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

[AAKEE]

My Performance 2021 start to worrie me.
Started at 79,6 continued to be 79,6 ...went to 79,7 - 79,8 -79,9 then decreased to 79,6 again.
Charged to 100% went to 80,1 kWh and just the time to be at 90% 20 minutes later, and it was again 79,6 . Here in Italy we are at 20°C during the day.
Today it is 79,5kWh

It seems like eivissa is right on the theory of triggering a higher NFP(Nominal Full Pack) value by using a lower charge level.

I use a lower value, because I both can ( have my own WC and daily drives at weekdays about 100km) and have some knowledge about how to preserve lithium batteries so I decided to use that as the base.
My NFP increased from a steady 80.1 kwh during two months of higher SOC to 81.4 kWh and this was probably connected to my lowering of the charging level to 56%.

Some days ago I charged to 85% because of two 100 drives the same day. It wouldnt Actually take 85% to do the trips but my wife would do the later on and to avoid any range anxiety I charged more.

That morning with 86% the NFP was down to 80.9kWh. After the drives I saw 81.1, and as I reset the daily charge to 56% the value climbed back to 81.4kWh again after three days.

I guess that the NFP value is quite dependant on the charging level and that we would see much more similar values If we all had the same charging schedule.
I guess that its no need to worry if you see smaller values than someone else as early as we are today with the 82kWh pack/2170L-cells. Also, I guess that its not a very high probability to get a battery that actually is worse( the probability to get 4416 cells that have an average capacity lower than normal is very small).

 

[conv90]

It seems like eivissa is right on the theory of triggering a higher NFP(Nominal Full Pack) value by using a lower charge level.

I use a lower value, because I both can ( have my own WC and daily drives at weekdays about 100km) and have some knowledge about how to preserve lithium batteries so I decided to use that as the base.
My NFP increased from a steady 80.1 kwh during two months of higher SOC to 81.4 kWh and this was probably connected to my lowering of the charging level to 56%.

Some days ago I charged to 85% because of two 100 drives the same day. It wouldnt Actually take 85% to do the trips but my wife would do the later on and to avoid any range anxiety I charged more.

That morning with 86% the NFP was down to 80.9kWh. After the drives I saw 81.1, and as I reset the daily charge to 56% the value climbed back to 81.4kWh again after three days.

I guess that the NFP value is quite dependant on the charging level and that we would see much more similar values If we all had the same charging schedule.
I guess that its no need to worry if you see smaller values than someone else as early as we are today with the 82kWh pack/2170L-cells. Also, I guess that its not a very high probability to get a battery that actually is worse( the probability to get 4416 cells that have an average capacity lower than normal is very small).

Thank you AAKEE
the fact is that my car never showed more than 79.6-79,8 ...
I saw 80.1 only during charge to 100% (one time only) and returned to 79,6 after 10 min when at 90%.
I charged today for the 3rd time stopping it at 60% but it's now 79,4kWh (went day by day from 79.6 to 79,5.)
I repeat, I have zero problem on real life or real use of the car, i'ts something more psycological to me.
1980 on odometer.

 

[AAKEE]

Thank you AAKEE
the fact is that my car never showed more than 79.6-79,8 ...
I saw 80.1 only during charge to 100% (one time only) and returned to 79,6 after 10 min when at 90%.
I charged today for the 3rd time stopping it at 60% but it's now 79,4kWh (went day by day from 79.6 to 79,5.)
I repeat, I have zero problem on real life or real use of the car, i'ts something more psycological to me.
1980 on odometer.

I had the charging level at 60% or below for a while befor the NFP started to move.
My guess is that I still would sit about 80.1 if I hade stayed at the 80% daily charge level I used during the cold months.
I do not see any reason for you to worry

 

[TomaGo]

Hello guys, i'm trying to update my table with all the batteries capacity and consumption. Could you help me make the 82kWh battery figures consistent ?

