Model 3 now has FOUR battery/range choices

[Model T]

I’ve done a great deal of research on this. My prediction. SR+ is actually MR(62kwh) software limited to 240 and only available for a limited time to drive sales in Q1. Here’s why

• 240 exact without EPA est. Tesla knows the car will have at least 240 miles of range If it’s actually a 62kwh battery
• Timeframe. Plus is within 2weeks. Aka already being made. SR is 6-8 weeks, the time frame of getting 50kwh Standard range packs.
• Weight difference from SR+ and MR(now removed) is about 50lbs. Difference of Subwoofer and amp
• At ~ $150kwh for batteries, cost difference to Tesla in giving 62kwh as 50kwh base about $1800
• Top speed of SR+ and MR both at 140MPH. 0-60 is 5.3 vs 5.2.

Any thoughts on this. I’ll confirm in a week or as soon as I see the actual weight of SR+
Tesla Model 3 - Wikipedia

 

[BluestarE3]

I’ve done a great deal of research on this. My prediction. SR+ is actually MR(62kwh) software limited to 240 and only available for a limited time to drive sales in Q1. Here’s why

• 240 exact without EPA est. Tesla knows the car will have at least 240 miles of range If it’s actually a 62kwh battery
• Timeframe. Plus is within 2weeks. Aka already being made. SR is 6-8 weeks, the time frame of getting 50kwh Standard range packs.
• Weight difference from SR+ and MR(now removed) is about 50lbs. Difference of Subwoofer and amp
• At ~ $150kwh for batteries, cost difference to Tesla in giving 62kwh as 50kwh base about $1800
• Top speed of SR+ and MR both at 140MPH. 0-60 is 5.3 vs 5.2.

Any thoughts on this. I’ll confirm in a week or as soon as I see the actual weight of SR+
Tesla Model 3 - Wikipedia

Er, no. See post #36 above.

 

[vickh]

I’ve done a great deal of research on this. My prediction. SR+ is actually MR(62kwh) software limited to 240 and only available for a limited time to drive sales in Q1. Here’s why

• 240 exact without EPA est. Tesla knows the car will have at least 240 miles of range If it’s actually a 62kwh battery
• Timeframe. Plus is within 2weeks. Aka already being made. SR is 6-8 weeks, the time frame of getting 50kwh Standard range packs.
• Weight difference from SR+ and MR(now removed) is about 50lbs. Difference of Subwoofer and amp
• At ~ $150kwh for batteries, cost difference to Tesla in giving 62kwh as 50kwh base about $1800
• Top speed of SR+ and MR both at 140MPH. 0-60 is 5.3 vs 5.2.

Any thoughts on this. I’ll confirm in a week or as soon as I see the actual weight of SR+
Tesla Model 3 - Wikipedia

i wish you were right, but gigagrunt has confirmed that's its not. Tesla learned their lesson with the S locks.

 

[Mutley]

Got my SR+ 8h ago and weighted it with precise scale. It's to the exact pound the same weight as a MR (not sure if this weight is confirmed). It's very confusing : the sticker price mention a Long range option at 10k$ for which I never paid and the on the CAN , the nominal Full Pack Energy reported at 53.9kwh with a 2.4kwh buffer.

 

[Model T]

Got my SR+ 8h ago and weighted it with precise scale. It's to the exact pound the same weight as a MR (not sure if this weight is confirmed). It's very confusing : the sticker price mention a Long range option at 10k$ for which I never paid and the on the CAN , the nominal Full Pack Energy reported at 53.9kwh with a 2.4kwh buffer.

Thanks Mutley,

I'm gonna take the bet that SR+ is indeed the midrange packs and available for a limited time.
I'm surprised the weight is exactly the same as MR. I wonder if you have an unconnected subwoofer in the back.

 

[Model T]

i wish you were right, but gigagrunt has confirmed that's its not. Tesla learned their lesson with the S locks.

How do we know "gigagrunt" works at giga factory.
Also, GF could indeed be building SR packs for the 6-8 week timeframe of SR as advertised.

SR+ is the same exact weight as MR.
Also 240M range and not "EPA est" gives the biggest clue that it is a larger pack and software limits.

Those saying SR+ is the same battery as SR standard, Why would SR be 220M "EPA est" and SR+ be 240M

 

[BluestarE3]

How do we know "gigagrunt" works at giga factory.

