URGENT advice needed on range issues with new Model X.

[TD_alseT]

I've experienced high consumption as well. I watched 2 miles of range being used for every mile. As a test, I've turned off the battery pre-conditioning, turned off sentry mode (shouldn't matter), and reset the car. One of the three, or the combination, helped. My consumption is dropped from around 400Wh to low 300s with the same driving habits/routes.

If you sit in your car with everything off, does it sound like the air conditioning is on? I used to hear something running even when the car and AC was off. This is no longer happening, as well, and might have been the problem.

Hello. I purchased a model x long range and I am getting much lesser km to actually drive than the rated range. Sometimes less than half.
When I spoke to Tesla, they were surprised by this deviation from range estimates but have not offered any concrete reason. My usage is around 285 Wh/km (450Wh/mile) which is not very high. They said rated range is determined at about 250.

So why am I loosing more than 2km on my battery for every 1 km actually driven. They said nothing is wrong with battery.

Is this concerning enough to return the car under the 7 day period or this is part of life??
Need to know today please. Thanks and appreciate any quick replies.

 

[RaplhCramden]

ABSOLUTELY tell them you are returning the car. Then explain why. If it is not resolved by the last possible minute you can return the car, return it and buy a new one if you still want to.

It is not your job to serve as a test bed for them to debug what is no doubt an interesting and frustrating problem.

Hello. I purchased a model x long range and I am getting much lesser km to actually drive than the rated range. Sometimes less than half.
When I spoke to Tesla, they were surprised by this deviation from range estimates but have not offered any concrete reason. My usage is around 285 Wh/km (450Wh/mile) which is not very high. They said rated range is determined at about 250.

So why am I loosing more than 2km on my battery for every 1 km actually driven. They said nothing is wrong with battery.

Is this concerning enough to return the car under the 7 day period or this is part of life??
Need to know today please. Thanks and appreciate any quick replies.

 

[Yinn]

Hello. I purchased a model x long range and I am getting much lesser km to actually drive than the rated range. Sometimes less than half.
When I spoke to Tesla, they were surprised by this deviation from range estimates but have not offered any concrete reason. My usage is around 285 Wh/km (450Wh/mile) which is not very high. They said rated range is determined at about 250.

So why am I loosing more than 2km on my battery for every 1 km actually driven. They said nothing is wrong with battery.

Is this concerning enough to return the car under the 7 day period or this is part of life??
Need to know today please. Thanks and appreciate any quick replies.

First things first, your consumption is not high enough for me to be overly concerned about. I have seen consumption as low as 200 kw/mi, and as high as 950 kw/mi depending on my own usage.

That being said, let's do some testing as the MX is rated using at ~320wh/mi number. My own personal experience over tens of thousands of miles has me getting about 375wh/mi on mixed driving in the same general region, but several hundred miles south of you.

1. Go on a 10-15 mile drive, highway only. Consistent level speed at about 55-65mph, keep accerlation and deceleration at a minimum. The goal here is to make sure regen does not have to kick on, and that you don't have to really apply the accelerator. Keep the HVAC off, what consumption do you see? Repeat the drive, drive as normal. What speed are you travelling at, what consumption do you see? This test will tell you if there is something that's actually wrong with the car, or if your general driving habits on highway is the issue. You can even do it a 3rd time switching HVAC on and off to tell the effects of that.

2. Go on a 5 mile drive, local. Turn chill mode on, make sure you see some traffic lights. What consumption do you see? Repeat, with chill mode off. What consumption do you see? This test will tell you if the problem is your right foot on local roads.

3. Drive your normal route, except instead of stopping continue driving for an additional 5 miles - your choice on roads. What consumption do you see? How does that compare to your normal route? This test will tell you if the issue is consumption for battery warm up. The consumption numbers typically spike on initial drive and level out with time. While it doesn't actually reduce consumption, preheating the car will help alleviate range issues when you start moving.

None of this is meant to say - change your driving habits. But allows you to determine if something is indeed wrong. I like to drive the way I drive, and as a result my consumption 20-25% higher than the rated consumption.

 

[ajdelange]

The range of Model X Long Range is over-advertised by 9% if you have the 20" wheels and a lot more if you have the 22" wheels.

Nonsense. The rated range of my X is, after 10 months of ownership, 98.7% of the advertised rated range.

 

[Yinn]

Nonsense. The rated range of my X is, after 10 months of ownership, 98.7% of the advertised rated range.

Couldn't agree more. I've done extensive testing on multiple wheels, tires, with and without tires. Especially with the option to change wheel sizes now, the range on screen is very close to what I get. Even factoring battery degradation, I have over 95% of the advertised range after 3 years and over 50,000 miles of ownership. Even more importantly, I can make the same statement over multiple Teslas.

