24 Model 3 SR "Highland" review from an enthusiast's POV

We own and love a "tent built" 2019 SR+. Every version of a 2019 Model 3 was cross-shopped with every available wheel and tire option. Settled on the SR+ on 19 inch wheels for the additional steering feel and responsiveness compared to the other models. Specifically, the weight of the front drive unit and larger battery just took a little something away from the responsiveness of the OG 3. Range was never the promised 240, not even close. More like 218 and now 204 with 12% battery degradation at 70K miles. Surprisingly, the 2019 has never gotten loose or sloppy. The upper control arms squeaked and were replaced, a 12V battery and one change of rubber despite my somewhat hard driving on the car. Haven't had problems with rattles or loose bit noises, although it is naturally a loud car with lots of wind and tire noise.

We also had two friends buy 2023's. A little more refined and a little heavier. Just explained all of this so the reader has a foundation.

The 2024 surprised me with just how different it is:
+ The refinement is what Mercedes had back when it made supremely comfortable cars (like a W210 with better steering and much better power). Got the sense the car would last forever.
+ Interior noise is controlled like the best Audi's. The interior fit and finish (because the LED catches the eye and it is spot on) is an entire class higher.
+ The new steering wheel is smaller and comes easily to hand. I think the blinkers are fine and will be a quick adjustment. Like other things "Telsa" you will become annoyed with cars that require the extra effort to grab a stalk, eventually.
+ The sightlines appear BETTER than the OG M3, which was already an industry best. Just drove a 993 Porsche 911 and even it doesn't have a cowl this low. The visibility has to be the best of any car currently in production making this a supremely easy car to drive and it adds confidence to the operator.
+ Didn't try the audio system, but, the rest of the interior's sound profile is a MUCH better place to start from. The SR does have speakers disabled (compared to the LR). In the OG I find myself trying to adjust music around the wind and tire noise.
+ Surely the LFP battery is a better choice for most people. Should be "infinite" in human terms.
+ Throttle mapping and brakes are just so spot on. No car has ever done this as well as Tesla.

O The car may not be THAT much quieter. It may be that the frequencies are just better managed. Instead of "whAack" think a better-sounding "whump."

- The new car is heavier, but the weight is well managed. While the OG M3 is light enough to be flicked around (and even tease lift throttle oversteer out of it) the new car did not feel like it would like being pushed that hard. The OG is an eager puppy.
- The new car feels a second slower 0 to 60. The OG M3 had a strong enough pull to keep up with most sports cars 0 to 60. This car is more in the league of a M7 GTI. You'll still beat a Camry, but not by car lengths anymore.
- OG M3 owners will keep checking to see if the car is in "chill." Nope, that's all there is unless you pay for more.

In conclusion, this is a very much-improved Model 3 for the vast majority of buyers who would never cross-shop a Mustang GT or something with an BMW M badge with a Model 3 SR. It is worth the $7,000 more than what someone might get a last-gen car for. But enthusiasts might want to spec the 19 inch wheels and put it on some summer tires or just wait for the performance M3.

The "highland" leaves me very eager to try a Model Y with these same updates. We bought a model X for the "grace, space and pace." A Model Y with the same enhancements as this year's M3 might be a really comfortable, useful, honest (simple) and damn near Luxurious Utility Vehicle.

This Model 3 makes me excited for what Tesla is capable of. We know they have the engineering chops. I've never sensed they knew how to build a refined car until now.

Image credit - Clean Technica / Tesla

 

[Jangy]

How do you figure that? You need to charge an LFP battery to 100% regularly else the BMS can lose track of the state of charge. It doesn’t mean that LFP batteries don’t degrade more if you leave them at 100% vs lower states of charge, they do.

Not just Tesla but EV manuals aren’t going to go off scaring people or making an EV out to be complicated so they give you simple guidance. I mean it’s nothing to drop below 70% capacity in 8 years so Tesla won’t have to give you a new battery so it’s fine from their point of view if you degrade a bit more.

