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."
The "Ministry of Truth" in this case is a bad analogy though, since in the story, its purpose was to redefine what is the truth according to state up to the point of forcing people ignore the proof that they see in front of their eyes through torture.
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.
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.
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.
I've come to think of cars, and maybe other big purchases, as you're purchasing a culture; the company that made it and will service it - it's why Toyota is so highly regarded. I own a 20yo Toyota Tacoma - and it's making more frequent shop visits now; and there are some good independent shops, but the Toyota guys really do a good job and over-communicate what's going on when they have your vehicle. You also have a person who handles you through the entire process - it's a great experience.
Tesla culture is the opposite - buy the care and go away please.
I went to regular maintenance at Toyota, air filter and oil change and they inspected the chassis and sent me a video.
It was bit more expensive than normal shop, but very good service.
The first time I got a Toyota, I brought it for regular maintenance and they cleaned my car at the end. I was shocked because I never experienced this before, but the technician told me it was free and standard procedure.
At least they understood that if you see clean cars around you when you drive, you're more likely to buy the brand later, and keep happy clients.
Many dealership service centers have gone to great lengths to buck the stereotype they had acquired and have realized how a good experience with the service side of the business helps feed back into the sales side of the business.
I’m also a data point for excellent Toyota service from the dealership where we bought our Prius. From the concierge who holds your hand throughout the visit, to the free lunch voucher in their pleasant little cafeteria (sadly, closed after covid), to the couple of years of free oil changes, I actually looked forward to bringing the car in. And they cleaned it as well, a quick interior vacuum at least.
In Geneva, Switzerland they simply dont give replacement cars as per colleague's recent visit. And of course they are in the middle of nowhere, impractical for ie going to work adterwards.
Thats a very shitty service, even cheapest noname garages give replacements
To be fair i don’t think there is a business where I can make an appointment in the same week.
I have ICE and getting basic oil change must be week in advance even when I call, I never get “we can book you tomorrow”.
Heck gettin haircut in my area they have calendars blocked so you have to plan with a week in advance. Super annoying as I have a simple cut and most of time it can be done in 15mins. Ok washing down cut hair is useful so maybe 18mins.
But I get frustrated I cannot just walk in, hotels, restaurants, hairdressers.
At lest ordering food online is usually an hour so no need to wait a week
AAA is exactly that business: call-out roadside assistance for flat/dead batteries, breakdowns, tows etc. They have 65 million members in North America. Response time varies greatly by day/time-of-day/your location/dispatching company, traffic but typically < 1.5-2h. https://mwg.aaa.com/ (And T-Mobile was even giving free AAA membership in 2024.)
Basic oil change is typically while-you-wait in non-peak hours; where on earth do you live? some 'services desert'?
I've even gotten while-you-wait smog testing done within 45min out-the-door.
I am not sure where you live but in most of America you can get an ICE vehicle serviced in minutes. I always go through one of those express oil changes, usually they get me all setup 10 mins once I roll in, don’t even have to get out of the car.
Out of curiosity, where do you get your oil change done?
The local mechanic here can do it the same day, and they're next to a restaurant. Last time I did an oil change and tire rotation I just grabbed lunch while they worked on it.
The dealership for my car is perpetually booked though, and my experience reflects what you mentioned.
>>To be fair i don’t think there is a business where I can make an appointment in the same week.
....where do you live where that's true??? I just checked with my local Volvo garage - I can get an appointment tomorrow. Checked with our local Volkswagen garage - I can get an appointment on Wednesday. And all the big name "express service" chains like Kwik-Fit or ATS will see you while you wait. That's literally their entire business model.
>>Heck gettin haircut in my area they have calendars blocked so you have to plan with a week in advance.
Again, where the hell do you live. I know my wife has to book a hairdresser because she usually spends 4 hours in there, but I have never in my life had to book a haircut, you pop over, wait 15 minutes max, maybe 20 if it's busy and you get a haircut.
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.
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).
Had a recent talk with a colleague who owns one of earlier model S on exactly this. He often goes skiing up to Verbier in the Swiss alps, so similar situation and cold.
He definitely burns through the battery much quicker in mountains, and going down it recoups just a small fraction of energy spent going up. Also cold messes up the numbers pretty significantly, I think he mentioned 10-15% of battery consumed standing still each full day in freezing temperatures (he told me battery keeps itself warm).
Pushing up 1,5 tonnes (or 2+ in tesla's case) of our ICE car can burn up any fuel very fast in relatively short distance. I've estimated that our current petrol and previous (otherwise very efficient) diesel burn around 1/4 to 1/3 of the fuel tank on each 1000m of altitude gained.
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.
I live in Calgary, overheat protection is only needed in one month in summer ;) I also installed the sun screen, the glass roof had a stress fracture and I didn't want to pay the $2k to fix it.
Yes, I think that's a definite issue for the generation of Model 3 that I have. I had to disable sentry because it was taking a significant chunk too (and I didn't even bother putting a disk inside).
While the idle draw is relatively high on Teslas compared to other EVs (even without sentry mode enabled), 7.5% is quite high. I track my stats with Teslamate and it estimates typical SoC loss of 1% over a day.
What I have seen is that the BMS may update its SoC estimate after driving, and I've seen it adjust the estimated SoC up or down by as much as 5% in some cases.
I get that from a planning perspective, it still stinks to have range than you thought you did an hour ago, but it's not all that different from the variation you might get with an analog dial on the gas tank, just that it's much easier to notice and track when it's digital and showed as a precise number.
5% to 7% is pretty normal for me - in both summer and winter. This is just leaving the car in front of my house for a few hours (let's say I don't want to park it in the separate garage).
It's not the end of the world for driving around town with less than my whole family (which is 90% of my driving) but it's definitely annoying to come back to a car with 50% charge and see it with 43. I imagine it would be terrifying for a 20 -> 13, especially with the lack of supercharging infrastructure where I live (Calgary).
