6 ms·

Tesla advertises 350+ miles on its cars. I’d bet money that the cars can’t do 300 in normal weather, normal driving conditions without the AC/heater on, on a st

Tesla advertises 350+ miles on its cars. I’d bet money that the cars can’t do 300 in normal weather, normal driving conditions without the AC/heater on, on a straight road with no elevation gain. These are the things they blame when they say EPA estimates are different becase blah blah… (I own a Tesla)

infinghxsg 2y ago
[dead]
gleenn 2y ago
I know some of the lithium-sodium batteries behave differently now but my Model Y yells at me whenever I charge above 80% or go below 20%, saying it's bad for the battery. Not exactly inspiring if it causes more wear unless you sacrifice 40% of the range.
- ajross 2y ago
  Where's the sacrifice? Just charge it to 100% before you leave for a 200+ mile trip, there's even a setting in your app to make that happen automatically (it'll start charging at e.g. 2am or whatever is needed for your departure time). Did you gas up your car every time you drove back from work? No, right? So why complain that the car doesn't sit at 100% all the time in your garage? Seems like a silly complaint to me.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    The sacrifice is that you can't use 40% of what's supposedly the range. > Did you gas up your car every time you drove back from work? No, right? Right, you gas up your car when it needs more gas. You can't do that with an electric car for two reasons: (1) you need to fuel the car well in advance of trying to use it, because fueling is extremely slow; (2) you can't go low on fuel without damaging the car. The only logical response to this state of affairs is to try to fuel the car whenever it's not in use. > So why complain that the car doesn't sit at 100% all the time in your garage? Capacity that you're not supposed to use is not capacity that you can usefully be said to have.
    - ajross 2y ago
      > The sacrifice is that you can't use 40% of what's supposedly the range. I do it all the time, just not every day. Going skiing? Set the car to charge in the morning. 40 minutes at 90%+ isn't going to hurt anything. I think you've badly misunderstood that warning.
    - toast0 2y ago
      You shouldn't normally run a fuel powered car all the way to empty either. Fuel pumps tend to be cooled by the fuel they're pumping, running low means you might be pumping air in addition to fuel and air cooling isn't as effective as liquid cooling, so you will overheat your fuel pump (may not be a big deal depending on how long you can go with the tank critically empty). Fuel tanks also accumulate crud which is more likely to make it out of the tank when you run it low. And your fuel tank may be more likely to corrode when it has more air in it, which naturally happens when it has less fuel, so you should keep it mostly full when possible. That said, it's usually not a big deal until your vehicle and its fuel tank has sat on the side of the road unused for a few years, and your fuel has degraded in place.
      - Lanolderen 2y ago
        Car tanks are plastic nowadays, there's a fuel fiter and they're pretty good at managing surge/sloshing. Many even reduce power when the fuel light is on for example. You probably shouldn't drive aggressively with the fuel light on but even the user manuals usually recommend refuelling at about the 1/4 mark mentioning the potential pump issue, the danger of running out of fuel entirely and that if the engine is sputtering systems like power anything, ESC, TC, etc might not work correctly. A full tank doesn't hurt but nowadays if you're not being a mong you can cruise with the fuel light on without damaging the car in any way. Edit: Or at least way less than bad shifting, lugging, not waiting for it to warm up, not letting turbos cool down, etc. The fuel thing is one of those things I hear a lot but then it comes from people (not you, don't know you) who start their car after sitting in a parking lot for an hour and immediately do a pull or hoon around all the way to the parking spot and immediately kill the engine when they stop, etc. Triggers my mechanical sympathy 'tism.
    - 2y ago
  - DSMan195276 2y ago
    The difference is that I can fill my gas tank to 100% in a few minutes almost anywhere, no planning is necessary.
    - ajross 2y ago
      On the other hand, you don't have a gas pump in your garage, do you? Absolutely unbelievable we're still having these FUD arguments in 2025. EV's spend objectively far, far less of the driver's time fueling themselves for around-town driving, and it's not even close.
  - _zoltan_ 2y ago
    When my tank gets 10% on my ICE, I fill a full tank.
    - ajross 2y ago
      That's nice. It's just so weird to me that Musk's adventures in authoritarian nutjobbery are causing us to revisit long dead nonsense FUD arguments about EVs that have been clearly disproven in the market for like a decade now. I mean, seriously? We're doing this?
- loeg 2y ago
