Is Tesla Shipping Model 3 With 2X Model S P100D Supercharging C Rate?

Silver Tesla Model 3 charging


Turns out 2 times the rate and puts the Tesla Model 3 right in line with Tesla’s version 3 Supercharger.

*Based on a published Tesla/EPA Document

There’s a very interesting thread going on right now over at Tesla Motors Club Forum. It’s along the same lines as a recent article we published about Model 3 Supercharging rates.

In both our article and in the thread at TMC, current Model 3 LR owners are getting charging powers of around 116 kW … and it’s not just for a short time. These owners are seeing the Model 3 hold 116 kW all the way to around 50% state of charge. In our previous article, the particular Model 3 started tapering closer to 40%, but you can see in the TMC thread that if we look at a higher sampling, most Model 3’s can hold 116 kW all the way to 50% SOC. Credit to TMC member Zoomit for pointing this out, along with some other interesting observations.

Yesterday, I was ready to go to press and publish an article on the Tesla Model 3 charging at a 50% higher charging C rate than the Model S. Based on the observed charging power of 116 kW that would be a C rate of 116 kW/80 = 1.45C as compared to a Model S C rate of 119 kW/102  = 1.16C. A fairly impressive increase.

However, as TMC member Zoomit points out, 116 kW is basically the limit of Gen 2 Superchargers. Perhaps we are seeing a charger limit and not a car limit. Maybe the Model 3 is actually capable of charging at HIGHER than 116 kW.

This surely seems plausible to me and, in fact, based on a Tesla EPA document it looks like the Model 3 could be capable of a maximum charging current of 525 amps. To be fair, this is not exactly new news as it was previously published by Electrek back in October and quickly forgotten about (by me at least).

If Tesla Model 3 could hold 525 amps to 50% state of charge it would imply 180 kW of charging power and 180 kW is a C rate of 180/80=2.2C a factor of 2 over Model S. Unfortunately the EPA document does not specify how long Model 3 can hold 525 amps. It could be only a 5 or 10-minute limit. We don’t know … but even if it’s a 10-minute limit, it still represents a significant bump in charging rates.

What do you think? Does this sound plausible? Is Tesla shipping cars NOW that are ready for version 3 Supercharging rates?

Categories: Charging, Tesla

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

144 Comments on "Is Tesla Shipping Model 3 With 2X Model S P100D Supercharging C Rate?"

newest oldest most voted

This is great news if true. The goal was v3 superchargers by late summer. Maybe after they start rolling out, models s and x will get a refresh to 2170 cells to take advantage of them.

Good point. I understand not dumping capital into more than front bumpers and dash trim, when updating ‘S’, but to continue selling it when Model 3 can grab 100 miles in ~15 minutes seems reverse Polish.

My biggest take-away from the week’s M3 time-lapse charging video, was precisely how much longer it was before the taper began happening. Given 30-40% higher efficiency to begin with, also provides an out-of-gate advantage.

Having driven cross-county with MS, it’s that first half+ from a very low State of Charge (SOC) that you learn to stay within. Pre-“taper”. The rhythm of 2-2.5 hours on road, to 25-30 minutes of charging MS, thus becomes more like 2-2.5/15 minutes in M3. That’s a big gain, assuming you’re the typical first-time EV shopper, who is obsessed with how that long trip is going to work.

“The rhythm of 2-2.5 hours on road, to 25-30 minutes of charging MS, thus becomes more like 2-2.5/15 minutes in M3.”
2-2.5/15 min. rhythm. You have to let the sc calculator take over, but wouldn’t that be just fantastic. The sc map won’t let you simulate with the standard battery yet. It is interesting to watch the calculations change based on the battery and vehicle. If they get much better than 2.5hour/15min, then the EV as beat me for I have to stop and stretch.

I think I’d rather do 3.5-4 hours on the road with 35-40 minutes of charging. I think this is achievable with model 3 LR if you drive at 65mph and arrive at SC with 10% SOC.