I said the thread is misleading because it has spatterings of RANDOM facts that don't connect yet conclusions are being drawn. Not everyone accepts everything in those "official" reports that are posted above. Some of us already have iPhones and have a great feel for how to use an LFP. I don't disagree with your first paragraph as we all know LFP's need to hit 100% in order to maintain that capability. Tesla says to charge it to 100% 1 time per week. They also provide scheduling software that helps the owner plan that it hits 100% at a time when it will be driven. I disagree with your second paragraph where you try to lead the manufacturers on the content in the manual. Battery technology properties are well known and readily available to anyone with Google.

 

[KenBlub]

Are you suggesting that the data derived from testing by the Journal of Electrochemical Engineering where they tested car batteries is “random” data that doesn’t connect? I challenge you to find one scientific study that shows different data from what I posted. Just FYI, iPhones don’t use LFP batteries

Here’s another one for you. Look at 3.4. Just a sample from the paper. “The SoC dependency is evident. The higher the SoC, the greater is the loss of capacity over time. This is particularly pronounced for 100%, while the influence decreases at lower storage SoC”

https://www.mdpi.c/

 

[ewoodrick]

Are you suggesting that the data derived from testing by the Journal of Electrochemical Engineering where they tested car batteries is “random” data that doesn’t connect? I challenge you to find one scientific study that shows different data from what I posted. Just FYI, iPhones don’t use LFP batteries

https://www.mdpi.c/

@Jangy may not be, but I certainly am!

This appears to be an 8 year old article. There were big changes in auto EV batteries since then. And the Tesla LFP wasn't even on the drawing board, AFAIK.
There are big differences between different batteries of the same technology. Manufacturers spend years tuning their specific chemistries.

And I think more along the lines of @Jangy's comment, I was replying to @KenBlub 's statement of

Just FYI keeping the SOC for a LFP above 70% pretty much doubles calendar aging vs keeping it below 70% so the ability to charge to 100% every day is not without drawbacks.

And you then posted a graph that really doesn't address the question.

So let me give you a chance to redeem yourself. How did the graph you post answer the question? Where does it say that keeping the max SoC at 50% is any different than that of keeping it at 95% for LFP?

And also let me remind you that it appears that the study was based on batteries that were left at a certain state for extended periods of time. They do not appear to have ever been cycled.

It's pretty much the same crap as all of these studies. So far, the ones that I've seen say basically:

Store it 100% for an entire you and you will see degradation of maybe 15%. (Oh my god, how terrible).
But let's then look at the fine print.
Aging accounts for about 10% of that 15%.
If you would have stored it at 50%, it would have only degraded 13%.

So the reality is that storing it for an entire year at 100% only meant 2% degradation over storing it at 50%. (These numbers are from other studies and batteries, but look to be similar.)

 

[ewoodrick]

You need to take another look at the chart. It doesn’t say what you think it does. It shows the impact of temperature on a battery at different SOC. Degradation increases when temperatures rise even at similar SOC. That’s why you see similar degradation at high temperatures and low SOC vs lesser temperatures are higher SOC

You certainly are reading a lot more into the chart than I see.

In response to the original question. I see that the results from 10-100% are exactly the same.
But a HUGE chunk of gray is missing.
Temperature was NOT part of the question.

 

[KenBlub]

@Jangy may not be, but I certainly am!

This appears to be an 8 year old article. There were big changes in auto EV batteries since then. And the Tesla LFP wasn't even on the drawing board, AFAIK.
There are big differences between different batteries of the same technology. Manufacturers spend years tuning their specific chemistries.

And I think more along the lines of @Jangy's comment, I was replying to @KenBlub 's statement of



And you then posted a graph that really doesn't address the question.

So let me give you a chance to redeem yourself. How did the graph you post answer the question? Where does it say that keeping the max SoC at 50% is any different than that of keeping it at 95% for LFP?

And also let me remind you that it appears that the study was based on batteries that were left at a certain state for extended periods of time. They do not appear to have ever been cycled.

