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

[TimothyHW3]

MY2021 is more efficient?

Once again, not always, and in most cases no.

1. Not when the heating is off (5-7 months for most people, at least for me). Certainly not for Californians.

2. Not when the air outside is cold or very cold and the battery cells are below 5C or around 0C. Canadians parking their cars outside.

3. Not on very short commutes below 15 minutes at cold conditions with cold battery. Canadians parking their cars outside.

Main benefits are on short trips if you somehow have a warm garage (if you heat it up, you just blow the energy otherwise, so again, no. If it is not heated, but insulated passively, then somewhat little advantage, yes)

OR

On long trips when you charge the car right before you drive (warm battery) and keep supercharging around the route, which keeps the battery at above 35C.

Here we have the biggest benefit, but unfortunately, due to the highish speeds in Germany, the relative benefit of 1kW vs lets say 1.5kW to 2kW is not so high, because you are travelling faster. If you travel at 100km/h I could expect a little more due to longer travel times.

In these highway runs you can expect about 10%-15% efficiency gain.

The old school M3 would need (15 + 3kw) = 18kW or 180Wh/km.

Nah, 3kW is too much. Once the cabin is warmish you can expect around 1.5kW. Maybe 2kW if it is very cold outside. If you put it on 1/2 manual you can even get it to 1.2kW on the old system. The new system I believe you can get it down to 0.7-0.9kW. But the rest of the calculation is correct, not a huge difference.

And as we see now, the heat pump is more prone to issues and defects. And is noisier. And it also seems to pull 200W (300W on the old, 450/500W on the new) in standby for some reason (I think it does some calibrations) So I stand confirmed that the heat pump is more a marketing thing than a real benefit. Much like solar on the roof is.

 

[AAKEE]

So I stand confirmed that the heat pump is more a marketing thing than a real benefit. Much like solar on the roof is.

I disagree with both claims.

 

[TimothyHW3]

I disagree with both claims

Well, when you add up the added weight, noise, production cost and compare it with the benefits of 15% in absolute best conditions for a very few months, not sure how you can disagree really. You are a prime example, your heat pump wasn't working for months. Imagine if that happens after the warranty? How much will that cost you in parts and labour - a lot. And it will most certainly fail rather soon than later as there are more moving parts there. At least this is what I have been hearing from the Zoe. A PTC heater is a more robust thing.

 

[AAKEE]

You are a prime example, your heat pump wasn't working for months.

No, thats wrong.
My heatpump stopped working one day. The next mornibg it wirked again. For about two or three weeks I had various heating, sometimes a bit cold in the car.
After that, the temps in the car have been nice. But the heatpump did work as it should some days and other days It was in the emergency mode( COP 1:1).

For the same temps same trip consumption was about 165-170Wh/km when the heatpump worked as it should and 230wh/km when it was in the COP 1:1 mode.

To say that the M3 would be better of with a PTC-heater is about the same as say that tesla would be better off building ICE-cars.

The complete heatpump+octovalve system is ingenious. Consumption in the cold weather climate where most M3 will be used will be reduced quite much.
The difference at EPA or WLTP normes might be smaller due to the set temperature.

The heat pump issues is a barbs disease, faulty pressure sensors. Easy fix.
The heatpump is mire or less the same thing as a AC-system(AC Compressor), these work fine for long times. Recently sold my ’00 Audi A6 with 330.000km on the odo, never any issues with the AC.
I have a 6.5kW heatpump in my glazed porch, it is from 2005 and still going strong(BTW, according to a earlier post from you, the actual heatpump in that Heatpump is actually slightly smaller than the one in a Tesla model 3).

Tesla did not only fit a heatpump but they also made sure every bit of energy that could be used is used in the best way, via the ingenious octovalve system.

For any quicker drive than 100km/h, there will be more heat loss in the motors, and also much more in the battery. This means the heat loss itself is enough to keep the cabin heated regardless of ambient temps.
Of course, the quicker you drive the shorter time you use cabin heat, and also heat needed per mile decreases as its about the same power but shorter time.

