Tesla Model 3 Performance Rated At 116 MPGe


It comes as no surprise that the Tesla Model 3 Performance is less efficient than the RWD Long Range variant, but now we see the official Monroney sticker.

The EPA originally rated the Model 3 Long Range (rear-wheel drive) at 126 MPGe combined. This breaks down to 131 MPGe city and 120 MPGe highway. On the EPA site, these numbers are shown for the “2017” model. However, if you choose the 2018 model year, efficiency improved to 130 MPGe combined (136 city, 123 highway).

These numbers pushed the Model 3 closer to the most efficient all-electric car on the market today – the Hyundai Ioniq Electric with its 136 MPGe combined (150 city, 122 highway). As you can see, the Model 3 Long Range is still a touch more efficient on the highway and claims the second spot for efficiency among all BEVs. You can see all fully-electric cars compared on the EPA website by clicking here.

Now, MPGe figures have been shared for the Model 3 Performance. According to the Monroney sticker, the car returns 116 MPGe combined. This works out to 120 MPGe city and 112 on the highway. The EPA hasn’t officially published these numbers, but the new owner’s sticker is just about proof enough.

We eagerly await Tesla in its upcoming release of the base Model 3, as it may surpass the Hyundai Ioniq Electric as the new all-electric efficiency champion. What do you think its combined MPGe rating will be? Let us know in the comment section below or start a thread on our InsideEVs Forum.

Source: Reddit, Tesla Motors Club forum

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

20 Comments on "Tesla Model 3 Performance Rated At 116 MPGe"

newest oldest most voted

Still seems like a weird metric to apply, since “gallons” don’t really apply in any meaningful way to BeVs… I understand the “energy equivalent” argument but you still have to interpolate big assumptions about the grid and efficiencies.

The only thing that’s really important is Miles per KW-hour and KM per KW_hour, so it would be nice to see a league table published and updated regularly on those metrics against a standardized test cycle. Rating the cars that way would relate to actual running costs and actual environmental impact in a much more meaningful way.

I agree, MPGe is meaningless!

My Model 3 displays Wh/km on the trip odometer, usually about 150 Wh/km at 110 km/h (70 mph) depending on how fast I go … you guessed it … I’m Canadian 🙂

Based on the consumption rate of 150 Wh/km and battery capacity of 75,000 Wh (75 kWh) I can easily calculate my range at 500 km (300 mi) !!!

FYI — The numbers on your dash don’t include charging losses. The EPA numbers (both MPGe and kWh/100 mi rating) include charging losses.

Just something to keep in mind.

MPGe has nothing to do with the grid at all. A gallon petrol contains 33.4 kWh energy, so you can easily calculate MPGe into kWh/mile, or the other way around.

It’s basically cheating, since a gallon gas pollutes less, than 33.4 kWh electricity would in most areas around the world, but it still shows the improved efficiency. And you can still compare EVs.

In general miles/kWh, or kWh/mile would be better and the EPA even states consumption that way, but since people are used to MPG, they also give MPGe.

If you don’t like MPGe, just go by the EPA’s kWh/100 mi rating they also give for every EV if that makes more sense to you. They provide both. *shrug*

The EPA does both, because they did surveys and found out that the vast majority of people who aren’t already EV fans DO NOT want kWh/100 mi ratings. In fact, the results came back that not only did the vast majority not know what a “kWh” was, that when asked they replied vehemently that THEY DID NOT WANT TO LEARN what a “kWh” was.

If we want these people to buy EV’s we have to be willing to meet them in the middle and stop complaining because WE DO NOT WANT TO LEARN what an “MPGe” is.

Anyone who pays an electricity bill should have an idea what a kWh is…

Not as it relates to driving. That peeps know dollars per gallon per miles driven. Mpge is useful shorthand. Perfect is enemy of possible. Last thing electric cars need is snoodiness. All that yields is good enough golf cart half ass bolted on products. Yeah pun intended.

I don’t think it will beat the Ioniq, though it may come close. The Ioniq is way too slow, thus more efficient as it won’t let you drive it fast, within a certain amount of time. So it consumes less energy, giving it it’s high efficiency rating. You would have to drive your Model 3 like an old granny to approach the higher efficiency of the Ioniq, and no one is going to do that on a regular basis, so it’s a moot point.,

Others on InsideEVs have pointed out that EPA uses standardized acceleration in their testing so more powerful cars are not disadvantaged. The electric Ionic is rated at 136 MPGe. Non-performance Model 3 is rated at 130. There are separate metrics for acceleration and power. Together, they tell you everything you need to know.

Correct, there are no “WOT” runs in any EPA tests. Instead they have second-by-second target speeds the operator must stay close to throughout the test.

Other factors like wheels and tires (especially tires) do have an impact on efficiency no matter what the acceleration.

That would impact real world efficiency, but not the EPA test numbers. Driving like a granny would definitely beat the EPA numbers compared to doing the $20 dollar bill test at every light.

But performance tires and wheels are going to cut into efficiency no matter what speed you are at. Swapping wheels/tires between the two (if it were actually possible) would likely go a long way towards bringing the numbers closer together for the EPA test cycle.

You could swap wheels and tires, but why? Nobody is going to drive the performance model in that configuration.

Stop and go “regen” efficiency is better if you have a motor connected to the front wheels, where most of the braking occurs. CR found the Ioniq and Bolt had a noticeable real world efficiency advantage because of this. But RWD is going to be more fun to drive.

/weight would be another significant factor

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Even though everyone knows most of your braking power comes from the front tires, many still seem to argue that front brake regen does not increase regen. Not sure why.

It depends on what the limiting factor is, traction, which limits rear wheel drive, or the regeneration capability of the motor/generator/battery system.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

MPGe is just plain DUMB!!!!!

The Hyundai Ioniq hardly even counts as US sales are < 200 through June, 18

I wonder if they changed the final drive gearing? They may be running higher RPM at all speeds, and might spend more time outside the most efficient sweet spots in the electric motor maps. Usually these are fairly wide sweet spots compared with ICE engines, but it can still impact efficiency.

Haven’t read anything about the car really, but tires would be my first guess on the performance efficiency drop. (:?)

The combined MPGe number is slightly unfair to the performance version of the M3. Most of the hit occurs in city driving, but, at least with the long range battery, there is so much range available that the city metric does not matter. The number of non-professional M3 drivers who will drive 250+ miles in the city without a recharge is approximately zero (or it should be; that sounds miserable). So unless you drive for Lyft or Uber, you can forget that number.

Highway to highway you have a nine percent loss. That’s small enough that Tesla can maintain range with a few tricks, like shipping a battery with slightly higher usable capacity.