Won't charge past 96% when I have the limit at 98%

[tneison]

It has happened a few times now. I have it hooked up to the 120v tesla wall charger. Doesn't matter what I set my maximum to (98% or 100%), it always says complete at 96% and won't continue the charge any further. Anybody else deal with this?

For reference, it's 52 degrees in my garage where it's charging. It's a 2018 M3 LR RWD with 27k miles.

 

[Msjulie]

Occasional my car cops a attitude as well - set to 90 for the am since i have some distance to go, it decided 89 was just fine.

 

[rincewind]

Mine too , set 90 and get 89 - but sometimes get 90

 

[4Freys]

I am having the exact same issue. Battery set to charge to 100% but Consumption graph shows it only charged to 96%.

 

[TW14 9LF]

I have my car set to 80%.....recently getting 83% when I charge overnight. I seldom charge to 100% (probably on three or four times over the 16 months I've owned the car), so can't speak to that limit.

 

[KenC]

I'm gonna guess that the cells are imbalanced. When the first cell hits the voltage limit for 100%, the pack stops charging, in order to prevent any individual cell from overcharging, as it's very dangerous. The other cells, will not have hit 100%, but the one cell is preventing the others from charging completely.

At 90% SOC, the whole pack is supposed to rebalance, if you leave it charging for a few hours, past when it hits 90%. I'm not sure why yours is not rebalancing. Maybe, because it's only 120V? Try a 240V outlet, or a supercharger.

As for the others who are getting 1% less, my car hits my target SOC, then if it's cool outside, it slowly drops a percent. Then every couple or few hours, it'll top back up to my target SOC. It's just like the "swing" in your home thermostat.

 

[camalaio]

For another guess, 52F is enough to see at least 1% "cold lockout" in my experience. If your battery was actually colder (e.g. it was out in cooler weather before being brought in the garage) then I could easily see 2% being locked out to cold. This energy is still there, it's just not usable when the battery is cold, so it reports lower.

 

[coachscot]

I have a 2019 std model 3 and my battery will only charge to 200 miles! 13K miles. By my calculations that is 90% loss. Tesla said let it get down to under 20% and give it a full change. Added one mile...201.

 

[MP3Mike]

I have a 2019 std model 3 and my battery will only charge to 200 miles! 13K miles. By my calculations that is 90% loss.

I think you mean a 9% loss. A 90% loss would mean you could only charge to 22 miles of range at 100%.

 

[SigNC]

I have a 2019 std model 3 and my battery will only charge to 200 miles! 13K miles. By my calculations that is 90% loss. Tesla said let it get down to under 20% and give it a full change. Added one mile...201.

do you routinely charge to 90 or a lower percentage? If lower, the BMS can get off on calculating full capacity.

 

[camalaio]

I have a 2019 std model 3 and my battery will only charge to 200 miles! 13K miles. By my calculations that is 90% loss. Tesla said let it get down to under 20% and give it a full change. Added one mile...201.

My previous comment would apply to you as well, but even more so since I see a temp of only 33F or 32F on your screen there. If the battery is even colder than that (e.g. if 32F is what it is after warming up outside, and it sat outside all night) then you could easily see at least a 3% reduction in reported range just from the cold.

I assume you mean the "SR" (220mi) and not the "SR+" (240mi) is what you have? In either case 200mi is a mildly concerning, but far more details would be needed to be sure of anything (e.g. vehicle mileage, battery temp).

The most accurate reading would probably come after a Supercharging session, since the battery will be sufficiently warm after that.

 

[640k]

My previous comment would apply to you as well, but even more so since I see a temp of only 33F or 32F on your screen there. If the battery is even colder than that (e.g. if 32F is what it is after warming up outside, and it sat outside all night) then you could easily see at least a 3% reduction in reported range just from the cold.

I assume you mean the "SR" (220mi) and not the "SR+" (240mi) is what you have? In either case 200mi is a mildly concerning, but far more details would be needed to be sure of anything (e.g. vehicle mileage, battery temp).

The most accurate reading would probably come after a Supercharging session, since the battery will be sufficiently warm after that.

