BREAKING: Tesla Model 3 Gets Official EPA Range Rating Of 310 Miles Combined, 322 City

Silver Tesla Model 3 charging


The official EPA figures for the most anticipated electric car of all time, the Tesla Model 3 have finally been released.

As expected, the long-range Tesla Model 3 goes more than 300 miles on a charge and a lot more in city driving.

Below are the official figures from the EPA’s internal database. Noted is city range of 321.9 miles and highway range of 295.5 miles. Combined range works out to 310 miles (the same figures Tesla’s been noting all along), but that figure was “voluntarily lowered” by the automaker. This is actually quite common on Tesla vehicles.

Tesla Model 3 Long-Range EPA Ratings

At 321.9 miles, that’s just over 11 miles shy of the Tesla Model S 100D:

Model S 100D EPA

Here’s how it looks on

Tesla Model 3 EPA

Moving beyond range we see that the Model 3 nets the following MPGe numbers:

  • City – 131 MPGe
  • Highway – 120 MPGe
  • Combined – 126 MPGe

Tesla Model 3 Long-Range EPA Ratings

Those ratings put the long-range Model 3 near the top in efficiency, still shy of the 136 MPGe rating of the U.S.’ most efficient electric car, the Hyundai IONIQ Electric.

Listed below are some critical battery specs such as voltage, amp-hours, and specific energy.

Model 3 Battery Specs

Lastly, here’s a look at charging times:

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

163 Comments on "BREAKING: Tesla Model 3 Gets Official EPA Range Rating Of 310 Miles Combined, 322 City"

newest oldest most voted

Wow! Does that efficiency number include charging losses as well?

Nice job.

Yes, all EPA numbers are “from the wall” and include charging losses.

Not according to Wikipedia’s “Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent” article, which reads in part:

“The EPA MPGe rating shown in the Monroney label is based on the consumption of the on-board energy content stored in the fuel tank or in the vehicle’s battery, or any other energy source, and only represents the tank-to-wheel energy consumption.”

If that’s incorrect, then the Wikipedia article needs to be corrected.

Can anyone point to an official government source which addresses this issue?

Everytime a new vehicle is rated by the EPA, this question comes up. Wikipedia is wrong, just like it was several years ago when I answered this question here in another discussion. MPGe is from the wall and includes charging losses.

See answer to “In estimating electric vehicle fuel economy, is electricity use measured from the battery or from the charge source?”

FYI, from the link:

“Electricity use is measured from the charge source. This is useful to consumers because (1) a small amount of energy is lost in charging the vehicle, and (2) this estimate represents the energy that is paid for by the consumer. As with other fuel types, upstream energy use and losses are not included in these estimates. For more information, see EPA Test Procedures for Electric Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrids”

Supports Answer’s comment.

In other words, what you are saying is that, while gasoline dispensing doesn’t include losses to get the gasoline to the gas station in the first place, but the ev rating DOES include the rating from the filler port, means that the label in effect starts counting from the point of sale:

1). At the gas pump where you pay for exactly what you take from it.

2). At the cord end for ev’s (which is as reasonably close to the revenue billing meter as you can get).

For gasoline you do pay for losses from the nozzle while filling though, so there is a similar analogy. There is evaporative loss from the nozzle and the tank while filling up. But you still pay for it. I haven’t done the math to see how those losses compare to charging losses, but I suspect charging losses are higher proportionately.

Yeah but on gasoline cars these days any evaporative losses while filling for a few minutes are less than trivial. And evaporation from the tank is recovered in a charcoal canister.

Whereas charging losses may be 10% in, while charging (charger and battery heating), and then discharging (battery heating only) may be effectively an overall 18% loss, as one Model “S” owner stated on TMC last week that the ‘usage’ of the car only stated 82% of the electricity actually going through the Revenue Billing Meter on the back of his house. So the comparison doesn’t really apply, since the gasoline loss is like a KNAT, and the electric loss is more like a CAMEL. (Biblical Reference about straining out the KNAT but gulping down the Camel).

Like an ICE car, YMMV.

For my Ford CMax I get 72% efficiency from the wall on Level 1, and 80% efficiency from a Level 2 EVSE. This appears that it would in turn affect real-world MPGe.

Good numbers

Pretty good. I little more work and they’ll be as good as Hyundai.

I just knew some Tesla basher would be making this idiotic claim.

If the Hyundai Ioniq Electric had the performance of the TM3, we can be quite sure its MPGe would be worse. Tesla has the superior EV engineering.

0-60 times:
Long Range Tesla Model 3: 5.1 seconds
Hyundai Ioniq Electric: 8.6 seconds (per Car & Driver)

Do the EPA tests include an all-out acceleration?

You know, ClarksonCote, I don’t actually think they do.

