2023 Model Y LR Poor Mileage in real world

[exxxviii]

I’m not questioning the EPA result. I’m questioning its usefulness.

I bought the car three years ago knowing I would never hit the actual number because I like to research things.

For the general public that is used to highway mileage is better than city mileage, using a non-repeatable (at highway speeds) number as your selling point is a problem.

Companies like Porsche that derate this value, get it.

The real problem here is EPA. Their ratings for EV are just stoopid.

MPGe? What the heck. Did a room of middle schoolers concoct this? This is supposed to represent the miles of the equivalent gallon of gas, which they decided is 33.7. The heck!!? They forever tied EVs to something going obsolete and unrelated.

Then, the EPA combined range definition is 60% city and 40% highway. That made sense for gas, but they should at least swap it for EV.

Then, allowing automakers to arbitrarily derate performance with no controls? Really, that is utter anarchy.

There is really only one automaker, well maybe two, that seem to take EPA testing seriously and publish accurate results: Tesla and Hyundai. Audi is using the 5-cycle test, but not many of their cars are rated yet under that standard.

 

[MattM24]

The real problem here is EPA. Their ratings for EV are just stoopid.

MPGe? What the heck. Did a room of middle schoolers concoct this? This is supposed to represent the miles of the equivalent gallon of gas, which they decided is 33.7. The heck!!? They forever tied EVs to something going obsolete and unrelated.

Then, the EPA combined range definition is 60% city and 40% highway. That made sense for gas, but they should at least swap it for EV.

Then, allowing automakers to arbitrarily derate performance with no controls? Really, that is utter anarchy.

There is really only one automaker, well maybe two, that seem to take EPA testing seriously and publish accurate results: Tesla and Hyundai. Audi is using the 5-cycle test, but not many of their cars are rated yet under that standard.

I agree that the issue is with the testing.
It’s also with the manufacturers that post that number instead of more useful independent highway and city numbers.

I’d argue that the city range value isn’t of much use at all outside of in town delivery driving, since you can’t add it up over days/weeks of driving due to losses and the lack of any meaningful wind resistance means it will be very high anyway. (Holy run on sentence!)

 

[Kupe]

I don't work for the EPA or Tesla, I just drive one of their cars. I drive it 65/35 hwy/city. I don't drive above 80, but I almost always speed on the highway. I typically don't accelerate hard, but I always use 1-pedal driving. I've only had my car for a little over 2,000 miles and here in Virginia that means my temps have been between mid-40s F to high 90s F - so no winter driving. Here are my mileage results so far - they only seem to be improving over time (probably as I become a more proficient driver with this car).

 

[retbesla]

I recently picked up my 2023 model y LR and have driven it less than 400 miles (600km) but noticed it has really horrible mileage.

Two Instances:

• I would go 10 miles (16km) in city driving and it would eat up 6% battery making the mileage 166 miles (270km) on full charge.
• In another instance I drove it 40 miles (65km) and it used up 20%, making the mileage 200 miles (355km) on full charge.

The energy consumption menu states pretty normal ranges at 216 miles at 78% making it 277 miles (446km) at full charge. According to the other screens I am also using a lot of energy at lifetime 318Wh/mile (198wh/km).

Setup:

• 2023 Model Y Long Range Dual Motor AWD
• 20" induction wheels
• 5 seater
• Lithium Ion Battery (Not LFP)
• British Columbia, Canada

Driving Environment:
I drive like a grandpa and have my profile set on "chill" plus I did not do any highway driving so all my miles are within 45 miles/h (70km/h). It also has not been very cold at around 44.6°F (7°C) ambient temperature and I like to set my cabin temperature at 70°F (21°C) with the driver seat heater at level 1. I also always start my ride at 85% battery since that is my charge limit. With all these factors I feel like the consumption is still insanely high.

Does anyone else have poor mileage: Does this warrant concerns? Should I take my Tesla in to examine given the novelty of the car and the fact that I want to point out any factory defects early on?


View attachment 893847View attachment 893846

Hope OP is fine. Really like to know if the mileages are getting better now since it is warmer or hotter in BC.

 

[Jyz002]

EPA is maybe attainable is one likes to supermile. In real life driving this is pretty much what you will see. After 3 years with the Y and 1 1/2 years with the S I concur with their testing results. Tesla’s Real-World And EPA Range Significantly Different: Recurrent Data

Am I reading the graphs correctly that both S and Y get 60% of the sticker range even at optimal temperatures, whereas both the Bolt and Mustang get over 100% at the optimal temps? How is this possibly legal?

 

[Midnightsun]

Am I reading the graphs correctly that both S and Y get 60% of the sticker range even at optimal temperatures, whereas both the Bolt and Mustang get over 100% at the optimal temps? How is this possibly legal?

