I have a model 3 (from 2023), that is rated 270 miles. I can get at max 120 miles, more like 90 miles from it. My drive to work involves going steeply uphill, not very cold. The only reason I don’t care is I have free office charging. If I didn’t I would be pissed by the range I observe.
Also Tesla servicing is famously bad, and the way the employees treat service requests (as described in the article) explains a lot
Slightly more nuanced: the "range"/battery level listed constantly is always bunk. When I enter a destination the final battery level is very accurate. This counts in cold weather or hot, with terrain effects or not. Sometimes even weather. It's quite good and I imagine there's some data driven process from past performance of the vehicle.
So, if you plan to test drive a Tesla, evaluate its range this way. If you're curious for me the listed range is often around 300, and the effective drive range tends to be around 250 200, seldom less except in cold weather.
Our BMW i3 gets EPA range on my round trip commute in the summer. It starts at the top of a mountain with a “100%” (actually 90% according to reverse engineering) battery (a tesla couldn’t regen in that situation, the bmw can).
It can be as low as 80% of EPA range with the heat pump cranked up in low 30F’s weather.
I’ve carefully measured two other EVs (not Tesla) on that route. One gets 110% of EPA, but can’t regen at 100% (so, it is similar to the BMW model without the hard 90% charge cap). The other gets EPA in the winter and does not have a heat pump.
FWIW, Tesla drivers that live up here complain about bogus range estimates.
I agree with the “type in destination and let the computer estimate” approach. That works well on all three cars, despite the mountains.
Getting only 30% of the advertised range would be very unlikely unless you always drive uphill and in the cold. I've had a Model 3 and a Model Y, and would get at least 80-85% of the advertised range in average California weather.
If they were traveling uphill to work you’d think they would gain some of that back coming back downhill. But I’m guessing it might be very hilly terrain where the roads are not level at all. The crazier thing is that their commute is 60+ miles one way (based on saying they are lucky they can charge at work).
Looking at Tessie, my Model Y's lifetime average is 83% (289 Wh/mi at ~40,000 miles) and my Model 3's average is also 83% (280 Wh/mi at ~53,000 miles).
Most of my driving is in the Washington/PNW, so a bit more hilly and colder than California.
If the gradient is steep enough then you would not be recouping most of the energy going back downhill because your brakes will be burning off the energy. Uphill and downhills is a combination where the estimated range might be thrown off entirely, depending on situation.
Regardless, even with a small gradient, the kinetic energy can never need 100% converted back into stored energy into the battery. There will always be a loss.
It'd have to be really steep. Regenerative braking on a model 3 is pretty aggressive. You don't even use the brakes in normal driving. If you're starting off too cold that can be an issue though. I've driven in big mountains (Canada, BC) and while you're definitely using a lot more power on your way up you make up for it on the other side. I have worried about not making it to the top though (but it worked out fine for my trips).
I don't own a Tesla, let alone a car. What is "servicing" for a car? You go to the dealer when something is wrong/broken? Or do you call Tesla?
Also, can you give a specific example of how Tesla servicing is "famously bad"? (I'm not doubting, but it will help me to better understand your comment.)
I sold my Tesla after 4 years, because I refused to own it out of warranty. No longer being associated with Musk is a bonus.
During the 4 years, it needed servicing (for actual faults, not for maintenance) 13 times.
4 of those times were "Car is dead" and it had to be towed.
To book service, you have to use the app. There's no phone number. You pick a date which is usually at least a week in advance, type in what's wrong, maybe attach a photo.
First, you'll get a reply in app's "chat" feature that your problem is actually normal, or it's somehow your fault, and it's not something they can fix.
After you've convinced them it's a real problem, your appointment comes around, and you take it into your service center, and wait about 30 minutes for someone to get around to seeing you. They repeat the previous message that it's your fault, or normal, etc. etc.
When they finally take it, there's zero feedback as to what's going on. In theory, you should get a loaner car while they repair, but they are usually "out".
3-14 days later, if you are lucky, your car is ready for pickup. No-one will be there to help you collect it, you just have to find it in the parking lot.
There's about a 50/50 chance of your problem being fixed, and 100% chance that they've added a couple of new ones. Your car will be filthy, inside and out, and need to be cleaned.
They also offer "mobile service" which is basically the same except they are rude to you in your driveway instead of at the service center.
Worst experience of any car. By far. Will never buy another one.
