13 ms·

I've been following a multi-month discussion over in the r/electricvehicles subreddit about EPA range. There's a growing consensus that something is very wrong

I've been following a multi-month discussion over in the r/electricvehicles subreddit about EPA range. There's a growing consensus that something is very wrong with it. Here are a couple of the articles that got some discussion in that sub: https://insideevs.com/news/407807/eletric-car-real-world-range-tested/ https://insideevs.com/news/407807/eletric-car-real-world-ran... https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a30874032/porsche-taycan-range-test-tesla-model-s/ https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a30874032/porsche-tayca... As someone who has owned both a Tesla Model X and one of the other EVs on the list from the first article, I can also provide my own anecdata that at freeway speeds Tesla routinely underperforms their EPA range rating, and by quite a large margin. Meanwhile at freeway speeds my non-Tesla EV routinely exceeds its EPA rating. That's not to say that Tesla hasn't done an amazing job at maximizing efficiency in their cars. They have. Just maybe not to the degree that the EPA test would suggest.

ashtonkem 6y ago
Sounds like they have the mix of estimated speeds wrong. EVs perform significantly better at low speeds, because there’s no extra efficiency in the EV power train at higher RPMs, and air resistance scales in a nonlinear fashion.
rootusrootus 6y ago
There's always a lot of folks claiming to get equal to or better than the rated range on the highway, but I will add my anecdata in for however much it's worth. I have a Model 3 Performance and it does not get anywhere near rated range, regardless of weather. I more realistically get 200 miles of range, not 300.
- natch 6y ago
  But the fun... you probably drive like I do.
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    Around town, for sure, but on a road trip with the fam I just set turn on autopilot at 70 and leave it. My wife & kids are not nearly as appreciative of the performance as I am :). But, even at mild temperatures cruising at steady speed on mostly level terrain, I generally see 325 Wh/mi. If I cruise at 75, it's 350 Wh/mi. The rated range can only be achieved by hitting about 250 Wh/mi.
    - 10-1-100 6y ago
      Assuming you have the 20 inch performance wheels (and the Pilot 4S summer tires that come with them), those could be the difference between you getting 325Wh/mi and something more in line with 250-275 at 70mph. Here's a chart with speed/efficiency measurements for most Tesla model/wheel configurations: https://teslike.com/ https://teslike.com/
      - natch 6y ago
        Yep that's part of why I put 18" wheels on my P+ even though they don't look as nice as the 20" wheels.
      - rootusrootus 6y ago
        That is entirely possible. When I drive out of my driveway and down the road, it sounds like the tires are ripping the asphalt off the road and flinging at the underside of the car. Sticky things. In the winter I run snow tires, but then there's the low temperature and corresponding use of the climate control that destroys range. And in the summer I've got the performance wheels and tires installed. So I'll never see optimal range. But Tesla probably shouldn't be quoting 300+ miles of range for the Performance model, either. Given the climate where I live is pretty mild, and snow is relatively rare and short-lived, I've given some consideration to ditching the performance tires and snow tires both and replacing with 19 inch Conti DWS to run year-round. If I got away with that on my Camaro, it would probably work on my AWD Tesla, LOL.
        10-1-100 6y ago
        Late response but, to Tesla's (slight) credit, they now advertise the performance (with 20" wheels) at 299 miles, and that's in comparison to the 2020 improvements that bumped the advertised range for LR AWD to 322 miles (from 310), so at least now expectations should be a bit more clear for new buyers. Yeah, I'd imagine running all seasons on 19s or 18s ought to be fine, especially with the killer traction control... This would be my plan in the event I were getting a P3D (trying to hold out for Cybertruck...) P.s., the way you describe the summer tires ripping up the pavement gave me a chuckle - I'll have to remember that next time I'm talking to someone about the difference with the summer tires!
- c0nfused 6y ago
  I find in my model 3 that unless I put it on cruise control I can never get close to the rating. Cruise control gets almost right on the money and cuts down the urge pass people for fun.
Someone1234 6y ago
I'm surprised Tesla fans haven't crowd sourced accurate data by now.
- Reason077 6y ago
  There's plenty of data and test results out there. But range is very subjective. It varies hugely depending on driving style, speed, road surface, traffic, weather, temperature, tires, vehicles configuration/settings, etc.
- jodrellblank 6y ago
  Given that Tesla track everything on every car - where they go, how they drive, when and how much they charge - they ought to have accurate data themselves apart from EPA ratings. Could customers demand their own data from Tesla? Europeans, under the GDPR, for example? If enough people did, and released it, that ought to be accurate.
- 10-1-100 6y ago
  Apart from going through r/teslamotors or Tesla Motors Club forums (plenty of personal reports on those), here is an aggregation of efficiencies for most Tesla model/wheel configurations at various speeds: https://teslike.com/ https://teslike.com/ Of course, low temperatures and rain will also tank range.
- m463 6y ago
  Look at these articles. They've collected data for real-world range vs speed in various models, and how fast supercharging works in various situations. Tesla Model 3 Performance vs RWD consumption - Real Driving Data from 233 Cars https://forum.abetterrouteplanner.com/blogs/entry/22-tesla-model-3-performance-vs-rwd-consumption-real-driving-data-from-233-cars/ https://forum.abetterrouteplanner.com/blogs/entry/22-tesla-m... Model 3 Consumption and Charging https://forum.abetterrouteplanner.com/blogs/entry/13-model-3-consumption-and-charging/ https://forum.abetterrouteplanner.com/blogs/entry/13-model-3... Tesla Model S Consumption vs Speed https://forum.abetterrouteplanner.com/blogs/entry/9-tesla-model-s-consumption-vs-speed/ https://forum.abetterrouteplanner.com/blogs/entry/9-tesla-mo... Faster Tesla Supercharging - How does it actually perform? https://forum.abetterrouteplanner.com/blogs/entry/29-faster-tesla-supercharging-how-does-it-actually-perform/ https://forum.abetterrouteplanner.com/blogs/entry/29-faster-...
Joky 6y ago
In my experience: I manage to roughly match the EPA rating on the freeway driving at 65mph (it depends on the road, on the temperature, on how much stuff/people are in the car, etc.), but it goes down quickly as you drive faster. This table illustrates it fairly well: https://teslike.com/ https://teslike.com/
- walrus01 6y ago
  I can duplicate pretty much the same effect with cruise control in my gasoline powered car. If I go on a 5 hour freeway road trip with cruise at 65mph and spend 95% of my time in the right lane, there's definitely a 2-3 mpg improvement in fuel consumption, vs 75 mph. At that point it becomes a tradeoff in time vs money spent on extra fuel, and need to get somewhere in a hurry. Over a 4.5 hour period if I can cruise at 75 mph, I will be 44.5 miles ahead of another car which departs at the same time, for the same destination, at 65 mph.
