Tesla!! when it is going to stop??

[HONEST ABE]

My very first post here was also to complain about Tesla. I had a model 3 dual motor at the time. The very next day I traded it for a MME SR AWD Premium. The SR AWD was rated for 210 miles, yet it more or less matched the model 3 in my typical driving conditions. I sold the MME last August with ~19K miles and the average was 3.7 miles/kWh (it did reset itself at 10K miles so technically it was a 9000 miles average). Only reason I sold it was to take advantage of the insane value it had last year. I bought a Genesis GV60 Performance for basically $5000 after selling the MME and claiming another $7500 tax credit so I had to do it. Otherwise I probably would still have the MME.

Fast forward to earlier this year, when Tesla dropped the base model 3 to $38K and again qualified for the $7500 tax credit, it got me intrigued and I took another look. I had some major changes to my driving routine and will be putting on many many miles, and I wouldn't have enjoyed constantly having to stop at a gas station in the PHEV (it has a tiny 10gal tank), and I don't want to put the miles on the Genesis even though I have 3yrs of free charging at Electrify America. The stars were aligned once again as Carvana bought my Hyundai Tucson PHEV for $4K under what I paid, before accounting for the $6500 tax credit I received on it, so I went ahead and bought the base model 3. My ~15K miles average on the base model 3 is 4.78MPK (209Wh/mile displayed in the car). It was 204Wh/mile a month ago. It started creeping up since the weather is getting cold. Back in spring/summer it was under 200, and I definitely can get the rated range of 272 miles or better. Never thought it'd ever be possible on a Tesla. As to the rest of the car, meh. It's a slight improvement over the 2018 I had. The paint is as crappy as ever, just looking at it too hard it'll chip the paint.

I like to tell it like it is, good or bad, which is what you'll find on this forum here. I hang out on many car forums and usually no longer hang around after selling the car, but I enjoy it here and have continued to visit. No I have not visited the echo chambers of Tesla forums lol. Enjoy your MME GT.

thanks for the insight. obviously your driving habits are very efficient with the numbers you shared for both vehicles. Also as I mentioned Iv'e never owned a model 3 but I have few friends who had model 3 or s and switched to Y and all of them agreed on the huge difference in range between the sedan version (3 and S) and model Y.

Sponsored

 

[Mach1E]

My point about calling tesla use of the 5cycle test as a loophole is that it's not a loophole. It's a valid standard put out by the sanction regulatory agency.

From webster dictionary:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole
1
: a means of escape
especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded


And once again, you're comparing Tesla EPA numbers to an arbitrary test (driving at 70mph) from a youtuber.
I'm sure if you drove the car at a constant speed of 35mph which is actually faster than the average speed of the average commute. you will likely find that tesla's range will meet or exceed the EPA reported range.

https://nhts.ornl.gov/briefs/commuting for life.pdf

Again, loopholes are valid standards sanctioned by a regulatory agency.

Tax loopholes are legal uses of IRS tax code.

And they have negative connotations because of how people view the usage of said loopholes.

I’m not comparing it to random tests.

I’m comparing the 2 cycle test to the 5 cycle one.

The biggest difference is the correction factors allowed in the 5 cycle. It inflates the results.

 

[ArthurDOB]

I never seriously considered a Tesla. Not because of who owns it, but because I wanted one from a company that's been around for a long time. Plus they're kind of boring-looking. MME looked the best to me and I read favorable reviews - better than ones from other old car companies on comparably priced EVs. I went to an auto show and got a good look at the competition, too. I have no regrets except one: I now have a car payment after six years without one!

 

[Ghost Ryder]

Again, loopholes are valid standards sanctioned by a regulatory agency.

Tax loopholes are legal uses of IRS tax code.

And they have negative connotations because of how people view the usage of said loopholes.

I’m not comparing it to random tests.

I’m comparing the 2 cycle test to the 5 cycle one.

The biggest difference is the correction factors allowed in the 5 cycle. It inflates the results.

Loopholes imply that you are being sneaky and finding a back door or some small crack that wasn't intended to be used that way. Any rational person would see that if there are two clearly marked options to satisfy a requirement, then that's really not a loophole.

For example, if the IRS allows you to pay your taxes by either credit card or cash. But if you paid cash, you would pay 50% less. it wouldn't be a loophole to pick the cash payment to pay lower taxes.

An example of a loophole is people buying a 6000lb SUV and writing it off their taxes. That tax write-off originally was meant for farm and heavy work vehicles, not luxury barges.

On your second point, you are not comparing the 5-cycle and the 2 cycle range to each other. you are comparing the 5-cycle and the 2-cycle test in relation to the "real world range."