I believe the goal is end of 2018. End of summer would be icing on the cake.

If the 2170 cells are better/cheaper that would be the reason to replace the 18650…I’m fairly confident their 18650s can handle increased charging speeds…

Confident on what grounds?

My understanding is that it would require a pretty major redesign of the S and X to use the 2170 cells, as they are taller. So unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Yup, 2170 is too tall for Model S, and 2170 is production constrained for the forceable future… GF1 needs expansion, but there is no money to expand at the moment. From what I have read the current building is completely utilized, and “bursting at the seams” .

Yes, it is bursting at the seams, which is why Tesla is in the middle of massive construction WHICH YOU KNOW ABOUT!! You have even been whining endlessly for the last 2 weeks on multiple EV websites about the “brown cardboard” from the construction that you know about. Yet now you pretend there is no expansion going on because there is no money for it.

For having “no money to expand”, they certainly are doing a whole lot of expansion work! In fact they are midway in the process of doubling the footprint of the old buildings:

It is amazing how hard you work to intentionally get stuff wrong. Even stuff you already know about and have posted about previously.

Yeah, “David Green” loves the “Gish Gallop” form of FUD; throwing out a perfect blizzard of false statements, knowing that nobody is going to take the time or trouble to correct every single one.

What a troll!

Do you struggle with reading comprehension? Actually construction at GF1 where 2170’s are made is mothballed, there is nothing going on… Just production… Look at the latest drone video, and satellite photos, all the construction stuff is in storage.. Elon said at the shareholder meeting GF1 completion Timeline is 4+ years…

Yes, Fremont is adding tents, I have seen… :)~


The goal is to expand battery production, not the building. If you can do the former without the latter…

You are a complete moron. You posted a video from August of last year.

Meanwhile, back in reality, “Tesla spent $173.3 million on Gigafactory 1 construction during the first quarter of the year alone.”

Are you under the mistaken impression that the only kind of construction that is possible inside a factory is just what is visible from a drone pass?

330e owner, T hater obvs....

Hey nix just wanted to let you know you give all EV owners a bad name……. obviously this guy is not “a complete moron” if he follows EV forums daily… But go ahead and hate on your own kind. Sure my 330e only gets 18 all electic miles, but considering my work and farthest average distance is 15 miles, and it’s not a problem given to charge at home and work… I guarantee you my 30 electric miles per day (at least) have surpassed even the most enthusiastic model 3 driver. Sure one day I hope everyone drives EVs, but just because I have a brand preference in the vehicles I buy with my hard earned money doesn’t make me a moron… people buy what they like and you should not degrade their humanity for that..

330e owner, T hater obvs....

Also BMW has factories dedicated to virtually each component of their EVs (battery competency factory, electric motor research and production facility, the most sustainable assembly line in the world for i3s), in fact BMW has 31 facilities total. And if you remember Fremont didnt used to be an EV factory… But sure Tesla is the end all be all of EV automotive technology. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing personally against Tesla, but just wait till the tax incentive expires and people start to value the quality and craftsmanship of the products they own. A company that understands car manufacturing will take over, like BMW (also makes Rolls so stfu), which arguably created the first mainstream EVs with the 1-series and Mini Electronaut program. I sincerely hope one day you can forgive BMW for figuring out those vehicles, at that time, with that technology weren’t profitable. Maybe then you can truly enjoy the feeling from the car you drive, instead of the high you get from hypermiling and sniffing your own farts as you struggle to entertain yourself on those long, lonely journeys.

Similarly, do not believe every greenwashing message your german manufacturer spits out. Producing the base material for an i3 is among the most energy intensive processes possible. Has nothing to do with sustainability, but everything with having cheap hydropower which could be used much more efficiently. Not even talking about recycling the stuff.

Recently watched an entire 90-minute video of the i3 factory and production process. All I could think about was what a pretentious waste it was to produce so few vehicles. They spent WAAY too much on that Leipzig facility.