Maybe PmPu needs to spend some more time in chill mode 😉

Given that, if Hyundai put a 60 kWh battery in the Ioniq (and for the record I hope they do) I bet it would hurt the efficiency a little bit. But it is a damn slippery car and probably has a significantly smaller frontal area, so it would probably keep the edge over the TM3.

Yeah, seriously, why is PUSHI here? He constantly defames others, something unallowed at other places.

The guy doesn’t know anything, doesn’t drive ANY kind of vehicle let alone an electrified one, and the closest he has been to an EV is to sit in the rear seat of an “S” for a few minutes a year or two ago.

He has no sweat-equity in them as the rest of us have, and since, he can’t make an intelligent comment, merely defames people all the time.

So again, why is he here?

Poor Bill. He just can’t comprehend how someone who no longer drives a car can possibly understand EV engineering so much better than he does!

Apparently the concept that someone could learn by reading and through written discussions of a subject, or that someone would actually be interested enough in electric cars (and their potential effect on the world) to want to engage in this intellectual pursuit on a regular basis, is something he can’t wrap his mind around.

Maybe if he quit obsessing over his conspiracy theories, he would have more time to figure out how that can be. 😉

Oh PUSHI someone would have to be pretty dense to believe that sludge. CC has already commented on that.

We don’t yet know the MPGe rating for the M3 with the ~50kWh pack.

Right now the Ioniq EV has a rather small 28 kWh battery vs. the 75 kWh battery in the LR M3. The Ioniq has less than half the battery size than the M3 but has only 10 MPGe more.

I would bet my shirt that the SR M3 with a ~50kWh pack will get at least as good or better MPGe as the upcoming 2018 200 mile range Ioniq.

The longer range Ioniq will likely lose or at best maintain its MPGe rating with the much bigger pack while the SR M3 will undoubtedly gain MPGe with the smaller pack.

And when all is said and done they will have the same MPGe but the M3 will still have more range and much better performace.

ClarksonCote asked:

“Do the EPA tests include an all-out acceleration?”

No, and in fact drivers for EPA testing are trained to, so far as possible, drive all cars in exactly the same manner so the comparisons will be as fair as possible. Ergo, no “pedal to the metal” accelerations.

Nonetheless, there is no question that all else being equal, a higher-performance car will get worse energy efficiency ratings than a lower-performance car. A V8 gasmobile isn’t going to get as good an MPG rating as a 4-cylinder gasmobile of the same size and weight, and there is a similar disparity between a relatively high-performance BEV like the Tesla Model 3 and a low-performance BEV like Hyundai Ioniq Electric.

You said: Nonetheless, there is no question that all else being equal, a higher-performance car will get worse energy efficiency ratings than a lower-performance car.

You are correct. The only difference between Model S 90D and P90d is the rear motor of 90D is 193kW and 375kW for the P90D.

EPA rates 90D at 104 MPGe while P90D is at 95 MPGe.

Wouldn’t really matter much if they did. ICE vehicles take an efficiency hit when you accelerate hard mainly due to the fact that you have to dump a large amount of fuel into the engine to get it to climb the torque curve, and the engine is not very efficient at low RPMs.

With an electric motor, however, you get full torque right away. You do have some losses in the form of IR drop if you demand high acceleration, but these are almost negligible.

But who really cares about that? Not everyone wants to drive a sports car. Tesla made a choice to focus more on performance. The car still ends up being less efficient, even if it’s more fun to drive.

I just don’t see how that changes anything about the efficiency figures.

It’s the range (and hence weight) of the Model 3 that mostly hurts its efficiency, not so much the performance (although a higher performance motor and electronics will add to the weight as well).

An electric motor will not experience the same loss of efficiency that an internal combustion engine does simply by hard acceleration. In an ideal system, if you accelerate a mass from 0 to 60, you put the exact same amount of energy into the system whether that acceleration takes place over 5 seconds or 50. In the real world, you have losses. An internal combustion engine has many, including very low efficiency at low RPM. An electric motor has IR drop losses, which are minimal.

Now if you constantly accelerate and decelerate and accelerate again, then yes, you are having to add energy into the system over and over and your efficiency will drop. That’s the concept behind the city cycle. But it’s a fixed number of starts/stops that are identical between all cars being tested, so the rate of acceleration doesn’t really factor into it.

Interesting that the city range is lower than the highway range. The S and X’s highway ratings are higher than their city numbers.

It’s because the 3 uses a PMAC (permanent magnet) motor instead of an induction motor like the S and X use.

Nope, it’s because of the torque sleep mode in the the AWD system of the Model S & X

Well, for that reason as well.

where did you get that info? I always thought Tesla avoids the PMSM because of the rare earths (especially Neodym) needed for the permament magnets.

