Optional 72 Amp Charger Available On Tesla Model X

2 years ago by Eric Loveday 74

Tesla Model X

Tesla Model X

Initially it was thought that perhaps the Tesla Model X wouldn’t be offered with an onboard charger of over 48 amps, but it’s now been confirmed that an optional 72 amp onboard charger is available through a hidden ordering screen.

Why hide the higher power option? Well, it seems Tesla doesn’t believe it’s totally necessary at this point and would rather Model X buyers outfit their cars with the cheaper 48 amp charger instead.

Tesla’s statement:

“We are still recommending the 48-amp AC charger so we hid the High Amperage Charger Upgrade option.”

Here’s the hidden screen, which can be accessed by typing charger in while in the Model X Design Studio:

Optional 72 Amp Charger For Model X

Optional 72 Amp Charger For Model X

The difference between 48 amp and 72 amp charger is significant, so $1,000 seems rather cheap if indeed you require the additional charging speed.

Here is the current EPA disclosure/details on the Model X:

EPA Rating For Tesla Model X

EPA Rating For Tesla Model X

Source: Tesla Motors Forum, Tesla Motors ClubHybridCars

Tags: , , , , ,

74 responses to "Optional 72 Amp Charger Available On Tesla Model X"

  1. Bill Howland says:

    Ok so is the charge rate 40, 48, 72, and 80?

    What do you do to get the 80 amp EPA CERTIFIED charge rate if the largest charger available is 72 amps?

    Or is 40 standard, 48 and 72 optional, and a factory installed 80 amp epa certified dual-charger option available on the X as the S?

    Since the cars are almost identical, I suppose it would be too much to assume they’d just use the stuff from the S.

    Again, neither Tesla nor the blurb states what is standard, and what is optional, nor the rationale for any of it.

    Of course, I’m assuming this is for NA Teslas. How many arbitrary changes are they going to make for “Type 2” Teslas?

    Why leave something alone when you can arbitrarily change it?

    1. Robb Stark says:

      The Model S comes with a standard 40 amp charger and you can get a second 40 amp charger installed at your local service center for a total of 80 amps.

      The Model X comes with a standard 48 amp charger or you can upgrade your order before the build to a 72 amp charger for $1k. You can’t add or replace the charger later at the Tesla service center. At least not in the immediate future.

      1. Bill Howland says:

        You nor any other commenter as of 9pm EST 14 DEC 2015 added any info to what was written.

        Let me approach it this way: Assume I’ve just put down $130k for an X with NO charger options. What precisely do I receive other than a car with 4 tires, and what exactly are its specs (hint, the charger is part of the car and tires package so I’m asking about something else).

        1. Dave K. says:

          An EV charger is a continuous load, so the circuit feeding it must be derated to 80%, hence they(chargers) are often referred to by the circuit size, an 80A circuit can only supply 72A, a 60A 48, ect. Hope this helps.

          1. Ken says:

            You are correct. Except 80 percent of 80 amps is 64 amps not 72. 80 percent of 90 amps would be 72 amps. The original question posed i believe is why does the model S come with dual chargers (80 amp or 20kw) but the X can only be ordered with a 72 amp charger? What happened to the 8 amps?

          2. Bill Howland says:

            “An 80 amp ciruit can only supppy 72 amp’
            ..
            Doesn’t sound like the piece of hardware purchased and EXTERNAL to the car, – in other words not remotely related to my question.

    2. mr. M says:

      To get a 80A charger for the model x you need to be the EPA.

      No really, i think the vehicle is allowed by the EPA to charge with up to 80A. The numbers of 48A and 72A indicate a modular design with 12A base. And 7*12=84 is not possible because the charge port is only 80A certified. That is my assumption.

    3. R.S says:

      Its not really an arbitrary change. They had a 40 amp charger before, it consisted of 4 10 amp units. Now they improved the units to 12 amps. The base charger has now 48 amps, but the cable, or the plug or something else might be limited to 80 amps. So if they would add a second charger you would not be able to charge with 96 amps, even if you wanted to. So they came up with a new charger that consists of 6 units, which adds up to 72 amps. The upside of all that is cost savings. The 12 amp charger is exactly as expensive to produce as the 10 amp charger was. So you’ll end up with faster charging, for no extra money. The downside is that exactly 80 amps isn’t possible anymore, so you get 10% less charging speed, but for 25% less cost, so thats something, I guess.