The i3 isn’t anywhere remotely close to profitable – it is funded by massive cash infusions from BMW. And there is little to no “craftsmanship” in the i3 – most of the production is fully automated, and the few people that are working on it mostly just load parts and components onto machines…watch the same video I did, it’s very educational.

Oh – and BMW doesn’t “make Rolls” – they purchased Rolls Royce fairly recently and had little to nothing to do with the heritage behind it. To be sure though Bentley is the better car.

BMW *does* produce the Rolls Royce cars. The original production facilities went to VW along with Bentley.

330e owner, T hater obvs....

Last thought I will ever utter to your simple mind. I’m 25 and the next generation of EV owners, but you will never win over a single gas-guzzling, SUV craving, young adult if you don’t change your attitude. Learn to listen, instead of always attempting to be right, perhaps will learn something.

25….that explains a lot. And it has nothing to do with the next generation. You are a very typical self-righteous, arrogant BMW owner. It’s been that way long before you were born…

Yeah nothing going on it’s all in moth balls.
Could you be a bigger douche bag?!

A major redesign is not required as the 2170 are only 3 mm taller than 18650.
The problem is that Tesla has to honor the contract with Panasonic for 2 billion 18650 cells, enough for 260000 cars.

Isn’t Tesla pretty close to 260,000 Model S/X by now?

Also, my assumption is that they will upgrade the top-end variants first, and the entry variants later, to smooth the transition…

Yes, most probably they will add 120-140kWh Tesla S/X versions, and drop the 75, plus continue to produce the 100’s with 18650 for a while.

Elon originally said that they can fit the 21700 cells in the original battery form factor.

Though considering the generally more streamlined design of the Model 3 battery, I suspect they might indeed go for a major redesign of S/X instead, to incorporate the improved technology, rather than just the new cells…

(And possibly update the motors/inverters too, while at it.)

Wouldn’t it be just to let the S & X be 1cm *lower* – letting the battery pack be a bit thicker than before?
– if needed, this could easily be compensated in the suspension system…

There is no (big) difference in chemistry between the 18650 and 2170. That is only a form factor, you of course use the same chemistry in both.
The 2170 is about cutting cost by having a more optimal size on the batteries, nothing about chemistry.

2170 has lower cobalt content, which is a chemistry change.

*lol*…when was the last time you analyzed the cobalt content in the 18650 that Tesla uses? 😉 Guess what, you will most likely find the same low cobalt content in them at the moment.

Except that Tesla explicitly stated they use a new chemistry…

If people think a change to 2170 cells are coming that would exacerbate S and X sales slowdown,Elon patiently explained previously, they cannot switch cells as Panasonic is guaranteed a rate of return on its cell making machines. It is true that we don’t know the details of when these contracts, but most likely is that they continue with the 1870 they could always change the chemistry some.

Certainly he has previously said that, however contracts -especially those who offer greater ROI and business sense for both parties- can and should be ammended. Now the real question is if updating the contract will make sense?

Yes, the fear of a sales slowdown is why Elon is downplaying the possibility of a switch — and why we can’t trust such statements 🙂

Looks like Nevada batteries are better than the Asian ones…

Jeff Dahn and his team have worked special magic.

Meanwhile, SparkEV charges 55kW using 18.4 kWh battery is 3C all the way to 80% (not just 50%), over twice the C rate as any Tesla. Tesla has long ways to go before it can come anywhere close to SparkEV.

Not sure why you think this is brag worthy when the Spark is grossly inferior in other metrics like energy density and cost. The argument isn’t that the charge rate is superior to anything else. There are batteries available today that destroy both the Tesla and Spark in charge and discharge rates. The point is that the Tesla battery is a great overall combination of charge, discharge, energy density, power density, cost, etc. Focusing on only one metric isn’t very useful or compelling.

Well… With all the research money being spent in battery development I can envision Tesla/Panasonic to also use 3C cells by around 2020-22.

As you correctly pointed out focusing one metric can be problematic. Nonetheless a higher C-rate will solve one of the few drawbacks of electric mobility.