Huh, that's quite a bit more than I would expect. You already ruled out the 12V battery in the other thread, but there could be some other factors that would keep your car awake.
Does it only happen when you park in front of the garage at home, or does it also happen if you go out somewhere? For example, it might be struggling to connect to your WiFi at home (if you set it up with your home WiFi credentials) to download updates or upload telemetry, which would keep it awake longer than normal as it tries to make do with kilobits per second of usable bandwidth.
The issues do happen a lot in front of my house (which has very poor cell phone coverage). I've had lessor drops elsewhere.
I was wondering about the wifi myself too. I don't have wifi in front of the house and I didn't configure wifi either; I've actually installed wifi in my garage and left the car inside to see and I would get similar power losses.
I wonder if there is (a) a battery warming issue or (b) an issue because my phone w/ the Tesla app & bluetooth on is too close to the car, leading to it not going into standby mode? I don't think it is the former because it would be categorised differently (and it would not happen in summer). Turning off bluetooth on my phone everytime I come inside is honestly a bit insane and I would put that in the "It's a Tesla App problem"; but I don't hear about that issue from other drivers.
The real unfortunate part is that there is no way for me to get this diagnosed. It's been a problem since I bought the car, but it seems to be getting worse over time.
I’ve only seen an EV do that once. The 12V battery died about a week later. (Or, rather, I left it parked, and after pouring 10% (!!) of the high voltage battery into the 12V, it gave up and completely shut down.)
Anyway, I wonder if Tesla’s are missing the “if 12V is completely shot, give up” logic. Replacing it is cheap and might fix the car. Some models let you monitor the 12V charger with an OBD-II dongle.
My M3 was parked for 3 months and went from 80% to 60% which I'm perfectly happy with. Just arrived home, got back in it and drove. It was on WiFi, no sentry, and checked in on it only every 3 weeks or so.
> 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
I've done road trips on my SR+ model 3 and it hasn't been a big problem. What is a problem is if you're going somewhere that has no chargers (or no superchargers).
If you have a big trip then you can charge to 100% if you need to.
Yes, if you go faster you'll use more energy per km. If you're pushing it then you're going to want to slow down a little.
In my "daily" driving I use about 20%-30% of capacity max and I have a pretty long commute. I tend to keep my battery around 50% most of the time and not go too low or too high.
There are certainly trips to remote places that I can't do with my EV and I have made some adjustments to trip plans to accommodate but all in all it's been a non-issue.
Btw, if we're running down a list of issues then phantom drain is another one. I do worry about energy loss when camping e.g. I've had a situation where I got to the campground with ~20% and the next day in the cold was something like ~10% and barely made it to the charger.
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
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.
Of course, this is from Tesla, and they famously puff up everything.. but I would expect even if not as good as claimed here, for the downhill part to certainly help a lot still.
What may not help is if they fully charge at work and have no battery capacity to soak up the regen on the way home. Regen ability gets limited the closer you get to 100%.
Neither are Teslas, but our cars range from getting 10%-33% back when going back down a mountain (curves, no traffic, avoiding using the brake pads or switching between charge/discharge on the throttle).
The results they report are incomparable for two reasons:
- straight line steep mountain roads don’t exist. On curvy roads (like mine) they’d need to repeatedly round trip energy to and from the battery, and that’s going to eat about 5% each time.
- the article claims going up and down the mountain uses as much energy as driving one mile. During the ascend/descend they drive 500 miles. The wind resistance for one mile flat and one mile on the mountain should be comparable, so their 95% efficiency number must be subtracting that (and rolling resistance) out.
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.
> Electric cars being much, much heavier than petrol cars
This is one of those comments that continues to come up but has never added up. Certainly if you are comparing a Tesla compared to a compact or a Euro version of a compact. Absolutely there is a weight difference. The problem is if you did a like for like comparison..a Model Y is the same Weight as an X3. A Model 3 is a couple hundred pounds heavier than a Toyota Camry.
Difference between a petrol and electric Volvo XC40 is about 200KGs, so not insignificant but not as much as it's sometimes portrayed. EVs built from the ground-up may be able to knock a few of those KGs off too as they won't have structures designed for ICE components.
Comes mostly from comparing interiors in my experience. A camry has a full interior and is still ~400lbs lighter. If you compare minimal interior to minimal interior you're getting into Dacia with extra dynamat territory (can't think of a largeish stock ICE with good sound deadening and minimal interior) which is safe <1500kg. A Jogger is apparently 1261 kg kerb.
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.
I don't think batteries degrade that much that fast. I would imagine it's akin to gas cars, where you lose about 10% or so in efficiency after you put on a lot of miles, like 100k. (My EV6 seems to be as efficient as when I bought it in 2022, but my driving style is all over the place, so it's hard to measure from one charge to the next if I'm feeling a bit spirited in my driving that day)
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.
You don't drive 100mph average on German motorways. Especially with the trucks not giving a damn and forcing themselves through to the left lane to pass their colleagues driving 2 kph slower, arriving traffic be damned.
The reality of driving in Germany is that a lot of federal states have maximum speeds on the highway now. And thanks to years of neglect there is a lot of road construction everywhere in the country which means reduced speeds. Speeds are also reduced around cities, around major junctions. And that's usually also where the traffic jams are.
A journey from Berlin to my parents in the Netherlands (525km) would probably take me at least 6 hours normally. That's including stops for lunch, bathroom, fueling, etc. That averages out to about 80-90 km/hour. Only about a fifth or less of the distance allows for driving faster than 130km/h; and usually not for more than 10-20km before you have to slow down for some reason. Driving fast is fun but also stressful because there is always a jerk with a faster car behind you flashing their lights because you are "only" doing 160km/h (100 miles per hour). And high speeds also means accidents are fatal, fairly frequent, and typically result in very long traffic jams.
