Tesla Official Statement on Range

[Msjulie]

My car's 82% charge (just now) claims 236 miles but if I were to base it off the original 310 claimed it should show ~254 at this SOC. Early in it's life it did do some longer trips, ie 100% charge but most of the time it was 90% and recently around 80 because of shorter commute so figuring charge less.

I've not done any run-down-full-recharge things to see if it makes any difference. I will admit I wish it didn't seem to have lost as much as it claims it has lost (or can't find).

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

I totally disagree with your statement about Tesla fudging their numbers. Your claims has no facts and is just your opinion and frustration against Tesla.

Actually most of my frustration is towards the EPA, and the amount of leeway they give companies when it comes to EPA range testing. The EPA allows companies to reduce stated range of their vehicles, and there is also an allowance for using the same EPA range on variants whether they have the same range or not. That makes real world comparisons hard.

They're the ones that allowed Tesla to use the same 310 mile EPA range for all the variants of the Model 3 LR despite them having different EPA range.nLike the Model 3 LR RWD one has a real EPA range of well over 310 miles, and the Model 3 Performance with 20inch tires (how its sold) has a real EPA range quite a bit less than the advertised range.

The EPA also has no requirements when it comes to temperature for EV range testing. Now sure temperature doesn't play that big of a role on long range freeway driving (aside from heat), but it plays a large role in daily driving.

I do have the Performance Model 3 performance, and I knew before I bought it what the REAL range is. So I didn't write the previous post out of anger. I wrote it to advise people that Tesla in particular is fairly optimistic when it comes to range. That you likely won't get stated range especially in the winter.

Now maybe a more fact only based approach would work better.

For the summer this chart is pretty accurate.
Tesla Range Table - Teslike.com

It also talks about some of the stuff I find frustrating about the EPA range.

Another way is to simply have them use a better route planner.
A Better Routeplanner

That way they can plug in what their route is, and get a real world range estimate for whatever configuration they have.

 

[Gardyloo]

We always recommend leaving your Tesla plugged in when it’s not in use.

This sounds like advice from someone in southern California, or somewhere else where severe thunderstorms are rare. Is it worth the possible damage to your car even if you have a good surge protector? In Arkansas, I think not.

 

[toolman335]

I'm going to dyno test my range on the highway

I have the LR AWD current model. My data pretty much backs up exactly what they say on the range table. Currently I don' have my Aero caps on. I have a 200+ mile trip this weekend so I'm going to do one leg with and without them.

310 is definitely too vague for the different LR models. I feel bad for you guys on that one.

 

[jjrandorin]

This sounds like advice from someone in southern California, or somewhere else where severe thunderstorms are rare. Is it worth the possible damage to your car even if you have a good surge protector? In Arkansas, I think not.

I would think that anyone who was worried about something like that would have whole home surge protection, but the intent of this thread is to say what Tesla itself says. No one has to listen to the Manufacturer... its your car, you paid for it, you do you.

 

[Gardyloo]

I would think that anyone who was worried about something like that would have whole home surge protection, but the intent of this thread is to say what Tesla itself says. No one has to listen to the Manufacturer... its your car, you paid for it, you do you.

This is an extremely helpful msg. "No one has to listen to the Manufacturer." Really? Please tell me something I don't know.
The point is: Someone is bound to go ahead and do as recommended, probably on the assumption that Tesla has thought it through, and end up frying something. And yes, I know about whole house surge protection which is overkill, don't really need you to point it out. But many reading the post might not even think about any problem with just plug-and-go. My question is whether Tesla has thought it through. I suggest they remove that recommendation until they do and feel confident someone's car is not going to go up in smoke.

 

[jjrandorin]

This is an extremely helpful msg. "No one has to listen to the Manufacturer." Really? Please tell me something I don't know.
The point is: Someone is bound to go ahead and do as recommended, probably on the assumption that Tesla has thought it through, and end up frying something. And yes, I know about whole house surge protection which is overkill, don't really need you to point it out. But many reading the post might not even think about any problem with just plug-and-go. My question is whether Tesla has thought it through. I suggest they remove that recommendation until they do and feel confident someone's car is not going to go up in smoke.

