Tips on how I averaged~190 wh/mi for 17,000 miles (so far...)

[Dr. J]

Isn't that a little bit of apples vs oranges? The P3D is AWD and what you're calling Model 3 LR is RWD. So, I assume that is the preview model as when I ordered and configured mine there were no RWD car options available. Well, now I think about it, I'm not positive but pretty close. So how much of those graphs reflect RWD v AWD performance and efficiency? No snark intended, honest question.

1. That's not my graph; it's from abetterrouteplanner.com.
2. I was responding to Creighton, who said, "Does anyone know of a graph/visualization that shows power consumption at 1mph intervals from 45MPH-80MPH?"
3. Since he AFAIK drives an LR RWD, the graph addressed his concern.

I don't understand your question. The graphs show what they are labelled to show, and the data is from people who participate in the abetterrouteplanner.com data gathering. It's real world data.

 

[--1--]

How did you like your 2012 Prius Plugin? That's precisely what I traded in for my Model 3 AWD. I, pretty much, saw 9 miles/charge. It's up to what, 25 miles/charge now? I haven't done any real long road trips but my sense is tesla.com/trips is pretty conservative on remaining miles at suggested recharge points. I'd be very nervous even going to a hypothetical 10% remaining level. At 80% it claims 250. I'd be nervous taking it much over 250 miles on a charge. Of course in Winter all that goes out the window.

I purchased my 2012 Prius Plug In, new in Jan 2013. At that time, only two real EVs, Tesla Model S, and the Nissan Leaf. The Prius Plug In was a alternative, with about 14 miles EV range. I have a 9.6 mile one way commute to work, and it took a lot of effort to drive all EV. At one point I was about 75% all EV and 25% gas. Must say, I got burned out with it. I still have the Prius, charge it after every use, but drive it normally. Successor to the Prius was a 2014 BMW 13 BEV with eighty mile range, then my current Chevy Bolt with 234 mile range, and now my Tesla Model 3 Performance. With each increase in EV range, I'm less concerned maximizing EV range, but I still drive conservatively. My thoughts, just another charge away from many more miles.

 

[mrwuffles]

I recently spoke with a friend about his efficiency experience with his M3 LR, so he was surprised to hear I was getting ~430-470 miles of range per charge consistently for the greater part of the 9 months I’ve owned my LR M3 RWD.
...
View attachment 418838 View attachment 418839

Do you use Stats app for iPhone or TeslaFi, etc? I'd be interested in knowing where your efficiency falls in the distribution curve. On Stats, I'm in top 10% and I feel like I mash the accelerator fairly often. I do usually only go 5 mph or 10% over, unless that's too slow for traffic.

 

[Creighton]

Do you use Stats app for iPhone or TeslaFi, etc? I'd be interested in knowing where your efficiency falls in the distribution curve. On Stats, I'm in top 10% and I feel like I mash the accelerator fairly often. I do usually only go 5 mph or 10% over, unless that's too slow for traffic.

Just downloaded the app when I joined the forum about 10 days ago! Basically, I fall into the 0.2-0.00% percentile for efficiency

Even though this is just the last 10 days, it's nearly 100% representative of the 17,000 miles (sans winter)

 

[wcorey]

I purchased my 2012 Prius Plug In, new in Jan 2013. At that time, only two real EVs, Tesla Model S, and the Nissan Leaf. The Prius Plug In was a alternative, with about 14 miles EV range. I have a 9.6 mile one way commute to work, and it took a lot of effort to drive all EV. At one point I was about 75% all EV and 25% gas. Must say, I got burned out with it. I still have the Prius, charge it after every use, but drive it normally. Successor to the Prius was a 2014 BMW 13 BEV with eighty mile range, then my current Chevy Bolt with 234 mile range, and now my Tesla Model 3 Performance. With each increase in EV range, I'm less concerned maximizing EV range, but I still drive conservatively. My thoughts, just another charge away from many more miles.

View attachment 420111

We are in New England and in the winter simply starting the car starts the engine. I did change the tires from the Michlin High Energy stock tires to Nokian WRG-3s. That killed the mileage bringing it to 9. I had a 100mile round trip commute and in the summer I'd see around 75 mpg. Now we're retired, I want a car that can, at least in theory, drive itself. Staying centered in a lane and doing highway driving suffices for now. In a few years I want to be able to say drive to grocery store and it'll do it.

