Model X 100D not 100kWh battery

[pers1]

100D no longer 100kWh back to the 90D
wk057 did the teardown of the P100D battery pack and got these numbers:
100D US Measured VIN 159k
Advertised Full Pack 100 kWh
Nominal Full Pack 102.4 kWh
Energy Buffer 4 kWh
Usabel Full Pack 98.4 kWh

I used both TM Spy and Scan My Tesla app and got these numbers form 2 different Model X 100D here in Norway, they are not P models.

100D Measured VIN JF08XXXX (mine)
Advertised Full Pack 100 kWh
Nominal Full Pack Pack 96.9 kWh
Energy Buffer 4 kWh
Usabel Full Pack 92.9 kWh
Only with 40.6Km / 25.22 Miles on the odometer Brand New at delivery. Finished in production january 14th 2018 and shipped to Norway. BMS said state of charge at 58.5 % ,366,32V 1.0A and 10 mV difference from highest (3.821V) to lowest (3.811V ) battery voltage

100D Measured Vin ?
Advertised Full Pack 100 kWh
Nominal Full Pack 97.5 kWh
Energy Buffer 4 kWh
Usabel Full Pack 93.5 kWh
With 3719Km / 2310,87 Miles on the odometer

Why are the numbers "so" different, have Tesla done something with the batteries or cutting kWh to increase proffit margines?
Back to 90D "gate"

 

[ytwytw]

I have similar result here

They are definitely not 102.4kwh nominal full pack anymore

Battery Degradation (Canadian Version)

 

[Tiger]

I wouldn't worry too much about it, Norwegians usually sue the hell out of Tesla.

 

[bob_p]

This may be why Tesla is moving away from battery pack sizes in the Model 3 branding - and instead going with SR/LR to indicate range...

 

[ninefiveone]

wk057 teardown aside which appears to be an exception, it's very well known that the packs are not equal to the model number in the same way that Ford Mustang's were long labeled 5.0 Liters when they were actually 4.9L, or Mercedes S63/E63/C63 are no longer a 6.3L engine.

You may not be aware but the model designation (e.g. 100D) is a model designation, not a spec. Understandable mistake but common practice in the automotive world.

 

[HeinrichJ729]

100D no longer 100kWh back to the 90D
wk057 did the teardown of the P100D battery pack and got these numbers:
100D US Measured VIN 159k
Advertised Full Pack 100 kWh
Nominal Full Pack 102.4 kWh
Energy Buffer 4 kWh
Usabel Full Pack 98.4 kWh

I used both TM Spy and Scan My Tesla app and got these numbers form 2 different Model X 100D here in Norway, they are not P models.

100D Measured VIN JF08XXXX (mine)
Advertised Full Pack 100 kWh
Nominal Full Pack Pack 96.9 kWh
Energy Buffer 4 kWh
Usabel Full Pack 92.9 kWh
Only with 40.6Km / 25.22 Miles on the odometer Brand New at delivery. Finished in production january 14th 2018 and shipped to Norway. BMS said state of charge at 58.5 % ,366,32V 1.0A and 10 mV difference from highest (3.821V) to lowest (3.811V ) battery voltage

100D Measured Vin ?
Advertised Full Pack 100 kWh
Nominal Full Pack 97.5 kWh
Energy Buffer 4 kWh
Usabel Full Pack 93.5 kWh
With 3719Km / 2310,87 Miles on the odometer

Why are the numbers "so" different, have Tesla done something with the batteries or cutting kWh to increase proffit margines?
Back to 90D "gate"

Are you suggesting that the actual capacity of the 100 pack has been reduced? Is this just for the 100D or also applicable to the P100D?

 

[kingjamez]

wk057 teardown aside which appears to be an exception, it's very well known that the packs are not equal to the model number in the same way that Ford Mustang's were long labeled 5.0 Liters when they were actually 4.9L, or Mercedes S63/E63/C63 are no longer a 6.3L engine.

You may not be aware but the model designation (e.g. 100D) is a model designation, not a spec. Understandable mistake but common practice in the automotive world.

Sorry, just because other automakers do something stupid doesn't mean Tesla can also do it.

While it is well known that Tesla's batteries don't deliver what they are advertised as (and yes they are advertised as "100kWh") I do wonder if some of the software that they use is the reason for the discrepancy. For instance, if the cell is capable of storing / discharging 3500mah if you charge it to 4.25v/cell but in order to maintain long life the battery management system only charges to 4.15v/cell then you technically have a 3500mah capable battery, but you'd only be using ~3200mah (these are example numbers only since I don't know the exact chemistry of the Tesla cells).
In this instance, if Tesla used the same battery pack but altered either the top voltage or the bottom voltage of each cell (for longevity) you could have the same pack, but it would not produce as much energy.

