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

Range Loss Over Time, What Can Be Expected, Efficiency, How to Maintain Battery Health

AlanSubie4Life

Efficiency Obsessed Member
Oct 22, 2018
13,395
17,039
San Diego
, I am jealous of your CAC! Mine is quite a bit lower my min/avg/max is 195/197/199 rated range is currently around 292 miles.

Seems about right, dispensing with some details and assuming CAC is very tightly correlated with capacity…

292/325*76kWh/79.2kWh * 229CAC = 197CAC

14% less energy. Your car probably still has more range though, lol.

However, if the dashed line and solid line are in the same place (which seems to be 226 or 227 Wh/mile for 2022 RWD with 18" wheels), meaning that you are driving at exactly the rated consumption, the projected range that is displayed on the right side of the energy display is lower than the range shown next to the battery remaining display. Why would this be the case?

Warning: This is a confusing topic. Blame Tesla. Also I won't explain it well. Hopefully I don't get anything wrong. It's easy to screw up.

This is because the actual charging constant for the vehicle is always 5Wh/mi (3Wh/km) lower than the rated line on the screen. (Yes, this is strange but it is what it is.) If you use about 222Wh/mi (or 221Wh/mi) you'll find that this aligns pretty well with the range shown. (You need to get the Iines to be on top of each other, probably happens at 227Wh/mi - if you get it for 2022 RWD, please post a picture for posterity.)

I think from prior discussions the degradation threshold for 2022 RWD is 60.5kWh and the rated range is 272rmi so that means 60.5kWh/272rmi = 222Wh/rmi is the charging constant. However, we could do with some confirmation of this if it has not been previously posted (Need two pictures of Energy Screen at high SOC, displaying three numbers in Energy Display, and the three numbers in Distance Display).

Anyway, the remaining energy (Projected Range * Recent Avg Consumption) implied by the charging screen is always SOC%*NominalFullPack, which is:

SOC%*(Buffer+UsableRemaining(100%)) = SOC%*Buffer + SOC%*[email protected]%.
Note UsableRemaining = NominalRemaining - Buffer. (So UsableRemaining(100%) = NFP - Buffer).

So the projected range is lower because the rated range assumes you need ~222Wh/mi for parity for 2022 RWD (always 5Wh/mi lower than the line).

Another thing to note is that actually the "222Wh/mi for parity" is ALSO wrong (if you don't want to drive below 0%). That's because each DISPLAYED rated mile does not include the buffer %, so that means each DISPLAYED rated mile contains 212Wh/rmi (95.5% of 222Wh/rmi).

So for example:
If your vehicle shows 272miles at 100%, at 50% SOC it displays 136rmi, and you've done 227Wh/mi recently, it will project:
136rmi*222Wh/rmi / 227Wh/mi = 133 miles Projected Range.

But remember you only have 136rmi*0.955*222Wh/rmi = 28.8kWh available above 0%.

So, if you were to drive at 227Wh/mi, you'd only make it 28.8kWh/ 227Wh/mi = 127mi to 0%. (4.5% less than projected).

It's actually worse than this because there's some heat loss (1%) so if your trip meter displays 227Wh/mi, you're actually using about 230Wh/mi. I'm neglecting that for this discussion but keep it in mind for verifying this stuff.

On the other hand, the error is less problematic the lower the SOC, because you always have the buffer to rely upon.

For example, at 10% SOC, with same assumptions, it works out to 5.77kWh remaining not including buffer, but you actually have 5.8kWh+Buffer = 8.5kWh left.
So it would be projecting 26.6 miles of range, and you'd only be able to do 5.8kWh/227Wh/mi = 25.4 miles. But you'd have 2.7kWh of buffer to use which would get you an additional 12 miles if you were lucky.

Of course none of this matters because no one uses the Energy Consumption screen. Use the Trip Planner.