  It isn't super harmful to occasionally use the full capacity for longer road-trip type situations, but it is indeed slightly better for long-term (100k+ mile) battery health to keep it in the 10-80% range most of the time. But it's also not a big deal if you constantly use 0-100%; it'll just be ballpark ~10% degraded at 100k miles.
Spivak 2y ago
I think that's pretty fair on the side of the EPA, it's good for drivers to keep the estimate conservative. Imagine if the difference between "ideal" driving and "everyday" driving was like half. Someone who plans a road trip with the advertised range in mind is probably gonna have a bad day. And because it's bad for batteries to be fully charged/discharged they should probably take that into consideration as well since "you could go further if you damage your car" isn't exactly a normal driving scenario.
BluSyn 2y ago
How can Tesla advertise a “more accurate” number if they are required by regulation to use EPA estimate? EPA range estimates being inaccurate is a real problem. They do not, and are not designed to, give actual expected range. It’s meant to be an “average” of “mixed” driving. Take latest Model Y as example. If you compare EPA range vs WLTP (commonly used in EU) 327mi EPA est. (526km) US version (long range) / 586km WLTP est. (364mi) EU version (long range) The WLTP is “average” as well, so which of these is more accurate? This problem is not unique to Teslas, and actually not unique to EVs either. It’s just more noticeable, as ICE vehicles usually advertise MPG and tank size, not total range. So EVs suffer from their own advertisement highlighting numbers that will never be accurate.
- _ea1k 2y ago
  They are allowed to advertise lower numbers than the EPA, and are also allowed to use different tests. Tesla typically uses the test that is most favorible to their own range rating. Some other manufacturers go to a lot of effort to make sure that they aren't overstating things (eg, Porsche), but you are right that this isn't the norm.
- zfg 2y ago
  > How can Tesla advertise a “more accurate” number if they are required by regulation to use EPA estimate? By also providing the worst case scenario numbers in addition to the EPA numbers. Tesla could simply do a highway range test at 70mph, ideally in Winter: https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/ https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/ They could also show towing range: https://insideevs.com/news/713690/tesla-cybertruck-range-drop-towing-rivian-r1t/ https://insideevs.com/news/713690/tesla-cybertruck-range-dro... There's nothing stopping Tesla showing these things. The one time Tesla did a towing demonstration those numbers turned out to be lies. Tesla never ran the quarter mile that they claimed to. When even your engineers lack basic honesty you've got a sick company culture: https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/tesla-cybertruck-beast-vs-porsche-911-carrera-t-drag-race-towing-rematch/ https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/tesla-cybertruck-beast-vs... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J3H8--CQRE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J3H8--CQRE https://x.com/wmorrill3/status/1746266437088645551 https://x.com/wmorrill3/status/1746266437088645551
delichon 2y ago
Subtracting the politics but including the actual range, do you regret the purchase?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  No. They are still a pleasure to drive. It’s a great commuter car and depending on the electricity rates and whether you have solar panels, slightly more economical than ICE cars. And I’ve had lower maintenance costs. But that’s about it. Like all cars they have their own problems.
- thepasswordis 2y ago
  No. I absolutely love my car. I have put 60,000 miles on mine in 3 years, largely from long cross country road trips. It's far and away my favorite driving experience of any car I've ever driven.
nebula8804 2y ago
They are among the best in class when it comes efficiency so I don't understand where they are falling short. I've rented EquinoxEV(2024,Model 3(2022), Mach-E(2021 non heat pump) and Bolt EV(2023) for roadtrips and it seemed as if all except Mach-E were pretty good on their estimates. I guess I need to measure miles very closely. Maybe they were all just falling short and I didn't realize. :/
gerdesj 2y ago
