Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Model S' started by TechOps, May 16, 2018.
Model S charging at 48 amps should see less energy loss than the model 3 at 32 amps (max for M3).
Running efficiency might be better on the 3 , but charging efficiency is better on the S? So they essentially cancel each other out?
For the long-range version of the Model 3, the maximum non-supercharger charging rate for the Model 3 is actually 48 amps, not 32A. 32A is the limit of the Tesla Mobile charger that comes with the car and 32A is the limit of the short-range version.
Home Charging Installation
Does anyone have any actual data that shows the supercharging is bad for the battery? The only data that I know of, from Scandinavia if I remember correctly, said that the long-term durability the battery was better with those cars that use supercharging. Anecdotally we have an 85 with 99000 miles on it and we supercharge at least four times a week, and still have 258 miles of rated range still.
No I'd say that the difference in charge efficiency is 5% at best. The 25% running efficiency is far greater.
What about cabin noise / road noise between the S and the M3? That's what at the moment is keeping me from thinking about going from my MS (lease is up) to an M3.
Ah you are correct. But on that same note, the long range model S is 72A. Apples to apples and all that.
Model 3 road noise is louder for sure. Can tell a decent difference between my MS and my friend's M3 when riding around.
...fortunately once I replace my 2013 S85 this summer with a M3D-LR (...soon) I can still fall back on my wife's 2015 S70D for cargo hauling.
Oh gosh thats a deal breaker for sure, I find the S75 on 19's loud enough as it is and its supposed to be one of the quieter S variants (no dual motor whine, no 21s, no glass roof/sunroof)
The pennies you save in increased efficiency of the M3 will pale in comparison to the depreciation armageddon of selling a new car after less than a year. You could probably home charge your current MS for several years with that amount of money.
I have seen no data on this, do you have some? Somehow I doubt they increased efficiency from 91% to 96% without having also put the chargers in every new car.
91% was already really high for a 10-12kW power supply.
The efficiency is from charging at a higher amperage, since the energy loss is given by the integral of the resistive loss (RI*I) over the charging time. I'm not sure I follow what you're asking.
I assume you mean the other way around - I^2R losses increases with amperage, however the auxiliary draw from the computers, pumps, etc, is so high it's always best to charge as fast as possible.
No what I really meant is if you take energy added to the battery and divide by energy consumed at the wall, given 80A @ 230V, I get 91% efficiency. With a single charger I used to see a bit over 92%. My assumption is this is the same for Model 3, I have seen no one claim otherwise. So I hear you say charging is 5% more efficient, I wonder what you're claiming. Do I get 5% of the electricity I paid for back?
The shorter the charge time the less loss. I misquoted the RI*I thing. It’s vampire losses. The longer you charge the more energy you lose to coolant pumps, fans, etc.
Also the data Edmunds posted on their test model 3 was only 83.3% charge efficiency. Makes me think that the M3 doesn’t have the same charging hardware etc. Which would make sense. They have to cut corners to make the car cheaper.
Holy molly you super charge 4 times a week? How many miles are you putting up weekly and do you follow the 80-20 rule?
We usually charge to 80% every night, and then bump it to 100% in the morning. Well, we rarely really get that last few miles but every once in awhile I get it to 100%. We try very hard never to leave it at 100% for more than a few hours. Dendrite development and all that. We've put about 60,000 miles on it in the last 14 15 months. So a couple thousand a week. Long story. Not worth telling here.
Go for it!!
I have both .... M3 LR is 80% of the MS for 50% of the cost.
Uhhh, that's a thousand a week, not a couple thousand a week. That I can believe. And why, I wonder, are you needing the full number of miles pumped into the battery when you know that's where the degradation lies, and you don't really need it since you don't have to have it. I know that even in WA there are enough superchargers to get around. And leaving it at 100% for only "a few hours" several times a month....
Oh. I get it. You bought the small battery, right?