It’s been pretty widely reported that they’re using PM motors in the M3, e.g.

It is surprising, yes.

Costs have come down for rare-earth magnets. I’m not sure about the environmental impact, though. But most rare earths now come from China, so I think we can call out the claims from EV bashers, that rare earths come from central Africa conflict zones, as the FUD B.S. that it is.

The city range is higher than the hwy range.

“Noted is city range of 321.9 miles and highway range of 295.5 miles.”

Well I butchered that. I meant that the city range is HIGHER than the highway ratings, opposite the S and X.

So it’s not because “because the 3 uses a PMAC (permanent magnet) motor instead of an induction motor like the S and X use.” :-!

Yes, it is, at least probably. Zaphod was answering the intent of the question without paying attention to the words written.


Around town there is slip with induction.


There is always “SLIP” with induction. No inducing of anything is possible without it.

I imagine a lot of it has to do with weight, and handling ~600+ pounds less inertia through EPA’s “city” test cycle.

I suspect it has much more to do with how the TM3 is engineered, vis-a-vis reduction gear ratio and thrust vs. drag, than what I understand is a fairly trivial difference in efficiency between induction motors and permanent magnet motors.


Interesting hypothesis, but I think it has more to do with the heavier weight of the S and X, and the energy it takes to stop and go in the city.

bro1999 said:

“Interesting that the city range is lower than the highway range. The S and X’s highway ratings are higher than their city numbers.”

Nope, try again. For the TM3, the EPA rated city range is higher than the highway range. It’s the reverse for the MS and MX.

But I don’t know how much of the TM3’s lower highway rating was due to the EPA’s test cycle, and how much was Tesla voluntarily lowering the number, as the article says.

80A high power charger option? That wasn’t I the configurator nor was it mentioned before.

I think we just discovered: The Model 3 High Power Charger option will likely pop up next year! We often discover things upcoming things this way…

Early model 3 owners will probably be offered a retrofit by late next year.

Stop making sh*t up off of what could be a typo. People start repeating it and believing it.

Mellow out, try fiber.

He’s not making anything up. EPA data has often been a source of undisclosed specs for Tesla’s cars.

Jim Whitehead has been following the story of Tesla for years. He’s one of the good guys, so lay off.

80A x 240v x 8.5 hrs = 163.2KWH.

Do we have a 163KWH battery on the Model 3 now?

I’m not an electrical engineer, so I won’t comment on that technical issue.

My comment was about Jim Whitehead’s character. Your unprovoked personal attack on him was out of line and entirely inappropriate.

* * * * *

Some years back, I read a comment posted to Seeking Alpha, one of the very few from that site which I thought was worth remembering:

“Tesla envy happens when other people have, ahem, long positions and yours is too short.” — Jim Whitehead

Standard Charger is the 32 Amp Universal Mobile Connector.

With a Wall Connector; the Long Range Model 3 will charge at 48 Amps.

Lawrence I think that’s a mis-print.

If you look at the times – the charge rate seems to be 50% faster than ‘standard’.

The ‘3’ Universal Connector (UC) is 32 amperes (same as the Bolt ev).

The wallbox (HPWC) allows up to 48 amperes.

So it wouldn’t surprise me to mean 48 amperes, since the fastest TESLA available today can only charge at 72 amperes. The ‘dual charger’ 80 ampere option was discontinued for the S and X.

Since the rated ‘quick’ chargetime is 8 1/2 hours, if a continued 48 amperes at 240 would be around 98 kwh, so that is plenty to refill a 75 kwh battery.

Thanks for doing the math. It didn’t smell right at face value.

Nice job, Bill, that match checks.
That the text of the rating differs from the 80A dual charger S/X and the, perhaps erroneous, 80A high power charger connector for the 3 isn’t as clear. Tesla doesn’t call the standard equipment 48A connector a “high power charger connector,” or do they?

GeorgeS, Lawrence and Empire State – thanks.

Pushi is incidentally incorrect (as usual) in everything he said here, – as an example the BOLT ev is quite high efficiency when driven with a light pedal, yet has higher performance than cars which couldn’t match its economy.

The same could be said of the Model “3” – it taking after the Bolt ev in that, with a light pedal it should be quite efficient, even beating the efficiency of lessor cars when driven conservatively.

