Charging time depends on usable capacity, the car’s power curve, charger rating and state of charge. See a transparent calculator scenario and what battery research can—and cannot—tell us.
A DC session depends on the capacity entered in the calculator, the power curve as state of charge rises, and the limits of both car and post. The table shows one transparent EvCompass scenario for the Hyundai IONIQ 5 RWD: charging from 10% to 80% at a 350 kW DC post. The result is a calculator estimate, not a promise that every session will finish in that time.
Hyundai lists an 84 kWh battery for the IONIQ 5 and claims 18 minutes for 10–80% at a 350 kW station. Here, 84 kWh is the calculator input, not a verified usable-capacity figure. We use a flat synthetic 196 kW profile calibrated to the manufacturer’s claim; it is not a measured vehicle curve or an independent forecast. Battery temperature, shared station power and vehicle preparation can also change the session.
| Vehicle | Hyundai-published battery capacity | SoC window | Rated post power | Profile assumption | EvCompass calculator estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hyundai IONIQ 5 RWD | 84 kWh (manufacturer value; calculator input) | 10% → 80% | 350 kW DC | Flat synthetic profile: 196 kW; calibrated to Hyundai’s 18-minute claim, not a measured vehicle curve. | 18.0 min (calculator estimate) |
Tesla lists maximum Supercharging power of 170 kW for the current Model 3 Premium RWD and 250 kW for Premium Long Range RWD. These are peak-power limits, not 10–80% charging times. Tesla also lists up to 11 kW AC for Model 3 on a three-phase 400 V supply; that is an onboard-charger limit, not a DC session result. DC charging time also depends on the battery profile, vehicle configuration and post.
You can change the vehicle, battery level and post rating in the charging-time calculator. Compare chargers and find a stop on the charging map.
The evidence does not support a yes-or-no answer for every car. In a controlled experiment on LFP cells charged at a specified rate, a shorter rest after charging was linked to capacity loss over repeated cycles, while a longer rest showed some capacity recovery. That finding belongs to the setup studied; it is not a verdict on every vehicle because chemistry, cooling, temperature, state of charge and control strategy differ.
A separate model-based paper describes a way to constrain lithium plating and temperature rise during fast charging, updating the model as cells age. Tesla’s Model 3 manual recommends navigating to a fast charger to precondition the battery and says a lower state of charge typically charges faster. The useful takeaway is that the vehicle’s profile and conditions matter, not simply the word “fast” on the charger.
| Source | Scope | Finding | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wu et al., Journal of Energy Storage, 2024 | 20 Ah LFP cells; 2C charging over 10–80%; six gaps of 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 min; 200 cycles. | In this setup, a gap under 20 min was linked to capacity degradation; a gap over 20 min showed capacity recovery. | A controlled LFP cell experiment does not establish the result for every car, chemistry or use pattern. |
| Electrochemical model-based aging-adaptive fast charging, Applied Energy, 2024 | Six automotive prototype cells; the model was updated as cells aged. | The strategy aimed to limit lithium-plating potential and temperature rise through electrochemical model constraints. | It applies to the described strategy and cells; it does not prove that every fast charge is harmful or safe. |
| Tesla Model 3 owner manual | Manufacturer instructions for vehicle users. | A lower state of charge typically charges faster; navigating to a fast charger allows battery preconditioning. | The manual applies to this model; vehicle and station conditions still affect a session. |
About the author
EvCompass articles are prepared by the editorial team using catalogue data and, where an article lists them, the sources shown below it.
PVGIS models annual output for a declared 5 kWp Warsaw reference case. We convert it to an energy equivalent for driving, without treating production as car charging or savings.
Six families score 79%, followed by four at 78%. See the leading rows and both group medians.
The Mercedes-Benz EQS leads at 605 km. See the leading entries and medians across 280 families.
