You Think The Tesla Model 3 Supercharges Fast Now? Just Wait …

Silver Tesla Model 3 charging


We are estimating 626 miles per hour charging speeds on Gen 3 Superchargers for the first half of the charge.

In a previous article, we reported that current Model 3 owners are getting Supercharging speeds of around 460-480 miles per hour on Gen 2 Superchargers. That’s a big improvement over Model S owners that only see low 300s for a Supercharging speed.

Why is the Model 3 so fast? First of all, the Model 3 can pull as much power as the Model S (115-120 kW), and second of all, the Model 3 has a much better MPGe than the Model S, so each kWh downloaded counts for more miles.

That’s nice, but how are we predicting these big increases for the Model 3 on Gen 3 superchargers? In the previous article, we noted that a Tesla/EPA document quoted a maximum charging amperage capability of the Model 3 equal to 525 amps. One astute commenter, @Henrik, suggested that a good way to verify this was to look at the line size of the charging cable that runs from the charge port to the battery.

Good idea! We called Jack Rickard at EVTV since he has a torn down salvage Model 3 in his shop. We asked him what size the charging cable was. His answer was 3-aught wire size. In addition, we have a video from Ingineerix, which verifies that the Model 3 has a larger cable than Model S going to the battery from the charge port. You can see for yourself at 13 minutes into his teardown video.

We also got in touch with Ingineer at Tesla Motors club and he claims he has the manufacturer’s specs on that 3-0 cable that says it’s good for 430 amps (versus 525 amps in the Tesla/EPA document). Based on our calculations, 430 amps should give us an average charging power of 157 kW during the first half of the charge and an average charging rate of 626 MPH.

We need to add some qualifications to these numbers. Holding a constant 430 amps until 50% SOC probably won’t happen every time you pull into a Supercharger. These numbers are a best-case scenario. Even though the vehicle is capable, there may be other reasons why the Supercharger will cut back on power prior to 50%. Also, our numbers only apply to charging PRIOR to taper. Current Model 3 owners are seeing taper come in at around 50% SOC.

So yes, these numbers may be optimistic, but interesting food for thought, nonetheless. We will just have to wait and see.

HVACman and scottf200 contributed to this article

UPDATE: Based on an issue identified in the comments, a correction was made to this article in paragraph four. We removed (3-0 vs 2-0). This does not change the article thesis, since the Model 3 still has a larger cable than the Model S..


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.

Categories: Charging, Tesla

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

204 Comments on "You Think The Tesla Model 3 Supercharges Fast Now? Just Wait …"

newest oldest most voted

Just a question, is it 2-0 cabel also in new Model S and X with 100 kWh battery or is that fond on a car from 2015?

Supercharging is the game-changer between Tesla and all the other “Tesla Killer” manufacturers. 300+ mile range cars are good, being able to take them on a realistic road-trip is better. The I-Pace, Bolt, Mission-E/Taycan, new Nissan Leaf, all of VW’s future maybe cars, etc. are very cool- but the manufacturers stopped before finishing. The finish is the charging speed. Not sure why that’s complicated? Until another manufacturer comes up with an alternative to the Supercharging network besides Electrify America, then folks like me only have one real long-distance option. And for the price that we have to pay for the above mentioned cars, why would folks pay that much to limit themselves? Especially when the solution (Supercharging network) already exists?

There is nothing wrong with the slower charging as not everyone needs the fast charging. However, you are right, it will limit the market on those cars such that they will never sell as well, and in some cases might even require discounting.

The Taycan charges faster than any Tesla and has a charging network in the works. I would remove that from your list.

You are right about not everyone needing the fast charging.
However, anyone on a long-distance road trip will appreciate the increased charging ability.

While I appreciate your point about the Taycan, until the Porsche network is canvassed like the Supercharging network, it’s simply a limited location car (in my opinion). As I read it, Porsche is planning 500 stations, but I can’t find any timelines for when that network will be built out. The trade-off is the Porsche charges faster with more limited locations. With 300+ miles range, the Taycan has flexibility to wander a little to find its charger, 1/3 of which I read are supposed to be at Porsche dealerships with the rest along highway corridors. By that point, Tesla will have 2.5x as many Supercharging locations, so you get more travel options with slower charging speeds. While I own a Tesla right now, I like seeing legit competition popping up- especially on the charging side. Not only does it offer more manufacturer options to EV enthusiasts, but it validates the importance of charging speed for long-distance travel. In my opinion, EV enthusiasts, LOVE driving their cars, and not just around town.

The future’s wide open!

Tesla still isn’t finished with the Supercharger network, so exactly why Porsche gets knocked for not having a complete network on Day One even though they’ve already announced plans to build it, which is exactly what Tesla did for years before they actually showed up.

I don’t think Tesla will ever be finished with their Supercharging network. As many more thousands of vehicles get added to the roads each week the need for more chargers will only perpetually increase. And as of right now, the Supercharging network has 1300+ locations with over 10,000 stalls. And the big difference between Tesla and their Supercharging network of 5 years ago and Porsche of today is the fact that 5 years ago there were no other options that Tesla had to compete against.

If the Tesla Model 3 can use CCS 2.0 as well, the need for Tesla to roll out more Superchargers will reduce. Should Tesla decide to do the same for Model S and X in the future, they may not need that many more.

We can be pretty sure Tesla is going to continue building out the Supercharger network until such time as there is an alternative available in most areas which is as good or better. That will come eventually, as the number of plug-in EVs increases and the number of gasmobiles shrinks, but it’s not going to come in the near future. Almost certainly not in the next 5 years, and maybe not in the next 10.

Menorman, Porsche has to demonstrate intent in areas beyond the coasts, or “CARB” states which mostly make up much of U.S. charging infrastructure. All makers know what’s at stake policy-wise is a split market. In a nut shell, the Trump lawsuit could go either way: full-time waived right for the dozen CARB states, or one weakened standard under NHTSA. I’m confident states will prevail, and can therefore see why car-makers are concerned.

Tesla is “finished” as far as being all-in, to do what’s needed to have its EVs flourish. Porsche, like VW, Nissan and all the others are working with AAM, to lobby a single standard that slow-walks infrastructure as much as possible and preserves higher margin sales of more polluting automobiles. They will happily bide their time, and see how Trump’s efforts do. No different than others, but not Tesla as they are only maker who derives nothing by slowing EV sales.

Tesla’s behavior, its KWh selection, the way its doors and windows open, the way the car can be found if you want one, and its charging speeds and locations are all optimized for one thing. EV success.

