New M3 battery in parts catalogue?

[TimothyHW3]

I was browsing through the catalogue to see any evidence of a new battery for the Model 3 and I found this
1137375-01-N
ASY,HVBAT,75kWh,AWD-RWD,1PH,M3,REMANUFACTURED

This is clearly after J from last year, at least 4 itterations after
1137375-01-J

I tried googling the- N part, but I only found -J parts reference from last year.
Model 3 battery sizes? : RealTesla
The post reads:
"Tesla currently lists 4 battery assembly part numbers:

P/N Desc
1104428-11-M | ASY,HVBAT,E1,STANDARD RANGE,RWD,NA,1PH,M3

1137375-01-J | ASY,HVBAT,75kWh,AWD-RWD,1PH,M3,RMN
1137375-01-K | ASY,HVBAT,75kWh,AWD-RWD,1PH,M3,RMN
1492754-01-K | ASY,HVBAT,MID RANGE,E2,RWD,1PH,M3,REMAN"

So it wasn't there last year and it was cleary added sometime the last year.
The -K version has also been removed now, missing.

Can anyone familiar with the catalogue remember an -N revision of the 75kWh in the catalogue?

 

[TimothyHW3]

By the way, the Model Y AWD one is
1137378-01-D

 

[TimothyHW3]

So noone has any idea if the N itteration is a new one?

 

[ucmndd]

So noone has any idea if the N itteration is a new one?

Obviously it is, hence the new part revision. Doesn't mean there's anything fundamentally different about it - just normal continuous improvement.

 

[TimothyHW3]

Obviously it is, hence the new part revision. Doesn't mean there's anything fundamentally different about it - just normal continuous improvement.

It would be interesting to know when exactly it was released and how new. PaNa said they are starting to build 5% more dense batteries starting September. If it was introduced after September that would be interesting. 5% will bring the battery to about 80kWh nominal full, so "75" could still be used as a nomenclature as it was with Mosel S

 

[MP3Mike]

It would be interesting to know when exactly it was released and how new. PaNa said they are starting to build 5% more dense batteries starting September. If it was introduced after September that would be interesting. 5% will bring the battery to about 80kWh nominal full, so "75" could still be used as a nomenclature as it was with Mosel S

That would have a new part number, not just a new revision to an existing pack.

And most likely they would use fewer cells and keep the capacity about the same. (Still increasing the range by lowering weight.)

 

[TimothyHW3]

That would have a new part number, not just a new revision to an existing pack.

Of course it has a new part number, didn't you read my post?

And most likely they would use fewer cells and keep the capacity about the same.

Possible. But that will not increase the range, that will keep it the same.

But a smarter move will be to keep the cost and add more range at zero cost and space. That will be the better marketing, because nobody will write about it if they keep the range, but cut the kWh cost and pack behind the scenes. Nobody cares about kWh.
But if they add 5% more range on the "same battery", these news outlets will take the bait as the suckers they are.

And you have to remember that we are in a range war at the moment - nobody cares if you did that with 100 or 200kWh.

Plus the "75" kWh pack is basically a 78kWh pack. They can now make it a 80+kWh pack, advertise it as 75kWh and add around 10 or so miles more range on their website. Brilliant!

Also, someone else found laminated double layer glass in the parts catalogue.
Is this the upcoming Model 3 double-layer glass in the parts catalog? : TeslaLounge

Plus the fact that they removed the heat pump reference that Tesla Canada reported. Too many suspicious movements.

 

[MP3Mike]

Of course it has a new part number, didn't you read my post?

No, it isn't a new part number. It is a new revision number. (The part number is the first 10 digits, the revision number is the last letter.)

But a smarter move will be to keep the cost and add more range at zero cost and space.

It is very likely that the more energy dense cells cost more to make, so it wouldn't be at zero cost. They might even weigh more.

 

[TimothyHW3]

It is very likely that the more energy dense cells cost more to make, so it wouldn't be at zero cost. They might even weigh more.

What would be the point from Pana to brag about 5% more energy dense cells if they come at a higher cost and more weight? That makes zero sense.

If they are saying - we have 5% more energy for the same space and weight, then I would also expect them to cost the same or nearly the same.

Otherwise we can just throw cells until we like it, there is planty of space under the car for more cells to probably about 85kWh or so, at current size. The cost is the factor prohibiting Tesla from putting more on the 3.

 

[ucmndd]

Of course it has a new part number, didn't you read my post?

.

Going from revision “J” to revision “N” is not a new part number. There are no fundamental changes to this pack like you’re speculating.

There’s no there there.

 

[TimothyHW3]

There are no fundamental changes

Ok, so maybe you can enlighten us to the "unfundamental" changes that require a revision and another part number or "revision number", as you put it, J, still available next to N?

 

[MP3Mike]

Ok, so maybe you can enlighten us to the "unfundamental" changes that require a revision and another part number or "revision number", as you put it, J, still available next to N?

We have no way of knowing, but it could be as simple as a minor change to a part, like when they changed the battery pack breather to release at a lower pressure. (With the only purpose being to lessen the sound created by pressure changes.) Or they could have changed the torque spec on a fastener inside.

 

[TimothyHW3]

Ok so let

We have no way of knowing, but it could be as simple as a minor change to a part,

Exactly, you have no way of knowing so your strong assumptions that it is not a new more dense battery contradict that.

Plus, if Tesla were to make that change, they will surely make it interswapable with older cars, like they did with the S 85 and 90. It is not like it will be a complete new battery, just the cells inside will be a little more dense for the same form factor. So a new "revision number" is highly likelier than a competely new "part number" as you expect it.