I did a drive this morning, car had been in the garage for more than 24 hours about 12C, not connected to WC( more SOC than I have the charging limit set to).
Outside temp was -3C.
The drive was 10 km, 3km at 60km/h, then 4 km in our city and then back.
At the beginning of the drive the consumption of course goes high, because of acceleration from 0 speed and calculstion almost dovides with zero.
After 3km( = 3minutes) reaching the city, the consumption was down to 160Wh/km.
Consumption stayed at around 160wh/km until deccelerating fir the stop at home, so total consumption was 154wh/km. Battery temps back home, average 12.5C.

Now the car is outside since then, will do the same drive soon(catching the daughter) after about 4-5 hours outside. Temps will be slightly higher. Also planning to let it rest until the night and do it again with soaked battery.

 

[Devils son]

Once again, not always, and in most cases no.

1. Not when the heating is off (5-7 months for most people, at least for me). Certainly not for Californians.

2. Not when the air outside is cold or very cold and the battery cells are below 5C or around 0C. Canadians parking their cars outside.

3. Not on very short commutes below 15 minutes at cold conditions with cold battery. Canadians parking their cars outside.

Main benefits are on short trips if you somehow have a warm garage (if you heat it up, you just blow the energy otherwise, so again, no. If it is not heated, but insulated passively, then somewhat little advantage, yes)

OR

On long trips when you charge the car right before you drive (warm battery) and keep supercharging around the route, which keeps the battery at above 35C.

Here we have the biggest benefit, but unfortunately, due to the highish speeds in Germany, the relative benefit of 1kW vs lets say 1.5kW to 2kW is not so high, because you are travelling faster. If you travel at 100km/h I could expect a little more due to longer travel times.

In these highway runs you can expect about 10%-15% efficiency gain.


Nah, 3kW is too much. Once the cabin is warmish you can expect around 1.5kW. Maybe 2kW if it is very cold outside. If you put it on 1/2 manual you can even get it to 1.2kW on the old system. The new system I believe you can get it down to 0.7-0.9kW. But the rest of the calculation is correct, not a huge difference.

And as we see now, the heat pump is more prone to issues and defects. And is noisier. And it also seems to pull 200W (300W on the old, 450/500W on the new) in standby for some reason (I think it does some calibrations) So I stand confirmed that the heat pump is more a marketing thing than a real benefit. Much like solar on the roof is.

Well, I respectfully disagree.

1. Even when the heating is off, the heat pump/ac seems to be more efficient.
2. So the first kilometers. Rly?
3. I don't know why Canadians are the norm here, but still: even though my car has been parked outside for hours and it snowing, +1 degree C, when driving I started up SMT and it took less then 5 minutes for my battery to have a temperature of 12 degrees C.

The benefit of 1 vs 1.5/2 is a COP of about 1.75. As we could see from the data, the COP is more likely to be around 3 under normal circumstances, or even more. Calculating with the 2.1 vs 0.7 kW at 3 degrees C you would safe 1.4 kW. On the Autobahn, with a average speed of 120 km/u, this still amounts to 12 wh/km, which is around 6% reduction. However, if we take into account that you hardly ever just use the autobahn, a more reasonable average speed over the entire trip would be 90 km/u and with such a trip you would have a 10% reduction.

Throw in traffic jams and you could have a much higher reduction. Like I said before, on my commute I saw 20%-30% reduction. Which is very specific, but still. 10% is by no means the best reduction one could hope for.

As I said before, i saw an overall reduction of 10% for the Model Y because of the heat pump. That does seem realistic to me.

 

[Devils son]

I did a drive this morning, car had been in the garage for more than 24 hours about 12C, not connected to WC( more SOC than I have the charging limit set to).
Outside temp was -3C.
The drive was 10 km, 3km at 60km/h, then 4 km in our city and then back.
At the beginning of the drive the consumption of course goes high, because of acceleration from 0 speed and calculstion almost dovides with zero.
After 3km( = 3minutes) reaching the city, the consumption was down to 160Wh/km.
Consumption stayed at around 160wh/km until deccelerating fir the stop at home, so total consumption was 154wh/km. Battery temps back home, average 12.5C.

