Tesla Model 3 Goes 515.7 Miles On Single Charge

Tesla Model 3


If you don’t like to watch paint dry, you’ve come to the right place to learn about the recent Tesla Model 3 hypermiling record.

Just the other day we told you about Sean Mitchell’s upcoming Model 3 hypermiling attempt. He’s released a few more videos with information about his route, his planned speed (which he chose by testing vehicle efficiency at various speeds), and his video upon take off.

Since then, Sean has completed the journey, though he says he’s set to do another with a better route and try to achieve over 600 miles. We’ve included all the videos below, along with some additional information.

More Information: Tesla Model 3 Hypermiling Record Attempt Next Week


While we had our popcorn ready and couldn’t wait to share the full hypermiling live stream with you – in all 18 hours of exciting glory – fortunately for you, there’s not a video available of the attempt itself. However, as you can see above, Sean set the record with a total of 515.7 miles on a charge.

The full trip took Mitchell from Denver, CO to Topeka, KS. He didn’t completely exhaust the battery, so he could have gone further. When he called it quits, there was still about 10 kWh to spare. However, he never would have made his goal of passing 600 miles, so he decided he needs to try again with some better planning and a different route.

Traveling 516 miles at 30 mph in an electric car with an EPA-estimated 310-mile range is good, but it can surely be beaten. Sean can only hope that he’s the one to pull it off. When he apprises us of his next attempt, we’ll fill you in.

Source: Teslarati


33 photos
2. Tesla Model 3 Range: 310 miles; 136/123 mpg-e. Still maintaining a long waiting list as production ramps up slowly, the new compact Tesla Model 3 sedan is a smaller and cheaper, but no less stylish, alternative, to the fledgling automaker’s popular Model S. This estimate is for a Model 3 with the “optional” (at $9,000) long-range battery, which is as of this writing still the only configuration available. The standard battery, which is expected to become available later in 2018, is estimated to run for 220 miles on a charge. Tesla Model 3 charge port (U.S.) Tesla Model 3 front seats Tesla Model 3 at Atascadero, CA Supercharging station (via Mark F!) Tesla Model 3 Tesla Model 3 The Tesla Model 3 is not hiding anymore! Tesla Model 3 (Image Credit: Tom Moloughney/InsideEVs) Tesla Model 3 Inside the Tesla Model 3 Tesla Model 3 rear seats Tesla Model 3 Road Trip arrives in Tallahassee Tesla Model 3 charges in Tallahassee, trunk open.

Categories: Tesla

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

161 Comments on "Tesla Model 3 Goes 515.7 Miles On Single Charge"

newest oldest most voted

I fail to see any Point in all of this other than “self promotion”. let me know when it Gets interesting and this 516 mile range happens at 60/65 mph .

Why would you pay for batteries that you are never gonna use. 300 mile range at 70 mph and 350 kW charging and you will never be waiting for your EV at the chargers.
Food, toilets etc.. will take longer for you, then your EV takes at the charger.

Another Euro point of view

Is there something biologically different with EV drivers that they all seem to need to pee and eat at shorts intervals ?

They are older.

Yes, as an EV driver you do not have the fear of waiting up to 10 hours for the next restroom. Thus, you are able to drink all the water you need. ICE drivers consume less water while driving to minimize time spend wasted at public restrooms.
But you must agree on the overall concept here. Most families cannot drive for much than 3-4 hours before having a “pit-stop” of any kind…

Have a few kids and tell me those intervals are short.

That is true that once you have kids, 5-10 minutes pit stops turn into 20-30 minutes stops.

But another problem with kids is that the stops aren’t always planned which makes the charging network even more critical.

Not High on Drugs, likely!
Not for sure, but likely!

Short intervals? What is it with antiEV trolls that they show up at WV sites to post the same dull comments about every story?

Bigger battery will have more power (more performance potential) and can charge faster (in terms of miles/min) and can last longer due to lower cycle count. Of course, it adds weight which lowers efficiency and it will cost more.

…a bigger battery will do two things, aside from going further on the initial charge. You will have fewer charge-discharge cycles theoretically extending the life of the battery, and you won’t have that “where the hell is the next charge station” anxiety just under the surface. When I can comfortably drive, without charge station anxiety, from Canada to Puerto Vallarta Mexico, my typical long distance drive (did the trip 3 weeks ago) I would consider buying… but until the charge stations become ubiquitous in Mexico I gotta stay with my VW ICE-mobile and getting expensive Pemex gas.

