Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Preliminary EPA Data for Model 3 AWD & Model 3 P 2021 Released

TimothyHW3

Member
Jun 2, 2019
989
540
Germany
Does anyone who has taken delivery of a refreshed dual motor 2021 have real world wh/km data driving in the cold (sub 10 degrees Celsius)?
What exactly are you interested in?Heat pump efficiency or normal efficiency? You can check my other thread with the 2019 vs 21 tests and you will find some useful informations that will help you make a decision.
 
Last edited:

AdamMacDon

Member
May 8, 2019
712
513
Victoria BC
What exactly are you interested in?Heat pump efficiency or normal efficiency? You can check my other thread with the 2019 vs 21 tests and you will find some useful informations that will help you make a decision.
Actually not an issue anymore, my friend just took delivery of a new 2021 SR+ so we can compare side by side. What I have found is I get about 200-250 wh/km usage in the city about 10 degrees above freezing. He gets about 150-170 with the same heater settings and a similar driving style. So the difference just above freezing is really noticeable, especially on longer trips where the octovalve lets you harvest waste heat from the battery to heat the cabin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanSubie4Life

AlanSubie4Life

Efficiency Obsessed Member
Oct 22, 2018
9,401
11,280
San Diego
So the difference just above freezing is really noticeable, especially on longer trips where the octovalve lets you harvest waste heat from the battery to heat the cabin with.

Always tough to compare unless done side-by-side, but yep, I'd expect it would probably do even better at that temperature than it would in the 20F test done for the EPA range calculations. The Pacific Northwest and up into coastal BC is probably pretty much ideal, nasty, moist, bone-chilling but not actually cold conditions, where the heat pump will really excel, and receive plenty of use, for about 8 months of the year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdamMacDon

AdamMacDon

Member
May 8, 2019
712
513
Victoria BC
Always tough to compare unless done side-by-side, but yep, I'd expect it would probably do even better at that temperature than it would in the 20F test done for the EPA range calculations. The Pacific Northwest and up into coastal BC is probably pretty much ideal, nasty, moist, bone-chilling but not actually cold conditions, where the heat pump will really excel, and receive plenty of use, for about 8 months of the year.
Yeah we are planning to do a side by side comparison trip along Highway 1 spanning 100km or so. I think the perfect number seems to be about 7 degrees celsius. Much lower the heat pump seems to achieve less efficiency (although still markedly better than the PTC heater). You nailed it that 8 months of the year the new design is a winner in the Olympia area and south west BC. In colder parts of Canada, there is probably little benefit from the new design, and in Tesla's home state of Cali it is probably fairly useless.

Three obvious downsides I have seen from the new system:

1: much noisier and creates far more vibration. I suppose being quieter than a resistance heater is a hard mark to hit. But it is worse than the standard AC compressor too.

2: more inconsistent heat/cooling. The heat pump seems to "search" for the right temp more, and leaving it at auto and 20C I would feel it fluctuate quite a bit.

3: this is the big one: scavenging heat from the battery means much slower DCFC in cold weather. I think I saw a video from central Canada where someone saw 0KW charge rates at a supercharger for the first few minutes. Another anecdote, at 38% SoC and about 6 degrees in the rain his car was pulling below 60kW, more like an average of 40 with about 15 mins of precondition before arrival at the SC. This was a 150kW unit too. If you have an L2 charger at home, not a big deal, but for people who dwell in condos, this is slightly less ideal.
 

TimothyHW3

Member
Jun 2, 2019
989
540
Germany
especially on longer trips where the octovalve
No, on longer trips the difference will be smaller, because of the speed. I have done some tests and the difference is 10% more range.
And this in the ideal 5-8°C Temperatures.