If for the LR LG the capacity was 74,5 kWh, what could be the Performance 2021 and LR"+" 2021 ? 80,1 kWh ? 79,6Kwh ?
Same question about the consumption for the 2 last columns ?

Thanks !

 

[eivissa]

Hello guys, i'm trying to update my table with all the batteries capacity and consumption. Could you help me make the 82kWh battery figures consistent ?

If for the LR LG the capacity was 74,5 kWh, what could be the Performance 2021 and LR"+" 2021 ? 80,1 kWh ? 79,6Kwh ?
Same question about the consumption for the 2 last columns ?

Thanks !

A couple of suggestions:

• LG E5D also 75kWh capacity as we see a lot of cars increasing their capacity over the last couple of months. Making it even with the capped E3CD/E3D.
• E3LD Capacity is difficult, but Full Pack When New value seems confusing in comparison to the other cars. 80,5 would be a fair value, 81,4 would be a realistic maximum. Range effectively seems to drop when going below 80,4...
• Rated Consumption of the E3LD Long Range (new) should be 136Wh/km as the COC states it to be 1Wh/100km better than E5D/E3CD.
• E3LD LR will probably show 595km at 100% if the FPWN is above 80,4kWh. That is, if the COC changes resemble the findings by the EPA.
• WLTP Range is advertised as 614km, but electrical range is stated as 640km. In comparison with the other cars this number should also be 640km or all the others should probably be reduced by their range in the buffer too.
• Supercharger times should be slightly better now since SW 2021.4.11, but my charging tests all went from 10% to 60%, so I cant provide any numbers for the range from 60% to 80%...

This is what Teslalogger states until now for the 82 2170L since the update:

 

[thinger]

If this new LR has 640km range and battery is same that Performance but where this difference is coming? Performancen has 567km WLTP and LR 614km WLTP or 640km COC.

This wltp difference I understand about 47km but has Performance COC something more than WLTP is saying? Like 30km more? Like 600km?

 

[eivissa]

If this new LR has 640km range and battery is same that Performance but where this difference is coming? Performancen has 567km WLTP and LR 614km WLTP or 640km COC.

This wltp difference I understand about 47km but has Performance COC something more than WLTP is saying? Like 30km more? Like 600km?

No, AFAIK the COC electrical range and WLTP claimed range on the Tesla website have always been identical.

E3LD Long Range with 614km vs 640km is the first time this has happened.

In my calculation with range increase by capacity and efficiency I get in the ball park of 622-632km of range including buffer. Its still puzzling.

 

[thinger]

In my calculation with range increase by capacity and efficiency I get in the ball park of 622-632km of range including buffer. Its still puzzling.

On this you mean Performance?

Maybe this LR COC 640km is including buffer and normal 0-100% range is 614km WLTP.

So on Performance 0-100% is 567km WLTP and if there is COC that is something like 620km etc.

 

[Ofarlig]

No, AFAIK the COC electrical range and WLTP claimed range on the Tesla website have always been identical.

E3LD Long Range with 614km vs 640km is the first time this has happened.

In my calculation with range increase by capacity and efficiency I get in the ball park of 622-632km of range including buffer. Its still puzzling.

Isn’t the old WLTP 580 km? And isn’t the battery 82 kWh compared 75 kWh? If so the WLTP would be 634 km just from the increase in the pack size. Or was the 580 km just a stop gap they used in Q1?

 

[eivissa]

On this you mean Performance?

No, I am talking about the Long Range. Performance is WLTP 567km and electrical range 567km. It shows 508km in the car which is the EPA range in KM and that range starts to drop below 508km when the Capacity incl buffer drops below around 80.4kWh.

Maybe this LR COC 640km is including buffer and normal 0-100% range is 614km WLTP.

That was my initial theory too, but the numbers dont work that well. That consumption would be 138,4Wh/100km (3,6kWh/26km). Applying that consumption on the remaining capacity gives you around 560km, not 614km.

