Jeremy3292
Active Member
Hmmm…so now maybe some inventory Model Ys with LG packs?!? Thus ineligible
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
2024 Model 3 LR AWD is now eligible for the $7500 tax credit [posted 06/17/2024]
- Thread starter eladts
- Start date
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Yeah it is possible. It cannot be that hard to get some Monroneys and post them. Maybe it is but a window sticker is a basic thing to look at before committing to buy a vehicle. Even in this day and age when they aren’t on the window.
I guess we’ll see.
If the Monroneys say “-I” as the Panasonic Model 3s are alleged to say “-E” on the window sticker, then it is all pretty definitive.
The energy content of the -I is very consistent with an LG pack (even though the Panasonic Y packs tested as kind of pathetic they still are higher).
E90alex
Active Member
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
I don’t think there’s anything “weird” about it.
Tesla has two sources of long range batteries for the 3/Y. One is manufactured in the US and is eligible for the tax credit. One comes from China and is not.
They only have so many tax credit-eligible packs to go around, so they’re making sure that people who want it can get it in any model/trim, and those that don’t or are leasing don’t “waste” one. Pretty smart.
There no difference in the lease rates between an eligible pack and non, so there is no method to steer the lease only person into the lease only eligible pack.
And i am not sure we can say for sure they are pack limited. So it seems odd to me that they would take a vehicle that is widely advertised as one of the few that is universally eligible and create a version that is not.
That’s the part i find weird.
And i am not sure we can say for sure they are pack limited. So it seems odd to me that they would take a vehicle that is widely advertised as one of the few that is universally eligible and create a version that is not.
That’s the part i find weird.
rpiotro
Active Member
Are you Sure? I got this from the IRS site.
"If you do not transfer the credit, it is nonrefundable when you file your taxes, so you can't get back more on the credit than you owe in taxes. You can't apply any excess credit to future tax years."
Does anybody know with 100% certainty that it is not a tax credit. In other words, offsetting actual tax liability vs a flat out incentive payment? It is confusing. Typical government. They make it clear as mud.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Yes, I'm sure.
It IS a tax credit.
But it's ALSO one they won't ask for the $ back if you don't have enough liability later if you took as at point of sale.
You can get that TOO from the IRS site-
Topic H — Frequently asked questions about transfer of New Clean Vehicle Credit and Previously Owned Clean Vehicles Credit | Internal Revenue Service
Topic H — Frequently asked questions about transfer of New Clean Vehicle Credit and Previously Owned Clean Vehicles Credit
IRS said:
NOTE: If you do not take the credit as point of sale, and instead just file it like the previous-years credits when you do your taxes, that exception does NOT apply, and you would, indeed, only "profit" the amount of the credit equal to your liability.
But there's not much reason to do the credit that way rather than POS (unless you've already taken your max of two POS credits for the year somehow and now are buying a third EV the same year--- or if you were in the weird situation where you took ownership of an EV that only AFTER the sale became eligible for the credit)
If a customer places an order to lease a Model Y Tesla can assign a VIN that does not qualify for the tax credit on a purchase. Most people just place an order through the order page rather than specifying a VIN on the inventory page.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
What would be funny if that's the case is that BOTH the folks saying the now-eligible 3s are getting US packs and the folks saying Y sales haven't declined enough to provide all the packs that they sell worth of LR AWD would both be right.... Since it'd mean Y sales did NOT decline enough to provide all the 3 packs needed, but by putting ineligible packs in leased Ys they make up the difference to cover non-leased 3s.
Clever solution if that's what they're actually doing.
Jeremy3292
Active Member
Is there any proven performance/quality or similar difference between the 2 batteries? My guess is Telsa will do everything they can to assign Lease customers one of these I models for the 3 or Y ; so does that mean lease customers may get a lesser car?
Or are the batteries basically the same? And the software and motors more important?
Or are the batteries basically the same? And the software and motors more important?
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
1) LG is slightly lower initial capacity. 78-79kWh vs. 80-81kWh (very roughly, it varies in each EPA test).