 

[mrwuffles]

Just downloaded the app when I joined the forum about 10 days ago! Basically, I fall into the 0.2-0.00% percentile for efficiency

Even though this is just the last 10 days, it's nearly 100% representative of the 17,000 miles (sans winter)

View attachment 421256 View attachment 421257

Wow, that's wild. Thanks for replying. I have no hope

 

[Bloomj]

Since I started reading this thread I have been comparing my wh/mi readout. I have yet to see any drive (short or long) at under 200wh/mi average. Most of mine are around 230wh/mi. I don't drive fast or accelerate quickly. When I'm on highway routes I keep speed between 60 and 70 (to keep from getting run over). Yesterday I was on a divided state road with a 55mph speed limit. I set cruise at 58mph the entire 30 miles (plus some city driving to and from that highway) and I still was well above 200wh/mi. Am I doing something wrong? The windows are up, tire pressures correct, using chill mode, ac set to 70-72.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Since I started reading this thread I have been comparing my wh/mi readout. I have yet to see any drive (short or long) at under 200wh/mi average. Most of mine are around 230wh/mi. I don't drive fast or accelerate quickly. When I'm on highway routes I keep speed between 60 and 70 (to keep from getting run over). Yesterday I was on a divided state road with a 55mph speed limit. I set cruise at 58mph the entire 30 miles (plus some city driving to and from that highway) and I still was well above 200wh/mi. Am I doing something wrong? The windows are up, tire pressures correct, using chill mode, ac set to 70-72.

Looking at your post history it appears you have an AWD? If so, that's your problem; it is going to be something like 20Wh/mi worse than a RWD vehicle, and even worse than the lightweight RWD vehicles. It's 400-500 pounds heavier than the SR (and ~250 pounds heavier than the LR RWD) and it has to spin those front driveshafts and motor rotor. Getting less than 200Wh/mi is not going to happen, except at low, constant speeds.

 

[mrwuffles]

Looking at your post history it appears you have an AWD? If so, that's your problem; it is going to be something like 20Wh/mi worse than a RWD vehicle, and even worse than the lightweight RWD vehicles. It's 400-500 pounds heavier than the SR and it has to spin those front driveshafts and motor rotor. Getting less than 200Wh/mi is not going to happen, except at low, constant speeds.

Maybe on something like 101 from SFO to OR. I got >40 mpg in a Jeep Cherokee

 

[navguy12]

The trip computer counts energy any time the car is "on," even if it isn't moving.

My experience in a 55 minute traffic jamb on HWY 401 just east of Kingston on 22 Nov 2018 (at -23c) differs from this.

Stopped dead for very long(ish) periods of time, the crawl was about 1.2 kms in 55 minutes.

The battery chewed thru 3% of energy, but my Wh/km did not appreciably change.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

My experience in a 55 minute traffic jamb on HWY 401 just east of Kingston on 22 Nov 2018 (at -23c) differs from this.

Stopped dead for very long(ish) periods of time, the crawl was about 1.2 kms in 55 minutes.

The battery chewed thru 3% of energy, but my Wh/km did not appreciably change.

That's weird. I've checked this specific thing: put the car in drive, sat stationary, turned heat up to max. Then started moving to see what happened with the Wh/mi. And then compared to a control (no heat). As I remember, it seemed to count (MUCH higher number with the heat on!) as long as the car was in drive when the heat was on.

Easy enough experiment to reproduce anyway, even in summer. Maybe I'm wrong. Just turn heat to max so it is not under closed-loop control and reproduce the experiment.

 

[navguy12]

That's weird. I've checked this specific thing: put the car in drive, sat stationary, turned heat up to max. Then started moving to see what happened with the Wh/mi. And then compared to a control (no heat). As I remember, it seemed to count (MUCH higher number with the heat on!) as long as the car was in drive when the heat was on.

Easy enough experiment to reproduce anyway, even in summer. Maybe I'm wrong. Just turn heat to max so it is not under closed-loop control and reproduce the experiment.

My usual "commute" is 7 km (one way) to the local YMCA.

There are five traffic lights I must navigate thru.

The first one always involves having to wait one cycle to make a left hand turn (two lane highway "tee" intersection, no left turn lane).

This first "stop" is three km from home and about three minutes into the drive.