While that’s a fair assessment of many other makers, thus far it doesn’t look like Porsche is happily biding their time…

Irrelevant. One can go anywhere in the U.S.(except N. Dakota) today charging over 100 kW.

The more one supercharged an electric car, the shorter the batteries will last.

That’s true, but that’s if someone is Supercharging for daily use. Supercharging for road-trips only won’t hurt your battery.


As the Porsche has not hit the market yet, nobody knows for sure how fast it will charge in real life. Besides that, you are talking about a charging network that isn’t built, for something that isn’t on the market yet. Nothing wrong with being a Porsche fan at all, but you must have a very good crystal ball.

It can be removed when Porsche has the network.

It’s not about what people need, it’s what they want. Model S 40 kwh is able to handle 95% of people’s daily driving, but more people picked 85 or 100.

The most important feature of Tesla supercharging is the incentive to keep the network running well and keep the customers happy even if that means losing some money. The rest could care less if the chargers are clogged all the freaking time and customers pissed as long as they got their money from free chargers like Nissan, BMW, Maven (GM).

Some say new network from VW settlement will be different, but I don’t think so. Economics is the same; if some free charger throws a pile of money in their direction, they will capitulate, resistance is futile. That is true with all the network operators that doesn’t have a direct stake in car sales. You simply can’t compete against car manufacturer backed charging network.

Your point of reliability is valid and often forgotten.

I see you bit on a Bolt. Enjoying it? How is it compared to the Spark? Maybe post something on the forums so it doesn’t get lost here.


ElectrifyAmerica is somewhat of a special case I guess; but Ionity in Europe was set up car makers voluntarily, presumably to provide good charging infrastructure for their vehicles, rather than maximising profits as an energy provider… So I think it’s reason to hope their priorities will tend the right way.

From my Dutch perspective, Tesla’s supercharger advantage is not nearly as big.

Fastned have begun the roll-out of 175 kW CCS chargers. They have about 4x the number of stations and they are located much more conveniently alongside motorway gas stations, giving minimal loss of time for a recharge. Tesla stations require you to exit the motorway, cross intersections, wait for traffic lights, enter a parking lot, etc.

Yeah, t’s a good start, but from their map Fastned still has only a small number of their stations supporting 175 kw, and it’s typically only one per station. There’s a few with two. That will probably change as demand increases but it seems as like most others they are waiting for demand to happen instead of investing in the future by setting up a large number of fast chargers. I think that’s needed before EV’s will really increase in numbers.

Also a problem in Europe now is that people travelling through countries with their EV’s has to sign up or use special apps for all these different charging companies, instead of just paying with your credit card like in a gas station. It’s like the companies don’t think people will use other chargers than theirs.

Why oh why are we still talking about proprietary charging networks. There are no Ford or Toyota, etc.,etc. gasoline stations. It’s not clear at all to me how we get from where we are now to charging stations that work for all EVs and where the price of the electricity is clearly displayed (like the price of gasoline), but that’s where we need to go for EVs to really become mainstream IMHO.

Home or work charging for those who can, and especially when it can be done off peak, is and will remain an ability and advantage of EVs that combustion engine vehicles can’t offer.

The CCS standard should do just that – and in Europe this seems to be happening right now. We still have more Chademo chargers than CCS, but the last EV to be launched using chademo will be the Nissan Leaf e-plus this autumn. All other manufacturers (including Renault) will be using the European standard (CCS) moving forward – with a possible exception being Tesla, but there’s a *lot* of rumours about Tesla M3 having CCS charge port and Tesla adding CCS cables to their supercharger network lately – we’ll see soon enough 🙂

An ICE or fuel cell car refuels at 3,000 – 6,000 mph, but I’ll still take the upgrade.

I have had some pretty slow pumps… although technically you are correct, once you hit maybe 500-1000 miles charge per hour it becomes irrelevant. The Taycan is there, and Model 3 Long Range is close enough. Most people spend maybe 1/3 of their time at the station actually filling their tank (guesstimate, but watch people at gas stations).

Most EV owners charge at home overnight 90% of the time, so EV charging is still faster overall than standing in front of a gas pump.

I think that’s one important point people forget when talking about EV charging. Getting an EV with 300+ miles of range means never having to look for a public charger. It’s only for the odd road trip once or twice a year where public charging becomes a concern. Once I finally get my Model 3, I never plan on using a public charger, especially since I drive less than 50 miles a day like most commuters. Actually, for most who use the Superchargers, it might just be a waste of money and time, paying more for electricity than they can at home at night while they sleep when the rates are lowest.

As Tesla keeps pointing out, the Supercharger network is for interstate travel.

It’s like some can’t break the gas station mentality. But more like going to the movies and paying to see a movie you have at home on DVD, and can watch on the huge surround sound theater you already paid for. But instead, you drive to a theater across town and pay again.

I don’t think this is an apt comparison. Unless they have unlimited free supercharging, people go to Superchargers only if they need to. Many people however go to movie theatres without needing to. They just want the particular experience.

I think there’s another important point that even fewer people pay attention to when talking about EV charging — even those who are well-versed on EVs.

And that is that as more and more people buy into EV life, and more and more EVs flood the market and become available to larger segments of the population, there will be a sizable contingent of apartment dwellers who rely on public charging on a full-time basis.

So charging speed, costs, location and access are all hugely important for this small, but growing group of EV owners (one of whom includes me). And until apartment complexes invest in charging stations as a utility for their tenants (very few do today), there is nowhere else for renters to turn except public chargers. For us, the “gas station” equivalent model is not yet a thing of the past.

But if you have an ICE, you cannot multi-task. Quite hard to visit the toilet or the restaurant at the same time as you are filling up your car. With EV’s this multitasking eats up some of the difference in filling speed.

Trust me, in the old days when the price of gas spiked, I was this close to “multitasking” at the pump. . . .

Nobody has a tank large enough to accommodate such refueling rates. It comes down to being able to refill in 5 min for ICE and about 15-30 min for BEV.

That’s a false equivalency since ice cars or fuel cell cars can’t refuel at home or at the office. The only advantage an ice or FCV have are for long trips.
Also your estimation of how far you can drive on average in a tanked vehicle is not accurate, nor is your comment even understandable since cars don’t go 3k-6k mph, maybe you mean mpt where t is tank, even still. the average tank of an ice is 12 gallons, average mileage 26 mpg.
I’m not a math person but those don’t add up to between 3k-6k miles.

