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

[MikeDog77]

I think the lack of 100kWh option for the M3 is more marketing and psychological than it is technical. Tesla has to do a tough job of making the M3 an affordable and attractive car but at the same time keep the Model S as a more attractive option for people that can afford it. I think one easy way to do that is to limit the kWh. As we know there is a LOT more to the car than kWh but it has already begun to have the effect as a CPU speed did for early computers. People sometimes only get caught up on numbers because its easier to compare numbers than it is model names. I would hope that the top end M3 would be able to go 280-310 miles on a full charge. If they can do this with say a 85 kWh battery option than no need to go to 100.

That is just my opinion of how I see it.

 

[Cloxxki]

I think the lack of 100kWh option for the M3 is more marketing and psychological than it is technical. Tesla has to do a tough job of making the M3 an affordable and attractive car but at the same time keep the Model S as a more attractive option for people that can afford it. I think one easy way to do that is to limit the kWh. As we know there is a LOT more to the car than kWh but it has already begun to have the effect as a CPU speed did for early computers. People sometimes only get caught up on numbers because its easier to compare numbers than it is model names. I would hope that the top end M3 would be able to go 280-310 miles on a full charge. If they can do this with say a 85 kWh battery option than no need to go to 100.

That is just my opinion of how I see it.

If you are right, Elon is kind of lying.

I believe Model S manages as low as 179Wh/km, and Model 3 is expected to do as much as 20% better. I'd guess 150Wh as a base line. 300 miles would take a usable capacity of 72.4kWh, so around 77 total.
I can see SOME logic to keeping the big battery number for S&X.
But being able to sell a profitable 400 mile car under $50k...some statement that would be.

Would they have made the Model 3 pack needlessly small to favor S&X? They said they'd make it the best car possible. I'm sceptical that 2170 wouldn't allow for 100kWh in Model 3 if they wanted is as badly as <2.4s/0-60mph in the Model S. They didn't give up on crazy numbers because the car was far above 2 tons with only 4 wheels and modest horsepower even for shorts bursts. They went through A LOT of trouble to make that happen. It's not a matter of cranking up the amps.

Another thing I can see is that 100kWh Model 3 might put too much strain on the cell production capacity. What if 80% of Model 3 sold were 100kWh? Same reason may be for not offering S&X with the 120-130kWh I have been expecting. They make profit not only by selling their low cost 2170 cells, but also offering the cars around it. And, production capacity is needed to support the roof and grid products. If it all takes off, GF1 may be effectively be too little too late. Fremont may keep up with demand better than GF1, so cars need to not be sold with tooooo much capacity. Which would be a shame IMO. I like BEV progress in a technical sense, not just cost saving and headcount reduction.

 

[transpondster]

. A low cost BEV such as the Ioniq with kWh capacity can be see charging over 65kW. Meaning, 200kW+ would be possible in a 100kWh car.

Soul specs guess Ioniq same:
Battery Weight, kg 274.5
so 90kWh pack weighting 800+ kg, ok maybe 100 kg could be saved if somehow you fitted those high power cells in 1 enclosure. GM being silent about Bolt's charging speed proves you either have density either specific power not both.

 

[bonaire]

The answer is if Lithium-Sulfur can be found with a chemistry setup that allows 1200-1500 cycles. Then you could go past 100 kWh easily.

 

[22522]

At introduction the technology used in the model 3 will not allow 100kWh of batteries to fit in the space available.

 

[PJFW8]

Tesla Model 3 top battery pack option will be lower than 100 kWh, says Elon Musk

Disappointing tweets for me. On top of the disppointing form of "communication" by Tweets in general.

If the slightly smaller car can't accomodate 100kWh despite the switch to 2170 cells (denser and longer), what does that say about the actual density gaines?
I have SOME hopes that Tesla have sacrificed density to achieve faster charging. Compared to medium range BEV's on the market, Model S and X simply have slow charging batteries now. A low cost BEV such as the Ioniq with kWh capacity can be see charging over 65kW. Meaning, 200kW+ would be possible in a 100kWh car. Teslas have yet to demonstrate more than 120kW, and that's battery limited, not charge limited.
So who know, perhaps Model 3 in its 55-60kWh base version will already charge at 100kW or better?

