I am not upset at all. Just surprised. I love the Wall Connector very much, look good, and less headache dealing with the 14-50 outlets. It will serve my future EV.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Is it possible to go above 32 Amp charge rate when charging a 2023 Model RWD?
- Thread starter Ace4Car
- Start date
There are several features that differentiate the more expensive AWD and Performance Model 3 vehicles from the less expensive RWD or SR+ cars. One of them is that they charge slower than the pricier models, both on Level 2 home charging and at Superchargers. They also have a smaller battery, a less expensive stereo installation, a lower peak power value when driving, less torque, slower acceleration, lower top speed, the non-premium interior, etc.
That's how Tesla is able to sell the RWD cars for less money.
For more information, see the table on the Model 3 wikipedia page that compares the various models...
That's how Tesla is able to sell the RWD cars for less money.
For more information, see the table on the Model 3 wikipedia page that compares the various models...
I'm seconding this, but want to make sure it's all in context.There are several features that differentiate the more expensive AWD and Performance Model 3 vehicles from the less expensive RWD or SR+ cars. One of them is that they charge slower than the pricier models, both on Level 2 home charging and at Superchargers. They also have a smaller battery, a less expensive stereo installation, a lower peak power value when driving, less torque, slower acceleration, lower top speed, the non-premium interior, etc.
That's how Tesla is able to sell the RWD cars for less money.
For more information, see the table on the Model 3 wikipedia page that compares the various models...
- M3 RWD (not long range or P: I had, until recently, a 2018 M3 LR RWD) has a smaller battery.
- A smaller battery, in general, takes less time to charge. It also costs less.
- Given the smaller, less costly battery, it makes sense to reduce the number of 16A chargers in the car to match. Which also reduces the cost of the car.
And, no question: It's an overnight charge. 32A @ 240V = 7.68 kW. EPA Rating: 250 W-hr/mile. Advertised range: 272 Miles. Therefore, time to charge a dead-empty battery (extremely unlikely) would be:
Time = 272 miles * (250 W-hr/mile) / (7680W) = 8.85 hours. So, get home after work with 1 mile of range left at 7 p.m., plug it in, and it'll be ready at 4 a.m..
Note that this car has an LFP battery, which wants to get charged to 100%. (Unlike us NIMH types who are told that 80% nominal charge is the better bet.)
In fact, let's play with this. Suppose that one has 40 miles of range remaining on either an SR RWD or an LR AWD, which is what I just got. 100% for the SR, 80% for the LR.
Range for LR: 358 miles
Range for SR: 272
W-hr/mile for the SR: 250 W-hr/mile
W-hr/mile for the LR: 260 W-hr/mile. (Gotta carry that extra weight and the other motor, I guess.)
40 miles to 272: 232 miles on the SR
40 miles to 80% of 358: 246 miles on the LR.
Charge rate on the SR: 7680W
Charge rate on the LR: (assuming 60A circuit, 48A): 11520W
Charge time to "full":
SR: 232 * 250 / 7680 = 7.55 hours.
LR: 246 * 260 / 11520 = 5.55 hours.
OK, so the LR is faster. But it's still overnight. And, interestingly, the daily usable range is about the same for both cars, and the RWD costs less.
Tesla wants you to, because the BMS requires it due to the voltage curve. The battery wants 100% charge as much as any lithium battery (not at all).
OK, this is new. So, current version of the Tesla software, at least on my 2023 LR, has a bit of text that says, "80% recommended for daily driving" or something like that.
I had the impression that for cars with LFP batteries, that text was changed to "100% yadda-yadda".
With the NIMH batteries, I thought that charging to 100% on a daily basis degraded the batteries over time; something about mechanical stress at the molecular level messing up the anodes/cathodes or some such. LFP, supposedly, didn't have that degradation?
Could you point at an article that, if one follows the 100% Tesla recommendation on LFP, this leads to rapid degradation? Or faster than usual degradation?
I don't know about "rapid", and am only parroting the information from these forums.
Even the 80% recommended daily charge for the NCA/NCM batteries is not the best for the battery.
Here's an article that says it better than I can:
The Puzzling Reason Why Tesla Misleadingly Recommends Charging the LFP Batteries to 100%
When Tesla started deliveries of the Model 3 RWD with lithium ferrophosphate (LFP) batteries, it made a strange recommendation on its website and in the ...
www.autoevolution.com
Read the article. Wish the guy was more than an educated journalist; the battery chemical engineers usually have a more interesting view. In any case:I don't know about "rapid", and am only parroting the information from these forums.
