What is your 100% on your 90kWh battery?

[Peter Lucas]

So -- let's be reasonable -- you leave at 95% rather than 100% because it is tedious to time things exactly so that you leave the house at 100% and it takes an extra hour to go from 95% to 100% anyhow.

A 90D should have no problem whatsoever doing this.

And you don't want to drive around below 15% because it is reasonable to have a buffer in case there's a traffic jam or the charging station you go to isn't open (though in that case if you're going to a supercharger and it is closed you're actually now in serious trouble if you've gotten that close to the bottom). So that means your effective range with an S90D with "reasonable" degradation is now 220ish miles.

If you can't do 180 actual miles in an S90D there's a serious problem. Further, if your rangeometer tells you you're able to hit a target 180 miles away and you can't there's an even more serious problem.

It would be totally reasonable for someone else to want to go further; for me, in my neck of the woods, going 180-220 miles at a time means you can hop over every-other supercharger and land with 10-20% SOC and charge pretty quickly and have not needed to supercharge more than 2 times in a day.

The variations in range and terrain are such that I wouldn't really expect an S90 to be able to actually drive reliably 277 miles from outlet to outlet; to do that I'd want a car with a "rated" 340 mile range, or more. Maybe that's my range anxiety, or maybe I'm just cynical enough to discount the correctness of "advertised range".

A car with a Rated Range of 280 miles should get you much more than 180 miles. Rated Range is not ideal range. Rated Range was described to me as a realistic range with conservative driving. I figured that 240 to 250 miles was reasonable to expect.
I was justifiably very disappointed to find that 200 miles would require every watthour of the battery.
I was justifiably disappointed to learn that my 6 month old car with a "90" kwh battery only had 72-73 kwh of available energy.
I was justifiably disappointed that the degraded battery still showed a displayed range of an impossible 280 miles.

 

[supratachophobia]

The EPA mileage on a 2015 90D is 340 wh/mile. The EPA mileage on a 2016 90D is 330 wh/mile. (See reference below) So my car (early 2016) is rated for either 330 or 340. Not 290.

Fuel Economy of 2015 - 2016 Tesla Model S

EPA consumption on the 90D pre refresh is 290wpm. That's how they get the number at 100%. The math works out perfectly.

@Peter Lucas
Peter, in your BMS, please find "nominal capacity". Then when your car is at 100% charge OR find the "full rated range" variable in the BMS. Take the former and divide it by the latter, you'll get .290kw, or 290 wats per mile. Simple math.

 

[supratachophobia]

Are you "getting" 248 miles from a 90% charge? Or is that the displayed range at 90%? Big difference. The displayed range may be concealing rather than revealing battery degradation. It certainly does on my car. (Full charge rated range shows 270-275 miles. But actual range is only 200-220 miles. And battery has only 72z73 kwh) And Tesla techs tell me my car is normal.

Displayed range is including the 4kw bottom end buffer that is not displayed when you are below 20%.

 

[Peter Lucas]

@Peter Lucas
Peter, in your BMS, please find "nominal capacity". Then when your car is at 100% charge OR find the "full rated range" variable in the BMS. Take the former and divide it by the latter, you'll get .290kw, or 290 wats per mile. Simple math.

Neither "nominal capacity" nor "full Rated range" is available to me from my car. Of course the "nominal" capacity of my battery is 90 kwh.
We are playing a type of "whack a mole" here. Is wh/mile wrong? Or is battery capacity wrong?
Here is the simple math. During the sales process I was carefully informed about Ideal Range and Rated Range. While Ideal Range would be difficult to achieve, Rated range was realistic. The showroom car and my car both displayed a full charge Rated range of 280-285 miles.
Therefore I was justifiably very disappointed to discover that rather than 285 miles, my actual range was 200-220 miles. And 220 miles would be very difficult to achieve.
I was also justifiably disappointed to discover that the 90 kwh battery in my car only had 72-73 kwh of usable energy.
I was also justifiably disappointed to observe that cars display of range was concealing rather than revealing battery degradation.