Oh, Tesla is doing the same thing with the ‘3’ that they do with the ‘S’. In the “S” if you order the largest battery you get a 72 ampere charger in the car. If you order a small battery you get the 48 ampere charger. The “Universal Connector” that comes with the “S” or “X” is 40 amperes, regardless of the size charger in the car. Likewise, the 3SR comes with a 32 ampere charger, and the 3LR comes with a 48 ampere charger. The UC with the ‘3’ is 32 amperes in all cases. To run the UC’s at the maximum rate for the “s” or “x”, you need a 40 amp continuous duty wall outlet (standard 50 amp ckt). To run the UC for the ‘3’ at the maximum rate you need a 32 ampere continuous duty wall outlet (standard 40 amp ckt). Since in the states, there is no increment between a 30 ampere receptacle and an 50 amp one, to legally charge the ‘3’ at the maximum rate the UC can go at would require a 50 amp receptacle on minimum 40 amp wiring, since the charging time is over 3 hours (i.e. continuous duty).… Read more »

Does the EPA use 60mph as their Highway speed on EV’s just S they do with ICE?

Yes it is top speed in HWFET:

The overall BEV testing is a bit different from ICE cars though.

Ouch, that could mean a 20% range loss at 75MPH. A big deal for those going with the standard battery pack.

It’s not linear; drag is affected by the square of the speed, so it could be more.

Depends on drag co-efficient. Fortunately the Model 3 is not an SUV.

Here it is of Model S:

Model 3 should be somewhat similar though not identical. Air drag is to square of speed, but part of the losses is rolling resistance and drivetrain losses. Dynamic vehicle model equation is too complex to paste here.

According to that chart, it’s 280 miles @ 60 and 225 @ 75.

Again, back to my 20% loss of range estimate.

While 20% is correct, the EPA does not do highway to 60 mph with no adjustment. In practice, aerodynamic cars do better than highway mileage in real world.

But for a point of comparison, 67 mph is my speed where rated = real at 70 degrees in a 70D

EPA added US06 test cycle which includes high speeds up to 80 mph as well. So ICE or electric have higher speeds involved now.

Tesla still uses (or at least has on all other vehicles) the 2-cycle test so only the city/hwy. Does not include the hot, cold, and high speed cycles

NO !
City is higher at 321.9 Highway is lower at 295.5

So the total battery capacity is 80.5 Kw? Better than expected! Also, anyone knows if fuel savings were calculated at regular or premium gas pricing?

I think companies might be moving to usable capacity.

Yeah, found it odd that MT said “75KWh”.

I’m still really impressed at the jump in electric efficiency Tesla was able to achieve.

Tesla seems to be moving that way, assuming the unofficial numbers of 50 kWh for the base TM3 and 75 kWh for the Long Range TM3 are correct.

I don’t know that there is any consensus among EV makers, but certainly there have been a lot of people saying that GM lists kWh of usable capacity rather than total capacity for its EVs.

It’s rather hard to do apples-to-apples comparisons of energy efficiency between EVs when there’s no standard for reporting usable or total capacity. In fact, it’s impossible. 🙁

fueleconomy uses $0.13/kWh against some abstract average gas guzzler, and rounds up result. Click “personalize” and you will see it.

You can’t calculate the battery’s kWh by just multiplying the nominal voltage (350 volts) by the rated amp-hours. The battery’s voltage starts at about 380 volts at 100% charge, but rather quickly drops to 350 volts, then eventually is down to around 330 volts at full discharge. You have to integrate the discharge-amp vs volts curve from 0-100% to get the total usable kWh. That is a complex process, but will normally result in the kWh being less than the “nominal” volts x A-hrs.

You can if you have an integrating meter watching the usage. You can also determine how much electricity it uses from the plug by using a revenue billing meter (like the one on the back of your house), or one of those ‘kill-a-watt’ things).

The amount usable (software limited) is likely around 75 kWh, while the peak battery capacity is likely around 80 kWh (if the software ever allowed the battery to be charged to 100%)

The fuel savings depend FAR more on the cost of electricity which varies widely than on the small difference between regular and premium.

Pretty stellar numbers there, bests any other 200+ mile PEV out there, anyway.

One would hope so for the amount of money it cost. More money = more range. Pretty simple formula.

$44k is a lot more money? Well, if you say so.

$9000 for the bigger battery pack is a very steep up-charge.

So what does that say for paying $43,500k for a comparable Bolt, with no increase in range over the base model?


Oooooh! Snappy, well thought out reply! Contributes much.

I see Dav8or isn’t merely a Tesla basher; looks like he’s also a GM fanboy.

Well, no wonder he’s a Tesla hater! He has good reason to fear Tesla eating more and more of GM’s market share, especially with numbers like this for the Tesla Model 3!

Go Tesla!


(Even Snappier!)

Nice way to pick and choose numbers to make a lame point. The actual cost of a Bolt Premier is $41,780 and it *includes* the destination charge and comes in a variety of colors, unlike your hypothetical $44,000 Model 3 with a big battery. That car is actually $45,200 and $46,200 if you want a color other than black, which most do. In addition, in most parts of the US nobody is paying MSRP for a Bolt, so in reality it’s cheaper still whereas the Model 3 is MSRP all the time every time.

