Wh/km (or mi) / range grossly mis-advertised, if not fraudulent... srsly.

[sleepydoc]

Just a public reminder that these stats don’t include time spent in park or drain while the car is parked (can be significant depending on how much battery heating is required), nor do they include charging losses. In my experience this is minimum 30% to much more than this in winter, but I do enjoy that pre-heating.

Yes - these are pretty ideal conditions. Ambient temps were such that there was minimal heating or A/C needed and no heating of the battery needed to drive. I charge in our garage overnight so there's also no need to heat the battery for super charging.

Pre-heating in the winter is nice but clearly costs something. of course, if you use remote start to pre-heat your ICE car there's a significant cost, too.

 

[GBMaryland]

As someone pointed out in another forum I frequent, if we believe that we are taking the first steps to saving the planet….then refusing to do it because it is inconvenient is madness

Given how much I’m burning through tires in white Tesla, I’m not entirely positive how much saving the planet I’m really doing….

 

[GBMaryland]

As I've said before, if you can charge at home than chances are you spend LESS total time charging than filling an ICE car with gas.

Assume you fill the tank once a week, and it takes 5 mins (which is fast) .. that means approx 250 minutes, or FOUR HOURS each year filling that gas tank. With an EV charging at home you have ZERO time charging except long distance trips. And guess what? Every couple of hours when *I* drive long distance I need that 20-25 minute break anyway.

If you do any road trips whatsoever, you are going to spend a lot of time charging your car. this will especially be true if you are dealing with any sort of freezing weather conditions.

I had a real eye-opener this year when I drove up north in the Pennsylvania from Maryland only to find that the temperatures were 20°. Efficiency of charging the battery and overall range decreased substantially. I even ran into situations where the car preheated the battery for charging and I got to a charger and the thing took two hours to charge the car. (Probably something to do with the charger itself, and it subsequently happened to be one other time…)

There is no doubt that having an ICE car is vastly superior to a Tesla, if time constraints are involved. A simple trip to New Jersey ends up adding about 1-1.5hrs extra to round-trip…. 200 miles each way, you need enough energy when you arrive for any sort of local driving….

 

[drtimhill]

If you do any road trips whatsoever, you are going to spend a lot of time charging your car. this will especially be true if you are dealing with any sort of freezing weather conditions.

I had a real eye-opener this year when I drove up north in the Pennsylvania from Maryland only to find that the temperatures were 20°. Efficiency of charging the battery and overall range decreased substantially. I even ran into situations where the car preheated the battery for charging and I got to a charger and the thing took two hours to charge the car. (Probably something to do with the charger itself, and it subsequently happened to be one other time…)

There is no doubt that having an ICE car is vastly superior to a Tesla, if time constraints are involved. A simple trip to New Jersey ends up adding about 1-1.5hrs extra to round-trip…. 200 miles each way, you need enough energy when you arrive for any sort of local driving….

So buy an ICE car and be happy, no-one is stopping you As for me, as I noted, pretty much on all my long trips (Seattle to SF for example, WAY longer than 200 miles!) I find that I need a break of 20 mins or so just about when its time to stop and charge.I stretch my legs, go grab coffee, and relax for a bit .. something I dont consider a "waste" of time. If your personality is less patient, then yes, you need an ICE car.

 

[DuncanM]

If you do any road trips whatsoever, you are going to spend a lot of time charging your car. this will especially be true if you are dealing with any sort of freezing weather conditions.

I had a real eye-opener this year when I drove up north in the Pennsylvania from Maryland only to find that the temperatures were 20°. Efficiency of charging the battery and overall range decreased substantially. I even ran into situations where the car preheated the battery for charging and I got to a charger and the thing took two hours to charge the car. (Probably something to do with the charger itself, and it subsequently happened to be one other time…)

There is no doubt that having an ICE car is vastly superior to a Tesla, if time constraints are involved. A simple trip to New Jersey ends up adding about 1-1.5hrs extra to round-trip…. 200 miles each way, you need enough energy when you arrive for any sort of local driving….

I've driven my LFP M3 in central BC in colder weather than yours and my range dropped about 10-20% and charging time increased by about the same. A 200 mile (400 mile round trip) trip would not add any extra time if I charge and have a meal at the same time, for example at the destination. After a 200 mile drive, a ~10 minute stop at a V3 SC will increase SOC by about 40% which is plenty for around town driving. The return trip would consist of 2 - 10-12 minute charging stops, if there was no meal break, but given the need for restroom breaks, the charging stops will likely not add more than a few minutes extra time compared to an ICE vehicle. I only need enough charge to get me to the next charging stop or home.

also see my post here:

Wh/km (or mi) / range grossly mis-advertised, if not fraudulent... srsly.

