ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
I’ve seen it on the desktop version of the site. I’ll grab a screenie when I can.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
2020, 2019, 2018 Model 3 Battery Capacities & Charging Constants
- Thread starter AlanSubie4Life
- Start date
Good luck with that. Perhaps briefly there was some horrible error on the site but that is certainly not the norm.
Here's the screenshot. It shows AWD range and performance acceleration then when you click to order it shows the matching specs but on the first screen it mixes and matches.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
Sure. But technically that is a generic Model 3 that does exist (as you said) - just not on the order page itself where you select what you want.
Anyway, the stranger thing is how the Performance is advertised at 310 miles. Not 299 or 304 or 322! It’s like multiple choice and they picked “none of the above.”
Anyway, the stranger thing is how the Performance is advertised at 310 miles. Not 299 or 304 or 322! It’s like multiple choice and they picked “none of the above.”
Now that 2020.4.1 has resolved all the weird stuff, I'm updating my spreadsheet. No original spreadsheet to post yet - I'm still working on resolving some discrepancies on some vehicles in my spare time.
But stuff is starting to make a lot more sense now. Again, orange cells are direct data from Tesla. No funny business here other than that scaling factor. Ignore Model Y for now; lots of guesses there and this is the wrong forum.
But stuff is starting to make a lot more sense now. Again, orange cells are direct data from Tesla. No funny business here other than that scaling factor. Ignore Model Y for now; lots of guesses there and this is the wrong forum.
megant113
Member
Those are 18" wheels. You can tell based on the RLHP quoted, which is associated with the UDDS & HWFET results in the documents provided by Tesla. The 19" and 20" subconfigurations were not tested in 2018/2019.
Last edited:
So does this mean the 2020 SR+ discharge constant is somewhere between 197 and 201?
The LR AWD got updates to match EPA, but the 2020 SR+ has always somewhat matched EPA right?
Quick update: I'm at 246 Rated Miles....ODO 3.5k Miles.
Yes, “constant” for discharge is about 197-201Wh/rmi. Would be great if you or others could verify it. Your battery capacity appears to be below 52.5kWh now so yours is not a candidate for testing the “inflated” rated miles theory detailed elsewhere. But you could still check the baseline discharge rate. Just need a long enough trip (>100 rated miles used...) and careful data capture.
So this theory suggests the top 2.5 of the battery was hidden fro
managed to hit the solid line again in energy consumption. 215 exactly for SR+ 2020 on 2020.4.1. Does this mean they moved solid line to closer match charge constant ?
They moved both the charge constant and the line in synchrony with 2020.4.1. Looking at the spreadsheet above and from other reports, the charging constant for 2020 SR+ is ~210Wh/rmi. So you'd expect the rated line to be at 215Wh/rmi (always 5Wh/rmi higher for whatever reason).
As I recall, the intermediate update took the constant to 213Wh/rmi and the line to around 218Wh/rmi. But there are posts around here with those details. In any case it doesn't matter now - that was an intermediate change. With that 213Wh/rmi constant, cars were not getting to 250 rated miles at 100%. Now they are. Energy available didn't change; the product of the rated miles at 100% and the constant is the same in both cases (about 52.6kWh, see table above).
This means the BMS constant is about 201Wh/rmi (it has to be 4.5% less than the charging constant by definition!), and the parity "mile for rated mile" consumption rate is about 199Wh/mi on the trip meter (some data would be good to see but that's in the ballpark).
Last edited:
No idea, other than a different rear motor (and of course a different vehicle was used). But it's a significant enough difference in efficiency (3.6%) that it probably is not vehicle to vehicle variation. I just report the numbers and do the calculations to get numbers that exactly match the EPA datafile.
Updating the spreadsheet with the latest data from Model Y. This is just for reference since there is not a lot of traffic in the Model Y forums. We should not devolve this thread into discussions about the Model Y. I will link to threads here, here: Model Y More Efficient Than Model 3?!, and here: Updated CARB certificate for Model Y Performance for those discussions.
The Model Y data in red is close, but not exact (specifically, the UDDS miles do not align with any result published so far - current CARB data is 447.17mi). All the other data in green text for Model Y is directly from the EPA datafile.
As usual, except for Model Y, the data in the orange boxes is directly pulled from the EPA datafile. Everything else is calculated by the spreadsheet, and aligns with published results AFAIK.
There is a lot of talk about the Model Y being just as efficient as Model 3 today. You can see from this spreadsheet that the raw dyno data suggests that is very likely not the case. It appears to be far worse on the freeway, for sure, as one would expect. It is the magical scalar of 0.756 that makes this magic possible. I do not know what the motivation is for that high of a scalar or whether it is legitimate at any time. The range optimism field is my measure of how easy it is to make the rated range. The more negative, the harder it is. It's the ratio of (the difference of the rated DC Wh/mi efficiency and the true DC efficiency) to (the rated DC efficiency). It seems to me it will be very difficult to get rated range in a Performance Model Y.
EPA Datafile, updated frequently: Download Fuel Economy Data
The Model Y data in red is close, but not exact (specifically, the UDDS miles do not align with any result published so far - current CARB data is 447.17mi). All the other data in green text for Model Y is directly from the EPA datafile.
As usual, except for Model Y, the data in the orange boxes is directly pulled from the EPA datafile. Everything else is calculated by the spreadsheet, and aligns with published results AFAIK.
There is a lot of talk about the Model Y being just as efficient as Model 3 today. You can see from this spreadsheet that the raw dyno data suggests that is very likely not the case. It appears to be far worse on the freeway, for sure, as one would expect. It is the magical scalar of 0.756 that makes this magic possible. I do not know what the motivation is for that high of a scalar or whether it is legitimate at any time. The range optimism field is my measure of how easy it is to make the rated range. The more negative, the harder it is. It's the ratio of (the difference of the rated DC Wh/mi efficiency and the true DC efficiency) to (the rated DC efficiency). It seems to me it will be very difficult to get rated range in a Performance Model Y.
EPA Datafile, updated frequently: Download Fuel Economy Data
Last edited:
Dr. J
Active Member
@AlanSubie4Life I notice in comparing posts #27 and #39 that you've added a row for 2018 Model 3 LR RWD 310, in addition to RWD 325. Can you tell me what happened when the existing fleet of RWDs was updated to 325 miles of range--was it simply a change in the formula to read a higher range, or was there a change in the firmware that actually wrung more miles out of the existing hardware?
Separately, I'm astonished that the 2020 Model 3 P 18" now has a higher range than my 2018 LR RWD. Clearly there have been drive train improvements along the way (which may be revealed to us in April).
Separately, I'm astonished that the 2020 Model 3 P 18" now has a higher range than my 2018 LR RWD. Clearly there have been drive train improvements along the way (which may be revealed to us in April).
Similar threads
