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

[AlanSubie4Life]

Yes, all that is clear for me since long.

The thing, that we have known but dunno why is that the actual WLTP in the papers is 640km( yes, we understand that part) but Tesla only advertises WLTP 614km on these cars on their homepage.
As the buffer is about 4.5%, it quite close to the delta. If you take 4.1% off the 640, you get 614km.
So why do Tesla say 614 but the actual WLTP per the WLTP test is 640km ?

Yeah, if Tesla changes how they report WLTP from what they were doing before, I do not know; it would be really confusing. But WLTP presumably has rules for how it has to be done (and reported!)? Are they allowed to claim a lower WLTP (probably they are - but doesn't the vehicle still actually have to be able to do the tested distance?)?

In EPA testing there's really not much wiggle room. The car sold to the customer has to be able to reproduce the test result (when new). Otherwise you end up with Electrify America, haha. You can voluntarily reduce EPA range, I guess, but I think the vehicle still has to be able to do the tested range; in theory, it has to have the same efficiency and energy, otherwise, again, Electrify America.... In other words for the 2020 Performance 18" it would have to be able to do 332 EPA miles (even though it was rated and sold as 322 miles, through voluntarily reduction from the EPA result of 332 miles). Maybe.

Anyway, I'm just saying it's definitely possible that WLTP has increased from 580km to 640km, apples to apples. It seems in reach. (I guess we all know that, though.)

Why Tesla says 614km? No idea! Maybe they are allowed to do this. But I assume the vehicle still needs to pass a WLTP test with a 640km result? (But maybe not!) Anyway, unlike other options, where Tesla can just change what they promise and it's ok (you get what was promised in your paperwork), I assume range is a bit more tightly controlled by governments. But who knows, maybe they have wiggle room somehow.

I guess the 614km number makes sense if it's the buffer being excluded, as you say, since the vehicle could still do the 640km, with the same efficiency. But it would have to have about 82kWh to make that 614km (using all but 4.5% of that 82kWh). No rules broken I suppose.

 

[AAKEE]

I guess the 614km number makes sense if it's the buffer being excluded, as you say, since the vehicle could still do the 640km, with the same efficiency. But it would have to have about 82kWh to make that 614km (using all but 4.5% of that 82kWh). No rules broken I suppose.

Yes, the WLTP basically says run it until it stops, and then charge it to full. There is the energy amount, thats split with the WLTP calculated range and yu get the WLTP consumption thats includes the charging losses. Mine says 567km and 165Wh/km.

For the new LR, yes Im sure they use the 2170L cell, so the energy is there. We have seen SMT data from LR with the LG batt, and it seems to have 75kw capacity, for the most of the cars. So the 640km ad up like you said, with some small refinement of something.

So, the WLTP is done as it should, and the car could do 640km according to WLTP, but tesla seem to lower the WLTP in the advertisement. I woudnt think they could get into trouble for underestimating the range...

That car had a very small capacity according to the energy sacreen, 77.8kwh. Almost too small capacity to be a 82kwh battery unless they change the base of the calculations on the screen. Me thinks, it is about 81kwh nominal and then reduce 4% for about the size of the buffer and we have 77.8kWh.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

That car had a very small capacity according to the energy sacreen, 77.8kwh. Almost too small capacity to be a 82kwh battery unless they change the base of the calculations on the screen. Me thinks, it is about 81kwh nominal and then reduce 4% for about the size of the buffer and we have 77.8kWh.

Sure. But that would require a change to how the energy screen works. So I guess we will see (I tend to think no changes there - but of course Tesla could change this at any time). If the energy screen said 78kWh, then I think the battery has 78kWh (74.5kWh not including the buffer). So that would be about a 580km range WLTP vehicle, not including buffer, neglecting any efficiency improvements.

My guess is that they'll unlock the capacity at some point when they're comfortable with the software. This is the (Tesla) way. Sort of like removing radar but limiting Autosteer speed to 75mph.

We're all guessing without SMT on this vehicle and looking at voltages, etc.

I woudnt think they could get into trouble for underestimating the range...

Agreed, as long as it can do the 640km under the specific WLTP conditions when new.

Mine says 567km and 165Wh/km.

Sounds about right. They drew about 82.6kWh from the pack in the WLTP test I guess (567km*165Wh/km*0.883 = 82.6kWh). Though there was some really weird AC efficiency stuff in the EPA 2021 Performance test so if you used the same charging efficiency as they did in the EPA you'd end up with 85.6% and 80.1kWh. But 88-89% is the actual value they always get (with the 2021 P being the only exception). Guess it could be slightly different in Europe with different electrical service & phases, no idea. Should be pretty similar with 7.5kW charging though.

 

[eivissa]

V16 was skipped. V17 papers were just delivered to customers. No technical data yet, but...
-the COC electric range value was reduced to 614km (V15 was 640km) and now matches the advertised range on the website. Misprint in V15?
-No new drive units. Long Range still has the 3D5 600A rear motor.

 

[AAKEE]

-the COC electric range value was reduced to 614km (V15 was 640km) and now matches the advertised range on the website. Misprint in V15?

I see.

It is a bit strange. 2021 M3P has WLTP 567km, and 165Wh/km. That energy amount used with the new LR with E3LD should be enough for 636km. (165*567/147).
As the WLTP consumption is lower the WLTP range should increase accordingly if the same amount of energy is available.

 

[eivissa]

I see.

