Tesla Model 3 Gets 80.5 kWh Battery, 258 HP, According To EPA Document


Tesla Model 3

Tesla Model 3 (wallpaper 2,560x)

Preliminary EPA documents appear to reveal some new specs, including battery capacity, for the longer range (310-mile) Tesla Model 3.

Conversion Calculator Shows 80.5 kWh

First up is battery capacity. According to the document, the 310-mile Model 3 has a 230 Ah battery pack with 350 V nominal voltage. Toss those figures into a conversion calculator and you arrive at 80.5 kWh. This figure is likely maximum capacity, not useable, but it’s still higher than expected.

This 80.5 kWh figure has not been verified by Tesla, but given the official nature of the EPA document (see below), we’re rather confident in its accuracy.

We should note that although Tesla CEO Elon Musk previously stated that the Model 3 can’t fit more than 75 kWh of battery, his reference could’ve well been to useable, not max capacity of the pack, so the numbers still fit in with his past statement.

Preliminary EPA Filing Document

Moving on to some other new specs revealed in the document, we see that the RWD version of the 310-mile Model 3 is fitted with a 258 HP, permanent magnet electric motor. It lists a curb weight of 3,837 pounds.

Tesla Model 3 HP And Curb Weight

Attached below is a screen grab of some actual test cycle results from the EPA on the longer range Model 3. No figures have been finalized as of yet, but we think it’s worth sharing nonetheless:

Here’s a link to the EPA filing in PDF form in its entirety.

Hat tip to George Betak!

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

131 Comments on "Tesla Model 3 Gets 80.5 kWh Battery, 258 HP, According To EPA Document"

newest oldest most voted

Which brings the standard battery to 55kwh according to my calculations incl. battery weight.

Expectation is 2/3. (2 of 3 modules).
That makes it 53 2/3kWh.

Time to Gloat:From http://insideevs.com/tesla-model-3-specs/ “Great news that this wheelbase can do 310 miles. 220 and 310 miles mean something like a 55KWh and 80KWh battery size.”

People can judge for themselves, statements like:
The maximum room in Model 3 is for “75KWh”
The Model 3 gets its own motor.
“258HP” motor, that smacks of the “259HP” motor found in each of Model S’s dual motors. Tesla are also calling the motors in the updated “4.1 second” Model S’s different from the old ones. I wouldn’t be so sure of that either.

Having called the above, I’m going to speculate that Model 3 is effectively powered by a configuration not found in Model S, only one motor from the dual (smaller) motor setup, in back. It sure makes sence, maybe with some changes to the inverter, or something else that keeps them marketing a “new” power train. Balanced with much lower weight, that won’t be bad. If they use the same motor when AWD arrive, look out!

You missed a key piece of data – “permanent magnet electric motor”. That’s a first for Tesla, but it’s what the rest of the industry uses.

Yeah, interesting that the battery took 89,400 wh to recharge, and that this is the first “TESLA” to not use a Tesla/Westinghouse – style motor.

Apparently Tesla disagrees with Pushi that the efficiency difference between Synchronous and Asynchronous motors is NOT “practically insignificant”.

Of course, the difference is, the Tesla people know what they are talking about.

Glad to hear Tesla is going with permanent magnet: the only way to compete with the efficiency of the Bolt. I hope it migrates to the S and X.

I actually liked the fact that they don’t use rare earth magnets for a number of reasons.

If anything to use Tesla as an example of a company that uses induction motors as a rebuttal to anti-ev campaigners that use rare earth metals/magnets as one of the boogeymen claims against EVs and their “greenness”.

Westinghouse bankruptcy have anything to do with it?

I don’t think that’s the reason, but an interesting thought nevertheless!

The efficiency difference is like 95% to 97%.
The range will not increase substantially but the heat loss will be much smaller, which means, the motor will have less overheating problems.
Oh, and the PM motor is much smaller and lighter than Asynchronous.

What has Lord Kelvin done to be included so many times in your post?

Dual 258 Hp Motors in a ‘Non High Performance’ – Model 3 ‘D’ at 516 total Hp, but maybe able to only draw 450 Hp from the Battery, would be quite Impressive!

Maybe a ‘High Performance P Model, might be able to access the Full 516 Hp?