Maybe you meant that on a full tank they can go 3-6 hundred miles.
Of the nonsensical comments you have made this one is by far the best of them.

Finally I would not bring up FCV as an example when you are trying to show superiority over evs in refueling times, since that is another false equivalency with ice, which can be refilled almost anywhere in a short time. FCV can’t do that and grouping them together with ice implies something they can do only in a very few places while gas stations are ubiquitous.

Again my admiration for you abilities. I mean usually in a comment a one can discern a grain of truth or sense, but yours contains neither of these in great abundance.

Had a typo…on a ship right now… I missed it! Can’t now edit it! “Now, since an IVE Vehicle woth a 12 Gallon Tank”, was with typo’s! Should have been: “Now, since an ICE Vehicle with a 12 Gallon Tank…”

So No, I did not refer to FCV’s.

Not necessarily. I refuel at home and could at the office, just haven’t needed to. Gasoline delivery services are really amazing.

And how much are you paying for such service?

Market rate gas, $2.99 delivery. Not bad

If you mean $2.99/gal, 10 gallon at $3/gal $30 fill up became $60, a 100% increase. That’s awful. That’s like 2 months of electricity for EV. One has to be completely oblivious about money to use this service.

I’m pretty sure he meant $2.99 is the price of delivery, going on top of the price of gas, which is “market rate”.

Uh, no. Market rate for gas, $2.99 for delivery. Whatever the tank costs, add $2.99

That’s really green. Burn some more gas to bring gas to your car that burns gas.

That’s making America great again LOL get with the program or else

No question there. But it’s crazy convenient. Outside of road trips I have been to a station 2x since I started using it in January. Both times were my errors, once I didnt unlock my gas flap, second time I scheduled it for the wrong day.

That sounds fun. Added to an already busy schedules, folks have to 1) make sure their gas-caps are unlocked, 2) home at the time of the fueling appointments, 3) time their fuel levels to maximize amount of fuel delivered 4) make sure nothing comes up for fueling appointment. AND folks get to pay more money to introduce that added ‘convenience’ into their lives. All to avoid simply plugging in their car when they walk into their home- no appointment needed. Seems like a lot of work in order to tell people you don’t go to a gas pump any more.

Fueling usually happens at 2am most nights. Window is 9p – 5a.

Thanks, I’ll still pass.

Maybe the Gas was made from Green Algae?

Dude only comes here to stir the pot. You’re wasting your breath.

“That’s a false equivalency since ice cars or fuel cell cars can’t refuel at home or at the office. ”

They can actually, although it isn’t widespread – who needs it when refueling stations are on the way home. There is gas refueling startup in California. Hylium Industries has recently released mobile compressor-free LH2 refuelling station as well.

Charging at home or office is nice perk for people that have it available, but not for the half of the world population living in multi store buildings without electrified parking and no easy way to provide it.

Meanwhile Honda Clarity FC refuels from 0 to 366 miles in 2-4 minutes, or around 7000 mph, or Mach 10 speed. I don’t know what generation of Tesla cars will have charging wires rated for equivalent 2 megawatt electric power, not even mention batteries capable of accepting it 😉

I can’t criticize Honda too much since their Clarity PHEV is also a fine product. It is interesting that the current ‘insurmountable’ (at least for the present) problem of reciprocating compressors for H2 is your example company does away with the issue by using Liquified H2.

My question is always a totally BORING one. Who will pay for it?

I just wish Honda and Toyota would spend $1 developing EV products for each $100 they spend FORCING hydrogen products to work.

Bill Howland,
H2 storage is just cheaper than rechargeable batteries, by order of magnitude. Even when you add FC, it is still cheaper and provides replacement for full range of ICE transport, from cars to trains and ships. Your “BORING one” question is right on spot actually. It is cheaper to do it with LH2 if you need to provide full solution for the whole economy, not just a show for some rich enthusiasts.

Why take deadbeat approach trying to bring electric grid down by excessive peak loads when obviously it wasn’t designed for such, nor Li Ion can handle it at acceptable cost? You don’t assume every problem is nail just because you got nice
and good hammer that is perfect tool for nails.

That’s just plain wrong. Hydrogen tanks are *expensive*. I don’t remember the exact present figure — but it was definitely >= 100 $/kWh, i.e. same ballpark as batteries. Even the most optimistic projections far into the future are 25 $/kWh. That may or may not be cheaper than batteries far into the future; but definitely not by much.

Grid problems are also nonsense. While some minor upgrades will likely be necessary here and there, it will be a tiny fraction of the cost of a hydrogen fuelling infrastructure.

Why would you compare H2 storage to batteries? One only buys the batteries once. They’re included with the car. One would have to buy Hydrogen all the time, so HUGE advantage to ev’s., using your own comparison.

Thanks for helping point out the huge advantage of EV’s.

He is talking about the price of storage, i.e. the hydrogen tanks in the case of an FCV.

Just as you say people may be ignoring the near term cost of fast charging, I think you H2 people are ignoring the cost of the corner store H2 filling station, since the problems they are having (500-600 kw electric consumption for a medium sized station), large square footage requirements for the equipment and tanks, inability to use reciprocating machines – a problem unique to hydrogen – and the initial capital outlay , besides the end effects being HUGE ongoing maintenance costs (due to the former limitation) even IF the H2 is reasonably priced. The problems are compelling enough to me to see the one way one vendor is handling the issues is to ship H2 liquefied to the station, and then have the station located ‘passive’ vaporizer provide the 10-15,000 PSIG intrinsically. Unfortunately, the cost of Liquefied H2 to be put in the tanker truck in the first place is not going to be much under $20/ kg. I know its ‘Boring’, but I see that as a cost problem. Fast chargers for ev’s only affect a small percentage of cars at a time, and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that 500 mile ev batteries will… Read more »

Just checked pricing: Apparently NASA in 2001 bought liquid hydrogen for $3.66 / kg. That price seems outrageously low. If I’m wrong about the price and it is possible to make liquid h2 at this price, then the final cost of delivering it to the neighborhood station could probably be done for under $ 9/kg, and since the car uses half the fuel an ICE does, it could conceivably be sold for $5 per gasoline-gallon-equivalent. Still somewhat more expensive than gasoline currently, but at least it is in the ballpark.

Ok found a source for retail pricing of liquefied hydrogen: Electronics grade: $107/kg, Bulk Grade – $21/kg. How Nasa got theirs so cheap escapes me.

