New Model Y version showing up on EPA site - a new Giga Texas variant?

[djgarrett21]

InsideEVs is reporting on a possible new Model Y version showing up on EPA site. The more I think about it the more it makes sense that Tesla would make the Austin version of the MY an entirely new variant. That would avoid issues with different configurations coming out of Austin vs Fremont. Also, could allow Tesla to sell it at a potentially lower price point given the savings due to design (giga castings, 4180, etc.) and what appears to be a smaller battery pack.

New Tesla Model Y Version Emerges On EPA's List: But What Is It?

We have just discovered an all-new 2022 Tesla Model Y version, listed by the EPA, which brings more questions than answers.

insideevs.com

 

[Yperformance]

Would that free up the performance to take full benefit of the,4680 battery. But there would still be an issue between Fremont and Austin. Having waited for, 4680 performance and seen the price rises why would I not expect the latest improved spec car. If the performance is not improved it will start by getting pushed out by 2023 BMW etc, thoughts?

 

[Mrbrock]

Keep in mind the EPA efficiency numbers account for power from the wall, not just the battery.

For example on the 2022 LR AWD MY:
Combined - 276 Wh/mile @ 330 miles = 91.08 kWh
City - 265 Wh/mile @ 342 miles = 90.63 kWh
Highway - 288 Wh/mile @ 316 miles = 91.01 kWh

These numbers do not match with the known 82 kWh battery capacity (+/- 79 kWh available).

Running the numbers on the new AWD MY listed on EPA site:

Combined - 274 Wh/mile @ 279 miles = 76.45 kWh
City - 261 Wh/mile @ 292 miles = 76.21 kWh
Highway - 291 Wh/mile @ 263 miles = 76.53 kWh

These numbers look much more realistic when it comes to battery size and range estimates based on the quote Wh/mile numbers. Maybe this is just a readjustment with more accurate range and not a new variant? They are simplifying models to RWD, AWD and Performance? No more long range, standard range, etc.? There is a new EPA doc from 2/22 requesting to add the Model Y AWD variant to the Model Y AWD Platform.

https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=54971&flag=1

 

[SabrToothSqrl]

<<calling it now>> EPA Forces Tesla to stop publishing unrealistic ranges.
280 is a lot more real world than 330.

Flame on!

 

[Mrbrock]

Motors specs are the same per the EPA certification.

Page 4 of 31 (per the footnote, not the pdf page number) shows curb weight of the 2022 Model Y AWD as 4356 and 4381 for Model Y Long Range AWD. So there is a 25# weight savings. Front megacast weight savings?

Based on the 91 kWh recharge event to 79 kWh usable, the 76 kWh recharge event would be 66 kWh usable, maybe 70 kWh total. Unless the 91 kWh recharge events are false (15% charging loss seems very high at 208V). Like maybe they had a VW like cheat in the system when you enter testing mode to burn off excess charge energy so when they measure wh/mile and multiply by charge amount it gives a longer range? If they were getting 280 miles off a 70kWh battery with 66kWh usable with 2170 or 4680, it would seem the weight savings would be a lot more. Unless it was a LFP pack. Seems about right for the extra weight needed for LFP vs NCA but needing larger space for less energy dense battery. But this introduction paragraph would say otherwise (unless it is a copy over they didn't change regarding chemistry):

All this is a bit confusing but doesn't really point to a certain thing that changed. Both the original doc from 10/21/21 and this new one from 2/22/22 list LR MY AWD volts as 360, battery specific energy as 180 (no units) and battery energy capacity as 235 (also no units). If you attach amp hours to the battery energy capacity and multiply by volts you get watt hours so 235 x 360 = 84,600 Wh or 84.6 kWh. With this number, the 76 kWh recharge events on this new variant seem more likely than the 91 kWh ones before. But would mean a much higher battery buffer than we have seen in the real world. Still perplexing that we see 15% less range and supposedly same battery chemistry, energy and energy capacity listed in the documentation as prior versions, just different recharge event kWh.

 

[terranx]

View attachment 780495
View attachment 780496
Motors specs are the same per the EPA certification.

Page 4 of 31 (per the footnote, not the pdf page number) shows curb weight of the 2022 Model Y AWD as 4356 and 4381 for Model Y Long Range AWD. So there is a 25# weight savings. Front megacast weight savings?

Based on the 91 kWh recharge event to 79 kWh usable, the 76 kWh recharge event would be 66 kWh usable, maybe 70 kWh total. Unless the 91 kWh recharge events are false (15% charging loss seems very high at 208V). Like maybe they had a VW like cheat in the system when you enter testing mode to burn off excess charge energy so when they measure wh/mile and multiply by charge amount it gives a longer range? If they were getting 280 miles off a 70kWh battery with 66kWh usable with 2170 or 4680, it would seem the weight savings would be a lot more. Unless it was a LFP pack. Seems about right for the extra weight needed for LFP vs NCA but needing larger space for less energy dense battery. But this introduction paragraph would say otherwise (unless it is a copy over they didn't change regarding chemistry):
View attachment 780499

All this is a bit confusing but doesn't really point to a certain thing that changed. Both the original doc from 10/21/21 and this new one from 2/22/22 list LR MY AWD volts as 360, battery specific energy as 180 (no units) and battery energy capacity as 235 (also no units). If you attach amp hours to the battery energy capacity and multiply by volts you get watt hours so 235 x 360 = 84,600 Wh or 84.6 kWh. With this number, the 76 kWh recharge events on this new variant seem more likely than the 91 kWh ones before. But would mean a much higher battery buffer than we have seen in the real world. Still perplexing that we see 15% less range and supposedly same battery chemistry, energy and energy capacity listed in the documentation as prior versions, just different recharge event kWh.

