C'mon, you've been here long enough to know that Tesla (and EVERY manufacturer) is simply publishing tests that the EPA does. So stop blaming Tesla (and others) for using the stats they are supposed to use for comparison purposes.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Range on Long Road Trips
- Thread starter tjgunc
- Start date
-
- Tags
- road trips
This is my experience. I took our MYP from StL to Memphis this past weekend. On way back I charged to 100% (303 miles) in Memphis. Made it to SC about 140 miles away. At SC it took 25 mins to charge to 80% which equaled roughly 250 miles of charge. Thought that should be plenty given I had 138 miles to go to destination in StL. Set AP at 75mph amd consistently watched battery % and mileage range drop drastically to the point I was drafting a semi at 72 mph. I made it home with 20 miles of range left or about 3% battery. Granted it was 23 degrees out and I had two adults and a teenager in the car but to say I was frustrated and disappointed is putting it lightly. My experience going from StL to Memphis was similar but I didn’t pay near as much attention than on way home. Bottom line IMO is these aren’t meant to go more than 150 miles on a charge at highway speeds; a d ok more than likely exactly why the max distance between SC’s is at that range. Around town we do get closer to the mileage reported on the car, but doubt I take it on road trips going forward. Bottom line, love the car for daily commuting around town but if I would NOT buy if I meant it to be a road trip vehicle. Until the weekend I was considering getting rid of our main road trip car, but no longer. My wife actually said “the mileage claims are really misleading”. Real world and EPA ranges are not close. Roughly 100 miles or about 40% different.
Totally false. It does not matter which you display, they are equivalent, it is just a matter of personal preference. If I use energy I know that 50% = 153 miles of EPA estimate. I prefer to know the estimated miles left. I know I will only get about 80% with my normal driving in "normal" conditions, and climate, hills etc will impact that. If I displayed energy I would first convert to "miles" before doing the remaining adjustments. A common misconception is that the energy % is based on how the car is being driven - it is not, it is based on the EPA rating. You can display a more detailed graph of current driving performance that does show current consumption as well.
So starting with the EPA estimate of 306 miles I get 80%, 245 miles. I want to arrive with at least 20%, 60 miles, so schedule recharging after about 175 miles. (If the trip requires a second charge, I take the first charge only up to 80%, EPA estimate 245, my driving 196, so 136 to the next charge. etc.)
Jashev
Member
Sorry, but you are totally incorrect. When you are displaying battery percentage it is the actual percentage of battery charge remaining. When you display miles, it is the EPA estimate of your distance based on that charge. The percentage is accurate, the distance is an estimate based on the EPA assumptions (SOC/wh/mile of EPA rating). I've never heard of anybody thinking that the energy % is based on how the car is being driven but it is absolutely NOT based on any EPA numbers. It is taken directly from the SOC of the pack. I teach the Tesla class on this to new owners.
Yeah, they are equivalent, but I feel like I hear more confusion from people (not you) that keep it on miles. There's a false sense of safety there, IMO. IMO, there should be a way to have miles remaining base itself on the last 5, 15, or 30 miles just like on the energy graph. I think a lot of these folks would actually have an easier time understanding it that way.
That seems to be closer to what some other EV makers have chosen as well.
I'd say its more about setting expectations. Any vehicle under a full load of passengers AND going 75mph is going to NOT meet EPA mileage, even in 70 degree weather conditions. Whether EV or gas/diesel. So there is that. As has been referenced before, planning is pretty key in situations like that. A Better Route Planner allows you to factor in many variables and will give you better estimates even BEFORE you leave the house.
I suspect in your situation, if you had set the cruise to 60mph and the interior climate to 68f and used all seat heaters on low? You'd have made it just fine. Even more so if you had charged to 90 at the SC stop.
Disagree. I wasn’t even close to full load and on my ICE vehicles under full load I am exactly equal to EPA ratings, on all of my cars and I have many. Plus, when Highway speeds are 70 and 75 it makes no sense to drive 60, plus it’s dangerous to do so, so as an industry they need to re-evaluate EV EPA ratings, or at a minimum averages like a mile per gallon. My truck says I get an average 15 miles per gallon and it’s been dead on for years. Same with my other cars. They need to say Highway average per KW = X miles so people know that on a Highway they can expect X Range versus an average range of city driving where they are more efficient. Especially when more and more people are starting to buy EVs bec they keep hearing “range of 300 miles, 400 miles, etc”
It’s clear that the EPA needs to improve their testing protocols for EVs. I’d argue that EVs need both a winter and a summer rating, setting more realistic expectations in a variety of conditions.