For comparision with Tesla, with my little 15 year old clio it's like this:
1. There is mandatory service with technical exam yearly. Few days before it I call my mechanic, drive car to him, then pick it up next day. He changes the oil, brake pads if they are getting bad, tightens a few nuts. Usually I pay less than 100€ for that, but price varies heavily by car model/mechanic/location.
2. I go change the wheels before and after winter (we have to use separate ones for summer and winter there due to snow). Again, I call the mechanic, drive the car to him same day, chat for 15min, then he is finished. Around 120€ if I need new wheels, just 40€ if previous season ones are still good.
Every so often a bit bigger service is needed (if exhaust needs to be replaced or something else). In this case the car stays at mechanic over weekend, maybe max 4-5 days if he needs to order parts he doesn't have in stock.
Average it's less than 400€ yearly and less than a week of downtime in total per year.
Servicing normally means you take your car in annually to check it over for any problems that have developed.
In most countries you have a mandatory safety check. Here in the UK it’s called an MOT and it is annual. It will check things like tyre tread depth, whether the windscreen wash is aimed at the windscreen, steering, suspension, brake pads, brake disks, condition of seatbelts.
Normally people try and service their car at the same time. The service typically will include things like oil changes and oil filter changes and air filter changes.
I have a model 3 from 2019 that is not quite as extreme, but gets similar issues. It should have 350 km of range. I see some people posting insane wh/km numbers, but I think I'm doing a pretty decent job (130-140 wh/km or ~225.31 wh/mile average outside of the winter); I barely get 270-280km, max.
The issue isn't the driving range, but rather the unexplained loss of range. I'm talking about losses of 7.5% if I leave it parked in front of my house for an hour or two. I have photos too; if you reach out to Tesla, they curtly tell me the battery is fine.
A vague "you need to keep your car plugged in" is frankly insane, what if I went on a 100km trip, left my car outside for an hour or two, and came back without enough range to go home? I've heard people say to disable the app on my phone, but that frankly seems like a Tesla problem, not a "me" problem.
I still enjoy driving the car. I just wouldn't trust it for long range driving. I probably will buy Hyundai or BYD (if Canada lets them in) next time.
Tip: if you turn off both the overheat protection and sentry mode, the phantom drain becomes 0%. I know this because I left my car idle for 2 months and it only lost 1% during that time.
It is fine to turn these off, other cars don't even have these and they are fine.
There might not actually be a downhill return trip if the commute involves going over a bunch of hills as is common in a pretty well known city that both has a lot of teslas and fits the parent's description.
So I lose around 20% when going uphill to office. and I lose 10% when going downhill back home, clearly downhill is much better, but it’s not like I get back charge
> I have a model 3 (from 2023), that is rated 270 miles. I can get at max 120 miles, more like 90 miles from it. My drive to work involves going steeply uphill, not very cold. The only reason I don’t care is I have free office charging. If I didn’t I would be pissed by the range I observe.
Were you mislead about or unaware of the range claims when you bought the car?
I don't own an EV or have any real interest in them, but I know the range is highly dependent on driving conditions and automobile condition (often to a much greater degree than ICE vehicles) and I'd assumed that was made pretty clear in advertising materials and sales pitch. I could easily see unscrupulous companies and salesmen or just unaware 2nd hand buyers being caught out by the range claims though.
> I'd assumed that was made pretty clear in advertising materials
On all advertising marerials for cars (ICE or EV) i have seen only: consumption may vary with driving conditions.
That's all.
How much they vary, is left as an exercise for the reader.
The 270 actually 120 is a bit dramatic, but it does highlight a lot of the fundamental problems with range in EVs, especially the "200 miles is enough" crowd.
1) for battery preservation, you generally do not fully charge every night. So, lose 10% from that
2) battery degradation, things are better, but 10% max loss is common I would say
3) people drive faster than testing. Knock off about 10% for that
4) cold? hot? AC? heat? another 10% off
5) there isn't a charger around every corner, so you have to plan ahead and to be safe get a charger when you're at like ... 10% left
Holy crap, 50% loss of range! And if you are in a scenario where you are recharging on the road, you are doing the "80% charge" which really is a loss of 10-20% more effective range. Ok, the poster isn't being that dramatic.
This is why for non-city non-commuter scenarios, especially in midwest/rural areas, a PHEV with a 50 mile all-electric range would simnply be a far better car, for far less battery supply. Daily city driving rarely exceeds 50%, the engine can do range extension on the rare long distance trips, and it can also help with heat/cooling that heat pumps can't help with. PHEV drivetrains will still have regen, peppy acceleration, and good torque if done correctly.
