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

[AlanSubie4Life]

What makes the 2021 LR so much more efficient than 2019 models?
The battery capacity isn't that much different to mine, but it shows 100km extra range.

It’s about 68km extra rated range. This applied to the vehicle with the identical battery capacity to the 2018/2019. Did not require the larger capacity pack!

1) 2018/2019 actually had about 512km (318 miles) rated range if you were to get rid of the degradation threshold (which inflated rated energy content when above 76kWh). So 568/512 = 11% more range, apples to apples (early 2021 with the older pack, 78kWh, did not have significant differences between NFP and degradation threshold so no adjustment needed to 568km).

2) Heat pump allows lower consumption per EPA test, due to special scaling factor based on 5-cycle results which is used (0.74-0.75 or so rather than 0.71 or something - exact numbers covered elsewhere, this is from memory). That accounts for about 4-5%.

3) Two major software updates, and perhaps one minor one (from memory), declared to improve efficiency and increase range by Tesla, between 2019 and 2020. Overall drivetrain eked out some gains (note that most of these applied retroactively to 2018/2019 vehicles). Probably accounts for the remaining. You can see this by comparing to 2020 Performance 18” which got 332 rated miles (voluntarily reduced to 322) in EPA testing most likely with all these software updates, based on the date of the test, and is essentially identical to the 2018/2010 vehicle as far as we know. (332/318 = 1.044, so 4.4%).

So the reality is the 2021 is about 4-5% more efficient per the EPA test cycle at the current time than the 2019 (and this is not realizable in best case conditions where the heat pump has negligible impact). But the constant is much different than that 4-5% due to above additional factors.

 

[Bouba]

I can’t really find my car in this list...it’s a M3LR LG75 but it’s also got the hairpin windings motor

 

[eivissa]

I can’t really find my car in this list...it’s a M3LR LG75 but it’s also got the hairpin windings motor

That is the M3LR 2021 LG 75kWh then, since this car was approved with 3D5 and 3D7 (hairpin) rear motor. If the result was not motor specific, I didn't mention it. You can check the list too. Your car is the E5CD and at drive unit it just says '#' for unspecified or all drive units.

 

[jyavenard]

It’s about 68km extra rated range. This applied to the vehicle with the identical battery capacity to the 2018/2019. Did not require the larger capacity pack!

1) 2018/2019 actually had about 512km (318 miles) rated range if you were to get rid of the degradation threshold (which inflated rated energy content when above 76kWh). So 568/512 = 11% more range, apples to apples (early 2021 with the older pack, 78kWh, did not have significant differences between NFP and degradation threshold so no adjustment needed to 568km).

2) Heat pump allows lower consumption per EPA test, due to special scaling factor based on 5-cycle results which is used (0.74-0.75 or so rather than 0.71 or something - exact numbers covered elsewhere, this is from memory). That accounts for about 4-5%.

So; in places where you typically don't need to use the heater (like where I live) ; in practice it's just an advertising game range numbers.

I've been puzzled about getting a new model, simply because I can easily sell my car for more than what I paid it for, which is just crazy. But the primary drive for such thought is the supposedly much greater range.

 

[jyavenard]

I believe it's unlikely that his car has no battery degradation. The Full Rated Range parameter can show no drop off for some time until it reaches a "degradation threshold" whilst other measurements such as NFP (Nominal Full Pack) can show that the battery is losing capacity before the "degradation threshold". That said he could live in a geographical area that is generally cooler - which would help limit calendar aging. There are plenty of Tesla M3 owners that have very nice graphics showing no or minimal degradation

Well, that's not me: my car was showing 500km when I bought it, and now it shows 454km at 100% ; battery is showing as being 69.6kWh only (July 2019 made Performance Minus)

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

So; in places where you typically don't need to use the heater (like where I live) ; in practice it's just an advertising game range numbers.

But the primary drive for such thought is the supposedly much greater range.

Right. In optimal conditions the difference for the 2021 with the old smaller battery would be negligible. For the new battery there’s a small increase in capacity but it is just a couple %.

Obviously there are other changes to the car as well. But since you already have a car, it certainly makes little sense to increase your range, unless you are having a hard time making it between Superchargers (possible down there, maybe), since you’d temporarily resolve your capacity loss issues.

 

[jyavenard]

Mostly just the different (fixed) rated consumption figure that is set in the car.

• M3LR 2018-2020 uses 152,5Wh/km
• M3LR 2021-2022 uses 137Wh/km

Actually; something doesn't quite add-up.
At 100%, my car shows 459km range

By the figure above, 459 * .1525 = 69.99kWh (let say 70)

ScanMyTesla shows the following:
Nominal Full Pack: 69.6kWh
I guess that 70 is close enough to 69.6kWh.