  - sgc 6y ago
    For ICE cars, it depends on what the mfg has optimized for. I had an Infinity years ago and I remember that it was optimized for 70mph precisely as per the owner's manual. Higher or lower speeds would be less efficient.
    - FullyFunctional 6y ago
      Similarly; I used to drive a "somewhat" performance enhanced Subaru Impreza WRX. One month I tried an experiment of driving as fuel conscious as I could. It improved 1 mpg over the normal 21 mpg. However in my Model S, there is a very direct and obvious correlation between efficiency and acceleration/speed. I don't really have a problem with my effective range being less do to my driving style as long as it's predictable (and it is).
      - maccard 6y ago
        I drive an unmodified Golf GTI. Sticking to speed limits, the difference between driving aggressively in Sport mode and driving normally in normal is about 20mpg. The difference between driving normally in Normal mode and more fuel consciously is probably another 10 mpg on top of that (on a 3 hr trip, no motorway i saw roughly 8-10 mpg driving aggressively and close to 38 when driving normally. Motorway driving is a little closer, but I live in Scotland so motorway isn't usually an option)
pengaru 6y ago
Do you live somewhere flat or hilly/mountainous?
- anonymousiam 6y ago
  Hills shouldn't make much of a difference. The car has regenerative braking so hilly or flat, it should have similar range.
  - jakswa 6y ago
    I don't think regen braking is perfect (70% efficient maybe?). And if the battery is full, regen braking is disabled/lessened.
    - gsnedders 6y ago
      Even with 100% efficiency of the powertrain you'll end up with less charge than you started with. Yes, with 100% you get the energy used to overcome gravity back, but you still have frictional (tyres have friction!) and aerodynamic (we have an atmosphere!) losses that need to be accounted for both uphill and downhill. But yes, powertrain loses exacerbate the power consumption.
      - eloisant 6y ago
        The question is whether flat or hill makes a difference. Surely friction and aerodynamic would be the same? Also: friction of tyres don't make you consume energy, it's what makes the car move actually (with no tire friction you won't move at all). The friction that makes you consume energy is within the wheels, gears, etc that are supposed to slide, also the deformation of tires makes you consume energy (which is why consumption is higher with under-inflated tires).
        pengaru 6y ago
        There's wasteful forms of friction at the road:tire interface when steering, look up slip angles. And there's always wasteful friction at the road:tire interface due to factors like toe and camber, even when going straight. The tire's not a perfect cylinder in isolation rolling perfectly straight down a perfectly flat surface, automobiles are not single-track vehicles. Since we're already in pedantic land, tires aren't spinning in a vacuum, there's friction between the spinning tires and the air around them.
mrfusion 6y ago
Maybe offtopic but I think a huge issue could be if gas cars are tested with ethanol free gasoline whereas in real life you’re mostly buying 10% ethanol.
pbreit 6y ago
Teslas are designed to perform better (and EPA is designed to evaluate) NOT on freeways (ie, where most people drive)(mainly due to very good regenerative braking).
- taneq 6y ago
  All cars perform better (in terms of kWh through the driveshaft per km) at lower speed, since air resistance rises quickly with speed. Tesla can't do anything to change this, although they do try to mitigate it with good aero. Electric cars can regen brake and so recover some energy in stop/go traffic, but they're still more efficient at constant low speed than stop/go at low speed. ICE vehicles only get better economy on the highway because they have no regen braking and their engines are more fuel efficient at highway speeds.
  - thdrdt 6y ago
    This is not complete true. Most combustion cars perform best around 90km/h. Below that speed air resistance is not much of an issue but gears help a lot getting the best performance out of the engine.
    - taneq 6y ago
      Yeah, that's what I meant by "their engines are more fuel efficient at highway speeds" - fuel burn is minimized under highway conditions (90km/h as you say sounds about right) since air resistance isn't crazy yet but you're in top gear and so getting the maximum distance per engine swept volume.
      - Theodores 6y ago
        90 km/h or 56 mph was the speed that ICE car fuel efficiency was measured at during the 1970's onwards until recent times. If you read a car review then the mpg figure would be for 56 mph in the UK. For this reason the target speed for efficiency had to be 56 mph. For that would be important for comparisons. Fleet buyers were important in those days so a 'rep-mobile' able to sip the fuel as it went about crossing the country at sensible A road and motorway speeds was what was wanted. If a manufacturer wanted to sell into this market then the 56 mpg figure had to be available. I am not sure fuel efficiency was discussed in quite the same way in the U.S. market during these times and there weren't the same tax incentives to get companies buying 'rep-mobiles' so the auto-sector could be stimulated. Europe wasn't the EU in those days with each major country having different tax regimes for cars.
natch 6y ago
It’s not just about speed, although speed has a lot to do with it (with efficiency dropping with the square of the increase). It depends also on how much you use the available acceleration features. As you will know there is quite a range of acceleration available, from barely pushing the pedal and matching normal cars, to putting the pedal about 1/4 of the way down and smoking even most fast cars, to putting the pedal down more than halfway and having a beast in your hands. I’m sure the EPA is pretty conservative and this is where the literal meaning of ymmv comes into play.
- xkjkls 6y ago
  Most evidence shows that for Tesla, they end up overestimating the EPA range, not being conservative.
  - twblalock 6y ago
    There are some reviews of the Porsche Taycan where the car lost most of its range very quickly when the driver was accelerating quickly. The Tesla Model S is one of the fastest-accelerating cars available at any price. If you drive it like a normal person and obey the speed limit (approximately), you will get close to the EPA rating depending on weather etc. If you actually use all the power it has (and you manage not to get pulled over), you will have lower range and you'll need to buy new tires every 6 months.
    - xkjkls 6y ago
      Yes, this is why they have these tests attempt to do this in an apples to apples fashion, and the most scientific of these tests seem to show Tesla overestimates their EV range the most of any automaker.
      - kjksf 6y ago
        Just to be clear: EPA tests the cars and calculates the range, not Tesla (or any other car maker). Therefore Tesla cannot "overestimate" EPA range. If you think that EPA range is not accurate, then you can blame EPA. And since you bring science, who are "they" and in what way their tests are more scientific that EPA's tests?
