Separate projects of course but I seriously doubt Juniper, Cybertruck and the $25K car are “separate departments,” that’s why I separated with two sentences. Where do you think the people who worked on the MS, MX refreshes and the Highland are, laid off? They move on to other projects like the Juniper, Cybertruck and $25K car…
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
MY 2024 Refresh - Project Juniper?
- Thread starter Buckminster
- Start date
halfhumble
Member
The irony of this announcement (Juniper coming in 2024 but not in North America) is it is meant to discourage people from waiting for the juniper, but I think it's going to make people wait even more so now.
Even if it is not for sale, once people hear confirmation of it, people will want to wait even more. And he'll get even worse once it's officially shown\released overseas
Even if it is not for sale, once people hear confirmation of it, people will want to wait even more. And he'll get even worse once it's officially shown\released overseas
ChiefRollo
Member
As they say, there’s a price for everything. I think the two options are balanced, not as skewed as you make it out to be, a full-price first-year model of the new design (typically full of teething issues to go with shiny new features) or a nicely discounted final-year model of a proven design with all the bugs worked out?
Midnightsun
Active Member
The bugs are better ride quality, quieter interior, UWB compatibility, ventilated seats, blind spot warning lights near each mirror, a frunk that closes (manually) without us worrying about denting the car and a bunch of other stuff we probably do not know about yet. I will wait, even if it takes more than a year, nothing wrong with our 2020 MY.
Tesla is dropping prices way too much on the Y all over North America and my gut feeling is they will surprise drop the new Juniper on us this year. Lots of speculation going on however here is a favorable Juniper read. Not saying it is accurate but makes perfect sense in my book.
Good link and interesting read. Disappointing that they are not giving the long range all wheel drive more range. We would love to see a 100 kWh pack or at least a 600 kilometer EPA rating. That would generate a sale from us.
Jmho v
E90alex
Active Member
That’s physically impossible at the moment. There’s no battery technology with enough energy density to fit 100 kW in the size of the Model Y pack.
ChiefRollo
Member
Don’t think you understand “bugs” hence your outline of (excitement around) new features; do you not think year (say) 3 of Juniper would be better than year 1? If you do, think how? Because of shiny new features…or the same old features with some of the kinks worked out? When then in the product’s life cycle would most if not all of the kinks worked out?
It’s okay to always go for shiny new features; I see logic in it. Just don’t be too dismissive of a well-discounted, final-year-of-a-known-design option some of us consumers favor. Some of us are happy-to-be early adopters while others are a tad more pragmatic. As previously stated, the two options are more balanced than opined by some of us.
Last edited:
E90alex
Active Member
Panasonic is supposed to start making an updated version of the 2170 cells with higher capacity this year or early next year so we may see a bigger range increase for Juniper Y.
I would guess total pack gross capacity of about ~86 kW, up from the current ~82 kW
Even if true, that’s 5%: 15 miles…Juniper represents iterative change (and not all of it good). I really think it’s about cost reduction in the manufacturing process.
TomServo
Active Member
E90alex
Active Member
No. People need to stop thinking LFP is the answer to everything. LFP is terrible for energy density. Its only benefits are low cost and no cobalt. There’s a reason why it’s only used on short range cars. It does not have anywhere near the energy density of NCA or NMC.
Tesla is buying spare LFP production line parts from CATL and installing them at GigaNevada for LFP pack production - though it's not entirely clear whether these packs will be used for vehicles or for megapack production at this time. We'll have to see what comes to fruition down the line.
This is the shift from NMC811 to NMC955/NMC973 most likely - the same thing Tesla is looking to do with the 4680 cells. There's been rumors of energy increases of 10-20% though - at least from what I've seen - it's not clear exactly what that percentage is referring to (overall pack energy, cell energy density, etc.). If it's cell energy density - that'll like mean 5-10% pack energy increase overall - though it's entirely possible we won't see increases in actual range - but rather manufacturing cost savings via fewer cells in the packs (or a mix of both).
E90alex
Active Member
Panasonic uses NCA, which is already higher energy than NMC 811. I would assume Panasonic will be futher refining their NCA chemistry and process instead of pivoting to a new chemistry, but who knows.
Panasonic’s current 2170 NCA yields an ~82 kW pack for the Model Y.
First gen Panasonic 2170 NCA pack had a ~75 kW pack.
Previous MiC LG 2170 NMC pack also was ~75 kW. The current LG NCMA pack is ~78kW, still behind Panasonic NCA.
At the pack level, Teslas first gen 4680 NMC was relatively terrible. The Model Y 4680 pack only had a capacity of 67.6 kW. Hard to know exactly how much the second gen 4680 has improved since there’s no more 4680 Model Y at the moment for an apples to apples comparison. Even with a 20% improvement it would be slightly behind the capacity of Panasonics NCA.
Do you know the detail of the battery for recent production Berlin made Y Performance?