However, as I understand it; 69.6kWh is the nominal capacity of the battery; that is it includes the buffer.

SMT again:
Nominal remaining: 49.7kWh
Usable 46.7kWh
Energy Buffer: 3.1kWh
SOC 70.1%

So the usable full battery is 69.6 - 3.1kWh = 66.5kWh
To get 459km; I would need the rated consumption to be 66500 / 459 = 144Wh/km.

144Wh/km is actually the value I remember reading about the EPA rate used for 2019 cars here a while back.

 

[Bouba]

Actually; something doesn't quite add-up.
At 100%, my car shows 459km range

By the figure above, 459 * .1525 = 69.99kWh (let say 70)

ScanMyTesla shows the following:
Nominal Full Pack: 69.6kWh
I guess that 70 is close enough to 69.6kWh.

However, as I understand it; 69.6kWh is the nominal capacity of the battery; that is it includes the buffer.

SMT again:
Nominal remaining: 49.7kWh
Usable 46.7kWh
Energy Buffer: 3.1kWh
SOC 70.1%

So the usable full battery is 69.6 - 3.1kWh = 66.5kWh
To get 459km; I would need the rated consumption to be 66500 / 459 = 144Wh/km.

144Wh/km is actually the value I remember reading about the EPA rate used for 2019 cars here a while back.

I’m pretty sure that when my MiC 2021 M3LR was new it showed 144Wh/km and now it shows 138Wh/km..probably changed after the first few updates.
In real life, after nearly 7000km it’s showing that I have used 137Wh/km...that is why I can do the EPA range comfortably without trying (although I haven’t tested it from 100% to 0%)

 

[eivissa]

Actually; something doesn't quite add-up.
At 100%, my car shows 459km range

Really make sure that it isn't just 100%, but that the charging has actually dropped to 0kW and stopped. It shows charging complete much earlier, which is basically the difference between nominal full pack and nominal remaining in SMT.

ScanMyTesla shows the following:
Nominal Full Pack: 69.6kWh

If you really charged to 100% and the charging has stopped you need to look at Nominal Remaining for this comparison.

However, as I understand it; 69.6kWh is the nominal capacity of the battery; that is it includes the buffer.

Yes. That is correct.
Usable Full Pack or Usable Remaining is without energy buffer.

SMT again:
Nominal remaining: 49.7kWh
Usable 46.7kWh
Energy Buffer: 3.1kWh
SOC 70.1%

The calculation needs to be done at 100% to be most accurate as at 70% SoC only 70% of the energy buffers range is taken into the calculation. That's why at 0% it shows 0km (0% of energy buffer) with still all available range in the energy buffer. For full calculation of the energy buffer you need 100% SOC.

144Wh/km is actually the value I remember reading about the EPA rate used for 2019 cars here a while back.

The rated consumption is not equal the EPA declared consumption, but closer to it than f.e. WLTP AFAIK.

I’m pretty sure that when my MiC 2021 M3LR was new it showed 144Wh/km and now it shows

The Rated Consumption is not shown anywhere in the car. It's only a calculated fixed value that is derived from looking into the BMS with Apps like SMT.

138Wh/km..probably changed after the first few updates.

The update that introduced that reduced the rated consumption to 137Wh/km was back in December 2020 (SW 2020.28.12.1). Your car was produced much later. There was a recent update that increased the shown 100% range from 77,8kWh up to 79kWh'ish. Visible with 567km in the past and 575km now. This is just ball park and could be a couple of km more or less.

 

[Bouba]

Really make sure that it isn't just 100%, but that the charging has actually dropped to 0kW and stopped. It shows charging complete much earlier, which is basically the difference between nominal full pack and nominal remaining in SMT.

If you really charged to 100% and the charging has stopped you need to look at Nominal Remaining for this comparison.

Yes. That is correct.
Usable Full Pack or Usable Remaining is without energy buffer.

The calculation needs to be done at 100% to be most accurate as at 70% SoC only 70% of the energy buffers range is taken into the calculation. That's why at 0% it shows 0km (0% of energy buffer) with still all available range in the energy buffer. For full calculation of the energy buffer you need 100% SOC.

The rated consumption is not equal the EPA declared consumption, but closer to it than f.e. WLTP AFAIK.

The Rated Consumption is not shown anywhere in the car. It's only a calculated fixed value that is derived from looking into the BMS with Apps like SMT.

The update that introduced that reduced the rated consumption to 137Wh/km was back in December 2020 (SW 2020.28.12.1). Your car was produced much later. There was a recent update that increased the shown 100% range from 77,8kWh up to 79kWh'ish. Visible with 567km in the past and 575km now. This is just ball park and could be a couple of km more or less.

