Tesla batteries retain more than 90% capacity past 160,000 miles, informal study shows

This thread got political really quick. Some good post though.

It's good to see real world data. It's always a little scary just relying on the manufacturer's stress tests to predict long-term results. While not perfect, this data goes a long way in helping promote this issue (one of the most important for electric vehicles).
 
Besides, I thought that the longevity performance of Li-Ion batteries was biased more toward number of charging cycles incurred, not time or distance traveled.

Here's a listing of used Teslas for sale: https://www.autoblog.com/used-list/make1-Tesla/vcond-Used,CPO If you're up for slogging though it it might assist in drawing some conclusions about buyer habits, possibly even battery longevity. I have a sneaking suspicion that Tesla owners, facing the considerable expense of battery replacement, might opt to unload them.

The longevity of L-ion batteries is much more complicated than merely a matter of recharging cycles. One variable is, max charges do more to reduce longevity than partial charges. Which is why Tesla's battery management circuitry and software don't normally permit max charging, and this is factored into their expected ranges.

You can reasonably expect the range of a Tesla driven 160,000 miles to be roughly 90% of its original range under average driving conditions. Whether that implies a need for a battery pack replacement depends on the customer's preferences, really.

By the time a Tesla's battery pack yields 90% of the original range, it's quite possible that improved battery packs yielding longer ranges will be available. Prices should fall, too, as better battery chemistries become available. We can't *count* on those improvements, but honestly, 90% range for an old car shouldn't be that much of an issue for most owners. And during those years of operation, the cost of energy and maintenance costs for a Tesla should be much lower and involve far less hassle than for an equivalent ICE vehicle.

So I don't see battery replacement costs as a show-stopper.
 
Tesla doesn't manufacture their own batteries yet. They source their batteries from third party suppliers like Panasonic, so I don't see why everyone is commending Tesla for this result.
Musk tapped Panasonic for a couple of billion dollars to, build, (ostensibly), "his",battery "giga-factory".

Given Musk's typical egocentric behaviors and heavily overstated personal accomplishments, it would be difficult to say whether he's, "sourcing his batteries from Panasonic", or, "doing Panasonic a huge a** favor by letting them build batteries for him".:D
 
My car still has the same fuel capacity and range as when it was new 13 years ago. It also pollutes the environment less since it doesn't have to lug a tonne of batteries everywhere.

Let's give up on all this daft EV stuff and move on with carbon-neutral petrol/gasoline.

I'm not 100% for electric vehicles, but your claim is not so accurate. The "added" extra weight of batteries is offset by all of the engine and drivetrain, plus fluids, (several hundred pounds) of a combustion engine. Compare this to hybrids, and you have the worst of both worlds.

While I believe it is still not fully disclosed in the pollution produced per mile for an electric vehicle (equipment/fuel to build the electric infrastructure, plus energy lost over power lines) compared to gas (equipment/fuel to build the oil/gasoline infrastructure, plus transporting and hazard of fuel), I would say electric is cleaner. Especially if you consider using renewable energy like wind/thermal and solar. Electric cars also convert the kinetic energy from slowing down/stopping versus combustion engines simply soak up all that energy as loss into brake pads. Then we have to consider combustion engines continuing to burn gas at every single red light/train crossing/traffic, etc etc. The vehicles that shut off the engine have to keep running to keep the a/c going, not to mention all the wear and tear of restarting every time, plus the annoyance and delay to move forward again. While there is pollution created by the batteries in some way for creation/disposal (nothing I have read by how much), the technology may end up using something that will not be(?), but that is future hopes.
There have been studies done by reputable sources that electric is cleaner even if the electricity comes from the worst of polluting coal-fired power plants. I suspect that this is part of the reason why a city in China announced not all that long ago that they were converting all their public transportation buses to EV buses.

There are other losses and pollution, too, in the gas chain, such as transportation from refinery to end user, refining losses and pollution, and probably others that people do not normally think of when considering the pollution chain of ICEs. These simply do not exist in EVs.

As electric storage technology improves and it is, EVs will become the norm.
 
