Think all EV battery chemistries are degrading equal?

Real world data tells a different story.

Two weeks ago, I posted about the outstanding battery health result of a Tesla Model 3 Standard Range with an LFP battery and almost 200k miles.

Among more than a hundred comments, discussion focused on the comparison between LFP and nickel-based chemistries like NCA or NMC.

So, out of curiosity, I wanted to compare the last 10 test results our customers did on Tesla Model 3 Standard Range NCA vehicles against 10 LFP ones.

All with at least 100k miles.

Real customer cars, real-world usage patterns.

The results in the two tables speak for themselves.

The NCA vehicles are mostly 2018-2020 models and are showing battery health between 71% and 83%.

The LFP vehicles (2022 models) are showing battery health between 89% and 93%.

Now, it's true that the NCA vehicles in this sample are slightly older on average, which does play a role in degradation.

But age alone doesn't explain such a big gap.

LFP chemistry is clearly holding up better under these conditions.

In the used car market, leading with clarity using this data allows for:

• Accurate residual value estimation: avoid overpaying for a more degraded NCA car or undervaluing an LFP one

• Customer confidence: being able to explain battery health differences based on chemistry type increases trust

• Right car, right buyer: know the chemistry and degradation patterns, match the right car to the right buyer based on their actual range needs

Imagine not having this data when evaluating a used Model 3 Standard Range.

Seems crazy, right?

Acting without this data is like comparing apples to oranges.

And it means leaving on the table the opportunity to sell those cars that show great battery health with the lifetime battery extended warranty we provide.

Were you expecting these results?
likeinsightful

https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidegiacobbe/

Οταν λέει προσαρμογή τιμής, εννοεί ξεβράκωμα με ευγενικό τρόπο....