Here’s The Estimated Range Of Tesla Model S, 3 & X At Highway Speeds


Teslike compiles range data from multiple sources into a single handy chart.

When in a familiar driving situation, an electric vehicle owner knows what to expect from his or her trusty plug-in. But range estimates become more complicated when you step out of your daily routine. Driving style, terrain, speed, and exterior temperature can all have an impact on the number of miles you can count on traveling.

Well Troy (of Teslike and TMC fame) has been maintaining a chart that assists Tesla owners with at least one of those factors. The list covers the Tesla Model S, Model X and Model 3. It provides driving ranges for each model at speeds of 55, 60, 65, 70, 75 and 80 mph. Troy also takes into consideration rim size, pack size, charging rate, and even battery degradation. So how far can your Tesla go at 80 mph?

Troy also lists a “corrected” highway range that slightly differs from the advertised EPA highway ranges. Adjustments were made to correct for voluntary reductions made by Tesla in testing. This practice is allowed by the EPA and automakers can take advantage of this wiggle room in different ways. According to Troy:

EPA rated range is not even the actual combined city and highway score because EPA allows car manufacturers to inflate or deflate the scores after the test is done. Deflating happens by voluntary reductions. Car manufacturers are allowed to voluntarily reduce the EPA rated range they want to advertise.

As with any vehicle, your mileage may vary. Still, this chart is a handy guide. We have actually posted a link to it previously in fact. However, since we and others have found the information so useful, we felt it deserved a separate post.

Source: Model 3 Owners Club

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

69 Comments on "Here’s The Estimated Range Of Tesla Model S, 3 & X At Highway Speeds"

newest oldest most voted

My S 75D fall right in line with that chart.

Both my TM3s get mileage within the chart range.

Yep, they seem to line up quite well with owner experiences.

Another Euro point of view

The 85 mph column is missing, 85 mph is practically widely used where highway speed limit is 130 km/h and that is many countries in Europe (France, Netherlands, Germany (if not unlimited), Austria, Denmark, Poland etc.). Fuel cell cars would make better (fast) highways cars probably.

I agree, not so sure about the high speed Fuel cell cars though. They use those small batteries to run the motors, maybe we will see ‘super’capacitors in Fuel cell cars soon to gain acceleration. But the top speed I am not so sure.

Another Euro point of view

Having just checked the net I see an interesting correlation between popularity of EVs, highways network and speed limits. In Norway with a huge EV market penetration is also one of the European countries sitting at the very bottom in terms of highway infrastructure with only 143 km of highways in total (understandably, low population density and very mountainous). Also speed limit is 110 km/h and strictly enforced. We all know the huge tax incentives the Norwegians have to buy an EV or rather to not buy a ICE but it is nevertheless interesting to note that, as opposed to Norway, in Germany for example with a huge highway network and high or absent speed limits, the EV market share climb is a lot flatter.

Technically true re Norway infrastructure, but Norway is spending a fortune on roads, notably a new coastal road that will reduce or eliminate the need for ferries to cross fjords. Hugely ambitious bridge and tunnel projects, very expensive. But with a trillion dollar trust fund, who is counting.

While Norway is a large oil exporter they tax gasoline and diesel to the point that they have the highest prices in Europe. This is the kind of societal decision the limit consumption that is totally foreign (literally and figuratively) to us in the US. They also have plentiful hydro power. I don’t know how they price electricity but presumably the savings vis a vis gasoline are great. Other than the climate (long, cold winters) they are the perfect storm for EV adoption.

In Norway EVs are in most cases cheaper than ICE cars. That’s the main reason for why EVs are big there.

Mirai does sustained 180+ km/h on Authoban just fine, even in rain*.
As refueling is under 5 minutes anyway, reduced range isn’t a big issue.

*It is a bit crazy to do such speed in rain, but whatever.

5 minutes except if someone had just fueled up before you within the last hour and if there happens to be a station right there where you need it, along your route.

And if somebody just fueled up before, it is still under 5 minutes. If some 10 cars have just fueled in back to back line, it may increase to 7 minutes or so, depending on station type.

Or, depending on station type, you may have a wait of 30 minutes to an hour… or you may be limited to only getting half a tank… or simply see a sign that says “OUT OF FUEL — TRY BACK TOMORROW”.