CrazyStat 6y ago
I've put 20,000 miles on my Model X in the past two years, mostly at freeway speeds, and I'm within 2-3% of the EPA-rated Wh/mile.
davidwhodge 6y ago
I make an app (called Nikola, not the truck company) for Tesla owners that has seen over 5 MM miles driven on it. I did some quick queries to validate actual range vs. EPA range for those curious. My general takeaway is to see the EPA range as a useful, albeit unrealistic, indicator. Essentially nobody gets the EPA range, either because they choose not to go the speed limit, they accelerate harder than the EPA test factored in, or the vehicles drain some juice while parked. The data: For the hundreds of Nikola trips with an average speed of 60 mph, the actual MPGe was about 102. Once you get up to a 75 MPH average trip speed, the MPGe drops to 94. And by 80 MPH the MPGe drops to 77. (avg over all Tesla types) As a bit of "anecdata", I've driven trips where I hit my range on the nose, just to show I could, but the driving is less fun and I was going slower than traffic. I don't drive that way anymore. What's most striking to me as someone who has heard over and over again about how air resistance is a X^2 property, is the extent to which short (and presumably slow) trips punch above their weight in terms of range consumed per mile. From what I can tell, the actual cost here is the fixed cost of booting up some systems and electronics, and the variable costs of running them over fewer miles can make the MPGe drop. Starting and continuing to run the AC adds up! edit: have had some people ask. The app can be found at https://download.nikolaapp.com https://download.nikolaapp.com I can also post data / graphs or make a blog post about that if people have more requests. Let me know what you'd like to see!
- davidwhodge 6y ago
  Another fun fact on practical drain vs. EPA drain: While I love sentry mode and think it's a great feature, it keeps the electronics awake. In some cases this can cause double digit per day mileage drain. Tesla has clearly been working on this though, as the numbers have improved.
- satvikpendem 6y ago
  Looks like the purported range is analogous to stated phone or laptop battery life: ideal and unrealistic. This makes sense because the car is, in fact, run by a battery.
  - davidwhodge 6y ago
reitzensteinm 6y ago
My understanding is that the Taycan was seriously screwed by having its track modes, which are genuinely very inefficient, blended equally in to the test. It's a bit of a shame to see so many Tesla fans point to its supposed inefficiency based on the EPA range. It feels like the tables have turned 180 since the Top Gear scripted test days; it was shitty when Tesla was attacked with FUD back then and it's shitty when the Taycan is today.
- kemiller 6y ago
  That’s really weird. Is it normal to blend in sport modes? Do you have a link to more info?
  - reitzensteinm 6y ago
    Unfortunately I'm struggling to find a source, so take it with a grain of salt. My memory is that the highway speed test for one of the modes had it running in first gear (of two). But regardless of the reason, its EPA range proportional to WLTP and real world driving is very low compared to other EVs. It doesn't point to poor efficiency, just a corner case of EPA testing. While extrapolated from 100 miles, this Car and Driver test [1] puts a 6% gap between the 2020 Model S and Taycan, compared to a 70% difference in EPA range. Extrapolation sucks as a method, but there's no way it would mask a true 70% range difference - the Porsche would be close to empty at the end of the test. Considering the Tesla costs just over half as much, it's still a home run for Tesla. They're the ones to beat and by all accounts are likely to stay that way. https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a30799498/2020-porsche-taycan-turbo-s-vs-2020-tesla-model-s-performance/ https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a307994...
  - secabeen 6y ago
    My memory (and I don't have a citation for this) is that if the manufacturer gives you multiple range modes (like Eco and Sport) EPA tests in both, then averages them together somehow.
  - michaelt 6y ago
    It makes sense to me, as otherwise a manufacturer could supply the car with a 50mph speed limiter (which users would instantly disable) to boost their EPA-measured range.
gok 6y ago
EPA range is city+highway combined, which isn't really what any most car buyers care about. Range during city driving is irrelevant beyond a point; you're never going to go more than 100 miles per charge. Then the highway test is easy; it never breaks 60 MPH and averages 48 MPH. What most people probably care about is how far you can go between charges when road-tripping, which is really a much more complicated formula involving how quickly you can charge, what the real speed limit is on your local highways, how many high speed chargers are available, etc.
- TwoBit 6y ago
  If I drove my Tesla S on the freeway at 48 mph then I would easily match the EPA rating.
  - r00fus 6y ago
    48mph was easily doable during moderate traffic on my commutes back home. Some days I'd be lucky to get that. So it's a bit more honest in that regard... Those days where I got to go 80mph the entire freeway segment and get home really quickly my mpge suffered a lot.
m463 6y ago
I can compare a leaf and a tesla, both of which I have had direct experience with. The leaf did lots better around town, but it was a relatively small and light car. The battery was charged significantly higher and drained significantly lower than tesla batteries. There was degradation. At highway speeds it was significantly less efficient and range anxiety became a real problem. On trips usable range was much less than the specs because: you couldn't drain it all the way because logistics was a real problem. You also couldn't charge it all the way because a "fast" charger would take as much time to charge to 80% as from 80%-100%. Range was an issue and being an engineer or mathematician helped. Around town 3.5-4.5 miles/kwh was common, on the freeway you would hit 2 at 70mph. The tesla actually had freeway speeds. Where a leaf would have you in the right hand lane trying to go as slow as possible, the tesla would have you looking out for speed traps. The battery was huge. You could plan your trips with the help of the nav computer and your battery would generally stay in 20-80% range. On long trips it was better to stay 10-60% because the battery would charge faster before it started tapering off. By tapering off, I mean 2-3x the max the leaf would charge on a good day. I will say that tesla battery size makes it possible to care for the battery. It would be uncommon (and sort of bad maintenance) to charge to 90% let alone 100%. Same for below 20%. Telsa shuts off some automatic climate features below 20% Oh, and tesla drivers are a diverse group. Just talking to them, some will average close to 200 wh/mi, while others will be above 400wh/mi. climate and foot weight make a difference. Besides behavior, there are also several tesla settings that will increase your range. Range mode, different driving settings [chill | standard | sport | ludicrous | ludicrous+ ] depending on the vehicle.
- chemmail 6y ago