I'm hoping the Dodge Ramcharger does really well. 100 miles almost in all-electric, and an engine to recharge it for really long ranges and towing capacity.
A truly peer range EV will probably need another 50% density, so
My Polestar 2 range is not great in the cold and on hills, but the real gotcha is charging it to 80% and then plugging in around 30%. Using about 42 kW / 100 U.S. mile that means 50% of a roughly 75 kW battery only gives me 89 miles between charges. (But some of that is self imposed.)
Still 180 mile range would be well under the advertised 260.
Now if I use 100% and I get closer to 35 kW / 100 miles in the summer, the range is about 215 miles. Curious how much better it'll be in the summer though.
Sorry, but this is hard to believe unless your specific Model 3 has a problem.
I have a Model Y, several friends have Teslas, one uses his Model 3 for Uber. Everyone can get the expected range when doing 90 km/h in the summer, and at least half of the range on the highway in the winter, but usually more than that.
Maybe your consumption is that much when going steeply uphill, but then you will have to come back down and your consumption will be negative as it will recharge your battery.
You’re right but the difference isn’t as big as from the advertised 270 to 90-120. Also electric cars suffer from battery degradation which hampers the range quite a bit.
From a company that sell "full self-driving" cars that don't, you now, "self drive fully", I was kinda already expecting that whatever advertised range was, to put it nicely, a "large exageration".
The bit of code in the dashboard to exaggerate even more is a nice touch. I wonder what the commit message was for that PR ? (Or maybe Tesla does not do PRs or commits, and just let anyone build anything on their laptop and put the binaries in the car. I mean, all that "software engineering" process sounds like so much useless efforts, right ?)
Also, the author of the article takes a lot of pleasure in mentioning the EPA dozens of time - too bad the days of the agency are numbered.
I suppose that would violate the advertiser's "free speech".
It's very ironic that everyone is so afraid of Orwellian's "Ministry of Truth", and that we end in a world ruled by "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistical parrots, Inc."
That time is now, thankfully the consumer protection organizations and car testing organizations stepped up and will / should now test in a standardized fashion an electric car's driving range and slap them on the wrist if it's much different from their advertised amount.
Vouching and upvoting this. In case the context got lost by the original downvoters, this is in reference to Mark Zuckerberg's leaked conversations about creating Facebook [0]. I wouldn't be surprised if (some) Tesla employees/executives indeed internally hold a similar sentiment about their customers.
Having road tripped from Florida to Washington and back in a big circle around the country, it is my firm belief that every single person complaining about the range estimates in a Tesla is speeding.
By altering my driving style, I can get more range than the estimate. It's extremely predictable and accurate, to the point where I can notice the power drain from the self driving computers/cameras, arrive at the next supercharger at exactly the 3% I aim for, etc.
There was a point in my road trip when I was on top of a mountain, and it said I would reach the next charger 100km away with 20km of range remaining, but I was only at 90km at the time. I made it with 17km of range remaining.
The estimates are really good and useful if you don't speed.
When you understand how the EPA actually test this, it makes sense. "Highway" isn't anything like what most people think it is. It's not cruising at 75mph with no traffic on a major interstate. It's more like busy country road driving.
> The "highway" program, on the other hand, is created to emulate rural and interstate freeway driving with a warmed-up engine, making no stops (both of which ensure maximum fuel economy). The vehicle is driven for 10 miles over a period of 12.5 minutes with an average speed of 48 mph and a top speed of 60 mph
Further, the force of drag grows exponentially with speed. Going 75mph on the interstate is massively less fuel efficient than 48mph.
As a German, I love how you call 75mph speeding. There is a huge discussion going on in Germany of introducing a 80mph speed limit on the highway and many people claim that that does not work for them as they regularly drive 100mph average.
I'm sorry but this is a pet peeve of mine: drag force does not scale exponentially with velocity, it scales with the square of velocity. Your point stands, of course.
The article is talking not about the route planner, which I agree usually gives very accurate estimates for specific routes, but the advertised theoretical driving "EPA ranges", which are quite inflated.
However, from what I can tell, the EPA numbers from all manufacturers are quite unrealistic, because the methodology doesn't match real-world driving.
Yes, this is certainly true for ICE vehicles. The measurement methodology is spelled out in exacting detail, and yields highly repeatable results. Realistic? Nope, not at all. Nobody could claim that. But, it is repeatable and comparable, so that you can compare car A to car B. It gives you a strict rank order for vehicles that are driven exactly the same way, it just so happens that no person drives exactly that particular way. The utility is in providing a repeatable point of comparison. Is that useful?... forgive me for saying it, but YMMV.