My experience driving around in different countries in Europe is that you don't get to your destination faster in Germany. Probably France is the most efficient to cover long distances. They have nice, good quality toll roads and you can maintain an average of 120-130 there on long stretches. Spain is pretty decent as well. Roads in Germany are garbage in comparison. There's a reason people are complaining about the state of infrastructure here.
I don't actually own a car and rent cars. Usually, I prefer taking the train, which is not a high speed train even but does that same journey in a bit under four hours. Cheaper, more comfortable, and I can take a nap/relax a bit. Sadly, rail infrastructure is also not in a great state here.
Depends on time, weekday and which highway. But in general you are correct, which doesn't stop people from claiming that they do and that a 130kph speed limit would be horrible.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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
> 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:
The worst case scenario is pretty much unbounded. 80mph range will be worse than 70mph. But it's still better than range at 90mph or 100mph.
I guess you could use the highest legal speed limit in the US alongside the lowest temp and fastest headwinds ever recorded in Texas. In conjunction with the heaviest, least aerodynamic thing that the vehicle can physically tow.
But that may be annoying to replicate in a controlled setting and will be even less relevant to most people than the EPA distance.
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.
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 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!
> 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.
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.
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.
Tbh an S2000 nowadays is somewhat slow. Fun and cool but not quick. Electrics do stupid good launches 0-30 but past that you're just comparing a brand new likely 4-500hp car to a very peaky, old, 240hp car.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Isnt the rated range always more than the actual you get? I have a friend who has a BYD Atto 3, rated range is 260 miles. Actual is 200 for city/town driving, 170 miles for motorway/highway driving.
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.
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.
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.
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
That's likely averaged out as 80kW when flooring it is only around 100hp. I know my Polestar hits a peak of around 300kW when you put your foot right down.
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
My 2022 EV6 comes pretty close to its advertised range: advertised as 310 miles, and I regularly get 240 out of an 80% charge (assuming I'm driving responsibly lol)
If you're not familiar with this story, the headline misses what seems to me like the bigger scandal, of Tesla rigging a dashboard instrument to lie:
> Tesla years ago began exaggerating its vehicles’ potential driving distance – by rigging their range-estimating software. The company decided about a decade ago, for marketing purposes, to write algorithms for its range meter that would show drivers “rosy” projections for the distance it could travel on a full battery, according to a person familiar with an early design of the software for its in-dash readouts.
> Then, when the battery fell below 50% of its maximum charge, the algorithm would show drivers more realistic projections for their remaining driving range, this person said.
IIUC, when many individual drivers were realizing that the rigged instrument didn't agree with reality of their car, they assumed their car was broken, and initiated service requests.
To reduce the costs of being caught in a lie, Tesla then created a team to again lie to customers, but this time it's humans lying one-on-one, rather than lying via rigged instruments.
Also consider things like Full Sell Driving misrepresentations, mishandling sensitive video surveillance from the cars, quality problems, and occasional 'retaliations' against those who complain, and it looks like Tesla might have a culture of dishonesty.
Hopefully other Musk-controlled companies have better cultures, since some of them are being put into positions of trust for the broader country and world. (Broader than safety of occupants of Teslas and any innocent bystander the car might crash into or harm with fire.)
The fact is that WLTP is useless. I can do 2/3 WLTP range in summer and 1/3 WLTP range in winter on highway with long range Model Y. That’s bad joke. Luckily I drive long distances extremely seldom. Crawling at 60 mph all the time is not an option for me.
I recently purchased new Y long range with “337” miles . Apparently EPA also applies a 0.7 handicap factor — a policy added in 2017 to address misleading range listings. My first 180m test drive completed within expectations , so things seemed great.
I then did what should have been an easy 270 mile drive and the planner warned it would not make it . I stopped in for a 10 mile top up and arrived with just 16 miles remaining. Thinking the return trip would be better due to the topography, I had about the same bad experience .
I’ve since learned that supercharger preconditioning kills 15-30 miles , so you need to fill up 50+ or you actually end up with less than if you hadn’t stopped. Even with this loss, the range doesn’t meet expectations .
Sure I did everything I could , including driving below the speed limit , using “chill model , preconditioning , departing at a scheduled time, avoiding climate control. I usually exceed EPA gas estimates due to my chill approach .
I was very disappointed for my brand new car to come up 20% short in what seemed to be nearly ideal conditions .
My car doesn't get anything near the advertised mileage but that's because of speed and driving style. I'm thrilled with it. On long road trips I fill (charge) to about 1.5X my expected driving mileage, and don't have any problems. If, however, I was worried about the number, I would drive a different car… but then life would be no fun.
I hear you, but during my testing I’ve been driving like a grandma , and I usually drive tame enough to exceed Gas EPA estimates by 15%, so I was really shocked to have terrible EV range. In my 270 mile test I was under 60 for 85% of the trip, and never over 75
270, wow. You could just ignore the estimate number, or go back to gas. My “tests” haha are more like 2,500 - 3,500 miles with almost ten of these under my belt and I’m a happy camper, and I don’t have to go slow but then I chose the brand with the good charging network, and I follow my formula and I own (and embrace) the extra burning of range because it’s my choice to drive hard.
Aerodynamic drag increases with the cube of speed, so if you are even a smidgen over 50 mph average, just own it.
Are you driving like a grandma slow acceleration or are you driving at low speed?
The latter is much, much more important at highway speeds.
Apparently the EPA test is run at 60mph Max and an average of 50mph, which would to a significant extent explain the difference if you averaged 65mph or similar. They also weight and combine it with city miles, which is probably even more generous to EVs with regen braking.
Driving range can be estimated well: my VW ID.4 is pretty good at it, and the range estimate that it shows can be relied upon after correcting for things like headwind or driving uphill.
The max range I get is pretty close to the advertised one, too.
So do not believe when somebody says it can't be done.
i own a tesla and range is very annoying, though some of the comments here are a bit sensationalist. for me, fsd more than makes up for it. if i had to buy a car today, i'd have to get another tesla because there's no alternative to fsd.
