Performance not getting 310 miles promised

[Dan_LA]

If range was a concern, you also could have just purchased the LR RWD. You knew you were making a trade off, so I just don't see the problem here. The _performance_ vehicle has higher consumption. This is true of any _performance_ edition of any car you buy.

At the time I purchased December 2018c it was advertised as 310... same as LR RWD and no I wasn’t expecting same range as my 1st Model 3, but i was expecting at least 250 miles real world, not 200-220 miles and that considering I drive 70-75mph per my trip from LA to Monterey showed.

Now i just don’t care as Alan showed me my car is actually 260, but lose 30-40 to other stuffs.. and driveable range 220 is sound.

is like iPhone iOS taking 5gb of ur 16gb phone.... regardless felt a bitter taste for someone that had LR RWD beast range of 332 miles dropped to 200 miles.

 

[Dan_LA]

I'm sure the updated range applies to older model 3 performance's as well as I believe the changes were all software/firmware and was applied to the fleet versus some type of hardware. BTW, I just got new 18" MXM4 tires on my P3D+ last night, and here's my 1st 30 mile round trip drive from this morning:

View attachment 506134

The new 18" rims with the stock Tesla MXM4 tires.

Nice!! Thanks for sharing.. so if we downgrade from 20” to 18” we do get much better range? As now, Tesla shows 299milss for 20” version and 322 miles for 18” ... but I didn’t like those 18” tires and wheels from the 1st Model 3 LR RWD, didn’t grip well.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I'm pretty sure that the updated range doesn't apply to the 2019 and older Model 3s. But I guess we will see.

I think he just meant that he thinks the efficiency improvements apply, not the change in the constant. That seems entirely possible to the extent the hardware allows it (of course it may or may not).

changes were put into production a couple months ago but they haven't updated the EPA certification yet. I assume they made the same/similar changes to the Model 3 about the same time.

See my data summaries linked to above. That's all pulled directly from the submissions to the EPA. Then I just put together the calculations which exactly match the actual ratings so it all seems legit. In any case it's evident in there that there has been substantial improvement in the Performance efficiency with 18" wheels as compared to two years ago. (Most likely primarily due to software, but I have no idea.)

I still am perplexed as to whether anyone can 100% charge their Model 3 LR AWD to 322

Yes, there are now reports with 2020.4.1 that the 2020 AWD will go to 322 rated miles at 100%.

Now they are rated at 299. Has anything really changed?

That's just a constant change. You can just change the wheel configuration and make it say 322 rated miles if you want. It doesn't really change anything except make the rated miles click off closer to a rated mile for mile rate (of course it could still be nowhere close), assuming your chosen wheel configuration matches your actual wheel configuration. The available energy does not change.

That being said, 2018/2019 had 76kWh "available" (310rmi*245Wh/rmi) (though they have more initially, the rated miles just get "swollen" up a bit initially), and the 2020 has 77.6kWh available (322rmi*241Wh/rmi). (Also initially with some swollen rated miles.) In reality, all year vehicles actually start with about 79kWh (that extra capacity is hidden in the swollen rated miles, most likely - which is probably (my pet theory) the reason people don't see degradation initially for a few thousand miles).

It's likely that the 2020s will show capacity degradation a bit sooner than the 2018/2019 vehicles, as a result. The 2020s will start showing fewer miles when they reach below 77.6kWh while the 2018/2019 only show the loss when they reach below 76kWh available. So, most 2018/2019 could lose nearly 2-3kWh of capacity before showing it in the UI. The new vehicles have a bit less margin. Probably their overall initial capacity control on the battery manufacturing is better now, so they can tighten the margins a bit (this is speculation on my part).

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

but I didn’t like those 18” tires and wheels from the 1st Model 3 LR RWD, didn’t grip well.

You really have to pay to play. Those MXM4s are very efficient but you sacrifice grip. Going to 18" MXM4s (the wheel size matters a lot less than the specific tire...) with reasonably aerodynamic wheels will help you out quite a lot.

As now, Tesla shows 299milss for 20” version and 322 miles for 18”

Just note that these actual displayed changes don't matter. They don't change the energy available or the efficiency. They are simply methods of making the "expectations" of the customer better match the reality. They also only apply to the 2020 (apparently). But it is a demonstration/admission of how much of a difference the wheel (really, it's the tire - but usually a 20" wheel will be running a sticky performance tire...) makes in efficiency.

