, and based on my experience as shown in the plot in the post above, that would be between an 80% and 90% efficiency. That means the drive itself plausibly used 98/276/0.80= 45% of the battery range. That leaves 11% while sitting. Yes, that is high but not unheard of. Did you have sentry mode on? Overheat protection on? Always connected checked in the settings? What software version are you on? I was getting 3% to 5% loss per day while on the 2020.20.* versions. I’m now on 2020.24.6.4 and the passive losses are back negligible. I’ve also had a situation recently where my battery rebalanced (I think that’s what it was doing) after a long drive, and it lost 6% in the 3 hours after the drive. Bottom line is that there are so many reasons there can be a higher than normal loss for some period. I only get concerned if it is an ongoing behavior.

On your 24 mile drive, you got 321 Wh/mile which should have put you close to actual miles and rated miles being equal. 24/276 rounds to 9%, so 10% being used is not out of line. Note that in my plot above, I had some drives that were under 320 Wh/mile that were as low as 82% efficiency, which would have been an 11% drop for your 24 miles.