Msjulie
Active Member
Battery replacement noted in prior reply https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2018/MC-10148848-9999.pdf
I can't find anyplace that lets you look up the VINs included here, anyone else?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Performance not getting 310 miles promised
- Thread starter Dan_LA
- Start date
- Status
Battery replacement noted in prior reply https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2018/MC-10148848-9999.pdf
I can't find anyplace that lets you look up the VINs included here, anyone else?
JeffK
Well-Known Member
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
interesting, but I'd think they'd have caught it by now if mine was affected. I had the Ranger out in September, and I was at the Service Center just before Christmas.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
You don't have to make an appointment, you can just call / email / text. You'd know if you charge it up to 100% and you're not getting around 309 or 310 miles on the display.
Msjulie
Active Member
@ModelNforNerd Since that is not a recall... did you ask/complain about a range/charging issues? Often a TSB gets addresses if and when a customer brings up a complaint - though I will admit I had a tech ask me if I had any issues or questions about my car when a minor service was done. This was just 1 time though.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
based on my build date, it does, but since I don't have visibility into the VIN database, it probably doesn't.So I'm thinking that TSB doesn't apply to you and thus no feed back from the service folks on that topic
Not true. I drove my 2016 Prius Touring 3 thru 2 Boston winters with the heat set to 70 for Uber passengers for over 50k miles and always got 60+mpg, averaging 64 when the EPA advertised numbers were 50hwy, 54 city.
Since ICE are less than 35% efficient, the other 65% is literally waste heat. This heat is a byproduct of making power from such an inefficient system (suck, squish, bang blow) with many moving parts. You get basically enough heat to maintain any cabin temperature.
Also, people like to compare the accuracy of the epa estimate for ICE vs EV, but there is really no relevance at all. ICE and EV are 2 systems with vastly different inputs.
I would support a more accurate EV EPA test. Normal people use the heater.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
I've found that the 3 seems to use some waste heat to heat the cabin. I try not to run the heat until I've been moving for a little bit, and my consumption doesn't seem as dramatic that way.
Its just an illusion caused by your usage being divided over more miles. When you first start off with the heat on your wh/mi looks crazy high since you havent done any miles. Once you are moving you can divide those watts over more miles so it looks smaller but is the same consumption overall.
From what I know there is no way to send waste heat into the cabin.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
18" wheels will help. Tesla still doesn't make Aeros that will fit the performance brakes but Tire Rack has quite a few sets that will fit. I've ordered two, both fit fine.
Glamisduner
Active Member
It will be interesting to see for sure, but in real world driving cars are constantly speeding up and slowing down, going uphills and going down hills. I think the aero covers made like a 3% - 4% difference with them on vs off at freeway speeds. Tires can make a big difference for sure, I just wonder if changing them will be more beneficial than lightening the wheels. I would do both before worrying about aero covers though.
From charts I have seen slowing down will help more than anything else
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
My guess is we will never know the answer, we’ll just argue about it!
I promise that if I get 18” and rig up aero covers somehow, I will do all the experiments I can. But I can probably not run enough controls to draw all the conclusions we need. If I follow through on my plan to get three sets of 18” wheels (range, winter, and autocross), maybe I will be able to, though! Wheel weight still might not be possible to control out though even with three extra wheel sets.
Glamisduner
Active Member
My guess is we will never know the answer, we’ll just argue about it!
I promise that if I get 18” and rig up aero covers somehow, I will do all the experiments I can. But I can probably not run enough controls to draw all the conclusions we need. If I follow through on my plan to get three sets of 18” wheels (range, winter, and autocross), maybe I will be able to, though! Wheel weight still might not be possible to control out though even with three extra wheel sets.
These guys did some testing on the 18s:
Tesla Model 3 Aero vs Non-Aero wheels real-world efficiency test
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Yeah that is fine. Aero helps, everyone knows that (but the worse your tires, the less aero helps, in terms of miles of range)! But look at Troy’s spreadsheet and compare the 20” to 18” without Aeros. It’s a much larger delta than Aeros vs no Aeros. I guarantee you it is not due to the weight difference (which is something like a total of 12 pounds for all 4 wheels combined (and yes, sure, the location of the weight affects the moment of inertia calculation...but my guess is it doesn’t change that much %-wise) between the 20” and the 18”!
Anecdote: I have a friend who is running 265 section width PS4S tires on really nice light 18” wheels (well under 20 pounds I think) and his efficiency is AWFUL even when not at freeway speed where the wheel “poke” from the wider wheels will hurt him. He routinely gets 350-400Wh/mi in San Diego. With no heat he is at 330-350 or something. Hard to draw conclusions since driver habits matter a lot too. But it doesn’t look good for the tires!
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
