2020, 2019, 2018 Model 3 Battery Capacities & Charging Constants

[Phlier]

Wow, that was quick! Four minutes later, I got a message that my issue with this thread has been resolved. A quick look, and you're sticky! Well, maybe not you, but at least your thread.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Hey @AlanSubie4Life I have reported you!!

How dare you come in here and write volumes of extremely useful information on this forum! This shall not be tolerated! I have reported the OP of this post (because it needs to be a sticky, so I asked them nicely to make it one). Maybe if others ask for it to be stickified it will be?

IMO, having quick access to this information would help avoid so many repetitive posts, and at the very minimum, make it easier to refer guys to where to get this info quickly.

Seriously, man, thanks for all you do.

Wow, that was quick! Four minutes later, I got a message that my issue with this thread has been resolved. A quick look, and you're sticky! Well, maybe not you, but at least your thread.

Thanks! I'm honored by a sticky.

Now, I wish I could post a (corrected) version of the very first post. I suppose I could ask a mod. Mostly the table is fine, but my updated version would be more appropriate. (And I think there were some other errors in that post, addressed elsewhere here.)

In any case, here is the updated table (again, it is largely identical - just a few minor tweaks here and there). It's not new information:

The green columns are the key to the puzzle, of course (the constants!).

I've previously promised to post the spreadsheet, but I think the number of questions that would arise make it not worth it. In the end, I'm simply grabbing data from the EPA and Tesla's documents, and doing simple math. The ONLY piece of data that is empirical is the pack energy adjustment column. Everything else is directly from source (in orange), or calculated by formula. There are snippets of data that suggest that adjustment is close to correct (it's equivalent to the initial Wh per rated distance inflation that I postulate on a new vehicle), but there's no proof. Additionally kWh in the EPA test may not exactly match those observed from the BMS (may not have same calibration), though they are certainly very close.

Sorry the text is so small (might be best to download the picture then zoom in). I have a lot more columns in the spreadsheet! I left out a lot. But these ones seem interesting.

I haven't made updates to this data this year, so for any new vehicle, this data could potentially be wrong. For example, when Model 3 comes out with a heat pump, the constants will likely change. They can always be determined by carefully observing the behavior of the rated miles on a long drive, though.

In the end, I don't spend much time thinking about this anymore (doesn't mean it doesn't matter - I think I've just internalized it now ). I just drive the car and charge it when it needs it, and I'm never surprised about the distance I am able to travel relative to rated mile use.

Finally - that 2-cycle to 5-cycle scaling is indeed based on 5-cycle test results. I never worked out the formula used exactly but on Model Y it's even higher (I excluded Model Y from this table but I have the data) because of the heat pump. That in theory means that it would be even harder to make the rated range in ideal conditions (when you're not using the heat pump). That's captured in the "range optimism" column. But I don't own a Model Y so I can't speak to that.

 

[hari-bhari]

Thanks so much for the response, it helps a lot. I knew my range would drop with increased consumption but until your explanation I was worried my pack was reporting something incorrect.

 

[jjrandorin]

Thanks! I'm honored by a sticky.

Now, I wish I could post a (corrected) version of the very first post. I suppose I could ask a mod. Mostly the table is fine, but my updated version would be more appropriate. (And I think there were some other errors in that post, addressed elsewhere here.)

In any case, here is the updated table (again, it is largely identical - just a few minor tweaks here and there). It's not new information:

The green columns are the key to the puzzle, of course (the constants!).

I've previously promised to post the spreadsheet, but I think the number of questions that would arise make it not worth it. In the end, I'm simply grabbing data from the EPA and Tesla's documents, and doing simple math. The ONLY piece of data that is empirical is the pack energy adjustment column. Everything else is directly from source (in orange), or calculated by formula. There are snippets of data that suggest that adjustment is close to correct (it's equivalent to the initial Wh per rated distance inflation that I postulate on a new vehicle), but there's no proof. Additionally kWh in the EPA test may not exactly match those observed from the BMS (may not have same calibration), though they are certainly very close.

Sorry the text is so small (might be best to download the picture then zoom in). I have a lot more columns in the spreadsheet! I left out a lot. But these ones seem interesting.

I haven't made updates to this data this year, so for any new vehicle, this data could potentially be wrong. For example, when Model 3 comes out with a heat pump, the constants will likely change. They can always be determined by carefully observing the behavior of the rated miles on a long drive, though.

In the end, I don't spend much time thinking about this anymore (doesn't mean it doesn't matter - I think I've just internalized it now ). I just drive the car and charge it when it needs it, and I'm never surprised about the distance I am able to travel relative to rated mile use.

Finally - that 2-cycle to 5-cycle scaling is indeed based on 5-cycle test results. I never worked out the formula used exactly but on Model Y it's even higher (I excluded Model Y from this table but I have the data) because of the heat pump. That in theory means that it would be even harder to make the rated range in ideal conditions (when you're not using the heat pump). That's captured in the "range optimism" column. But I don't own a Model Y so I can't speak to that.