Fun Fact: Currently I'm on 22" TSportline TSS Wheels using Continental DWS06 tires. At 10,000 miles on those wheels and tires; I'm actually averaging 3wh/mi better than what I have been on 20" OEM wheels and OEM Conti-Silent tires. Hint: It's not the size of the wheels that matter...

 

[mswlogo]

First things first, your consumption is not high enough for me to be overly concerned about. I have seen consumption as low as 200 kw/mi, and as high as 950 kw/mi depending on my own usage.

That being said, let's do some testing as the MX is rated using at ~320wh/mi number. My own personal experience over tens of thousands of miles has me getting about 375wh/mi on mixed driving in the same general region, but several hundred miles south of you.

1. Go on a 10-15 mile drive, highway only. Consistent level speed at about 55-65mph, keep accerlation and deceleration at a minimum. The goal here is to make sure regen does not have to kick on, and that you don't have to really apply the accelerator. Keep the HVAC off, what consumption do you see? Repeat the drive, drive as normal. What speed are you travelling at, what consumption do you see? This test will tell you if there is something that's actually wrong with the car, or if your general driving habits on highway is the issue. You can even do it a 3rd time switching HVAC on and off to tell the effects of that.

2. Go on a 5 mile drive, local. Turn chill mode on, make sure you see some traffic lights. What consumption do you see? Repeat, with chill mode off. What consumption do you see? This test will tell you if the problem is your right foot on local roads.

3. Drive your normal route, except instead of stopping continue driving for an additional 5 miles - your choice on roads. What consumption do you see? How does that compare to your normal route? This test will tell you if the issue is consumption for battery warm up. The consumption numbers typically spike on initial drive and level out with time. While it doesn't actually reduce consumption, preheating the car will help alleviate range issues when you start moving.

None of this is meant to say - change your driving habits. But allows you to determine if something is indeed wrong. I like to drive the way I drive, and as a result my consumption 20-25% higher than the rated consumption.

I agree that experimenting with Chill is a good idea. But your test is way too simplistic. I (or anyone) can get get very poor wh/mi end with Chill Mode on.

Best thing is to probably set the Energy App to 5 Miles range and put the Energy monitor up on the Right Hand side of the instrument display and learn what wastes energy. You can easily beat "EPA" rating with no HVAC (EPA does not do testing with HVAC on).

It's not hard to get under 300 wh/mi (which is what it takes to get EPA rated range).

It's like eating an Ice-cream cone. If you're a biter, it will be gone fast. If you're a licker it will last longer

 

[Troy]

@doghousePVD, @ajdelange, @Yinn,
Neither of you have the Raven version. When I said "the range of Model X Long Range is over-advertised by 9% if you have the 20" wheels" I was talking about the Raven version which is what the OP is asking about.

@doghousePVD,
You have the Model X 100D. That car score 291 mi in EPA highway test at 48 mph and the advertised range is 295 miles. Therefore there is no problem with the advertised range of Model X 100D. If you drive below 48 mph, you might even beat the advertised range.

@ajdelange,
I don't think you are following the discussion. I said the range of the Raven Model X Long Range is over-advertised by 9%. This has nothing to do with how well your battery is holding up in terms of degradation. I'm very well average of degradation works. I run the largest Tesla battery survey here. Your response (which is about degradation) is unrelated to the discussion here. Let me explain what the discussion actually is: You have a Model X 100D and you are from Canada. That car displayed 475 km at 100% when new. Now imagine you took in your car for service and they told you they will upgrade your car to the Raven version for free and agreed. However, instead of making any hardware change, they only changed the displayed range from 475 km to 525 km at 100%. Now suddenly you would realize that rated range is not achievable anymore. If you drive 20 km now you would consume more than 20 km rated range. This is what the OP is experiencing in his Raven Model X Long Range. You might say, the Raven has different hardware, it's not just the same as changing the display on a Model X 100D and calling it an upgrade.

Well, the reality is, the Raven upgrade was mostly fake. For example, in your car, the actual EPA highway score of Model X 100D is 468 km and the car displays 475 km. Therefore it's pretty accurate. In the case of the Raven Model X 100D, the actual score was 479 km and the advertised range is 525 km. There is a huge gap between the actual EPA test score and the advertised range. Because the Model X 75D or 100D don't have this problem, nothing you say is relevant to the Raven Model X.

@Yinn,
You have a Model X 75 which also has a fairly accurate displayed range.

Here is a summary:
Model X 100D: The range is over-advertised by 4 miles.
Model X 75D: The range is over-advertised by 6 miles.
Model X Long Range: The range is over-advertised by 27 miles.

Model X range in mi:

Model X range in km:

 

[Yinn]

I agree that experimenting with Chill is a good idea. But your test is way too simplistic. I (or anyone) can get get very poor wh/mi end with Chill Mode on.

