That's right. Tesla can submit certification info for the cars they're currently selling to employees, and if the cars they sell to current-owners are different, they'll submit the certification for those cars separately before they start sales. TBH, I'm thinking that this is the production version. I don't see why they would have employees driving cars that aren't identical to the production versions, but I could be wrong.
It would kinda defeat the purpose of having the employee version in the first place. 78 vs 75 is only a 4% difference so it's pretty likely that Elon just rounded off when he said the max battery would be 75.
school was quite time ago, but I think:
Did we ever speculate WHY the M3 LR has such a flat curve from 0 to 15/20 MPH compared to every other EV on this graph?So, I did a bit of work on the different models:
View attachment 240184
A note: this is not wall to wheels, or even pack to wheels. It's propulsive energy. It's what you'd have to spend if there were zero powertrain losses and zero parasitic electricity consumption. One can make graphs that add in some assumed parasitic draw and some assumed power consumption, but this one is the pure data - how much force is trying to make the vehicle stop.
At low speeds, the M3 is unimpressive for some reason or another - but at high speeds it's amazingly sleek, bested only by the tiny Prius Prime weirdmobile (only two seats wide in the back). And high speed performance is what matters most when it comes to range.
Heh, the main reason the Prime does well is because (sorry, SageBrush - I know you like it!) it's a small car. It's only a 4-seater, not a 5-seater, so it's significantly narrower (57,9" vs. 76,1"), which means a lower frontal area, which means less aero drag. Its drag coefficient is almost certainly higher than M3, but that's a major reduction in frontal area. Also, its short electric range means less battery weight, while the smaller size also cuts weight.
As for the "weird" aspect... I actually like... no, love... anything that's traditionally considered "weird" but reduces drag. I love sleek, low-drag forms. Shape it like an airplane and you have my heart. The Prius Prime, however, has its weirdness (sorry SageBrush...
There's no drag advantage to that "moustache" tail or those "gills" / "mandibles" on the front. No weight advantage. They just... wanted it to look like that for some reason. And some of the details are just strange. For example, the rear hatch actually contains carbon fibre**.... embossed with a carbon fibre pattern to make it look more "carbon fibery". That's like taking wood and painting wood grain onto it.
Again, though, I don't want to be too hard on it. I have nothing against 4 seaters - I drive a two seater right now! And going to 4 seats so you can narrow the vehicle does indeed reduce drag and mass - just not in as ideal of a manner as reducing Cd does (Cd is 0,25 according to Toyota).
** Cheapo loose fill or "reclaimed" CF rather than fabric. So it doesn't have the traditional CF look without embossing.
That 126 MPGe is a combined city+highway number. You don't want to use it to extrapolate highway range.
It appears that your 76.1" width for the Model 3 includes mirrors, while the Prime width you used did not.
Indeed; and not surprisingly, almost identical EPA highway MPGe
Note: frontal area can't be estimated simply by multiplying width and height. At the very least, the frontal profile should be used (but even that is not really completely accurate due to perspective warp).
All I can say is Musks kWh projections better be exactly accurate for this forum. 1% high and he is "overpromising, underdelivering". 1% low and he is "lying". I can understand why Tesla is trying to get away from kWh. It's only an academically interesting number. Range is what's important.
