Performance not getting 310 miles promised

[clownpuncher]

Lots of factors. When the weather is below 45 degrees F it starts to take a hit on range. These cars in my opinion are not ideal in cold climates...just the way lithium is. Wheel house for good mileage is between 50-80 degrees F out. Northern California and west coast weather this car loves! Then there is how hard you work the pedal. I love jack rabbit start...I mean love them!! This car is a roller coaster with an iPad in the middle!! I love to drive this off the line fast...my tires will probably go fast as well...but Im ok with that as well. For the smile I get is worth every penny! And the AC/Heat can really make your range fluctuate a ton Heating is the biggest hit. I heat my seat and heat the car at 60 degrees in the chicago crap winter! I'm typically in a warm coat anyway as everyone else is...so it doesnt bother me much and actually works well with out a massive hit. I do have some touch sensitive thin gloves I typically wear while I drive. It works and isnt too bad. Speed is the final issue...drive it fast, it eats more juice. 65-72 seems like a fair decent average...problem is that is slow to keep up with most traffic these days. No realistic nor practical. This weekend it was 50s in wisconsin, my P3D+ has mich a/s 3+ tires, I took off the summer 20" just not good in anything below 40 degress and swapped for these All-season 20". They are no louder and ride quite well. Supposedly your suppose to get a range hit but I cant really tell. 10K on the 3 now and I drive it "fun" so my wattage is on the high side. The tesla to me is a long range commuter car not a long distance travelers car and definiately not a cross country car. When I plotted a trip from chicago to florida it adds 8-10 hours for charging that ICE doesnt sweat! Anyway, the speed fun factor makes me not care about range and if once again need to drive a long way...wifes ICE car comes out. I have done some longer trips but I only consider a 1 or 2 supercharge stops to be the most I will do. Too long to charge and the range is really not great. Considering the time it takes to charge I will not exceed that many charging stops and will opt for the ICE on long trips...I cant say this enough. Long and short this is not a long range vehicle. Dont try and treat it that way. I wants to be driven not conserved. Just my 2 cents.

 

[clownpuncher]

IMO, they should have a range mode and a sport mode setting. Range, dumb down the acceleration, change the ac/heating to a few degrees higher or lower (depending on the year), show you what is the ideal cruising speed and just optimize across the board....as for sport...everything on...period!

 

[aronth5]

I assume this is a P3D+ with stock PS4S tires? And it sounds like a round trip? What was the average speed? Greater than 65mph? If so on all counts, this would be a very promising result. Would suggest that 60mph may be no problem. But it is close, and depends on SoC estimation nonlinearity.

I also got 310 miles on a full charge with the latest software - when I tried this one time previously it only got to 307 or so.

No, LR RWD. Average speed on the highway was 66-68mph. 18" stock tires with turbine wheels.

 

[jerry33]

The 310 is the EPA number. Drive exactly like the EPA and you will get it. The EPA number was never intended to be what you get because that's an impossible number due to drivers and driving conditions. The EPA number means that when you compare it to your previous car, the ratio between the previous car's EPA number and the actual results, will give a good indication of what you can expect from a new car.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

No, LR RWD. Average speed on the highway was 66-68mph. 18" stock tires with turbine wheels.

Oh, ok. That's a relatively poor result then, as far as I can tell. If it's open freeway travel (no other traffic) then it's not that surprising, but it's still not great.

Overall this thread is about why the P3D+ (with PS4S) does not get the "310 miles promised". The basic reason is very clear - it's the tires, and the EPA test is conducted with MXM4s, and the quoted numbers are for that configuration. But now the question (which I'm trying to figure out) is exactly how much of a difference (real world) it makes, and also, is there variation between P3D+ vehicles (because some people claim some fantastic results). There are spreadsheets from Teslike of course that provide estimates, but just trying to get proven data.

My claim is that it is probably impossible to get 290 miles on the P3D+ if you average greater than 65mph and travel on the freeway between 65-70mph. It MIGHT be possible to make 290 miles (might have to go below 0 rated miles) if you travel 60-65 with an average speed > 60mph (but I think it probably can't be done). All with minimal drafting (but maybe some traffic, so a little incidental drafting). With zero net elevation gain of course.

I think that at the above speeds with 18" wheels AWD/P3D Stealth + MXM4s + aero covers would result in at least 310 miles, again with just moderate/incidental drafting (might be impossible on the open road to get to 310, not sure).

So it seems like ~10% hit at least due to the PS4S, but just trying to figure out how much it is.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The 310 is the EPA number. Drive exactly like the EPA and you will get it. The EPA number was never intended to be what you get because that's an impossible number due to drivers and driving conditions. The EPA number means that when you compare it to your previous car, the ratio between the previous car's EPA number and the actual results, will give a good indication of what you can expect from a new car.