  Oh yeah, The leaf was scarey on the freeway. It would burn so much battery and was pretty loud. I try to keep it below 60MPH in which things get uncomfortable. In the city it was very compliant and very efficient. I could go through two weeks without charging my now half degraded battery. In the Tesla it loves going to about 70mph. After that you start getting wind noise. Two very different animals. But both great cars. Never going back to ICE.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
reddotX 6y ago
i highly doubt that. model 3 is THE most efficient EV. another efficient EV is the Hyundai Ioniq
radium3d 6y ago
My Tesla Model 3 SR+ tends to exceed the EPA rating on most trips, but the Model S loaners I've had have been quite a bit more thirsty and varied greatly, although I couldn't help but play with all the extra power they have. Still blows the pants off anything else as far as efficiency. I've made a spreadsheet to compare the energy usage of my 2019 3 SR+ to my old 2014 Subaru Crosstrek Hybrid: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16JLSzoWA0154ZUU3ahJ_O4LorGFFrc1defUCKisrGVE/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16JLSzoWA0154ZUU3ahJ_...
zpeti 6y ago
Why does actual EPA range numbers matter, when we all know they aren't perfectly accurate? They aren't accurate for ICE cars either. The point is Tesla has increased their range yet again. There is no disputing this fact. If people were buying Teslas before, they're getting even more value out of it now. It seems most people here find this EPA discrepancy a great justification for criticising Tesla, but I highly doubt anyone owns a Tesla who is doing the criticising. Most Tesla owners were happy to buy the Model S at 265 EPA range. Now its 400, almost 50% more. Who cares if that actually means 300 miles? That 300 miles is still awesome, and if its good enough to buy a Tesla, buy one. If not, don't.
- short_sells_poo 6y ago
  Because ideally consumers should be allowed to make informed decisions, which is not possible if one party - willingly or not - misrepresents the numbers. Tesla should be criticized for every number they inflate. Every time they pull some marketing crap, they should be called out on it. If it's such a benefit as you write, why do they feel the need inflate the numbers? What happened to honesty among engineers? Understated performance, instead of throwing around huge numbers that are technically possible but are nothing short of misleading for the consumers? I suppose it clearly works for Tesla, but my support goes to the company who claims a conservative number that I'm actually likely to exceed in reality.
  - zpeti 6y ago
    Is there evidence that they are misleading or cheating? The EPA numbers (I assume) are arrived at with the same methodology for all cars. It's indepedent right? (I have no idea). So how is Tesla at fault here, if their cars do well. Btw, you can get the EPA range if you drive around 55-60mph... So it is misleading?
    - mywittyname 6y ago
      It is not independent. The EPA defines the test methodology and the manufacture conducts the test themselves. There are some loopholes that manufactures can leverage to improve their score, like offering a model without A/C, tiny tires, or tall gearrs; having a "eco" mode; or having a shift light on the dashboard. The EPA test methodology is actually pretty sound. It includes things like multiple wide-open throttle accelerations to highways speeds. The problems appear to be lack of independent testing and the existence of loopholes mentioned above. Companies like Honda seem to always beat EPA #s and Ford always seems to fall very short of the numbers.
globular-toast 6y ago
The trouble is you just can't trust anecdotes when it comes to driving at "freeway speeds". I had the displeasure of taking part in a two hour commute every day for a few months and the difference a few mph to your average speed makes is huge. If I travelled at 72mph average (above the national speed limit, which is the speed most seem to drive) I needed 2.5 tanks of fuel per week, but if I travelled at 68mph and made an effort to use high gears, low acceleration, engine braking over friction braking etc. I would need only two tanks. To add to this, it's especially difficult to exercise the restraint necessary to drive economically in a fun and/or comfortable car. Before I got a comfortable car I didn't understand why BMW/Mercedes/Audi drivers drive so fast. Now I do. It doesn't really feel like you're moving very fast in those cars.
lazyjones 6y ago
> I can also provide my own anecdata that at freeway speeds Tesla routinely underperforms their EPA range rating, and by quite a large margin. Meanwhile at freeway speeds my non-Tesla EV routinely exceeds its EPA rating. But EPA rating is a mix, not a freeway rating. Though fueleconomy.gov has specific numbers for freeway speeds as well. My venerable 2017 S90D is listed with 294 miles range, that's 473 Km, or 19.8 KWh/100Km. My last trips to Italy used pretty much exactly 20KWh/100Km (2500-3000 Km each time, more than 90% highway at 120-150Km/h [sorry Italy]). In the city I'm usually below that on average.
safgasCVS 6y ago
Don’t single Tesla out on this. No car manages to get its official mpg/EPA rating in real-world driving conditions. Some get closer than others and some manufacturers (eg Fiat) designed their motors in a way that maximises their performance on standardised tests. The gap between how ‘hard’ the car has to work to achieve the real world driving conditions vs test conditions plays a big part in the differential. Smaller motors with forced inductions are the worst offenders. Larger motors are more honest citizens.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >Don’t single Tesla out on this. No car manages to get its official mpg/EPA rating in real-world driving conditions. It totally depends on the vehicle. I maintain a fleet of ~10 vehicles and keep records of fuel economy (because it tells me when calipers stick before the drivers do). The vehicles get ridden decently hard and pretty much all the highway miles are in the left lane at whatever speed that may be. A 2/3 majority pretty much always exceed their EPA rating by 2-4mpg. The rest are right on the rating. None of them spend much time in the gridlock that tends to characterize upscale inner suburbs during daylight hours nor do they cruise empty rural highways.
- toast0 6y ago
  My VW TDI consistently got better than EPA rated mileage ;)
Bedon292 6y ago
My 3 can exceed its rating very easily under the correct conditions. No elevation changes, about 80 degrees out, and cruise control at a steady 60. But any variance from that and it is definitely different. I have a lot of elevation change on my daily commute, and going up those hills fast does the range no favors. But on average I am pretty darn close to the rated distance. Temperature is a huge factor, if its below 45 efficiency is like 70%. If its over 90 efficiency is under 90%. Doing 80 MPH, also pretty bad for the rating. So now do 80 MPH in 95 degree weather and you are talking maybe 80% efficiency. I feel the rating on the 3 has been spot on for me, understanding the large number of variables that go into actual real world use.
gameswithgo 6y ago
The difference between your non tesla-ev and other's tesla evs may be nothing more than driving habits, including how you drive, road and weather conditions, etc.

