-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
New Model 3 Range
- Thread starter Glyn H
- Start date
I think you are the third person recently to observe that the WLTP range that has to be used in marketing is far higher than the EPA range that the car shows on the screen. The EPA range is now more realistic and achievable than it used to, so you are more likely to find that the new car goes further.
I can't see what age car you had before but I bet it didn't actually achieve 340 miles on most journeys.
I can't see what age car you had before but I bet it didn't actually achieve 340 miles on most journeys.
I'm not reading the OPs question that way. Given he already owns a Tesla he would have knowledge that the range on the screen does not represent WLTP figures.
I read this as his new M3 isn't achieving any real world increase in range over his old one, even though on WLTP's paper it should go an extra 50 miles on a full charge (possibly 30 miles in reality).
spooksman
Member
I'm not sure this is true - I think there are lot of Tesla owners out there who have no clue about the figure 'up the top of the screen', and they just assume that is actually the range available. My wife has a Model 3, and still has that set to miles (rather than percent) as she insists she wants to know how far she can go...
Unless I'm mistaken (often am!), there are three figures in play:
- The WLTP range that manufacturers in the UK must in all advertising/literature
- The EPA range that Tesla display the top of the screen - which is similar in concept to the WLTP, but US based
- The range on the energy screen, which is based on your current trip and driving behaviour <--- This is the best IMO
However, you may be right and the OP has judged that his new car isn't showing a circa 10% increase in real world range in day to day usage. I'm not actually sure I'd notice that in my car, as it can vary more than that almost daily based on weather, driving style etc.
and more stringent and they don’t add the data from the city miles driving around at 30mph.
It has the same battery as the previous cars, so I don't know how people imagined it would achieve 50+ miles of additional range with aerodynamic tweaks.
That being said, if it's advertised as having a range of 390 miles then I'm not sure it's fair to suggest "ah well that's a particular type of measurement that is different from a more realistic one, oh and you'll never get even the lower advertised range"
That being said, if it's advertised as having a range of 390 miles then I'm not sure it's fair to suggest "ah well that's a particular type of measurement that is different from a more realistic one, oh and you'll never get even the lower advertised range"
OP's old vehicle at 340 miles implies it has a 2021 75 kWh battery, not the 79 kWh battery in the 2022+ M3 so there should be 20 miles benefit just from that.
Jason71
Well-Known Member
The Highland is more efficient particularly at high speed. Although not widely reported the main contributing factor to this is that they lowered the ride height rather than anything high tech
No experience of previous M3’s but my highland RWD is exceeding my expectations. Just done a 133mile drive averaging between 60-65mph, 12 degrees outside temp, heating/AC on with luggage, wife, kids in car annd only used 49% battery. So a 100% range of 270. At slower speeds it would easily do over 300 miles. Not WLTP figures, but still I think very impressive.
Rustybkts
Member
I'm getting the same figures.
Coming from an early 2020 SR+ I am getting a similar range to the EPA on my new car of 248 miles as I have the 19" wheels.
My old car was pushed to achieve anything close to 190 miles and fully charged to 220. A drive to Manchester from Leicester and return left me with 5% remaining. It was a steady motorway drive but I was astounded to have enough to return.
Is the LFP battery in the Highland any larger?.
I also note that it is very sensitive to temperature and if cold, doesn't have any regen even if not fully charged but I seem to have loads of regen when it is fully charged.
Have they enabled blended brakes because if so, they don't always work.
Not larger than the RWD directly preceding it, at 60 kWh, but larger than a SR+ which has a 55 kWh battery capacity.
Only in the US I believe ATM.
Are you sure they lowered it and any links backing that up?
My understanding is the improvements at speed are the front CD is reduced which makes a bigger difference at higher speeds along with better tyres also.
Guess cannot hurt but 2mm cannot make all that much difference. I think the improved CD and tyres will be what really makes the difference in efficiency.
Thanks for looking it up and sharing, wasn't aware they had changed this.
It’s been a bigger capacity battery than the original SR+ for a while before the Highland. Useable capacity was about 50kWh on early cars… in fact when Bjorn drained a nearly new SR+ to measure how much he could get out of it he only got 49kWh.
