Dash showing more range than when new

[Asifunu]

Good evening,

Been browsing these forums for a couple months waiting to sell my vehicle private party so I could purchase a Model S.
My research and budget pushes me to a 2019-2021 MS for the Raven features. It'll be a long range, long range +, or a performance.
I am going this weekend to look at a long range (per add & dash), however when I had him charge it to 100% today for me to figure out the battery degradation the dash shows 385 miles. Not sure how this is possible. Has anyone ever seen this or can anyone explain this? Is it a LR+ and the dash just doesn't show it?
Link to car on KSL: 2019 Tesla Model S Long Range Tesla Model S | $39,995 | Salt Lake City, UT | KSL Cars

 

[Asifunu]

 

[ucmndd]

Tell the seller to switch the range display to “rated” instead of “ideal” (controls -> display) and insist he stop trying to hustle you.

 

[Asifunu]

Thanks. Even with ideal, why would it show more miles (385) than originally rated (370)?

 

[DerbyDave]

My 2020 had a rated range of 402 miles when new, Long Range Plus with 19" tires. I am down to around 377 now at 100 percent charge. I am good, but there are better on TeslaFi. 385 is normal and pretty good.

 

[Asifunu]

My 2020 had a rated range of 402 miles when new, Long Range Plus with 19" tires. I am down to around 377 now at 100 percent charge. I am good, but there are better on TeslaFi. 385 is normal and pretty good.

Yes thats normal for a Long Range +, but this is a Long Range, not a LR+....

 

[Usher]

Thanks. Even with ideal, why would it show more miles (385) than originally rated (370)?

Ideal range is higher than rated range. Rated range is what everyone references when talking about car range. No one uses ideal range numbers for anything.

 

[Asifunu]

Ideal range is higher than rated range. Rated range is what everyone references when talking about car range. No one uses ideal range numbers for anything.

I understand that, but how would even Ideal range get you 385 miles when the battery itself was never rated that high? Let alone the fact its 5 years old and has 65K miles on it.

 

[Usher]

I understand that, but how would even Ideal range get you 385 miles when the battery itself was never rated that high? Let alone the fact its 5 years old and has 65K miles on it.

It just uses a different Wh/mi efficiency number when converting battery % to miles.
For example for my old P85 (with guesses for the ideal numbers since I didn't ever use ideal range):
Useable battery capacity: 79.5 kWh
Rated efficiency: 300 Wh/mi
100% rated range = 79500 / 300 = 265 mi
Ideal efficiency: 250 Wh/mi
100% ideal range = 79500 / 250 = 318 mi

 

[GHammer]

I understand that, but how would even Ideal range get you 385 miles when the battery itself was never rated that high? Let alone the fact its 5 years old and has 65K miles on it.

To add what Usher said.
"Ideal" range is a setting on the car that uses an overly optimistic energy to miles conversion factor. It is a Tesla only "pull it out of your butt" number. Nobody uses it and I'm surprised this setting still exists in the car.

"Rated" range uses the conversion factor that is submitted to the EPA and is considered the official range and is what everyone uses although it too is a bit optimistic.

Perhaps what your not understanding is that mileage range is variable based on conditions like speed, elevation and temperature. It's not a constant and you can get different mileage out of a battery based on its energy usage per mile. "Rated" is based on conditions specified by the EPA. "Ideal" is based on some Tesla
engineers fantasy.

 

[Asifunu]

Thanks all, just a bit confusing. In other news, the car doesn't have the bottom to change to relative where ucnmdd suggested.. where else would it be?

 

[Asifunu]

To add what Usher said.
"Ideal" range is a setting on the car that uses an overly optimistic energy to miles conversion factor. It is a Tesla only "pull it out of your butt" number. Nobody uses it and I'm surprised this setting still exists in the car.

"Rated" range uses the conversion factor that is submitted to the EPA and is considered the official range and is what everyone uses although it too is a bit optimistic.