Plus the fact of a heat pump, new laminated glass found in the catalogue confirm all the rumored changes.

 

[ucmndd]

Ok, so maybe you can enlighten us to the "unfundamental" changes that require a revision and another part number or "revision number", as you put it, J, still available next to N?

There's plenty of historical precedent for this. Do your own research. Packs with major revisions, capacity changes, cell changes, etc etc carry completely new part numbers. Look at the S/X line. A pack with new cells in it or a different capacity/architecture/whatever would have a completely different part number.

But by all means, keep baselessly speculating if you want.

 

[ucmndd]

like they did with the S 85 and 90. It is not like it will be a complete new battery, just the cells inside will be a little more dense for the same form factor. So a new "revision number" is highly likelier than a competely new "part number" as you expect it.

No, it's not "highly likelier". Again, look to historic precedent from your own example. The 85 and 90 packs have completely different part numbers.

Plus the fact of a heat pump, new laminated glass found in the catalogue confirm all the rumored changes.

This couldn't possibly be any less related.

 

[MP3Mike]

Exactly, you have no way of knowing so your strong assumptions that it is not a new more dense battery contradict that.

Plus, if Tesla were to make that change, they will surely make it interswapable with older cars, like they did with the S 85 and 90. It is not like it will be a complete new battery, just the cells inside will be a little more dense for the same form factor. So a new "revision number" is highly likelier than a competely new "part number" as you expect it.

No, it isn't. It is also highly unlikely that they would put brand new higher energy cells in a remanufactured pack. Those cells would be going into new packs.

 

[TimothyHW3]

Packs with major revisions, capacity changes, cell changes, etc etc carry completely new part numbers.

I think you misunderstand what I am saying and what Pana said - that is not a "MAJOR" revision. 5% more dense 2170 cells (same exact cells), doesn't mean "capacity change" necessarily nor does it mean "cell change".

It could mean one of two things
1. same 75kWh (78 real) is just packed from smaller NUMBER of cells - reducing cost. So instead of 2976 cells they use 2827 or instead of 96x31 they now have 95x30 or the wherabouts...

2. Or it could mean that for the same space they put 5% more kWh. Same 2976 cells end up 81kWh more. Which translates to about 3kWh or about 10 or so more miles. That is hardly a MAJOR change, but a REVISION! Which to me makes more sense.
Here read what Pana had to say about this, they started converting the 5% more dense batteries from September:

Exclusive: Panasonic aims to boost energy density in Tesla batteries by 20% - executive

This couldn't possibly be any less related

Isn't it? The leak stated that these changes come with the more dense batteries and range. So if these things are pretty much confirmed, a more dense 2170 small (not MAJOR) revision, could be also possible.

As for your 85 to 90 comparison, that was a lot different as they were a lot different batteries and chemistries (the 90s from the S85, this is why only the S85s were downgraded to below 4.18V) and had about 6kWh net more capacity. I think the comparison is not correct here.

No, it isn't. It is also highly unlikely that they would put brand new higher energy cells in a remanufactured pack. Those cells would be going into new packs.

Like I said above, not brand new cells, same exact 2170s, but just a little dense. Read the Pana exclusive above.

 

[MP3Mike]

Isn't it? The leak stated that these changes come with the more dense batteries and range. So if these things are pretty much confirmed, a more dense 2170 small (not MAJOR) revision, could be also possible.

Sure, there could be a more dense pack, but it would be a new pack not a refurbished pack. Do you understand what a refurbished pack is? (It is essentially an old pack that has been repaired.) They aren't putting an entirely new set of their brand new more dense cells in a refurbished pack.

As for your 85 to 90 comparison, that was a lot different as they were a lot different batteries and chemistries (the 90s from the S85, this is why only the S85s were downgraded to below 4.18V) and had about 6kWh net more capacity. I think the comparison is not correct here.

They went through many revisions of the 90kWh pack without changing the cell formulation. Each one has a different part number, not just a different revision. Look for the threads about people being upset because they got a V1 90kWh pack instead of a V2 or V3 that performs much better. (The "Vn" designation is made up by the TMC community not Tesla.)

And how do you think they got 5% more energy into the cells? The changed the cell formulation. Just like when they changed the formulation to go from the cells in the 85kWh packs to the cells in the 90kWh packs. New formulation, new part number.

Like I said above, not brand new cells, same exact 2170s, but just a little dense. Read the Pana exclusive above.

"Exactly the same" but different.

Yep. They are brand new different cells. And they wouldn't be compatible with the old cells. (You can't mix and match.)

 

[TimothyHW3]

By "exactly the same" I meant the "form factor", obviously... You have to read what I am saying carefully.

nd they wouldn't be compatible with the old cells. (You can't mix and match.)

Not sure what you mean by that and why that should be relevant - Tesla doesn't swap single cells inside packs, because they are pain in the ass to chip off. Have you seen how these packs are built?

Second I am not sure why, in theory, they wouldn't be "compatible". They have the exact same size, so they will fit the same molding, but different density.

This is like saying - pairing one AA battery from duracell with 2000mAh with Panasonic 1500mAh will not run your remote...You can even charge them if you pair them differently - charge 2x 2000mAh and 2x 1500mAh. So if Tesla pairs these correctly, it might still work.

But that really is besides the point, because I doubt that Tesla will mix and match them, even if, I believe, they could. This will be bad for the BMS to calculate stuff anyways.

 

[TimothyHW3]

Anyways, I was more interested to know when this new revision came into play.
Maybe anyone with more recent catalogue knowledge can chime in?

If it just came out late September, I think this is a good giveaway combining it with the September news from Pana.