Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

New 85kWH battery for my 2013 P85+

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I think technically this is still true. The R80 Roadster upgrades had almost 400 miles of rated range and Tesla still ahsn't matched it on a newer car. I say "technically" because those packs degraded more quickly than we're used to.

Even when new the updated pack never provided anywhere near 400 miles of range, nor was it supposed to. The 400 mile figure was also supposed to include wheel bearing and brake drag improvements along with aero mods to the body, neither of which Tesla ever released.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Droschke
Charging at home is still not finished yet. One thing that’s interesting that I just noticed is that at close to 100% I am still getting 14A into the battery. Normally this will fall to about 1A in this late stage of charging.
View attachment 501248

My car will say 5 minutes for a while on a 30a/208v charger and draw 14a then
Even when new the updated pack never provided anywhere near 400 miles of range, nor was it supposed to. The 400 mile figure was also supposed to include wheel bearing and brake drag improvements along with aero mods to the body, neither of which Tesla ever released.

My only point was to observe that when tesla was focusing on the S (at the time with a range of 200-300 miles) they did spend some engineering effort to provide a new battery back to their prior customers.

It is reasonable to hope that tesla will continue to fork off a small amount of engineering capacity to back-port battery improvements from current generations to prior generations. One may hope that they will offer some simplified pack architecture where there's a short-range replacement pack, a standard range replacement pack and a long range replacement pack where it is physically (fits and doesn't change crash test parameters) and electrically compatible and provides roughly the same range as the original packs.

Having this simplifies their supply chain and possibly even lets them shed resources currently used for refurbishing packs.

As to why they'd do this -- I would wager some money that these replacement packs are also likely "experimental" / beta packs in the same way various original S/X packs were final experiments for demonstrating a particular battery chemistry / environmental management theory. When I say experimental, what I mean is they don't have hundreds of millions of miles/hours demonstrating that they're perfect in every corner case, which is the threshold for if you intend to replace the corolla and accords.

For example the knowledge gained from the failed chemistry experiment of the 85 packs is likely extremely valuable if it prevents a similar issue with packs deployed at the 3/Y scale in the future, and simulation and accelerated wear tests only get you 98% of the way to proving the reliability of things at scale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkennebeck
I would wager some money that these replacement packs are also likely "experimental" / beta packs in the same way various original S/X packs were final experiments for demonstrating a particular battery chemistry / environmental management theory.

As they are constantly being evolved, all battery technologies would be "experimental" in nature, one would assume.
 
View attachment 501277 Done charging! Confirmed 289 miles rated as the Tesla app suggested previously!

Oh man!! You hit the lottery with this battery.
I wish mine fails and i could get one of these new 85kwh batteries and get the equivalent of 289 miles in km (465 km), since i currently get 371/373 km at 100% and the maximum i got was 380/381 km about a year ago.(bought the car used).
Not to mention the charge gate that hit me hard....
 
361km here... so that's more than 100km difference :eek:
But this new battery looks great and gives confidence for the future, should I ever have issue with ours.

I'm definitely curious as how the charge curve will look like in the summer :)
 
Got my original battery pack revision "B" (unsure of the part#) replaced over the weekend and just picked up my car. To my surprise, I now have a new battery showing a ~92% charge to be 265mi and according to the app, 100% is 288mi!!! I initially thought I got a 90kWH pack as a replacement but when I picked it up, battery label shows a part# 1014116-00-A with 85kWh, 350VDC (vs the old pack 400VDC) Hopefully this pack does delivered the original performance or more, but my initial feeling is that my car is slower - but that might be because of the P85D+ loaner that I was driving for the past 2 weeks. I will see if I can talk to someone knowledgeable at Tesla to see what I can find out. In the meantime, what do you guys think of this?

Chilam

Just wondering was your battery warrantied or did you buy a new one? My car will hit 8 years in Dec and its going downhill pretty fast @ 190K miles.
 
Chilam

Just wondering was your battery warrantied or did you buy a new one? My car will hit 8 years in Dec and its going downhill pretty fast @ 190K miles.
Mine was replaced under warranty. Software deemed 54% of my former battery unusable. They've double check using over the air diagnostic and determined my battery needs replacing. I was expecting a refurb 85kWh and if lucky a refurb 90kWh battery, but got this great gem!

