Long-Range Tesla Model 3 Likely Has Range Of 334 Miles, But Window Sticker Says Less

5 months ago by Steven Loveday 122

Tesla Model 3

Tesla Model 3 Deep Blue Metallic

Apparently, Tesla is under-reporting its range despite EPA calculations, however, this wouldn’t be the first time.

Since the Tesla Model 3 was officially put into production and revealed, the automaker has stood behind a 220-mile range for the base model and 310 miles for the Long Range variant (which is the model the company is currently manufacturing). The automaker has yet to officially release battery information/size or efficiency.

Tesla Model S 100D

The EPA says that Tesla Model S 100D gets 341 miles but the automaker under-reports it at 335 (Image Credit: flickr via Arto Katajamaa)

Not long ago, we reported about an EPA certification summary document that surfaced, which seemed difficult for most to decipher at first. However, a closer look at it revealed likely battery sizes (55 kWh and ~80 kWh), as well 126 MPGe. Now, Teslarati has dug deeper into the document and it looks as though the Long Range Tesla Model 3 gets an EPA-estimated combined 334 miles of range. A previous look at Tesla’s official window sticker for the car says 310 miles and that is not likely to change.

So, what’s the deal here?

In the past, the EPA rated the Model S 100D at 341 miles but Tesla under-reported at 335 miles. Keep in mind that the EPA allows for this sort of adjustment by the automaker. With the Model 3, it’s a bit more drastic, however.

Teslarati explains how the EPA goes about coming up with a final figure. The agency goes through a 5-cycle process and once the range is determined, it’s multiplied by 0.7 as part of the EPA’s weighted system, which accounts for real-world situations. In a combined rating, 55 percent accounts for city range and 45 percent for highway. The full document can be found here.

The test for the Model 3 comes out to 495.04 actual city miles and 454.62 for the highway. Using the 0.7 factor gets us to ~347 and ~318, respectively, hence a combined rating of ~334 miles!

Is this because the Long-Range Model 3 would basically tie with the Model S 100D? Does Tesla really want to keep more people from reserving a Model 3? Is the automaker just making a habit of playing it safe so as to not mislead people? Who knows.

What does this mean for the base Model 3?

Discussions in some forums are tagging the base Model 3 at 239 miles, which would be right around Chevrolet Bolt territory. We’ve been unable to verify that information.

What do you think?

Source: Teslarati


122 responses to "Long-Range Tesla Model 3 Likely Has Range Of 334 Miles, But Window Sticker Says Less"

  1. Four Electrics says:

    I suspect it’s because Tesla, and their customers, care only about highway mileage. Thus, Tesla reports the highway number, adjusted down a bit for temperature and climate.

    1. Mark.ca says:

      Beacuse Tesla owners as soon as they exit te freeway they park their cars and take the bicycles. How the hell did you come up with that?

      1. Doggydogworld says:

        Tesla owners drive in the city, Mark, they just don’t drive 350 city miles in a single day. Thus city range is irrelevant.

    2. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      Dunno know about you but most people’s typical highway drive/commute is stop and go here in CA.

      More often stop for 5 minutes then move 20feet, repeat for 40 minutes……

      1. AlsoTrolling says:

        See and that’s why the people would be on the bike. If it takes you 40 minutes to go 160 ft and you are still on the freeway, why not go on the bike.

        1. Mark.ca says:

          Because the other drivers really don’t pay much attention or don’t see you as well? Personally, i think it’s one of the most unsafe way of travel.

          1. arne-nl says:

            It is of course the car that fast and heavy and large and is the source of the danger on the street, not the bicycle. So the car is the more dangerous forms of transport.

            But I know that this kind of reverse logic is commonplace almost everywhere.

            Everything is a matter of perspective.

        2. scott franco says:

          Move out of LA. End of problem.

          1. Mark.ca says:

            …to New York…i hear it’s much better.

      2. Mint says:

        As pointed out above, few people ever do this kind of highway driving for 300 miles a day.

        The whole point of getting a long range Tesla is to get out of the city, and maybe go from one supercharger to another. That’ll typically be done at ~70mph.

        1. scott franco says:

          Agreed. When I go to LA, it at 70. Even then I am getting passed.

        2. Bacardi says:

          One of the heavily traveled roads is the 15, SoCal to Vegas, 300 miles from L.A. and you can experience both 100f temps by day and freezing temps all in the same drive…

          Then there’s the round trip…Visit grandma over 150ish miles and you’ll need to charge yet she may not have anything other than a regular outlet available…Hopefully there’s a charging station on the way…

          1. philip d says:

            This is a great interactive map.


            Set the range to something like 120 miles and go up to the upper left corner and turn on “all range circles” under “Map Options”.

            Unless Grandma lives in the middle of ND or a tiny spot in the middle of AR you won’t have a problem

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Four Electrics said:

      “…Tesla, and their customers, care only about highway mileage.”

      I find myself in rare agreement with Four Electrics. Of course that’s a glittering generality, but that will be true the overwhelming majority of the time. As Doggydogworld said, nobody drives 350 city miles in a single day. City range will be irrelevant for most drivers, assuming they charge up every night (or every day at work), as they should.