I also own an EV. Mine is a Seik MG4 (long range) - a Chinese beastie with an old school British marque slapped on it. I went to school in Abingdon, Oxon, which is where the Morris Garage comes from. My car didn't! There is a standard for range - WLTP - does the US subscribe to it? The W stands for Worldwide. My car has a WLTP range of 323 miles. I've managed better than that. The standard itself is pretty decent and far better than the old one. EVs are different to ICEs. Mind you they are both pretty efficient at around 50mph - funny that. EVs hate cold but if you pre-heat the battery, then its not so bad. An ICE can always have a bigger tank and you can easily pop a 15l can in the boot (trunk) to grab an extra 50 miles or so. EVs don't have that flexibility. However, I pay 7p per KWh to charge my car and I fuel up at home instead of at Tesco. My "tank" costs about £5 and I can get about 300 miles out of it. My other car (Renault Clio) costs about £70 at the moment (it has been far worse) to fuel up and I'll get roughly 700 miles out of it. In Europe I think that EV vs !EV is almost certainly won but I do get that in the Americas, where it can get proper chilly at times and the distances involved can be huge means that an EV might not be indicated without a lot of caveats. EVs mostly do cost more too for the initial purchase, which isn't helpful. Despite all that, do note I routinely pay roughly £5 for 300 miles, and I don't have to piss around with garages. My car plugs into my house!
- gerdesj 2y ago
  Oh and I should probably ask how you felt when you first floored the pedal on your Tesla and realised it was sodding dangerous! EVs have ferocious acceleration - no gears and no need to "wind up". I used to own a Honda S2000 which was pretty funky - it could lift off in sixth gear and run up to around 150mph. EVs basically destroy ICEs - no gear box. I did rather enjoy the S2000 when it hit 6500 rpm and then it decided to kick in and go a bit mental.
  - prmoustache 2y ago
    Previous poster mentioned he owns an MG, not Tesla. I can't speak about their particular models but all EV have accelerator by wire were acceleration/power is electronically managed to avoid risks of wheelspins. Not all brands offer gimmicks such as "ludicrous mode" and launch control systems and most will prefer offering a default power management that favors range over acceleration. So many can accelerate faster than comparable ICE vehicles, but not necessarily stupidly fast nor dangerous. Some even launch ridiculously slowly in standard settings.
486sx33 2y ago
No different than fuel range numbers (fuel tank capacity x mpg) for ICE vehicles. They are under perfect conditions in a lab with no accessories. It might not be realistic but it’s absolutely the best way to compare it to other vehicles.
- cwillu 2y ago
  On any ICE I've ever driven, the range number displayed on the dash is calculated from the current trip's average mpg.
slg 2y ago
> in normal weather, normal driving conditions without the AC/heater on, on a straight road with no elevation gain. Another aspect of this debate from my own experience, Tesla's range estimates from the navigation system are much more accurate (which should be obvious because otherwise people would constantly get stranded when taking a road trip). Tesla would probably argue that is because all those factors you listed that impact range stop being assumptions when a defined time and route are known. But it is still no excuse for assuming the absolute best case scenario when defining the range used in marketing or displayed on the equivalent of the car's fuel gauge. If anything, the accuracy of those navigation estimates makes the other inaccuracies seem even more nefarious.
flutas 2y ago
You can review claims from some YTers here[0]. But I've copied the params and results over for the Model 3. They also have tons of other cars tested in similar params[1]. Testing procedure: - Tire pressure set to manufacturer recommendation - DCFC to 100% SoC to ensure optimal battery temperature - Most energy efficient drive setting - Climate control set between 68-72 on most eco-friendly mode that still allows A/C, on lowest auto fan setting - 70 mph constant GPS-verified speed with gentle acceleration to reach speed - Avoid drafting trucks or other vehicles - Stay on highway at 70 mph constant for as long as possible, until power is cut or low single digit SoC - Use frontage roads at low SoC, try to maintain 55+ mph until stated remaining range depleted - Arrive at charger just as car crosses 0-1 miles remaining and 0% SoC Route: - Drive from Wellington, CO up I-25 to Cheyenne, WY. Then east on I-80 into Nebraska - Route ensures minimal elevation impact, and any wind is documented. Wind typically blows easterly, so the long stretch along I-80 allows for headwind to become tailwind at turnaround. Tesla Model 3 Performance: EPA: 303 mi Actual: 288 mi / 265 Wh/mi Tesla Model 3 LR AWD Panasonic: EPA: 341 mi Actual: 365 mi / 215 Wh/mi Tesla Model 3 SR RWD LFP: EPA: 272 mi Actual: 277 mi / 213 Wh/mi Tesla Model 3 LR AWD LG: EPA: 305 mi Actual: 308 mi / 249 Wh/mi Tesla Model 3 LR RWD: EPA: 363 mi Actual: 386 mi / 206 Wh/mi [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmn7gpuAp9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmn7gpuAp9E [1]: https://outofspecstudios.com/70-mph-range https://outofspecstudios.com/70-mph-range
- ukoki 2y ago
  tailwind would not counteract headwind because drag increases with the square of windspeed.
emmelaich 2y ago
Which ones? Model 3 standard advertised is 428 km (265miles). Only time I've notice significantly lower range is on a hot day (38c/100f) when I had the aircon cranking for a nice cool inside temp of 20c.

