[Speculation] Model 3 0.237 kwh/mile!

[Troy]

The Electrek article is incorrect. Firstly, we don't know if the smallest battery will be 60 kWh. I'm pretty sure it will be less. Anybody who thinks the smallest battery will be 60 kWh is wrong.

Secondly, the efficiency number is definitely not for EPA rated range. Therefore it's meaningless and should be ignored. I think the base version will be the Model 3 55 and I'm estimating 218 mi EPA rated range.

 

[Brick_top]

218 would be a lame number... IMO

 

[malcolm]

YMMV

 

[Yggdrasill]

I'm estimating 236 EPA miles with 55.4 kWh available. But it's hard to say exactly.

The base pack could be 55.0 kWh gross, and then 52.6 kWh net. With my expected consumption, the range would then be 224 EPA miles. With 52.6 kWh net and 237 Wh/mile, it would be 222 EPA miles. I think that is my bottom line - it will be more than 222 EPA miles.

 

[electracity]

Is there any chance the .237 could be from the wall? Could they have made a dramatic improvement in charging efficiency?

I doubt it. No benefit to Tesla to put R&D into saving a penny per charge.

 

[22522]

I'm estimating 236 EPA miles with 55.4 kWh available. But it's hard to say exactly.

The base pack could be 55.0 kWh gross, and then 52.6 kWh net. With my expected consumption, the range would then be 224 EPA miles. With 52.6 kWh net and 237 Wh/mile, it would be 222 EPA miles. I think that is my bottom line - it will be more than 222 EPA miles.

249

 

[vinnie97]

I wanna' believe...it'd cement my plan to not wait for some future announced battery upgrade.

 

[MartinAustin]

I doubt it. No benefit to Tesla to put R&D into saving a penny per charge.

But... making the AC charger inside the car more efficient also increases the range of the car. It is used to charge the battery during regenerative braking, and also when charging from the wall at home.

The charger in the gen 2 cars is 92% efficient. If it has been improved to 93% efficiency that is a great gain for the range of the car. AC comes out of the motor-generator during driving and goes to the battery via the charger.

 

[Yggdrasill]

But... making the AC charger inside the car more efficient also increases the range of the car. It is used to charge the battery during regenerative braking, and also when charging from the wall at home.

The charger in the gen 2 cars is 92% efficient. If it has been improved to 93% efficiency that is a great gain for the range of the car. AC comes out of the motor-generator during driving and goes to the battery via the charger.

Are you sure about that? I don't think that's correct. I'm pretty sure the inverter is used for regen.

That's part of why the Renault Zoe has fast charging - it uses the drive unit inverter for charging, instead of having a standalone charger.

 

[malcolm]

Consistent .237 will need aero-wheels and cruise @ X mph @ Y degrees F, front motor on torque-sleep etc.

Think Venn diagram.

 

[KarenRei]

Consistent .237 will need aero-wheels and cruise @ 65 mph @ X degrees F, front motor on torque-sleep etc.

Think Venn diagram.

1) It's being compared to normal numbers for EPA-cycle wall-to-wheels figures for S and X.
2) The data shows that it's being used for normal wall-to-wheels power consumption calculations.
3) EPA cycle requires stock hardware. So if aero wheels are stock, sure. But speed, temperature, etc are all fixed by the EPA and standardized across models for testing.

 

[electracity]

Are you sure about that? I don't think that's correct. I'm pretty sure the inverter is used for regen.

That's part of why the Renault Zoe has fast charging - it uses the drive unit inverter for charging, instead of having a standalone charger.

Presumably Tesla AC motors would need both converter and charger for regen. Bolh waveform and voltage would need to be modified to charge..

Permanent magnet motors are probably more efficient at regen. I have wonder in single motor cars if the Bolt and others have a fundamental advantage in this area over Tesla.

 

[Swampgator]

Induction motors are better over a wider operating range. PM motors are more efficient within a narrow range.
Tesla may surprise with a new hybrid type motor, we shall see. Probably not tonight though

 

[TIppy]

But... making the AC charger inside the car more efficient also increases the range of the car. It is used to charge the battery during regenerative braking, and also when charging from the wall at home.

The charger in the gen 2 cars is 92% efficient. If it has been improved to 93% efficiency that is a great gain for the range of the car. AC comes out of the motor-generator during driving and goes to the battery via the charger.

The inverter is definitely used for regen. If the motor is rotating faster than the magnetic field the inverter is creating, power flows from the motor to the battery. During regen, around 60 kw of power can go to the battery. The built in ac charger can't supply that much power. They can only provide 10 to 20 kw.

 

[JeffK]

Induction motors are better over a wider operating range. PM motors are more efficient within a narrow range.
Tesla may surprise with a new hybrid type motor, we shall see. Probably not tonight though

It'll be tonight.

 

[ecarfan]

Code was leaked on Tesla website that showed 237Wh per mile efficiency

Electrek's analysis may well be incorrect based on false assumptions of what the energy efficiency figure found in the HTML page code on the Tesla website actually means. The number found seems unrealistically low.

We will know the true range figure tonight. Patience...

 

[CarlitoDoc]

Dang......more leaks than the White House ?

 

[Garlan Garner]

Holy smoke. Did you see the supercharger kwh price embedded in the leak? 0.2?

I hope that's $.02 and not $.20? I would never ever use a supercharger at 20 cents per kwh.

There's also a .127 price in there also.

Even 12.7 cents would be too much for me to ever use a supercharger.

Tesla wouldn't have to build up any supercharger infrastructure for me.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Dang......more leaks than the White House ?

But these are good news leaks.

No one is cursing out other senators and using vulgar language here.

 

[works]

I hope that's $.02 and not $.20?

If you consider the price of electricity, transfer and the infrastructure, that is a quite expected price per kWh. I do understand that paying anything for something that used to be free is a pain.