Tesla confirms new 82 kWh battery in 2021 M3

[Candleflame]

This has been known to likely be the case for over a month, since late October, through inference from the EPA documents. Post to this effect here.

Preliminary EPA Data for Model 3 AWD & Model 3 P 2021 Released



These are just numbers on a piece of paper. Nominally the battery is claimed by Tesla to be an 82kWh pack.

We can do some math on this, with known capacities and the claims about the increased capacity.

Prior packs: 79.5kWh (pretty consistently has been in this ballpark in EPA, it's a good estimate for 2018-2020 pack capacities). (Note that in some recent Tesla gov't documents similar to what you posted, these have been labeled as "75kWh" - so clearly the capacity on such labels is just a very rough guide.)

New packs: SMT reads back 80.2kWh, so EPA value would be around 81kWh based on past experience (EPA test value was 80.8kWh as graphed above by @Zoomit, and as I reported here in detail when the document was released over a month ago)

If we actually believe a true usable 5% capacity increase (eventually) we can say that in future, the new pack may be expanded in EPA testing to allow:

79.5kWh*1.05 = 83.5kWh. (EPA test energy)

Note, this isn't happening yet, and we have no idea whether it will ever happen. Also note that SMT readbacks will never show such a value, since they are always offset lower from the EPA values (for energy of 83.5kWh you'd expect maybe 82.5kWh in SMT). I imagine the capacity limits are driven by safety concerns and validation of the new cell construction safety profile. I guess people with SMT should start paying close attention to the voltage limits (high and low) on the new Performance pack and compare to prior readings on the older cell type, to see if they are obviously different. You'd expect them to be if they're artificially limiting capacity...I think. Perhaps @Zoomit could comment on that.

Anyway, if you view it from that perspective, you have nameplate 75kWh packs with 79.5kWh capacity, and 82kWh packs with 83.5kWh (potential) capacity. Again, to be clear, right now the Performance packs have about 81kWh capacity, reading out in SMT at about 80.2kWh.

We'll see what the future holds! I've said for over a month that the new "82kWh" pack in an AWD non-P vehicle would yield EPA range of around 370 rated miles. But right now they don't appear to be building them this way. To get that (approximately), you have to get a Performance vehicle and find a way to put the new 18" aero wheels and new MXM4 tires on it. Which sadly is not a bolt-on possibility. And ignore the incorrect constant. And they'd have to unlock just a little bit more capacity...you'd only get ~363 rated miles right now.

it is not. 79.5 kwh was only due to the low battery demand which can draw a bit more wh from the batteries, if you drive it normally the batteries when new would release 78.8-79kwh. if you take 4.5% away from that for the buffer you end up with 75kwh for 0 to 100% pretty much exactly.

With the old labeling the 3 would have clearly been a 3.75D or 3.55. I am sure the fact that the 3 has a number rather than the letter E is part of the reason for the long range change. (Together with people being unhappy that the number usually doesnt reflect the actual available capacity)

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

it is not.

What “is not?”

I understand what you are saying about varying amounts being able to be drawn depending on heat losses, but there is not actually any evidence that that is the reason for the discrepancy between the EPA number and the value shown by BMS.

There is no evidence that if you drove super slowly for 500 miles that you would get 79.5kWh on the trip meter out of a car that displayed 78kWh available in SMT. (You can see a hint of what happens as a rough example on the trip meter from the 600-mile RWD drive.)

Of course you will get less energy out if you drive super aggressively, but there is no evidence that the “zero heat loss” value is 79.5kWh. Instead, as measured by the trip meter, it is 78kWh (in this example).

As far as pack capacity is concerned, it is easiest to talk about available energy in the pack - which was about 79.5kWh for 2020 vehicles, as measured in the EPA tests. There is no argument over that number. There is variation, but some vehicles definitely have that much energy available when new. And the new Performance is at 80.8kWh right now (might go up a couple kWh in distant future - we will see).

 

[Korgmatose]

Has any 2021 LRs posted a picture of their battery sticker under the frunk? Looks like there is more evidence that the Model 3 LR has a 82kwh pack:

Tesla Model 3 82kWh battery pack confirmed by California Clean Fuel Reward website - Drive Tesla Canada

No sticker under the frunk on currently delivered EU-models at least. Other ways to check?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

No sticker under the frunk on currently delivered EU-models at least. Other ways to check?

Here is one idea. I think it is easily possible to do, but it assumes the sticker is in the position and in printed configuration (serial number near top of label) that I mention.

No disassembly required, at least on a 2018. Just take the picture and you are done. Will be interesting to see if the layout of hoses is the same now.

2021 Model 3 - Charge data

 

[wesdxccc]

well to add more complexity to the situation, the CA Clean Fuel Rebate website is now showing two battery sizes for the 2021 Model 3.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

well to add more complexity to the situation, the CA Clean Fuel Rebate website is now showing two battery sizes for the 2021 Model 3.

No, this doesn't complicate anything. This has been expected since October - the Performance will get a larger battery, for sure, as was clear then. (The only thing that wasn't clear then was whether the AWD would also get the larger battery. It won't, at least for now.).

The capacities are just rough numbers - it's pretty clear from the AWD data we have so far that the "75kWh" battery is a similar 78-79kWh size that it's always been for Model 3. Not saying it's exactly the same battery as before, but in the US that appears to be the capacity that the AWDs are getting.

Once we have more deliveries, it'll become very clear what the situation is...assuming people post those energy screen numbers.

 

[Xe-135]

Another data point, FWIW, my new M3 LR with <200km displays 492km @ 89%. Extrapolates to 553km @ 100%.

 

[Xe-135]

 

[Xe-135]

Although, as you see, today it only extrapolates to 547km at 100%....

 

[pdx_m3s]

Although, as you see, today it only extrapolates to 547km at 100%....

Best to extrapolate from the highest percentage possible (e.g. 90%) for an accurate 100% estimate. Extrapolating from lower battery states introduced a lot of rounding variability.