      1. Ken says:

        That makes the most sense. Can we update the original article to include this info. I knew about the twin 40 amp chargers but had no idea that it was made up of 8 10 amp units. And now they are 12 amp “stackable” units. Makes perfect sense. Im just curious, where did you find this info? Because the rest of us havent been able to find the specifics.

      2. Bill Howland says:

        “Made of 4 – 10 amp units”

        Proof?

  2. MikeG says:

    This is an interesting development. It states in the Model X vehicle design studio, that the high current charger is only available when the car is ordered and not available as an upgrade.

    That contrasts with the Model S, where the 2nd charger was available at initial configuration or as an update by the service center. Then they dropped the factory config and made the 2nd charger an upgrade-only option.

    1. Bill Howland says:

      Quite obviously the S was available with one or two chargers, whereas the X is available with a different charger, OR optionally a different charger 50% larger.
      Why on such similiar cars? Maybe they’re on sale, or else there is only room for ONE device period in the X.

      1. scottf200 says:

        Haha … no room for a second charger after adding the China filter.

  3. Mike I says:

    The hidden High Amperage Charger option is a serious problem. If you don’t see this story or frequent TMC, you won’t know it’s available and you won’t be able to get it retrofitted. Tesla should just make it visible and let people make an informed decision.

  4. Speculawyer says:

    That might give some utilities heartburn. If a few neighbors get Model X cars and 80 amp chargers, I could see more transformers blowing.

    I suspect many more utilities are going to start charging ‘demand charges’ to residential customers.

    1. MikeG says:

      No and no.

      No transformers are going to blow from people using 80A chargers. BTW, the Model S can be configured with dual chargers since it came out and haven’t heard problems about that.

      Finally, implementing demand charges for 80A for 19.2kW usage will impact a lot of non-EV homeowners who use resistive heating to heat a moderate-sized home.

      1. Bill Howland says:

        DEAD WRONG. That is far too generalized a statement to be universally true.

        One utility by me uses a 10 kva pole transformer to run 8 homes, most with electric cooking and most with central air conditioning.

        A dual-charger S added to the existing load on the 1st of August would definitely blow this transformer, or else if not, blow its primary fusing.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Good grief, Bill. Utilities have to upgrade neighborhood power feeds all the time. They would have to do the same if there were a couple of new houses built and added to the system, or even if a couple of older houses upgraded their central breaker panel to newer, higher amp units.

          When you post this kind of biased FUD, it simply makes you look like you have some kind of axe to grind against Tesla. It’s neither informative nor entertaining.

          1. Speculawyer says:

            But his point still stands. Yes, they can upgrade the transformers. However, they are not going to be happy about it because it costs them money and they might not get paid back for it.

            And they have to know about the increased current draws. If a few neighbors quietly buy Model X cars and start drawing lots of power, the local pole transformer could blow before the utility even knew there was an issue.

            So it is definitely a problem that can be solved . . . but the utilities really need to be on the ball as more EVs are sold.

          2. Bill Howland says:

            Tesla isn’t the problem.

            Most utilities want to know when either the equivalent of a 3 hp load (or if 3 phase, a 10 hp load), is added by a customer, and the main way to do that is either telephone or letter.

            Customers rarely do that. Unless their particular utility penalizes them.

            But that’s not my point.

          3. Bill Howland says:

            You are calling my post FUD? Are you going back to insulting someone who knows what he is talking about? What is FUD anyway, its not in my Funk & Wagnels..

            Try to give a response without being insulting and try to include something besides banal drivel in it. Or don’t you understand the problem at hand?

      2. Bill Howland says:

        More misinformation. NYSEG (NYState Electric & Gas) – to get the lower time-of-day electric heat rates must:

        1). Confirm they have electric heating equipment no more than 110% of the heat loss of the house at a 70 deg F rise. They must have the heat loss of the house ‘certified’ before getting the discount rate.

        2). There must be no other ‘heat sources’ for the house other than electricity, so ‘water furnaces’ or heat pumps are allowed as long as the total electric draw never exceeds point 1).

        In case this needs fleshing out, it means that if a house has 100,000 btu heat loss at 0degrees F while maintaining a 70 deg F insside temp, then 32,230 watts is the maximum TOTAL simultaneous heating equipment allowed.