      Where a driver pushes a 200+ mile EV’s range is on long drives, and that means highway miles. It makes perfect sense to me that Tesla has optimized its BEVs for highway travel.

      It does not make any sense to me that GM and LG Electronics have optimized the Bolt EV for city travel. Even without the Supercharger network, the only time most Bolt EV drivers are ever going to worry about running out of range — assuming they charged to 80% the night before — is when they’re driving long distances on the highway. Unless GM has aimed at drivers who frequently forget to charge their car at night, or don’t have dependable daily/nightly access to charging, then the optimization of the Bolt EV for city travel makes no sense. At least not to me.

      1. Nix says:

        “It does not make any sense to me that GM and LG Electronics have optimized the Bolt EV for city travel. ”

        cab service?

  2. DJ says:

    Wow, I am shocked that people are suggesting the base 3 has 1 more mile of range than the Bolt. Who woulda thunk!

    Personally I think it is a smart choice to under rate it a bit. Not much but with so many manufacturers coming under fire for their cars that don’t get near the rated mpg it makes sense. The 310 vs 334 is quite the difference but maybe they feel it more accurately represents real world driving. Well either that or they realize that most people will remove the aero covers on the wheels 🙂

    1. Mark.ca says:

      Yeah, i hear that if you remove the oil change date sticker on the windshield the range drops another 10 miles.

    2. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      “Wow, I am shocked that people are suggesting the base 3 has 1 more mile of range than the Bolt. Who woulda thunk! ”


      I thought the same thing.

      I’ll keep the aero covers on so I can blast my ghetto boom system.

    3. pjwood1 says:

      Tesla doesn’t under-rate, if you consider GM nets more cold climate range into its EPA numbers. I think anybody having owned a Volt and a Tesla would agree.

      The old Volt got an easy 45-50 miles, and was rated at 37. Tesla’s rated range allows almost nothing for heat/AC. Because the cabin is similar to Model S, I also won’t be surprised if cold weather consumes more rated miles. Not because it uses more energy, but because that energy would otherwise have driven the Model 3 further.

      1. Nix says:

        I’m not sure the original Volt is a good comparison. It would run the ICE engine (ERDTT). You are (possibly unwittingly) advocating burning gas in the most inefficient way possible to provide heat. Even if you conclude that burning fuel to provide heat is the best solution, something like a Wabasto cabin heater that burns fuel would be much more efficient than running an ICE engine to heat engine coolant.

        “Volt owners may notice that during a cabin conditioning (remote start) event in cold ambient temperatures, the internal combustion engine (ICE) runs even with the vehicle plugged into a charger. Owners may also note that while driving in cold ambient temperature the ICE will run for extended periods or cycle on and off. A message will display on the instrument cluster that states ENGINE RUNNING DUE TO TEMPERATURE. This may occur even when the battery is fully charged.”


        The Volt still uses ERDTT in the latest generation: http://insideevs.com/op-ed-2016-chevrolet-volt-falls-short/

        1. pjwood1 says:

          ERDLowT can be set for 15F degrees, an increasingly rare occurrence for those of us watching the mercury. So, I wasn’t netting engine use in the numbers given.

          From day 1, Tesla owners have had to adjust the range number they see, to the lower miles they will actually get. Again, exceedingly rare to witness more real miles, than rated. This is why we had “Broder”. Remember that? Tesla range is closer to a state of charge meter. Budget 20 miles to heat the cabin, plus 20 miles to drive 20 miles, and that’s about the range a Tesla eats in cold climates. The Volt, too, goes beneath 37, but only by an amount that seems symmetric to how much above 37 it yields the rest of the time.

        2. pjwood1 says:

          From your link: “However, the mode results in burning infinitely more gas than one would otherwise burn for trips that do not exceed the all-electric range,”

          This gets a little too “Save the whales”. It’s like the argument the LEAF is better because its all-electric, even though the Volt has more electric miles, because the LEAF gets left in the garage.

          Nix, I think the “burn no gas” approach makes perfect the enemy of “the good”. ERDLT burns an immaterial amount of gas in the grand scheme of things. We could probably argue pick-ups on the same grounds. An EREV/PHEV truck, with 60KWh, will save many more tons more CO2 than will Tesla’s all-electric. The key is whether it is actually burning less gas than the substitute it is measured by. You might see differently.

  3. Ambulator says:

    Tesla has generally had city and highway ranges about the same. With the Model 3, the city range is much larger, but their customers actually care more about the highway range. Perhaps this is just to avoid disappointed customers.

    1. Counterpoint says:

      I’d tend to agree. If you remember the Consumer Reports test where the Chevy Bolt had a longer range than the P75D Model S, Tesla got embarrassed that their car fell short of the advertised range. By advertising a lower range, they can ensure that kind of thing doesn’t happen.

      1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

        I’d be more interested in them doing the same test with the M3.
        Comparing a biga$$ boat to a compact car means nothing to me.