So a Tesla has 90% of its range after 160,000 miles.... what range does a “regular” car after the same mileage? I’m thinking far closer to 100%.... but I guess 90% isn’t that bad...
 
Some Teslas have 90% of their range after 160,000 miles, according to a possibly biased survey by Tesla owners. what range does a “regular” car after the same mileage? I’m thinking far closer to 100%.... but I guess 90% isn’t that bad...
Fixed!

I.m not sure when posters stopped reading the chart altogether, and this topic became "all Teslas have a range of 90% after 160,000 miles".
 
Some Teslas have 90% of their range after 160,000 miles, according to a possibly biased survey by Tesla owners. what range does a “regular” car after the same mileage? I’m thinking far closer to 100%.... but I guess 90% isn’t that bad...
Fixed!

I.m not sure when posters stopped reading the chart altogether, and this topic became "all Teslas have a range of 90% after 160,000 miles".

You hate Elon, we all get it.

Didn't matter if this was an official study by Baby Jesus your comment would be I hate Elon.
 
My car still has the same fuel capacity and range as when it was new 13 years ago. It also pollutes the environment less since it doesn't have to lug a tonne of batteries everywhere.

Let's give up on all this daft EV stuff and move on with carbon-neutral petrol/gasoline.

I'm not 100% for electric vehicles, but your claim is not so accurate. The "added" extra weight of batteries is offset by all of the engine and drivetrain, plus fluids, (several hundred pounds) of a combustion engine. Compare this to hybrids, and you have the worst of both worlds.

While I believe it is still not fully disclosed in the pollution produced per mile for an electric vehicle (equipment/fuel to build the electric infrastructure, plus energy lost over power lines) compared to gas (equipment/fuel to build the oil/gasoline infrastructure, plus transporting and hazard of fuel), I would say electric is cleaner. Especially if you consider using renewable energy like wind/thermal and solar. Electric cars also convert the kinetic energy from slowing down/stopping versus combustion engines simply soak up all that energy as loss into brake pads. Then we have to consider combustion engines continuing to burn gas at every single red light/train crossing/traffic, etc etc. The vehicles that shut off the engine have to keep running to keep the a/c going, not to mention all the wear and tear of restarting every time, plus the annoyance and delay to move forward again. While there is pollution created by the batteries in some way for creation/disposal (nothing I have read by how much), the technology may end up using something that will not be(?), but that is future hopes.
The mass of the batteries in an EV far exceeds an ICE (e.g. a Nissan Leaf is 50% heavier than a Nissan Micra).
In comparing pollution/eco viability you need to:
a) compare an ICE car using renewable fuel (petrol/gas from Wind/Solar + Water + C02) to an EV that is charged from renewable sources.
Or
b) compare an ICE car using fossil fuels to an EV charged by fossil fuel generated electricity.
 
So a Tesla has 90% of its range after 160,000 miles.... what range does a “regular” car after the same mileage? I’m thinking far closer to 100%.... but I guess 90% isn’t that bad...

That is a very tough answer to get an accurate answer. As far as my personal experience, combustion engines do lose efficiency as time goes. A lot of it has to do with maintenance by the owner, though. Components such as plugs/plug wires, air filters getting clogged, carbon buildup in the chamber and intake, etc etc. Then you have components not in standard maintenance such as clogged injectors, A/F meter, oxygen sensors, catalytic converter clogged, and any amount of other sensors failing (engine checklight) that owners don't care to fix.
 
You hate Elon, we all get it.

Didn't matter if this was an official study by Baby Jesus your comment would be I hate Elon.
We don't see too much of you when the topic isn't Musk related, or Badvok.

I guess you just swoop in to lead the worship contingent. I can't help noticing you always call him by his first name. Do you know him personally, or just imagine that you do?

This is a study by Musk groupies, and Tesla fanatics. I will give them credit for most likely doing everything by the book, which results in great outcomes.

You know Musk didn't design or build Teslas right? He just hypes them for the money. He's Tesla motors talking head. Try and wrap your head around "Elon's".
 