What people are missing, is that this exact HP rating of both permanent and inductive AC motors gives Tesla a valuable backward compatibility to being installed into the S and X. Why is this important? City driving.

Its falling-off-the-log easy to predict that the second refresh of the Model S and the first refresh of the Model X will likely use this permanent magnet motor as ONE of the two dual motors, to give them a further boost in range.

What does the actual distance traveled, ~500mi mean? If it can do 500mi on 89kWh battery, that sounds pretty impressive.

Hmmm, well it does appear the document is claiming 495 miles on a charge, but I presume that is not correct for the Model 3, not even with the larger battery pack.

Needs some interpretation by someone who knows more about EPA testing.

This is likely the LA4 metric (now UDDS), which is still used for CARB/ZEV credit compliance.

We can look at similar figures for other vehicles. I think the “84 – Charge Depleting Highway” test is more important, so here’s what I found:

Model S 75: 85.5 kWh, 342 miles
Model S 75D: 84.6 kWh, 358 miles
Model S 100D: 113.2 kWh, 455 miles

Model X 75D: 85.5 kWh, 350 miles
Model X 100D: 116.1 kWh, 415 miles

(the kWh figures are “Recharge Event Energy” figures, so basically from the plug, I think)

It’s interesting to compare both the UDDS and Highway tests with the Bolt:

Model 3: 89.4 kWh, 454.6 miles
Chevy Bolt: 66.5 kWh, 310.6 miles

Model 3: 89.4 kWh, 495.1 miles
Chevy Bolt: 67.4 kWh, 364.4 miles

So with these tests, the Model 3 long range is 9% more efficient than the Bolt on the highway, but only 2% more efficient in the city. The short range version should be a few percent better.

Choose “Certificate Summary Information” as the document type

Mint, it would be a mistake to compare those numbers directly. Because those numbers do not at all correct for aerodynamics, drivetrain and tire drag, etc.

These are the raw dyno numbers, but there is also a “coast-down” test that provides a coefficient that is applied to the raw numbers to predict the effects of aerodynamics, tire drag on asphalt vs. steel rollers, steering alignment induced drag, etc.

The results you posted all have to be adjusted by each car’s “coast-down” test results before you can do any real world comparisons. Otherwise those numbers all assume zero wind resistance, no drag from the non-drive tires at all, roads made of steel with a rounded contact patch, etc, (conditions on a dyno) instead of real world conditions.

I’m pretty sure these results already include the coefficients for aero simulation. You can see it in the section called “Dynamometer Coefficients.”

There’s an explanation of “Target” vs “Set” here:

Warren below posted a Model 3 photo with an EPA sticker: 126 MPGe.

That’s 6% better than the Bolt, which matches perfectly with the 9% hwy and 2% city figures I mentioned above.

So yeah, the data is all apples to apples, and includes dyno settings to emulate drag, rolling resistance, etc.

It makes sense that you’d need the road load coefficients to set up the dyno.

Why do they need such a large adjustment (0.7) to get from dyno to “real world”, though?

I don’t know. I do know that the city cycle is too optimistic and traffic makes me start and stop more, and I generally drive faster than the highway cycle does.

It’s probably true for most people, and that’s why the EPA made the change in testing methods which are roughly equal to that 0.7 factor you speak of.

But that still doesn’t explain why driving similar to tests doesn’t give us as much mileage. Maybe road roughness and bumps and wind is the difference. Who knows…

Seems to me it was a static dynamometer test for full depletion and charging.

I think it means they ran for it on the dyno the equivalent of 500 miles, not that that was the range.

Yeah, I think you’re right. Looks like a dynamo test and not a driving test, and that might explain the extraordinarily long range.

These are raw, unadjusted figures. It ran for 500 miles on a single charge, but that’s one test cycle and the figures aren’t adjusted to account for the real world.

Here is the definition of the EPA’s UDDS test cycle. I think it is basically the city range test: https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/epa-urban-dynamometer-driving-schedule-udds

495 miles seems….otherworldly. From some initial research, the ’13 Leaf got 110 miles on the UDDS cycle (official range of 84), and the ’11 Volt got 42 miles (officially 35).

The long range Model 3 can milk out 495 miles from its 310 mile official range?? That would mean the highway range would have to be around 150 miles to get a 310 overall number….that ain’t right. Lol

Those are the CAFE numbers. If you apply the 55%/45% split and the 0.7 fudge to get combined EPA you end up with something like 315 miles.