This should explain some of it. Tesla’s secret team to suppress thousands of driving range complaints

 

[Jyz002]

This should explain some of it. Tesla’s secret team to suppress thousands of driving range complaints

I’m aware of the article but didn’t realize the extent of the cheating. The article stated something in the mid 20% under EPA but this says 40%. I’m actually one of the few people that actually hit EPA range as I live in California and drive local more often than not, so I should expect to get like 1.6x sticker range of I get other EVs?

 

[exxxviii]

Am I reading the graphs correctly that both S and Y get 60% of the sticker range even at optimal temperatures, whereas both the Bolt and Mustang get over 100% at the optimal temps? How is this possibly legal?

See the comments above... It should not be legal for Bolt and Mustang to have such crazily inaccurate EPA numbers, but it is. Tesla's EPA numbers are the most accurate of any BEV maker. The extra level of stupidity in that chart is that driving at highway speeds burns more energy than the EPA test. The moron authors fail to understand the data they are comparing.

 

[tonyb99]

There have been suggestions that Tesla cheats on estimated mileage (exaggerating it) when above 50% full, and then corrects it at lower levels so drivers do not get stranded. My statistics do not support that at all.

Three years ownership. 28,000 miles. Statistics (start estimate, actual mileage, end estimate) for 974 drives covering 22,484 of those miles.

Separated the drives into two groups. Starting remaining estimate >150. and starting remaining estimate <151.

Looking to see if the ratio of actual miles to estimated miles was lower for the first group, which it would be if the supposed cheating was occurring.

Average ratios for the two groups were .92 and .88

I then calculated a weighted average (miles x ratio) because I think short drives have a higher overhead (heating/cooling the battery/interior)

The weighted averages were .89 and .88

My conclusion: no cheating but EPA estimates are an unrealistic "best case".

 

[Midnightsun]

This came out recently.

 

[exxxviii]

This came out recently.

Yes, it came up in another thread. Did you read it. Did you see Consumer Reports' mistake. Their comparison is idiotic. "In the Consumer Reports test, which consisted of constant cruising on the highway at 70 miles per hour." This is not an EPA test protocol and it makes no sense to compare that to EPA. Morons.

If the EPA test is done correctly, no BEV should ever exceed its EPA range in a 70 MPH test. That is a nonsense comparison. InsideEVs did their battery of 70 MPH tests, and about 80% to 85% of stated EPA range is pretty common for cars with accurate EPA ranges.

Guess what... when CR did their 70 MPH runs in moderate temperatures, they got pretty much what everyone else did. Nothing burger here.

That article makes InsideEVs look like morons too. These clowns should be attacking the EPA, not an automaker. The root problem is that the EPA test, that automakers are legally obligated to publish, are designed around ICE cars, not BEV. At a minimum, the EPA test should be flipped to be based on 60% highway and 40% city. Then, the EPA should not allow automakers to arbitrarily derate their test results. If they put everyone on the same playing field with no fudgery, then consumers would have better information to use when buying a car.

 

[Midnightsun]

Yes, it came up in another thread. Did you read it. Did you see Consumer Reports' mistake. Their comparison is idiotic. "In the Consumer Reports test, which consisted of constant cruising on the highway at 70 miles per hour." This is not an EPA test protocol and it makes no sense to compare that to EPA. Morons.

I believe all can see this is not the way EPA tests. Point is others were able to attain EPA @ 70 mph in warm weather where Tesla was not. I think everyone can see there is something not computing here. Our Y had a 525km rating when new and we travel to our cottage every weekend during the summer months which is 200km away. No way can I make it round trip which is 400km no matter how hard I try. Should mention I did not put ourselves in danger by travelling below the posted limit trying to achieve EPA on the freeway though.

 

[exxxviii]

I believe all can see this is not the way EPA tests. Point is others were able to attain EPA @ 70 mph in warm weather where Tesla was not. I think everyone can see there is something not computing here. Our Y had a 525km rating when new and we travel to our cottage every weekend during the summer months which is 200km away. No way can I make it round trip which is 400km no matter how hard I try. Should mention I did not put ourselves in danger by travelling below the posted limit trying to achieve EPA on the freeway though.

No. Tesla's EPA tests are the most precise of all BEV automakers, according to Edmunds' range tests that attempts to match the EPA protocol. The problem is that EPA allows automakers to arbitrarily derate their EPA numbers, so they are functionally useless. The failure is that people do not understand that EPA range, by its scientific definition, is unachievable in highway driving. If a car meets or exceeds its EPA rating, then that automaker fudged the numbers. EPA designed this, allows this, and it shouldn't.

Honestly, it would be better if EPA simply changed the requirement to state that BEV automakers should publish a 70 MPH range, and they were not allowed to alter the number in any way. The problem is that would not show the effectiveness of their HVAC and regeneration on range. But it would at least get the simple minded people like InsideEVs, Consumer Reports, etc. something else to write about.