Possibly, but fuel cell tech just isn’t economically sustainable compared to electric. If I recall correctly, I believe one could build 6 or more high-speed chargers for the cost of one hydrogen fueling station. Plus electricity is generated nearly everywhere and can be hooked up to chargers wherever they are, whereas hydrogen needs to be generated, stored, and transported in specialized containers.

“I believe one could build 6 or more high-speed chargers for the cost of one hydrogen fueling station.”

But if the H2 station charges 6x faster, the economics are the same.

Only for the first car and then there is a 1 hour recompression stage to bring the hydrogen back up to pressure.

No, it just urban legend having its origin last decade experimental stations, still alive in Teslarian blogosphere.
Current light car stations can refuel for example at 100 kg per 3 hours rate. Assuming back to back line it would be 7 minutes per 4 kg fill. In practice it is under 4 minutes, as you rarely have such lines.

Cool, enjoy long range road trips in you hydrogen car. I’ll keep my Tesla. We both win.

He will enjoy it if the fuel is prepaid and included otherwise he will ditch it for the ice he probably drives anyway.

They aren’t equivalent because you don’t need to build the same number of expensive H2 stations.
For FCEVS you need, essentially, same number of stations as for ICE, maybe 2x since range is about half that of an ICe. Cost of duplicating existing ICE filling network has been estimated in the trillion dollar range.
With EVs you only neeed a small fraction of high cost that since so many “stations” are home, work and destination low cost 3 – 7 kWh chargers which are 1-2% the cost of a rapid chargers.
As a specific example, my next EV will likely have a near 300 mile EV range. I might charge away from home perhaps once every few months. If it wasa FCEV it would be once a week, 20-50x more.

In the long run the Hydrogen stations will be cheaper than electricity.

Going from Wisconsin to Idaho, most of the speed limits are 80 mph and I went 90 most of the way. P85+ with 21’s isn’t on the chart, anyway. I was getting about 1.5 miles for each percent of battery, so about 150 miles of range, but I also had about 1200 lbs in the car and the roads were anything but flat. The one stretch I had a crazy headwind, and mostly uphill, so my range wasn’t much over 100, but even still, the trip went great.

Definitely not the right tool for the job.

Or in Texas where most highways have a 75 mph speed limit and some have an 85 mph limit.

Do you have evidence for that? Also, there is no H2 infrastructure in most countries. Can’t even buy any of those fuel cell cars in Switzerland. So we have reality and we have the hypothetical… Also, if you want to go down that route, the Roadster 2 has 620 miles range, more than any fuel cell car.

Definitely much more useful than EPA. Wish we could have something similar for leaf

Some takeaways: aero wheel covers add 5% range, Model 3 is the longest-range Tesla, and a new standard-range Model 3 will go farther on a charge than most used Model S cars.

Yep, those are my conclusions, as well – and my future purchasing decisions!

This chart is why I want the Model 3 Long Range RWD with Aero wheels… Makes it the best long distance Tesla, even above the 100 kWh models. Faster charging too since it is more efficient (more miles per minute charge).

I wonder how much of the range benefit of 18″ aero is due to dia and how much is due to the aero wheel covers??

I think the 18″ has a lower rolling resistance tire. The diameter doesn’t matter too much, although larger diameter usually leads to more weight (it doesn’t have to, i3 has 20″ light weight wheels as they are very narrow).

Some people have checked the aero covers and come up with around 4 or 5% I think, but probably a lot of noise in those measurements, so hard to know for sure. My hunch is the tire does more than the covers, but the two combined are good for about 10% range boost.

My hunch is the larger tires/wheels will handle better though, so always trade offs.

Thank you for blaming tires. One inch of wheel diameter is not buying 20-25 miles of range, like the chart suggests it does between 18 and 19 inch non-aero M3 wheels.

hmm…maybe I will throw the Aeros back on. I have the LR RWD….range is king!

Very useful, but I will bear in mind that cold/bad weather will reduce these ranges. Even so, Model 3 is SUCH a no-brainer, it’s not true.

Exactly why I want the Model 3 Long Range RWD instead of the Standard. The Standard would barely cut it for me in perfect weather, but in 10 F with the heater running the car is going to both charge fewer miles range per minute and get less range.