You mean, “Let me know when a technology is perfect (by my own definition) and then I will be impressed.”

Baby steps, man. Think back 10-12 years ago, when ANY electric travel was all but nonexistent. My how fickle humans are..

Except going by train. 😉

Mikael, don’t be so cruel! Can’t you see that the poor man is trying to save the planet with his car? What’s next? Are you going to remind him that the Beijing and Shanghai metro systems gave 7.5 billion all electric rides last year? You must be a big oil shill. Lol.

trying to figure out how to go by train on the trips we’ve taken in our Model S… recalculating…

London Underground. High speed trains. Maglev Chinese trains. NYC subway. BART.
CTA. Portland Light Rail…


exactly, this is silly… Real world range is all that matters, and Model 3 really struggles with its rated range in the real world. On a trip over Snoqualamie pass on I-90 here in WA state, we made it less then 200 miles on a full charge, with no HVAC

You climbed a mountain and got a little less than 200 miles on a car that is rated about 230 on flat ground? I’m failing to understand your issue here. Do you get more tired climbing stairs or walking on flat ground?

It indicated 310 miles of range when we left home…

I was ready to walk 5 miles in the morning but was only able to climb 20 floors.

If you Fly from Seattle to Denver, you will use more fuel or energy, than if you fly from Denver to Seattle, too! So, your point is, you think rating systems are designed for ranges climbing up Everest?

Lol thats funny, thats wrong becacuse you are 7 miles in the air.

Robert is clueless, he is trying to point out Denver starts at a higher altitude at takeoff, but he does not know much about jet Engines or aerodynamics, Seattle is about as optimal place to take off as there is. Low Elevation, thick air with medium humidity Engines make more power with lower combustion temps, and the wings and high lift devices are more effective, this easily overcomes the added drag of the heavy air once airborne, with the plane cleaned up.

Actually that depends more on the winds aloft then the altitude of the airport, and it takes more fuel to get off the ground in Denver, then in Seattle… Engines, and Wings are more efficient taking off in Seattle.

BTW Robert we did a ROUND TRIP, so that means what went up, also went down… Recalculate and get back to me…

since we commenters are apparently in the business of correcting others to show our superiority I’ll point out your improper use of the word ‘then’. multiple times even which makes me think you have an inadequate grasp of proper grammar.

Guilty… finally a criticism that is real, thanks for that.

Less drag losses in DEN though…

I addressed that in my comment… Airlines would much rather depart Seattle all the time, in Denver especially in hot weather you put extra wear on the engines every takeoff… Cooler temps, thick air, and humidity really help a turbofan engine make power, keep the EGT lower, and climb faster once the airplane is cleaned up.

…and if someone had driven the way that cars are driven for an EPA range test, then they would have gotten pretty close to that 310 miles. That is, highway driving at 55 MPH, on level ground.

However, the EPA’s highway range rating is 295.5 miles. It’s the combined range that’s 310.

If someone got significantly less range when driving significantly faster up a mountain… well, I think it’s safe to say that only a serial Tesla basher would pretend to be surprised that such a person he would get less range on such a trip.

As far as I know, they are not selling the 230 mile version yet are they? Also, going over a mountain pass you gain range going back down the other side.

We did not use regen or friction braking going downhill, just let the car coast which is the most efficient use of the energy

Tesla has no coast mode, since the motor has no clutch, but is direct connected to gear box & axles!

Correct… But you can go to N and disengage the electronics which we did.

If the downgrade was steep enough to let you get to highway speeds in neutral, you also have lost all control over the vehicle at that point and have essentially turned your vehicle into the equivalent of a boulder rolling down hill. You would be surprised how much active adjustments to speed we do in normal driving.
Assuming you actually did what you claim to have done, that is very stupid and on par with the other boneheads in teslas on the road these days.

What’s the value to you personally in coming here to make things up?


You can set regen to low.

I suppose you can imagine your pretend car will do whatever you want it to.

For driving a real BEV down a real mountain, a driver would want to select a higher level of regen, to minimize wear on the brake pads or overheating the brakes.

