MASTER THREAD: 2021 Model 3 - Charge data, battery discussion etc

[AlanSubie4Life]

Hello,

With your data and those of the Germans guys I tried an image synthesis, tell me what you think.
All this is to be confirmed with the data coming from the new owners

View attachment 619816

Thomas

This is not correct, 2019/2020 (and even 2018) had ~77.8kWh batteries as well.

And yes, I know the calculation of the range times the constant of 152Wh/rkm for 2018/2019 does not work out to 77.8kWh (works out to 76kWh). For complicated reasons...but the EPA documents do not lie.

Also that 152Wh/rkm constant only applies to 2018/2019.
For 2020 it was about 150Wh/rkm. (518rkm)

2018/2019: ~77.8kWh (maybe 77.6kWh?), 152Wh/rkm, for 76kWh “cap”

2020: ~77.8/77.6kWh, 150Wh/rkm, 518rkm

 

[EV Promoter]

Hello,

With your data and those of the Germans guys I tried an image synthesis, tell me what you think.
All this is to be confirmed with the data coming from the new owners

View attachment 619816

Thomas

Excellent synthesis, it must circulate to defend possible new buyers and give the possibility to european citizens to give back the car within the 14 days from the delivery, if they wish. And is not funny stuff at all.

I do confirm the E5D data with the support of the data and measurements i've posted here.

Add the bit in red for the charging speed "Same car, same price, but not same charging speed:"

It's a scandal.

 

[EV Promoter]

So constant calculation is 377/546*198 ? = 136,71 ...

To be honest, this mess is getting a bit tiresome, and I wish now that I had not fallen for the Tesla "clearance sale" that they have thrown this year

Same costant of all updated M3 but range of the E5D in an E3D.
Congratulation, you won the very rare "Double Frankenstein M3".

 

[Korgmatose]

Anyone with an E5D should really get a parts number - photo... I am beginning to think that my registration has been mis-labeled and that there is an LG under the hood.

 

[EV Promoter]

Anyone with an E5D should really get a parts number - photo... I am beginning to think that my registration has been mis-labeled and that there is an LG under the hood.

Has been already posted the label of some german E3D without any doubt, a Panasonic, your identical part code, so i don't think labels will sort your problem.

 

[TomaGo]

Ok, here is an update @AlanSubie4Life
Thank you @EV Promoter

 

[EV Promoter]

Ok, here is an update @AlanSubie4Life
Thank you @EV Promoter
View attachment 619845

When you're ready, spread it around and ask to widespread.
Also post on Twitter to Tesla, Elon and the community.

A' la guerre comme à la guerre

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Ok, here is an update @AlanSubie4Life
Thank you @EV Promoter
View attachment 619845

Yep, close enough! Key point is clear; capacity of Model 3 AWD with Panasonic batteries has been consistent and unchanged since its introduction in 2018. What happens from here, we will see.

And is not funny stuff at all.

I mean, I know you spent a lot of money on the car, but don't you have to admit it's just a little bit funny? Maybe not funny ha-ha, but more just funny in the sense that it's kind of absurd.

 

[khelge]

Remember that I am seeing the same range number as korgmatose aswell, with E3D in my papers (546km). So it is a bit weird. Trying to find someone with SMT but doubt i'll get someone before january. *Afraid we are getting an inferior battery even tho we have E3D*

 

[EV Promoter]

Remember that I am seeing the same range number as korgmatose aswell, with E3D in my papers (546km). So it is a bit weird. Trying to find someone with SMT but doubt i'll get someone before january. *Afraid we are getting an inferior battery even tho we have E3D*

Have you installed the update 2020.48.12.1?

Actually it would be useful for Tesla to downgrade the E3D to 546 km to hide the difference with the E5D.

Scan my Tesla, nonethless, should be able to display the true number in "ideal range".
So i do recommend the E3D owners with 546 km on display (with the update 2020.48.12.1) to check "Ideal range" on SMT.

 

[EV Promoter]

Ok, here is an update @AlanSubie4Life
Thank you @EV Promoter
View attachment 619845

Another format advice: BATTERY LOTTERY on capitals.

 

[Korgmatose]

Have you installed the update 2020.48.12.1?

Actually it would be useful for Tesla to downgrade the E3D to 546 km to hide the difference with the E5D.

Scan my Tesla, nonethless, should be able to display the true number in "ideal range".
So i do recommend the E3D owners with 546 km on display (with the update 2020.48.12.1) to check "Ideal range" on SMT.

I'm trying to locate someone that can lend me a SMT/OBD-dongle to check the data although I am yet to be successful...

 

[Korgmatose]

There are definitely some software issues going on as well, because now in the app, I am only allowed to charge to 96% max... Is this car running on alcohol cells?

