EPA Releases Official Range Rating For Tesla Model 3 Performance

JUL 17 2018 BY ERIC LOVEDAY 13

The EPA has just revealed the official efficiency and range ratings for both the dual-motor and Performance versions of the Tesla Model 3.

As we alluded to the other day, the MPGe rating comes in at a combined 116 MPGe for the Performance version of the Model 3. The breakdown is as follows though:

  • 120 MPGe City
  • 112 MPGe Highway
  • 116 MPGe Combined

The rated range for this Performance version of the Model 3 is 310 miles. It consumes 29 kWh of energy per 100 miles, according to the EPA.

The other dual-motor version of the Model 3, the non-performance variant, was rated by the EPA too. It’s numbers are somehow listed as identical to the Performance variant, meaning it to gets a 310-mile range rating, as well as identical MPGe and energy consumption figures.

Of note is that the dual-motor Model 3 variants are indeed slightly less efficient than the single-motor, long-range Model 3, which consumes 26-kWh of juice per 100 miles.

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

13 Comments on "EPA Releases Official Range Rating For Tesla Model 3 Performance"

newest oldest most voted

Since the AWD versions take 29 kwh per 100 miles and the RWD version takes 26 kwh per 100 miles, that would mean the AWD versions are LESS efficient, not more efficient.

Weird how the 3 does not follow the S in this regard

I read somewhere that it has to do with the different type of motors. Maybe permanent magnet motors like that in the Model 3 are more efficient alone?

My hunch is that induction motor in S loses efficiency quicker (maybe another power) than permanent magnets in 3 with more power. The harder you push the squirrels living in Tesla S motors, the more they rebel. Conversely, the less you push them (lower power motors in front), they eat their electron nuts without pooping too much heat.

I had heard some speculation that this might be based on city driving and that hwy miles might be different, but I am not seeing any city/hwy distinction here, so now I’m wondering if this is combined mileage/kWh and that the AWD is slightly less efficient – surprising.

Why do you claim “that the dual-motor Model 3 variants are indeed slightly more efficient than the single-motor, long-range Model 3,” when the EPA ratings state that the RWD long range version is actually the most efficient model? Is this just a mistake or am I miss-reading something?

Typo. Fixed. Should be “less.” Good catch! Thank you.

Thanks for fixing it

No problem. That’s our job.

If the performance model 3 is ~10% less efficient, and has the same long range battery pack, shouldn’t its range be ~10% shorter? Giving it the same 310 mile range as the RWD LR 3 doesn’t make sense. What am I missing?

Marketing. They didn’t want the higher-priced AWD version to have an inferior official range than the cheaper RWD one; so they asked the EPA to lower the official figure for the RWD. This caused a lot of speculation at the time — now we know why they did it…

IEVs has previously reported that Tesla voluntarily lowered its official EPA range rating for the RWD LR TM3. Perhaps now we see why. Perhaps (probably) it was because Tesla didn’t want the official range ratings for the Dual motor TM3 to be lower than the range ratings for the single motor (RWD) version.

Seems strange that in the Model S, the dual induction EV motors give the Dual MS higher energy efficiency, but with the TM3, dual PM (Permanent Magnet) motors are less efficient, despite everyone saying that PM motors are more efficient than induction motors.

There has been a lot of disagreement over just why that is, among those with experience in electrical engineering,in comments to one or more previous IEVs articles on this exact subject. Since I make no claims myself for being an electrical engineer, I won’t offer an opinion as to the cause.

So if the model 3 uses 29 kWh to go 100 miles and it has a total range of 310 miles then this means it has roughly a 90 kWh battery am I right? I thought I read before it was 75 kWh battery.