infinghxsg 2y ago

[dead]

gleenn 2y ago

I know some of the lithium-sodium batteries behave differently now but my Model Y yells at me whenever I charge above 80% or go below 20%, saying it's bad for the battery. Not exactly inspiring if it causes more wear unless you sacrifice 40% of the range.

ajross 2y ago
Where's the sacrifice? Just charge it to 100% before you leave for a 200+ mile trip, there's even a setting in your app to make that happen automatically (it'll start charging at e.g. 2am or whatever is needed for your departure time). Did you gas up your car every time you drove back from work? No, right? So why complain that the car doesn't sit at 100% all the time in your garage? Seems like a silly complaint to me.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  The sacrifice is that you can't use 40% of what's supposedly the range. > Did you gas up your car every time you drove back from work? No, right? Right, you gas up your car when it needs more gas. You can't do that with an electric car for two reasons: (1) you need to fuel the car well in advance of trying to use it, because fueling is extremely slow; (2) you can't go low on fuel without damaging the car. The only logical response to this state of affairs is to try to fuel the car whenever it's not in use. > So why complain that the car doesn't sit at 100% all the time in your garage? Capacity that you're not supposed to use is not capacity that you can usefully be said to have.
  - ajross 2y ago
    > The sacrifice is that you can't use 40% of what's supposedly the range. I do it all the time, just not every day. Going skiing? Set the car to charge in the morning. 40 minutes at 90%+ isn't going to hurt anything. I think you've badly misunderstood that warning.
  - toast0 2y ago
    You shouldn't normally run a fuel powered car all the way to empty either. Fuel pumps tend to be cooled by the fuel they're pumping, running low means you might be pumping air in addition to fuel and air cooling isn't as effective as liquid cooling, so you will overheat your fuel pump (may not be a big deal depending on how long you can go with the tank critically empty). Fuel tanks also accumulate crud which is more likely to make it out of the tank when you run it low. And your fuel tank may be more likely to corrode when it has more air in it, which naturally happens when it has less fuel, so you should keep it mostly full when possible. That said, it's usually not a big deal until your vehicle and its fuel tank has sat on the side of the road unused for a few years, and your fuel has degraded in place.
    - Lanolderen 2y ago
      Car tanks are plastic nowadays, there's a fuel fiter and they're pretty good at managing surge/sloshing. Many even reduce power when the fuel light is on for example. You probably shouldn't drive aggressively with the fuel light on but even the user manuals usually recommend refuelling at about the 1/4 mark mentioning the potential pump issue, the danger of running out of fuel entirely and that if the engine is sputtering systems like power anything, ESC, TC, etc might not work correctly. A full tank doesn't hurt but nowadays if you're not being a mong you can cruise with the fuel light on without damaging the car in any way. Edit: Or at least way less than bad shifting, lugging, not waiting for it to warm up, not letting turbos cool down, etc. The fuel thing is one of those things I hear a lot but then it comes from people (not you, don't know you) who start their car after sitting in a parking lot for an hour and immediately do a pull or hoon around all the way to the parking spot and immediately kill the engine when they stop, etc. Triggers my mechanical sympathy 'tism.
  - 2y ago
- DSMan195276 2y ago
  The difference is that I can fill my gas tank to 100% in a few minutes almost anywhere, no planning is necessary.
  - ajross 2y ago
    On the other hand, you don't have a gas pump in your garage, do you? Absolutely unbelievable we're still having these FUD arguments in 2025. EV's spend objectively far, far less of the driver's time fueling themselves for around-town driving, and it's not even close.
- _zoltan_ 2y ago
  When my tank gets 10% on my ICE, I fill a full tank.
  - ajross 2y ago
    That's nice. It's just so weird to me that Musk's adventures in authoritarian nutjobbery are causing us to revisit long dead nonsense FUD arguments about EVs that have been clearly disproven in the market for like a decade now. I mean, seriously? We're doing this?
loeg 2y ago
It isn't super harmful to occasionally use the full capacity for longer road-trip type situations, but it is indeed slightly better for long-term (100k+ mile) battery health to keep it in the 10-80% range most of the time. But it's also not a big deal if you constantly use 0-100%; it'll just be ballpark ~10% degraded at 100k miles.