The problem with EPA range is that it's a compromise between highway range and city range, so it's almost guaranteed to poorly match your driving unless your daily driving mix equals the averages. This is a consequence of insisting on one number, not inflation.
Inb4 "just pick highway range and be conservative" -- no, because then you will buy a car with great aerodynamics and terrible regen and spend all day driving it around the city using the terrible regen and not using the great aerodynamics.
I have an old toyota camry hybrid. The estimated range is calculated based on the trip mpg, and as such is accurate when I'm going like a speed demon or cruising along at 90kph.
Displaying a marketing number on the dash is inexcusable, regardless of how fast or slow drivers are going.
It's a valid point. The drag doesn't go up linearly as you accelerate but exponentially. So driving 5, 10, or 20 miles per hour faster at highway speeds has a huge impact. Your speed goes up by a few percent but the drag goes up a lot more. Also nice to keep in mind if you are driving a petrol car. Because the difference comes out of your pocket and the physics works the same way.
The estimate the car gives you adjusts to what you are actually doing. So if you drive uphill very quickly (which is tempting because of all that wonderful torque you have), that number will get very low quickly. If you drive a really heavy car, physics dictates that you will use up a lot of kwh. The estimate will recover a bit if you level off for the remaining kwh. And you might even get a few kwh back if you go downhill via regenerative braking. But not all of it. It's probably merely reducing the number of kwh you lose rather than adding a lot back.
A more useful metric than range is miles per kwh at different speeds or under different conditions. The amount of kwh your battery has is a constant; but miles you get per kwh will vary depending on what you are doing. Teslas are normally around 3.5-4 miles per kwh on highways, which is pretty good for cars that size. But of course it matters how fast you are going. That puts them around the 200-250 miles range many people are reportedly getting; if you account for battery degradation, temperature, etc. and assume a 65kwh battery. Some recent cars are getting a lot of gains from improved aerodynamics and battery management. E.g. Kia is doing some great stuff on that front.
Also having less battery actually improves the miles per kwh number because there's less mass to drag around. Shoving 200kwh in a big truck makes it really heavy and combined with poor aerodynamics probably would make for less than stellar range than you might hope for. Probably you're getting less than 2 miles per kwh. So, more than triple the battery but nowhere near triple the range. And it makes the truck really expensive too. And you'll have to buy a lot more kwh to go the same distance.
Energy needed for elecation gain when going uphill is independent of speed (to first order, losses in drivetrain are probably a bit higher when driving with higher power).
Available max and continuous torque of electric vehicles isn't necessarily that high compared to ICE vehicles, whats really different is that torque is available instantly and from near 0 RPM and the motor reacts more or less "instantly".
BTW, combining "miles" and "kWh" is strange, shouldn't that be pound*mile²/h ?
> There was a point in my road trip when I was on top of a mountain, and it said I would reach the next charger 100km away with 20km of range remaining, but I was only at 90km at the time. I made it with 17km of range remaining.
Correct, my point is the software prediction knew almost exactly how much energy would be recovered by it. Supporting my thesis that it is a very accurate system.
I don't think it is a necessity. People just don't generally have patience.
Generally people driving classic/collectible cars usually run at or below speed limits and...they are fine. You just have to embrace being overtaken by everyone.
It is especially hard for people suffering with fragile masculinity though.
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…
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.
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.
> 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:
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:
> 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.
Also, EPA ranges expect mostly constant speed and driving within the speed limit, neither of which matches real world driving
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
> 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.
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.
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.
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!
The US uses EPA testing instead of WTLP. WTLP is closer to EPA than the Chinese standard but it's not uncommon for the EPA range to be 10-20% lower. Ofc people assume they'll get the EPA range if they're driving 80mph into a headwind which is when they run into trouble
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.
> In Europe I think that EV vs !EV is almost certainly won
For people living in single family homes or in appartments with dedicated parking space, yes.
But lots of people are still living in apartments without a dedicated parking space. If you can't charge at home EV life is immediately a bit more compicated and expensive.
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. :/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dont cancel the appointment, insist they repair it, do 3-4 attempts even if they close it as “expected characteristic” or “education”, then request a lemon law buy back for failure to honor the warranty. Check your purchase agreement for where to send the lemon law request. Demand incident compensation during the buyback if they failed to provide loaners.
The article really focusses on range loss when cold, but as far as I can see that isn't really true.