View attachment 588623

I would think the mods would let you edit the post (or let you forward them information to put in the first post) if you wanted. This thread should have been stickied a long time ago. Thanks @Phlier for suggesting it to the mods and thanks @AlanSubie4Life for all the information you have provided on this topic.

 

[dfwatt]

I don't have good answers for you.

Well...I actually removed that row (I replaced the picture...). The 310 rated miles LR RWD is a point of confusion for me, and I'm still trying to work it out/reconcile all the available data.

All of the stuff below on the LR RWD may be wrong. It's a bit of a mystery to me.

I was not paying attention to this stuff at that time, but my guess/understanding is that the rated range constant has never changed on the RWD. I suspect they once had a much larger bottom buffer on the RWD vehicle, or they did more "expansion" of the existing 310 rated miles (so those vehicles would have taken forever to show degradation - see elsewhere, and here, for my unproven theory on how that is managed). I have no idea really. It's possible it was paired with an efficiency improvement - but they've never retested the vehicle in 2019 or for 2020 so we have no idea really.

That being said, what I do know: The EPA requires the energy measured in the test to be made available to the consumer, as I understand it (lockout of an unusable buffer is not allowed, though a usable buffer below 0% is allowed). (However, I don't know what is allowed if you do voluntary reduction...) If that energy were all available, it would have been 79.3kWh. So the 310 mile to 325 mile update probably did not change the available energy.

If I work this out, I will publish the data in a spreadsheet. There are a lot of numbers that don't align in the various data files, unlike for the other vehicles. So it makes it confusing.

Yes, on the Model 3 P it is pretty amazing how much it has been improved. Part of that is due to the efficiency improvement of the rear motor drive (you can see that on the SR+ efficiency increases), the rest is from something else.

By efficiency improvements of the rear drive motor I'm assuming you mean Hardware changes and not simply firmware tuning of the inverter or other issues? Correct?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

By efficiency improvements of the rear drive motor I'm assuming you mean Hardware changes and not simply firmware tuning of the inverter or other issues? Correct?

I don’t know, but if I had to guess, based on public statements and circumstantial evidence from software updates, it is mostly firmware changes.

The clearest example is the much better efficiency achieved in the 2020 SR+ in the EPA testing - but those vehicles started with the 240 rated mile constant and then the constant changed to give 250 rmi in an update - implying an efficiency update in software not hardware.

 

[dfwatt]

I don’t know, but if I had to guess, based on public statements and circumstantial evidence from software updates, it is mostly firmware changes.

The clearest example is the much better efficiency achieved in the 2020 SR+ in the EPA testing - but those vehicles started with the 240 rated mile constant and then the constant changed to give 250 rmi in an update - implying an efficiency update in software not hardware.

Thanks Alan. And I actually like your analysis that range loss AKA battery degradation is now being reported differently than it was when are 2018 models were new. It seems like there was no degradation and then all of a sudden we lost 10 miles of range. That has to be a firmware issue or recalibration of some kind. And the fact that people are now losing range early whereas very few of the 2018 model cars lost anything in the first year I think supports your argument.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

And the fact that people are now losing range early whereas very few of the 2018 model cars lost anything in the first year I think supports your argument.

Yeah, certainly does not contradict it. But we will see. Still waiting for the Holy Grail of someone who gets SMT right away and fastidiously tracks SMT results AND the displayed rated range at 100%, all the way from brand new to when it shows degradation.

 

[Andy_Mur]

I was looking for the charging curves but ran into this topic. Wow, that's a lot of data! Great work. I'm new here and have yet to find out how to give a like of informative thumbs up. I suppose these rights will be given after some posts.

 

[Candleflame]

Yeah, certainly does not contradict it. But we will see. Still waiting for the Holy Grail of someone who gets SMT right away and fastidiously tracks SMT results AND the displayed rated range at 100%, all the way from brand new to when it shows degradation.

you mean like this?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

you mean like this?

You may have the data!
Yes, like that, but also:

1) rated miles (this one would have been 310 rated miles) at 100% for this datapoint, not extrapolated.

2) Multiple data points from SMT (INCLUDING rated miles at 100% (not extrapolated)), from 78kWh down to 75kWh.

3) Vehicle mileage and approximate age for each datapoint.

I would expect to see:

78kWh - 310 rated miles
77.5kWh - 310 rated miles
77kWh - 310 rated miles
76.5kWh - 310 rated miles
76kWh - 310 rated miles
75.5kWh - 308 rated miles

Obviously this would imply the rated miles are inflated with extra energy when the car is new and will tick off more slowly for a given drive. After degradation shows, there are fewer of them AND they are lower energy content than the brand new rated miles!

This is really just confirmatory data...I’m fairly sure this is how it works already, but I have no firm evidence - just circumstantial evidence.

 

[Candleflame]

yes indeed. you are writing what we all presume -unfortunately i only have a pic of a new model 3.

 

[rydenfan]

hopefully this is the correct place to ask this...

I just received my 3 dual, long range AWD and at a 90% charge it is showing like 260 miles...

We took it out this weekend for about 175 mile trip; when I left I was at 98% and returned at 17%. That seems like a lot of loss for that distance. But would love some help. thanks!