Same here about the range in cold weather. If you figure 40% of range is lost when temps get really cold, then to get 150 miles of range at fast highway speeds in below zero (Farenheit) weather, the long range Model 3 would be the only option.

Does a Tesla really lose 40% range in cold weather? I thought only cars with no active TMS are that bad…

every car is that Bad if you drive less than an hour. inital heating consumes a lot. if you keep on driving afterwards its only around 10% less range.

since all other evs run out of range rather quick you never experieced the range staying nearly the same in cool after first 100 miles driven.

Electric cabin heat draws up to 8 kW, you do the math. Driving 75 mph might take 20 kW. A heat pump might only be 3 kW, but is for warmer temps (around 0C/32F). On top of this, colder battery is less efficient. Li-ion is most efficient at high temps. Battery heater can help of course, but it takes energy to heat the battery.

It depends on how much energy is used to heat the cabin. I can see that with a slow drive on a very cold day/night, with the cabin heater cranked up, you might lose as much as 40% of range. But that would be an outlier case. Typically a BEV loses a maximum of 20-30% range in bitterly cold weather.

Disagree. It’s not even close to “40%” for Tesla, or any other 200+ mile range car. Winter was a bigger issue for some 100 mile EVs because warming a cars battery and cabin took a fixed amount of KWh.

Tesla’s 250-300 mile cars use about 40 miles of range, over the first 20 miles, when about 15F.

Point is not to expect same percentage loss, as you climb into bigger battery’d cars. It is mostly fixed, per warm up, with little charge to maintain cabin temps on long trips.

This is why my performance model 3 doesn’t have the performance upgrade package. I’ve ordered forged 19’s for daily use, but if I need to travel longer distances between charging for a trip, I can still throw the 18’s w/aero’s on and get 309mi range.

Good to know that Tesla is within specs.
But the reality is that with speed the penalty in range becomes big.
At 80 miles/hour (a common highway speed in Europe, probably cruising speed in Europe is closer to 90 than 80), 200 miles take 2.5 hours of driving… After that drivers are “forced” to stop for 30 minutes or more.

In real life (except Germany) it is almost impossible to get the 80, much less the 90mph as average when on highways.
There are always zones with speed limits (because of construction work, noise limits, air quality issues), so no way to do the 145kph the 90mph would be.

Or just random traffic congestion, like on holiday weekends.

Yes, but there are still plenty of looong boring stretches of rural highways where most drive above legal 130 km/h, more or less, even if it is risky. If you will drive slower on on these stretches, it doesn’t mean that you will be able to drive faster on congested streets next time.

A trip of that average speed is not easy for shorter distances – taking the car out of the garage, some city driving, … just ruins the average speed.
But you can be certain that in Europe (where I live and drived in at least 10 different countries) sustained cruising speeds of 80 to 90 are perfectly possible and even quite normal. Even if it’s above the legal limits, it’s more or less general accepted that nobody will get a ticket within 10% or so of the limit.
I recently did a 400 miles trip and the average speed – from home to destination was approx 80 miles/hour (128km/h to be exact). And in the same day other thousands did the same or faster – I was overtaken more, than I overtook – I’m a calm diver.

In Switzerland it’s 120 km/h, go faster and you’ll get fined instantly. In France it’s 130 km/h and most people drive at that speed or lower. I wouldn’t drive faster than 130 km/h, not worth it with all the radars.

it doesn’t matter unless you comparing to ICE or other EVs, with Teslas upto ~160km/h you are overall faster driving faster (unless you get in crowded supercharger then math can be different

Countries, and therefore distances EU are much smaller….so that shouldn’t be a problem.

sure, since when has the average BEV 800 km / 500 miles range so you need only to stop once during your trip?

Since when has the average trip in a BEV been 500 miles or more?

By far the overwhelming majority of trips can be accomplished within a BEV’s normal range. In fact, a survey a couple of years ago showed that 55% of plug-in EV drivers had never — not once — used a public charger.

Exactly. In my 120 mile range EV I’ve charged on public networks about once a month (and some Of those times just because I was stopped enroute anyway rather than I stopped to charge)
. In my next car with double that range it may be once or twice a year at most and likely never and certainly never because I have to stop,to charge

Disapointing to see the LR3D having shorter range than the LR.

I thought that AWD got better efficiency.

Might consider ditching the AWD.

