Tesla lies about car range

[islandbayy]

Tesla pretty famously games the EPA test cycle and has gotten very good at getting the best possible numbers to advertise while staying within the rules (at least there has been no accusation or evidence to support them NOT following the EPA rules to my knowledge). They’ve decided big numbers in ad materials are more important than actually delivering them, for better or worse.

As for the cloak and dagger “secret team” stuff, it’s hard to take that very seriously. Yeah, I have no doubt that they have a team of service specialists whose job is to evaluate tickets and cancel service requests when there’s nothing to actually fix. That’s just good business all around. There is nothing to fix for the overwhelming majority of “range issue” service requests because the cars are functioning as designed. Letting people come in just to do nothing is a disservice to everyone - the customer, the company, and everyone else with real service issues trying to get them addressed.

Regarding “rosy range projections”… find me an ICE car made in the last 20 years that has a real linear fuel gauge. EVERY car on the street has a gas gauge that straight up lies to you (the top “half” of the gauge is actually about 2/3 of the tank, while the bottom half is about 1/3). Many EVs use “guess o meters” that are equally dishonest. This is just the way of the world.

EV range estimates are BS because the EPA testing guidelines are broken and explicitly allow for vastly different outcomes. Tesla and others are exploiting the system. Do your research and know what you’re buying, because no Tesla service center on earth can fix “ZOMG I USED 200 MILES TO GO 120 MILES MY CAR IS BUSTED”.

Can't comment on a secret team for the range issues, but Elon sure as heck had one in the early days for everything else. Even had a team that did nothing but match online usernames, handles and real names to actual customer cars. It got to the point where, depending on who you were, you could post publicly about a vehicle issue, and within 15-30 minutes, someone was already calling you from Tesla.

 

[NV Ray]

Can't comment on a secret team for the range issues, but Elon sure as heck had one in the early days for everything else. Even had a team that did nothing but match online usernames, handles and real names to actual customer cars. It got to the point where, depending on who you were, you could post publicly about a vehicle issue, and within 15-30 minutes, someone was already calling you from Tesla.

Ah, those were the days

 

[Rocky_H]

Tesla pretty famously games the EPA test cycle

That's a bit like if the cafeteria at work has either steak or spaghetti offered today, and someone chooses steak, and then you say they "gamed" the menu to get steak. Uhhh...it was one of the choices.

 

[ucmndd]

That's a bit like if the cafeteria at work has either steak or spaghetti offered today, and someone chooses steak, and then you say they "gamed" the menu to get steak. Uhhh...it was one of the choices.

Not sure I fully agree with that. They are abusing the spirit and intent of the regulations in a way that results in massively unrealistic range estimates compared to pretty much every other peer in the industry.

As I said, yes, what they're doing appears to be perfectly legal and allowable. The EPA test procedure is broken and they've exploited that weakness through a methodical and systematic approach to inflate the numbers. Anybody paying attention to Tesla's range numbers in the past few years can see that in action.

 

[Rocky_H]

Not sure I fully agree with that. They are abusing the spirit and intent of the regulations

and they've exploited that weakness

And I definitely don't agree with that. They are choosing one of the two choices. That isn't "abusing" or "exploiting" anything.

compared to pretty much every other peer in the industry.

All of the other competitors could have chosen that too. If all of them used this method, then you wouldn't be able to point the finger at Tesla for doing anything unusual. Why do other companies' choices change what you think Tesla is doing?

to inflate the numbers.

to follow procedures

This is just out of line to fault a company for following EPA policy.

 

[ucmndd]

Why do other companies' choices change what you think Tesla is doing?

To put it simply, because one choice is honest/ethical and the other is not.

 

[johnny_cakes]

Any sane person is using the percentage range view instead of distance.. Distance obviously can't be right, how is the car going to know how you will be driving? Uphill,, downhill, city or highway?

Once you actually set your navigator to somewhere, you see the estimated battery % at destination. That value is usually spot on, and can even be easily improved by driving slower.

It'll all make sense once you understand what that number (km or miles) is when you tap the battery icon. It's not really a measure of how much further you can drive, although Tesla presents it that way. It's a measure of how much charge remains in the battery, divided by a constant for your vehicle. For example, for my 2019 Model 3, that constant (often referred to as the charging constant in this forum) is 136 Wh/km. So if I have 30 kWh charge remaining in the battery, that battery icon will show (30 * 1000 / 136) = 221km. Most people won't be able to interpret 30 kWh, so Tesla shows 221km instead.