Isn’t the old WLTP 580 km?

Yes, thats correct.

And isn’t the battery 82 kWh compared 75 kWh?

The old one got 580km WLTP or 554km (EPA in the cars range display) from a capacity of around 75,4kWh. The new battery is not actually net 82kWh, but more like 81,5kWh in the best case scenario. I beleive the range will be capped in the Long Range too, so that comparison would be 80,4kWh and above for the maximum range indication.

The difference then would be 75,4 vs 80,4...5kWh...6,6%
Consumption improvement is around 1% according to the COC.
580km up by 6,7% is 619km...if you expect a maximum difference of 75kWh vs 81,5kWh the range increases to 636km.

The numbers dont really add up. Maybe I am missing something.

 

[ArnaudC06]

Great Insight Elvissa.

This is my first post here but I’ve heard a lot about your great job on revision and registration data

As well as good knowledge of BMS and battery pack.

If I’ not saying a mistake, the LR gets a better increase of range against 2020 because
- Change for more efficient rear motor
- Heatpump and BMS efficiency
- and now the 82 kWh pack going to the LR

While on the Performance we only have the 2 last bits.

I also think the 20 inch überturbine are heavier, this could lower the gain as well.

When you look at data on A Better Route Planner, the efficiency gain Is lower on the 2021 perf (Beta) than on the 2021 LR (Beta)

 

[eivissa]

Great Insight Elvissa.

This is my first post here but I’ve heard a lot about your great job on revision and registration data

As well as good knowledge of BMS and battery pack.

If I’ not saying a mistake, the LR gets a better increase of range against 2020 because
- Change for more efficient rear motor
- Heatpump and BMS efficiency
- and now the 82 kWh pack going to the LR

While on the Performance we only have the 2 last bits.

I also think the 20 inch überturbine are heavier, this could lower the gain as well.

When you look at data on A Better Route Planner, the efficiency gain Is lower on the 2021 perf (Beta) than on the 2021 LR (Beta)

The biggest myth is surely were the increased efficiency is coming from, some would say (actually say) it isn't there at all.

• We know by looking at the COC that the Long Range 2020 (PANA 79), Long Range 2021 (PANA 75, LG 75) and also the new Long Range 2021 (PANA 82) all have the same Motors. 3D3 in the front and 3D5 in the rear. No technical changes there.
• Heatpump is supposed to make no real difference in EPA and WLTP testing, but I didnt pay too much attention on the specifics of those tests. I am just quoting others saying that.
• BMS and Motor management efficiency sure sounds like a good explanation, but that plays also in the hands of those saying that the 2020 Long Range is just as good if not better because of its bigger battery (in Europe) compared to the 2021 Long range. The updates and improvements should apply to both, if Tesla applied them via updates to all cars alike.
• Larger battery get you further, so yeah, this is probably the biggest step in range and easiest explanation for the increase.

The uberturbines sure are heavy. Having recently changed to summer tires I can attest to that. With the 2021 Performance I struggle to get below 200Wh/100km on any given day. On the other hand I am convinced that a Performance with light and thin 18inch wheels will get you just as far as the new 614km WLTP long range will.

 

[ArnaudC06]

Thanks

@FredMt has done exactly that on his 21 perf. He bought 18 ZAX light wheel.

Still he also have to be soft on the right pedal to match the LR range !

I myself just ordered the Zax G Force 20 inch which are 2.5 kg lighter each .. 10 kg on rottaing weight should make a difference on efficiency.

The 2021 performance also witch tyre to Pirelli … Usually Michelin are very good on low resistance to road … but maybe Pirelli developed special tyres that help a bit. I found them not as efficient on corner

 

[Ofarlig]

Yes, thats correct.

The old one got 580km WLTP or 554km (EPA in the cars range display) from a capacity of around 75,4kWh. The new battery is not actually net 82kWh, but more like 81,5kWh in the best case scenario. I beleive the range will be capped in the Long Range too, so that comparison would be 80,4kWh and above for the maximum range indication.

