What is the Model 3 SR+ battery size?

[ishareit]

As per the following insideevs article, SR+ has an efficiency of 253 wh/mi (combined highway and city) and a range of 240 miles.
Tesla Model 3 EPA Energy Consumption: Standard & Standard Plus
This means that the battery size is 60.72 kW to go 240 miles at 253 wh/mi efficiency.

However, a real world test performed by AoA got 192 miles at 260 wh/mi (a little bit more than EPA rating of 253 wh/mi, but not much) for SR+

(calculation at 8 minute mark)
This means that the battery size is 49.92 kW to go 192 miles at 260 wh/mi efficiency.

How is Tesla advertising a range of 240 miles at 253 wh/mi? What are we missing here?

 

[Zoomit]

It's a lot more complicated than that. First, be cautious with any data or conclusions from insideevs.com (just good practice).

That 253 wh/mi is derived from 133mpge which includes charging losses. The EPA Application that Tesla filed includes 54.5kWh usable for a range of 247.2 mi. That works out to 220.6 Wh/mi.

Tesla elected to reduce that to 240mi for the SR+. In addition, the 54.5kWh goes beyond the 0-100% indicated SoC range. Many folks report calculating ~52 kWh is available between 0-100% SoC. If you want to assume those numbers, the energy consumption to get EPA rated range would be about 217 Wh/mi, which matches the EPA consumption within reasonable measurement error.

Alex on Auto's did not repeat the EPA test, so there are many possible reasons why his measured consumption would be different than the results from the EPA tests.

 

[MP3Mike]

As per the following insideevs article, SR+ has an efficiency of 253 wh/mi (combined highway and city) and a range of 240 miles.
Tesla Model 3 EPA Energy Consumption: Standard & Standard Plus
This means that the battery size is 60.72 kW to go 240 miles at 253 wh/mi efficiency.

I believe that the EPA number includes charging loses, while the number in the car does not. The battery is about 50kWh.

 

[ishareit]

Thanks for the replies. What should be my wh/mi to get 240 mile range with 100% charge under normal temperatures?

 

[Zoomit]

about 217 Wh/mi

 

[lateulade]

I have a theory that the SR+ isn’t a “plus” at all, because the numbers don’t pan out. I own an SR+ myself, and the power consumption doesn’t make any sense.

Both the LR and MR reach their max range by using .23kwh/mi (75/325 & 62/265). My battery rundown tests on my SE+ indicate that it’s a 50kwh pack, meaning that to get the advertised 240 miles, I’d have to have an average kWh/mi of .208, which is 10% better than on the LR/MR. to get 220 miles out of a battery locked to 45kwh, you’d have to do .204kwh. HOWEVER, to get 220 miles out of the 50kwh pack, you need to get — drumroll — .227 kWh/mi, the same as on the MR/LR.

My theory is that the SR+ was conceived at the 11th hour when it became obvious that the standard interior SR was too expensive to build, and that the SR+ pack advertised for 240mi was the pack intended for the 220mi SR. The SR+ isn’t really an SR+, it’s an SR — the current SR is an SR-.

 

[lateulade]

I have a theory that the SR+ isn’t a “plus” at all, because the numbers don’t pan out. I own an SR+ myself, and the power consumption doesn’t make any sense.

Both the LR and MR reach their advertised range by consuming .23kwh/mi (75/325 & 62/265). My battery rundown tests on my SR+ indicate that it’s a 50kwh pack (which has been backed up by EPA tests and registration docs), meaning that to get the advertised 240 miles, I’d have to have an average kWh/mi of .208, which is 10% better than on the LR/MR. to get 220 miles out of a battery locked to 45kwh, you’d have to do .204kwh. HOWEVER, to get the advertised 220 miles of the SR out of the 50kwh pack, you need to get — drumroll — .227 kWh/mi, the same as on the MR/LR.

My theory is that the SR+ pack was intended to be the 220 mile SR pack, but at the 11th hour when it became obvious that the standard interior SR was too expensive to build for $35k, they rebranded it the SR+, priced it at a profitable $37k, and introduced the moderately crippled SR as a vehicle which was always intended to be pulled from the website ASAP — the only reason the SR ever existed was to avoid the PR nightmare of not having a $35k 3. In reality, the SR+ is the SR, and the SR is an SR-

 

[peakshaving]

I have a theory that the SR+ isn’t a “plus” at all, because the numbers don’t pan out. I own an SR+ myself, and the power consumption doesn’t make any sense.

Both the LR and MR reach their advertised range by consuming .23kwh/mi (75/325 & 62/265). My battery rundown tests on my SR+ indicate that it’s a 50kwh pack (which has been backed up by EPA tests and registration docs), meaning that to get the advertised 240 miles, I’d have to have an average kWh/mi of .208, which is 10% better than on the LR/MR. to get 220 miles out of a battery locked to 45kwh, you’d have to do .204kwh. HOWEVER, to get the advertised 220 miles of the SR out of the 50kwh pack, you need to get — drumroll — .227 kWh/mi, the same as on the MR/LR.

