Tesla Model S that clocked 430,000 miles gets range tested, reveals a 40-mile range loss in unfavourable driving conditions

[Redaktion]

AutoTrader's YouTube channel has posted an update to the ultra-high mileage Tesla Model S, in which the car was range tested by presenter Rory. Although a substantial range loss was detected, the testing conditions weren't exactly ideal, and the car performed admirably well despite it's age and not having required a single service in its lifetime.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Tesla-Model-S-that-clocked-430-000-miles-gets-range-tested-reveals-a-40-mile-range-loss-in-unfavourable-driving-conditions.848146.0.html

[K]

The indication on the dash is not based on driving style. It always shows the estimated number of Wh in the battery pack divided by the Wh/mile achieved during EPA testing. You can actually use it to get a pretty good measure of the battery capacity, much more accurately than the uncontrolled range test.

[Ian]

So milage loss, nearing battery change.
Yes let's buy one

[FrankS]

Technically speaking EVs are still more efficient than ICEVs on motorways, but ICEVs are less inefficient when running at a constant speed. Diesel contains about 10kwh per liter, so to be more efficient an ICEV would have to do more than 35 miles per litre (159 mpg!) on the motorway

[A]

Stock tyres on a Model S usually last 30-40k miles and if you do a tyre rotation, rebalance, wheel alignment service maybe 10-20k more. We're more likely to see 10-15 tyre changes services in 430k miles.

Yes there is less brake wear in EVs but no brake service in 8 years means 8 year old fluid, no level top ups, no caliper lube, no new pads or no new discs.

How safe is an 8 year old Model S, or any car with 430k miles on it that has never had a service of any kind?

What do you actually mean by no service?

[Roughonion]

I don't know where you get your milage calculations from considering ICE diesel vehicles are lighter than EVs and charging station's work out more expensive than diesel per KW used driving.

[Dennis1025]

Always excuses as to why these EV turds have bad specs. The weather wasn't favorable which caused the already low mileage to drop even further. What garbage.

Assuming an ice engine vehicle with 430k miles on its engine would break down nearly twice to go that distance is foolish. A vehicle with 400k miles on its engine has been taken care of and likely won't break down. That's been my experience with high mileage combustion engine vehicles.

The claim of no maintenance has to be on the battery only. No way has it gone 430k miles without numerous tire replacements, I doubt the motors have gone 430k miles since that hasn't been mentioned, and the drive unit has likely been swapped out a time or two in that span as well.

[Neil]

This rather poorly written. The source Youtuber is unwise and the author uninformed and uncritical.

Firstly a car is a consumable.  At 430k miles, the value is pretty well consumed. Who would buy such a car and immediately go on a road trip? Would I do that with an ICE car after even 200k miles? No.

Secondly, one does not drive until there is 1 mile of range - would you drive until you had 1/4 cup of gas in the tank? Are you that precise in understanding the range?

Moreover best practice with EV batteries is to avoid fully charging and fully draining the battery.

Although being somewhat vague, the impression is that the range estimate is some sort of contract, no matter the driving style or road conditions or environment, AND that ICE cars are immune from these factors. No, electronics display simply the instantanious effects. I guess you need the drama for a story.

Overall, I don't trust the particular experience of some random guy as more than one story.  The Tesla seems to have held up admirably. But the author has left many gaps for EV haters to drive their hate through.

[A. Junco]

I have a 2020 model 3, with 41k miles.  The car is constantly 40-60 miles off its self reported range.  Example: if I charge it to 240 miles (92% charge), I will only get 200 miles of range (on average).  Why? When advertised new range was 324.  I have never gotten that "advertised" range (granted I bought it used).  Tesla has recently down graded it's range estimates for its cars (I keep reading), but on its web sales page it still says the model 3 long range should get 324, LIES!  I have had the battery checked and been told repeatedly there is nothing wrong with it, the computer or the charging / battery system.

  Tesla lies greatly about the range it's cars get.  Unlike every ICE car I have ever owned the estimated mileage based on its built in range estimating computer is accurate or underestimates the distance to empty giving you more range.  One major reason people don't like EV is the range anxiety.  If the distance to discharge was accurate then it would be a better feeling while driving.  But to know that you will only get 200 miles out of your 240, or less, paid for electrical charge is crap.  On my 2015 Chrysler 300, I put 18 gallons of gas in and the computer says 360 mile range.  When I drive it, I get the 360 or more if I do highway miles.  If I do city miles it is correct or short by 5-10 miles, never have I had range anxiety with any of my ICE vehicles.

[SteveH]

An interesting if not very well executed article.
I have a Hyundai IONIQ EV, 2p per mile, a Diesel Range Rover Vogue, 45p per mile, and a Petrol Mini Convertible 18p per mile, so I have a horse for each occasion.
My costs per mile are for fuel alone.

If my IONIQ EV performs as well as this Tesla does I will be chuffed.

Only the ignorant and mentally challenged would criticise Electric Vehicles in the way that some people do, these Electric Cars will not last long as the governments of the world will eventually dictate that all people will drive Hydrogen Cars, so that they can continue to squeeze every bit of tax out of drivers possible.

The largest Hydrogen processing plant in the world is under construction in Saudi Arabia, believe it or not, as he said, long ago.
This Is The Way.

[Joel]

The statement is fairly inchoherent. The electric care is more efficient (by which we mean does more work per unit of energy input) then does the ice vehicle.

the model s has a lower cd then most ice vehicles it has a lower rolling resistance than most ice vehiciles and what's most important  it has more efficient power train than all ice vehicles.

Yes it's more efficient at highway speeds, yes it's more efficient at city speeds. It's driving around with the every density equivalent of less than 3 gallons of gas.

[Pavan]

Whether it is an electric car or a gas-driven car, all cars are tested by automobile companies at sea level, which is an ideal condition to maximize their performance. However, in practical use, performance may vary as we may drive automobiles at different altitudes where there is a change in air density and oxygen availability. Internal combustion engine (ICE) cars can lose power and efficiency because the air is thinner and contains less oxygen at high altitudes. Similarly, an EV's range can be affected by air resistance, which is why the advertised mileage often differs from the mileage achieved during practical day-to-day driving conditions.

[Ac]

Technically speaking EVs are still more efficient than ICEVs on motorways, but ICEVs are less inefficient when running at a constant speed. Diesel contains about 10kwh per liter, so to be more efficient an ICEV would have to do more than 35 miles per litre (159 mpg!) on the motorway

But combustion engine itself is only about 15-25% efficient, not counting how much more energy spent in fuel transportation, refining, distribution and etc.

[Sambit Saha]

Update: The second paragraph of the article has been updated for clarity. EVs are undoubtedly more efficient than ICEs - even on highways. What I meant to say was, unlike ICEs, EVs are 'less' efficient on highways as compared to city roads due to already mentioned reasons (regen braking, lower speeds)

[honestybestpolicy]

The article has a opposite or negative effect on tesla and ev's. Driving it to the last mile (to have to push it,  and blame it on the weathe. He must have stock in tesla, and trying to get more people on Musk ev bandwagon. Musk could have done something great if he had concentrated on affordable ev's before wasting billions on Twitter and cybertruck. Now to demand 56 billion in stock, (even if his handpicked board previously approved) as an incentive to keep working at Tesla. Too many delays and  broken promises, or outright lies from Musk.