I don't know that that is the explanation for why we see varying actual capacities, but it would be a reasonable way to argue it in court if it ever got that far.

-Jim

 

[lymex2018]

wk057 did the teardown of the P100D battery pack and got these numbers:
100D US Measured VIN 159k
Advertised Full Pack 100 kWh
Nominal Full Pack 102.4 kWh
Energy Buffer 4 kWh
Usabel Full Pack 98.4 kWh

wk057 didn't say the usable full pack is 98.4kWh, he said the BMS reports usable capacity is:
Pics and Info: Inside the Tesla 100kWh Battery Pack | wk057's SkieNET

Actually, there is no such thing as "Usable Full Pack" in the BMS report, it is the term created by the author of Scan my Tesla. What wk057 meant by "usable capacity" is "nominalFullPackEnergy".

Here is the screen shot when I tested my X100D when it was fairly new:

 

[pers1]

After I charge the X to 93%

 

[ChrML]

Anyone figured out when they eventually changed battery? My 100D has production birthday 24 Oct 2017, wonder if its 102 or 98.

 

[Electroman]

If they removed 4kWh - that is not good. There is no way it will get the rated range with 94kWh usable.

 

[ytwytw]

One thing I can confirm is charging from 2% to 99% has spent about 95kwh energy

Therefore, usable energy is about 95kwh, or precisely, 94.8kwh

 

[Electroman]

Therefore, usable energy is about 95kwh, or precisely, 94.8kwh

I don't understand what is the difference between 'Used' and 'Added' ? Does 'Added' take into account all the charging losses, and is the amount of energy stored in the battery? 97% charging efficiency? Highly doubt you would get 97% efficiency from wall to battery. More like 90% would be right.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Not unusual for a vehicle's model designation to not precisely relate to the battery or motor size.

An example is that a 5.0 Mustang V8 only displaces 4.9 Liters.

 

[COrich]

Electroman: "Used" is the total energy into the system including charging loss. "Added" is the actual energy added to the battery. This chart most likely is for a DC charger, not AC (Charged from 2% to 99% in only 2 hours). DC charging is more efficient as there is no conversion in the vehicle from AC to DC.

 

[bkp_duke]

I don't understand what is the difference between 'Used' and 'Added' ? Does 'Added' take into account all the charging losses, and is the amount of energy stored in the battery? 97% charging efficiency? Highly doubt you would get 97% efficiency from wall to battery. More like 90% would be right.

You are assuming there were AC to DC conversion losses. I could be wrong, but I'm reading that as he charged at a supercharger (my read is the amperage "max" of 305.95A gives it away). In that case, it's straight DC to DC and loss of 3% for heat is about right.

 

[mknox]

You are assuming there were AC to DC conversion losses. I could be wrong, but I'm reading that as he charged at a supercharger (my read is the amperage "max" of 305.95A gives it away). In that case, it's straight DC to DC and loss of 3% for heat is about right.

I think there is something wrong with the way TeslaFi and others are interpreting the data. What I have been told is that there is a meter on the input side of the car (charge port?) and on the input side of the battery and that these values can be extracted. If that is the case, a Supercharger or DCFC should not be showing any charging losses.

I have a sub-meter on my car's charging circuit as well as TeslaFi and a FleetCarma dongle that reads and sends by cell connection data from the diagnostic port. What I find interesting is that my sub-meter, TeslaFi and FleetCarma all report essentially the same "Used" or input energy, but TeslaFi and FleetCarma report different "Added" values. If it's coming from the same meters in the car, you'd think it would be the same.

 

[alcibiades]

wk057 teardown aside which appears to be an exception, it's very well known that the packs are not equal to the model number in the same way that Ford Mustang's were long labeled 5.0 Liters when they were actually 4.9L, or Mercedes S63/E63/C63 are no longer a 6.3L engine.

You may not be aware but the model designation (e.g. 100D) is a model designation, not a spec. Understandable mistake but common practice in the automotive world.

Yeah, it's pretty understandable that people confuse 100D model-designation with the model having a 100kwh battery.

Clearly, it's just a model number.

 

[ytwytw]

You are assuming there were AC to DC conversion losses. I could be wrong, but I'm reading that as he charged at a supercharger (my read is the amperage "max" of 305.95A gives it away). In that case, it's straight DC to DC and loss of 3% for heat is about right.

The mistery about the 3% is just because I stayed in the car when charging, HVAC consumes power from the input

It didn’t goes into the battery so considered inefficiency

 

[bob_p]

Tesla is moving away from the KWhr branding with the Model 3 - and seems likely they will shift to that at some point for the S & X.