My 2020 S has a lifetime Wh/Mi of ~260. When the battery was new it was 96 kWh, that's 369 miles. And I floor that sucker all the time for fun, blast the stereo, and run the A/C constantly. Luggage rack on the roof.
At the end of the day, I've never had a real problem with the range. I definitely don't feel lied to. I wouldn't trade it for any other car in the world.
That’s what I do with my model Y. Pedal to the metal immediately when it’s safe to drive fast. Long trips only with the family. And then charge time doesn’t matter. Or we just take the plane.
I flew by a Cybertruck on the highway the other day like it was sitting still. It really should have had its hazards on, but I assume the additional power draw would have compounded the problem. Imagine spending all that money to compensate for your dominance anxiety, only to add range anxiety to your list of problems.
Don't worry! Even if Tesla is collapsing under the CEO's public behavior, he will be able to use his position of influence to attract opaque investment in his other companies https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43317526
First to clear up my bias: Tesla is an overvalued scam company by a fascist techno-oligarch. I hope we will boycott this company in Europe just based on Elon Musk behaviour alone. This is my political opinion. With that out of the way...
My opinion as a driver is that these cars deliver far less value for the price than other EVs. I have driven Model 3 and Model Y so far and both experiences have been very mixed.
- I enjoyed the responsiveness and on-the-road feel of the car for the most part which is entirely crippled by feelings of a cheap suspension and weird steering. The cars feel like racing a plastics car barely holding it together, gives me vibes of cheap Korean cars back in the 2000s.
- I enjoy the clean interior design and wide views which are again crippled by low quality materials typically found in budget cars and low quality, cost-cutting material processing.
- Wtf is that UX? Everything hidden in weird submenus in a central touchscreen. The OS has been designed by engineers rather than UX professionals and they seem to never have driven a car other than on empty, sunny 20mph roads or a parking lot.
- The blinking UX is terrible and it's clear that this is the result of cost-cutting.
- Charging is the best experience among EVs. Others need to catch up, still in 2025...
It feels less like "horseshoe theory" to me, and more like projection: accuse your opponents of doing the things you do. Your supporters believe it because that's what they want to do so you must want it too.
The horseshoe theory can at least be honest, albeit ironic. This is just plain deceit and manipulation.
Oh looks like there a lot of people in this boat. Things have been degrading over time for sure. My car seems to be consuming “battery miles” at more than twice the regular miles.
May be this is why musk got into politics, so he can kill any regulatory body investigating Tesla battery complaints.
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.
There was a time where false advertising used to be illegal.
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."
The "Ministry of Truth" in this case is a bad analogy though, since in the story, its purpose was to redefine what is the truth according to state up to the point of forcing people ignore the proof that they see in front of their eyes through torture.
> I wonder what the commit message was for that PR?
They "trust me". Dumb fucks.
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.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/17/facebook-...
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.
Counterpoint:
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.
Which EVs?
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.
Wow, that is crazy.
I've come to think of cars, and maybe other big purchases, as you're purchasing a culture; the company that made it and will service it - it's why Toyota is so highly regarded. I own a 20yo Toyota Tacoma - and it's making more frequent shop visits now; and there are some good independent shops, but the Toyota guys really do a good job and over-communicate what's going on when they have your vehicle. You also have a person who handles you through the entire process - it's a great experience.
Tesla culture is the opposite - buy the care and go away please.
I went to regular maintenance at Toyota, air filter and oil change and they inspected the chassis and sent me a video. It was bit more expensive than normal shop, but very good service.
The first time I got a Toyota, I brought it for regular maintenance and they cleaned my car at the end. I was shocked because I never experienced this before, but the technician told me it was free and standard procedure.
At least they understood that if you see clean cars around you when you drive, you're more likely to buy the brand later, and keep happy clients.
Many dealership service centers have gone to great lengths to buck the stereotype they had acquired and have realized how a good experience with the service side of the business helps feed back into the sales side of the business.
I’m also a data point for excellent Toyota service from the dealership where we bought our Prius. From the concierge who holds your hand throughout the visit, to the free lunch voucher in their pleasant little cafeteria (sadly, closed after covid), to the couple of years of free oil changes, I actually looked forward to bringing the car in. And they cleaned it as well, a quick interior vacuum at least.
In Geneva, Switzerland they simply dont give replacement cars as per colleague's recent visit. And of course they are in the middle of nowhere, impractical for ie going to work adterwards.
Thats a very shitty service, even cheapest noname garages give replacements
To be fair i don’t think there is a business where I can make an appointment in the same week.
I have ICE and getting basic oil change must be week in advance even when I call, I never get “we can book you tomorrow”.
Heck gettin haircut in my area they have calendars blocked so you have to plan with a week in advance. Super annoying as I have a simple cut and most of time it can be done in 15mins. Ok washing down cut hair is useful so maybe 18mins.
But I get frustrated I cannot just walk in, hotels, restaurants, hairdressers.
At lest ordering food online is usually an hour so no need to wait a week
What on earth do you mean???
AAA is exactly that business: call-out roadside assistance for flat/dead batteries, breakdowns, tows etc. They have 65 million members in North America. Response time varies greatly by day/time-of-day/your location/dispatching company, traffic but typically < 1.5-2h. https://mwg.aaa.com/ (And T-Mobile was even giving free AAA membership in 2024.)
Also look at this discussion on r/TeslaModelY "Do you still need AAA?" comparing reliability and response times: https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaModelY/comments/17ju1z2/do_you...
Basic oil change is typically while-you-wait in non-peak hours; where on earth do you live? some 'services desert'? I've even gotten while-you-wait smog testing done within 45min out-the-door.
I am not sure where you live but in most of America you can get an ICE vehicle serviced in minutes. I always go through one of those express oil changes, usually they get me all setup 10 mins once I roll in, don’t even have to get out of the car.
Out of curiosity, where do you get your oil change done?
The local mechanic here can do it the same day, and they're next to a restaurant. Last time I did an oil change and tire rotation I just grabbed lunch while they worked on it.