So my point exactly, the problem is infrastructure (and mindset)

teslamotorsclub.com

 

[Bouba]

When it’s cold out...the need to pee increases

 

[GBMaryland]

I've driven my LFP M3 in central BC in colder weather than yours and my range dropped about 10-20% and charging time increased by about the same. A 200 mile (400 mile round trip) trip would not add any extra time if I charge and have a meal at the same time, for example at the destination. After a 200 mile drive, a ~10 minute stop at a V3 SC will increase SOC by about 40% which is plenty for around town driving. The return trip would consist of 2 - 10-12 minute charging stops, if there was no meal break, but given the need for restroom breaks, the charging stops will likely not add more than a few minutes extra time compared to an ICE vehicle. I only need enough charge to get me to the next charging stop or home.

also see my post here:

Wh/km (or mi) / range grossly mis-advertised, if not fraudulent... srsly.

So my point exactly, the problem is infrastructure (and mindset)

teslamotorsclub.com

Pretty much everything has to work as advertised... Your designation charger has to be available (my trip to NJ didn't have that, so I had to charge to nearly 100% to be ok at the destination and able to get back to a charger), the weather was freezing (so I needed to charge more frequently), and it took about 30-40 minutes to charge the car at each of the mid-way points.

No matter how you slice it, an EV is not a good competitor for timeliness compared to an ICE vehicle. I love my Tesla, but it's not as convenient on long trips, or trips with sparse charger availability at the destination.

...and then you add Tesla's reported shenanigans and we get EV resistance from the masses.

What WILL solve this issue is the eventual availability of solid state batteries in our cars.

 

[DuncanM]

Pretty much everything has to work as advertised... Your designation charger has to be available (my trip to NJ didn't have that, so I had to charge to nearly 100% to be ok at the destination and able to get back to a charger), the weather was freezing (so I needed to charge more frequently), and it took about 30-40 minutes to charge the car at each of the mid-way points.

No matter how you slice it, an EV is not a good competitor for timeliness compared to an ICE vehicle. I love my Tesla, but it's not as convenient on long trips, or trips with sparse charger availability at the destination.

...and then you add Tesla's reported shenanigans and we get EV resistance from the masses.

What WILL solve this issue is the eventual availability of solid state batteries in our cars.

I have a CCS1 adapter and keep it in the car which expands my charging options. And on a 200 + 200 mile (round trip) road trip I really only need to charge once (at an average 60mph or twice at an average 84mph (max true speed with AP engaged) and each charging stop would be 10-15 minutes at a V3/V2 SC station.

I've done enough 2000 mile+ road trips to know that I'm not losing much, if any time, if I plan the route with some attention to detail. I use my CCS1 adapter as needed, and sometimes when I don't need to, just to gain experience with non-Tesla charging options.

It might help if you do some planning with A Better Route Planner (and enter your own car's consumption figures since it tends to overestimate) play around with the charging frequency vs time options. Plugshare will show all the charging options at a glance.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Pretty much everything has to work as advertised... Your designation charger has to be available (my trip to NJ didn't have that, so I had to charge to nearly 100% to be ok at the destination and able to get back to a charger), the weather was freezing (so I needed to charge more frequently), and it took about 30-40 minutes to charge the car at each of the mid-way points.

No matter how you slice it, an EV is not a good competitor for timeliness compared to an ICE vehicle. I love my Tesla, but it's not as convenient on long trips, or trips with sparse charger availability at the destination.

...and then you add Tesla's reported shenanigans and we get EV resistance from the masses.

What WILL solve this issue is the eventual availability of solid state batteries in our cars.

Or just more charging infrastructure.

Everything you mention in the first paragraph is infrastructural.

Yes, more time, and it will always take more time, but more infrastructure makes the trips easier and naturally helps to optimize charging.

 

[DuncanM]

We did a ~400 mile road trip on Thursday last. Portal AZ->Douglas-Bisbee-Tombstone-Tucson (Starizona)->Rita Rd Supercharger (V2)-> Willcox Supercharger (V2)->Roadforks NM (I-10->Hwy80)->Portal. All at 5mph over on undivided Hwys and 10 over on the I-10 (84mph true). We had driven 220 miles before our first 10min charging stop (with 10% SOC remaining) which included ~80 miles at ~80mph on the I-10. We arrived at our 2nd charging stop with 8% SOC and charged for another 10min (to ~45%) and arrived home with 8% SOC after another 105 miles of driving.

 

[Hiline]

Or just more charging infrastructure.

Everything you mention in the first paragraph is infrastructural.

Yes, more time, and it will always take more time, but more infrastructure makes the trips easier and naturally helps to optimize charging.

Or just people realizing the superiority of EVs, all things considered, over time. Most people don't go on road trips often. It's a bit odd to give undue weight to something you do maybe 10% of the time. The additional inconvenience on road trips, if there's any, is more than worth the terrific driving and ownership experience for the rest of the year. This is all just natural resistance to change.

