What battery cells are in the 2023 M3 LR?

[Kelculate]

Conversely, are new 2023 owners actually seeing a max range of 333 miles at full charge or less?

Yes I am one (M3 LR built in August 2023) and yes I did see 333mi on my car when it was at 100%. Haven’t charged to 100% recently but Recurrent thinks my car’s range is 332 and that also matches the calculated range from my usually 50% battery level. For example, right now at 27% the car thinks the range is 90mi, and that translates to 333.33mi at 100%. I think in my older thread we calculated that my car is using 234Whr/mi for EPA rating, which is less optimistic or more realistic than 2022 and older M3 LR in the US

 

[AAKEE]

Yes I am one (M3 LR built in August 2023) and yes I did see 333mi on my car when it was at 100%. Haven’t charged to 100% recently but Recurrent thinks my car’s range is 332 and that also matches the calculated range from my usually 50% battery level. For example, right now at 27% the car thinks the range is 90mi, and that translates to 333.33mi at 100%. I think in my older thread we calculated that my car is using 234Whr/mi for EPA rating, which is less optimistic or more realistic than 2022 and older M3 LR in the US

The LG M-50 battery has very low degradation if kept at low SOC (<60%) . Very low!

A collegue lost about 0.8kWh during 1.5 years and 40K km

 

[mpgxsvcd]

The LG M-50 battery has very low degradation if kept at low SOC (<60%) . Very low!

A collegue lost about 0.8kWh during 1.5 years and 40K km

11% degradation in 2 years. Mine isn’t a normal use case though.

 

[AAKEE]

11% degradation in 2 years. Mine isn’t a normal use case though.


View attachment 1000501

The LG M-50 is 78.8kWh, not 82.1.
The LG has not been used in US before this summer.

I guess you have the 82.1 kWh Panasonic.
It is rather sensitive, and mostly did not reach above 80.5-81kWh.

I did have that battery in my M3P 21.
Had 78.X kWh capacity when I sold it after 2.5 yrs and 66K km. (But I used another technique to reduce degradation).

Most other cars with the same battery had about 10% degradation so you’re in the middle, or actually slightly above.

 

[JCtx]

I did have that battery in my M3P 21. But I used another technique to reduce degradation.

Hey, would you mind sharing that? I might buy one if discounted enough before the end of the year, so would like to know. Thanks.

 

[ucmndd]

The LR/P difference is nearly all wheels and tires.

 

[AAKEE]

Hey, would you mind sharing that? I might buy one if discounted enough before the end of the year, so would like to know. Thanks.

Use the low SOC strategy.

Most degradation comes from calendar aging and that is cut in half by using the low SOC strategy. Have the car at an average low SOC. Reduce time above 55-60%.

-Charge late (before driving)
-Do not charge more than you need (until next charge)
-Charge often (reduces the need in line above).

A good thing is to only charge to 55% or below for the NCA batteries.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

So what is different about the P that lowers the range that much (350+ to 315)? I thought the motors were the same, and the only change came from the wheels/tires. But seems like it's more than that, no? Maybe the motors (or one of them) is different. Hopefully somebody knows. Thank you.

As others have said, it's probably all tires and the additional losses from the wheels not being aero.

For LR AWD, Highway range is about 6% worse than City. For Performance, it's 9% worse.

So that points to a likely aero penalty I suppose.

The ranges of the cars are influenced by the scalars, which are also different (0.728 for LR AWD and 0.747 for P). So the difference in efficiency is even larger than it looks (the scalars are a way to capture efficiency performance in less optimal scenarios).

Uncorrected, the vehicle ranges are therefore 344 miles for LR AWD and 295 for Performance. (So 14% less rather than 12%.) This gets rid of the adjustment factor that everyone gets so fired up about (I'm not sure why, because it's easy to remove and compare apples-to-apples). That being said it's a little troubling that it is so different between two essentially identical vehicles and I can't really come up with a good reason why the Performance would be 3% (0.747/0.728) better in cold/hot/fast etc. conditions other than because it has such sticky tires to start with, so adverse conditions have less impact. But no idea.

 

[JCtx]

Use the low SOC strategy.

Thank you very much. That was pretty much what I did with my ex-'21 LR, which probably had an LG pack. But good to know it's pretty much the same strategy. The car would sit a lot, so would probably charge it to 60, and recharge it when it drops by itself to 50. It gives a decent range with 60. And if I ever use it to travel, needing 90% or so, would have to get familiar with how to make it charge to be ready at 'x' time, right before I leave, rather than charge it at night (like I always did), since it'd stay charged high for several hours. Thanks again for your very helpful post.