The dealership for my car is perpetually booked though, and my experience reflects what you mentioned.
>>To be fair i don’t think there is a business where I can make an appointment in the same week.
....where do you live where that's true??? I just checked with my local Volvo garage - I can get an appointment tomorrow. Checked with our local Volkswagen garage - I can get an appointment on Wednesday. And all the big name "express service" chains like Kwik-Fit or ATS will see you while you wait. That's literally their entire business model.
>>Heck gettin haircut in my area they have calendars blocked so you have to plan with a week in advance.
Again, where the hell do you live. I know my wife has to book a hairdresser because she usually spends 4 hours in there, but I have never in my life had to book a haircut, you pop over, wait 15 minutes max, maybe 20 if it's busy and you get a haircut.
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.
Yes
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).
> If they were traveling uphill to work you’d think they would gain some of that back coming back downhill
It's uphill both ways.
I assume they leave work on a full battery after charging there for free, limiting the advantage of regen braking
[flagged]
GP wouldn't notice effects of uphill and downhill averaging out if he starts at the bottom and charges at the top. And GP is implying he do.
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.
I have 2014 Tesla S and 80-85% is just about right
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).
Had a recent talk with a colleague who owns one of earlier model S on exactly this. He often goes skiing up to Verbier in the Swiss alps, so similar situation and cold.
He definitely burns through the battery much quicker in mountains, and going down it recoups just a small fraction of energy spent going up. Also cold messes up the numbers pretty significantly, I think he mentioned 10-15% of battery consumed standing still each full day in freezing temperatures (he told me battery keeps itself warm).
Pushing up 1,5 tonnes (or 2+ in tesla's case) of our ICE car can burn up any fuel very fast in relatively short distance. I've estimated that our current petrol and previous (otherwise very efficient) diesel burn around 1/4 to 1/3 of the fuel tank on each 1000m of altitude gained.
It's quite easy to see this in an EV, as measuring power is quite trivial.
Cruising along on a level highway at around 60 MPH, my EV uses like 2-3% the available power. Going up a incline and you're suddenly way above 40%.
This should come as no surprise to those who have ridden a bicycle outside of Holland.
They stated they recharge at the top of the hill (for free) so the downhill part is mute in this case.
*moot
(No offense intended.)
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.
I live in Calgary, overheat protection is only needed in one month in summer ;) I also installed the sun screen, the glass roof had a stress fracture and I didn't want to pay the $2k to fix it.
Don't you want the overheat protection at the end of a long drive? [edit: or is this just for the cabin temperature?]
I've also noticed a bit of drain when camping. It doesn't help that you often open/close the doors/trunk to access stuff ;)
My understanding is that it is for the cabin.
BTW, for the cabin I did two things:
- I installed a permanent shade for the sun roof. The sun roof is the stupidest thing ever, I hate it.
- In the summer, I usually put one of those shiny umbrellas to the front windshield when parked.
These two things alone reduce the cabin heat to an okay level.
I'll be getting a leasing Hyundai Ionic 6 at the end of this month. Hit me up if you want my thoughts on it later.
Idle draw is a pretty common complaint for Teslas.
Yes, I think that's a definite issue for the generation of Model 3 that I have. I had to disable sentry because it was taking a significant chunk too (and I didn't even bother putting a disk inside).
While the idle draw is relatively high on Teslas compared to other EVs (even without sentry mode enabled), 7.5% is quite high. I track my stats with Teslamate and it estimates typical SoC loss of 1% over a day.
What I have seen is that the BMS may update its SoC estimate after driving, and I've seen it adjust the estimated SoC up or down by as much as 5% in some cases.
I get that from a planning perspective, it still stinks to have range than you thought you did an hour ago, but it's not all that different from the variation you might get with an analog dial on the gas tank, just that it's much easier to notice and track when it's digital and showed as a precise number.
5% to 7% is pretty normal for me - in both summer and winter. This is just leaving the car in front of my house for a few hours (let's say I don't want to park it in the separate garage).
https://imgdrop.io/image/IMG-2984.ADiI7
It's not the end of the world for driving around town with less than my whole family (which is 90% of my driving) but it's definitely annoying to come back to a car with 50% charge and see it with 43. I imagine it would be terrifying for a 20 -> 13, especially with the lack of supercharging infrastructure where I live (Calgary).
Huh, that's quite a bit more than I would expect. You already ruled out the 12V battery in the other thread, but there could be some other factors that would keep your car awake.
Does it only happen when you park in front of the garage at home, or does it also happen if you go out somewhere? For example, it might be struggling to connect to your WiFi at home (if you set it up with your home WiFi credentials) to download updates or upload telemetry, which would keep it awake longer than normal as it tries to make do with kilobits per second of usable bandwidth.
First, I appreciate the suggestions; thank you.
The issues do happen a lot in front of my house (which has very poor cell phone coverage). I've had lessor drops elsewhere.
I was wondering about the wifi myself too. I don't have wifi in front of the house and I didn't configure wifi either; I've actually installed wifi in my garage and left the car inside to see and I would get similar power losses.
I wonder if there is (a) a battery warming issue or (b) an issue because my phone w/ the Tesla app & bluetooth on is too close to the car, leading to it not going into standby mode? I don't think it is the former because it would be categorised differently (and it would not happen in summer). Turning off bluetooth on my phone everytime I come inside is honestly a bit insane and I would put that in the "It's a Tesla App problem"; but I don't hear about that issue from other drivers.
The real unfortunate part is that there is no way for me to get this diagnosed. It's been a problem since I bought the car, but it seems to be getting worse over time.
I’ve only seen an EV do that once. The 12V battery died about a week later. (Or, rather, I left it parked, and after pouring 10% (!!) of the high voltage battery into the 12V, it gave up and completely shut down.)
Anyway, I wonder if Tesla’s are missing the “if 12V is completely shot, give up” logic. Replacing it is cheap and might fix the car. Some models let you monitor the 12V charger with an OBD-II dongle.