When you buy the car new it has old software on it until it all downloads in a week or so.
Originally, on the energy screen, the dotted line, which shows not average energy but the rated energy, had a value (144Wh) shown on the screen by the line on the left

 

[jyavenard]

When you buy the car new it has old software on it until it all downloads in a week or so.
Originally, on the energy screen, the dotted line, which shows not average energy but the rated energy, had a value (144Wh) shown on the screen by the line on the left

I have *never* seen any value like you describe; you a line with "typical". And I watch that screen all the time and I've had my car since September 2019.
There are two lines: a dotted one which is your average, and a continuous one typical.
I think you're misremembering.

 

[jyavenard]

Really make sure that it isn't just 100%

It's what the charging screen shows when you drag the cursor.

All I'm saying is that the 155Wh/km you've given doesn't translate in reality with the figures available in the car

 

[Bouba]

I have *never* seen any value like you describe; you a line with "typical". And I watch that screen all the time and I've had my car since September 2019.
There are two lines: a dotted one which is your average, and a continuous one typical.
I think you're misremembering.

Misremembering is what I do best.....ok how about this...when the two lines overlap then you get the rated Wh/km.
Now the rated Wh/km line is lower (from 144 down to 137)

 

[jyavenard]

Really make sure that it isn't just 100%, but that the charging has actually dropped to 0kW and stopped. It shows charging complete much earlier, which is basically the difference between nominal full pack and nominal remaining in SMT.

TMC lost my edits, so trying again.
I did a drive from 100% to 10% last week, so the car has "calibrated" itself quite nicely. What the current nominal capacity is showing as, is exactly what it was when I had the car sit at 100% overnight.
69.6kWh and 459km is what was showing if I set the range to km rather than %

So *if* the rated range was 155Wh/km ; my *usable* battery size would need to be 70kWh.
But it's not, my usable battery size is 69.6-3.1=66.5kWh.

66.5/459 = 144Wh/km ; and that tells me that 144Wh/km is the rate used by my car to calculate the rated range.

It would be 155 if the 3.1kWh reserve was included in the calculation. But is it?

 

[eivissa]

So *if* the rated range was 155Wh/km

152,5Wh/km

my *usable* battery size would need to be 70kWh.

I guess this is the confusing part. The term "usable full pack" in Scan My Tesla is of no real interest in this topic. This calculation is meant to get a close estimate of the nominal full pack / nominal Remaining. The energy buffer is part of the usable capacity, but you can't rely on it being fully usable, that's why it is hidden below 0%.

It would be 155 if the 3.1kWh reserve was included in the calculation. But is it?

Yes, it is.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

To get 459km; I would need the rated consumption to be 66500 / 459 = 144Wh/km.

144Wh/km is actually the value I remember reading about the EPA rate used for 2019 cars here a while back.

The value used in the car for the 2018/2019 Model 3 LR RWD is 245Wh/mi, 152Wh/km, as @eivissa has said.

The Rated Consumption is not shown anywhere in the car. It's only a calculated fixed value that is derived from looking into the BMS with Apps like SMT.

(For others, not you: note that none of the below should be confused with the "Consumption" values in your table above, which you are not claiming to be the rated consumption values.)

I believe it is indirectly shown with three methods without SMT, just using the car, and will match SMT as long as the vehicle capacity is below the degradation threshold (last I checked - haven't checked for a while, and software changes, but I've never seen this situation change, so I assume it's still the case):

1) Rated consumption line. This line on the Energy Consumption screen is always 5Wh/mi, or 3Wh/km, higher than the Rated Consumption constant used by the vehicle when calculating rated range at 100% for the given battery capacity (when below the degradation threshold - again, this doesn't apply when the battery energy content at 100% is above the degradation threshold - perhaps part of the reason for the 5Wh/mi or 3Wh/mi correction, but who knows...). In this case, anyway, we're talking about a vehicle below the degradation threshold. Don't have the exact numbers, but anyway, for @jyavenard : 69.6kWh/459km = 152Wh/km, 245Wh/mi, so the line is at 250Wh/mi, 155Wh/km. You must "drive to the line" and really have it overlap to get the value. Going back to the degradation threshold thing: The line stays in the same position when energy exceeds the threshold, so this value will just understate energy content per rated km/mi when the battery is above the threshold. Not a big deal anyway.

2) You can always take the energy screen consumption values in average mode and calculate it. Do this at a high SoC value for accuracy:
(Recent Efficiency * Projected Range) / Rated Range Remaining = Charging Constant. Apparently not all vehicles (Model S Plaid?) have the energy screen (???) ? But Model 3 does which is what is relevant here.