Best thing is to probably set the Energy App to 5 Miles range and put the Energy monitor up on the Right Hand side of the instrument display and learn what wastes energy. You can easily beat "EPA" rating with no HVAC (EPA does not do testing with HVAC on).

It's not hard to get under 300 wh/mi (which is what it takes to get EPA rated range).

I mean, I could get more in depth; but I didn't want to overcomplicate it!

At the end of the day, I personally don't think there is something wrong with his car. As with 99% of the people on here, it comes down to driving habits. As a new car owner, we're often overzealous with the accelerator pedal and chill mode tempers it. Pulling up the energy monitor can show you that mash = more energy use; but it doesn't neccessarily answer the question of - is something wrong? By putting chill mode into play, even if you mash it you should see a decent savings. And if you can get advertised range with chill mode on, then it at least says - the thing wrong with your car is your "whee" meter.

It's like eating an Ice-cream cone. If you're a biter, it will be gone fast. If you're a licker it will last longer

That applies to more than just ice cream.

 

[mswlogo]

I mean, I could get more in depth; but I didn't want to overcomplicate it!

At the end of the day, I personally don't think there is something wrong with his car. As with 99% of the people on here, it comes down to driving habits. As a new car owner, we're often overzealous with the accelerator pedal and chill mode tempers it. Pulling up the energy monitor can show you that mash = more energy use; but it doesn't neccessarily answer the question of - is something wrong? By putting chill mode into play, even if you mash it you should see a decent savings. And if you can get advertised range with chill mode on, then it at least says - the thing wrong with your car is your "whee" meter.



That applies to more than just ice cream.

Totally agree. Including your last comment, ROFL.

In the same spirit as you're last comment. I think you enjoy the hard acceleration more if you don't do it to often.

 

[ajdelange]

@doghousePVD, @ajdelange, @Yinn,
Neither of you have the Raven version. When I said "the range of Model X Long Range is over-advertised by 9% if you have the 20" wheels" I was talking about the Raven version which is what the OP is asking about.

Fair enough. Didn't read carefully enough.

You have the Model X 100D. That car score 291 mi in EPA highway test at 48 mph and the advertised range is 295 miles. Therefore there is no problem with the advertised range of Model X 100D. If you drive below 48 mph, you might even beat the advertised range.

To be precise I have an X100D advertised as at 295. I beat that regularly driving above 48 mph.

I don't think you are following the discussion. I said the range of the Raven Model X Long Range is over-advertised by 9%. This has nothing to do with how well your battery is holding up in terms of degradation.

And my post didn't say anything about degradation. My wife gave me a T shirt that reads: "There are two types of people. Those that can extrapolate." My buddy's wife asked me "What's the other type". I guess you are, like my buddy's wife. In any case I stated that the current estimate of my car's rated range is within a couple of percent of it's advertised range. Someone in the first group would deduce from that that as the cars don't generally get better as they age that my rated miles was better than that when it was new and it was.

You have a Model X 100D and you are from Canada.

I do have a X 100D but I am not from Canada

That car displayed 475 km at 100% when new. It actually displayed 294 mi but I'll hang in to see if I can figure where you are going with this.

Now imagine you took in your car for service and they told you they will upgrade your car to the Raven version for free and agreed. However, instead of making any hardware change, they only changed the displayed range from 475 km to 525 km at 100%.

OK by 10%. That says that instead of the nominal 333 wH/mi for my car I should see 289. And I do see something like that fairly often but my average is 299. So I guess my car was under advertised by 11%

Now suddenly you would realize that rated range is not achievable anymore. If you drive 20 km now you would consume more than 20 km rated range. This is what the OP is experiencing in his Raven Model X Long Range. You might say, the Raven has different hardware, it's not just the same as changing the display on a Model X 100D and calling it an upgrade.

I have to admit that at this point I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, Tesla could change, in S/W the rated Wh/mi "constant" and make it appear that my fully charged range is greater. And I wouldn't see an increase in achievable range. But they could also, in software, change the values of Vfull and Vempty (i.e. by taking away some reserve and some headroom) which would increase the range and I would see that. But in producing the Raven they also replaced an induction motor with a switched reluctance motor and made some improvements to the inverters thus making the new configuration more efficient.

Well, the reality is, the Raven upgrade was mostly fake.

No, they put in a more efficient motor and inverters.

There is a huge gap between the actual EPA test score and the advertised range. Because the Model X 75D or 100D don't have this problem, nothing you say is relevant to the Raven Model X.

I'm just getting more confused. Of course there is a difference. The protocol that is used to determine the rated EPA number is much more demanding than a 48 mph continuous test. Beyond that in your own table the difference is 415 vs 295, a ratio of 1.4 and, for the Raven 425 vs 325 which is a ratio of 1.3 i.e smaller. ???

