There's so many variables and tweaks you can perform to each chemistry that it's impossible to say which will be better in this specific circumstance.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
MASTER THREAD: 2021 Model 3 - Charge data, battery discussion etc
- Thread starter EV Promoter
- Start date
Candleflame
Active Member
i dont think it makes any real difference and certainly outside hot climate (athens isnt hot climate) it doesnt make any difference either way. as long as the battery sits at 25C or less it just doesnt matter.
The cold weather issue is more of an issue with the performance models which are powerlimited on work commutes as the battery takes 30min or so to heat up decently.
The cold weather issue is more of an issue with the performance models which are powerlimited on work commutes as the battery takes 30min or so to heat up decently.
TrueTechData
Member
Couple questions for this thread -
Just got my Model 3 LR a month or so ago about 800 miles on it so far, US based.
I wasn't going to check what my estimated max capacity was because I didn't want it weighing over my head if it was lower than it should be (I've had this with laptops and things before).... but me being me, I did it anyway.
I'm only at 68% SOC so I know it isn't as accurate as if I was >80%, but I did the math using the 5, 15, 30 mile average consumption and got right at 79 kWh capacity. The battery pack is supposed to be 82 kWh, but from reading here it has like a 3.5% buffer, right? So 79 kWh is what I should have on a brand new Model 3 LR?
Second question: what would be an estimated Wh/mi on relatively flat ground, no AC/heater when driving around 75 mph for a Model 3 LR with 18" wheels and Aero covers? I have added Remetrix Orbital rim covers, as well as a small spoiler - I want to make sure I'm not taking a HUGE hit in efficiency with those two combined. I'm also getting the car lowered an inch on Monday, so that should actually help efficiency some from what I've read - I'm hoping to balance out the losses from the spoiler and rim covers with that lowering (also it will look a little bit sportier)
Just got my Model 3 LR a month or so ago about 800 miles on it so far, US based.
I wasn't going to check what my estimated max capacity was because I didn't want it weighing over my head if it was lower than it should be (I've had this with laptops and things before).... but me being me, I did it anyway.
I'm only at 68% SOC so I know it isn't as accurate as if I was >80%, but I did the math using the 5, 15, 30 mile average consumption and got right at 79 kWh capacity. The battery pack is supposed to be 82 kWh, but from reading here it has like a 3.5% buffer, right? So 79 kWh is what I should have on a brand new Model 3 LR?
Second question: what would be an estimated Wh/mi on relatively flat ground, no AC/heater when driving around 75 mph for a Model 3 LR with 18" wheels and Aero covers? I have added Remetrix Orbital rim covers, as well as a small spoiler - I want to make sure I'm not taking a HUGE hit in efficiency with those two combined. I'm also getting the car lowered an inch on Monday, so that should actually help efficiency some from what I've read - I'm hoping to balance out the losses from the spoiler and rim covers with that lowering (also it will look a little bit sportier)
Candleflame
Active Member
"should" be is above 70% of rated capacity which im sure it is. so no point worrying about it. 79kwh is way more than 70% of original capacity. And either way its normal.
75mph was tested by nextmove with the RWD Model 3 and that used 165wh/km so with the AWD model you are probably looking at 170-175w/km at 120km/h with AC off etc.
The remitrix orbitals arent quite as good as the aero covers ,they are somewhat inbetween no aeros and aeros but probably a bit closer to no aeros. Car lowering an inch I think makes a big difference... I seem to recall it lowered consumption by like 3% or smth?
TrueTechData
Member
Yep, that sounds exactly like what I thought about the Orbitals. I'm also assuming the spoiler causes a bit of a hit since it kind of directs the air up a little instead of what the normal back of the car does.
Like you said, the lowering I have also read can make a big difference, so I am really hoping it will offset any losses from orbitals and spoiler. It is a win win for me, will make the car look a little sportier and get a bit more range. I know the ride will be a little rougher, but to me it is totally worth it.
Candleflame
Active Member
i don think in the usa its any consideration. the mere fact that you have 18" tires already means superior range and you have superchargers absoloutely everywhere unlike in i.e. Australia where extra range is huge to to non availability of dc fast charging.
The 5L is probably a NMC also.
The rumors about NCMA is that they will increase the range more than we see in the 5L pack. The capacity increase is in line with the difference between LG ”old” M48 cell and the also not very new M50. Also, the total capacity is quite close to what we can expect from the known M50 cell.
As @Candleflame says but with the add on that with durable we mean degrading less from cycles.
As the most degradation for the most Teslaowners comes from calendar aging this might be as important as cyclic aging.
Calendar aging is the dominant part in the beginning (to the middle of maybe end) of a battery life. In average people seem to have about 5% calendar aging during the first year. After 15 years the calendar aging could be estimated to between 0.5-1% for the next year.
Cyclic aging is most probably not more than 1% for the average user.( probably 0.5% or so).
With this in mind, I would say like this:
NCA:
-Higher capacity in the pack.
-Slightly less calendar aging
-Slightly faster charging when supercharging.
NMC:
-Slightly less cyclic aging
-Slightly higher calendar aging, specially in warm climates.
-Do not charge as fast as NCA.
