# Standard Range Model 3 Efficiency



## danzgator (May 17, 2017)

I've searched M3OC and the internet and can't find a Wh/mi for the Model 3 SR. I see that Tesla has submitted efficiency, range, and Wh/mi on the LR, but it doesn't seem like Tesla has for the SR. Has anyone seen a Wh/mi on the SR? Are there any good SR efficiency estimates/guesstimates out there?


----------



## gregincal (Sep 30, 2017)

Nobody knows, since one doesn't exist.


----------



## Agon (Jan 8, 2018)

Are there any S models with identical engines and different batteries (and thus weight)?

Maybe a guesstimate could be made from that.


----------



## danzgator (May 17, 2017)

Agon said:


> Are there any S models with identical engines and different batteries (and thus weight)?
> 
> Maybe a guesstimate could be made from that.


Nobody really knows the exact battery size and the motors are different between the S and the 3. And the S is a lot bigger and heavier, and has more drag, so it is far less efficient.

Assuming a 55 kWh battery and 220 mile range, the efficiency should be about 250 Wh/mile (55,000 wH/220 miles). If it's a 50 kWh battery, it would be about 227 Wh/mi.

Assuming the LR Model 3 has an 80 kWh pack, it would get 258 Wh/mi, but it is EPA rated at 247 Wh/Mi. So, the calcs above might be +/- 10 Wh/mi overstated.


----------



## Agon (Jan 8, 2018)

Usable battery size seems to be quite well established at 78,3 kWh and 52,7 kWh.

But as you probably know the range of the LR was voluntarily lowered. So it is interesting to see if the SR model is lowered as well.


----------



## danzgator (May 17, 2017)

Agon said:


> Usable battery size seems to be quite well established at 78,3 kWh and 52,7 kWh.
> 
> But as you probably know the range of the LR was voluntarily lowered. So it is interesting to see if the SR model is lowered as well.


OK, at 52.7 kWh, that would give us 240 Wh/mi at a 220 mile range. Maybe better, if the range was lowered. So, maybe 5-10% more efficient than the LR.


----------



## George K (Feb 19, 2017)

What do you think the range would be reduced by if car was going up long grade ,elevation change of over 7000 ft going up Pikes Peak ? Would the car make it to top if it were charged up at Colorado Springs supercharger ?


----------



## Oregonian (Dec 30, 2017)

Agon said:


> Are there any S models with identical engines and different batteries (and thus weight)?
> 
> Maybe a guesstimate could be made from that.


No model S cars have engines


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Oregonian said:


> No model S cars have engines


They all have engines.

en·gine
ˈenjən/
_noun_

*1*.​a machine with moving parts that converts power into motion.
_synonyms:_motor, machine, mechanism; More


----------



## HrdTsk (Jan 17, 2018)

Aside from reduced range; What other practical differences are there between standard battery and long range battery?
Acceleration? Charging time? Anything else?


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

HrdTsk said:


> Aside from reduced range; What other practical differences are there between standard battery and long range battery?
> Acceleration? Charging time? Anything else?


Acceleration is a little slower.

Charging time is a little slower. In particular, supercharging will be slower, and Level-2 charging will be limited to 32 amps. Long-range can charge at up to a 48 amp rate if the Wall Connector/UMC/EVSE supports it (note that the new UMC that is included with all Model 3's is limited to 32 amps).

The car will weigh less, which should improve handling a bit.

The price is substantially less - you're getting a much better deal.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2018)

SR Model 3 will be more efficient in city as it weighs less.
Acceleration is half a second slower. Top speed should also be slightly reduced.
Supercharging will be slower. AC charging will be limited to 32A. Charging time from 0-100% will stay almost the same.
In cold weather, SR battery should heat up faster as it has less thermal mass.


----------



## NRG4All (Mar 28, 2017)

Now that there are rumblings of the AWD being imminent, does anyone know what the LR AWD range will be? If it follows the S example, it should be somewhat longer range. Will it be 310 + 5, 10, or 15 miles?


----------



## Bokonon (Apr 13, 2017)

NRG4All said:


> Now that there are rumblings of the AWD being imminent, does anyone know what the LR AWD range will be? If it follows the S example, it should be somewhat longer range. Will it be 310 + 5, 10, or 15 miles?


Model S 75 --> 75D is +10 miles of EPA-rated range, so I'd expect it to be similar to for the 3 LR --> LRD. Maybe tack on 2 extra miles to account for the Model 3's comparative advantage in efficiency.

Two complicating factors, though:

1. With the 3 LR, Tesla voluntarily requested that the EPA reduce the rated range from 334 miles to 310. With early Model 3 owners reporting about 300-310 miles in real-world range from a full charge, this appears to have been a wise move. They will likely be similarly conservative with the 3 LRD, perhaps requesting 315, or even the same 310, even if the EPA's tests rate the car above 340 miles. I think the number they ultimately request will align closely with whatever they've achieved on average in their own internal, real-world testing.

2. Tesla does not want any variant of the Model 3 to outshine the Model S 100D and its 335 miles of EPA-rated range. They've made it clear that the Model S family will always have "more range" and "more performance" than the Model 3 lineup, and I don't see any reason why they'd want that to change. That's another incentive for them to request a conservative rating from the EPA.


----------