Spivak 2y ago

I think that's pretty fair on the side of the EPA, it's good for drivers to keep the estimate conservative. Imagine if the difference between "ideal" driving and "everyday" driving was like half. Someone who plans a road trip with the advertised range in mind is probably gonna have a bad day. And because it's bad for batteries to be fully charged/discharged they should probably take that into consideration as well since "you could go further if you damage your car" isn't exactly a normal driving scenario.

BluSyn 2y ago

How can Tesla advertise a “more accurate” number if they are required by regulation to use EPA estimate? EPA range estimates being inaccurate is a real problem. They do not, and are not designed to, give actual expected range. It’s meant to be an “average” of “mixed” driving. Take latest Model Y as example. If you compare EPA range vs WLTP (commonly used in EU) 327mi EPA est. (526km) US version (long range) / 586km WLTP est. (364mi) EU version (long range) The WLTP is “average” as well, so which of these is more accurate? This problem is not unique to Teslas, and actually not unique to EVs either. It’s just more noticeable, as ICE vehicles usually advertise MPG and tank size, not total range. So EVs suffer from their own advertisement highlighting numbers that will never be accurate.

_ea1k 2y ago
They are allowed to advertise lower numbers than the EPA, and are also allowed to use different tests. Tesla typically uses the test that is most favorible to their own range rating. Some other manufacturers go to a lot of effort to make sure that they aren't overstating things (eg, Porsche), but you are right that this isn't the norm.
zfg 2y ago
> How can Tesla advertise a “more accurate” number if they are required by regulation to use EPA estimate? By also providing the worst case scenario numbers in addition to the EPA numbers. Tesla could simply do a highway range test at 70mph, ideally in Winter: https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/ https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/ They could also show towing range: https://insideevs.com/news/713690/tesla-cybertruck-range-drop-towing-rivian-r1t/ https://insideevs.com/news/713690/tesla-cybertruck-range-dro... There's nothing stopping Tesla showing these things. The one time Tesla did a towing demonstration those numbers turned out to be lies. Tesla never ran the quarter mile that they claimed to. When even your engineers lack basic honesty you've got a sick company culture: https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/tesla-cybertruck-beast-vs-porsche-911-carrera-t-drag-race-towing-rematch/ https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/tesla-cybertruck-beast-vs... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J3H8--CQRE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J3H8--CQRE https://x.com/wmorrill3/status/1746266437088645551 https://x.com/wmorrill3/status/1746266437088645551

delichon 2y ago

Subtracting the politics but including the actual range, do you regret the purchase?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
darth_avocado 2y ago
No. They are still a pleasure to drive. It’s a great commuter car and depending on the electricity rates and whether you have solar panels, slightly more economical than ICE cars. And I’ve had lower maintenance costs. But that’s about it. Like all cars they have their own problems.
thepasswordis 2y ago
No. I absolutely love my car. I have put 60,000 miles on mine in 3 years, largely from long cross country road trips. It's far and away my favorite driving experience of any car I've ever driven.

nebula8804 2y ago

They are among the best in class when it comes efficiency so I don't understand where they are falling short. I've rented EquinoxEV(2024,Model 3(2022), Mach-E(2021 non heat pump) and Bolt EV(2023) for roadtrips and it seemed as if all except Mach-E were pretty good on their estimates. I guess I need to measure miles very closely. Maybe they were all just falling short and I didn't realize. :/

gerdesj 2y ago

I also own an EV. Mine is a Seik MG4 (long range) - a Chinese beastie with an old school British marque slapped on it. I went to school in Abingdon, Oxon, which is where the Morris Garage comes from. My car didn't! There is a standard for range - WLTP - does the US subscribe to it? The W stands for Worldwide. My car has a WLTP range of 323 miles. I've managed better than that. The standard itself is pretty decent and far better than the old one. EVs are different to ICEs. Mind you they are both pretty efficient at around 50mph - funny that. EVs hate cold but if you pre-heat the battery, then its not so bad. An ICE can always have a bigger tank and you can easily pop a 15l can in the boot (trunk) to grab an extra 50 miles or so. EVs don't have that flexibility. However, I pay 7p per KWh to charge my car and I fuel up at home instead of at Tesco. My "tank" costs about £5 and I can get about 300 miles out of it. My other car (Renault Clio) costs about £70 at the moment (it has been far worse) to fuel up and I'll get roughly 700 miles out of it. In Europe I think that EV vs !EV is almost certainly won but I do get that in the Americas, where it can get proper chilly at times and the distances involved can be huge means that an EV might not be indicated without a lot of caveats. EVs mostly do cost more too for the initial purchase, which isn't helpful. Despite all that, do note I routinely pay roughly £5 for 300 miles, and I don't have to piss around with garages. My car plugs into my house!