Did you read what I wrote? We did not need brakes, let the car coast, which aero drag keeps you from going too fast, we barely stayed at the speed limit in Neutral….

my blazer which not only is about as aerodinamically inefficient as they come but also has lower suspension in the rear than front given it a bit of a ‘catch all the wind you can’ sort of performance manages to not only coast the speed limit downhill but I actually have to brake in order to not go above the 10 mies-over-the-speed-limit that I allot myself. we’re talking coasting over 80 mph. I call BS.

You drive a Blazer and you are doubting my EV experience ? Ask any Tesla owner, or EV owner for that matter that has driven over Snoqualamie pass it is really not that steep. In my truck I can coast for periods, but have to keep getting on the throttle to maintain speed. I do not consider 80 fast down the pass when the speed limit is 70, and it is 4 lanes wide.

I know Snoqualmie pass too and agree it is the perfect steepness that allows you to coast at the speed limit. But I wonder if you keep it in regen mode, is that really less efficient than coasting in neutral? Maybe inside EVs can do a test? (There is a charger at the top of the pass).

MY gosh, finally someone who knows the route… I am not a Model 3 owner, so have not played with the car on multiple trips, but my buddy who owns the Model 3 also has Model x, and he said shifting to N is recommended on long downhill grades to get the most efficiency. I think Bjorn Nyland talks about that too, he always turns off regen when he is trying to stretch the range, because if you drive efficiently, regen actually hurts you. Regen is more for stop and go traffic, or city driving, on the open freeway it is useless.

You did not need brakes, because you fabricated the whole story.

Nix, I am sorry to make you feel so threatened, that you feel the need to insult me.

Did you coast down from Winter Park?
Wonder where all the drag is coming from? Wheel losses or aero?
I’d have thought you’d have hit terminal velocity above the limit.

My M5 in neutral coming down from Idaho Springs toward the Golden turnoff will hit 85+ .

Going W from Milepoint 50 is where the largest down grade is, I am not sure the grade % but the drag is aero, and parasitic because all of the drivetrain components including motor are turning. We maintained speed all the way down without any regen Until we got down to MP 37 where you have to start using power again.

M5 in neutral? Would have less drivetrain drag, but more aero drag.

The toughest hill I know on I-90 is Ryegrass going West, I hauled a 400 size excavator up that in fairly cool weather and it was 15 to 20 miles an hour for 10 miles. It was slow and tiring, but at 135K Lb GCVW

Your lies aren’t even clever. Just stop.

I am not trying to be clever, just share experience.

“Neutral” in an EV is just another power setting and almost always the wrong power setting. Get ICE out of your head, neutral in an EV is stupid.

Unless all of the stated range is completely used going most of the way on one side. 😉

regen at hwy speed downhill is almost useless unless you are in a heavy semi. wind drag and tire drag at those speed are often enough to overcome spare energy which leaves very little for regen.

Its easy to figure out the ones on the forum with no real EV experience, because they do not realize things like you are pointing out.

On downhill highway, coasting is more efficient unless the grade is steep enough to largely exceed speed limit.
If you could go at any speed it would only be more efficient to a point where aero drag would equal regen-storage-supply-power loss through motor-inverter-battery and back.

That point would not be the same to all EV.

I am surprised as last month we took a trip and 205 miles in we stopped to charge and the estimated range was 105 miles to go. So quite close to the 310 estimated range.

All things being relative, if you are at speeds over 60 MPH, or climbing hills the range takes a pretty good beating. We were on I-90 here in WA, the speed limit is 70 mph, most people are over 80…

Then most people are breaking the law.

Also, only 70mph east after Issaquah. Snoqaulmie pass itself is regularly 65, with variable speed limit signs, and returns to 70mph east of the pass at Easton.

BTW, speed thru the pass is now camera enforced. Enjoy your 15mph speeding tickets.

There is no camera enforcement on Snoqualamie… I drive to our cabin in Cle Elum a couple times a week, in my pickup I make the trip in 1:20, and it is 98 miles, so you can figure out the speed. If it had camera enforcement I would have a mailbox full of tickets. I did get one for 84 MPH in the construction zone 2 years ago, not photo enforced though. Ellensburg has aircraft enforcement sometimes, but those tickets do not stand up in court because of our laws.

Do the still broadcast the Seattle traffic report as a joke on the local station in Cle Elum? We used to think that was hilarious.

We do not listen to Cle Elum radio… But that would be funny to hear. I listen to some station out of Ellensburg when I am over there working, I think it is the college radio station. They call it pop, but it is more classic rock.