Although there is no actual definition of "real world range," people on the net seem to point to youtubers test of driving at a constant speed of around 70mph. Then complain that Tesla doesn't achieve the claimed EPA range when traveling at a constant speed of 70mph. The EPA range was never meant to reflect a constant 70mph speed.

The average speed of a commute is 25-35mph. So if anything, the cars should be tested at that speed and see if they meet the claimed EPA.

You have no idea if the other OEMs would have higher mileage on the 5-cycle vs. the 2-cycle test.

Porsche does great at the 75mph constant speed test because it has the 2-speed transmission, but maybe it'll do worse at lower speeds.

 

[Mach1E]

Loopholes imply that you are being sneaky and finding a back door or some small crack that wasn't intended to be used that way. Any rational person would see that if there are two clearly marked options to satisfy a requirement, then that's really not a loophole.

For example, if the IRS allows you to pay your taxes by either credit card or cash. But if you paid cash, you would pay 50% less. it wouldn't be a loophole to pick the cash payment to pay lower taxes.

An example of a loophole is people buying a 6000lb SUV and writing it off their taxes. That tax write-off originally was meant for farm and heavy work vehicles, not luxury barges.

On your second point, you are not comparing the 5-cycle and the 2 cycle range to each other. you are comparing the 5-cycle and the 2-cycle test in relation to the "real world range."

Although there is no actual definition of "real world range," people on the net seem to point to youtubers test of driving at a constant speed of around 70mph. Then complain that Tesla doesn't achieve the claimed EPA range when traveling at a constant speed of 70mph. The EPA range was never meant to reflect a constant 70mph speed.

The average speed of a commute is 25-35mph. So if anything, the cars should be tested at that speed and see if they meet the claimed EPA.

You have no idea if the other OEMs would have higher mileage on the 5-cycle vs. the 2-cycle test.

Porsche does great at the 75mph constant speed test because it has the 2-speed transmission, but maybe it'll do worse at lower speeds.

Nope, YOU are comparing the EPA tests to real world.

I’m comparing the 5 cycle to 2 cycle.

5 cycle says “330 miles range.”
2 cycle says “300 miles range.”

Why? It’s the correction factors used. Many articles explaining this.

This isn’t an arbitrary choice. You keep making analogies to things that are.

 

[Womps]

When you look at the report I posted from Inside EV the Porsche was 37% better than the EPA rating and the Hyundai was 25% worse than the EPA rating. The Teslas around 10% worse than the EPA rating which isn’t too bad. The vehicles tested were all over the map and you don’t see it near that bad when the EPA tests ICE vehicles.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

Nope, YOU are comparing the EPA tests to real world.

I’m comparing the 5 cycle to 2 cycle.

5 cycle says “330 miles range.”
2 cycle says “300 miles range.”

Why? It’s the correction factors used. Many articles explaining this.

This isn’t an arbitrary choice. You keep making analogies to things that are.

If you're only comparing the 2 cycle to the 5 cycle, then there's no way to say which one is more accurate as there is no baseline to compare them to.

 

[available_username2]

it's not that long winded to define what telsa does that is wrong.

a. The range remaining is simply the percent of the EPA range. That sucks

b. They do a different EPA test to get higher numbers.

Also I believe in your analogy it would be like a company giving you teaspoons/mile instead of miles/gallon. Why they do that is also a mystery.

 

[EasyPass]