You’ve got it backwards, a hydrogen station is an order of magnitude more expensive than a level 3 charging station. Adding battery storage isn’t enough to bring the cost even either, to say nothing of the costs of running and maintaining a hydrogen station.

Actually, providing electrified parking to multi-story buildings is not hard at all. It’s reality in Norway.

Yup, e.g. Vulkan parking garage with 100 type2 chargers, and a couple CCS/Chademo fast chargers,

Nonsense… Is in not paying attention.

A Model 3 uses less energy per mile driven than a Model S, so per kWh charged, it goes further, hence faster Miles Per Hour charge rate is the discussion. Now, since an ICE Vehicle with a 12 Gallon Tank might take 6 Minutes to pump in those 12 Gallons, and drive 30 Miles for each Gallon, so 360 Miles. Since that took 0.1 Hours to put in the car, divide by 0.1, and you get a “Filling Rate” equal to 3,600 Miles per Hour. (Extrapolated, same like Tesla’s “Extrapolated” Production Rate!)

It is not as wild as it first seems, in that the Filling time is short, and the distance you can travel on 10 such fills 1 Hour used for filling) is quite large!

It does, of course, take a small part of the process, and extrapolate only the core part, ignoring any slower pumps, gas station lineups, payment time, and personal time to stay and “Man The Pump”, (which on an EV is not required), but, within that context, is not so crazy or wrong.

Road trips plus those that don’t have access to home charging.

Read the article. They are using the term MPH to mean the number of miles of range that can be added per hour of “filling”. It’s entirely germane to the conversation since that is the standard to which EVs are being compared, even if he did estimate too low.

It seems everyone else is confused about the use of MPH in this article too, since they upvoted your misunderstanding.

Is it possible to fuel these ICEs at home?

Keep that ICE!! For the low delivery charge price of $5-$10 per gasoline delivery, you, too, can pay 10x more to have all the convenience of at-home electric charging without the 30 second burden of walking a charging cord to your car! Plus, for only the extra cost of hundreds/thousands $ per year, you get the additional bonus of: timing belt replacements, gasket replacement(s), fuel and water pump replacements, spark plug/wire replacements, oil changes, transmission and radiator flushes, smog checks, hose replacements, etc. The best part you ask?? Many of those maintenance experiences happen randomly and unexpectedly, thereby adding to a full, exciting life of living with an unknown transportation budget!

I should reach out to Filld- that marketing campaign sells itself! (I’ve been watching Mad Men recently..)

H for FCEV costs $16.50/kg, so having gasoline delivered is cheaper while also having almost the convenience of EV. Of course, both are idiotic compared to EV, but relative to each other, gasoline is far better than FCEV.

Having gasoline delivered to your house, simply to make ICE more attractive is like having a VCR service that’s paid to show up to your house and push the ‘record’ button for you.

Yeah. You could hire a personal assistant to do your laundry and drive your gasmobile to the gas station whenever it needed a fill-up, but that’s not an advantage of having a gasmobile; it’s an advantage of having a personal assistant to do the things you’d rather not bother with.

You would use for your laundry.

Hahaha! Well played, sir! If I could give you 10 thumbs up I’d do it!

$2.99 delivery.

Second time I see this. Do you mean per gallon or per delivery? If I’m filling up my truck with 50 gallons, is it only $2.99 extra or is it $149.50 extra?

$2.99 per delivery

Or for the same money you could just charge your EV at home AND have someone come out and wash and detail your car every couple of weeks.

Life’s a thinking man’s game.

Population increases disagree with you

One day, but not today.

“Is it possible to fuel these ICEs at home?”

It is not wide spread but locally (Northern Calif.) there is a service which will refuel and/or detail your car for you on location which could be at home. They charge a premium for the service but it is available.

Booster takes the corporate parking lot route and gets companies to sign up to fill employees cars in the same lot. No residential delivery. Don’t know how expensive it is.

Filld will deliver day time in 2 hour window but it’s pricier.

“An ICE or fuel cell car refuels at 3,000 – 6,000 mp”

I understand that in the USA LDV pumps are legally limited to 10 GPM which means a rate of 600 GPH. The average car gets 25 MPG so it refuels at about 15,000 MPH. What is relevant is a cars highway efficiency at higher highway speeds. More efficient ICE vehicles refuel at over 30,000 MPH.

If memory serves me correctly a GCR survey had 96% of respondents willing to wait 10 minutes to refuel and over 70% willing to wait 20 minutes. something along the lines of three out of four respondents typically drove 90-120 minutes before taking a break on long trips. Based on this info I infer that a recharge rate of 300 MPH is about the minimum for the general public to consider a vehicle for long distance travel. At about 600 MPH we have wide spread acceptance and Somewhere around 1,000 MPH it becomes largely irrelevant. This of course assumes availability of adequate recharge facilities.

What people will consider and what they would actually be happy with in practice are two different things. But that doesn’t change the reality that when people are buying a car they follow what they believe will be practical since they have no actual experience with charging.

I agree with your assessment of a comfortable cadence of around 120 minutes for breaks when travelling with multiple people and multiple bladders. We took a 480 mile trip recently in our Model 3 and we stopped 3 times for around 15 minutes for each stop and that was enough to get us to our destination with plenty charge left. There was no intentionally waiting for 15 minutes but rather that was the time it would take us to walk next door to Starbucks or whatever store to go to the bathroom or wait in line to get coffee and then walk back to the car.

And that, Philip, is the exact game-changing experience I’m talking about! It always makes me chuckle when ICE proponents tell me they need to be back on the road in under 10 minutes when driving 600-800 miles. Family of four couldn’t do that if they tried.

“What people will consider and what they would actually be happy with in practice are two different things. ”

Most of the people I’ve spoken to who drive EVs that are not enthusiasts are thrilled with their cars. Advantages that they were not aware of have proven to be bigger factors than recharge times. Part of this I attribute to the fact that their EV is not their only car however most cars are owned by those in multi car households.

Regardless increasing charge rates are going to increase the appeal of EVs.

“I understand that in the USA LDV pumps are legally limited to 10 GPM which means a rate of 600 GPH.”

Oddly enough, petrol pumps in Europe are limited to a lower rate of pumping. (Or at least, that’s what I’ve read.) I have no idea why.

No, gas pumps in Europe are limited to 40 liters per minute, which is actually bit faster than 10 US gallons per minute.

