Max miles decrease 223 miles at 80%

[Big Earl]

Since the 18 M3LR got a range bump to 325 shouldn't that number be used for degradation calculations? I have the 18 M3LR also and I'd like to know.

Rear-wheel drive got a range bump. My all-wheel drive car never got that increase.

 

[Need]

Rear-wheel drive got a range bump. My all-wheel drive car never got that increase.

Yeah I was going to say that as well. My 2018 AWD stays at 310. I think the first 6 months or so, my 90% (the % I charged at home) was 279 so that would make my full at 310. It went down from there and the biggest drop was after one of the firmware update (forgot which version) and it dropped by a lot.

 

[KenC]

The OP's deg seems normal.

You'll be happy to know, my 5yr-old 3 has finally decided to show less than 310 miles:

 

[ran349]

The OP's deg seems normal.

You'll be happy to know, my 5yr-old 3 has finally decided to show less than 310 miles:

Oh no!! Do you know what caused the battery failure?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Yes. Actually use 332 miles or so (77.8kWh/234Wh/rmi) to be more accurate.

(76kWh corresponds to 325 miles (76kWh/234Wh/rmi), but it is well established with many SMT captures and the EPA test result that the vehicle started with more than that.)

Also the EPA rating for the vehicle was over 330 rated miles before voluntary reduction. Check the EPA data file for the exact number.

234Wh/rmi corresponds precisely with the 239Wh/mi on the energy screen. (But of course can be easily derived a couple other ways.)

To be clear, this was all for the RWD - since that was the question I was answering.

For 2018/2019:
The AWD and the RWD have the same pack size. But have to use 317.5 as the starting point (77.8kWh/245Wh/mi) for the AWD. Since it has a 245Wh/mi constant for 2018 and 2019. (2020 started at 322 miles, so has a ~242Wh/mi constant). 2018/2019 started at 310 for values above 76kWh (see Ken's recent example) - so use 317.5 rated miles for capacity loss calculations if you're comparing current rated miles to initial. Or you can just calculate the energy in the pack using the constant and divide by 77.8kWh. All the same.

If in doubt about what to use for the constant, use the energy screen line minus 5, or calculate from the consumption screen (Proj*Recent/(rated remaining)), or do it from a LARGE charge event (swap display type, divide kWh by rated miles added). They'll all give the same value.

And 77.8kWh is the value to use prior to 2021, though some complexities there with some AWD having 77.8 and others having 82.1kWh FPWN values. None of that complexity is relevant for the OP here.

 

[garth_angst]

There is data (search for all the threads and posts about degradation). Generally lower is better. But 80 vs 90 is of minimal difference in degradation. The biggest reduction in degradation is staying below about 55%.

Heh, this is like a play on words, with kind of double negative. "Reduction in degradation". Are you saying below 55% causes more or less degradation.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Heh, this is like a play on words, with kind of double negative. "Reduction in degradation". Are you saying below 55% causes more or less degradation.

Below 55% reduces the rate of capacity loss by 40-50%, very roughly.

 

[E90alex]

Heh, this is like a play on words, with kind of double negative. "Reduction in degradation". Are you saying below 55% causes more or less degradation.

Reduce means less

 

[nicksp]

I was thinking maybe there is more data that supports more range loss pushing to 90 more often?

The only data is a study of about 12.5 Teslas always charged on SC with minimal to normal degradation.

 

[bedoig]

@KenC "One of us! One of us!..."

 

[thatredM3]

Not to hijack the thread but I'm kind of disappointed with Tesla's new advice of 80% for daily driving. The performance model is noticably different at 80 vs 90 SOC.

That most likely exists to try and curb supercharger use.

 

[KenC]

Oh my god, I spoke too soon. My battery has decided it was only kidding:

 

[ran349]

Oh my god, I spoke too soon. My battery has decided it was only kidding:

The full rated value is calculated but I'm not sure how SMT does it. I think your nominal full pack is right on the cusp of the degradation threshold of 76 kWh. Do you remember the maximum NFP you have seen?
@AlanSubie4Life could verify if that is the case. If your rated constant is 245 Wh/mile, then your actual full rated range is 309.4 miles.
But if that is the case, I don't think you have any reason to panic about your degradation after 5 years.

 

[KenC]

The full rated value is calculated but I'm not sure how SMT does it. I think your nominal full pack is right on the cusp of the degradation threshold of 76 kWh. Do you remember the maximum NFP you have seen?
@AlanSubie4Life could verify if that is the case. If your rated constant is 245 Wh/mile, then your actual full rated range is 309.4 miles.
But if that is the case, I don't think you have any reason to panic about your degradation after 5 years.

Yep, agreed. I only got the OBDII dongle and SMT, a year and a half ago, so the highest I saw was around

77.0kWh, back in June of last year, about 19k miles ago.