I bet we will see ALL metrics improve quite a bit over the next years with all manufacturers. Good times ahead!

Depends on how they decide on the trade-offs… And apparently, they are not very sure of that themselves. A couple of months ago, Elon said in a tweet that they probably won’t go beyond 250 kW, i.e. only a doubling of Model S/X C rate; but at the recent shareholders meeting, he mentioned that a 3-4 charge rate improvement seems feasible…

The Spark EV was an amazing car (I have one), and perfect for commuting. 3C fast-charging. A Real TMS. Blast to drive with all that torque and small size.

And, it’s probably the most efficient EV ever put into production. In summer I easily average 6mi/kwh with the AC blasting. Imagine a car with a 100kwh battery that could average 6mi/kwh…

A car with a 100 kWh battery would be larger and heavier though, and thus not achieve the same efficiency… That’s part of the trade-off 🙂

Research project as they don’t sell them anymore. Continue testing for them tho.

Just need to convince them to make the battery 4x larger and make 200 kW chargers for them. My hunch is it comes down to cost. The Spark EV battery was probably more expensive or something to handle the higher C rate.

The major trade-off is energy density — though for a given capacity, that means cost is also affected somewhat.

PHEV cells generally have higher C-rates than dedicated BEV cells, at the cost of lower density. The Spark EV essentially appears to have a PHEV battery, just without the actual hybrid drivetrain 😉

The Spark EV LG battery used the Gen 1 Volt battery TMS concept, which was about the most robust EV cell-cooling system ever made, with the BMW i3 DX bottom-plate cooling system a close-second. I think the original 2014 Spark A123 pack bottom-plate TMS system also was very, very good, IIRC. Cell cooling is key to high C.

“Cell cooling is key to high C”

You are right. Nonetheless I would like to add that reduced internal resistance is one key to reduce the need for cooling 😉

According to an analysis I read, the bottom cooling of large prismatic cells is actually considered the least effective cooling mechanism, compared to those employed for cylindrical cells or pouch cells… Not sure how reliable that analysis was, though.

Spark EV, yes WOW that is impressive!! 3C! What I don’t understand is why you get 8 downvotes for staying the facts??!!
I gave you an upvote.

The Hyundai Ioniq is just about 2.5 C, because with a 28 kWh battery it can charge at 69 kW. It has a lithium polymer battery I just discovered by searching:

It got downvotes, since he stated it as if the Spark battery was generally superior; while in truth having a high C rate is not impressive by itself — it’s only impressive when it doesn’t involve major trade-offs in other parameters, such as capacity. The Spark battery is tiny.

Yes, the SparkEV had two things going for it, the 3C battery charge rate (aided by a very good battery cooling system), and the massive high torque motor. I still think GM could have right-sized the battery into a Trax and doubled up the number of motors for AWD and built one heck of a sleeper!

There are high c-rate battery cell chemistries with low specific energy like in the Spark EV. However, the real trick is achieving very high levels of specific energy which maintaining other characteristics like low cost, good power density, and high c-rates. Tesla’s cells have the highest specific energy used in mass production automobiles… so still achieving good c-rates, excellent cell degradation characteristics and also getting the lowest cost per kWh makes the Tesla cells particularly interesting.

Even with the same chemistry, there is some room for varying power density vs. energy density, by modifying the thickness of electrodes and current collectors.

Didn’t the Spark use a LiFePo battery? Yes they have a good C rate but lousy energy density. Hobby battery, we call them. Popular in China, but not competitive in range terms.

The 2014 did, from A123. The 2015/16 used standard chemistry, from LG-Chem.

They are on the way out for passenger EVs in China as well. But they have other good uses…

I’m not sure how much his results already affect the currently produced cells. The research cooperation is still pretty fresh…

Though I guess his method for precisely measuring parasitic reactions might help gaining confidence in the robustness of the cells already in production, too 🙂

Made in ‘Murica!