If the energy used per km in the trip odometer was "active" while at that first stop, the trip Wh/km would start to climb as I have only had three km and three minutes under my belt.

Same scenario in winter with the heat going, after such a short initial leg one would expect to see the Wh/km climb as I sit at that first intersection using the extra 60 Wh/km running the heat.

The Wh/km number continues to improve as the journey continues, because IMO the energy being used while at a full stop is not being added.

In any event, it's just an esoteric exercise in numbers on a screen.

I wanted to capture all my energy inputs and, once a month, compare it to the monthly trip odometer.

My latest results:

Mike's monthly Model 3 efficiency report

Of course, YMMV.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The fronts do not need any spacers. They fit.

This first "stop" is three km from home and about three minutes into the drive.

If the energy used per km in the trip odometer was "active" while at that first stop, the trip Wh/km would start to climb as I have only had three km and three minutes under my belt.

Same scenario in winter with the heat going, after such a short initial leg one would expect to see the Wh/km climb as I sit at that first intersection using the extra 60 Wh/km running the heat.

Not necessarily. Likely the heat is running at max output at first, but after having dialed back after running for 3km, you might well continue to see lower Wh/mi numbers as time goes on, because the heat is running at a lower power since things are already partially warmed up.

In general, in cold conditions, I would always expect Wh/mi to improve as the length of the journey increases due to this phenomenon.

But anyway, I am not 100% sure, but as I said it's an easy experiment to do to confirm. Obviously if you ever do go into park it stops counting.

In addition, as you know, the numbers do not continuously update, so you should not necessarily expect numbers to go up especially when you are sitting stationary (I don't know the exact algorithm for the updating, but it appears to usually be related to when the odometer reading changes on the trip meter).

I've looked at your efficiency report before, it's very detailed and useful!

 

[Bloomj]

Looking at your post history it appears you have an AWD? If so, that's your problem; it is going to be something like 20Wh/mi worse than a RWD vehicle, and even worse than the lightweight RWD vehicles. It's 400-500 pounds heavier than the SR (and ~250 pounds heavier than the LR RWD) and it has to spin those front driveshafts and motor rotor. Getting less than 200Wh/mi is not going to happen, except at low, constant speeds.

That explains it. I guess I have to suffer will less efficiency! Oh well. I ordered what was available on the website and didn’t think much about it. A RWD would have been better since I don’t live in the snowy areas.

 

[navguy12]

Not necessarily. Likely the heat is running at max output at first, but after having dialed back after running for 3km, you might well continue to see lower Wh/mi numbers as time goes on, because the heat is running at a lower power since things are already partially warmed up.

In general, in cold conditions, I would always expect Wh/mi to improve as the length of the journey increases due to this phenomenon.

But anyway, I am not 100% sure, but as I said it's an easy experiment to do to confirm. Obviously if you ever do go into park it stops counting.

In addition, as you know, the numbers do not continuously update, so you should not necessarily expect numbers to go up especially when you are sitting stationary (I don't know the exact algorithm for the updating, but it appears to usually be related to when the odometer reading changes on the trip meter).

I've looked at your efficiency report before, it's very detailed and useful!

Cheers.

I figure my TM3 energy costs of three cents per km, all in, versus 5.7 cents per km for fuel in my old Prius makes it easy to not worry about what are essentially rounding errors over the life of the TM3.

 

[Creighton]

More efficiency data for the curious minds on TMC. 100% percentile efficiency

 

[Creighton]

Wow, that's wild. Thanks for replying. I have no hope

I am interested in seeing, since my efficiency has now been reported amongst Stats (iOS) users, if any other users with similar efficiencies are around to post here. I'd like to get insight from another hypermiler.

 

[darth_vad3r]

If the energy used per km in the trip odometer was "active" while at that first stop, the trip Wh/km would start to climb as I have only had three km and three minutes under my belt.

[…] IMO the energy being used while at a full stop is not being added.

In any event, it's just an esoteric exercise in numbers on a screen.

... but this is (some of) what (some of us) live for! (sometimes)

I disagree with your conclusion, the Wh/km doesn’t climb while sitting at the intersection because the trip meter doesn’t update until the km ticks up, but the energy being used at the intersection is still be counted by the internal watt-hour-meter.

I’ve done short tests like @AlanSubie4Life described with the heater maxed while stationary in drive. My experience is that energy used while in drive is all counted, but the trip display does not update until the next tick up in km.