It went 454 miles on the highway test cycle (dynanometer testing)

* Range determined by using SAE J1634 Multi-cycle test procedure

That is the actual number of miles traveled on the dyno, without being adjusted for wind resistance or other various drags on vehicles. It does not reflect the real world range.

Each vehicle also gets it’s own coast-down off the dyno on a test track. The results of that coast-down test are then used to adjust the dyno results to real world results.

For comparison, the Bolt gets these results:
Charge Depleting Range (Actual miles)
364.4 (UDDS)

Charge Depleting Range (Actual miles)
310.63 (Highway)

Also way above EPA ratings. Keep in mind that it is meaningless to compare the raw data without first applying the “coast-down” test modifier to the numbers, since each car has their own modifier numbers.

Was there a test report for the smaller 220 mile range battery?

It looks like Tesla is going to be shipping only 300 mile range cars in the first batch, the “mini-S” version at $60. With the EPA documents dates July 2, Tesla should begin selling (vs “delivering”) Model 3’s by September.

“Useable life 150,000 miles”. I wonder if that is a number Tesla has put on TS and TX batteries also? I figured on a $10K battery replacement cost in 10 years. Be nice if that number is down to $5K by that time, 2025 +/-.

Nice part about being patient and waiting for AWD (2019 after delaying purchase) is test results for IIHS should be in by then along with any production issues.

The 300 mile range is going to make the Model 3/AWD hard to beat as the best EV.

The 220 mile battery is not in production. It likely won’t be tested for many, many months.

Many many? Not just many? 😀

It’s August already. And the “standard range” edition should begin production this year. So at *most* four months is “many many”. Isn’t that what they’ve said – this year??

At tesla.com it says production of Model 3 with standard battery starts November of this year.

That $10K replacement figure is probably optimistic. If it is 80KWH and we are lucky enough to hit the highly desired $100/KWH level, that’s $8000 for the cells…thrown in more for the pack, extra hardware, profit, installation etc. and it is easily $10K.

Of course, you might get some payment for turning in your existing pack. If you don’t, it would make a great home battery.

$100/kWh should easily be hit by Tesla within 5 years.

10 years out should be much cheaper.

I think we have found out the EPA hasn’t even tested the short range battery yet so that isn’t going to go on sale just yet. Still could be prior to the end of the year just like Tesla says. And the long range is still being ‘delivered’ not ‘sold’. You can’t sell a vehicle the EPA hasn’t certified. You can ‘deliver’ them I suppose to employees. They are officially test vehicles almost certainly yet. Elon Musk says 150 for August, guessing more employees ‘delivered’ and then September the 1500. I suppose the EPA will have certified by then.

In the big picture it is not terribly important whether the ‘launch’ was vehicles sold or vehicles ‘delivered’. Transparency in Tesla’s statements would help.

Tom, the EPA doesn’t do the testing the majority of the time. They rely upon the car maker to do the testing. The EPA only does their own confirmation tests on about 15% of cars.

These specific tests were done on Tesla’s Fremont dyno.

The EPA has also given Tesla a waiver to allow Tesla to use their provisional data/range numbers for a limited number of sales. These a legally just the same as any other EPA sticker, but Tesla is only allowed a limited number of sales using these window stickers. They are very much making final, legal sales. And with the full approval of the EPA.

The permanent magnet motor is interesting. I would think that almost implies the use of rare earths in the motor, unless there is something in the terminology I don’t understand. Rare earths mean better efficiency at the cost of potential supply problems.

I may not be 100% on this, but, Any type of electric motor assisted by Magnets would be more efficient and more powerful. I recall when ICE starter motors went to magnetic assisted starter motors, the physical size shrunk to less than half as the power doubled and then some. All this was developed through Racing technology before it hit the streets..

You forgot to do everything in ALL CAPS and with lots of exclamation points!!! You must be getting soft. :^)

Yes this means they are using rare earth magnets, probably NdFeB, since that’s the speciality of their supplier.


Yeah, I don’t understand it, either – one of Tesla’s claim to fame is using their namesake’s invention. Very odd to go with the heavier, more polluting perm. mag.

There are a number of things in this data which either don’t appear to make sense to the layman, or else seem to contradict what we thought we knew about the Model 3.

