New M3 battery in parts catalogue?

[AlanSubie4Life]

There is an improvement in EPA because of the heat pump, I never said anything about that don't twist my words. I only said something about WLTP and indeed the 20km can come from the battery.

Hmm. You did not say a capacity increase HAD to be coming to make the 353-mile range? I remember differently:

"tHis Is JuSt tHe hEaT PuMp" - they have to run a separate EPA test for that to work. If they added 10% more capacity/more dense batteries - then they can simply slap that onto the EPA rating per kWh...
And no, the heat pump can't just automatically add 30 miles to the car...

Yet, it did. (Actually closer to 25 miles but the point remains that they got 353 miles with less energy than 2020. Not more.)

If Tesla increased the range of 2020 Models in the US without touching the capacity, but did not so in Europa this means that for them to increase the range they have to perform whole new WLPT tests which take time and will reveal the new Model.

So the only conclusion here is that Tesla increased the capacity. But I will know for sue in about 1 month. But as I said I am expecting 5% more kWh or about 80kWh gross.(now they are around 77kWh when brand new)

So you concluded they must have increased capacity.

BTW: You are quoting SMT values. Don’t confuse with EPA values. Prior years have been ~79.5kWh, EPA.

Yes. the 353 is indeed unrealistic if they only added 3kWh to the pack.

Yet they managed it with LESS energy (78.6kWh).

I really expect SMT to show around 80kWh, maybe 79.5kWh, to about the 77kWh on the 2019-20 models.

Let us know. I would not be surprised with 80kWh in SMT in the US...from a Performance (not what we were discussing in the 353-mile range discussion).

And as you saw previously the US range is about 545 and no, 8 odd miles is not "basically" the same as 553

Let’s wait and see on that! My 353-mile range unicorn will be reported very soon I think. You know perfectly well that not all new vehicles show their maximum rated range, because not all batteries start at maximum capacity. Especially these days. I know you understand this, because you have said so before, recently!!! Just because one example shows 347 miles doesn’t mean that the maximum for that vehicle type is not 353 rated miles. Right?

And if we consistently see 347 or whatever, please wait for the software update. I know you know that this is ALSO perfectly reasonable, as you have talked about this phenomenon occurring in 2020 when the constant changed a few weeks after delivery. At the beginning of a model rollout, you know perfectly well there can be temporary discrepancies.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

There are probably different for the US and Europe, not sure, but the difference between old and new is N and P. Same number

It seems I could've gotten the wrong part number or the printed one is not the same as the parts catalogue. But it seems there is just an increment of P vs N and M(N was the older revision)
Used Tesla Model 3 Long Range Dual Motor Battery (Hybrid) - 110442300M - Benelux Zwijndrecht B.V.

Ok. Seems inconclusive so far then. So, going back to your picture of the new battery label, then. Are you going to give us any details on where this is from, which vehicle it was from, and what the SMT capacity was for that vehicle?

To me it still seems like it is TBD whether the Performance vehicles in the US will have a different pack part number than the prior AWD vehicles (or even this year’s vehicles, if they are getting different packs). (TBD meaning TBD if the two vehicles will be different. I do expect a new higher capacity pack for the Performance.) I would bet they will have different part numbers if some have ~81kWh and the other has 79kWh (AND is not just locked out). I guess I am not sure, but not sure how else they could produce a Performance vehicle that RELIES on the larger pack to get its promised range. I feel they can’t do a revision number, even though only the internal cells are changing, because the the same part number would not always work on a 2021 Performance. I don’t know. Anyway...

We’ll only be able to resolve this with clearly labeled pictures from US vehicles (AWD & P). European vehicles are clearly a different ballgame, right now, due to the China packs.

 

[TimothyHW3]

that they got 353 miles with less energy

Less energy?! You mean EPA? No idea what car they used, delivered cars have same capacity, except LG ones small batch

 

[TimothyHW3]

on where this is from, which vehicle it was from, and what the SMT capacity was for that vehicle?

Europe, AWD 2021, capacity according to SMT 77.5, in the papers it says 82, previously 79 in the old papers

 

[TimothyHW3]

Ok. Seems inconclusive so far then.

No. Had to check on computer because epc didn't work on mobile.

