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

[FredMt]

I don't see anywhere mentioned that there is a soft lock on the Panasonic battery. Everyone was assuming that Panasonic 77.8kWh got more capacity... And most of the data points were my own tests, not posted here or anywhere else.

We talk about that on french forum, i supposed here too. Before video, after last uptate, i said on french forum that i supposed that Tesla has lock Panasonic pack value to be équivalent on car display screen to LG pack because of, but not only, a question of homologation. For me the video is a confirmation. And great demonstration of "how to." I said that, as well, after a Service Center in France said that all cars has same range... and i said "same range but on car display... it s not the same...

 

[FredMt]

Thanks. Reiterating: It's the rare 100% SoC one we need, of course. As I said, it's in the video above, and this is just for confirmation.

So, that would imply that there will be no more capacity coming out of the LGs. They are at ~402-403V at 100%.

Here after an E5D scanned on dec.7 before updates. We can see "max pack voltage : 402,85".
I only have that

 

[FredMt]

The interesting thing now will be to see how much energy was used in the WLTP test result of 580km. Does anyone have the link to the data file? Maybe they managed to achieve that rating with 75kWh? Seems too good, but the WLTP range has not increased that much, after a lot of efficiency improvements, so maybe it is possible.

YES, from the start, I also wonder about the reason for this small increase of WLTP range.
I think that the homologation of european LR 2021 was made with an LG battery, and everything is done to stay as close as possible to the characteristics of the LG, as we have just seen, the limitation of the range for car with Panasonic pack to feet with LG pack.

 

[TimothyHW3]

I said that, as well, after a Service Center in France said that all cars has same range... and i said "same range but on car display... it s not the same

Those are two separate things. You were talking about display, I talk about actual BMS usable.

We already knew the display is roughly the same, but everyone assumed and here in the forum from the chart @TomaGo did (from what I can read, you too) that you can still squeeze more out of the battery, because it has larger capacity on papers. The so called "nominal full" was quoted a lot.

I have shown in the video that this is not the case and that they soft locked not only the display, but the actual usable capacity, the nominal full.

I also show, in addition to the previous efficiency video, that Tesla is overreporting the WLTP range on their website by at least 7% to the cars sold as recently as September 2020 (4% more range advertised, even though they have the same exact WLTP efficiency, by using about 3% less capacity) - so the 2021 actually have 7% less real world range than the 2019/2020 models up until September, while Tesla reports 4% more.

So a car produced in October has less range than a car produced in September, just because Tesla soft locked the battery, because of LG.

That is something not really discussed anywhere.

P.S.

By the way, on the 2019-2020 cars, Tesla was using the 153Wh/km constant and displayed 500km range, so they were actually calculating with 76.5kWh usable. In the US I believe they even used 77.5 for their 322miles calculation they did on 2020 models.

And now they somehow miraculously use 137Wh/km with 75kWh for their calculation. So that is according to Tesla a 15% gain in efficiency in terms of the constant. But if we factor the missing 1.5-2kWh they use for the calculation, this adds another 3% or so of supposed efficiency gain for a total of around 18% more range. On basically the same car with less capacity than before (at least in Europe)

Not to mention that the 153Wh/km was a fairly realistic constant, but 137Wh/km on a 2000kg car is rather the exception in steady slow speed driving in the summer.

This will be the topic of the next video.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Here after an E5D scanned on dec.7 before updates. We can see "max pack voltage : 402,85".
I only have that

View attachment 622354

View attachment 622355

View attachment 622356

Yeah, this is not the info we need, sadly.

But it seems like we can just go based on the capture from Timothy’s video (might be from Bjorn?) at this point. Hopefully we’ll get double confirmation at some point but doesn’t seem likely we’ll get a different result.

I also show, in addition to the previous efficiency video, that Tesla is overreporting the WLTP range on their website by at least 7% to the cars sold as recently as September 2020 (4% more range advertised, even though they have the same exact WLTP efficiency, by using about 3% less capacity) - so the 2021 actually have 7% less real world range, while Tesla reports 4% more.

Can someone ask @TimothyHW3 where the link to the WLTP results is? Since he can’t see my posts. Can just copy my questions.