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

hopefully this is the correct place to ask this...

I just received my 3 dual, long range AWD and at a 90% charge it is showing like 260 miles...

We took it out this weekend for about 175 mile trip; when I left I was at 98% and returned at 17%. That seems like a lot of loss for that distance. But would love some help. thanks!

Try asking here instead. Tesla Official Statement on Range

Your results seem just fine. Normal.

 

[TimothyHW3]

It seems the 2021 models are using either 144 Wh/km or 142Wh/km for their calculation.
Ends up about 540km or 337miles at 100% on display. Tesla now using the full capacity when new for the calculation

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

It seems the 2021 models are using either 144 Wh/km or 142Wh/km for their calculation.
Ends up about 540km or 337miles at 100% on display. Tesla now using the full capacity when new for the calculation

Can you post the picture of the Energy Consumption screen with the Projected Range, Recent Efficiency, and the Remaining Rated Range, and another picture of the same in “Energy Display” mode; with all three numbers (%, Proj Range, recent efficiency)?
Preferably in km mode; preferably at high SoC (>80%); three sig figs for each number (not 2, except for the %).

Or post link to said pictures. Thanks!

That way we can have a definitive picture allowing us to calculate the exact constant for the European 2021 Model 3 (sounds like it may not match the US one...but we will see).

(To be clear: we don’t care where the Recent Efficiency is relative to the “rated” line in these pics (as long as it is three sig figs!)...does not matter - historically that rated line is 5Wh/mi (3Wh/km) higher than the actual constant, as we know.)

Tentatively:
142Wh/km*540km = ~77.8kWh, which is about the same as the 2020 Model 3 (which showed ~241Wh/mi*322rmi = ~77.6kWh).

 

[TimothyHW3]

I only found this picture, it is not very conclusive. I will do my own tests once I have the car.

imgur.com

142Wh/km*540km = ~77.8kWh, which is about the same as the 2020 Model 3 (which showed ~241Wh/mi*322rmi = ~77.6kWh

The 21 models have three variant batteries so far - one from LG showing 74.5kWh - slow charging and lower capacity, not good battery overall.
And two from Panasonic - the old one from before showing 77.8 and a new one showing 77.5, but probably has more buffer, or dunno what. Hard to come by to data as most owners are new owners without scan my tesla.

Green wrote this on twitter a while back, maybe the new Panasonics are currently capped at 336 miles and will release a bit more capacity once Tesla runs more tests. I have to see what the V says at 100% to know more.

"Interesting development on model3/y front. firmware 2020.44.10.1 adds a new software locked battery type "336 miles" (current are 220 and 93) which implies that full battery would actually be bigger?"

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I only found this picture, it is not very conclusive. I will do my own tests once I have the car.

imgur.com



The 21 models have three variant batteries so far - one from LG showing 74.5kWh - slow charging and lower capacity, not good battery overall.
And two from Panasonic - the old one from before showing 77.8 and a new one showing 77.5, but probably has more buffer, or dunno what. Hard to come by to data as most owners are new owners without scan my tesla.

Green wrote this on twitter a while back, maybe the new Panasonics are currently capped at 336 miles and will release a bit more capacity once Tesla runs more tests. I have to see what the V says at 100% to know more.

"Interesting development on model3/y front. firmware 2020.44.10.1 adds a new software locked battery type "336 miles" (current are 220 and 93) which implies that full battery would actually be bigger?"

Good info. They may be temporarily restricting the new (inferior???) battery chemistry.

This picture actually is definitive. This implies the constant is 144Wh/km*317km/327rkm= ~139.5Wh/rkm. That’s how this screen works (can easily verify on your current car and check with SMT if you have doubts). As I said we are not calculating the line position here (which is always about 3Wh/km higher for whatever reason - does not align with SMT ).

If 100% actually is 540rkm (why we need the other picture!!!) then capacity would be ~75.4kWh.

I take it this picture is from one of the vehicles with the lower capacity?

 

[Candleflame]

It seems the 2021 models are using either 144 Wh/km or 142Wh/km for their calculation.
Ends up about 540km or 337miles at 100% on display. Tesla now using the full capacity when new for the calculation

that is too high.

Even on an old model 3 AWD 142 wh/km means that a full battery would be 0.142 x 499 = 72 / 0.955 = 75.39kwh which is too little as the old Model 3s have 78kwh battery. That said - total battery capacity may not be related to what 1 rated km is.

edit: oh didnt realize you were talking about the refresh. makes more sense

 

[TimothyHW3]

which is too little as the old Model 3s have 78kwh battery. That said - total battery capacity may not be related to what 1 rated km is.

It is exactly related to the capacity and constant.

Full capacity/Tesla constant= displayed range at 100%, this is a beaten to death topic.

However on the 2018/RWD and 2019 AWD models Tesla willingly used a part of the capacity to display range(76.5/5 on 2019)- then they started using the full 77.8 hence the 318miles range over similar constant.

Also, a few people have tested 2021 vs 2019 driving same speed with heater off and it seems there is no measurable difference in motor efficiency