Tesla Model 3 Battery Can Transfer Twice The Heat Of Model S P100D


Track data backs up our detailed thermal analysis

In a previous article, we explained in words why the Tesla Model 3 battery cooling was much improved. To summarize that article, the main reasons are better heat transfer between the cells and the cooling tube (because the cells are now glued directly to the cooling tube), more flow capability in the tube, better coverage of the tube on the cell, and fewer cells on each pass of the tube.

Old Model S design=many cells on the cooling tube


Improved Model 3 design=fewer cells on each cooling tube

We also said in that article that our resident heat transfer engineer Keith Ritter was working on a computer model of the Model 3 TMS. Keith has the model done and it puts some numbers to how much better the Model 3 TMS system is than the old Model S P100D TMS. It transfers twice the heat!! Not only that, but if you take a closer look at the track data it backs up the analysis. Also, this improved cooling will allow version 3 Superchargers with higher charging powers and charging rates up to 626 MPH and 157 kW as we explained here.

We estimate the Model 3’s TMS system could maintain the pack’s cells at their design temperature of 45 deg. C, at a charging charge rate of up to 2 C, or about 157 kW. This also closely matches the 450 amp rating of the 3/0 cable between the charging port and the pack.


Track Data backs up our analysis

While the old Model S had severe overheating issues on the track, the Model 3 LR RWD has none and the Model 3 Performance has even less overheating issues. It’s still not perfect but it’s not a track car, it’s a street car.

320 HP M3 LR RWD does many laps at Laguna Seca (2.2 miles) with no overheating issues

From Teslarati:

“Perhaps even more notable, however, was that the Model 3 was able to complete its laps without running into any overheating issues similar to those exhibited by early Model S’ when driven hard on the track for extended periods of time. According to Cameron, he was able to complete a total of 15 laps around the track during the entire day without any issues.”

450 HP M3 Performance does Lime rock without overheating for 3 or 4 hard (1.5-mile) laps (lime rock is a faster course than Laguna Seca)

From Road and Track:

“Fine, fine, so the thing can drift. What about the batteries?

At full speed, each lap of the 1.5-mile circuit burned up about nine miles of battery range during our testing.

 Heat buildup is inevitable. After three or four laps at absolute tire-torturing full speed, the car begins to reduce power output. It’s a balanced, gradual event.”

We calculate average power=140 kW. Note this is an AVERAGE power. It is only presented to point out that the Model 3 Performance car was putting out MORE power than Teslarati’s Model S at Laguna Seca (described below) with minimal issues while Teslarati’s Model S had severe power limitation on a track that requires LESS power.

Teslarati #48 Model S suffers severe power limitation at Laguna Seca

From Teslarati:

“This is not the best track for the Tesla Model S. Power limitation due to overheating was rather severe, to a point where it would not even accelerate uphill at full throttle after turn 6.

The track was heavy on power consumption, a little higher than usual, probably due to significant elevation changes. Power consumption was 1350 watts/mile. While on most tracks we used 4 rated miles per 1 actual mile driven, on this track it ended up being 5.5 rated miles per 1 actual mile driven. It also explains why power limitation was more severe.”

We calculate average power=90-117 kW


Detailed findings and methodology

We used data from our team member Scott Fauque’s Model X 100D in our analysis. Scott has data acquisition on his car via “Scan my Tesla” and “Teslafi”. These two apps allowed us to access all the battery temperatures, plus other data we needed for our analysis.

Data from Model X 100D

Once we had a model of the X 100D, we then made modifications to that model to simulate the Model 3. We scaled down the battery internal resistance because of the larger 2170 cells. We also reduced the internal resistance 10% more to account for improvements in the new 2170 cell design.

Internal resistance is a key issue in the TMS design. Heat is a function of the square of the current so any heat rejection issues get compounded very fast when we start cranking up charging power and/or running on the track.