You an also lower your consumption to about almost the same as heat pump on long drives if you turn off the AC as it cools the cabin.(the 2021 doesn't turn on the AC on Auto, but the old ones do)
 

EV Promoter

Member
Nov 30, 2019
334
937
Europe
You an also lower your consumption to about almost the same as heat pump on long drives if you turn off the AC as it cools the cabin.(the 2021 doesn't turn on the AC on Auto, but the old ones do)
You're still not caring to demonstrate this, that implies that, excluding the heat pump, there's no increase in efficiency in the 2021.

Unfortunately since the start this is denied by WLTP testing that are taken without AC nor Heating.
The rated WLTP efficiency of the LR 2020 is 160 Wh/km
The rated WLTP efficiency of the LR 2021 is 148 Wh/km, no AC, no Heatpump.

Of course this is confirmed by EPA testings.

A substantial improuvement that seems to give you personal problems.
 

TimothyHW3

Member
Jun 2, 2019
989
540
Germany
You're still not caring to demonstrate this, that implies that, excluding the heat pump, there's no increase in efficiency in the 2021.
Patience, my friend;)

Also, I just noticed today that the 2021 turned the AC on while driving, it didn't do that in camp mode yesterday and it didn't do it in a lot of videos I saw online. And it was pretty "hot" today, around 10C. So not sure what is going on so I have to observe this in which conditions the heat pump turns the AC on and when it does not.
 

AlanSubie4Life

Efficiency Obsessed Member
Oct 22, 2018
9,401
11,280
San Diego
Of course this is confirmed by EPA testings.

Just a reminder that per the first post in this thread, taking the heat pump being used for cabin heat out of the picture, the efficiency improvement is just ~3% on the highway. Somewhat more for UDDS. See the table for raw results.

A 3% difference will be hard to see except for a side-by-side test of identically equipped vehicles done at exactly the same time, with no drafting (closed course).
 

AdamMacDon

Member
May 8, 2019
712
513
Victoria BC
No, on longer trips the difference will be smaller, because of the speed. I have done some tests and the difference is 10% more range.
And this in the ideal 5-8°C Temperatures.

You an also lower your consumption to about almost the same as heat pump on long drives if you turn off the AC as it cools the cabin.(the 2021 doesn't turn on the AC on Auto, but the old ones do)
Of course you see the biggest percentage difference in the city. Technically standing parked with the climate on would be the biggest percent difference, since the motor would then be consuming nothing. However, in terms of raw kWh wasted, my 2019 will be wastefully pumping out heat to the atmosphere like a gas car (although obviously on a smaller scale). Last highway drive I did I actually overheated the battery a bit and lost a bit of power temporarily. To be fair it was an open 3 lane road and I was on it pretty hard. There was for sure enough heat in that pack to heat the cabin, but my PTC heater was pulling ~1.5 kW for most of the time.
 

Dave EV

Active Member
Jun 23, 2009
1,694
1,131
San Diego
Just a reminder that per the first post in this thread, taking the heat pump being used for cabin heat out of the picture, the efficiency improvement is just ~3% on the highway. Somewhat more for UDDS. See the table for raw results.

A 3% difference will be hard to see except for a side-by-side test of identically equipped vehicles done at exactly the same time, with no drafting (closed course).
3% seems small and is hard to measure, but it's still impressive that they've done this in ~3 years. Squeezing ~1% / year efficiency out of a car is excellent work at highway speeds barring major aerodynamic changes. That's about 10 miles of range on a full charge to empty with a bit of room to spare which can be the difference between making it to your destination, or not.
 

AlanSubie4Life

Efficiency Obsessed Member
Oct 22, 2018
9,401
11,280
San Diego
3% seems small and is hard to measure, but it's still impressive that they've done this in ~3 years. Squeezing ~1% / year efficiency out of a car is excellent work at highway speeds barring major aerodynamic changes. That's about 10 miles of range on a full charge to empty with a bit of room to spare which can be the difference between making it to your destination, or not.

There is a new version of the tire. It's not clear how much that plays into it. Also you can look at the RLHP number in the linked documents, which I think has gone down slightly, and that may explain the improvement (that could be due to tires or drivetrain, it's not necessarily just tires).
 

