kingjamez
Member
73kWh seems like a lot of useable capacity for a 75kWh pack.
Wonder if they are actually going to get rid of the kWh rating for the Model 3.
Wonder if they are actually going to get rid of the kWh rating for the Model 3.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
[Speculation] Model 3 0.237 kwh/mile!
- Thread starter Swampgator
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3
The 237 Wh/mile seems spot on for the long range version. With 310 miles range, that implies a net capacity of 73.5 kWh. Gross capacity should be ~74.9 kWh.
The consumption should be even lower for the base version. Call it 10 Wh/mile, so 227 Wh/mile. With 220 miles, that implies a net capacity of 50.0 kWh, and a gross capacity of ~52 kWh.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Not 'loaded,' if by that you mean options. Probably only the extra range.
Around 22 kWh extra battery for $9000, or ~ $400 a kWh.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
and 220 * 0.237 = 52.14 kWh
So by the old naming they would be Model 3 55 and model 3 75 but Tesla has decided they don't like the number badging (maybe to get away from the threads that show usable capacity vs badge name).
Now it's apparently called Model 3 or Model 3 Long Range as per
- Curb weight:
- 3549 lbs. (Model 3)
- 3814 lbs. (Model 3 Long Range)
- Weight distribution:
- 47% front, 53% rear (Model 3)
- 48% front, 52% rear (Model 3 Long Range)
Perhaps not as much the threads, which I'm sure they care little about, but definitely the sentiment. And it frees them from battery capacity badging. Range is really what people are buying on, anyway, not capacity.
Keep in mind that the charge rate figures need to include the energy lost in charging the battery, which could easily be 10%. I believe the EPA numbers also include the charging inefficicy.
259Wh/mi for the Model 3, including charging inefficicy, would put the Model 3 between the Hyundai Ioniq and the BMW i3 in terms of EPA efficiency. Based on the fact that the Model 3 should be more aerodynamic than both, I would expect it to be the most efficient highway EV, and probably closer to the Bolt in city driving.
Note that the EPA combined numbers probably shouldn't be directly compared between the Model S and the Model 3. In highway driving I would expect the S100D to blow away the Model 3 in range because weight doesn't matter as much and the Model 3's lower drag won't be enough to make up the battery capacity difference. In city driving, the Model 3's lower weight is a big deal, which could make it a lot more competitive with the 100D.
240Wh/mi seems to be a good estimate for efficiency without charging inefficiency, which is what matters for range.
259Wh/mi for the Model 3, including charging inefficicy, would put the Model 3 between the Hyundai Ioniq and the BMW i3 in terms of EPA efficiency. Based on the fact that the Model 3 should be more aerodynamic than both, I would expect it to be the most efficient highway EV, and probably closer to the Bolt in city driving.
Note that the EPA combined numbers probably shouldn't be directly compared between the Model S and the Model 3. In highway driving I would expect the S100D to blow away the Model 3 in range because weight doesn't matter as much and the Model 3's lower drag won't be enough to make up the battery capacity difference. In city driving, the Model 3's lower weight is a big deal, which could make it a lot more competitive with the 100D.
240Wh/mi seems to be a good estimate for efficiency without charging inefficiency, which is what matters for range.
It has been coming down for 50 years. It dropped more this month. It makes energy cheaper than electricity you buy from the grid, in most places. What exactly are you waiting for?
'smart' not 'lucky'. If you are even considering a Model 3, you can afford solar.
Thank you kindly.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
If so, my opinion is that solar would be the better choice. It has an ROI. The vehicle doesn't. One's an investment and the other is an expense.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
My average electric bill is only $60-70 per month including fixed costs. I've done the calculations and if I get a big enough solar installation to disconnect from the grid I lose, if I stay connected to the grid then solar plus fixed grid costs and I lose as well. I imagine in 5-10 years this scenario might change... also when I have kids, but kids aren't scheduled until I get a Model 3
How do those numbers compare with depreciation, insurance, and electricity costs on a Model 3? My guess is favorably. But not nearly as much fun.My average electric bill is only $60-70 per month including fixed costs. I've done the calculations and if I get a big enough solar installation to disconnect from the grid I lose, if I stay connected to the grid then solar plus fixed grid costs and I lose as well. I imagine in 5-10 years this scenario might change... also when I have kids, but kids aren't scheduled until I get a Model 3
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Yes, the fun is priceless.How do those numbers compare with depreciation, insurance, and electricity costs on a Model 3? My guess is favorably. But not nearly as much fun.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I presumed 12% charging losses so the on-road consumption rate for combined driving on the EPA cycle is 256*0.88 = 225 Wh/mile
My average electric bill is only $60-70 per month including fixed costs. I've done the calculations and if I get a big enough solar installation to disconnect from the grid I lose, if I stay connected to the grid then solar plus fixed grid costs and I lose as well. I imagine in 5-10 years this scenario might change... also when I have kids, but kids aren't scheduled until I get a Model 3
Would you be willing to send me the particulars? I would like to see if I can help improve that bottom line.
Thank you kindly.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Here's a previous bill:
This is also why a usage of 0.237 kWh / mi would be fantastic. I like to keep the bill low.
This is probably more helpful
Note the connection charge.
Solar would equal cost of solar + batteries + connection charge (recurring).
if I spent $20K on solar + $6.2k for powerwall + $0.8 for installation + $3.384k for connection charge over 30 years = $30.384k
This means for me to save money my average electricity bill would need to be over $84.4
I know there's a govt incentive at the moment, but still I'd barely break even in 30 years time.
Last edited:
Similar threads