However, even on 2018/2019 vehicles, changing the wheel configuration WILL affect the trip planner predictions. So it's important to select a wheel configuration which reasonably matches your actual tires. If you're running sticky tires (even if they are on 18" wheels), select the 20" configuration. If you're running really efficient tires, select the 18" configuration.

 

[jonquiljo]

I think he just meant that he thinks the efficiency improvements apply, not the change in the constant. That seems entirely possible to the extent the hardware allows it (of course it may or may not).



See my data summaries linked to above. That's all pulled directly from the submissions to the EPA. Then just put together the calculations which exactly match the actual ratings so it all seems legit. In any case it's evident in there that there has been substantial improvement in the Performance efficiency with 18" wheels as compared to two years ago. (Most likely primarily due to software, but I have no idea.)



Yes, there are now reports with 2020.4.1 that the 2020 AWD will go to 322 rated miles at 100%.



That's just a constant change. You can just change the wheel configuration and make it say 322 rated miles if you want. It doesn't really change anything except make the rated miles click off closer to a rated mile for mile rate (of course it could still be nowhere close), assuming your chosen wheel configuration matches your actual wheel configuration. The available energy does not change.

That being said, 2018/2019 had 76kWh "available" (310rmi*245Wh/rmi) (though they have more initially, the rated miles just get "swollen" up a bit initially), and the 2020 has 77.6kWh available (322rmi*241Wh/rmi). (Also initially with some swollen rated miles.) In reality, all year vehicles actually start with about 79kWh (that extra capacity is hidden in the swollen rated miles, most likely - which is the reason people don't see degradation initially for a few thousand miles).

It's likely that the 2020s will show capacity degradation a bit sooner than the 2018/2019 vehicles, as a result. Most 2018/2019 could lose nearly 2-3kWh of capacity before showing it. The new vehicles likely have a bit less margin. Probably their overall initial capacity control on the battery manufacturing is better now, so they can tighten the margins a bit.

Good. I just upgraded to and am charging to 90% and will see where it goes. If it's 279, it's the same as before.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

If it's 279, it's the same as before.

I predict about 290. Unless you have capacity degradation below 77.6kWh already. (Again, this would have been hidden under the earlier system because with 310 rated miles @ 245Wh/rmi, that would have only showed below 76kWh.)

 

[jonquiljo]

I predict about 290. Unless you have capacity degradation below 77.6kWh already. (Again, this would have been hidden under the earlier system because with 310 rated miles @ 245Wh/rmi, that would have only showed below 76kWh.)

I won't know for a bit. It's on a slow charge (5mi/hr). I haven't had time to get someone to rip me of installing my power station!!!

 

[DrDabbles]

think the concept of EPA certification is so technical and so removed from reality that I am not sure it can mean very much to those of us looking to figure out what range we can expect under a variety of conditions.

These ratings work the same way they work on ICE vehicles, though. They're used to compare different vehicles under the same conditions.

As someone who, until a couple of months ago, was EV naive and Tesla ignorant - I somehow thought that the EPA numbers were close to reality!.

Presumably you have been exposed to EPA MPG ratings between different vehicles, so presumably you'd have known that you don't achieve those numbers yourself. Sometimes you do better, some times you do worse. The same applies to EPA EV range.

What I didn't know was that the wheels and tires mattered when looking at range.

The same applies to an ICE vehicle. Your MPG drops dramatically if you change tire compounds and sizes.

i was expecting at least 250 miles real world, not 200-220 miles

Then slow down. If you get a Nissan that says you'll get 20 MPG on the highway and you drive 90 MPH, you won't get 20MPG. I don't understand your confusion here. You're driving MUCH faster, which increases resistance against any vehicle you buy. If you don't like your fuel economy, drive a reasonable speed. I have zero sympathy for anybody driving down a california freeway at 90 MPH. As a side note, for every 10 MPH you add to your speed, you cut your odds of surviving a crash by half. So maybe think about what you're doing before you kill somebody else.

 

[ElectricIAC]

Speed alone doesn’t kill. Sudden deceleration however is patently unforgiving.

I will bring forth the point again that no one bought a P3D(- or +) to putt around doing 55.

 

[Dan_LA]

These ratings work the same way they work on ICE vehicles, though. They're used to compare different vehicles under the same conditions.



Presumably you have been exposed to EPA MPG ratings between different vehicles, so presumably you'd have known that you don't achieve those numbers yourself. Sometimes you do better, some times you do worse. The same applies to EPA EV range.



