E90alex
Active Member
They have a bunch of scattered inventory of LR and Plaid and some already scheduled for production. There’s no Standard Range inventory so people would have to wait for them to be built.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Looks like Tesla brought back the standard range Model S and X!
- Thread starter fasteddie7
- Start date
2022 MS started Nov 17th 2021
2023 MS started sometime Oct 2022
It's also not the same time among the models. I remember in 2021 MY and MX got the 2022 first in October, followed by M3 in early November then followed by MS in mid November
Is it possible that they're shipping units with lesser "quality" cells? Like ones that have greater imbalance or such? Kinda like binned CPUs...
Seems like a great way to salvage packs that might have failed QA. (presuming they have QA)
Seems like a great way to salvage packs that might have failed QA. (presuming they have QA)
zoomer0056
Active Member
No, definitely not possible. That would cost them a *LOT* of money (not to mention customers).
This would be like Walmart selling used toilet paper.
theslimshadyist
Active Member
If Tesla would go on the record and state that there would be a paid software unlockable upgrade I would likely purchase the MSSR.
E90alex
Active Member
Why not just buy the LR then?
If they ever do an unlock it would probably cost $10k or more. Otherwise there would be no reason to buy the LR if you can buy the SR and unlock the missing range for less.
When they had the Model 3 SR that was unlockable to SR+, the upgrade was more than just buying the SR+ in the first place.
zoomer0056
Active Member
That would be a new one. Maybe a subscription. Buy the SR then pay for a month during a vacation to get long range. You may be on to something.
They'll never get their money back from that model though. They'd need to recoup more than $10k. I just don't see it happening.
That's a silly comparison. Part binning is typically an outcome of testing or *tests not done* on a part.
They can just verify this batch of cells to 3.7v and put them in that group of modules and test that set of cells to only 3.6v and put them in the "standard range" modules. The ones that fail the 3.7 test may be fine at 3.6 so they'll get retested, maybe, at 3.6. Is that 3.6 population good for 3.7? Maybe yes and maybe no; some of them failed at 3.7 and some weren't tested at all at 3.7, and hardly matters because they'll be run to 3.6 and that's that. No need to worry about poop anywhere.
Now - it may be that there's one cell type and they're all tested to the ultimate configuration; this would let teslas sell the "standard range" today, limit the pack, then if they get the car later because the lease is over or whatever, they can switch the cell to let you use the full range and sell it as a more expensive long range iteration. Or maybe tesla will silently switch from one chemistry to another if they're pushing enough volume in the standard range cars and nobody'll notice because they're allowing enough latitude in the EPA specs to be one or the other chemistry. I'd love for them to make an iron phosphate battery pack for the X.
I personally would be fine with a "standard range X" regardless of how the pack is limited, because I've been fine with my 2016 90D with a now realistic range of 200 miles with the way I drive it (I think I can squeeze 240 out of it if I want to roll into a supercharger at 0 miles range, but meh). So 250 sounds okay.
Hayseed_MS
Spreader of "Endless Non Sequitur"
We still do not know that it is not a smaller battery or only a software lock. Their website may not be up to date on the weights yet - that has happened many times to have the website not most recent on issues. We are just going by influencers, that have a track record that is not always right, stating what Telsa is thinking/doing.
Why would Tesla install one of the heaviest and most expensive part of the car - the battery - if they did not use it? More importantly not charge you for it.
Maybe I am wrong but this just seems out.
Why would Tesla install one of the heaviest and most expensive part of the car - the battery - if they did not use it? More importantly not charge you for it.
Maybe I am wrong but this just seems out.
CTruck_BMW
23’ MS
May not be related, but just FYI, BMW does that in all their batteries at least for the PHEV vehicles. They lock 20% of the battery to maintain battery life. In fact, in 2016 they released the BMW 530e PHEV, and a year after through a recall they adjusted the software to lock 15% of the battery and it is still as such until this date on all new BMW PHEV cars including the X5. Feels good to leave with a 100% charge battery and not feel guilty.
They've used software limits in the past -- it lets them simplify their supply chain.
They've used different battery SKUs in the past -- it lets them optimize around manufacturing constraints (such as if they're cell limited).
They're even replacing failed "cell limited" batteries with "software limited" batteries in warranty repairs.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
If we allow history to be our guide…
In 2016 when Tesla was selling the software locked 60 and the 75, the difference between the two trims was about $9k.
So long as they’re actively selling the software locked models, you can be certain the cost to upgrade/unlock will never be lower than the cost difference between the models. Indeed that was the case - you could unlock your 60 at the time for that full $9k price difference.
Fast forward to 2017: Tesla discontinues the software locked 60 and drops the price of the 75 by several thousand dollars to make up the difference. Around the same time, the cost to unlock the 60 drops to $2,000. Damn, that’s a relative bargain - that’s when I jumped at the unlock.
But they’ll never do that while they’re actively selling both models (as in they’ll never let it be cheaper to buy an SR and upgrade it to an LR than just buying an LR outright). Later on when pricing and/or model mix changes and they aren’t competing against themselves - everything is on the table and I’d expect an unlock at some point (though it may be years later).
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Almost all PHEVs lock out a significant portion of the total capacity for a couple reasons:
1) consistent regen behavior - most PHEVs will recharge beyond “100%” when descending a big hill for a consistent driving experience and to maximize efficiency
2) Battery health - smaller PHEV batteries endure many many more cycles in a short period of time so locking out the extremes is a big longevity win.
popgodazipa
Member
No it is not. You get that 405 for a few months and then you're 350ish. You need every bit of that to get from Dallas to Tulsa where the next SC is located. I'm sure there are other points like that.
According to ABRP there's a SC in Denison tx which is 180 miles.
Saskatoon to Calgary -- that'll need a S long range with a good battery... This year anyhow.
Tesla has done that before:
- Model S 40 was a software limited Model S 60.
- Model S 60D was a software limited Model S 75D
- Model 3 SR was a software limited Model 3 SR+
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Similar threads
