-
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
I guess it is quite clear that most of the 2170L /82.1kwh batterys actually can contain 82kWh or close to it. Low values probably come from the BMS inability to calculate the correct content. Maybe the new chemistry with lower cobalt is the reason.
Would be nice to see the corresponding values from the SR with the 2170L batt( If I dont recall it wrong there’s SR tgat got the new batt.
I guess that as early as this on the life of a 2170L, the NFP value shouldnt be a source for concern…
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
As I recall they are coming in around 53.5kWh (and EPA!) in SMT vs. the 55.4kWh FPWN. Don’t know how high that number has gone with the “right” charging regimen, though.
There is data posted around here somewhere! (A search for 55.4kWh will bring up some useful hits.)
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Hopefully you didn't sell off a unicorn! On the other hand at least you now have a heat pump, which may be useful.
That was a risk, but on the other hand...do you notice 2kWh more or less without SMT? I am sure I can get it to at least mid 80's or more.
My Q4/2020 performance was also a refresh with heatpump. The whole drivetrain is identical...the whole car is mostly identical. It feels smoother though.
- the brakes grip earlier and softer initially.
- the parking brake is much quieter.
- auto hold is not giving that noticeable click in the gas pedal, when coming to a complete stop.
- the scroll wheels are easier to turn.
It's nicer to drive overall and the old one wasn't bad either.
I believe there are more changes in the car, than meets the eye... subtle things.
Have you also noticed it being quieter? More people in Sweden have been reporting they also notice is being quieter as I did.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Oh yeah, I guess it would have to be with the bigger battery.
That alone must have made it worth it.
Not really to be honest.
The Q4/2020 was quieter than a stock Pre-Refresh Long range or Performance, but my Q1/2020 Performance had full sound insulation and was quieter than any model 3 I've driven before or up to today.
The Q2/2021 is as loud or quiet as my formed Q4/2020. Both are actually not too bad, even at high speeds.
More interestingly the Q2/2021 Long Range I've picked up with users were louder than the performance models. My guess is that the current rubber mixture in the Michelin Pilot Sport 4 is noisier. Although I've seen some Long Range on Goodyear tires. Maybe those are more silent. It's also a novelty to me that Tesla is delivering the same cars on different tires...
travis3000
Member
In Canada my long range came with really nice Michelin tires. And my car is not noisy at all, very quiet even on the highway. My Honda CIVIC was louder.
Did get a loaner (M3 LR ’19) when I was at the Tesla SC. It was a huge difference in nosie. Didnt even feel lika it was the same type of car. This despite I have 20” and the Loaner was on 18”. It wasnt mainly the tyres that was noisy, it was a lot of being inside a metal can/lack of insulation.
I am a Michelin guy since long, had all Pilot Sport versions but I dont like PS4. Too noisy.
I have them on my Audi Sportback, vill be changed soon despite not worn out.
TimothyHW3
Active Member
Do you know the serial number of your battery? Is it a 00-T or a 0L-P? Not sure if you mentioned that, sorry.
Same question, 00-T or 0L-P? Thanx
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
00-T.
MASTER THREAD: 2021 Model 3 - Charge data, battery discussion etc
Definitely seems like a relevant distinction and a good question. I would guess that Telsa is only mixing in 00-T packs into the Performance in Europe (I am making the assumption here that these are NOT 2170L packs - something as far as I can tell we do not know), since their capacity would (perhaps) not qualify in the US as the same as what was used in the EPA test (~80.9kWh IIRC). They do apparently have a mix of packs in the LR in the US - they have explicitly tested two different LRs in California as detailed earlier in this thread with the CARB documents (note the 494.54mi result corresponds to the 353-mile range vehicle, explicitly, from EPA submissions), image attached again below. But there is only one Performance in the US. There can be only one! Of course, just because they've tested the vehicle doesn't mean they are shipping it.
We’ll probably never know until someone posts some pictures of a 00-T in the Performance from the US, which would disprove this statement, which I doubt they will (note this is not because I'm certain that they don't exist - it's because I don't think we'll get the interest/pictures). Or maybe we already do know and it was already covered in this thread, hahaha.
Looking back on this thread, there appear to be examples of 00-T packs with FPWN 82.1kWh. But I don't know what NFP those packs generally had. Nor do we know the constituent cells. There are examples of 0L-P packs as well and I think they generally had high NFPs but I don't have a table.
I guess it would be useful to take pack type, NFP, and FPWN reported and create a table (along with vehicle type & location).
Is anyone aware that anyone has done this?
Last edited:
My 4 months old 2021 Performance Model 3 in Italy has a battery code1104423-00-T .
TimothyHW3
Active Member
I suspect this is the reason you can't get past 79.5kWh. The french guy in the french forum had the same pack and didn't even see 500km brand new. I think this pack is capped at 79.5kWh. What is your 100% in km?