It really makes the Model 3 Long Range appealing for long distance travel, get a quick charge from 10 to 20% to 60-80%. Most of the chargers are about 100-130 miles apart I think, so easy enough to go 1 or 2 chargers.

I was just checking my annual trip from Iowa to Wyoming, which I can finally do with superchargers now and it is showing only 2 hours charging to go 828 miles (not too bad as my usual stop time is usually 1.25 hours or so for longer lunch and then usual stops. The base Model 3 would almost double the charging time (2 hr to 3.8 hr according to EV Trip Planner). That is not feasible for me.

If it gets even faster with SCv3, I would be all for that. I might have to save for a Model 3 LR. 😉

Oh, and 120 minutes charging (I actually think that is pessimistic looking at EV Trip Planner’s charging time for miles range added) is only $24 to drive over 828 miles. I have friends that say “Tesla raised the supercharger rates, its way more than gas now”. I have to correct him and say it is about 1/5 the price of gas (vs 20 mpg car), at least in midwest where electric is cheap 😉 It is actually cheaper than I can charge at home still, or about the same. Especially since it is priced per minute if you don’t stay on the charger long you can really benefit from the high kW charging.

What compact sedan gets 20 mpg highway?

Model 3 is a midsize sedan.

You are right that 20 mpg is indeed a bit low to compare.

To do the comparison right, the M3LR would need to be compared with similar 0-60 performance midsize sedans.

A gas vehicle would have to get 100 mpg to be the same price. Supercharging is priced $0.20/min in the midwest above >60 kW, so if you keep SoC low so it can charge at rates >>60 kW (like at 120 kW) it is going to be really cheap to drive.

Or even larger sedans? I average 28 MPG highway in my 540i that’s 20 years old.

Objects in the rear view mirror are actually smaller than the appear. The 1998 BMW 540i is actually classified as a “Compact Car” by the EPA. It is one size class smaller than the Model 3. Cars have grown in the last 20 years.

And YOU might get 28 MPG out of it, but the EPA rates it at 22 mpg highway, and a combined MPG of 16:

540 getting 28 – ugh no – sorry its a V8 – I had a 528 (straight 6) and it got 21 – you get 18.7 according to this chart:

Its hard to throw erroneous info out on this site. There are too many informed car nuts with lots of resources to call your bluff.

I was comparing it to what my friends car gets on the highway (the one complaining about SC prices). Compare it to my 40 MPG Clarity PHEV (Yes, it gets 40+ mpg at 75 mph) and it is still about 2/5 the price.

Are all superchargers priced by time connected??? I guess I understand it (time occupying the real estate, etc.) but it lacks the transparency of $ per kwh. Great for those sophisticated enough to take advantage of it (stopping charging once the rate drops to a certain point).

Still for the sake of widespread EV adoption a clear cost per kwh (as well as charging stations that can charge any car (like a gasoline station!!!) would be much better.

Does the $24 include the cost of the electricity you left home with??

Yes, it does so would have to add maybe $8 to the total cost to be fair 😉

Tesla list on their site how much SC cost by state. (google Tesla Supercharging Costs) Iowa and Nebraska they are $0.20/min above 60 kW and $0.10 below. At just under 60 kW, that is 1 kWh/min which equates to $0.10/kWh and above that equates to max of 120 kW or about 2 kWh/min which is also about $0.10/kWh, which matches pretty closely to the commercial power rate of around $0.7/kWh in the midwest (wholesale about $0.035), some small profit which likely covers operating expenses and makes it similar to the $0.11 or $0.12 I pay at home.

I see CA is pretty high, around $0.24/kWh, but gas is a lot higher there too. We only pay around $2.60 – $2.80 for regular. There would be more incentive to camp on the charger there as you aren’t paying a higher rate for energy, where in Iowa there is more incentive to leave early since you start paying about twice as much for power towards the end of the charge as the beginning.

Thanks for the response!! Yes, here in CA we have (most places) expensive electricity. The way Tesla does the cost/minute it in two steps is reasonable for those who need to get to a quite full battery.

