Roadster 3.0

[cld]

That sounds like a devious move. What service station was this? I had read that only the mothership could swap the board so they swapped the whole PEM. If they had a previous roadster owner on staff, they would know exactly what the car had, and it does seem like they put a 2.0 knowingly.
Edited: written before the receipt was posted

I am in LA. To provide an update. The prior image of the ESS SOC was from last night after I did the partial range mode charge. I left the car overnight in standard mode charge and here is the display now. It has dropped the min down to 79% from 82% which is where it probably wants to be at when in standard charge. I can see that it is definitely balancing the battery while it is plugged in but not one person who got the original 3.0 upgrade ever showed such a low range or CAC which has me questioning this upgrade. I am attaching a photo of the sticker attached to the pack that it clearly is this "B" version of the 3.0 upgrade. The originals had a -A designation. I wonder if anyone on here has received this new "3.0" upgrade install and can speak to what they experienced. Thanks

 

[PRJIM]

this has to be torrance have seen them do this to other roadster owners but maybe wrong

 

[X.l.r.8]

You said you drive it home, how far was that, did you drive it to the red, the CAC is still a calculated value and unless reset it’s data set is still from a 2.0 battery. I would run it down and see what it takes to charge, if you have a know. kW going in to the car, say 6.6kw 32A and you get 75Kw in the battery you know. If you start at 5Kw and you only get 48kw you have your capacity. Sure it’s going to take a few hours to drive down to 20 miles left, and again a while to watch to when it tapers but it will answer questions without relying on the car calculation from an unknown and possibly changed formula. An 53kw pack is not going to charge at 6kw for 10 hours.

 

[cld]

You said you drive it home, how far was that, did you drive it to the red, the CAC is still a calculated value and unless reset it’s data set is still from a 2.0 battery. I would run it down and see what it takes to charge, if you have a know. kW going in to the car, say 6.6kw 32A and you get 75Kw in the battery you know. If you start at 5Kw and you only get 48kw you have your capacity. Sure it’s going to take a few hours to drive down to 20 miles left, and again a while to watch to when it tapers but it will answer questions without relying on the car calculation from an unknown and possibly changed formula. An 53kw pack is not going to charge at 6kw for 10 hours.

I was about 30 miles from the service center and had the air on. I can definitely drain it down and put 150 miles on the car. My general thought was why didn't anyone who had the original install ever mention anything like this? Everyone that got it back from service said it immediately showed a 330 mile range and an over 210 CAC. I guess it is possible that it is a software bug but you can see that the service center did a range charge the night prior to my picking it up getting to 96% and that was at 223 miles. That should have been a trigger for them to say something is wrong and this looks and behaves like a 53 kw pack. I am probably going to wait until Monday and see what they have to say before I put the miles on it. Just wanted to make sure I am not crazy and also a bit of a warning to anyone getting a new 3.0 pack. I will provide an update once I know.

 

[X.l.r.8]

They obviously changed something. But previously they swapped the PEM not just a board, I’m hoping that was the part that was at fault previously. That being said I’m sure there was a software flash also, maybe they skipped this step? Is yours the first of the new 3.0’s from there.

 

[TEG]

A cynical part of me is thinking "is the fix for pre-mature degradation seen on earlier 3.0's to start with a lower capacity that will hold better?"

Could it be that the original 3.0 was over ambitious on the max capacity and caused the cells to age too quickly, so they are not trying to push the cells so hard now?

 

[slcasner]

We need some honest and clear communication. But we're not likely to get it.

 

[smorgasbord]

A cynical part of me is thinking "is the fix for pre-mature degradation seen on earlier 3.0's to start with a lower capacity that will hold better?"

Could it be that the original 3.0 was over ambitious on the max capacity and caused the cells to age too quickly, so they are not trying to push the cells so hard now?

The few things they are actually communicating are:
• The new battery is about 80kWh
• Expect about 330 miles on a Range charge
• The new battery is "slightly" heavier.
• 5-8 days of shop time, which could be extended depending on scheduling and issues they encounter

 

[TEG]

Well it sounds like cld either got an original style battery with a 3.0 label, or they somehow didn't configure that 3.0 to offer full capacity.
Maybe something wasn't flashed in firmware to tell the PEM it has the newer battery?

