New M3 battery in parts catalogue?

[AlanSubie4Life]

"Just" 78.6kWh?! Are you kidding me? You know very well that the max we had so far is 77.5 or thereabouts.

If you look at the prior released values from Tesla (or just go to my post which has the summary), prior Model 3 vehicles typically measured at 79.2-79.9kWh using the same test. It's been extremely consistent. There has been an occasional outlier like this, but by far the most common value is ~79.5kWh.

We've discussed this before - it comes down to the discrepancy between ~78kWh the BMS displays when fairly new, and the 79.5kWh they measure with the Hiokis.

The point is, apples to apples, the 2021 AWD test vehicle had less battery capacity (but not ridiculously so) compared to the 2020 test article, while the Performance was the highest I have ever seen - by far.

And, the point is, they were able to beat the results from the prior 2020 range tests, with less energy, with the AWD.

This is all extremely well documented on the EPA website and you can look up all the documents yourself.

Basic Search | Document Index System | US EPA

As I said, this PARTICULAR document is preliminary - so I suspect there will be a new revision of it soon. I would not be surprised if they retest the AWD and get a higher number. But the EFFICIENCY is higher, by ~4%, vs. the 2020 AWD. And with the test they did, with 78.6kWh, they can nearly certainly claim about 353 rated miles (EPA), due to the scalar increase. (About 18 miles from the scalar, and about 13 from the efficiency improvement.)

 

[TimothyHW3]

I dunno about these EPA tests, seems all very inconsistent to me. Also, real life scenario we never had a BMS reporting more than 77.5-78 So either Tesla is fckn with EPA to achieve a mile or two more with higher Test car capacity(highly likely, because their EPAs are indeed very high compared to others) or they have added more density.

Also, toe the dead giveaway of more capacity is the 20km increase in Europe without actually running new WLTPs
We will know in weeks.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I dunno about these EPA tests, seems all very inconsistent to me.

You can read the documents. It's extremely detailed. It's just a scalar difference in the measurement of "kWh" as far as I am concerned. There's no reason the BMS kWh have to align perfectly with the actual kWh (on calibrated Hioki instrumentation measuring all energy consumed) extracted from the pack. They can take a vehicle with 79.5kWh as measured on the Hiokis, and assign that vehicle as having 78kWh, per the BMS.

It really doesn't have to align. It's a totally different measurement method. It's arbitrary. All that matters is that when the EPA tests it using the same procedure and measurement equipment, that they come up with the same answer. The value in the BMS on the CAN bus could display 7950kWh, and it wouldn't matter. It's arbitrary as long as the vehicle has the same actual energy available and the same efficiency.

Note that the Performance result does suggest strongly that there is higher density in the pack - I've never seen a result that high. It also suggests that that 3% has been unlocked for the Performance vehicles. Whether that pack type has been installed in AWD vehicles though, I do not know.

My point, again, is that they can achieve the 353 rated miles (and the 580km WLTP) through efficiency improvements and a scalar increase due to the heat pump. No need for more energy.

If they unlock capacity later, the range will go up more.

Again, there WILL be an update to this document (it doesn't even have the window stickers yet), and they may well run another test.

BTW, the battery in the test vehicles had 1000+ miles on it, according to the document.

 

[TimothyHW3]

you look at the prior released values from Tesla (or just go to my post which has the summary), prior Model 3 vehicles

Looked at the EPA test, it was actually 80.8 which is even closer to 81kWh.
But the interesting part is the recharge. They added 94.2 kWh back into the battery. Normally you can expect about 11-12% charge loss. I have measured this consistently.
On the AWD it adds up(78.6 to 88.6 or something they measured is about 11-12%) On the P it doesn't, it adds up to about 83-84kWh or 3kWh more then they measured out, that is strange.

Like I said, we will wait and see, I am pretty sure I was right about the bigger battery. Would be a she if they put them in the Ps first, but that could be the case too.

As for WLTP, of course they can, but they haven't - they just updated the website before they ran a new WLTP. The only way to do that is to simply slap a bigger thank (battery) and the 80kWh adds nicely

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Looked at the EPA test, it was actually 80.8 which is even closer to 81kWh.
But the interesting part is the recharge. They added 94.2 kWh back into the battery. Normally you can expect about 11-12% charge loss. I have measured this consistently.

I know, I already told you this!!!

However, the Performance battery was able to source 80.8kWh of energy.

There was a definite problem with that recharge event. Maybe they left the climate control on or something. Look at the AWD - it has much better efficiency of charging - and 78.6kWh capacity. If you look at my original linked post I explain all of this, and I even provide a table of charging efficiencies!!! You don't even need to measure it yourself - Tesla tells you what it is in the EPA filing.

Preliminary EPA Data for Model 3 AWD & Model 3 P 2021 Released

3) Something weird happened on the recharge of the Performance (lots of wasted energy, ~3kWh AC). I think this will be addressed in later updated filings.

 

[TimothyHW3]

The only way this can happen is if they slouched and let the car sit awake without charging or if they lowered the Amperage and the car charged longer. I doubt they did that so it must be something with the BMS - the chargers are identical on all cars.