It is a bit strange. 2021 M3P has WLTP 567km, and 165Wh/km. That energy amount used with the new LR with E3LD should be enough for 636km. (165*567/147).
As the WLTP consumption is lower the WLTP range should increase accordingly if the same amount of energy is available.

I fully agree, that's why I stand by my guess that Tesla stopped advertising the buffer capacity since that debacle with the Edmunds range test (or for other good reasons). This calculation works if you apply the rated consumption on the buffer's capacity.

 

[TimothyHW3]

Its now confirmed that that specific M3 2021 LR has the WLTP640km in the vehicle registration pappers, together with the E3LD variant.

No, it really isn't confirmed - it is now confirmed that this was wrong. The new papers that replaced the old once now state 614km instead of 640km. Not sure if it was an error or something else, but the 614km is the correct WLTP on the final papers
So once again like I said above - the papers don't confirm anything

 

[eivissa]

V16 was skipped. V17 papers were just delivered to customers. No technical data yet, but...
-the COC electric range value was reduced to 614km (V15 was 640km) and now matches the advertised range on the website. Misprint in V15?
-No new drive units. Long Range still has the 3D5 600A rear motor.

It was my day off, so I could get the essential documentation. V17 is online now.

Also the LG cell capacity is declared now: 4.6Ah per cell (I had assumed 4.7Ah)

 

[TomaGo]

Thanks @eivissa for this v17
Do you have an idea why did they remove the height suspension sensor ?

 

[eivissa]

Probably to save a couple of bucks on this tiny part. Maybe they managed to get this data from the front cameras instead.

 

[AAKEE]

Probably to save a couple of bucks on this tiny part. Maybe they managed to get this data from the front cameras instead.

That paper confirms that, sort of.
”Adding virtual sensors.”

 

[TomaGo]

Hi,

Today I spent some time with the Supercharger to measure the battery capacity on my Performance 2021, it takes a long time to go up to 100% and then I waited at least 20 or 30 minutes for the end of balancing cells. here are the results

I made the measurements on the 3 distances of the consumer screen, 10, 25 and 50 km to be able to make an average.

318x253/1 = 80454 Wh

239x337/1 = 80543 Wh

207*389/1 = 80523 Wh

At 100% : 507 Km

So I have an average capacity of 80.5 kWh for 507 km, which is very close or even identical to what is expected. Fortunately for a car of 2000 km. To be measured over time to see the degradation of the battery. In the meantime I'm going to do some accelerations to empty it a little

 

[AAKEE]

So I have an average capacity of 80.5 kWh for 507 km, which is very close or even identical to what is expected. Fortunately for a car of 2000 km. To be measured over time to see the degradation of the battery. In the meantime I'm going to do some accelerations to empty it a little

There might be a cap of the presented data on the energy screen. I have seen just below 81kWh(80.7-80.8 or so) I did a lot of energy screen calculations in the beginning, found it reliable compared to Scan My Tesla so I stopped checking.
Then my battery increased the Nominal Full Pack value and I havent really used the energy screen but a few checks at lower SOC implies it seem to show a lower value and the NFP.

My M3P does’nt reach 507km until about 81.2kWh if memory servs. Maybe your batt is having a higher capacity than the screen implies?

 

[TomaGo]

Interesting, is there a way to know this without SMT ?

 

[AAKEE]

Interesting, is there a way to know this without SMT ?

Not an easy one, I guess. If you drive it down to 0% or until it stops from 100% in one single drive directly aftercreaching full charge you can se the number of kWh used om the screen( kWh since last charge).

I will do a full charge soon, and will be monitoring and documenting the values, from both the screen and SMT.
After that we might have a clue.

 

[TomaGo]

Thanks.
If you drive it down to 0% or until it stops from 100%the car will not take into account the Kh lost in heat in the battery.

I did at 130km/h a 100 => 2% and i have used 73kWh

 

[AAKEE]

Thanks.
If you drive it down to 0% or until it stops from 100%the car will not take into account the Kh lost in heat in the battery.

I did at 130km/h a 100 => 2% and i have used 73kWh

Because of thst you shouldnt go 130. Doesnt matter if km/h or mph
Forgot to write that part. The higher the current from the battery, the more heatloss.
For such a test, drive slow and the heat loss will be low.
As we know, or at least can estimate the internal resistance we can calculate a heat loss that should be quite ok to use.

 

[AAKEE]

I took the time to calculate the heat loss, from guesstimates of other NCA-batterys.
I can calculate one of the two types of heat loss, so about 2% for termal resistance heat loss. Theres the other part, chemical loss, that I think is quite small, so maybe 0.5%. Total heat loss between 2 to 2.5% I guess.

73/0.975= Used energy= 74.87kwh
(”80” -3.6 ) x 0.02= the 2% left = 1.5kWh
Buffer = some 3.6 kWh
Total 80.0kWh
This is not the exact truth, but probably not that far from it.

 

[devarakonda]

What’s the best way to check the battery size? Deliveries in USA have started and User @Stan930 picked up Model 3 LR today and is willing to check the size. Please guide. Thanks!

 

[eivissa]

What’s the best way to check the battery size? Deliveries in USA have started and User @Stan930 picked up Model 3 LR today and is willing to check the size. Please guide. Thanks!

How about @Stan930 climbs under his car and checks the battery sticker first

Tutorial how to do it is in this videos description:

77.8kWh pack should be 1104423-00-P

82.1kWh pack should be 1104423-00-T