They use time since in most states it’s illegal to resell electricity by kWh. I know, silly, right?

That is too funny. I was wondering why they did that. It works out in favor of how I would use the charger anyway (stop between 60 and 80% due to close spacing of SC).

Sounds sketchy and whats the rush?

rush? Are you under the incorrect impression that this is something brand new today, just because this is the first time YOU have read about it?

No, and this is not really the first time Ive heard this (or actually 135Kw). I just dont see the need for crazy high speed charging. Ive been driving a BEV for 6.5 years and have rarely needed 240 charging at 16 amps much less 3 or 400 amps and I drive 12K miles per year minimum. My point is why push the limits?

Well, because your use case doesn’t represent all use cases. In my case, I routinely drive 1000 miles per week including 300 – 400 miles in a single day. The Model 3 LR with 300 miles of range and 120 kW (and hopefully faster soon) Superchargers makes it possible for me to drive an EV without making any major sacrifices of time.

Of course but my point still stands, why push the limits of charging?

I also had 118kW a few times, translating to a charge speed of 470 miles per hour, for the first half hour

Sweet. There is also supposed to be a significant increase in the batteries’ longevity.

So where’s the charger w/the highest power in the US to test? I thought they were rated at 145kW now, so why the 116kW limit?

From what I understand, the 145kW rating is for higher charging rate when sharing between 2 cars? But I’m not up to date on this topic, so my info may be years old.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

That’s a Sh1tload of loss there sir.


I reposted for clarity below. He was responding to my initial post, and it wasn’t at all clear enough. My bad.

I don’t think I made my previous post clear.

It isn’t loss, it is splitting the 145kW between 2 cars. One car for example could get 100kW and there would still be enough left for the second car to get 45kW. With the earlier 120kW chargers, one or both of the cars would have to get less.

I believe that was the point of the 145kW chargers, because nobody anywhere has ever recorded a single Tesla when plugged in alone reaching 140+ kW charging rate.

Does that make more sense?

It already made the same sense the first time 😉

It’s not a 116kW limit, it’s 120kW per car. Supercharger stalls are paired up. Each pair gets no more than 145kW in total.

My 2013 Model S gets 118kW regularly… I just need the battery to be almost empty to get it. It doesn’t go at 118kW for very long though, by about 20% full it’s probably passing down through 100kW. (I really should videotape it some time)

This is awesome news for Model 3 owners. It will make them feel a whole lot better about paying for their electricity once their charge-up times are drastically reduced.

My only question is – what is Tesla going to do with the 1,320 sites already in service? Are they going to leave them at 120kW or will they retroactively upgrade them? Could be expensive. Although… if it keeps the turnover high by shortening the charge times, perhaps it is less expensive to upgrade existing sites vs. building additional sites.

I hope they focus on building additional sites. Once supercharger density reaches a “sweet spot” they can move on and retroactively upgrade the old ones…

I suspect upgrading is much much cheaper than initial installation… Unless they have to upgrade the grid connection, too.

Lol. Videotape.

I thought Superchargers were rated at 135 kW. Why only 116 kW peak?

135-145 is at the charger connection to the grid or something. There are losses between that and the battery.

It is shared by 2 plugs. Assuming only 1 car is charging at the same time, it still gets slightly lower per plug limit at around 116 kW.

Same reason the Bolt EV can’t charge at 80 kW yet requires chargers rated for that for max charging speed.

Bolt can’t charge more than 55 kW.

Continuous loads only draw at 80% of rated amperage to prevent overheating?

In an earlier story, we saw the Model 3 LR charging at 117kW on one of the old 120kW chargers at Rancho Cucamonga. I don’t think there is an 80% continuous load limitation.

We have been super impressed with Model 3 Charging and have seen 425 miles/hour. In our last 650 trip (one day) the car was always charged before we were done eating or with our break.

Some model 3 owners here in Canada have been reporting 794km/hour (495 miles/hour) at up to 50% SOC.
Simply amazing (unlike Nissan’s bogus Leaf advertisements, this is TRULY “simply amazing” and not a rapidgate fraud! lol).