If you can find a Fool Cell filing location. And if it’s not restricted like the 4 in California and if you don’t blow yourself up. And if you don’t mind using H2 from Fossil Fuel NG. Other than that it’s not a problem.

Fuel pumps in the US flow at 10 gallons per minute. That’s 600 gallons per hour. In a 20 MPG vehicle, that’s 12,000 MPH. EV charging doesn’t need to get to those rates of range adding, but they have got to get much better to replace ICE for long distance trips. My typical refueling stop takes 5 minutes, which is long enough to start filling the tank, visit the restroom, and finally hang up the fuel nozzle and get my receipt. I’d want to get something like 200 miles in 10 minutes of charging before I’d consider taking an EV on a long distance trip. Not a problem though since I intend to use an EV where it shines, which is the local day to day trips.

Talking charge speed in MPH is a very bad habit, what is interesting is the effect in kW. It’s almost as stupid as MPGe. Having some future proofing in the design is smart though. It’s not like we will see 157 kW charging Model 3’s anytime soon but improved chemistry might take us there sometime in the future.

Miles charge per hour is all that matters to me as user. If I am driving across country I want to know how long I have to sit at the charger. If that is 120 kW or 200 kW, I don’t really care. This corrects for inefficient cars (like Mini PHEV is something around 50 MPGe, which is terrible and means it will charge about half as many miles range as something getting 100 MPGe)

The problematic part is it is not linear, so maybe time to reach a certain SoC (range) is more interesting. I want to know how long until I reach 200 mile range or something (dash computer could tell me)

I agree on this. Nobody thinks of it in this manner. A better metric is something like minutes to 300 miles.

I’d say minutes to 150 miles is much better. 2+ hours on the road at a time is plenty, even on gas.

Or perhaps minutes of charging needed to support driving until you need a bathroom break…?

That’s not entirely meant as a joke. Long trip considerations are dramatically different than local/charge-at-home issues, and include a lot of things easily overlooked compared to ICE scenarios.

“…driving until you need a bathroom break…?”

That can vary quite a bit according to the individual. Giving new meaning to the term “Your mileage may vary!” 😉

Two vehicles charging at the same kW power rating does mean they feature the same range or mileage added per time charging… also ‘bad’ or ‘good’ is a sign for poor technical understanding.

Talking about poor technical understanding and not realizing how stupid MPH for charging is…. Charge power is absolute, range or mileage added are relative.

Yes, remarkably poor, especially as you seem to naively believe the power rating does not depend on any factors… the level is NOT maintained during the entire charging session and it is relative to many things including current state of charge, temperature, etc.

In the moment the charge rate is absolute, never ever a MPH rating. You would understand how simple and basic this is if you had any kind of education that values science. There is no wonder that a large part of the world is scientifically illiterate, please stop spreading ignorance.

Stupid, it is not either the power rating or the miles per hour charged. People actually pay attention to both simply because both provide valueable information.

“Two vehicles charging at the same kW power rating does mean they feature the same range or mileage added per time charging…”

Definitely not! If the two cars are different models, let’s say the Model 3 and the Model S, then there will be a different amount of miles added when using the same level of power and the same duration of charge. In fact, even within the same model, a different pack size will almost certainly mean a different amount of range added.
In fact, there’s an extensive chart for all that, for Tesla cars:

And that’s not even getting into the issue of loss of pack capacity in older cars.

The fact that the ‘3’ is the only car made today that is reasonably affordable (under $60k) but can go 400 miles at around 55 mph has GOT TO BE a very good selling point. Its making me take another look. Other companies please take note.

Woah, thinking about lifting your Tesla ban, lol.

What you are saying is true though, I went LR RWD Model 3 since it would be the best at road trips due to efficiency + large battery + high SuperCharge rate.

I see I had a typo, read: does NOT mean, it is obvious 🙂

And a good example is this video:

Here Bjørn an Pawel race a Tesla Model X vs a Hyundai Kona.
With Tesla haveing ~double the charge rate (~90-100+ kW vs Kona at 47kW), the Kona still manages to reach the 600 mile destination half a minute before the Tesla.

This is because the Kona is much more efficient than the heavier Model X, so that 50kW actually gives a higher mph charging rate than the mph charging rate with the Tesla charging at ~100kW.

The Kona spends a lot less energy moving the car 1 mile, and starting with full batteries, this advantage is never overtaken by the Tesla at this 600 mile stretch…

“Talking charge speed in MPH is a very bad habit, what is interesting is the effect in kW.”

Consumers don’t care about kW rates. They care about how many minutes they need to wait to refuel when they are in a hurry. Expressing the charge rate in MPH normalizes the efficiency of the vehicle with respect to time. Kw rates do not.

Don’t expect customers to be idiots, then they’ll continue to be idiots. Educated consumers care and understand how that is much more important since it’s not a relative number related to outside conditions.

Early motorcar enthusiasts had to know about such things as spark advance, how to use a vulcanizing inner tube repair kit, and other messy stuff. Early motorcar enthusiasts always carried a tool kit in the car for performing needed service and repairs on the road.

Contrariwise, today many or perhaps even most drivers are not at all interested in learning how things work. They just want to learn now to operate the controls enough to drive, and nothing else.

This trend isn’t going to stop just because people start driving plug-in EVs instead of gasmobiles. The trend will be towards BEVs that are simpler to use and require less technical understanding, just as the trend has been for gasmobiles.

Tesla is on the right track for eschewing the use of “kW” and “kWh” when talking about EV range and charging rates. They are on the right track because dropping those terms in favor of simplification is going to appeal to a wider market.

Those of us who are STEM geeks (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) won’t let that trend stop us from engaging in technical discussions! 🙂

Tesla shows both kW and miles per hour for charging at the same time on the charging screen.

“Don’t expect customers to be idiots, then they’ll continue to be idiots. Educated consumers care and understand how “

Just because people are not comfortable with math does not make them idiots. Expressing drivable distance relative to time charging is a useful metric for many. Presumably the components to that calculation will also be available but there are many people who are not comfortable performing such calculations.

A missing factorfor over 50% of all drivers of cars when it comes to a Tesla model whatever? When a Supercharger is used to replenishing battery pack energy,

Being “absolute” doesn’t make the kW rating any more useful in determining how long people will need to spend charging. They already need to understand that range figures have to be adjusted depending on conditions — doing the same adjustment for charging times is a no-brainer. Starting from kW doesn’t remove the need to do this adjustment; it just adds the need to additionally adjust for the specific vehicles average efficiency every single time. When comparing different vehicles, it adds the need to do this adjustment for each vehicle, whereas range added per time figures are directly comparable.

