Getting good numbers

[AwesoM]

Just did a trip up north to DC. I had adaptive cruise control on between 72-74, AC at 70 set to blower 3 in the front. We had the same on one side in the rear. Temp was about 85…. Looking good. Our trip the week before with similar conditions did not get anything close to this. Only thing different is during the week we took the car down to 8 percent and charged from there. Not sure if that helped.

Trip A is when we hit the highway, Trip B is from the house.

 

[tonybot]

Just did a trip up north to DC. I had adaptive cruise control on between 72-74, AC at 70 set to blower 3 in the front. We had the same on one side in the rear. Temp was about 85…. Looking good. Our trip the week before with similar conditions did not get anything close to this. Only thing different is during the week we took the car down to 8 percent and charged from there. Not sure if that helped.

Trip A is when we hit the highway, Trip B is from the house.

Wow! I thought you had Air Pure, but the profile says Touring. Those are impressive numbers!

Maybe this is coincidental, but I have been seeing better numbers from Air Pure since 2.4.4. I know Peter and Eric B talked about how they can change motor management over OTA to get more efficiency—it was briefly discussed in Kyle’s out-of-spec video on gravity. I know the release notes didn’t say anything, but is it possible they made improvements? I am just wondering aloud.

Was the difference between this trip and the less efficient previous trip the software version or something else?

 

[stratus]

Just did a trip up north to DC. I had adaptive cruise control on between 72-74, AC at 70 set to blower 3 in the front. We had the same on one side in the rear. Temp was about 85…. Looking good. Our trip the week before with similar conditions did not get anything close to this. Only thing different is during the week we took the car down to 8 percent and charged from there. Not sure if that helped.

Trip A is when we hit the highway, Trip B is from the house.

That is remarkable!

 

[Amster]

Those are great numbers. Did you drive over 65?

 

[Volund]

Those are great numbers. Did you drive over 65?

He said 72-74

Very impressive numbers. Not familiar with that drive, how's the incline?

 

[AwesoM]

Wow! I thought you had Air Pure, but the profile says Touring. Those are impressive numbers!

Maybe this is coincidental, but I have been seeing better numbers from Air Pure since 2.4.4. I know Peter and Eric B talked about how they can change motor management over OTA to get more efficiency—it was briefly discussed in Kyle’s out-of-spec video on gravity. I know the release notes didn’t say anything, but is it possible they made improvements? I am just wondering aloud.

Was the difference between this trip and the less efficient previous trip the software version or something else?

Last week we were 2.3.1, today 2.4.4. I didn’t even think about that possibility. We are about to head back south. Goal is to drive it like a bat out of hell to see what I get .

 

[AwesoM]

Those are great numbers. Did you drive over 65?

adaptive cruise between 72 and 74.

 

[AwesoM]

He said 72-74

Very impressive numbers. Not familiar with that drive, how's the incline?

Mostly flat but has a few ups and gradual downs. Last week we were only able to get about 4. So this is a big difference.

 

[AwesoM]

Final report for this trip enroute back I drove the way I liked to drive it and it took me down to 3.7 for the leg back and then went up to 4.0 as I was getting closer in town when I drove more civilized Over all average came down to 4.3. This is really assuring, if I need the range I just have to stay in the low to mid 70s.

 

[Shenlon]

Efficiency has definitely gone up. On trips I would usually get 3.7, I am now seeing 4.3 on my '22 GT (19' wheels)

 

[coma24]

Mostly flat but has a few ups and gradual downs. Last week we were only able to get about 4. So this is a big difference.

Richmond airport is 191ft above sea level. Reagan National is 14ft above sea level. They're effectively the same, which means you didn't have a general downhill trend providing any advantage (this is a good thing!)

The only substantial variable might be the surface winds. If you're getting a push, it makes a massive difference to the resistance that the car encounters.