When my car was brand new and didn't have any battery degradation, at 100% SoC, that number would have shown 52.5 kWh (original battery capacity) * 1000 / 136 = 386 km. 386km is the original EPA range for the vehicle. So it all makes sense when you think about the km or miles as a measure of charge remaining in the battery.

In terms of Tesla's apparent deceptive measure according to Reuter's article, it's well understood in this forum that the 4.5% buffer (at least for Model 3 / Y) is hidden at the bottom end and is spread throughout the charge curve. At 100% SoC, that buffer isn't hidden at all and at 0% SoC, all 4.5% is hidden. In between, it's linearly hidden. So in other words:

Display SoC: 100%
True SoC: 100%

Display SoC: 50%
True SoC: 52.25%

Display SoC: 0%
True SoC: 4.5%

There's no magic jump that happens below 50% SoC as the Reuter's article would suggest. The hidden buffer is spread out throughout the charge curve. Here's the evidence of that: How Tesla Calculates Range (hidden buffer)

 

[Rocky_H]

To put it simply, because one choice is honest/ethical and the other is not.

One is following a specifically defined 5 cycle test driving procedure and the other is doing a weird hand-waving artificially lowered sandbagging number that doesn't correspond to any defined test driving procedure.

It reminds me of a parable. There was one of those target shooting games at a fair. There were two targets to choose from, and if you hit the bullseye, a bell rang. A customer tried the much bigger target and was hitting the bullseye with every single shot, so he paid for another round and paid for another round and was feeling good that he was hitting the bullseye every time.

The barker running the booth said, "If your goal is simply to hear the bell ring, I'm sure you could keep shooting at that oversized target and do that all day. But if your goal is to find out how accurate your shooting is, you might want to consider the smaller target."

The customer tried the smaller target and only got the bullseye on 2 out of his 5 shots, but did feel better at knowing it was a more precise measure of his skill.

 

[MP3Mike]

The issue isn't that the range estimates don't live up to the EPA numbers. Everyone knows that the EPA tests are garbage, b/c they are done indoors on a dyno, at 50mph continuously with the windows up and the AC OFF, at 85 degrees ambient. NOBODY will drive like that!

That isn't how the tests are run at all... Notice one of the tests is even at 20* F with the heat on... Maybe you should look at the 5-cycle EPA test procedure:

The highway portion has an average speed of ~48 MPH:

Even the high speed portion averages ~48MPH:

The city portion has an average speed of ~21 MPH:

Tesla pretty famously games the EPA test cycle and has gotten very good at getting the best possible numbers to advertise while staying within the rules (at least there has been no accusation or evidence to support them NOT following the EPA rules to my knowledge). They’ve decided big numbers in ad materials are more important than actually delivering them, for better or worse.

Huh? How are they gaming it when in a lot of cases the EPA ran the tests themselves and gave Tesla the number that they had to advertise?

 

[ucmndd]

Huh? How are they gaming it when in a lot of cases the EPA ran the tests themselves and gave Tesla the number that they had to advertise?

Nobody (at least not me) is questioning whether or not they're playing by the rules. But it remains perfectly clear they are gaming the test in a variety of ways that in combination lead to wholly unrealistic real-world range estimates.

The Secret Adjustment Factor Tesla Uses to Get Its Big EPA Range Numbers

How Tesla puts distance between itself and the competition while still playing by the EPA's rules.

www.caranddriver.com

As to your assertion that the EPA is running the tests themselves and giving numbers to Tesla they "had to advertise" - do you have evidence to support this? My understanding is that EPA-conducted tests are extremely rare and manufacturers always have the right to voluntarily lower range estimates to something more realistic if they wish.

 

[MP3Mike]

As to your assertion that the EPA is running the tests themselves and giving numbers to Tesla they "had to advertise" - do you have evidence to support this? My understanding is that EPA-conducted tests are extremely rare and manufacturers always have the right to voluntarily lower range estimates to something more realistic if they wish.

Ok, they could have lowered them, but they are the official numbers that the EPA procedure, with their own testing produced. That is anything but gaming the system. Even the article this thread is about mentions that the EPA has conducted the tests for at least three Tesla vehicles. The most famous one was when the Model S came just under 400 miles of range, and Elon called the EPA out on screwing up the testing procedure by leaving the key fob in the car with the door ajar all night before completing the testing the next day. Which they denied until Tesla/Elon provided logs and demanded that the EPA to run the tests again.