Another option is that the Model 3 pack will actually have a rather conservative layout in terms of space utilization, or coling tech that's reliable and low cost, while taking up more space that we might expect.

Most on here didn't believe my 100kW expectations, so you can tell me you told me so.
S&X to stay at 100kW for a while, potentially the S100D even beating the top Model 3 for rated range?

Discuss.

I share your disappointment. I am not surprised that M3 has no 100kW option, but I am very surprised that it won't fit. That is not consistent with what we know of the 2170's advantages and the slightly smaller 3 wheelbase. This does not add up!

 

[Cloxxki]

I share your disappointment. I am not surprised that M3 has no 100kW option, but I am very surprised that it won't fit. That is not consistent with what we know of the 2170's advantages and the slightly smaller 3 wheelbase. This does not add up!

It's just not the way I foresaw progress. Something was done very wrong in principle, or we are being fooled a bit.
The people that left tesla for Lucid and FF seemed to have been overruled on quite sensible ideas, by Elon himself. And at their next company got to do it their way after all. While a visionary, Elon may not always decide wisely on what things to do his own way, despite arguably better engineers pressing for something else entirely.

 

[Cloxxki]

Soul specs guess Ioniq same:
Battery Weight, kg 274.5
so 90kWh pack weighting 800+ kg, ok maybe 100 kg could be saved if somehow you fitted those high power cells in 1 enclosure. GM being silent about Bolt's charging speed proves you either have density either specific power not both.

Not all that much heavier than the 100kW pack in Teslas, then? I'm not sure how much room the Soul/Ioniq packs take up, though. But if Tesla can have a big frunk, others have a decent chance when placing some batteries there. Of a higher floor. Can't hurt too much. 1cm higher floor in a Model S/X could mean +16% capacity. Actually, +7.7% for 70mm cells will already fit in there. That's a full 110kWh based on theoretical 18700 cells. 2170 only makes it more, even without a chemistry update.
So Tesla's baseline for that floow space is already 120+kWh wuth 2170 cells of old technology. How much with a similar longbase Asian car with fast charging cells fit in the same space? Surely 100kWh is on the cards. Especially when sacrificing 1cm of floor. BOOM, over 200kWh. 10 or even 5 minutes charge would go a long way.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Isn't the competition for the M3 the Audi A3 or the BMW 3 series?

Neither of them have anything to do with the MS......so...why compare the MS to the M3?

 

[JeffK]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who died a little on the inside when Elon made that tweet.

 

[22522]

The floor height is super critical.

 

[vinnie97]

I first died when it became clear there were no lifetime Supercharging options being made available beyond 2016. I died a second time with the latest Tweet.

 

[ohmman]

I first died when it became clear there were no lifetime Supercharging options being made available beyond 2016. I died a second time with the latest Tweet.

You've got 7 left, kitty.

 

[S'toon]

Not sure why people are being all emo about the 3 not having a 100KWh battery. It's a smaller and lighter car, so will get same performance as S with less battery.

 

[Sluggabed]

I'm also calling porky pies on that Elon tweet. The wheelbase is minimally different between the two models yet the 2170 cell format has nearly double the energy density to that of the 18650 cell. Without getting into the finer details basically you'd almost have to halve the wheelbase to validate this statement from EM.......its all marketing

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm also calling porky pies on that Elon tweet. The wheelbase is minimally different between the two models yet the 2170 cell format has nearly double the energy density to that of the 18650 cell. Without getting into the finer details basically you'd almost have to halve the wheelbase to validate this statement from EM.......its all marketing

2170 does not have anywhere close to double the volume of the 18650. By volume it is 1.466x. And presuming the chemistry is the same, there is actually zero increase in energy density. That is because the larger size of the cell means that less cells can fit, thus it all cancels out.

However, in practical terms that extra 5mm of height is somewhat "free", so that gives 1.077x the capacity given the same pack width/length.

Motor Trend specs (L x W x H):
Model S: 196.0 x 77.3 x 56.5 in, wheelbase 116.5 in
Model 3: 184.1 x 74.2 x 56.5 in, wheelbase 113 in
Tesla Model S 60/75: 2017 Motor Trend Car of the Year Finalist - Motor Trend
Tesla Model 3 In-Depth - Exclusive Photos and Analysis

A simple width * wheelbase:
Model S: 9005.45 sq in
Model 3: 8384.6 sq in
So Model 3 would have 0.931x the surface area (ignoring the height as per above). In total including the "free" height advantage: 1.077x0.931 = 1.002687, so Model 3 would have practically the same amount of space by this simple analysis.

