2024 US model Y rwd battery type and size

[MP3Mike]

I believe someone already posted a pic of one charging at over 200 kW

A 2024? I'm not sure any have been delivered yet. (We know none were before January 23rd.)

 

[mborkow]

It’s not in Tesla’s interest to nerf charging speeds. They charge by the KW hour at SC’s and the slower you charge the longer your taking up a charging stall that could be used by another paying car

 

[icu2023]

I believe someone already posted a pic of one charging at over 200 kW

I believe what you saw was 2023 MY RWD not 2024 model. 2023 has a software locked big battery which actually can charge at 250kw peak. I guess they did not want to advertise that because otherwise 2024 model would look like a downgrade from 250kw to 170kw.

If 2024 model can charge at 250kw peak, tesla would not list it at 170kw considering how they habitually inflate their range numbers.

 

[mborkow]

I believe what you saw was 2023 MY RWD not 2024 model. 2023 has a software locked big battery which actually can charge at 250kw peak. I guess they did not want to advertise that because otherwise 2024 model would look like a downgrade from 250kw to 170kw.

If 2024 model can charge at 250kw peak, tesla would not list it at 170kw considering how they habitually inflate their range numbers.

It was a 2023 and, even better, the pic showed 251!

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Just FYI - not intended to answer the questions in this thread. Probably been posted elsewhere (didn't check), so not going to spend any time on this, but the pack is 66.5kWh or so. 4154 for the weight. This is for the 2024 Model Year Model Y RWD.

https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=59703&flag=1

I am not doing the research on the implications of that weight, etc. (I don't track vehicle weights and figure out why it's not the prior 4209).

Obviously this is the pack capacity subject to software restrictions, not necessarily the full pack capacity.

 

[ven7782]

the pack is 66.5kWh

2023 Model Year Model Y RWD was 70 kWh based in tests.

 

[bzobzo]

Just FYI - not intended to answer the questions in this thread. Probably been posted elsewhere (didn't check), so not going to spend any time on this, but the pack is 66.5kWh or so. 4154 for the weight. This is for the 2024 Model Year Model Y RWD.

https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=59703&flag=1

I am not doing the research on the implications of that weight, etc. (I don't track vehicle weights and figure out why it's not the prior 4209).

Obviously this is the pack capacity subject to software restrictions, not necessarily the full pack capacity.

Comparing it to the 2023 EPA doc, it seems to me that the 2023 doc used the LFP battery for the test, while the 2024 test is what you would expect with the software limited LR battery. The tested range is significantly higher for 2024 given the higher usable capacity. And maybe this is why the 2024 MY RWD didn't have its range downgraded like the other models.

I think the 2024 will end up having a similar capacity to the 2023. If you look at the recharge energy data in the doc, it is listing about 75kWh, which subtracting the charging overhead would be a net capacity of 69-70kWh. The voltage and battery energy capacity that imply the 66.5kWh are probably just estimates that don't line up perfectly with the capacity. But either way, it looks good for 2024 MY RWD buyers.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

2023 Model Year Model Y RWD was 70 kWh based in tests.

Looks like 60kWh for the 2023 document but be aware there could be more than one RWD in 2023 (I don’t know, don’t follow it, but it happens all the time - a vehicle sold which has no EPA doc).

The voltage and battery energy capacity that imply the 66.5kWh are probably just estimates that don't line up perfectly with the capacity.

This is not an estimate. It is what they measure. Just how it works. Zero debate; it’s a well established documentation process. All you have to be careful of is to not accidentally look at the cold discharge measurements, and ignore any errors in the documents (they do happen).

66.5/74.9 is 89% which is perfectly in line with ALL known charging efficiency data for these pack & PCS types (there is zero debate on this point, of course - it’s very well known and accepted by all). If you have any doubts just look at all the other documents from earlier years, where it is explicitly spelled out.

 

[ven7782]

Looks like 60kWh for the 2023 document but be aware there could be more than one RWD in 2023 (I don’t know, don’t follow it, but it happens all the time - a vehicle sold which has no EPA doc).

2023 MY RWD Dec build battery is different from those that came earlier in the year 2023. 2023 MY RWD Dec build battery is also different from the 2024 MY RWD because 2023 MY RWD lost the tax credit.

 

[bzobzo]

This is not an estimate. It is what they measure. Just how it works. Zero debate; it’s a well established documentation process. All you have to be careful of is to not accidentally look at the cold discharge measurements, and ignore any errors in the documents (they do happen).

Do you have specific knowledge of the testing procedure used to list the voltage amp capacity? I could see it being a well matched metric in the usual case when the full capacity of the battery is used, with the manufacturer specification from the raw batteries, but I'm not so sure when they are artificially limiting the battery. I don't see why they would change it from 2023 to 2024, or conversely why they wouldn't have limited the 2023 more if there was no issue in doing so.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

2023 MY RWD Dec build battery is different from those that came earlier in the year 2023. 2023 MY RWD Dec build battery is also different from the 2024 MY RWD because 2023 MY RWD lost the tax credit.

