larryh

Yes--the trip summary shows MPG. So to figure out gallons of gasoline from the trip summary, just divide total distance by MPG. MFM shows MPGe (even though it says MPG). So it includes the plug-in energy and your calculation in post 9 is correct. Low is not maximum regen. Maximum regen is 35 kW. Low regens about 26 kW. So you can still lightly use the brakes and get additional regen in Low. You have a rather lot of regen in the previous post. Normally, one would have 3 regen miles for a trip such as yours. You must be allowing the car to slow down a lot. That will decrease mileage. I try to avoid unnecessary regen.

The names of the PIDs are: GTQ_OUT Generator Torque from AC Source MTQ_OUT Motor Torque from AC Source That seems to imply that that the are calculated from the AC input to the motor/generator. When the motor/generator RPMs are zero, the torque is 0.0 to -0.2 N-m. If you plot torque vs. rpm for the generator in EV mode, you get a piecewise linear function. You get a similar plot for the motor when in neutral. That would indicate that the values are computed rather than measured.

MyFord Mobile is showing MPG rather than MPGe. Plug-in energy is not included in MPG. So the gallons of gas used is 21.3/60.1 = 0.35 gallons. That seems rather high. You will have to see what MyFord Mobile reports for a trip entirely in EV mode. Is it 999.9? If not, then the car is actually reporting MPGe (and not MPG).

To determine gallons of gas from MPGe, divide the total trip miles by MPGe to get equivalent gallons of gas. Then subtract out the contribution from plug-in energy by subtracting plug-in energy (kWh) divided by 33.705. So if T is the total trip miles, and E is the plug-in energy consumed, then: gallons of gasoline = T / MPGe - E/33.705

Doesn't MyFord Mobile show the MPG or MPGe for each trip you take? You can determine the gas consumed from that.

It means you drove 15.0 miles with the ICE off and 4.3 miles with the ICE on. 2.5 of the EV miles were from energy stored in the HVB through regenerative braking. To figure out how much gas was consumed, you need MPG or MPGe. If you drove in EV now it would be 19.3 miles total, 19.3 EV miles, and 2.5 Regen miles. You used plug-in energy for 16.8 of the miles and regenerative braking provided 2.5 miles.

If you don't have an Go times, it will charge it within 24 hours.

I had calibration updates for six the modules in my car. They were done under warranty--most of them were because the MIL came on when I used the engine block heater. The car does charge the 12 V battery significantly more after the modules were updated. The SOC of the 12 V used to be less than 70%. Now it is generally above 90%.

The car will always attempt to charge the HVB before the next Go time, even if it has to use times with higher rates. Between now and the next scheduled GO time, it chooses the windows with the lowest rates. It may not have a choice and have to use the highest cost windows. If there is not enough time to complete charging, it will stop charging at the Go time and recalculate the charging schedule, again selecting the windows with the lowest rates before the next Go time. If the next Go time is more than 24 hours away, it will assume you want the car charged within 24 hours. Suppose you plug in the car at 6:00 pm. If you want to charge the car from 3:00 am to 6:00 am, set a low cost charge window for those times. Since it takes about 6 hours to charge with the 120 V charger, set another low cost charge window from may 12:00 pm to 4:00 pm (make sure it provide adequate time so it can charge only in the lowest cost windows). Now select the next Go time at 4:00 pm the next day. The car will now charge in the two lowest cost charge windows. You will need to unplug the car before noon so it doesn't actually charge from 12:00 pm to 4:00 pm. In general, it doesn't cool the battery much more than if the car were unplugged. But my battery is not been all that hot lately. It might do more if the battery were hotter.

Tesla needs OTA updates. They don’t have the resources to complete software development before they manufacture the car. Many of their features (such as Navigation) are really incomplete beta versions of the promised software. This allows them to promise all sorts features without yet actually delivering on their promises before the sale. Also, many of their software features are rudimentary compared to other manufacturers. They need to update them to catch up with the other manufacturers. They didn’t have TACC and many of the other features until last year, while others had been offering them for many years. There is a problem with this model. How long do you have to wait before they can deliver the software updates required to realize all the promised features. The car may be obsolete by the time the updates arrive. They are constantly updating the car’s hardware.

ForScan has many things you could check. What is the HVB temperature? What is the fan speed in the BECM? Or the HVB discharge limit? You could also check PHEV Vehicle Mode. From the various PIDs you will have to guess what the car is doing.

Doing several analyses similar to the chart in the previous post for different acceleration rates, I come up with the following chart. It shows motor efficiency during acceleration vs. average power consumed from the HVB during acceleration. The faster you accelerate, the more power required from the HVB. Two bars on the empower screen corresponds to about 25 kW of power from the HVB. The chart shows the ratio of the kinetic energy of the car, supplied by the motor, divided by the energy supplied by the HVB. Efficiency ranges from about 85% with slow acceleration to 72% with fast acceleration. The kinetic energy of the car at 50 mph is approximately 0.135 kWh of energy. If you want to accelerate to that speed, that is how much mechanical energy the motor needs to supply. If you accelerate slowly, the HVB will have to supply 0.135 / 0.85 = 0.159 kWh of energy. If you accelerate quickly, it will have to supply 0.135 / 0.72 = 0.188 kWh. It will have to supply an additional 0.03 kWh of electricity to provide the kinetic energy for 50 mph. Note that energy to overcome friction is not being considering in these computations. Much more additional energy than 0.03 kWh will be required to overcome friction during faster acceleration.