Now what does it say for the person that buys the Model 3 optioned like you had the hypothetical Bolt buyer, with all the options? Something like $57,000 and it doesn’t go any further… ??

Like I said, more money = more range. Does it always mean this? No, clearly not, but you can’t get more range without more money and you know it and more money is more money.

The actual cost of a Bolt comparable to the Model 3 LR is $43,500, which includes the DC fast charger capability and active safety features that are standard on the Model 3.

Who is picking and choosing, again?

You can prioritize whatever you want, but a $44k (+destination) base LR will get you sub-5 second 0-60, and 70 more miles of range, and access to the Supercharger network, which is considerably better than the current CCS…and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

DavH8or, why do you keep using the $1200 dollar number for shipping and doc fee, when the $1000 number that has been unofficial for months, has now been confirmed as the official TM3 Delivery and Doc fee?

And why do you leave off GM dealer doc/additional profit fees and only put in manufacture delivery fee, when comparing Tesla’s combined $1000 dest. + doc fee that replaces both?

You quote the base Premier package, without even DC charging, but that doesn’t get anywhere near close to what it takes to be feature equivalent to the TM3. You have to choose additional options, for a price of $44,565, and STILL fall well short of features that just plain aren’t even available at all on the Bolt.

And that’s just to get to the point in features to compare against the $45K price of the version of the Model 3 that gets 300+ miles of range and 0-60 in about 1 1/2 seconds faster.

That says that if TESLA is able to hit production targets next year, the Model 3 will force GM to lease the BOLTs at $99 a month

Aaron wrote: “So what does that say for paying $43,500k for a comparable Bolt, with no increase in range over the base model?”

Why do people (Tesla fan boi mostly) insist on comparing MSRP with Tesla’s sales price?

And then some people would turn around to complain about people paying MSRP for non-Tesla vehicles.

Aren’t plenty of articles out there describing $5K off the MSRP? Sure, some will make the argument that is California. But it isn’t like Model 3 is shipping much outside of CA either.

I believe the Bolt MSRP will be reduced in the future.

Either way, I agree that Model 3 is a better value but let us stop comparing MSRP (which just about all smart people avoid paying) to Tesla’s list/sales price.

Because MSRP is a constant, whereas dealer incentives aren’t?

“Aren’t plenty of articles out there describing $5K off the [Bolt EV] MSRP?”

Cherry-pick figures much?

There are also reports of up to $5000 dealer surcharge. As long as you’re quoting outlier figures, shouldn’t you cite those too?

MSRP is what the industry uses for price comparisons. Whine about it all you like, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s the industry standard.

$9k for 101.9 miles more of range (before Tesla’s voluntary lowering for EPA) and half a second faster 0-60, faster supercharging, and bigger onboard charger isn’t that crazy. That is $88/mile, and $1800 per tenth of second.

SparkEV 82 mile range, 0-60 7.2 sec for $25,120
Bolt 238 mile range, 0-60 6.5 sec for $38,245 (with DC charger)

That is 156 more miles, .7 better 0-60, and faster charging for just over $13,000 dollars. That’s $85 dollars per mile, and $1,860 per tenth of a second.

Seems entirely within reason.

Tesla, evs, it’s their thing.

Yeah, I wonder if the AWD version will get.

Title should probably be “Model 3 is officially Tesla’s most energy-efficient vehicle”. Nice to see Tesla join the higher-efficiency tier with this EV. Miles above the Model S whose most efficient models seem to be in the 103-104 MPGe range.

A bit short of 300 miles on the highway… but still likely possible to hypermile it skipping 1-2 Supercharger stations.

Assuming everyone in the car has a strong bladder, that is 🙂

Sorry, skipping one is my limit, lol.

When I travel over 200 miles, I can skip even farther. I have traveled over 1,600 miles with no need to stop or relieve myself. And someone else is driving, too.

310mi. EPA Combined range.
I hope Tesla can do roughly close to the same for The Model Y, hopefully 300+ Mi. for the extra $9K in 2020-1 delivery.

A 7% loss in efficiency between a Model S and X. Safe to say the same pack on a model Y may yield 288 miles combined with and you’ll be lucky to get 230 miles at 75mph.

Nothing says you have to drive 75 mph. In fact, on a long trip, factoring in charge times, you might actually be coming out behind by driving faster.

But bottom line, in a situation where you absolutely need max range you always have the option to slow down. In fact that’s one of the biggest tricks to driving an EV. Unlike an ICE the slower you go the better efficiency you get, since there are no passive losses. So, in a situation where you’re in danger of running out of charge, cutting speed by 10 (or even 20 mph in an emergency) will probably be enough to get you there with range to spare.

What is a Model Y? a “Yugo”?

