FS AWD Dual Motor - Really Getting 20 Mi More Range?

[VAF84]

As I was checking out CT's and seeing these used FS CT's, it dawned on me that they advertised 20mi more range. Along with the included FSD and all, it would actually be a selling point over buying a new non-FS version.

I was curious if in real life there have been verified accounts of the FS actually getting the extra 20 miles. If the battery is the same size, I'm assuming the extra efficiency would be noticed in the mi/kwh? I feel that this is an overlooked data point when everyone is comparing range numbers.

Sponsored

 

[AlmostHuman]

My understanding is the AT vs AS tires with the core wheels make a difference. I don’t have any real world data, just what I have gathered from reading various things.

 

[mongo]

As I was checking out CT's and seeing these used FS CT's, it dawned on me that they advertised 20mi more range. Along with the included FSD and all, it would actually be a selling point over buying a new non-FS version.

I was curious if in real life there have been verified accounts of the FS actually getting the extra 20 miles. If the battery is the same size, I'm assuming the extra efficiency would be noticed in the mi/kwh? I feel that this is an overlooked data point when everyone is comparing range numbers.

AWD gets more range than Beast
All Season tires give more range than All Terrain
Foundation vs standard list slightly different ranges for identical configurations

 

[VAF84]

This is messing with my head. I've been trying to run comparison calcs but it's not working for me because how did they get 20 extra miles with no changes to battery size? The FS just happens to be 6% more efficient? One model would be based on 2.76 EPA and the other 2.6 EPA.

Might just need another coffee, or just accept it is what it is.

 

[mongo]

This is messing with my head. I've been trying to run comparison calcs but it's not working for me because how did they get 20 extra miles with no changes to battery size? The FS just happens to be 6% more efficient? One model would be based on 2.76 EPA and the other 2.6 EPA.

Might just need another coffee, or just accept it is what it is.

Foundation isn't 6% more efficient
Please post screenshots of the two vehicles you are comparing.
FS AWD AT: 318

AWD AT: 314

AWD AS: 325

 

[carsly]

EPA numbers get changed periodically, don't rely on them for anything definitive.

My real-world efficiency with my AWD is 3 mi/kwh in mild/hot conditions and about 10-20% less in winter. That's on all-terrains, mostly without the wheel covers (since I didn't have them) over nearly 10 months and 6,000 miles in the Northeast.

This was a few months ago, Trip B was winter, Trip A is basically lifetime.

 

[Gigahorse]

AWD Foundation with CORE wheels is advertised as 340mi Range (EPA)

 

[VAF84]

AWD Foundation with CORE wheels is advertised as 340mi Range (EPA)

Thanks for posting this, it's what I'm referring to.
@mongo see above.

@carsly - Definitely agree with not trusting EPA, but that's why I run my calculations. I usually deduct 15% for cold weather if the EV has a heat pump or 25% if it doesn't. Then I tend to drive mostly highway between 70-80mph so that knocks off another 15%ish. Then I have to knock out the top and bottom bands for charge buffers, so I consider about 70% of the battery pack as useable.

 

[VAF84]

I think I'm over thinking this. At the end of the day it's 10-15mi difference no matter how you cut it.

 

[Gigahorse]

I think I'm over thinking this. At the end of the day it's 10-15mi difference no matter how you cut it.

With what they are STILL charging for the Foundation series, that thing had better get 340 miles of range. Seems odd that the NF and FS have such a range gap with the same wheels, you would think the EPA range would be updated and they would be the same if they were not truly different.

Some will say 15mi is not much and doesn't matter, but 15mi when you are 12mi from the closest supercharger is a LOT more than -3

 

[VAF84]

With what they are STILL charging for the Foundation series, that thing had better get 340 miles of range. Seems odd that the NF and FS have such a range gap with the same wheels, you would think the EPA range would be updated and they would be the same if they were not truly different.

Some will say 15mi is not much and doesn't matter, but 15mi when you are 12mi from the closest supercharger is a LOT more than -3

Yes, that's sort of what I'm getting at. However, what got my attention was that initially couldn't believe that used CT's were asking $79/80k until I realized the are FS models and being sold with FSD. Then I remembered the range bump. It starts to make a used CT a little more appealing.

 

[carsly]

With what they are STILL charging for the Foundation series, that thing had better get 340 miles of range. Seems odd that the NF and FS have such a range gap with the same wheels, you would think the EPA range would be updated and they would be the same if they were not truly different.

Some will say 15mi is not much and doesn't matter, but 15mi when you are 12mi from the closest supercharger is a LOT more than -3

In warm/hot conditions in NJ I regularly average a tick over 3 mi/kwh for over 360 miles of real-world range on all terrains with no wheel covers. Now that I have wheet covers I'm hoping that goes up a bit.

If you're running core wheels with all-seasons I'd hope/expect to see better.

Because data, here were my first 2,000 miles and note the current drive at the top of 52 miles at 309 Wh/mi which is 3.24 mi/kwh. Multiply by 120kwh in the pack (subtracting 3 kwh for buffer and not running dead) and you're at 388 miles real-world. Again, on all-terrains with no wheel covers.

 

[VAF84]

In warm/hot conditions in NJ I regularly average a tick over 3 mi/kwh for over 360 miles of real-world range on all terrains with no wheel covers. Now that I have wheet covers I'm hoping that goes up a bit.

If you're running core wheels with all-seasons I'd hope/expect to see better.

Great info, but I would never come close to those numbers in Texas. Lots of open roads and high speed limits. I also do a lot of cross city/country work related trips.

 

[TyPope]

This is messing with my head. I've been trying to run comparison calcs but it's not working for me because how did they get 20 extra miles with no changes to battery size? The FS just happens to be 6% more efficient? One model would be based on 2.76 EPA and the other 2.6 EPA.

Might just need another coffee, or just accept it is what it is.

Well, the AWD is a bit lighter with one motor fewer... like 240 pounds lighter.

 

[TyPope]

In warm/hot conditions in NJ I regularly average a tick over 3 mi/kwh for over 360 miles of real-world range on all terrains with no wheel covers. Now that I have wheet covers I'm hoping that goes up a bit.

If you're running core wheels with all-seasons I'd hope/expect to see better.

Because data, here were my first 2,000 miles and note the current drive at the top of 52 miles at 309 Wh/mi which is 3.24 mi/kwh. Multiply by 120kwh in the pack (subtracting 3 kwh for buffer and not running dead) and you're at 388 miles real-world. Again, on all-terrains with no wheel covers.

Your current drive is averaging 46.57 mph based on duration and distance. My beast gets that kind of mileage at lower speeds. I get that kind of range on my ~44-mile commute (6 miles at 45mph speed limit/the rest at 55 mph speed limit) with traffic.

But, on my 13-hour trip last week just got about 400Wh/mi down and back which is ~308 miles of range. I was also going... Well, I wasn't being passed.
Really shows that speed kills range.

Sponsored