The same applies to an ICE vehicle. Your MPG drops dramatically if you change tire compounds and sizes.



Then slow down. If you get a Nissan that says you'll get 20 MPG on the highway and you drive 90 MPH, you won't get 20MPG. I don't understand your confusion here. You're driving MUCH faster, which increases resistance against any vehicle you buy. If you don't like your fuel economy, drive a reasonable speed. I have zero sympathy for anybody driving down a california freeway at 90 MPH. As a side note, for every 10 MPH you add to your speed, you cut your odds of surviving a crash by half. So maybe think about what you're doing before you kill somebody else.

I drove Manual (or stick like Americans say it) until 28 yo, been in accident 3 times maybe, all fender benders and none I was the one causing it. I am very responsible to do 90MPH when there is nothing on the road, if there is I just go 5-10MPH above the flow... which ends up about 75-85MPH most of times (LA suburbans freeways average left lane). Getting a 3 seconds car to be complaining or driving slower for the sake of the numbers is not why I opened this post. I had an Audi A6 3.0T EPA 28MPG before, and I was fine with 23MPG NO MATTER how I drive, bout 20% less.

But I am not ok getting 35% less than EPA advertised by Tesla at 310 at the time at 200 miles NO MATTER how I drive, the difference is like 10-20 miles... and same thing with Chill Mode or Sport Mode. The problem was the EPA was tested with a 1st version of performance 18" wheels (which all manufacturers play around it), still like today the difference is marginal as well 18" at 322 and 20" at 299 ... 7%, but still NOT 35%, but then I got it, about 7% is tires, about 7-10% is vampire draing, Sentry Mode (which I dont use it, only on manually) and the other 20% is because is performance.

It got worst on my case (and many folks) because I upgraded from a LR RWD which had a EPA 310 but actually as 332 and the numbers shown on the RANGEMETER was THE ACTUAL RANGE YOU GET (like many others in this post) and although acceptable, and I love Elon and Tesla, I don't think that was right, even questionable legality of that. But who cares, everybody was wrong, TSLA is 4x, now everybody loves Tesla.

 

[Dan_LA]

Off the topic, but because it's related to range and Performance I have some thoughts regarding new launches from Tesla and after owning 2 cars so far (and losing some money):

1- For sure I can tell Tesla Supercharger is overlooked by the Market in general and to me was the #1 reason to choose Tesla, specially they are about to hit ground one near my home, like 1-2 mile away. Knowing that, I am looking at my options for Free Supercharger, at least 1 vehicle. Still not sure if I have to keep one ICE, like many probably do, my wife has a just paid off Highlander which is nice.

Options I found is Model X used, but I don't like the complexity of it and heard many used are actually cars that had problems... Model S maybe... if they launch 400 miles range updated this year with Free Supercharger, just waiting to check this one.

For those that use Supercharger frequently, this is a huge Bonus right? But then I am not sure in which point Tesla will check my car and see that I Supercharged 3 times a week 30min each time (about $6-10) and block me from Free, Free is not Free right? Anyone had issues with Free Supercharging? Never heard someone blocked because of frequent use of Free Supercharging.

2- With 2 Kids growing, wife complaining about Model 3 size, for that the Model Y around corner and Cybertruck next year at 500miles range seem great options... fingers start to get itchy and wallet start to avoid me eye to eye.

Saw some rendering and the size would be perfect, but historically I have always owned sedans, good thing is Model Y is not really a SUV but it has better cargo space, 2nd row seems much roomier, the real panoramic glass roof and front seats are just taller maybe more leg room for front passenger (wife).

My wallet wouldn't like paying 2 performance... would be a huge stretch... not to say I am not sure 100% on having to own an ICE in case of nostalgy? Or when it's doomsday, will we have gas on doomsday so on? Does that beat a solar charging panel charging my car? Don't know, need more research.

Like I mentioned in other Cybertruck posts, if 500 miles comes with Free Supercharging, that would be sweet and would order as many as I could for other businesses purposes. Not to mention I am not 100% on the design, but 500 miles range with 2.9s 0-60... it's irresistible.

I am pretty sure many of Performance owners are dabbling on those thoughts and would appreciate sharing your thoughts with us. Will Model Y Performance have 200miles range? Will it be better? Says 315, I am guessing with 18" wheels, and because it's newer etc... maybe it can reach 250miles real life?

