2021 Model 3 and differences from 2020

[TimothyHW3]

You can make these claims over and over again, but it won't make a difference as a post in some forum.

Well betwen you and me - I actually testing it, recorded on a video, and you only writing on a forum and making "claims", I think my "claim" is more solid.
But you are free to test it and prove me wrong.

Take the same cars 2019, 2020 and 21, turn heating off, same tires and test it. There are plenty of vehicles out there why don't do it if you are so confident? What is holding you off instead of "making claims" on a forum and questioning mine?

Remember, to be able to achieve the same WLTP, in that result you have to achieve 6% to 7% efficiency gain from the 2021 model, since you have about 3% less capacity.

This if we assume the 2019/20 models have the same software update efficiency as the new cars. If they don't - then you have to achieve 10% better efficiency to match the extra 4% added range from 2020 WLTP models (560km vs 580km).

That is not even possible on the same exact motors.

If you think you have solid proof then go ahead and sue Tesla.

And I am in the process of doing exactly that.

 

[eivissa]

Oh boy.

My "claim" was that Tesla has demonstrated a range of 580km in a standartized test to the European authorities (NL).
I am not the one claiming this is all fraud/fake/lies...nor do I claim that these numbers resemble a realistic range at all.

To make this a convincing case you would have to show that:
-You've driven the two compared cars in the same WLTP scenario and not just a direct consumption comparison in a certain SoC window.
-Both cars are on the software version on which the WLTP numbers have been demonstrated, so any update improving the efficiency after the certification doesnt count into this comparion, as this probably forms part of the increased WLTP of the new one.
-The high regen by the refresh at 100% SoC has no effect on the WLTP figures compared to no regen of the pre-refresh.
-The E5D LG batterys having shown to go up to almost 76KWH and past the FPWN value whithin the first months has no effect on this comparison.

Being sceptical is great, doing these tests is valuable and I am sure the M3 refresh is not the efficiency wonder that Tesla would like us to beleive.

So I guess your cause is good, but the execution...law suit? Insulting and eye/ear cancer producing videos? Not the way to reach an audience.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Both cars are on the software version on which the WLTP numbers have been demonstrated, so any update improving the efficiency after the certification doesnt count into this comparion, as this probably forms part of the increased WLTP of the new one.

Thank you for pointing this out again; this is the key point, this has been covered so many times with @TimothyHW3, and the circumstantial evidence supports this being the reason.

Still: Until someone actually publishes the WLTP detailed measurement data for the two model years in question (2019 and 2021), we are all just flapping our lips in the breeze, really. We have a pretty good idea of what happened but being 100% sure is difficult!

Any lawsuit is likely to fail; it doesn’t seem likely at all in this case that Tesla is lying about the WLTP numbers.

 

[TimothyHW3]

To make this a convincing case you would have to show that:
-You've driven the two compared cars in the same WLTP scenario and not just a direct consumption comparison in a certain SoC window.
-Both cars are on the software version on which the WLTP numbers have been demonstrated, so any update improving the efficiency after the certification doesnt count into this comparion, as this probably forms part of the increased WLTP of the new one.
-The high regen by the refresh at 100% SoC has no effect on the WLTP figures compared to no regen of the pre-refresh.
-The E5D LG batterys having shown to go up to almost 76KWH and past the FPWN value whithin the first months has no effect on this comparison.

First I highly doubt there was an actual WLTP test drive done to confirm these conditions. The first car arrived at the end of September, the first cars were delivered around Mid to End October. Otherwise the difference between 82kWh and 79kWh vs 560km vs 580km wouldn't be exactly 3.7%. Why not 590km or 570km...

And otherwise Tesla woudln't report 82kWh in the paperwork (why do that?!)

Secondly, no, I don't really have to do any of that. If I take a car delivered in September 2020 and sold at 560km and I drive both cars at the same time and come longer than a car taken delivery a few days later in October 2020, sold at 580km (which is pretty easy since the 580km car has less capacity on the same efficiency), then the case is proven. Then and there.

And pretty much this is what I have already proven.

-The E5D LG batterys having shown to go up to almost 76KWH

Show me one car that did that and pulled 76kWh out of a LG battery? Otherwise Tesla wouldn't limit the Pana batteries to 75.4kWh...They could've limited to 76kWh if what you are saying is true? Also, most of the LG batteries I have seen have very poor degradation, Nyland being one and a lot of others on the french forum.

And I am not even mentioning the fact, that Tesa is only limitting this for cars in Europe, in the US they still use the full capacity. Maybe Tesla thought these poor idiots in Europe at the WLTP will never notice it.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

It doesn't matter what you think or what your "feels" are - you are advertising more range and the customers expect more range, not less.