        1. Mark.ca says:

          M3 is a pretty big boat too…

        2. Viking79 says:

          The M3 gets about 17 mpg city and 26 on the highway. If you are referring to the Tesla Model 3 instead of the trademarked M3 by BMW, that is a different matter 😉

          1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

            I should’ve put TM3……lol

      2. Tech01x says:

        Consumer Reports turned down the regenerative braking in the Model S for that test, basically invalidating it. The Bolt still had significant regenerative braking through the brake pedal. They never released the amount of actual highway driving or the overall driving profile.

      3. Nix says:

        I remember that test. That was the test where Consumer Reports proved that Tesla’s regeneration and range mode actually works! Shocking results!

        Because instead of actually showing what the Tesla was capable of when used like normal by any normal owner, they INTENTIONALLY tied two hands behind the back of the Tesla to intentionally cripple it for the test.

        Here is what they did for the test:

        “We make sure the car is in its version of normal drive mode, not extended range mode, because our goal is not to see what’s the maximum range an EV can get when pushed to its limits, but rather to see the total number of miles a driver should expect under normal circumstances.

        We put our EVs into their less-aggressive regenerative braking mode; regenerative brakes help EVs recapture some of the energy lost in braking. Many EVs have a mode with aggressive regenerative braking that’s meant to capture more of that energy, but it can be an intrusive experience, making the brakes seem grabby, especially for drivers who are new to EVs.”


        Consumer Report could have actually provided some useful information if they would have also rerun the same test in range mode with regen turned on, like the vast majority of actual owners would actually drive their cars on a road trip. But instead they instead decided to test with settings that don’t actually reflect how Tesla owners actually use their cars for road trips.

        The whole thing was a massive black eye for Consumer Reports. It is like they tested 2 ICE cars with 6-speed manual transmissions, and then never shifted from 5th to 6th gear (leaving it in 5th gear) and then said some drivers might not shift into 6th gear because they were used to driving 5-speed transmissions as the excuse.

        Actually 6-speed owners use 6th gear, and actual Tesla owners use regen and range mode for long trips where range is at issue. Test was invalid by design.

        1. Will says:

          Agree, CR invalidated their own test when they took out Regen and not conducted a real driving experience

        2. BenG says:

          Yep, I generally have lot of respect for Consumer Reports, but that ‘range test’ was embarrassingly bad methodology.

        3. pjwood1 says:

          Also agree. Pooh on CR for this one. Regen can be radically different, on different cars. In no mode would I call it aggressive on a Tesla.

      4. Robert J Beckman says:

        Did you read the details of the CR test? They arbitrarily set the MS regen at its lower level, thereby ensuring that the Tesla would not achieve its rated range, and then hid the fact in the small print.

      5. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “If you remember the Consumer Reports test where the Chevy Bolt had a longer range than the P75D Model S, Tesla got embarrassed that their car fell short of the advertised range.”

        My guess is that you have it exactly right. Tesla can’t be happy that Consumer Reports consistently rates its cars as having a lower highway mileage than the EPA rating. Of course CR is is shockingly unfair to Tesla by charging to only 80-90%, not the 100% charge that any experienced BEV driver would use when trying to max out a Tesla car’s highway range, and CR does not at all make that clear. In fact, CR buries that info far down in long articles, so it gets lost in the summaries or truncated versions of those articles that you can read online.

        But sadly, facts often matter far less than assertions in influencing public perception.

        And to be fair, as Pjwood1 pointed out, the EPA range ratings don’t allow for use of the car’s heater or air conditioner. So under-reporting highway range actually makes sense for a BEV maker.

        And no, Tesla is not known for under-reporting range figures. (There were some cases where Tesla upgraded a MS/MX battery pack but didn’t submit increased range figures to the EPA, but those were cases where the difference was minimal.) What this article is suggesting is that Tesla may be starting to do that with the Model 3.

        What irks me is that everybody keeps using only one or two (city vs highway) figures for range. What we really need, and what EV makers and the EPA should provide, is a chart of average range at different speeds. Any car, whether it’s a gasmobile or a PHEV or a BEV, will get better mileage at 35 MPH than at 75 MPH. I’d like to see the standard be reporting ranges at 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 MPH… and maybe even 85 MPH, because there are a lot of speed demons out there!

        As I recall, the average speed of EPA tests is about 55 MPH. If the EPA’s range rating is for highway driving at 55 MPH, and most people are driving 70-80 MPH on the highway, then it’s no wonder that drivers tend to be disappointed with the range of BEVs, even when not using the heater or A/C. That’s another reason why we need that chart with estimated range at multiple speeds.

  4. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

    “multiplied by 0.7 as part of the EPA’s weighted system, which accounts for real-world situations.”

    If they didn’t test cold weather and hot then it’s really not ‘real-world’ is it?

    Maybe that’s a contributing factor to the under advertise range?

    1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      BEVs are not tested for cold or hot performance. They have special exception. Really 😐

      Only 2 cycles are used, urban and highway. The rest is calculated. Actually most gas car testing use 2 cycles only too, other 3 are calculated.