 

[cduzz]

Neither "nominal capacity" nor "full Rated range" is available to me from my car. Of course the "nominal" capacity of my battery is 90 kwh.
We are playing a type of "whack a mole" here. Is wh/mile wrong? Or is battery capacity wrong?
Here is the simple math. During the sales process I was carefully informed about Ideal Range and Rated Range. While Ideal Range would be difficult to achieve, Rated range was realistic. The showroom car and my car both displayed a full charge Rated range of 280-285 miles.
Therefore I was justifiably very disappointed to discover that rather than 285 miles, my actual range was 200-220 miles. And 220 miles would be very difficult to achieve.
I was also justifiably disappointed to discover that the 90 kwh battery in my car only had 72-73 kwh of usable energy.
I was also justifiably disappointed to observe that cars display of range was concealing rather than revealing battery degradation.

I recognize that you're frustrated. I recognize that it has to do with the inability of your car to drive the distances you're expecting it to drive.

I don't think any discussions you had with any sales people ever mentioned "90kwh" -- I don't think it's a useful piece of information -- tesla called the 90 "90" because it was (in theory) a little better than the 85. I'd stick with discussing only the thing you care about -- the range of the car -- everything else is a distraction.

Have you been able to drive 180 miles with your car reporting your consumption is 290wh/mi or less over that range? What does the power meter app say when you're driving in such a way? It will have a projection of range and how you're matching that projection. You are observing that the gauge says "280(miles)" or some number. That number is mostly a fiction derived from the EPA telling manufacturers how to put their cars on a dynamometer or a flat track and run the battery from absolute top to super dead. You're probably not looking to do that.

In the real world (not an EPA range test) when you ask the car to get you to a place that is 250 miles away, what does the range meter say you should do? When I ask my 90D to take me to a supercharger that's "only" 196 miles away it will redirect me to another supercharger unless my battery is at 88% or more. If I leave with 95% of capacity and drive at 70ish mph (and in range mode and with AC/heat off mostly) over normal east-coast terrain I get there with 40-50 miles left and I'll have substantially beaten the range estimate. For my purposes, this long distance driving behavior roughly matches what I expected.

You've said you can't drive 220 miles in your 90d; I wouldn't be able to either if I drove at 80mph, drove on substantial hills, drove with the heater on full blast, drove with the windows down, drove with 21inch wheels, drove with a tire low on air, drove with a bike rack, drove with a roof rack, drove with a dragging brake, drove in terrible stop and go traffic, drove in heavy rain, drove in snow, etc. These cars are efficient enough that if you do almost anything to impact the efficiency, you'll lose a significant amount of range.

I've heard that your car isn't driving as expected. I do not think I understand the specifics of what it is or is not doing.

 

[Peter Lucas]

I recognize that you're frustrated. I recognize that it has to do with the inability of your car to drive the distances you're expecting it to drive.

I don't think any discussions you had with any sales people ever mentioned "90kwh" -- I don't think it's a useful piece of information -- tesla called the 90 "90" because it was (in theory) a little better than the 85. I'd stick with discussing only the thing you care about -- the range of the car -- everything else is a distraction.

Have you been able to drive 180 miles with your car reporting your consumption is 290wh/mi or less over that range? What does the power meter app say when you're driving in such a way? It will have a projection of range and how you're matching that projection. You are observing that the gauge says "280(miles)" or some number. That number is mostly a fiction derived from the EPA telling manufacturers how to put their cars on a dynamometer or a flat track and run the battery from absolute top to super dead. You're probably not looking to do that.

In the real world (not an EPA range test) when you ask the car to get you to a place that is 250 miles away, what does the range meter say you should do? When I ask my 90D to take me to a supercharger that's "only" 196 miles away it will redirect me to another supercharger unless my battery is at 88% or more. If I leave with 95% of capacity and drive at 70ish mph (and in range mode and with AC/heat off mostly) over normal east-coast terrain I get there with 40-50 miles left and I'll have substantially beaten the range estimate. For my purposes, this long distance driving behavior roughly matches what I expected.