Here’s more detail on the model results:

Total pack cell-to-cooling tube contact surface area:

Model 3 = 30,600 sq. cm

Model S = 27,200 sq. cm

Model 3 has 10% more heat transfer contact area


Thermal conductance factor between cell and glycol in the tube:

Model 3 = 0.15 W/sq. cm/ deg. K

Model S = 0.075 W/sq. cm/deg. K

Model 3 has twice the conductance capacity per sq. cm of the Model S because of the Model 3 tubes’ thin, thermally-conductive adhesive between the cell and tube wall as compared to the Model S tubes’ thick silicone thermal pad. 


Total ability to remove heat at equal temperature differences:

Model 3 = 4,700 W/deg. K

Model S = 2,000 W/deg. K

With both more contact surface area and a higher conductance factor, the Model 3’s cooling tube system can conduct 2.3x as much heat from the pack as the Model S. 

Pack cooling glycol flow capacity through the cooling tube system:

Model 3 = 35 liters/minute

Model S = 19 liters/minute

Model 3’s glycol system can deliver almost twice as much glycol to the tubes and transfer twice as much heat away from the pack as the Model S’s glycol system. This is because the Model 3 pack has more cooling tubes flowing glycol in parallel and each tube has a larger cross-sectional area to allow more flow as well as a shorter length, which reduces the pressure drop and pump energy.

Stay tuned. There are a lot more interesting discoveries to come. Most notably, our speculation on what Porsche will do to get the Taycan to outperform Tesla on the track without overheating……and perhaps implications for the 2020 Tesla Roadster.


*This article was researched and completed as a collaboration with Keith Ritter (HVACman) and Scott Fauque (scottf200)

Thanks for reading our articles.

George, Keith, and Scott


33 photos
2. Tesla Model 3
Range: 310 miles; 136/123 mpg-e. Still maintaining a long waiting list as production ramps up slowly, the new compact Tesla Model 3 sedan is a smaller and cheaper, but no less stylish, alternative, to the fledgling automaker’s popular Model S. This estimate is for a Model 3 with the “optional” (at $9,000) long-range battery, which is as of this writing still the only configuration available. The standard battery, which is expected to become available later in 2018, is estimated to run for 220 miles on a charge. Tesla Model 3 charge port (U.S.) Tesla Model 3 front seats Tesla Model 3 at Atascadero, CA Supercharging station (via Mark F!) Tesla Model 3 Tesla Model 3 The Tesla Model 3 is not hiding anymore! Tesla Model 3 (Image Credit: Tom Moloughney/InsideEVs) Tesla Model 3 Inside the Tesla Model 3 Tesla Model 3 rear seats Tesla Model 3 Road Trip arrives in Tallahassee Tesla Model 3 charges in Tallahassee, trunk open.


Tesla Model 3 Performance - Dual Motor Badge
10 photos
Tesla Model 3 Performance Tesla Model 3 Performance Tesla Model 3 Performance Tesla Model 3 Performance - Midnight Silver Tarmac Motion (wallpaper 2,560x – click to enlarge) Tesla Model 3 Performance - White Interior - Wide Tesla Model 3 Performance - White Interior - Touchscreen

Categories: Battery Tech, Tesla

Tags: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

76 Comments on "Tesla Model 3 Battery Can Transfer Twice The Heat Of Model S P100D"

newest oldest most voted

Regarding the Road & Track Quote: “At full speed, each lap of the 1.5-mile circuit burned up about nine miles of battery range… After three or four laps at absolute tire-torturing full speed, the car begins to reduce power output. It’s a balanced, gradual event.”

They then said it only affected lap time by a couple seconds with no further reduced power if you run it till the battery is empty.. or with a short break it would be back to full power.

This is why I feel the Performance Model 3 will perform very well compared to the more expensive competitors like the iPace and others coming soon (those CUVs are equivalent to the Model 3 size, just hatchbacks & slightly higher off the ground). I wouldn’t be surprised if it outperforms the Taycan.

Everything you say is theory, but only the I-Pace has gone 12 laps on a 2.9 mile track in Portugal as hard as the driver could push it with no power reduction… He did report brake fade though… Said he hit max speed on the front straightaway every lap, just before entering the corner. From the C and D report sounds like Model 3 is good for a lap or two on a nearly 3 mile track before it starts giving up..