The reality is there is lots of range loss when using the cabin heater, which obviously one is most likely to do when cold. All modern Tesla's use heat pumps for cabin heating, which ~halves the range loss, but it's still substantial.
Considering this, plus the fact that it's just annoying, it's strange that they don't let you turn the heated steering wheel or seat on without turning the heater on. It's literally not permitted. I have to work around it by setting the fan to 1 manually every time.
Unless you are in some wildly different version of a Tesla. My '22 Model Y does not have this characteristic. I almost all the time have my seat and wheel heat on without climate control on. I am guessing you are not using the seat/wheel option pinned to the bottom of the UI and going into the climate control.
I have a 2017 Bolt, resistive heater no heat pump. I take a -minimum- of 25% range hit in the winter (midwest, garaged but frequent long drives in sub-freezing temperatures) with minimal usage of heat. I've trialed no-heater days, but most of the time I only run a low level for window defogging.
I have a 150 mile round-trip commute when I need to go in to the office. My "summer range" (really more "not-winter range") is 240+ miles. I stick to posted speed limits for efficiency, 60-65 MPH. This winter I've been getting back home with 30 miles of range to spare. I haven't done the math or recall what power draw my gauge cluster reports when I toggle heat on/off, but I do remember it reduces my range estimate by ~5 miles when I turn the heat on.
Does the heater really use all that much energy? A home space heater is something on the order of 1 kW, which is a fraction of a percent of what is needed to move the car.
The climate control in my (non-tesla fwiw) EV with a heat pump uses around 2kW when its going full-out. Anecdotally it also heats the cabin much faster than a space heater would.
Usually it's only pulling that much juice for the beginning of a drive and after a few minutes it reduces when it finds a steady-state.
2kW is about the same amount of juice that the drivetrain pulls when driving 35mph, so it can make a pretty big difference in the efficiency of shorter drives.
Sidenote: even though resistive heating is less efficient in heat per watt, using the heated seats is usually more efficient in terms of comfort per watt than heating the entire cabin
>A home space heater is something on the order of 1 kW, which is a fraction of a percent of what is needed to move the car.
How are you getting "fraction of a percent of what is needed to move the car"?. Wikipedia says the model 3 (long range, RWD) has 82 kWh capacity and 363 mi range. If you drive at 40mph that's 9hrs of driving, meaning the car consumes 9kW at that speed. 1kW is not "fraction of a percent" of that.
Yes - for a non-heat pump it's 2-3kw, all-in.
The car is not using more than ~10kw, all-in.
Today, it's closer to 1.5kw, all-in, accounting for heat pumps, etc.
Cooling is less intensive.
Keep in mind:
Homes are also often well-insulated, at least, much more so than a car. Most car insulation is designed for noise/etc, not for temperature control. The glass is usually R-1 or worse.
So if you want realism:
My wife's office, no more than 150 sqft, built in 1923, and with no real insulation in the walls (and no space for it), and a bunch of older windows, can't be kept at 68F by a 1500 watt space heater running 100% of the time on a cold day (IE 30deg F).
This is in GA, so not exactly a super-cold climate, eiher.
Meanwhile, my workshop, same property, built a few years ago, 2000 sqft, and amazingly well insulated, can easily be heated/cooled to 72F by a 1.5kw minisplit running basically never.
Consider that your typical older long range model 3 had a 75 kWh battery in their first day, and one might typically charge it to 80%. So that 1kW, for one hour, is far more than a fraction of a percent of the practical battery capacity.
Mine doesn't have a heat pump, so I can definitely notice range decreases. Also consider that the battery likes to be at a good temperature, and that isn't going to be free if your car is parked outside for 8 hours. That changes range too
Your math is so far off, it isn't even on this planet anymore. In what world does an EV use more than 100kW? It's closer to 20kWh per 100km, so about 20kW on the highway probably. That would make your heater be 5%, not a fraction of a percent.
Tesla's used to, not sure if they still do, had a four way valve that could be used to route coolant around the system in the right direction. High wear and failure rate part.
EPA is a cycle of speeds with a max of about 60 MPH. The EPA range is accurate if you drive the EPA cycle in your car - which obviously no one does. I feel like everyone knows this by now.
kind of odd article to post, just feels like rage bait
Readit News
Also Tesla servicing is famously bad, and the way the employees treat service requests (as described in the article) explains a lot
So, if you plan to test drive a Tesla, evaluate its range this way. If you're curious for me the listed range is often around 300, and the effective drive range tends to be around 250 200, seldom less except in cold weather.