It's pretty much the same crap as all of these studies. So far, the ones that I've seen say basically:

Store it 100% for an entire you and you will see degradation of maybe 15%. (Oh my god, how terrible).
But let's then look at the fine print.
Aging accounts for about 10% of that 15%.
If you would have stored it at 50%, it would have only degraded 13%.

So the reality is that storing it for an entire year at 100% only meant 2% degradation over storing it at 50%. (These numbers are from other studies and batteries, but look to be similar.)

Reading is essential. I didn’t post the graph. I gave you the scientific paper. Did you read it? Physics hasn’t changed and the scientific article did review LFP batteries

I challenged you to show me a scientific paper that disproves the 2 I sent you. I’m not that interested in what you think you read.

 

[ewoodrick]

Reading is essential. I didn’t post the graph. I gave you the scientific paper. Did you read it? Physics hasn’t changed and the scientific article did review LFP batteries

I challenged you to show me a scientific paper that disproves the 2 I sent you. I’m not that interested in what you think you read.

• Are all LFP chemistries exactly the same?
• Are all LFP battery form factors exactly the same?
• Are all LFP manufacturing process exactly the same?

Since the answer to all of these are obviously no, then the physics ARE DIFFERENT!!!

• Are people storing their cars for 9 months?
• What is the loss attributed to aging for 9 months?

i.e. this paper is inadequate for conclusions when it comes to judging Tesla batteries.

I did not read the article in detail. But I did read enough of it to be able to have an understanding of it.

• It is storage ONLY.
• Its temperature range are not adequate to determine a commercial use impact.
• It seems to be obvious that you didn't read the first paragraph "Furthermore, the degradation owing to calendar aging can also be predominant in cycle aging studies, especially when cycle depths and current rates are low"
• Charge/Discharges will dramatically change the results.

Back to your initial statement

"Just FYI keeping the SOC for a LFP above 70% pretty much doubles calendar aging vs keeping it below 70% so the ability to charge to 100% every day is not without drawbacks"

At 40C, the difference in degradation for a battery STORED at 50% (93% capacity) vs storing at 100% (91% capacity) is less than 30% more. FAR FROM 200%.

It's what your posted doc says

 

[KenBlub]

very few people actually drive their car more than 1-2 hours per day. They seldom charge more than 2 hours per day. That means 20/24 hours per day the car is “stored”.

You admit above that calendar aging is predominant even when charge cycles are included

Prove to me the cells tested aren’t essentially equivalent to cells used by Tesla. Again, I’m totally uninterested in what you think you know. My challenge to you to give me papers disputing what I have provided remains unanswered

Instead, you try to debunk what I said by looking at LFP degradation at 40C. You do know that translates to an average daily temperature of 105F for a year. I do not believe the Sahara desert has an average temperature of 105F but use that data to make decisions if it makes you feel better. Miami FL has an average daily temperature of just under 80F

If you look at the blue line at 25C you will see EXACTLY what I was talking about. 25C is 77F so even if you live in Miami the data is valid

You do you. I don’t care. Believe what you want. I tried. The LFP is a fine battery and the new Model 3 RWD is a great car. Enjoy it. You can only lead a horse to water….

 

[ewoodrick]

very few people actually drive their car more than 1-2 hours per day. They seldom charge more than 2 hours per day. That means 20/24 hours per day the car is “stored”.

You admit above that calendar aging is predominant even when charge cycles are included

Prove to me the cells tested aren’t essentially equivalent to cells used by Tesla. Again, I’m totally uninterested in what you think you know. My challenge to you to give me papers disputing what I have provided remains unanswered

Instead, you try to debunk what I said by looking at LFP degradation at 40C. You do know that translates to an average daily temperature of 105F for a year. I do not believe the Sahara desert has an average temperature of 105F but use that data to make decisions if it makes you feel better. Miami FL has an average daily temperature of just under 80F

If you look at the blue line at 25C you will see EXACTLY what I was talking about. 25C is 77F so even if you live in Miami the data is valid

You do you. I don’t care. Believe what you want. I tried. The LFP is a fine battery and the new Model 3 RWD is a great car. Enjoy it. You can only lead a horse to water….