Perhaps what your not understanding is that mileage range is variable based on conditions like speed, elevation and temperature. It's not a constant and you can get different mileage out of a battery based on its energy usage per mile. "Rated" is based on conditions specified by the EPA. "Ideal" is based on some Tesla
engineers fantasy.

I do understand that, just wasn't sure how it could project more than it was rated at (~370 miles). Just trying to figure out the best guess at battery degradation before I drop $40K.

 

[ran349]

Thanks all, just a bit confusing. In other news, the car doesn't have the bottom to change to relative where ucnmdd suggested.. where else would it be?
View attachment 1038092

You're looking at the right place, so it doesn't appear to have the option to change the display to ideal miles.
Did you find out any more information? You can use the energy screen method to calculate the approximate capacity of the battery to help determine degradation if you are still considering the car and have access to the display.

 

[AAKEE]

I do understand that, just wasn't sure how it could project more than it was rated at (~370 miles). Just trying to figure out the best guess at battery degradation before I drop $40K.

Degradation is very predictable.
If you tell me the area where the car is and how the former owner mostly has charged (to what charging level), i can give you a guestimate.

A quick googling about the Utah climate and the most normal charging behaviour, it sets the expected calendar aging aroubd 10%.
The battery delivered 100kWh in the EPA test, so about 90kWh capacity today.

Tesla use a degradation threshold lower than the new capacity, I think I have seen indications that it is around 97kWh.
(A definitive known value of the rated wh/mile would set this)

But if the guesstimate 97 kWh is correct, the range should have dropped around 7% from the new value.
So, out of 370 miles, 345 miles or so is what to expect today.

 

[Asifunu]

I appreciate your guys' responses. I plan to go drive the car today, it's a little over an hour away from my home so I had to wait until the weekend and just figured I would try to figure a few things out between then and now.
Ho does one go about using the energy screen method to help determine degradation? I can play with that today while I have the car.
Unfortunately there is no way for me to know how the previous owner treated it, it is at a dealership and from the carfax it looks like it has had 3 owners and the last one only kept it for 8 months, which seems like a red flag to me.
I am also going to look at a 2020 performance model while I am out that way but seriously debating purchasing one from back east and having it shipped. They have way better deals on Autotrader.

 

[Asifunu]

 

[AAKEE]

I appreciate your guys' responses. I plan to go drive the car today, it's a little over an hour away from my home so I had to wait until the weekend and just figured I would try to figure a few things out between then and now.
Ho does one go about using the energy screen method to help determine degradation? I can play with that today while I have the car.
Unfortunately there is no way for me to know how the previous owner treated it, it is at a dealership and from the carfax it looks like it has had 3 owners and the last one only kept it for 8 months, which seems like a red flag to me.
I am also going to look at a 2020 performance model while I am out that way but seriously debating purchasing one from back east and having it shipped. They have way better deals on Autotrader.

Use the [ average x calculated range] from the energy screen (set to ”normal range”) and divide with the SOC.

[ average x calculated range x 100/ SOC % = capacity in Watt hours].

My 23 MSP doesnt have that energy graph part, so heres the corresponding from my former M3P:

 

[Asifunu]

He sent me this yesterday when the car was at 95%. But the number I get using your calculation is 945.85.

 

[AAKEE]

He sent me this yesterday when the car was at 95%. But the number I get using your calculation is 945.85.
View attachment 1038311

312 x 288 x 100/95 = 94.600Wh.

Thats good!

 

[ran349]

He sent me this yesterday when the car was at 95%. But the number I get using your calculation is 945.85.

312 x 288 x 100/95 = 94.600Wh.

Thats good!

The battery does look good as far as degradation goes. But it still leaves the question of how the display shows 385 miles at 100%, when the new rated range number was 370 miles, unless it really is a long range +.
I agree it is a little bit of a red flag that the owner got rid of the car after only 8 months. Did he say why?