In the Model S it helps only due to gear ratio of the front motor, but Model 3 has a more efficient rear motor than front motor so it makes sense for RWD to be more efficient. It is still less than 10% difference if you stick with the 18″ tires. The sports tires hurt the range a lot (over 10%), but that is expected for performance tires.

S gets equal or better range in AWD. 3 gets less in AWD. It has to do with the kind of motors (induction vs PM) used.

Yes, the front motor in the 3D is an induction motor (the kind used for all Ses and Xes). The rear motor for all 3s is a reluctance motor – very efficient, but has significant inherent instabilities. That’s why nobody uses them, until now, apparently.

The only permanent magnets are those placed at specific locations around/in the stator in order to correct those instabilities. It looks like Tesla might have cracked that egg.

I understand that efficiency vary with different kind of motor/control, but why shed efficiency with the model 3?
Tesla would have been wise and welcome to put a front motor as efficient in the front with optimal ratio and adjust the price with it.
How much more would it cost?
Or just offer it as an option, so people that care about efficiency could choose it.

Because dual motor is mostly there to increase performance.

They’d need three motor variants if they wanted to offer both dual motors efficiency and dual motors performance options.

The problem is not with electric efficiency of the front motor (it’s not used all that much in most situations anyway); the problem is extra weight, as well as mechanical losses that occur regardless of the motor type.

In fact some suggested that Tesla might have stuck with an induction motor in the front because it has *less* losses when coasting.

I think the industry is converging on combined permanent magnet & reluctance motors as optimal for electric vehicles. They have various different names and somewhat different geometries but the general idea is the same: generate torque both through permanent magnet forces (forces on a current from an external field) and reluctance (torque from minimizing energy of a field with a non-permanent magnetizable material). BMW calls their i3 motor “hybrid synchronous machine”, but it’s the same idea. (Btw I learned that ‘machine’ in this is a specific engineering term meaning two-way operation, both motor & generator).

The main reason reluctance torque heavy motors weren’t used much in the past was problems with vibration and fluctuating torques, but these can be solved with modern control electronics that produce the precisely optimal current waveform for the load and geometry.

Your standard 3-phase AC induction motor (1890’s?) was a great thing because it works with standard 3-phase sinusoidal currents.

I think the reluctance/permanent magnet motors are more efficient in low load (relative to max output) situations which is important for cars.

I’d be interested to see the motor’s efficiency at various speeds.

Besides, it doesn’t make sense.
If the back motor is more efficient, then at highway speed it should do all the work with the front one free wheeling and the efficiency would be a lot closer to the 2WD.
7% lost range, or efficiency is a lot, and to negate most of the point of having AWD, especially that the model S was proving that to be more efficient.

I’m puzzled.

bmw used it for ages in the i3 already.

There was some speculation at one point that Model 3 is using a novel design with permanent magnets in the stator — but that turned out *not* to be the case. It uses permanent magnets in the rotor, just like about every other modern EV. They might be using a somewhat higher amount of reluctance torque than average, but it’s the same principle.

270 miles for the Long Range Model 3 with aero caps at 80 MPH seems high to me. I think when I was going 79 MPH I was losing range at a rate that correlated to 250 miles. Maybe it was the AC dragging down the estimate.

The highway speed range is what convinced me to replace my trusty 2014 Volt with a model 3 LR RWD with aero wheels. It will get me everywhere I need and want to go at local speed limits or higher (65 – 80 here on Texas highways)

Can they do one for i3 Rex 94ah at 75mph-80mph

My Camry SE has a range of only 450 miles on the highway at 70 mph. To think I paid $24,000 for something that inconvenient… It really sucks having to pull into a gas station after 400 miles or so and waste 5 minutes of my time refueling it. Perhaps I should trade it in for a Camry LE hybrid, which goes over 600 miles on a full tank. An experienced buyer can pick one up for less than $27,000.

Seriously, I would think most EV buyers would be happy with a range of over 200 miles on the highway after an 80% recharge. I’d be happy with that limited a range in an EV with a solid-state battery pack. To me, it’s more a matter of locating a charging station near any given highway, time spent waiting for a plug, and time spent recharging. When solid-state finally arrives and EV prices are what I consider to be reasonable, I’ll buy an EV, but only if I can go on long trips with only minor inconveniences along the way.