New M3 battery in parts catalogue?

[ucmndd]

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".

Lol. What do you think the difference between the 85 and 90 packs was? Precisely what you just said.

Anyway. I've said my piece. This thread is absurd speculation, even by TMC standards, attempting to correlate a minor part revision of a REMANUFACTURED battery to some supposedly upcoming enhancement to new cars.

There's no there there. But you go ahead and have fun.

 

[TimothyHW3]

Ok now I get it. Some of you guys simply are deep down in the stock business and are fearing declined sales, there is no way to explain why you would go so aggressively on a simple thread like this one... Would've been better if you were more upfront with it
Pressing disagree on all my posts, even the ones where I simply asked anyone if they knew something and didn't express opinions(basically disagreement with a question...), doesn't help your case either

 

[jjrandorin]

Calling people out for pushing the "disagree" button on your posts when you are doing the same on theirs is... funny. Next, will you be saying "but they started it!"? This just seems like an argument for arguments sake.

 

[MP3Mike]

Pressing disagree on all my posts, even the ones where I simply asked anyone if they knew something and didn't express opinions(basically disagreement with a question...), doesn't help your case either

Which of your posts has been rated a disagree where you were only asking a question? I just did a quick scan and I didn't see one.

 

[kbecks13]

If you've ever worked in a manufacturing environment, changes to the letter (or sometimes number) at the end of a part number is almost ALWAYS a revision change. Revision changes mean that any parts across that part number should basically be interchangeable, but the latest revision is probably more ideal for some small reasons.

If they were truly changing something big on the pack, they would almost certainly do a dash roll (i.e go to 1137375-02) or use a new PN altogether.

 

[TimothyHW3]

First they laugh at you, then they...how was it again?!
And before someone starts yelling - "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...

 

[TimothyHW3]

One other indication that it is indee the battery is that Tesla changed the EU range by just 4-5% and in the US by 10%. While Tesla has increased the range on the Model 3 2020 in the US before, the WLTP on EU 2020 remained the same since the capacity was the same.

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)

 

[vsansal]

I wish they left the ranges as is with the updated battery packs. It would have hide the initial degradation for a very long time and also would give out a more realistic and achievable range estimate. It doesn't make sense to sell a car with a range estimate that is unrealistic in almost any situation. This 353 figure is going to be very controversial. It pisses of new EV owners when they realize how much their actual range is after they purchase the car.

 

[TimothyHW3]

This 353 figure is going to be very controversial. It pisses of new EV owners when they realize how much their actual range is after they purchase the car.

Yes. the 353 is indeed unrealistic if they only added 3kWh to the pack. I think in the US they play with EPA and the heat pump and different temperature zones etc. This is why in Europe they only added 20km to the range, instead of 60km as in the US. Here they only care about consumption per kWh and the tests are conducted taking good weather into account.

Tesla's WLTP range was 560km on the AWD which based on their intial calculation of 76.5kWh is about
76.5/5.6 = 136Wh/km.
If we use the 136Wh/km WLTP consumption and slap that onto the new 580km range, we can reverse the math and get to the total capacity of 79/79.5kWh, which is about 3kWh more.

You have to understand something though and see where Tesla is coming from: unfortunately people are dumb and they compare EPA ranges. We know that on the street there is barely as efficient a car like Tesla (maybe some of the IONIQs, but they do that with less weight and capacity)
Tesla is in this range game and until we have cars that go 600 miles on a single run and charge in 15 minutes, they will have to play that game to cater to dumb journalists, short sellers and youtubers alike...

Hopefully for us that will not take more than 5 years for Tesla to achieve.

 

[vsansal]

You have to understand something though and see where Tesla is coming from: unfortunately people are dumb and they compare EPA ranges. We know that on the street there is barely as efficient a car like Tesla (maybe some of the IONIQs, but they do that with less weight and capacity)
Tesla is in this range game and until we have cars that go 600 miles on a single run and charge in 15 minutes, they will have to play that game to cater to dumb journalists, short sellers and youtubers alike...

I do understand where they are coming from trying to show EVs can be used both as a daily driver and for taking long trips but instead of quoting unrealistic range numbers if they were advertising the actual achievable numbers, I believe that honest approach would have attracted more buyers and would build up the trust for current owners as well. The most discussed subject here is the range not the build quality for example. I see a lot of people freak out when they buy and start driving their vehicles and realize they are not getting even close to the advertised range which makes them think there is something wrong with their vehicle and everyone else is getting over 300 miles of range or else why would Tesla advertise it that way. For me I knew what I was getting into when I was buying my model 3 and I am very happy because of that. I am getting exactly what I anticipated. I don't have home charging and for me my model 3 performance is a 200 mile car. I get about 100 miles per 40% charge and going from 90% down to 10% in normal driving conditions when I drive for a week with multiple trips in between. And I am totally fine that and happy with my range. But if my expectation was to get 304 miles like window sticker suggested, I would be pretty upset.