gerdesj 2y ago
Oh and I should probably ask how you felt when you first floored the pedal on your Tesla and realised it was sodding dangerous! EVs have ferocious acceleration - no gears and no need to "wind up". I used to own a Honda S2000 which was pretty funky - it could lift off in sixth gear and run up to around 150mph. EVs basically destroy ICEs - no gear box. I did rather enjoy the S2000 when it hit 6500 rpm and then it decided to kick in and go a bit mental.
- prmoustache 2y ago
  Previous poster mentioned he owns an MG, not Tesla. I can't speak about their particular models but all EV have accelerator by wire were acceleration/power is electronically managed to avoid risks of wheelspins. Not all brands offer gimmicks such as "ludicrous mode" and launch control systems and most will prefer offering a default power management that favors range over acceleration. So many can accelerate faster than comparable ICE vehicles, but not necessarily stupidly fast nor dangerous. Some even launch ridiculously slowly in standard settings.

486sx33 2y ago

No different than fuel range numbers (fuel tank capacity x mpg) for ICE vehicles. They are under perfect conditions in a lab with no accessories. It might not be realistic but it’s absolutely the best way to compare it to other vehicles.

cwillu 2y ago
On any ICE I've ever driven, the range number displayed on the dash is calculated from the current trip's average mpg.

slg 2y ago

> in normal weather, normal driving conditions without the AC/heater on, on a straight road with no elevation gain. Another aspect of this debate from my own experience, Tesla's range estimates from the navigation system are much more accurate (which should be obvious because otherwise people would constantly get stranded when taking a road trip). Tesla would probably argue that is because all those factors you listed that impact range stop being assumptions when a defined time and route are known. But it is still no excuse for assuming the absolute best case scenario when defining the range used in marketing or displayed on the equivalent of the car's fuel gauge. If anything, the accuracy of those navigation estimates makes the other inaccuracies seem even more nefarious.

flutas 2y ago

You can review claims from some YTers here[0]. But I've copied the params and results over for the Model 3. They also have tons of other cars tested in similar params[1]. Testing procedure: - Tire pressure set to manufacturer recommendation - DCFC to 100% SoC to ensure optimal battery temperature - Most energy efficient drive setting - Climate control set between 68-72 on most eco-friendly mode that still allows A/C, on lowest auto fan setting - 70 mph constant GPS-verified speed with gentle acceleration to reach speed - Avoid drafting trucks or other vehicles - Stay on highway at 70 mph constant for as long as possible, until power is cut or low single digit SoC - Use frontage roads at low SoC, try to maintain 55+ mph until stated remaining range depleted - Arrive at charger just as car crosses 0-1 miles remaining and 0% SoC Route: - Drive from Wellington, CO up I-25 to Cheyenne, WY. Then east on I-80 into Nebraska - Route ensures minimal elevation impact, and any wind is documented. Wind typically blows easterly, so the long stretch along I-80 allows for headwind to become tailwind at turnaround. Tesla Model 3 Performance: EPA: 303 mi Actual: 288 mi / 265 Wh/mi Tesla Model 3 LR AWD Panasonic: EPA: 341 mi Actual: 365 mi / 215 Wh/mi Tesla Model 3 SR RWD LFP: EPA: 272 mi Actual: 277 mi / 213 Wh/mi Tesla Model 3 LR AWD LG: EPA: 305 mi Actual: 308 mi / 249 Wh/mi Tesla Model 3 LR RWD: EPA: 363 mi Actual: 386 mi / 206 Wh/mi [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmn7gpuAp9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmn7gpuAp9E [1]: https://outofspecstudios.com/70-mph-range https://outofspecstudios.com/70-mph-range

ukoki 2y ago
tailwind would not counteract headwind because drag increases with the square of windspeed.

emmelaich 2y ago

Which ones? Model 3 standard advertised is 428 km (265miles). Only time I've notice significantly lower range is on a hot day (38c/100f) when I had the aircon cranking for a nice cool inside temp of 20c.