Our BMW i3 gets EPA range on my round trip commute in the summer. It starts at the top of a mountain with a “100%” (actually 90% according to reverse engineering) battery (a tesla couldn’t regen in that situation, the bmw can).
It can be as low as 80% of EPA range with the heat pump cranked up in low 30F’s weather.
I’ve carefully measured two other EVs (not Tesla) on that route. One gets 110% of EPA, but can’t regen at 100% (so, it is similar to the BMW model without the hard 90% charge cap). The other gets EPA in the winter and does not have a heat pump.
FWIW, Tesla drivers that live up here complain about bogus range estimates.
I agree with the “type in destination and let the computer estimate” approach. That works well on all three cars, despite the mountains.
Most of my driving is in the Washington/PNW, so a bit more hilly and colder than California.
Regardless, even with a small gradient, the kinetic energy can never need 100% converted back into stored energy into the battery. There will always be a loss.
Also, can you give a specific example of how Tesla servicing is "famously bad"? (I'm not doubting, but it will help me to better understand your comment.)
During the 4 years, it needed servicing (for actual faults, not for maintenance) 13 times.
4 of those times were "Car is dead" and it had to be towed.
To book service, you have to use the app. There's no phone number. You pick a date which is usually at least a week in advance, type in what's wrong, maybe attach a photo.
First, you'll get a reply in app's "chat" feature that your problem is actually normal, or it's somehow your fault, and it's not something they can fix.
After you've convinced them it's a real problem, your appointment comes around, and you take it into your service center, and wait about 30 minutes for someone to get around to seeing you. They repeat the previous message that it's your fault, or normal, etc. etc.
When they finally take it, there's zero feedback as to what's going on. In theory, you should get a loaner car while they repair, but they are usually "out".
3-14 days later, if you are lucky, your car is ready for pickup. No-one will be there to help you collect it, you just have to find it in the parking lot.
There's about a 50/50 chance of your problem being fixed, and 100% chance that they've added a couple of new ones. Your car will be filthy, inside and out, and need to be cleaned.
They also offer "mobile service" which is basically the same except they are rude to you in your driveway instead of at the service center.
Worst experience of any car. By far. Will never buy another one.
1. There is mandatory service with technical exam yearly. Few days before it I call my mechanic, drive car to him, then pick it up next day. He changes the oil, brake pads if they are getting bad, tightens a few nuts. Usually I pay less than 100€ for that, but price varies heavily by car model/mechanic/location.
2. I go change the wheels before and after winter (we have to use separate ones for summer and winter there due to snow). Again, I call the mechanic, drive the car to him same day, chat for 15min, then he is finished. Around 120€ if I need new wheels, just 40€ if previous season ones are still good.
Every so often a bit bigger service is needed (if exhaust needs to be replaced or something else). In this case the car stays at mechanic over weekend, maybe max 4-5 days if he needs to order parts he doesn't have in stock.
Average it's less than 400€ yearly and less than a week of downtime in total per year.
In most countries you have a mandatory safety check. Here in the UK it’s called an MOT and it is annual. It will check things like tyre tread depth, whether the windscreen wash is aimed at the windscreen, steering, suspension, brake pads, brake disks, condition of seatbelts.
Normally people try and service their car at the same time. The service typically will include things like oil changes and oil filter changes and air filter changes.
The issue isn't the driving range, but rather the unexplained loss of range. I'm talking about losses of 7.5% if I leave it parked in front of my house for an hour or two. I have photos too; if you reach out to Tesla, they curtly tell me the battery is fine.
A vague "you need to keep your car plugged in" is frankly insane, what if I went on a 100km trip, left my car outside for an hour or two, and came back without enough range to go home? I've heard people say to disable the app on my phone, but that frankly seems like a Tesla problem, not a "me" problem.
I still enjoy driving the car. I just wouldn't trust it for long range driving. I probably will buy Hyundai or BYD (if Canada lets them in) next time.
It is fine to turn these off, other cars don't even have these and they are fine.
Deleted Comment
Were you mislead about or unaware of the range claims when you bought the car?
I don't own an EV or have any real interest in them, but I know the range is highly dependent on driving conditions and automobile condition (often to a much greater degree than ICE vehicles) and I'd assumed that was made pretty clear in advertising materials and sales pitch. I could easily see unscrupulous companies and salesmen or just unaware 2nd hand buyers being caught out by the range claims though.
On all advertising marerials for cars (ICE or EV) i have seen only: consumption may vary with driving conditions. That's all. How much they vary, is left as an exercise for the reader.