2) LG charges noticeably slower (@eivissa gave the taper points above)
3) Degradation may be slightly less for LG? Not as sure about that, @eivissa or @AAKEE could comment as Europe is very familiar with these packs.
E90alex
Active Member
For vast majority of people they won’t be able to tell the difference. Even driving them back to back.
The most noticeable difference would be range, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Tesla slightly software limited the capacity of the Panasonic 3L pack to match the LG 5L pack since they are being sold concurrently. They could also artificially limit the power output and charge curve of the battery too but I don’t think they have done that in the past. Only soft capacity limits.
And for a lease it doesn’t really matter since it’s never “your” car and never will be since there’s no buyout option on Tesla leases. It’s not like people goto Hertz and will only take a rental with a Panasonic battery.
There is no noticeable better degradation for the LG packs (NMC) vs the Panasonic's (NCA) at least according to my Tesla specific survey:
Another factor is discharge power. The Panasonic Long Range (w. or w/o Boost) will have around 25kW more power than the LG, because of different voltage sag behavior
@E90alex might be right with the software lock. We've had the same in Europe, back in Q4/2020 and Q1/2021 were the 79kWh Panasonic was silently locked to 75kWh with the 2020 Christmas update 2020.48.12.1 in order to match the smaller LG 75kWh, that was sold alongside during that time. They also reduced the consumption constant with the update, to mask the fact, that they had locked away about 3kWh at the top end.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I don’t think this is correct. The charge curve will be the most noticeable. Someone downgrading from a 5-year-old 2170C is really going to notice the LG when it tapers at 10% rather than 30%!
And the 2170L tapers at closer to 14% it sounds like, so that would be noted as better than LG - more noticeable than the negligible range difference. Not a huge difference but real world would be more relevant.
[posted 06/17/2024]
2024 Model 3 LR AWD is now eligible for the $7500 tax credit [posted 06/17/2024]
The EPA test for Model 3 shows no real sign of a capacity lock. It’s still over 80kWh as I recall. Can check above. (Keep in mind the Performance typo on page 7 in the AWD results.)
AWD LG - 78.6kWh
Performance Panasonic 2170L - 80.1kWh
AWD-E Panasonic 2170L - 80.1kWh
These numbers are lower than prior 81kWh and near 82kWh results (have to look up exact numbers). But the results vary. And it is possible that Tesla adds more buffer margin or whatever. (Not a larger buffer but just a higher voltage for shutdown which is less likely to prematurely shut down. Note: This is pure speculation, no evidence for it.)
Last edited:
Jeremy3292
Active Member
My 2021 LR with Panasonic 2170L pack doesn't taper until 25-30%...250 kW until then when on a V3/V4 supercharger. Old pic below but at 22% there
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Good to hear. I don’t know about the @eivissa numbers then? Something about European superchargers? No idea. This does make more sense; 14% seemed very low. You have a post-April-2021 LR it sounds like? (Before that is 2170C.)
But back to the point - my understanding is the LG taper IS much earlier than this. Any data showing that is welcome. I believe Out Of Spec test may have covered this in the Highland review.
I believe it is a quite significant difference between LG and Panasonic, but I am basically basing this on credible posters here and what they say - not first hand or even video evidence; would be good to get the correct info here for the US.
Has anyone done Supercharging YouTube on Performance Highland? That is 2170L.
If for an order yes. But for inventory, if the non credit eligible person chooses to lease the credit eligible car and the eligible person wants to buy one and all they have is non eligible cars, you cut your SAM on the inventory cars. There is nothing keeping the non credit eligible person from taking the eligible car. It’s not that big of a deal, but my point was it wasn’t straightforward genius.
This verified 2170L by battery pack part number or CAN Full Pack When New value?
It seems low indeed, but in Europe that is the limit. I've also watched some US charge tests and saw the drop at the same spot. I was expecting the US model to pull 250kW for longer and therefore proving that this is another limitation to align (sort of) with the LG packs.
This video has bits of the charge curve of the Highland Performance, which looks better but they only just plugged in, which makes the complete charge curve look too good usually.
Similar threads
- Poll