3) Least desirable method: For a very large charging event, you can swap between energy and distance modes while the car is still plugged in, and see how many kWh were added and how many miles/km (km better for accuracy) were added. The ratio of energy to distance will give you the rated consumption value (without any 5Wh/mi or 3Wh/km correction factor). Has to be a very large charging event to get close to three significant figures (this value only gives you two significant figures unless you have an app that gives you the additional decimal point to the energy added (I think it's available to the API though I'm not sure on this point, but using an app wouldn't count anyway)). But in any case you can look carefully at the behavior of the added energy, and you can get the value this way. It shouldn't matter if the car uses a lot of energy due to accessory use, etc., during the charging event, though I don't use this method, so I can't be 100% sure (it'll add to both km and energy in the right ratio, or maybe it just gives the net amount - I don't know, don't pay attention).
("Interesting" aside - note that this proves that the kWh added on the screen does not correspond to kWh added to the battery; it's actually 4.5% too high on the screen, due to the buffer effect. The kWh added on the screen is not a direct measure of the energy added to the battery- it's just the rated miles added (which actually DOES correspond to the measured energy added, but this is 95.5% of the rated value per km) * the charging constant! Anyway this discrepancy can be confirmed by comparing to SMT.)

on the energy screen, the dotted line, which shows not average energy but the rated energy, had a value (144Wh) shown on the screen by the line on the left

ow the rated Wh/km line is lower (from 144 down to 137)

Do you have a picture of this? I'm not near my car at the moment, so it's possible they have eliminated the 5Wh/mi, 3Wh/km discrepancy (between the constant and the rated line) that always used to exist on the energy consumption screen. I doubt it, but it's possible.

I'd expect the rated line in the 2021 Model 3 LR AWD to be at 140Wh/km or so, meaning a 137Wh/km constant (as has been stated).

 

[Bouba]

Do you have a picture of this? I'm not near my car at the moment, so it's possible they have eliminated the 5Wh/mi, 3Wh/km discrepancy (between the constant and the rated line) that always used to exist on the energy consumption screen. I doubt it, but it's possible.

I'd expect the rated line in the 2021 Model 3 LR AWD to be at 140Wh/km or so, meaning a 137Wh/km constant (as has been stated).

I have a picture of the two lines intersecting...

But I have no recent photos from when I suspected that the value dropped...

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I have a picture of the two lines intersecting...
View attachment 798840

But I have no recent photos from when I suspected that the value dropped...

Those lines do not intersect. When they do, the lines will be on top of one another. As expected, 143Wh/km is above the rated line (which should be at 140Wh/km, corresponding exactly with a value of 137Wh/km - perhaps actual position is off by 1Wh/km from these values; I don’t know off the top of my head, since I don’t have this car, but it is documented elsewhere here).

 

[jyavenard]

The main reason I'm picky is to determine my level of battery degradation. So it started with 78.5kWh (75kWh usable after we remove the buffer) and it's now 69.6.

So a 11.3% degradation in 2 years, that seems high to me.

 

[AAKEE]

The main reason I'm picky is to determine my level of battery degradation. So it started with 78.5kWh (75kWh usable after we remove the buffer) and it's now 69.6.

So a 11.3% degradation in 2 years, that seems high to me.

I guess you have seen my posts with pictures that show calendar aging?

Australia is a quite warm climate, right?

The first year would degrade your battery from calendar aging only with about 6% if the average battery temp is about 25C.
Using the car (charging, driving) increase the battery temp above the ambient.
Having the car outside in the sun increases the battery temperature.
In a warm sunny climate the average battery temp will be well above the average ambient temp.
So, perhaps the average battery temp is 30 degrees during a year?

Lets imagine that the calendar aging is in nu the middle between 25 and 40C, and 70-80% SOC. This causes about 6.5% degradation for 10 months.
The science and research folks use *square root of time* in the formula for calendar aging. Square root of (12/10) x 6.5 = 7.1%

After two years you should be at square root of 2 x 7.1 = 10%.

This happens even without driving so the cyclic aging from driving should be added.
Low miles or low SOC+ small cycles typically ”cost” 0.5% or less a year.
If the car is used more with bigger cycles perhaps 1-2% / year is probable.

I do not know the climate, your charging habits and the miles on the car, the example is just to show that your level of degradation is expected in a hot climate where the SOC is high most of the time.

Tesla is very open with that the battery capacity will reduce with time. In general I think Teslas idea is that we do not worry about this as the warranty covers that for the first 8 years for most people.

I try to inform here about the real research data that tell us how the batteries really degrade. Also, I try to kill the battery myths.
For you, this means having the correct information and if you still are worried, worry on the correct basis.