Sludog
Member
When are you looking to take delivery? Or are you waiting for Austin build cars? A reorder could push you back to the fall but then again MYP have been arriving much sooner the LR.
-
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
Thanks for posting. Any intel on if they are regular 5-seaters and/or if there's been any 7-seat sightings?
Sludog
Member
I think that we will see the first Austin Vin number in customers hand by 2/14, Valentines day.
In fact I will bet $1 on it. Any takers??
eeee-meeee
Member
SWIPE
Member
How ‘bout two dollars, it’s in hands by Washington’s Birthday.
Or do I hear three by Groundhogs day?
pepperoni
Member
You’re right, I missed the FSD. I guess $78,490 is the right price for that vehicle. A little less ouch, but still… ouch!
Last edited:
This is spot on. No one in any industry does official quality control testing on an *unofficial config*, but *especially* not automotive. It would be completely invalid and would land them in serious legal risk. The actual cost of any individual part is trivial, but regardless that's all part of the testing budget. You test what you've reported to the local transportation authorities that you'll be selling.
Mrbrock
Active Member
Have any of the pictures of the preproduction MY LR had matrix lights? Are any cars from Austin being exported? Answer is no. Still no. Until they switch at Fremont, they won’t change something that is so obvious. Can you imagine that a LR buyer in Florida can do the light show with TESLA and someone in Fremont can’t? The horrors.
hold
Member
I mean they are planning on releasing Austin MYLR starting soon with 4680 which is supposed to have inc range (lighter car), longer life, and faster charging which is primarily for east coast. I doubt Fremont sees 4680 till Austin is fully operational to avoid longer delays on the MY.
I could see Austin having matrix lights to avoid having to switch in near future and pausing production.
Mrbrock
Active Member
There won’t be increased range for that reason. They won’t sell visually different cars. Read back a couple pages before the call actually happened. Someone had a great post. The nerds here will know the difference between Austin and Fremont for now because the cars will be a bit lighter but the range will be the same. They are not going to ship 2 outwardly different spec cars from 2 plants to people with the same orders.
And there is no indication that Tesla will switch to matrix lights in Fremont. They have an 11 month backlog with the current lights. That’s 100,000 cars times a couple hundred in increased cost for the parts. You all act like the new fancier lights are cheaper so Tesla needs to switch to save money. Switching will only cost them money since there are no exports from US factories of MY.
The increased range is based on same capacity with reduced weight. So Tesla will decrease capacity so range is equal. That’s what all these test cars are for amongst all the safety things.
Something people seem to forget is that shedding weight only helps so much on range. It most directly helps with acceleration.
Yes, weight does impact range, but the biggest killer for EV range isn't weight, which is somewhat offset by the fact that recharging while decelerating is greater with greater weight, it's aerodynamics. Overcoming drag is the big one, that's why range decreases exponentially the faster you go. So yes, a heavier car takes more to accelerate, but you also get more back via regenerative braking. The cost is the difference... which will be greater with a heavier car, but not impact things remotely as much as aero.
The only way to really see massive gains on range (such as 10-15%) is to increase the size of the battery or improve aerodynamics. Weight will help a little, but to get a full 10-15% increase in range we'll need more juice... or a more efficient drivetrain.
Last edited:
So the real question is going to be what size battery are the going to place in the structural pack. The assumed 30% range gain for the 4680 is 16% by cell design and up to 14% by structural integration. If the MYLR in Fremont has an 82KW battery the MYLR in Austin woould only need a 55 to 60KW battery to match range . The 4680 battery is basically more efficient not a higher density battery.
If the MY battery today is 4,416 pounds and the rumored saving of 400 pounds is real then that translates to about 9% reduction in KW capacity by weight. If we look at 91% of the current 82KW battery that comes to a 75KW battery (which is where the origional LR batteries were in capacity) . So the Austin cars will likely have 75KW capacity. I expect in the end that the Austin LR cars will get about 350 miles of range. (given current calculations)
In reality I think they keep the same 330 posted rangebut the car now actually gets its EPA range
pepperoni
Member
Fantastic point! 10 likes
If we’re looking for some really low hanging fruit to increase range, get rid of those side mirrors.
What a Drag: Time to Get Rid of Outside Mirrors
A Car Talk crusade: It's time for side mirrors to go! Ray Magliozzi and Jim Motavalli make their case against ugly, drag producing side mirrors. Agree? Disagree? Join the debate, right here.
ProjectTrinity
Member
Just staying hopeful. Not sure why it’s such a crazy concept. There’s a back order of MY with intel chips by that logic but some are coming with AMD. That’s the same as saying there’s no word on Fremont built cars with the new battery but Austin built cars may have them.
One point to consider - There was nothing specific said in the earnings call as to what configuration of the MY will be coming from Fremont. Some of the 4680 comments could be taken to apply to both Fremont and Texas built MYs while others were just taking about plans for Texas MY production. So there was really no clarification coming from the call to indicate if Fremont built MYs will soon transition over to the new chassis and with 4680 structural battery packs, or not. It does appear that Fremont has been preparing for months to go to the ver. 2.0 chassis with the front and rear maga-castings and this would mean it would require use a structural battery pack. Then the big question is will they use 2160 vs. 4680 structural battery packs. My best GUESS is Fremont will be producing MYs with the new chassis and using 4680 battery packs by the end of this Quarter, around the time MYs deliveries from Texas starts up. This could result in no more than a few weeks transition period when the two factories are out of sync.
It was not clear from the earnings call as to what type of "certification" Tesla is waiting on before starting MY customer deliveries from Austin. I suspect that updated EPA range numbers are part of that certification.
Quarterly update is at this link:
It was not clear from the earnings call as to what type of "certification" Tesla is waiting on before starting MY customer deliveries from Austin. I suspect that updated EPA range numbers are part of that certification.
Quarterly update is at this link:
Last edited:
It was like a water sandwich and really just guesses, assumptions, speculations (all but facts) will continue on the interweb until people actually just see when and what is delivered. Then the facts will come once we see actual customer deliveries, what castings and what batteries are being produced out of each facility.
This makes sense. Also, if there is any material difference in 2170/4680 performance (at the level that might influence behavior, even 20 miles range) you'd probably *not* announce it and wait until people are actually taking deliveries of Austin MYs to say anything (when it would become more apparent) at which point you transition Fremont. At which point wouldn't surprise me if we didn't start seeing another rash of holds and "take delivery or your order is canceled" emails...
Similar threads
