It was mid to upper 70s so I had the A/C on a bit here and there but unless I'm misunderstanding the avg kWh/mi figure, wouldn't any non driving related battery usage show up in that average? I.e if I pree-cooled the vehicle it would increase the kWh usage but since no mileage was accrued, it would drive up that avg kWh/mi. I sent screenshots to the SC and they are going to investigate the logs once again.
That looks almost identical to mine:
No, energy used while the car is in "Off" mode are not accrued in the kWh used. If I range charge then leave "Keep climate on" during a winter cold snap, I could deplete the battery (to 20% of course) without the energy being counted by the trip meters. This is how I keep my average number down; by pre-heating in winter and pre-cooling in summer. This goes the same for "vampire" losses, they're not counted either.
The SC called me with their engineers response after studying the logs again and they said the battery is normal and healthy. Their math goes something like this: Total usable = ~58.5kWh but 0% isnt actually 0%, there is really ~7% still available at 0% to protect you from yourself. So my 39.1kWh used over 95% plus the 5% remaining plus the ~7% buffer means by their calculation "only" a 13% range loss which is within expectation for my battery, which to me still adds up to more then 13%. It seems my ~45kWh of accessible capacity is more then a 20% degradation from the original 58.5kWh based off of all the math they confirmed but I know now that since they've determined the pack to be healthy then no amount of degradation will be considered abnormal. Pretty disappointing if you ask me that the best case scenario of a 13% range loss requires me to drive on 0% for 20+ miles and trust that the capacity is actually there to support that and even if all of that range was visible without being an "invisible" buffer and I still have 80% (at the very best) use of the original capacity.
If there is an extra 7% available, I don't think it's there for you to drive on.. It's there to protect the battery from catastrophic failure when going so low in charge.
I guess that would make sense, but assuming that's the case then that same 7% existed when my battery originally had 206 miles at 100%, so to me it doesn't change the amount of degradation in the equation. Maybe it's possible that 7% didn't exist and through a firmware update they "blocked" that 7% off for the catastrophic failure protection. If that were the case, I wish they would just be transparent with everything instead of giving a standard "battery is healthy" response.
I get 70 kWh on the odometer this charge section after a full charge and immediately leaving and no time for phantom drain. its a 2016 90D built in Feb
The extended warranty is not 125,000 miles. It covers 8 years or 100,000 miles. It adds an additional 4 years/50,000 miles to the standard 4 year/50,000 mile warranty.
Nobody has sued Tesla over false advertising and misrepresentation with the 85 and 90? Seems like owners of those battery vehicles were lied to.
Doesn't the battery have slightly different warranty terms then the rest of the car? I thought it was 8 years unlimited miles for 70 and up packs, and 8 years 125k miles for the 60 packs....
