You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Doing a quick search it seems a bunch of SR+ are seeing 220-230 @100%. So it doesn’t seem like your 100% is out of the norm. Do you have 20” wheels? Did you stop on that drive to work? If not it looks like your avg speed was less than 60mph and 303 wh/mile seems high. Unless you had the heater blasting maybe...but with temps at 57deg I wouldn’t presume so. I’d expect that wh/mile from a p3d+ maybe but not a rwd with aero wheels.
Oh, this is SR+?! You are in an AWD thread...
Your car is perfectly normal for that Supercharger abuse.
It was charge from 100% which yielded the 228mi back in December. And I very rarely do a charge from 65% to 90% but I did that day just to find out that information posted above.
Information as of yesterday/this morning:
I supercharged from 17%(“37mi”) to 70% then drove to my friends house down the street and left my car to charge to 100% via his 220v. I got to the car this morning and this is what is happening:
100% somehow jumped to “226mi” which is the highest I’ve seen in weeks (did a 100% charge via supercharging about a month ago and that was somewhere in the 180-190mi range).
Display: 100% = 226mi
**Drive to work: 74.8mi**
Display: 50% = 113mi
74.8mi/23kWh/303Wh/mi
I couldn’t find a SR+/RWD thread talking about range issues, and this thread seemed more applicable. So, because of supercharging, this is going to be common for me?
Hi, I have read about people losing range over time in their model 3s. In most cases its about 10-20 miles. For me the story is a bit different, right now at 100% charge I get about 267 miles. That's over 40 miles that I have lost. It has been happening slowly over time, I have had the car for about 6 months, and almost every week the range reading at 90% dropps with 1 or 2 miles. So it seems that it is steadly going down, but sadly it doesn't stop. I have contacted Tesla and been to the Sc several times and they keep telling me every single time that it's because of driving style and that the range reading adapts to my driving, this is not true as you probably know.
I have tried several times 100%-0%-100%, nothing helps. Tesla did actually do a diagnostics but found nothing, and they do not wanna help me anymore because they don't see this as a problem. Anyone experience THIS much range loss?
I have a LR AWD
Yes, it would be great if you can write us back what happened.UPDATE!!!
I scheduled a new SC appointment yesterday. Today I got an sms saying that they looked into my car and that the battery modules are unbalanced. I knew cells could be unbalanced but not whole modules, interesting.... Someone had this problem?
I don’t think it is a coincidence. If the calculations are the same for the model 3 as the model S, which it appears they might be, then you will see that result in every case. The SOC that the car displays, also called SOC from the CAN, is using the exact formula you showed in your earlier post. Assuming that the display and CAN SOC were 54%, then the SOC that you would use for the remainingkWhnom value would be about 56% ( The same calculation with the buffer from the numerator and denominator removed). I think this is called SOC UI from the CAN. In that case, the remainingkWhnom would be around 41.3 kWh, not 40 kWh, assuming a 3.3 kWh buffer like you were using in your numbers.
So I don’t believe you need a new charge constant to explain the CAN data, but it is difficult to understand exactly why Tesla does certain things the way they do.
I agree that Tesla is doing that, using the nominal pack energy (includes buffer) for rated miles, and then they use the usable (not including buffer) for the SOC calculation. Those two methods are not consistent with each other and thus create discrepancies that so many have observed, such as driving at the rated constant but not achieving rated miles.I believe that Tesla is cheating, and using the nominal pack energy for RR, and not the usable pack range. This has been amply shown on several threads on the MS forum.
This approach also hides degradation of the pack.
As I understand it (Not an M3 owner) the M3 warranty protects against a capacity loss of over 30%.
I would get a CAN Bus reader and see exactly what my degradation of usable pack capacity is from new. (My WAG is 75KwH for M3)
Don't let Tesla get away with making you live with degraded Batts!
I agree that Tesla is doing that, using the nominal pack energy for rated miles, and then they use the usable (nominal - buffer) for the SOC calculation. Those two methods are not consistent with each other and thus create discrepancies that so many have observed, such as driving at the rated constant but not achieving rated miles.
Is it cheating though? I guess you could say that, but Tesla might be able to legally justify it because in the EPA test they drive (or dyno test) the car until it stops, and they probably ensure that the whole buffer gets used in that case.
But I would agree, they shouldn't do it that way. They should calculate the rated miles based on usable, but of course, that wouldn't be as impressive a number for rated range, even though the car would have the exact same capacity when driving to 0%.
But most people would assume that it would mean less actual range.
I don't think it hides degradation though, if you use rated miles as your metric for degradation. That is because degradation of the full pack would be directly proportional to loss of rated miles, assuming the charge constant for rated miles has not been changed.
For example, a 30% loss of nominal full pack energy would translate to a 30% loss in rated miles.
I'm in the same boat. What did they say?I'm down to 245 miles at 90% after a year. Just wrote to Tesla about it.
I'm in the same boat. What did they say?
but hasn't degraded further.
In my case, (Sorry, not an M3) the car and Teslafi agree my RM is 261, decrease of 4% from new EPA RR of 270.
However, CAN bus shows 71.5 KwH usable, a 12.5% degradation from 81.5KwH.
~7 miles total range loss in 17k miles/2 yrs seems good to me
Well that’s good at least. @TwoK4drSi and you at 245 (275 @ 100%) in pre-2020 AWD are close to the worst results I’ve heard of without some sort of other issue. I’m at 290 and think I’m doing somewhat below average, but just fine.
I have a Model 3 LR which I bought because, well.....I wanted to own a Tesla for most of the reasons people on here buy one here, but I bought the LR to do a relatively long weekly commute that I have, which is circa 215 miles, oh how naive I was!. I was initially very disappointed that the car wouldn't do the distance. I manged it once, and that was after charging to 100% and arriving home at 1%......needless to say I didn't try it again, way too stressful! It taught me to drive more slowly and steadily and also to plan a stop, which in ways is no bad thing. Recently though I have noticed a significant drop in range, leading to more disappointment and an increase in range anxiety. TBH it just leaves a feeling of overall disappointment because I want the car to be great (there have been quite a few other niggles not relevant to this thread). Posting the TeslaFi curve picture to show teh degredation. I didn't get the TeslaFi app from the very beginning, but at ODO of circa 700. The car now has 7,200 miles. Surely a car with WLTP range of 348 should not have a range of 290 miles after 7,200 miles of driving?!?!
It's because Tesla is BS ing people. People can claim all they want that it's EPA rated but everyone laughs at that when they buy an ice vehicle. That ice vehicle still goes 300 plus miles though.
The wh/miles is nonsense. I'm at like 280 in sedate driving. People do need to use air conditioning and Tesla needs to realistically tell people what range they can expect