Not sure if anyone has asked or answered this question yet. So what is the real range we can extract our of our MR? Is it 240 miles, or 260 miles? I have had to plan a few routes recently (haven't actually had to drive them yet) that may push the MR range a bit. That 20 miles could be extra bit of comfort in an area that I am not familiar with...
-
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 midrange reduced to 219 miles
- Thread starter futron
- Start date
-
- Tags
- battery range
It depends on many variables like if you’re driving uphill for a long time which takes more energy, using the heat a lot uses more energy, driving in the rain uses more energy, driving into a headwind, etc.
Doug_D
Member
Hey guys, has anyone gotten the updated software that is supposed to give some additional range back? any early release or beta users here who have a MR3 and see any additional range? I would love to see more miles magically appear again. I also have the lose of range when charging to 90% where i am in the 216-220 range now. Has anyone else done any self re-calibration steps for fun where you drain the battery down to under 10% then back up to 100% a few times? I say "for fun" since it may or may not really work, imho.
Still love the car and enjoy it. Doug in CT.
Still love the car and enjoy it. Doug in CT.
Doug_D
Member
Steve, your not the comedian are you? that would be a "wild and crazy" thing .. ;>
516. (Extrapolating from the test someone did of a Model 3 LR, rated for 310, but they got 606 miles by driving gently at ~30 MPH on flat ground.)
I don't think the additional range was for the MR. I think it is for the LR 322 and for the SR+ 250.
I wish it were for the MR since I have one too.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I have a mid range, it's been 1 year now, I charge to 80% or I used to and I would get about 220 miles (no areo wheels), now I charge to 85% with the aero wheels and I only get 209 charge.
I called Tesla they said I'd have to pay 250 dollars for them to do a battery test. They didn't seems to care about the drop in range but now I'm starting to get pissed. A cheaper standard range now has more range than me, wtf? What am I missing?
I called Tesla they said I'd have to pay 250 dollars for them to do a battery test. They didn't seems to care about the drop in range but now I'm starting to get pissed. A cheaper standard range now has more range than me, wtf? What am I missing?
Yeah, I'm starting to get curious about the MR battery pack. They advertised 255 -264. After one year it should not be 209. The Model S after all these years has less range drop than that. I know it's different cells and chem, but the Model 3 is supposed to have the best energy density per cell.....
There's no way you were getting 220 @ 80%. That would be 275 @ 100%.
If you're now getting 209 @ 85%, that's 246 @ 100%, or about 7% less than rated (264). That's a bit on the lower end of what I've heard, but it's certainly not unreasonable IMO. Batteries degrade. And they've probably done some funny stuff with the numbers in the last year too.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
That would be 275 miles at 100% so this did not happen. You used to get 210 miles at 80%.
What you are missing is you have:
246rmi*237Wh/rmi = 58.2kWh
While a brand new 2020 SR + has:
250rmi*213Wh/rmi = 53.3kWh
So you still have 10% more capacity than a brand new SR+.
And it would be fair to compare to an average SR+ after a year, not a brand new one.
It is not, it is 246 or so.
Battery capacity loss is a real thing for all EVs. Everyone should get used to it and plan for it. It is highest in the first year, and it is not the same for everyone. Just luck of the draw.
Plan for 15% capacity loss when making your purchasing decision. That should be safe in most cases. For most people starting with sufficient range it only becomes a slight inconvenience on road trips.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
15% should be the assumption for Model 3. It is just a safe number to avoid disappointment. In many cases it will be less than 10%. Plenty of cases reported here of 7-8% in a year with 10-15k miles for Model 3.
Whether it is real degradation or not does not matter - it is loss of capacity for whatever reason. As I said, nothing to be concerned about - normal and expected. Just plan for it before buying. There is not any magical EV that avoids capacity loss.
For those that corrected my math, I stand corrected lol
I honestly couldn't remember but I do remember the couple of times I charged my car to 100, my miles would show 268 at it's highest point.
Does anyone know which tracking is best? I'd love to post stats, we drive alot:
Daily drive, car starts with 209ish (85%) and ends with 20 miles. We got the car last year Dec 22 and right now we have 36,000+ miles on the car.
Love the savings on gas!!!
I honestly couldn't remember but I do remember the couple of times I charged my car to 100, my miles would show 268 at it's highest point.