Now I see that your table shows my car "should" be advertised as having a range of 291 mi. How in heavens name did you come up with that? Are you able to reproduce the EPA protocol? Where did you get Tesla's dynamometer settings? That number is, in fact my current estimated rated range but the range I actually observe is about 10-15% higher than that.

 

[mswlogo]

And my post didn't say anything about degradation. My wife gave me a T shirt that reads: "There are two types of people. Those that can extrapolate." My buddy's wife asked me "What's the other type". I guess you are, like my buddy's wife. In any case I stated that the current estimate of my car's rated range is within a couple of percent of it's advertised range. Someone in the first group would deduce from that that as the cars don't generally get better as they age that my rated miles was better than that when it was new and it was.

That took me a minute

 

[forkee]

i get about 100 mi per full charge on my P90DL, if i were to test the 100% range down to about 6%. average is around 500 wh/mi. I am on 22's in ludicrous mode (chill mode proved to have worse efficiency). my commute is about 10 miles/day and it would last me a full week with phantom drain factored in and no nightly topping off.

 

[Xminus6]

You don’t need any apps.

450 wh/mi is insanely high. My lifetime is 280 wh/mi (lifetime is only 1200 miles though).

Check tire pressure. And you might want to consider Chill Mode to train your foot.

I don't know that it's insanely high but it's definitely high even compared to my older non-Raven model. I think my lifetime average is in the low-mid 300s.

 

[Pale_Rider]

@doghousePVD, @ajdelange, @Yinn,
Neither of you have the Raven version. When I said "the range of Model X Long Range is over-advertised by 9% if you have the 20" wheels" I was talking about the Raven version which is what the OP is asking about.

@doghousePVD,
You have the Model X 100D. That car score 291 mi in EPA highway test at 48 mph and the advertised range is 295 miles. Therefore there is no problem with the advertised range of Model X 100D. If you drive below 48 mph, you might even beat the advertised range.

@ajdelange,
I don't think you are following the discussion. I said the range of the Raven Model X Long Range is over-advertised by 9%. This has nothing to do with how well your battery is holding up in terms of degradation. I'm very well average of degradation works. I run the largest Tesla battery survey here. Your response (which is about degradation) is unrelated to the discussion here. Let me explain what the discussion actually is: You have a Model X 100D and you are from Canada. That car displayed 475 km at 100% when new. Now imagine you took in your car for service and they told you they will upgrade your car to the Raven version for free and agreed. However, instead of making any hardware change, they only changed the displayed range from 475 km to 525 km at 100%. Now suddenly you would realize that rated range is not achievable anymore. If you drive 20 km now you would consume more than 20 km rated range. This is what the OP is experiencing in his Raven Model X Long Range. You might say, the Raven has different hardware, it's not just the same as changing the display on a Model X 100D and calling it an upgrade.

Well, the reality is, the Raven upgrade was mostly fake. For example, in your car, the actual EPA highway score of Model X 100D is 468 km and the car displays 475 km. Therefore it's pretty accurate. In the case of the Raven Model X 100D, the actual score was 479 km and the advertised range is 525 km. There is a huge gap between the actual EPA test score and the advertised range. Because the Model X 75D or 100D don't have this problem, nothing you say is relevant to the Raven Model X.

@Yinn,
You have a Model X 75 which also has a fairly accurate displayed range.

Here is a summary:
Model X 100D: The range is over-advertised by 4 miles.
Model X 75D: The range is over-advertised by 6 miles.
Model X Long Range: The range is over-advertised by 27 miles.

Model X range in mi:

Model X range in km:

I keep seeing this table quoted a gospel but it is not what I experience in my X Raven LR. For example at 65, I can easily beat the rated range. Going 70 I hit about the rated range if not a little better. This is on 20” wheels.

 

[mswlogo]

I keep seeing this table quoted a gospel but it is not what I experience in my X Raven LR. For example at 65, I can easily beat the rated range. Going 70 I hit about the rated range if not a little better. This is on 20” wheels.

I agree. I beat that Chart (by a lot) doing 65 mph on both Model 3 and Raven X (also 20” wheels).

 

[dannycamps]

Let's also keep in mind that any drag on the car will cause an increase in the wh/mi. Go for a drive and then see if any of your tires are unusually warm. You may have a sticking/stuck caliper which is dragging on the car requiring more energy to move it and lower than usual range.

Regarding the range, I've never gotten anywhere near the rated range. Usually on my long trips I budget for 1.5x the amount of miles needed.

 

[balefire]

In order to get rated range you need to drive about 333 wh/mi.

Adjust your driving style to meet that number and see what happens over longer than 20 min drive.

Also in colder weather pre warm the car.