Polly Wog
Member
My 90% has been at 239 rated miles for some time now. However, ever since I updated to 7.1, my 90% has been at 236.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
jsm
Member
70S with about 4000 miles - started at 208, then has been dropping to 207 and 206. After 7.1 it went to 213 and has been pretty consistently there.
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
This winter my 90% has dropped from 234 to 232. (Weather-related? Perhaps.)
In the past, in hopes of boosting my range numbers I've tried an occasional 100% charge, timed to finish right before I left for work. Doing this did not show any improvement on my 90% numbers.
But the other day I set my car to do a 100% charge and timed it so that it would be sitting at 100% for 1-2 hours before I left for work. (Picked a cold day to minimize degredation, even though I know that sitting at 100% for just an hour or two isn't a big deal).
Since doing this, the next two days my range charge has been 234 miles instead of 232--so it went up 2 miles and has stayed there so far. I'm going to see if this holds. If so, I'll pick another cold day and do it again to see if there's any further improvement.
My current theory, after trying other things, is that the car may need to sit at 100% for a little bit of time in order to see upward movement in the indicated range.
Disclaimer: I don't range charge all that often--most of the time I charge to 90%. In the 15 months I've had this car, I've range charged perhaps 10 times or so.
In the past, in hopes of boosting my range numbers I've tried an occasional 100% charge, timed to finish right before I left for work. Doing this did not show any improvement on my 90% numbers.
But the other day I set my car to do a 100% charge and timed it so that it would be sitting at 100% for 1-2 hours before I left for work. (Picked a cold day to minimize degredation, even though I know that sitting at 100% for just an hour or two isn't a big deal).
Since doing this, the next two days my range charge has been 234 miles instead of 232--so it went up 2 miles and has stayed there so far. I'm going to see if this holds. If so, I'll pick another cold day and do it again to see if there's any further improvement.
My current theory, after trying other things, is that the car may need to sit at 100% for a little bit of time in order to see upward movement in the indicated range.
Disclaimer: I don't range charge all that often--most of the time I charge to 90%. In the 15 months I've had this car, I've range charged perhaps 10 times or so.
Last edited:
SmartElectric
Active Member
Early 2013 S85 with 72000 km.
Supercharged to 90% at 372 km (230 miles) tonight.
That's up from 365 when we bought as CPO over 15000 km ago...nice!
Supercharged to 90% at 372 km (230 miles) tonight.
That's up from 365 when we bought as CPO over 15000 km ago...nice!
maddog1762
Member
gg_got_a_tesla
Model S: VIN 65513, Model 3: VIN 1913
You're doing better than me.
19,013 mile, 13-month old P85D: 119 miles at 90%, 244 at 100%.
David J
Member
19,038 mile, 12 month old P 85D: 125 miles st 90%, 251 at 100%
these two are well within the li-ion margin of error for SOC algorithms. Even with consistent display discrepancies I'd be quite surprised if actual over-the-road experience would differ materially. There are so many assumptions that must be made that the estimates are exactly that- they are not measurements. Even SOC is an estimate subject to significant error.
So, should I worry that my 100% when I took delivery was 253 but today when I did it just to know my 100% was 251. OMG, should I panic?
Maybe this thread is not a good place to ask, but I have a question regarding battery capacity difference between P85 and P85D (or any new vehicles). I live in Tokyo so my Model S is Japanese version, which is European spec with American charge connector.
I guess in the US, rated range is based on 300Wh/mile. Our typical range is similar to rated range, and is based on 320Wh/mile. When new my car had 394km typical, which means 394/1.6*320/300=263 rated miles. I now have 380km typical, which is 253 rated miles. Looks normal, right?
Now looking at my friends P85D new cars, they have 410km typical range when new. Based on the same formula, 410km typical is equivalent to 273 rated miles. I guess this is very high...
So do you think the battery capacity has increased with P85D? Or instead, definition of "typical range" has been changed?
I guess in the US, rated range is based on 300Wh/mile. Our typical range is similar to rated range, and is based on 320Wh/mile. When new my car had 394km typical, which means 394/1.6*320/300=263 rated miles. I now have 380km typical, which is 253 rated miles. Looks normal, right?
Now looking at my friends P85D new cars, they have 410km typical range when new. Based on the same formula, 410km typical is equivalent to 273 rated miles. I guess this is very high...
So do you think the battery capacity has increased with P85D? Or instead, definition of "typical range" has been changed?
mknox
Well-Known Member
Interestingly, my RWD now supposedly has "torque sleep" as well. It was stated in the v7.0 release notes as having been brought over from the D models. So now I'm not sure why the D's would have better range, especially considering the added weight of the second drive unit.
mknox
Well-Known Member
I suppose that's true, and I'm not trying to be argumentative, but Tesla used to say the the standard cars and the performance (P) cars got the exact same efficiency if driven the same. So in that case a smaller (non-P) motor wasn't more efficient for some reason??? I wonder what it is about the D cars that makes the front motor that much more efficient. Electric motors are already quite efficient, and it's the same energy requirement to power the car down the road in either case.
Similar threads
