S90D owners only - Watts per mile

[msnow]

Clearly the data thus far says that S90D owners have different driving habits than those modeled by the EPA, so we agree on that.

Sure, nobody worries to much about reaching the EPA numbers in an ICE because there is a gas station on every corner. The EPA numbers are used just for comparison.

The purpose of the poll was to prove/disprove my assertion in another thread that Tesla over commits and under delivers on range. This was based on a) my experience with a BMW i3 which after two years reliably delivers more range than was promoted by BMW at the time of my purchase and b) early test drives of the Chevy Bolt by multiple members of the automobile press who all had not trouble extracting more range than Chevy is promoting in its advertising. The 2017 BMW i3 has an EPA rating of 97mi, but my 2014 with a 33% smaller battery routinely gets 85 so it seems likely that in the real world BMW buyers will easily experience more like 115. The i3 is overpriced, but BMW's credibility is intact.

The data in this poll thus far says that our tiny sample of S90D owners are getting less range than was promoted by Tesla when they purchased their car. The overarching point is that Tesla knows the buyers won't get the range that is being advertised because they have the real data from 100,000 cars. Tesla could easily promote the car by saying something like "EPA rated range of 294, but our experience is that most MS owners see about 10% less".

I want to see Tesla succeed, but building a reputation of over committing and under delivering is not the path to success. M3 owners will be much more mainstream than MS/MX buyers. If somebody tells them to expect 220 miles of range, and their experience is 200, while Bolt owners are told to expect 238 and routinely get 250, that's going to be a big problem for Tesla's credibility and sales.

There is a folklore belief in the "first mover" advantage. But the reality is that the dominant company is not usually the first, or even the second to enter the market. PC's is obvious, nobody from the first generation is still in business except Apple and their PC market share is less than 10%. Microsoft Office is dominant and its various components were introduced about 5yrs after others already "owned" the market for word processing and spreadsheets. Excel was actually Microsoft's second spreadsheet product. Oracle was not the first database, Amazon was not the first online retailer, iPhone was not the first smartphone, etc. etc. Tesla could easily become a footnote in the transition from ICE to EV.

Credibility is important and EM/Tesla are building a reputation as talk big, deliver smaller and later. Sure EM's charming and that work's great with investors, but customers, especially those with choices, expect to receive what they are told when they buy the product.

I agree on most every point but I view the Rated Range numbers as coming from the EPA not Tesla. Secondly, I think your poll would be much different if it was based just on how people drive if they are interested in extending range like on a road trip not including every day lead footing around. Mine would have been 290-300 instead of my lifetime 345. Thirdly, while I agree Tesla's marketing approach could be more transparent, my sales person was very honest about telling me I would have to drive very conservatively to reach 286 rated miles. I don't know what your experience was but since you were coming from the EV world and you seem like the kind of person that does a lot of research I suspect you knew more than most, certainly more than me regarding what to expect. Did you buy it thinking you would consistently hit 294? In the end though I agree with your conclusion that they need to put a little more "YMMV" in their marketing if they hope to be successful with the Model 3 and expanding the EV revolution.

 

[NikeWings]

If that was important to me, then I could easily obtain the represented range by adjusting driving habits, and Tesla makes it easier than an ICE to monitor it mile by mile.

But it's not important to me because........I-can't-drive-fifty fiiiiiiive.

 

[Btrflyl8e]

330 W/m lifetime @ ~6500 miles and I'm loving every punchy & chillaxin' watt of it.
Not trying to achieve any special result except joy.

Drive it like you stole it! That's my motto.

 

[NikeWings]

Drive it like you stole it! That's my motto.

Love it, so I'm stealing that!!!

 

[rhumbliner]

If that was important to me, then I could easily obtain the represented range by adjusting driving habits, and Tesla makes it easier than an ICE to monitor it mile by mile.

But it's not important to me because........I-can't-drive-fifty fiiiiiiive.

I concur. My Wh/mile varies dramatically depending upon my speed. I achieved just over 200 driving leisurely on flat terrain in South Carolina and well above 400 in the Texas panhandle at 95 mph with a very stiff headwind. Driving the mountains of Wyoming also causes wild fluctuations. Averages don't mean much to me.

 

[blackscraper]

my recent round trips posted numbers of 150-ish wh/KM which translates into 240-250wh/mile.