So the million dollar question... for people buying these long range models with the 82kWh batteries, will they have an option down the road to upgrade their range? (going from locked to unlocked). Seems a waste to have the battery ability for more range yet be handcuffed from doing so.
I wouldn't count on having extra capacity until the EPA numbers come out showing that. As outlined earlier, there are CARB results indicating two versions of the LR vehicle, with 6% difference in range, and likely capacity as well. Eventually those will translate to an EPA range of about 370 rated miles. But we don't know when that will happen. And we don't know whether it will be implemented as a difference in trim (a "range package" long-range version).
We don't know how many lines run with the 2170L cells, and whether there are still lines being run with the older cells. As long as they don't have everything switched over to 2170L, they'll need to build cars with 2170, and those cars will need to be sold with lower capacity.
It didn't make sense for Tesla to equip AWD vehicles with 980 motors for 6-9 months, either, but they did, until they had sufficient 990 (which uses fewer parts!) capacity. They never unlocked AWD vehicles with 980 motors to Performance levels, and they likely never will (you can do it after-market though I guess).
So, don't
count on having extra capacity unlocked - and certainly not for free. It's possible that they won't even offer a paid upgrade, because unlike the acceleration boost option (which works on the 990 motors), they can't unlock capacity for all vehicles of a given vintage, if they do not all have the same capacity. Not sure. Again, what actually happens depends on what they are doing and why.
There are benefits to locked capacity batteries - they probably lose capacity slightly more slowly due to never being charged to 100%. To me it seems like the initial 2170 cells have not performed all that great on average, as far as capacity loss goes (as compared to
other Teslas - they do fine relative to other EVs), and perhaps the 2170L cells will generally be used at lower capacity to enhance longevity - in addition to any other tweaks they may have made. May make no difference - hard to know. It's also a better driving experience to have a little bit of top buffer, with a little less loss of regen capability at high SOC, if you don't ever get to true 100%. So there's advantages to Tesla and to you to having a larger capacity pack (note that a buffer against capacity loss is
not a benefit - unless Tesla changes how they treat capacity loss - which they could, if they want to change their warranty available capacity loss limits at some point).
But we'll see. We're all guessing here, and it depends on which vehicles Tesla is building, what their line capacities are, where those vehicles are being sent, etc.
There does seem to be substantial evidence that LR vehicles with the larger capacity exist - that's what was tested in the CARB document. But in the US, they may just be planning for the future (could even be 2022 - or it could be a mid-year 2021 demand-driving announcement of an extended range LR).
Short story: we're all guessing, and if you want something specific, wait for it to be explicitly documented with the EPA. That's the only sure thing. Right now there are 18 documents in the 2021 Tesla search at iaspub (
Basic Search | Document Index System | US EPA) - when that increases, expect some news (will usually be concurrent with updates at fueleconomy.gov). Personally, if I were in the market for a 2021 Model 3 right now (in the US), I would
definitely be holding off (unless I were getting the Performance, which I would just buy, since it has the large pack already - unless I also wanted to wait for some sort of resumption of EV tax credits).