New HPWC for Model X??

New HPWC for Model X??

I was looking into having my HPWC installed in my garage while waiting for my Model X (just finished configuring on 1/11, and was confirmed on 1/18). I spoke with my local service center in Scottsdale today to see if they carried them in stock and while they said yes, the individual I spoke with said that he had also heard a rumor that a new HPWC was coming out for the Model X that was going to provide even quicker charging than the current HPWC and suggested that I wait just a bit until it was closer to my delivery date which will likely occur in 2Q 2016. Has anyone else heard of this rumor about a new HWPC? If so, please comment.

Redmiata98 | 19 gennaio 2016

The max charge level on the X is 72 amps with the "High Amperage Charger Upgrade" the current HPWC max output is 80 amps. The X is 8 amps shy of using the max output of the current HPWC. Not sure how a new HPWC would charge faster as I believe the max available amps determine the time to charge.

paradis | 19 gennaio 2016

I bought the HPWC and its being installed tomorrow. Since it puts out 80A, and the larger MX charger (which I ordered) is only 72A, I don't see how a newer charger could charge any faster since it is limited to the 72A that the MX can accept. The only way I could see faster charging is if they come out with a DC charger, like a chaeDemo or mini-supercharger, but that technology is still very expensive.

Tâm | 19 gennaio 2016


I am not sure whether that info is exactly accurate.

Current Model X is either rated as 48A or 72A.

Current HPWC is hooked to 100A circuit and for 80A chargers.

It doesn't matter how powerful the HPWC is but if you have a lower rated charger such as 48A, then that's what you get. The lower of the two, not the more powerful of the two.

It's possible that Tesla has revised a DIP switch design for a new HPWC to reflect 48A and 72A settings specifically.

However, doing so does not increase any rate of charge.

There's no advantage to wait for a change in DIP switch design.

Your Model X would communicate with a HPWC on a 100A circuit and would automatically adjust to the correct 48A or 72A setting.

john | 19 gennaio 2016

Thanks for all your responses. Makes alot of sense, I wasn't wanting to wait. Too excited, want to start getting the garage ready!

Tâm | 19 gennaio 2016


Now I think about it more.

May be nickel and dime owners but 80A HPWC may be more costly than 72A HPWC which in turn may be more costly than 48A HPWC.

vperl | 19 gennaio 2016

What folks worry about, never seems to amaze me.

Silly People are not in short supply.

Worry forth.

Roamer@AZ USA | 19 gennaio 2016

@vperl, it worries me out are not worrying.

Triggerplz | 19 gennaio 2016

Some of these comments are really funny.

eric.zucker | 20 gennaio 2016

If Tesla is updating its HPWC, and if you have to wait a bit for the car, I would wait for the new one. What are you going to use it for in the meantime?

Here's the "issue" I've had with my Roadster. My wall-mounted EVSE is capable of delivering 3x20A, and the Roadster can charge in power stages of, say 8, 10, 13, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, ... up to 70 A. So, the highest common value is 16A, not 20A.

If Tesla is updating the HPWC, there's a reason. I'd opt for the most up to date one.

Tâm | 20 gennaio 2016


Waiting or not depends on your availability, your convenience if there is no faster HPWC that can charge your X any faster. .

It is fine to wait for a HPWC that can charge faster than the current 100A 240V circuit HPWC.

I am not sure I can understanding your Roadster HPWC issue.

In the US, I am able to charge my Model S from a Roadster HPWC with a plug adapter fine.

I have no idea what you mean "16A, not 20A."

Yes, it says clearly 70A in my Model S when I charge from a Roadster HPWC with a plug adapter.

eric.zucker | 20 gennaio 2016

@Tâm: I'm in Europe, and our charging infrastructure is different than in the US:

I just meant to say my EVSE circuit delivers up to 20A, which the Roadster does not support. I thus charge at 16 Amps, which is the highest rate it supports at or below 20 Amps.

I've ordered an adapter for the Roadster to charge from a Mennekes Type 2 plug :

I'll see if that helps.

TonyInNH | 20 gennaio 2016

The only way I could see it being faster is if the HPWC outputted DC rather than AC, thus bypassing the onboard charger which is what the superchargers do. With this scenario you would be limited only by the available power in your house.

That is just my guess, I have not heard ANY rumors about this being offered. Just stating how it could be accomplished.