[Not sure why this post got moved here, since this is a UI question, not a battery health or range loss question.]
It's because it is something that is often covered here since it causes some confusion with range on occasion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Steve446 and conv90
I've made a XLS sheet where you can customize NFP and Wh/km constant and see the True SOC and actual Km left compared to battery range icon km.
This is due to 4,5 % buffer.
NFP and Constant are editable to suit different Model 3 models and battery sizes.
Unfortunately I'm not able to upload the original Excel file
This preview is for my 2021 Model 3 Performance.

Screen SOC %NFPWh/km constantTrue SOC%true Km leftrange100%range batt icon
0​
0,045​

79,5

0​

158,3

4,5​
4,5​
22,6​
502,21099​
0,00​
1​
0,045​
79,5​
0,045​
158,3​
4,455​
5,455​
27,4​
502,21099​
5,02​
2​
0,045​
79,5​
0
,09​
158,3​
4,41​
6,41​
32,2​
502,21099​
10,04​
3​
0,045​
79,5​
0,135​
158,3​
4,365​
7,365​
37,0​
502,21099​
15,07​
4​
0,045​
79,5​
0,18​
158,3​
4,32​
8,32​
41,8​
502,21099​
20,09​
5​
0,045​
79,5​
0,225​
158,3​
4,275​
9,275​
46,6​
502,21099​
25,11​
6​
0,045​
79,5​
0,27​
158,3​
4,23​
10,23​
51,4​
502,21099​
30,13​
7​
0,045​
79,5​
0,315​
158,3​
4,185​
11,185​
56,2​
502,21099​
35,15​
8​
0,045​
79,5​
0,36​
158,3​
4,14​
12,14​
61,0​
502,21099​
40,18​
9​
0,045​
79,5​
0,405​
158,3​
4,095​
13,095​
65,8​
502,21099​
45,20​
10​
0,045​
79,5​
0,45​
158,3​
4,05​
14,05​
70,6​
502,21099​
50,22​
11​
0,045​
79,5​
0,495​
158,3​
4,005​
15,005​
75,4​
502,21099​
55,24​
12​
0,045​
79,5​
0,54​
158,3​
3,96​
15,96​
80,2​
502,21099​
60,27​
13​
0,045​
79,5​
0,585​
158,3​
3,915​
16,915​
84,9​
502,21099​
65,29​
14​
0,045​
79,5​
0,63​
158,3​
3,87​
17,87​
89,7​
502,21099​
70,31​
15​
0,045​
79,5​
0,675​
158,3​
3,825​
18,825​
94,5​
502,21099​
75,33​
16​
0,045​
79,5​
0,72​
158,3​
3,78​
19,78​
99,3​
502,21099​
80,35​
17​
0,045​
79,5​
0,765​
158,3​
3,735​
20,735​
104,1​
502,21099​
85,38​
18​
0,045​
79,5​
0,81​
158,3​
3,69​
21,69​
108,9​
502,21099​
90,40​
19​
0,045​
79,5​
0,855​
158,3​
3,645​
22,645​
113,7​
502,21099​
95,42​
20​
0,045​
79,5​
0,9​
158,3​
3,6​
23,6​
118,5​
502,21099​
100,44​
21​
0,045​
79,5​
0,945​
158,3​
3,555​
24,555​
123,3​
502,21099​
105,46​
22​
0,045​
79,5​
0,99​
158,3​
3,51​
25,51​
128,1​
502,21099​
110,49​
23​
0,045​
79,5​
1,035​
158,3​
3,465​
26,465​
132,9​
502,21099​
115,51​
24​
0,045​
79,5​
1,08​
158,3​
3,42​
27,42​
137,7​
502,21099​
120,53​
25​
0,045​
79,5​
1,125​
158,3​
3,375​
28,375​
142,5​
502,21099​
125,55​
26​
0,045​
79,5​
1,17​
158,3​
3,33​
29,33​
147,3​
502,21099​
130,57​
27​
0,045​
79,5​
1,215​
