Performance not getting 310 miles promised

[jerry33]

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.

I've driven many 1000 mile + trips over the last six years and it takes about the same about of time (+-15 minutes) as it did in the previous gas car.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I've driven many 1000 mile + trips over the last six years and it takes about the same about of time (+-15 minutes) as it did in the previous gas car.

Yeah, it's a little surprising, but you can get pretty close to a gas car, assuming you hit high wattage superchargers, and there is no waiting. In the end, most people stop with a gas car quite a bit as well (at places other than gas stations). For the true high-speed intrepid road tripper, the ICE is still superior, though (these road travelers are the ones (traveling alone, usually) with vehicles with 400+ mile range between fill ups who try to time their bladder stops with the gasoline stops). I rented a Mercedes GL450 once, and it could get 575 miles easily between fillups (it had a ~30 gallon tank and I got nearly 21MPG). That was a pretty awesome road trip vehicle.

 

[jerry33]

Yeah, it's a little surprising, but you can get pretty close to a gas car, assuming you hit high wattage superchargers, and there is no waiting. In the end, most people stop with a gas car quite a bit as well (at places other than gas stations). For the true high-speed intrepid road tripper, the ICE is still superior, though (these road travelers are the ones (traveling alone, usually) with vehicles with 400+ mile range between fill ups who try to time their bladder stops with the gasoline stops). I rented a Mercedes GL450 once, and it could get 575 miles easily between fillups (it had a ~30 gallon tank and got 21MPG). That was pretty awesome.

Wouldn't matter if the range was 10,000 miles. We'd still have to stop about every 100-150

 

[GolanB]

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

One key identifier here for me is that you didn't appear to run HVAC. I regularly get EPA range - as long as I don't turn on HEAT or AC. I will generally get 230 Wh/Mi to and from work (so long as I'm easy on acceleration and allow regen) - this becomes 330 Wh/Mi with AC, and up in the 400+ Wh/Mi with heat. Running the fans has very little impact. For reasons that are well defined, (and my own experience) has shown ICE cars don't exhibit such a high impact while running HVAC.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

One key identifier here for me is that you didn't appear to run HVAC. I regularly get EPA range - as long as I don't turn on HEAT or AC. I will generally get 230 Wh/Mi to and from work (so long as I'm easy on acceleration and allow regen) - this becomes 330 Wh/Mi with AC, and up in the 400+ Wh/Mi with heat. Running the fans has very little impact. For reasons that are well defined, (and my own experience) has shown ICE cars don't exhibit such a high impact while running HVAC.

You have a P3D+ with 20" wheels as far as I can tell, but you are in NYC and had the car since January...what tires are you currently running on the vehicle? I don't remember. I assume you did not run the PS4S in January in NYC.

 

[Triplett]

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.

No, if you drove in sport then, by definition, you weren't in chill.

No cars make the fake epa number. If that's important to you get a prius.

I bought a car to drive the eff out of.

 

[GolanB]

You have a P3D+ with 20" wheels as far as I can tell, but you are in NYC and had the car since January...what tires are you currently running on the vehicle? I don't remember. I assume you did not run the PS4S in January in NYC.

Here is what I used over winter. I swapped them out the moment the temperature dropped in January, and put my performance tires back on 3/25:

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Here is what I used over winter. I swapped them out the moment the temperature dropped in January, and put my performance tires back on 3/25:

View attachment 410028

Thanks. Was the 230Wh/mi with the PS4S? I think I remember you saying the average speed was very slow now. Again, I simply have not been able to achieve that sort of number for a round trip. Perhaps if it were very flat I would have a better chance (my round trips require significant use of regen due to the grade, it's approximately 500 foot descent (ascent) over 10 miles one way, but it mostly comes over the course of a mile or two). I typically get 170Wh/mi one way and 310Wh/mi the other way, when driving efficiently. And that's a hair worse than your 230Wh/mi number...so perhaps since I am required to use regen and it isn't 100% efficient, 230Wh/mi would be achievable for me at low speeds without using regen...

So it seems like 230Wh/mi is probably about the best that is possible with those PS4S tires at a low speed (not relevant for range).

Probably hard to say how your X-ICE did, due to the use of HVAC? I assume their "floor" would be a bit lower.

 

[GolanB]

Thanks. Was the 230Wh/mi with the PS4S? I think I remember you saying the average speed was very slow now. Again, I simply have not been able to achieve that sort of number for a round trip. Perhaps if it were very flat I would have a better chance (my round trips require significant use of regen due to the grade, it's approximately 500 foot descent (ascent) over 10 miles one way, but it mostly comes over the course of a mile or two). I typically get 170Wh/mi one way and 310Wh/mi the other way, when driving efficiently. And that's a hair worse than your 230Wh/mi number...so perhaps since I am required to use regen and it isn't 100% efficient, 230Wh/mi would be achievable for me at low speeds without using regen...