That’d let you prove me right or wrong.
Just to be clear, I actually had Tesla replace the 12V last year because I was worried that was the cause.
The problem did not improve.
My Y has been parked at an airport garage for two weeks. It has lost 1% in that time.
My M3 was parked for 3 months and went from 80% to 60% which I'm perfectly happy with. Just arrived home, got back in it and drove. It was on WiFi, no sentry, and checked in on it only every 3 weeks or so.
> 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.
Literally the origin of the phrase "your mileage may vary"
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
I've done road trips on my SR+ model 3 and it hasn't been a big problem. What is a problem is if you're going somewhere that has no chargers (or no superchargers).
If you have a big trip then you can charge to 100% if you need to.
Yes, if you go faster you'll use more energy per km. If you're pushing it then you're going to want to slow down a little.
In my "daily" driving I use about 20%-30% of capacity max and I have a pretty long commute. I tend to keep my battery around 50% most of the time and not go too low or too high.
There are certainly trips to remote places that I can't do with my EV and I have made some adjustments to trip plans to accommodate but all in all it's been a non-issue.
Btw, if we're running down a list of issues then phantom drain is another one. I do worry about energy loss when camping e.g. I've had a situation where I got to the campground with ~20% and the next day in the cold was something like ~10% and barely made it to the charger.
what's the mileage like when you take into account the downhill return trip? Unless your commute is uphill both ways through the snow :)
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
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.
If so, they'll get much of the energy expended going uphill back on the downhills, thanks to regenerative braking.
You assume the battery conditions stay the same.
But what if the battery heats up a lot during a climb and is still hot while going down? It is know batteries charge slow when they are hot.
In the Tesla Semi announcement, they showed pretty impressive data on exactly that. Here's a shot of the graph and some data: https://kilowatt.page/tesla-semi-regen-roundtrip-efficiency-...
Of course, this is from Tesla, and they famously puff up everything.. but I would expect even if not as good as claimed here, for the downhill part to certainly help a lot still.
What may not help is if they fully charge at work and have no battery capacity to soak up the regen on the way home. Regen ability gets limited the closer you get to 100%.
Neither are Teslas, but our cars range from getting 10%-33% back when going back down a mountain (curves, no traffic, avoiding using the brake pads or switching between charge/discharge on the throttle).
The results they report are incomparable for two reasons:
- straight line steep mountain roads don’t exist. On curvy roads (like mine) they’d need to repeatedly round trip energy to and from the battery, and that’s going to eat about 5% each time.
- the article claims going up and down the mountain uses as much energy as driving one mile. During the ascend/descend they drive 500 miles. The wind resistance for one mile flat and one mile on the mountain should be comparable, so their 95% efficiency number must be subtracting that (and rolling resistance) out.
Are you going from 100% battery down to like 10%?
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.
One reason for Tesla's success it shows accurate range.
Take a picture of your energy screen and post it.
good thing you live for work and will never take a vacation.
i have a model s 2022 and get 250 miles going 80 miles/hour.
Do gas cars get advertised mileage on steep hills? I don't believe so.
Electric cars being much, much heavier than petrol cars do have a disadvantage going uphill.
I'd still reckon that range estimates should ignore these extreme edge cases, though.
> much, much heavier
Stop that. 10 - 15% doesn’t constitute “much, much”.
> Electric cars being much, much heavier than petrol cars
This is one of those comments that continues to come up but has never added up. Certainly if you are comparing a Tesla compared to a compact or a Euro version of a compact. Absolutely there is a weight difference. The problem is if you did a like for like comparison..a Model Y is the same Weight as an X3. A Model 3 is a couple hundred pounds heavier than a Toyota Camry.
Difference between a petrol and electric Volvo XC40 is about 200KGs, so not insignificant but not as much as it's sometimes portrayed. EVs built from the ground-up may be able to knock a few of those KGs off too as they won't have structures designed for ICE components.
Comes mostly from comparing interiors in my experience. A camry has a full interior and is still ~400lbs lighter. If you compare minimal interior to minimal interior you're getting into Dacia with extra dynamat territory (can't think of a largeish stock ICE with good sound deadening and minimal interior) which is safe <1500kg. A Jogger is apparently 1261 kg kerb.
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.
I don't think batteries degrade that much that fast. I would imagine it's akin to gas cars, where you lose about 10% or so in efficiency after you put on a lot of miles, like 100k. (My EV6 seems to be as efficient as when I bought it in 2022, but my driving style is all over the place, so it's hard to measure from one charge to the next if I'm feeling a bit spirited in my driving that day)
Are you sure about that? If you go only uphill in a gas car you will use a lot more fuel per km, just like an EV.
How fast do you normally drive?
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.
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-economy/...
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.
> they regularly drive 100mph average
You don't drive 100mph average on German motorways. Especially with the trucks not giving a damn and forcing themselves through to the left lane to pass their colleagues driving 2 kph slower, arriving traffic be damned.
The reality of driving in Germany is that a lot of federal states have maximum speeds on the highway now. And thanks to years of neglect there is a lot of road construction everywhere in the country which means reduced speeds. Speeds are also reduced around cities, around major junctions. And that's usually also where the traffic jams are.
A journey from Berlin to my parents in the Netherlands (525km) would probably take me at least 6 hours normally. That's including stops for lunch, bathroom, fueling, etc. That averages out to about 80-90 km/hour. Only about a fifth or less of the distance allows for driving faster than 130km/h; and usually not for more than 10-20km before you have to slow down for some reason. Driving fast is fun but also stressful because there is always a jerk with a faster car behind you flashing their lights because you are "only" doing 160km/h (100 miles per hour). And high speeds also means accidents are fatal, fairly frequent, and typically result in very long traffic jams.