And Alan, thank you for that very thorough explanation of the range differences too; greatly appreciated.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

That was pretty much what I did with my ex-'21 LR, which probably had an LG pack

Probably a Panasonic. Depending on when you bought it the pack capacity changed in the US… was 2170 in late 2020 mostly into early 2021, 77.8kWh. Then 2170L went to 82.1kWh (usually around 81kWh). LG packs in the US for the LR are a recent development.

so would probably charge it to 60, and recharge it when it drops by itself to 50.

@AAKEE has posted extensive data showing around 55% or lower is considerably better than 60%. If you are inconveniencing yourself with 60%, may as well go to 55%. Below 50-55%, the curve starts to flatten out again, so less incremental benefit. Just search his post history, here is an example, look at the picture at the end.

Obviously you have to charge to what you need. Keep it simple and easy. Time-averaged is what matters, so small amounts of time at 100% is not a big deal - and really not much worse than 70%, unless it is very hot. And even if it is very hot, not a big deal for brief periods of time.

 

[DrChaos]

Probably a Panasonic. Depending on when you bought it the pack capacity changed in the US… was 2170 in late 2020 mostly into early 2021, 77.8kWh. Then 2170L went to 82.1kWh (usually around 81kWh). LG packs in the US for the LR are a recent development.

@AAKEE has posted extensive data showing around 55% or lower is considerably better than 60%. If you are inconveniencing yourself with 60%, may as well go to 55%. Below 50-55%, the curve starts to flatten out again, so less incremental benefit. Just search his post history, here is an example, look at the picture at the end.

Also remember that science 55% (what is in the papers and where the knee of the degradation curve is) is not Tesla displayed 55%. Tesla displayed has a buffer of 4.5% below 0, so to get 55% scientific thats about 52.5% displayed. So I set my charge limit to 50%.

Obviously you have to charge to what you need. Keep it simple and easy. Time-averaged is what matters, so small amounts of time at 100% is not a big deal - and really not much worse than 70%, unless it is very hot. And even if it is very hot, not a big deal for brief periods of time.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Also remember that science 55% (what is in the papers and where the knee of the degradation curve is) is not Tesla displayed 55%. Tesla displayed has a buffer of 4.5% below 0, so to get 55% scientific thats about 52.5% displayed. So I set my charge limit to 50%.

In the thread I linked @AAKEE said something about 57% adjusting to 55%. So I just went off that. I don’t pay too close attention since my pack is already hosed.

But yeah if you can get away from that knee you’ll be more tolerant of any small shifts in the location.

 

[AAKEE]

Also remember that science 55% (what is in the papers and where the knee of the degradation curve is) is not Tesla displayed 55%. Tesla displayed has a buffer of 4.5% below 0, so to get 55% scientific thats about 52.5% displayed. So I set my charge limit to 50%.

No, that’s a small slip in your post.

(For the record we are talking Panasonic NCA numbers below):

Per definition the threshold is at 57-58%* true SOC.
The advice to charge to 55% or less is already based on this
55% displayed is 57.025% true SOC.

Calendar aging will push the central graphite peak upwards as calendar aging has its degradation above the peak. After 2-3% is lost the central graphite peak is at ~ 58-59% true SOC.

*) The test points is ”only” in each fifth SOC number and the lines in between is not really tested to be true.
The resesrchers that was first to use so many test points as we see below also found that the ”central graphite peak” is the sharp limit to stay below. It was located at 57% on new panasonic NCR18650 when that test was done.

There might be small differences between different cells versions depending on the exact variation in chemistry. We have seen NCA that had low calendar aging at 60% as well, but high at 65%. I have not seen any tests with the “step” below 55%.
Becsure to take note of how the test was done. Ssveral test has very few test points but the points is still connected with lines that do not represent a test result.

So not above 57% true SOC ( = 55% displayed) and we are (most probably) fine.

 

[KenBlub]

Yes I am one (M3 LR built in August 2023) and yes I did see 333mi on my car when it was at 100%. Haven’t charged to 100% recently but Recurrent thinks my car’s range is 332 and that also matches the calculated range from my usually 50% battery level. For example, right now at 27% the car thinks the range is 90mi, and that translates to 333.33mi at 100%. I think in my older thread we calculated that my car is using 234Whr/mi for EPA rating, which is less optimistic or more realistic than 2022 and older M3 LR in the US

This is exactly my experience with a LR built 08/23. Tessie says 332 range and calculated mileage based on SOC always exceeds 333 miles. Can’t confirm mileage at 100% because I haven’t changed over 50% in months.