This is exactly what I am seeing with my Performance. With temperatures around 0 C, my 2019 LR would be around 185 wh/km or higher.

 

[AAKEE]

This should be of interrest: Model 3 old vs refresh side by side

This one shoul also be interresting: Model 3 old vs refresh drive

 

[kadettilac]

Here after some references of battery pack found in LR.

LR E3D end 2019, Panasonic, 77.8kWh,
Ref : Style AB (P) 1104423-00-M

LR E3D end 2020, (E3CD ?), Panasonic 77.8kWh but softlock in Europe and so ~75kWh :
Ref: Style BB (P) 1104423-00-P


LR E5D end 2020, LG ~75kWh,
Ref : Style. SH (P) 1522312-00-C

LR, E5D, fev 2021 LG ~75kWh,
Ref: Style SH (P) 1522312-17-C
Ref: Style 8B (P) 1522312-UF-D

It seems that :
- (P) 1104423 is a Panasonic pack signature (2170 or 2170L)
- (P) 1522312 means LG pack.

Quick update as my car is getting the battery swap tomorrow;

The part number has been updated. No longer the Reman part no I was told before, but they'll be installing this part no: 1104423-00-T. So the T version instead of the P I have now in my LR.

Is the T the 81/82kWh one in the performance cars as mentioned earlier in this thread, or the same 77,8 as the P battery? I searched the thread, but not sure. Let's see what sticker is on it when I pick it up, nothing is certain until the car is back

 

[TimothyHW3]

Let's see what sticker is on it when I pick it up, nothing is certain until the car is back

Get it to a good HPC, at least 150kW, better 200kW IONITY or 250kW V3 and test it from below 10%.
See when it gets below 100kW, at what %. Make sure to warm it up good before you go, preferrebly turn on the cabin heater from the app with the car locked, you will see the battery symbol

And if possible get the data from SMT on the nominal full. And also nominral remaining/expected remaining + to charge complete when you pull the lever to 100%.

 

[TimothyHW3]

Calculating with the 2.1 vs 0.7 kW at 3 degrees C you would safe 1.4 kW.

We don't have to calculate anything, I have measured it at exactly the same conditions. I calculated 1.3kW with the proper settings, with 300W for the base system, that leaves 1kW for the heater. At 0.7kW best case for the heat pump vs 1kW we are talking 1.5

And you have to factor in that the battery was cold, nothing to scavenge from so hardly 0.7kW, but let's assume 0.7kW best case. Not that big of a difference.

To say that the M3 would be better of with a PTC-heater is about the same as say that tesla would be better off building ICE-cars.

The complete heatpump+octovalve system is ingenious.

I don't understand how you went from 10%/15% gain vs a system that is simpler, lighter, quiter and not so prone to failures then to ICE cars, but ok.

It could be ingenious, but it doesn't always work and the best you can get out of it is 15% consumption gain in super optimal conditions.
I say it isn't worth it if I have to repair it down the road. The only reason Tesla did it, is because a lot of people, like here, were asking for it.

Even if I calculate with total 10% efficiency gain over the life span of car (to factor in the short commutes and the summer), you have to pay and drive a lot to be able to cover up any repair costs that will occur - sensors failing, heat pump failing etc.

So unless you change your car every 4 years or so, I would also calculate at least 800-1000Euro for repairs against the kWh savings. Just because Tesla labour is expensive.

 

[Redbug]

I've been following this very thread for weeks because I'm stuck between buying a Performance vs Long Range Model 3. I live in Norway and winters are similar to what @AAKEE describes in Sweden.
My uncertainity started as soon as I saw the reviews by Tesla Bjørn that you have all been talking about here.
@AAKEE perhaps our situations are similar. Both in terms of climate and the work commute (i drive 45km to work and 45 km back). Have you been experiencing similar issues as TB with Performance model 3? Would you recommend Performance over Long Range?

Brief background: This will be my first electric. I have owned a few BMW performance cars previously (M3 E90, M5 E60, Z4 E85 etc.) simply because they were very cheap in the country i lived before moving to Norway. And i definite miss the adrenalin rush those cars used to give me.
I'd admit I am not a car enthusiast like you guys and my knowledge is extremely limited. Hence seeking advice on whether to go for P or LR.

