So this is the updated Mulroney sticker for the new 2021 long range Model X that gets 371 miles range. It reads 32 kWh for 100 miles range so 371 miles range equals 118.72 kWh battery. Is this the new 4680 battery or just an updated 120 kWh pack?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
118 KWh 4860 Battery in Model X?
- Thread starter Axtrader
- Start date
So this is the updated Mulroney sticker for the new 2021 long range Model X that gets 371 miles range. It reads 32 kWh for 100 miles range so 371 miles range equals 118.72 kWh battery. Is this the new 4680 battery or just an updated 120 kWh pack?
M3BlueGeorgia
Active Member
Doesn't seem a likely conclusion, based on what we know about the 4680. Likely this battery would go into CyberTruck and the Semi.
More likely Tesla have increased the battery capacity on the current battery packs on the S and X, though possible they are finally using the 1650 batteries (from 3 & Y), though that itself is less likely than Tesla just getting more charge level into the existing battery design.
Regardless, increasing the range of the X by around 20% is a big frigging deal.
More likely Tesla have increased the battery capacity on the current battery packs on the S and X, though possible they are finally using the 1650 batteries (from 3 & Y), though that itself is less likely than Tesla just getting more charge level into the existing battery design.
Regardless, increasing the range of the X by around 20% is a big frigging deal.
But it isn't an increase of 20%. It is an increase of 20 miles from 351 to 371, or just over 5%.
You can't calculate the battery size from the EPA ratings as it is a wall-to-wheels number, so it takes all of the loses into account. (So no the new Model X does not have a 118kWh batter pack.)
M3BlueGeorgia
Active Member
True. There's another thread where someone took delivery of one.
Likely the 5% was from improved battery chemistry.
that's 32kWh from the wall outlet using the supplied UMC. It's far from loss-less so not all of it goes into the battery.
that's unlikely.
Instead Tesla added a new "efficiency package" 2020H2, same as they added 2020 that then was converted into LR+ with a range bump from pure better regen recapture.
Remember that -G and -H batteries (so called id 93) have better wiring that allows them to charge at 250kWh on a v3 supercharger for example. So it's totally feasible they can recapture the power from regen even a bit better than -F batteries.
BM3B
“beaver”
Assuming the 32 kWh per 100 mi efficiency number is correct (same as my 2020 with 351 mile EPA range) then either:
1. Usable battery pack energy increased 6% (improved battery chemistry, drivetrain efficiency, or more cells), or
2. Wall to battery efficiency got worse by the same 6% amount that the battery to wheel efficiency improved so that a fully charged battery can go 371 miles.
My guess is that the battery chemistry improved at some point, hopefully -H so my 2020 X LR+ gets the higher range numbers.
In reality I rarely drive 55 mph so this increase is not a big deal in real life.
1. Usable battery pack energy increased 6% (improved battery chemistry, drivetrain efficiency, or more cells), or
2. Wall to battery efficiency got worse by the same 6% amount that the battery to wheel efficiency improved so that a fully charged battery can go 371 miles.
My guess is that the battery chemistry improved at some point, hopefully -H so my 2020 X LR+ gets the higher range numbers.
In reality I rarely drive 55 mph so this increase is not a big deal in real life.
BM3B
“beaver”
BM3B
“beaver”
Mine also is a -H (November 2020 build) - now during the warmer months on my commute, averaging 265 wh/mi round-trip, about 70% of that is 60-70mph highway, depending on flow of traffic really because I just set the cruise to do whatever the left lane is doing. Lifetime average is 318 right now over 6200 miles (took delivery in December, and consumption was in the high 300's for most of Feb because polar vortexocalypse).
If I keep the speed down it's down in the 250 range round-trip. So yeah, earlier reports regarding efficiency improvements seem to be the correct take on this particular iteration of the X
If I keep the speed down it's down in the 250 range round-trip. So yeah, earlier reports regarding efficiency improvements seem to be the correct take on this particular iteration of the X
Similar threads