Even the 80% recommended daily charge for the NCA/NCM batteries is not the best for the battery.
Here's an article that says it better than I can:
The Puzzling Reason Why Tesla Misleadingly Recommends Charging the LFP Batteries to 100%
When Tesla started deliveries of the Model 3 RWD with lithium ferrophosphate (LFP) batteries, it made a strange recommendation on its website and in the ...
- The lower voltage of LiFePh cells give them a natural longevity increase over the NiMH cells that people usually use.
- The problem with the LFP batteries is that they have a relatively constant battery voltage until they (a) get close to complete discharge, in which case it dips, or close to full charge, in which case it peaks.
- If one never gets to 100% charge, the Battery Management System never sees the peak and therefore doesn't know what the charge in the battery is, leading to confusion as to How Much Is In There, Anyway.
- So, running the battery up to 100% from time to time (Tesla suggests once a week or so) keeps the BMS calibrated.
- Doing the 100% dance does wear the battery some, but not nearly as much as it would NiMH cells. So, as an engineering tradeoff, it works.
Just googling "100% charge lithium battery" yields many, many sources stating what I believe to be commonly known - charging lithium batteries to 100% increases degradation, regardless of cathode chemistry.
You probably mean NCA not NiMH.
LFP batteries can and do lose capacity like other lithium-ion batteries, but, compared to NCA or NCM batteries:
- The loss of capacity tends to be less.
- The increased loss of capacity due to spending more time at high state of charge appears less.
- The high state of charge that is associated with increased loss of capacity is greater than about 70% for LFP batteries instead of 55% for NCA batteries.
Um. Actually, in the article you cited. Which is kind of why I wish the fellow didn't advertise himself primarily as a journalist and didn't cite any references: He may be right, but an actual chemical engineer/battery scientist/one-of-those-ilk would be a bit more authoritative to quote from.
Don't take me wrong. I am not upset at all. Just surprised that the sale person recommended the more "costly" solution for my M3SR which can only charges at 32A max but did not tell me this limitation. It's my fault that I did not do any research on Tesla home charging before buying the car.
After doing more research on this topic, I found that most of my friends who own Tesla uses the Mobile Connector connected to a dryer type outlet (NEMA 14-50 or 15-40).
The Mobile Connector is either free or costs them around 250$ (tax included). It only goes at 32A max. Then I figured the cost of a GFCI 40A breaker and a commercial grade outlet need to be considered. All that could sum up to be close to the cost of the Wall Connector which is hard wired to the panel. The Wall Connector is safer, look better and can deliver 40A (my breaker is 50A costing 80$ due to its small size to fit my panel, could not find any 60A at this size even at Lowes) on my future EV.
Bottom line: I am happy with the Wall Connector even if the total part cost is probly 80$ more than the Mobile Connector solution. Labor cost to install them is the same. 80$ , nothing to care about after paying 40+ grands for the car.
After doing more research on this topic, I found that most of my friends who own Tesla uses the Mobile Connector connected to a dryer type outlet (NEMA 14-50 or 15-40).
The Mobile Connector is either free or costs them around 250$ (tax included). It only goes at 32A max. Then I figured the cost of a GFCI 40A breaker and a commercial grade outlet need to be considered. All that could sum up to be close to the cost of the Wall Connector which is hard wired to the panel. The Wall Connector is safer, look better and can deliver 40A (my breaker is 50A costing 80$ due to its small size to fit my panel, could not find any 60A at this size even at Lowes) on my future EV.
Bottom line: I am happy with the Wall Connector even if the total part cost is probly 80$ more than the Mobile Connector solution. Labor cost to install them is the same. 80$ , nothing to care about after paying 40+ grands for the car.
It's not the more costly solution. They stopped giving away mobile connectors more than a year ago. The wall connector is better. Regardless of the 32A limitation of the vehicle, you have the safer, better EVSE.
"It's not the more costly solution. They stopped giving away mobile connectors more than a year ago. The wall connector is better. Regardless of the 32A limitation of the vehicle, you have the safer, better EVSE.".
That is exactly what I said in my post before this one with some cost analysis and advantage of the Wall Connector that could supply 40A to a future Tesla that can takes 40A.
That is exactly what I said in my post before this one with some cost analysis and advantage of the Wall Connector that could supply 40A to a future Tesla that can takes 40A.
Similar threads
- Question