My Model 3’s first supercharging experience was pretty good. I went from 50 miles (16%) to 250 miles (80%) in 35 minutes. At one point I noticed 118 kW. I should have videoed it to see when the tapering occurred.

That time seems to be confirmed elsewhere. I just checked your time against the recently posted article on the time-lapse full charge of a Model 3. I looked at their time from 16% to 80% and it was about 36 minutes.

My X90D is charging with 1.44C, too: 118kW / 82kWh pack. So, for 100kWh packs, SuC output is the limiting factor, not battery chemistry.

Yo say in the title “x2″…then list 1.16 to 1.45 increase. It may be time for a new calculator.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

The title says “2x”………LMAO

It was an edit that didn’t make its way to press. Fixed now. Sorry.

The increase to 1.45 was the initial observation when George was going to publish the story. The later paragraph after he read Zoomit’s posts shows the change.

Edit was added after the fact. Good now.

That would indeed be impressive.

Model S and X owners would be PISSED.

LOL!! Thank god for early adopters!! This is why I have no problem at all with them getting first dibs on Model 3’s as they come out of the factory. They deserve to be rewarded in whatever way Tesla can manage to reward them. Without them buying S’s and X’s, NOBODY would be buying Model 3’s today.

I was already looking at how long it would take me using EV Trip Planner to travel back home and it would be about half as much charging time in a Model 3 LR than a Model S due to the better efficiency of the Model 3. Like 2 hours for 800 miles vs 3-4 hours in the more expensive car 😉 The Model 3 LR seems to get it to a level where it is just fast enough to be practical, not much slower than gas.

No, of course not. Expecting or thinking that would be ridiculous. IF that was remotely close to the case then the Model 3 would be able to hold the ~120 kW charge rate up to 80% easily.

Also it would mean a substantial break through in the chemistry that they are using, which would have Elon do a marathon-week twitter party never seen before.

It looks more like Tesla has tweaked a bit to get higher charge rate at the beginning but taper of faster. Looking at the overall charging the C-rate is below 1, just like you would expect from their chemistry.

Anyone having the slightest idea about how the battery chemistries and charging work knows that there will not suddenly be a Tesla charging at 2-300 kW unless the battery pack is starting to reach 150-250 kWh.

“Anyone having the slightest idea about how the battery chemistries and charging work knows that there will not suddenly be a Tesla charging at 2-300 kW”

In theory, that kind of quantum jump in the amount of current a battery of a given capacity can handle might happen with a switch to solid state batteries. But obviously, that’s at least a few years off.

Exactly… 🙂 And if they were even close to that Elon would tweet about the magnitudes of hurt that will come to those betting against them.

They obviously don’t want to boast to much about future improvements, so they don’t kill sales of the currently available models…

Tesla reduced the available capacity of the pack compared to what was measured for the EPA test; so it’s perfectly likely that they reduced charge current as well.

There are several reasons why they might do it. The one often mentioned is that they might want to avoid making the S and X look worse. If so, it’s quite possible that they will restore the original spec once updated S/X batteries are released…

The other reason, which I haven’t seen mentioned yet, is that they might want to see how the batteries hold up in real world usage, before they feel confident enough to drive them harder.

This is actually easy to check. Contact one of the teardown companies and ask for the wire size between connector and battery. 2 AWG (35 mm2) means that it is close to the limit already. Larger, well, yes it could be margin there. In case it is water cooled = designed for much higher power.

The next limit is the connector. I’ve done some back of the envelope calculations on the heating of the pins, but it depends very much on the temperature limit Tesla has chosen. 525 ampere is possible for a couple of minutes but certainly less than 10 minutes. Unless of course the V3 supercharger is water cooled. In that case the sky is the limit. Water cooled cables are VERY capable. Look at welding cables.