1) for battery preservation, you generally do not fully charge every night. So, lose 10% from that
2) battery degradation, things are better, but 10% max loss is common I would say
3) people drive faster than testing. Knock off about 10% for that
4) cold? hot? AC? heat? another 10% off
5) there isn't a charger around every corner, so you have to plan ahead and to be safe get a charger when you're at like ... 10% left
Holy crap, 50% loss of range! And if you are in a scenario where you are recharging on the road, you are doing the "80% charge" which really is a loss of 10-20% more effective range. Ok, the poster isn't being that dramatic.
This is why for non-city non-commuter scenarios, especially in midwest/rural areas, a PHEV with a 50 mile all-electric range would simnply be a far better car, for far less battery supply. Daily city driving rarely exceeds 50%, the engine can do range extension on the rare long distance trips, and it can also help with heat/cooling that heat pumps can't help with. PHEV drivetrains will still have regen, peppy acceleration, and good torque if done correctly.
I'm hoping the Dodge Ramcharger does really well. 100 miles almost in all-electric, and an engine to recharge it for really long ranges and towing capacity.
A truly peer range EV will probably need another 50% density, so
My Polestar 2 range is not great in the cold and on hills, but the real gotcha is charging it to 80% and then plugging in around 30%. Using about 42 kW / 100 U.S. mile that means 50% of a roughly 75 kW battery only gives me 89 miles between charges. (But some of that is self imposed.)
Still 180 mile range would be well under the advertised 260.
Now if I use 100% and I get closer to 35 kW / 100 miles in the summer, the range is about 215 miles. Curious how much better it'll be in the summer though.
I have a Model Y, several friends have Teslas, one uses his Model 3 for Uber. Everyone can get the expected range when doing 90 km/h in the summer, and at least half of the range on the highway in the winter, but usually more than that.
Maybe your consumption is that much when going steeply uphill, but then you will have to come back down and your consumption will be negative as it will recharge your battery.
I'd still reckon that range estimates should ignore these extreme edge cases, though.
The bit of code in the dashboard to exaggerate even more is a nice touch. I wonder what the commit message was for that PR ? (Or maybe Tesla does not do PRs or commits, and just let anyone build anything on their laptop and put the binaries in the car. I mean, all that "software engineering" process sounds like so much useless efforts, right ?)
Also, the author of the article takes a lot of pleasure in mentioning the EPA dozens of time - too bad the days of the agency are numbered.
It's very ironic that everyone is so afraid of Orwellian's "Ministry of Truth", and that we end in a world ruled by "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistical parrots, Inc."
They "trust me". Dumb fucks.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/17/facebook-...
By altering my driving style, I can get more range than the estimate. It's extremely predictable and accurate, to the point where I can notice the power drain from the self driving computers/cameras, arrive at the next supercharger at exactly the 3% I aim for, etc.
There was a point in my road trip when I was on top of a mountain, and it said I would reach the next charger 100km away with 20km of range remaining, but I was only at 90km at the time. I made it with 17km of range remaining.
The estimates are really good and useful if you don't speed.
> The "highway" program, on the other hand, is created to emulate rural and interstate freeway driving with a warmed-up engine, making no stops (both of which ensure maximum fuel economy). The vehicle is driven for 10 miles over a period of 12.5 minutes with an average speed of 48 mph and a top speed of 60 mph
Further, the force of drag grows exponentially with speed. Going 75mph on the interstate is massively less fuel efficient than 48mph.
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-economy/...
No, it grows only polynomially [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation
However, from what I can tell, the EPA numbers from all manufacturers are quite unrealistic, because the methodology doesn't match real-world driving.
Inb4 "just pick highway range and be conservative" -- no, because then you will buy a car with great aerodynamics and terrible regen and spend all day driving it around the city using the terrible regen and not using the great aerodynamics.
Displaying a marketing number on the dash is inexcusable, regardless of how fast or slow drivers are going.
The estimate the car gives you adjusts to what you are actually doing. So if you drive uphill very quickly (which is tempting because of all that wonderful torque you have), that number will get very low quickly. If you drive a really heavy car, physics dictates that you will use up a lot of kwh. The estimate will recover a bit if you level off for the remaining kwh. And you might even get a few kwh back if you go downhill via regenerative braking. But not all of it. It's probably merely reducing the number of kwh you lose rather than adding a lot back.
