Fastned: Production Tesla Model 3 Charges At Up To 125 kW

FEB 8 2019 BY MARK KANE 37

About 125 kW, this is what you can expect between 10% to almost 50% SOC in a Model 3.

Fastned just released charging power results of the production Tesla Model 3, registered at one of its 175 kW stations.

The chart reveals that the European Model 3, with CCS Combo (Type 2) inlet, can take roughly 125 kW between about 10% and about 48% state-of-charge (SOC). The peak is little above 125 kW, but let’s round it to 125 kW.

The results are similar to the first report on a 117 kW at IONITY fast charger.

The power is much lower at the beginning of the charging process though (at SOC lower than 10%).

Before 50% it also begins to decrease to about 85 kW by around 60%, and then decreases further (but more slowly) to 50 kW at over 75%. 25 kW is still possible up to about 85-90%.

Overall, Tesla Model 3 offers decent charging speed (probably the best in its price range/market segment for the near future), but for sure it’s not as high as in the case of the Audi e-tron.

Categories: Charging, Tesla

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

37 Comments on "Fastned: Production Tesla Model 3 Charges At Up To 125 kW"

newest oldest most voted

Does Model 3 add more range per min than E-Tron? Lower charging power but it’s more efficient?

Between 10 and 60 % SOC Model 3 clearly adds more range per minute than e-tron quattro. This charging window gives Model 3 in approx. 20 minutes the same range (280 km WLDC) as a 10 to 80 % charging window on e-tron quattro in 26 minutes.

Except that probably nobody does it. 50% of battery is not enough range from one charger to the other as they aren’t that many. People pay 8000$ extra for the long range because they want to use it.

What?
Life is not about jumping from charger to charger. I have supercharged 20 times probably. I think 1 of those was over 60% (or over 20 minutes).
I am not patient, I am not kind, I do envy….
Example – roadtrip to camping. Roundtrip is 300 miles. No charging at campground. My 70D has 225 on a full charge. I needed 125 miles for comfort. I actually charged a bit on the way there – 8 min and then 10 min on the way back. Reststop.
My wife went to our beach house Thursday. 300 mile RT. She was only there for a few hours so didn’t get many miles. Stopped by SC for 10 min on the way back.
I could go on and on as most of my trips are in the 300 mile range so I typically need a 50-100 mile bump.
As far as chargers. If I head West – there is a charger at 50, 80 and 167 miles away. So the biggest leg is 87 miles which is a 10 min bump at lower SOC. If I head east it is 90 and 130 miles. The North and South are similar.

This is a misconception, on a long distance multi charge trip, if you charge to 60% (186 miles) with a Model 3 LR you would have to charge to 84% to get the same range with a mythical Model 3 Standard. Notice when you do this you hit the taper much worse on the Standard, and due to smaller battery it charges slower (instead of 120 kW it will be more like 80 kW). Double whammy.

If you pay extra for the LR model you especially take advantage of it for long distance multi supercharger stops charging to 60%. The Model 3 Standard isn’t really suitable for long distance travel without added inconvenience.

Using trip calculators you will see fastest method of long range travel is using LR model operated around 10-60% SoC, superchargers are spaced for this.

Click on :
https://supercharge.info/map
Then set range to 100 miles.
Now, on far upper left, you will see map options. Turn on range circles.
What do you see?

Yeah, nearly every SC has another SC within 100 miles.

I will say,that it were me, I would take it up to 150 MPC, not 100.

What is WLDC? Do you mean WLTP (Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure)?

People aren’t looking to pack KWh per minute, like they want miles (or Km). Good point.

If it’s about how quickly you want to be on your way again, Model 3 is probably faster. In many conditions, it gets 4 miles per KWh (250Wh per mile). Videos, like Bjorn’s, show over 300 watt-hours/km, during his eTron review. It’s not good when one car does better Wh per mile, than another does Wh per Km.

1 Km = .625 mile.

Let’s make some calculations:
https://youtu.be/VABvS9zfuiI
This video shows us that model 3 takes about 1h45min to charge from 0 to 100%.
While we don’t have a video for the E-Tron, we have this graph
https://i.postimg.cc/Xq7JfB9n/Audi-e-tron-charging-session-e1545161934275.jpg
So the E-tron charges from 0 to 100 in about 50 minutes plus let’s say 10 minutes for start and the last 1%.
The real world average range for tm3 lr is about 280 miles and for E-Tron 220 miles.
280/105=2.66 miles per charging minute for Tesla Model3
220/60=3.66 miles per charging minute for the E-Tron.
Assuming that I did some errors, the results could differ but not by much, I think.

Why would we want to compare the Model 3 and E-tron? Two completely different vehicles. Audi’s charging session is the fastest and you’ll be on your way quickly. Sure the Model 3 is more efficient, but is that a surprise for a relatively small vehicle compared to a luxury bohemoth? The biggest downside of the Model 3 is the aggressive slow down beyond 50%, which is somewhat annoying when you want to fast charge above 50%. The Audi is much better at this.

