Tesla Model 3 - 2019 LR AWD vs 2021 LR AWD

[TimothyHW3]

Stay tuned for the big comparison test.

I can already tell you that some of the results are shocking. I am preparing the videos and will be putting up one video at a time when they are ready.

Here is the teaser:

 

[jjrandorin]

Please make sure to put those relased "one video at a time, when they are ready" into this same thread instead of making them separate posts.

 

[ucmndd]

Please make sure to put those relased "one video at a time, when they are ready" into this same thread instead of making them separate posts.

Be sure to like and subscribe!

 

[jaqueh]

Very excited although this thread and the video are pure clickbait. Please don't make a new thread.

 

[TimothyHW3]

Yes, all in this thread. Not a clickbait, just have to cut them into videos so I wanted to let you know first.

 

[TimothyHW3]

Here is the first video. I decided to start with the no heating test first, because it will bet he most interesting one. Unexpected results for some (for me it just reconfirmed what I was expecting). I can already tell you that the next video - the battery capacity test will be even more shocking. Tesla has pulled a fast one on a lot of people, me including.

Tesla Mode 3 2021 vs 2019, heating off

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Here is the first video. I decided to start with the no heating test first, because it will bet he most interesting one. Unexpected results for some (for me it just reconfirmed what I was expecting). I can already tell you that the next video - the battery capacity test will be even more shocking. Tesla has pulled a fast one on a lot of people, me including.

Tesla Mode 3 2021 vs 2019, heating off

What is shocking about this?

Which is the lead car, 2019 or 2020?

First, your following distance is not 200 meters, unless you were traveling 150+mph (you do not give the speed but your efficiency numbers suggest closer to 70-80mph). I suggest redoing this test and swapping the car positions, in subsequent, identical road segment tests. Just to control for the effects of slipstream. 100 meters is enough to have a small effect on efficiency, as anyone who has done long distance travel in a Tesla can attest.

Second, efficiency numbers in the EPA (and WLTP) tests are a snapshot in time - they do not reflect improvements in motor drive software. So it's not that surprising that a result from the WLTP test two years ago on a 2019 can no longer be duplicated on a car running the latest software. So I don't see any "funny business" in the 2019 vs. 2021 tests. I'd expect that the efficiencies would be very similar, regardless of what the prior EPA tests and WLTP tests said, unless there was a hardware change.

Regarding hardware changes:

We had already confirmed that the AWD had the same 990 motor here. I had speculated that it might not, due to the efficiency comparison of 2020 vs. 2021, but again, that may have been entirely a software issue. Anyway, subsequently we proved it had the 990 motor (someone took a picture of a 2021 AWD). So, what happened? Maybe the 2020 Performance EPA test got a software update that the 2020 AWD EPA test did not? (There were additional documented (in release notes) motor drive improvements rolled out within a few months of the date of 2020 EPA test: Vehicle Software Updates | Teslascope, so this is entirely conceivable - it has always been mysterious why the 980 and 990 motors got different results (compare Stealth to AWD in 2020), and this may be an explanation - different software in use on the test vehicles).

So to me it is fairly unsurprising given the hardware is nearly identical (with the exception of the heat pump), that the actual efficiencies of the vehicles are similar. And even the differences between the EPA tests are just a few % anyway - well within what would be expected from a motor drive efficiency improvement.

Again, the main reason for the jump in range in EPA tests is clearly the heat pump. The reason for the 20km increase in WLTP tests is likely software improvements over the course of two years.

This was all outlined (with uncertainty since cars had not been delivered) a couple months ago:

MAYBE the AWD and P have the same rear motor now.

Speculation, obviously.

It looks like AWD incorporated the motor efficiency improvements that existed on 2020 Model 3 Performance (remember it was more efficient than the AWD according to EPA testing, and got 10 more rated miles than the AWD, but was voluntarily reduced)

This appears to be true.

So the pareto, AWD, adding 31 rated miles, to go from 322 to 353:
1) 18 miles improvement due to scalar changes (heat pump); will not be "realizable" if not using climate control.
2) 13 miles improvement due to efficiency improvements (apparently taking on the Performance 2020 rear motor?)

(Again, note the "?" on the motor comment - this was speculative, and subsequently disproved a few weeks ago - which meant that it was motor efficiency improvements unrelated to a hardware change...which would be software.)

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I am looking forward to your side by side comparisons of camp mode (really just care about the heat pump efficiency), though! That should be very revealing.

Would be good to get comparison side by side, with and without AC.