 

[Candleflame]

I wish they left the ranges as is with the updated battery packs. It would have hide the initial degradation for a very long time and also would give out a more realistic and achievable range estimate. It doesn't make sense to sell a car with a range estimate that is unrealistic in almost any situation. This 353 figure is going to be very controversial. It pisses of new EV owners when they realize how much their actual range is after they purchase the car.

nope, people want a true comparison. so you need to get it. Tesla has never hidden 100% from people - the LR RWD was their only attempt and it sort of backfired a bit). More range when you need it ,if you dont need it dont charge that high.

 

[TimothyHW3]

nope, people want a true comparison. so you need to get it. Tesla has never hidden 100% from people - the LR RWD was their only attempt and it sort of backfired a bit). More range when you need it ,if you dont need it dont charge that high.

Couldn't be further from the truth.
They actualy did that until 2020 Models, even AWD when people started comparing ranges - then they changed to full EPA range based on total capacity. This is why early 2020 AWD models didn't have the 322 shown, they had to wait for the software update to fix their EPA constant.

Basically what they did to hide intial degradation, they had these batteries that had 77.5kWh brand new, but they limited the "displayed" range to 76.5kWh. So you had zero degradation for the first 10,000km or so until the battery lost around 1kWh and catched up with software.

Also, they hide the range below 0% once you start driving as I explain here.

 

[TimothyHW3]

By the way - WLTP tests run without heating, therefore the additional range can only be achieved by a larger capacity battery. A more efficient motor, if it were the motor, will require a whole new test that takes time.

There is still a slight chance that it was achieved by motors, but I doubt it, it must be more capacity.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

By the way - WLTP tests run without heating, therefore the additional range can only be achieved by a larger capacity battery. A more efficient motor, if it were the motor, will require a whole new test that takes time.

There is still a slight chance that it was achieved by motors, but I doubt it, it must be more capacity.

Interesting that they added just 20km to the WLTP figure. It's possible that some of it is due to the newer aero wheels, too. And other efficiency improvements.

Remember that the heat pump itself, even though the climate control may not be on, may lead to more efficient heat transfer around the car, in general, and can lead to some improvements in the WLTP figure.

And no, the heat pump can't just automatically add 30 miles to the car...

Well, it can get pretty close, actually, if you just look at the scalars - it is possible to add *nearly* 30 rated miles in the US with no change in battery capacity! And remember it's actually only 21 rated miles added (EPA) - the prior vehicle actually achieved 332 rated miles and was voluntarily derated. So, it only takes a 7.5% increase in the scalar value, and they've done that before for Model Y.

Is the latest change in the Model 3 AWD range due to software or hardware?

I expect the EPA documents to show about 79.5kWh available from the battery, just as before ( https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=48712&flag=1 ). I would also not be shocked to see a small increase, though I don't expect it - I think it won't be as much as 3kWh though.

In any case, lots of moving pieces, and we'll see. I expect it's primarily from the heat pump and other efficiency improvements. But we will see!

 

[TimothyHW3]

None of this has anything to do with your navel-gazing speculation about minor battery revisions for remanufactured packs in the parts catalog.

Aha, so a new battery with more capacity has nothing to do with that? You are a funny guy. I will have a 2021 very soon and will have access to SMT. But I guess you are the flat -earther type and even if I show you more capacity you will still not believe it...

 

[TimothyHW3]

Interesting that they added just 20km to the WLTP figure. It's possible that some of it is due to the newer aero wheels, too. And other efficiency improvements.

No, they have to run a whole new test for that. It would've come out and would've spoiled the Osborne effect. I believe the first cars arrived around End of September in the Netherlands so hardly enough time to do the WLPT all over again.

Remember that the heat pump itself, even though the climate control may not be on, may lead to more efficient heat transfer around the car, in general, and can lead to some improvements in the WLTP figure.

No, that is not how WLTP works

I expect it's primarily from the heat pump and other efficiency improvements. But we will see!

No, def not the heat pump as it is not running during WLTP.

The only other explanation is they somehow miraculously did a new WLTP run in the last few weeks and the motors are more efficient. But that will be contradictionary to the 322 miles EPA that was slapped to the 2020 models in the US (with apperant efficient motors on 2020), whereas the WLTP ont he car remained 560km in Europa since 2019, unchanged.

