Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Early 75/75D pack degradation

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I have a 2016 60 that I upgraded to the 75. When I first made the conversion in Spring 2017, it would briefly charge to 240 but very quickly degraded to 238 and then 237. That was June 2017 and as of today, probably 10,000 mi later it will still charge to 237. So after an initial nearly 5% degradation, it seems to have stabilized. Current mileage is 30,000. Other things to note:

I have done a lot of long trips and used Superchargers, but almost never charging beyond 90% (it becomes too slow in any case if you do). Probably 10-12,000 mi of those 30,000 were trips using Superchargers.

When it was a 60, I charged every night to 100% under the mistaken notion that the "battery headroom" of the software limited 60 battery was on the top end. When I made the conversion it became obvious that the "headroom" was actually on the low end not the top: 20+ miles of range suddenly "appeared" during my first charge as a 75.

After around 10,000 mi of this practice I started to notice a decrease in range. 210, 208 and finally 205. At that point I started doing 90% charges daily and only range charges for actual trips which of course is exactly what Tesla recommends that you do.

So I blame a lot of the early degradation on my "abuse" of the battery, not following Tesla's recommendations.

The fact that it has stabilized now gives me a lot of comfort that it will indeed last a long time with only slight degradation over the next 30,000 mi or so.

Something that I have also noticed, using Teslalog.com, is that driving at 70 mph with the 60 battery used to use RM at about a 5% premium and 80 mph was a 25% premium. With the 75 battery I notice little or no "premium" up to 72 mph and only about a 15% premium at 80 mph. So it appears that Tesla were playing with the displayed range on the 60 to make it appear to have more range than it actually had.
The headroom is/was at the top end. It was obvious before people did the upgrade because Supercharging would stay at almost full speed all the way to 100% on the limited 60 battery. Also, many people (including myself) had a 100% charged 60 when they did the upgrade that suddenly went to 84% when it became a 75.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: GSP and FlatSix911
I don’t follow but if it’s like Tesla I’d have the same issue.
[...]
The Nissan Leaf batteries are passive cooled, which basically means they are not cooled at all. The batteries degrade rapidly, and you are required to sign release of liability forms when purchasing basically stating that you accept the battery is crap and will degrade significantly. If you're lucky, it will degrade fast enough to get you a new battery before the warranty expires. I guess at least Nissan doesn't try to hide it. Amongst other issues, transparency is one of Tesla's weaker sides, but as a large company it's not always easy to be transparent about issues.
 
On my August '16 build S75D with ~39k miles, I'm getting ~254 miles of range at 100% and ~228 at 90%. I upgraded it from a 60D to a 75D early last year (when it went to $2k) and charged to 100% when it was a 60D. Now I charge to 90% and Supercharge several times a month.
 
I'm the arrogant and misinformed one? Explain what happens when the 90 came out then as I was only buying one at the time? Am I wrong? Did they not say the battery would have 6% more range only to change it later to only 3%? Can you offer a single plausible explanation?

Explain why a 100 other Tesla promises haven't quite worked out? If you look back over this thread you'll see it was I that defended Tesla over the installed motor power fiasco providing the screen shots. I don't agree with Teslas actions but i will defend the truth, Tesla didn't say the cars had that power.

So we have myself, as evidenced, who will take a balanced fact based view, and then there are people like you who use personal insults when facts don't fit your agenda.

Ah yes, the "I have the moral high ground because I say so" argument... I'm not going to go round and round with you on battery technology and how it's far from an exact science, it's a waste of time. My comment was meant to illustrate that there are always going to be people who refuse to accept reality in order to justify their own concerns/issues. This isn't unique to Tesla, batteries, or whatever... It's basic human nature in that people tend to be willing to ignore valid explanations that contradict with their firmly held beliefs.

Tesla pushes the envelope and sometimes that causes them to make statements that fail to hold up to scrutiny. Does that make it right? No. On the other hand, I'd rather they continue to push the envelope even if they come up short a few times, some of the times, or all of the times. Keep pushing. Now, you may disagree with that and would prefer a much more structured, cautious, and calculated approach and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just a point to which we disagree on and again, nothing wrong with that. I did not insult you so stop with that drama... There is a difference between calling someone something and calling their position on an issue something and I suspect you know that but saying I personally insulted you is easier...