So it seems like 230Wh/mi is probably about the best that is possible with those PS4S tires at a low speed (not relevant for range).

Probably hard to say how your X-ICE did, due to the use of HVAC? I assume their "floor" would be a bit lower.

My average speed is low, yes. I travel about 18 miles in each direction, and average under 15 miles an hour. I will hit a top speed of 55 or 60 (sometimes more if I'm in a hurry) , but thats for the last stretch of freeway and about two miles of highway. Its relatively flat, with an elevation difference of only about 60 feet.

This is typical with my performance tires and, with fans running. I can hit the EPA average:

Here are a few winter examples, with my 18 inch X-ICE tires on, and heat running. You can see a significant reduction in Wh/Mile:

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Do TeslaFi’s Wh/mi numbers line up with those in the car? It is odd because given the rated miles are within 2% of the rated efficiency, I would have thought a different result other than 220Wh/mi would result...242Wh/mi is the rated value (assuming a 75kWh battery). But that is 10% higher than 220Wh/mi. I saw this in other people’s TeslaFi data and don’t understand the discrepancy. I’ll have to pay a little closer attention in my car, but when I have in the past (several months ago), the match between 1) the rated miles used assuming 242Wh/mi and 2) the energy the car said was used, these two values were within a couple %.

In your case according to TeslaFi it is:
1) 16.51* ~242Wh/mi
2) 16.82*220Wh/mi

These numbers clearly don’t line up even within a few %. Only thing I can think of is TeslaFi is also counting some of the energy in park? Which does not make sense.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Do TeslaFi’s Wh/mi numbers line up with those in the car? It is odd because given the rated miles are within 2% of the rated efficiency, I would have thought a different result other than 220Wh/mi would result...242Wh/mi is the rated value (assuming a 75kWh battery). But that is 10% higher than 220Wh/mi. I saw this in other people’s TeslaFi data and don’t understand the discrepancy. I’ll have to pay a little closer attention in my car, but when I have in the past (several months ago), the match between 1) the rated miles used assuming 242Wh/mi and 2) the energy the car said was used, these two values were within a couple %.

In your case according to TeslaFi it is:
1) 16.51* ~242Wh/mi
2) 16.82*220Wh/mi

These numbers clearly don’t line up even within a few %. Only thing I can think of is TeslaFi is also counting some of the energy in park? Which does not make sense.

Actually just looked through my road trip stats (I had an error in my prior post on it - actually used a total of 307 rated miles on my trip, not 296) and it looks like it consistently drops one rated mile for every ~232Wh indicated consumed on the display. Implies about 71kWh of capacity (others have reported this too) available. Anyway, makes me pretty confident that 290 miles is impossible on the P3D+ at average speed greater than 60mph, with prior caveats. With this scalar, you’d have to do better than 310/290*232Wh/mi = 248Wh/mi to get 290miles for a 310rmi to 0rmi discharge. Don’t think there is any way that is going to happen at 60mph! I only had 50% more aero losses at 75mph than at 60mph, and wasn’t even doing that speed a lot of the time, and still ended up at 268Wh/mi. No way lowering speed to 60mph average with peak less than 65mph is going to shave 20Wh/mi off. It’s only 7.5% but aero is only part of the overall consumption. Might get it down to 255Wh/mi...not enough.

 

[Neon001]

Actually just looked through my road trip stats (I had an error in my prior post on it - actually used a total of 307 rated miles on my trip, not 296) and it looks like it consistently drops one rated mile for every ~232Wh indicated consumed on the display. Implies about 71kWh of capacity (others have reported this too) available. Anyway, makes me pretty confident that 290 miles is impossible on the P3D+ at average speed greater than 60mph, with prior caveats. With this scalar, you’d have to do better than 310/290*232Wh/mi = 248Wh/mi to get 290miles for a 310rmi to 0rmi discharge. Don’t think there is any way that is going to happen at 60mph! I only had 50% more aero losses at 75mph than at 60mph, and wasn’t even doing that speed a lot of the time, and still ended up at 268Wh/mi. No way lowering speed to 60mph average with peak less than 65mph is going to shave 20Wh/mi off. It’s only 7.5% but aero is only part of the overall consumption. Might get it down to 255Wh/mi...not enough.

This is interesting. I just got my M3P on Saturday and yesterday used it to drive from my home in Bel Air, MD to a meeting in Herndon, VA. This is 84.7 miles of driving that takes me through the worst traffic in or around all of Baltimore and Washington DC. The trip took about 2.75 hours, so there was a lot of stop and go, and many segments of blasting up to around 70-80mph. My average consumption for the trip was 269Whr/mi. I was not babying it at all.