 

[Devils son]

It could be ingenious, but it doesn't always work and the best you can get out of it is 15% consumption gain in super optimal conditions.
I say it isn't worth it if I have to repair it down the road. The only reason Tesla did it, is because a lot of people, like here, were asking for it.

Why would you say it’s maximum 15% at super optimal conditions? That is simply not true.

And what is your source that Tesla did this because people were asking for it?

 

[TimothyHW3]

Why would you say it’s maximum 15% at super optimal conditions? That is simply not true.

Heeere we go again... Sigh...

TB with Performance model 3? Would you recommend Performance over Long Range?

It is not the P or the Long Range, it is the new battery they are using. From what it looks like, it seems that you might not have a choice if you order a LR now - it looks like Tesla will be delivering the new chemistry to both P and LR. But still speculations. So far we have LG/Panasonic for LR and new Panasonic for P so it is not quite sure what you will be getting.

If you are referring to his test with the low power limit, you wouldn't really notice it in Norway with speeds of up to 100/110 km/h and slow pokes driving around. Just remember to charge the car every time it reaches 25%/30% and you will be fine.

My advice is to get the LR and see if it is enough punch for you and if not get the boost on in app purchase, that will save you about 3/40000 NOK and you will get both the good range and extra acceleration, plus an option for a tow hitch if you order it.

 

[AAKEE]

I've been following this very thread for weeks because I'm stuck between buying a Performance vs Long Range Model 3. I live in Norway and winters are similar to what @AAKEE describes in Sweden.
My uncertainity started as soon as I saw the reviews by Tesla Bjørn that you have all been talking about here.
@AAKEE perhaps our situations are similar. Both in terms of climate and the work commute (i drive 45km to work and 45 km back). Have you been experiencing similar issues as TB with Performance model 3? Would you recommend Performance over Long Range?

Brief background: This will be my first electric. I have owned a few BMW performance cars previously (M3 E90, M5 E60, Z4 E85 etc.) simply because they were very cheap in the country i lived before moving to Norway. And i definite miss the adrenalin rush those cars used to give me.
I'd admit I am not a car enthusiast like you guys and my knowledge is extremely limited. Hence seeking advice on whether to go for P or LR.

Yes, I live in the northern part of Sweden(Boden) so we have real winters. I was choosing between Model S or M3 LR in the beginning but ended up with a Performance. If I had choosen a LR I had changed the wheels for the look anyway and the price difference was not bigger than the wheels I had to buy so I went for the Performance. I usually choose cars with strong engine, I’m a car enthusiast and also have a quick hobby car.

So, I am happy with the performance and I do not regret the choice. As for troubles, only the heat pump issue that many had and It only stopped completely once. Since some two months, the heating system has been delivering heat, but I’m quite sure these sensors need top be changed.

I use chill mode during winter, as sport mode would kill the studded tyres(ask med how I know about trashed studded tyres and hi performance cars ).

During the long drive home frome delivery I had read about the power issue before. I arrived at Umeå Superchgarger with only 6% and tested the power before, perhaps at 20%(I will not use high power with low SOC anyway, so 20% is my limit). I set the power to sport and tested. The power was reduced but the acceleration was fine at 120km/h highway. Back to chill and I had no issues what so ever to drive to the SuC.

After this I did tests in january and also recently because of a other guy that was worryed about these problems. The engine power was quite OK the first time, and during the recent test(with new software) I had a hard time finding roads that gave enough traction at 100km/h. The new software did a noticable change in power. I think they let the battery heat up at low SOC, making it perform much better.

I have some posts in a swedish forum with power values(taken via scan my tesla and canbus) if you understand to read swedish.


I would choose the Performance again anyway, but as for now with the capacity capped batterys at 74.5to75kWh, the performance have 10% more energy. If one needs long range, get the performance and select wheels that arent taking too much energy. I use 19” studdded michelin x-ice north 4, asnd during the easter I did a 260+330km drive. Mostly on AP and on the set speed limit(Mostly 100/110km/h) There was a noticeble headwind on the 260km drive, still total consumtion was 164Wh/km, temps 3 to 5C. On the drive back the consumption was 159wh/km, temps 2 to 6C.
(I recently lowered my car with a H&R lowering kit, this might help with keeping the consumption down.)