So, in the scenario you describe, does insurance not cover you? How many cars have you lost due to lightning strikes on your home? It would also be safer not to drive your car outside, because of the number of accidents on the road. "dont keep your car plugged in because lightning my strike your house". You make it sound like, where you live, this is a common occurance that happens to a large number of people. Does it?

You obviously are not "that" concerned about it, because if you were, "whole house surge protection is overkill" would not be an issue. If you felt you needed it, you would have it.

 

[Redbird]

I think they should've put the snowflake in directly... right now the reader has to click through to winter driving tips:

Watch for the Snowflake Icon
When your battery is cold, a blue snowflake alert may appear next to your displayed range. This means some of the energy stored in your battery won’t be accessible until your battery heats up to a sufficient temperature. You may also notice that battery power and regenerative braking are limited. Once the battery is warmed, the snowflake will disappear. Charging, driving and preconditioning are all ways to warm your battery quicker.​

This is my first winter with my Model 3. I find the snowflake icon really useful for a number of reasons. Think of it as a heads up, be aware, signal. Thus far the car has performed well down to about minus twenty - no issues but the range loss leads to some anxiety on highway trips. Assume the next couple of months will be colder so that will be the real test.

 

[TheDom]

This sounds like advice from someone in southern California, or somewhere else where severe thunderstorms are rare. Is it worth the possible damage to your car even if you have a good surge protector? In Arkansas, I think not.

As a Floridian I find this level of concern about thunderstorms downright adorable. Our cars are plugged in when not in use.

 

[Gardyloo]

So, in the scenario you describe, does insurance not cover you? How many cars have you lost due to lightning strikes on your home? It would also be safer not to drive your car outside, because of the number of accidents on the road. "dont keep your car plugged in because lightning my strike your house". You make it sound like, where you live, this is a common occurance that happens to a large number of people. Does it?

You obviously are not "that" concerned about it, because if you were, "whole house surge protection is overkill" would not be an issue. If you felt you needed it, you would have it.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I cared what you thought. I wrote this for people who might want to rethink the practice, but especially in case it was picked up by Tesla and led to an editing of the advice to at least make people aware.

But for anyone who thinks this is a remote possibility, recently lightning struck a few feet from car (not Tesla, didn't have one then) striking a brick wall (see image where the strike exploded the bricks as shown and split the double-walled wall front to back). Before that, a strike somewhere near the house took out my computer that was ON. So these things do happen, especially in places where severe CBs are common. Arkansas is one of those places, has the highest per capita tornado fatalities of any state. I will probably keep the car plugged in when I am at home, but plugged into a good surge protector (not just one that says, "surge protector").

 

[jfinephilly]

This is great, but Tesla conveniently failed to provide a reason why a brand new model year xxxx with trim yy doesn’t show the epa estimated range used to sell their products. I have a 2020 LR AWD, how do I know it has a longer range than the 2019 model year of the EPA estimated amount doesn’t reflect this? While I understand the EPA estimate is just that - an estimate - it seems like Tesla is engaging in false advertisement.

 

[toolman335]

This is great, but Tesla conveniently failed to provide a reason why a brand new model year xxxx with trim yy doesn’t show the epa estimated range used to sell their products. I have a 2020 LR AWD, how do I know it has a longer range than the 2019 model year of the EPA estimated amount doesn’t reflect this? While I understand the EPA estimate is just that - an estimate - it seems like Tesla is engaging in false advertisement.

It's definitely borderline false advertising. The 30% rule within a specific model is quite a bit of range difference. Technically they're within the scope of the law, but it's awfully close.

 

[ElectricIAC]

While I appreciate knowing what the theoretical “max” is if you drive on flat roads at 55mph with no wind or other external weather factors, I’d rather see Tesla advertise “range” at their recommended max charge level of 90%. Perhaps it’s not as impressive but at the very least it’s more realistic.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The 30% rule within a specific model

Can you provide a source for this?

There is a 33% rule but not sure that's what you're referring to, and it is totally different than a 30% difference in range.