 

[GeorgeSymonds]

Not what you think of this youtube video - if I undertand it they've effectively taken the rated efficiency and the 30 mile recent average effeciancy, both reported via the API, and worked out how close they are across an average of lots of data points. And the results they publish suggests for the LFP (maybe it was Standard range) cars the EPA figure is almost exactly the "real world" average as reported using the last 30 miles metric you can get ont he energy screen, the Long Range cars are 5 % down, and the older MS and MY and performance cars further off but probbaly because of the way they've been driven. They do point to a +/- swing of 30% on the real world efficiency, so we're not going to get rated on every trip which is logical.

Maybe we only notice the poorer efficiency on longer faster drives because of the higher speeds and when range generally matters most? My experience driving a 2022 MY LR is that I've averaging just under 10% worse long term, its definitely worse on a long trip when I'm driving a fair bit faster but on shorter town driving I'm generally under the rated figure, but I don't care much about the short trips because its easier to charge, its the long trips where I look at the data the most..

 

[Texas]

I can confirm that the advertised range is nowhere near real-life range.

I have driven 3 different models over the past 3 years, M3LR, M3P and MX.
First I had my battery indicator set to estimated available range left in KM.
But it was too misleading. Everytime I wanted to make a trip I had to charge in between because I would not get the estimated range that was provided at the start of the trip.

The M3LR would say 380-403km on a full charge, but I would probably only get to 235-265.
The M3P would give me about the same amount of KM on a full charge, but it would only get me to 200-215km.
The MX would give me 455km on a full charge and it would get me to 300-315. So in terms of range the MX was the best.

I must say, I had these cars from november up until march. The average temperature is around 5-8 degrees C. So temp could have had a serious effect on the battery. I have no garage, so the cars were standing outside all night with charger plugged in.
Also... I love the performance of the cars. I like the acceleration. On the highway I probably drive 125-135km/h (78-82 mph).
I mostly do short trips like 15 minutes max to get to work.

Those combined are probably the reason I only get 55-65% of the advertised range.

Is the advertised range wrong? I guess not because you could get the range in perfect conditions.
But if you drive your Tesla a bit sporty (like what it was meant for) you will not get that range.
Heating the car or the seats, having the AC on or off does help like a small percentage, but in the end it comes down to how you drive the car and the outside temperature.

I feel your frustration, I was frustrated at first too. But all EV manufacturers do it. I had a hybrid BMW last year (X5 45e) with an advertised electric range of 70-80km. I never got to 65.
If you put the car in chill mode, don't accelerate that much, have a speed limit of 110km/u (70mph) and wait until its 15 degrees C outside, your probably going to get 75-85% of range.

I did some tests years ago to discover the true range of my former 2015 Model S P85D. The maximum I could achieve was about 90% of the EPA range, with freeway components at 60 mph on cruise control. Air conditioning was on the whole time. All driving was easy and moderate, ńo aggressive acceleration or high speeds. My normal driving produces much lower ranges--why have a high performance car like my current MS Plaid and not have some fun driving it?

 

[GeorgeSymonds]

I did some tests years ago to discover the true range of my former 2015 Model S P85D. The maximum I could achieve was about 90% of the EPA range, with freeway components at 60 mph on cruise control. Air conditioning was on the whole time. All driving was easy and moderate, ńo aggressive acceleration or high speeds. My normal driving produces much lower ranges--why have a high performance car like my current MS Plaid and not have some fun driving it?

Have you adjusted for battery degradation? That sounds fairly close as you wouldn’t expect 100% of EPA after the capacity has dropped a bit which they seem to do early in their life, but I agree with you about the Plaid, no point buying one if you’re not going to enjoy it!

 

[Bouba]

Not what you think of this youtube video - if I undertand it they've effectively taken the rated efficiency and the 30 mile recent average effeciancy, both reported via the API, and worked out how close they are across an average of lots of data points. And the results they publish suggests for the LFP (maybe it was Standard range) cars the EPA figure is almost exactly the "real world" average as reported using the last 30 miles metric you can get ont he energy screen, the Long Range cars are 5 % down, and the older MS and MY and performance cars further off but probbaly because of the way they've been driven. They do point to a +/- swing of 30% on the real world efficiency, so we're not going to get rated on every trip which is logical.

Maybe we only notice the poorer efficiency on longer faster drives because of the higher speeds and when range generally matters most? My experience driving a 2022 MY LR is that I've averaging just under 10% worse long term, its definitely worse on a long trip when I'm driving a fair bit faster but on shorter town driving I'm generally under the rated figure, but I don't care much about the short trips because its easier to charge, its the long trips where I look at the data the most..

The video certainly matches my experience....2021 M3LR MiC....LG75....low mileage...I get exactly EPA on my total use over three years...and that is with a LOT of air con (I live on the Mediterranean coast).