Nantang | 20 gennaio 2016

DC charging from home... I just pictured all the lights in the neighborhood going out.

aesculus | 20 gennaio 2016
vandacca | 22 gennaio 2016

If that's the case (faster DC charger coming out), then that would explain why Tesla was hiding the 72A charger option and why they think it's not necessary.

aesculus | 22 gennaio 2016

Then Tesla should have told us all to wait and why. While I would like to believe this is possible, the cynic in me thinks otherwise. I think they just don't believe anyone needs (based on data they collected from the model S users) to charge at home higher than 48 amps and that's it.

But I do think if Tesla put their engineering mind to it they could come up with an economical home charger that was DC based. Sure you still need an AC/DC in car charger for trips, but why not sell us a $1000 DC charger at home that could double or triple the current HPWC?

vperl | 22 gennaio 2016

If your home a HPWC can easily charge quickly.

I would love to see a real TESLA DESTINATION CHARGER at 125 + Amps DC at Places that are out of the way. Far from a SUPERCHARGER, stop at a restaurant eat lunch go away charged .
Just a couple charges at pass through areas that do not warrant a full set of superchargers.

aljjr2 | 22 gennaio 2016

Power --- Volts x Amps can not be created in the conversion of AC to DC. Typically, rectifying AC to DC results in .707 volts at 60 cycles. So to convert the charger to DC Volts to charge the battery and bypass the on-board charger would require substantially larger amount of input power. This is why the Super Chargers have massive dedicated 3-phase 440 VAC transformers (or higher). Most homes only have 2-phase power to product 220 and 110 circuits needed. The higher Voltage input is needed, so the amount of amperage through the wires is reduced to gain the same amount of power. The power (current x AC volts) needed so supply 350VDC at the SC amperage to charge the battery directly is significant. I don't know of a Household supply that would be available to provide the needed inputs, not to mention the cooling, household wire sizes, etc.

Never say never, but some basic electric principals prevail.

vperl | 22 gennaio 2016

Whoops VDC.. NEW Destination charger, the new one would be a commercial use charger at business locatION only

Business locations ONLY....

TonyInNH | 22 gennaio 2016

Not sure I understand you, the onboard charger is doing the conversion so why would you not be able to do something similar outside the car. Superchargers are nothing more than stacked onboard chargers, plus I never said you would have to have a SC at home. There should be some middle ground there.

vperl | 22 gennaio 2016

Forget it....

Thanks for asking.

NumberOne | 22 gennaio 2016

I am not claiming any expertise here, but there is a reason why it is not cheap and easy to provide dedicated High voltage DC charging at home. If it were that easy, Tesla would have done it in the first place. I would love to explain it, but I will refrain from doing so in order to save all of you some time. Think about it, the HPWC cost $1200 when it came out and is now $750. The HPWC would have been DC from the getgo if it could have been done safely.

aljjr2 | 22 gennaio 2016

I was responding to the supposition that somehow, by simply changing from AC to DC outside the vehicle, there would some magical increase in charging power, or reduction in charging time. With the given power available at the outlet (i.e. 220VAC @ 72amps--15.8KW). So whether DC converted outside the vehicle, or inside by the 72 amp converter, the power available at the outlet will remain at 15.8KW. Thus, there is no gain.

To charge with DC directly to the battery, the voltage must exceed the battery voltage (example: you can't charge a 12v car battery with a flash light cell) thus one can't charge a 350VDC battery pack with 220 volts, you have to increase the 220 AC voltage to greater than 350V DC. With a increase in voltage the amperage with decrease, thus the charging time will not increase.

To my point the Supper Chargers have dedicated 440VAC-3 phase power source to provide the power. That kind of power is not (typically) available to a private home.

NumberOne | 22 gennaio 2016

+1 aljjr2

aljjr2 | 22 gennaio 2016

the amperage will decrease...

TonyInNH | 22 gennaio 2016

The original post was in regards to faster charging. The problem is that the onboard charger is limited to 72A. I'm not sure where you get the "magical" conversion theory. I clearly pointed out that if the conversion is done outside then one could exceed the capabilities of the onboard charger since it would be bypassed. I never implied any "magical" increase in power in going from A/C to D/C.

TonyInNH | 22 gennaio 2016

Look it up, a supercharger is nothing more than stacked onboard chargers. I really don't see a reason why an external charger couldn't go beyond the capabilities of the onboard one.