When the family is over there, we are usually hanging out with the neighbors pulling corks and telling lies. Shoot a round of golf here and there.

at least in many places in California there’s a bit of an unspoken 10 MPH over leeway granted. since getting a (really expensive) ticket for going substantially over on a highway here I very actively try and keep my speed at ten over and have driven past speed traps as well as had a CHP officer pass me on the right going at least 5 MPH faster while I was going 80 with a speed limit of 70.

apparently the more over you’re going the more expensive the ticket so it could be that it’s not worth their time to ticket someone going only over 10 but that’s just a guess.

10 over for me is pretty slow, when I am heading over the mountain I hit the governor (98 mph) in my truck quite often, up and down. When driving on a 4 lane wide highway early in the AM there is no-one there, its basically a free for all.

My construction zone ticket was $575, which is my most expensive ticket ever, I deserved it. I usually send those to my lawyer, but I paid this one because I felt bad for going so fast in a construction zone, even though it was early in the morning and there were no workers out yet.

Speed limit cameras on I90 Washington? I call bollocks on that. Please list your source.

There are not any cameras currently… I think they tried it in the construction zone back in 2012. I have not been ticketed other then my one construction zone ticket that was at 5:30AM, the cop told me he was off shift and heading home, but I blew by so fast he had to stop me. It was right on the hill dropping down to Easton, he was parked in the turnaround. That cop was pretty cool, he asked me if I knew why he stopped me, and I said “yes” and laughed. He chuckled and said he was going to cut me a break since I was over 90 mph, he wrote me for 84, which made the ticket half the price, but still $575. Ouch… The cops currently sit in the turnarounds next to the reservoir, but they will not stop you unless you are really fast, I think they just sit there to slow the traffic down as I do not even see them using their laser, or making any stops. They are taking the approach more like in Asia where cops just have their car present with the lights on to warn people, but they have… Read more »

Dave said:

“…we made it less then 200 miles on a full charge, with no HVAC”


So tell us “Dave”, were you lying when you said that Tesla cars are terrible and nobody should ever buy one, or are you lying now when you say you actually own one?

Yet another serial Tesla basher pretending to own a Tesla car, so he can pretend his FUD is based on personal experience. 🙁

He is a hypocrite allright and another lying, sophisticated serial anti-Tesla troll who started out as a “concern troll” and has escalated his attacks from there.
He also admitted he just “invested” 100k into BYD as another Make America Great Again american.

Wow, I am sophisticated? with all those other things you called me? haha! Whats wrong with investing in BYD? They have American operations, and American employees. My wife is Chinese, so you could say we are splitting the culture.

You know Tesla uses Chinese parts, and their gearboxes on S and X are made in Taiwan?? Is that a problem for you?

I have friends who have Model 3’s as I have said many times, I am not going to buy one, I ordered an I-Pace again as I have said several times. I am not bashing the Tesla, just stating in the real world the range can be different then advertised, as we experienced.

You have no friends. Vote me down if the truth makes you hurt inside.

Grow up Nix…

How much regen did you get coming back down?

Very little, coasting in Neutral is the best way to go downhill in any EV unless you need brakes, then regen is the best way to slow

Boring lies.

Neutral in an EV is stupid, it isn’t an ICE that needs the drive train disconnected. Zero power input is almost always the wrong power setting on any road at any time.

Did you read literally anything about EV range before you bought your car? Mileage varies in any car, period. This isn’t peculiar to EVs.

The Tesla Model 3 was not mine as I have stated over and over, I would not buy that car as I have a Jaguar I-Pace on order. Yes, of course mileage varies in any car. My point was just that we did our best to save energy, without driving slower then traffic, and still used 50% more then the rated energy per mile. Thats all.. I welcome any other Tesla Model 3 to try the trip and see if their results are different.

You clearly didn’t do any of that. You drove well above the posted speed limit, which hurts range in any car and you allegedly set regen to low, which will hurt your range on a long trip, especially one with altitude drops. I’ve got over 40,000 miles on my Model S and while the blended consumption is 325Wh/m, now in stop-go traffic with weather in the 40’s to 80’s (Chicago) I’ve been averaging 265Wh/m for the past several weeks. On a trip to Ohio, at highway speeds, we average about 280Wh/m going east and over 310Wh/m going west. The difference is elevation changes. Add heating and you add between 20 and 70 Wh/m to those numbers depending how cold it is. I’m not sure what your argument is since you are only citing one trip and you clearly don’t have much experience driving an EV. Any fool can speed and cut range. Anyone can take a drive with an elevation increase and cut range. It happens the same to a gas car as it does to an EV, the exception being cold weather. Good luck with your I-Pace and it’s 240 mile range. Perhaps you’ll find a Jaguar supercharger someday… Read more »

For highway road trip in most real world situations range at +/- 75mph is a reasonable benchmark. Probably about 225 full to dead battery, so maybe 150 fast charging 20% to 80%. C&D mag. got 200 at steady 75mph for full battery, though at somewhat low temperature.