Last edited:
Last edited:
TimothyHW3
Active Member
FredMt
TM3 LR Q4 2021 (after LR Q4 2019 and M3P Q2 2021)
On my side, on the few French forums on which I am rather active :
- I have not found any reference other than CB 1104423-00-T on TM3P since Q1 2021 (E3LD) and a late Q4 2020 (last E3D).
- The 2021 E3LD LRs in Q2 2021 apparently all have the same reference also CB 1104423-00-T, the same as the TM3P.
I would say that CB 1104423-00-T appears to be the nominal reference for the Panasonic 82kWh 2170L pack. Because we also have the E3LD information available in the vehicle papers since Q1 2021. Before in the Q4 2020 transition, it was only E3D (even for an 82kWh pack TM3P).
(But it seems to me that in Q4 2020 nominal reference of 82kWh for TM3P was still CB 1104423-0L-P)
- I have not found any reference other than CB 1104423-00-T on TM3P since Q1 2021 (E3LD) and a late Q4 2020 (last E3D).
- The 2021 E3LD LRs in Q2 2021 apparently all have the same reference also CB 1104423-00-T, the same as the TM3P.
I would say that CB 1104423-00-T appears to be the nominal reference for the Panasonic 82kWh 2170L pack. Because we also have the E3LD information available in the vehicle papers since Q1 2021. Before in the Q4 2020 transition, it was only E3D (even for an 82kWh pack TM3P).
(But it seems to me that in Q4 2020 nominal reference of 82kWh for TM3P was still CB 1104423-0L-P)
I will have a look when I have the time in the next couple of days.
That would mean that E3LD designated cars dont have 2170L battery packs, which was clearly stated to the authorities and is essential for the Performance 2021 to reach it's claimed WLTP range.
I didnt see that either. My Q2/2021 Performance started with 498km / 79,3kWh / 8mV.
After charging it 5 days in a row to 60% I am now at 506km / 79,8kWh / 6mV.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Yeah that assumption really doesn’t make much sense, I agree.
I agree that all evidence suggests they are 2170L packs. (As suggested later in that response.)
The big confusion is why are they so low capacity.
Until someone looks closely at the voltage vs. SOC I guess we won’t know whether it is artificially limited, or whether they are selected cells with lower capacity.
My guess is still, that this is mostly a BMS calibration topic. Obviously there are some strangely behaving packs like @conv90 's Performance, but I think these are the exemption.
The first LR E3LD 82kWH I could my hands on started with a low 79,X Nominal Full Pack, but when we charged it to 100% on a V3 SuC it reached 80,5kWh straight away. Ive posted these results here, maybe two months back.
My Q4/2020 was 80,4 from the factory and stayed there all the time when charged to 90% daily, if you rememeber. It only went up, when I changed to the 60% limit.
I am trying to prove that theory ("its all calibration") right now and I think my Q2/2021 E3LD Performance is a good example with the same low capacity from the factory as the E3LD Long Range. If I get to a similar capacity as my last Performance, then I guess these cells are all the same and since the last one would go to 81,9-82,0kWh there seems to be no limit set by Tesla whatsoever.
Right now I stick to 60% SoC daily and once the capacity stops rising I will give it a 100% charge and see how far it goes. Then back to 60% daily...In order to disprove your theory (@AlanSubie4Life) I need to get to 80,9kWh, I guess. Way to go
Even if the new Q2 Performance doesnt reach the same peak capacity as my old Q4 I definately dont regret the switch. The new car is certainly even nicer to drive for so many reasons
The first LR E3LD 82kWH I could my hands on started with a low 79,X Nominal Full Pack, but when we charged it to 100% on a V3 SuC it reached 80,5kWh straight away. Ive posted these results here, maybe two months back.
My Q4/2020 was 80,4 from the factory and stayed there all the time when charged to 90% daily, if you rememeber. It only went up, when I changed to the 60% limit.
I am trying to prove that theory ("its all calibration") right now and I think my Q2/2021 E3LD Performance is a good example with the same low capacity from the factory as the E3LD Long Range. If I get to a similar capacity as my last Performance, then I guess these cells are all the same and since the last one would go to 81,9-82,0kWh there seems to be no limit set by Tesla whatsoever.
Right now I stick to 60% SoC daily and once the capacity stops rising I will give it a 100% charge and see how far it goes. Then back to 60% daily...In order to disprove your theory (@AlanSubie4Life) I need to get to 80,9kWh, I guess. Way to go
Even if the new Q2 Performance doesnt reach the same peak capacity as my old Q4 I definately dont regret the switch. The new car is certainly even nicer to drive for so many reasons
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Article