Avoiding pointless extra work has nothing to do with lack of education.

(Being dogmatic on the other hand…)

“Talking charge speed in MPH is a very bad habit…”

We might decry the lack of technical precision, but that’s the metric Tesla is moving to in its advertising. They even refused to tell us the kWh capacity of the Model 3’s two battery pack sizes! I do understand why; the average person finds such terms as kW and kWh to be confusing, and doesn’t understand the difference between energy and power.

Expressing EV battery capacity and charging rate only in terms of miles of range, and miles added per minute or hour when charging, certainly does keep things simple. I expect other EV makers will follow suit.

“We might decry the lack of technical precision”

There is no loss in precision. It primarily a change in units. There may be a loss in specificity if the component metrics are not provided but there is little reason to expect that to be the case.

No, it’s a huge loss in precision. MPH depends on so many more variables not specified. What power you get in that moment is absolute, how much energy you get is absolute and when you are driving how much energy is being used in that moment is absolute. Every home made unit makes us lose precision, get less scientific and more ignorant.

“No, it’s a huge loss in precision. MPH depends on so many more variables not specified.”

Ahh …so your objection is to ratings such as the German supported WLTP because it dumbs things down.Yes? Why do Germans use WLTP or even more misrepresentative metrics like NEDC?

Your arguments are with these metrics. Recharge in distance per time is not a home made metric. As stated it is a derivative of the previously cited metrics with which you take issue.

That is not what precision means.

In other words, specifying charge as 100.326 kW would be very high precision and specifying charge as around 100 kW would be low precision.

Heh, the irony of the guy calling for moar science, failing to use the right scientific terms 🙂

Unfortunately that is often the US way, to dumb things down until they don’t make much sense at all. I obviously prefer the German way where the people are taught to reach toward knowledge to be more exact and get a better understanding.
Knowledge and science should not be a thing to fear. Of course it’s confusing if you always dumb things down. Any 10 year old could easily learn the difference and by 6th grade you have learned about it in school, or should have if there are places where you don’t.

lol Germans tend to over engineer things which means to repair anything will cost you minimum $500 per visit at any repair shop as well as, from my experience, reduced reliability. Of course this may be deliberate to generate more auto part sales. You seem to be crowing a lot about German knowledge and science yet all you really have left is the auto industry and some parts industrial machinery. Tesla is currently eliminating your auto industry. Software you’re nowhere to be found. The future is not bright for Germany.

“Unfortunately that is often the US way, to dumb things down until they don’t make much sense at all. ”

WLTP and NEDC have EPA beaten on this.

Another reason to install a larger cable is to improve efficiency. Larger cables have less resistance per foot than smaller cables.

Gosh, I find myself in rare agreement with Eleventy Pretend Electrics.

Yes, it’s reasonable to guess that a larger onboard charging cable means the car can charge faster. But that’s not a proven fact. A larger cable, with lower resistance, may merely be part of how Tesla achieved a higher energy efficiency with the TM3.

Pretty cool but Porsche is suggesting 500km/15 minutes=~1200 miles/hour for Taycan. Maybe some healthy competition will erode the long distance disadvantage BEVs have quicker than I thought. Hypercharging is also relevant for people without access to homecharging, who may not be interested if they have to spend more than say 15minutes/week at charging stations.

They won’t be interested either when they see the bill for 350kW charging session.
Have you seen the pricing for 350kW chargers? They are nuts…

Have you seen it? Link please….

Anyway, it’s too early in the 350KW games to tell where rates will end up. The fact that 350KW chargers can service 3 cars/hour, much more than current 50KW chargers should help drive cost down.
-> Charging is for free.
-> As far I understand that, with the “EinfachStromLaden” contract (which works with 7289 chargers in Europe) you pay 0.02EUR/min (and nothing else) if you have a contract with them for domestic electricity delivery in Germany. Otherwise you pay 0.05EUR/min. So 0.02EUR/min are @350kW 0.0034EUR/kWh.


Porsche said 400km in 15 min or 1600km per hour = 1000 miles

You’re right, my bad.

“Porsche said 400km in 15 min or 1600km per hour = 1000 miles”

…..are those NEDC or WLTP kilometers? If so then we could be talking between 600-700MPH EPA.

Haha… Oh the irony…

“Haha… Oh the irony…”

No actual irony just three different measures. The closest to reality is the one used in the US by the way. The most unrealistic is NEDC but even it has value for comparisons sake.

and battery goes kaput in 6 months but they’ll replace it for a fee

We don’t yet know the mileage standard given for the range promoted for the Taycan. Given that it was 2015, likely this is NEDC. So it’s really 220 miles of EPA range. And the 15 minutes is given for 80% charge. So that’s 176 miles in 15 minutes, or 704 miles per hour.

In some communication they mentioned 20 minutes to 80%, rather than 15 minutes… Not sure which to believe.

It seems like if there is anything the Model-3 is superior at, Tesla should be integrating those changes into their flagship products as well. So I wonder if the current Model-S and X have also had larger wires installed? Or is it that the battery chemistry on the 18650 cells can’t accept that much amperage?

AFAIK Model S/X are using older chemistry, and pack design so they can’t handle the charge rate.
Model 3 has better chemistry and better cooling design.

Those changes almost certainly won’t be integrated into the MS and MX until Tesla switches their battery packs over to the new 2170 cells, probably late this year or early next year.

How it’s possible Hyundai Kona electric to have less consumption than Tesla model 3?
I don’t want to wait for answer till year 2019 when Bjorn Nyland will compare them in Europe.

Designed for efficiency vs performance.

Because Hyundai makes the most efficient drive-trains.

Hyundai was caught falsifying their mpgs on their ICE vehicles a few years back in the US. Real world I highly doubt their drive trains are more efficient.

Sorry, more specific. The most efficient EV drive-trains. Include their charge rates and it is damn impressive.

I know what you meant. I should have been clearer. Based on Hyundai’s cheating on ICE mpg I don’t trust any claim that they have most efficient EV drive train. See Tech01x’s post in this thread re: efficiency.

Just check out independent testing of the Hyundai ioniq drivetrain. That drivetrain definitely beats the Model 3 in efficiency, but that’s also the only area Hyundai beats M3 in my opinion.

which “independent” testing would that be?

On the EPA highway cycle, the Tesla Model 3 is slightly more efficient than the Ioniq even though it has a much heavier, much bigger battery pack.

