Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
  • The latest TMC Podcast (#14) is now available on YouTube and all major podcast networks. We covered FSD Beta's exciting v11 update, Enhanced Autopilot coming to the U.S. and Canada, and more!

Possible 2022 Model Y SR introduction - range difference

@Teslerati noted Mar 13 2022 that Tesla received a recent (Feb 16) EPA approval for an apparent new 279-mi range Model Y variant, and a second variant was applied for on Feb 24. @TroyTeslike followed, suggesting one of two scenarios for the approved vehicle (amended Mar 14):

Scenario 1
  • Fremont / Model Y Standard Range, AWD, built with 2170 cells <-- the presumed new vehicle the EPA has approved
  • Fremont / Model Y Long Range, AWD, built with 4680 cells
  • (Giga Texas / would only make Model Y Performance, AWD)
Scenario 2
  • Fremont / Model Y Long Range, AWD, built with 2170 cells
  • Giga Texas / Model Y Standard Range, AWD, built with 4680 cells <-- the presumed new vehicle the EPA has approved
My understanding (I may have this incorrect) is that the 2170 cells are recommended to be charged only to ~80% max (except for planned longer trips) while the newer LFP 4680 can always be charged to 100%. (see: Tesla's LFP Batteries - An Important Development in Battery Technology | Torque News). With this in mind, if Scenario 2 played out, would the actual range difference for general day-to-day usage be then:

Model Y Long Range: 330-miles x 80% = 264-miles
Model Y Standard Range: 279-miles x 100% = 279-miles

Not sure I follow this I would not think Tesla would produce a long range model, that effectively has less (day-to-day) range than a standard range model. Do I have max charging for day-to-day incorrect, or have I missed another factor (?)
 
There are several videos out there (Tesla Economist, Electric Viking, Cleanerwatt) that analyzed the potential scenarios for this new "Model Y AWD" configuration based on EPA reported efficiency, vehicle weight, range etc., and also mention the other new Model Y EPA application in process as well (could this be the 4680 Model Y from Austin etc?). The range of possibilities for the Model Y AWD includes the full range of battery possibilities from 2170 (recent Tesla Economist video) to LFP (earlier Tesla Economist, Electric Viking) to 4680 batteries (can't remember who did this last one, sorry). Some have changed their minds/arguments, based on deeper analysis (Tesla Economist). For example, since Tesla has stated that all standard range models should have LFP batteries, LFP is a logical choice for the Model Y AWD, BUT is Tesla going to ship these LFP batteries from China to Texas to achieve this, or will there be a new line to produce LFP in the USA. And, there is the pretty compelling counterargument that to get to 279 mile range with LFP would take too much weight, so 2170 is more likely (recent Tesla Economist). This is a pretty active area of analysis/argument, not surprising since it does potentially have significant implications for Austin and for many of us who have our MY orders in already. I for one would welcome a 279 mile LFP MY, which might be several thousand cheaper etc. and not have the dreaded Cobalt, higher fire probability, can be recharged to 100% regularly. Others may need more range...
 

Mrbrock

Active Member
Mar 26, 2020
2,064
1,753
Walla Walla, WA
@Teslerati noted Mar 13 2022 that Tesla received a recent (Feb 16) EPA approval for an apparent new 279-mi range Model Y variant, and a second variant was applied for on Feb 24. @TroyTeslike followed, suggesting one of two scenarios for the approved vehicle (amended Mar 14):

Scenario 1
  • Fremont / Model Y Standard Range, AWD, built with 2170 cells <-- the presumed new vehicle the EPA has approved
  • Fremont / Model Y Long Range, AWD, built with 4680 cells
  • (Giga Texas / would only make Model Y Performance, AWD)
Scenario 2
  • Fremont / Model Y Long Range, AWD, built with 2170 cells
  • Giga Texas / Model Y Standard Range, AWD, built with 4680 cells <-- the presumed new vehicle the EPA has approved
My understanding (I may have this incorrect) is that the 2170 cells are recommended to be charged only to ~80% max (except for planned longer trips) while the newer LFP 4680 can always be charged to 100%. (see: Tesla's LFP Batteries - An Important Development in Battery Technology | Torque News). With this in mind, if Scenario 2 played out, would the actual range difference for general day-to-day usage be then:

Model Y Long Range: 330-miles x 80% = 264-miles
Model Y Standard Range: 279-miles x 100% = 279-miles

Not sure I follow this I would not think Tesla would produce a long range model, that effectively has less (day-to-day) range than a standard range model. Do I have max charging for day-to-day incorrect, or have I missed another factor (?)
Check the Giga Texas thread, much information there.

The new vehicle submitted to EPA possibly has an Austin VIN based on the paperwork submitted. The weight is within 25# of the LR AWD with the same motors and the range is 50 miles less and the capacity of the battery is less based on the recharge events listed. There are two ways to account for this. Less energy dense batteries or they incorrectly submitted a wrong weight. Since the weight is different, I'd lean towards less energy dense batteries. Based on comments of Austin only producing 4680 structural packs, the only logical way to have less dense cells is to use LFP. These are cells produced at Kato and there is no official word what chemistry they are producing there.

The updated submission is a correction of the first one. There is no second new vehicle being submitted. Everything else is identical in the paperwork except it was tested at a different location and had slightly different ranges in the tests but the same final range which is to be expected for different runnings of the same test at different locations.

Scenario 1 is wrong. If the cells are 2170, and the weight is 25# less, the range would be the same because the cells would be the same. And we know the battery capacity is lower so the weight would be lower by more than 25#.

Scenario 2 is more likely, existing LR/MYP based on 2170 from Fremont and 4680 AWD of unknown chemistry but lower range from Texas.

As far as charging, you are close. First, drop the cell format, it doesn't matter if they are prismatic, 2170, 18650 or 4680, only what the chemistry is. NCM/A is more energy dense than LFP. There is also more chance of degradation if charging to 100%. So Tesla recommends charging to 90% max for daily use. You can charge to 100% if you don't leave it at 100% for longer than a few hours. In this sense, you can set you car to charge to 100% right before you leave and you can use more of the battery. Also, you typically charge by the time you hit 10%. This is where the 80% number comes from. 90-10=80. You would have the same bottom 10% with LFP. So charging to 100% you's still only have 90% available before needing to charge.

90% of 280 = 252
80% of 33 = 264

To also detract from the charge to 100% aspect of the LFP, while it is not bad for the battery, you still have the issue of no regen braking when you start driving if charging to 100%. There is nowhere for the energy to go if the battery is full. This is the same with NCA/M except for normal daily use, you don't charge to 100% so you always have some room for regen when starting out. If you don't mind no regen, there is no reason why you couldn't set scheduled departure and charge your car to 100% every day. It would only be at 100% for a few minutes which is ok.

There is no 4680 LFP batteries currently, so it’s definitely not the case here.

LFP battery usually is not in cylindrical form. Curling the LFP batteries into cylindrical from might not bring any benefit.
See above, while we don't think there are 4680 LFP, it is the only thing that makes sense for the variant submitted to the EPA. Same weight but 15% less range. Unless Tesla is having big problems with NCA/NCM 4680 production and they are less energy dense than 2170 and there is no weight savings from the larger cells which doesn't make sense.
 

Products we're discussing on TMC...

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top