How many kWh can they squeeze into the Model 3...?

[dsvick]

For everyone saying they will hinder the Model 3 to keep it somehow "lesser" than S/X......I don't think Elon sees it that way.

You're right. I don't have the exact quote handy, but what Elon said was that the MS and MX would be the technology leaders, people would pay a premium to get the latest and greatest technology in those models. The entire purpose of that is so that they'd be the test bed to get them to the point where they're feasible for the more affordable models. Those less affordable models will always be the best they can be, within the constraints of keeping them affordable.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

You're right. I don't have the exact quote handy, but what Elon said was that the MS and MX would be the technology leaders, people would pay a premium to get the latest and greatest technology in those models. The entire purpose of that is so that they'd be the test bed to get them to the point where they're feasible for the more affordable models. Those less affordable models will always be the best they can be, within the constraints of keeping them affordable.

Which is the exact thing JB Straubel brought up when talking about the P100D.

They're using the S and X to learn more about advancements in battery cooling.

When APv2.0 comes out, the S and X will have it and begin logging miles.

It's not a bad thing at all to have 2 viable platforms to do real world testing on.

 

[YBT]

My big question is whether they'll allow Model 3 to be the best car is can be, and make it the mileage champion than can make it to be. Model S P100DL is already such, they claim.

Deliberately crippling performance is something Tesla will never do, ever. They are all about proving EV's are the best, period.

I would love to see the M3 become the standard bearer of performance for the Tesla lineup but ultimately what will likely limit the vehicle is cost based design compromises. Think about it - by the time the first Ludicrous version of the 3 is out the S will be running low 2's for the 0 - 60! So, to beat that is no mean feat - no doubt the batteries and motors are achievable but can the Gen III platform, made from cheaper materials, stand up to that kind of extreme torture...?

Let's hope so

 

[jkk_]

Deliberately crippling performance is something Tesla will never do, ever. They are all about proving EV's are the best, period.

I would love to see the M3 become the standard bearer of performance for the Tesla lineup but ultimately what will likely limit the vehicle is cost based design compromises. Think about it - by the time the first Ludicrous version of the 3 is out the S will be running low 2's for the 0 - 60! So, to beat that is no mean feat - no doubt the batteries and motors are achievable but can the Gen III platform, made from cheaper materials, stand up to that kind of extreme torture...?

Let's hope so

Could it be that bigger improvements in the "immediate future" are more in improving acceleration of overtaking speed and acceleration at speeds above 60mph/ 100 km/h? Mind you, I'm not disagreeing with you.

 

[Cloxxki]

With sub-3 accelerations, are we not at the point where Tesla should serously consider increasing the gear ratios? An X pulling a trailer with on it a sports car wins a drag race to the sportscr itself.
Yet top end acceleration is claimed to be gearing limited.
How would performance in verious aspects change if the gear ratio were increased by 30% or 50%? How would heat generation compare?

Since tuned (cheap) cars with proper tires have done great drag races since eternity, I have little doubt that a Model 3 with proper motors could well outperform what Model S is doing today. Ideally make it fit the same at least 19" wheels and tires, be lighter overall, and access to enough power, at least the same power/weight ratio. It will be really quick. Just bolt the motors down properly

 

[JeffK]

Yet top end acceleration is claimed to be gearing limited.

You mean top end speed... You want more than 150 mph? Why sacrifice acceleration for that?

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

The wheel base of the M3 is almost the same as the MS.....I'm looking for the dimensions you used.

Model 3 – wheelbase (2870mm) x width (1885mm) = 5409950 sqmm
Model S – 2960mm x 2187mm = 6473520sqmm

Model 3 battery AREA capacity ~~ 83.5% of Model S

 

[Red Sage]

I'm very curious to find out how they've packed in the additional cells in the P100D. We're probably talking about an additional 800-1000 cells, which is a lot in an already compact design.

I have a couple of theories about this. There are 16 modules within a Tesla Model S 85 battery pack. So, that means each module likely held something on the order of 5.3125 kWh of energy. If all the battery cells in the Model S 90 are of the same type, that means that each module was upgraded to 5.625 kWh of energy each. That's a 5.88% improvement. I rather doubt that is enough to change every battery cell in the pack, because of 7,104 of them, the actual improvement would be a mere 0.703829 Wh per battery cell. That ain't none too much.

That is why I believe the improvement from 85 kWh to 90 kWh may have been by changing the battery cells in a single module or two within the battery pack instead. That would mean that perhaps two of the modules were upgraded to hold 7.8125 kWh... Or that only one of the modules was upgraded to be 10.3125 kWh in capacity... Either way, the balance of the modules would be filled with the older style battery cell design that totaled 5.3125 kWh per each module.

Thus, if all sixteen modules were eventually upgraded to the 10.3125 kWh capacity you could have a maximum of 165 kWh some day. Or, if all sixteen modules became the 7.8125 kWh variety, you could reach a 125 kWh battery pack capacity. Taking this notion further, if adding 5.0 kWh of capacity requires an improvement to battery cells within four modules, that means the Models S P100D and Model X P100D each use twelve 6.5625 kWh modules and four 5.3125 kWh modules. So, the total the Generation II vehicles could reach would be 105 kWh.