Title should be edited to add “Model 3 LR” so as not to confuse with base model.

350V * 230Ah = 80.5kwhr, right? I’m guessing that’s factory spec, with BMI limiting to 75kwhr accessible, more in line with what we’ve heard, and in line with better longevity.

(BMI should be BMS, lol)

If my understanding is correct, 80.5 kWh would be Panasonic’s nameplate capacity for the cells, what’s generally called total capacity for the battery pack. If the unofficial numbers of 50 kWh for the base TM3 and 75 kWh for the Long Range TM3 are correct, then that would apparently be usable capacity rather than total capacity.

Anderlan, that is too simplistic. The voltage of that battery will decrease depending on the state-of-charge, and also how fast you are discharging it.

The battery will waste heat both when it is charged, and when it is discharge, – which really shouldn’t be considered part of the battery capacity since it is just waste heat. And the faster you charge or discharge, the greater total quantity heat over the duration you’ll get.

@Bill H
“Anderlan, that is too simplistic”

Agreed. One needs to go to the detailed EPA report.

In that report they list “integrated amp hours” and “average system voltage”. Those are the numbers one needs to calculate usable kwh hours. …and the number comes out 78.3 kwh.

The 78.3 kwh also goes with 334 mile range versus 310 mile range.

so my calcs on volumetric energy density should be correct.

I see the 2170 cells in model 3 as the same volumetric energy density as the cells in the 100D.

It is possible however that there is even more usable energy in the new 2170 cells than these calcs indicate though. We don’t know how many times Panasonic has derated these cells.

So I hold out the possibility that the 2170 cells that Tesla will use in the new roadster and semi truck can happen from an energy density point of view without another generation of cell between now and 2019.

Holy smokes, 334 miles?!

This car’s encroaching on 100D territory! Time to undersell! At least till it starts bringing in more revenue!

I read somewhere that a used Model S can still beat the best new Model 3 with almost the same price.

That’s really good actually. A significant performance improvement over the model S!

The article says:

27 kWh / 100 miles…

Or to translate that into terms many of us EV advocates prefer, that’s 3.70 miles/kWh.

Those ratings put the long-range Model 3 near the top in efficiency, still shy of the 136 MPGe rating of the U.S.’ most efficient electric car, the Hyundai IONIQ Electric.

The Ioniq Electric is rated at 25 kWh / 100 miles, according to; that comes to 4.0 miles/kWh. Plus, the Ioniq Electric achieves its high miles-per-kWh rating by using a limited power drivetrain, with a poor 0-60 time. I was hoping the new Tesla Model 3 would come close to the Ioniq’s efficiency rating while still being a relatively high-performance car. It’s nice to see dreams come true! 🙂

So Tesla once again demonstrates it’s #1 in EV engineering.

Go Tesla!

Model 3 SR should be even more efficient, and still have superior performance to the “competition.”

Yep, it still does under 6 seconds 0-60.

The real comparo should be against the Bolt —
base M3 vs the Bolt. I think everyone will be surprised. $37k Bolt won the MT COTY 2017; $58k M3 did “not” win the MT COTY 2018. Late, and not as great.

Proves the Model 3 is the best car, gas or electric, in that price range! Watch out BMW 3 series and soon M3. Nice to have a higher performance car with less maintenance. I love my Model X and will never go back to old school dirty gas. Nice to have a full battery everyday at the convenience of your home. Also spoiled with the Tesla Rangers that come to you vs wasting 3 hours going to a dealership! Love the looks of the 3. My X handles well with extra weight but the lighter 3 must be sports car like vs LEAF like.

I believe this car’s overall performance is what got some gasoline car advocates’ knickers in a twist over at Motor Trend. Not that silly nonsense about the interior(which was well received by nearly every other reviewer). This car is a direct threat to(particularly Jonny Lieberman’s beloved BMW) the old time comfort zone.

This is NOT the funky=looking little hatchback that(in their minds} BEVs are supposed to be. This is the real deal.

To be fair, the radical Spartan approach to simplicity in the TM3 interior, and having nearly everything controlled by the main touchscreen, isn’t going to appeal to everyone. There have already been a lot of complaints about the lack of buttons and knobs in the TM3 interior, and we can be sure that we’ll be reading those complaints in at least some reviews from established auto review magazines and websites.

I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say the aggressively Spartan interior is somewhat polarizing.

It isn’t “polarizing”.It is a lact of practicality. What will the Model 3 owner do if the screen breaks down or won’t light up? There is no backup!

It is a LCD with backlighting so it can fail as many phones, tablets, notebooks, and flat TVs have! Real buttons hardly fail unless abused. And a touchscreen can also fail if abused (pressed too hard).

