-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
TM3 new range for LR AWD car: What about us with 3 months old cars?
- Thread starter slave0418
- Start date
Probably the new rating they're using with the 'updates to the motor control' they've discussed.
I doubt anything has changed.
If that's actually the case, I'm curious what the RWD-only model should update to. Unless the motor control only affects the induction FWD motor, it should improve RWD stuff as well.
I doubt anything has changed.
If that's actually the case, I'm curious what the RWD-only model should update to. Unless the motor control only affects the induction FWD motor, it should improve RWD stuff as well.
firebird8302
Member
yerEVan
Active Member
Two days ago mine showed 298 P3D- of rated range, which is higher than it has showed in months. Now today with 32% charge (not sure if that matters), it shows a rated range of 288. What the hell? I think I’m going to ignore this rated range silliness.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
You are confusing rated range with projected range. The projected range is basically a random number generated by the formula:
Rated miles remaining * 245Wh/rmi / (Last 5/15/30 efficiency in Wh/mi)
I would just switch to miles instead of percentage if you want to see a more accurate estimate of your energy remaining (and ignore the Energy Consumption screen). But if you prefer % that is cool.
Regarding the OP - good that they did not update the Performance. Probably with a low take rate they technically could have. Good that the rated range improvements (which are presumably real) are coming to AWD vehicles. I would assume there will also be an increase in rated range with the Performance. Presumably this will be implemented as a change in the consumption constants, and a corresponding actual real improvement in efficiency. Energy available will presumably remain the same as always, but I guess we will see if they changed the discharge minimum/maximum voltages.
Last edited:
yerEVan
Active Member
I use Stats, and it has the calc just like teslafi of the rated range. I am aware of estimated, and that is not what I’m quoting above. My rated range fluctuates daily from 292 to 295. A couple days ago it finally went to 298 now 288.
Holy crap that is a huge image. Sorry about that.
yerEVan
Active Member
Yep. I prefer percentage. I wish it were showing something like 32.9, 32.6, 32.3, 32.0. Just so we know where we are since 1% = 3.1 miles (rated). That would make it inline with when you have the miles showing, instead of % (I’m repeating myself from another post).
Like 287 miles showing should show 92.6% instead of just 92%.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Ah, I thought you were saying your estimated range was 288 miles at 32% (which is obviously possible).
The rated miles is just the best estimate of the BMS of your available energy and it will correlate well with how far you can go...when all other factors are held constant.
So it is just saying that it believes you have about 2kWh less energy available than you had before.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
This isn't true, BTW. For you, 1% = 2.88 rated miles, for example. The meaning of 1% is different for everyone.
Anyway, in regards to the original topic, I don't think there is any way they're going to be able to fudge the EPA numbers without an actual efficiency improvement. At some point they'll have to do a new EPA submission to support this change, I think. They are allowed to use a different formula than the 70% formula, apparently, with EPA approval, so I guess that is a possibility, but it seems doubtful they could get that much without an actual efficiency improvement. And I don't think the "'regen' to 0mph" change is likely to recapture NEARLY enough energy to result in such an improvement - there is nearly zero energy available from 6mph to 0mph (it's proportional to velocity squared!). I think it must have to do with the actual excitation of the motor and efficiency improvements there.
No new documents in the EPA system yet.
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Yeah, if there is an actual drive efficiency improvement I expect the Performance will see the actual effect as well. They probably are not changing the Performance version out of basic decency since obviously it was always way off (and maybe their take rate is high enough on it now that they actually have to call it out differently - but I doubt it).
For all vehicles, it should be interesting to see the step function in the Stats data though it will be difficult to distinguish from the overall seasonal plunge in efficiency.
GenSao
Member
With new range, comes a $500 price increase: https://electrek.co/2019/11/01/tesla-model-3-long-range-increases-range-price/
I updated my chart below. Full data and references can be found here.
I updated my chart below. Full data and references can be found here.
yerEVan
Active Member
I mean 1% rated range based on their site. Clearly my “mileage” varies. I’m using it as an example.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I'm hopeful that my Model 3 LR gets a bump along the lines of the the SR+, so about 4%
The AWD improvement is a different story since Tesla could have optimized the use of rear/forward motors.
The AWD improvement is a different story since Tesla could have optimized the use of rear/forward motors.
yerEVan
Active Member
So without moving the car, sitting in the garage, it’s now down to 30% and rated range is 282 (at 100%), so i will charge it up sometime this wknd, and see what the rated range shows at 90% or 100%, just to see if the percentage has an effect on how the batteries are able to report, or are read, to/from the BMS.