He is claiming that Tesla would have already updated WLTP results to reflect efficiency improvements over the last couple years. But I am not aware of how that was handled. Hard data from a gov’t agency with results from 2018-2021 would be good.

FWIW: the 2021 Model 3 AWD is 6.2% more efficient on the highway and 8.7% more efficient in the city than 2018 Model 3 AWD (neither of these numbers require the heat pump to get these gains, since they also existed (approximately) in 2020 Performance - actually city was only 6.2% better in 2020, not 8.7%, but the point remains...).

So that would potentially (nearly) bridge the 7% gap mentioned.

 

[FredMt]

Those are two separate things. You were talking about display, I talk about actual BMS usable.

No we are talking about same thing. Display reflects range, and my sentence to SC was ironic.

I have shown in the video that this is not the case and that they soft locked not only the display, but the actual usable capacity, the nominal full.

Yes of course, i never imagine one second that the lock is on the display! It s an evidence lock is on the capacity of battery.

Sorry for my bad english, it is really difficult sometimes to explain precisely and be perfectly clear in english. but i try

But it s not important to know if information was said before video or not.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Tesla was using the 153Wh/km constant and displayed 500km range, so they were actually calculating with 76.5kWh usable.

They were using something like 76.1kWh for the calculation, but note that in the EPA test (just go look at the table in the Constants thread, or elsewhere), in 2018, they used 79.2kWh (very similar to 2020) to achieve 310 rated miles.

But if we factor the missing 1.5-2kWh they use for the calculation, this adds another 3% or so of supposed efficiency gain for a total of around 18% more range.

The constant is the constant, and it doesn't necessarily directly reflect raw efficiency, which is probably what matters more for WLTP results.

And it is not right to factor in a missing 2kWh because in 2018 that energy was not missing - it was available. Batteries started at ~78kWh in SMT, just like they do now.

So that is according to Tesla a 15% gain in efficiency in terms of the constant.

The constant includes a factor of 6-7% efficiency boost due to the EPA scaling factor (going from 0.7032 to 0.747), which is from heat pump benefits in the cold/hot tests. So that's another reason to not use the constant as your benchmark for raw efficiency. It's closer to a 7-8% gain in efficiency, but the constant gets messed up by these two factors (2kWh factor, and the scalar factor).

If you look at the raw results, the Model 3 is about 7% more efficient in raw EPA test results than it was in 2018. Furthermore, 2018 vehicles are probably NOW nearly as efficient (or just as efficient) as 2021 vehicles, assuming the climate control is not being used - because they have been software updated with nearly all of these improvements.

For the purposes of WLTP, it's a question of when they reran the tests. Does anyone know where to look to find this information (along with the detailed underpinning test results)? I did Google search but didn't have a lot of luck.

I also don't know the exact WLTP range history...
But, if in 2018 WLTP gave 560km, it would make nearly perfect sense that a vehicle with 7% better efficiency but with 3.5% less energy would get 3.5% more range and result in 580km.

In raw numbers (city/hwy blend), if you get rid of the scale factors from the heat pump:
2018 AWD EPA test gave 310 rated miles with 79.2kWh
2021 AWD EPA test would give 333 rated miles with 78.56kWh (using scalar of 0.7032 - not 0.747, which would give 353)

That's 255Wh/mi vs. 236Wh/mi. That's a 7.5% difference. That is a real efficiency improvement, too. No funny business. Does not account for heat pump improvement.

So, in summary, if 2018 WLTP was 560km (???), 580km now in 2021 with a lower capacity battery makes perfect sense.

 

[TimothyHW3]

Appart from all the ramblings and you not really undertanding how WLTP works (nor the fact that nobody is talking about EPA or the fact that in EPA they actually used 78kWh, not available in the European models...), nor the fact that 4 (four) different people across the globe tested the 2019 and 2020 cars vs 2021 and found no, zero, efficiency gain in the 2021 model motors, you still fail to understand that the 2020 cars manufactured in September 2020 actually have more real world range due to close to 4% more capacity (in Europe at least).

The main takeaway point - the cars sold in 2020 September have more real world range than the cars sold a few days later and advertised with more range. I can't explain it easier than that...

