-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
MASTER THREAD: 2021 Model 3 - Charge data, battery discussion etc
- Thread starter EV Promoter
- Start date
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
You need to be much lower. Turn front wheels to the left. Go in behind the rear of the front right wheel. Then above the lower aero cover, and above the lower control arms.
You really need to stick a bright flashlight in there.
@Korgmatose got this video and was able to pull a still (from a different video I think) with his battery part number. You can see from this video he needed a higher angle, which is not hard to obtain, but you have to be above the suspension piece I believe.
2021 Model 3 - Charge data
Thanks for trying! Would not recommend spending Christmas this way though.
Probably a well lit video, moving slowly, then reviewing later, is the way to go though.
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
No, I don’t think so. That is a WLTP number. There isn’t anything they have to display. As far as I know, they choose to display EPA numbers.
TimothyHW3
Active Member
No, Tesla doesn't show WLTP anywhere. They use their own constants to display range, which they also change a lot.
FredMt
TM3 LR Q4 2021 (after LR Q4 2019 and M3P Q2 2021)
It was said that constant for 2021LR is about 137Wh/rkm, and for 2020LR, constant was 150Wh/rkm. So 13Wh/ rkm between 2 models.
If i am not wrong, this value reflects efficiency improvments between LR2020 and LR2021, thank s to heat pump etc.
2021 Performance Model implement same efficiency improvments than 2021 LR, so I think that 2021 Perf couldn't have 162Wh/rkm constant like 2020 Perf model.
I m conscient that dynamic profile consumption of Perf Model is inevitably different of LR, so we can t really use proportional rules take from LR. But we can suppose constant for 2021 Perf is less than 162Wh/rkm, and have in mind that efficiency improvments 2021 models has as an 13Wh/km impact less on 2021LR consumption.
I don't have any screenshots or access to SMT, if anyone in (recently merged) Østfold, Norway, has one I would love to check. I have a 2021 P, picked up in Lillestrøm, Norway on he 22nd. I drove the following route, at point B the speed limit increases to 100km/h, at hat point I set he destination to the supercharger, triggering preconditioning. Approximately 25mins of preconditioning, after driving at 60-90km/h for over 30 minutes already. Temperature was around 5c outside Google Maps The supercharger lot (v2, 150kW) was close to empty, made sure to pick a charger without a twin/partner connected. I had 206km range left when I started charging, 332 when I stopped. I left the car alone, went to the nearby gas station. I called my dad after I plugged in the charger, the phone call lasted 12 minutes, 9 seconds. After that I went to the restroom, then I got myself a coffee and went back to the car. The charging session was 18 minutes when I came back to the car. It started at 90kW, dropped to 70kW immediately after. Didn't pay attention in the app while it was charging, but 126km in 18 minutes isn't particularly impressive.
Gonna try to take a picture of the battery sticker today
Odometer says 233km
Gonna try to take a picture of the battery sticker today
Odometer says 233km
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Thanks so much! Good to see someone finally just stick a camera up in there and get the job done! So, that “0L” is different, as compared to allegedly “82kWh” batteries from before - I am fairly sure this “82kWh” from this link was incorrect - it was a regular AWD “Refresh LR” and “82kWh” came from paper documentation or other unreliable source.
2021 Model 3 - Charge data
and @Korgmatose already took a picture of his battery and it is -00-.
2021 Model 3 - Charge data
Now we just have to get a picture from an “E5D” (@Korgmatose allegedly has E3D IIRC - he can correct me). And also an E3D showing the full range or 77-78kWh in SMT). And then make a table.
Vehicle Type, Alleged Type, Verified Capacity, number
Performance, ***, 80-81kWh, 1104423-0L-P
AWD, E3D, ~75kWh, 1104423-00-P
AWD, E3D, ~77.5kWh, ???
AWD, E5D, ~75kWh, ???
We have two missing numbers of interest that I know of.
Last edited:
I have SMT-scanned three M3P refresh now and the rated consumption on all three has been identical at 15.45KWH/rKm.
Also the rated range hasnt changed pre and post the 2020.48.12.1 update. This only applied to the Long Range (and maybe SR+).
Car 1: Nominal Full Pack = 80.2 / Full Rated Range = 496
Car 2: Nominal Full Pack = 79.7 / Full Rated Range = 493
Car 3: Nominal Full Pack = 80.3 / Full Rated Range = 497
Car 4: Nominal Full Pack = 79.0 / Full Rated Range = 488
Last edited:
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
You need to clarify what you are quoting here. Remember the discharge rate constant is different than the charge constant by 4.5%, due to the buffer.
So each DISPLAYED rated mile would be expected to contain:
161.7Wh/rkm*0.955 displayed rkm/rkm = 154.4 Wh/rkm
Remember, the calculation of rated miles at 100% conversion to battery capacity only applies at 100%. This is because displayed rated miles are not equal to EPA rated miles, in energy content (due to the buffer not being included in displayed rated miles, but it being included in the EPA miles).