When it comes to interior controls, I don’t think there has been a push from BMW drivers to add more buttons to the interior. What I’ve been hearing since 2001 has actually been calls for an improvement over BMW’s iDrive interface.

The Model 3 actually solves a problem that BMW has been struggling with for the last decade and a half.

There will definitely be downsides that go with the upsides. And for sure there will be tweaks and changes. There will even be people who reject the change, just like folks who still swear by carbs, manual transmissions, crank windows (jeep crowd), etc. But more and more cars are adding touch screens. Jaguar, Land Rover, Cadillac, Volvo, BMW and Audi all now have touch screens.

Just because something is a problem doesn’t mean going to the opposite extreme is the solution.

The real deal costs $58k. Not exactly accessible for the average Joe.

Also, highway range is affected by aerodynamics and city driving much less so.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

The most important numbers are the city of 321.9.

Why? because if you live in CA and use it as a regular commuter car on the freeway, your driving style WILL BE CITY style on the pothole infested crowded a$s freeways.

Today, even in the diamond lane, averaged 30mph for 18 miles, go figure…. (◣_◢)

No doubt LA driving is crazy congested but highway range is still more important. How often does anyone drive 10 straight hours at 30mph? Range in a long range Model 3 for “city” driving is a non-issue for 99.99% of the population.

On top of that on a city you’re not ever that far from a charger, if need arises, unlike if you’re out in the middle of nowhere on a highway.

While I believe a small amount of cold weather testing is included in the results, I’d like to see those results broken out, including heating the cabin, to see how much difference that makes.

And since it’s energy from the wall, they should include loss due to heating the battery during idle time.

Oh, and the EPA’s idea of cold weather is officially 20F. Up here in the north after a real deep freeze, that’s patio temperature 😉

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Damnit Brian, you need a warning with those posts for us still at work man…….lol

Impressive efficiency considering it caries more than double the battery of the ionic.

I sure hope we’ll ditch MPGe once MPG is no longer a thing, and find something more rational like Wh/distance or distance/Wh. It reminds me of how we’re still calling LED and CFL bulbs “60-watt equivalent” instead of just 800 lumens.

Here, Here!

We’re still hearing about horsepower and how long has it been since horses stopped being a practical mode of transport?

Let me know when we finally get rid of the “M” in MPG, and replace it with “K”.

It has been since 1866 when by an act of Congress (signed into law by President Andrew Johnson) made it “lawful throughout the United States of America to employ the weights and measures of the metric system in all contracts, dealings or court proceedings.” And we still haven’t managed to implement that fully yet.

We’ve barely managed to even partially implement it. It’s one way that we in the US really have our heads up our asses.

Chris Stork said:

“I sure hope we’ll ditch MPGe once MPG is no longer a thing…”

I advocate dumping it immediately. It’s very misleading to suggest consumption of electrical energy in a BEV (whether or not that includes charger losses) is similar to fuel consumption in a gasmobile. A gasmobile is powered by a heat engine, and a BEV isn’t. The gasmobile wastes energy idling, and the BEV doesn’t. Many other differences apply.

Note the Monteray sticker, in the same area it gives the MPGe rating, also cites “27 kWh / 100 mi”. That’s a much, much more useful metric; all it needs is an acronym!

It is amazing how Tesla can offer vehicles with all new tech/drivetain/R&D for the same price as their competitors. Model 3 against the $35-60,000 Plus for BMW3 series/M3. Model S against the Porsche Panamera/S class $85,000-200,000 with new everything. I love my X with the convenience of charging at home(saves me 10 minutes/week looking for gas). I love the Tesla Rangers coming to you vs wasting 3 hours going to a dealership. With solar panels, my fuel is free!

How did you get free solar panels? And inverters?

They accidentally fell out the back of a delivery truck, and bounced out of the box, onto the top of his roof, of course facing the right direction!
This scenario happens quite often, these days!

Not to mention free installation, which generally costs much more than the solar panels themselves.

Finally a premium car that does not have premium maintenance!

Very impressive specs. This car clearly beats its gas-guzzling competitors (BMW 3 series, MB C class, Audi A4, etc.) in both TCO and street performance.

And every Tesla comes with fast DCFC through Tesla’s comprehensive and ever expanding Supercharger network so you have a long-distance, very capable 5 seat BEV with a built in DCFC network.

No doubt these will sell by the hundreds of thousands and be followed up by a SUV derivative as the Model Y.

If the official numbers are released does that mean Tesla is now delivering to non-employees and investors?

The two aren’t directly linked. The EPA gave Tesla a low-volume production waiver allowing them to use provisional sticker numbers on early production window stickers while the numbers were validated. We actually saw pictures of those provisional stickers, and it turns out that there was no change in the numbers after validation.