      And I think these Teslarati assumptions are pure fanboy BS.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        zzzzzzzzzzz posted FUD:

        “BEVs are not tested for cold or hot performance. They have special exception. Really 😐 ”

        No, not really. Gasmobile MPG is lower in very cold weather, too. The EPA doesn’t report that, either. Nor does the EPA measure a gasmobile’s MPG with the A/C running in hot weather.

        “And I think these Teslarati assumptions are pure fanboy BS.”

        There’s certainly some B.S. here… and it’s coming from you, Mr. Tesla Hater.

  5. eltosho says:

    – they don’t want to out-range the MS 100D
    – they don’t want another 500 000 reservations
    – they want to stick it as hard as possible to the competition (when the range get’s out eventually) 🙂

    1. eltosho says:

      *gets out eventually

    2. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      ……or they want to have a buffer to do an OTA to open up 5miles next year then 5 more miles 2 years after?

    3. Nix says:

      — EPA ratings don’t include any WOT runs where you floor it. Tesla expects their customers to floor it and get lower real world results. And they don’t want people to complain when their own driving habits make it so a car that is capable of longer range, doesn’t actually get that rated range when floored regularly.

      1. David Cary says:

        Just for fun – WOT of course doesn’t really apply to an EV.

        I push the accelerator to the floor all the time and get better than rated range on my S. It is worth reminding that full acceleration on an EV is only mildly inefficient. Driving hard and using the brakes is far worse.

        1. Nix says:

          Yea, WOT is definitely a gas car thing. And it isn’t even valid for most gas cars either, since they technically don’t have a carburetor throttle anymore either (which is originally where the term “wide open throttle” came from).

          Heck, half the time they don’t even have a brake pedal, when that pedal is actually working as a regen pedal and not engaging any part of the braking system.

          But yes, you are correct. Once you start driving hard and actually engaging the actual brakes and wasting energy into excessive regen you are hurting range much worse than just punching it hard and then gliding. Both are worse than using a modulated throttle like in the EPA test dyno runs.

          1. unlucky says:

            Yes, gas cars still have throttles. Diesels don’t. Gas cars still do. It’s not connected to the pedal by a cable anymore, it’s on a servo motor (throttle-by-wire), but it is there.

            1. Nix says:

              The “throttle” in a modern multi-port fuel injected car does not operate the same as the original throttle in a carburetor that the term “Wide Open Throttle” came from.

              On a carb, pushing the pedal to the floor literally opened the throttle to the “Wide Open” position. Thus the term “Wide Open Throttle” having the meaning it was known for.

              But in a multi-port fuel injected system, while it does still have a throttle, the throttle WILL NOT always open to the “Wide Open” position under full acceleration. Especially at low rpm. Instead it will open according to the computer’s fuel mixture targets for emissions purposes. So WOT is not always WOT in a multi-port fuel injected car. The throttle won’t be wide open at all times in a WOT run.

  6. kent beuchert says:

    I would think those who were pressured into leaving the Model 3 waiting list and talked into buying a Model S (pointing to its longer driving range) would have a pretty good case of deception or fraud. It’s obvious that govt regs are required to force automakers to fully disclose what the specs of their battery actually are. This is getting pretty ridiculous.

    1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      “I would think those who were pressured into leaving the Model 3 waiting list and talked into buying a Model S (pointing to its longer driving range) would have a pretty good case of deception or fraud.”

      In the stealership world, that’s called ‘bait & switch’ and happens all the time.

      1. Nix says:

        No. It is not bait and switch. By definition there is no “bait”, because nobody except employees can actually purchase a Model 3, and Tesla has been more than clear about that.

        You can’t have a “bait and switch” when the supposed “bait” is clearly not available for sale, and the car maker is absolutely clear that you can’t buy one. Bait would be if somebody called their local Tesla store asking about the Model 3, and somebody said something like “yea, I think we have one of those getting detailed right now. Why don’t you come in and I’ll see if I can find the keys”. Then when you come in say he can’t find the keys to a car that doesn’t exist, and do a hard sell on the Model S.

        Saying you can’t buy a Model 3, but asking if you want to buy a Model S is absolutely not bait and switch.

        1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

          “Bait would be if somebody called their local Tesla store asking about the Model 3, and somebody said something like “yea, I think we have one of those getting detailed right now. Why don’t you come in and I’ll see if I can find the keys”. Then when you come in say he can’t find the keys to a car that doesn’t exist, and do a hard sell on the Model S. ”

          That’s the same old story we hear other people post here many many times about their stealership experience.


    2. Nix says:

      There are no such gov’t regulations, and Tesla is not alone. For example, BMW uses Ah to describe their batteries. For the Toyota RAV4 EV, folks in Colorado had a hard time getting used EV tax credits that were based upon battery size, because Toyota initially didn’t release the battery size.

      The gov’t regulations that actually do apply absolutely allow Tesla to voluntarily reduce their EPA numbers. In fact, they not only allow, they ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE car makers to do this:

      “As outlined in the provisions of 40 CFR 600.210-12(a), “Manufacturers may voluntarily lower fuel economy values and raise CO2 values if they determine that the label values from any method are not representative of the fuel economy or CO2 emissions for that model type.” We encourage manufacturers to use these provisions as necessary”

      But hey, why rely upon facts when you can emotionally lash out with a fact-free rant, right? Don’t let facts get in the way of your drama, eh?