The most important question is if the new pack architecture is transferable to the Model 3, and there's really no way of knowing without opening one of the new packs up. It's entirely possible the new architecture utilizes the extra 5 mm of space above/below the cells for cooling. But that this space will be absorbed by the 21-70 cells, so you need the old cooling solution for the 21-70 based packs. If so, going to the 21-70 format may yield no additional space for cells. And a 21-70 based Model S/X pack may only get a <5% capacity increase.

5 mm is less than 1/4". So, less than the thickness of the outer casing that forms the battery pack itself. The height of the 2170 battery cells is not a real problem. If Tesla Motors wants to use those cells in Generation II vehicles, Model S and Model X, they will be able to do so. The battery pack is reportedly 4" thick, which is 102 mm. Subtract 7 mm for top and bottom leaves 88 mm. Subtract another 3 mm for top and bottom of each module within the battery pack and you have 82 mm. So, whether the battery cells are 65 mm tall or 70 mm tall, there is plenty of room left over. About 12 mm, which is roughly half an inch. Plenty of room for wiring and components.

Also, as there was no improvement due to chemistry, that may increase the likelihood that we'll see a capacity increase due to chemistry next year. Since 2012, we've had a single ~6% increase due to chemistry. That's an average of 1.5% per year. Not extremely good.

Depends upon how you look at it. Tesla Motors has never said they intend to roll out advancements in energy density on a yearly basis, as they happen in the lab. Honestly, it would be dumb of them to even try. What they have shown is a likelihood to show advancements in battery technology with the introduction of a new Generation of vehicles. They have also shown their willingness to upgrade older technology from previous Generations to accommodate better battery cells when possible.

A 5% increase in 2017 would increase this to 2.2% per year, at least.

JB Straubel says you will see a 40% increase over 2012 with the Generation III vehicles to be released in 2017. That works out to 8% per year. I believe him. You don't have to.

 

[Red Sage]

You guys are freaking killing me with this.
The M3 will need no more than a 75 kwH (probably 70 kwH) hour battery to get 300 miles range.
The Model S 75D gets 259 miles and weighs 4700#
A Model 3 75D that weighs 1000 # LESS is going to easily get over 300 mile range.
All of this talk of 100 kwH M3s is driving me insane.

Hmmm... The insanity is in believing that a desirable vehicle of these dimensions will reach its minimal Performance guidelines and still be able to have a tested and instrumented range of over 300 miles with an EPA certified 190-to-210 Wh per mile average energy consumption.

 

[Red Sage]

What's the source on the 40% gain in energy density?

Just some guy named JB Straubel who holds the title of Chief Technology Officer at Tesla Motors. He's said that he expected to see a 40% improvement in energy density between 2012 Generation II battery specifications and 2017 Generation III levels at least a couple of times in the past year or so. You don't have to believe him, of course. Some find skepticism to be warm and fuzzy. I prefer optimism.

 

[Red Sage]

I believe what LeiChat is suggesting is that with the larger cell size, it may be more difficult to manage the thermal mass of the cells. But then again this is Tesla we're talking about

Yeah. And I'm pretty sure that both Elon and JB both said that the new 2170 battery cell design will actually allow improved thermal protection within the battery pack. I tend to trust their thoughts on such issues.

 

[aronth5]

The conversation about the pack's battery changes related to cooling has certainly been interesting and helpful.
With the pack upgrade is their any reason to believe that Telsa made any improvements in how the battery management/pack handles cold weather?
I'm assuming no since Elon and JB referred to "cooling" but figured it doesn't hurt to ask.
thanks

 

[Red Sage]

Wouldn't that imply a ceiling of around 70kWh for the top end battery then? And given the fact that Tesla has stated that the Model 3 will have a base battery pack of "less than 60kWh", that makes for a really narrow range between base model and balls-out AWD PXXD, no?

I sincerely doubt the 'ceiling' will be as low as 70 kWh for the Tesla Model ☰. Much more likely that would be the basement instead.

Before the 60 was relaunched you could get a 75 and a 90 Model S. So only two battery choices that were 15kWh apart. So there could be a 55kWh base and a P70DL as the top o'the line for twice the base price.

I'm thinking more like a software limited 55 kWh base, a 75 kWh mid level car, and a 90 kWh or 100 kWh Performance edition of Model ☰. This would be roughly similar to the 40 kWh, 60 kWh, and 85 kWh distribution of Model S variants at its launch. That is, a 20 kWh difference between entry and mid level, with a 25 kWh difference between mid level and top-of-the-line.

Fun to speculate (for some hehe) but the real number you want is distance.