        Now my utility doesn’t have this restriction, but their rates are so high almost no one in their right mind has elec heat, in their franchise.

        So spectaculawyer was indirectly correct on both points.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Speculawyer

      “I suspect many more utilities are going to start charging ‘demand charges’ to residential customers.”

      That’s looking at it from a rather negative viewpoint. What you’re calling residential “demand charges” would be more properly described as Time Of Use (TOU) adjusted rates. It’s to be expected that as we move closer to a “smart grid”, with more connectivity between the home and the utility, that rate structures will become more complex and more oriented towards charging more during high demand periods.

      The positive side of that is that it encourages home owners to schedule use of appliances with high power draw, such as electric clothes dryers and EV charging, during off-peak hours.

      http://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/22/are-demand-charges-the-next-big-thing-in-residential-electricity-rates/

      1. DavidCary says:

        I thought he was talking about demand charges. Certainly TOU helps but in some areas of the country with some kinds of heat, TOU might not even help.

        I have a coop that listed their peak power draw and it was a winter morning at 5:55. Interestingly, my TOU rate in a nearby house ends the off peak at 6am. So TOU gets a little tricky with electric heat and a/c needs.

        In my primary residence, I have TOU-D with demand charges. But to your point, the demand only matters in the peak time. But when EV uptake speeds up, it may make sense to charge for demand even in the off peak. Another option would be for odd/even houses to have different off peak times (or superoff peak).

        You do have to watch these things. If you look at Australia, they have a TOU induced midnight peak.

        I do think the number of houses that use electric heat at 30 kw is pretty small. But in the SE, where winters are mild and electric rates are low, it happens. Even if they use heat pumps, they have electric backup. Those backups all run at 4-8 am in the winter. So the TOU for EVs would have to take that into account.

        I already have varying TOU times for winter and summer. EVs might tweak the times soon enough. Because right now, my incentive is to draw 60A between 4 and 6 AM (Model S and Leaf).

      2. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

        No, he means demand charges. There are some places with residential demand charges.

        Demand charges are about the infrastructure cost of peak demand.

        I’d welcome demand charges, if it cut the per-kWh cost. I have TOU delivery and shift my power use to off-peak where I can.

        1. Speculawyer says:

          I think there is one place with residential demand charges. In Arizona. But utilities are now heavily looking at demand charges for residences due to solar PV and EV uptake.

        2. Speculawyer says:

          “I’d welcome demand charges, if it cut the per-kWh cost.”

          Demand charges certainly could be interesting. It would be bad if the dissuaded people from buying EVs. But perhaps EVs need to start having programmable charging profiles so people can tell them to slow charge overnight in order to avoid demand charges.

          And demand chargers could greatly increase the demand for residential battery systems to avoid demand charges. This would help the battery market mature and push down battery prices.

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            “And demand chargers could greatly increase the demand for residential battery systems to avoid demand charges. This would help the battery market mature and push down battery prices.”

            Exactly!

            That is when the Tesla Powerwall would really take off…

      3. Speculawyer says:

        As the two other posters pointed out . . . I did indeed mean ‘demand charges’. Charges for the maximum Amps you draw.

        1. Bill Howland says:

          Yeah, he’s a waste of bandwidth. Criticizing someone then the one time he adds a bit of detail “TOU same as DC”; showing he’s clueless as far as this discussion is concerned.

          If he doesn’t know what is being discussed, he shouldn’t start off with an insult, because then he wastes even more bandwidth and server space.

          In other news Spec, I found the New Bolt will have a 7.2 kw charger, and supposedly standard CCS. No further charging options. I don’t have any more detail on the 7.2 kw charger, but the CCS feature is pretty robust since it has be stated how fast the car will ultimately charge.

          1. Speculawyer says:

            Glad the Bolt will have a 7.2KW charger. And CCS was expected as that is the standard GM is committed to support.

            But the other day I realize why GM has been lazy about supporting the Bolt with a charging infrastructure . . . perhaps they feel that is LG Chem’s job. This Bolt is largely an LG Chem Bolt so perhaps GM feels that LG Chem should spearhead an initiative to install SAE-CCS chargers? I dunno . . . someone better start doing it because people are going to buy the Model 3 instead since it has a good DC charging infrastructure.