You've said you can't drive 220 miles in your 90d; I wouldn't be able to either if I drove at 80mph, drove on substantial hills, drove with the heater on full blast, drove with the windows down, drove with 21inch wheels, drove with a tire low on air, drove with a bike rack, drove with a roof rack, drove with a dragging brake, drove in terrible stop and go traffic, drove in heavy rain, drove in snow, etc. These cars are efficient enough that if you do almost anything to impact the efficiency, you'll lose a significant amount of range.

I've heard that your car isn't driving as expected. I do not think I understand the specifics of what it is or is not doing.

I have clearly described what my car will and won't do. But that's okay. My usual southern California driving has resulted in a display of 351 wh/mi, long term average. At this consumption rate my actual range is about 200 miles. At the request of Tesla service I did a test drive. I chose a day when the ambient temperature was about 65F. I took a round trip of a little less than 200 miles. There was very little altitude changes (and of course no net altitude change). Most of the driving was on interstate highways which, because of traffic, was very slow. There was very little stopping. The displayed wh/mi for the trip was 305. The trip took the battery from 100% SOC to around 5-10%. The extrapolated full charge range was about 220 miles.
Under extremely conservative conditions, 220 miles is not close enough to 280 miles to be considered reasonable. That kind of driving should have delivered very close to Rated range. 21% short is not a trivial defect.
Adding insult to injury, despite the diminished range and the diminished battery capacity, the displayed range is as if all was normal. And Tesla techs tell me all is normal.
Other readers have no need to care about one bad car and battery. But they should be interested to know that their cars display of full charge range may be concealing rather than revealing battery degradation.

 

[cduzz]

when you did your 200 mile drive

1. did you have the power meter app up with a destination? If so, how was the projection graph relative to your actual consumption?
2. did you have range mode on?
3. did you have the climate controls on?
4. What size wheels do you have and what's the tire pressure on the tires?

For 20 miles at a time without effort you should be able to hit 280wh/mi or (way) less if you're going a constant 50mph; if you're stopping and starting or even just accelerating/decelerating you'll get much worse range.

Your efficiency seems unacceptably low for San Diego, IMO. Unless you're using the climate control all the time, or have 21 inch wheels, or a bike rack, or ...

I'm not questioning if there is an issue with your car, it's a 90D so likely has batteries that are not as effective as they should be; I'm trying to figure out the best approach to tesla that is most likely to get them to accept that there's a problem. Where you are now I may be in a year or two... It is my opinion that a couple of road trips over level ground with pictures of the power app display indicating "hey, now I'm stranded with my kids because I followed this" or "hey, my car is 60% of what you said it would be and I've looked at x, y, and z and it can't be any of those" is a possible approach.

 

[Peter Lucas]

when you did your 200 mile drive

1. did you have the power meter app up with a destination? If so, how was the projection graph relative to your actual consumption?
2. did you have range mode on?
3. did you have the climate controls on?
4. What size wheels do you have and what's the tire pressure on the tires?

For 20 miles at a time without effort you should be able to hit 280wh/mi or (way) less if you're going a constant 50mph; if you're stopping and starting or even just accelerating/decelerating you'll get much worse range.

Your efficiency seems unacceptably low for San Diego, IMO. Unless you're using the climate control all the time, or have 21 inch wheels, or a bike rack, or ...

I'm not questioning if there is an issue with your car, it's a 90D so likely has batteries that are not as effective as they should be; I'm trying to figure out the best approach to tesla that is most likely to get them to accept that there's a problem. Where you are now I may be in a year or two... It is my opinion that a couple of road trips over level ground with pictures of the power app display indicating "hey, now I'm stranded with my kids because I followed this" or "hey, my car is 60% of what you said it would be and I've looked at x, y, and z and it can't be any of those" is a possible approach.