I agree that this test amounts to pointless (no useful information) self promotion.

in a post-apocalyptic world where getting the most out of your range rather than speed at which you travel hyper-miling would surely be the way to go.

I’m still waiting for the 100 mpg car. Until then, I’ll keep riding my bicycle.

Does the car show mi/kWh in a trip? Then one can drive whole lot shorter to calculate miles available. For test done where he had 10 kWh remaining and assuming 75 kWh battery, 516 miles/65 kWh = 7.9 mi/kWh. Then using all 75 kWh would net 593 miles. But does it really get 7.9 mi/kWh?

At 30 mph it sure seems like it may get 7.9 mi/kWh.

His second video shows 163 Wh/mile at 30 MPH which is 6.135 mi/kWh, far far away from 7.9. Using 6.135 mi/kWh, 516 miles would consume 84 kWh. I doubt Tesla 3 has much more than 75 kWh, so he couldn’t have been driving 30 MPH. Or maybe Tesla reading is totally off?

Had to jump in here and add some clarification. The second video SparkEV is referring to was just a test to see what the most efficient speed to travel is and only a 5 mile sample.

Others commented that this was one way down hill test? If so, it’d make sense why he got 7.9 mi/kWh. Heck, SparkEV gets 51.1 mi/kWh going downhill, and 12 mi/kWh for about 40 miles.

Using 6.135 mi/kWh as best efficiency and assuming 75 kWh usable, maximum Tesla 3 range on level road would be about 460 miles. Not bad at all!

Hypermiling is not really that useful, except when you are running low on the battery. Then you can take this knowledge into play and reduce the speed of the car to 30 mph and get 2-3 times longer range. That way you should reach the charger safely.

Well, good. At least one good thing for Tesla – after the negative feedback on their production and the autopilot failures.

Unfortunately wall street analysts will not cover this event. 99% of wall street firms want consumers to keep buying and burning gasoline. CONNECT THE DOTS ON CLEAN AIR WAKE UP FOLKS

Most modern hybrids (Prime, Hyundai, etc) are cleaner than the average Tesla in the US, at least in CO2, so you might want to dial back the CAPS.

Please show your references for this particular claim, Tom Dually.

EPA (and EU testing) put the Prius at 158 grams per mile, plus 40 grams for ALL ‘upstreams’.
Figure a nice even 200 grams.

Grid average where this test was done aggregates to 2.0 pounds carbon or about 900 grams. With charging and vampire losses the Model S is already at 300 grams per mile. Plus the battery carbon which even UCS admits is an additional load of 20 million grams… amortized over 100K miles of use, is yet another 200 grams per mile.

Average Tesla on Western US grid is running between 300 and 500 grams per mile.
Prius is less than half.

Cool, but you forgot that the gasoline needed to be refined, then transported in a truck. I don’t get why people keep making the mistake of only calculating last-step emmissions for combustion engines but take full life cycle emmissions for electrc.

Oh right, because your numbers don’t stand up otherwise.

It’s in the upstreams… EPA puts that at about 2000 grams per gallon, but the mileage is so high on a Prius that it’s distributed over 50-60 miles of travel.

This is well studied out in the real world.

Another Euro point of view

Well replied but I fear this will prove too sophisticated a reading for many.

The EPA lists the 2018 Prius at 170 grams per mile. A recent Stanford University study puts the upstream C02 at 30 grams per mile on the low end and 59 grams on the high end when using the rated 52 MPG of the 2018 Prius. The US grid average for 2007 was just under 1.4 pounds or ~635 grams. Using your Model S calculations, that’s 211 grams per mile and for a Model 3 it would be 164 (using over 10 year old grid data). Those are the apples to apples numbers for those cars. Adding anything else in for battery manufacturing would have to be accounted for on the Tesla and the Toyota.