What was shocking, however, was the return trip. Luckily the meeting ended with plenty of time to avoid afternoon rush hour, so the drive home was mostly free of traffic. I usually average about 75-80 on this drive when I can, though due to sheer volume of cars I was probably doing more like 70-75 yesterday. Including a full stop on the side of I-95 (I finally got Tesla support on the phone and they needed me to shut the car off fully to troubleshoot) and the associated super-speed jump back to cruising, I averaged 248Whr/mi on the entire drive back. I thought that was pretty damned good. The whole drive was just over 170 miles, and it took me from 91% SoC to 28%. I did have it in chill mode (except that emergency return to speed) the whole time, but was driving normally (fast side of average). AC was on the entire time, set to 73 deg; outside temp was about 74 in the morning, but the car read 93 in the afternoon (though I believe it was closer to 87 - my car seems to read high for outside temp for some reason).

Overall I'm pretty damned thrilled with the range of my M3P. I figured if you hypermile you'd get 285 mi, but normal driving would drive it down to the 220-230 mi range. Not the case at all, in my experience. If your assumption of 71 KWhrs of accessible battery life is correct, and I continued driving the way I did on the return trip, I would get a range of 286.3 miles. That's pretty darned good, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[SammichLover]

No cars make the fake epa number.

The LR RWD is kinda infamous for getting more than its published EPA numbers, originally.

If that's important to you get a prius.

Ironically in a lot of ways that'd still be worse than the P [driven on the road in a legal manner].

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

This is interesting. I just got my M3P on Saturday and yesterday used it to drive from my home in Bel Air, MD to a meeting in Herndon, VA. This is 84.7 miles of driving that takes me through the worst traffic in or around all of Baltimore and Washington DC. The trip took about 2.75 hours, so there was a lot of stop and go, and many segments of blasting up to around 70-80mph. My average consumption for the trip was 269Whr/mi. I was not babying it at all.

What was shocking, however, was the return trip. Luckily the meeting ended with plenty of time to avoid afternoon rush hour, so the drive home was mostly free of traffic. I usually average about 75-80 on this drive when I can, though due to sheer volume of cars I was probably doing more like 70-75 yesterday. Including a full stop on the side of I-95 (I finally got Tesla support on the phone and they needed me to shut the car off fully to troubleshoot) and the associated super-speed jump back to cruising, I averaged 248Whr/mi on the entire drive back. I thought that was pretty damned good. The whole drive was just over 170 miles, and it took me from 91% SoC to 28%. I did have it in chill mode (except that emergency return to speed) the whole time, but was driving normally (fast side of average). AC was on the entire time, set to 73 deg; outside temp was about 74 in the morning, but the car read 93 in the afternoon (though I believe it was closer to 87 - my car seems to read high for outside temp for some reason).

Overall I'm pretty damned thrilled with the range of my M3P. I figured if you hypermile you'd get 285 mi, but normal driving would drive it down to the 220-230 mi range. Not the case at all, in my experience. If your assumption of 71 KWhrs of accessible battery life is correct, and I continued driving the way I did on the return trip, I would get a range of 286.3 miles. That's pretty darned good, as far as I'm concerned.

Shockingly good result on the return. Not sure what to make of it (I checked, does not appear to be downhill). Never been able to accomplish that on flat ground. Any idea what you your average speeds were for the return? I was getting between 270 and 280Wh/mi at 75-80 on the return, but would be surprised to see it drop to below 250Wh/mi with just 30% less aero losses. You do have the advantage of a flat drive of course, where no regen is ever required.

Overall, round trip is what matters for these things, so all we can say for sure is you were on pace for 170mi/0.63 = 270miles.

That seems about right and what I would expect for this warm time of year.

EDIT: BTW, based on your 63% discharge, I would expect 0.232kWh/mi * 195mi (63%) = 45.3kWh indicated on the trip meter/since last charge for your use (if you reset it at the beginning or if you started after a charge). Though it might end up being slightly less due to vampire, depending on how long you were at the destination and whether you used Sentry. Any idea what it said?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

No, if you drove in sport then, by definition, you weren't in chill.

Ha. I see what you did there. There is no evidence that I am aware of that chill mode reduces energy consumption, for identical speed vs. time profiles. Would be great to see a comparison though.