In addition to (as the article says) the battery pack supposedly being larger than Elon said they could fit in, the motor type is indicated as permanent magnet (or actually “permenant [sic] magnet”). Has Tesla really switched from using induction motors?

There are also entries for “Displacement” and “Air aspiration method”, which would apply to ICEngines but not electric motors. Perhaps the entry for “Displacement”, 0.001, is the lowest number the data entry system will allow, but it seems odd it doesn’t allow a “–” (or N/A) entry, since there are other fields directly related to EVs as opposed to ICEVs. And calling an EV motor “naturally aspirated” makes no sense at all.

I hesitate to suggest this document isn’t real, but if it is, then several things need explaining to a layman like me.

Tesla should just release the final, official battery sizes already. What’s the big secret?

Some states (such as Maryland) require the battery size to be given in order to qualify for state EV tax credits. As it currently stand, the Model 3 would be eligible for $0 (out of $3k max) in MD due to no battery specs being announced.

Just as a sidenote: We have seen in the past that Tesla’s stated battery size/model type is often not that close to the actual size of the physical battery.

So the Model 3 long range car could still be called/spec’d as the “75”, there also may be some rounding in this documentation/allowance for degradation, etc.

If we take Average System Voltage (351 V) times Integrated Ampere Hours (221.81 A) we get 77.85 kWh used during the test to charge depletion.

If we look at Recharge Event Energy (at 208 VAC) we see 89.41 kWh.
The ratio: 77.85/89.41 = 0.871, a quite plausible L2 charging efficiency.

I’d say, based on the above, that the total available charge is 77-78 kWh.
That’s from full to depleted – however those terms are defined.

As to the 495mi. range:
Not too surprising if the test regime amounts to Hypermiling – over a charge range amounting to battery torture.

It all hangs together with a “Usable-But-Don’t-Do-It” battery range of 77-78 KWh.
So spec kWh will likely be a bit less than that – maybe with a few kWh of software-imposed top and bottom end buffering.

Are you saying my 2.0 L turbo Audi isn’t exactly 2000 cc?

Don’t look under the hood of your BMW 340i, you will come up .4 liters short based on their old naming conventions….

“Tesla should just release the final, official battery sizes already. What’s the big secret?”

It is some marketing thing. Battery size is obviously an important metric but they don’t want people obsessing over it. You can build a more efficient car by improving the aerodynamics, reducing the weight, reducing rolling resistance, etc. so the battery is not the only factor to be considered.

I think they are dropping the reference to the kWh size of the battery for the exact same reason why the EPA decided to go with MPGe and Energy Star ratings in $$ per year instead of stuff like miles per kilowatt. The EPA has done lengthy focus group studies of US consumers and found that the vast majority of US consumers not only did not know what a kilowatt was (much less a kWh), that they overwhelmingly said they DID NOT WANT TO LEARN what a kilowatt is. The focus groups widely preferred MPG, just like they widely preferred dollars per year ratings on refrigerators instead of actual power consumed. So it totally makes sense that Tesla wants to focus on miles of range. Tesla M3 220 goes 220 mile, the M3 310 goes 310 miles. Easy. Much easier than calling them the M3 57 and M3 78, and then having people ask “so how far will the 57 go compared with the 78?” The answer to “how far” is the critical question, not “how big is the battery”. __________________________________ PS — When asked, a large percent of the study groups also said they didn’t know what “MPG” stood… Read more »

The problem with dollars per year is that electricity rates vary widely depending on where you live and what time you charge.

But I guess people insist on being ignorant.

I suppose the answer for an energy star rated appliance, like a refrigerator, that despite the actual cost being wrong 90% of the time, it will be proportionately wrong when you compare a number of refrigerators.

So if you have one marked $50 bucks/yr, another marked $100/yr, and another marked $150/yr, you know which one will cost the most to operate. Even if the numbers are off by 10 or 20% across the board.

But yea, people want solutions that simplify their lives, even if it means not engaging their brains. And if the masses trying to simplify their life don’t really want to know anything more about their EV than how far can they drive it (whether they ever need to or not), then why not give them that information right up front? M3 220 and M3 310 does that.


FYI, that’s what I’m going to be using from now on, and anybody who loves BMW’s and doesn’t like what I use should complain to BMW that they don’t have a 220 or 310 mile range EV….