The only real, logical explanation is more dense battery. Also,if you look at the parts catalogue, they added a lot of new parts for the 2021 model, but the only revision is the one part I quoted. Might be even a newer one, but we will see - I will have my hands on a 2021 model in 6 weeks and will do some tests.
I really expect SMT to show around 80kWh, maybe 79.5kWh, to about the 77kWh on the 2019-20 models.

Stay tunded!

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

No, they have to run a whole new test for that. It would've come out and would've spoiled the Osborne effect. I believe the first cars arrived around End of September in the Netherlands so hardly enough time to do the WLPT all over again.

No, that is not how WLTP works


No, def not the heat pump as it is not running during WLTP.

The only other explanation is they somehow miraculously did a new WLTP run in the last few weeks and the motors are more efficient. But that will be contradictionary to the 322 miles EPA that was slapped to the 2020 models in the US (with apperant efficient motors on 2020), whereas the WLTP ont he car remained 560km in Europa since 2019, unchanged.

The only real, logical explanation is more dense battery. Also,if you look at the parts catalogue, they added a lot of new parts for the 2021 model, but the only revision is the one part I quoted. Might be even a newer one, but we will see - I will have my hands on a 2021 model in 6 weeks and will do some tests.
I really expect SMT to show around 80kWh, maybe 79.5kWh, to about the 77kWh on the 2019-20 models.

Stay tunded!

My thinking has been evolving on this as I have read the articles on the changes in cell capacity.

You bring up some good points about WLTP. I'm not that familiar with WLTP, so I'll leave that up to you. It is weird that it lagged when EPA increased, and now it is jumping just a little bit now (what you would expect from that lag).

I'm actually evolving to the thinking that these Model 3s COULD have increased cell capacity available. I don't know what sort of volume they're pushing on that line yet. Maybe they'll only introduce it mid-year. But if they package the new batteries in the cars now, they could do the following:

1) Leave it locked out for now (still 79.5kWh from EPA discharge)
2) Run 5-cycle, get better results, and scale the prior EPA results by ~0.75/0.7. That would take them to 345rmi (AWD) / 356rmi (P, 18") (Prior P got 332 rated miles on EPA test), minimum (assuming no inherent efficiency improvements, which seems unlikely).
3) Later on in 2021, they unlock the additional 3-4kWh capacity and up the EPA results to: ~370 rated miles (or slightly higher). I would assume this would be retroactive to all the cars that have the new batteries.

~370 EPA rated miles definitely seems easily achievable with a 5% battery capacity increase, plus the "free" scalar increase (it's not free; it requires better performance on the 20F FTP 75 test).

The explanation for the WLTP improvements would be the small efficiency improvements they have made (excluding heat pump benefits in cold since they do not help as much in WLTP according to you), plus some carry forward of prior improvements that were never counted (or maybe never released due to regulations - I know nothing about those restrictions in Europe???).

No, that is not how WLTP works

Would appreciate explanation here. I was just saying the heat pump may make the car more efficient, period. Meaning: in regular driving, when you are not using the heat pump and octovalve for heating or cooling the cabin. That would show up in WLTP.

 

[ucmndd]

Aha, so a new battery with more capacity has nothing to do with that?

Yes, certainly.

As I’ve said all along. If you show me a Model 3 battery with an increased energy capacity, you’ll be showing me a battery pack with a completely different part number. Because common sense.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The only real, logical explanation is more dense battery. Also,if you look at the parts catalogue, they added a lot of new parts for the 2021 model, but the only revision is the one part I quoted. Might be even a newer one, but we will see - I will have my hands on a 2021 model in 6 weeks and will do some tests.
I really expect SMT to show around 80kWh, maybe 79.5kWh, to about the 77kWh on the 2019-20 models.

Preliminary EPA Data for Model 3 AWD & Model 3 P 2021 Released

We'll wait for the final data, though; there are some irregularities in the Performance data, and there are no EPA stickers yet.

For the AWD 18", no increase in battery capacity was needed to achieve the 353 rated mile EPA range. The EPA test pulled just 78.6kWh from the AWD 18" battery.

The reason for the improvement was about a 4% increase in efficiency (explains the WLTP improvement!!!), and the rest was due to scalar changes most likely.

However, the Performance battery was able to source 80.8kWh of energy. So there MAY be some reserve available for future range increases (which would take the AWD 18" to 370 rated mile range, if they added 5% capacity).

 

[TimothyHW3]

"Just" 78.6kWh?! Are you kidding me? just? You know very well that the max we had so far is 77.5 or thereabouts.

If anything this confirms there is more capacity, like I said, should be about 80kWh.

Will know in threeweeks time.