TimothyHW3

Member
Jun 2, 2019
989
540
Germany
3% seems small and is hard to measure, but it's still impressive that they've done this in ~3 years. Squeezing ~1% / year efficiency
There is no efficiency gain in the motors or elsewhere. Not between 2019 not 2020 and 2021. There is a video I am preparing coming along showcasing that.
Not sure what the EPA testet there, but the evidence is pretty clear that it is basically the same car since 2019 in terms of motors minus the heat pump and now on some cars even lower capacity. The heat pump helps, but in very, very specific conditions and settings. And not by much
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: MP3Mike

AlanSubie4Life

Efficiency Obsessed Member
Oct 22, 2018
9,401
11,280
San Diego
There is no efficiency gain in the motors or elsewhere. Not between 2019 not 2020 and 2021.

This is almost certainly wrong, even if some (or all) of the improvement is "only" from software updates (firmware motor driver efficiency improvements are very real), and there actually are no hardware changes (to be clear, it's been confirmed that the AWD 2021 still has the 990 motor, not the 980, so that hardware change did NOT happen as I speculated could have happened in the first post).

Just a visual reminder to those following along (copied from the first post). @TimothyHW3 has me on ignore AFAIK (since he doesn't like it when someone tries to correct minor things he says that are wrong (a lot of what he says is correct, but not all)), so he won't see this, but at least others will.

The highlights show the efficiency. UDDS is city, Hwy FET is "highway."

Feel free to draw your own conclusions. Remember these are raw numbers, so will likely be better than anything you ever see in reality unless you drive at a steady speed of 20-30mph. But they are real, measured numbers, under controlled (supposed to be identical) conditions.

By following the link in the first post, you can find out as much as you'd ever want to know about how the car does on other cycles.

Screen Shot 2020-12-22 at 3.32.21 PM.png
 
Last edited:

Cycleman6

Member
Nov 5, 2020
31
14
Ky
I pick up my 2021 Performance on Thursday in Columbus. Is there a summary of the 14 pages of conversation on the Charge Data thread or this thread? Is the 2021 battery pack larger than previous years? Is the Performance edition pack different than the LR? Sorry, just looking for a cliff's note version...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanSubie4Life

Dave EV

Active Member
Jun 23, 2009
1,694
1,131
San Diego
This is almost certainly wrong, even if some (or all) of the improvement is "only" from software updates (firmware motor driver efficiency improvements are very real), and there actually are no hardware changes (to be clear, it's been confirmed that the AWD 2021 still has the 990 motor, not the 980, so that hardware change did NOT happen as I speculated could have happened in the first post).

Just a visual reminder to those following along (copied from the first post). @TimothyHW3 has me on ignore AFAIK (since he doesn't like it when someone tries to correct minor things he says that are wrong (a lot of what he says is correct, but not all)), so he won't see this, but at least others will.

The highlights show the efficiency. UDDS is city, Hwy FET is "highway."

Feel free to draw your own conclusions. Remember these are raw numbers, so will likely be better than anything you ever see in reality unless you drive at a steady speed of 20-30mph. But they are real, measured numbers, under controlled (supposed to be identical) conditions.

By following the link in the first post, you can find out as much as you'd ever want to know about how the car does on other cycles.

View attachment 620232
Yep, basically the 2021 Model 3 AWD is just as efficient as the 2018 Model 3 RWD.

What's curious is that the 2021 SR+ was tested to be less efficient than the 2020 and 2019.
 

AdamMacDon

Member
May 8, 2019
712
513
Victoria BC
Did you measure it with scan my tesla? What was the outside temperature and the heating setup, AC on?

Unless it was below 5°C I don't see how it can pull 1.5 kW . I have measured around 1kW for the heater at 3°C at 1 with AC off.