I never asked any questions what kind of battery I will be getting. Perhaps the numbers of referrals I've made previously helped? or the rare Brown that they want to keep it alive longer? or just random assignment of what's available? (probably the latter) But wish you all good luck on your replacements when it's time for it! :)
 
Fell asleep but just woke up and arrived with 6% left at 5am in the morning at 25 degrees F with a semi cold battery (had drove 13 mi to warm it up but unfortunately that wasn’t enough. Sorry for the missed opportunity. Also unsure if it is the problem with the supercharger not getting more than 112kW as Plainview, NY SC (Which is suppose to be 150kW max) seems to be having issues lately from what I read. Also unsure is if the Older S is limited to 120kW perhaps because of fuse or the programming - but as you can see below max was only 112kW in this SC session. Cabin temp are set at 72 degrees with driver heated seat on full blast. Here are the results:


At 6% started with 7kW
At 15% 77kW
At 16% 83kW
At 18% 92 kW
At 19% 107kW
At 20% 112kW
At 25% 107kW
At 30% 106 kW
At 34% 104 kW
At 38% 99 kW
At 40% 97 kW
At 42% 96 kW
At 46% 92 kW
At 50% 87 kW
At 52% 83 kW
At 54% 81 kW
At 56% 77 kW
At 60% 72 kW
At 62% 69 kW
At 65% 67 kW
At 67% 65 kW
At 70% 62 kW
At 72% 58 kW
At 75% 54 kW
At 77% 48 kW
At 80% 40 kW
At 81% 36 kW (fan slowed down)
At 82% 31 kW (fan seems to have stopped - at least not noticeable)
At 84% 30kW (1 hr has lapsed)
At 87% 25 kW
At 90% 22 kW (1 hr 11 min has lapsed with 262 miles rated)

I will be finishing charging at home to 100%

Even for the missed opportunity because of the cold battery, one thing we know is this “A” pack is not the same as the old “A” pack that has a different part# and was capped at 100kW. I will be doing more testing at another location (JFK also rated for 120kW - Which I’ve done with my old pack awhile back)

additional notes:
1) charging stall used was 3A of Plainview, NY SC
2) past 5 mi my rated avg consumption is 592 wh/mi
3) past 15 mi my rates avg consumption is 519 wh/mi
4) lifetime (since I owned the car at least) is 376 wh/mi over 36689 miles

Fascinating. It appears your "new 85" pack is exhibiting SuC curves very similar to the post May 2019 update, but pre July 2019 update (the nerfing)...look at your figures and compare it to the red line on the chart from A Better Route Planner of the BT85 pack:

BT85_s85_July-August.png.be93535c0173f48c73cc9d314ad15448.png
 
Trying to see if this new pack will be the Tesla's choice for all replacements going forward.
Highly unlikely. I imagine they use these if and only if there are not suitable remanufactured packs available due to temporary supply constraints. They are constantly taking in and refurbing old batteries and I imagine they’ll always prioritize using those first vs. something brand new.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chilam
Highly unlikely. I imagine they use these if and only if there are not suitable remanufactured packs available due to temporary supply constraints. They are constantly taking in and refurbing old batteries and I imagine they’ll always prioritize using those first vs. something brand new.

They've got an "interesting" problem on their hands.

How many resources do they want to dedicate to fixing this? Properly refurbishing a sick pack likely involves putting failed packs on a test harness, putting it through cycles, then cracking it open and putting modules on another test bench, then pulling out cells and assessing the health of each cell, then taking "like" cells (or modules) and stitching them back together to make a "new" pack.

I'm guessing that properly assessing and rebuilding a pack involves putting the sick pack on a harness, testing it, then cracking it open and putting modules or cells in a test cycle or two, then sorting the resulting mess, then stitching together like piles of cells or modules into a new pack that ideally is similar to something that was originally sold. If I understand correctly, there are parts inside the pack that will kill you dead dead dead if you lick them, so you need to train people and treat the packs with respect.

This takes space and people. Potentially some very expensive resources. This crazy machine that stitches together thousands of little battery cylinders into a cohesive module is actually one of the crown-jewels of Tesla; nobody else even tries -- they use enormous pouch cells.

So -- how much of some factory space is tesla going to dedicate to this process? And, let's assume that these packs are coming back because they're sick -- they may actually be so sick that any rebuilt pack made up of these modules will still be 0.001% failure prone... So you're playing a mug's game where you're rebuilding packs that will fail soon anyhow, because they've all been subjected to regen charging when too cold, or supercharging with too much ethanol in the winter, or whatever the heck it is that's actually broken these things after 5 seasons of use.

Another choice is to cell the sick packs to someone else who will break them down and use the cells for rechargeable flashlights or e-scooters for hipsters or maybe home power buffers for eco-utopians. Let that 3rd party play cell testing and tetris; if they don't have to stack 8,000 like cells together they've got a much easier game than you have trying to make a sane set of 4 refurbished 85 packs using 5 worn out 85 packs.

If you do that, some other entity assumes the liability of not-licking the insides of the pack, of letting the cells catch fire, or whatever.

We don't know what's going on, but I think there's a non-zero chance that they've been refurbishing packs because they didn't have an alternative, and that they'll be switching to something else as quickly as possible.

I for one am going to be watching this closely....
 