Jeff
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark77a
Unfortunately Tesla is a car company having it comply with marketing standards, consumer protection law and the like, they are not a religion.

Yawn... Your first mistake is calling Tesla a car company, it isn't. Yeah that make cars but that doesn't make them a car company... They are a technology company that makes cars... No they aren't a religion but they have managed to do something EVERYONE said was impossible and in doing so have fundamentally changed the automotive landscape forever. That generates an emotional response from a great many people who are concerned with the future of this planet and the people who reside on it. If that bothers you then so be it.

Jeff
 
@JonG

Problem is too many here have large TSLA holdings.

They have a conflict of interest.

Speak the truth, or talk of negative experience, and you are hurting their financial position.

It's completely different from every owners forum I've ever been a member of. Those took more the form of a pressure group for the benefit of the consumer of those products.

The only reason I can think of is most Ford/BMW/Merc/Jag owners don't own the shares in those brands ;)

That's simply not true. You'll find even the most die hard Tesla supporter here critical of the company in one form or another. What you're referencing is the reaction when a new member starts out posting about their major Tesla issue. Yeah, some of us here are sensitive to that. Why? Because it used to work as a short tactic. Believe it or not, in the younger years of Tesla people would come to TMC to push false stories in order to effect the stock price. It worked, and at times worked well. Some of us members who've been around for that long have a hard time getting that out of our heads when we read the latest iteration of a major issue with Tesla.

Jeff
 
I can throw in my datapoint which seems to show very little degradation of my Aug 2016 75D battery.

I did a 290km trip yesterday, starting at 100% and finishing at 24%.
If I extrapolate that gives a real world range of 381km (237 miles).

That seems fine for a car with 53,000km on the odometer, often supercharged, about 18 months old.
 
I can throw in my datapoint which seems to show very little degradation of my Aug 2016 75D battery.

I did a 290km trip yesterday, starting at 100% and finishing at 24%.
If I extrapolate that gives a real world range of 381km (237 miles).

That seems fine for a car with 53,000km on the odometer, often supercharged, about 18 months old.
Here is my last long road trip in my S75D, starting at 100% and finishing at 10%:

Orlando%20trip.jpg
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: GSP and Buster1
I can throw in my datapoint which seems to show very little degradation of my Aug 2016 75D battery.

I did a 290km trip yesterday, starting at 100% and finishing at 24%.
If I extrapolate that gives a real world range of 381km (237 miles).

That seems fine for a car with 53,000km on the odometer, often supercharged, about 18 months old.
Here is my last long road trip in my S75D, starting at 100% and finishing at 10%:
These aren't great representations of degradation, since it depends on elevation changes, speed, temperature, etc.
 
These aren't great representations of degradation, since it depends on elevation changes, speed, temperature, etc.
Freeway driving, some mild hills, no elevation delta, autopilot at 120kph (75mph) for almost whole drive, temp 30C, aircon on, 2 pax, 2 suitcases.

Basically exactly the sort of driving I'm doing when I care about max range.
 
@jelloslug They are examples of consumption, but even this may not be enough. You are relying on the screen to be accurate, which it might not be.

Looking at how both Bjorn and Tesloop's packs behaved, they show remaining range then suddenly die. In effect the bottom X% of miles have "gone", so the screen still says 240 miles range at full but 10 miles actually = 0.

In Bjorn's case this happened at around 100k miles, but his lifetime average is crazily high due to all the towing he does. With your really low average Wh/mi (which would be impossible to hit here in colder climates), it should mean your car's pack is in good health.

The other factor may be supercharging, with both Bjorn and Tesloop doing so much more than a typical owner.

If we look at the actions put in play by Tesla, many seem aimed at kerbing high power draw and supercharger stress, with the OTA changes looking to limit those activities (chill mode, performance counters, supercharge capping). I wonder if this means the new chemistry is more sensitive to high currents than the old pack. So it's not necessarily mileage alone, but how those miles have been driven/charged.
 
  • Helpful
  • Like
Reactions: GSP and MIT_S60