Nobody (at least not me) is questioning whether or not they're playing by the rules. But it remains perfectly clear they are gaming the test in a variety of ways that in combination lead to wholly unrealistic real-world range estimates.

I would say manufacturers applying arbitrary reductions are gaming the system. Like Porsche with the Taycan where when driving in an EPA like manner you get almost 60% more range than advertised. I just don't understand why they would lower the range so much, unless they just wanted to make people not consider them. (I haven't checked, but I don't think they under report the range by that much on their ICE vehicles.)

To make the EPA ratings meaningful they need to be calculated the same way for everyone. Otherwise, they just can't be used for anything meaningful like comparing the range of two vehicles. (What I feel is the main purpose of the numbers.)

 

[maximizese]

Not to conflate too many other issues with Tesla's advertising versus real-world experience, but for many of us who bought a Model S 85 and expected to get 265 miles per charge have been pretty disappointed. I have never gotten close to 265 miles per charge and I was a mad to find out the 85kWh battery on the window sticker was really something like 81kWh and that about 77kWh was usable (then getting nerfed plus degradation pushes me down to about 70kWh). 0-60mph times have also gotten slower but that doesn't really bother me since I don't think there has been an instance were I didn't have enough passing power. Like many Tesla drivers, I learned to not trust the rated range miles and focus more on the predicted arrival destination %SOC. But the annoying thing is that we tend to judge distance based on miles and range, not on a battery percentage. We drive passed road signs indicating the distance away from an interchange, off-ramp, or city and not battery percentage.

At some point, we learned that the Energy app with the Trip selection offers a better projected range than both the rated and ideal range on the instrument cluster. Perhaps it's less of an issue for us who've been driving Teslas for years but I can imagine there are a lot of folks who feel like they did not get what they expected at the time of purchase. Had I known that my 85kWh pack was really a 81, and that I would only be able to use 77kWh for a few years then suddenly lose 4kWh of usability, I would have expected to pay less for my car. Similarly if I was told the car would only get about 220 miles of range in the real world instead of the 265 on the instrument cluster, I wouldn't have wanted the car as much.

 

[geordi]

Maximizese, that's exactly the issue that a lot of us have. Unfortunately you won't get the fanbois to understand.

Hopefully though the negative press will have at least SOME effect on the company. I too was significantly annoyed to learn not just about their "marketing terminology" about the battery size, but then the significant rounding-up from the "usable" size to the "actual" size, which is itself a significant difference from the "advertised" size of their marketing terminology.

Would you buy a "12 ounce steak" that was actually delivered as a 4 ounce, because it was REALLY 9 ounces (pre cooked) and then they pressed it into a steak-shape that chopped off 2 more ounces before they actually cooked it? Of course not - because that's dishonest, bordering on fraud.

How about paying for 20 gallons of fuel, but only getting 15 into the tank, but while you are paying, someone goes and replaces 3 of those gallons with air so you only actually got 12 for that 20 you paid for?

It is COMMON in the technology industry to "round up" everywhere possible. Drive storage, processor speeds, data rates.... It's all marketing lies and about 20% less than what you actually get. Format a 1TB hard drive, you end up with about 918gb actual. Where'd the other 22GIGS go? Except it isn't 22.... B/c a true 1TB would actually be 1024GB. So you've lost out on 46GB of space to marketing! That's a lot of theft. Happens ALL OVER in tech. It never used to happen in cars. You would buy a car with a 20 gallon tank, it would HAVE a 20 gallon tank. 22 if you filled the pipe. Not 15 claiming to be 20.

Elon is a liar and a charlatan, and his antics are throughout the company culture b/c of his management style of being a control freak. It has not done the company well.

 

[Tiger]

Would you buy a "12 ounce steak" that was actually delivered as a 4 ounce, because it was REALLY 9 ounces (pre cooked) and then they pressed it into a steak-shape that chopped off 2 more ounces before they actually cooked it? Of course not - because that's dishonest, bordering on fraud.

Funny you would mention, as steaks are typically listed as weighed before cooking (though nobody mentions this in the menu), and they might lose 25% of weight during cooking and yes, you will be served less than you paid for

I'd say this is simply law of the land. If you want different, change the EPA rating specs.

 

[Zuikkis]

In Europe we use WLTP test instead of EPA. In recent tests in car magazines, Tesla has been pretty much the only brand to actually have more real range than advertised..

 

[Zuikkis]

Here's the magazine test results I mentioned in previous post..

It's in Finnish but I'm sure you figure it out. "WLTP km" is the advertised value, "mitattu km" is the measured real range.