ashtonkem 6y ago

Sounds like they have the mix of estimated speeds wrong. EVs perform significantly better at low speeds, because there’s no extra efficiency in the EV power train at higher RPMs, and air resistance scales in a nonlinear fashion.

rootusrootus 6y ago

There's always a lot of folks claiming to get equal to or better than the rated range on the highway, but I will add my anecdata in for however much it's worth. I have a Model 3 Performance and it does not get anywhere near rated range, regardless of weather. I more realistically get 200 miles of range, not 300.

natch 6y ago
But the fun... you probably drive like I do.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  Around town, for sure, but on a road trip with the fam I just set turn on autopilot at 70 and leave it. My wife & kids are not nearly as appreciative of the performance as I am :). But, even at mild temperatures cruising at steady speed on mostly level terrain, I generally see 325 Wh/mi. If I cruise at 75, it's 350 Wh/mi. The rated range can only be achieved by hitting about 250 Wh/mi.
  - 10-1-100 6y ago
    Assuming you have the 20 inch performance wheels (and the Pilot 4S summer tires that come with them), those could be the difference between you getting 325Wh/mi and something more in line with 250-275 at 70mph. Here's a chart with speed/efficiency measurements for most Tesla model/wheel configurations: https://teslike.com/ https://teslike.com/
    - natch 6y ago
      Yep that's part of why I put 18" wheels on my P+ even though they don't look as nice as the 20" wheels.
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      That is entirely possible. When I drive out of my driveway and down the road, it sounds like the tires are ripping the asphalt off the road and flinging at the underside of the car. Sticky things. In the winter I run snow tires, but then there's the low temperature and corresponding use of the climate control that destroys range. And in the summer I've got the performance wheels and tires installed. So I'll never see optimal range. But Tesla probably shouldn't be quoting 300+ miles of range for the Performance model, either. Given the climate where I live is pretty mild, and snow is relatively rare and short-lived, I've given some consideration to ditching the performance tires and snow tires both and replacing with 19 inch Conti DWS to run year-round. If I got away with that on my Camaro, it would probably work on my AWD Tesla, LOL.
      - 10-1-100 6y ago
        Late response but, to Tesla's (slight) credit, they now advertise the performance (with 20" wheels) at 299 miles, and that's in comparison to the 2020 improvements that bumped the advertised range for LR AWD to 322 miles (from 310), so at least now expectations should be a bit more clear for new buyers. Yeah, I'd imagine running all seasons on 19s or 18s ought to be fine, especially with the killer traction control... This would be my plan in the event I were getting a P3D (trying to hold out for Cybertruck...) P.s., the way you describe the summer tires ripping up the pavement gave me a chuckle - I'll have to remember that next time I'm talking to someone about the difference with the summer tires!
c0nfused 6y ago
I find in my model 3 that unless I put it on cruise control I can never get close to the rating. Cruise control gets almost right on the money and cuts down the urge pass people for fun.

Someone1234 6y ago

I'm surprised Tesla fans haven't crowd sourced accurate data by now.

Reason077 6y ago
There's plenty of data and test results out there. But range is very subjective. It varies hugely depending on driving style, speed, road surface, traffic, weather, temperature, tires, vehicles configuration/settings, etc.
jodrellblank 6y ago
Given that Tesla track everything on every car - where they go, how they drive, when and how much they charge - they ought to have accurate data themselves apart from EPA ratings. Could customers demand their own data from Tesla? Europeans, under the GDPR, for example? If enough people did, and released it, that ought to be accurate.
10-1-100 6y ago
Apart from going through r/teslamotors or Tesla Motors Club forums (plenty of personal reports on those), here is an aggregation of efficiencies for most Tesla model/wheel configurations at various speeds: https://teslike.com/ https://teslike.com/ Of course, low temperatures and rain will also tank range.
m463 6y ago
Look at these articles. They've collected data for real-world range vs speed in various models, and how fast supercharging works in various situations. Tesla Model 3 Performance vs RWD consumption - Real Driving Data from 233 Cars https://forum.abetterrouteplanner.com/blogs/entry/22-tesla-model-3-performance-vs-rwd-consumption-real-driving-data-from-233-cars/ https://forum.abetterrouteplanner.com/blogs/entry/22-tesla-m... Model 3 Consumption and Charging https://forum.abetterrouteplanner.com/blogs/entry/13-model-3-consumption-and-charging/ https://forum.abetterrouteplanner.com/blogs/entry/13-model-3... Tesla Model S Consumption vs Speed https://forum.abetterrouteplanner.com/blogs/entry/9-tesla-model-s-consumption-vs-speed/ https://forum.abetterrouteplanner.com/blogs/entry/9-tesla-mo... Faster Tesla Supercharging - How does it actually perform? https://forum.abetterrouteplanner.com/blogs/entry/29-faster-tesla-supercharging-how-does-it-actually-perform/ https://forum.abetterrouteplanner.com/blogs/entry/29-faster-...