158,3​
3,285​
30,285​
152,1​
502,21099​
135,60​
28​
0,045​
79,5​
1,26​
158,3​
3,24​
31,24​
156,9​
502,21099​
140,62​
29​
0,045​
79,5​
1,305​
158,3​
3,195​
32,195​
161,7​
502,21099​
145,64​
30​
0,045​
79,5​
1,35​
158,3​
3,15​
33,15​
166,5​
502,21099​
150,66​
31​
0,045​
79,5​
1,395​
158,3​
3,105​
34,105​
171,3​
502,21099​
155,69​
32​
0,045​
79,5​
1,44​
158,3​
3,06​
35,06​
176,1​
502,21099​
160,71​
33​
0,045​
79,5​
1,485​
158,3​
3,015​
36,015​
180,9​
502,21099​
165,73​
34​
0,045​
79,5​
1,53​
158,3​
2,97​
36,97​
185,7​
502,21099​
170,75​
35​
0,045​
79,5​
1,575​
158,3​
2,925​
37,925​
190,5​
502,21099​
175,77​
36​
0,045​
79,5​
1,62​
158,3​
2,88​
38,88​
195,3​
502,21099​
180,80​
37​
0,045​
79,5​
1,665​
158,3​
2,835​
39,835​
200,1​
502,21099​
185,82​
38​
0,045​
79,5​
1,71​
158,3​
2,79​
40,79​
204,9​
502,21099​
190,84​
39​
0,045​
79,5​
1,755​
158,3​
2,745​
41,745​
209,6​
502,21099​
195,86​
40​
0,045​
79,5​
1,8​
158,3​
2,7​
42,7​
214,4​
502,21099​
200,88​
41​
0,045​
79,5​
1,845​
158,3​
2,655​
43,655​
219,2​
502,21099​
205,91​
42​
0,045​
79,5​
1,89​
158,3​
2,61​
44,61​
224,0​
502,21099​
210,93​
43​
0,045​
79,5​
1,935​
158,3​
2,565​
45,565​
228,8​
502,21099​
215,95​
44​
0,045​
79,5​
1,98​
158,3​
2,52​
46,52​
233,6​
502,21099​
220,97​
45​
0,045​
79,5​
2,025​
158,3​
2,475​
47,475​
238,4​
502,21099​
225,99​
46​
0,045​
79,5​
2,07​
158,3​
2,43​
48,43​
243,2​
502,21099​
231,02​
47​
0,045​
79,5​
2,115​
158,3​
2,385​
49,385​
248,0​
502,21099​
236,04​
48​
0,045​
79,5​
2,16​
158,3​
2,34​
50,34​
252,8​
502,21099​
241,06​
49​
0,045​
79,5​
2,205​
158,3​
2,295​
51,295​
257,6​
502,21099​
246,08​
50​
0,045​
79,5​
2,25​
158,3​
2,25​
52,25​
262,4​
502,21099​
251,11​
51​
0,045​
79,5​
2,295​
158,3​
2,205​
53,205​
267,2​
502,21099​
256,13​
52​
0,045​
79,5​
2,34​
158,3​
2,16​
54,16​
272,0​
502,21099​
261,15​
53​
0,045​
79,5​
2,385​
158,3​
2,115​
55,115​
276,8​
502,21099​
266,17​
54​
0,045​
79,5​
2,43​
158,3​
2,07​
56,07​
281,6​
502,21099​
271,19​
55​
0,045​
79,5​
2,475​
158,3​
2,025​
57,025​
286,4​
502,21099​
276,22​
56​
0,045​
79,5​
2,52​
158,3​
1,98​
57,98​
291,2​
502,21099​
281,24​
57​
0,045​
79,5​
2,565​
158,3​
1,935​
58,935​
296,0​
502,21099​
286,26​
58​
0,045​
79,5​
2,61​
158,3​
1,89​
59,89​
300,8​
502,21099​
291,28​
59​
0,045​
79,5​
2,655​
158,3​
1,845​
60,845​
305,6​
502,21099​
296,30​
60​
0,045​
79,5​
2,7​
158,3​
1,8​
61,8​
310,4​
502,21099​
301,33​
61​
0,045​
79,5​
2,745​
158,3​
1,755​
62,755​
315,2​
502,21099​
306,35​
62​
0,045​
79,5​
2,79​
158,3​
1,71​
63,71​
320,0​
502,21099​
311,37​
63​
0,045​
79,5​
2,835​
158,3​
1,665​
64,665​
324,8​
502,21099​
316,39​
64​
0,045​
79,5​
2,88​