            1. Bill Howland says:

              I suspect GM just wants to concentrate on making great EV’s. While others here I’m sure will disagree, to me that is plenty enough.

              When Bob Lutz worked for GM he said many accused them of being ‘in bed’ with oil companies, when really, they will try to make any source the car-buying-public wants.

              I think GM has lived up to that premise by making a fine, ultra-reliable, high-value PHEV, (the Volt), which primarily CAN run on electric power (and, in the majority of cases, infact does), with a proven high-efficiency gasoline backup/cold weather cabin heater.

              They are now about to release a 320 km (at least) BOLT with a decent 7.2 kw charger, as well as(at this point in time), the supposed North American CCS standard.

              I can’t fault GM for that decision. The vast majority of level 2 chargers in the states seem to be no more than 6 – 7 kw, and the BOLT will allow customers to fully exploit their usage of existing infrastructure while in public if they have to pay for it, and, whatever 25 and 50 kw or larger CCS chargers that are installed by others in the field.

              At home, many BOLT buyers will already have a 30 amp charger, but if not, its the most popular size for home installations for a relatively low installed cost. But, customers aren’t required to make these arrangements if they are just occassional drivers and the 120 volt recepticle is adequate.

              They are not trying to fully service all ramifications of EV’s, and leave some tasks to others. They also seem to be making the car ‘fit in’ to the current, and near-future infrastructure. I’m sure I’d do exactly the same thing.

    3. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

      If you want a new 240V 100A circuit you’ll be upgrading your service, which means that the utility will know about it, and they’ll upgrade the local transformer if necessary.

      In fact, it’s a good idea to tell the utility know if you’re adding _any_ 240V charging if there is a chance that you need to charge while you’re at your normal peak load. In many places homes do not reach anywhere near their maximum load, so the local transformers might be undersized.

      1. Bill Howland says:

        No, I know of 2 real-life cases where there was no notification.

        One was a doctor who had an upscale house with a 150 amp service who added a 100 amp circuit for a dual charger tesla.

        The second case was a small house with an existing 200 amp service and a 100 amp circuit was added without calling the utlity.

        My initial example was extreme, but that was just to illustrate the real-life point.

    4. Just because the car has the ability to charge at 80A doesn’t mean the owner has to (or will) install an EVSE capable of delivering 80A. In fact I can’t imagine why anyone would need to (outside of some tiny % of commuters). Even my lowly 30A EVSE for my Leaf delivers 7.2kW to a Model S (I’ve had 3 owners find my shared plug on PlugShare and come by [since my town doesn’t have any public EVSEs], so have verified sustained draw). Given about 75 – 80 kWh needed for a complete charge for a Model S, and even they could fully recharge overnight. No need to install an 80A unit.

    1. Anon says:

      Solar Panels suck up the sun, just like cameras suck up your soul!

      It’s TRUE! I read it on the internet…

    2. Aaron says:

      So, what you’re saying is that some of the posters on this site live in Woodland, North Carolina? 😉

    3. Mister G says:

      They must be conservatives in Woodland north Carolina

  5. Caveat Emptor says:

    Also note that the Model S can no longer be ordered with dual chargers from the design studio. There is no easter egg on the studio site either for the Model S, it is only available on the Model X. They are only offering the standard 48 amp charger. Online Chat went silent when I asked the question. I then went into a store where I was told “You must specifically request the 72 amp charger between when the vehicle is ordered and when it is confirmed”. No more upgrades.

  6. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    So, if I understand this correctly, the upgraded onboard charger would only allow faster charging when using a typical DC “fast charger”; it would make no difference in home/work charging (Level 1 or Level 2), nor a difference when using a Supercharger.

    And everyone commenting here who said the electric utilities would to have to upgrade residential neighborhood transformers if someone used the upgraded charger… needs to read the article more closely.

    1. Ambulator says:

      I don’t think it’s for DC charging at all. Just high amperage AC charging.

    2. Bone says:

      72 A is for hardwired AC EVSE. They state that charge rates with 110 V and 220 V outlets is unaffected simply because there is no common household outlet type that could safely be used up to 72 A.

      DC chargers are not onboard.

    3. DavidCary says:

      Wow – I am a little surprised by that.