This table from @Troy has NOT been updated to reflect the new EPA results, but already linked to above:

Tesla Range Table - Teslike.com

From that:

"There is something called the 33% rule. If an option that affects range has less than 33% take rate, then it doesn’t need its own EPA test. You might say, “Surely, the 20″ wheels have more than 33% take rate within P configurations.” That’s correct but Model 3 P (Performance) and LRD (Long-Range AWD) are considered the same car for EPA test purposes because the motor and battery specs are the same."

(This is no longer up-to-date, so the last sentence above is no longer the case with respect to the motor, which is presumably why Tesla is now breaking out those results separately.)

 

[jfinephilly]

@AlanSubie4Life I have the .7 version of the most recent software.

I’m just sure I really buy the fact that I was sold a care with an EPA estimated 322 and somehow Tesla forgot to update the software to show this theoretical range and just happens to match the exact range of previous (and slightly cheaper) model years.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

@AlanSubie4Life I have the .7 version of the most recent software.

I’m just sure I really buy the fact that I was sold a care with an EPA estimated 322 and somehow Tesla forgot to update the software to show this theoretical range and just happens to match the exact range of previous (and slightly cheaper) model years.

What is likely happening is that Tesla did a controlled rollout of the constant adjustments to Performance vehicles (since they are the ones that are most affected). They probably have not yet done the same with the 2020 AWD vehicles (I guess all the reports have been from Stealths and 3P+???...). As a result, you're stuck with the old numbers.

You can always take a picture of the Energy Consumption graph including the three numbers (battery gauge, projected range, recent efficiency) with three significant digits for each, at a 80-90% state of charge, and let us evaluate what might be happening. Also take one showing the % charge concurrently.

As I've said, there's no way to know whether the efficiency is already better (even though you are stuck with the old number)...but I think it's pretty likely that in the near future you will receive an update that makes your rated miles appear higher (and based on the Performance experience, it may actually make a little more energy available as well - in fact that update on the performance would have made the rated miles appear LOWER even with 18" wheels, but it also made MORE energy available (which is really all that matters if you are stuck with the wheels you have) so the net effect was positive). It would be interesting to have the data above each step of the way for a 2020 AWD.

I have no way to know what is going on other than through pictures because I have a 2018 3P+.

 

[toolman335]

I had the % wrong. Yes I am quoting that 33% rule that you stated.
How do you know that is outdated? To me it makes perfect sense because that seems to be how Tesla is carrying it out. You won't find a P3 advertised with less range on its website.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

You won't find a P3 advertised with less range on its website.

The AWD is advertised at 322 and the 3P is advertised at 310 on the website. That is different. They are no longer the same (which was the original statement - specifically the last sentence that was quoted was what I said was out of date). They are no longer considered the same for EPA test purposes (you can also just look at fueleconomy.gov - they are treated differently with different results now).

Why the 20” 3P+ is still advertised at 310 and not 299 per the EPA test, I have no idea. As Elon would say: “It looks so sus.”

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The AWD is advertised at 322 and the 3P is advertised at 310 on the website. That is different. They are no longer the same (which was the original statement - specifically the last sentence that was quoted was what I said was out of date). They are no longer considered the same for EPA test purposes (you can also just look at fueleconomy.gov - they are treated differently with different results now).

Why the 20” 3P+ is still advertised at 310 and not 299 per the EPA test, I have no idea. As Elon would say: “It looks so sus.”

The AWD is now out of the picture...but thinking about this a bit more: it is possible that now the 3P+ has less than 33% take rate and the 3P Stealth makes up more than 66% of the remaining. (I would be surprised but it is possible.) So now it may be that Tesla could advertise the 3P Stealth range while showing a picture of the 3P+. Instead of putting up the 322 value, they split the difference and just say 310 (not sure if you are allowed to voluntarily de-rate even further (Stealth number is actually 332 derated to 322) without official permission though).

 

[toolman335]

Why the 20” 3P+ is still advertised at 310 and not 299 per the EPA test, I have no idea. As Elon would say: “It looks so sus.”[/QUOTE]

Yes this is what I mean^^^
It's less than 322 but there's no way it's getting 310.
Sorry for the confusion.