The EPA number’s been cited by (2017) many sources as 158. EU’s independent testing comfirmed it.

https://www torquenews com/1083/2017-toyota-prius-operates-794-emission-free-3rd-party-testing

The secret on the “grid averages” is that the US midwest and mountain states still run a lot of coal. Wyoming’s between 2,2 and 2.5 pounds CO2 per KW-hour. Colorado’s a bit better, but then Nebraska, Missouri, Indiana (is awful).

Most of the renewables are daytime (aka solar) and with no grid storage, those “averages” are skewed since most people drive during the day and charge at night. LA where I am is MOSTLY fossil fuels at night.

Most of the greenwashing citations ignore the time-of-day differences and the huge swings in “carbon output” across the grid. If there were in any sense in policy in CA there’d be a huge incentive to charge during the day when there is excess solar… Instead, we get “cheaper rates to charge at night… when rates are lower”. Of course, the reason it’s so cheap at night is that it’s coal plants that were built 50 years ago and fully paid for.

Go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov and look it up yourself. The 2017 Prius is listed at 171 grams per mile. The best part about averages is that it smooths out the peaks and valleys. You can cherry pick areas with high emissions as an example but if you are going to talk about an entire country, you have to use the nation wide average. The bottom line is that the “cleanest” ICE cars are not cleaner than the “dirtiest” EVs.

“The secret on the ‘grid averages’ is that the US midwest and mountain states still run a lot of coal. Wyoming’s…”

Your supply of EV bashing B.S. is endless, innit?

The States where per-capita EV ownership is highest, such as California, Oregon, and Washington State, are also among the States with the “cleanest” grid power.

No offense to the citizens of Wyoming, but that is a sparsely populated State without a lot of people driving plug-in EVs.

Also, citing numbers for grid electricity ignores the fact that a significant percentage of BEV owners also have home solar power, so their electricity averages much “cleaner” than your numbers.

“Also, citing numbers for grid electricity ignores the fact that a significant percentage of BEV owners also have home solar power, so their electricity averages much “cleaner” than your numbers.”

Do you know the exact percentage or have any verifiable data on your claim of “significant” home solar charging for BEV owners?

I think you are full of BS with that claim, and have no information to back it up? I am waiting??

It’s called prima facie obvious, Dave. Stop pretending to be dumber than you are.

It’s not an act!

It also ignores the fact that the trend for the grid is toward becoming cleaner. Not the case for the ICE industry. Whatever the state of the grid when an EV is built, it will get cleaner and cleaner every year that car is operated. Meanwhile, the ICE car will get worse MPG with age and produce more and more pollution as emissions controls age.
Nevermind the fact that multiple manufacturers have been caught cheating on emissions. It’s almost shocking today to find that a manufacturer has not been cheating on their emissions tests.

Most of the renewables are not solar, they’re wind which is over 4% of grid power compared to less than 1% for solar. Wind produces more at night when the cars are charging which is creating a new customer base for that production, much of which would have been shut down since overnight consumption is so low.
Making such easily refuted errors suggests you’re a troll FOR EVs trying to make the anti-EV arguments look foolish.

You forgot to include the refining and transport of said gasoline.

No. EPA puts all that in the “upstreams” number.
It’s 40 grams per mile, when measured on the Prius

Prius vs Midel S, instead of Audi A7 vs Model S? Or Prius vs Model S instead of Prius vs Nissan Leaf!

You’re obviously citing numbers for the Model S and/or Model X. The Model 3 is much more energy-efficient; 26 vs 36 kWh per 100 miles.

Just the sort of bull pucky we’ve come to expect from you.

Citing an apples-to-oranges comparison of the energy efficiency of a small, low- to moderate-performance hybrid car vs the energy efficiency of a large, heavy, high-performance BEV such as the Model S or Model X, is a favorite tactic of EV bashers.

But the Model 3 is significantly more energy-efficient, altho of course you’d never know that from Tom Dually’s Tesla bashing comment.

Model 3 is better than Models S and X but nowhere near the class leadership of IONIQ, LEAF or Bolt.

At the 6 miles per KW-hour level of IONIQ my arguments go away.
No Tesla is anywhere near that, particularly when you factor in charging and vampire losses. Tesla has just built some spectacularly power-hungry hardware… and hired you guys to paint it ‘green’.

But you can’t get anywhere in those other cars. Get back to us when that changes.