 

[brandonee916]

I seem to average 270-300kWh/mi on my Performance model... now sitting at 15k miles

 

[GolanB]

Do TeslaFi’s Wh/mi numbers line up with those in the car? It is odd because given the rated miles are within 2% of the rated efficiency, I would have thought a different result other than 220Wh/mi would result...242Wh/mi is the rated value (assuming a 75kWh battery). But that is 10% higher than 220Wh/mi. I saw this in other people’s TeslaFi data and don’t understand the discrepancy. I’ll have to pay a little closer attention in my car, but when I have in the past (several months ago), the match between 1) the rated miles used assuming 242Wh/mi and 2) the energy the car said was used, these two values were within a couple %.

In your case according to TeslaFi it is:
1) 16.51* ~242Wh/mi
2) 16.82*220Wh/mi

These numbers clearly don’t line up even within a few %. Only thing I can think of is TeslaFi is also counting some of the energy in park? Which does not make sense.

Ha. I see what you did there. There is no evidence that I am aware of that chill mode reduces energy consumption, for identical speed vs. time profiles. Would be great to see a comparison though.

I will do some comparisons later today between the energy consumption readings from the debug port on my Model 3 and TeslaFi. In general, both of these readings have been within range of what the car has reported.

The chill mode seems to set an upper limit for energy expenditure on the 3 - I have not found that it impacts my consumption when already driving efficiently. Compare this to "range mode" in the Model X which also lowers consumption by auxiliary systems, such as HVAC and adjusts some power distribution to the motors.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I will do some comparisons later today between the energy consumption readings from the debug port on my Model 3 and TeslaFi. In general, both of these readings have been within range of what the car has reported

I posted this elsewhere (EDIT: actually here, just above...oops) , but looking back on the data from my recent trip, it does appear to actually be closer to ~230Wh/rmi. This is what I get when I take trip meter data and rated mile decrement and calculate:

(Miles traveled trip meter * Wh/mi on trip meter)/(Rmi used)

For the 3 segments of my trip where I have the exact data, it works out to exactly that ~230Wh/rmi. The 3rd segment I forgot to take a “before” picture of the rmi so I have to guess but it was the shortest segment anyway so would be subject to the most error - but it was also close.

This implies 71.3kWh (310rmi*230Wh/rmi) available but it may be more (almost certainly is closer to 78kWh since that is what the EPA test got - but that also includes 6 rated miles past zero to a dead battery!) since the trip meter may not be providing the actual correct absolute value for efficiency. It’s just a relative measure to compare to prior drives.

EDIT: incidentally this also means (assuming no SoC display nonlinearity - my numbers represent a range of 310 miles to 78 miles on the SoC, as far as linearity is concerned) you need to get better than an INDICATED (on trip meter) 230Wh/mi to get the rated range of 310 miles (which does not apply to the P3D+ as previously discussed).
So that is the bar. Tough (completely impossible actually unless perhaps if you drive a steady 25-35mph). To get 290 miles (my challenge for greater than 60mph average speed) you need to get better than ~246Wh/mi. This is all assuming you stop at 0 rated miles (you can probably go another 6 rated miles). Also super difficult in a P3D+.

EDIT: sorry for the duplicate...already covered this in an earlier post here...got confused between multiple similar threads...but anyway this post has a little more explanation.

 

[Triplett]

Ha. I see what you did there. There is no evidence that I am aware of that chill mode reduces energy consumption, for identical speed vs. time profiles. Would be great to see a comparison though.

Your attempt at an explanation does not, even remotely, address the statement of fact that i posted.

 

[Neon001]

Any idea what you your average speeds were for the return?

I would estimate my average highway speed was 70-75. Parts were higher when traffic lessened, but there were some slowdowns as well.

Overall, round trip is what matters for these things, so all we can say for sure is you were on pace for 170mi/0.63 = 270miles.

True. I was just trying to estimate what the drive would be like if I did the entire thing outside of rush hour. The trip down took almost twice as long thanks to some really horrible traffic. Damn shame my autopilot refuses to calibrate at all even after 350 miles (service has elevated it and is "looking into it")

EDIT: BTW, based on your 63% discharge, I would expect 0.232kWh/mi * 195mi (63%) = 45.3kWh indicated on the trip meter/since last charge for your use (if you reset it at the beginning or if you started after a charge). Though it might end up being slightly less due to vampire, depending on how long you were at the destination and whether you used Sentry. Any idea what it said?

I don't have TeslaFi or anything (need to look into), but the trip computer calculated 25KWhr use on the way down, and 20 on the return. So yes, pretty close to 45, though those numbers are far more coarse, so this could technically be off by close to 1 KWhr each way, or close to 5% total. Kind of the same for the battery measurements since it's entirely possible that I had 91% when I got in the car but it immediately clicked over to 90% when I backed out of the garage, and the same on the back end. Not as much of a factor as the KWhr energy usage measurements, but I figured the average consumption is more sig figs, so probably more accurate.