Link to the 12 lap test? The Jaguar press reveal reviews seemed to be much shorter track stints, a few laps at most.

Until independent tests are done – not manufacturer-supported tests such as the R&T Model 3 test at Lime Rock or the Motor Trend I-PACE test at Laguna Seca – this is all somewhat speculative.

Yes, Jaguar was giving guys lessons in an F-Type, and then 3 laps in the I-Pace in Portugal, BTW 3 laps nearly 9 miles, where the model 3 overheated after half that distance, on a flatter, and easier track. Some drivers asked Jaguar for more laps, and were allowed. Most of the time during the event the temperatures were over 80 degrees, and sometimes over 90 degrees adding more challenge.

The I-Pace accelerates way slower than the Performance Model 3. I suspect the reduce power output mode of the Performance Model 3 still leaves it accelerating faster than the I-Pace.

I-Pace accelerates much slower then the Model X P100D also, but going around the track the I-Pace will beat the Tesla, every time… I-Pace just has more advanced engineering, simple as that…

Remember how we already told you to get the facts first, then post? You are still doing it wrong.

I have a hard time understanding why I need to keep posting the same thing, we know the I-Pace set a 4 door Stock BEV track record at Laguna Seca last week, Many S & X have been run on this track multiple times, but have not been faster then that record, and even a modified model 3 LR was slower.

So you will finally quit blowing smoke once a Performance Model 3 with amateur driver beats the iPace record with a PRO driver? or then you will go on about a new performance iPace coming out…

If Model 3 P takes the record (as I expect it will) then it is the record holder until beaten… I have no axe to grind, if Tesla sets the record with a confirmed to be stock car, its theirs, and I will cheer for them. For now however it is Jaguars record, plain and simple…

why no pro driver for a Tesla? the comments on that even say a Model S beat that time too.

That Model S P100D had aftermarket tires… Stock means stock… Whats amazing is the Model S P 100D is more aerodynamic, and has almost twice the power of the Jag, it should be a no brainer, but Jag’s superior engineering made the difference on the track. Tesla should put a race driver in the car, and see what it can do…

It might be superior engineering, but the goals are different. The S and X were not engineered for the track – they were engineered to be the daily driver and road-tripper, for which they both perform spectacularly (and do not overheat).

If Tesla set out to make a track burner, they can, and apparently, they might have with the P3D, and most likely with the upcoming Roadster, now that they see how people are actually using their vehicles (drag racing, etc.).

Tesla calls the “P” 100D models performance…. Jaguar did not engineer the I-Pace for the track, they just set the limitations in power, etc at a level they can cool with 100% duty cycle. Tesla could turn down their cars and do the same thing, although I think they would then be slow… Tesla is willing to take risks, and run their motors, inverters, and batteries harder then anyone else, but there is a penalty doing that when it come to anything more then a quick sprint to 60. Jaguar tested the I-Pace on the track in hot weather for hours as a time as part of their validation program, they wanted it to drive and perform like a Jaguar should.

Watch this from 13:00 to see durability and track testing…

Aftermarket tires are still considered stock as long as it is street legal tires. The P100D is a full sized sedan while the jag is a tiny CUV, you can’t compare the two.

Why not compare the ipace vs electric motorcycles while you are at it.

“I have a hard time understanding why I need to keep posting the same thing…”

Everybody else is wondering why you (or anyone) would think there is some “need” for anti-Tesla fake news to be posted at InsideEVs.

Can’t believe you don’t know the diff between a model 3 and an X.

Or was it a bait and switch?

Why would I take my time to look up a video when you address me with such a rude reply, go find it yourself… Yes, I am serious…

As noted below, in an excerpt from Porsche CEO, “[The Taycan] can accelerate ten times from 0 to 100 km / h or four times from 0 to 200 km / h, before the car switches to an emergency-saving program.”

It is logical to assume that the I-Pace will have a similar failing. Until there is an actual test of the I-Pace (not for just two laps), your statement is without any support.

“From the C and D report sounds like Model 3 is good for a lap or two on a nearly 3 mile track before it starts giving up..”

