P3D+ 250 mile range with non-aggressive driving

[khraiv]

Plenty of reviews on this car, but not a ton of coverage on P3D and especially for the P3D+ (namely 20" 4S wheels), so thought it might be helpful for those undecided.

After an 800-mile trip from AZ to CA and back in 2 days, using 99% autopilot @ limit+5mph (65/70-75/80), I averaged 300 Watt/mile. This of course translates to 250 mile range. I don't do a lot of long distance driving, so this wasn't a big deal to me, but wanted to provide some insight on real-world driving range. Tires were at 46 PSI (i'll drop down a bit now that trip is over). I've seen enough data to not expect to see the 310 EPA range, but I was a little disappointed after doing mostly everything right.

Now the impact of the reduced range wasn't a huge deal. I don't believe I would have stopped any less if I had the full 310m range, but it did impact:

• Estimated routes are based on this EPA range could get people into trouble. Think about it. Sometimes, Tesla will route you to a destination with an estimated 10% range remaining. Well, as shown from my data, my vehicle gets about 20% less range than the estimates. Luckily this didn't impact me, but it could have. My biggest pet peeve is that the estimates are based on EPA, not real-world usage. It seemed to improve over time, but I cannot say for certain.
• Even though I didn't stop any more frequently, with my vehicle being less efficient, it resulted in roughly 20% longer stops due to increased charge times. Not a huge deal, most superchargers are reasonably strategically located to useful stuff.

Overall a great experience, and have zero regrets with P3D+. But if you do a lot of long range trips, this may be a consideration. Perhaps they'll release 20" aero's in the future to improve range by ~5%.

 

[Cirrus MS100D]

Thanks for posting! YOu probably know this, but as others have mentioned here and elsewhere, it's speed that kills your range the most. If you had hovered closer to the 65 mph range, you would've probably gotten closer to the 280+ range. The larger wheels are also probably good for another ~10-15%, which gets you pretty close to the rated 305mi of the P3D+

With that in mind, I think the estimated routes tend to be very good at calculating real-world range and I haven't found our MS to be wildly off in either direction when doing road trips. In fact, if you speed and you're on a "stretch" leg, the car will warn to the effect of, "slow down in order to reach your destination!"

 

[chronopc]

Plenty of reviews on this car, but not a ton of coverage on P3D and especially for the P3D+ (namely 20" 4S wheels), so thought it might be helpful for those undecided.

After an 800-mile trip from AZ to CA and back in 2 days, using 99% autopilot @ limit+5mph (65/70-75/80), I averaged 300 Watt/mile. This of course translates to 250 mile range. I don't do a lot of long distance driving, so this wasn't a big deal to me, but wanted to provide some insight on real-world driving range. Tires were at 46 PSI (i'll drop down a bit now that trip is over). I've seen enough data to not expect to see the 310 EPA range, but I was a little disappointed after doing mostly everything right.

Now the impact of the reduced range wasn't a huge deal. I don't believe I would have stopped any less if I had the full 310m range, but it did impact:

• Estimated routes are based on this EPA range could get people into trouble. Think about it. Sometimes, Tesla will route you to a destination with an estimated 10% range remaining. Well, as shown from my data, my vehicle gets about 20% less range than the estimates. Luckily this didn't impact me, but it could have. My biggest pet peeve is that the estimates are based on EPA, not real-world usage. It seemed to improve over time, but I cannot say for certain.
• Even though I didn't stop any more frequently, with my vehicle being less efficient, it resulted in roughly 20% longer stops due to increased charge times. Not a huge deal, most superchargers are reasonably strategically located to useful stuff.

Overall a great experience, and have zero regrets with P3D+. But if you do a lot of long range trips, this may be a consideration. Perhaps they'll release 20" aero's in the future to improve range by ~5%.

You must have not been stuck in any traffic. On my last trip from SF to LA I was driving as fast as I could and was well under the rated 310 miles of range, but once I was about an hour away from LA I was in stop and go traffic for so long that I ended up exceeding the rated range.

 

[TheLocNar]

Autopilot will also use up more battery.

 

[glide]

Autopilot will also use up more battery.

It will? How so?

 

[Commish]

I have done this drive as well. Don't forget that you need to go over an always windy mountain range between AZ-CA, and then if you are driving out of LA, another mountain range. Going uphill really doesn't help your efficiency, even if regenerative braking is going to help a little going down the mountain.

