oripaamoni
Member
I have 7k miles on mine and 100% charge shows 293mi. The stats app shows noticeable steps that seem to correlate with software updates. Until 4k miles 100% showed 308-310.
-
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
That efficiency was driving on roads with around or below 60mph limits.
In middle of huge trip now with wider highways. No traffic, smooth driving with gently rolling terrain, in light rain, about 360wh/mi consumption for about 300km/180mi usable range....so about 60% of rated. Not so hot numbers.
340Wh/mi is completely in line with 80MPH driving. Just be thankful, I get that all winter long no matter how slow I drive.
450 Wh/mi is also right around the right rating for 90 MPH. Again I get that when driving in extreme cold, so count your lucky stars.
You're running two motors every time you pull away from a stop, and every time you drive at high speeds. So seeing higher consumption makes complete sense here. If you drove more reasonably at 65-75, you'd see significantly lower consumption figures, and your front motor would sleep more frequently.
If you wanted 500 miles of range, you'd need 225kW of _usable_ energy which means a battery pack probably 275kW net and 280kW gross. The roadster isn't going to have a pack of that size. I could maybe see 200kW. But anything over that is going to be a pretty big question mark.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
That is how it appears. Maybe they are leaving it the same price due to the range being less.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
But you can just select 18" wheels in the Wheel Configuration menu and then it will display 322 miles! Problem solved!
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
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.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Note that the 2020 Performance 18” has better efficiency than the 2020 LR AWD, by about 3-4%.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
Tesla could also be real with their rated mileage too. If there’s no need for the front motor to do anything but freewheel then it shouldn’t be consuming needlessly.
Isn’t the point of not having linkages for AWD to improve range, output and reduce drivetrain loss?
It doesn't, they only power it when necessary. (Which is why people want a "snow" mode to keep the torque at 50/50 to prevent the back from breaking loose so easily.) But the fact of it being there increase weight and other drag. (It still has to get turned as there is no clutch or anything to completely disconnect it.)
I'm guessing they'll update the EPA range again. Even a sleeping motor has drag in the driveline.
They've rated it using the EPA's standard test. Just like ICE manufacturers do. The point isn't to precisely tell you how much you can drive, it's to compare all vehicles of a type with each other as a consumer. Do you actually think that when you buy a car with 20 MPG combined that you'll actually get 20MPG when you personally drive it? You won't.
Even when freewheeling, it's going to induce drag on the driveline. You can't not involve physics here. You still need to rotate the gearbox, the motor's rotor itself, all the bearings, etc. That consumes energy, and there's no way to get around that fact.
You still have driveshafts, a differential, a gearbox, and a motor to spin. Not much you can do about that except not buy the AWD vehicle if you don't need the AWD vehicle.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Unlikely. Both of these vehicles (LR AWD 18" and 3P- 18") have drag in the driveline and have been retested very recently (late 2019). Raw data in orange boxes here for comparison.
Jedi2155
Model 3 has Arrived.
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:
The new 18" rims with the stock Tesla MXM4 tires.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure that the updated range doesn't apply to the 2019 and older Model 3s. But I guess we will see.
Yesterday Elon eluded to the fact that the current range is longer than they say for the Model S&X, and that the 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.
jonquiljo
Active Member
I 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.
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!. Boy was I a dumb sh1t! I thought my order of a LR AWD had a "real" 310 mi range! When I switched to a stealth, I thought it had 310 or 322 (was never made clear by Tesla).
What I didn't know was that the wheels and tires mattered when looking at range. Driving in cold weather would hurt my range. Driving like a granny would help my range. Driving without heat or A/C on would help range. I probably would get better range if I shut off my stereo and windshield wipers! Boy was surprised in the weeks following delivery! Since I was in new territory of an EV, I really believed all the things I read.
This isn't Tesla's fault, as most sales reps (EV or ICE) quote EPA numbers all the time. I knew it was easy to deviate from the EPA numbers in an ICE cars - I had driven them for many decades. What I didn't expect was that an EV could lose dramatic amounts or range if not driven in ideal conditions - a whole lot more than in an ICE car. Luckily I live in California -- if I had to drive short trips in freezing conditions, I would be looking at range losses of 40% or more. I don't do long trips, so this is all just a realization for me. It does not impact how I value the vehicle. All it does is reinforce the notion of keeping my vehicle charged at all times.
Now when I see the new EPA numbers for the Model Y - I wonder - how much of this is technical BS or not? Is this an actual physical change, or a theoretical manipulation? We'll know when someone drives one for more than a short while. I still am perplexed as to whether anyone can 100% charge their Model 3 LR AWD to 322 or 310? In 2019+, Performance (P3D+'s) were rated at 310. Now they are rated at 299. Has anything really changed? Or have the numbers been recalculated or "massaged" (as we used to say when I was a scientist).
I guess all this makes me more confused than ever. It's best to just drive the car and be careful as to how many electrons are in the tank!
- Status
Similar threads
