Is your US made SR+ LFP charging to 253 or 262?

[ErikJupiter]

I took delivery on September 12 and mine is charging to 253. Others in the waiting room were seeing 262 at delivery. (I apologize about the typo in the thread title.) I’ve read threads elsewhere suggesting there is an update that makes more of the battery capacity available, resulting in a range of 262. I have version 2021.11.103.

 

[Tam]

...update that makes more of the battery capacity available...

The e-mail sent to those who wanted SR+ with 253 miles would get 253 miles.

If you don't want that, you can wait till next year to get 263 miles.

They are different batteries with different chemicals with different ranges.

 

[ErikJupiter]

The e-mail sent to those who wanted SR+ with 253 miles would get 253 miles.

If you don't want that, you can wait till next year to get 263 miles.

They are different batteries with different chemicals with different ranges.

I am aware of that. I carefully researched before switching to an LFP car. There are LFP cars that have received an update, making more of the battery's range available, and they are charging to 262 miles (as opposed to 263 for the NCA battery vehicles). I was trying to see how many of those reading these posts, who have LFP batteries, are seeing about 260 miles of range after a 100% charge.

 

[jjrandorin]

I took delivery on September 12 and mine is charging to 253. Others in the waiting room were seeing 262 at delivery. (I apologize about the typo in the thread title.) I’ve read threads elsewhere suggesting there is an update that makes more of the battery capacity available, resulting in a range of 262. I have version 2021.11.103.

(moderator note) corrected thread title number 266 to 262 per your first post.
=========================
I am not following this so I dont know the answer. Most battery range questions etc I move to the master thread, but this is a new battery in the US at least, so felt this question could stand alone.

 

[Tam]

....There are LFP cars that have received an update, making more of the battery's range available, and they are charging to 262 miles (as opposed to 263 for the NIC battery vehicles)...

Hmmmm.

Since you mentioned that so I go to Tesla website and you are right that there's a need for some explanations because EPA is 263 but the website now says 262!

Why there's a 1 mile descrepancy between Tesla site and EPA site?

 

[ErikJupiter]

Hmmmm.

Since you mentioned that so I go to Tesla website and you are right that there's a need for some explanations because EPA is 263 but the website now says 262!

View attachment 710163

Why there's a 1 mile descrepancy between Tesla site and EPA site?

There has been a good deal of speculation in the Model 3 SR+ waiting room, and in Reddit, that the U.S. Model 3 SR+ will soon rely solely on the Chinese made LFP battery. This is supported by sporadic reports from LFP buyers that their cars are showing 262 miles at a full charge, window stickers for LFP cars that show 262 miles of range, and the updated web page that you posted.

 

[Streetfish]

Got my M3 a week ago and I'm charging to 253 and also on 2021.11.103. Ive heard that it can take weeks to months for your first update so I'm hoping it will bump up after that first update, whenever it comes.

 

[ErikJupiter]

Interesting update. I bought an inventory vehicle and the listing showed 253 miles of range. I confirmed with my sales person that it is an LFP vehicle. It does not have the Daily and Trip items on the Charging screen, and it weighs 212 lbs more than the NCA vehicles. I did not get a window sticker at delivery. My sales person just emailed it to me. It shows 262 miles of range.

 

[MP3Mike]

There are LFP cars that have received an update, making more of the battery's range available, and they are charging to 262 miles (as opposed to 263 for the NCA battery vehicles).

Where are those reports coming from? Because if it is coming from the EU it probably doesn't count, since I don't think they use the EPA rating for their range estimates. (They use the WLTP test cycle which gives a higher estimated range than the EPA estimates.)

 

[ErikJupiter]

Where are those reports coming from? Because if it is coming from the EU it probably doesn't count, since I don't think they use the EPA rating for their range estimates. (They use the WLTP test cycle which gives a higher estimated range than the EPA estimates.)

These are US buyers posting in the SR+ waiting room.

 

[ErikJupiter]

Where are those reports coming from? Because if it is coming from the EU it probably doesn't count, since I don't think they use the EPA rating for their range estimates. (They use the WLTP test cycle which gives a higher estimated range than the EPA estimates.)

