Has TM Redefined the Rated Mile?

Has TM Redefined the Rated Mile?

On a road trip yesterday, I noticed that I used 248 rated miles to travel 242 actual miles, and yet my average energy consumption was 283 wh/m. I always thought that rated miles would be less than actual miles so long as average consumption was less than 308 wh/m.

When I checked the car this morning after an overnight standard charge, I saw that my rated miles was 248, higher than it has ever been for a standard charge (it may have even been higher, since the charge was completed around midnight, and the car likely lost a couple of miles after that).

And then I remembered: software version 4.3 was installed two days ago. Not only does version 4.3 implement timed charging, but it apparently fixes a problem with the way rated miles are reported after the battery has become cold.

I'm wondering whether we can still rely on our assumption about a rated mile equaling 308 watt-hours? Is it possible that software version 4.3 modified that definition? For my recent road trip, a rated mile was somewhere between 273 and 282 watt-hours. It is also possible that a rated mile varies with battery temperature and other conditions. Has anyone else noticed a change, either in your average consumption or in the number of rated miles you are seeing after a standard charge?

Any ideas from our engineering friends?

GeekEV | 26. mars 2013

If they changed it, I would hope they changed the baseline on the energy screens too. That looks unchanged to my eye..

Brian H | 26. mars 2013

The MS loves the Springtime.

sergiyz | 27. mars 2013

I think it's in release notes for 4.3.
There's a change to account for cold weather and something else...