Audi’s charging session is the fastest. Says who? That is just wrong – the answer may be that it depends….
Lets compare the Model S and the E-tron then. The Model S is still more efficient and will add miles at similar speed despite a lower peak KWH. But the Model S is an older design so the comparable of new is fair. I believe the Model 3 is actually quite close in size to the E tron.

Should probably compare it to a Model X since that is a SUV like car. But Model X is a bit larger though.. maybe Model Y would be a better comparison. That will/should have newer tech since it will come 2-3 years after the Audi.
But then again. . The most important thing is more EVs on the streets.

Tell you what.
i will wager that if it is faster past 50% that E-Trons will have the exact same issues as older leafs.
IOW, they will burn out their batteries VERY QUICKLY.

One thing I am certain of, is that Tesla has the best tech and knows how to get the most out of the batteries.
Even now, their batteries are cheaper and the MS and M3 are lower costs than any other car maker.

Audi appears to have traded some range for faster charging. Tesla’s method of choosing most energy dense battery is probably most cost effective as the max range number is probably going to sell more cars than charging rate.

Tesla has been too focussed on 0-60 times and AP, there has been no real improvement of charging speed for the past few years. Charging speed is going to be selling point. Audi has raised the bar significantly.

again, what will you back that up with?

Nobody in their right mind charges to 100% at a charger stop though — making this comparison rather irrelevant.

I got a quite for way to work and can’t charge there. Currently I don’t have an EV. But even the long range battery of a Model 3 would be quite empty when I come back home, especially in winter. And there’re people who don’t have like a garage for their car, they have to find some place at the street. So somebody who has to drive as far as I do have to use public chargers for charging to 100% over night or he doesn’t have reserves if charging at the next day is somehow a problem…

notting

“charge from 0 to 100%”

If you are fast charging past 80% you are doing it wrong. So I’m not sure what the value is of even talking about 0-100 numbers.

It is like driving around in reverse and saying which car is more efficient driving 300 miles in reverse gear. Mildly interesting to armchair quarterbacks, but ultimately pointless for the vast majority who use high speed charging the way it was intended to be used.

FYI — Tesla has already announced the next gen of superchargers is on the way. By the time Audi has sold a significant enough number of E-Trons to actually be considered competition, the charging rate comparison will have changed yet again.

It looks good to me. I am looking forward to seeing Model Y coming with a CCS port in US.

not me.
I want to stay with tesla port in the US. We can get an adapter. The fact is, that Tesla has a great network going and it will take GOOD CCS development (and so far, only idiots have ran the CCS implementation), over 10 years AT BEST, to accomplish the same.

Great video on FastNed: Fastned EV Chargers | Fully Charged
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-7iu6ZeGuE

Some things that went right, and some things that went wrong with Teslas at Tesloop:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hGVljyQQJY

“The power is much lower at the beginning of the charging process though (at SOC lower than 10%).”

I wonder what the battery temp was at this point in the graph? It could be battery temp related limitation vs. an SOC limitation? I don’t have any inside information on this, so to be clear I’m not saying it is one or the other.

I don’t know either, but I agree with your theory. It would be interesting to see if the charging started at say 20%, would it still be slow for a little while. Probably?

That’s what I was thinking. Or on the flip-side, that if the battery were warm that the spike wouldn’t have been as drastic. We do know that Tesla’s (and other EV’s) are sensitive to battery temp when they charge. It is just hard to put together all the variables without more hard data.

The lower speed at the beginning is probably just the charger ramping up. This 3 probably charged 10-50% in < 15 minutes, so the “low power” portion is about or less than a minute.

Model 3 MR can charge 10-50% in about 13 minutes at Supercharger v2, so there’s a little more to come – LR should be able to hit 140+ kW on a sufficiently large charger.

@promotech – On what basis do you come up with your 140 KW figure? The consensus online seems to be that model 3 LR will be able to charge at 175 KW on a v3 supercharger. Do you think that is unrealistic? Apparently the limitation is the thickness of the cable from the charge port to the battery, otherwise it would theorhetically be capable of handling 210 KW.

Despite the precipitous drop after less than 50% SOC Model 3 apparently still charges to 80% in 30-35 minutes according to a Cleantechnica article on this same Fastned report. That would actually be better than Model S/X that would take 40 minutes to 80%.

This video shows 43 minutes 0-80% for model 3. That is on Tesla’s SuperChargers. Maybe on other chargers it is a little faster.
https://youtu.be/VABvS9zfuiI

With experience, the majority of the time, the most important aspect of charging is miles per minute at low SOC%.
Most of the time, you are not driving cross country, you just need a little bump. With experience and lots of available chargers, you will start charging in the 5-20% SOC every single time. And you will not charge over 80% every single time – most times less than 50%.

Lots of interesting points in the discussions below. I think the sum is that the M3 has a good charging cycle, but that it is appareant that Audi has a better. That means there are improvement opportunities for Tesla!

Ummm… The Tesla model 3 was charged at a CCS 150kW charger? How exactly? Is there an adapter somewhere for CCS?

It’s a 175 kW charger at a Fastned station.

Fastned 175 KW charger in Europe, where Model 3 come standard with a CCS port and supercharger stalls are being converted to dual plug (Tesla SC and CCS).