That is a very tough answer to get an accurate answer. As far as my personal experience, combustion engines do lose efficiency as time goes. A lot of it has to do with maintenance by the owner, though. Components such as plugs/plug wires, air filters getting clogged, carbon buildup in the chamber and intake, etc etc. Then you have components not in standard maintenance such as clogged injectors, A/F meter, oxygen sensors, catalytic converter clogged, and any amount of other sensors failing (engine checklight) that owners don't care to fix.
A huge chunk of energy loss related to operating an automobile, is in poor tire maintenance..A car with old and/or under-inflated tires, will render very poor mileage as compared to what the sticker said when it was new. Obviously those factors would, (or should), have a direct effect on an EV's range as well.

Those things said, an EV has many less moving parts (?), and save for the battery, there are, (AFAI can guess), simply less things to break.

This is all sort of an academic discussion, which we, (myself included), should have confined to the batteries in a EV alone. Moving on anyway.....

But, so many other factors enter into play when considering keeping a vehicle, long term. Perhaps even going so far as to considering the longevity of the clear coat, and quality and durability, of the weather stripping.

My point being, it's really two completely different matters, whether exchanging vehicles based on mileage, or on time retained.

The Teslas on the road thus far, have been, to a large extent, toys of the well to do. But when they, and other EVs hit the mainstream and used markets, lots of other factors besides battery life will come into play.

Can you still get parts for it?

"I don't have a garage, or even parking in front of my row house, how do I charge it"?

I could go on about vast changes to infrastructure which would be required for mass adoption of EVs, but I won't. After all, it's all about the batteries.;)
 
You hate Elon, we all get it.

Didn't matter if this was an official study by Baby Jesus your comment would be I hate Elon.
We don't see too much of you when the topic isn't Musk related, or Badvok.

I guess you just swoop in to lead the worship contingent. I can't help noticing you always call him by his first name. Do you know him personally, or just imagine that you do?

This is a study by Musk groupies, and Tesla fanatics. I will give them credit for most likely doing everything by the book, which results in great outcomes.

You know Musk didn't design or build Teslas right? He just hypes them for the money. He's Tesla motors talking head. Try and wrap your head around "Elon's".

Woah calm down there John, I quite like a lot of things Bill Gates does and although Bill didn't do it all himself he has managed to generate a lot of money for his company. I just wish they could get their software under control.

I think what they might have to do is partner with companies and people who are experts in those fields and maybe that could make all the difference.

Wonder if I use the software and see what the fuss is all about, nah going to go with internet warrior instead........ hear me roar... raaaaa
 
Woah calm down there John, I quite like a lot of things Bill Gates does and although Bill didn't do it all himself he has managed to generate a lot of money for his company. I just wish they could get their software under control.
What Musk does best, is hoodwink suckers. Oh, and what Tesla does best, is fail to meet deadlines, and loose money.

Now what your precious "Elon" should do, is start selling his toy flamethrowers to help Tesla along, instead of crapping around with his, "boring company", which he actually started as a joke.

I'm actually surprised you didn't start back in calling Mr. Gates, "Bill".
 
Woah calm down there John, I quite like a lot of things Bill Gates does and although Bill didn't do it all himself he has managed to generate a lot of money for his company. I just wish they could get their software under control.
What Musk does best, is hoodwink suckers. Oh, and what Tesla does best, is fail to meet deadlines, and loose money.

Now what your precious "Elon" should do, is start selling his toy flamethrowers to help Tesla along, instead of crapping around with his, "boring company", which he actually started as a joke.

I'm actually surprised you didn't start back in calling Mr. Gates, "Bill".

Why wouldn't I call Bill Gates by his name Bill, and by the way "Bill" is the incorrect use as his name is Bill.

This has to be one of the dumbest things, seriously where do I get off calling a guy by his name.....what a jerk.

By the way I was specifically writing about Bill, love that guy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why wouldn't I call Bill Gates by his name Bill, and by the way "Bill" is the incorrect use as his name is Bill.

This has to be one of the dumbest things, seriously where do I get off calling a guy by his name.....what a jerk.

By the way I was specifically writing about Bill, love that guy
WARNING: Don't feed the troll!
 
Back