158,3​
1,62​
65,62​
329,6​
502,21099​
321,42​
65​
0,045​
79,5​
2,925​
158,3​
1,575​
66,575​
334,3​
502,21099​
326,44​
66​
0,045​
79,5​
2,97​
158,3​
1,53​
67,53​
339,1​
502,21099​
331,46​
67​
0,045​
79,5​
3,015​
158,3​
1,485​
68,485​
343,9​
502,21099​
336,48​
68​
0,045​
79,5​
3,06​
158,3​
1,44​
69,44​
348,7​
502,21099​
341,50​
69​
0,045​
79,5​
3,105​
158,3​
1,395​
70,395​
353,5​
502,21099​
346,53​
70​
0,045​
79,5​
3,15​
158,3​
1,35​
71,35​
358,3​
502,21099​
351,55​
71​
0,045​
79,5​
3,195​
158,3​
1,305​
72,305​
363,1​
502,21099​
356,57​
72​
0,045​
79,5​
3,24​
158,3​
1,26​
73,26​
367,9​
502,21099​
361,59​
73​
0,045​
79,5​
3,285​
158,3​
1,215​
74,215​
372,7​
502,21099​
366,61​
74​
0,045​
79,5​
3,33​
158,3​
1,17​
75,17​
377,5​
502,21099​
371,64​
75​
0,045​
79,5​
3,375​
158,3​
1,125​
76,125​
382,3​
502,21099​
376,66​
76​
0,045​
79,5​
3,42​
158,3​
1,08​
77,08​
387,1​
502,21099​
381,68​
77​
0,045​
79,5​
3,465​
158,3​
1,035​
78,035​
391,9​
502,21099​
386,70​
78​
0,045​
79,5​
3,51​
158,3​
0,99​
78,99​
396,7​
502,21099​
391,72​
79​
0,045​
79,5​
3,555​
158,3​
0,945​
79,945​
401,5​
502,21099​
396,75​
80​
0,045​
79,5​
3,6​
158,3​
0,9​
80,9​
406,3​
502,21099​
401,77​
81​
0,045​
79,5​
3,645​
158,3​
0,855​
81,855​
411,1​
502,21099​
406,79​
82​
0,045​
79,5​
3,69​
158,3​
0,81​
82,81​
415,9​
502,21099​
411,81​
83​
0,045​
79,5​
3,735​
158,3​
0,765​
83,765​
420,7​
502,21099​
416,84​
84​
0,045​
79,5​
3,78​
158,3​
0,72​
84,72​
425,5​
502,21099​
421,86​
85​
0,045​
79,5​
3,825​
158,3​
0,675​
85,675​
430,3​
502,21099​
426,88​
86​
0,045​
79,5​
3,87​
158,3​
0,63​
86,63​
435,1​
502,21099​
431,90​
87​
0,045​
79,5​
3,915​
158,3​
0,585​
87,585​
439,9​
502,21099​
436,92​
88​
0,045​
79,5​
3,96​
158,3​
0,54​
88,54​
444,7​
502,21099​
441,95​
89​
0,045​
79,5​
4,005​
158,3​
0,495​
89,495​
449,5​
502,21099​
446,97​
90​
0,045​
79,5​
4,05​
158,3​
0,45​
90,45​
454,2​
502,21099​
451,99​
91​
0,045​
79,5​
4,095​
158,3​
0,405​
91,405​
459,0​
502,21099​
457,01​
92​
0,045​
79,5​
4,14​
158,3​
0,36​
92,36​
463,8​
502,21099​
462,03​
93​
0,045​
79,5​
4,185​
158,3​
0,315​
93,315​
468,6​
502,21099​
467,06​
94​
0,045​
79,5​
4,23​
158,3​
0,27​
94,27​
473,4​
502,21099​
472,08​
95​
0,045​
79,5​
4,275​
158,3​
0,225​
95,225​
478,2​
502,21099​
477,10​
96​
0,045​
79,5​
4,32​
158,3​
0,18​
96,18​
483,0​
502,21099​
482,12​
97​
0,045​
79,5​
4,365​
158,3​
0,135​
97,135​
487,8​
502,21099​
487,14​
98​
0,045​
79,5​
4,41​
158,3​
0,09​
98,09​
492,6​
502,21099​
492,17​
99​
0,045​
79,5​
4,455​
158,3​
0,045​
99,045​
497,4​
502,21099​
497,19​
100​
0,045​
79,5​
4,5​
158,3​
0​
100​
502,2​
502,21099​
502,21​
502,21099​
502,21099​
 
