[Spoiler Alert + Mild Speculation] Tesla has created a monster!

[KarenRei]

Trying to bring this back on track.... something occurred to me that may explain the EPA filing.

As Zoomit astutely observed, any optional hardware that has an impact on mileage that the company believes will be installed by at least 33% of buyers must be accounted for in the filings, either by default, or by breaking down the vehicle into separate configurations. It seems plausible to me that the reason it's listed as dual motor is... that this actually is describing the results for a dual motor configuration.

This would explain another thing. Tesla stated that they expect the EPA range for the Model 3 LR to be 310 miles. But if you take the charge-depletion miles and multiply by the 0.7 adjustment factor, you get 318, nearly 319 miles. The difference between these two figures would be a reasonable difference between single and dual motor variants.

I don't know if Tesla would also be required to have a filing for the RWD-only variant, and nor do I know how diligent the EPA is about getting filings quickly posted on their website if Tesla has also made RWD-only filings already. But this seems plausible to me.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

I don't think that's the certification for the dual motor 3. If you look at the other EPA CSI reports, Tesla explicitly references dual motors versions of their cars. Also, they need info for the RWD LR submitted to the EPA to sell the car, so if Tesla had certified a dual motor version they would have more than one car in that report because they also need data for the RWD 3. Last but not least, other cars with a single open diff also have "Both" under "Regenerative Braking Source", so that's either a typo, or that field in the XML submission is being overloaded/used for something in addition to whether the front, rear, or both axles are providing regen braking.

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=31451&flag=1

 

[CA_Fabien]

No.
Actually ALL electric motors are AC, magnetic fields must switch or there is no rotation.
There is only one type of electrics motor called DC motors that take direct DC current. They can do that because they have internal mechanical inverter (called commutator) that switches the poles as rotor rotates.
No such DC motors in a production EVs. Where EV motors differ is how they "generate the opposing" magnetic field. AC induction uses induced current that opposes the 'primary' stator field, PM AC motors have permanent magnets.

This goes against scarcity of rare earths... interesting.

Some version of the Renault Zoe has has a DC motor with brush Electric vehicle traction motors without rare earth magnets - ScienceDirect

 

[KarenRei]

Some version of the Renault Zoe has has a DC motor with brush Electric vehicle traction motors without rare earth magnets - ScienceDirect

That article is a great read, thanks for that. I hadn't run across iron nitride magnets before, those sound amazing if they can be brought to mass production, with the possibility of being significantly more powerful than rare-earth magnets and made from dirt-cheap raw materials. Still, they look to be pretty immature.

 

[apacheguy]

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.

IMO, it is more significant than that, but I respect your opinion.

 

[Peter Lucas]

TEG's post on the Monroney stickers for the 3 prompted me to dig around for them. Unfortunately, I came up short in that search, but I found something just as good, maybe even better.

Long story short, Tesla built a monster with the 3! It can put down 258hp, gets 126mpge (confirmed via the picture in TEG's thread), has *roughly 78kWh of usable capacity (80.5kWh rated), and *possibly has 346 miles of city range (1.36x the Bolt's measured city range), and 316 miles of highway range (1.46x the Bolt's measured highway range)! At only $7k+ more than the Bolt, that's kinda brilliant.

I've attached the test data with the figures from Tesla as well as the same reports for the Bolt and Ioniq. Obviously, these aren't the final figures, YMMV, and so on. But... what I'm seeing here is better than Tesla's putting out there, assuming the CSI submission is accurate.

Last but not least, if you can stand setting the cruise control at what I'm guessing is a smidge under 50mph on an open highway, the 3 can probably go well over 400 miles for you.

* I say roughly/possibly because I believe there are three other tests the EPA uses for fuel economy rating that could drag those figures down, who knows which wheels they used for the dyno settings, the production 3s that actually make it to customers might have less of the pack available for use, maybe I have a few typos in my post, other random stuff might change, and so on... YR(ange)MV/YMMV.

"YMMV" is especially true with a Tesla. My 2016 90D gets about 73% of its advertised range in real world driving. And it has been deemed to be "performing normally" by a Tesla technician.

 

[JeffK]

"YMMV" is especially true with a Tesla. My 2016 90D gets about 73% of its advertised range in real world driving. And it has been deemed to be "performing normally" by a Tesla technician.

It could be in how you drive it.

Short story. When I bought my Prius I was only getting about 30 mpg for nearly a year... as I got more experience with it, I'm up to 44 mpg and I don't think I drive any differently. My wife can drive it and gets 49 mpg easily. Now, I don't have a Tesla, but I'm assuming it's the same.

 

[Jack007]

Yep. This would explain why Tesla suddenly went with the "Long Range" designation for the 3.