In comments to this YouTube video, a user states that with version 2021.24.4 his stated range went to 264. I can’t confirm as I still have 2021.11.103.

 

[Streetfish]

Where are those reports coming from? Because if it is coming from the EU it probably doesn't count, since I don't think they use the EPA rating for their range estimates. (They use the WLTP test cycle which gives a higher estimated range than the EPA estimates.)

Our window sticker also says 262 but actual range is still 253

 

[Gasaraki]

I am aware of that. I carefully researched before switching to an LFP car. There are LFP cars that have received an update, making more of the battery's range available, and they are charging to 262 miles (as opposed to 263 for the NCA battery vehicles). I was trying to see how many of those reading these posts, who have LFP batteries, are seeing about 260 miles of range after a 100% charge.

If making a number change makes people happy, I think they should just make that battery number "400".

 

[ErikJupiter]

If making a number change makes people happy, I think they should just make that battery number "400".

I think it is more than a number. If the stated range is increased, then it will take longer for the car to show 0%. That means owners will actually drive further. Very few of us will continue to drive after 0% (or even 5%), even if we are pretty confident there is range remaining.

 

[xallenx1]

Our sticker also shows 262 miles. We took delivery 9/4 but still on .103 firmware. I've been charging daily to 100% and it's only showing 253.

 

[626M3]

Took delivery of mine on 9/5 and only charges to 253 miles also

 

[xallenx1]

Quick question. Anyone in this forum with the 21 LFP SR+ got the new firmware update? I was wondering if the charge rate changed from 253 to the sticker range of 262 miles. Thanks!

 

[RLEE]

2021.11.103 is the current one for us lfp sr+ unlocks the capacity but shows 253 .I believe 2021.24.x is the European version with 262. This is not a charge rate. This is usable capacity estimated range.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I think it is more than a number. If the stated range is increased, then it will take longer for the car to show 0%. That means owners will actually drive further. Very few of us will continue to drive after 0% (or even 5%), even if we are pretty confident there is range remaining.

The thing is, a rated mile contains a certain amount of energy. If they change this value, the displayed range will change, but there will be no actual change to the energy or the achievable range.

People with the new SR+ I guess could use the energy screen method outlined in the sticky, and they can actually get the “charging constant” value if they switch to miles/km display, too. Unfortunately for new vehicles, the energy screen method only gives a lower bound for the available energy. However it does give an idea of Tesla’s design targets.

For prior vehicles (2021 SR+ non-LFP), the degradation threshold with this method was about 53.5kWh, as I recall (charging constant was 203Wh/mi). Not 100% sure about these numbers, but I think that is how it worked out. Easy to confirm for 2021 SR+ owners, anyway.

If done, this could reduce some of the confusion here, or at least allow owners to compare usable energy targets to the earlier SR+ version.

 

[ErikJupiter]

The thing is, a rated mile contains a certain amount of energy. If they change this value, the displayed range will change, but there will be no actual change to the energy or the achievable range.

People with the new SR+ I guess could use the energy screen method outlined in the sticky, and they can actually get the “charging constant” value if they switch to miles/km display, too. Unfortunately for new vehicles, the energy screen method only gives a lower bound for the available energy. However it does give an idea of Tesla’s design targets.

For prior vehicles (2021 SR+ non-LFP), the degradation threshold with this method was about 53.5kWh, as I recall (charging constant was 203Wh/mi). Not 100% sure about these numbers, but I think that is how it worked out. Easy to confirm for 2021 SR+ owners, anyway.

If done, this could reduce some of the confusion here, or at least allow owners to compare usable energy targets to the earlier SR+ version.

In the European LFP vehicle, I understand that the rated energy per mile is essentially identical to the US NCA vehicle. So I do not believe there is any reason to believe that the US LFP vehicle will be different. It appears the US and European vehicles both already have the increased capacity resulting from Tesla reducing the bottom end buffer. The European vehicles simply have had an update that permits the display to indicate 262 miles at a full charge.