 

[EV Promoter]

@khelge @Korgmatose
Just got a friend of mine with an E3D that went charging to 100%, recharge complete, and getting 550 km. You're not alone.

If some E3D showed 565ish km, must be because they were not yet castrated by some downgrade not readily identificable.
Probably they are trying to hide the difference in (real) range btw the E5D & E3D.

In the worse case, you have a much bigger buffer somewhere, a good reserve for degradation.

They are playing hard.
As an investor with a lot of money invested in Tesla, i'm reconsidering if to rely in scammers for my savings.
The story of the Model S 85 kWh was unsavory, but they couldn't predict such a problem.
But this is different, has been carefully planned.

 

[EV Promoter]

There are definitely some software issues going on as well, because now in the app, I am only allowed to charge to 96% max... Is this car running on alcohol cells?

By chance, the number is spot on to make you having the range of the E5D and avoid disputes. Coincidence?

 

[MrHopsing]

There are definitely some software issues going on as well, because now in the app, I am only allowed to charge to 96% max... Is this car running on alcohol cells?

Seeing that you are in Norway as well the pack could be too cold. 96% could be 100% because of the internal resistance in the pack is higher during the cold, as the pack heats the remaining battery will become available.

 

[EV Promoter]

@AlanSubie4Life
Cleared the mess of the update, the OBDLINK is back to work.

So, after the update 2020.48.12.1, my E5D shows a negative degradation, -0.13 (i've seen it also in another smt screenshot of a german E5D), with the battery nominal, 74,6 kWh, larger than "When new". Ideal range 545 km as shown charging to 100%
But remember it doesn't get the "Recharge Complete" message, already 4 different person reporting it, no matter how long you wait.

I remember that the SMT reading before the update, was giving 74,2 kWh nominal, and same 74,5 kWh "when new", so 0.40% "degradation".

PS: whatever comment on the parameters shown is welcome, i'm yet to penetrate all their significance.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I remember that the SMT reading before the update, was giving 74,2 kWh nominal,

Yeah, and now it's 74.6kWh, with about 6 volts more voltage (385V vs. 379V or whatever).

PS: whatever comment on the parameters shown is welcome, i'm yet to penetrate all their significance.

The most significant parameter is the voltage. On Panasonic packs at 100%, this voltage is over 400V (you can find screenshots from SMT elsewhere).

To me, that seems to show conclusively that this pack is currently top-locked. I have relatively little doubt, with that information, that it is simply hobbled for now, while Tesla evaluates the safety parameters. Pretty sure they could cram a few more kWh in there if they added more than 15V. (6V added 0.4kWh, for reference, and probably at these voltages we're off the plateau and into the final upward voltage slope of voltage vs. SoC % (it is quite flat for a while and then slopes up shortly for the final few % of SoC)).

So seems like minimum you could probably cram another 1.2kWh in there and it could be more (hard to calculate due to the non-linear curve...).

For reference, here's a screen capture from Bjorn on a 2019 Model 3. Obviously this is at a much warmer temperature but I don't think it changes the voltage by 15V if you drop down from 40C to 15C (I am not searching for such an image; will leave as an exercise for the reader):

 

[EV Promoter]

Yeah, and now it's 74.6kWh, with about 6 volts more voltage (385V vs. 379V or whatever).

The most significant parameter is the voltage. On Panasonic packs at 100%, this voltage is over 400V (you can find screenshots from SMT elsewhere).

To me, that seems to show conclusively that this pack is currently top-locked. I have relatively little doubt, with that information, that it is simply hobbled for now, while Tesla evaluates the safety parameters. Pretty sure they could cram a few more kWh in there if they added more than 15V. (6V added 0.4kWh, for reference, and probably at these voltages we're off the plateau and into the final upward voltage slope of voltage vs. SoC % (it is quite flat for a while and then slopes up shortly for the final few % of SoC)).

So seems like minimum you could probably cram another 1.2kWh in there and it could be more (hard to calculate due to the non-linear curve...).

Thanks Alan, precious. The voltage was previously 375 V , now 381 V, so 6 volt increase, and we are still far from 401 V, so given that those batteries are in production since just 6 months at the best, it could be a period of evaluation for safety.

Let's hope it gets better, in the meantime that story is going around and magazine's articles are coming.
Some attempt of defense and/or clarification from Tesla would be a good idea.

 

[TimothyHW3]

With your data and those of the Germans guys I tried an image synthesis, tell me what you think.

Old constant was 153Wh/km actually and the capacity was the same, 77.8. Tesla just capped the displayed range at 500km or at 76.5 to hide initial degradation. This is why at 100% you had to wait a bit for the range to drop.

Then they raised the range in the US by calculating more capacity, 2020
Also, there is a 82kWh Panasonic battery in the Ps that might or might not be in the AWDs