Interesting video, but I think you misunderstand how automatic vs manual climate control works. Setting it to manual is not some "hack" to save energy, it is simple physics. Set to 20.5 it will output air that is ~20.5 degrees (so if it's cold outside, your cabin will be LESS than 20.5 due to the laws of thermodynamics). However, if you set it to auto and your car is below that temp, then it will output air that is WARMER than 20.5, which of course requires more energy. The AC also uses some energy, but there are benefits to conditioning the air before removing it, mainly dehumidifying. So comparing auto 20.5 to manual 20.5 settings is comparing apples and oranges. The manual setting could also use MORE energy if the cabin is above 20.5, as it will keep generating heat.

I have done two different tests, but I haven't got my OBD2 wiring harness yet, so no scan my Tesla app. The first one was sleeping in ~3 degree weather, auto climate set to 20. I had a full charge, but I plugged into a level 2 that tracks energy consumed by the car, so it was easy to see that the car took about 18 kWh in 7 hours. Say about 400W to run the other systems (including everyone's hated camping animation), that's ~1.8kW for the climate control.

During the second test I was actually in the middle of nowhere camping and had no charging options whatsoever, and a long drive home. So I needed to save battery as much as possible, and it was the summer (around 13 degrees at night). So I ended up finding a way to enable a "fan only" mode. Set the climate control to manual, the temp to LOW, recirc off, AC off, and then I turned on my desired settings (floor and face vents, with the rear vents open, and fan speed on 2). Downside of this mode is it can get quite cold and humidity can be a problem, especially with two people in the car. I ended up ramping up the fan speed to 3 to combat this, but it made it quite a bit colder too, of course. Since the 12v fan uses almost no power, this method only required about 400W (calculated this using the % display and simple math).

Obviously these tests are very unscientific, to test this "perfectly" you would need to control for too many variables for the average person to bother with. At the end of the day though, auto mode is of course the least efficient, and fan only mode is far more efficient, but only works in very certain circumstances. Too hot or cold outside and you won't be having a great time with that.
 

TimothyHW3

Member
Jun 2, 2019
989
540
Germany
So comparing auto 20.5 to manual 20.5 settings is comparing apples and orange
I don't quite understand what you mean by apples to oranges. If you mean that the cabin temperature will not always be 20.5 on manual, sure it will not be, but it is plenty warm even at 2°C to heat up the cabin.

What I was showing in the video was how to save energy both in camp mode and in normal heating and I think you just proved my video with your own observations.

I have also camped in the car many times and setting to 1 manual to 21C is plenty warm for me and setting to Auto with fan speeds usually at 3 is too loud.
 

AdamMacDon

Member
May 8, 2019
712
513
Victoria BC
I don't quite understand what you mean by apples to oranges. If you mean that the cabin temperature will not always be 20.5 on manual, sure it will not be, but it is plenty warm even at 2°C to heat up the cabin.

What I was showing in the video was how to save energy both in camp mode and in normal heating and I think you just proved my video with your own observations.

I have also camped in the car many times and setting to 1 manual to 21C is plenty warm for me and setting to Auto with fan speeds usually at 3 is too loud.
Let me put it as simply as possible. You set it to 20 degrees in auto mode, the temperate is 5 degrees outside the car, the car must emit much more thermal energy from the vents to achieve 20 degrees in the cabin. It will certainly use a temp higher than 20C at some points. If you simply set it to manually output 20 degree air, it is physically impossible for the air in the cabin to achieve a 20 degree temperature on average due to thermal loses from the massive amount of glass that dissipate heat quickly. The temperature inside your car with the climate control on manual 20C will not be 20 degrees, it will be less. Therefore, you of course will use less energy from the battery. I'm not saying that it isn't comfortable, just that it's not comparable. The laws of physics are rather simple on this matter.

I do agree your method uses less energy, as it should, the cabin temperature is lower. My "fan only" mode uses the least, as it only needs to run a 12V blower motor, which barely uses any energy.
 

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top