      1. William says:

        Nix-nax “paddy whacks give your dog a bone”, dreaming of drama, won’t troll you home!

    3. Get Real says:

      Not as ridiculous as your serial anti-Tesla and anti-EV/Cleantech trolling far and wide across the internet under multiple usernames like Kent Beuchert, Arthur Burnside, etc:



      1. Mark.ca says:

        Very nice catch! He’s been at it for over 5 years now! WOW!!!

    4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      kent beuchert posted FUD:

      “I would think those who were pressured into leaving the Model 3 waiting list and talked into buying a Model S (pointing to its longer driving range) would have a pretty good case of deception or fraud.”

      😆 😆 😆

      I want to be a fly on the wall when some shyster tries to explain to a judge how underpromising and overdelivering on any product constitutes “deception or fraud”.

      Seriously, the judge’s reaction should be priceless.

      * * * * *

      Lotta new Tesla haters popping up on InsideEVes comments. The Tesla shorters really, really hate the fact that Tesla managed to get the Model 3 into production on time.

      Go Tesla!

  7. L'amata says:

    All I know is that I cannot wait to get one ! I love everything about this car Except the Battery upgrade price which I think should be Lowered ASAP , Or just before I buy mine.lol….How can they mention Bolt , when they talk Model 3 . For $2500 more than Model 3 it’s Less than Half the Car ,All GM has accomplished is to accumulate Compliance Points ,Car wise they accomplished very Little to Nothing!

    1. theflew says:

      I’m willing to put money on the table that you’ll never be able to buy a model 3 for less than you can buy a Bolt. Add the delivery charge and a color other than black you’re already at the Bolt’s price and that’s only if you’re paying sticker for the Bolt which you would be a fool to do.

      1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

        “only if you’re paying sticker for the Bolt which you would be a fool to do.”

        What price did you pay for the Bolt?
        If it’s not the sticker then what’s the purpose of that sticker/MSRP???

        Fake pricing????
        Disparate pricing from stealership to stealership?

        1. u_serious? says:

          Buyer A comes in and buys a car for $13k after the bull$h1t song and dance. Buyer B comes in and pays $15k after the same bs.

          And people are OK with that?

        2. MTN Ranger says:

          Have you ever purchased a new car before? MSRP is the starting point for negotiating a car. Right now, Bolt EVs are being listed at $2000-4000 less than MSRP within a few hour drive from me. That is even before negotiating.

          1. William says:

            $ 4K off of the Chevy Bolt MSRP, is a good starting point to get the “Bolt Rolling” off of the Chevy Stealership lot, so to speak.

        3. CCIE says:

          It’s a Suggestion. Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price.

          Aside from very early buyers who were over eager, no one should be paying anywhere near MSRP for a Bolt. And, stripped base M3 will never be available in quantity. So, actual out-the-door pricing for the Bolt will generally be less than the M3.

          The Bolt also easily exceeds the published EPA range and efficiency.

        4. Adam H. says:


          “If it’s not the sticker then what’s the purpose of that sticker/MSRP???”

          I looked at Ram 1500 a few weeks ago while our Caravan was being serviced.

          The salesman walked over, we chatted for less than 30 seconds and I asked the sticker. His response was ‘$52,000, but you can take $9,000 off of that.’

          Definitely suggested retail price. And apparently 20% off is the starting point for negotiations these days for trucks…

      2. Mark.ca says:

        There are at least 2 posters here that paid msrp on their Bolts…..theflew sais you are fools!

    2. Adam H. says:

      Good points, theflew.

      I’ll add that GM is far ahead of any other legacy automaker in terms of electric vehicles, save for Nissan. Even so, Nissan is well behind.

      Given GMs history of incremental battery improvements in the Volt, I’d expect the Bolt to lose weight and gain range and efficiency every two or three model years.

      1. William says:

        Nissan is “well behind”, is being kind! It’s more like between 18 to 24 months of catching up in the affordable 200 + mile range race.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          I’d say Nissan is 9 years behind, and counting, on its BEV tech.

          Tesla put an active cooling system into its Roadster in 2008. Nissan still hasn’t put one into its Leaf.

      2. EAL says:

        People who know cars know that GM is very good at what they do. They could make a solid claim for being among the best in the business in terms of engineering talent.

  8. unlucky says:

    I think if the base model could make 239 rating without having to force customers to take off the ugly wheel covers it would.

    It makes no sense to cut your car down below your competitor.

    People are getting all weird over this stuff. This isn’t the first car to be voluntarily lowered.

    There are many reasons to voluntarily lower the results from manufacturer testing. One is to avoid doing additional testing because the EPA doesn’t consider the first run to be sufficient for a rating. The EPA rating is supposed to cover all common configurations of the car. So if there is reason to believe that other configurations produce less efficiency then the manufacturer can offer lower the figure instead of testing other configurations. Options which affect aerodynamics or mass (especially wheels as they change spinning mass) are high on this list, but other things can too.