I don’t see any negative to the E* ratings at all. It is a more straightforward way of presenting the information. Also, if I recall correctly, the actual usage is also liste don the tag for people who want to know it.

With cars, MPGe makes a lot of sense also, because it allows you to compare directly to the figure that is predominantly in use, MPG. I think they should have put both ratings on the tag though, that way once gas cars are history we can just do away with MPG (e or not).

No doubt the American public is incredibly ignorant, and the fact that people don’t know what a kW is, or a kWh is absurd (don’t they even read their power bill?), but that doesn’t mean that it’s inherently wrong to present things in a way that makes comparisons easier. I’d be annoyed if I had to run the equation myself to convert from m/kWh to MPGe.

“I’d be annoyed if I had to run the equation myself to convert from m/kWh to MPGe.”

That would be annoying. Especially since it requires converting from meters to miles. Unless you meant mi/kWh. 😉

(Sorry. I couldn’t resist the unit error in a post about units.

And the I missed the ending ‘)’ ?

Agreed. The totally illogical stuff like “displacement” actually seems believeable – it is often the case that forms and/or software are illigcal and actually force people to put some bs info in there to get on with their lives!

It could be a similar sort of thing though – maybe there are predefined values for the “motor type” field and there’s only one type of electric motor… It’d be pretty stupid then to further specify it as a permanent magnet motor, but something like this may be the reason it looks so weird.

I don’t believe for a second that Model 3 actually has a permanent magnet motor. The main point of using induction motors in the first place was to avoid the whole rare-Earth materials issue, and you wouldn’t exactly think that would be less important in a volume model..!

My take on the motor is that it is a generic field from the EPA, and some other manufacturer came up with the field, which the EPA could care less about.

I’m surprised too, but the data actually does suggest that the Model 3 has a permanent magnet motor.

The Model S was 1-14% less efficient on the highway than in the city, which is the opposite of every other EV. With good regen, city driving should logically be more efficient (e.g. 16% better in the Bolt, >20% in the i3 and Leaf) due to less drag. But it’s harder to get efficient regen at low speeds with an induction motor than with a PM motor.

The Model 3 data shows that it’s over 10% more efficient on the UDDS test than the highway test. The lower weight 220 mile version should do significantly better in the UDDS test (but only slightly better on the highway because aero is the same), and then the ratio will be similar to the Bolt.

So permanent magnet seems legit. There were rumors about this, too:

Similar to the SepEx motor in my Gizmo, below 10-12 mph regen uses more energy than is produced so it is a net drain on the battery. It still saves my brake pads, however.

The data systems I work on would suggest the feature where when it was built someone said ‘the displacement must be a positive number’ and won’t accept a ‘fat fingered’ negative value or 0 because those aren’t valid displacements. It’s a quality control error handling feature of the form. Rather than change the software, someone said ‘hey let’s just enter 0.001’.

Well, the document is from the official EPA site, so why shouldn’t it be real?

I agree, things like the “naturally aspirated” engine seem stupid. I would guess it is due to the mixture of old and new technology that the system hasn’t fully cought up with yet. Maybe the form asks if the intake is turbocharged and when you click “no” it automatically selects “naturally aspirated” or something.

Regarding the motor: I’m glad they finally switched to synchronous machines. While the induction motor can easily be overloaded, this will improve efficiency and with it lower the need for additional cooling.

Well, I am happy to see you need a “conversion calculator” to perform a multiplication!

Eric buys three lollypops. Each lollipop costs $0.55. Toss those figures into a conversion calculator, and you will find this means the total price comes to $1.65…

It’s embarrassing, really.

Gotta make sure your readers understand how the number was obtained. Not everyone on here is versed in all the conversions.

Some would add 2 + 2….and get TSLA. Lol


/not cool

I’d wager if you ask 100 people on the street how you calculate kWh, not more than 3 could tell you.

And probably over half would go “WTF is a kWh?”

It’s the paradigm people haven’t stepped into, from “gallon”. Then again, we can visualize “a gallon”.

Can somebody from marketing, or perhaps all the car mag editors, please be sure this confusion lasts? /sarc

And WTF is a Terawatt anyway?