      Given your interest level, I would of thought you would understand the difference between on board chargers and ac/dc charging.

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        You are right. But I am not surprised.

        He has the right attitude and generally favor a balanced approach with EV and he is an EV supporter. (Despite I pick on him all the time, I actually like EV supporters, just not extremist).

        But in general, he lacks of technical understanding in many area. But he is learning or I hope.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        DavidCary said:

        “Given your interest level, I would of thought you would understand the difference between on board chargers and ac/dc charging.”

        Well, I’m certainly no electrical engineer. I’ve learned a lot about the subject, on an amateur level, from participating for years in the EEStory forum, but much of the technical stuff is over my head and, frankly, outside my area of interest.

        Yes, I do know that DC charging of a BEV bypasses the onboard charger… if that’s what you mean. But if my understanding is correct, then regardless of what kind of EVSE you have in your garage, the rate of charge your PEV can accept from an AC source is limited by the onboard charger. Is that not correct?

        The disclaimer from Tesla quoted in the article clearly says “Charge rates when connected to 110 volt outlets, 220 volt outlets… will be unaffected”.

        Generally speaking, 110 volt and 220 volt outlets should be all that anybody uses for home charging. Various comments here are either ignoring that, or they have the premise that what this disclaimer states is flatly not true.

        1. Ambulator says:

          Not ‘not true’, just slightly misleading. You don’t plug a 72 amp EVSE into any outlet that I’ve ever heard of, although maybe you can in Europe.

          I found Bone’s explanation to be informative.

        2. ModernMarvelFan says:

          “Generally speaking, 110 volt and 220 volt outlets should be all that anybody uses for home charging. Various comments here are either ignoring that, or they have the premise that what this disclaimer states is flatly not true.”

          You don’t plug in high powered EVSE into an outlet. They are fixed installation of EVSE.

          Those portable type of EVSE that allow you to plug in an outlet is limited by the plug type which pre-determine the amount of current that EVSE can draw. EVSE then tells the car the max amount of current it can draw.

          Technically speaking, it is 120V and 240V.

          The 120V can either supply 12A (out of 15A socket) or 16A (out of 20A socket). So that is the max that a car can draw.

          So, the Tesla disclaimer is correct. But they aren’t the same as those fixed installation of EVSE which can have wires/conduits support much higher current than the typical 120V/240V plugs. The typical higher power 240V outlets max out at 50A or 60A. That is a max steady current of 40A/48A (80% derating) which is lower than the max EVSE or onboard charger can handle. Thus, a fixed installation of EVSE can support up to 72A (90A setup) which is the limit of the onboard charger.

    4. ModernMarvelFan says:

      PuPu Wrote:

      “So, if I understand this correctly,”

      No, you didn’t as usual… LOL

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        MMF, most of us are here to learn, and to share what we know with others. Sadly, MMF, you appear to be here only to score points.

        I welcome anyone correcting me when I’m wrong, because that’s how I learn. That is, when I am actually wrong… and you clearly have a great deal of difficulty in determining that, since probably over 90% of your many attempts to “correct” me merely show your ignorance of a wide variety of subjects.

        You, sadly, regard anyone correcting you as a personal attack, and so you never will admit to even being wrong, let alone learning from it.

        How sad for you.

        1. ModernMarvelFan says:

          PuPu said,

          “MMF, most of us are here to learn, and to share what we know with others. Sadly, MMF, you appear to be here only to score points.”

          Apparently, I only really have problems with only couple of you here. Most of other people can manage stay on topic without getting personal.

          As I have explained before, if you don’t attack, I won’t attack either. It is often your tone or your way of holding on something false that ticks me off. I admit that I have done my shares of “unfair” flaming. But usually I don’t start the fire, but I would certainly pour it on.

          As I explained before, if you keep it civil, so will I.

          “I welcome anyone correcting me when I’m wrong, because that’s how I learn. That is, when I am actually wrong… and you clearly have a great deal of difficulty in determining that, since probably over 90% of your many attempts to “correct” me merely show your ignorance of a wide variety of subjects. ”

          I guess you have to resort to attack again. *sigh*. You just don’t get it do you?

          Do we need to revist the transmission topic again as an example to illustrate how you won’t even admit it when you are wrong.

          “You, sadly, regard anyone correcting you as a personal attack, and so you never will admit to even being wrong, let alone learning from it.”

