GM Volt Forum banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
Interesting article in Electrek with accompanying data. Model 3 LR RWD with 18" aeros gets 350 miles at 65 mph and 321 at 70 mph highway (consistent with my personal experience). Put on 19" wheels and it drops to 313/287. Dual motor drops further (different than on the S & X). Interesting how much the larger wheel size impacts range.

Vehicle Range at = 65 mph / 70 mph
LR RWD 18" aero .= 350 / 321 miles
LR RWD 19" ......= 313 / 287 miles
LR AWD 18" aero .= 326 / 298 miles
LR AWD 19" ......= 291 / 267 Miles
LR Performance same as LRD
LR Perf with 20" = 284 / 260


(18" tires without Aero covers subtract 4% - consistent with other testing)

https://insideevs.com/estimate-tesla-range-highway-speeds/
https://model3ownersclub.com/threads/tesla-model-s-x-3-range-at-55-60-65-70-75-80-mph.5496/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,464 Posts
I thought this was a cool chart that came out at an interesting time. I recently decided to do a similar chart for the Bolt EV based on extrapolated data about efficiency. The purpose was to understand how the diverse public charging options can affect (be affected by) driving speed, but it's easy enough to transition that to range. Interesting to see how the Bolt EV stacks up:

55 mph = 293 mi (30 min @ 150 A DCFC = 120 mi)
60 mph = 262 mi (30 min @ 150 A DCFC = 107 mi)
65 mph = 235 mi (30 min @ 150 A DCFC = 96 mi)
70 mph = 211 mi (30 min @ 150 A DCFC = 86 mi)
75 mph = 190 mi (30 min @ 150 A DCFC = 78 mi)
80 mph = 172 mi (30 min @ 150 A DCFC = 70 mi)


On a side note, without data to support it, I find the Model 3 SR charging rates to be highly optimistic. The Model 3 LR charges at a max 1.6 C rate. Are we to believe that the Model 3 SR will be charging at over 2 C? It's possible, but I think it's a stretch to assume that at this point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,181 Posts
Yeah, disappointing that the dual-motor option is less efficient than RWD. I bet they use the more efficient permanent magnet in the front motor next year or so, to match the rear motor.

Interesting article in Electrek with accompanying data. Model 3 LR RWD with 18" aeros gets 350 miles at 65 mph and 321 at 70 mph highway (consistent with my personal experience). Put on 19" wheels and it drops to 313/287. Dual motor drops further (different than on the S & X). Interesting how much the larger wheel size impacts range.

Vehicle Range at = 65 mph / 70 mph
LR RWD 18" aero .= 350 / 321 miles
LR RWD 19" ......= 313 / 287 miles
LR AWD 18" aero .= 326 / 298 miles
LR AWD 19" ......= 291 / 267 Miles
LR Performance same as LRD
LR Perf with 20" = 284 / 260


(18" tires without Aero covers subtract 4% - consistent with other testing)

https://insideevs.com/estimate-tesla-range-highway-speeds/
https://model3ownersclub.com/threads/tesla-model-s-x-3-range-at-55-60-65-70-75-80-mph.5496/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,854 Posts
This makes me wonder whether the original M3 build offered for sale: M3 LR RWD with 18" Aero wheels, wheel covers isn't the best overall configuration for the majority of M3 buyers. Not to mention this is currently the lowest cost M3 configuration currently available and the lead time for delivery is just 4 weeks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,680 Posts
Yeah, disappointing that the dual-motor option is less efficient than RWD. I bet they use the more efficient permanent magnet in the front motor next year or so, to match the rear motor.
The dual motor version uses an induction motor in the front - like the S and X use on both axles. Rear on all Model 3s is the new hybrid SRPM motor.

One would have to surmise that the S and X will be getting a SRPM motor, at least in the rear, sometime soon. Maybe the same time as they get a 2170 battery upgrade? I've also read that the four motors in the Semi are just Model 3 motors. Not sure if that means they are the induction, SRPM, or some mix.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,464 Posts
This makes me wonder whether the original M3 build offered for sale: M3 LR RWD with 18" Aero wheels, wheel covers isn't the best overall configuration for the majority of M3 buyers. Not to mention this is currently the lowest cost M3 configuration currently available and the lead time for delivery is just 4 weeks.
Given the number of reservation holders who are holding out for the Model 3 SR, I don't think overall range is the primary concern. It appears that cost is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,854 Posts
Agreed, low cost would favor the SR M3 over any other M3 when this configuration is available. The LR M3 with its larger battery has other benefits besides just range: faster charging and supercharging times, less overall range limitation when intentionally limiting battery charging to 70 - 80 % to maximize battery life, freely using cabin heat in winter without unduly cramping driving range. Available now instead of having to wait 8 months, lose the full tax credit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,464 Posts
Agreed, low cost would favor the SR M3 over any other M3 when this configuration is available. The LR M3 with its larger battery has other benefits besides just range: faster charging and supercharging times, less overall range limitation when intentionally limiting battery charging to 70 - 80 % to maximize battery life, freely using cabin heat in winter without unduly cramping driving range. Available now instead of having to wait 8 months, lose the full tax credit.
The problem is, you can't get a base Model 3 LR. It's not just a $9,000 premium, it's a minimum $14,000 premium due to the Premium Upgrades package.