Blah, blah, blah. Then why doesn't Tesla follow your recommendation?

Assuming that your sources are so impeccable, I'm assuming that Tesla knows and that they now have enough real-life data to support it.

And since there are third parties monitoring Tesla batteries, why aren't you using their data?

But yes, Tesla engineers are stupid and this is a whole conspiracy theory to make people buy more cars.

 

[KenBlub]

Because Tesla doesn’t care if your battery degrades 29.99% in 8 years. They don’t have a warranty claim. Probabilities are a LFP battery won’t degrade 30% in 8 years no matter what you do to it. They want to sell cars and I don’t blame them. Remember, this all started when I pointed out that charging to 100% daily was nice but not without downside. You’ve still not given me any scientific evidence I was wrong. You never will so have a good day.

 

[ewoodrick]

Because Tesla doesn’t care if your battery degrades 29.99% in 8 years. They don’t have a warranty claim. Probabilities are a LFP battery won’t degrade 30% in 8 years no matter what you do to it. They want to sell cars and I don’t blame them. Remember, this all started when I pointed out that charging to 100% daily was nice but not without downside. You’ve still not given me any scientific evidence I was wrong. You never will so have a good day.

Definitely your opinion.

It doesn't match with Tesla's statements of 300,000 mile and million-mile batteries along with reducing Service Centers by making the cars not need service.

And as the Model 3s are nearly 7 years old and have shown no signs of even thinking about needing batteries, evidence is evidence.

Tesla makes people want new cars by adding features, not bricking their old ones.

 

[FastLaneJB]

Definitely your opinion.

It doesn't match with Tesla's statements of 300,000 mile and million-mile batteries along with reducing Service Centers by making the cars not need service.

And as the Model 3s are nearly 7 years old and have shown no signs of even thinking about needing batteries, evidence is evidence.

Tesla makes people want new cars by adding features, not bricking their old ones.

How does this post help with your point that they don't degrade anymore at 100% than they do at lower stairs of charges?

No one here is saying they won't do 300,000 miles or that the battery will need replacing. All that's being said is that an owner that leaves their car regularly sat at 100% is going to have less range after a few years than someone that almost never does that. Doesn't mean they'd need a new battery and wont get one anyway as it won't be over 30% after 8 years.

It's the same with an LFP battery as the other chemistry's. Tesla doesn't talk about degradation at all. They don't want it to seem like their cars are complex or having an EV is too much of a chore.

 

[ewoodrick]

How does this post help with your point that they don't degrade anymore at 100% than they do at lower stairs of charges?

No one here is saying they won't do 300,000 miles or that the battery will need replacing. All that's being said is that an owner that leaves their car regularly sat at 100% is going to have less range after a few years than someone that almost never does that. Doesn't mean they'd need a new battery and wont get one anyway as it won't be over 30% after 8 years.

It's the same with an LFP battery as the other chemistry's. Tesla doesn't talk about degradation at all. They don't want it to seem like their cars are complex or having an EV is too much of a chore.

So put your money where your mouth is!

How many miles?
How many months?

Those are my points, too many people throwing percentages around that mean jack.

 

[FastLaneJB]

So put your money where your mouth is!

How many miles?
How many months?

Those are my points, too many people throwing percentages around that mean jack.

I don't have an LFP car but a single car is going to been nothing in the scheme of things, a single sample point is pretty useless. The weather is much more mild here so that won't help you either.