          That is not true. I will admit it when I am wrong. There is way of illustrating it or conveying that without calling people names which you can’t manage to do.

          Plenty of other peoples here have disagreement with me over times without ever getting to the point that insults are thrown. Maybe you should follow other people’s thread and see how that disagreement is handled.

          “How sad for you.”

          LOL. I still waiting for you to explain to me about how complex an 4-5-6-7-8-9 speed transmission is compared with Voltec.

          1. mr. M says:

            Hasn’t the volt a speed transmission as any other car, except that there is a electric motor added on one side..?

  7. Model s guy says:

    Looking at battery degradation, cars with 80 amp dual chargers seem to degrade the battery faster over years. Maybe that is the reason for cancelling the option. Long term battery wear is increased.

    1. DavidCary says:

      Source? There has never been demonstrated increased degradation by 80A charging

    2. jelloslug says:

      No.

    3. ModernMarvelFan says:

      “Looking at battery degradation, cars with 80 amp dual chargers seem to degrade the battery faster over years. Maybe that is the reason for cancelling the option. Long term battery wear is increased.”

      That is just FUD. Can you provide any studies or links to show that.

      80A on 240V is only 19.2kW. That is 0.225 C charging rate which is just fine.

  8. Loboc says:

    It looks like this 72amp charger is a single unit as compared to the Model S dual 40s. 72amps would need a 100amp circuit (20% safety factor). Sounds like a separate meter is needed to accomplish that in residential power.

    1. DavidCary says:

      I realize I am overposting to this thread but the misinformation is over the top.

      My house has 400A service. I could add a 100A circuit without upgrading a panel.

      Needing a separate meter? Maybe in some places but that is not the norm. Needing a new panel is pretty common. Even an upgraded feed from the utility. But that still isn’t a separate meter.

      People like the 80A for destination charging and in areas of the country where public level 2s go that high. So there is an argument for it even if you live in an older house.

      I didn’t go for it for obvious $$ reasons. But I did find out that there is a restaurant with 80A charging in an area I like to travel to with no superchargers or even Chademo. (Boone NC)

      1. Aaron says:

        Is that Makoto’s Japanese Steak House & Sushi Bar? If not, please add that restaurant to PlugShare.

      2. Speculawyer says:

        But you need to realize that you are NOT the typical house. 400Amp is extremely rare. 200Amps is probably typical for today but older houses have 100Amp service. My previous house had 60 Amp service!

        And although people can upgrade their service and do things properly, the utility needs to keep close tabs on what people are doing and keep the pole transformers properly suited. If a bunch of neighbors all bump up their demands and the utility does not upgrade the local pole transformer, it can blow.

        Many transformers were designed to operate kinda hot but then they cool off at night with the cooler temps and low night demand. But if you have a few EVs drawing heavy current at night, that is just not going to work.

        1. ModernMarvelFan says:

          I agree with what you said and I think your concern is true.

          However, I think at least in Northern California or PG&E service area, PG&E gets a notice when an EV is purchased for a given neighborhood. PG&E called me after I purchased my PEV (within 1 week) to ask me about my plan (rate and charging time). I don’t know if they still do that anymore. The representative from the PG&E told me that the state requires dealers to send a notice to PG&E informing them about the purchase so they can arrange for needed infrastructure upgrade if necessary. (I don’t know if that is true and I haven’t verified it independently but that is what he said after I asked him how he found out about my EV purchase).

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            ModernMarvelFan said:

            “The representative from the PG&E told me that the state requires dealers to send a notice to PG&E informing them about the purchase so they can arrange for needed infrastructure upgrade if necessary.”

            Sounds like a good plan. I know that even several years ago, electric utilities were already making plans to deal with the upsurge in residential electricity demand from EV charging. This might well be one result of planning on their part.

            1. ModernMarvelFan says:

              Yes that would be a “common sense” thing to do for both the State of CA, PG&E, dealers and PUC.

              But often the so called “common sense” are not so common among those parties listed above.

        2. Bill Howland says:

          In my area, there are only a very few homes with 400 amp services, although many with 300’s.

          But some non-electric people see 2-200 amp fuses and call that 400 amps. I trust that is not the case here.