Testing over multiple sessions will tell the tale. If you have a chance to check the winds before a trip, that can help set expectations, too. The winds routinely alternate between northwesterly, westerly, south westerly or southerly in that region, with rarer instances of northeast or easterly. So, on any given day for that trip, you might have a headwind component or a tailwind component. Tire friction notwithstanding, a 15mph headwind or tailwind component represents the difference in efficiency between doing 85 vs 55, given a 72-73mph indicated speed (allowing for the 2-3mph intentional overstating of speed on the dash).

 

[audiojerry]

Final report for this trip enroute back I drove the way I liked to drive it and it took me down to 3.7 for the leg back and then went up to 4.0 as I was getting closer in town when I drove more civilized Over all average came down to 4.3. This is really assuring, if I need the range I just have to stay in the low to mid 70s.

I have an '24 AT too. Do you have 19" Stealth wheels? How many miles are now on your car and have you noticed if your range has increased over time? I was getting around 4.2 earlier in the summer with mid-80 temps, but dripping to 3.9 with mid-70 temps and 2,550 total miles on my AT.

 

[segbrk]

I did this same drive a couple weeks ago. I got 3.0 mi/kWh average on the way down to Richmond. That's as low as I could get it. Yes, I was trying. Granted I wasn't being insane, and it's relatively straight and flat freeway, but wow. That's the aspirational number for some cars. And that's what I got while trying to be inefficient. Much more impressive to me than the hypermiling posts/videos.
I've been thinking we should have a thread titled "Best (most fun) efficiency" to break up the constant flow of "why do I only get X mi/kWh" posts. Let's see some of those sub-1.0 track averages, then compare to the equivalent MB or BMW...

 

[AwesoM]

I have an '24 AT too. Do you have 19" Stealth wheels? How many miles are now on your car and have you noticed if your range has increased over time? I was getting around 4.2 earlier in the summer with mid-80 temps, but dripping to 3.9 with mid-70 temps and 2,550 total miles on my AT.

Car about 2 weeks. We have 1400 miles on it already. It had about 278 miles when it was delivered to us. With 2.3.1 code I was not happy with what I was getting the week before. After 2.4.4 was when I was seeing these numbers. Yes 19”.

 

[AwesoM]

I did this same drive a couple weeks ago. I got 3.0 mi/kWh average on the way down to Richmond. That's as low as I could get it. Yes, I was trying. Granted I wasn't being insane, and it's relatively straight and flat freeway, but wow. That's the aspirational number for some cars. And that's what I got while trying to be inefficient. Much more impressive to me than the hypermiling posts/videos.
I've been thinking we should have a thread titled "Best (most fun) efficiency" to break up the constant flow of "why do I only get X mi/kWh" posts. Let's see some of those sub-1.0 track averages, then compare to the equivalent MB or BMW...

I think what is giving me comfort is that the range is achievable. So if I had to I could. My wife was not quite onboard in having 2 electrics in the garage. So demonstrating that we could technically drive to NYC on one charge is a huge win.

 

[Volund]

Car about 2 weeks. We have 1400 miles on it already. It had about 278 miles when it was delivered to us. With 2.3.1 code I was not happy with what I was getting the week before. After 2.4.4 was when I was seeing these numbers. Yes 19”.

I believe you also have aero caps on correct? I removed mine on my 19"

 

[scal_air]

Do you guys think the improved efficiency is coming from better ACC/HA or something else?

 

[AwesoM]

I believe you also have aero caps on correct? I removed mine on my 19"

Correct. Since I’m from the inside looking out most of the time it does not bother me at much

 

[AwesoM]

Do you guys think the improved efficiency is coming from better ACC/HA or something else?

Not sure…. not sure what is normal but I see a mix bag for results in the community.

 

[tonybot]

Not ACC or HA in my case. Local, in-city driving is turning up with great numbers. I am not sure if there is a calculation error by the car or not but the reported numbers are great. @Nick.Twork or @mcr16 , would you be able to comment if there is any unannounced efficiency improvements part of 2.4.X since some of us are noticing great efficiency numbers.