A Model 3 "80" would have confused customers by appearing better than the S75.

Well a model 3 that goes 310 miles vs a lot less for a S75 seems like that would be quite ez to see it is better (in range)

 

[apacheguy]

Well a model 3 that goes 310 miles vs a lot less for a S75 seems like that would be quite ez to see it is better (in range)

Which is probably why Tesla will soon get rid of the S75 and replace it with the S85.

 

[tomas]

"YMMV" is especially true with a Tesla. My 2016 90D gets about 73% of its advertised range in real world driving. And it has been deemed to be "performing normally" by a Tesla technician.

My experience is Tesla rating pretty close to reality. All ICE cars way underperform EPA mileage ratings if driven hard. EPA is based on prudent acceleration and driving at limit. My BMW X1 gets about half its EPA if driven "normally". My P85 gets much closer to EPA, probably within 15%, driven same way. YMMV is true. But I find it is MUCH further off EPA in my ICE.

 

[JRP3]

Some version of the Renault Zoe has has a DC motor with brush

Proof to support this claim?

 

[TEG]

EPA Reveals How the Tesla Model 3 Gets 310 Miles of Range - ExtremeTech

 

[TEG]

Discussion of Model 3 width moved to here:
Model 3 Width

 

[Brando]

...
Keep in mind though that the highway MPGe includes charging losses which are not relevant for range, so the deduced highway EPA range works out to be up to 126/0.875 = 144 MPGe. Then at 53 kWh usable capacity, 226 EPA highway miles

I could tell you what it will be for me at 6000 feet elevation, but I don't want you to be jelly.

Do Tires measurably impact the mileage? and wind? What about humidity?

I am personally amazed at the detail of the calculations done.
Do ICE vehicles ever get this level of scrutiny?
Almost makes me want to review "significant digits". Almost.
(seems hp ratings were a very big deal too - all seems a little silly, no?)

How about safety ratings? Can't we make that more scientific? JUST KIDDING.

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

TLDR every post
So could the official EPA rating put the SR M3 above 240 miles?

 

[SageBrush]

TLDR every post
So could the official EPA rating put the SR M3 above 240 miles?

no

 

[John Beans]

But you can drive it slow, and get 400 miles, if you wanted to.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

TLDR every post
So could the official EPA rating put the SR M3 above 240 miles?

I think 80% no, 20% maybe, and the no will decrease/maybe will increase over time.

On one hand, if what Tesla submitted to the EPA is accurate, and their 55 battery is similar to the current 75 battery (aka really +5kWh with 2kWh as reserve to prevent bricking), and they're using a car with Sport wheels for the test, then it's possible for the 3 SR to top 240 miles.

The 100D goes 335 miles in 50/50 city/highway based on the EPA's rated range. The 3 LR actually tested better than the 100D in the city and pretty much the same on the highway, but for the sake of simplicity lets assume it's the same and can also go 335 miles (50/50).

In that case, the range of the 3 SR would be (58kWh/78kWh)*335miles = 249 miles. If the test car has Sport wheels and you keep the Aero wheels, that's probably +5-10%, which would put the SR solidly above 250 miles.

At the same time, no one knows if the data Tesla submitted is accurate, or if the car they submitted that data for is the same car they'll sell to customers, both of which could reduce it's range. We also don't know if Tesla will derate the 3 more than it has the S/X because it's a mass-market EV and they want to minimize the perception of range limitations, or to avoid pulling sales away from the S because the 3 has similar/better range. Those situations could put it's EPA rating below 240 miles even if an apples to apples rating would put it above 240 miles.

As time goes by, I expect the 3's rating will converge towards what the CSI figures show for the production cars they sell to customers, but until that point my guess is that the 3 SR will have less than 240 miles of range on the EPA ratings.

 

[miimura]

Tesla has the option to lower their official EPA MPGe and AER figures at their own discretion for any reason they like. They initially sold the Model S 85D without recertifying the numbers higher. Eventually, they did. So, I would expect there to be a completely new set of numbers when the 3-SR is close to being delivered. Those numbers may or may not include the aero wheels. They could legitimately expect less than 33% of the 3-SR buyers to upgrade to the 19" wheels and therefore publish the EPA figures for the 3-SR with the Aero wheels. That could lead to a AER of 240 or more miles.

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

The 100D goes 335 miles in 50/50 city/highway based on the EPA's rated range. The 3 LR actually tested better than the 100D in the city and pretty much the same on the highway, but for the sake of simplicity lets assume it's the same and can also go 335 miles (50/50).

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't these reports indicate that the EPA ratings for the LR will be around 330 miles?
Hence, Tesla's advertised 310 miles is conservative?