So you’re saying you’d rather be breathing hybrid exhaust than EV exhaust? :S What a weird way of thinking… Electricity will always get cleaner, not so much with dino juice…

Another Euro point of view

@Tom. What you wrote might not yet be proven but nevertheless I find it likely. Nothing remotely good for environment is going to come out of a huge land barge of a car like the Model X for example except in the brain of the average north american afflicted with an “always more” addiction . I find it likely that a much smaller Ionic PHEV has a better environment footprint, for one at life end it is less of a headache recycling a 10 kWh battery than a 90 kWh battery. Agreed a Model X will have a much better footprint than a F150 with a V8, but basically those cars (F150) should be submitted to an eye watering annual tax unless evidenced that it is needed for a professional activity. By the way it would be great to have some insight about challenges of lithium batteries recycling, I read sole times ago that it was a dirty/complicated business but maybe a technological breakthrough took place since then. Anyway this would be a good subject for an article.

Also, anything with an engine will be it’s cleanest when it’s new. The same does not apply to a BEV. In fact, there is a very good chance that a BEV’s emissions will go down over time as the grid becomes more clean.

Doesn’t mean the category is a dead end, but if people do the math they’ll pay more attention to efficiency data– IONIQ, Prime, Bolt, LEAF are all much more efficient. IONIQ owners are getting twice the miles per KW-hour that the Model 3 guys are.

Basically, the idea of putting 100, 150, 200 KW-hour (much less the 1.2 MW-hour of “the Semi”) is moving in the wrong direction. The Models X and S are 1000 pounds too heavy. So efficiency is not anywhere near where it needs to be. Add in the 7×24 “250W vampire drain” to keep a Tesla alive– and it’s just silly.

Those stories of “I parked my Tesla at the airport with 110 miles of range left and it was dead when I got back 4 days later” stories are hinting at a bigger problem. The Tesla model is just a black hole for KW-hours.

It doesn’t have to be that way– and Hyundai and GM and Nissan ARE paying attention to efficiency.

Meanwhile Mr. Greenie Musk is planning hourly BFR launches NYC to Sydney. Green my adz.

I take it you do not drive a Tesla. On my Model 3 I have averaged 238 Watts/mile which is as good or better than any other plugin. I have seen at most a 2 mile/day vampire loss usually only 1 mile.

Measured at the meter? Or on the display that is consistently inflating your efficiency?

You guys always neglect the losses in the charger… you are paying for more KW-hours than ever make it into the battery.

Even Tesla threw in the towel in tariffing the new Supercharger scheme and use 2.5 Miles per KW-hour on model S, because that’s how much power you have to buy to “display” the 3.1 the IP shows you

If we’re going to be honest, we need to include *all* the carbon emissions from oil exploration straight on through to the pump, and we can *never* assume that the emissions from an electric car are associated with average carbon emissions from electricity generation.

In fact I hereby challenge you to prove that latter assumption is valid–which is clearly impossible to do. Meanwhile, I’ll be jamming a cork in your lovely Prius’s tailpipe and we’ll see how far it gets you. Why not stop your ignorance-laden trolling and go get yourself a real job? Why continue to leech off the dreams of future humans because you can’t pull your head out of your ass long enough to see the road ahead?

“IONIQ owners are getting twice the miles per KW-hour that the Model 3 guys are.”

More outright bull pucky FUD from a serial Tesla basher.

Reality check:

Tesla Model 3: 130 MPGe
Hyundai Ioniq Electric: 136 MPGe

So your point is IONIQ is more efficient?

What part of 130 vs 136 excluding any chance of either car getting twice the other? Are you that ignorant you can’t do the math?

Wow Nix, you replied and downvoted even one of my posts… haha! Thats great, keep the hate rolling.

And BTW 136 beats 130… Just saying…

Extremely dumb argument. Typical.

The point is the prior commenter (Tom Dully) is a serial fabricator.

If your point of continuing to talk about a subject you know nothing about is to educate us on how little you know, you’re succeeding in grand fashion. Please continue.

Nice point of view: “I don’t believe it so it can’t be true.”

You know what they say about show a Neanderthal a bicycle.

Educate yourself, friend: https://medium.com/@briankent/moving-from-cradle-to-grave-f990f98acb12

Get back to us when a US Congress is willing to put a price on carbon.

Not really. Especially when you factor in 60% of Tesla owners have made the jump to solar or the 40% of Leaf owners who have done the same.

