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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I think you are overreacting a bit here and it’s really not that serious. This is more of a battery nerd thread and what we are talking about is what is absolutely best for the battery. There is nothing wrong with charging to 90%.

This is really no different from any ICE car either. Want the very best performance from your ICE engine? Change the oil every 3,000 miles and use full synthetic and 93 octane fuel. Is that really necessary? No. Will using regular Dino oil and changing every 5,000 miles and using 87 octane be just fine? Yes.

Same type of discussion here. Do you want the absolute best battery health you could possibly get? Then keep your SOC around 50% or lower. Do you want the best performance from your car and have *relatively* a little bit more battery degradation? Then charge to 90% and enjoy the drive 👍🏼
Overreacting yes but to make a point. In my mind it's about disclosure. Based on what I have read here I think it's more than "a little bit more". Whether it's material or not is debatable. But before I plunked down 56k I would have liked all the information. I think your analogy about ICE is off target. My M3P get the advertised performance for a very very small portion of the SoC. Really 90 to 75. So I get about 40 miles of the advertised WHP. After that performance drops and it's fairly noticeable. No ICE behaves likes that. First world problems but I think the regulators need to step and and make Tesla and others provide more disclosure.
 
Overreacting yes but to make a point. In my mind it's about disclosure. Based on what I have read here I think it's more than "a little bit more". Whether it's material or not is debatable. But before I plunked down 56k I would have liked all the information. I think your analogy about ICE is off target. My M3P get the advertised performance for a very very small portion of the SoC. Really 90 to 75. So I get about 40 miles of the advertised WHP. After that performance drops and it's fairly noticeable. No ICE behaves likes that. First world problems but I think the regulators need to step and and make Tesla and others provide more disclosure.
Do ICE engines get their max horsepower and torque at every RPM level? Or is it only at a small range of RPMs? It is no different with an electric vehicle. You only get max horsepower and performance within certain parameters. Tesla isn’t purposely hiding anything from you IMO.

Also the only guarantee Tesla has ever stated regarding battery degradation is that it will not be less than 70% of its original capacity in the warrantable period, which is 120,000 miles. They didn’t tell you they would do anything other than that or make any other claims.

It’s perfectly fine if you are upset and disagree, I just don’t see how Tesla is a special case and doing things differently than any other auto manufacturer.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Rocky_H
This advice may be sound but for those of us who purchased a performance model its impractical. And Tesla should not sell a performance model that advertises 3 seconds to 60 assuming 90 percent charge and then at the same time sell me a car that will have range degradation accelerate by keeping the soc at 90. At a minimum they need to disclose this stuff up front. I did my research but never in a million years did I realize it was this complicated. You want the advertised HP? Charge to 90. You want the battery to last? Charge to 50. It's completely inconsistent and beyond comprehension of the average car buyer. What a can of worms. I bought this car over an RS3 and in some ways that would have been a whole lot simpler. I love the car but the "real" Tesla experience in terms of performance and range is quite different than the one they are marketing (yes I know they don't market).

musk did tweet that 80% is better but not much difference to 90% and no real difference below 80%.
Unfortunately none of us actually know how much what factors into degradation.
I am fairly sure that heat is the number 1 killer due to the bad degradation I get in the tropics (like 14-15% after 2 years) despite my car sitting at 60% most of the time. and my mate with the same car sitting at 20% degradation and leaving it at 90%. I mean the guy is 40 rated kms off a battery replacement.


The real bummer ist that we all became acustomed to the Model S degradation which is fairly low and its unclear why that doesnt translate to the model 3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanSubie4Life
Do ICE engines get their max horsepower and torque at every RPM level? Or is it only at a small range of RPMs? It is no different with an electric vehicle. You only get max horsepower and performance within certain parameters. Tesla isn’t purposely hiding anything from you IMO.

Also the only guarantee Tesla has ever stated regarding battery degradation is that it will not be less than 70% of its original capacity in the warrantable period, which is 120,000 miles. They didn’t tell you they would do anything other than that or make any other claims.