I hope this explains your observation - it appears to match exactly and I am not surprised by your 154.4Wh/rkm number. It’s actually exactly what I would expect and it is great to get confirmation.
Example:
If someone drives from 100% to 0%, they would use about 154.4Wh/rkm *495rkm = 76.4kWh. They would have the 4.5%, 3.6kWh buffer remaining still. For a total of 80kWh. That same car would thus have a charge constant of 80kWh/495rkm = 161.6Wh/rkm
The range of 499rkm that I quote may be wrong...it’s possible it is a little lower right now at 100% but I have no way to know. But it is above 495rkm.
EDIT:
Thanks for adding that data by vehicle. Clearly shows range is not quite 499rkm max. Not clear exactly what the max is yet - would need more samples. But constant looks right around 162Wh/rkm (just below it).
Last edited:
Sounds about right. My average consumption (dashed line) is 148Wh/km, and that's just below the hard line.
Any other tests you'd want me to do? I don't have top much time on my hands, but I can try to check some things before the odometer crosses 1000km
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I realize this is confusing, but that hard line should be at ~165Wh/km in the Performance 2021 right now. (It’s about 3Wh/km above the actual CHARGE constant.)
In other words, when you align these dotted and solid/hard lines:
1) Your projected range will be lower by about 2-3% than the remaining rated range.
2) The projection is dumb, because even if you had the line at 162Wh/km (where rated range and projected range match), you actually have to get 154.4Wh/km on the trip meter (actually slightly lower) to make it that projected distance by 0%. (But remember at 0% you would still have 4.5% energy left, which explains the discrepancy, sort of.)
3) Fortunately we have Energy -> Trip to rely on, which is actually useful, unlike the Energy Consumption page - the Consumption page is really only useful for measuring battery capacity and understanding roughly how much impact accessories have on average consumption.
No, if you don’t have SMT, you’ve done your part! Thanks and Merry Christmas.
What a Christmas present from you to this thread, lol!
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
This is basically how I've calculated with all the SMT Data gathered in Germany from the Refreshed LR LG, LR PANA and Performance.
Yes. That is equivalent to what I said (I think that you have a small numerical error since you call the max capacity 104.5%...that will lead to small errors because the % is not right, I think). The only quibble I would have would be with the Performance data - we haven’t seen 82kWh. And we haven’t seen 507km. Yet.
I think what we will see is the 507km with the same ~80.3kWh of energy, soon (changing rated consumption). But, it is certainly possible they will just unlock the last 1-2% of the pack and the rated consumption will stay the same. We’ll see.
Last edited:
Yes, using Nominal Full Pack = Full Pack When New is just theoretical to compare with the same values and to have an idea what the highest theoretical rated range indication would be. Otherwise I wouldnt know how to get to comparable results and indeed the LG Packs with 74.5 KWH have been seen to max out at that capacity 74.5 KWH over several charging sessions. Something I doubt we will see with the 82.1 Panasonic packs.
I also beleive that the rated consumption of the Performance might be changed to show higher range with the larger battery, as the actual consumption/efficiency hasnt really changed. I doubt there is room to unlock more of the packs capacity, but that the performance will get a lower rated consumption figure in the background and thats it.
I also beleive that the rated consumption of the Performance might be changed to show higher range with the larger battery, as the actual consumption/efficiency hasnt really changed. I doubt there is room to unlock more of the packs capacity, but that the performance will get a lower rated consumption figure in the background and thats it.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I edited my reply to point out a small discrepancy, by the way. It has very small numerical significance, and it may just be the title on your columns, without any resultant actual numerical error. As long as you calculate the buffer as 4.5% of the 100% (not 104.5%) value (buffer size changes with time), you’ll be fine.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I think the main thing of interest would be adding another datapoint above - just 100% range and corresponding SMT “exact” nominal full pack.
Honestly, though, I would not worry about it; enjoy the car and enjoy that road trip without anything else to have to “keep track of.” There are quite a few SMT data points at this point, and the possibility of maybe future unlock, constant adjustment, etc., will make it difficult to draw anything conclusive from the performance data at this time.
Mostly, enjoy the car. You have the big battery, and it seems to be doing fine; you’ve established your starting capacity with your numbers at 100% (which I don’t remember right now), so nothing really to worry about. It will go down. This is normal.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
This is why I think the constant will change. That will give 507km of range with the same battery capacity of 80kWh that currently results in less than 500km.
That being said, note that if you go to the thread on the EPA results for the Performance, you’ll see it improved less than the LR AWD vs. 2020. So we would not expect the same % change in the constant.
The results in the EPA test for Performance were all messed up though; AC-DC efficiency was all off. So I expect they might redo it and get better efficiency - certainly should get much better MPGe since those got annihilated by the conversion losses. Would not change the range though. Just the AC efficiency. I should check out the Model Y Performance tests to see if they were better (normal). I would assume so.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Article