1137375-01-J
ASY,HVBAT,75kWh,AWD-RWD,1PH,M3,REMANUFACTURED

1137375-01-P
ASY,HVBAT,75kWh,AWD-RWD,1PH,M3,RMN

I now see a new revision of the same battery I listed in my original post, P. Same number as before, only difference is the P. The N one replaced with a P, N now gone. I guess the N was a newer revision of the M, which was in mine from the 2019 models and I know that the N was in mid 2020 models.

So the N-2020 had a revision of the M (2019) and 2021s have a P revision.
Which corresponds with the added P to my picture of the new Panasonic battery listed as 82kWh.
The P just replaced the N, which replaced the M.

The J variant is still listed so that is probably the Pana from Japan - not sure.
1137375-01-J

And I don't see the LG revision yet.

So I guess the case is closed now, anyone to admit they were wrong?! Alan maybe?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

due to the China packs.

I want to state that I have no idea what is going on with packs in Europe or where they come from. Just no idea. I specifically do not know whether any LR vehicle is getting a different chemistry or whatever.

Which corresponds with the added P to my picture of the new Panasonic battery listed as 82kWh.
The P just replaced the N, which replaced the M

This is the supposedly 82kWh one from Panasonic in the US.

Do you care to provide any information on where the battery is from? I mean, it might be 82kWh. But how do you know? What did SMT say? Or using the number from analysis based on the charging constant and range? You said “supposedly” it is 82kWh - do you know? Evidence?

Edit: missed your post above.

Europe, AWD 2021, capacity according to SMT 77.5, in the papers it says 82, previously 79 in the old papers

A number on a paper is not going to cut it. A guy I just posted back and forth with had a Danish registration paper that said ~85.8kWh! Analysis showed that he has 74kWh available (for now). MASTER THREAD: 2021 Model 3 and differences from 2020

So I guess the case is closed now, anyone to admit they were wrong?! Alan maybe?

I’m somewhat agnostic about the battery part number issue (I am less agnostic about your claims about what will happen with EPA range, which you have been wrong about so far), but I am curious about how it will turn out in the end. It seems that we need a carefully assembled set of evidence to show which part number is in which car, and how much energy those cars have.

Right now, for the cars in Europe....what is their maximum range? What is their constant? How much energy does SMT say they have? Have you correlated that data to the part number captured from the same vehicle? Can you actually post this data carefully and explain it, rather than throwing out random pictures, with unclear provenance?

If you can coherently piece together that data and show that for vehicles that show very high energy in SMT (or via range and energy consumption screen pictures, calculate capacity), they have one revision letter, and for ones that show lower energy in SMT, they have a different revision letter, and both vehicles have the same part number, then I will certainly concede that you are correct that a part letter (revision) can represent a larger pack. (However, the part you identified at the beginning of this thread was not that new battery as you surmised - we know that now.)

But I see nothing conclusive here yet. You have not proven your point with the above data. Feel free to do so.

 

[ucmndd]

Careful guys, if you disagree with @TimothyHW3 ’s posts/opinions in a single thread, he’ll get all weird on you and stalk your profile to find other threads he can downvote your posts on.

He means business!

 

[TimothyHW3]

You have not proven your point with the above data. Feel free to do so

But, compare to your first post and early discussion here: this is a new part number. Not the same part number with a different revision. I’m glad you will be able to learn from this how part numbers vs. part revisions work.

1137375-01-J
ASY,HVBAT,75kWh,AWD-RWD,1PH,M3,REMANUFACTURED

1137375-01-P
ASY,HVBAT,75kWh,AWD-RWD,1PH,M3,RMN

Did you see that Tesla removed the J part I listed before and only lists P now and this is the only listed 75kWh one?! Can you do 1 and 1 together?

Yeah, I really hate it when that happens...Hope YOU Learned from this how part numbers vs part revisions work. What a smug mo you are, really...

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Did you see that Tesla removed the J part I listed before and only lists P now and this is the only listed 75kWh one?! Can you do 1 and 1 together?

That’s fairly normal behavior.

Unlike you, I commit 100% to admitting I was wrong, as soon as you come back here and post the details showing as much. I have not seen those details so far. It’s not a big deal to me to be wrong about this - I have not been speaking with authority about how part numbers work in this thread. As I said, I’m somewhat agnostic, and I just want to know how it works. We might learn something!!!

I’m not interested in drawing conclusions from partial data and inference. I listed above exactly what we need to see to be able to draw a conclusion. Please (carefully!!!) post that info here when you get it - I know you are quite knowledgeable about this stuff so you will have the data available to you, eventually. But please, no logical leaps or missing data.