Yep. Very likely there's a missing EPA doc. Not sure if there are rules for low-volume vehicles that permit this failure to provide data, or what.

Do you have a source (SMT read & screen capture, or something) for the 70kWh number you stated? Would be good to document with a link here for people. It's not good to have a number without documentation.

Do you have specific knowledge of the testing procedure used to list the voltage amp capacity? I could see it being a well matched metric in the usual case when the full capacity of the battery is used, with the manufacturer specification from the raw batteries, but I'm not so sure when they are artificially limiting the battery.

No idea on the amp-hour capacity number they list somewhere (didn't look at it), but it doesn't really matter. That's just a nominal value anyway.

For getting the number in the doc above they charge up to "100%," then drive until the vehicle stops moving, and measure (with calibrated clamps on all power cables) the energy used. It doesn't matter whether it's software limited.

So that 66.461kWh number was the result of that measurement (hence the silly level of precision - it's just read off the meter). It doesn't rule out that the pack could contain more energy, but doesn't really matter for the value of "size." Obviously there are other benefits to a software-limited pack, and the only clue for that we have is the weight (if it's correctly listed).

As mentioned if you look at cold weather numbers you get a lower value, because less energy is usefully extracted from the pack at 20F. But that's why I looked at Charge Depleting UDDS.

This pack has about 80%-82% of the energy that the normal Model Y pack has (66.5kWh vs. 81-82kWh).

Here's an updated document (only difference I could see is it gives entry-into-commerce date): https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=59704&flag=1

Also worth noting that hand calculations of (407 city, 355 highway) so 0.55*city+0.45*highway times 0.7 gives a range of 268, so it seems that the range is probably substantially understated unless I am missing something. Back in the day of the 0.75 scalar this would have given nearly 290 mile range!

 

[bzobzo]

No idea on the amp-hour capacity number they list somewhere (didn't look at it), but it doesn't really matter. That's just a nominal value anyway.

So that 66.461kWh number was the result of that measurement (hence the silly level of precision - it's just read off the meter). It doesn't rule out that the pack could contain more energy, but doesn't really matter for the value of "size." Obviously there are other benefits to a software-limited pack, and the only clue for that we have is the weight (if it's correctly listed).

As mentioned if you look at cold weather numbers you get a lower value, because less energy is usefully extracted from the pack at 20F. But that's why I looked at Charge Depleting UDDS.

This pack has about 80%-82% of the energy that the normal Model Y pack has (66.5kWh vs. 81-82kWh).

Ah ok, I thought you were quoting the nominal figure, because the specified 352V * 189Ah = 66.5kWh. I'm thinking that the EPA test does not include the buffer, because if you add the usual 3kWh buffer to 66.5, you end up around the 70kWH of the 2023. For the MY LR EPA test, it shows a consumption of 78.865kWh, which if you add 3kWh you end up with the expected 82kWh capacity.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I'm thinking that the EPA test does not include the buffer,

It does. Well established.

For the MY LR EPA test, it shows a consumption of 78.865kWh, which if you add 3kWh you end up with the expected 82kWh capacity.

I am not sure which one you are looking at. I looked at a 2023 document (for 2022) and saw 81kWh. There’s some variability on it so it is possible there is a document out there with 79kWh but in general these vehicles have around 81kWh in the test (and in reality, when brand new).

In any case all numbers include the buffer, regardless of the variability. They drive until the car stops. This is well established and acknowledged by all (even Tesla mentions this whenever people complain about the range, not that that is worth much - better to just have the scans, which we do).

It would be interesting to see the capacity measurement for the late 2023 RWD. I haven't seen it posted in this thread.

 

[bzobzo]

I am not sure which one you are looking at. I looked at a 2023 document (for 2022) and saw 81kWh. There’s some variability on it so it is possible there is a document out there with 79kWh but in general these vehicles have around 81kWh in the test (and in reality, when brand new).
View attachment 1016004

It would be interesting to see the capacity measurement for the late 2023 RWD. I haven't seen it posted in this thread.

I was looking at the test for the 2024 MY LR. I've never seen an EPA doc for the shipped 2023 MY RWD. The capacity has been inferred from what is reported by the BMS through Scan My Tesla.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I was looking at the test for the 2024 MY LR. I've never seen an EPA doc for the shipped 2023 MY RWD. The capacity has been inferred from what is reported by the BMS through Scan My Tesla.

Interesting that they got such a low result this year - but as I said, there's variability. The degradation threshold for the car is 79kWh last update, so this ends up pretty close but probably ok.

Also interesting in this document they actually started to provide the nominal END-SOC value in some cases (not all). Things change a little bit every year...but in theory if they reported that number for the Charge Depletion test (they didn't AFAIK) you might find there was a bit left and it shut down slightly prematurely. Note this is not the same as the buffer!

Would be nice to see the results on the 2023 MY RWD. Haven't seen them posted.