Yes the trip and charge log show 22 minutes of charging last night to 15%. Of course, value charging is shown as 0%. It also shows 5 minutes of charging while I turned the car on for five minutes while it was plugged in. Finally, it shows value charging started at 3:00 am and completed at 4:40 am this morning.

There generally is very little difference between how much the 240 V and 120 V charger warm up the HVB. They both warm it up by about 4 F during a full charge. The biggest factor in how much the HVB warms up during charging is how much the car decides to run the fan. Last night, when the battery was 95, the fan ran continuously at 1000 rpm. This morning, when the HVB was 79 F, the car did not run the fan very much and allowed the HVB to warm up. Otherwise, the car could have cooled the HVB down if it had wanted to during charging.

The fans runs at low speed all night. This morning the HVB temperature fell from 93 to 79 F. Charging warmed it back up to 84 F. The garage temperature was 72 F. I suspect that it is not good to leave the HVB at a low SOC. Value Charging makes it a priority to provide a minimal amount of SOC to the HVB immediately after plugging in, regardless of how expensive electricity is at the moment according to the value charge profile. It normally charges beyond the hybrid portion of the HVB before stopping. I see 3 to 4 miles of range. The displayed SOC was 15% when it stopped. I don't know the SOC threshold which causes the car to start charging the HVB immediately when plugging in under value charge. It only charges immediately when the HVB is sufficiently depleted. MFM will show the car is charging when it does this, but the time to complete charging is the next day.

I plugged the car into the 240 V charger this afternoon after my commute home. Value charge is enabled. The car immediately charged the HVB until the SOC reached 32.5%. The HVB temperature fell while charging from 95 F to 93 F. So running the fans while charging can cool the battery down. I will see tomorrow morning what the temperature is with the fans running all night while waiting for the charge time.

For my commute home today, the recorded power output by the HVB, ETE, and the energy reported by MFM all agreed. I did not note any significant discrepancies. However, this time, the ETE was 6.75 kWh rather than 7.07 at the start of the trip. In addition, the HVB temperature was 73 F rather than 97 F at the beginning of the commute. I probably haven't had enough commutes when I started out with a HVB temperature of 97 F for the BECM to accurately compute ETE for that temperature.

That's the wrong temperature. You need to monitor the cylinder head temperature. ET provides the coolant temperature in the heater core. The engine compartment warms up from all the friction in the motor and transmission.

I don't know how to measure resistance reliably. There are no PIDs that I see that will help. About the best I can do is the chart above, which doesn't have enough accuracy to detect small changes in degradation.

You don't know what the coolant temperature is unless you actually measure it. So I don't know if your car works differently.

Charging the HVB does not necessarily warm it up. I have charged the HVB and the temperature has cooled down with the fans running. It takes a very long time for the HVB to cool down. Overnight, without a fan, it might cool down about 7 or 8 degrees. I will have to monitor what happens more closely to provide more accurate data.

The following chart is a plot of Voltage vs. ETE for my 60 mile commute from last year and this year. The blue markers are from the commute last year. The red markers are for the commute this past weekend. In both cases, I assumed an internal resistance of 0.12 ohms, otherwise the markers would be spread out much more than they already are. HVB voltage drops with increasing current. I see no significant difference. The BECM can only estimate ETE--it cannot provide an accurate measurement. If the battery were significantly degraded, the red markers should be below the blue ones. I don't know why the BECM suddenly estimated that battery had 7.06 kWh of energy when I started the commute. Normally, it says I only have about 6.85 kWh. I am assuming it changed its mind at the end and corrected the error in the original estimate.

The following chart is the same as in the previous post except I added the purple line which shows energy loss due exclusively to friction and the light blue line which is the difference between the green and purple lines, i.e. the energy loss resulting from all other sources than friction (mainly from the motor being less than 100% efficient). The purple line showing energy loss from friction (aerodynamic drag, tire rolling resistance, and other sources of internal friction) depends mainly on the car's speed. The only way to reduce this energy loss is to drive slower. The light blue line shows energy loss resulting from motor inefficiency when providing the kinetic energy for acceleration and when converting kinetic energy to electricity during regenerative braking. Most of this energy loss occurs during acceleration. The kinetic energy of the car when going 50 mph is about 0.13 kWh. The energy loss during acceleration was about 0.024 kWh (the height of the light blue line when 50 mph is reached and the light blue line levels off). So 18% of the kinetic energy was lost, i.e. the motor was 82% efficient in providing the kinetic energy to accelerate the car. During regenerative braking, 0.005 kWh of energy was lost (the height the light blue rises during regenerative braking which starts just before time 0.01 hours). So 4% of the kinetic energy is lost by the motor, i.e. the motor was 96% efficient. By definition, the light blue line remains constant when traveling at a constant speed of 50 mph.

ETE started falling more rapidly than expected when SOC fell below 50%. That made the range and SOC displayed in the car decrease faster during the second half of the trip vs. the first half. The BECM must have decided that it got the initial ETE of 7.074 kWh wrong and was trying to correct the error.

Climate control is off. You would have to monitor the coolant temperature in the car to observe what is going on. The outside temperature and coolant temperature are not the same thing. You would have to monitor coolant temperature to verify if the conditions are met.