          In any even t , in my area with all 3 electric utilites, 400 is the largest they will provide on a single residential – rate service. Anything larger is usually forced to being commercial, although they will allow 200 amp 3 phase services as billed residential.

          As a fairness issue, I’m against that policy, but that’s not the issue here.

  9. Priusmaniac says:

    72 amp without the number of phases and the voltage doesn’t give much information.

    1. Matt says:

      Really? It’s pretty well understood that AC charging in the US is single phase, 240V (or 208V in many commercial situations).

      1. kosee says:

        Not everybody lives in the US…

        Also I don’t see the problem with 20kw AC as the zoe can do this as well… blowing neighbourhood transformers sounds like they were due for a new one..

        I also think the article should say what this means in KW. This is the measure of power that’s being used among everyone except EV fans and electricians. Let’s keep it simple so we can all understand the story please.

      2. Priusmaniac says:

        72 Amp at 240 v, is 17 KW. In Belgium and most of Europe, the Model S comes with an AC charging at 32 Amp but triphased 400 v that is, which makes 22 KW, still 5 KW more. However most charge at only 16 Amp triphased 400 v for 11 KW, the equivalent of 48 Amp at single phase 240 v.

      3. ModernMarvelFan says:

        Priusmaniac does have a point.

        I have found that many of the US “commerical” installation is only 208V (just tapping off 2 phase off the 3 phase transformer for easy installation) would actually give me a slower charging speed than the full 240V split phase system at residential or commercial full 240V lines.

        208V compared with 240V is more than 10% lower in total power…

        1. Bill Howland says:

          I must have posted 50 times about the same issue , but then the 200 – 400 volt / single – 3 phase issue has been the same unchanged for the past 100 years, and the car charging slowness is even WORSE in practice than at first blush.

    2. Bill Howland says:

      Well I’ve taken criticism from some here, and others have given obvious info, but none have answered my question so I’ll attempt to answer it myself, since I’ve just found out that the Tesla info is not totally out in the open.

      1). Apparently the 48 or 72 amp X will get the old 40 amp UMC as always – THAT part will be unchanged.

      1A). for priusmaniac. All the foregoing assumes 200-240 volt single phase (2 wire), which is ‘earthed’ by you but not here other than in ‘grounded “B” ‘ or sometimes called ‘Corner grounded’ services.

      What is standard for you PM is obsolete here, and that in no way implies that your 230Y/400 is old-fashioned, since most of the world uses it. BUt this discussion has been all 2 wire only.

      2). I’m told by Canadian friends that UMC’s there now run at 32 amps; 40 in the states. Of course, to head off a response, I’m aware about the progressive derating. The above is what I was told. When I was in mississauga years ago now, the UMC was at that time 40 amps.

      3). As mentioned above, the BOLT will only come as CCS equiped, 7.2 kw L2 compatible charger. No further details at this time.

  10. Seth says:

    So why hasn’t the us upgraded to 3 phase at this point, that would make things quite a lot easier on the cables and fuses.

    NL has 400 volt 3 phase, and a 25A grid breaker is the default. So a single 3×16 feed would give you 11kW charging, not too shabby. If you use SmartEVSE you can use current clamps on your grid connection to throttle the car back too.

    There are quite a few NL Tesla owners in NL that employ these charge solutions.

    Basically the US grid hasn’t scaled to meet demands from all sorts of users.

    1. Bill Howland says:

      Seth, Europe and North America have always differred in 3 irreconcileable points:

      1). Freq: 50 vs 60 – (they did agree on 25 and 40 hz, but those are ancient history and are no longer used except for electric trains).

      2). Voltage to earth: 120 in NA, 240 in Europe. This is viewed as a safety issue here.

      3). THe demarcation point between 3 phase and single phase taps: NA uses single phase residential and very small commercial, since only 1 distribution wire need be insulated, protected from lightning, fused, etc, and also the transformers are cheaper.

      4). UK has a mix in residential areas, but most European countries apparently have 3 phase to the larger homes.

      Before criticizing the NA way , keep in mind historically NA rates were much lower than Europe.
      And the old fashioned light bulbs were more efficient, but that advantage is moot.

  11. Model s guy says:

    Search Tesla motors forum about durability of battery tests done by owners. You will find battery degradation seems to be much bigger with cars that have dual chargers. Do not know why, my observation.