 

[Redbug]

Yes, I live in the northern part of Sweden(Boden) so we have real winters. I was choosing between Model S or M3 LR in the beginning but ended up with a Performance. If I had choosen a LR I had changed the wheels for the look anyway and the price difference was not bigger than the wheels I had to buy so I went for the Performance. I usually choose cars with strong engine, I’m a car enthusiast and also have a quick hobby car.

So, I am happy with the performance and I do not regret the choice. As for troubles, only the heat pump issue that many had and It only stopped completely once. Since some two months, the heating system has been delivering heat, but I’m quite sure these sensors need top be changed.

I use chill mode during winter, as sport mode would kill the studded tyres(ask med how I know about trashed studded tyres and hi performance cars ).

During the long drive home frome delivery I had read about the power issue before. I arrived at Umeå Superchgarger with only 6% and tested the power before, perhaps at 20%(I will not use high power with low SOC anyway, so 20% is my limit). I set the power to sport and tested. The power was reduced but the acceleration was fine at 120km/h highway. Back to chill and I had no issues what so ever to drive to the SuC.

After this I did tests in january and also recently because of a other guy that was worryed about these problems. The engine power was quite OK the first time, and during the recent test(with new software) I had a hard time finding roads that gave enough traction at 100km/h. The new software did a noticable change in power. I think they let the battery heat up at low SOC, making it perform much better.

I have some posts in a swedish forum with power values(taken via scan my tesla and canbus) if you understand to read swedish.


I would choose the Performance again anyway, but as for now with the capacity capped batterys at 74.5to75kWh, the performance have 10% more energy. If one needs long range, get the performance and select wheels that arent taking too much energy. I use 19” studdded michelin x-ice north 4, asnd during the easter I did a 260+330km drive. Mostly on AP and on the set speed limit(Mostly 100/110km/h) There was a noticeble headwind on the 260km drive, still total consumtion was 164Wh/km, temps 3 to 5C. On the drive back the consumption was 159wh/km, temps 2 to 6C.
(I recently lowered my car with a H&R lowering kit, this might help with keeping the consumption down.)

Thanks for a detailed response. I read about the new software (is it 2020.04.11?) and many had similar experiences.
I've also been talking to Tesla Norge about low performance at lower SOC vs older model. They have asked me to wait while they 'get Tesla technical expert respond to my question'. So i will update here once I hear from them too.

 

[Redbug]

Yes, I live in the northern part of Sweden(Boden) so we have real winters. I was choosing between Model S or M3 LR in the beginning but ended up with a Performance. If I had choosen a LR I had changed the wheels for the look anyway and the price difference was not bigger than the wheels I had to buy so I went for the Performance. I usually choose cars with strong engine, I’m a car enthusiast and also have a quick hobby car.

So, I am happy with the performance and I do not regret the choice. As for troubles, only the heat pump issue that many had and It only stopped completely once. Since some two months, the heating system has been delivering heat, but I’m quite sure these sensors need top be changed.

I use chill mode during winter, as sport mode would kill the studded tyres(ask med how I know about trashed studded tyres and hi performance cars ).

During the long drive home frome delivery I had read about the power issue before. I arrived at Umeå Superchgarger with only 6% and tested the power before, perhaps at 20%(I will not use high power with low SOC anyway, so 20% is my limit). I set the power to sport and tested. The power was reduced but the acceleration was fine at 120km/h highway. Back to chill and I had no issues what so ever to drive to the SuC.

After this I did tests in january and also recently because of a other guy that was worryed about these problems. The engine power was quite OK the first time, and during the recent test(with new software) I had a hard time finding roads that gave enough traction at 100km/h. The new software did a noticable change in power. I think they let the battery heat up at low SOC, making it perform much better.

I have some posts in a swedish forum with power values(taken via scan my tesla and canbus) if you understand to read swedish.


