How Much Range Can You Get by Driving Efficiently? | Tesla Model 3 Test
How much difference can your driving habits make to your Tesla’s energy consumption and range?
To find out, we drove the same roughly 100-kilometer route twice with our Tesla Model 3 Highland, using two different approaches: an efficient run at 90 km/h with smooth acceleration and the climate control switched off, and a faster run at 140 km/h whenever conditions allowed, with firmer acceleration and climate control enabled.
We compared energy consumption, estimated range, and journey time to see whether the extra range was worth the trade-off.
Watch the full video below to see both runs and the results:
The Car and Test Conditions
For this comparison, we used our Tesla Model 3 Highland with a 60 kWh usable battery capacity and 18-inch Michelin e-Primacy tires.
The test conditions were:
-
Route: Roughly 100 kilometers, approximately 90% highway
-
Starting battery charge: 60% for both runs
-
Outside temperature: Around 20°C
-
Efficient run: 90 km/h highway target speed, smooth acceleration, HVAC off
-
Normal run: 140 km/h highway target speed where permitted and safe, firmer acceleration, climate control set to 20°C
For each run, we drove to the halfway point, turned around, and returned along the same route. This helps balance out differences in elevation and direction, although traffic and wind can still affect the results.
Because we changed speed, driving style, and climate-control use, this test compares their combined effect, rather than isolating the contribution of each change.
Test 1 - Efficient Driving at 90 km/h
For the first run, we focused on maintaining a steady highway speed of 90 km/h, accelerating smoothly, and anticipating traffic.
We left enough space to ease off early when vehicles ahead slowed down, avoiding unnecessary braking and repeated acceleration. We still overtook when needed, but avoided unnecessary bursts of speed.
The HVAC system remained switched off throughout the run.
Results
-
Journey time: 1 hour and 16 minutes
-
Battery charge: 60% → 42%, a drop of 18 percentage points
-
Reported total energy consumption: 10.1 kWh
-
Average energy consumption: 97.7 Wh/km
-
Estimated full-battery range: Approximately 614 km
The range estimate uses the 60 kWh usable battery capacity and the recorded average consumption. It represents the distance the car could theoretically cover from 100% to 0% if that consumption remained consistent.
After reviewing the results, we were surprised to find that our estimated range exceeded Tesla’s advertised WLTP range of 572 kilometers - at least on paper. That implies an average energy consumption of approximately 104.9 Wh/km. However, somehow with our approach and setup, we managed to achieve even lower energy consumption, resulting in a higher estimated range.
Test 2 - Normal Driving at 140 km/h
After charging the car back to 60%, we repeated the route with a highway target speed of 140 km/h whenever conditions allowed.
This time, we accelerated more firmly when joining the highway or returning to our target speed after slower sections. The climate control was set to 20°C.
Traffic and the sections outside the highway meant we could not maintain 140 km/h throughout the journey, so the results reflect the complete route.
Results
-
Journey time: 54 minutes
-
Battery charge: 60% → 29%, a drop of 31 percentage points
-
Reported total energy consumption: 15.9 kWh
-
Average energy consumption: 154.8 Wh/km
-
Estimated full-battery range: Approximately 388 km
The faster approach shortened the journey, but increased the energy required per kilometer.
Efficient vs Normal Driving - The Comparison
36.9% Lower Average Consumption
The normal run increased average consumption from 97.7 Wh/km to 154.8 Wh/km.
That is a saving of 57.1 Wh/km, or 36.9% lower consumption when going for the efficient approach.
Across the recorded journeys, the car reported using 5.8 kWh less energy during the efficient run.
58.4% More Estimated Range
Using the same 60 kWh usable battery capacity, estimated range decreased from approximately 614 km to 388 km.
Calculated before rounding, that represents approximately 227 additional kilometers, or 58.4% more estimated range for the efficient run.
The range increase applies across a full battery. It does not mean we gained 227 kilometers of additional driving distance during this single test.
22 Minutes of Additional Travel Time
The normal run took 54 minutes, while the efficient run took 76 minutes.
That means the efficient approach added 22 minutes to the roughly 100-kilometer journey.
In exchange, we recorded 36.9% lower average consumption and 58.4% more estimated full-battery range.
Actual range will vary with conditions. These estimates are calculated from average consumption, rather than the displayed battery-percentage drops.
Is the Trade-Off Worth It?
In this test, driving more efficiently saved 5.8 kWh while adding 22 minutes to the journey.
If you are trying to reach your destination with limited battery charge, that reduction in consumption could make a useful difference. On longer trips, it could also reduce the amount of charging required, although whether this offsets the extra driving time depends on the route and charging stops.
Comfort matters, too. Switching off the climate control may be manageable at around 20°C, but it will not suit every journey.
If you have plenty of charge and want to arrive sooner, you may prefer the faster approach. Alternatively, you could choose a speed between these two extremes and balance journey time, comfort, and efficiency.