(A) Your anti-Tesla propaganda here is wildly contrary to fact. Very slightly reducing acceleration, by only 2-3 seconds per lap, then maintaining that level, isn’t “giving up”.

(B) We’ll never know how the I-Pace would do when pushed to the Model 3 Performance’s top speed of 155 MPH, now will we? Because the I-Pace is limited to 124 MPH.

It’s pretty amusing to see you make dozens or even hundreds of posts insisting the I-Pace has “better” track performance than the Model 3, when the jury is still very much out on the question. So, would the Model 3 also be “better” if it was limited to a lower top speed? 🙄

Thanks for keeping us entertained (altho not informed) with your antics, Mr. “Green”.

Will be interesting to see how all this plays in if the Model 3 ever “officially” gets a hitch (and tow rating). {I thought Elon said it was going to get a hitch, .. way back when}

Does the Model X (which does have a tow rating) have added display(s) that let you see the battery temperature while towing? ….. or a way to let you know the expected time (increased, I would presume) to charge at the next supercharger stop on a cross country towing journey?

I think it dynamically adjusts the time at each waypoint (supercharger) when traveling a long distance using the recent Wh/mi history. So if you just hook up a trailer one weekend you will initially have underestimated charging times at your waypoints (supercharger) then it will adjust. That is my recollection.

Is there any recent info on the model 3 tow rating? Didn’t here anything about it for months while it would be a very nice feature.

There isn’t any news about any tow rating for the Model 3, and it’s almost certain there isn’t going to be. Unfortunately one of the Usual Suspects* here isn’t able to let go of the issue.

I think it likely that the Model Y will have a tow package. But it’s not reasonable to think Tesla is going to re-engineer the TM3 to be tow rated.

*Steven Loveday said there have been complaints about me using the term “Usual Suspects”. As I’ve said at least twice, I started using that as a wry term indicating those who regularly post to InsideEVs… myself included. Others have chosen to use it as a pejorative, but I never meant it to be taken that way. For those who think it’s an insult, I suggest (A) watch the movie “Casablanca” sometime, and (B) try not to take yourself — or my comments — so seriously!

> I thought Elon said it was going to get a hitch, .. way back when

He did.


Considering speed limits while towing, I suspect actual power consumption is lower than going at top speed without towing? So I wouldn’t expect any overheating issues…

“I thought Elon said it was going to get a hitch, .. way back when”

I think he did once, or at least suggested it might.

Sometimes plans change at Tesla, just as they do in your life and mine.

Thanks for an excellent article. I didn’t know cooling demands rise with the square of the current. Perhaps this is why the newest Roadster 2.0 prototype recently added little “air scoops” on the front of the car, to draw in fresh cool air, necessary at high speeds. The new Tesla Semi truck will also need large improvements to cooling, to pull big loads up hills without burning out its power train.

This is one of the reasons Porsche is running at 800V instead of 400V. Power equals voltage times current squared. So power loss across a resistance drops by 1/2 if you double the voltage and reduce current by 1/2.

“Power equals voltage times current squared.”

Hmmm.. No.

Terrible Tim the complication is that you just double the resistance so the inefficiency is the same. Lets say you have 2 battery blocks, and the equivalent series resistance is one ohm in each. Lets say they are 10 volt blocks. In parallel (10 volt operation), the loss at 2 amperes total (20 watt charging rate) is 1 watt per block or 2 watts.

Now lets rearrange the same 2 blocks in series for 20 volt system operation at a 1 amp charging rate (again, a 20 watt rate). Now, in each block we still have 1 * 1 * 1 or 1 watt per block or 2 watts total loss – in other words no change.

Likewise, there is no change at the batteries depending on whether we hook up identical battery blocks for 400 or 800 volt operation. Like MMF implied. Power equals voltage times current.

EG. A 120 volt light bulb drawing 1/2 ampere is using 60 watts.

This is pretty basic stuff Tim.

“I didn’t know cooling demands rise with the square of the current”

Power goes up with square of current. P= V*I = R*I^2 Higher the power, the more heat generated.