I really hope they didn't update the P battery only, because it is more expensive

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

As for WLTP, of course they can, but they haven't - they just updated the website before they ran a new WLTP.

Do you have a link to this website and some details on how this works? As I said originally, and claimed originally, I know nothing about WLTP - but I knew that the 353 miles EPA was possible without a larger battery - and that appears to be the case, so far. Everything lines up - a scalar similar to Model Y (actually smaller) gives 353 miles.

It's entirely possible that the vehicles going to Europe have the unlock while US bound ones don't (initially).

Once the US AWD has 80.8kWh or more enabled, they'll be at over 360 rated miles (about 363 rated miles for 80.8kWh).

The only way this can happen is if they slouched and let the car sit awake without charging

It would be pretty easy to leave a door open and turn on climate control by mistake while doing the charging event. In the end they are only human. I imagine they will redo this for the Performance, since it affects the MPGe a lot. (Note the document gives the AC & DC efficiencies, and the AC efficiencies are scaled & weighted to give the window sticker value.)

We'll know more in a few weeks.

To be clear, with what we know now: I expect SMT in 2021 Model 3 Performance vehicles to read about 79.3kWh when new. (Scaled down version of 80.8kWh, by ratio 78kWh/79.5kWh)

 

[TimothyHW3]

It would be pretty easy to leave a door open and turn on climate control by mistake while doing the charging event

Leaving the door open doesn't change anything, the car is awake during the whole charging process anyways, door open or not... You can confirm this next time you charge via the app - it will load up immediately and not wait and say waking up. It will sleep as soon as the charging process is over.

Leaving the AC on will of course add more kWh, but I doubt they are that dumb.

As for WLTP, I explained the logic - the WLTP range never changed on 2020, it changed on EPA with the more efficient motors.
WLTP increased only by 20km, EPA by about 60km actual test - ergo, no new WLTP, more capacity with 2021, more range automatically

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Leaving the door open doesn't change anything,....

Leaving the AC on will of course add more kWh, but I doubt they are that dumb.

I did say "AND turn on climate control"

Opening the door and having the screen on would decrease efficiency slightly but I think the screen will time out after a while, so yes, as I said, that (leaving the door open) alone would not explain ~3kWh of extra energy.

They're going to redo that test. It's obviously invalid, as you can see from my table.

 

[TimothyHW3]

You don't understand, the door being opened or not doesn't matter. The door in that equation is irrelevant. You can have the door closed and still the AC will continue to run. The car is awake regardless of the door's state...

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

You don't understand, the door being opened or not doesn't matter. The door in that equation is irrelevant. You can have the door closed and still the AC will continue to run. The car is awake regardless of the door's state...

Typically, if the key is not left in the vehicle, when you close the door, the AC will eventually turn off. Even if it is plugged in and charging.

The car has a lot of states. Let's leave it at that. It's certainly possible to set the car in a mode where the AC runs with the door open, and it's also possible to get the AC to run with the door closed, indefinitely.

However, if you don't leave the key in the car, and you close the door, and walk away, unless you've mucked with the settings, the AC will turn off shortly thereafter. And when you open the door it will turn on. It may eventually turn off the AC if the door is left open, I'm not as sure about that - maybe it turns off when the car times out - but it would also depend on the climate setting being used (dog mode, camp mode, etc.). So the door being open or closed certainly matters! But it's certainly not NECESSARY for the door to be open for the AC to be on, nor did I imply that it was.

Why are you quibbling with this?

In any case, obviously they screwed something up, there's no way for us to know what it was (it was not just the door!), and they will fix it.

If this larger discharge value holds, it will be interesting to see whether a new part number appears in the catalog at some point.

 

[TimothyHW3]

And just like that we have the first confirmation of the new battery. This is the supposedly 82kWh one from Panasonic in the US. It also seems to have more capacity locked up as it can regen at 100% (at least according to the owner)

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

And just like that we have the first confirmation of the new battery. This is the supposedly 82kWh one from Panasonic in the US. It also seems to have more capacity locked up as it can regen at 100% (at least according to the owner)

I assume this is from a Performance vehicle, as expected, right? Or is it from an AWD non-P? Will be interesting to see if it is locked out (on an AWD - won’t be locked out on P).

Can you link to the original post you got this from?


But, compare to your first post and early discussion here: this is a new part number. Not the same part number with a different revision. I’m glad you will be able to learn from this how part numbers vs. part revisions work.

was browsing through the catalogue to see any evidence of a new battery for the Model 3 and I found this
1137375-01-N
ASY,HVBAT,75kWh,AWD-RWD,1PH,M3,REMANUFACTURED

Can anyone familiar with the catalogue remember an -N revision of the 75kWh in the catalogue?

Obviously it is, hence the new part revision. Doesn't mean there's anything fundamentally different about it - just normal continuous improvement.

That would have a new part number, not just a new revision to an existing pack.

Of course it has a new part number, didn't you read my post?

