When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Yes, it's energy (Wh) consumed per distance (mile) as a function of vehicle speed, my oversight. The slope of drivetrain losses graph may represent the MS/MX
for their induction motor/controller versus the more efficient M3 with a PM motor, i.e. smaller slope for the M3. Obviously, different BEVs will have different values
for the vertical axis. Typically the efficiency of the MS is about 235/250 Wh/mile, i.e. not that great. The M3 should be about 10/15% better.
My Model S P86D after 54,xxx mile was running 348'ish wh/mile - it could do better, it could do worse, but the overall average was 348'ish - which is 2.6 miles / kWh - that's real world driving over 54,xxx miles - @ $0.1254 / kWh (PG&E EV-A rate plan off peak) - driving the Model S was costing me about $0.0482/mile
I now have 1200'ish miles on my new Model 3 Performance - so far it's averaging about 312'ish wh/mile - with it often dipping below 300 wh/mile (284 is a number I see a lot) - 312 wh / mile is 3.2 miles / kWh - that's $0.0391 / mile driven in fuel costs.
The Chevy Bolt is closer to the Model 3 in terms of wh/mile…so it's similar, but slightly better.
so in looking over the www.fueleconomy.gov: stats - I'd say the numbers they are presenting are a good indication (not an exact scenario) of what to expect from fair weather driving range (cold temperatures below 40 F you can expect much lower range number due to main battery energy being used for battery/cabin heating in addition to the main traction engine - not to mention the additional aero-dynamic load of colder/denser air and the associated worse road conditions).
I'll add that it has been noted that even though they are rated the same, the Model 3 RWD gets a bit better range than the dual motor version. In fact I regularly see low- to mid-200 Wh/mile stats - and I have a fairly heavy right foot. (Just ask my wife...)
Not sure why this is the case, because with Model S and X the opposite is true - the dual motor versions get a bit better range than the RWD versions. All the dual motor cars have induction motors up front. So it isn't a difference in motor technology.
I also have the stock 18" Aero wheels on my car - so that helps too.
I'll add that it has been noted that even though they are rated the same, the Model 3 RWD gets a bit better range than the dual motor version...
Not sure why this is the case, because with Model S and X the opposite is true - the dual motor versions get a bit better range than the RWD versions. All the dual motor cars have induction motors up front. So it isn't a difference in motor technology.
I suspect it is down to the the motors, but in this case the main motors.
Telsa is apparently using a Perminant Magnet Switched Reluctance Motor to drive the rear wheels of the 3, and it is highly efficient particularly at low loads. Given this there’s no benefit in the 3 to sharing the drive with the less efficient induction motor up front, while there is still a weight and parasitic drag penalty (mainly the gearbox) to the front motor. Or that’s my read. Tesla hasn’t talked too much about their new permanent magnet motor, but it seems a significant advance.
10-17-2018, 12:48 AM
and the Oddo - Harkins rule 
