-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Who wants in on a class action lawsuit? ;-)
- Thread starter Kihi.lind
- Start date
At what Wh/mi?
The issue of range is a symptom of lake of usable kWh’s. Anyone can drive down a hill and not only consume nothing but also end with more kWh’s than they started.
The usable kWh’s is the issue NOT the range.
No, they didn't guarantee, or even state, a usable kWh.
For example in the Audi e-tron they state it has a 95kWh pack, but only about 83 kWh of it is usable. (In addition to the anti-brick buffer on the bottom they have a large buffer at the top so that they can charge to "100%" faster.)
If you actually own a MS or MX you would know that the “Rated Miles” is a factor of 300Wh/mi. This is a given factor in the Trip Range Screen (sadly not available on M3).
This is why Tesla supercharger concierge recommends don’t set battery reading on miles and use energy instead, then rely on the Trip Range Screens because they more accurately take into account average Wh/mi and projected stop and go as well hills. (Note the dotted line states “Rated Miles” is 300Wh/mi).
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
I’ve owned a model S for 2 years now and have driven it 70,000 miles. Your claim is false. WH/mi to calculate EPA rated range varies with each individual configuration based on weight and performance. This is why a 100D and P100D have different rated ranges despite identical batteries.
You’re just wrong here. I’m not sure how else to put it.
You just stated my point. The Audi e-tron is not called the e-tron 95 duh. Tesla did the right thing with the 2nd gen 60 with software limitations because it to charges faster and safer to charge to 100%.
Plus if Audi advertises the range based on the 83,000Wh/EPA tested Wh/mi then they are being more honest.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Can you point me to any documentation where Tesla guarantees a certain capacity of the installed battery will be available for propulsion?
(Hint: the answer is no)
Tesla installed a ~61kwh battery in your car and marketed it as a “60”. Your discontent with this is based on incorrect information and false assumptions.
Attachments
Sorry, didn’t want to read all the pages.. did anyone offer to join OP or is this a class of one and just a cute clickbait title for a “does anyone else have this issue?” Thread?
If you Multiply The Displayed RATED Miles by 300 then divide by 1000 you get the same kWh as Multiple of the Projected Miles by AVG Wh/mi.
This has turned into a clickbait if Fan Boys disputing any truth supporting a Claim against Tesla. -would be nice if real Tesla owners only could chime in.
No they did not install a ~61 This has been confirmed by the reports and documented by SVC. Hence they lye
If you zoom in you can clearly see that the rated line is below the 300 line.
No you are mistaken the 300Wh line is below the AVG 441 line
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Tesla’s hacked Battery Management System exposes the real usable capacity of its battery packs
You certainly don't have to believe it, but if you're gonna puff yourself up about legal claims and damages, it would benefit you to base those claims in fact. Repeating "lyes" will get you nowhere.
Look closer. You will see the light 300 line just a couple pixels above the rated line. The scale is very compressed so there isn't much difference between 295 and 300...
There is no 295
The 300 is directly next to the Rated
The 441AVG changes moving up and down based on consumption.
Did I get a thumbs down because Fan Boys do NOT want real owners only to chime in -LOL
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Not at all. I just think facts matter and find it important to correct misinformation for the sake of others reading this.
Further evidence your “rated 300” claim is not based in reality.
Similar threads