The difference then would be 75,4 vs 80,4...5kWh...6,6%
Consumption improvement is around 1% according to the COC.
580km up by 6,7% is 619km...if you expect a maximum difference of 75kWh vs 81,5kWh the range increases to 636km.

The numbers dont really add up. Maybe I am missing something.

Ahh, I thought my early 2020 had a 75 kWh pack gross compared to 82 kWh gross for the new one. That explains it.

 

[eivissa]

Ahh, I thought my early 2020 had a 75 kWh pack gross compared to 82 kWh gross for the new one. That explains it.

If you have any Model 3 Long Range or Performance up to and including Q3/2020 your battery is always the Panasonic 79'

• 77.8 Full Pack When New
• Rated Range 499km showing from 77,1kWh and above.
• The jump to the new 82' Long Range is then only around 4kWh.

 

[Ofarlig]

If you have any Model 3 Long Range or Performance up to and including Q3/2020 your battery is always the Panasonic 79'

• 77.8 Full Pack When New
• Rated Range 499km showing from 77,1kWh and above.
• The jump to the new 82' Long Range is then only around 4kWh.

Thanks for the information. Guess the improvement from upgrading to the new one won’t be as good as I hoped then .

 

[eivissa]

Your "old" Panasonic 79' Pre-Refresh 2020 still beats every other Tesla at the Supercharger (V3). No other Tesla can match how high and long these old 2170C cells can sustain those 250KW and high KW thereafter. The heat pump is quite noisy and a lot of people liked the chrome look. There are many reasons to hold onto the old Model 3. Definately!

 

[Ofarlig]

Your "old" Panasonic 79' Pre-Refresh 2020 still beats every other Tesla at the Supercharger (V3). No other Tesla can match how high and long these old 2170C cells can sustain those 250KW and high KW thereafter. The heat pump is quite noisy and a lot of people liked the chrome look. There are many reasons to hold onto the old Model 3. Definately!

I already ordered the new one, I like trying out new things. As for charging I never achieved close to what others have with v3 charging so have been wondering if there’s something wrong with my car.

I am hoping the heat pump won’t be that noisy though, we will see.

 

[AAKEE]

I already ordered the new one, I like trying out new things. As for charging I never achieved close to what others have with v3 charging so have been wondering if there’s something wrong with my car.

I am hoping the heat pump won’t be that noisy though, we will see.

I dont think the heat pump is that noisy. It can make some sounds in -30C, but otherwise you wont hear it during normal driving. Or maybe my ears is worn out from too much use of too loud ICE cars

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Heatpump is supposed to make no real difference in EPA

Thanks for all your info on keeping the dizzying array of different battery types and ranges straight!

On this front: Heatpump will make a difference to EPA rated range, though it will have minimal/no impact on the UDDS and highway drive cycle results done at standard temperatures. But Tesla uses an increased scalar value to scale those values because of better 5-cycle (hot/cold/etc.) results, so in the end that means a higher EPA range with heat-pump-equipped vehicles, all else being equal. Of course, this does not mean the vehicle can go further- it may under some circumstances, but the increase is due to the scalar change (all else being equal).

If for the LR LG the capacity was 74,5 kWh, what could be the Performance 2021 and LR"+" 2021 ? 80,1 kWh ? 79,6Kwh ?
Same question about the consumption for the 2 last columns ?

@eivissa has provided excellent information. I think it will be interesting to see how the EPA numbers come out for the new vehicles in the US, if they are released any time soon. You won’t be able to use that data directly for your table, but it should help resolve some of the discrepancies that still remain here. We’ll see. When vehicles show up, I’d suggest getting screen shots from owners, as earlier in the thread, to re-establish any new vehicle constants - though keep in mind software will lag just as before, so if there are changes it may not actually show up immediately and displayed ranges may not show up as expected, etc. Available energies should be right though...probably.