-Do not allow as high power as NCA, possible limiting the power a bit more than the Panasonic NCA in the Performance versions. Tesla just started shipping MYP in Europe with NMC so we will find out this soon. Its also expected that the M3P will come with NMC in Europe soon.
Caveat: The comparison above comes from using the latest research reports but the very latest battery technology havent passed open source research reports yet. So it is a guestimate from the most recent research reports.
The news rumors was that Tesla would start using the NCMA last autumn( about one year ago).
I do not think we know more than this here on TMC, but a simple judgement is that the NCMA should have larger capacity than the 5L ( LG M50) we see is used.
The M48 (LG 5C) and M50(LG 5L) seem to reflect the differences between the regular M48 and M50 that has been on the market for a while.
NCMA is supposed to combine the good things with NCA and NMC. According to the media rumors the capacity should be really good. Who knows really?
Most probably not.
1) we dont know much about the NCMA, if or when they arrive, or if the M50 78.8kWh battery already is supposed to be the NCMA as media suggested last summer.
2) Tesla most probably wont change to another type of battery even if you ask and pay for the complete work. It would probably be possible for somone else than Tesla to do the change if they get the hand on that type of battery( which probably wont be easy, and someone need to wait for a used battery from a creashed car os something like that.)
Candleflame
Active Member
The real issue isnt the battery it is that the model 3 does not have a swapable battety. Entire interior needs to be removed to swap the battery which is like 3k usd just in labour....
I am not sure exactly how you calculated your capacity, but most likely the method you used also includes the buffer. So that would mean your full battery is 79 kWh, which may be full capacity for your car.
If you want to verify what percent of full capacity you really have, the best way is to just look at your rated miles at 100%, and compare to what the sticker rated range was. I think it was 358 for your car. For example if you have 286 rated miles at 80%, then 286/.80 = 257.5 at 100%. Of course, there is rounding error in that calculation, so the closer you are to 100% charge, the more accurate the calculation will be.
I think the energy screen was said to be “capped” at 79 kWh in European 2021 M3LR.
Its possible that the same applies to US ‘21 M3LR?
I do no know the reason or if actually was the degradation threshold that was set to about 79kWh.
For the 2021 M3P the degradation threshold is set to 80.7kWh and having a better capacity than 80.7kWh in the Nominal Full Pack number is not reflected in the energy screen calc as it stop at about 80.7kWh( +/- the error from rounding).
There have been some 21 M3P( same battery) with low NFP numbers even when new.( below 79kwh)
I remember reading on here someone stating they had a conversation with a mechanic at an SC. Takes them around 1.5 hours to replace.
This is posted here, because the I dont see a similar good discussion in the Model Y section and also because the Model 3 Performance is supposed to be released with this drive train pretty soon (Q2/2022 in Europe maybe?)
I have had the chance to do some testing with Nr.15 out of "Giga Berlin". One of the thirty cars delivered and signed by EM himself.
Here are the Performance Results:
Here is a quick diagram to explain the two different power limits.
One from the Battery Pack and one set by Tesla for each product.
The numbers should not be regarded as absolute, but a rough direction so you get the idea an the differences:
I have had the chance to do some testing with Nr.15 out of "Giga Berlin". One of the thirty cars delivered and signed by EM himself.
Here are the Performance Results:
- The Model Y 2022 in Europe is always equipped with the LG Chem 5L 79kWh Battery Pack.
- The car was Supercharged to 100%. At the Start of the run the car was at 98% SoC / 50°C.
- The absolute maximum discharge power observed was 416kW. A Panasonic 3L 82kWh would be in the 450kW+ area, which is quite a big difference.
- As soon as you start driving, you see a drop in the maximum discharge power.
- Full Power when passing 80kph you see a maximum Battery Power of 410kW, so the car is always battery power limited and starts losing power immediately when you start driving. A M3P 2021 is power limited at around 425-430kW. With a hot pack the battery power limit will be reached at around 75% SoC, not directly at 100% like in the EU MYP.
- In daily driving at 80% or below there should be no significant power difference to a Long Range with Boost and no difference at all when passing around 120kph.
- I did an invalid (low sat) Dragy measurement, which was at 4,8s 0-100kph (slope corrected). This should only be regarded as a side note, but I thought it's worth mentioning.
Here is a quick diagram to explain the two different power limits.
One from the Battery Pack and one set by Tesla for each product.
The numbers should not be regarded as absolute, but a rough direction so you get the idea an the differences:
Candleflame
Active Member
i think when they are used to working with the car they are probably relatively quick. but it doesnt change the fact that the entire interior of the car has to be removed (seats, carpets etc) before they can get access to the battery bolts. and Tesla charges 2300 usd in labour which is quite a bit more than what 1.5 hours would suggest. 1.5h is likely for the model s.
"ASY,HVBAT,75KWH,AWD,KELVIN,1PH,M3,RMN(1 13737501-K)" on the invoice is $13,500—and the "RMN" stands for "remanufactured." It's a common practice in insurance repairs to push to use remanufactured parts where possible, so that's not surprising. The surprising part is the total for the rock strike, which is $16,550.67, $2,299.27 of which is labor alone. Shop rates vary depending on the location, but this Tesla service department charges roughly $175 an hour for labor, per Current Automotive. The entire job took just over 13 hours.
Similar threads
- Article