Answers to your questions about my test trip:
1) I did not have the power meter displaying.
2) Range Mode not on.
3) Climate Control on. Ambient temp was around 65F, so energy consumption for climate control was minimal. Probably negligible.
4) 19" wheels/tires. 45 psi.
This very energy-conserving trip used 305 wh/mile. And if I had taken the battery down to zero, I would have gone 220 miles. Important for others to know is that the full charge range (Rated Range) being displayed was 280 miles. Even though the usable battery capacity was only 72-73 kwh. On a car less than 1 year old. The display of range may conceal considerable battery degradation.
As for getting Tesla to consider replacing your battery - "fugettaboutit."
Just yesterday a Tesla tech manager told me in no uncertain terms that Tesla will not do anything for a battery that is not displaying a fault. No amount of battery degradation will get you a new battery.

 

[cduzz]

Answers to your questions about my test trip:
1) I did not have the power meter displaying.
2) Range Mode not on.
3) Climate Control on. Ambient temp was around 65F, so energy consumption for climate control was minimal. Probably negligible.
4) 19" wheels/tires. 45 psi.
This very energy-conserving trip used 305 wh/mile. And if I had taken the battery down to zero, I would have gone 220 miles. Important for others to know is that the full charge range (Rated Range) being displayed was 280 miles. Even though the usable battery capacity was only 72-73 kwh. On a car less than 1 year old. The display of range may conceal considerable battery degradation.
As for getting Tesla to consider replacing your battery - "fugettaboutit."
Just yesterday a Tesla tech manager told me in no uncertain terms that Tesla will not do anything for a battery that is not displaying a fault. No amount of battery degradation will get you a new battery.

Try again with the power meter on (with the range projection tab not the orange mountain screen). Also try range mode, and either turn off the climate or manually turn off the AC and leave the fans going). The climate controls are absurdly brain-dead and are a huge drain on the battery even if the ambient temperature is the same as the cabin temperature. I'm not sure what the EPA did to measure the range, but it is not easy to get close to the stated range. I wouldn't go so far as to call the EPA range "deceptive" but it certainly isn't easy to hit.

My tesla is quite comfortable and easy to drive long distances, but that's entirely dependent on access to the supercharger network. For example, if I used A Better Routeplanner to plan a trip for "my" S90D, with 12% degradation to a place 2 states away in Vermont, a 210 miles drive, it has me spending almost an hour supercharging spread across 2 different supercharging sessions (one getting there and one getting back). If I ask ABRP to plan the same trip with a modern "raven" tesla, a car with 370 miles, it suggests the same 2 supercharger stops but the total charging time is now 25 minutes total.

For covering long distances, a tesla is "good enough" but not as good as, say, an old VW Passat TDI wagon which has a full-tank range of almost 1200 miles. Of course, AP, even the old AP1, makes it much more comfortable covering those distances.

 

[Peter Lucas]

Try again with the power meter on (with the range projection tab not the orange mountain screen). Also try range mode, and either turn off the climate or manually turn off the AC and leave the fans going). The climate controls are absurdly brain-dead and are a huge drain on the battery even if the ambient temperature is the same as the cabin temperature. I'm not sure what the EPA did to measure the range, but it is not easy to get close to the stated range. I wouldn't go so far as to call the EPA range "deceptive" but it certainly isn't easy to hit.

My tesla is quite comfortable and easy to drive long distances, but that's entirely dependent on access to the supercharger network. For example, if I used A Better Routeplanner to plan a trip for "my" S90D, with 12% degradation to a place 2 states away in Vermont, a 210 miles drive, it has me spending almost an hour supercharging spread across 2 different supercharging sessions (one getting there and one getting back). If I ask ABRP to plan the same trip with a modern "raven" tesla, a car with 370 miles, it suggests the same 2 supercharger stops but the total charging time is now 25 minutes total.

For covering long distances, a tesla is "good enough" but not as good as, say, an old VW Passat TDI wagon which has a full-tank range of almost 1200 miles. Of course, AP, even the old AP1, makes it much more comfortable covering those distances.