My experience driving around in different countries in Europe is that you don't get to your destination faster in Germany. Probably France is the most efficient to cover long distances. They have nice, good quality toll roads and you can maintain an average of 120-130 there on long stretches. Spain is pretty decent as well. Roads in Germany are garbage in comparison. There's a reason people are complaining about the state of infrastructure here.
I don't actually own a car and rent cars. Usually, I prefer taking the train, which is not a high speed train even but does that same journey in a bit under four hours. Cheaper, more comfortable, and I can take a nap/relax a bit. Sadly, rail infrastructure is also not in a great state here.
Depends on time, weekday and which highway. But in general you are correct, which doesn't stop people from claiming that they do and that a 130kph speed limit would be horrible.
> force of drag grows exponentially with speed
No, it grows only polynomially [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation
More specifically, it grows quadratically.
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.
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.
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.
EPA is a comparison tool, not a range estimation for everyone's regular drives.
> 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.
This is how regenerative braking works
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.
Makes me wonder how it is stated. Normal driving conditions for many (most?) drivers is faster than the posted speed limit.
Speeding is a given, even a necessity on most US highways. Everyone is speeding by 10 maybe even 15 mph as a baseline.
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.
[flagged]
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)
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.
> 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
> 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/
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
The worst case scenario is pretty much unbounded. 80mph range will be worse than 70mph. But it's still better than range at 90mph or 100mph.
I guess you could use the highest legal speed limit in the US alongside the lowest temp and fastest headwinds ever recorded in Texas. In conjunction with the heaviest, least aerodynamic thing that the vehicle can physically tow.
But that may be annoying to replicate in a controlled setting and will be even less relevant to most people than the EPA distance.
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].
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmn7gpuAp9E[1]: https://outofspecstudios.com/70-mph-range
tailwind would not counteract headwind because drag increases with the square of windspeed.
> 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.
On any ICE I've ever driven, the range number displayed on the dash is calculated from the current trip's average mpg.
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.
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 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!
> 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.
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.
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.
Tbh an S2000 nowadays is somewhat slow. Fun and cool but not quick. Electrics do stupid good launches 0-30 but past that you're just comparing a brand new likely 4-500hp car to a very peaky, old, 240hp car.
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.
When my tank gets 10% on my ICE, I fill a full tank.
The difference is that I can fill my gas tank to 100% in a few minutes almost anywhere, no planning is necessary.
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.
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.
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.
You can use the extra 40% when you need it (road trips), but you shouldn’t be using it when you don’t need it (daily commutes).
> 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.
Subtracting the politics but including the actual range, do you regret the purchase?
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.
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.
[dead]
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.
Discussed at the time:
Tesla created secret team to suppress thousands of driving range complaints - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36891642 - July 2023 (746 comments)
Isnt the rated range always more than the actual you get? I have a friend who has a BYD Atto 3, rated range is 260 miles. Actual is 200 for city/town driving, 170 miles for motorway/highway driving.
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.
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.
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.
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
When I floor my non-Tesla EV, I can see an instantaneous power consumption of 80kW. That's when flooring it. A smoother drive is more like 10kW.
That's likely averaged out as 80kW when flooring it is only around 100hp. I know my Polestar hits a peak of around 300kW when you put your foot right down.
I don't own a Tesla but driving most any speed in winter at near snow temperatures is going to be hard to work against!
It's not the same as an immobile insulated house.
> A home space heater is something on the order of 1 kW,
2kW in the civilized world.
The article focuses on the censorship by "free speech" champions.
I'm wondering, why the battery coolers are so sophisticated but never heat the cabin.
You need to heat the battery when it's cold too.
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.
If I’m not mistaken some or all also have battery heaters that consume a lot of energy.
With coolant loops, the heat produced by the inverter and motor is sufficient for battery heating in almost all climates and driving conditions.
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
My 2022 EV6 comes pretty close to its advertised range: advertised as 310 miles, and I regularly get 240 out of an 80% charge (assuming I'm driving responsibly lol)
Am I supposed to interpret this as surprising or even scandalous? What's next, are you going to tell me they have a PR department?
Elon would never let them pay for the same thing twice
If you're not familiar with this story, the headline misses what seems to me like the bigger scandal, of Tesla rigging a dashboard instrument to lie:
> Tesla years ago began exaggerating its vehicles’ potential driving distance – by rigging their range-estimating software. The company decided about a decade ago, for marketing purposes, to write algorithms for its range meter that would show drivers “rosy” projections for the distance it could travel on a full battery, according to a person familiar with an early design of the software for its in-dash readouts.
> Then, when the battery fell below 50% of its maximum charge, the algorithm would show drivers more realistic projections for their remaining driving range, this person said.
IIUC, when many individual drivers were realizing that the rigged instrument didn't agree with reality of their car, they assumed their car was broken, and initiated service requests.
To reduce the costs of being caught in a lie, Tesla then created a team to again lie to customers, but this time it's humans lying one-on-one, rather than lying via rigged instruments.
Also consider things like Full Sell Driving misrepresentations, mishandling sensitive video surveillance from the cars, quality problems, and occasional 'retaliations' against those who complain, and it looks like Tesla might have a culture of dishonesty.
Hopefully other Musk-controlled companies have better cultures, since some of them are being put into positions of trust for the broader country and world. (Broader than safety of occupants of Teslas and any innocent bystander the car might crash into or harm with fire.)
In related news, wltp range estimates today are even worse than epa estimates back then.
And the EPA standards have changed since then, so that newer Teslas are much closer to their rated ranges than they were back then.
Kind of weird to see this here now.
I have found Volkswagen’s range estimator and I think it’s trustworthy: https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/en/electric-and-hybrid/charging... I think, the range from here could be estimated for similar Tesla models too.
The fact is that WLTP is useless. I can do 2/3 WLTP range in summer and 1/3 WLTP range in winter on highway with long range Model Y. That’s bad joke. Luckily I drive long distances extremely seldom. Crawling at 60 mph all the time is not an option for me.
> Use our useful tool to get an estimated range based on factors such as your driving style, battery size and Volkswagen electric vehicle model.