Midnightsun
Active Member
The manufacturer submits their results to EPA and they use those figures. Only 15-20% are ever checked under EPA's roof. I had a Genesis a while back, got a $500 credit card because EPA tested the vehicle and the numbers were not even close compared to theirs. Hyundai had to send everyone some $ since the figures were basically lies or politely said, exaggerated truths. Bottom line is the car manufacture does all the testing and EPA sometimes checks the numbers.
Last edited:
Hell yah, so sick of hearing that; "ICE cars fail to meet EPA highway range too". No, they don't.
Not routinely or as a matter of course anyway. Unlike Tesla BEVs. Plus, when they do fail like that, the owners end up getting compensated for the lies/exaggerations, like the Genesis example above.
(I'm sure there were/are certain models that did/do fail to hit their EPA highway targets. Ford's semi-recent oddball hybrid crossover partial-EV thing comes to mind... don't recall model name, but pretty sure they got sued for how egregiously it missed EPA targets)
Anyway...
I helped run mixed fleet of modified "raised roof" minivans, full size converted cargo vans, and sedans for non-emergency medical transport. (wheelchairs, stretchers, ambulatory, going to/from dialysis or chemo, etc.) I'm talking about 5+ years of experience with a fleet of 20-30+ vehicles, and 70+ drivers/crew. These vehicles all ran 24/7/365, unless in queue for repair/maintenance, and ran in excess of 200+ miles per day on avg. Even the high-roofed Ford Windstar vans on their 2nd motor and 3rd (now slipping) transmission still routinely delivered highway economy equal or better than their EPA rating.
Other examples are my most recent "real road trips":
1.) Phoenix to Yellowstone and surrounding areas in my 2010 Acura TL. Though we were loaded to the rafters with all manner of camping & adventure equipment, 14 gallons of water, and I was running sticky "ultra high performance" tires, my avg. economy was around 25.5mpg for the whole trip. IIRC, the EPA rating on that car is like 23 or 24 highway. I don't drive slow either, so you can bet that my avg. speed for some of those driving legs was >85mph, for >300miles. Then rinse & repeat. We left Phoenix late morning, and were north of Ogden, UT by dinner time. Again, if I recall correctly, only one or two fuel stops on that trip had avg economy below EPA rating, but they were real close.
2.) Phoenix to Steamboat Springs, CO, and back down through NM, in 2012 CR-V. Not gonna bore with details again, but will share that this trip was done under similar conditions to the trip above We ended up dead-on the CR-V's EPA highway rating as the avg. fuel economy for the trip. Granted, this trip was much closer to posted speed limits, due to the inherent slowness/under-powered nature of the vehicle. Regardless, even shorter trips in AZ all work out this way, easily meeting or beating the EPA rating, while going as fast as conditions allow.
There are plenty of others... My brother towed a car trailer to/from Kentucky with his giant diesel 4x4 Ram pickup, and saw an avg of 18mpg. Sure, 18mpg is not impressive, until you factor in it was a giant tuck, towing another car, at speeds consistently exceeding posted limits on an 'all highway' trip, and the EPA highway figure for his specific configuration is like 14 or 16 mpg.
TL;DR- Stop saying this isn't a Tesla problem. It really is, more so now that others in the BEV world (Kona, Taycan & Mustang) are hitting their EPA target or coming very close at higher than tested speeds. I'm willing to bet that the future will include many more BEVs with transmissions/gearboxes to help circumvent this high speed inefficiency issue.
EDIT- See, it is a Tesla issue: Tesla range estimates called into question in independent tests - Electrek
Not routinely or as a matter of course anyway. Unlike Tesla BEVs. Plus, when they do fail like that, the owners end up getting compensated for the lies/exaggerations, like the Genesis example above.
(I'm sure there were/are certain models that did/do fail to hit their EPA highway targets. Ford's semi-recent oddball hybrid crossover partial-EV thing comes to mind... don't recall model name, but pretty sure they got sued for how egregiously it missed EPA targets)
Anyway...
I helped run mixed fleet of modified "raised roof" minivans, full size converted cargo vans, and sedans for non-emergency medical transport. (wheelchairs, stretchers, ambulatory, going to/from dialysis or chemo, etc.) I'm talking about 5+ years of experience with a fleet of 20-30+ vehicles, and 70+ drivers/crew. These vehicles all ran 24/7/365, unless in queue for repair/maintenance, and ran in excess of 200+ miles per day on avg. Even the high-roofed Ford Windstar vans on their 2nd motor and 3rd (now slipping) transmission still routinely delivered highway economy equal or better than their EPA rating.
Other examples are my most recent "real road trips":
1.) Phoenix to Yellowstone and surrounding areas in my 2010 Acura TL. Though we were loaded to the rafters with all manner of camping & adventure equipment, 14 gallons of water, and I was running sticky "ultra high performance" tires, my avg. economy was around 25.5mpg for the whole trip. IIRC, the EPA rating on that car is like 23 or 24 highway. I don't drive slow either, so you can bet that my avg. speed for some of those driving legs was >85mph, for >300miles. Then rinse & repeat. We left Phoenix late morning, and were north of Ogden, UT by dinner time. Again, if I recall correctly, only one or two fuel stops on that trip had avg economy below EPA rating, but they were real close.