For range, the biggest issue is highway efficiency at 65-80 mph, and the Model 3 is more efficient versus the competition as the speed increases. Matter of fact, at some point, the Model S actually beats the efficiency of some of the higher rated vehicles due to aerodynamics and the difference between the AC induction and PMAC motor efficiencies as rpms increase.

And better performance.

All the info I can find on the Kona says it isn’t. “Hyundai estimates its energy efficiency at 117 MPGe” The Model 3 is 130 MPGe.

Smaller car,smaller motor, inverter and everything else.

What would you expect?

The Kona is less efficient than the Model 3. Combined range is about 250 miles which results in 3.5 miles per kWh, or 285 Wh/mile. That’s slightly worse than a Bolt, do no, it won’t match a Model 3.

“How it’s possible Hyundai Kona electric to have less consumption than Tesla model 3?”

For the same reason the classic Volkswagen Beetle has better gas mileage than the Porsche 911. Cars can be engineered for higher energy efficiency at the expense of lower performance and speed.

You can bet the TM3 will handily beat the Kona in a race, or in getting up to highway speed when entering the freeway.

M3 Owned- Niro EV TBD - Former 500e and Spark EV,

Progress on next gen batteries. With the next refresh, you’ll probably see similar gains for both the S and X.

I do wonder how much durability these next gen batteries have. The prior ones did quite well compared to rest of industry. Then again, the rest of industry doesn’t do a great job in capping SOC to 90% (mainly because of smaller batteries and they need the miles)

AIUI, the rest of the industry actually takes almost 15% off of the cells’ rated capacity in the first place; while Tesla only takes off some 4%… So if you charge a Tesla to 90% usable capacity, that’s about the same as charging other vehicles to 100%.

Random humor for a quiet Sunday morning:

Funniest thing was when he said iPace is a beaut. Let’s see how “beaut” it’ll be when it’s waiting hours for 8+ free charging EV tapered to hell in 2 handle DCFC site.

You forgot to mention the joy of being comfortably situated in a lovely Walmart parking lot…patiently waiting “like forever”, for your EVentual turn to DC FC your “JAG”!

I see downvotes for these comments but as a non-Tesla EV owner, I don’t know how you cannot take that into strong consideration. Public chargers stink.

“BoltEV” is probably getting downvoted, because he is incessantly spamming the comment section with his whining about evil evil free charging. I’m sure I downvoted this noise myself occasionally.

We need one of those from one of the German manufacturers. Oh my.

Main reason the 3 charges faster is because it is way more efficient than the S and especially X. Something approaching 30-40% more efficient on the road compared to the X.

The 3 charges at about the same speed.

Yes, but that “same speed” gets you more range, because the 3 uses less energy/mile.

Plus you pull into the Supercharger with more battery left than any Model S or X, save for the 100D.

Model 3 is faster than a 75 or 85 Model S. I’ve tested it personally myself using a supercharger with cars at the same starting and ending percentages.

Almost makes it tempting to trade in the Bolt for a Model 3, eh?

Exactly. It has a highway rating of 120 mpge. Theoretically if you had an EV with a 240 mpge rating then it would take half the time of the Model 3 to charge. Or the same amount of time with a charger that charged at around 55 kW.

157 Kw. What is that? A child’s toy?


It would be better if we started talking the real electrical terms for charge rates, either amps or kw or C. Miles per hour is full of so many assumptions that may be wrong. What we need is 3-5c charge rates or more. Then we need that at cold temps. An example, last winter I needed a charge to make it home from the airport, it was 10 deg F and I could only get a charge rate of 20kw as the battery was cold. I was getting about 2 mile/kwh since it was all 55-75 mph, cold and a 2000ft climb. To get the 60 miles I needed 30 kwh min. That’s 1.5 hrs on the charger. If I went by the ideal charge per hour I would have severely undercharged and been stranded. We also compare to a “standard ice”. The current ev’s are so far ahead of that mythical vehicle in efficiency, we should compare to a ice that gets about 40 mpg. Just look at the Volt, similar efficiency to the tm3 in electric and about 40 mpg on gas. IMHO this is why we have no real suv ev’s. The electric usage would be higher… Read more »

“It would be better if we started talking the real electrical terms for charge rates, either amps or kw or C. Miles per hour is full of so many assumptions that may be wrong. ”

Pfft. The same could be said of EPA estimates. People will learn to adjust based on their personal requirements/behaviors. If you’re an aggressive driver who wants your cabin fully heated in cold weather then as they say “your mileage may vary.” Cars can track your driving heuristics and yield a more precise estimation tailored to you, the vehicle, destination, and prevailing conditions but that doesn’t change the value of the metric.

Actually the Bolt does a pretty bad job of predicting future usage. In my case going to the airport is a 2000ft decrease in elevation. Usage is lower because it’s down hill. The guess o meter will say I have plenty to get home, but I know that going down, I get 3-4 m/kWh (cold and highway speeds). Going home I know I will get closer to 2 or less. That means I need over half the battery to get from the charger to home which is 60 miles. The range will adjust and become more accurate as less of the battery is left, but that is too late as there are no charge stations in that 60 miles. My point is use real electrical units. The consumers will adjust as ev’s become more main stream. Knowing the battery is roughly 60 kWh and I am using 2m/kWh I need slightly more than half a charge to get home. If I used the range given on the car I would have left too early. Ie 30 kWh at 3.5 is 105 miles. There would have been no easy way to do that math from mpge and miles added per min… Read more »

Actually, the only variable thing in this calculation is the varying efficiency factor between the different use cases (e.g. 0.7 uphill, 1.3 downhill) — you can just apply that factor to the standard range or range per time charge rate. No need to invoke electrical units for that.

Miles per hour is the metric one cares about. Pretend you are 175 miles from a destination with an empty battery. How long do you need to charge?

If the charge rate is 350 mph, then it is 30 minutes. This is what you care about on a trip. You don’t care about average power delivery in kW.

Miles/minute would be better.

George you are over-thinking the problem here. I think its a good thing that Tesla is finally using a reasonably sized cable to their connectors. A single conductor in free air at a 90 deg C rating (certainly, the terminations are rated at no more than this) is good for 310 amperes. Now, if the wiring is in somewhat of an enclosed area (to prevent it from salt spray while driving, etc) then it most certainly is *NOT* in free air. And current day superchargers hit this current rate already.

Another thing :

1). Carpenters always call carbide drill bits MASONARY bits, when the actual word is ‘Masonry’.