That’s such a VW sentence.
Seems I angered some VW PR people
Isnt every team in any company a secret?
Isn't this just fraud?
I recently purchased new Y long range with “337” miles . Apparently EPA also applies a 0.7 handicap factor — a policy added in 2017 to address misleading range listings. My first 180m test drive completed within expectations , so things seemed great.
I then did what should have been an easy 270 mile drive and the planner warned it would not make it . I stopped in for a 10 mile top up and arrived with just 16 miles remaining. Thinking the return trip would be better due to the topography, I had about the same bad experience .
I’ve since learned that supercharger preconditioning kills 15-30 miles , so you need to fill up 50+ or you actually end up with less than if you hadn’t stopped. Even with this loss, the range doesn’t meet expectations .
Sure I did everything I could , including driving below the speed limit , using “chill model , preconditioning , departing at a scheduled time, avoiding climate control. I usually exceed EPA gas estimates due to my chill approach .
I was very disappointed for my brand new car to come up 20% short in what seemed to be nearly ideal conditions .
Driving style and speed also factor into it.
My car doesn't get anything near the advertised mileage but that's because of speed and driving style. I'm thrilled with it. On long road trips I fill (charge) to about 1.5X my expected driving mileage, and don't have any problems. If, however, I was worried about the number, I would drive a different car… but then life would be no fun.
I hear you, but during my testing I’ve been driving like a grandma , and I usually drive tame enough to exceed Gas EPA estimates by 15%, so I was really shocked to have terrible EV range. In my 270 mile test I was under 60 for 85% of the trip, and never over 75
270, wow. You could just ignore the estimate number, or go back to gas. My “tests” haha are more like 2,500 - 3,500 miles with almost ten of these under my belt and I’m a happy camper, and I don’t have to go slow but then I chose the brand with the good charging network, and I follow my formula and I own (and embrace) the extra burning of range because it’s my choice to drive hard.
Aerodynamic drag increases with the cube of speed, so if you are even a smidgen over 50 mph average, just own it.
Are you driving like a grandma slow acceleration or are you driving at low speed?
The latter is much, much more important at highway speeds.
Apparently the EPA test is run at 60mph Max and an average of 50mph, which would to a significant extent explain the difference if you averaged 65mph or similar. They also weight and combine it with city miles, which is probably even more generous to EVs with regen braking.
IANAL but this seems like false advertising at best and fraudulent at worst.
Driving range can be estimated well: my VW ID.4 is pretty good at it, and the range estimate that it shows can be relied upon after correcting for things like headwind or driving uphill.
The max range I get is pretty close to the advertised one, too.
So do not believe when somebody says it can't be done.
i own a tesla and range is very annoying, though some of the comments here are a bit sensationalist. for me, fsd more than makes up for it. if i had to buy a car today, i'd have to get another tesla because there's no alternative to fsd.
The Tesla team also spys on their customers [1] but there was way more pearl clutching on HN about Mozillas ToS change.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-shared-sens...
Over-promise and under-deliver seems to be the base of any Musk controlled org.
With self-driving it's more like fraud than over-promising.
We have a model 3, shows 270 miles fully charged, we get < 200 miles on a good day.
This nonsense again.
My 2020 S has a lifetime Wh/Mi of ~260. When the battery was new it was 96 kWh, that's 369 miles. And I floor that sucker all the time for fun, blast the stereo, and run the A/C constantly. Luggage rack on the roof.
At the end of the day, I've never had a real problem with the range. I definitely don't feel lied to. I wouldn't trade it for any other car in the world.
That’s what I do with my model Y. Pedal to the metal immediately when it’s safe to drive fast. Long trips only with the family. And then charge time doesn’t matter. Or we just take the plane.
[flagged]
I flew by a Cybertruck on the highway the other day like it was sitting still. It really should have had its hazards on, but I assume the additional power draw would have compounded the problem. Imagine spending all that money to compensate for your dominance anxiety, only to add range anxiety to your list of problems.
Don't worry! Even if Tesla is collapsing under the CEO's public behavior, he will be able to use his position of influence to attract opaque investment in his other companies https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43317526
First to clear up my bias: Tesla is an overvalued scam company by a fascist techno-oligarch. I hope we will boycott this company in Europe just based on Elon Musk behaviour alone. This is my political opinion. With that out of the way...
My opinion as a driver is that these cars deliver far less value for the price than other EVs. I have driven Model 3 and Model Y so far and both experiences have been very mixed.
- I enjoyed the responsiveness and on-the-road feel of the car for the most part which is entirely crippled by feelings of a cheap suspension and weird steering. The cars feel like racing a plastics car barely holding it together, gives me vibes of cheap Korean cars back in the 2000s.
- I enjoy the clean interior design and wide views which are again crippled by low quality materials typically found in budget cars and low quality, cost-cutting material processing.
- Wtf is that UX? Everything hidden in weird submenus in a central touchscreen. The OS has been designed by engineers rather than UX professionals and they seem to never have driven a car other than on empty, sunny 20mph roads or a parking lot.
- The blinking UX is terrible and it's clear that this is the result of cost-cutting.
- Charging is the best experience among EVs. Others need to catch up, still in 2025...
This company is a total dumpster fire. It will be amazing if their stock is above $50 this time next year.
Do not underestimate the Musk reality distortion field... He's been saying FSD for like 10 years on investor calls and they just keep eating it up.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
It feels less like "horseshoe theory" to me, and more like projection: accuse your opponents of doing the things you do. Your supporters believe it because that's what they want to do so you must want it too.
The horseshoe theory can at least be honest, albeit ironic. This is just plain deceit and manipulation.
[flagged]
In Trump, we trust. They will become nastier and nastier.
Oh looks like there a lot of people in this boat. Things have been degrading over time for sure. My car seems to be consuming “battery miles” at more than twice the regular miles.
May be this is why musk got into politics, so he can kill any regulatory body investigating Tesla battery complaints.