I understand your point here, for sure. And to some extent I agree! But for a false advertising claim to hold in court, the 2021 car would need to not meet the 580km value, presumably.

But it likely will - it will get 3% or so less range than the 2019, due to a lower capacity battery (LG), so about 580km.

(To be clear: This is as compared to a theoretical 2019 vehicle tested with latest software, which still has ~78kWh - something that does not exist in real life due to capacity loss)

The car sold in September 2020 had an advertisement sticker of 560km.

Yes, that’s correct. With a range of about 600km WLTP. Nothing wrong with that. Meets the 560km requirement.

 

[TimothyHW3]

But for a false advertising claim to hold in court, the 2021 car would need to not meet the 580km value, presumably.

No, it has to simply come shorter than a September sold one.

(To be clear: This is as compared to a theoretical 2019 vehicle tested with latest software, which still has ~78kWh - something that does not exist in real life due to capacity loss)

Not 2019, but 2020 September, the latest date they sold the car at 560km.

And not 78kWh , 75.5.kWh is enough. Even if it comes at the same distance, still false advertisement.

There are a lot of those around. Mine had 75kWh up until the point I sold it, at 18 months and 40,000+km, I see a bunch of with 76kWh at 50,000 + KM

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Not 2019, but 2020 September, the latest date they sold the car at 560km.

Sure, that’s fine. Can compare to that too. 2020 with about 75kWh should do about 580km just like the 2021. With about 78kWh it’ll do about 600km.

This can all be inferred from the EPA documents if you assume that WLTP was tested in late 2018/early 2019 and just held until the update in 2021 (which they needed to do since they reduced the battery capacity, so wanted the WLTP range to go up, to finally reflect 2 years of efficiency improvements, even with less capacity!).

Even if it comes at the same distance, still false advertisement.

No, it has to simply come shorter than a September sold one.

Good luck with that argument in court.

Lol with the disagrees. It’s not required that you like what I say. You’re entitled to your own opinion, and to file a lawsuit if you wish. But you’re not entitled to your own facts.

 

[TimothyHW3]

Good luck with that argument in court.

Good luck with which argument?

That a car sold with more range in a real life test comes shorter than a car advertised with less range?

Yeah, that is a very counterintuitive argument when you are actually suing for "false advertisement of range"...

Especially if you can confirm, that the reason you are buying the car is to travel further than you could with a car you owned before...Or a car they sold 7 days beforehand and you made the purchase for that model specifically "being advertised with more range".

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Good luck with which argument?

That a car sold with more range in a real life test comes shorter than a car advertised with less range?

Yeah, that is a very counterintuitive argument when you are actually suing for "false advertisement of range"...

Especially if you can confirm, that the reason you are buying the car is to travel further than you could with a car you owned before...Or a car they sold 7 days beforehand.

You should definetly not apply for anything related to law or logic...

Like I said, I wish you luck.

If I were Tesla, I would make it very clear what battery capacity to expect when new, in addition to the WLTP rating. But I’m not Tesla, nor am I much of a salesman.

Elon is a salesman, and that percolates through the organization. It’s important to understand this. There is nothing wrong with it, in my opinion, but it is important to understand. Buyers must educate themselves.

Personally, I understand most buyers are relatively uneducated - look at you for example, who studies this stuff in detail, yet STILL got tripped up by the numbers and (perhaps) made a poor purchasing decision. That’s why if I were in charge, I would just provide all the key numbers to buyers, rather than keeping it abstracted away, so there’s none of this nonsense (we have 87 pages of comments attempting to clarify the situation ). I would tell you which vendor made your battery before you pay, the capacity, etc. Don’t like an LG battery that is 3-4% smaller than the one in the US? Then don’t buy it. That would be fine with me. There are plenty of buyers.

But just because I would do that does not mean that what Tesla is doing is “wrong.”

 

[MP3Mike]

That a car sold with more range in a real life test comes shorter than a car advertised with less range?

Yeah, that is a very counterintuitive argument when you are actually suing for "false advertisement of range"...

I don't think you can base a claim like that. You are essentially saying it is illegal to under report the range on a car. (If a car gets the range that they reported it can, that claim is met.)

 

[eivissa]

First I highly doubt there was an actual WLTP test drive done to confirm these conditions.

You doubt, but you dont know. Not a good start at a court hearing.

And otherwise Tesla woudln't report 82kWh in the paperwork (why do that?!)

Were do they report 82KWH in a Long Range? Which paperwork? Show me one Long Range SMT screenshot with values similar to the 82KWH M3P battery pack.