I’m curious if the thermal management will translate to less battery degradation over the long term. If the battery can transfer/manage heat better I would think that it would extend battery life.

It is unlikely the battery cooling has any impact on the Model 3’s ability to do laps at the test track without overheating.

The problem with the Model S was that the inverter and the motor were on the same cooling loop. Inverters tend to go into a limp mode if the temp exceeds 80C while motors often operate in the 140-160C range quite comfortably. Bad marriage. The motor winds up HEATING the inverter and in the case of track days, over heating it.

In the Model 3, the motor and inverter have rather parallel cooling loops through the use of a dual heat exchanger mounted on the motor. That’s most likely the solution to the track day malaise.

Jack Rickard

This is very good news for all the Tesla owners who take their cars to the track. Must be dozens of them.

About Porsches cooling capabilities we know:

The Taycan can accelerate at full speed 0-100 km/h 10x or 0-200 km/h 4x.
0-100 km/h in 3,5 and 0-200 km/h in 12 Seconds.
Then it will reduce power.

Greetings from Europe 🙂

You don’t have anything to back up your claim. Why you invent things that you don’t know nothing about?

If you can read German and has ever heard of Oliver Blume, maybe it helps 🙂
His words from April 2018 in Vienna.


I did extract the important sentence extra for you!

“Und Porsche-Chef Oliver Blume beteuert, der neue Mission E fahre sich wie ein echter Sportwagen. Auf Nachfrage von Motoren-Koryphäe Friedrich Indra muss er präzisieren: Man könne damit zehnmal von 0 auf 100 km/h oder viermal von 0 auf 200 km/h hochbeschleunigen, bevor das Auto in ein Not-Sparprogramm umschaltet. ”

Jason, please tell me now, what do you think ?

I think that you are absolutely right! Nice find. I had never seen that article before even though I follow EV news quite intensively.

I must say I am a bit disappointed that there is a limit Taycan can take. Luckily solid-state batteries can make those restrictions to go away.

For me this ‘Not-Sparprogramm’ sounds like a German eufemism for ‘emergency backup system’ or ‘basically the car is dead’.

“And Porsche CEO Oliver Blume assures that the new Mission E is like a real sports car. At the request of engine luminary Friedrich Indra he must specify: It can accelerate ten times from 0 to 100 km / h or four times from 0 to 200 km / h, before the car switches to an emergency-saving program. “

Who cares really, nobody uses this type of cars like that. Porsche does have some interesting charging specs though, that even the improved Tesla battery will not be able to match. Of course it doesn’t have the charging infrastructure in place yet for it to be much good for its customers for years to come.

Even 0-60 in under 4 seconds will not go very far in making up for the time wasted at 50KW chargers.

Exactly. Gotta be able to charge it conveniently.

There was an article in a solar publication about a new thermal transfer fluid developed that has 15 times the heat carrying capacity of just about anything else. Glycol has less heat capacity than water. This new fluid could probably cool batteries and electronics with a lot less flow. I do not know much about it such as whether it is freeze-proof or fire-resistant but it is being used in solar applications.

“Solar applications” along with “thermal transfer fluid” surely means solar-thermal plants. (More often called CSP, “Concentrating Solar Power”, though that’s more ambivalent.) These plants, like all other thermal plants, operate at several hundred degrees Celsius. Most likely the “new fluid” they are talking about is some sort of molten salt. Doesn’t apply to cooling applications at all.

The article on this fluid indicated it was a new invention of the 3M company. I do not know for certain yet but molten salt is not their specialty.

IIRC 3M does make a special electrically non-conductive cooling fluid, that can be used for immersed battery cells, like those used by Kreisel Electric. I don’t see how that would be connected to solar, though?…

Is 3M Novec the fluid you are talking about? Here’s their web page: https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/novec-us/applications/immersion-cooling-of-power-electronics/

Sound like 🙂

I am extremely doubtful of a claim for a fluid with “15 times the heat carrying capacity of just about anything else.” 15x better than ordinary plain water, really? I wouldn’t even believe 1.5x better than water, since water has a higher specific heat than just about anything else.

