Jedi2155
Model 3 has Arrived.
The consumption is all in the tires. The 20" tires are super sticky. If the P3D+ had 18" aero's, your consumption would be closer to 270-280 Wh/mi.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
What Wh/mi are you getting with AWD and P cars?
- Thread starter Thomas Edison
- Start date
The consumption is all in the tires. The 20" tires are super sticky. If the P3D+ had 18" aero's, your consumption would be closer to 270-280 Wh/mi.
ryanjm
Tesla Podcast Host
I'm having a weird thing the last couple of days: I'm getting WAY higher Wh/mi than before. Not quite 2k miles on the car. My daily commute is only about 10 miles and today I burned 5 kWh at 417 Wh/mi. On a 75mph, ~90 mile freeway drive last night I was at 350-360 Wh/mi -- again, much higher than I usually get.
I emailed my local service center (they're closed for tonight) to see if they can do a remote diagnostic, but I'm curious if anyone else has seen anything. I did upgrade to 36.2 a few days ago; I wonder if there's anything different going on with the reporting there?
(FWIW I did my first-ever 100% charge -- made it to about 99% -- before the long drive yesterday and got 296 miles, which seems like a bit of an excessive degradation in the first couple months, though I have heard that the most degradation happens quickly before it levels off over many years).
EDIT: I mentioned it upthread, but I'm a P3D+ with the 20" wheels, FWIW.
I emailed my local service center (they're closed for tonight) to see if they can do a remote diagnostic, but I'm curious if anyone else has seen anything. I did upgrade to 36.2 a few days ago; I wonder if there's anything different going on with the reporting there?
(FWIW I did my first-ever 100% charge -- made it to about 99% -- before the long drive yesterday and got 296 miles, which seems like a bit of an excessive degradation in the first couple months, though I have heard that the most degradation happens quickly before it levels off over many years).
EDIT: I mentioned it upthread, but I'm a P3D+ with the 20" wheels, FWIW.
Last edited:
Jedi2155
Model 3 has Arrived.
Try running it as close to 0 again and charge it back up to 100%. Was your 99% through a supercharger or level 2 charger? I don't have my 3 yet, but I wonder if a supercharger can ramp down enough to really "top it off" and balance it.
P3D+ and so far it's not looking very good.
Mid 300's to high 300's on average.
I might have to stop jamming the throttle to the ground every time there is space to run, but I haven't gotten bored yet.
It's "whoohoo, space" and then followed by "Oh, crap the speed limit has long gone past" in what feels like a brief instant later. To some other driver I probably look like an idiot that accelerates hard, and then brakes. Where they don't realize the braking is simply regen.
Mid 300's to high 300's on average.
I might have to stop jamming the throttle to the ground every time there is space to run, but I haven't gotten bored yet.
It's "whoohoo, space" and then followed by "Oh, crap the speed limit has long gone past" in what feels like a brief instant later. To some other driver I probably look like an idiot that accelerates hard, and then brakes. Where they don't realize the braking is simply regen.
ryanjm
Tesla Podcast Host
AWD with 18” aero, 1000 mi with a 80/20 mix of highway and city. 237 Wh/mi lifetime so far. Usually conservative driving with some fun mixed in, highway speeds averaging 75. I do notice that around 75mph the trip average sits around 265, then the short period of off highway at the end of the trip often drops the average to 220s. 74 to 75 mph seems to make 3 or 4 Wh/mi difference.
For those of you who draft trucks to gain efficiency, I sure hope you wrapped your front end.
For those of you who draft trucks to gain efficiency, I sure hope you wrapped your front end.
When I took my Model S to the track, I noticed that each 1/4 mile run cost me 3 miles of rated range. I'd guess a 0-60 at full throttle would cost you about one mile of range in that 3-second burst. Count how many times you've done that per charge and do the math.
I have a non-P AWD. For the first 500 miles, I'm betting 247Wh/mi. That's 50/50 city/highway driving.
On a related topic- is the only way to see the total efficiency to use one of the Trip A/B? I thought I saw a screenshot somewhere where it shows it next to the odometer (I remember seeing "Lifetime" next to the Wh/mi reading) so I don't have to keep one of the Trip odometers (from being reset).
On a related topic- is the only way to see the total efficiency to use one of the Trip A/B? I thought I saw a screenshot somewhere where it shows it next to the odometer (I remember seeing "Lifetime" next to the Wh/mi reading) so I don't have to keep one of the Trip odometers (from being reset).
DR61
Member
The user can edit the names 'Trip A' or 'Trip B'. I changed 'Trip B' to Lifetime and will avoid resetting it.
MacGreiner
5YJ
True. Although elevation on that stretch wont probably be anywhere near the level I experience. I'll do there and back and see if the total is appreciably different.
I've got a performance model 3 with 20 inch wheels. Around town I'm getting about 220 to 260 WH/mile. Only on the highway does it bump up into the 300s, and then only if I'm really goosing it. Which of course is difficult to resist.
As others have noted, the tires are likely playing a big role here. Per tire rack, the tread width (which closely approximates the contact patch width of the tires) is as follows (note: the Tire rack website lists an 8" rim diameter for the 18" and 8.5" for the 19" and 20"...not sure if that's accurate or not).