 

[bzobzo]

Interesting that they got such a low result this year - but as I said, there's variability. The degradation threshold for the car is 79kWh last update, so this ends up pretty close but probably ok.

Also interesting in this document they actually started to provide the nominal END-SOC value in some cases (not all). Things change a little bit every year...but in theory if they reported that number for the Charge Depletion test (they didn't AFAIK) you might find there was a bit left and it shut down slightly prematurely. Note this is not the same as the buffer!

The EPA document shows the test car had less than 3000 miles. I can't imagine there would be any degradation or that they would choose a test car that had a sub-par battery capacity. It seems more plausible that they are stopping the test earlier than they used to.

I found some more information on testing procedures here: Here’s how the EPA calculates how far an EV can go on a full charge

The standard says that the charge [I think author meant test] is done when the vehicle can no longer maintain the speeds specified in the test. Or when the manufacturer says it should be stopped because of safety reasons like high battery temperature or low voltage. Manufacturers can also set their own safety checks to stop the test.

So it sounds like Tesla could voluntarily stop the test earlier at their discretion. Given the heat they've been getting about range, and the revisions they had to do anyways for 2024, perhaps they're taking a more conservative approach to the range test.

I browsed a couple of other Tesla models on the EPA site that had comparable entries between 2023 and 2024, and the 2024 test results were a bit lower in those cases as well.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The EPA document shows the test car had less than 3000 miles. I can't imagine there would be any degradation or that they would choose a test car that had a sub-par battery capacity. It seems more plausible that they are stopping the test earlier than they used to.

I found some more information on testing procedures here: Here’s how the EPA calculates how far an EV can go on a full charge



So it sounds like Tesla could voluntarily stop the test earlier at their discretion. Given the heat they've been getting about range, and the revisions they had to do anyways for 2024, perhaps they're taking a more conservative approach to the range test.

I browsed a couple of other Tesla models on the EPA site that had comparable entries between 2023 and 2024, and the 2024 test results were a bit lower in those cases as well.

Interesting. It is possible they have changed their methodology a bit. It would be nice if they would provide the END-SOC value to go along with this. Presumably read from the BMS.

Still, historically there has been good correlation between the SMT measurements and the EPA values.

Maybe they have shifted the end point to make sure there is no premature shutdown, etc. lots of possibilities.

Anyway this is just a couple kWh. Until there is evidence that anything has changed, all these numbers include the buffer.

 

[Silver Lark]

Yep. Very likely there's a missing EPA doc. Not sure if there are rules for low-volume vehicles that permit this failure to provide data, or what.

Do you have a source (SMT read & screen capture, or something) for the 70kWh number you stated? Would be good to document with a link here for people. It's not good to have a number without documentation.



No idea on the amp-hour capacity number they list somewhere (didn't look at it), but it doesn't really matter. That's just a nominal value anyway.

For getting the number in the doc above they charge up to "100%," then drive until the vehicle stops moving, and measure (with calibrated clamps on all power cables) the energy used. It doesn't matter whether it's software limited.

So that 66.461kWh number was the result of that measurement (hence the silly level of precision - it's just read off the meter). It doesn't rule out that the pack could contain more energy, but doesn't really matter for the value of "size." Obviously there are other benefits to a software-limited pack, and the only clue for that we have is the weight (if it's correctly listed).

As mentioned if you look at cold weather numbers you get a lower value, because less energy is usefully extracted from the pack at 20F. But that's why I looked at Charge Depleting UDDS.

This pack has about 80%-82% of the energy that the normal Model Y pack has (66.5kWh vs. 81-82kWh).

Here's an updated document (only difference I could see is it gives entry-into-commerce date): https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=59704&flag=1

Also worth noting that hand calculations of (407 city, 355 highway) so 0.55*city+0.45*highway times 0.7 gives a range of 268, so it seems that the range is probably substantially understated unless I am missing something. Back in the day of the 0.75 scalar this would have given nearly 290 mile range!

Hi, first time posting here as I want to learn more about the new 2024 RWD battery and its efficiency. I checked the updated docs and compared to the old one (and the 2024 LR AWD), and found the "Manufacturer Fuel Economy" are changed; 160 (2024 new docs) vs 183 (2024 old docs) vs 166 (2024 LR AWD). Would you or other posters know what are the changes for this big swing in "efficiency"? And for LR being 166, LR looks like a better deal here as the number is just a little lower? First time reading these docs so would appreciate any insights, thanks!

 

[icu2023]

So it sounds like Tesla could voluntarily stop the test earlier at their discretion. Given the heat they've been getting about range, and the revisions they had to do anyways for 2024, perhaps they're taking a more conservative approach to the range test.

This is unlikely! Tesla is not conservative at all in estimating range and every EV maker extract every mile of range for advertising due to competition!

 

[icu2023]

It looks like the 2024 model battery is 3-4kwh smaller in size compared to 2023 model.
Hope someone can report the actual 2024 car test results including charging curve soon.