  • Informative
Reactions: KenC
My 2018 Model 3 Performance had 101k miles on it when I ran over an 8” rock and damaged the battery. The estimated range at the time according to Recurrent Auto on a full charge was 280 miles – a battery degradation of 11% from the rated range of 315 miles on a full charge.

After spending $11,400 with Tesla Service for a new battery I charged the car the next day to 100% expecting to see the rated new range of 315 miles. Instead at 100% charge, the displayed range was 284 miles or 9% degradation from 315.

My simple question is: shouldn’t a new battery charged at 100% give me pretty darn close to the rated range of 315 miles? Does a new battery start with a 9% degradation from new? And what is the proper way to take this issue back to Tesla?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: FlatSix911

Tam

Well-Known Member
Nov 25, 2012
11,593
10,645
Visalia, CA
...take this issue back to Tesla?...

If the battery is free under the warranty then Tesla is only obligated to provide a similar current degraded range one.

However, in your case, you pay for a new battery, Tesla is obligated to provide you the range set by EPA rating when it's new in 2018.

You should open a repair ticket to fix it.
 

AlanSubie4Life

Efficiency Obsessed Member
Oct 22, 2018
13,395
17,039
San Diego
After spending $11,400 with Tesla Service for a new battery

If your invoice shows you purchased a new battery, you should get a new battery. $11,400 seems cheap for a new battery though - did you actually pay for a refurbished one? What is the part number on the invoice (is it a reman part)?


a battery degradation of 11% from the rated range of 315 miles on a full charge.

The rated range of the 77.8kWh battery when installed in your vehicle is 310 miles, to be clear (when installed in other vehicles it can be as high as 353 miles). (And arguably in your vehicle it is 318 rated miles, due to the degradation threshold being 76kWh, with battery new capacity of 77.8kWh.)

Anyway 284 miles is 69.6kWh (the constant is 245Wh/mi), vs 77.8kWh new, which is 10.6% reduction. So in the end you are not far off even though nominal range loss is 8.4% (again, the confusing discrepancy is due to 1.8kWh (2.3%) degradation threshold delta).

In any case, no matter how high the battery capacity, your car will never display more than 310/311 rated miles, AFAIK. The rated mile energy content expands once you exceed 76kWh, for your vehicle.

It may be difficult to acquire a new battery in the US with 2170 cells now. I wonder if they still have a line with those cells? (Have not been paying attention to whether any vehicles do not come with 2170L.)
 
Last edited:

gaswalla

Model S,3,X.. CT with Austin delivery
Sep 23, 2012
3,892
4,804
San Diego
sure seems like a refurb/reman battery. Just bc you paid a fee out of pocket does not mean you agreed to buy a new battery. Folks with vintage S's are being the given the option of around 12-14k for a refurb or 20k for a new battery. (In the case of the S, the new battery is far superior since it uses 100 battery tech, but I digress). And, the refurb batteries are used: they have degradation and seem to have poor lifespan. OP: please check your invoice and make sure you understand what you paid for: "new for you" vs "new"
question: was this covered by insurance? (seems like a complicating factor if so.. as insurance does not need to pay for a brand new battery, but rather a battery similar to what was damaged)
 

mswlogo

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2018
8,290
7,801
MA, NH
Try a couple full charge cycles and hopefully it will come up. It might have calibration from the old battery still.