Joky 6y ago

In my experience: I manage to roughly match the EPA rating on the freeway driving at 65mph (it depends on the road, on the temperature, on how much stuff/people are in the car, etc.), but it goes down quickly as you drive faster. This table illustrates it fairly well: https://teslike.com/ https://teslike.com/

walrus01 6y ago
I can duplicate pretty much the same effect with cruise control in my gasoline powered car. If I go on a 5 hour freeway road trip with cruise at 65mph and spend 95% of my time in the right lane, there's definitely a 2-3 mpg improvement in fuel consumption, vs 75 mph. At that point it becomes a tradeoff in time vs money spent on extra fuel, and need to get somewhere in a hurry. Over a 4.5 hour period if I can cruise at 75 mph, I will be 44.5 miles ahead of another car which departs at the same time, for the same destination, at 65 mph.
- sgc 6y ago
  For ICE cars, it depends on what the mfg has optimized for. I had an Infinity years ago and I remember that it was optimized for 70mph precisely as per the owner's manual. Higher or lower speeds would be less efficient.
  - FullyFunctional 6y ago
    Similarly; I used to drive a "somewhat" performance enhanced Subaru Impreza WRX. One month I tried an experiment of driving as fuel conscious as I could. It improved 1 mpg over the normal 21 mpg. However in my Model S, there is a very direct and obvious correlation between efficiency and acceleration/speed. I don't really have a problem with my effective range being less do to my driving style as long as it's predictable (and it is).
    - maccard 6y ago
      I drive an unmodified Golf GTI. Sticking to speed limits, the difference between driving aggressively in Sport mode and driving normally in normal is about 20mpg. The difference between driving normally in Normal mode and more fuel consciously is probably another 10 mpg on top of that (on a 3 hr trip, no motorway i saw roughly 8-10 mpg driving aggressively and close to 38 when driving normally. Motorway driving is a little closer, but I live in Scotland so motorway isn't usually an option)

pengaru 6y ago

Do you live somewhere flat or hilly/mountainous?

anonymousiam 6y ago
Hills shouldn't make much of a difference. The car has regenerative braking so hilly or flat, it should have similar range.
- jakswa 6y ago
  I don't think regen braking is perfect (70% efficient maybe?). And if the battery is full, regen braking is disabled/lessened.
  - gsnedders 6y ago
    Even with 100% efficiency of the powertrain you'll end up with less charge than you started with. Yes, with 100% you get the energy used to overcome gravity back, but you still have frictional (tyres have friction!) and aerodynamic (we have an atmosphere!) losses that need to be accounted for both uphill and downhill. But yes, powertrain loses exacerbate the power consumption.
    - eloisant 6y ago
      The question is whether flat or hill makes a difference. Surely friction and aerodynamic would be the same? Also: friction of tyres don't make you consume energy, it's what makes the car move actually (with no tire friction you won't move at all). The friction that makes you consume energy is within the wheels, gears, etc that are supposed to slide, also the deformation of tires makes you consume energy (which is why consumption is higher with under-inflated tires).
      - pengaru 6y ago
        There's wasteful forms of friction at the road:tire interface when steering, look up slip angles. And there's always wasteful friction at the road:tire interface due to factors like toe and camber, even when going straight. The tire's not a perfect cylinder in isolation rolling perfectly straight down a perfectly flat surface, automobiles are not single-track vehicles. Since we're already in pedantic land, tires aren't spinning in a vacuum, there's friction between the spinning tires and the air around them.

mrfusion 6y ago

Maybe offtopic but I think a huge issue could be if gas cars are tested with ethanol free gasoline whereas in real life you’re mostly buying 10% ethanol.

pbreit 6y ago

Teslas are designed to perform better (and EPA is designed to evaluate) NOT on freeways (ie, where most people drive)(mainly due to very good regenerative braking).

taneq 6y ago
All cars perform better (in terms of kWh through the driveshaft per km) at lower speed, since air resistance rises quickly with speed. Tesla can't do anything to change this, although they do try to mitigate it with good aero. Electric cars can regen brake and so recover some energy in stop/go traffic, but they're still more efficient at constant low speed than stop/go at low speed. ICE vehicles only get better economy on the highway because they have no regen braking and their engines are more fuel efficient at highway speeds.
- thdrdt 6y ago
  This is not complete true. Most combustion cars perform best around 90km/h. Below that speed air resistance is not much of an issue but gears help a lot getting the best performance out of the engine.
  - taneq 6y ago
    Yeah, that's what I meant by "their engines are more fuel efficient at highway speeds" - fuel burn is minimized under highway conditions (90km/h as you say sounds about right) since air resistance isn't crazy yet but you're in top gear and so getting the maximum distance per engine swept volume.
    - Theodores 6y ago
      90 km/h or 56 mph was the speed that ICE car fuel efficiency was measured at during the 1970's onwards until recent times. If you read a car review then the mpg figure would be for 56 mph in the UK. For this reason the target speed for efficiency had to be 56 mph. For that would be important for comparisons. Fleet buyers were important in those days so a 'rep-mobile' able to sip the fuel as it went about crossing the country at sensible A road and motorway speeds was what was wanted. If a manufacturer wanted to sell into this market then the 56 mpg figure had to be available. I am not sure fuel efficiency was discussed in quite the same way in the U.S. market during these times and there weren't the same tax incentives to get companies buying 'rep-mobiles' so the auto-sector could be stimulated. Europe wasn't the EU in those days with each major country having different tax regimes for cars.

natch 6y ago

It’s not just about speed, although speed has a lot to do with it (with efficiency dropping with the square of the increase). It depends also on how much you use the available acceleration features. As you will know there is quite a range of acceleration available, from barely pushing the pedal and matching normal cars, to putting the pedal about 1/4 of the way down and smoking even most fast cars, to putting the pedal down more than halfway and having a beast in your hands. I’m sure the EPA is pretty conservative and this is where the literal meaning of ymmv comes into play.

xkjkls 6y ago
Most evidence shows that for Tesla, they end up overestimating the EPA range, not being conservative.
- twblalock 6y ago
  There are some reviews of the Porsche Taycan where the car lost most of its range very quickly when the driver was accelerating quickly. The Tesla Model S is one of the fastest-accelerating cars available at any price. If you drive it like a normal person and obey the speed limit (approximately), you will get close to the EPA rating depending on weather etc. If you actually use all the power it has (and you manage not to get pulled over), you will have lower range and you'll need to buy new tires every 6 months.
  - xkjkls 6y ago
    Yes, this is why they have these tests attempt to do this in an apples to apples fashion, and the most scientific of these tests seem to show Tesla overestimates their EV range the most of any automaker.
    - kjksf 6y ago
      Just to be clear: EPA tests the cars and calculates the range, not Tesla (or any other car maker). Therefore Tesla cannot "overestimate" EPA range. If you think that EPA range is not accurate, then you can blame EPA. And since you bring science, who are "they" and in what way their tests are more scientific that EPA's tests?

