TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC
Start a Discussionhttps://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/tags/

[Speculation] Model 3 0.237 kwh/mile!

Discussion in 'Model 3' started by Swampgator, Jul 27, 2017.

Tags:
  1. Swampgator

    Swampgator Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2016
    Messages:
    184
    Location:
    Florida
    Akilae over at Model 3 owners club found this code snipet on the Tesla site:

    {"months":60,"toll_savings":null,"distance_per_month":833.33,"distance":49999.8,"fuel_efficiency_imperial":28,"fuel_efficiency_metric":null,"kwh_consumption":0.237,"supercharger_kwh_price":0.2,"fuel_price":2.85,"kwh_price":0.127},"variant":["m3"],"market":"US"

    If this is correct then the Model 3 will be one of the most efficient EVs on the market. This also works out to a 316 mile range for the 75kwh pack. And over 250 miles for a 60 kwh pack. I still think they may use a 55 kwh for the base, which still works out to 232 miles.

    The same code Tesla uses he found shows 0.369 kwh/mile for a Model S.

    Anyone know with that efficiency number what the weight should be??
     
    • Informative x 35
    • Love x 6
    • Like x 3
    • Helpful x 1
  2. KarenRei

    KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,449
    Location:
    Iceland
    #2 KarenRei, Jul 27, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2017
    You can't calculate the weight just from that - aero has even more of an influence. But if that's right.... 64% as much energy.... *swoon*! That's at the lower end of my estimates. And would mean that on a 48A charger it would fill even *faster* than a Model S on a 72A charger ;)

    If we assume an equal distribution of energy savings between aero, rolling, and parasitic losses, and if we assume a Cd of the design goal 0.21, then the frontal area is 73% that of the Model S, or 86% as long on each axis.

    If this number turns out to be correct, I'm going to play Pharrell's "Happy" and Jónas Sigurðsson's "Hamingjan er hér" on a loop ;) I mean, geez, where I am the speed limits are only 90 kph (56 mph), so maybe 180Wh/mi / 112 Wh/km. OMG, CHAdeMOs actually would be like mini-superchargers....
     
    • Like x 6
    • Funny x 1
  3. Swampgator

    Swampgator Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2016
    Messages:
    184
    Location:
    Florida
    How does efficiency impact charge rate? I'm not refuting you I'm just not familiar with that idea.
     
  4. Runt8

    Runt8 Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    711
    Location:
    Colorado
    I for one would love to be pleasantly surprised when we get official range numbers. This would certainly do it!
     
    • Like x 1
  5. vgrinshpun

    vgrinshpun Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    5,787
    Location:
    PA
    The rated energy consumption of my RWD Model S is 0.300kWh/mile. Are you sure this 0.369kWh/mile is for Model S, not Model X?
     
    • Informative x 1
  6. Thomas Edison

    Thomas Edison Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    Messages:
    552
    Location:
    Portland
    This is great news if it's correct!
     
  7. KarenRei

    KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,449
    Location:
    Iceland
    For a vehicle getting A Wh/mi given charge rate of B watts:

    A Wh/mi / B W = A/B h/mi of charge added, or B / 60A mi/min. So, for a vehicle that gets 369 Wh/mi charging on, say, 43kW, you're adding 1,9 mi/min. But for a vehicle getting 237 Wh/mi, that's 3 mi/min.

    Obviously there are limits to how fast you can charge a pack, particularly as it nears 100% capacity. But so long as you're not hitting those limits, you add more miles per minute on a more efficient vehicle for a given charge power.
     
    • Informative x 2
  8. cizUK

    cizUK Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2017
    Messages:
    128
    Location:
    UK
    If you are using the same charging power, greater efficiency means greater mph of charging

    edit: much better answer ^
     
  9. Yggdrasill

    Yggdrasill Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2012
    Messages:
    3,507
    Location:
    Kongsberg, Norway
    I'm not completely sure what to make of that figure. It's 36% lower than the figure for the Model S. That *can't* be right.

    I suspect the figure for the Model S is including charging losses, but it's without charging losses for the Model 3. That's good, because it allows you to calculate the range pretty accurately. But you still don't have enough information to make a reasonable estimate for the weight. It's just one factor in a big mess of calculations.

    However, my calculations for range have been pretty similar to these figures, and I've been using 1700-1850 kg in my calculations.
     
  10. MacGreiner

    MacGreiner Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    143
    Location:
    MD
    That would make it more efficient than than the smaller aluminium and carbon fibre i3 - great if true though.
     
    • Love x 1
  11. kingjamez

    kingjamez Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2017
    Messages:
    169
    Location:
    Fairfax, VA
    Man that would be fantastic. That's only slightly less than my average of 4.7 m/kWh that I get on my little leaf. That's 4.2 m/kWh... really nice.

    -Jim
     
    • Like x 1
    • Love x 1
  12. N5329K

    N5329K Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    California
    That's the low end of reasonable for the Model 3, and seems a bit high for the Model S.
    Robin
     
  13. KarenRei

    KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,449
    Location:
    Iceland
    Can you link us to the original article, hopefully with the code so we can look at it ourselves?
     
  14. DurandalAI

    DurandalAI Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2016
    Messages:
    595
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    • Love x 1
  15. jelloslug

    jelloslug Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2015
    Messages:
    2,513
    Location:
    Greenville, SC
    My i3 was worse than the Leaf I had.
     
  16. ItsNotAboutTheMoney

    ItsNotAboutTheMoney Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    5,813
    Location:
    Maine
    I expect they just kept decreasing the consumption until "Price Including Savings" dropped to $35,000.
     
    • Funny x 10
    • Disagree x 1
  17. Swampgator

    Swampgator Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2016
    Messages:
    184
    Location:
    Florida
    • Like x 1
  18. KarenRei

    KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei KarenRei

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,449
    Location:
    Iceland
    Shoot, he doesn't say what URL. And I'm too lazy to register an account over there ;)

    Man, though.... now that it's gotten my hopes sky high, I hope it doesn't turn out to be wrong! ;)
     
  19. tracksyde

    tracksyde Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2013
    Messages:
    214
    Location:
    So Cal
    Akilae at M3OC said 0.344 for Model S and 0.369 for X

     
    • Like x 1
  20. Runt8

    Runt8 Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    711
    Location:
    Colorado
    Both of those numbers seem high. They result in range numbers that are lower than advertised and real world ranges.
     
    • Like x 2

Share This Page