I still see a pervasive attitude within the ranks of existing Tesla owners: Price isn't really a concern, or at least, anything under $50,000 is so cheap and affordable that people shouldn't be quibbling over price. "$13,000 or only only $6,500 after the tax credit? What's the problem?"

Many people passed on the Bolt EV Premier in favor of the LT because it was $4,000 less (personally, I'm surprised the Bolt EV Premier sells as well as it does). Those new, price sensitive buyers are the ones that Tesla was trying to woo with the $35,000 Model 3. Tesla might have already sapped most of the pent up demand for a $45,000 to $70,000 compact EV sedan.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,418 Posts
Many people passed on the Bolt EV Premier in favor of the LT because it was $4,000 less (personally, I'm surprised the Bolt EV Premier sells as well as it does). Those new, price sensitive buyers are the ones that Tesla was trying to woo with the $35,000 Model 3. Tesla might have already sapped most of the pent up demand for a $45,000 to $70,000 compact EV sedan.
Easy to see and we can keep watching it as it unfolds for 12 more months. https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,230 Posts
someone have the math to convert that to watt hours per mile? Since I am going from Atlanta to South of Toledo I will be putting this to the test (LR/Aero). The average speed is 70 on i75 with only two cities having a hard impact on travel and those are Knoxville and Cincinnati
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,680 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,680 Posts
Atlanta to Toledo - evtripplanner and ABRP are pretty close. Both say eleven hours driving and one hour supercharging. Not a bad ratio. Supercharge in Knoxville, Tn, London, Ky, and Cincinnati.

Unfortunately a Bolt EV can't use CCS all the way. A few hours of L2 would be needed between Knoxville and Cincinnati. Plugshare is showing a CCS/CHAdeMO site under construction in Williamsburg, Ky which, when finished, would make the trip doable at L3 speeds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
someone have the math to convert that to watt hours per mile? Since I am going from Atlanta to South of Toledo I will be putting this to the test (LR/Aero). The average speed is 70 on i75 with only two cities having a hard impact on travel and those are Knoxville and Cincinnati
In my experience at 70 mph, you will get somewhere between 195 and 225 wh/mi (unless your car is loaded down with a lot of weight). You will hit the most efficient end of that range if you have tires at 45 psi, run EAP at 70, and try to avoid being the lead car in traffic most of the time. I would bet you can make it all the way to the London KY supercharger (I probably would not personally do that, but I bet you *could* if you wanted). There are ~10 SCs along the way so lots of choices. Probably build the stopping plan around biology rather than the car's limitations :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,230 Posts
I plan on hitting Knoxville SC, then London and Lexington. Might just go straight to Lexington and fill up so I jump past Cincinnati. Since it is my first trip I will err on the side of caution. I really want to skip Cincy...

I am actually staying in Findlay, so if I can Knox/Lex/Dayton or Lima that would be best. I figure if I get 90% in Lima regardless of need I will have a good amount to play with in Findlay and only have to return to the SC at 20%.

I am supposed to go to the Courtland Ohio side as well, probably stay in Hermitage PA for that. Not sure how I want to return as I heard the Toll through WVA is in bad shape.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,181 Posts
someone have the math to convert that to watt hours per mile? Since I am going from Atlanta to South of Toledo I will be putting this to the test (LR/Aero). The average speed is 70 on i75 with only two cities having a hard impact on travel and those are Knoxville and Cincinnati
According to the table, you should get 308miles in range at 70mph for your config. Dividing 308m/75kWh, gives 4.093m/kWh. Invert, and you get 244Wh/m.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
According to the table, you should get 308miles in range at 70mph for your config. Dividing 308m/75kWh, gives 4.093m/kWh. Invert, and you get 244Wh/m.
Just to make a correction on this LR with aeros at 70 is 321 (according to table) = 233.

Also, with EAP & following traffic (ie drafting by setting your EAP to 3 or 4 following distance) you will pick up a good bit of additional efficiency. (Mythbusters episode = 11% gain at 100ft behind a truck.) https://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/28/mythbusters-drafting-10-feet-behind-a-big-rig-will-improve-mile/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
335 Posts
Very impressive indeed.
Tesla M3 rwd gets at least 50% more of highway range than Chevy Bolt (~200miles vs 300+ miles), but the Tesla M3 cost only 29% more that the Bolt ($49k for loaded M3, $38K for Premium loaded Bolt after bargaining $3k down MSRP).
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top