It’s perfectly fine if you are upset and disagree, I just don’t see how Tesla is a special case and doing things differently than any other auto manufacturer.

this is not true. You get horsepower and torque which directly translates to acceleration. If the torque is wider spread in the powerband then the horsepower increases.
That is also the reason why the Model 3 accelerats so slowly after 80km/h. You only have 500 horsepower, but accelerate faster than a lambo up to 100km/h. Of course the torque needs to drop off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AAKEE
Tesla should not sell a performance model that advertises 3 seconds to 60 assuming 90 percent charge and then at the same time sell me a car that will have range degradation accelerate by keeping the soc at 90.
As thread is about how to preserve the battery and what can be expected and how to maintain battery health of course we discuss the degrading mechanisms and how they affect our batteries.
The different tips about the best charging scedule differs as people have different theories and/or knowledge. One thing is common though: it is not Teslas statements.
This is what Tesla says in my M3P 2021 manual:
If you let the SOC drain to 0% other compoments can get damaged(12V battery). Dont let the battery go down to 0%.
Thats it. Nothing more.

At Teslas homepage, the support site says:
Your daily recommended charging limit will be displayed on the car’s touchscreen. If you need the full range of your battery for a long-distance trip, you can increase the limit to 100% as necessary.
In my M3P, the ”Daily” is up to 90%.

So if you need the power, charge to 90%. :)

And after reading this thread you know that you probably will have higher degradation if you do that. You follow teslas simple tips and you are guaranteed 70% capacity to the warranty limit.

A little OT: For the ICE cars, the advertised 0-100 performance will be the very best they can do at optimal conditions. For example engine power reduces with higher temperatures due to warm air is thin air = less power. At 100degrees F most ICE cars produce less power due to this.
The ICE will probably not keep the 0-100 value at 100F but the Tesla probably do.
Also the advertised ICE power is only met at a specific rpm. Same with the torque, its said for example 400Nm(or ft-lbs) but if I rew to 7000rpm I will not get 400Nm. Most people probably accept this as they are used to/did learn about this long time ago.

Changing to EV’s will be a conversion as they is not the same as a ICE car. There will be differences we need to accept.
If you cannot accept the raw physics of the todays batteries you might need to wait until they have fixed the issues you dont accept.
Or buy a Model S Plaid, as it keeps the power very well to lower SOC’s. But of course there will be someone that cannot accept that the Plaid looses performance at really low SOC.

There might be a thread about the physics that cause the performance drops with decreasing battery state of charge, if not it probably could be a good idea to start a thread that can cover the basic principles behind and what to expect about performance.
 
Last edited:
this is not true. You get horsepower and torque which directly translates to acceleration. If the torque is wider spread in the powerband then the horsepower increases.
That is also the reason why the Model 3 accelerats so slowly after 80km/h. You only have 500 horsepower, but accelerate faster than a lambo up to 100km/h. Of course the torque needs to drop off.
I’m not certain I said anything that ran counter to what you just said, so I don’t follow what “isn’t true”. My point was that Tesla isn't doing anything different than any other auto manufacturer. So being upset that you need a higher SOC to achieve maximum performance is like being upset with your Lamborghini because it doesn’t achieve its rated horsepower and torque consistently throughout the entire RPM band.

Maximum performance is only achieved within a certain set of parameters, whether ICE or electric as @AAKEE also noted above.
 
Last edited:
this is not true. You get horsepower and torque which directly translates to acceleration. If the torque is wider spread in the powerband then the horsepower increases.
That is also the reason why the Model 3 accelerats so slowly after 80km/h. You only have 500 horsepower, but accelerate faster than a lambo up to 100km/h. Of course the torque needs to drop off.
With the risk of getting too off-topic:

The engine only produces one kind of "force"; thats *torque*
What we want is the highest possible torque at the wheels, as more torque on the wheels means a higher force( = higher acceleration).

At a certain speed, the higherst torque on the wheels is the same as the highest power. Power from a rotating power source(ICE- or EV-engine) is torque times rpm.
( Rpm x 2Pi/60 x torque(Nm) = Watt ).

As the torque curve of most ICE-engine is high in the middle and low in the low + high rpm, the maximum torque is only available at a specific rpm, and the maximum power also at a specific rpm.