However there is a serious difference that haven't been accounted for. The Model S can fit up to 16 modules with a extended section that fits 2 modules double stacked.

The Model 3 only has 8 modules using the same area the 14 modules used:

TESLA UPDATES: [Video] Tesla Model S & X battery pack explained

If what Elon showed is representative of the Model 3 pack configuration, that means the Model 3 will only have 14/16 or 87.5% of the pack space of the Model S (as above the wheelbase and width differences is canceled out by slightly taller pack height). This suggests a 85-90kWh maximum pack option for Model 3 near launch (of course with chemistry improvements in the future this will change). So I put Elon's claims under "plausible".

 

[Cloxxki]

You are both misinformed. The larger cell optimizes the packaging/content ratio, some 10% of density increase can be achieved. Also, the cells are longer and WILL fit in the same standing up orientation, that's another 7.7% per square meter of floor utilized.

 

[Cloxxki]

Not sure why people are being all emo about the 3 not having a 100KWh battery. It's a smaller and lighter car, so will get same performance as S with less battery.

Well, if you take the 20% figures loosely posted for both density increase and economy improvement over Model S, the Model 3 would only need 60% of the battery volume (let alone floor surface) to reach 335 miles.

Perhaps they have decided to not do the double stacked module, and somehow really maximize available cabin space above and between the axles. Maximizing aero performance vs. cabin space as a leading design parameter would lead designers this way. Tiny battery that just fits 80kWh even with their best cramming efforts, still does 335 miles, while getting fast kph charging and enjoying a surprising spacious cabin.

People are saying the lower weight of Model 3 will mean it will just do the same 0-60 times as Model S, but I'm not convinced that's a given. To save money and achieve good economy (get more miles per kWh), Model 3 may well have super optimized smaller motors. The <6 second 0-60mph time given is still consistent with a smaller rear motor.

 

[JeffK]

Model 3 may well have super optimized smaller motors.

It's been said that it's going to sport 300+ kW inverters so you'd still need motors capable of handling that.

 

[scaesare]

There are so many posts in this thread I want to respond to that, if I did, I'd be here for hours. So, I'll pick some of the more egregious points:

If the slightly smaller car can't accomodate 100kWh despite the switch to 2170 cells (denser and longer), what does that say about the actual density gaines?

Nothing. Tesla has a performance target they simply need sufficient energy to achieve.

Teslas have yet to demonstrate more than 120kW, and that's battery limited, not charge limited.

Evidence suggests otherwise. 70kWh with their lower voltage can draw ~360A when supercharging putting it at the limit of a 120kW Supercharger. This implies that a larger pack with greater voltage could accept greater than 120kW if the superchargers could supply it.

They said they'd make it the best car possible. I'm sceptical that 2170 wouldn't allow for 100kWh in Model 3

Best car yes, but within a target cost. This includes costs for cells, pack, cooling, conductors, connectors, inverters, ease of production, etc... It also must be balanced with other design goals including vehicle size, floor height, interior space, weight, etc...

If reports that the 2170's are have a chemistry with greater energy density are true, could they cram 100kW in to the car? Apparently not, according to Elon. Doesn't mean they won't meet their design goals and include a longer-range pack option.

The answer is if Lithium-Sulfur can be found with a chemistry setup that allows 1200-1500 cycles. Then you could go past 100 kWh easily.

With less than half the cycle life understood for Tesla's current cells.

I am not surprised that M3 has no 100kW option, but I am very surprised that it won't fit. That is not consistent with what we know of the 2170's advantages and the slightly smaller 3 wheelbase. This does not add up!

What do we know? There are discussions of the new 2170's being 30% more energy dense. But we also know the Model 3 has a shorter wheelbase. It also is narrower. We also have seen renderings showing no second-level modules, nor "front center protruding" modules. And even though cell density goes up, other pack structures will still need to be present: framing, cooling, contactors, fuses, connectors, etc... Those don't all necessarily scale down linearly.