It damn well should be close to like new range. Make sure you bought a brand new battery and not a refurb. Make sure they didn’t put a refurb and charge for new. Make sure you actually charge to 100% for best calibration. Don’t leave it at 100% for long obviously.

Check the Rev on the battery and see if it’s current. You might need to do some digging to figure that out. Check parts catalog for latest Rev.

It’s possible your car can’t take the latest Rev. But usually revisions are forward compatible. Usually.

$11K seems cheap for new.

Edit: I just checked. $16.5k for new

 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: AlanSubie4Life

AlanSubie4Life

Efficiency Obsessed Member
Oct 22, 2018
13,395
17,039
San Diego
It might have calibration from the old battery still.
I was wondering that too but the BMS/ BMBs are part of the pack so I would assume that the CAC estimate is all controlled there. But I don’t know.

In any case this price seems far too low to be a new pack. I thought people were paying ~$15k installed.

Mostly it seems like a no-brainer to pay $11k-$12k for a pack vs. $16.5k! You’re going to lose most of that capacity in a couple years anyway…unless you plan to sell the car right away or something, and even then you probably would not make up the difference in cost. It would depend on the warranty on what you’re buying though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mswlogo
Some interesting discussion on the 5L vs. 3L batteries over on tff-forum.de

View attachment 812080

And some graphs showing the maximum discharge power vs. SoC at different temperatures.

At 50C
View attachment 812081

At 30C
View attachment 812082

At 15C
View attachment 812083

I don't use SMC so I have no idea what temperature my battery is when cold, after pre-conditioning, when driving continuously or after DC charging. With my butt-dyno I can feel that the car feels very lively after a 250kW Supercharge to >70% SoC!

@eivissa it would be good to understand what 'normal' steady-state battery temperatures are? If 30C is 'normal', there isn't a huge difference between the 3L and 5L. Then the 78-79kWh capacity of the 5L is appealing over the mid-70s of the 3L. My 3L is around 77kWh after 5,000km, down from an indicated 80kWh new.


Am curious as to whether our resident battery tech experts have any thoughts on any of the points made in the above. Thought the claim Panasonic pack degrades more quickly, at least initially, compared to LG, was interesting.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Steve446
Am curious as to whether our resident battery tech experts have any thoughts on any of the points made in the above. Thought the claim Panasonic pack degrades more quickly, at least initially, compared to LG, was interesting.

It's consistent with the differences between NCA and NMC batteries. NCA has always been the energy density leader and Panasonic the only large manufacturer concentrating on them. NMC is the most common cathode design and used by most manufacturers in various combinations and proportions.

The graphs don't test 'degradation', meaning permanent loss of capacity. It was comparing max power output vs state of charge, and for NCA to decline more in power (from a higher peak) isn't unexpected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steve446
Hi All — I have a Gen 3 wall connector installed for my M3LR. Most of the time, during the week, I’m not driving too much, so I put my charge limit down to 60-65% to protect the battery. Overnight, I’ve also realized I can turn the Amps down through the app to charge slower. My charger is capable of 48amps, but I’ll turn it down to 12-30 Amps when I’m not in a rush. Does this make a difference and is it ok to change around the Amps? Just trying to look out for the long term battery health.
 

