SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
If so, my car got the triple silicon dose since degradation is ~ 1%, 3 years coming up in June
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Range Loss Over Time, What Can Be Expected, Efficiency, How to Maintain Battery Health
- Thread starter KK_RedM3
- Start date
CyberGus
Not Just a Member
The speed limit is 85 MPH in some places on TX130 where the Austin gigafactory is being built lol
After reading many threads on BMS calibration and its relevance, I have a question regarding my car's reading. I took delivery of my M3P in Dec 2018. It used to always display 279 at 90% charge. I try to maintain the charge from 40-90 %, never letting the battery drain too low and hardly ever charge to 100% (maybe 5 times since new). I remember the range dropped to 269 after a software update and has been slowly dropping. It is now down to 245 mi at 90%.
I have tried to drain the battery to 10% and charging it back up to 90 for the last few months. Initially it went to 260 mi at 90% once but went back down to 250 the next charge. I know that there are threads that says the displayed range doesn't reflect battery health but it just doesn't seem right. Any thoughts?
I have tried to drain the battery to 10% and charging it back up to 90 for the last few months. Initially it went to 260 mi at 90% once but went back down to 250 the next charge. I know that there are threads that says the displayed range doesn't reflect battery health but it just doesn't seem right. Any thoughts?
My guess it's mostly because the BMS in the S series is nowhere near as good as the one in the model 3. So it just doesn't calculate capacity anywhere as well as what the model 3 does.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Means you're at about 272 miles at 100%, so about 15% capacity loss, or perhaps as little as 12% depending on whether you started at 77.8kWh or 76kWh (you likely started at 77.8kWh). You now have about 67kWh of capacity (estimated) by the BMS. The estimates are usually pretty good.
This is relatively poor, but not particularly unusual You're in Honolulu so it's not a temperature issue.
Candleflame
Active Member
This might be true but it doesnt change the fact that when I drive my car down to 0% I have lost like 50km of rated range whereas an old S has essentially the same as it was delivered with (combination of less degradation and less total range so they might only be losing 15-20km) so no matter how accurate the BMS thinks things are the S just does not have the same degradation. There are S with 250-300k km which have <10% degradation. yet im here with my 3 and struggle to make the drive from Townsville to Cairns without going in the red.
Candleflame
Active Member
it is becoming very evident that the initial batch of performance 3s in 2019 have something wrong with them. No matter where you live in Australia (i.e. hot tropics like me or colder melbourne), whether you supercharge all the time or not or whether you put 20k km or 60k km on your car - we all seem to have very heavy degradation nearing 10%. Makes you almost wonder whether we are getting software limited due to a problem with the battery manufacture.
Heck, a new Model 3 SR+ gets almost the same range as me charging to 100% - and I cant even charge to 100% regularly without risking damage to the battery, especially with it being 40C here and all.
My LR AWD Tesla 3 is 18 months old with 10,800 miles. Live in Scotland. Range at new was 320 miles, max now is 283, 12.5% degradation. This seems so much higher than others I have seen. Furthermore, with the car always in comfort mode, the actual mileage vs projection is 64.3%. A recent drive commenced with 283 available miles at full charge, drove of 171 miles on Friday, 19 March. Outside temp was 15°c and had 72 miles available at the end of the day. Never drove above 70mph. Applying the 64.3% mile achieved vs projection, the 72 miles remaining would have been an actual of 46.3.
Consumption vs projection results.
283 full charge projection (12.5% below the 320 when new)
171 driven + calculated remaining of 46.3 = 217.
I have raised this with Tesla Service and hope to make some progress but interested in others experiences and ideas to address this issue. 217 actual vs 320 mile range when new is a whopping 32.2% difference. I am just glad I bought the long range version!
Consumption vs projection results.
283 full charge projection (12.5% below the 320 when new)
171 driven + calculated remaining of 46.3 = 217.
I have raised this with Tesla Service and hope to make some progress but interested in others experiences and ideas to address this issue. 217 actual vs 320 mile range when new is a whopping 32.2% difference. I am just glad I bought the long range version!
From my understanding, there was no silicon in the S or X, only when they introduced the 2170 cell for the Model 3 they said they added like 5% of it in there. Silicon expands more, therefore cracks more, so I'm wondering if this is why the degradation is more on the 3 than the S or X. I'm at around 12% now, but I've been on here since 2012 and kept up with Tesla and their chemistry. I remember reading several articles that had stats where it showed the S would go down 5% after getting the car and then level off.....WTF is going on with all these 3s then?...............
That may be what the car shows. But then you see all new owners complaining about barely being able to go over 300km.
While I can easily do 430km in my model 3.
So you have to take with a grain of salt whichever value the car is showing.
Tesla was being optimistic with the LR before, they took it to another dimension with the MIC Sr+
Silicone was fist added to the S&X cells when they went from the 70/85kWh packs to the 75/90kWh packs.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
This should probably be moved to the range sticky. This capacity loss is definitely on the high side, but I have seen worse reports. You’re probably in the 1st-5th percentile.
You seem to be comparing against the original 320 which is not correct since your battery has lost substantial capacity.
You are driving at 285Wh/mi as compared to the 231Wh/mi (actually 242Wh/mi including buffer) rating.
Drive at around 227Wh/mi indicated (1% less than 231Wh/mi) and you’ll make the range. It’s difficult when it’s cold.
So, if my memory serves, cathode cracking occurs above 3.92V or thereabouts, which may or may not be around 63% SOC. So, if there's a higher percentage of silicon in the 3 batteries than others, would it make even more sense not to charge above 63% unless necessary to avoid degradation?
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I'm not saying there is not a huge difference, but I would say I do not track recent S/X at all (vehicles produced within the last two years). How are they ACTUALLY doing, when compared using the same method (actual SMT based capacity loss, or based off of the energy screen method assuming it works the same way for S/X (pretty sure it does))? I guess I want to first question the premise - is there actually a big difference?
I do understand that older S/X APPEARED to do better, but that may also be misleading - my understanding is that early S/X had a cap on the display and you could drive for a while without the range decreasing (I could be wrong - this is just something I read here). That would result in less apparent capacity loss even if it was actually quite substantial. I guess I'd like to see SMT readbacks (or equivalent) of S/X of whatever vintage, with data points from when they were new, and how they are doing now.
Lots of moving pieces. I would in general expect a difference since the cell type is different (18650 vs. 2170), and it's unlikely that it's going to behave EXACTLY the same way even if the chemistry is nominally identical.
MarcG
Active Member
Similar threads