There is a lot to love about the Tesla. But battery durability and range are seriously overstated, and deceptively presented. And with the new throttling of Supercharger speed, long trips are considerably more tedious.

 

[Peter Lucas]

Try again with the power meter on (with the range projection tab not the orange mountain screen). Also try range mode, and either turn off the climate or manually turn off the AC and leave the fans going). The climate controls are absurdly brain-dead and are a huge drain on the battery even if the ambient temperature is the same as the cabin temperature. I'm not sure what the EPA did to measure the range, but it is not easy to get close to the stated range. I wouldn't go so far as to call the EPA range "deceptive" but it certainly isn't easy to hit.

My tesla is quite comfortable and easy to drive long distances, but that's entirely dependent on access to the supercharger network. For example, if I used A Better Routeplanner to plan a trip for "my" S90D, with 12% degradation to a place 2 states away in Vermont, a 210 miles drive, it has me spending almost an hour supercharging spread across 2 different supercharging sessions (one getting there and one getting back). If I ask ABRP to plan the same trip with a modern "raven" tesla, a car with 370 miles, it suggests the same 2 supercharger stops but the total charging time is now 25 minutes total.

For covering long distances, a tesla is "good enough" but not as good as, say, an old VW Passat TDI wagon which has a full-tank range of almost 1200 miles. Of course, AP, even the old AP1, makes it much more comfortable covering those distances.

Range Mode seems to do little more than prevent the car from adequately cooling on very hot days. I have seen very little increase in range when using Range Mode. In 65 degree weather, climate control consumes very little energy.

 

[Struja]

My 100% has taken a nosedive recently. When I first got my car (CPO), my 90% was 423km. Now it hovers between 397-403, depending on the given day, putting my 100% at about 440-442km. Use to be closer to 470km.

This has been the first winter where I have found myself thinking about the next charge a little too much on local driving. I see the LR Raven as a big improvement, although I have often said, when Tesla comes out with a 1000km Model S, that's when I will feel that the car has ZERO compromises. The reason I say that is that in the winter, I lose as much as 40% range, so a 1000km car would be a 600km car in the dead of winter, which is perfect for all of my needs.

 

[cduzz]

Range Mode seems to do little more than prevent the car from adequately cooling on very hot days. I have seen very little increase in range when using Range Mode. In 65 degree weather, climate control consumes very little energy.

Just relaying to you what I've done to get substantial increases in range. It is my direct experience that turning off the climate controls can substantially increase range. The same is true of range mode.

When I've done 200+ mile drives and gotten good range, the power meter showed below 270wh/mi, at normal (but constant) highway speeds but in range mode and with climate control off.

 

[supratachophobia]

There is a lot to love about the Tesla. But battery durability and range are seriously overstated, and deceptively presented. And with the new throttling of Supercharger speed, long trips are considerably more tedious.

Agreed, range is overstated by a long shot.

 

[No2DinosaurFuel]

I recognize that you're frustrated. I recognize that it has to do with the inability of your car to drive the distances you're expecting it to drive.

I don't think any discussions you had with any sales people ever mentioned "90kwh" -- I don't think it's a useful piece of information -- tesla called the 90 "90" because it was (in theory) a little better than the 85. I'd stick with discussing only the thing you care about -- the range of the car -- everything else is a distraction.

Have you been able to drive 180 miles with your car reporting your consumption is 290wh/mi or less over that range? What does the power meter app say when you're driving in such a way? It will have a projection of range and how you're matching that projection. You are observing that the gauge says "280(miles)" or some number. That number is mostly a fiction derived from the EPA telling manufacturers how to put their cars on a dynamometer or a flat track and run the battery from absolute top to super dead. You're probably not looking to do that.