CrazyStat 6y ago

I've put 20,000 miles on my Model X in the past two years, mostly at freeway speeds, and I'm within 2-3% of the EPA-rated Wh/mile.

davidwhodge 6y ago

I make an app (called Nikola, not the truck company) for Tesla owners that has seen over 5 MM miles driven on it. I did some quick queries to validate actual range vs. EPA range for those curious. My general takeaway is to see the EPA range as a useful, albeit unrealistic, indicator. Essentially nobody gets the EPA range, either because they choose not to go the speed limit, they accelerate harder than the EPA test factored in, or the vehicles drain some juice while parked. The data: For the hundreds of Nikola trips with an average speed of 60 mph, the actual MPGe was about 102. Once you get up to a 75 MPH average trip speed, the MPGe drops to 94. And by 80 MPH the MPGe drops to 77. (avg over all Tesla types) As a bit of "anecdata", I've driven trips where I hit my range on the nose, just to show I could, but the driving is less fun and I was going slower than traffic. I don't drive that way anymore. What's most striking to me as someone who has heard over and over again about how air resistance is a X^2 property, is the extent to which short (and presumably slow) trips punch above their weight in terms of range consumed per mile. From what I can tell, the actual cost here is the fixed cost of booting up some systems and electronics, and the variable costs of running them over fewer miles can make the MPGe drop. Starting and continuing to run the AC adds up! edit: have had some people ask. The app can be found at https://download.nikolaapp.com https://download.nikolaapp.com I can also post data / graphs or make a blog post about that if people have more requests. Let me know what you'd like to see!

davidwhodge 6y ago
Another fun fact on practical drain vs. EPA drain: While I love sentry mode and think it's a great feature, it keeps the electronics awake. In some cases this can cause double digit per day mileage drain. Tesla has clearly been working on this though, as the numbers have improved.
satvikpendem 6y ago
Looks like the purported range is analogous to stated phone or laptop battery life: ideal and unrealistic. This makes sense because the car is, in fact, run by a battery.
- davidwhodge 6y ago

reitzensteinm 6y ago

My understanding is that the Taycan was seriously screwed by having its track modes, which are genuinely very inefficient, blended equally in to the test. It's a bit of a shame to see so many Tesla fans point to its supposed inefficiency based on the EPA range. It feels like the tables have turned 180 since the Top Gear scripted test days; it was shitty when Tesla was attacked with FUD back then and it's shitty when the Taycan is today.

kemiller 6y ago
That’s really weird. Is it normal to blend in sport modes? Do you have a link to more info?
- reitzensteinm 6y ago
  Unfortunately I'm struggling to find a source, so take it with a grain of salt. My memory is that the highway speed test for one of the modes had it running in first gear (of two). But regardless of the reason, its EPA range proportional to WLTP and real world driving is very low compared to other EVs. It doesn't point to poor efficiency, just a corner case of EPA testing. While extrapolated from 100 miles, this Car and Driver test [1] puts a 6% gap between the 2020 Model S and Taycan, compared to a 70% difference in EPA range. Extrapolation sucks as a method, but there's no way it would mask a true 70% range difference - the Porsche would be close to empty at the end of the test. Considering the Tesla costs just over half as much, it's still a home run for Tesla. They're the ones to beat and by all accounts are likely to stay that way. https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a30799498/2020-porsche-taycan-turbo-s-vs-2020-tesla-model-s-performance/ https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a307994...
- secabeen 6y ago
  My memory (and I don't have a citation for this) is that if the manufacturer gives you multiple range modes (like Eco and Sport) EPA tests in both, then averages them together somehow.
- michaelt 6y ago
  It makes sense to me, as otherwise a manufacturer could supply the car with a 50mph speed limiter (which users would instantly disable) to boost their EPA-measured range.

gok 6y ago

EPA range is city+highway combined, which isn't really what any most car buyers care about. Range during city driving is irrelevant beyond a point; you're never going to go more than 100 miles per charge. Then the highway test is easy; it never breaks 60 MPH and averages 48 MPH. What most people probably care about is how far you can go between charges when road-tripping, which is really a much more complicated formula involving how quickly you can charge, what the real speed limit is on your local highways, how many high speed chargers are available, etc.

TwoBit 6y ago
If I drove my Tesla S on the freeway at 48 mph then I would easily match the EPA rating.
- r00fus 6y ago
  48mph was easily doable during moderate traffic on my commutes back home. Some days I'd be lucky to get that. So it's a bit more honest in that regard... Those days where I got to go 80mph the entire freeway segment and get home really quickly my mpge suffered a lot.

m463 6y ago

I can compare a leaf and a tesla, both of which I have had direct experience with. The leaf did lots better around town, but it was a relatively small and light car. The battery was charged significantly higher and drained significantly lower than tesla batteries. There was degradation. At highway speeds it was significantly less efficient and range anxiety became a real problem. On trips usable range was much less than the specs because: you couldn't drain it all the way because logistics was a real problem. You also couldn't charge it all the way because a "fast" charger would take as much time to charge to 80% as from 80%-100%. Range was an issue and being an engineer or mathematician helped. Around town 3.5-4.5 miles/kwh was common, on the freeway you would hit 2 at 70mph. The tesla actually had freeway speeds. Where a leaf would have you in the right hand lane trying to go as slow as possible, the tesla would have you looking out for speed traps. The battery was huge. You could plan your trips with the help of the nav computer and your battery would generally stay in 20-80% range. On long trips it was better to stay 10-60% because the battery would charge faster before it started tapering off. By tapering off, I mean 2-3x the max the leaf would charge on a good day. I will say that tesla battery size makes it possible to care for the battery. It would be uncommon (and sort of bad maintenance) to charge to 90% let alone 100%. Same for below 20%. Telsa shuts off some automatic climate features below 20% Oh, and tesla drivers are a diverse group. Just talking to them, some will average close to 200 wh/mi, while others will be above 400wh/mi. climate and foot weight make a difference. Besides behavior, there are also several tesla settings that will increase your range. Range mode, different driving settings [chill | standard | sport | ludicrous | ludicrous+ ] depending on the vehicle.