With the caveat that for the Performance with PS4S tires, the EPA number does not apply.

On my Subaru I routinely got 24MPG highway, travelling 75-80mph. The EPA number was 24MPG (on the old system since it was a 2005 model). I got this number when it was new, and also when it had 146k miles on it. It was so inefficient, aero-wise, the choice of tires didn't make much difference, of course. (In the city it was rated 18MPG and on my stop-and-go drive I would get 16-18MPG - the tire selection made more of a difference in this number.)

The EPA number in some ways is pessimistic, because it includes speeding up and slowing down, even on the highway cycle. Of course it's also a blend of the city and highway numbers. The average speed on the highway cycle is 48mph (I think maximum speed is below 60mph). But, if you maintain constant speed, and go faster than the EPA average speed - and even faster than the max speed, it is still possible to make the rated range - as long as you don't go too fast. This is because the increased aero losses are offset by the gains you get from not having any regen losses - and also, less significant, the static vehicle system losses (a few hundred watts I guess) are reduced at a higher speed.

 

[Nocturnal]

Just started using Tesla fi. My trip to work this morning (part bumper to bumper, part driving at 70+). It is definitely possible to get rated range out of a P3D+. Avg speed 38, max speed 80. Slight negative elevation (which explains the greater than 100% efficiency). Stock tires/wheels.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Just started using Tesla fi. My trip to work this morning (part bumper to bumper, part driving at 70+). It is definitely possible to get rated range out of a P3D+. Avg speed 38, max speed 80. Slight negative elevation (which explains the greater than 100% efficiency). Stock tires/wheels.

View attachment 409913

Good datapoint.

To be fair, you used 18 rated miles to go 18.6 miles. This was at an average speed of 38mph, downhill 144 feet (which gives you a bonus of 12Wh/mi), with plenty of drafting. So, if it had been level, you would have been using slightly more rated miles than the miles traveled, which would not be getting the rated range.

So, I remain unconvinced that it is possible to get even 290 miles (with P3D with PS4S) at an average speed of greater than 60mph, with typical speeds between 60 and 65mph (this is the condition where the range would be relevant). Need to see the data. Also remember the potential for non-linearity in the SoC indication of rated miles use.

 

[Nocturnal]

Good datapoint.

To be fair, you used 18 rated miles to go 18.6 miles. This was at an average speed of 38mph, downhill 144 feet (which gives you a bonus of 12Wh/mi), with plenty of drafting. So, if it had been level, you would have been using slightly more rated miles than the miles traveled, which would not be getting the rated range.

So, I remain unconvinced that it is possible to get even 290 miles (with P3D with PS4S) at an average speed of greater than 60mph, with typical speeds between 60 and 65mph (this is the condition where the range would be relevant). Need to see the data. Also remember the potential for non-linearity in the SoC indication of rated miles use.

True. I didn't get any drafting benefit I don't think, I was either going slow or fast with nobody in front of me. Car wasn't pre-heated either for whatever that's worth.

I'll have a mirror trip home today, I'm curious to see how elevation impacts it. I do wonder if the P3D rating isn't based on the P3D- with the aero wheels rather than performance wheels.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I'll have a mirror trip home today, I'm curious to see how elevation impacts it. I do wonder if the P3D rating isn't based on the P3D- with the aero wheels rather than performance wheels.

I predict you will use about 20 rated miles, and about 245Wh/mi for the same trip (assuming similar speeds of course).

There is no question that the P3D rating is with the aero wheels (and more importantly, different tires); this is allowed per the EPA rules based on the take rate, from what I understand. The details can be found elsewhere.

EDIT: It is slightly funny how you lost more energy in Park in 14 hours than you used to drive 19 miles to work.

 

[ammulder]

My claim is that it is probably impossible to get 290 miles on the P3D+ if you average greater than 65mph and travel on the freeway between 65-70mph. It MIGHT be possible to make 290 miles (might have to go below 0 rated miles) if you travel 60-65 with an average speed > 60mph (but I think it probably can't be done). All with minimal drafting (but maybe some traffic, so a little incidental drafting). With zero net elevation gain of course.

Let me turn this around.

What is the Wh/mile necessary to achieve the EPA rated range? I figure <242 for a 75 kWh battery.

A variety of driving in my P3D has resulted in very different Wh/mi, and it’s always lower with any significant use of AP. But I’m wondering whether I EVER get low enough. I think I’ve gotten under 242 occasionally, but I haven’t done any long trips yet, so my figures are largely low speed driving-around-the-burbs. I can check on my work drive, but it’s only half highway, so I won’t reach your 60mph minimum average.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

What is the Wh/mile necessary to achieve the EPA rated range? I figure <242 for a 75 kWh battery.