In the real world (not an EPA range test) when you ask the car to get you to a place that is 250 miles away, what does the range meter say you should do? When I ask my 90D to take me to a supercharger that's "only" 196 miles away it will redirect me to another supercharger unless my battery is at 88% or more. If I leave with 95% of capacity and drive at 70ish mph (and in range mode and with AC/heat off mostly) over normal east-coast terrain I get there with 40-50 miles left and I'll have substantially beaten the range estimate. For my purposes, this long distance driving behavior roughly matches what I expected.

You've said you can't drive 220 miles in your 90d; I wouldn't be able to either if I drove at 80mph, drove on substantial hills, drove with the heater on full blast, drove with the windows down, drove with 21inch wheels, drove with a tire low on air, drove with a bike rack, drove with a roof rack, drove with a dragging brake, drove in terrible stop and go traffic, drove in heavy rain, drove in snow, etc. These cars are efficient enough that if you do almost anything to impact the efficiency, you'll lose a significant amount of range.

I've heard that your car isn't driving as expected. I do not think I understand the specifics of what it is or is not doing.

I would say YMMV on range. And it will vary greatly. However I would say range it is on the lower end of what the meters tells you. My experience is I never can drive more than 200 miles at a time going 5 above speed limit here in CA. I have done multiple trips to verify. You have to factor in bottom capacity and top capacity. Age of battery, temperature of battery, etc. Then potential wind and other conditions. Highway consumption is usually more than city. Finally the wheels you got and if they are properly inflated. Etc. There is a lot going in, but overall, EPA does not factor those in hence why a lot of people are disappointed in their range. You might baby your tesla to get closer to the epa/rated range, but people here are saying doing normal things like you would to a regular ICE means giving up on range.

Hence why I always advocated for bigger battery because it reduces the affects of other things and also why I believe porsche went with the epa range they did because it is a much more believable number.

 

[Peter Lucas]

I would say YMMV on range. And it will vary greatly. However I would say range it is on the lower end of what the meters tells you. My experience is I never can drive more than 200 miles at a time going 5 above speed limit here in CA. I have done multiple trips to verify. You have to factor in bottom capacity and top capacity. Age of battery, temperature of battery, etc. Then potential wind and other conditions. Highway consumption is usually more than city. Finally the wheels you got and if they are properly inflated. Etc. There is a lot going in, but overall, EPA does not factor those in hence why a lot of people are disappointed in their range. You might baby your tesla to get closer to the epa/rated range, but people here are saying doing normal things like you would to a regular ICE means giving up on range.

Hence why I always advocated for bigger battery because it reduces the affects of other things and also why I believe porsche went with the epa range they did because it is a much more believable number.

Looks like we are mostly agreeing when you describe that you "... never can drive more than 200 miles at at time going 5 above the speed limit ... " Given that the displayed full charge range is 285 miles, you are saying that you can never achieve even 70% of the displayed full charge range. This is my experience as well. And this 70% has been true since the car was 6 months old with 7,500 miles on it. Prospective buyers should know this. I wish that I had known this at the time of purchase. It likely would have altered my decision. I was a believer that these cars were "not quite ready for prime time", largely due to range limitations. In the showroom, and on this forum, all evidence was that Rated Range was a realistic value. And that degradation was minimal. Turns out that everyone was taking as gospel the cars display of range. Thus a lot of disappointment to learn that actual range is only 70% of displayed range. And that the cars display of Rated Range over time does not fall as fast as the the battery capacity degrades.

 

[cduzz]

Looks like we are mostly agreeing when you describe that you "... never can drive more than 200 miles at at time going 5 above the speed limit ... " Given that the displayed full charge range is 285 miles, you are saying that you can never achieve even 70% of the displayed full charge range. This is my experience as well. And this 70% has been true since the car was 6 months old with 7,500 miles on it. Prospective buyers should know this. I wish that I had known this at the time of purchase. It likely would have altered my decision. I was a believer that these cars were "not quite ready for prime time", largely due to range limitations. In the showroom, and on this forum, all evidence was that Rated Range was a realistic value. And that degradation was minimal. Turns out that everyone was taking as gospel the cars display of range. Thus a lot of disappointment to learn that actual range is only 70% of displayed range. And that the cars display of Rated Range over time does not fall as fast as the the battery capacity degrades.