    Or if the test parameters (temperature, humidity, etc.) were not what are required for the EPA tests.

    For some reason people are looking far closer at Tesla than other makes and when they see something they think it’s special to Tesla because it’s novel to them.

    1. Nix says:

      I’m not sure why you keep thinking that Tesla does stuff to compete with the Bolt, when Tesla clearly talks about competing with BMW and Audi and similar ICE cars over and over instead.

      If you look at the Model 3 specs, they read like Tesla took BMW 3-Series and Audi A4 specs and just improved on everything by a few percentage points. It is so clear that this is their target competition that it takes willful blindness to deny that reality.

      1. unlucky says:

        Willful blindness is pretending that there isn’t an EV buyer. EV buyers compare EVs, they don’t just go by body style.

        That’s the whole reason the Model X even sells at all. It’s not anything of an SUV, it’s a big Prius V. But EV buyers want more utility and so they get that.

        It doesn’t make any sense to cut your numbers below your competitor. Even if you think under promise and over deliver works well, you can’t do that if you don’t deliver because customers bought something else due to your low advertised numbers.

        Willful blindness is trying to pretend that a car must be a luxury car because the company also makes a $100K car. There’s nothing luxury about a Model 3. Tesla can say it competes with a 3 series all they want but that’s just willful blindness. At least they have a monetary excuse to be deluded, they’re a business. It’s not clear why others are so wrapped up in this.

        1. Mark.ca says:

          Is there anything luxurious about the base BMW 3? I must have missed the memo…

        2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          “That’s the whole reason the Model X even sells at all. It’s not anything of an SUV, it’s a big Prius V. But EV buyers want more utility and so they get that.”

          Now that is totally unfair 😉
          I understand that for a true fanboy his car is always biggest in the world. But Prius V is much bigger by Model X as measured by EPA:

          Model X: 94/26 cu.f
          Prius V: 97/34 cu.f.
          Prius Eco: 91/27 cu.f.

          “Small version of Prius V” would be more appropriate.

        3. Nix says:

          Tesla had close to half a million Model 3 reservations by mid-2016. That doesn’t represent half a million conquest sales of current EV owners. Heck, we hadn’t even sold half a million EV’s in the US until the end of 2016.

          Those reservations represent a MASSIVE gas car conquest sales backlog! These reservations by far represent the largest single conversion of ICE car owners to EV ownership.

          I’m sorry you don’t understand this, or it’s significance. Or rather that you willfully choose to remain blind to it because it is Tesla doing it.

        4. pjwood1 says:

          You must be trying to make headway with the European customers, because this goes nowhere in the U.S.

          The Model 3 out-competes BMW’s 3-series where it really hurts. It’s smaller. Since the 2002, BMW has gotten fatter and fatter. It’s much quieter, which equates to luxury. It doesn’t stress out over the funky handling dynamics of a front engine. As much attention as its center screen will require, no question it will do more for the M3 customer.

          This ship has sailed.

        5. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “Tesla can say it competes with a 3 series all they want but that’s just willful blindness.”

          Hmmm, looks like the willful blindness here is your blindness to your own rather strong anti-Tesla bias.

          Early signs certainly point to the Tesla Model 3 competing very well with the BMW 3-Series, the Audi A4, and other gasmobiles… which is Tesla’s target. As Nix pointed out, the ~455,000 Tesla Model 3 reservations, at $1000 apiece, don’t point to the TM3 competing primarily with other PEVs; it points to the TM3 stealing sales mostly from gasmobiles.

          And that’s exactly what we EV advocates want… or at least, those of us who are not hopelessly biased against Tesla!

          So why is it you don’t get that, Unlucky? Hmmmm?

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “For some reason people are looking far closer at Tesla than other makes and when they see something they think it’s special to Tesla because it’s novel to them.”

      Yeah, and often FUDsters use that as part of their disinformation strategy of Tesla hater FUD. I used to see that all the time when I was reading Tesla related posts on Desperately Seeking Liars… er, Seeking Alpha. Somebody would highlight a perfectly normal business procedure, and try to spin it as if it was something strange and shady just because Tesla was doing it. “OMG! Tesla has what it calls ‘inventory’ cars which it makes without having a customer order it! Obviously Tesla is faking its sales numbers!”

      *Sigh* So much time and effort creating and posting Tesla-hater lies and half-truths. You’d think that people would have better, or at least less hateful and less destructive, things to do with their time.

  9. Nix says:

    Tesla reduced the official Model S 100D numbers too, but not by this much. But it shouldn’t be surprising that a lower performance, smaller, lighter car has better range than a car maker’s larger, heavier, higher performance car. That is pretty much the rule for ICE cars.


  10. Alaa says:

    I think the NEDC is more accurate.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Please tell us you’re joking.

      The inflated numbers from NEDC testing are a well-established. Fact, not opinion. European auto makers have learned to “game the system” quite well.