Nope. Ammonia is much better, but its temperature dependent.

After leaving a condenser, Liquid ammonia is about 15% higher Cp than water, but at 238 deg F liquid ammonia is 61% higher Cp than water. But I’ll give you brownie points for being able to spell Specific Heat. Now if you could only learn how to read Fig. 1 in this article, where George calls the 85 kwh ‘s’ a ‘poor design’.

I seriously doubt that is true in any practical sense, at least for the application under discussion. A random Google hit says “Ammonia is only better than water at really high pressures, 50–100 bars or more.”

I’m pretty sure that EVs don’t run their cooling systems at 50+ bars of pressure… and they’re not going to. 😉

More importantly, water also has an exceptionally high heat of vaporization, which ammonia does not, and that is highly relevant to using water in cooling systems.

As is usually the case, Bill, you have a lot of technical knowledge, but seem almost completely unable to figure out how it applies to the real world.

A few years back, prior to the Model S, Tesla patented a method of generating electricity with air turbines supplied from the laminar flow of a vehicle. A professor at Purdue University has done studies on this and calculated a truck can recover half of its propulsion power from using airflow turbines. I am wondering why Tesla has not done this on their truck. Who would complain about 50% more mileage?

Highly improbable and mostly physic defying claim.

That would be the perpetual motion breakthrought that all lunatics are dreaming about!

Yup. That reads very much like the suggestion — from those who don’t understand basic physics, nor understand why perpetual motion is impossible — that one should mount wind turbines on the surface of a car to recover the energy used to push the car down the road, thus allowing the car to be driven with no power input.

And I’m quite certain Tesla never submitted any such patent application. You can easily find, with just a bit of Google-fu, a list of all Tesla’s patents.

I read about the patent submission for this application in this newsletter. The newsletter had a different name then and it primarily covered the Volt and the Leaf. It does not appear in the archives for this publication. Perhaps there is someone with Inside EV’s that can locate this article.

By the way who said anything about putting the turbines on top of the vehicle? The professor who did this study used air vents and turbines inside the truck. He did not claim to recover all of the power required to propel the truck just half.


This has been the obvious way to design a heat exchanger for more than half a century.

Ha! George it is interesting that you guys NOW call the Model “S” cooling system a ‘poor’ design, whereas the ‘3’ is similar to what the volt and bolt have, that of parallel flows of coolant. I frankly can’t make a big deal about this as you guys seem to want to make it, since all they’d need to get the temperature of the cells at the end of the “S” to be a little cooler would be a bigger coolant pump, and to lower the incoming temperature of the glycol.

You guys used the claim this ‘poor’ design was much superior to the Volt and Bolt, yet the Bolt outlasted an S during performance testing – the S having to take a break yet the Bolt could keep on truckin’.

What test was that?

It might be somewhat similar in principle to the Volt battery cooling, but not the Bolt. The coolant channels do not run in between the cells for that car. There was an article posted here just yesterday that details this.

The Model S cooling system isn’t a poor design. It just wasn’t designed for track use. For normal street driving and Supercharging, it was well designed for the charging c-rate that their earlier NCA cells can handle.

Argue the point with George then… His words not mine.

The article doesn’t call it “poor” design. That’s your own interpretation.

Also, IIRC the Bolt doesn’t actually have parallel coolant lines? But frankly, that’s not even a relevant comparison, considering the completely different overall design.

(Also, I very much doubt a Bolt outlasted a Model S at the same speed…)

Hey CHIEF – read the caption on the “S” 85 kwh. Its pictures – he calls it a ‘poor design’. George’s words not mine.

Its not ‘my interpretation’. And tell me why I should care what a person doubts or doesn’t doubt from someone who can’t read plain english?

Well yeah, I guess I skipped that caption, since I’ve seen the slide before. My bad.

The slide was originally made when comparing the earlier Model S modules to the newer ones though, and that’s what the “poor design” was referring to. So your claim that they are calling the Model S design poor only now is also wrong.

But thanks for the ad hominem. That clearly proves your unsourced claim must automatically be valid…

“You guys used the claim this ‘poor’ design was much superior to the Volt and Bolt…”

This is factually incorrect.