A Terawatt is a trillion Watts (10 to the 12th power). Someone is using that term as a post name, instead of using his real name, as many of us do.

Yea, but he’s from Norway, so don’t you have to convert it to metric? Like double it and add 30?


The would know about 1.21 Gigawatts though. 😉

I’d argue that a conversion calculator hides the maths even more.

Just say as V x A = W, V x Ah = Wh. Simple.

In fact the “conversion calculator” is wrong.

It says “The capacity of the battery (in units of power)…” but Wh is a unit of energy, not power.

I’m a seller of conversion calculators. Please don’t try to undermine my business 😉

We have a vast audience. Even more so with the introduction of the Model 3. It’s best to lay it out as simply as possible. It’s not some magical number that comes from nowhere.

Simple would be: 230 Ah x 350 V = 80,500 Wh

I think it should add up to …. 80,500 AhV ? ?

Don’t be a jerk.

WOW GO TESLA GO…all the naysayers and haters can kiss Elon’s Lily white ARSE LOL

Like this guy, building on to my comment to Terawatt right above.


Maybe a fanboi to English converter would be a great idea.

You put in: “WOW GO TESLA GO…all the naysayers and haters can kiss Elon’s Lily white ARSE LOL”

And it shows: “I am pretty impressed by what they achieved here. 80.5kWh in a car with that price tag seemed impossible not too long ago. This looks like a good sign for EVs in general and Tesla specifically.”

Well played sir, well played [golf clap]

I think Tesla is kinda right in that consumers shouldn’t care what size battery the car has. At the end of the day, consumers care about price and range.

And efficiency, and capacity loss, and many other things. I think the figures will be out there anyway, and although capacity is also something that actually varies somewhat depending on how the pack is discharged, it is much closer to being an objective measure than range, which is extremely variable depending on circumstances. On the other hand you’re right that range actually matters a great deal, while capacity is more just an interesting thing to know that doesn’t actually matter (provided the range holds up in practice). The numbers will be out there anyway. I think Tesla might as well publish them as part of the specifications. But I agree they should put the emphasis on range, and it makes sense to stop referring to battery capacity as part of the model name. I also think calling a model “Model ” is pretty silly – this is what Henry Ford did, we’re kinda past it IMO – and doubly so (or good, because now it’s a joke!) when you actually call it “Model X”. I prefer the “code names” Tesla used internally before the cars got badged for the public. Tesla Bluestar was the name of Model 3 not just… Read more »

Then, consumers shouldn’t concern themselves with highly technical ICE car features, like “cylinders”.

KWh are vitally important, even if their cheapening doesn’t jive with the marketing plans. Most come to appreciate the link to range, but total available electric power is also limited, the more KWh you give up.

I missed the “permanent magnet” aspect, but believe that with “80.5KWh and 258HP”, we are looking at a car that will be “motor limited”, not “battery limited”. What’s cool, I’d guess, is the car’s top end, or highway acceleration, is going to be impressive, and not like many other EVs.

“80KWh, in a ~3,800lb car.” I’m still trying to get my head around that.

“KWh are vitally important . . . ”

Agree with that.
Even the less technically literate should know that a kWh is something you get to pay the Electric Company for – at a ¢/kWh rate that’s stated right there on the bill.

(O.K. – so maybe they can puzzle over charging efficiency some other day)

Most people I know have no idea how many cylinders their car has. And they’ve never opened the hood.

Auto enthusiasts != most car buyers.

Pack size matters because it contributes to how long it takes to charge the car (especially at public chargers which are usually 32A at most) and how much it costs to charge the car.

I’m getting a t-shirt with ‘pack size matters’

It’s how you use it.


With the large pack, you can go for hours, then then Supercharge it and go on for a couple more hours.

Wait, we’re still talking about cars, right?

Since I am currently driving a 2012 Leaf SL (imported from the USA) I figured it’d be fun to see how the Model 3 (long range) compares to my current commuting device in terms of power-to-weight ratio.

It doesn’t disappoint, but it is actually a fair bit lower than I would have guessed.

LEAF: 52.6 Watt/kg
Model 3: 110.3 Watt/kg

So Model 3 has 2.1 times as much power per unit mass. That’s a gigantic difference of course, but considering that the top speed of the Tesla is so much higher than that of the LEAF, and the fact both cars have only a single, fixed gear, I actually thought it would be higher. After all the Tesla sprints 0-60 in half the time of the Nissan, and the force on the wheel is basically proportional to the gear ratio (and top speed inversely related to same).