"no it's not." - The Forum

there are countless threads and posts that say the SR+ will "only" charge to the 210-220 range when it reaches 100%. it's no surprise the non-plus/standard SR only gets 200. these are estimated ranges anyway. as much as I hate it, the number and the misconceptions about what these cars ACTUALLY charge to/get in terms of efficiency are the real problem because there just isn't a 100% way to show a value.

your phones don't say "YOU'LL GET 10HRS OF USAGE TODAY!" Android started to show "...should last until... with current usage", which is completely different. ICE cars don't advertise RANGE. they advertise ABOUT what you'll get and you can do the math from there. EVs really need a different method.

 

[TW14 9LF]

The difference between an ICE vehicle and an EV is that the fuel tank on the ICE vehicle doesn't contract with time. The capacity stays the same no matter how many times you empty it. Imagine if after, say 200 tanks of fuel, the physical capacity of the tank was less than it was when it was new.

 

[640k]

The difference between an ICE vehicle and an EV is that the fuel tank on the ICE vehicle doesn't contract with time. The capacity stays the same no matter how many times you empty it. Imagine if after, say 200 tanks of fuel, the physical capacity of the tank was less than it was when it was new.

but that's not a reason we can't have a more meaningful number like "5 miles per 1% of usage". seems like that would have a more striking effect than "you'll get 240 theoretical miles if you drive in 65° temperatures, on a flat road, with no traffic, light wind and if you keep your speed 65 mph and below."

 

[MP3Mike]

The difference between an ICE vehicle and an EV is that the fuel tank on the ICE vehicle doesn't contract with time. The capacity stays the same no matter how many times you empty it. Imagine if after, say 200 tanks of fuel, the physical capacity of the tank was less than it was when it was new.

You mean like the shrinking tanks that the Toyota Prius had: Does The Toyota Prius Gas Tank Have a 'Shrinkage' Problem?

The result: "The suit claimed Toyota should cover the issue as part of the warranty, but the Court rejected the claim because the gas tank is only a design choice, not a defect in the Prius."

 

[camalaio]

"no it's not." - The Forum

there are countless threads and posts that say the SR+ will "only" charge to the 210-220 range when it reaches 100%. it's no surprise the non-plus/standard SR only gets 200. these are estimated ranges anyway. as much as I hate it, the number and the misconceptions about what these cars ACTUALLY charge to/get in terms of efficiency are the real problem because there just isn't a 100% way to show a value.

your phones don't say "YOU'LL GET 10HRS OF USAGE TODAY!" Android started to show "...should last until... with current usage", which is completely different. ICE cars don't advertise RANGE. they advertise ABOUT what you'll get and you can do the math from there. EVs really need a different method.

EVs advertise range because it was the easier thing for consumers to understand, for better or worse. I can tell most people that the EPA rating is 500km and they'll understand, but 150Wh/km (more equivalent to an EPA rating involving mpg) is utterly useless to them. Heck, it's still kinda useless to me honestly other than a relative comparison from drive to drive. The gotcha with EVs is there's many more ways for them to lose charge versus a gas car's fuel.

While it can vary a little until some lower threshold, the rated miles on these cars is a fairly good proxy for available energy. If you are displaying rated miles, you are in a way displaying available energy. When you charge to 100% and the available energy is lower than before, that is indicating something, and cannot be explained away by inefficiencies or heating or any other thing involving a unit of power. Thus, it is actually indicating a reduction in battery capacity. Whether or not it's temporary (cold, BMS out of calibration) or permanent (simple capacity loss / degradation) is the important thing to know.

If people are reporting 210mi @ 100% on an SR+ rated to have 240mi @ 100% at the time of sale, I see a potential problem (if it's early days for the car, which most Model 3s are still). Maybe it's common, but if it's a trend it's an actual problem. Going by what the customer can see alone, that's a 12.5% drop that happened rather quickly, even though Tesla used to (maybe still does?) account for initial losses by doing some number tricks to make the first few percent degradation not visible (i.e. it will initially lose capacity, but still display 240mi anyways because they baked in an assumed loss but displayed a max of 240mi anyways).

That said, from what I've seen on this forum there is no trend. They seem to drop 5-10% and then just sorta stay there, apparently?