And pretty much this is what I have already proven.

You have proven...something. Not that a car sold with 580km WLTP is incabable of doing this range with an LG Pack.

Show me one car that did that and pulled 76kWh out of a LG battery?

"almost 76KWH"

Highest was 75.9 by this user:
Übersicht 2021 LR / P Batteriekapazität Fahrzeugschein

Otherwise Tesla wouldn't limit the Pana batteries to 75.4kWh

Weird number to limit the battery to. That surely doesnt apply to all Panasonic packs in the M3 (like mine) and even if, then it doesnt matter. See top buffer argument below.

Also, most of the LG batteries I have seen have very poor degradation.

Cant be generalized. Here is another car with a value higher than when delivered.

And I am not even mentioning the fact, that Tesa is only limitting this for cars in Europe

In Europe only WLTP counts. Tesla can limit what they want (if we like it or not and if that is even true or not). Tesla never sold anyone a battery capacity, but a claimed range...be it as unrealistic as it is.

in the US they still use the full capacity.

Whichever capacity that is...call a limited battery one with a healthy top buffer if you like. The German manufacturers are sure fond of doing that. In any way...In the US Tesla needs to be able to do the EPA values. No more, no less.

Maybe Tesla thought these poor idiots in Europe at the WLTP will never notice it.

This doesnt really deserve an answer, as it just shows a very hostile approach that is in the way of a healthy discussion.

If you honestly think that is true, then you maybe should go full on with your lawsuit and never touch one of their cars again. Also let major newspapers know. They sure like these kind of storys.

Final note: thanks for asking when using my publications in your videos...by the way.

 

[MP3Mike]

Or do you work for VW, that is some real VW logic there.

Yeah, really twisted logic that if the car is reported to get 580km of range, and it actually gets 580km of range that their advertised claim has been met.

You are the one dragging in unrelated information.

 

[TimothyHW3]

and it actually gets 580km

We don't really know if it "actually" can. To get 580km on 75.5kWh You have to go to almost below 13kWh/100km. The COC papers say they tested the consumption at 14.8kWh. So even WLTP is advertising 14.8kWh combined...

really twisted logic that if the car is reported to get 580km of range

It doesn't matter if it's 580km or 5800km. As long as you advertised car B to have more range than car A that you sold a few days beforehand and a customer makes an informed decision to buy that car B instead of A and it turns out A had more real world range - false advertisement.

Tesla can limit what they want (if that is even true or not).

I think you disqualified yourself from the conversation, because the limitation of the battery has been confirmed a long time ago. There is nothing to argue here.

 

[MP3Mike]

It doesn't matter if it's 580km or 5800km. As long as you advertised car B to have more range than car A that you sold a few days beforehand and a customer makes an informed decision to buy that car B instead of A and it turns out A had more real world range - false advertisement.

If there was a false advertisement claim to be made it would be that they under reported the range on car A. And last I heard that isn't illegal.

 

[TimothyHW3]

If there was a false advertisement claim to be made it would be that they under reported the range on car A

I think at this point you are just trolling.

Edit: And the fact that you just hit disagree again, just proves me right I think we can leave it at that, you have the logic of a 3 year old.

 

[TimothyHW3]

By the way, just for anyone else's sake. Here is how this plays out in real life.

You buy yourself a new car that has a sticker of X miles MORE than the model beforehand. You find out it actually has a smaller tank and can do less real world miles. Then you go to the dealership and they tell you - oh, about that - we just underreported the old car, sorry about that, nothing illegal here. We just play with the range numbers like we feel to and when we advertise more range we actually mean less range.

I am sure that argument holds in every court room

 

[eivissa]

I think you disqualified yourself from the conversation, because the limitation of the battery has been confirmed a long time ago. There is nothing to argue here.

Now just to get this straight. I disqualify for the discussion, because I say that I don't know if something is true or not (mainly because I couldn't care less). That's enough to put you off?

Or is it that you cant provide answers to my follow-up questions?

 

[panpan1]

Guys - let it go. Let's move on.

I'm interested in how we can better decode the VINs. If we can do that, then we may know exactly what we're getting as soon as a VIN is assigned.

 

[jaqueh]

Guys - let it go. Let's move on.

I'm interested in how we can better decode the VINs. If we can do that, then we may know exactly what we're getting as soon as a VIN is assigned.

Yeah it became a flame war all of a sudden. Anyways, I can't seem to count, it looks like E is 7th digit, but B is 8th for me.

 

[thinger]

WLTP saying lot but can be newer say what is IRL range.