Without limiting Performance, I speculate that it is highly unlikely that we will see average energy consumption below 190 Wh per mile in Tesla Generation III vehicles in Real World applications. One might hope for an EPA qualification of 275 Wh per mile, and perhaps 240 Wh per mile in practice. So, yeah... It is much more likely that higher capacity battery packs, substantially above 70 kWh, will be necessary to achieve range targets that either match or surpass gas guzzlers in class for Tesla Model ☰.

- Cadillac ATS-V (304 miles)
- BMW M3 (316 miles)
- AUDI S4 (338 miles)
- Mercedes-AMG C63 S (360 miles)​

 

[Cloxxki]

85kWh [2012] + 40% = 119kWh
100kWh + 10% [21-70 density] + 7,7% [70/65mm] = 119kWh

 

[Red Sage]

That's correct. The 100kWh battery is a perfect match for the Model S. Why? Because the architecture of the car is such that it can readily benefit from the improved battery capacity to give a meaningful boost to performance. And Model S is priced such that a 20k upgrade still makes sense and customers who are willing to pay 100k for a Performance Model S will consider the ultimate performance upgrade.

The Model 3 landscape is a bit different IMO. And don't forget that the ultimate upper limit to performance will be dictated by physics - the contact friction between tire surface and road. When you go past that point, the motors will be unable to unleash their peak torque so from a 0-60 performance perspective, this is when we will see a diminishing value to simply increasing battery capacity. There is no such upper limit to range but again, as EM has indicated, they have an optimal value beyond which they think it does not make sense to increase.

Dude. The BMW M3 is a $30,000 upgrade over the 320i -- to start. Then you have another $30,000 in options that can be tacked on above that if you want. C'mon, MAN!

 

[Cloxxki]

While the space between the wheels could well turn out to be 84% of Model S...what if the Model 3 pack doesn't have the Gen II's 65mm net internally utilized height, but, say 75mm? 21-70's placed on their sides, 4 alternating layers for instance. That could really boost the capacity by a lot. And might not even be measurable comparing the Model 3 pack to the Gen II pack. It could be the exact same height, 16% smaller in floor size, but not keeping nearly as much "head space". The Model 3 pack could then hold 84* 75/65 = 96.9%.

 

[Red Sage]

With sub-3 accelerations, are we not at the point where Tesla should serously consider increasing the gear ratios? An X pulling a trailer with on it a sports car wins a drag race to the sportscr itself.
Yet top end acceleration is claimed to be gearing limited.
How would performance in verious aspects change if the gear ratio were increased by 30% or 50%? How would heat generation compare?

Since tuned (cheap) cars with proper tires have done great drag races since eternity, I have little doubt that a Model 3 with proper motors could well outperform what Model S is doing today. Ideally make it fit the same at least 19" wheels and tires, be lighter overall, and access to enough power, at least the same power/weight ratio. It will be really quick. Just bolt the motors down properly

The problem is not gearing at all. The gearing is worked out already. The issue is in terms of: 1) Available energy reserve; and 2) Overcoming wind resistance. Those who incessantly claim they want a second gear for higher top speeds are simply incorrect. Because they presume the drivetrain has already reached its maximum output. Also, because they want to press a button and yell out, "Turbo Boost, KITT!" Just to get an extra kick in the pants, and an extra, extra PUSH in the back. No. It just has reached the maximum that Tesla Motors has allowed from it with the given energy reserve of now, up to 100 kWh. Should Tesla some day choose to 'release the hounds' I am certain top speeds well in excess of 300 kph will be achieved with Model S, Model X, and Model ☰.

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

While the space between the wheels could well turn out to be 84% of Model S...what if the Model 3 pack doesn't have the Gen II's 65mm net internally utilized height, but, say 75mm? 21-70's placed on their sides, 4 alternating layers for instance. That could really boost the capacity by a lot. And might not even be measurable comparing the Model 3 pack to the Gen II pack. It could be the exact same height, 16% smaller in floor size, but not keeping nearly as much "head space". The Model 3 pack could then hold 84* 75/65 = 96.9%.

Based on the 83.5% area capacity of Model S & with the improvements with the 2170 cells, expect a minimum 90kWh

 

[Garlan Garner]

85kWh [2012] + 40% = 119kWh
100kWh + 10% [21-70 density] + 7,7% [70/65mm] = 119kWh

I don't know if you guys remember, but there was a guy who hacked into his MS and found the logo 100D. There were folks all over this forum that said that 100D was impossible because a,b,c,d,e,f,g........w.x.y.z....

It is at this point that I say - Really? What have you got to say?


Let me scan time forward 18 months and say it again - Really?

Really? - You didn't think Tesla could make the M3 hold the same KWH as the MS.
Really? - You didn't think that Tesla could make the M3 have the same range as the MS.
Really? - You didn't think that Tesla would make the M3 0-60 times - faster than the MS.
Really? - You thought the M3 would cut down the sales of the MS
Really? - .................. <------- fill in the blank

 

[techmaven]

90 kWh would weigh in at around 500 kg, or 1,100 lbs. That's a lot for a much smaller car.