That is BS, Show me the statistics for that?

As someone pointed out that it’s a downhill route, I’d love to see how far he can achieve with one charge when he returns 🙂

All Downhill doing it that way… and generally with tailwinds.
Most time-trial runs have to be done both directions

Fail. Starting and end points should be the same for a valid single charge range test to eliminate elevation issues.

That’s way I said. Time trial runs are always “out” and “back” to the start to even out wind and elevation differences


What speed is the most efficient? Take the value of the efficiency at that speed and divide it into the battery’s total kWh and it should tell you what the max range would be.

People trying to set distance records find the best speed is around 25-30 MPH. The exact speed will depend on the car. Once you get above 35 MPH, wind resistance starts to be significant.

And that’s the main reason these distance records are meaningless stunts. In real-world driving, nobody would try to average less than 30 MPH on an automobile trip of over 500 miles.

If you go 30 mph downhill with a tail wind maybe.

Yeah, this guy, “Bjorn” and “Ben” all need to get a real job.

Bjorn is good… very honest and objective Ben is a Tesla fan boy, nothing real world from him…

It’s the loser serial Tesla hater trolls who need to get a life.

But I can see why a loser would be incredibly jealous of a guy as nice, dedicated, popular, and rich as Bjørn Nyland.

PP, I think you need to get a life, you are on here spreading the most hate, many of your comments just troll or hate directly on the people here, and have nothing to do with the conversation about cars. You have called me a hater or troll at least 10 times in this feed, and it is silly. You replied to my message about Bjorn when I complemented him, to post I am jealous of him? Dude that is just uncalled for and directly a personal attack. Why don’t you instead re-read my message and post something that makes sense and skip the personal attacks. I know you are an old guy, and not wealthy, but I do not use that in my posts to you, I just go after the facts about cars, and car manufacturers. Seriously brother, take a look in the mirror and instead of spreading hate directly at people, try to be objective and have a discussion about cars, it can be fun… We can all disagree, and that is fine… I like that people think different then I do, and would really dislike if I shared the same ideas as everyone around me. What… Read more »

Pushy, looks like we have yet another banned troll back again…… All the sudden he knows all about you (including age and finances) after magically appearing under a new name and flooding the comments, dragging up old grudges against you, complete with the “brother” and “look in the mirror” and “Dude” and “PP” themes.

Three guesses on which banned troll this is….

Nix, PP told me his age in the forum on the first conversation we had, and told me he is tight on $, and did not have an EV… Why in the world would I get banned? I stick to facts, and just deflect your childish insults.

Bjoan does it on flat surface

Ben is a teslasexual. Can get his hands off thier products

You can’t set a hyper mile record downhill according to the United States International hyper mile transportation association. (USIHMTA)

Heck an ICE car can coast down a hill at 30 MPH for 100 miles if the hill is long enough without the engine running.

The point is, this news has no value at all.

It should always be a round trip to equal out any altitude changes. If you go downhill you could go forever which is not real world.

I want to go to the Grand Canyon in Arizona and drive back to the Phoenix area which is mostly down hill. If I drive down with half a charge of about 150 miles I think I’ll have a full charge when I get back. Its about a 250 mile trip 1 way and mostly downhill.

(A) It’s just a stunt, not any indication of what the car can do in real-world driving

(B) He quit when he still had 10 kWh of “juice” left. Why is this quitter getting attention?

Stunts may attract some media attention, but let’s not forget that it’s only a stunt. (55 comments and counting? Seriously?)

Someone has to positive marketing for Tesla so they don’t have to buy advertising.

I quite because I was using more energy than expected and did not want to be in the middle of nowhere with no juice. Stay tuned. More to come.


Please God, don’t put me behind this yutz in traffic

Interesting. I wonder how this all works out since I average 23mph per tank of gasoline, I wonder how close I would get to the 500 mile mark with my normal daily driving with it being an EV and brake regeneration.

Denver to Topeka is precipitously downhill. Hypermiling records are generally recognized to disallow such advantages.

The next attempt will be closed circuit. Stay tuned. 🙂

Nobody cares about anything but normal
Driving range. Other numbers are meanibgless.

It’s amazing what people will do to get attention. 🙂

Is this guy really going 30 mph on a highway? If so, this is a huge waste of time and safety risk for others around him…

Yes, a two lane country highway. Hazards were flashing and I pulled to the shoulder to allow people to pass safely. 🙂