 

[Rocky_H]

The root problem is that the EPA test, that automakers are legally obligated to publish, are designed around ICE cars, not BEV.

I would say that the root problem is different than that. You refer to "the EPA test". You used the word "the", as in singular. Gas cars have one single EPA test. Electric cars have a choice of two DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT versions of rating, which yield very high or very low numbers. So the problem lies more with numbers being published with the general public having no idea which type of rating that is, or even the knowledge that there are different ratings at all.

 

[exxxviii]

I would say that the root problem is different than that. You refer to "the EPA test". You used the word "the", as in singular. Gas cars have one single EPA test. Electric cars have a choice of two DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT versions of rating, which yield very high or very low numbers. So the problem lies more with numbers being published with the general public having no idea which type of rating that is, or even the knowledge that there are different ratings at all.

Agree. I am simplifying. I think there are two major issues: 1) that manufacturers can choose either the 2-cycle or 5-cycle test; and 2) that manufacturers can then arbitrarily reduce the EPA range by any amount they choose.

Then, layer-in the general population ignorance that assumes BEV range and efficiency are like ICE - that an ICE typically exceeds its combined EPA efficiency on a highway, but BEV highway efficiency should (by scientific definition of the test) be lower than combined EPA numbers.

 

[LostVector]

Agree. I am simplifying. I think there are two major issues: 1) that manufacturers can choose either the 2-cycle or 5-cycle test; and 2) that manufacturers can then arbitrarily reduce the EPA range by any amount they choose.

Then, layer-in the general population ignorance that assumes BEV range and efficiency are like ICE - that an ICE typically exceeds its combined EPA efficiency on a highway, but BEV highway efficiency should (by scientific definition of the test) be lower than combined EPA numbers.

What is the actual problem with a manufacturer being allowed to voluntarily lower the number? I think the intent must be to allow ”underpromise and overdeliver” … or allow for a simpler testing cycle. Both of which seem to be the manufacturer’s business?

 

[exxxviii]

What is the actual problem with a manufacturer being allowed to voluntarily lower the number? I think the intent must be to allow ”underpromise and overdeliver” … or allow for a simpler testing cycle. Both of which seem to be the manufacturer’s business?

It makes the number meaningless to consumers trying to use it to make a purchasing decision. If they do that, then just throw it out and no longer require anyone to test and publish EPA. The Taycan is a case study of this level of stupid.

Porsche's used to be horribly understated; now they are just badly understated. Hyundai/Genesis/Kia are a little understated. BMWs are badly understated. H/K/G actually make a great EV that is competitive with the Model Y in range and efficiency. But, you have to read a lot of reviews and know somebody with an Ioniq 5 or EV6 to figure that out. The EPA shouldn't make it that hard for consumers.

 

[Midnightsun]

Tesla is getting sued because of alleged false range claims. I believe most of us here can attest to somewhat overly enthusiastic figures. Tesla faces class-action lawsuit in California for allegedly exaggerating range estimates

 

[LostVector]

It makes the number meaningless to consumers trying to use it to make a purchasing decision. If they do that, then just throw it out and no longer require anyone to test and publish EPA. The Taycan is a case study of this level of stupid.

Porsche's used to be horribly understated; now they are just badly understated. Hyundai/Genesis/Kia are a little understated. BMWs are badly understated. H/K/G actually make a great EV that is competitive with the Model Y in range and efficiency. But, you have to read a lot of reviews and know somebody with an Ioniq 5 or EV6 to figure that out. The EPA shouldn't make it that hard for consumers.

Using a single number to represent efficiency / range is hard for sure, and in the worst case doesn't even make sense with all of the variables that affect range. I agree the EPA should do better here.

I don't think the number is meaningless, however. Underpromising is far less damaging than overpromising and can be viewed as a positive overall ... since it's hardly in the manufacturer's best interest in the short term to quote a worse number.

Of course if you really want a good apples to apples comparison the EPA number isn't doing a great job right now ... but then again, there are still many other factors that all require research from the customers. I think one of the goals of that singular EPA number right now is that the customer gets "at least" what they are paying for ... aka it's fine to err on one side but not the other.

 

[vishnumrao]

TBH, I am having a serious dose of buyers remorse at the moment. MY 2023 MY LR, gives me ~270 miles of range in mostly warm weather between 75-90F. This is mostly consistent with what the CR report noted. Andy I am nearly always on autopilot @70 MPH.

While I agree its EPAs fault to have not regulated well, its very eggregious of Tesla to give such optimistic range figures. Is the class action suit justified? I don't know. But I hope it triggers action at EPA to establish clear range rating methods and Tesla to come clean on their range figures.