I would choose the Performance again anyway, but as for now with the capacity capped batterys at 74.5to75kWh, the performance have 10% more energy. If one needs long range, get the performance and select wheels that arent taking too much energy. I use 19” studdded michelin x-ice north 4, asnd during the easter I did a 260+330km drive. Mostly on AP and on the set speed limit(Mostly 100/110km/h) There was a noticeble headwind on the 260km drive, still total consumtion was 164Wh/km, temps 3 to 5C. On the drive back the consumption was 159wh/km, temps 2 to 6C.
(I recently lowered my car with a H&R lowering kit, this might help with keeping the consumption down.)

And yes, please share the links to the swedish posts. I'll try to understand, else we have Google translate

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Would you recommend Performance over Long Range?

If money is not really much of an issue I would get Performance, due to its better capacity. That is a new benefit of getting Performance (which is probably only temporary, but it does exist currently).

but as for now with the capacity capped batterys at 74.5to75kWh, the performance have 10% more energy.

Yep.
Of course: Tesla could start delivering a higher capacity battery for the LR in the future which would reduce the value proposition that the Performance currently provides.

So keep an eye on the current state of knowledge up until delivery. It will be very easy to determine when LRs ship with the higher capacity batteries.

But for now, 10% more energy (or even 5%) as a starting point is quite a substantial difference. People complain when their batteries lose 10% capacity. With Performance, when/if you lose that capacity (it is quite possible), you’ll be where you would have started with LR. Which is good. (Assuming of course that these new 2170L cells have similar capacity loss characteristics to the old 2170 cells!)

But if range is not an issue for you this is of course less important. So if you are ok with 150 miles (240km) between Superchargers rather than 165 (265km) (typically not a make-or-break difference, but it does depend on conditions!), it doesn’t really matter that much. Just nice to have a little extra margin in my opinion. Helps with capacity loss, etc. Great to have extra capacity with no significant added weight.

(As has been mentioned you WILL have to invest more money in appropriate wheels (winter or all-weather) which will have good range characteristics and fit over the brakes, as compared to the OEM equipment. But the energy advantage is still there. You just have to change the equipment to make good use of it. This can be done for a little under $2k (at least in the US).)

 

[Redbug]

If money is not really much of an issue I would get Performance, due to its better capacity. That is a new benefit of getting Performance (which is probably only temporary, but it does exist currently).

Yep.
Of course: Tesla could start delivering a higher capacity battery in the future which would reduce the value proposition that the Performance currently provides.

So keep an eye on the current state of knowledge up until delivery.

But 10% more energy (or even 5%) as a starting point is quite a substantial difference. People complain when their batteries lose 10% capacity. With Performance, when/if you lose that capacity (it is quite possible), you’ll be where you would have started with LR. Which is good. (Assuming of course that these new 2170L cells have similar capacity loss characteristics to the old 2170 cells!)

But if range is not an issue for you this is of course less important. So if you are ok with 150 miles (240km) between Superchargers rather than 165 (265km) (typically not a make-or-break difference, but it does depend on conditions!), it doesn’t really matter that much. Just nice to have a little extra margin in my opinion. Helps with capacity loss, etc. Great to have extra capacity with no significant added weight.

(As has been mentioned you WILL have to invest more money in appropriate wheels (winter or all-weather) which will have good range characteristics and fit over the brakes, as compared to the OEM equipment. But the energy advantage is still there. You just have to change the equipment to make good use of it. This can be done for a little under $2k (at least in the US).)

I had set my budget for the Performance. It was only after the TB reviews i started thinking of LR. Agreed with your comparison of the battery capacity P vs LR.

Thanks for the comment. Makes it easier for me to go for P

 

[AAKEE]

And yes, please share the links to the swedish posts. I'll try to understand, else we have Google translate

Teslaclubsweden

Link is from thread start.

In Sweden the price diff is only 40K SEK(about the same in NOK?). I Dont really like the stock _LR rim/Aero cap that much so I had anyway gone 20”, and the delta in cost just covers a nice set of 20” wheels.

 

[Devils son]

Heeere we go again... Sigh...

You bring these questions upon yourself by making these type of statements...