To support my case, here is mostly the same result with model 3. We can see that the LFP version has mostly the same efficiency as the LR version (132 vs 131) but the old SR+ with 2170 batteries has a better efficiency from the lower weight (142 MPGe) this chart looks a lot like the one posted previously for the new MY AWD so it would make a lot of sense that the same logic applies.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Model Y - Gigafactory Texas Production
- Thread starter Ron J.
- Start date
To support my case, here is mostly the same result with model 3. We can see that the LFP version has mostly the same efficiency as the LR version (132 vs 131) but the old SR+ with 2170 batteries has a better efficiency from the lower weight (142 MPGe) this chart looks a lot like the one posted previously for the new MY AWD so it would make a lot of sense that the same logic applies.
So... I’m still waiting on the announcement from Sawyer and Bearded Tesla Guy that white Austin-VIN MYP has been delivered. 
He got his VIN like, three weeks ago.
He got his VIN like, three weeks ago.And yet so many of us folks on the east coast have gotten Fremont VINs and delivery dates..... Yeah, that one stinks.So... I’m still waiting on the announcement from Sawyer and Bearded Tesla Guy that white Austin-VIN MYP has been delivered.
That’s not a customer car. The fact that Tesla has actually built cars in Austin isn’t news. We’ve seen video of hundreds sitting there.
Nor was it a hoax trumpeted all over the internet by hype masters, like the fake white one. They checked all their vaunted" insider sources".... "Customer deliveries are starting!!!"
Yeah right.
You convinced me to look around the different EPA documents
First thing: normally, the screenshots are not necessarily from the car that was submitted to EPA: docid 54293 has a submission for a Model Y with model 3 screenshots.
But in this case it appears to be a screenshot of the model Y submitted because the Id of the vehicle (at page 15) is YD122-000067 and we can find the same 000067 in the screenshot of the same document.
So this implies that this AWD variant submitted to EPA was built in Austin... and Austin is supposed to use 4680 so I'm confused...
On page 15 of MY LR vs MY AWD the weight is mostly the same but battery capacity is lower. So I stand to my point that it shouldn't be 4680 and if it is... it is bad news
unless they soft lock 30% of the battery capacity, which would explain the weight being the same but capacity being lower. Or the 4680 for the moment are *sugar* quality and they can't use all of its optimal capacity until it is ok. I really hope this MY AWD doesn't contain 4680.
This is a really good catch. I was wondering precisely this.You convinced me to look around the different EPA documents
First thing: normally, the screenshots are not necessarily from the car that was submitted to EPA: docid 54293 has a submission for a Model Y with model 3 screenshots.
But in this case it appears to be a screenshot of the model Y submitted because the Id of the vehicle (at page 15) is YD122-000067 and we can find the same 000067 in the screenshot of the same document.
So this implies that this AWD variant submitted to EPA was built in Austin... and Austin is supposed to use 4680 so I'm confused...
On page 15 of MY LR vs MY AWD the weight is mostly the same but battery capacity is lower. So I stand to my point that it shouldn't be 4680 and if it is... it is bad news
The screenshot showing a Austin VIN in the EPA 2/22/22 Doc. also lists the model as a Model Y Long RangeYou convinced me to look around the different EPA documents
First thing: normally, the screenshots are not necessarily from the car that was submitted to EPA: docid 54293 has a submission for a Model Y with model 3 screenshots.
But in this case it appears to be a screenshot of the model Y submitted because the Id of the vehicle (at page 15) is YD122-000067 and we can find the same 000067 in the screenshot of the same document.
So this implies that this AWD variant submitted to EPA was built in Austin... and Austin is supposed to use 4680 so I'm confused...
On page 15 of MY LR vs MY AWD the weight is mostly the same but battery capacity is lower. So I stand to my point that it shouldn't be 4680 and if it is... it is bad news
Could the most recent price increase be the result of a trigger point reached in the 2170 "inventory"? Or in other words, Tesla knows that the order backlog is large enough to claim the remainder of the 2170s and therefore all new orders will receive the 4680, casting, etc. and hence the price jump?
the 4680s and castings are supposed to DECREASE production costs. I can see them blunting price hikes some, but not accelerating them.
Some here would prob pay $10k extra for 4680s if they did 25 percent of what the hype machine wishes. But....The general public doesn’t know or care where the cars are built or what batteries are in them.
Good catch, but I am gonna go full speculations here: the software hasn't been updated yet to show the correct model name since it is a new model...
It is a structural pack . The batteries were part of the structure of the floor aso you can't just remove them and replace them with foam. They must be replaced with something which maintains the rigidity and load capacity. Its possible that the replacement material weighed just as much as the batteries .
kylegbraund
Member
I am under the impression that 4680 in this first iteration is not living up to the hype of what was suggested at Battery Day. I think Gen 2 and future versions will get there but to me it seems like 2170 is the superior battery at the moment. If anything 4680 is strictly a cost savings for Tesla but no real benefit to the customer unless they can charge faster which is TBD.
For EV the weight reduction is super important, so if they are filling up the space with something that is as heavy as batteries, it would be a very bad design. But yes, it would make sense to fill the void with something for structural integrity.
I have to wonder how much of this lower range AWD version was planned. Tesla took a ton of bad press during the earnings call for announceing no new models but they could have easially announced a lower cost varient at that time. Was this a reaction to that or something really planned.
If it was a reaction, the only change they would need to make was the amount of batteries but they wouldn't be able to have someting in place to cut that weight and start shipping . The 4680's have a 90% yield , they could just be filling that pack with the rejected batteries (or software limited for testing) so they could actually be full battery packs with 15% of the batteries not used . This would speed up EPA testing in the future since it would only be a capacity change and not any physical change.
Its all speculation but we should know soon...
Similar threads