 

[rpiotro]

We own and love a "tent built" 2019 SR+. Every version of a 2019 Model 3 was cross-shopped with every available wheel and tire option. Settled on the SR+ on 19 inch wheels for the additional steering feel and responsiveness compared to the other models. Specifically, the weight of the front drive unit and larger battery just took a little something away from the responsiveness of the OG 3. Range was never the promised 240, not even close. More like 218 and now 204 with 12% battery degradation at 70K miles. Surprisingly, the 2019 has never gotten loose or sloppy. The upper control arms squeaked and were replaced, a 12V battery and one change of rubber despite my somewhat hard driving on the car. Haven't had problems with rattles or loose bit noises, although it is naturally a loud car with lots of wind and tire noise.

We also had two friends buy 2023's. A little more refined and a little heavier. Just explained all of this so the reader has a foundation.

The 2024 surprised me with just how different it is:
+ The refinement is what Mercedes had back when it made supremely comfortable cars (like a W210 with better steering and much better power). Got the sense the car would last forever.
+ Interior noise is controlled like the best Audi's. The interior fit and finish (because the LED catches the eye and it is spot on) is an entire class higher.
+ The new steering wheel is smaller and comes easily to hand. I think the blinkers are fine and will be a quick adjustment. Like other things "Telsa" you will become annoyed with cars that require the extra effort to grab a stalk, eventually.
+ The sightlines appear BETTER than the OG M3, which was already an industry best. Just drove a 993 Porsche 911 and even it doesn't have a cowl this low. The visibility has to be the best of any car currently in production making this a supremely easy car to drive and it adds confidence to the operator.
+ Didn't try the audio system, but, the rest of the interior's sound profile is a MUCH better place to start from. The SR does have speakers disabled (compared to the LR). In the OG I find myself trying to adjust music around the wind and tire noise.
+ Surely the LFP battery is a better choice for most people. Should be "infinite" in human terms.
+ Throttle mapping and brakes are just so spot on. No car has ever done this as well as Tesla.

O The car may not be THAT much quieter. It may be that the frequencies are just better managed. Instead of "whAack" think a better-sounding "whump."

- The new car is heavier, but the weight is well managed. While the OG M3 is light enough to be flicked around (and even tease lift throttle oversteer out of it) the new car did not feel like it would like being pushed that hard. The OG is an eager puppy.
- The new car feels a second slower 0 to 60. The OG M3 had a strong enough pull to keep up with most sports cars 0 to 60. This car is more in the league of a M7 GTI. You'll still beat a Camry, but not by car lengths anymore.
- OG M3 owners will keep checking to see if the car is in "chill." Nope, that's all there is unless you pay for more.

In conclusion, this is a very much-improved Model 3 for the vast majority of buyers who would never cross-shop a Mustang GT or something with an BMW M badge with a Model 3 SR. It is worth the $7,000 more than what someone might get a last-gen car for. But enthusiasts might want to spec the 19 inch wheels and put it on some summer tires or just wait for the performance M3.

The "highland" leaves me very eager to try a Model Y with these same updates. We bought a model X for the "grace, space and pace." A Model Y with the same enhancements as this year's M3 might be a really comfortable, useful, honest (simple) and damn near Luxurious Utility Vehicle.

This Model 3 makes me excited for what Tesla is capable of. We know they have the engineering chops. I've never sensed they knew how to build a refined car until now.
View attachment 1015631
Image credit - Clean Technica / Tesla

You made a comparison to Mercedes. That's pretty high praise. I own a Mercedes also.

I am getting serious about updating. Do you still stand by your comparison? Is it really that much better?

And yes, I like my rough and tumble lightweight, snappy, firmly sprung and responsive SR+. The ride can be tiresome at times though on these crappy roads these days.

 

[ewoodrick]

I don't have an LFP car but a single car is going to been nothing in the scheme of things, a single sample point is pretty useless. The weather is much more mild here so that won't help you either.

Then generalize your numbers with actual miles.

I'm pretty sure that people would worry more about 95,000 miles vs 100,000 miles.

But do they care about 950,000 miles vs 1,000,000??

Or 285,000 vs 300,000 miles

And sure, I may lose 10% over a year, but what are the number at 5 and 10 years?

 

[FastLaneJB]

Then generalize your numbers with actual miles.