 

[TimothyHW3]

don't see any "funny business" in the 2019 vs. 2021 tests

That is because you comment, without watching first. The "2019" WLTP was as recent as October 2021, they never changed it up until releasing the 2021 model.
However they changed the EPA rating on the 2020 Model 3 in the US, but never did so on the WLPT one, even though they use the same software "gains" (allegedly). Why? Because there is no efficiency gain and the only "gain" comes from the alleged 82kWh battery, that they are claiming, which first appeared in the dutch documents in October 2021. Up until that point the WLTP rating remained the same for 2 years.

I suggest redoing this test

And I suggest you just ignore my posts, like I do yours, and you redo your own test and spare us with your misinformations...
You just wasted your time calculating things, wrongly so, when you failed to understand that this was the same camera angle from the leading car while shooting in the mirror and the video repeated to match the overdub - not two separate videos...All you need to know is that the distance between the beginning of a white line to the next is 18 meters and you can see in the video that we are way past 10 of those lines separation.

I know how we drove and the test was scientifically done.

You can't have an efficiency gain on the same car, using the same exact motor, tires and software version...

Plus if you watched the video I quoted two other videos and I have another one that also concluded the same and I explain how Tesla tricked the WLTP to show more range (which I tackle in the next video). So it is pretty conclusive, but as I state in the video - everyone is welcome to do their own test and not just be a keyboard warrior - get a 2019, put the same tires, turn off the heating, and see what you end up with.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

That is because you comment, without watching first.

Give me some credit. I obviously watched it.

wrongly so, when you failed to understand that this was the same camera angle from the leading car while shooting in the mirror and the video repeated to match the overdub - not two separate videos...

You didn't tell us which car was in front - the 2019 or the 2021 (sorry I accidentally said 2020 in my earlier post)? It looks like the 2021 was the lead car, since the trailing car appears to have a front license plate and elsewhere the 2021 did not (but that could have changed). That would put the 2019 at a slight advantage, FWIW.

I realize the video was from the leading car..., and that the video was repeated twice. I took the captures from the first loop only. I remain pretty convinced following time was about 2.5 to 3 seconds. I see now why you think I thought that one of the images was from the trailing car. I'll just make it simpler with the attached captures. It really does make it look like 2.5 seconds.

In any case, I'd recommend just doing a good experiment if you're going to this trouble. Drafting is the major issue here, and swapping car positions is a decent way to control for any possible effect. It may have a negligible effect - but no way to know without trying.

The "2019" WLTP was as recent as October 2021, they never changed it up until releasing the 2021 model.

Are they required to retest WLTP, if there have been no changes to the vehicle that would hurt efficiency?

Because there is no efficiency gain and the only "gain" comes from the alleged 82kWh battery, that they are claiming, which first appeared in the dutch documents in October 2021. Up until that point the WLTP rating remained the same for 2 years.

To be clear: Are you claiming the 82kWh battery is required to obtain the 580km WLTP? Just trying to understand what you are saying.

You can't have an efficiency gain on the same car, using the same exact motor, tires and software version...

I agree with this. However, the 2021 and 2019 are not identical. That being said, I would not be surprised that with the heat pump and climate control off, you saw no significant difference in efficiency - motors, tires, and drive control software are all very similar. There are probably special situations where the heat pump helps, even without climate control on (usefully scavenging heat somehow), but they're probably pretty rare.

 

[momo3605]

Can you do a 0-60 test? Curious of the 2021 is 0.2s faster or if the 2019 now matches the 2021

 

[TimothyHW3]

New Can you do a 0-60 test? Curious of the 2021 is 0.2s faster or if the 2019 now matches the 2021

It is hard to measure these things, because you have to be very accurate, 0.2s is almost impossible to measure. Even with draggy.

But as we saw above the drive units are the same, so not sure how it can be faster with the same hardware.

I am focusing on the things I can measure, like battery capacity and consumption. The next video will be very interesting as it will reveal how Tesla is unnecessary soft locking their batteries.

 

[KenC]

Have you tried using ABRP and checking their 65mph calibration figure?

 

[TimothyHW3]

In this fine episode 2 of our series LR AWD 2021 we now turn our attention to the battery capacity of the (European) Tesla Model 3 AWD 2021. Tesla pulled an etron on us...

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

In this fine episode 2 of our series LR AWD 2021 we now turn our attention to the battery capacity of the (European) Tesla Model 3 AWD 2021. Tesla pulled an etron on us...

Executive Summary (to spare people the time, as it is a very difficult & painful video to watch):

Currently Panasonic batteries on some (and possibly all) 2021 AWDs in Europe are soft locked to ~75kWh (549km/341 miles), rather than the ~77.8kWh one would expect. "Nominal Full pack" is 77.6kWh in this video, but maximum achievable "nominal remaining" at 100% is just 75kWh, and cell voltage is around 4.148V. (~398V pack voltage). It is not possible to get to the Nominal Full Pack value.

