Chill mode doesn't do much but neuter the accelerator response. Unless you're absolutely roasting the tires at every single stop light, chill mode is not going to increase range. Just drive the damn car.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
What is long range mode
- Thread starter cypho
- Start date
Perhaps they are referrring to this entry from the "battery Care" section of the owners' manual:
To protect against a complete discharge, Model 3 enters a low-power consumption mode when the displayed charge level drops to approximately 0%. In this mode, the Battery stops supporting the onboard electronics and auxiliary 12V battery. Once this low-power consumption mode is active, immediately plug in Model 3 to prevent a jump-start and 12V battery replacement.
Not sure what this means for driving an extra 50 miles, however.
To protect against a complete discharge, Model 3 enters a low-power consumption mode when the displayed charge level drops to approximately 0%. In this mode, the Battery stops supporting the onboard electronics and auxiliary 12V battery. Once this low-power consumption mode is active, immediately plug in Model 3 to prevent a jump-start and 12V battery replacement.
Not sure what this means for driving an extra 50 miles, however.
I find the heat/AC make a huge difference. We've had an unusually warm winter and I've been driving without climate control for the past couple of weeks. I drive about 25 miles each way to work, averaging around 50 mph, and with climate control off I've been averaging around 210-220 wh/mile. At 220, the effective range would be 352 miles. So perhaps they were just testing with the climate off and not driving at freeway speeds?
So.. yeah the RAV4EV's were circa 2001-2... great cars for their time. And so was the Focus EV. Both cars got around 80-100 miles per full charge. What I'm saying is that they both got within a few percent of their rated efficiency per mile (around 0.8-1.0 mile/% full charge). The Tesla M3 is rated at 310 miles per full charge so should get around 3.1 miles/%. If its rated at that level, it should get it regardless of the tech, if you switch it all off. I don't know what the conditions are the EPA or CR uses to test, but I can't come close. I suspect its because this is a performance model with 20" wheels but that should be included in the test and the rating. Bottom line, like I said, is I can't rely on the system when it tells me how far I can go to get to a supercharger. I'll have to do my own calcs.
All that aside, I love the car; its a blast. I just feel like Tesla should be more upfront about the efficiency you lose when you buy a Performance model, and I can't go far on long trips without calculating my own charging stops.
If anyone else has a Performance M3, I'd love to see what efficiency they get!! (note battery %, drive X miles, then divide X miles by the amount of % battery consumed)
CR makes some mistakes in every article about Tesla. EX: last year they stated that tuning and volume control of media was dangerous as it required management from the console screen I.E. not watching the road. I wrote them about the button controls, but never got a response nor a correction.
However, my LR model 3 has never gotten anything near 310 (or now 317) miles on a charge. I'm doing really great if I can get 260. I was told by service rep. that the EPA created the 310 estimate to 'match' gas car standards. Seems unlikely. Would be better if Tesla published some more reasonable mileage expectations. A reasonable stated range would include use of AC and media center.
However, my LR model 3 has never gotten anything near 310 (or now 317) miles on a charge. I'm doing really great if I can get 260. I was told by service rep. that the EPA created the 310 estimate to 'match' gas car standards. Seems unlikely. Would be better if Tesla published some more reasonable mileage expectations. A reasonable stated range would include use of AC and media center.
Mikedrives
Member
They did me right with vacuum cleaners once!
diamond.g
Active Member
To CR everything is an appliance. For this they are useful, which is why I subscribe. Washers, Dryers, Refrigerators, TV's, coffee makers, etc., I always take CR into consideration. A car is not an appliance to me, and this is what they miss. I actually enjoy quirky cars. I bought a Fiat 500L, for example, in spite of their heavy slam and enjoyed owning it for the novelty of driving it. It was as trouble-free and reliable as any other car I have owned.
IMO the Consumer Reports naysayers don't understand what CR is trying to do, at the least, and likely do not know what they actually do, or that is what their posts suggest. It is certainly true that no one else does as thorough a job of evaluating cars. For example, they determine real-world overall mpg (or the equivalent for EVs) by driving a test route that includes stops to simulate city driving but where most of the route is a constant 65 mph on a level road. They have two different drivers FOR EACH CAR who drive the route multiple times. If conditions are extreme re temp, wind, rain, they do not perform the test. So I smile when reading posts here that describe mileage figures of their own that differ from CR's and imagine it to be a renunciation of CR's result.
Nothing in this suggests you should take the CR top recommendations and run (drive?) with it. CR is trying to give you information that will help you make a good decision. So if they downgrade a car because of a poor frequency-of-repair record - and they have the very best info on this - go for it. You probably also draw to an inside straight, but again your choice. And truth told, the actual record of even the worst FOR cars is that most of them do just fine. So compared to CR's voluminous FOR data, the fact that you bought a high-FOR car and had no problem at all is of zero use to the rest of us. And as others have pointed out, CR buys their cars without the dealer knowing they are connected to CR, thus assuring that they get a stock car and that they have no pressure to give a good review.