Maybe that means, 240kW Supercharger V3, which will increase charge rate on Model 3 to 180kW, Model Y to 190kW or 200kW(maybe, but Model Y should have bigger battery since it’s a CUV), Model S/X to 200kW, and prepare for Roadster to achieve the full 240kW charge rate. It might also pave the way for the Pickup truck to be able to charge. I am not sure if it(the Pickup) is going to be F-650 size or F150 Raptor sized, if it’s F-650 then it probably has a 480kWh battery to achieve 500 mile range and will take at least 2 hours on Supercharger V3 to charge, if it’s F-150 Raptor(size+performance), that is a little better, you could probably just transplant the Roadster drive-train directly onto a stronger frame for a Pickup and get 500 miles of range(even a 100kWh Model X P100D drive-train in an F-150 sized truck should be good for 250 miles). But now, I am out of the realm of things we actually know are in the pipeline and I am into the realm of wild speculation. Although I am sure no one will dispute that it might be better for Tesla to go with a… Read more »

Give us laymen the freaking charging times of these two models for the same charge. All that above means nothing to 99% of the people.

It means that with Supercharger V3, charge times are as follows:
Model 3 LR: 27 minutes from 0% to 80% @ 180kW
Model S P100D: 30 minutes from 0% to 80% @ 200kW
Model X P100D: Same as Model S
Model Y LR: 29 minutes from 0% to 80% @ 190kW(speculation, no one actually knows about Model Y, except Elon Musk).
Roadster mkII: 50 minutes from 0% to 80% @ 240kW(speculation, no one knows how fast Roadster will charge).
Pickup(assuming F-150 size): 50 minutes from 0% to 80% @ 240kW(speculation, no one knows how big the battery will be, or how fast it will charge)
Pickup(assuming F-650 size): 120 minutes from 0% to 80% @ 240kW(speculation, no one knows how big the battery will be or how fast it will charge)
Semi(assuming 1000kWh battery): 4 hours and 10 minutes from 0% to 80% @ 240kW(speculation, know one knows how big the Semi battery actually is).

The 2170 based packs will likely capable going plenty higher than current SC rates. If the BMS and pack can take 525 amps, that could be upto 210 kW (@ 400 V) or 183 kW (@350 V). Either would be great, and allow 10-80% recharging in perhaps 20 minutes or less (depending on taper). That’s plenty fast, since you want a 15+ minute break after 2.5 hours of driving anyway. Also will free up the SC stalls in approaching half the time of current waits, making good economic sense for Tesla, and happiness for folks waiting to plug in. The 2170 could easily go in the S and X also – 3mm of extra pack height is not going to require a major redesign.

I think thet most certainly are. The way musk has been talking about V3 super chargers implies the cars of today can charge faster, maybe even the 100-battery.

Wait a minute, how can you drag the conclusion that it’s the supercharger that limit Model 3 charging power but not Model S and X charging power?

Slightly off-topic. But could any Model 3 owner please make a trip from Edmonton to Acapulco?

Should be possible with the actual Supercharger coverage.

Please post a complete video!


That makes sense, when Model 3s are running at 5k /week, giga can continue to ramp up 2170 cells for new model S.

No Model S & Model X charge rate looks old, when they refresh them?

I’d be very concerned about super-dupercharging. It does take its toll on batteries. Bear in mind that the battery would have to be warmed somehow to recharge quickly in cold weather. I don’t know what effect such a jolt would have on batteries when outside temperatures exceed 90 F.

Whatever the case, I hope Tesla isn’t playing with fire. I want an EV that will recharge 80% in less than 15 minutes, but not one with the current Li-ion battery, which has a liquid electrolyte. Until solid state batteries are mass manufactured, I’ll stay on the sidelines and hope battery fires remain rare.

Your logic makes no sense. The chance of catching fire is greater in the ICE you are driving now. The data proves it. Your speculation is based on ……?????

I originally was not in the camp of using an EV for road trips, however…

With autonomous cars, riding might be easier and quicker than flying. With no TSA hassles. Yet another way that Musk can disrupt an industry. Short hop airlines are toast.