You can replicate the test with a trip as short as 200m, start at 0.0km with a brief stop while the trip is at 0.1km. If you max the heat and sit still at 0.1km (in drive) when you drive a bit more and tick up to 0.2km the Wh/km will have skyrocketed.

Repeat the same test with the same stop but with no heat to compare.

e.g. If 6kW of heat for 1 minute, that’s 100 Wh used ... over 0.2km that will add 500 Wh/km to your trip meter.

 

[navguy12]

... but this is (some of) what (some of us) live for! (sometimes)

I disagree with your conclusion, the Wh/km doesn’t climb while sitting at the intersection because the trip meter doesn’t update until the km ticks up, but the energy being used at the intersection is still be counted by the internal watt-hour-meter.

I’ve done short tests like @AlanSubie4Life described with the heater maxed while stationary in drive. My experience is that energy used while in drive is all counted, but the trip display does not update until the next tick up in km.

You can replicate the test with a trip as short as 200m, start at 0.0km with a brief stop while the trip is at 0.1km. If you max the heat and sit still at 0.1km (in drive) when you drive a bit more and tick up to 0.2km the Wh/km will have skyrocketed.

Repeat the same test with the same stop but with no heat to compare.

e.g. If 6kW of heat for 1 minute, that’s 100 Wh used ... over 0.2km that will add 500 Wh/km to your trip meter.

I'll try it this fall when there is a call for heat.

I did day dream about having two TM3s driving a 10 km route, side by side or one behind the other......both HVAC settings would be exactly the same and the cars would drive in a manner that they would seem tethered........but one of the cars would always select "park" at every single stop while the other car stays in "drive".

If my opinion was correct, the energy used as shown on the trip odometer would appear exactly the same.

If your hypothesis was correct, the car kept in "drive" would show a significantly higher energy used versus the car always going into "park".

I know on the other forum, some folks have been drilling down into the CANBUS data for the ability to monitor all sorts of stuff....maybe I should ask this as an off topic question there.

 

[darth_vad3r]

I'll try it this fall when there is a call for heat.

I did day dream about having two TM3s driving a 10 km route, side by side or one behind the other......both HVAC settings would be exactly the same and the cars would drive in a manner that they would seem tethered........but one of the cars would always select "park" at every single stop while the other car stays in "drive".

If my opinion was correct, the energy used as shown on the trip odometer would appear exactly the same.

If your hypothesis was correct, the car kept in "drive" would show a significantly higher energy used versus the car always going into "park".

I know on the other forum, some folks have been drilling down into the CANBUS data for the ability to monitor all sorts of stuff....maybe I should ask this as an off topic question there.

You don't need to wait til fall, you only need 200 metres of space, and a couple minutes to verify. You don't need to max heat to notice, roll the windows down, turn the heat up a bit. If you don't want to have the heat on, use max AC for 5 minutes - it should still be noticeable.

1. Drive 100m.
   a. HVAC should be off. From a stop, reset the 'since' trip.
   b. Drive slowly 100m until trip meter ticks up from 0.0km to 0.1km.
   c. Stop the car.
   d. Leave it in Drive (for test variants A and B. For variant C put it into Park instead).
   
   [The trip meter will probably read something high like 0.1 km, 200 Wh/km]
   .
2. Stay stopped for a couple minutes.
   a. While stopped, use some extra energy (HVAC suits us nicely). e.g. Turn the heat up a bit, roll the windows down if necessary, wait 1-2 minutes, turn the heat off. If you prefer AC, max AC for 5+ minutes.
   b. Turn HVAC back off after X minutes (1-2 for heat, 5+ for AC).
   
   
3. Drive another 100m.
   a. Drive slowly until the trip meter ticks up from 0.1km to 0.2km.
   
   [The trip meter will register something REALLY high like 0.2 km, 800 Wh/km]

Variations:

A. As described above.
B. Repeat the test sitting for a couple minutes in Drive, but with no HVAC on (skip step 2a).
C. Repeat the test with "1d" put into Park but still using HVAC while stopped.​

(B) and (C) should both show some low number like 2-300 Wh/km while A should show a crazy high number like 7-900 Wh/km.

For context, my lifetime Wh/km is mid 150's. My commute can vary from as low as 120-130 and as high as 160-170 depending on speed and conditions.