For the EPA, there is no legal difference between sales to employees and the general public. Tesla was free to do either with the waiver. For the EPA, a sale is a sale no matter who the customer is. That differentiation as to what should count as a “sale” and what shouldn’t is an entirely a creation of the internet. There is no actual differentiation like that anywhere under the law.

The only connection is that this had to be resolved before going into higher volumes of production, but this was regardless of who was making the purchases.

The title is kind of misleading, it’s really the Tesla Model 3 LONG RANGE.

Great news though, that’s an excellent range number.

So did anyone notice the YUUUUUUGE difference between the official MPGe figure for city economy (131 MPGe) and the real world number Motor Trend observed (89.7 MPGe). That MT observed city economy figure is almost 32% lower than the EPA number! MT’s observed highway number was higher than the EPA figure however.

MT’s overall MPGe number, 103.7, was 18% lower than the official EPA figure of 126.

For comparison, MT’s observed combined MPGe figure for the Bolt was 121.2 MPGe….which is 2 MPGe higher than the EPA rating.

I’ve said it before… I think the Bolt is going to give the M3-LR a run for its money on range in real world usage.

We’ll have to see, that seems rather unlikely.

Come on MT flogs their cars. Real world for them is not real world for most people.

It will be quite interesting to see these “real world usage” range numbers, as the Tesla SR M3 gets into actual “real non-NDA” customers hands, for the first time. The “run for the money” (cost/range) value proposition, MAY be a near term Chevy Bolt advantage, if GM wants to play to that selling point in N.A.

I would be more interested in the reports of an owner, that bought a Bolt EV Last December, and is Also Buying a Tesla Model 3, after 6 Months with the Model 3, as the two cars have different Value Proposition points!

Didn’t they also get better Hwy efficiency?

Pretty sure MT isn’t driving the Model 3 to EPA specs…

Also, the Model 3 has considerably more performance, which isn’t going to aid efficiency when you’re driving it for fun.

Or driving it recklessly.

“So did anyone notice the YUUUUUUGE difference between the official MPGe figure for city economy (131 MPGe) and the real world number Motor Trend observed (89.7 MPGe). That MT observed city economy figure is almost 32% lower than the EPA number!”

If Motor Trend’s “First Drive” review is any indication, the MT reviewers are aggressively driving the Model 3 like it’s a sports car.

If so, then it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that energy efficiency drops when you drive a car like a sports car rather than drive it gently and conservatively, as they do in EPA testing.

I remember back when Top Gear infamously faked the Tesla Roadster running out of “juice” when they tested it on a track, after only a 55 mile run. As one commentator pointed out, if you run a gasmobile sports car flat out on a track, it’s most likely going to run out of gas in 55 miles or less. So yeah, that would be a “YUUUUUUGE difference” between the official MPG figure for a gamobile’s “city” fuel consumption and what you’re trying to label the “real world number” that Top Gear would get from track testing a gasmobile sports car.

They probably had the pedal to the floor all the time. I’d take their results with a grain of salt. I think the real purpose of publications like MT are to sell sports cars and oversized engines.

So, the question is that are those range rated with those ugly wheel cover or not? I assume they are.

I would certainly keep them off for sure.

In city driving you’d not benefit from the aero wheels. For Hwy driving, you’d be a fool to leave them off.

Like not using range mode for the Hwy because it turns off the daytime running lights.

That said, pretty sure the fact that MT bested the EPA Hwy range with their Model 3 without the aero wheels means you need not concern yourself.

97 ft3 interior volume per EPA
17 ft3 cargo volume.

So Model 3 has a larger interior than a Model S (97 vs 94).

Getting a average 310 miles from a 80 kWh Model 3 is less than 4 miles per kWh. The Chevy Bolt EV gets 238 miles EPA miles from its 60 kWh battery, which is almost the exact 4 miles per kWh. Some Bolt EV and Ampera-e drives have pass 300 miles (480 km) from their vehicles, so for a lot less money anyone can get almost the same range. Now, if the base 60 kWh Model 3 is EPA rated, it will NOT have the same 300 mile range, and get less than 238 miles.

Tesla has great engineering but terrible marketing and executives.

Telsa made a trade of speed for efficiency. M3 base will be slightly faster than a Bolt (if they ever make it — not a single one exists yet). But it won’t be more efficient, despite the better Cd and copying the permanent magnet architecture.

The SR could easily be more efficient than the Bolt, so I think you’ll need to wait on official specs before coming to that conclusion. Also, the SR will be faster by almost a full second, if not more…which no one would consider “barely” when we’re discussing sub-6 second times.

What do you mean “copy the PM” architecture? PMMs have been common in electrified vehicles since long before GM even thought of making the EV1, much less the Bolt.

I cant wait for the proper numbers as well for the small battery pack which is the one I am waiting for.