      For example: “UK 2016 Nissan LEAF Range Of 155 Miles Shows Ridiculousness Of NEDC”


  11. bro1999 says:

    Perhaps they underrated the 3 because many people wouldn’t be caught dead with the aero wheel covers on and will remove them. And as a Tesla exec has been quoted saying the aero covers can improve efficiency 10%, perhaps they de-rated the 3’s range to fall in line with what owners will get sans the fugly aero wheels.

    Which begs the question why even bother with the fugly aero wheels in the first place?

    1. Nix says:

      Yes, why would an EV company give customers the choice to maximize their range if customers want? Why would an EV company build a car with Cd scores way better than competitors in their class?

      These questions are a complete mystery!!


      This is one of those Rorschach things. What you see says more about you than Tesla.

      1. bro1999 says:

        OOoh, I totally forgot: the aero wheels are a good way to sway unknowingly customers to shell out extra $$$ and upgrade to the pricier 19″ wheels. That DOES make some “cents”.

        1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

          LMAO…… u funny guy.

        2. Nix says:

          Your Rorschach test results are in….

    2. unlucky says:

      Because Musk made tweet promises of a particular range earlier. With no covers it’s possible it doesn’t make that range.

    3. Mark.ca says:

      It’s not 10% fo the total range, you troll! Get your fact straight!

      1. Mark.ca says:

        Lol…i bet Bro thinks if he puts the aero wheels on his bolt it will get 30 extra miles of range…

      2. bro1999 says:

        Which is exactly what I said. “Can improve efficiency 10%”.

        Your TSLA blinders are impeding your 5th grade reading comprehension.

        1. Nix says:

          The point is that we don’t know whether the wheel cover improves the efficiency of the WHEEL by 10%, or of the entire CAR by 10%.

          If you have a source that specifies which, please post.

          1. Mark.ca says:

            Nix, i think it’s safe to assume that if there is improvement it’s at the wheel level…10% at car level is just nuts!

            1. Nix says:

              You are likely correct, but I hate to make an assumption without actual facts on record. I might go out on a limb and say it might be more likely than not that the number refers to the wheel. But I’m already automatically suspicious of the scientific validity of the 10% number in the first place.

              First, it is a suspiciously round number, and I’m automatically suspicious of the accuracy of nice round numbers like 10%. Second, it was reported second hand, and from an unnamed source.

              With those red flags, I’m not even willing to construct a “more-likely-than-not” argument. I’m more on the side of dismissing the number entirely until a properly sourced number can be documented.

              But I wouldn’t be surprised if the proper numbers eventually prove you to be correct.

              1. Mark.ca says:

                Hey, don’t get me wrong, i would love to be wrong on this one. I would buy these caps (or similar smaller size) and fit them on my eGolf for an extra 10% range…if it would only be this easy.

        2. Mark.ca says:

          No Bro, you responded to the article’s question of why the 24 mile difference by bringing up the aero wheels and the 10% reference.

  12. georgeS says:

    This makes total sense.
    Looking at a previous article on super charging speeds we saw that the 100D battery could charge to 50% in 30 minutes.

    Assuming the same C rate as the 100D the Model 3 should also charge to 50% in 30 minutes. …….but he numbers don’t make sense using 310 miles range since 50% of 310 is 155 not 170.

    50% of 334 is darn close to Tesla quoted 170 mile in 30 minutes claim on charging speed.

    So I totally believe this number.

    Now put AWD in it for another 15 miles range and you are almost to 350 miles range. Holy moly andy

    1. Nix says:

      +1 Nice math.

  13. ModernMarvelFan says:

    80kWh is a lot of battery in that “little car”..

    1. pjwood1 says:

      I suppose if we were fanboys, we’d have to point out that 80KWh also fits into a respectable ~3,800lb package.

      The current M3 weighs about 3,600lbs. Since the M3 is so close, why should “M3” be trademarked? If the alpha-numeric is to connote “Sports”, I’d think you’d want the lower roll-center and better weight placement of the Model 3. Maybe BMW should give up the rights? I bet I know which car will be more nimble, and can scoot.

  14. georgeS says:

    The Model 3 “D” version is the one I want. Probably 350 miles range and in the 4’s on 0-60.

    It’s either that or a used 90D

    BTW Tesla just announced they are eliminating the RWD version of the 85 next month. If you want one order now.–electrec

    1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      “The Model 3 “D” version is the one I want.”

      That’s the one i’m waiting for.
      That and I want to see what CA is going to do/offer for the HOV lane sticker after Dec 31, 2019.
      Hoping they create a new sticker for another 5 years.

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        “after Dec 31, 2019.”

        You are off by 1 year.

        It ends in 2018.

        1. u_serious? says:

          1 year is how long it will take CARB to get the process of the new sticker rolling through the red tape. I would bet the sticker image will change this time around.

          1. pjwood1 says:

            CARB is busy sorting out the Porsche Panamera e-hybrid’s numbers.

            Not much trust, there.

  15. Mark C says:

    I think on the base model, for Tesla to report 1 mile more range than a Chevrolet Bolt would create a publicity nightmare. Every Bolt enthusiast on the planet would point and scream BS, whether warranted or not.