I guess Tesla isn’t pushing the hardware to the max in the 0-60 sprint though – for that, you’ll have to pay for a performance version…

The Nissan Leaf was assembled in the U.S. but the parts were imported from Japan, not the U.S. So it is still a Japanese (foreign) EV. Write back when Ford buys off Nissan, then the Leaf will be “US made”.

More likely Nissan/Renault/Mitsubishi would buy Ford. They are a bigger group and have higher sales 10 million/year vs 5.5 million/year.

Ford would be a tough sell for a car company. Back in 2006/8 Ford went through a debt restructuring where they essentially mortgaged their factories to the hilt.

They went to the big banks in 2006 and eventually got loans for $23.6 Billion dollars using pretty much every asset they owned as collateral. Then they went to the DOE and got another $5.9 Billion in unsecured loans through the ATVM program that Tesla also got their early funding. (That doesn’t even include the $15.9 Billion that Ford got from the Fed Bank to cover bad assets they had on their books.)

Buying Ford also buys all their debts.

You missed a key piece of data – “permanent magnet electric motor”. That’s a first for Tesla, but it’s what the rest of the industry uses.

Assuming 80.5kwh is total energy that puts it at a 5.0Ah 2170 cell which is very do able. However the 150 wh/kg specific energy is lower than i would think.

yes Jake,
I’m surprised no one else commented on that number.

wikipedia lists the 85 kwh pack as 540 kg and the actual kwh’s is 81.5



That works out to 151 wh/kg so the new pack appears to have the same energy density as the 85 kwh pack.

The P100 pack should have higher density than that because the cells are packed tighter.

No surprises there (for me anyway). Although Elon claimed quite a while back that these new cells would have a new and improved energy density (at the cell level not the pack level).

Permanent magnet motor? Are they giving up on induction motors?

GM has developed and used permanent motors for the Sunraycer, for the EV1 (Impact), for the two Volt generations, and for the new Bolt EV, so it isn’t new for GM. maybe Tesla Motors likes GM’s idea and used it.

Oh, I don’t know. As a young company Tesla might have been afraid of supply problems with rare earths, but now that they are at the top of the heap in battery demand they may feel it’s not a problem.

Or, as you said, it may well be a bureaucratic mistake. I expect we’ll find out for certain soon.

That was supposed to be in reply to Terrawatt. I don’t know what happened.

Do rare earths in Model 3 mean Model S&X owners can be like sanctimonious, and stuff? 🙂

See that? Young Hodgy made your Model 3. Help Hodgy. Buy a Model S.


I said 48-49 (but definitely under 60) 4 years ago. Under point 2. Feeling pretty good about my prognosticating now.

Announcing the range but not announcing the capacity publicly seems strange. Perhaps Tesla is still revising design/software and will send amended test results to the EPA?

Considering Tesla S100D has about 5 kWh of reserve capacity, it would make sense that usable 75 kWh and “advertised” 80 kWh. But Tesla always mention capacity including the reserve, so Musk’s 75 kWh figure might’ve meant the full and the EPA / Musk is wrong.

Permanent magnet could also be wrong as well as other “naturally aspirated” things.

We’ll wait and see.

126 MPGe for the long range version.

That is about 6% more efficient than my Bolt. The “55 kWh” version will be a bit better. I am guessing 131 MPGe.

good info warren! My 2012 S is only around 93 or so.

Here’s another interesting tid bit.

The Model 3 charges to 170 miles in 30 minutes.

Tesla has a calculator for the S and if you plug in 170 miles it comes out exactly 30 minutes


Skip to end and there’s a calculator

That’s exactly the same charging speed that Tesla quoted for the Model 3.

However, the M3 should charge FASTER than the model S for the same power simply because it is a more efficient car as you point out.

This leads me to think that Tesla has dialed back on the power for charging in the Model 3.


Because as HVACman pointed out the heat generation in the cell goes up with radius squared while the heat transfer rate only goes up with radius to the first power….in other words the 2170 cells don’t reject heat as well.

How does it break down for city vs highway? Ioniq is 136 combined but 122 highway.

I hope it doesn’t break down in the city or on the highway!