2.) Phoenix to Steamboat Springs, CO, and back down through NM, in 2012 CR-V. Not gonna bore with details again, but will share that this trip was done under similar conditions to the trip above We ended up dead-on the CR-V's EPA highway rating as the avg. fuel economy for the trip. Granted, this trip was much closer to posted speed limits, due to the inherent slowness/under-powered nature of the vehicle. Regardless, even shorter trips in AZ all work out this way, easily meeting or beating the EPA rating, while going as fast as conditions allow.
There are plenty of others... My brother towed a car trailer to/from Kentucky with his giant diesel 4x4 Ram pickup, and saw an avg of 18mpg. Sure, 18mpg is not impressive, until you factor in it was a giant tuck, towing another car, at speeds consistently exceeding posted limits on an 'all highway' trip, and the EPA highway figure for his specific configuration is like 14 or 16 mpg.
TL;DR- Stop saying this isn't a Tesla problem. It really is, more so now that others in the BEV world (Kona, Taycan & Mustang) are hitting their EPA target or coming very close at higher than tested speeds. I'm willing to bet that the future will include many more BEVs with transmissions/gearboxes to help circumvent this high speed inefficiency issue.
EDIT- See, it is a Tesla issue: Tesla range estimates called into question in independent tests - Electrek
Last edited:
Brian-MS90D
Member
Well... those performance tires are not really designed for road trips. And, you're not even supposed to be using them below something like 45 degrees. You need a winter set of tires. This has nothing to do with Tesla and is the same for any summer performance tire.
Probably not ALL of your "problem,' but running those performance tires on a road trip (in 23 degrees) is weird.
I'm assuming you have your performance tires on because you stated the range was 303, and the range goes up dramatically when you run normal all season tires.
I agree... more frequent stops is to my advantage as well. I can make long trips and still have energy at the end. thanks for your respnse.
So, you mean to tell me that Tesla does not advertise "rated range" as a key aspect of the car? Check out this link on the Tesla page on its site that offers trip planning Go Anywhere | Tesla. Do you see any qualifiers there when you select the car you are interested in? I don't.
I am formerly a marketing and sales executive. To me, the definition of marketing is lying with nice words while successful salespeople UNDER SELL and OVER DELIVER. Below, you will see an example of the latter truth related to the experience Edmunds has had with the Ford Mustang EV. That is how Tesla should have presented mileage. BTW, if you think Tesla/musk did not have sway with the EPA calculation of range estimates, I guess you think the FAA was not influenced by Boeing, too.
I'd argue that test is even worse than the EPA one, though. It uses even more city cycle as part of its realistic driving, but city driving is rarely a real problem for modern evs.
I'd like a comparison like that with a consistent and realistic (75mph) highway as 90% of the test.
YOU GET THE BEST RESPONSE AWARD. ABRP is GREAT! Mr Musk should take a lesson. I can see no reason, with all the tech on board, why Tesla cannot do this very same thing. Thank you again. i will travel with much more peace of mind tomorrow!
Check the comments on that article. There is a link provided to a quote from Edmunds that says they only charge Tesla cars to 90% for their tests. I would like to see some verification of range testing from some publication other than Edmunds who is funded by ads from legacy auto makers - none from Tesla. I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla's "real world" range misses the EPA mark more than other EV makers, but I doubt the difference is what Edmunds claims.
Oh, right, I remember one of them doing "realistic" tests that way. I get the theory, but it doesn't match reality. Tesla owners certainly charge to 100% (or at least close to it) when it is useful to do so.
That combined with the city overemphasis makes this completely pointless. :sigh
Sadly, Tesla really needs a 400 or 450 mile range battery, which in the real world of road tripping might be about 300 real miles. I'd be happy with that. I've had a Model S for 6 years and have taking many, many road trips. If I cruise at 70 mph I almost always get the stated range of 265 miles. I think Tesla (or the EPA) was less clever back then. Today they seem to have some creative math with their creative calculations.
I know battery tech only improves slowly, but the cost is coming down for sure. I can still average about 260 miles on my S, the Y maybe only 275 miles 6 years later.
I know battery tech only improves slowly, but the cost is coming down for sure. I can still average about 260 miles on my S, the Y maybe only 275 miles 6 years later.
Midnightsun
Active Member
This pretty much sums up how poor Tesla is in achieving their rated numbers in real world testing. These are tests done by Edmunds. If you search the web there are several other real world tests that come to the same conclusion.