    I don’t think Tesla will feel insecure if Bolt owners have bragging rights for a bit of time.

    1. Will says:

      I would take the TM3 at based, it’s affordable,electric, fast and stylish. How’s the lease deals and if the leanding company taking the full 7500?

  16. gary says:

    The article incorrectly states that Tesla uses the 5 cycle test, when in fact it uses the 2 cycle version. Only BMW, BYD and Nissan used the 5 cycle for the 2017 MY.
    Plus, Tesla “derates” the efficiency figures in a range of .734 to .755 depending on model (less than the standard 30% adjustment). A few models then have the range “voluntarily lowered”. Maybe back to the standard 30% deduction?

    The article also stated that the agency does the tests, when in fact it is the manufacturer that performs them (or subs it out). The EPA “spot checks” occasionally but does not test all vehicles.

    What’s this mean in relation to the range? Who knows. Only after a significant number of owners in different climates log a bunch of miles will we really know.

  17. Nix says:

    It is amazing how on an EV enthusiast site, that so many posters are trying so hard to find a way to somehow make a $45K car getting 334 miles in range into some kind of bad thing.

    Just 5 years ago, a comparably priced EV, like a BMW i3 or RAV4 EV got you 100 miles of range.

    Knocking around $10K off the price now gets you a Model 3 with well over 200 miles of range. 5 years ago a car with a similar price (adjusted for inflation) would have gotten around 75 miles of range.

    This is an amazing 3X advancement for EV’s. Period.

    1. justanotherguy50 says:

      It certainly is an advancement for EVs. The Bolt is an advancement too. The Leaf to a lesser extent is an advancement too. We need more players & more competition. Tesla isn’t the only one that deserves praise (and criticism).

      1. Nix says:

        True, but what is your point? The title of this story is “Long-Range Tesla Model 3 Likely Has Range Of 334 Miles, But Window Sticker Says Less”, and GM doesn’t have a 300+ mile range version of the Bolt.

    2. bro1999 says:

      “This is an amazing 3X advancement for EV’s. Period.”

      Are you channeling your inner Sean Spicer?

      “Knocking around $10K off the price now gets you a Model 3 with well over 200 miles of range. 5 years ago a car with a similar price (adjusted for inflation) would have gotten around 75 miles of range.”

      It also gives you a car that has more range than the base Model 3 in a more practical form factor that is readily available nationwide and not just to Tesla employees and Elon’s friends, the Bolt.

      1. Nix says:

        100 X 3 = 300

        75 X 3 = 225

        Tesla Model 3’s are 310 and 220 compared to similarly priced (after inflation) to approx 100 and 75 mile EV’s from half a decade ago.

        What part of 3x are you complaining about?

    3. Dan says:

      Unless you already have a reservation, really an early to middle one, you won’t be getting the full, or any, federal tax credit

  18. Carguy says:

    Maybe the 3 only has a 50 KW battery pack.

  19. Rhaman 68 says:

    Such a misleading term! There are dozens: with AC; aggressive driving; headwind; uphill/downhill; city traffic; LA traffic; hot wx; cold wx; cold wx with snow; with roof luggage carrier; must pass every one on Earth; without AC; granny style driving; shall I go on?

  20. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    “…likely battery sizes (55 kWh and ~80 kWh)…”

    Really? 55 kWh for the smaller battery pack would be no surprise to me; it was what I was predicting until the rumor of 60 kWh appeared, supposedly info from a vendor. But as I recall, Elon said the biggest battery they could possibly put in was 75 kWh, so if the larger one is 80 kWh, that is a surprise indeed! Can it be Tesla decided to use higher energy density cells for the larger pack?

    More likely it simply isn’t true.

    “Is this [possible under-reporting] because the Long-Range Model 3 would basically tie with the Model S 100D? Does Tesla really want to keep more people from reserving a Model 3?” …

    “What do you think?”

    What I think is that it makes absolutely no sense for Tesla to give the Long Range Model 3 a range equal to or better than the top trim level of the Model S. Tesla, as part of “anti-selling” the Model 3 to support Model S sales, has made it very clear that their intent was that the Model S remains better than the Model 3 in every important category (see infographic linked below).

    And since it doesn’t make sense that they would, I think they didn’t, despite all the speculation and musings in this article.

    1. Joe says:


      Tesla can’t sell very many 3s right now because they can’t make very many yet. Getting people all excited about purchasing a Model 3 when they have over 400,000 reservations to work through will do them no good. In fact it would be financially stupid. Tesla wants to maximize the choice of Model S and X from their prospective buyers until production for Model 3 can match demand.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “In fact it would be financially stupid.”

        Exactly. I can’t imagine any scenario where it makes sense for Tesla to do that. That doesn’t “prove” it’s impossible, but it seems to me it’s extremely unlikely.

  21. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    bro1999 posted more FUD:

    “That DOES make some ‘cents’.”

    It’s sad when FUDsters start believing their own lies. 🙄

  22. Murrysville EV says:

    “…the model the company is currently manufacturing”

    Where are these cars, and when will the gag order for buyers of this production vehicle end?

Leave a Reply