No. You're incorrect. I've got a 2016 S90D with 50k miles on it. I've done 180 miles over normal new england conditions (boston to vermont) and at 75mph and hit a supercharger 180 miles away with 20% left. I did it with range mode and AC off unless I wanted to turn it on for a time. I left with the car at 97% or so.

You can shrug and say "meh, range mode just cooks my battery" and "Climate control doesn't use energy."

If you are as receptive to feedback from the tesla people as you here, and if you approach them with the perspective of already knowing all the things, it is unsurprising if they're unhelpful. They may be unhelpful anyhow, but this ... cinches the deal.

 

[Peter Lucas]

No. You're incorrect. I've got a 2016 S90D with 50k miles on it. I've done 180 miles over normal new england conditions (boston to vermont) and at 75mph and hit a supercharger 180 miles away with 20% left. I did it with range mode and AC off unless I wanted to turn it on for a time. I left with the car at 97% or so.

You can shrug and say "meh, range mode just cooks my battery" and "Climate control doesn't use energy."

If you are as receptive to feedback from the tesla people as you here, and if you approach them with the perspective of already knowing all the things, it is unsurprising if they're unhelpful. They may be unhelpful anyhow, but this ... cinches the deal.

I am happy that your car was able to do a little better than 200 miles per charge on that one-way trip with no climate control. If I drive super carefully, I can also get a little more. Like 220 miles. Pretty similar to what you described (which extrapolates to 230 miles). And to get that very modest efficiency you had to turn climate control off. For a 200 mile trip, that would make for a pretty miserable drive by most peoples standards even if the outside temperature were perfect. At the beginning of that trip, what was the display of Rated Range? Do you know about the TezLab app? It tracks, among other things, the actual miles driven divided by the Rated Range miles driven. They call this "efficiency". Of course it would reflect both efficiency and battery degradation. They display a fleet average here: TezLab The average "efficiency" of a Model S is 71%. This means that on average Tesla Model S cars achieve a range of only 71% of the displayed Rated Range. My experiments with extending the range reveal that achieving Rated Range in my car would be impossible with anything that resembles normal driving. Maybe some cars can do this. Mine has never been able to. While you and others may find 71% acceptable, it is not how the car was sold to me. And it is a large deficit. 5%, 10%, maybe. But 30%? That is false advertising.

By the way, you did not identify anything incorrect in what I wrote. That means that you simply didn't like my comments for some reason. Interesting to consider why.

 

[ahkahn]

As always, very frustrated with my battery and degradation. 90% every. single. night.

 

[tesluv108]

Neither "nominal capacity" nor "full Rated range" is available to me from my car. Of course the "nominal" capacity of my battery is 90 kwh.
We are playing a type of "whack a mole" here. Is wh/mile wrong? Or is battery capacity wrong?
Here is the simple math. During the sales process I was carefully informed about Ideal Range and Rated Range. While Ideal Range would be difficult to achieve, Rated range was realistic. The showroom car and my car both displayed a full charge Rated range of 280-285 miles.
Therefore I was justifiably very disappointed to discover that rather than 285 miles, my actual range was 200-220 miles. And 220 miles would be very difficult to achieve.
I was also justifiably disappointed to discover that the 90 kwh battery in my car only had 72-73 kwh of usable energy.
I was also justifiably disappointed to observe that cars display of range was concealing rather than revealing battery degradation.

I’m surprised there hasn’t been a class action lawsuit on the 90kwh battery. The more I read about it the more I see smoke and mirrors marketing gimmick by Elon. The fact that the 90 kwh battery does indeed have the same number of cells as the 85 is problematic if the consumer was promised a “range upgrade”. The fact of users reporting real world driving ranges similar if not identical to 85kwh is also discouraging/ disappointing. If you should be getting more range on the p90d per Tesla vs p85d variant why did the epa give it the exact same range of 253?!