The rpm x torque formula tells us that if the torque is constant with rpm, the power goes up with increasing rpm, and that if the power is constant the torque goes down with increasing rpm.
 
My Feb, 2021 SR+ was holding steady at 263 for the first 6-7 months but in the last month it has dropped to 246. That's a bigger drop than I expected. Is that normal, borderline, or low? The car has 5800 miles on it in 8 months so it isn't being used a lot. When I went into the Smartcharge app that uses the Tesla data the battery shows at 100% still.

Any advice?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AAKEE
My Feb, 2021 SR+ was holding steady at 263 for the first 6-7 months but in the last month it has dropped to 246. That's a bigger drop than I expected. Is that normal, borderline, or low? The car has 5800 miles on it in 8 months so it isn't being used a lot. When I went into the Smartcharge app that uses the Tesla data the battery shows at 100% still.

Any advice?
Look at my post MASTER THREAD: Range Loss Over Time, What Can Be Expected, Efficiency, How to Maintain Battery Health

I did have a very stable range and nominal full pack for long time until the firmware update one month ago( 2021.32.21, I think).
After the update the nominal full pack dropped 0.5kWh, and I lost about 3km range ”that night”. The values have been quite stable at that level since. If I remember it right the update was said to improve the estimation of the range.
Any sudden drop one month ago is probably more likely to come from the new formware then from any real range issue.

As for the drop itself, do you have the Panasonic battery or the LFP ? ( guess panasonic due to US)
What is your daily charging level ?

Do you have the car at high state of charge mostly ?
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: jjrandorin
I charge to 90% usually but not daily. I'll let it drop to about 50-70% since I don't actually use it that much. When I went on my first trip or two I charged to 100% but quickly realized I wasn't going to make it all the way anyway and I'd have to stop once so I don't do that anymore.

And yes, I did suspect somehow that the software might just be estimating range better. I doubt I would come anywhere close to 263 miles on a charge. Usually I get 10-20% less than stated anyway. I live in NYC and driving is mostly just on the streets not the highway, and the highways themselves never get that fast.
 
Honestly I don't bother with range. It was marginally useful in an ICE car so I always just used the fuel meter which worked fine.

Same here, first thing I did was switch to percentage and estimate the rest myself. An accurate range estimate is like an accurate weather forecast. Even with the best estimates it's still only a guide.

It would be better if KWh remaining could be displayed though, there must be a way... otherwise I find just working with the raw numbers and consumption averages works well.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: AlanSubie4Life
Honestly I don't bother with range. It was marginally useful in an ICE car so I always just used the fuel meter which worked fine.

Same here, first thing I did was switch to percentage and estimate the rest myself. An accurate range estimate is like an accurate weather forecast. Even with the best estimates it's still only a guide.

It would be better if KWh remaining could be displayed though, there must be a way... otherwise I find just working with the raw numbers and consumption averages works well.

It unfortunately does matter because with degradation you really start to get less range.

With an ice car if you got 20% left you can still reasonably drive 150km or 200 to 250km with diesel so and stop at a petrol station. With a tesla you may have 50 to 70kms left and dc charging stations arent that abundant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanSubie4Life
It would be better if KWh remaining could be displayed though, there must be a way

There is a way to do that! You use the rated miles! Those have units of energy, as has been mentioned over and over again. It is annoying finding out what those units are so you can get the exact value, but it’s all posted here.

Rated miles displays your kWh remaining, within the limits of the BMS accuracy (which is what matters anyway, since it’s not going to let you go below ~0kWh, even if it’s wrong about it).

Honestly it’s one of the best features of a Tesla - you always know where you stand.

And yes, I did suspect somehow that the software might just be estimating range better.
It’s better estimating (or possibly estimating more poorly, could be either - you’ll find out in future updates) your remaining capacity. It thinks you’ve lost about 6.5% of your original 53.5kWh.
 
