Will the model 3 reach the approximate 215 miles, regardless of having one or two motors?
Will the model 3 reach the 215 miles range if equipped with 2 motors?
It will exceed it with 1 motor, if the base 60kwh battery is true. It will be closer to 240 miles.
Having two motors will increase the range. Unlike combustion engines, oversizing electric motors allows for higher efficiencies.
We should expect the T3 to get 4 miles per kWh vs. the 3.5 miles per kWh of the best TS. The 20% weight reduction should provide at least a 20% increase in miles per kWh.
Did you see the top 10 Efficient EVs list. It didn't have a Tesla on it. Maybe the model 3 will break into the top ten.http://www.jdpower.com/cars/articles/safety-and-mpg/top-10-most-fuel-eff...
The 215+ number is for RWD. They're not talking about AWD yet.
If the rumors are true, and the base is a 60KWh with a 240-mile range, then the 75KWh will hit about 300 miles (240 * 75/60 = 300). Nice.
!jstrack6 "Did you see the top 10 Efficient EVs list. It didn't have a Tesla on it."
The S and X are big heavy vehicles and weight is the main determinant of energy efficiency in a vehicle. With the T3 being 20% lighter, it should have similar effect on efficiency. 4 miles per kWh vs. current 3.5 miles per kWh and that would be conservative estimate of the difference.
The primary 'determinant' of energy efficiency has nothing whatsoever to do with the weight of a vehicle. Whether or not it is tuned for Performance (being 'fun to drive') versus absolute Efficiency (squeezing every single inch out of as few units of energy as possible) it is always wind resistance at speed that has the greatest effect on maximum range. That is why even when a Tesla has an EPA range rating of less than 300 miles it is possible to drive it well over 400 miles simply by driving rather slowly, below 40 MPH, and certainly by doing so under 25 MPH. If you want to go further -- drive slower. It would probably help if the EPA's calculations didn't assume that you are spilling electrons on the floor of your garage every time you fill up, wasting at least 15% of energy through inductive losses.
@Red Excile - I like your style. Point driven while not coming across argumentive. * Bow to you*
@SamO-Redexilmsus "It is always wind resistance at speed that has the greatest effect on maximum range."
But cars spend most of their time, use most of their fuel in city driving, a low speed where wind resistance has little effect.
A Chevy Bolt with a 60 kWh battery and more wind resistance is more efficient than TS75D with a rated 3.9 miles per kWh vs the TS75D at 3.4 miles per kWh. Its the weight.
Most of the fuel efficiency increases over the last 20 years have come by reducing vehicle weight.
>>>But cars spend most of their time, use most of their fuel in city driving
Not true. Some cars spend most of their time in city driving. Some cars spend most of their time on the highway. Mine happens to fall into the latter category, and I'm not the only one here that's true of.
Wind resistance on the highway is important - for example, a Model S 90D is rated at 101 MPGe in the city, and 107 MPGe highway. Compare that with a lighter, but less aerodynamic Bolt at 128 MPGe city, 110 highway. The S gets about 6% better range on the highway compared with the city, while the Bolt gets about 14% worse. Due to it's size, it still exceeds the efficiency of the S at EPA speeds, but higher speed is much less a friend of the Bolt than the S.
It's not that wind resistance doesn't have an effect but the base is the weight of vehicle. With the mix, the less aerodynamic but much lighter Bolt is OVERALL 15% more efficient than the Tesla.
And most of the energy consumed for all cars is at speed at which the wind resistance plays little part.
Cutting the weight is always the first part of increasing efficiency in vehicles.
tedirelan: Thank you. I endeavor to educate while others choose to obfuscate.
Frank99: Very well illustrated. Thank you.