Attachments

  • 8E8AF063-BF94-4655-87E9-8502970059A6.jpeg
    8E8AF063-BF94-4655-87E9-8502970059A6.jpeg
    409.2 KB · Views: 181

AlanSubie4Life

Efficiency Obsessed Member
Oct 22, 2018
13,395
17,039
San Diego
So I did the calculation: 172 Wh/mi * 388 mi projected range / .85 (SoC) = 78.5 kWh, does this mean I have the 82 kWh battery, but it has already lost some charging capacity?
Probably, though the amount lost probably depends on whether you have P or LR AWD. The LR AWDs don’t always start with quite as much capacity (though in theory they should be the same since they both have 82kWh packs). The LRs don’t show capacity loss until it is below about 79kWh (358 miles), while the Performance shows loss when below 80.6kWh (315 miles). That’s just what it shows though; what is lost depends on where you started. You should show ~356 miles or ~307 miles right now. (+/- a couple miles)
 
Probably, though the amount lost probably depends on whether you have P or LR AWD. The LR AWDs don’t always start with quite as much capacity (though in theory they should be the same since they both have 82kWh packs). The LRs don’t show capacity loss until it is below about 79kWh (358 miles), while the Performance shows loss when below 80.6kWh (315 miles). That’s just what it shows though; what is lost depends on where you started. You should show ~356 miles or ~307 miles right now. (+/- a couple miles)
I have the LR AWD. Should I charge it up to 100% to see what it shows for the miles? I'm stopping at 90% now.
 

AlanSubie4Life

Efficiency Obsessed Member
Oct 22, 2018
13,395
17,039
San Diego
I have the LR AWD. Should I charge it up to 100% to see what it shows for the miles? I'm stopping at 90% now.
No need to do so. Just extrapolate from 90% and it should be close enough.

It’s hard to say where your vehicle started, but for whatever reason there are a lot of 2021 LR RWD with 82kWh batteries that started with closer to 79-80kWh. (Which yields 353/358 depending on software version - I think it is now 358 for any 2021 LR AWD vehicles up to date with the 82.1kWh battery, but not sure, and for vehicles already below 78kWh (most) you would not see that - wasn’t a change of constant, just a change of threshold AFAIK).

The 2022 I know less about (there is a thread here but have not been paying attention). In the EPA test they got 82.1kWh out of it though!

In any case the 2022 LR AWD still (for now) has a degradation threshold (if you search for this you’ll find an explanation of how that works, eventually, but it is pretty simple) of 79kWh/358mi. So in order to see energy above 79kWh you need SMT or VERY careful monitoring of the trip meter and rated mile use on a LONG drive.

If they had chosen a degradation threshold of 80.6kWh for it, it would have 365 miles of range using the current constant.

Details for 2022 including EPA links (I haven’t dug in to see how the efficiency compared to 2021 and whether it was voluntarily range-reduced - if it was less efficient than 2021 then range reduction would not have been needed):
Battery Replacement under Warranty: What is the Current Model of my Battery?
 
Last edited:

AlanSubie4Life

Efficiency Obsessed Member
Oct 22, 2018
13,395
17,039
San Diego
Is there an optimal % to charge to for 2022 M3LR? If not needing a ton of range on a given day - is there a benefit to charging to 80 vs 90%, vice versa?
Just use 50% if it is no problem to do so. If it’s a pain or means needing to remember to add more charge, use something higher. And keep it plugged in when not driving and charge every night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrChaos

jjrandorin

Moderator, Model 3, Tesla Energy Forums
Moderator
Nov 28, 2018
15,899
20,649
Riverside Co. CA
Hi All — I have a Gen 3 wall connector installed for my M3LR. Most of the time, during the week, I’m not driving too much, so I put my charge limit down to 60-65% to protect the battery. Overnight, I’ve also realized I can turn the Amps down through the app to charge slower. My charger is capable of 48amps, but I’ll turn it down to 12-30 Amps when I’m not in a rush. Does this make a difference and is it ok to change around the Amps? Just trying to look out for the long term battery health.

As was stated, all home charging is slow for the car, so the only thing you are doing (as far as the car is concerned) by "turning down the amps" is charging slower, keeping the car awake longer, and costing yourself more electricity usage (money).

There may be other reasons someone wants to turn down the amps (unsure of home wiring, reducing home electricity load because of heavy usage of other electric items like AC, etc), but there isnt a reason for the CAR to do it.
 

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