 

[jason.tv]

seems like a used 3.0 battery pack which has been degraded; or correct to above statement maybe firmware has not been flashed to support updated battery.

 

[dhrivnak]

They obviously changed something. But previously they swapped the PEM not just a board, I’m hoping that was the part that was at fault previously. That being said I’m sure there was a software flash also, maybe they skipped this step? Is yours the first of the new 3.0’s from there.

When I had my 3.0 update I was surprised to find I had my original PEM not a refurbished one.

 

[cld]

Well it sounds like cld either got an original style battery with a 3.0 label, or they somehow didn't configure that 3.0 to offer full capacity.
Maybe something wasn't flashed in firmware to tell the PEM it has the newer battery?

I think you are right. I think maybe the firmware/update was not done correctly or this is a lower kwh battery. I will find out tomorrow and report back. I saw one of the original 3.0 install posts where the individual had the OVMS installed and could see that the battery had been changed out but was reporting the same old information. When he picked it up after the firmware and config update it was showing the higher numbers. It could be as simple as that or it could be that it has the original battery capacity. Like @smorgasbord said, I was told it had the specs similar to the prior 3.0 battery and they only replaced a board on the PEM.

 

[DeedWest]

Thank you for sharing your experience, as we haven’t had much hands-on data from the latest run of 3.0 packs. It seems like there’s a firmware issue here, or the wrong pack was installed. I would advise the service center to double check their work and ensure all steps were completed, and check that this truly was a 3.0 pack and not a Reman. standard pack.

 

[markwj]

My car display is now showing 190 miles of ideal range at 85% charge. I don't believe this is a 3.0 80kw battery that was installed. This battery has a CAC of 154 at 85%. I am attaching an image of the ESS display information. From what I have read on this forum, the 3.0 batteries all started with a CAC of 210 or greater. Can any of you very knowledgeable individuals confirm what I am seeing? Is there somewhere that would show me the actual battery capacity outside of this screen? I appreciate your help.

The ESS screen you show is for a 2.x pack. Either the service centre didn't re-flash the firmware onto the car modules correctly, or gave you the wrong replacement pack type. The former seems more likely.

Can you show the 'versions' screen from your car diag menu? That will show the firmware version in each of the car modules.

 

[chrisro]

So from your screen you have defo 3.0 pack. LRVoltage showing 4.3v which means you have LG cells which are charging up to 4.35v. So this "new" 3.0 battery has same cells configuration like old one. I assume range issue is because pack is not new - just remarketed.
Is not possible to have old firmware with new bms, bmb and dmc board in pem - car will not start with 2.0 firmware - firmware mismatch error.

 

[cld]

The ESS screen you show is for a 2.x pack. Either the service centre didn't re-flash the firmware onto the car modules correctly, or gave you the wrong replacement pack type. The former seems more likely.

Can you show the 'versions' screen from your car diag menu? That will show the firmware version in each of the car modules.

Here you go.

 

[cld]

I called service this morning and am awaiting a response. Here is the charge level now that the battery has been fully balanced and has been left at standard charge mode for 2 days. It has settled in at 76%. Still calculates as it is like a 50 kwh battery.

 

[chrisro]

Here you go.

I can confirm that software version is same from 2016 for 3.0 Battery with Lg cells.

 

[cld]

I can confirm that software version is same from 2016 for 3.0 Battery with Lg cells.

Tesla engineering got back to my service rep and told her that I need to drive the car for 3 cycles where I deplete the battery down to ~20%. They said that it will "reset" the display to show the accurate range for the 3.0 battery when it charges from that point. Seems odd since I never once saw a person who had the prior 3.0 upgrade in the past say that they had to drive it like this before the range changed. I will see what happens over the next few weeks.

 

[JRP3]

I was going to suggest doing some deep discharges and full charges to allow proper calibration so it makes sense to me.