TBrownTX
Active Member
It’s been an interesting back and forth, to say the least. But at this point, I’m no closer to knowing whether or not I might get a heated steering wheel or updated door panels!
Tim
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
2021 Model 3 and differences from 2020
- Thread starter captain_sahaj
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3 Tesla Inc.
It’s been an interesting back and forth, to say the least. But at this point, I’m no closer to knowing whether or not I might get a heated steering wheel or updated door panels!
Tim
I don't want to continue all these pages of arguments, I will just provide some information from Tesla and everyone can make their own conclusions.
We got a delivery of an 2021 LR model 3 in December here in Europe.
The coc document writes:
"Electric energy consumption: 148Wh/km
Electric range: 580km"
When asking Tesla via email about more information on the battery they replied:
" 74kw usable capacity, wltp range 580km, consumption 128kw/km"
Obviously there is a difference between the 148kw/km mentioned in coc and 128kw/km via Tesla's technician email.
This also makes me wonder why don't they write 128 in the coc as well.
We got a delivery of an 2021 LR model 3 in December here in Europe.
The coc document writes:
"Electric energy consumption: 148Wh/km
Electric range: 580km"
When asking Tesla via email about more information on the battery they replied:
" 74kw usable capacity, wltp range 580km, consumption 128kw/km"
Obviously there is a difference between the 148kw/km mentioned in coc and 128kw/km via Tesla's technician email.
This also makes me wonder why don't they write 128 in the coc as well.
From my 2021 model 3 efficiency is bad if you turn off heat in cabin compared to 2018 efficiency is bad if you turn on heat in cabin.
for 2021 when heat is off during commute regen gets limited, with heat on regen goes back to normal. In my 2018 regen comes back to normal after some freeway driving with heat off. Same cannot be done in 2021 as no heat = regen staying limited = bad efficiency
for 2021 when heat is off during commute regen gets limited, with heat on regen goes back to normal. In my 2018 regen comes back to normal after some freeway driving with heat off. Same cannot be done in 2021 as no heat = regen staying limited = bad efficiency
TimothyHW3
Active Member
This is even more bizzare, because Tesla just pulls these numbers out of their...
It is obvious that Tesla is doing some shady things here, due to constraints. They should've been more opened about it. Between this and the anti-repair laws they are pushing they are becoming the next Apple. And with the EV-monopoly they will probably have in the EV business come 2022 I think it is high time to give them some pushback.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
(128Wh/km)/(148Wh/km) is about 86%, which isn't far off of the AC-DC efficiency (that is from the wall, to battery available energy) result of 88%, which applies to all Model 3s to date (except for the 2021 Performance Model 3 which is all messed up), based on EPA documentation.
Obviously the 148Wh/km number is an AC number, since there's no one who thinks the battery has a capacity of 85kWh.
For others reading this, don't go off and file these numbers away as the actual "rating" of the vehicle. These two numbers are the numbers which would be required to be self-consistent with the stated WLTP range. Nothing more, nothing less. We already know from earlier in the thread what is the "actual" rating for the vehicle (77.8kWh/353mi/1.6093km/mi*0.955 = 131Wh/km (or 137Wh/km for the charge constant) ). Obviously EPA range is not the same as WLTP range, which is the reason for the difference.
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe cause the 128 is de WLTP number and the 148 is the consumption to go to 499 km (previously the full charge when new for the LR) with a usable 74 kWh battery.
TimothyHW3
Active Member
That would be +16%charging loss. In which world is that the standard charging loss? Why not take DC charging loss of about 7%, or or normal AC charging of about 10%?
It amazes me how you guys are trying to find explanations when the most obvious one is in plain sight.
It will be funny to see the explanations when Tesla starts delivering 3 different battery types in about a month.
Last edited:
WLTP testing is with climate control off. This is to equalize comparisons between cars, but disconnects the results from real world EV performance.
VDA
VDA
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
What, exactly, would need to be explained? (Also, not sure where you got 16% from... 148/128? That's not how efficiency math works...efficiency is defined as the output divided by the input. These numbers give losses of 13.5%. Tesla's published numbers in the EPA results show 11.5% is the expected loss for their standardized charging scenario.)
Last edited:
(moderator note: Locking this thread temporarily as a time out, due to several report from it. I will unlock it at some point, hopefully cooler heads will have prevailed by then)
Moderation content inc -- somewhat long.
TL ; DR - Personal attacks are not allowed, even if contained with more useful content. play nice
(further, more specific thoughts below)
=================================================================
Ok, Now that we have had a bit of a "cooling off" period of about 12 hours or so, I am going to unlock this thread. Before I do, I wanted to post a few thoughts / reminders here.
Very few things rile up a tesla user base more than discussions "about the battery". I realize this is a passionate topic (very passionate) and with 80+ pages its obvious that there is very active discussion happening
I have said this many times at this point, but its not a requirement for everyone to agree on a thread. Disagreement can sometimes bring out great discussion, especially with "data minded" people, some of whom are actively participating in this thread. With that being said, while disagreement is ok, personal attacks are not ok.