I'm pretty serious about photography so I know more about what I want than CR does. I don't pay a lot of attention to their camera tests, which are really directed to novices who don't know what they want. Same with cars and car afficianadoes. So don't get out of joint if your views differ wildly from theirs. That's OK. For you and for them. Personally, I waited to get my M3 until its reliability score improved from the dismal level of the first year. Of course, the usual recommendation is NOT to buy a first-year model, which was my plan anyway, but CR's continuing surveys let me know when FOR had declined to the industry norm or better...good info to have.
Finally, the article that started this (link by OP) was not written by the test department...it was a news article by a CR journalist. The phrases "Extended Range Mode" and "Long Range Mode" were probably not made up by CR. They appear in a section where the writer is summarizing an interview he had with Sam Abuelsamid, an automotive technology analyst with Navigant. Presumably, Abuelsamid talked with people at Tesla and that is where the terms originated.
Nothing in this suggests you should take the CR top recommendations and run (drive?) with it. CR is trying to give you information that will help you make a good decision. So if they downgrade a car because of a poor frequency-of-repair record - and they have the very best info on this - go for it. You probably also draw to an inside straight, but again your choice. And truth told, the actual record of even the worst FOR cars is that most of them do just fine. So compared to CR's voluminous FOR data, the fact that you bought a high-FOR car and had no problem at all is of zero use to the rest of us. And as others have pointed out, CR buys their cars without the dealer knowing they are connected to CR, thus assuring that they get a stock car and that they have no pressure to give a good review.
I'm pretty serious about photography so I know more about what I want than CR does. I don't pay a lot of attention to their camera tests, which are really directed to novices who don't know what they want. Same with cars and car afficianadoes. So don't get out of joint if your views differ wildly from theirs. That's OK. For you and for them. Personally, I waited to get my M3 until its reliability score improved from the dismal level of the first year. Of course, the usual recommendation is NOT to buy a first-year model, which was my plan anyway, but CR's continuing surveys let me know when FOR had declined to the industry norm or better...good info to have.
Finally, the article that started this (link by OP) was not written by the test department...it was a news article by a CR journalist. The phrases "Extended Range Mode" and "Long Range Mode" were probably not made up by CR. They appear in a section where the writer is summarizing an interview he had with Sam Abuelsamid, an automotive technology analyst with Navigant. Presumably, Abuelsamid talked with people at Tesla and that is where the terms originated.
It's probably obvious and not worth me mentioning but a factor (I'm not sure how big) of the performance using more power is simply because it can accelerate much faster so every time one accelerates even if they try to be slow about it maybe it will use more then say a LR model would. So... you deff pay in range for the speed in that way. I think. Also the 20inch wheels get less range.
WilliamG
Hinge Fanatic
I can count on no hands the number of times I've needed Chill mode power, but on many hands how many times I've needed to REALLY quickly get the heck out of the way of someone merging or doing something stupid.
tinkererguy
Paul Braren TinkerTry.com/Tesla
This new article also mentions this “long range mode” and Consumer Reports:
https://electrek.co/2020/02/22/tesla-model-3-350-mile-range-test/
https://electrek.co/2020/02/22/tesla-model-3-350-mile-range-test/
M109Rider
Active Member
Well, seems 350 miles is the new EPA, (maybe not officially) for the model 3.
That’s awesome. Tesla’s constant momentum will be a challenge for other manufacturers to keep up with.
Wonder if this will be new model 3 EPA range only, or on all existing 3’s as well. ?
That’s awesome. Tesla’s constant momentum will be a challenge for other manufacturers to keep up with.
Wonder if this will be new model 3 EPA range only, or on all existing 3’s as well. ?
That’s just Fred regurgitating the same crap from CR. Means nothing
It means that Fred (and electrek) is as clueless about the Tesla model 3 as CR is. (or that LR mode / impress journalist mode is real)
Just a couple of comments regarding CR. I've subscribed for maybe 30 years and rely on them for the only really objective evaluations of cars, appliances, etc. etc. They don't accept advertising and buy everything they test. The couple of times that I've bought cars that are rated "worse than average" reliability, I've paid the price; most recent example - a Mini "S": broke down several times in three years, obscene costs for repair, parts. They just haven't figured out how to rate Tesla's yet. If you look at their reliability ratings, they include "engine", "transmission", "fuel system"....all stuff that Tesla's don't have. As more EV's come on the market, I suspect they'll figure out how to do it right. Overall, they were correct in rating the M3 "worse than average" reliability for the first year or so of production. That generally tracks pretty close to everything that's been published for the earlier units, especially fit, finish, alignment, etc. Of note, just a couple of days ago, CR named the M3 as one of their "top picks" - one of the top 10 vehicles in various categories from all manufacturers. That seems to track with general experiences we've seen posted on this forum. Tesla continues to fix problems that show up on the fly. I personally didn't buy my M3 until last May just because of the above. I've been a stockholder for maybe 4 years and watch them closely. Needless to say, with the stock closing at $900 on Friday, I'm a very happy camper! - I've made enough on the stock to almost pay for the car!
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
diamond.g
Active Member
IIRC they have a RWD LR model. I don’t think they ever got (or tested) the AWD or Performance model.
Similar threads