And even more so the biggest problem - they are selling soft locked batteries in Europe, whereas they leave the full capacity in the US. At least according to @kxts

 

[Korgmatose]

2021 M3P supercharging live with the all-known Bjørn.

 

[FredMt]

For the purposes of WLTP, it's a question of when they reran the tests. Does anyone know where to look to find this information (along with the detailed underpinning test results)? I did Google search but didn't have a lot of luck.
I also don't know the exact WLTP range history...

So i found in some French car specialized magazines, in dec 2018 that M3 LR AWD had 544km WLTP range. I suppose in sept 2018, it was first WLTP standard homologation because before in France, it was in NEDC standard...
Just after in the begining of 2019, range of M3 LR AWD was 560km WLTP and remains so until about October 2020 to ad 2021 model where the value becomes 580wltp.

 

[sirld]

Hi,

So I have a Model 3 LR giving about 333 miles or 535 km on the new update and it is a E3D (delivery beginning of Dec in UK) from above, if I understand correctly, that is most likely a Panasonic with a soft lock?

Thanks

 

[Marius A]

Hi,

So I have a Model 3 LR giving about 333 miles or 535 km on the new update and it is a E3D (delivery beginning of Dec in UK) from above, if I understand correctly, that is most likely a Panasonic with a soft lock?

Thanks

As far as we know, yes. If you can be bothered then we would love to see a picture of the battery sticker.

 

[FredMt]

Hi,

So I have a Model 3 LR giving about 333 miles or 535 km on the new update and it is a E3D (delivery beginning of Dec in UK) from above, if I understand correctly, that is most likely a Panasonic with a soft lock?
Thanks

Yes E3D is Panasonic pack. Regarding posts above, the value of your range is a little low, it should be around 548km. Perhaps you have to calibrate your battery. If you never do it before, best is to charge 1 time up to 100% on a supercharger and wait until the end message, time to equilibrate cells. Remember to drive just after, because battery must not stay at 100% too many time. After best is to discharge until 90% (or less).

To take a picture of your battery sticker more informations here :2021 Model 3 - Charge data

 

[FredMt]

So i found in some French car specialized magazines, in dec 2018 that M3 LR AWD had 544km WLTP range. I suppose in sept 2018, it was first WLTP standard homologation because before in France, it was in NEDC standard...
Just after in the begining of 2019, range of M3 LR AWD was 560km WLTP and remains so until about October 2020 to ad 2021 model where the value becomes 580wltp.

I wanted to add that in fact the value 544 WLTP was not really used because the first Tesla Model 3 arrived in France and Europe in spring 2019 with 560wltp.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Appart from all the ramblings and you not really undertanding how WLTP works

Please explain what you mean by this.

the fact that in EPA they actually used 78kWh, not available in the European models...),

78.5kWh, as I said, and it is true that isn’t available in European models, but how is that relevant? I used this number to calculate efficiency. Not range.

4 (four) different people across the globe tested the 2019 and 2020 cars vs 2021 and found no, zero, efficiency gain in the 2021 model motors,

Please show me where in my post I said the efficiency was different. (Hint: I did not say that it was, currently, different.)

you still fail to understand that the 2020 cars manufactured in September 2020 actually have more real world range due to close to 4% more capacity (in Europe at least).

When did I say this was not the case? Yes, you are correct the 2020s have more range currently, because they have more energy, and *now* have basically the same efficiency . I never said they did not - please show me where I said otherwise.

I specifically said the 2021s have 3.5% less capacity.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I wanted to add that in fact the value 544 WLTP was not really used because the first Tesla Model 3 arrived in France and Europe in spring 2019 with 560wltp.

Thanks. I think this makes sense then. The first highly publicized efficiency boosting software update was released in early 2019 (was announced Feb 28th, 2019, released one month later), as I recall, just after the 560km WLTP result you give (if the WLTP result was released in early 2019 it was probably conducted a month or two earlier).

The 2019 and 2018 EPA efficiencies were also the same for AWD (not in all the tables I publish here because normally I hide the 2018 results because they are redundant), so it would make sense the 560km WLTP in early 2019 would be the number to look at as the reference.

Not sure what to make of the 544km number but that predates any deliveries as you say. It’s possible it was an early AWD test with capacity lock similar to the initial RWD before capacity unlock. Math doesn’t quite work (325/310*544 = 570, not 560). Shrug.