If you look through that document you linked and go down to where they give details about the recharge events, the field "System End State of Charge Watt-hours" seems to represent the true battery capacity (within a margin for error)

This new MY AWD appears to be 70.6 kWh. MYP and MYLR are showing as 81 and 80.7 kWh (probably margin of error there). M3P shows as 80.8, M3LR as 82, and M3RWD as 62 kWh.

So it does seem like there's a new battery entering the field. Based on the weight given you would think it's not a 4680. Unless it's an LFP 4680 maybe?

 

[Mrbrock]

If you look through that document you linked and go down to where they give details about the recharge events, the field "System End State of Charge Watt-hours" seems to represent the true battery capacity (within a margin for error)

This new MY AWD appears to be 70.6 kWh. MYP and MYLR are showing as 81 and 80.7 kWh (probably margin of error there). M3P and M3LR show as 80.8 kWh, and M3RWD as 62 kWh.

So it does seem like there's a new battery entering the field. Based on the weight given you would think it's not a 4680. Unless it's an LFP 4680 maybe?

No, there is no indication 4680 will be anything other than dry electrode NCA. I do not think Tesla is getting into LFP battery production and no one else is into 4680 production beyond a lab environment. Combine those 2 and no 4680 LFP. Unless they had a major problem with doing the dry electrode NCA 4680 and pivoted to LFP 4680 at Kato. All we know is they are producing cells there. No idea what the chemistry is other than best guess.

LFP specific energy in RWD M3 is 126, NCA in LR AWD MY is 180, 30% less energy density. Based on this, filling a 2170 sized LR pack with 2170 LFP should yield 30% less capacity. In the M3 it dropped by 25% (80 to 60) with the use of prismatic cells having no space between cells. Here, the drop is only 12.5% (80 to 70) so something else is going on besides just LFP. Maybe they found more space in the MY than the M3 for a larger LFP pack. And the weight savings of mega casts means same weight with heavier, albeit less energy dense, battery.

 

[terranx]

specific energy as 180 (no units) and battery energy capacity as 235 (also no units).

Digging through the model 3 documents, looks like the units are Wh/Kg for specific energy. Not sure about energy capacity.

LFP specific energy in RWD M3 is 126, NCA in LR AWD MY is 180, 30% less energy density. Based on this, filling a 2170 sized LR pack with 2170 LFP should yield 30% less capacity. In the M3 it dropped by 25% (80 to 60) with the use of prismatic cells having no space between cells. Here, the drop is only 12.5% (80 to 70) so something else is going on besides just LFP. Maybe they found more space in the MY than the M3 for a larger LFP pack. And the weight savings of mega casts means same weight with heavier, albeit less energy dense, battery.

Yeah could just be LFP with some other optimization. They don't specifically list a lower specific energy, but they don't list a different capacity either (whatever the units are supposed to be), so maybe that's an oversight.

Edit:
Semi off topic, but digging a little more 2021 MY and 2021/2022 M3 show a battery specific energy of 165. 2020 MY and 2017-2020 M3 show a specific energy of 150. Maybe 180 is actually supposed to be the 4680 specific energy / density.

 

[Mrbrock]

The EPA just published a new Certificate of Conformity for the Model Y, including this new "AWD" variant. I don't have time to dig through the specs and compare to the existing variants, but maybe someone else can compare the curb weights and other specs to see if these are the 4680 units and what changes are involved. Just use this link and search for Tesla, Model Y, and published after 1/1/22.

This is what we are already discussing here. If you read above (instead of blindly posting) there is weight discussion and other pertinent specs. Please read. And the certificate of Conformity doesn’t have any specs. It’s 3 paragraphs so that shouldn't take too long to read. It is the application that has all the data that is already being discussed here.

 

[Mrbrock]

Digging through the model 3 documents, looks like the units are Wh/Kg for specific energy. Not sure about energy capacity.


Yeah could just be LFP with some other optimization. They don't specifically list a lower specific energy, but they don't list a different capacity either (whatever the units are supposed to be), so maybe that's an oversight.

Edit:
Semi off topic, but digging a little more 2021 MY and 2021/2022 M3 show a battery specific energy of 165. 2020 MY and 2017-2020 M3 show a specific energy of 150. Maybe 180 is actually supposed to be the 4680 specific energy / density.

Regarding energy densities and battery sizes, there are some numbers that are way off in the various applications. Data is presented differently for the MY and M3. M3 provides battery weight and specific energy on a separate page that doesn’t match the data later on. 2022 MY doesn’t have this data. Hard to draw conclusions when data is obviously wrong.

21 MY SR - 350v x 230ah = 80.5kwh, 150wh/kg = 1180# battery, 244 miles range
21 MY LR - 360v x 235ah = 84.6kwh, 165wh/kg = 1128# battery, 326 miles range

21 M3 SR+ - 360v x 245ah = 88.2kwh, 145wh/kg = 1338# battery, 250 miles range
21 M3 LR - 360v x 220ah = 79.2kwh, 165wh/kg = 1056# battery, 353 miles range (different dataset)

 

[Msicario]

InsideEVs is reporting on a possible new Model Y version showing up on EPA site. The more I think about it the more it makes sense that Tesla would make the Austin version of the MY an entirely new variant. That would avoid issues with different configurations coming out of Austin vs Fremont. Also, could allow Tesla to sell it at a potentially lower price point given the savings due to design (giga castings, 4180, etc.) and what appears to be a smaller battery pack.

New Tesla Model Y Version Emerges On EPA's List: But What Is It?

We have just discovered an all-new 2022 Tesla Model Y version, listed by the EPA, which brings more questions than answers.

insideevs.com