-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Using scan my tesla look at my battery
- Thread starter EstebanP212
- Start date
ResHacker
Member
Hello, is there any problem with the car or does it perform normally? Interestingly, there's bigger difference when topped then partialy discharged. I'd try to charge it to approx 95% and let it stay for few days and control the difference. If the BMS works, it should lower the other cell's voltages according to the lowest cell (77).
Yeah my car seems to be fine and I drive a lot my habit has been to atleast every 3 weeks charge to 95 and occasionally 100% but I Dnt let it sit very long like that tho
ResHacker
Member
Yes, it is not healthy for the pack. But for starting of the balancing process I have read the SOC must be above 90%.. it also makes sense to have it balanced like this and not in the middle or bottom of SOC. So I'd suggest to charge to approx 95% and let it sit lets say 2-3 days and see if there's any improvement..
Guys...Please help me understand these numbers from SMT..car is model S 2015 70D
DC Charge total: 14135 kWh
AC Charge total 37769 kWh
Charge total 65536 kWh
The diff between Charge - (DC+AC) = regen.
Which makes sense...
Next I compare my total car mileage: 223.766km and the charge total ... I calculate average consumption of 29 kWh/100km...which is too high.
If i do the calculation without the regen energy i get the 23 kWh per 100km. Which is a bit better. But I believe the regen energy should be included, right?
Why I bother with this is because my car's battery is without the sticker and as I bought it 2nd hand I have no history of it...
DC Charge total: 14135 kWh
AC Charge total 37769 kWh
Charge total 65536 kWh
The diff between Charge - (DC+AC) = regen.
Which makes sense...
Next I compare my total car mileage: 223.766km and the charge total ... I calculate average consumption of 29 kWh/100km...which is too high.
If i do the calculation without the regen energy i get the 23 kWh per 100km. Which is a bit better. But I believe the regen energy should be included, right?
Why I bother with this is because my car's battery is without the sticker and as I bought it 2nd hand I have no history of it...
No... Regen shouldn't be included. It isn't part of the consumption.
During your 223766km you have charged 14135kWh + 37769kWh = 51904kWh, so yes it's about 23kWh/100km. This sounds correct. Car's own energy meter probably shows slightly lower because it misses things like vampire drain and energy used while parked (camp mode)...
Regen has nothing to do with this.. With your calculation, having high regen kWh would make average consumption HIGHER.. That doesn't make any sense.
Having high regen kWh is a good thing, without regen you would have to had paid for that electricity too.I guess you are right, my mind was not going in the right direction with this...because for regen to happen first the energy needs to be inputted
So the total cars consumption is 23kwh/100km...which is a bit higher, because my last 25.000km is 19kwh/100km. so either the previous owned drove the car faster or the battery was replaced within the first months of the usage my guess its still the original battery as the car originates from Norways where there should be higher consumption because of the colder weather mostly due to extra heating needed.
So the total cars consumption is 23kwh/100km...which is a bit higher, because my last 25.000km is 19kwh/100km. so either the previous owned drove the car faster or the battery was replaced within the first months of the usage
my guess its still the original battery as the car originates from Norways where there should be higher consumption because of the colder weather mostly due to extra heating needed.I guess you are right, my mind was not going in the right direction with this...because for regen to happen first the energy needs to be inputted
Hey that's a good way to think about it. Regen energy is already used once. It originally comes from the wall charger (and included in AC/DC stats), then used from the battery to the motors, then regenerated from the motors back to the battery.
ResHacker
Member
It's not like that... It's about the difference between what consumption is displayed on the IC vs the real consumption for the driven kms. That difference is as already explained caused by things such as vampire drain, preheating, camp mode...just all the consumption while car is standing + the loses during charging and discharging. Older Teslas unfortunately doesn't display this consumption. So the 23kWh/100km is perfectly normal long term measurement.
Also there's always considerable difference in "Trip" and "Energy" displays.
It's easy to check if you remember to check the stats after you have driven exactly 50km. Last time I checked, energy page showed 190Wh/km for last 50km, but Trip page "current trip average" was 208Wh/km.. But the current trip so far was exactly 50km so they should have been the same.
I'm not sure what explains this. Is AC/Heater consumption missing in the Energy graph?
It's easy to check if you remember to check the stats after you have driven exactly 50km. Last time I checked, energy page showed 190Wh/km for last 50km, but Trip page "current trip average" was 208Wh/km.. But the current trip so far was exactly 50km so they should have been the same.
I'm not sure what explains this. Is AC/Heater consumption missing in the Energy graph?
Similar threads