A more useful metric than range is miles per kwh at different speeds or under different conditions. The amount of kwh your battery has is a constant; but miles you get per kwh will vary depending on what you are doing. Teslas are normally around 3.5-4 miles per kwh on highways, which is pretty good for cars that size. But of course it matters how fast you are going. That puts them around the 200-250 miles range many people are reportedly getting; if you account for battery degradation, temperature, etc. and assume a 65kwh battery. Some recent cars are getting a lot of gains from improved aerodynamics and battery management. E.g. Kia is doing some great stuff on that front.
Also having less battery actually improves the miles per kwh number because there's less mass to drag around. Shoving 200kwh in a big truck makes it really heavy and combined with poor aerodynamics probably would make for less than stellar range than you might hope for. Probably you're getting less than 2 miles per kwh. So, more than triple the battery but nowhere near triple the range. And it makes the truck really expensive too. And you'll have to buy a lot more kwh to go the same distance.
Available max and continuous torque of electric vehicles isn't necessarily that high compared to ICE vehicles, whats really different is that torque is available instantly and from near 0 RPM and the motor reacts more or less "instantly".
BTW, combining "miles" and "kWh" is strange, shouldn't that be pound*mile²/h ?
This is how regenerative braking works
Generally people driving classic/collectible cars usually run at or below speed limits and...they are fine. You just have to embrace being overtaken by everyone.
It is especially hard for people suffering with fragile masculinity though.
Dead Comment
These are the things they blame when they say EPA estimates are different becase blah blah…
(I own a Tesla)
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.
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.
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/
They could also show towing range:
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...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J3H8--CQRE
https://x.com/wmorrill3/status/1746266437088645551
Also, EPA ranges expect mostly constant speed and driving within the speed limit, neither of which matches real world driving
[1]: https://outofspecstudios.com/70-mph-range
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.
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.
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!
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.
For people living in single family homes or in appartments with dedicated parking space, yes.
But lots of people are still living in apartments without a dedicated parking space. If you can't charge at home EV life is immediately a bit more compicated and expensive.
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.
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.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Tesla created secret team to suppress thousands of driving range complaints - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36891642 - July 2023 (746 comments)
The reality is there is lots of range loss when using the cabin heater, which obviously one is most likely to do when cold. All modern Tesla's use heat pumps for cabin heating, which ~halves the range loss, but it's still substantial.
I have a 150 mile round-trip commute when I need to go in to the office. My "summer range" (really more "not-winter range") is 240+ miles. I stick to posted speed limits for efficiency, 60-65 MPH. This winter I've been getting back home with 30 miles of range to spare. I haven't done the math or recall what power draw my gauge cluster reports when I toggle heat on/off, but I do remember it reduces my range estimate by ~5 miles when I turn the heat on.
Usually it's only pulling that much juice for the beginning of a drive and after a few minutes it reduces when it finds a steady-state.
2kW is about the same amount of juice that the drivetrain pulls when driving 35mph, so it can make a pretty big difference in the efficiency of shorter drives.
Sidenote: even though resistive heating is less efficient in heat per watt, using the heated seats is usually more efficient in terms of comfort per watt than heating the entire cabin
How are you getting "fraction of a percent of what is needed to move the car"?. Wikipedia says the model 3 (long range, RWD) has 82 kWh capacity and 363 mi range. If you drive at 40mph that's 9hrs of driving, meaning the car consumes 9kW at that speed. 1kW is not "fraction of a percent" of that.
Today, it's closer to 1.5kw, all-in, accounting for heat pumps, etc.
Cooling is less intensive.
Keep in mind: Homes are also often well-insulated, at least, much more so than a car. Most car insulation is designed for noise/etc, not for temperature control. The glass is usually R-1 or worse.
So if you want realism:
My wife's office, no more than 150 sqft, built in 1923, and with no real insulation in the walls (and no space for it), and a bunch of older windows, can't be kept at 68F by a 1500 watt space heater running 100% of the time on a cold day (IE 30deg F).
This is in GA, so not exactly a super-cold climate, eiher.
Meanwhile, my workshop, same property, built a few years ago, 2000 sqft, and amazingly well insulated, can easily be heated/cooled to 72F by a 1.5kw minisplit running basically never.
Mine doesn't have a heat pump, so I can definitely notice range decreases. Also consider that the battery likes to be at a good temperature, and that isn't going to be free if your car is parked outside for 8 hours. That changes range too
It's not the same as an immobile insulated house.
Deleted Comment
2kW in the civilized world.
Tesla's used to, not sure if they still do, had a four way valve that could be used to route coolant around the system in the right direction. High wear and failure rate part.
Deleted Comment
kind of odd article to post, just feels like rage bait