Let’s get a picture of that Performance battery label, and one of the AWD label, and include all the associated SMT (or from energy screen) information on capacity, for each label! Etc.

..Hope YOU Learned from this how part numbers vs part revisions work. What a smug mo you are, really

I just want to point out my post about “I hope you learned” was entirely based on the picture you posted (of one part number) and your original post (with a different part number). I drew the conclusion that the part numbers were different since that seemed to be the evidence you had posted. You’ve now explained what you think the reason is for that. We will see if that holds up.

 

[ucmndd]

Only in this thread could someone post a picture of a battery with a completely different part number and claim it as evidence that 1137375 actually equals 1104423.

Math is hard?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Only in this thread could someone post a picture of a battery with a completely different part number and claim it as evidence that 1137375 actually equals 1104423.

Math is hard?

I’m willing to work with him on that one, though it is kind of funny. I hope that as a side effect of his efforts to show us that part revisions correspond to large capacity changes, he may be able to fully explain exactly which markets get which part number (he had a partial explanation above). It is funny though, for sure, that he posted a picture of a different part number from his original post and claimed that this meant that the part numbers do not change. While that technically destroys his argument, I think in practice there may still be a chance for him to be right about his fundamental point, as that could have been a market difference (to be clear, I have no idea) in the part number. But, we’ll need evidence from him first!

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

2021 Model 3 - Charge data

Denser ~80-82kWh pack:
1104423-0L-P

Well, in the end it appears that Tesla has changed the suffix of the part number (to 0L rather than 00), in the middle of the part code (not the letter revision at the end). That’s for the larger packs. I’ll let @ucmndd and @MP3Mike sort out whether that qualifies as a “part number” change. I think the likely summary is that, as expected by several people here, the new denser part will not be distinguished by a simple letter revision.

To me it seems that middle code in the part number is used when a part would work fine in either car, but is intended for one specific vehicle. It’s not like the rev letter, which are presumably backwards compatible. Anyway, interesting data point for how Tesla treats something like this.

BTW I think the issue with the part number that @TimothyHW3 originally got from the catalog is that it might have been a reman part. They always put different part numbers on those.
I don’t know what the part number was on the 2020s, but probably the same. Someone can fill in that detail. I think there are 1104424 parts out there but cannot remember what they are used for. Someone can comment on that too hopefully.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Just reviewing a few early posts, this was all already covered. It turned out exactly as expected - it looks like this is effectively a new part number even if the base number is identical. The revision code at the end is not part of the part number, as already discussed.

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.)

attempting to correlate a minor part revision of a REMANUFACTURED battery to some supposedly upcoming enhancement to new cars.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Nothing reflecting below in the parts catalog, at the moment, of course.

There are some interesting addenda to this story:

Overall part number summary for 2021, so far:
2021 Model 3 - Charge data

Copied:
1522312-00-C: LG - ~75kWh (EU E5D AWDs). ("FPWN" 74.5kWh from some SMT reports). (Validation of this Czech Republic report needed.)
1104423-00-P: Pana - ~77.8kWh (soft locked to ~75kWh in EU) (US, and EU E3D AWDs) ("FPWN" 77.8kWh)
1104423-0L-P, 1104423-0L-P: Pana - ~80.7kWh (range: 79kWh-81.5kWh) - EU Performance and US Performance. ("FPWN" 82.1kWh) Tesla terminology seems to call this "2170L" cell.

1104423-00: Pana - 77.8kWh (???) (EU 2021 Performance; unverified report, from France)


That last part is actually a 1104423-00-T, but the T doesn't show in the picture until later (weird shadow).
More details on that pack:

2021 Model 3 - Charge data

Summary, reading all the way to the current end of that thread, is that it's apparently maxing out at 79.3kWh (or would) in SMT when Supercharged. This is outside the range of what I thought was possible with these packs, but maybe they are cherry-picking them out of the top of the distribution?

No SMT "Full Pack When New" readbacks available yet.

This, to me, is kind of strange, since it's neither the 77.8kWh (the old part number) when new or the -0L- pack (82.1kWh when new, which usually shows in SMT about 80.7kWh).

It's right in the middle!

Maybe if the guy eventually hooks up SMT (he is planning to) it will shed some light on what the pack is doing, and what this new part number means.