Standard & Long Range batteries (LFP & NMC)

[stevedee]

I hadn't appreciated until recently (...because I'm a bit slow on the up-take) that there were significant differences between the ev traction batteries for standard & Long Range S5 models.

So I put this table together...

Feature or characteristic	LFP battery	NMC battery
Cost	Lower	Higher
Cycle life	Higher (maybe 2 or 3 times NMC)	Lower (~1,000–2,000 cycles)
Range (per kWh)	Lower	Higher
Usage best practice	Urban: great for daily use & deep cycling	Ideal if you often need longer range
Safety / thermal stability	Very good	Good, but slightly more thermal sensitivity
Daily charge limit	100% OK	70–80% best
Full charges	Encouraged: frequent 100 % SOC	Occasional: 100 % SOC can stress cells
Cold charging	Weak	Better
‘Healthy’ battery range	20 – 100% SoC	40 – 80% SoC

This has an impact on how the 2 variants should be charged for best performance.


My full notes are here: MG S5ev: battery matters

 

[Bam Bam]

Sounds about right.

Could be useful to those who are new to EVs considering which one to buy.

 

[Ian Key]

Apart from the recommended charging levels I don't think it matters to the average EV driver.

 

[TimothyN]

Is it true to say "Range per kWh" is less or greater, or do you really just mean "Range"?

 

[stevedee]

Is it true ?

NMC (Nickel Manganese Cobalt) batteries typically have a higher energy density and thus a greater range per kilowatt-hour (kWh) compared to LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate) batteries.

 

[EvTek23]

I've noticed there is a third battery option shown in the manual. It is fitted in the 125 kW motor version normally with the 49kWh battery, and is rated at 62kWh, both LFP?
Separately there is then the 170 kW motor with the 64kWh battery, presumably NMC.
It doesn't quote the market for the 62kWh battery......does anybody know?

 

[stevedee]

I think the S5 Essence uses the 62kWh battery & is only available in Australia, where they don't have the 64kWh version.

 

[TimothyN]

NMC (Nickel Manganese Cobalt) batteries typically have a higher energy density and thus a greater range per kilowatt-hour (kWh) compared to LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate) batteries.

So, in the plethora of "how many miles per kWh?" threads we should be mentioning battery chemistry as a metric?

 

[Kenp1]

It isn't really about battery chemistry, just weight, a 62kWh NMC battery would be lighter than a 62kWh LFP battery.

 

[T1 Terry]

Let's look at this on a different logistics level. The 20% to 80% SOC of the NMC cells means the real capacity is 51kWh , the useable range of an LFP cell is not down to 20%, it is down to zero % SOC, not the 20% mentioned.
There is a point that needs to be made clear, so there is no misunderstanding. SOC (State of Charge) is from fully charged to all that capacity used, this is not down to 0vdc, the LFP cell will still be at 3 lVDC or higher, the NMC 0% SoC is 2.5 VDC. So neither cell/battery chemistry is down to 0 VDC @ 0% SoC.

Now, we have two chemistries that can deliver 51kWh within their cycle life maximised charging regime.

What about the weight between the battery packs? Using the same 51kWh as the capacity .... are NMC batteries really lighter?

Yes, you can get the first cycle with and NMC chemistry to deliver an additional 20% capacity .... but if you want to retain the cycle life, that means charging the last 20% capacity into the cell, just before you leave ...... does that fit in with the cheaper power window many use, or will this last 20% cost quite a bit more? How much further distance will that extra 20% give you? Does that match you bladder and coffee range?

The thermal operating range. If you live where it's cold enough to be even considered, you already use battery heating, so this part is just fluff really .....

With this information in hand, and the fact that China has virtually banned the NMC chemistry, so who will the manufacturer be ...... Which battery chemistry is the better choice?

Just to throw a spanner in the works, Sodium ion (Na+) is a real time consideration now, CATL are actually supplying manufacturers now .... so, a cheaper longer cycle life chemistry than either of the others and no need for battery heating because they are way ahead of either of the other two regarding low temp performance .....

T1 Terry

 

[stevedee]

Correction to my previous: Its the long range Essence & the Elite that get the 62kWh battery in Oz according to this site: https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/mg-s5-ev-essence-49-2025-review-149856/

Why does the Australasian S5 have a different performance profile to the UK model; e.g. 0 - 60mph in about 8s rather than about 6s?

 

[T1 Terry]

Correction to my previous: Its the long range Essence & the Elite that get the 62kWh battery in Oz according to this site: MG S5 EV Essence 49 2025 Review - carsales.com.au

Why does the Australasian S5 have a different performance profile to the UK model; e.g. 0 - 60mph in about 8s rather than about 6s?

What is the rated engine power for the 62kWh model?

T1 Terry

 

[Ian Key]

What is the rated engine power for the 62kWh model?

T1 Terry

It looks like it's the same as the 49kWh, 125kW with 250Nm of torque but with a WLTP of 425km instead of a WLTP of 335km

 

[T1 Terry]

It looks like it's the same as the 49kWh, 125kW with 250Nm of torque but with a WLTP of 425km instead of a WLTP of 335km

Seems some bistro maths must have been involved in arriving at the 425km .... WLTP, What Lies To Publish, about the only explanation for such an unrealistic figure ..... Our poverty pack 51 gets 320kms on a good day, so the 335 is sort of believable if you allow for multiplying by the page number .......

T1 Terry