The constant is a little bit below 137Wh/km, as expected (perhaps 136.7Wh/km?)

So Panasonic currently appears to be soft locked - but the video shows LG does not appear to be.

EDIT:

Key timestamps for others, note the cell voltages, SoC, "nominal full pack," and "nominal remaining":
4:59, (New Panasonic, 100% charge, 96.7% SoC, 4.148V cell voltage, 75kWh)
10:36, (Old Panasonic, 96.x% charge, about same cell voltage, x kWh (doesn't matter) )
11:27. (New LG, 100% charge, ~4.198V cell voltage, ~75kWh)

This presumably is to make the range on all AWD vehicles in Europe match, for the time being, whether they have LG or Panasonic batteries.

As a point of reference:
On the old 2019 pack, 4.15V cell voltage was about 96.7%.

@TimothyHW3:
Why do you think some EU owners see the full 77.6kWh and don't have the soft lock (or at least, that is what has been reported)? Has this extra range been taken away in recent updates?

-> I've speculated in the other thread that perhaps we've never actually seen an actual full charge on a European Model 3 that shows above about 550rkm. I'm not sure. If so, the confusion would stem from Nominal Full pack being 77.6kWh, but Nominal Remaining never making it to that (due to the soft lock).

Also important to point out for readers:

These limitations only apply to Europe, for now. In the US we have verified the full 77+kWh is available for new owners of 2021 AWDs.

 

[TimothyHW3]

~398V pack voltage

You really know very little about these batteries, for the amounts of comments you produce... The pack voltage is a variable at different SOC% and it reaches 400V at about 80% depending on the battery type and stays there or around 402-403V to 100%...You can see that on the charger display in this video.

Just because the car charges to 97%, doesn't mean the voltage is below 400V...

And no, these batteries were always soft locked, even at the factory firmware 35.1

P.s. We all know by now my posts are "funny", don't bother...

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

You really know very little about these batteries, for the amounts of comments you produce... The pack voltage is a variable at different SOC% and it reaches 400V at about 80% depending on the battery type and stays there or around 402-403V to 100%...

Just because the car charges to 97%, doesn't mean the voltage is below 400V...

Unfortunately I didn't see it in your SMT capture, so I had to guess. You did show the max and min cell voltages at "100%" though.

There are 96 bricks in series, so if I take this capture at face value (you said it was at 100% set point (SMT said 96.5% of course)) there is no getting around the range of voltages for this "100%" charge being: 398V -> 398.4V.

Do you have some other explanation? Rather than just arguing with me, why not provide the actual useful data?

it reaches 400V at about 80% depending on the battery type

Literally your video shows a pack at 96.5-96.7% (this is what you claim is the 100% setting by the slider, at least that is what I understood from your video), with cell voltage of 3.146-3.150. There are 96 bricks in series. That is 398V.

 

[jaqueh]

In this fine episode 2 of our series LR AWD 2021 we now turn our attention to the battery capacity of the (European) Tesla Model 3 AWD 2021. Tesla pulled an etron on us...

Great video! Also, wanted to say your last video made traction onto InsideEVs!: YouTuber Tests 2021 Tesla Model 3: Disputes That It's More Efficient

If your detractors want me to believe them more than I believe you, then go ahead make a rebuttal video. I will say nothing gets a point across quite like a video! Wonderful work!

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Just a disagree, with no information. In case you couldn't tell, I actually don't care who is right here. I just want a succinct explanation. Perhaps you could help. Maybe with a screen capture from SMT of the battery voltage (not just the cell voltage) with the battery fully charged to whatever the soft lock allows?

So far, it looks like the "finding" here is that the Panasonic batteries in Europe are top locked. This isn't that surprising, but it is useful information.

But I would like to know what is the voltage on the LG batteries when they are also charged to 100%. Which you say is in the video, but I'm sorry, I did not find it. If it's at the end I could have missed it. EDIT: it was at the end.

11:27 - ~100%, 4.198V.

Thanks (for all the disagrees, when I'm just trying to get information from you)!

Again, Key timestamps for others:

4:59, (New Panasonic)
10:36, (Old Panasonic)
11:27. (New LG)

 

[TimothyHW3]

Great video

Thanks. I have a bunch where I test the heat pump in different scenarios and I have one about the constant. The battery info was in plain sight, but nobody seemed to pay attention. And yes, the soft lock was from the factory with all the cars in Europe. It will be interesting to see what a SMT reading from the US shows and wether Tesla used LG in USA too.
Maybe @kxts can help out if he got SMT and dongle?