"I dont agree with you, here is data to support my position" or "I dont agree with your opinion on this, my opinion is XXXX ... I guess we are going to just have to disagree with each other" --- Perfectly fine.
"I dont know WTF you are smokin, you are an idiot!" or anything of that nature, = not fine.
Also, I will point out that I feel I made a mistake in this thread yesterday, in an effort to be helpful. I received reports of content that someone found objectionable, and looked at the content and the objectionable content was within posts that also had good data. Rather than simply moving the entire post, I edited out objectionable content. This lead to more reports of more content to be edited out of posts.
This was a mistake on my part (simply editing out the content in an effort to keep the useful parts of the post). It basically set me up to piecemeal edit other posts etc, What we normally do when there is content we find objectionable and its reported, is remove the entire post, even if some of it is useful, and I will return to that practice.
As a general warning to all, dont make any objectionable posts / personal attacks, even if they are within posts that contain other useful data as I will likely remove the entire post, if its reported to me and I agree that the content is objectionable. Another note on this, I dont intend to be "weaponized", so if I start receiving a lot of reports on this thread again, I will end up having to take some other action. What that is will depend on the situation.
When a few people are having a "disagreement" in a thread, depending on how that is couched, it can basically force everyone else out of a thread, even if they want to contribute. Please keep that in mind as you are posting, especially on a topic like this that invokes so much passion.
The idea of a thread like this would be to "draw out the data" and have a discussion around that, and hopefully help people come to "some determination" A few people arguing back and forth is not going to do that.
/e climbs off soapbox.
======================================================================
(end moderation content)
TL ; DR - Personal attacks are not allowed, even if contained with more useful content. play nice
(further, more specific thoughts below)
=================================================================
Ok, Now that we have had a bit of a "cooling off" period of about 12 hours or so, I am going to unlock this thread. Before I do, I wanted to post a few thoughts / reminders here.
Very few things rile up a tesla user base more than discussions "about the battery". I realize this is a passionate topic (very passionate) and with 80+ pages its obvious that there is very active discussion happening
I have said this many times at this point, but its not a requirement for everyone to agree on a thread. Disagreement can sometimes bring out great discussion, especially with "data minded" people, some of whom are actively participating in this thread. With that being said, while disagreement is ok, personal attacks are not ok.
"I dont agree with you, here is data to support my position" or "I dont agree with your opinion on this, my opinion is XXXX ... I guess we are going to just have to disagree with each other" --- Perfectly fine.
"I dont know WTF you are smokin, you are an idiot!" or anything of that nature, = not fine.
Also, I will point out that I feel I made a mistake in this thread yesterday, in an effort to be helpful. I received reports of content that someone found objectionable, and looked at the content and the objectionable content was within posts that also had good data. Rather than simply moving the entire post, I edited out objectionable content. This lead to more reports of more content to be edited out of posts.
This was a mistake on my part (simply editing out the content in an effort to keep the useful parts of the post). It basically set me up to piecemeal edit other posts etc, What we normally do when there is content we find objectionable and its reported, is remove the entire post, even if some of it is useful, and I will return to that practice.
As a general warning to all, dont make any objectionable posts / personal attacks, even if they are within posts that contain other useful data as I will likely remove the entire post, if its reported to me and I agree that the content is objectionable. Another note on this, I dont intend to be "weaponized", so if I start receiving a lot of reports on this thread again, I will end up having to take some other action. What that is will depend on the situation.
When a few people are having a "disagreement" in a thread, depending on how that is couched, it can basically force everyone else out of a thread, even if they want to contribute. Please keep that in mind as you are posting, especially on a topic like this that invokes so much passion.
The idea of a thread like this would be to "draw out the data" and have a discussion around that, and hopefully help people come to "some determination" A few people arguing back and forth is not going to do that.
/e climbs off soapbox.
======================================================================
(end moderation content)
I’m not quite sure how to interpret this:
1. Does this mean that the LR AWD gets the same battery pack as the P? Or could capacity be different even though it’s using the same cells?
2. Does this mean that the LR-AWD has the “base” rear motor?
It can now have the same battery pack as the P already got with the refresh or it can get a battery with the same cells (2170L) but different capacity.
At the moment all LR on delivery in the coming weeks to Germany are either E5D LG (77KWH!) or E3CD Panasonic 2170C (79KWH?). Only P models are are all E3LD Panasonic 2170L (82KWH). So it looks like nothing has changed since the refresh was first delivered. No E3LD Long Range cars in sight...yet.
I believe there are only to packs with the 2170L cells. One with 82KWH and a new one for the SR+ with a smaller size (obviously).
Yes, it looks like that. Same part with less amps limited by software or different part all together.
TimothyHW3
Active Member
I don't think the first batch will have the new batteries in the LR AWD, or maybe just a few here and there, we have to wait at least the end of Q or next Q2.
According to the guy from Fremont - Panasonic is still updating its lines.