Last edited:
looking to hear from other 2020 performance owners about their rated range now. my performance is on 19" wheels and has 39,000 miles and it only showing 270 miles at 100%. i can't imagine this is due to degradation, maybe they changed the range rating on our cars? to be honest i never keep it in miles, i always use percentage, but i do know my car never displayed the 315 miles it was rated for when i bought it, think i topped out at 298. anyways, looking to compare with other owners, so post your rated rang!
 
looking to hear from other 2020 performance owners about their rated range now. my performance is on 19" wheels and has 39,000 miles and it only showing 270 miles at 100%. i can't imagine this is due to degradation, maybe they changed the range rating on our cars? to be honest i never keep it in miles, i always use percentage, but i do know my car never displayed the 315 miles it was rated for when i bought it, think i topped out at 298. anyways, looking to compare with other owners, so post your rated rang!
I have a 2020 M3P and I'm getting 275 @100%
 
i can't imagine this is due to degradation, maybe they changed the range rating on our cars?
It's capacity loss. How much capacity loss you actually have is dependent on the accuracy of the BMS estimate and which wheels you have selected. But I'm very confident that you have at least 6% capacity loss.
but i do know my car never displayed the 315 miles it was rated for when i bought it,
Your 2020 vehicle was never rated at that mileage. That 315 miles is for the 2021 Performance, which have a higher capacity battery.
2020 performance

think i topped out at 298.
With 20" wheels selected, or 19"? If 19", you may have started with a somewhat low battery capacity.
also, did yours ever say 315 when it was new?

20K and no it nevered showed 315 when new

On 2020 Model 3 Performance vehicles, the "when new" values are:

322 miles with 18" wheels selected
304 miles with 19" wheels selected
299 miles with 20" wheels selected.

These all correspond to 77.8kWh minimum. This wheel size dependence does not apply to any other Model 3 year or trim level at this time.

Initially, when the cars were brand new in late 2019, they displayed ~310 miles at a full charge, but that changed with a software update, and is irrelevant.

Anyway, if you started at 298 rated miles out of 304 rated miles with 19" wheels selected, you started with about 76.3kWh rather than the 77.8kWh (typically about 78kWh) that most owners started with.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Rocky_H
It's capacity loss. How much capacity loss you actually have is dependent on the accuracy of the BMS estimate and which wheels you have selected. But I'm very confident that you have at least 6% capacity loss.

Your 2020 vehicle was never rated at that mileage. That 315 miles is for the 2021 Performance, which have a higher capacity battery.



With 20" wheels selected, or 19"? If 19", you may have started with a somewhat low battery capacity.




On 2020 Model 3 Performance vehicles, the "when new" values are:

322 miles with 18" wheels selected
304 miles with 19" wheels selected
299 miles with 20" wheels selected.

These all correspond to 77.8kWh minimum. This wheel size dependence does not apply to any other Model 3 year or trim level at this time.

Initially, when the cars were brand new in late 2019, they displayed ~310 miles at a full charge, but that changed with a software update, and is irrelevant.

Anyway, if you started at 298 rated miles out of 304 rated miles with 19" wheels selected, you started with about 76.3kWh rather than the 77.8kWh (typically about 78kWh) that most owners started with.
i guess i forgot the say i started with the 18" and changed to the 19" (updated setting in the car). one question though, does the EPA rated range include the buffer? i know these cars can typically get 10-30 miles after hitting zero, and that would defiantly bridge the gap.
 
i guess i forgot the say i started with the 18" and changed to the 19" (updated setting in the car). one question though, does the EPA rated range include the buffer? i know these cars can typically get 10-30 miles after hitting zero, and that would defiantly bridge the gap.

So that would have taken you from 322 miles to 304 miles when new.

The EPA rated range includes the buffer. The display in the car does not (meaning when it displays 0 rated miles you have 4.5% of your energy remaining). However, as capacity is reduced, the buffer and the displayed rated range are scaled proportionally, so in the end you just need to know your rated range at 100% and how that compares to what it was originally. Whether you use the buffer or not is of course up to you, but yes to determine how your vehicle is doing relative to EPA tests, you'd have to drive until it stops moving, just as they do in the EPA test.

So with 270 out of 304 rated miles your BMS thinks you have lost about 11% capacity (though you may have started a little short with a smaller than average battery capacity, it sounds like, so you might have just lost 9% from your original 298).