I'm pretty sure that people would worry more about 95,000 miles vs 100,000 miles.

But do they care about 950,000 miles vs 1,000,000??

Or 285,000 vs 300,000 miles

And sure, I may lose 10% over a year, but what are the number at 5 and 10 years?

I don't think the issue is how long until the battery is completely useless. I mean maybe a battery can do 1 million miles but if it's only got say 40 miles between charges it's not really useful anymore for most people.

The point here isn't that maximum, most won't keep a car for that long. It's more how many miles you can do between charges dropping and if that's more significant than other ways of looking after the battery.

If a car could do 1,000 miles on a charge and you lost 50 miles, that wouldn't be a big deal but losing 50 miles on a car that maybe does 180 - 200 when colder is a lot. Hence looking after the battery can matter but your free to do as you please with your car and not believe anyone.

 

[ewoodrick]

I don't think the issue is how long until the battery is completely useless. I mean maybe a battery can do 1 million miles but if it's only got say 40 miles between charges it's not really useful anymore for most people.

The point here isn't that maximum, most won't keep a car for that long. It's more how many miles you can do between charges dropping and if that's more significant than other ways of looking after the battery.

If a car could do 1,000 miles on a charge and you lost 50 miles, that wouldn't be a big deal but losing 50 miles on a car that maybe does 180 - 200 when colder is a lot. Hence looking after the battery can matter but your free to do as you please with your car and not believe anyone.

Absolutely!

So how many miles lost in 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years?

All these numbers are doing is adding FUD.
OMG, I'm going to lose 10% range! That sounds terrible.

But losing 45 of 330 miles after 10 years is no big deal.

 

[FastLaneJB]

Absolutely!

So how many miles lost in 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years?

All these numbers are doing is adding FUD.
OMG, I'm going to lose 10% range! That sounds terrible.

But losing 45 of 330 miles after 10 years is no big deal.

But what if you could just lose 10 - 15 miles over 10 years and all you had to do was avoided leaving the battery on a high SOC more often?

I mean I get maybe you don't care or don't plan to keep your car that long but show me some data where the degradation of an LFP battery at 100% is exactly the same as one at 50%. Others have brought data to the table, you've just brought scepticism but nothing to back it up.

 

[ewoodrick]

But what if you could just lose 10 - 15 miles over 10 years and all you had to do was avoided leaving the battery on a high SOC more often?

I mean I get maybe you don't care or don't plan to keep your car that long but show me some data where the degradation of an LFP battery at 100% is exactly the same as one at 50%. Others have brought data to the table, you've just brought scepticism but nothing to back it up.

That's a super easy one. Having a higher charge level reduces risk of having to charge during unexpected events.

But's let just go to basic math. If I charge to 50% every day (150 miles available on a 300 mile battery) vs 80% (240 miles). But assuming 10 mile loss, the 80% charge becomes 232 miles of range. 150 vs 232.

I'd have 82 more miles of range available to me daily at 80% than if I "preserved" the battery at 50%.

I'd take those number any day! It's still net positive if I dropped 15%! (150 vs 204 miles)

 

[FastLaneJB]

That's a super easy one. Having a higher charge level reduces risk of having to charge during unexpected events.

But's let just go to basic math. If I charge to 50% every day (150 miles available on a 300 mile battery) vs 80% (240 miles). But assuming 10 mile loss, the 80% charge becomes 232 miles of range. 150 vs 232.

I'd have 82 more miles of range available to me daily at 80% than if I "preserved" the battery at 50%.

I'd take those number any day! It's still net positive if I dropped 15%! (150 vs 204 miles)

Most people don't do 240 miles per day so don't need 240 miles of charge. 150 miles would be more than enough. No one is saying don't charge higher when you need it but if you aren't doing 240 miles per day why degrade the battery more by having it at a higher percentage for no reason.

Also we weren't talking 80% were we, you were suggesting charging to 100% and leaving it there. 80% isn't nearly as bad as 100%.