 

[JCtx]

Very informative info folks; thank you very much. My '21 LR was built and bought in Dec '20, so it probably had the 77.8kWh, meaning it was also NCA, just like the current M3P 82.1kWh, correct? So same degradation strategy applies. And I'd have zero problems charging to 55% rather than 60, so I'd do that. And letting drop to 50 (or 45?) before recharging again, I'd guess. I'd have 6 months of free supercharging, but if using the car just a little, I'd probably just charge it at home most of the time. Unless I have to go across town, when I could stop by the superchargers 3 miles from my house.

 

[Kelculate]

The LG M-50 battery has very low degradation if kept at low SOC (<60%) . Very low!

A collegue lost about 0.8kWh during 1.5 years and 40K km

I have been following the low SOC strategy that you recommend btw.

 

[cobra2326]

@AAKEE Do we know anything about supercharging and its effects on degradation? I've read that calendar aging is mostly due to the Solid Electrolyte Interphase (SEI), whereas for supercharging it's mainly due to Lithiation, which explains why they heat the battery for supercharging.

I've got free 6 months supercharging and while I generally try to keep my battery below 50% SOC, I've been supercharging once a week or so, to 80%, to take advantage of that. I have thought "maybe it's not worth it" though, considering it may age my battery more quickly.

 

[AAKEE]

@AAKEE Do we know anything about supercharging and its effects on degradation? I've read that calendar aging is mostly due to the Solid Electrolyte Interphase (SEI), whereas for supercharging it's mainly due to Lithiation, which explains why they heat the battery for supercharging.

Thats right, except that it is Lithium Plating at fast charging or charging a cold battery to fast. Lithiation, I think that is the a part of the preferred process

I've got free 6 months supercharging and while I generally try to keep my battery below 50% SOC, I've been supercharging once a week or so, to 80%, to take advantage of that. I have thought "maybe it's not worth it" though, considering it may age my battery more quickly.

Supercharging - a warmer battery reduces the risk of lithium plating. While Tesla do reduce the charging speed at colder cell temps we do not know if they reduce it far enough. A Complete precondition is how I deal with this, as a battery pre heated above 40C can take much Higher charging speed without lithium plating or with less lithium plating.

Lithium plating mostly happens at high SOC, so using the supercharge as they are most efficient ( = arrive at low SOC and only charge what you need) reduce that kind of wear.

What the researchers have found is that periods of low SOC or cycling at low SOC tends to revert some part of the the lithium plating, and also some SEI i think. Lithium goes back to cycleable lithum thus increasing the capacity again. Of course not all of it, but some part of it.

So if you only supercharge when you need that, traveling etc. and otherwise use the low SOC strategy you will probably never notice the bad things with supercharging.
As I see it, supercharging casues lithium plating, which in the long term (with massive lithium plating) causes the cells to short and die.
There was a news report of some of EV-sometingh that had data and said that there was no negative signs from supercharging.
I would guess that loosing a little lithium to lithium plating probably do not show up very fast - you can do it without loosing much capacity - but if you do it often enough and for very many miles without giving the battery the low SOC recovery time eventually you start having problems with cells that short. I know a Swedish M3P that was more or less only supercharged for 230K milesm that battery did break with shorted cells. We probably do not need to worry for normal use.

I have three years free SuC on my 23 Plaid, but I use it as I hade done if it did not have free suc, I charge when I need so I am at 20% SuC with this car also, very close to the M3P I had.

As this thread is about the LG M50 NMC(-A), it might be good to know that that battery is not the best high current performer. Which goes both ways, charges slower than the Panasonic batteries and just barely is up do deliver the power the M3P needs. (That battery is used for M3P and MYP in Europe). Research tests show that it is (from my judgement) slightly more sensitive to fast charging than other cells.
I would defenitevly precondition that before any Supercharging session, but there is no need to worry. That battery keeps the capåacuty very well.

 

[3sr+buyer]

The LG M-50 battery has very low degradation if kept at low SOC (<60%) . Very low!

A collegue lost about 0.8kWh during 1.5 years and 40K km

About when will the crossover point be (when the LG and Panasonic batteries have the same capacity), since the Panasonic battery starts at an initially higher capacity but degrades faster?

 

[AAKEE]

About when will the crossover point be (when the LG and Panasonic batteries have the same capacity), since the Panasonic battery starts at an initially higher capacity but degrades faster?

It will depend on the charging behaviour.
My M3P (panna 82.1-batt) had 78.2 kWh or so after 2.5 years/(66k km) and my friends M3LR had about 78kwh after 1-1.5 years,ä(40K km) so in that case it would be after 2-4 years.

The other swedish cars with the panna 82.1 kWh that I have seen data on have mostly lost so much in 1 year that a LG that also used 80% daily or so has had about the same capacity/range.
For the average user (not the low SOC stategy) it probably is 1-1.5 years until they are even.