-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Stealth performance range
- Thread starter GranolaCharge
- Start date
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
The EPA rating for the 2020 Performance AWD with 18” wheels (Stealth) is better than the 2020 AWD 18” rating, FWIW. This is a change from 2019 and 2018 (they used to be the same). You can find all electric vehicles listed at fueleconomy.gov
I would say it might have something to do with the rear motor being different in the Stealth, but then 2019 should have shown a difference between these vehicles.
So not clear why, but it is not a small difference - it’s a bit over 2%.
What you see in the rated miles is not all that important TBH. What really matters is your total available energy and the vehicle efficiency.
Last edited:
That’s a good point you make. I didn’t think to check the EPA ratings and that’s an interesting difference.
I’m guessing the EPA estimates should take into account software limitations too? I’m thinking of the SR vs. SR+ and how the same car has different range based on software being unlocked. No sure how Tesla is treating the P3D-.
I’m guessing the EPA estimates should take into account software limitations too? I’m thinking of the SR vs. SR+ and how the same car has different range based on software being unlocked. No sure how Tesla is treating the P3D-.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
The EPA estimates call out the “range” of each vehicle in addition to the efficiency. It is just calculated from test cycle results. But they voluntarily downrate these numbers sometimes, for some reason. For AWD 2020 it is 322 AWD /322 Perf for 18” flavor, 19” Perf is 304, 20” Perf is 299. Perhaps the 18” Perf range is voluntarily downgraded given the efficiency difference. Perf is nerfed! No idea.
Frankly it is all super confusing. SR and SR+ should have the same efficiency, just different range - I would think. You could argue SR should be better efficiency since the battery is top locked and can always regenerate during the test cycle.
But the SR is worse efficiency. Furthermore, all of the vehicles Tesla is not officially selling have not had their numbers updated from 2019 (SR/MR,LR RWD). Yet, anyway. Maybe never. No idea.
EDIT: for LR RWD 2020 the Efficiency numbers have not changed from 2019, but the range has gone from 310 to 330. Like I said, very hard to follow; very confusing.
Last edited:
I had mobile service come by and they told me that it’s just software. Supposedly if I charge to 100 percent and then discharge to close to 10 percent the range should increase.
I tried emailing customer service and had a moron send me a canned answer that wasn’t even responsive. Don’t think he read my question. After a follow up he said that the range is dynamic and at 100 percent will vary based on driving style.
I really don’t know what to think...
I tried emailing customer service and had a moron send me a canned answer that wasn’t even responsive. Don’t think he read my question. After a follow up he said that the range is dynamic and at 100 percent will vary based on driving style.
I really don’t know what to think...
Allistah
Member
It’s funny that he said it changes based on driving style. Many here in the forums strongly say that driving style has zero effect on the mileage range reported in the car. Who knows what’s right, there is so many distributed pieces of information that you can’t really get any sort of consensus of what’s truth.
Oh yea, I agree. I've been driving like a 16 year old in a stolen vehicle and my range is 310 exactly. It drops off significantly after that and I'm getting nowhere near 310, but it still shows at exactly 90 percent of 310 when it comes off the charger. I don't think the email support person was right. It's hard to get a straight answer.
OP is talking about the change on the Telsa website where Telsa increased the range.
The change is a little puzzling. It is true for the AWD non performance as well.
The 310 in the car is set to what the EPA rating is/was and unrelated to driving style or past driving.
Sometimes it lowers as the battery degrades or the meter gets confused due to charging habits (the later can usually be fixed with a reset)
So far no recent update has improved range.
Appears to be 1 of 2 things: #1 is most likely at least I hope.
1.) A future software update expected this calendar year will increase the range so Telsa updated the website to reflect this for 2020 MY cars being currently purchased. This was rumored to be coming but has not happened yet.
2.) Telsa has changed the website based on new EPA ratings but the car is not capable of any increased range and now the listed range is even more unrealistic than before.
Possible 2B is that they will push software just to change the charging gauge to max at 322 to match newest EPA but the car will not have any increased range at all ; which would be the worst of the options.
The change is a little puzzling. It is true for the AWD non performance as well.
The 310 in the car is set to what the EPA rating is/was and unrelated to driving style or past driving.
Sometimes it lowers as the battery degrades or the meter gets confused due to charging habits (the later can usually be fixed with a reset)
So far no recent update has improved range.