Anyway, sounds correct. The 560km WLTP number was achieved with a 2019 vehicle that was 7% less efficient, and with 3.5% more capacity (again, to be clear, NOW those early 2019 vehicles are ~7% more efficient than they were when delivered, in other words about the same efficiency as 2021!).

Now 2021 has ~3.5% less energy than that test article, but is 7% more efficient than that 2019 article. So it goes (about) 3.5% further. (560km/0.93 * 75kWh/77.8kWh = 580.47km)

And to set Timothy’s mind and beating heart at ease (since he seems to be thinking I believe otherwise even though I obviously, explicitly, repeatedly state that I do not): if you were to find an undegraded 2019 vehicle, and perform a WLTP range test vs. 2021, 2019 would have about 3.5% more range than the 2021 (~600km WLTP). Because the 2019 NOW has similar efficiency to 2021, but more energy! In other words, the 2019 has ~7% (actually 7.5%) more WLTP range than it did originally, because it is 7% more efficient than it was when it was tested!

So another way to look at it is that recent 2020s had 600km WLTP range (never tested), and now the 2021s have 580km range. (This statement will make Timothy happy, I think, though he is quite difficult to please!)

The 2021 AWD vehicles sold in the US would have 600km WLTP (or about 620km WLTP for a hypothetical 2021 Performance (Europe or US) in Stealth config).

Crazy that in Europe the 2021 Performance has 7% more unlocked capacity than the regular 2021! Buy the Performance, folks! It has much better range potential when properly equipped with range wheels and tires!

 

[Npap]

If the Performance ends up having more range than the Long Range, then I guess they will have to change the name of the LR version!

 

[Marius A]

Lots of great info in here, but I think we need more data from different configurations.
Charge my car today at SC, 30% rated range, 15 minute precondition at 110km/h (car was 13 degrees interior before driving). Charged at 39-45kW from start to finish (75%)
Or to put it more succinctly: slow charging on one e5d is about as relevant as the slow charging on my 0L-P battery

 

[M3LFPEUBuyer]

Dear all, the moderator moved my thread into here but it is now lost ..so posting again so that is breathes again before being suffocated

LFP CATL battery - Three Main Issues
Got my M3 in Europe few weeks back, came from China with LFP CATL batteries only to realize below issues, started with tesla forums only to realize that communication flow was being blocked so trying to see explore this new platform and find out others are also impacted and suggestions on how to address


1) Charges super slow even at fast 150 kw V2 Tesla super chargers at 32kw, 2.5x slower than other US M3 and on 50 kw DC faster charges 12kw 4 times slower than US made M3
2) Can not charge 100% , first stopped at 85% , now at 94%. Battery levels show surge later but never exceed 94%
3) Range is low, but given the above issues , it is difficult to say what is the real range and in a cold start 5C , the energy meter hill goes beyond the 600 kw top limit..

Now please do not tell me pre-heat the battery and check the cables, i have already done and i have booked a service appointment the same day i picked my car but the fist free slot was month out. and i have compared my car neck to neck to other cars charging on the parallel station

My question is

1) Am i the only unfortunate one , i mean i love the car in all aspects but i can not live with especially as i live in an apartment and need to charge fast and i live in Europe though average temp is still 5 C
2) what could be the re-course, i off course will wait for my service appointment and then decide what consumer rights i have if not fixed

Car is perfect otherwise, no issues, great build quality , no panel gaps but charging and range which to be are at the heart of electric cars as an engine is for a petrol car.

Now the issue could be firmware updates or calibration but then i am surprised how are new cars sold in winter for cor cold Europe without basic testing causing agony to new buyers or the so called range anxiety.

and users from tesla forums , please do not pitch as you have heard at length my story, want to hear a new perspective of other real users , please refrain from sme advise as i have my service appointment booked and all details shared here have been shared with tesla with pictures and charts and comparisons .and as we speak Tesla is looking at my request, so no panic, yet...

Thanks a lot and wishing you all a new happy new year

I will not share images as i see those are being misused by other users , my intent is educate and fix , not otherwise

 

[Korgmatose]

However, the Performance suffers from discharge issues when nearing and going below 23-25%, ie Limp Mode deluxe...