Anyway, sorry long post, maybe I should just record videos on YT.

Cheers and Chill folks, it's just a car and we are having 1st world problems here.

 

[Jedi2155]

That's just a constant change. You can just change the wheel configuration and make it say 322 rated miles if you want. It doesn't really change anything except make the rated miles click off closer to a rated mile for mile rate (of course it could still be nowhere close), assuming your chosen wheel configuration matches your actual wheel configuration. The available energy does not change.

Was the displayed miles remaining suppose to update with a difference estimation if I put it to 18" vs 20"?

So I did this the moment I put on my 18" wheels and I haven't noticed a change in the displayed energy efficiency. I also see the "rated" range line on the efficiency chart is still in the 250 Wh/line as expected for a P3D+. The Trip Planner was spot on however.

But I am not ok getting 35% less than EPA advertised by Tesla at 310 at the time at 200 miles NO MATTER how I drive, the difference is like 10-20 miles... and same thing with Chill Mode or Sport Mode. The problem was the EPA was tested with a 1st version of performance 18" wheels (which all manufacturers play around it), still like today the difference is marginal as well 18" at 322 and 20" at 299 ... 7%, but still NOT 35%, but then I got it, about 7% is tires, about 7-10% is vampire draing, Sentry Mode (which I dont use it, only on manually) and the other 20% is because is performance.

I'll just comment that it is my theory that today, there is no functional range difference between the AWD and Performance AWD vehicles. Due to changes in software, I believe there is now marginal range difference between the AWD and RWD vehicle IF your driving in steady state where the RWD is primarily in operation. If you operate the vehicle in scenario where the front motor is needed, then your range would be less than the RWD variant.

For those that use Supercharger frequently, this is a huge Bonus right? But then I am not sure in which point Tesla will check my car and see that I Supercharged 3 times a week 30min each time (about $6-10) and block me from Free, Free is not Free right? Anyone had issues with Free Supercharging? Never heard someone blocked because of frequent use of Free Supercharging.

For reference my 1st 10,000 miles in my P3D+ was not particularly impacted by supercharging back when I had FUSC. I had not been blocked for my supercharging use but I've since switched primarily home charging.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Was the displayed miles remaining suppose to update with a difference estimation if I put it to 18" vs 20"?

Seems to only be the case for 2020 vehicles...does not affect older vehicle displayed range.

The Trip Planner was spot on however.

Yes, selecting different wheels affects the Trip Planner predictions (even for 2018/2019 vehicles), and has done so for quite a while.

 

[WilliamG]

I'm sure the updated range applies to older model 3 performance's as well as I believe the changes were all software/firmware and was applied to the fleet versus some type of hardware. BTW, I just got new 18" MXM4 tires on my P3D+ last night, and here's my 1st 30 mile round trip drive from this morning:

View attachment 506134

The new 18" rims with the stock Tesla MXM4 tires.

That logo on the wheels makes me irrationally angry.

 

[Jedi2155]

That logo on the wheels makes me irrationally angry.

I did try to put Tesla logos on but the color mistmatch was too much for me to handle:

Definitely enjoying the final look though:

 

[MP3Mike]

I did try to put Tesla logos on but the color mistmatch was too much for me to handle:

That isn't the logo that is offensive...

 

[Jedi2155]

Ah you're referring to the one on the RIM itself....doesn't bother me for some reason....

 

[WilliamG]

Ah you're referring to the one on the RIM itself....doesn't bother me for some reason....

Yep I was referring to the one on the wheel rim itself. It’s one of the reasons (probably THE reason) both myself and many, many others are no longer interested in their wheels.

Such a shame.

 

[DrDabbles]

Speed alone doesn’t kill. Sudden deceleration however is patently unforgiving.

I will bring forth the point again that no one bought a P3D(- or +) to putt around doing 55.

I agree with both points. And I truly do not care if any individual kills themself operating their vehicle negligently. It's only when they injure or kill others.

Nonetheless, anybody buying any performance vehicle knows what they're getting into. I will again say that if somebody wanted the maximum range choice, they should have purchased the LR. Unless it's the 2020, apparently.

 

[ElectricGhost]

Bought a P3D- in Aug 18. I get 292 miles on a fuel charge at a little over 200 whpm. In CA too. Mostly use seat heater on lowest setting and fan without ac or heat. But again Im near 200 wh/mi in traffic and still only see 296 showing on a full charge