Highly unlikely. I imagine they use these if and only if there are not suitable remanufactured packs available due to temporary supply constraints. They are constantly taking in and refurbing old batteries and I imagine they’ll always prioritize using those first vs. something brand new.
Unless of course they're worried about the safety of continuing to use those old batteries and the impacts of illegally crippling them to mitigate safety risks, or think maybe they should comply with the probable outcomes of a a federal investigation ahead of time rather than after any potential verdicts come down.

This battery wasn't a "suitable replacement available" they had to invent i t which means they went out of their way to find something other than those more suitable and available refurbs.

This makes sense for Tesla. It's cheaper for them to make one battery module for all packs - the 100 type since it is the one in mass m anufacture for new cars - and it is safest for Tesla to use a pack that won't give them any legal problems after a while. This battery satisfies magnusson moss requirements and probably doesn't have the flaws that caused fires prompting them to create both to battery & charge gates.
 
Last edited:
They've got an "interesting" problem on their hands.

How many resources do they want to dedicate to fixing this? Properly refurbishing a sick pack likely involves putting failed packs on a test harness, putting it through cycles, then cracking it open and putting modules on another test bench, then pulling out cells and assessing the health of each cell, then taking "like" cells (or modules) and stitching them back together to make a "new" pack.
Agree, but so long as the average battery pack contains tens of thousands of dollars of raw materials, it will continue to be economical for them to be refurbished and refreshed vs. scraped - even at fairly high labor rates.

Unless of course they're worried about the safety of continuing to use those old batteries and the impacts of illegally crippling them to mitigate safety risks, or think maybe they should comply with the probable outcomes of a a federal investigation ahead of time rather than after any potential verdicts come down.
I suppose the economics change should there be an actual fatal safety flaw with some early cells, modules, packs, etc - but I think we're a very long way down Speculation Road to arrive at that conclusion, despite the loud cries of the batterygate illuminati.

This battery wasn't a "suitable replacement available" they had to invent i t which means they went out of their way to find something other than those more suitable and available refurbs.
As I said, Tesla has been replacing a lot of packs lately, and given the above nod to the somewhat high cost and time related to refurbishment, I don't think it's particularly weird that Tesla is replacing failed packs here and there with new ones as necessary to keep the service process humming along.

Tesla is always "inventing" new batteries and I'll maintain that I think the ultimate use of this pack is intended for a re-introduction of "standard range" S/X, not to service old cars.
This makes sense for Tesla. It's cheaper for them to make one battery module for all packs -
Moving forward, certainly. But it's certainly not "cheaper" enough that it's going to suddenly make sense to stop refurbishing old packs so long as parts exist and instead replace with brand new ones.
 
I'm guessing that properly assessing and rebuilding a pack involves putting the sick pack on a harness, testing it, then cracking it open and putting modules or cells in a test cycle or two, then sorting the resulting mess, then stitching together like piles of cells or modules into a new pack that ideally is similar to something that was originally sold. If I understand correctly, there are parts inside the pack that will kill you dead dead dead if you lick them, so you need to train people and treat the packs with respect.

As far as I have seen you can't really replace individual cells in a module. Everything is glued together and spot welded. My guess is Tesla would do whole module replacements and send bad modules off to be recycled. (One exception could be that they break the fusible links on enough "bad" cells in an 86 kWh module to make it match the lower cell count of a 60 kWh module. But it would still weigh more than the original 60 based one so I doubt they would do that.)

Another choice is to cell the sick packs to someone else who will break them down and use the cells for rechargeable flashlights or e-scooters for hipsters or maybe home power buffers for eco-utopians. Let that 3rd party play cell testing and tetris; if they don't have to stack 8,000 like cells together they've got a much easier game than you have trying to make a sane set of 4 refurbished 85 packs using 5 worn out 85 packs.

Tesla cells don't have the built-in protection like normal consumer cells, so I highly doubt they would even consider this as an option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRP3
How many resources do they want to dedicate to fixing this? Properly refurbishing a sick pack likely involves putting failed packs on a test harness, putting it through cycles, then cracking it open and putting modules on another test bench, then pulling out cells and assessing the health of each cell, then taking "like" cells (or modules) and stitching them back together to make a "new" pack.
No way. They might work down to the module level but not the cell level. I don't even know if they'd bother trying to mix and match high mileage modules.
 
Having worked in manufacturing a couple decades and having spent way too much effort and time fixing things that were made wrong I wonder if maybe a business case can be made for new warranty packs and selling off the old ones in mass. Ship it all off somewhere where someone else figures out what is usable for stationary storage.

I know to the academics this will sound wasteful, but often times REALITY is if you have the facilities to make something in volume, it is easier to make a new one than fix the old.

I get the argument about the value of components but a messed up Tesla battery is still very valuable so it is not like new packs actually cost as much as a new pack for a new car, the old core has value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: glhs272