Tâm | 22 gennaio 2016

Ok! May be Tesla is getting us a new HPWC at last!

Look at the diagram:

Unlike public Supercharger, you don't supercharge your car 24/7 at home. So as the diagram suggests on the right hand side, you can trickle charge your home stationary battery until you need that massive about of power to charge your car. That means you don't need 400V from the grid, 240V for trickle charge is doable :)

Problem solved!

Except the article suggests that your home stationary battery is just as big a shipping container.

Ok! I hope you have a big yard :)

Remnant | 23 gennaio 2016

@ Tâm (January 22, 2016)

<< ... the article suggests that your home stationary battery is just as big [as] a shipping container. >>

That size would be needed for a Supercharger, in order to charge many BEVs at the same time, not for a home charger.

Redmiata98 | 23 gennaio 2016

So there might be an integration with the Powerwall?

NumberOne | 23 gennaio 2016

The Powerwall integration could be a great option, especially for those with solar. I am not aware of any residential Powerwall orders being filled yet, so I would not hold my breath. I have an HPWC and the Powerwall would give more flexibility. It does not need to trickle charge. Trickle charging typically takes a long time, but if you charge the Powerwall during off peak hours, you can charge the car (possibly fast charge it) when you get home or when it is convenient rather than programming the car to do it at 1AM.

dortor | 23 gennaio 2016

hmmm - current power wall specs (from Tesla's website)

7 kwh - $3000
92 % efficient
Power: 3.3 kW
Voltage 350-450 volts
Current 9.5 amps

450 volts * 9.5 amps - 4275 watts

color me not impressed - now I now you can combine them to get more

but they are $3000 each - so it really isn't all that cost effective - and from the physics/math isn't faster by any way shape or form.

dortor | 23 gennaio 2016

I'm actually much more interested in using my Tesla as a battery for my home - I'm completely un-interesetd in using my home as a battery for my Tesla

and people seem to be missing the point

there is _NO_ magic way to make a residential home in the US charge a Tesla "faster"

home are feed by 240 volt system - and a homes capacity to charge a tesla is based on the amperage of the main circuit breaker

home come in a few common sizes

240v x 50 AMPs
240v x 100 AMPs
240v x 200 AMPs
240v x 400 AMPs

240 * 50 = 12,000 watts or 7.5 hours to charge a 90 kwh battery - BEST CASE - real life will be slower
240 * 100 = 24000 watts or 3.75 hours to charge a 90 kph battery - - BEST CASE - real life will be slower
240 * 200 = 48000 watts - would require a DC system - no existing mass market AC based chargers can do this
240 * 400 = 96000 watts - would require a DC system - no existing mass market AC based chargers can do this

NumberOne | 23 gennaio 2016

I must admit I did not give the size of the residential Powerwall units much thought. It is not a solution that would fully charge the car unless you spend a whole bunch of money with a number of units.

@dortor provided the best examples so far.

aljjr2 | 23 gennaio 2016

@TonyInNH... I don't dispute that the super charger is a stack of chargers. My point is the INPUT source has more power than any household is capable. Thus the super charger has dedicated transformers with all three phases of power from the source. Homes do not. These are industrial transformers providing input to the SC rectifiers result in voltages greater than 350VDC with insane current amounts (thus the very heavy charging cable).

A typical home only shares part transformer's output with 208VAC and neutral output from the Delta or Wye transformer configuration. The Super Charger uses all the outputs to the various super charge distributions. This is the reason for the "pairs" at the Super Charger (1A and 1B, etc) and the reason the super charger has those massive green transformers adjacent.

The determining factor is POWER available at the source. Residential homes don't have the power available. There is always a relationship between power, volts, amps.

Here is an explanation of the AC distribution systems and why power is transmitted in 3 phases. Hope that helps.

TonyInNH | 23 gennaio 2016

A Model X has either a 48A onboard charger or 72 if you upgrade. That allows you to pull about 15KW max from the HWPC.