No, it isn't a new part number. It is a new revision number. (The part number is the first 10 digits, the revision number is the last letter.)

Going from revision “J” to revision “N” is not a new part number. There are no fundamental changes to this pack like you’re speculating.

Exactly, you have no way of knowing so your strong assumptions that it is not a new more dense battery contradict that.

There's plenty of historical precedent for this. Do your own research. Packs with major revisions, capacity changes, cell changes, etc etc carry completely new part numbers

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

For the AWD 18", no increase in battery capacity was needed to achieve the 353 rated mile EPA range. The EPA test pulled just 78.6kWh from the AWD 18" battery.

The reason for the improvement was about a 4% increase in efficiency (explains the WLTP improvement!!!), and the rest was due to scalar changes most likely.

However, the Performance battery was able to source 80.8kWh of energy. So there MAY be some reserve available for future range increases (which would take the AWD 18" to 370 rated mile range, if they added 5% capacity).

Just" 78.6kWh?! Are you kidding me? just? You know very well that the max we had so far is 77.5 or thereabouts.

If anything this confirms there is more capacity, like I said, should be about 80kWh.

Will know in threeweeks time.

Looks like I was right about this. (As a reminder, “just” 78.6kWh is low - prior years AWD had 79.5kWh in the EPA test, and ~77.5kWh in SMT.) The interesting thing will be to see if any AWD get the larger battery, which will be locked out for now.

 

[TimothyHW3]

Looks like I was right about this. The interesting thing will be to see if any AWD get the larger battery, which will be locked out for now.

No, you weren't, but nice to think you were... It is an AWD LR, non P and it is 82kWh according to papers, but apperantly capped at 77.5 at the moment. Early indications show there is more buffer. Ps delivered with 74.5kWh marked as 77, old 77.8 are marked as 79. Some Ps delivered with 82.

Tesla builds in what they have - the Ps get the LG ones if they run out of Panasonic. The LG ones seem to supercharge way slower and some of them delivered with 2% degradation out of the box.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

No, you weren't, but nice to think you were... It is an AWD LR, non P and it is 82kWh according to papers, but apperantly capped at 77.5 at the moment. Early indications show there is more buffer. Ps delivered with 74.5kWh marked as 77, old 77.8 are marked as 79.

Tesla builds in what they have - the Ps get the LG ones if they run out of. The LG ones seem to supercharge way slower and some of them delivered with 2% degradation out of the box.

I’m talking about (and have always been) the US. So this is not from a US vehicle? Can you reveal the source? Can you describe the early indications that show more buffer? This should be evident from careful observation of the energy screen and trip meter in the car, if the buffer is larger.

The core of my claim (and our dispute) has always been that the EPA 353 rated miles on the AWD will be achieved without an increase in energy. That appears to be right so far. I have always allowed that a locked-out battery is possible (it is always possible!), and that if they ever unlock it (like on the Performance), the EPA rated range will increase to closer to 370 miles.

You claimed that a capacity increase had to be coming, based on the increase in range to 353 miles, and that it could not be due to the heat pump.

 

[TimothyHW3]

I’m glad you will be able to learn from this how part numbers vs. part revisions work.

Thanks for the smug reply, but the number is the same as the old one I will have to check the parts catalogue, but the old one was
1104423-00-N
It had 77.8
This one is
1104423-00-P

So it is just a revision from N to P as expected and predicted.

 

[TimothyHW3]

You claimed that a capacity increase had to be coming, based on the increase in range to 353 miles, and that it could not be due to the heat pump.

Yes, and that is indeed the case as tests show - there is no improvement in range for the motors. There is an improvement in EPA because of the heat pump, I never said anything about that don't twist my words. I only said something about WLTP and indeed the 20km can come from the battery. And as you saw previously the US range is about 545 and no, 8 odd miles is not "basically" the same as 553

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Thanks for the smug reply, but the number is the same as the old one I will have to check the parts catalogue, but the old one was
1104423-00-N
It had 77.8
This one is
1104423-00-P

So it is just a revision from N to P as expected and predicted.

Huh? Now admittedly, I took your word for it and quoted your earlier post...which may have been a mistake. But this is what YOU said:
“was browsing through the catalogue to see any evidence of a new battery for the Model 3 and I found this
1137375-01-N
ASY,HVBAT,75kWh,AWD-RWD,1PH,M3,REMANUFACTURED”

So I assumed that the part number we were comparing to was 1137375.
Is the remanufactured part a different part number than the original part? Or did you not quote the part number correctly? Or are there two different part numbers associated with the battery? What is the source of my confusion here? I guess I just assumed you would be referring to the part number on the battery.

 

[TimothyHW3]

Or did you not quote the part number correctly?

There are probably different for the US and Europe, not sure, but the difference between old and new is N and P. Same number

It seems I could've gotten the wrong part number or the printed one is not the same as the parts catalogue. But it seems there is just an increment of P vs N and M(N was the older revision)
Used Tesla Model 3 Long Range Dual Motor Battery (Hybrid) - 110442300M - Benelux Zwijndrecht B.V.