7.8" - 18" Michelin MXM4
8.2" - 19" Continental Procontact RX (5.1% more than 18" Michelins)
8.8" - 20" Michelin PS4S (12.8% more than 18" Michelins)
Beyond any general "stickiness" of the tires, the larger contact patches would almost assuredly result in reduced efficiency (again see my comment about the rim width above).
Links:
18" - https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tire...utoModel=Model 3&autoModClar=Rear-Wheel Drive
19" - https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tire...utoModel=Model 3&autoModClar=Rear-Wheel Drive
20" - https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tire...utoModel=Model 3&autoModClar=Rear-Wheel Drive
7.8" - 18" Michelin MXM4
8.2" - 19" Continental Procontact RX (5.1% more than 18" Michelins)
8.8" - 20" Michelin PS4S (12.8% more than 18" Michelins)
Beyond any general "stickiness" of the tires, the larger contact patches would almost assuredly result in reduced efficiency (again see my comment about the rim width above).
Links:
18" - https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tire...utoModel=Model 3&autoModClar=Rear-Wheel Drive
19" - https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tire...utoModel=Model 3&autoModClar=Rear-Wheel Drive
20" - https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tire...utoModel=Model 3&autoModClar=Rear-Wheel Drive
I'll never get over people's resistance to believing what Tesla literally tells you, that the 19s and especially 20s have a significant adverse impact on your energy consumption.
Bigger rims = more unsprung mass = more energy to speed up and more suspension losses
Lack of aero caps = aerodynamic disaster zone (like most wheels)
Sport tires (yes, Tesla uses "stickier" tires on the 19s than the 18s, and even "stickier" on the 20s) = significantly draggier.
Amazing that people can refuse to believe this even when their own consumption numbers are staring them in the face. Are you not noticing that literally everyone in this thread who reported energy consumption figures over 300 and listed their configuration was on the 20 wheels, and the one who was nearly in the 300s was on 19" wheels? Hint: the aero wheels aren't called aero wheels as a joke.
You chose to ruin your car's energy consumption. If you regret your decision, buy a set of 18s with aero caps. If you think your decision was worth it, then be happy with your energy consumption.
That's true but I think you're magnifying what are in fact rather small differences. The extra inertial load involved in spinning up bigger rims is modest, and some of that is recaptured on regenerative braking, and in any case it's frankly miniscule compared to the ~2 ton mass of the car. The lack of aerodynamic hubs on bigger wheels does introduce extra drag, but I suspect it changes the drag coefficient from .2 something to slightly more than .2 something. As for your statement that the sport tires are 'dragier' (forgive the neologism), they have the same cross-section (235) and they are also low rolling resistance – that was one of the modifications that Michelin made to their phenomenal Super Sport tire to create the 4S tire that is on the performance versions.
Most of the differences frankly between the rearwheel drive and all-wheel drive cars are due to the fact that the front motor is less efficient, because it does not use the high-efficiency design of the rear motor. That and the fact that it's tough for people to resist using all that torque and horsepower – and that definitely and largely impacts your mileage. Where upgraded tires do in fact kill your mileage is if you go past the 235 section width and get something like a 265/35-19 to really improve your cornering. Especially if you get track street tires like the Bridgestone RD 71R, which is not a low rolling resistance tires. Then your mileage is going to take it in the neck so to speak. But if you're running the same section width Michelin pilot sport 4S, the mileage differences are minimal.
I think you're scaring people off unnecessarily, as though their range is going to crater. There is no real evidence for that, and in my Model 3 performance version with 20 inch wheels, around town I routinely get 220 to 240 Watt hours per mile.
The problem is that there is in fact almost no hard data on any of these questions, particularly comparing the all seasons rolling resistance to the sport tire with the 20 inch wheels. My mileage however suggests that the mileage penalty is pretty modest. It's not as though Tesla didn't try to optimize range in their tire selection across the board. So while I would not want to have a mileage contest with the rear wheel drive Model 3, I know I'm not that far behind.
Last edited:
Look at this thread. Look at the numbers. Literally every person reporting over 300Wh/mi average is on 20s. You're denying what's starting you in the face.
The 20s are not "low rolling resistance tires". They're sport tires. They're stickier than the 19s, which are stickier than the 18s. Suspension losses are a real, meaningful thing. Spinning wheels store a meaningful amount of energy. Non-aero wheels are an aerodynamic disaster zone. But forget about all this. Even forget about what Tesla has directly told you. Just look at the numbers staring you in the face in this thread.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
And meanwhile people on the 18s with aero caps average in the mid 200s and sometimes even less on the highway. depending on what speed you call "highway speeds".
The importance of wheel selection is demonstrably real.
The 20s are not "low rolling resistance tires". They're sport tires. They're stickier than the 19s, which are stickier than the 18s. Suspension losses are a real, meaningful thing. Spinning wheels store a meaningful amount of energy. Non-aero wheels are an aerodynamic disaster zone. But forget about all this. Even forget about what Tesla has directly told you. Just look at the numbers staring you in the face in this thread.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
And meanwhile people on the 18s with aero caps average in the mid 200s and sometimes even less on the highway. depending on what speed you call "highway speeds".
The importance of wheel selection is demonstrably real.
To people considering the 20" wheels: if you want the look, and want wheels that come with sportier tires and which will have a better cornering feel (at the expense of longevity and ride quality)... go for them! Just don't come here and complain about not getting the efficiency other people are getting, when you're the one who chose to hurt your efficiency.
Similar threads