chemmail 6y ago
Oh yeah, The leaf was scarey on the freeway. It would burn so much battery and was pretty loud. I try to keep it below 60MPH in which things get uncomfortable. In the city it was very compliant and very efficient. I could go through two weeks without charging my now half degraded battery. In the Tesla it loves going to about 70mph. After that you start getting wind noise. Two very different animals. But both great cars. Never going back to ICE.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago

reddotX 6y ago

i highly doubt that. model 3 is THE most efficient EV. another efficient EV is the Hyundai Ioniq

radium3d 6y ago

My Tesla Model 3 SR+ tends to exceed the EPA rating on most trips, but the Model S loaners I've had have been quite a bit more thirsty and varied greatly, although I couldn't help but play with all the extra power they have. Still blows the pants off anything else as far as efficiency. I've made a spreadsheet to compare the energy usage of my 2019 3 SR+ to my old 2014 Subaru Crosstrek Hybrid: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16JLSzoWA0154ZUU3ahJ_O4LorGFFrc1defUCKisrGVE/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16JLSzoWA0154ZUU3ahJ_...

zpeti 6y ago

Why does actual EPA range numbers matter, when we all know they aren't perfectly accurate? They aren't accurate for ICE cars either. The point is Tesla has increased their range yet again. There is no disputing this fact. If people were buying Teslas before, they're getting even more value out of it now. It seems most people here find this EPA discrepancy a great justification for criticising Tesla, but I highly doubt anyone owns a Tesla who is doing the criticising. Most Tesla owners were happy to buy the Model S at 265 EPA range. Now its 400, almost 50% more. Who cares if that actually means 300 miles? That 300 miles is still awesome, and if its good enough to buy a Tesla, buy one. If not, don't.

short_sells_poo 6y ago
Because ideally consumers should be allowed to make informed decisions, which is not possible if one party - willingly or not - misrepresents the numbers. Tesla should be criticized for every number they inflate. Every time they pull some marketing crap, they should be called out on it. If it's such a benefit as you write, why do they feel the need inflate the numbers? What happened to honesty among engineers? Understated performance, instead of throwing around huge numbers that are technically possible but are nothing short of misleading for the consumers? I suppose it clearly works for Tesla, but my support goes to the company who claims a conservative number that I'm actually likely to exceed in reality.
- zpeti 6y ago
  Is there evidence that they are misleading or cheating? The EPA numbers (I assume) are arrived at with the same methodology for all cars. It's indepedent right? (I have no idea). So how is Tesla at fault here, if their cars do well. Btw, you can get the EPA range if you drive around 55-60mph... So it is misleading?
  - mywittyname 6y ago
    It is not independent. The EPA defines the test methodology and the manufacture conducts the test themselves. There are some loopholes that manufactures can leverage to improve their score, like offering a model without A/C, tiny tires, or tall gearrs; having a "eco" mode; or having a shift light on the dashboard. The EPA test methodology is actually pretty sound. It includes things like multiple wide-open throttle accelerations to highways speeds. The problems appear to be lack of independent testing and the existence of loopholes mentioned above. Companies like Honda seem to always beat EPA #s and Ford always seems to fall very short of the numbers.

globular-toast 6y ago

The trouble is you just can't trust anecdotes when it comes to driving at "freeway speeds". I had the displeasure of taking part in a two hour commute every day for a few months and the difference a few mph to your average speed makes is huge. If I travelled at 72mph average (above the national speed limit, which is the speed most seem to drive) I needed 2.5 tanks of fuel per week, but if I travelled at 68mph and made an effort to use high gears, low acceleration, engine braking over friction braking etc. I would need only two tanks. To add to this, it's especially difficult to exercise the restraint necessary to drive economically in a fun and/or comfortable car. Before I got a comfortable car I didn't understand why BMW/Mercedes/Audi drivers drive so fast. Now I do. It doesn't really feel like you're moving very fast in those cars.

lazyjones 6y ago

> I can also provide my own anecdata that at freeway speeds Tesla routinely underperforms their EPA range rating, and by quite a large margin. Meanwhile at freeway speeds my non-Tesla EV routinely exceeds its EPA rating. But EPA rating is a mix, not a freeway rating. Though fueleconomy.gov has specific numbers for freeway speeds as well. My venerable 2017 S90D is listed with 294 miles range, that's 473 Km, or 19.8 KWh/100Km. My last trips to Italy used pretty much exactly 20KWh/100Km (2500-3000 Km each time, more than 90% highway at 120-150Km/h [sorry Italy]). In the city I'm usually below that on average.

safgasCVS 6y ago

Don’t single Tesla out on this. No car manages to get its official mpg/EPA rating in real-world driving conditions. Some get closer than others and some manufacturers (eg Fiat) designed their motors in a way that maximises their performance on standardised tests. The gap between how ‘hard’ the car has to work to achieve the real world driving conditions vs test conditions plays a big part in the differential. Smaller motors with forced inductions are the worst offenders. Larger motors are more honest citizens.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>Don’t single Tesla out on this. No car manages to get its official mpg/EPA rating in real-world driving conditions. It totally depends on the vehicle. I maintain a fleet of ~10 vehicles and keep records of fuel economy (because it tells me when calipers stick before the drivers do). The vehicles get ridden decently hard and pretty much all the highway miles are in the left lane at whatever speed that may be. A 2/3 majority pretty much always exceed their EPA rating by 2-4mpg. The rest are right on the rating. None of them spend much time in the gridlock that tends to characterize upscale inner suburbs during daylight hours nor do they cruise empty rural highways.
toast0 6y ago
My VW TDI consistently got better than EPA rated mileage ;)

Bedon292 6y ago

My 3 can exceed its rating very easily under the correct conditions. No elevation changes, about 80 degrees out, and cruise control at a steady 60. But any variance from that and it is definitely different. I have a lot of elevation change on my daily commute, and going up those hills fast does the range no favors. But on average I am pretty darn close to the rated distance. Temperature is a huge factor, if its below 45 efficiency is like 70%. If its over 90 efficiency is under 90%. Doing 80 MPH, also pretty bad for the rating. So now do 80 MPH in 95 degree weather and you are talking maybe 80% efficiency. I feel the rating on the 3 has been spot on for me, understanding the large number of variables that go into actual real world use.

gameswithgo 6y ago

The difference between your non tesla-ev and other's tesla evs may be nothing more than driving habits, including how you drive, road and weather conditions, etc.