Appears to be 1 of 2 things: #1 is most likely at least I hope.
1.) A future software update expected this calendar year will increase the range so Telsa updated the website to reflect this for 2020 MY cars being currently purchased. This was rumored to be coming but has not happened yet.
2.) Telsa has changed the website based on new EPA ratings but the car is not capable of any increased range and now the listed range is even more unrealistic than before.
Possible 2B is that they will push software just to change the charging gauge to max at 322 to match newest EPA but the car will not have any increased range at all ; which would be the worst of the options.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Again, what matters is total energy available (I think we would know already if Tesla had increased it - so I doubt that has happened), and the vehicle efficiency. They claim the new hold mode improves efficiency - and I guess it does a bit, but that would not be relevant for road trips where it would really matter, but it's possible there is some other efficiency update in the works.
Still unclear how the 322 rated miles for 2020 model year will be achieved. It doesn't sound like 2020 models that have been picked up see that rated range displayed, so that implies that their rated consumption constant is still higher than it may ultimately be. Implying there may still be some efficiency update in the works which would lower the constant and increase the rated miles (with no change in available energy, but a potentially real change in achievable efficiency).
We do!!!!
We've been at this stuff for 6 years or more! Tesla is the only maker of electric cars that doesn't use the "Guess-O-Meter" method, where it jumps around all over the place whether you've been going uphill or down or running the heater or whatever. It's based on a fixed consumption constant. Because all other electric cars except Tesla use that method, I think that's why so many people at Tesla have this wrong, if they have not been specifically educated about that not being the case. Tesla has been growing so fast, most of their people are pretty new, so they may not know some of this stuff.That number of rated miles shifts around a little bit, but it's not based on your history of driving efficiency. It's just difficult to precisely measure the amount of energy contained in the chemical process of a battery. So the estimates move and drift some.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
You may want to follow this thread:
Range increase (split from Master Thread: 2019.40.2)
It does not really matter what the number says as long as you have access to the right amount of energy and the right efficiency. However, right now it is not clear whether there will be some further “efficiency adjustment update” to 2020 vehicles, or whether they already have the right efficiency. My guess is there will be some update coming down the pipe in the next few weeks (which will adjust the constant, and perhaps improve the efficiency if needed), but I really have no idea.
As a counter example, the 2020 3P+ is rated for 298 miles or something. But I would anticipate that it will continue to show 310 miles (or even 322 miles) - and that is ok. But we’ll see - Tesla could adjust the constant upwards there and make it show 298 (that’s what I would do, for sanity). That efficiency difference is primarily due to the tires on that vehicle.
Last edited:
ambudriver03
Member
I took delivery of my p3d- 10 days ago, have since installed TeslaFi, Stats, and ScanMyTesla, and with my 'putting around' my wh/mi is about 250, with some efficiencies could certainly get it down.
ScanMyTesla reports that the pack "Nominal Full Pack" as 77.1 (tested both with low SoC 50% to 100% full, range reads 310, but when going to the energy page, it reports the range remaining more like 325.
for sure, the stealth gets a HUGE boost by NOT having the 20" rims.
ScanMyTesla reports that the pack "Nominal Full Pack" as 77.1 (tested both with low SoC 50% to 100% full, range reads 310, but when going to the energy page, it reports the range remaining more like 325.
for sure, the stealth gets a HUGE boost by NOT having the 20" rims.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Out of curiosity...trying to figure out this works exactly still...what is the size of the buffer reported? I would guess it had to be 4.6kWh or so, but I hadn’t heard it could be that high...so I am expecting more like 3.6kWh...but then I can’t get anything to reconcile...
ambudriver03
Member
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Thanks. To be honest, I can’t fit this data well with my understanding of how things work. It’s not way off, but there are a couple kWh unexplained. I’m not that surprised - I figured there were a few unknowns, particularly with new vehicles, since the numbers from the formulas quite never aligned with the EPA numbers (though I thought that could just be a scaling issue).
Can you post a similar capture with your ~50% SoC (and let me know how many rated miles the car had at the time of the picture)? I assume for the above picture you were at 297 rated miles?
ambudriver03
Member
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
That’s fine. And if you could tell me how many rated miles you had for the capture above, if you know.
And thanks for the Disagree @jonquiljo, you are a real killjoy.
Last edited:
Similar threads