What I am suggesting is that IF Tesla came out with a HWPC that did the conversion outside the car (since the car is limited to 72A) then you could conceivably have as an example

100A x 208V ~ 21Kw

thus the car would charge faster than the current HWPC.

aljjr2 | 23 gennaio 2016

@ TonyNH, we are on the same page, I now see the discussion contention. You are calculating at 100AMps on the circuit (100 amp breaker. However, you can only have continuous amperage at 80% of the circuit breaker's capacity. 100 amps is the "trip" amount. Thus the any gain (excluding heat lost) is only minimal.... 72x220=15.8KW with on-board charger; or 80x220=17.8KW if converted to DC outside the vehicle -- (not 100Amp, since you can't draw 100 amps continuously on a 100 amp circuit). That is why the Model S only has a 80amp on-board charger for a 100 Amp circuit breaker and a HPWC.

To change the 220 to at least 350VDC, you have to have a step-up voltage transformer, rectifier, and some filtering network to produce the DC output capable of charging the Tesla's Battery. During the step-up process for the voltage, there is a corresponding "step-down" of the current, thus the power (Amps x Volts) remains the same.

Thanks for the engaging conversation.

aljjr2 | 23 gennaio 2016

BTW... we need to get a real life. LOL

dortor | 23 gennaio 2016

or to put it more simply - you can't get blood from a stone - there is a fixed amount of energy coming in a home from their electrical service provider - the Tesla can already charge faster than the home can provide - so the limitation on charging rate is the american residential service configuration - they just don't deliver enough juice to do any better - and to step it up would be very expensive.

TonyInNH | 23 gennaio 2016

Fair enough.

dortor | 23 gennaio 2016

@aljjr2 lol agreed! I'm killing time at my son's speech at debate conference on a Saturday! Is that real life enough for you?

johnse | 26 gennaio 2016

If you are not concerned about the cost of the charging system--yes, big IF, I know :)--you could employ batteries for peak shaving of the charging.

Let's say you want to be able to charge twice as fast--so equivalent to charging at 150 amps @ 220--but you don't want a 200 amp circuit dedicated to charging...

Have a 45kWh battery that is charging when the car is not plugged in. When you plug your car in to charge, the charging system uses both the battery and your 220V line, combined, to charge.

The 72 or 80 Amps allowable on continuous load from the 100A line plus additional power pulled from the battery would give you at least double the charging rate. It's possible, even, that the battery system could supply even more power, giving supercharger-like performance for the first 50% of charge.

This is effectively what the article was talking about, but at a multiple-charger location. Unfortunately, what they are describing needing a huge battery for is already being done at Tesla's superchargers. The power levels in the infographic were not even up to SC rates.

frankgnv | 26 gennaio 2016

I have two of the current HPWCs and they work great. Not sure I need anything faster. My power company provides me with .04/KWH from 11 PM to 5 AM (special EV power rate) and the X is fully charged in about 3 hours from about 20% capacity.

dortor | 26 gennaio 2016

I am jealous of @frankgnv's power company setup - congrats on the ideal configuration.

NumberOne | 26 gennaio 2016

If anyone is still wondering about this, the HPWC is now listed on the X Store page. Not sure why it was not there in the first place.

aljjr2 | 26 gennaio 2016

Thanks Leonard, I have one on order and the HPWC on the Model X page is the same Tesla P/N as the charger on the Model S page..... Mine is shipped and on the way. Looking forward to installing.... now I just need a VIN and something to plug in.

MyXinTx | 26 febbraio 2016

Other than the name, is there any modification in the current Wall Connector previously named HPWC?

Paul Carter | 26 febbraio 2016

Appears nothing yet. I wonder if they will release something you can set it to 90 amp breaker to net the 72 amp upgraded charger. Right now I think you'll need a 100 amp breaker to get the full 72 amps. Great for your dual charger Model S friends all the same if you put it on a 100 amp breaker.

Darryl | 26 febbraio 2016

Do remember the $3,000 for the PowerWall is just the battery component, no more. You still need an interface converter which will cost more than the PowerWall. I ordered a HPWC several weeks ago. Before buying I ask both my local SC and Freemont because I heard rumors about an updated HPWC. I got the same response. There is no new HPWC currently planned. The person at Freemont said they had been out of HPWC for a couple of weeks but just got a new shipment.

Also even if they had some type of three phase device, in our area they don't offer three phase service to residential customers only single phase.

vperl | 26 febbraio 2016

HPWC is fantastic at the highest Amp available, however if one looks many, and I say many of the DESTINATION HPWC are set 40 Amps.

Not much help unless your staying over night, while a HPWC at 80 Amp you have a extra long lunch, your good to go.