 

[Pkmmte]

Autopilot will also use up more battery.

How so? I often get much better efficiency on AutoPilot than if I were driving manually.

 

[burnside]

It will? How so?

There are times on autopilot where you will be behind a car going below the speed limit then that lead car will give way. AP will then quickly accelerate to the set speed which will hurt your range efficiency.

 

[eyespii]

Took a 1000+ mile road trip from OC —> Vegas —> Grand Canyon —> OC in my P3D+. Autopilot almost the entire time, average speed >75mph. Ended up 298wh/mi average.

 

[Daniel in SD]

There are times on autopilot where you will be behind a car going below the speed limit then that lead car will give way. AP will then quickly accelerate to the set speed which will hurt your range efficiency.

I don't think that fast acceleration uses more energy than slow acceleration. It takes the same amount of energy to reach a set speed whether you do it slowly or quickly. As far as I know the efficiency of the electric motor doesn't decrease at high loads.

 

[PoitNarf]

I don't think that fast acceleration uses more energy than slow acceleration. It takes the same amount of energy to reach a set speed whether you do it slowly or quickly. As far as I know the efficiency of the electric motor doesn't decrease at high loads.

Absolutely incorrect. Power = work / time. The faster you accelerate the more work you are doing in a shorter amount of time equals more power consumed. This is the case with any vehicle whether it be an EV or ICE.

 

[TheLocNar]

I thought I read that EAP does use up more battery due to the constant scanning from the sensors and cameras etc.

 

[xav-]

I don't think that fast acceleration uses more energy than slow acceleration. It takes the same amount of energy to reach a set speed whether you do it slowly or quickly. As far as I know the efficiency of the electric motor doesn't decrease at high loads.

That’s not what my personal experience is .. when I do fast acceleration I get horrible range.. despite using regen braking nearly 100pc. I will do more tests though

 

[PoitNarf]

That’s not what my personal experience is .. when I do fast acceleration I get horrible range.. despite using regen braking nearly 100pc. I will do more tests though

No tests necessary, the laws of physics say the faster you accelerate the more power you need to do so.

 

[usofrob]

300Wh/mile is right in line with this chart:
Tesla Model S/X/3 range at 65/70/75/80 mph

 

[usofrob]

I also remember seeing a chart where the amount of power applied does affect the efficiency for exerting power and regenerating power. I don't know how significant it is though. But I generally try to smooth out my accelerating and will sometimes disable AP when a car is about to move away from in front of me when I'm in moderate traffic, because it has a tendency to accelerate to get to the car in front, then regen to slow down. Certainly regen isn't as efficient as not accelerating in the first place. I've heard that you might capture about 70% of the energy (losses for accel + regen). If it doesn't happen often, it's not likely to effect the total efficiency much.

 

[xav-]

You must have not been stuck in any traffic. On my last trip from SF to LA I was driving as fast as I could and was well under the rated 310 miles of range, but once I was about an hour away from LA I was in stop and go traffic for so long that I ended up exceeding the rated range.

You have the RWD car + base wheels (apologies if I am wrong)

He got performance car (11 percent range hit), + 20 inch performance tires. Just the sport wheels with all seasons alone is a 10 percent hit on range. l can’t imagine what those 20 inch performance tires impact is on range

 

[Daniel in SD]

That’s not what my personal experience is .. when I do fast acceleration I get horrible range.. despite using regen braking nearly 100pc. I will do more tests though

Well obviously if you're using regen it's less efficient. I was just referring to accelerating up to speed quickly vs. accelerating slowly. This is something that's very difficult to test since there are so many factors. From what I've read though electric motors are actually more efficient at higher loads.
I'm just saying that accelerating quickly up to 65mph is more efficient than accelerating slowly up to 66mph assuming you reach your destination at the same time in both cases.

 

[StellarRat]

Isn't the EPA range a combination of low and high speed driving? In my Leaf the backed up traffic on the freeway increased my range a lot because low speed driving uses much less power than normal highway speed of 65 mph.

 

[AWDtsla]

I don't think that fast acceleration uses more energy than slow acceleration. It takes the same amount of energy to reach a set speed whether you do it slowly or quickly. As far as I know the efficiency of the electric motor doesn't decrease at high loads.

Efficiency of the whole system drops as current grows. Probably dumping 100kW of heat just inside the battery pack at full tilt.