My theory is that the SR+ pack was intended to be the 220 mile SR pack, but at the 11th hour when it became obvious that the standard interior SR was too expensive to build for $35k, they rebranded it the SR+, priced it at a profitable $37k, and introduced the moderately crippled SR as a vehicle which was always intended to be pulled from the website ASAP — the only reason the SR ever existed was to avoid the PR nightmare of not having a $35k 3. In reality, the SR+ is the SR, and the SR is an SR-

I can somewhat believe 10% better than the LR/MR. Actually I absolutely believe 10% better than the MR. The LEMUR models used IGBTs on the inverter which ran hotter and had higher losses than the SiC ones found in LR and SR+ models. You can attribute a few percent to the switch back to SiC MOSFETs for all models, a few percent for less cooling needed for the inverter, and a few percent for the weight savings by having a smaller pack.

Of course I could be wrong with the expected consumption but I'm am getting about 215wh/mi in my SR especially if it's mostly highway driving. I'm not even trying to hypermile... usually going about 70-80 mph.

 

[J-Ho]

I believe that the EPA number includes charging loses, while the number in the car does not. The battery is about 50kWh.

The SR+ pack is 54.432kWh calculated based on the EPA report. It took 61.99kWh to charge to this with charging losses. Detailed report: https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=46584&flag=1

 

[Zoomit]

The SR+ pack is 54.432kWh calculated based on the EPA report. It took 61.99kWh to charge to this with charging losses. Detailed report: https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=46584&flag=1

Per page 25: 54.523 kWh usable.

 

[MarkSC]

I’m confused. The other post on this topic and testing by users shows that the battery is 62 kWh, I.e., a software limited mid range model. Is standard Model 3 battery really ~55kwh? | Tesla

Edit: it seems that most data points to 55 kWh other than the one site linked in that post.

 

[Fernand]

Most of the "battery size" numbers go out the window in real world conditions.
Look at your car's Energy graph. Entirely different when driving in hilly town
terrain and when cruising on the flats. I sure don't drive for 260 miles on a fully
charged "mid-range" in any real world conditions. The numbers are like any
EPA type figures, it's fun to crunch the numbers but in the end it's the proverbial
... "your mileage may vary".

 

[cwerdna]

As per the following insideevs article, SR+ has an efficiency of 253 wh/mi (combined highway and city) and a range of 240 miles.
Tesla Model 3 EPA Energy Consumption: Standard & Standard Plus
This means that the battery size is 60.72 kW to go 240 miles at 253 wh/mi efficiency.
...
This means that the battery size is 49.92 kW to go 192 miles at 260 wh/mi efficiency.

How is Tesla advertising a range of 240 miles at 253 wh/mi? What are we missing here?

Battery capacity is measured in kWh, not "kW".

You got the other units right.

 

[peakshaving]

As per the following insideevs article, SR+ has an efficiency of 253 wh/mi (combined highway and city) and a range of 240 miles.
Tesla Model 3 EPA Energy Consumption: Standard & Standard Plus
This means that the battery size is 60.72 kW to go 240 miles at 253 wh/mi efficiency.

However, a real world test performed by AoA got 192 miles at 260 wh/mi (a little bit more than EPA rating of 253 wh/mi, but not much) for SR+

(calculation at 8 minute mark)
This means that the battery size is 49.92 kW to go 192 miles at 260 wh/mi efficiency.

How is Tesla advertising a range of 240 miles at 253 wh/mi? What are we missing here?

I have no idea how Alex ended up with 260wh/mi on his test... I've been averaging at most 230 wh/mi if it's mostly highway driving and 215 wh/mi if i'm doing city.

Also keep in mind the EPA energy consumption INCLUDES charging losses. This is because they're measuring the power they input to the car from the wall. NOT from the battery. The charger onboard the vehicle has to transform AC to DC and we lose some efficiency there. As such you can probably lop off ~10% of the stated EPA consumption. This is because the EPA sticker is there for you to gauge cost of ownership for the vehicle not for us to do this kind of analysis.

 

[willow_hiller]

I have no idea how Alex ended up with 260wh/mi on his test... I've been averaging at most 230 wh/mi if it's mostly highway driving and 215 wh/mi if i'm doing city.

Also keep in mind the EPA energy consumption INCLUDES charging losses. This is because they're measuring the power they input to the car from the wall. NOT from the battery. The charger onboard the vehicle has to transform AC to DC and we lose some efficiency there. As such you can probably lop off ~10% of the stated EPA consumption. This is because the EPA sticker is there for you to gauge cost of ownership for the vehicle not for us to do this kind of analysis.