I just traded my 2023 Tesla model Y long range for Mach-E GT last month after owning the vehicle for 8 months putting 11k mile on it during that period
I was planning to write an extensive thread about my transition from tesla to Mach-e and the pros and cons of each. unfortunately after spending couple of hours on it, I did refresh the page and lost it all.
Anyway I just want to mention one of the biggest factor that made me trade the model Y, and how most reviewer online ignore that fact when comparing EVs
My biggest beef with Tesla is their continues lying about range and consumption. I am not going into the range they display on their screen because it is a joke and actually there is an active lawsuit against them due to that. My problem is how did the EPA rate the model Y long range with 19 in wheels at 330?? anyone who owned the vehicle or drove it for extended time will know that number is fictional no matter the conditions. Unlike most other EVs including Mach-E where the advertised range is attenable. I am from WV where it is kind of hilly so I definitely don't expect full range but at the same time not 210-235 which is around 65% of the advertised range. I drive like most people on interstate and try to keep my speed under 80 without crazy acceleration or deacceleration. Before my tesla I drove multiple ICE cars and I always get very close to the estimated MPG with exact style of driving and routes. I drove the tesla on more flat interstate in perfect conditions and the best I could get on HWY is around 245 probably, which is again significantly lower than the 330. On same flat roads my previous ICE gets higher MPGe than the advertised one. I've driving my Mach-E GT on the same roads and I get very similar range to what I was getting on the model Y, maybe fraction less 205-230 compared to 210-235 with tesla. The problem here we are talking about 2% real world range difference vs. 18% advertised range by EPA. I watched numerous videos and reviews for other EVs and the advertised range is very attenable or close enough to the EPA rating. Tesla is the only outlier when it comes to that, and it is mind boggling how people and especially reviewers don't call them out enough about it. To me the advertised range (330) was the deal breaker for to go with the model Y vs other EVs.
The other lie with Tesla numbers is consumption. So of course Tesla opt it out to use different units to measure their consumption unlike any other EV. They use watt/Mile vs Mile/KWH. just imagine for an ICE vehicle, a company decided to measure it is consumption in Liter/mile !!. I believe they did that intentionally to make it harder for an average consumer to compare it to other EV or even figure out the real energy consumption, and guess why? because it is fake and inaccurate. I used to average 300 watt/mile which translate to 3.33 mile/KWH (great figure for EV huh!!), but of course it is wrong. It is more like 3 mile/KWH (10% off). While the Mach-E the trip calculator (in my case) will display 2.5 mile/KWH but the actual one is closer to 2.6 mile/KWH.
I just don't understand how they can get away with these false advertising and falsified numbers. EPA needs to open an extensive investigation about the variation in ranges for tesla and other EVs where it was done by same agency and under similar conditions I assume!! but I doubt it because I am pretty sure it was not a mistake and it was done intentionally by the EPA
The listed MPGE for Model-Y is 117 mpge hwy vs 77 mpge for the Mach-E, which represent 50% advantage for the model-Y over the mach-E. According to my recent consumption for both vehicles under the same conditions I get around 3 mile/kwh for the model y vs 2.5 mile/kwh for the mach-E which is only 20% advantage for the model-Y. How come a same testing agency can have this huge margin of error (more the double)
Range and efficiency probably are the most important factors in picking an EV for most people and having an accurate numbers is so crucial for most consumer

"When is it going to stop?" I would suggest applying this notion to your expectations as well.

EPA estimates are conducted under controlled, predictable, and non-variable conditions. It is a general benchmark reference and should only be relied as such. What is a better reference for everyday use is actual-driven-miles per kWh-consumed times the usable capacity of the battery pack. That kWh value can easily vary between 4.0 and 2.0 miles in the MME. Highway driving at or near 80mph will nearly always knock that down in to the lower end of that consumption range. Windy condition, hills, ambient temperature and more will also have significant influence on the numbers. In addition, personal driving habits will have an equally important effect on range.
Know your numbers before looking elsewhere.

 

[machdady]

I took a short road trip with friends who have an older model s. I had forgotten to charge the night before and plugged in during the morning while waiting for my friends to arrive. Once they arrived, we had the range we needed for our trip and decided to leavecould always stop and charge if needed.

on the way back the 50 miles low battery indicator went on. They were very worried and I said oh we are fine - it’s only 23 or so miles home. They were shocked that I could trust the GOM that much - they said they would never do that in their model s.

that’s pretty telling and while I never actually tested the GOM’s accuracy I trust it because it never let me down in almost 2 years. This might be the most important thing for an EV (IMO) these days and one thing ford did get right.

 

[Mach1E]

If you're only comparing the 2 cycle to the 5 cycle, then there's no way to say which one is more accurate as there is no baseline to compare them to.

I’m not saying one is more accurate, just one that gives inflated numbers to the consumer compared to the test the competitors use.

So consumers (wrongly) assume that EPA is EPA and that Tesla has 10% higher range when they don’t.

That’s why I keep repeating that I’m not comparing it to some random real world test.

The “real world” mileage is from thousands of drivers driving daily and drawing the exact same conclusions-

“Why is the Tesla rated at higher ranged than brand X but doesn’t actually get more range?”

The answer is “Tesla used a different EPA test than brand X and chose a larger correction factor so you’re not comparing apples to apples.”

“Can they do that?”

Yup.

“That seems dishonest!”

Yup.

 

[GERChris]

I also had testdrives with Polestars and Tesla's before going with the Mach-E. If the Polestar wouldnt be so much high gloss black in the interior that scratches in no time I would have went for one....

Tesla was a no go for me after all the CRAZINESS of Elon Musk over the past two years... I can not support a freak and hateful person that he has become.

Sponsored