Go back and read his post history and you'll see he has some insider knowledge of that facility and the products manufactured there. He has a lot more credibility than others idly speculating here.

 

[vickh]

How do we know "gigagrunt" works at giga factory.
Also, GF could indeed be building SR packs for the 6-8 week timeframe of SR as advertised.

SR+ is the same exact weight as MR.
Also 240M range and not "EPA est" gives the biggest clue that it is a larger pack and software limits.

Those saying SR+ is the same battery as SR standard, Why would SR be 220M "EPA est" and SR+ be 240M

SR could be software locked SR+

 

[vickh]

Got my SR+ 8h ago and weighted it with precise scale. It's to the exact pound the same weight as a MR (not sure if this weight is confirmed). It's very confusing : the sticker price mention a Long range option at 10k$ for which I never paid and the on the CAN , the nominal Full Pack Energy reported at 53.9kwh with a 2.4kwh buffer.

Wow you might have a gotten a hidden deal?

 

[gilscales]

I would like to see a true, usable on a regular basis, 325 mile range version.

So a 400 mile EPA rated range then

 

[GigaGrunt]

Thanks Mutley,

I'm gonna take the bet that SR+ is indeed the midrange packs and available for a limited time.
I'm surprised the weight is exactly the same as MR. I wonder if you have an unconnected subwoofer in the back.

No

 

[GigaGrunt]

How do we know "gigagrunt" works at giga factory.
Also, GF could indeed be building SR packs for the 6-8 week timeframe of SR as advertised.

SR+ is the same exact weight as MR.
Also 240M range and not "EPA est" gives the biggest clue that it is a larger pack and software limits.

Those saying SR+ is the same battery as SR standard, Why would SR be 220M "EPA est" and SR+ be 240M

You are free to believe what you want.

 

[GigaGrunt]

Building a car at higher cost with hopes customer ‘unlocks’ software locked components is one thing, building a different car at a lower cost and hoping customer pays for software ‘unlocks’ is another. Don’t be fooled just because Tesla did something before, that they’ll do it again.

Model 3 is a different platform than Model S. Costs are different. Expected margins are different. Upfront costs are different. It’s all in the volume.

 

[diamond.g]

Building a car at higher cost with hopes customer ‘unlocks’ software locked components is one thing, building a different car at a lower cost and hoping customer pays for software ‘unlocks’ is another. Don’t be fooled just because Tesla did something before, that they’ll do it again.

Model 3 is a different platform than Model S. Costs are different. Expected margins are different. Upfront costs are different. It’s all in the volume.

Though to be fair they probably could do a paid software update to go from AWD to Performance. Not that they will (and if they did I would expect it to be nearly $10k).

 

[GigaGrunt]

Though to be fair they probably could do a paid software update to go from AWD to Performance. Not that they will (and if they did I would expect it to be nearly $10k).

Check Elon tweets. Different drive unit.

 

[diamond.g]

Check Elon tweets. Different drive unit.

Which part number for the rear? There is a long thread here with pictures, and so far we hadn’t seen different units (ignoring SR). Everyone seemed to have the 980 rear.

 

[Zoomit]

Check Elon tweets. Different drive unit.

I recall that all the rear DUs had the same part numbers though. Sounds like they’re sorting by serial number, based on test results, but not differentiating the part numbers. That seems like an odd way to handle the configuration management so there must be some other motivation here I’m missing.

 

[GigaGrunt]

I recall that all the rear DUs had the same part numbers though. Sounds like they’re sorting by serial number, based on test results, but not differentiating the part numbers. That seems like an odd way to handle the configuration management so there must be some other motivation here I’m missing.

Sorted by serial.

 

[Zoomit]

Sorted by serial.

Thank you. That’s initially non-intuitive but I could see some logic here. They’re very likely making more DUs that pass the test than go into 3P cars so they need to be able put those DUs in lower-end cars. They wouldn’t want to change the part numbers post test so keeping them all the same part number gives the assembly line flexibility for the higher volume cars.

That could also allow some lucky cars, with a high-spec DU, to get changed from LRD to 3P at delivery, as was reported during the initial rolllout.

 

[diamond.g]

Sorted by serial.

Interesting, I wonder what the percentage of units that can be P but are just put in AWD anyways is.