My only guess is that Alex was gunning the accelerator at every stop. The weird thing is he says to ignore his lifetime wh/mi of 267 because it includes a steep mountain pass, but then the test efficiency is 3.85 mi/kwh, or 260 wh/mi.

My (SR+) lifetime efficiency is around 217 now and dropping as I learn the drive the car better, and it goes up to something like 230 at highway speeds.

He's also calculating the battery size off of the UI reported SOC, and we know that Teslas have some sort of bottom buffer. Elon has tweeted several times that it's safe to take the battery to 0%.

 

[Watts_Up]

Also keep in mind the EPA energy consumption INCLUDES charging losses.
This is because they're measuring the power they input to the car from the wall.
NOT from the battery.
The charger onboard the vehicle has to transform AC to DC and we lose some efficiency there.
As such you can probably lop off ~10% of the stated EPA consumption.
This is because the EPA sticker is there for you to gauge cost of ownership for the vehicle not for us to do this kind of analysis.

What about using an L3 Supercharger? How do you determine the input loses?

Does the EPA mention using the onboard AC to DC charger or an L3 DC charger?

 

[willow_hiller]

What about using an L3 Supercharger? How do you determine the input loses?

Does the EPA mention using the onboard AC to DC charger or an L3 DC charger?

I had this exact same conversation on another thread in this forum and I cannot find it now. I think the conclusion was that the EPA efficiency estimates are through the AC to DC converter, but there's no guarantee that DC to DC is more efficient, especially at Supercharging rates, since there's a significant amount of heat generated.

 

[peakshaving]

My only guess is that Alex was gunning the accelerator at every stop. The weird thing is he says to ignore his lifetime wh/mi of 267 because it includes a steep mountain pass, but then the test efficiency is 3.85 mi/kwh, or 260 wh/mi.

My (SR+) lifetime efficiency is around 217 now and dropping as I learn the drive the car better, and it goes up to something like 230 at highway speeds.

He's also calculating the battery size off of the UI reported SOC, and we know that Teslas have some sort of bottom buffer. Elon has tweeted several times that it's safe to take the battery to 0%.

oh my lifetime is horrendous. It's 250 but that's because the bulk of my driving is just to work which is only 5 miles. Ends up being the AC that's eating all the power. I have separate tracking going on for trips longer than 10 miles (Not automated just me writing down wh/mi after the trips) and I'm getting pretty consistently below 230 for trips that are mostly highway.

I had this exact same conversation on another thread in this forum and I cannot find it now. I think the conclusion was that the EPA efficiency estimates are through the AC to DC converter, but there's no guarantee that DC to DC is more efficient, especially at Supercharging rates, since there's a significant amount of heat generated.

Read @Zoomit 's post above where he links you to the Tesla EPA application. Just control-f `AC ` and you'll see all the indicators that they use AC to charge the car (with the onboard charger) and then they run it down on a dyno for measurements. The specific testing standard is SAE J1634.

If you think about it- it makes sense. The EPA cares about how efficient the onboard charger is because that's what'll determine how efficient the energy gets into the battery! In fact on the very last page of this pdf you'll find that magical 62kWh figure under "AC WattHrs" for the SR Plus.

 

[chinnam3]

As per the following insideevs article, SR+ has an efficiency of 253 wh/mi (combined highway and city) and a range of 240 miles.
Tesla Model 3 EPA Energy Consumption: Standard & Standard Plus
This means that the battery size is 60.72 kW to go 240 miles at 253 wh/mi efficiency.

However, a real world test performed by AoA got 192 miles at 260 wh/mi (a little bit more than EPA rating of 253 wh/mi, but not much) for SR+

(calculation at 8 minute mark)
This means that the battery size is 49.92 kW to go 192 miles at 260 wh/mi efficiency.

How is Tesla advertising a range of 240 miles at 253 wh/mi? What are we missing here?

I would take AoA review of Tesla Model 3 with big grain on salt. If you look at the data, it does not match with actual owners data. He is hell bent on selling Kia Niro, evening claiming Kia Niro is somehow efficient even on highway.

I used to trust his reviews, because I did not have the cars he reviewed to really know better. But with Tesla Model 3, I know what is true and what is not.
All his reviews( any car review, not specific to Tesla), pretty much in the end conclude Kia/Hyundai models are somehow better, whatever the reason he can come up with. Sometime there are good reasons. But he mixes truth with fud making to looks like truth.

Claims, he does not take money from Hyundai/Kia, but I highly suspect his motives.

 

[bogich]

Here is my thread with real world highway Wh/m readings(spelling should be ignored) .
First Tesla M3 SR+ road trip
City driving is typically 10% better, unless(as mentioned) it is shorter than 10miles, where the AC eats up the driving efficiency benefits.
198 highway miles with 2 adults, 2 kids and luggage took the battery from 99% to 17%.