That frunk is bigger than I thought. I heard so many people saying it was tiny. Yeah, it is no Model S sized frunk but it will carry groceries. It’s much bigger than the BMW i3 little bin.

It’s pretty shallow. Still, you could put a lot of groceries on the bottom.

Wait for the AWD version. That really did a number on the frunk in the S. It probably will here too.

Ultimately, I’d rather just see that space used in the trunk

Wow. That’s damn big.

I wish they had an intermediate size. Something like 70KWH.

I’m a little worried about the switch to the permanent magnet electric motor. I guess they have their reasons but now everyone is going to start screaming about rare earth elements, the effects of mining rare earths, etc.

I hope the reasons they used to go with those motors outweigh the bitching & moaning that we are going to start hearing.

Even if it has induction motor (no rare earth) and uses LFP batteries like 2014 SparkEV (no Colbalt, no Nickel), they will find reasons to bitch about EV. No need to pay attention to them, but if you must respond, tell them EV can be rare earth metal free like and Co/Ni free and still be kick-ass cars as demonstrated by Tesla S and SparkEV.

I didn’t know the Spark EV had LFP batteries. That’s pretty cool. But I guess less energy dense & power dense.

Some did, some didn’t. It depends on the model year.

Only 2014 and earlier (was there 2013?) had LFP. They are bit less power dense since peak power is the same as 2015+ that has ~15% smaller battery using NMC. But the current out of the battery is more with 2014 (400 ft-lb torque vs 327 ft-lb in later years), so it’s hard to say how the densities translate.

But even with that, SparkEV with 20.5 kWh LFP makes 140 HP (105 kW). With 80 kWh battery, that would be good for 560 HP, plenty enough for Tesla 3 Ludicrous. To make 258 HP would only need 38 kWh battery. That should shut up any gasser making arguments that Co/Ni is required for kickass EV.

Also they can at least be recycled. Obviously they have to be mined in the first place but it’s not like they get used in one car and then off to the dump.

Ambulator – there is no big mystery in this.

If the Motor is designed with a reduced torque requirement for its size, then the use of rare-earths is reduced, as it is in the BOLT ev. Or, looked another way, many more BOLTs may be produced with the same tonnage of rare earths.

The trade off is one of weight… Since the current ‘3’ has a heavy 80 kwh battery, a few more pounds in the motor isn’t a big deal. Plus the motor generates less heat and a larger motor is more trivially easy to keep cool.

Wow – a permanent magnet motor in a Tesla? That is a surprise, indeed.

If the long range has a ~80kWh pack, then the standard must have a 60kWh? Which then begs the question, how is the Model 3 more efficient than the Bolt EV, but get less range out of a similar battery?

The Bolt is ~60 kWh usable….probably closer to 64 kWh actual.

I calculate 57 kWh (total) just by straight up 220/310 * 80.5. If you factor in a bit of efficiency improvement from lower weight, then it’ll be less than 57kWh.

As Warren notes, the Bolt has ~60kWh usable, so total kWh is actually even higher.

I said that they’d have trouble matching Bolt efficiency in a car that size using AC induction motors (note that I seemingly got the car weight wrong). But I really expected them to just not match the efficiency.

It’ll be interesting to see if Tesla ever says anything about switching technologies.

Anyway, Tesla is learning from the rest of the industry now certainly. Adopting larger format cells and permanent magnets shows they do realize that there are other good ideas in the industry.

I just have to say it’s very impressive how much range Tesla has put into the up-level Model 3. You can say the S 100D is the “range king” still but when this car is less than half the price and goes 90% the distance it really makes this the car that is the range king for most people. The “people’s range king”. Yes, even if the $50K+ price is too high to truly be a car for everyone it’s such an enormous advance.

Range Prince?

Range King and Range California King?

Battery size is completely irrelevant. The average Americans are ignorant dolts and have no idea what it means. What they want to know is how far it will go on a charge and where to charge it, if that much. All almost any driver today what size their fuel tank is and they’ll say, I don’t know, all I know is I can drive from here to there all week on one tank of gas.

All these battery sizes appear to be relevant to engineers and elitist snobs who use size as a status symbol. How big is yours? Lol.

Elon said about 50kWh and about 75kWh in the conference call yesterday.

Now I don’t know who to believe.