Does anyone know which tracking is best? I'd love to post stats, we drive alot:
Daily drive, car starts with 209ish (85%) and ends with 20 miles. We got the car last year Dec 22 and right now we have 36,000+ miles on the car.
Love the savings on gas!!!
I also have a Mid Range (1 year old 15,000 miles). I agree that batteries degrade everyone knows this, but batteries degrade over time not suddenly.
I currently have a 7% drop in range and this drop happened over night, not slowly over the course of a year.
Something is going on with certain packs, just look at the reports of a large number of S and X packs also suffering sudden drops in battery capacity. I also own a 2017 MX with 48,000 miles. For the first 2 years my battery only lost 1-2%. Then just a few months ago, again over night, I lost 14% all at once.
It’s also odd that within the Model 3 models this sudden large drop in capacity is only happening to the mid range pack. If it’s brought up people just shoot it down as battery degradation, but no one mentions that there are LR cars with over 30,000 miles on them and they are still charging to the full 310 miles of range.
I currently have a 7% drop in range and this drop happened over night, not slowly over the course of a year.
Something is going on with certain packs, just look at the reports of a large number of S and X packs also suffering sudden drops in battery capacity. I also own a 2017 MX with 48,000 miles. For the first 2 years my battery only lost 1-2%. Then just a few months ago, again over night, I lost 14% all at once.
It’s also odd that within the Model 3 models this sudden large drop in capacity is only happening to the mid range pack. If it’s brought up people just shoot it down as battery degradation, but no one mentions that there are LR cars with over 30,000 miles on them and they are still charging to the full 310 miles of range.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Sure, but keep in mind that the prior software could have been "hiding" degradation from you with whatever algorithm it was using. And the new software could be "honest." So a change due to software does not mean that the real loss of capacity was sudden. It just may have been hidden before (and it could have surprised you - which would have been undesirable).
Now, if you had 7% drop in capacity over a year, and then suddenly an additional 7% drop - that would be a little odd. But if you had ~0% drop over a year, and then suddenly got 7% drop, it's fairly likely that it's just a reporting change to start reporting your actual capacity - you should definitely not expect 0% degradation over a year! Physically, we all know that's now how degradation works.
I don't believe this is true. I've seen reports from other packs (LR, SR) of sudden drops correlated with software changes.
I'd be curious to hear about one of the LR AWD vehicles showing this. Remember that LR RWD vehicles which are showing 310 miles of range have lost 5% capacity. I believe that probably less than 1% of LR AWD vehicles with 30k miles greater than 14 months old are charging to 310 rated miles. Perhaps one or two exist, but they are definitely outliers. There's a rough Gaussian distribution it appears.
Last edited:
If this was the case, software hiding degradation, wouldn’t we have had a lot of cases of early shut downs? Cars shutting down with available mileage still showing? I know I have driven my car a slow as 2-3% back before these new updates and never had any issues. I could be thinking about this the wrong way though as I guess the degradation could be hidden but still show an accurate percentage/range available.
But we also know Tesla has admitted that they have capped battery capacity on certain S and X vehicles for “battery longevity” but have never given the specifics. There are reports that they did it after discovering serious issues with cells in certain cars. All this happened around the same time they were investigating the sudden rash of battery fires. It’s not irrational to think that these range loses due to software updates are also being used in certain Model 3s as a proactive measure.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
No, it's not irrational to think that. There may be some element of truth to that but I have not been tracking all the debate on that topic, so I really have no idea.
However, I think it is irrational to think that you will have 0% degradation over the course of your first year (or even half year!) of ownership. So if that's what you were seeing, and then it was followed by a sudden drop, it does suggest some sort of reporting issue resolved by software.
Regarding people driving down to 2-3% - maybe that's not low enough to see some sort of reporting issue. Many cars can be driven slowly for quite some distance below 0% (there's a couple kWh available). It may have been that this ability was compromised before the adjustments.
It's all speculation on my part here though; no idea really. Main point is just to expect degradation, mostly in the first year, and not the same for everyone.
(There was of course some initial speculation that Tesla had "solved" battery degradation with the new chemistry and cells in Model 3, but that does not appear to be the case. In some ways, the anecdotal data so far suggests it's actually worse than Model S. But I haven't seen an actual good analysis yet. But in any case, degradation is expected.)
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