That is about right, though it is possible there is more than 75kWh available. In the EPA test (there are links to the EPA document earlier in this thread I think) they extracted about 77-79kWh from the battery (depends which specific variant you are looking at). That means running about 6 miles past 0 on the rated miles meter, until the car does not move any more. I think if you are willing to chance this, it might be possible to get to 290 miles in ideal conditions at average speed of >60mph with peak speed less than 65mph.

To get 290 miles, you have to do better than about 258Wh/mi. It might be possible to do a little worse if there is more energy available.

In my experience, the only time I get below 240Wh/mi is when it is downhill. Perhaps it is possible on a perfectly flat surface at a steady 30mph, but that is hard for me to find.

 

[ammulder]

That means running about 6 miles past 0 on the rated miles meter, until the car does not move any more. I think if you are willing to chance this [...]

Yeah, not so much.

I’m interested in whether I can get the rated range from, say, 100% to a distant supercharger, not 100%-to-roadside-assistance.

 

[Triplett]

IMO, they should have a range mode and a sport mode setting. Range, dumb down the acceleration, change the ac/heating to a few degrees higher or lower (depending on the year), show you what is the ideal cruising speed and just optimize across the board....as for sport...everything on...period!

Actually, Tesla calls it "chill"

IMO, they should have a range mode and a sport mode setting. Range, dumb down the acceleration, change the ac/heating to a few degrees higher or lower (depending on the year), show you what is the ideal cruising speed and just optimize across the board....as for sport...everything on...period!

Actually, Tesla calls it "chill" mode. You should check it out.

 

[Triplett]

Am I the only person who bought this car knowing that I will NEVER hit the maximum range?

Go pedal > saving imaginary fuel.

 

[clownpuncher]

Actually, Tesla calls it "chill"

Actually, Tesla calls it "chill" mode. You should check it out.

But it only affects the acceleration, I am talking about a complete approach, tells you what is your optimum cruising speed, in-car temperature and so on. I've seen chill and use it when my wife drives it...LOL! Honestly they could really make a few modes that would fit your driving goals...call range mode eco...or green...I dont care as long as it gives the driver a better setting to achieve things to fit that driving style. Hell you could even recommend tire pressure if you wanna get crazy! Tell them on a nice day to roll the windows down. There is a lot of untapped things they could do as this an iPad on wheels

 

[Triplett]

Ya, so you can save 10 programs that just represent 1 degree increases in temperature....sometimes people ask too much.

 

[clownpuncher]

Am I the only person who bought this car knowing that I will NEVER hit the maximum range?

Go pedal > saving imaginary fuel.

Right there with ya! I dont not treat this vehicle as a prius and it is not IMO designed for a long range driver. Battery tech is not there yet. A battery rated for 600 miles...that would actually get closer to 460 miles would be ideal as long as it chargers under an hour you have a more practical trip car. Until then this is a long commuter car or short one to two stop charge trip car. I have driven it for a number of trips and it is inconvenient to charge more then 2 times...that is 2 hours out of a trip...you are losing and average of 140 miles of travel assuming you drove 70mph during a trip! I needed to stop at around the 210 mile to charge (had about 40 miles remaining on average and plus its dependent on where the charging stations are available. As a commuter/daily driver I love it! It is practical, fun, fast, which makes up 80% plus of the driving that happens around the US on a daily basis. Once again, why we still have an ICE car around for now.

 

[Triplett]

If it's longer than 2 or 3 hours I'm flying.

I just did LA to Vegas, which I would normally fly. The only reason I did it was for my kid brother, who has never seen the desert, and because he was willing to drive the rental at 120. I'm too old and chicken to sustain that speed for any extended period of time.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Actually, Tesla calls it "chill"

Actually, Tesla calls it "chill" mode. You should check it out.

However, none of this chill mode stuff affects the efficiency in the realm of interest. The P3D+ will still struggle to get 290 miles of range. Chill or not. I drove in Sport mode for my latest trip but I was essentially chill - I could have turned on chill and it would have made no difference. It's just a torque limiter.

The only advantage to the "range mode" proposed would be somehow reducing accessory use. Currently this is not an option on the Model 3. All you can really do is turn off the climate control. Turning off the stereo too, though obviously that makes nearly zero difference. Ideally you could turn off the AP computer - but probably not a great idea because you'd lose all the safety functions, as well as EAP (not a huge loss on the EAP).

There really is not much to driving efficiently, assuming you want to get between two places in a certain fixed amount of time. Just drive a steady speed, don't use the brakes, and minimize use of regen, turn off HVAC. There's not really any other way to optimize.