See George Bower’s article, from Dec. 2015: “Tesla or GM: Who Has The Best Battery Thermal Management?”


And please ignore some persistent comments, posted to that article by somebody named “Pushmi-Pullyu”, asserting that George came to his conclusion with insufficient evidence. Not exactly Pushy’s finest hour! 😳

(At that time I had a fundamental misunderstanding about how the Volt cooling system works. Furthermore, George’s various articles on the subject have made his expertise on the subject pretty clear.)

Naw Pushi you are dreaming again. George calls the “S” 85 kwh battery cooling a ‘poor design’ right in this article. Jeez can’t anyone read anymore? Not you pushi, I’d never accuse you of being able to do that, I just mean some of the others here. I’m factually correct – not that facts matter to you.

So, when someone points out you are wrong on your facts, you just ignore that and keep restating your debunked argument?

Does that ever work for you, dude?

Looking at the coolant for Model 3 diagram it seems that they could still double the cooling easily.
It would take just adding coolant lines between the cells where there are none yet, effectively having coolant lines on both sides of each cell.

This would probably allow even faster charging at “low” 45ºC, possibly double the indicated in the article, making it 4C or around 300kwh.

Adding coolant on top (and possibly bottom) could even increase it more.

If by 2020 they do not yet have a new battery type (possibly solid state battery), something similar to this should be the solution for the new Tesla Roadster 2020 so it can ultra fast charge (competitively with Taycan) and also go on the track and do as many laps as one wants (here’s to hope).

Adding more coolant lines adds weight and volume; so it’s extremely unlikely they’d do it in their mainstream vehicles. It might be an option for the Roadster I guess… But then again, if maximal cooling is preferred over minimal weight, the best design is probably using immersed cells, like Kreisel Electric is doing.

“Stay tuned. There are a lot more interesting discoveries to come… Thanks for reading our articles.”

I say Thank YOU, George and Keith — and now Scott — for your detailed, deep dive analyses of Tesla engineering! I guessed just from the title of the article that this was going to be another from George and Keith; always some of the most interesting and informative articles to be seen on InsideEVs.

I always wondered why the cooling loops in the Model S were so long, and it’s interesting that Tesla has significantly shortened those loops in the Model 3. This certainly does help explain why the Performance Model 3 does so much better in its “Track mode” than the Model S does when pushed to perform on a racetrack!

“…and each tube has a larger cross-sectional area to allow more flow”

Obviously that will also improve heat transfer, and therefore cooling ability.

And now I can’t wait to we see how much better the Model S/X do when Tesla switches them over to the new batteries.

Yeah, after the Model 3 (particularly the P3D), the Model S and X need to justify the extent of their premium $$$ over the Model 3. At least on paper, there’s no point in buying a Model S, at all. A maxed-out P3D goes for $80k and goes 0-60 in less than 3.5s with superior handling and cooling, and comparable range, to the P100D priced over $120k!

The current base model (long range RWD), the range is 350 mi according to Consumer Report’s road test, re-tested with the normal regen setting.

I’m going to get a test drive of a 3 sometime in October – but as long as I can fit comfortably and like the feel and visibility, then I’ll finally be able to order one in Fall 2019, before the last of the tax credit expires.

> While the old Model S had severe overheating issues on the track, the Model 3 LR RWD has none and the Model 3 Performance has even less overheating issues. It’s still not perfect but it’s not a track car, it’s a street car.

How exactly is less than “none” overheating issues “still not perfect”..?

I’m sure Model 3 is a huge improvement over the S, and I have no reason to doubt your claim that the Performance version is better still. But just dump the hyperbole, please. It leads to silliness like the above.

Apart from that, thanks for an interesting exploration of the M3 (and S) battery pack design.

Could the performance modifying community improve the Model 3 performance with the following upgrades:
* Larger Glycol reservoir
* Bigger Glycol pump for higher liters/minute
* More radiators to reject heat from the Glycol

I’m excited to see speed shops figure out how to improve electric cars for track use