2). The big expert minimum wage help at the big box stores call this wire 3-aught, (meaning ‘anything’) or 3-ought (meaning I should do something), when the term 3/0 or 000 simply means 3 naught, or naught, naught, naught, as any Brit can tell you.

Didn’t you ever watch the Beverly Hillbillies? You don’t remember Jethro Bodine – Secret Agent Double-Naught Seven (007)?

Plus if the car is driven in a somewhat warm locale (like asphalt in the sun and parked there), then there would be a further derating of .8 to .75. I don’t find this cable to be oversized at all.

Naught is and has always been the correct term. For those in Europe, the Brown and Sharpe wire designation scheme used in North America for the past 140 years or so (since re-termed ‘American Wire Gauge’ (even in Canada), was a logarithmic system not unlike Decibel power levels that double every 3 DB.

While the cross sectional area is of course always important, it is only explicitly labeled as such in the larger sizes- the labeling scheme in north America is smaller wires have larger numbers.
Typical wire sizes for general purposes are 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, 00, 000 (what is talked about here), 0000, 250,000 circular mil, 300,000, 350,000, 400,000, 500,000, 600,000 up to 2,000,000 circular mils. Every decrease in 3 in the number is a doubling of the conductor cross-sectional area. (14 to 8 is a quadrupling, etc).

2 gazinta 8, 4 times:)

I just got back from a 4,000 km road trip – Lethbridge, AB to Nanaimo, BC (return) – in my RWD Model 3. Some of the Superchargers (Canmore, Revelstoke, Kelowna, Hope, Kamloops) charged at 780 km/hr (485 mph) up to 70% SOC. Others (Nanaimo, Whistler, Fort MacLeod) were significantly slower at 500 km/hr (300 mph). My average consumption for the entire trip was 150 Wh/km (93 Wh/mi) driving at an average speed of 110 km/h (68 mph). The average cost per supercharging session was C$10.00 (US$7.60). Most of the superchargers are located within a block or two of food or shopping except for Whistler, BC where the supercharger is located on the upper level of the Blackcomb Hotel parkade and the Hotel charged me $5/hr (minimum 1 hr) just to park, in addition to the supercharger fee. I thought it was ridiculous to locate a supercharger in a parkade and next time I’d stop at the supercharger in Squamish instead.

4,000 km ~ 2,500 mile
150 Wh/km ~ 240 Wh/mile

Wait a minute, the Model S uses copper battery cables if I recall, and the model 3 uses aluminum, right? Copper cable are smaller for the same amperage usually.

jamcI3 if you’re speaking about the Teslarati article, they stated the 1,800 mile order of aluminum cable was between the ‘battery and the motor’. Assuming this to mean ‘Motor Unit (i.e. the drive inverter/motor combination), it still doesn’t say precisely what they are using for the SuperCharger Jack, although if they use AL in the first instance they quite obviously don’t have any religious objection to using it elsewhere.

Especially since they might decide to use a different sized wire to the jack. I would think they would use the slightly more expensive copper-clad aluminum, to assure good connections, but the way that I’d do things is not necessarily someone else’s design.

Is there actually anything to it but pure speculation?…

I get 495 miles per hour of charge currently with my Model 3 on my local supercharger. Happy to post a pic showing this if there is a way to upload photos here.

About the charging cable being thicker in Model 3 vs Model S, I read somewhere the they also switched to Al instead of Cu so bigger diameter doesn’t necessarily mean higher current capability

Ha. you and jamcl3 just ruined the day for some armchair engineers.

Maybe nobody will see this buried at the bottom of the page.

Really? Tesla uses Aluminum wire? I find it difficult to believe since it is such a SHORT run of cable. I mean Harbor “JUNK” freight tools sells (slightly) Copper-Clad Aluminum Jumper cables, but hence the nick name. But if so, then 3/0 AL is smaller than 2/0 copper so the whole supposition of the article is wrong: they made the cable smaller in that case, not larger. I find it humorous that Tesla only went 1 wire size either up or down. Its rather like saying the builders or former owners of my home had vastly different plans depending on whether they ran #14 or #12 wire for the sump pump.

Watch the videos linked in the article, and read the comments on them. The model 3 definitely uses aluminium cable.

Read where? So far I have only seen it mentioned as an alternative theory why the wires might be thicker…

No thanks, I’ll keep using my new insight.

If the Model 3 currently starts tapering at 50%, but we assume it’s charger-constrained, it’s fairly safe to assume that with a stronger charger, it would start tapering before 50%…

Am assuming the article refers to AWG of the wire, in which case the Model S is a higher capacity at 2 AWG (6.5mm) than the Model 3 at 3 AWG (5.8mm). So either the article is mixed up or the results need to be revisited.

Ok, I’m confused as to the article MAX is talking about and I didn’t see any videos.

But besides that – read my wire size progression above – it is 4,3,2,1,0, 00, 000. 3/0 is larger than 2/0.

#3 and #2 wires are pretty dinky. You can’t hook those up to a supercharger.

It is 2/0 AWG and 3/0 gauge. OR, 00 AWG and 000 AWG. 3/0 is bigger.

Don’t confuse 2-0 with 2AWG. “two-aught” is much larger. And 3-0 is bigger than 2-0. (the opposite is true when referring to AWG, as larger numbers mean smaller gauge)

Two Naught.

For some anecdotal info, I used a Supercharger Saturday for the 2nd time since owning my Model 3. I stopped for 56 minutes, put on 200 miles of range (from 90 miles to 290 miles), and it cost me $10. Not bad, $0.05/mile. The rate changed about 1/2 way through the charge.
Power Tier 1
26 min @ $0.12/min
Power Tier 2
30 min @ $0.24/min
Tax included

“average charging rate of 626 MPH”. Is that connected to the plug or a really long extention cord?

That’s the problem with electric cars… The car isn’t so bad but the price of the extension cord is murder.

Repeated SuperCharging does have an impact. For the S &X repeated Super or fast DC charging will cause the management software to limit the charging rate to 90kW after ~7 MWh of fast charging

Are you aware that Tritium ( Ionity supplier ) and others are building 475kW CCS rapid chargers now, and new combo Chademo/GB-T standard is going for 900kW ?

Has anyone considered the fairly hefty EMF around the car cable during this high rate of charge? I mean, sereral hundred amps is a serious magnetic field.

Aaaaand, V3 released saying 1000 miles charging per hour so the estimate was quite wrong in the end!!!