Reuters: "Tesla readies revamped Model 3 with project 'Highland' -sources" [projected 3rd quarter 2023]

[jjrandorin]

But manufacturers are different...ever got into a car and instead of flashing your hi-beams you squirt windshield washer ?

That would be more like the radio working different, to me at least. Anyway, for what its worth (not much, I know) I dont like wiper controls being on screen in current Teslas, either. I use voice commands to operate them because I dont think stabbing at the screen for such a critical function as wipers is effective as it makes you take your eyes off the road.

Im not trying to drag this conversation toward wipers (we have plenty of those threads already), just saying, as much as I like Teslas interface for some things, I dont like it for others, and I am fairly against Tesla removing stalks with a reason of "just because".


Shrug. I am a big believer of voting with your wallet (instead of arguing about stuff online). Everyone has to make their own decisions on these things and what they will tolerate, and they should make those decisions with their wallet (by buying or not buying), rather than just going back and forth forever online.

With that being said, some people prefer going back and forth online, so.. shrug.

 

[Destiny1701]

I have a model 3 LR with a yoke and stalks. To me best of both worlds if one wants a yoke.

My buddy has a 2021 MS and he drove my car about a month back and his reaction was priceless lol ‘bro…it’s so damn easy to switch gears and signal…I forgot..everything is where it should be and doesn’t move around…wtf!’

I had to laugh as he wondered at a tech that has been in place for 100 yrs Vs his ‘new’ but non-practical interface.

 

[kpanda17]

There is a naive assumption here that I want to point out. You’re assuming they make packs with the same number of cells.

Greater energy density is a good thing - it enables lighter weight and the same range with fewer cells. Fewer cells = fewer dollars. A major objective of the Highland appears to be reducing cost, not necessarily increasing range (and I 100% agree with the prior comments that they will artificially maintain significant differentiation in range between trims and more importantly models like the S/X). I think it’s equally if not more likely they make a cost saving move, reduce cell count, and maintain roughly the same pack capacity and range.


Downhill with a tail wind, no HVAC, at 40mph?

No - Panasonic currently makes NCA cells - Nickel Cobalt Aluminum.

LG Chem is making NCM (Nickel Cobalt Manganese) cells in China - similar characteristics to NCA but slightly less energy dense. You can find them in the 3LR.

Thanks for the correcting
I’ll do better at the battery, chem and manuf knowledge
CATL did say rhey built the M3Ps to be the same form factor as to fit right into the current M3
We will know soon

Btw, LFPs are amazing and actually do that the 260 miles on the M3RWD

 

[stopcrazypp]

My current LFP M3RWD has usable range of 260 miles

Downhill with a tail wind, no HVAC, at 40mph?

I have a 2021 SR+ (51kWh Usable, 55kWh pack) and I have 250 miles rated with actual consumption varying between 1.1-1.25x at 70-75 mph highway travel with AC usage (so 200-227 miles real world). Given the RWD has a 57 kWh usable (60 kWh pack), that bumps up to 224-254 miles. If you drive a bit lower speeds (65-70) it's totally believable to get 260 miles real world with a RWD.

SR+/RWD with the 18" aero wheels is extremely efficient. If you have an LR with larger wheels you are unlikely to be able to match it, so it's understandable to not believe this.

 

[kpanda17]

NY metro
No 70-75
Slomo here

 

[GregD60]

But manufacturers are different...ever got into a car and instead of flashing your hi-beams you squirt windshield washer ?

No, but I have wondered why my foot can't find the button on the floor for the high beams.

 

[Bouba]

No, but I have wondered why my foot can't find the button on the floor for the high beams.

And nothing more I hate than a column shifter

 

[SigNC]

The significant diff here will likely be no stalks and/or a yoke option, interior tweaks, exterior body tweaks. Nothing that would make a new model refresh particularly at risk of a higher degree of issues over todays outgoing.

Or that whole completely changing how they build the frame/megacasting thing.

 

[chinney]

Maybe 4 Leap years... but Toyota is claiming they'll have first-gen solid state in cars by 2027 w/ a 745 mile range, second gen solid state to have 932 mile range. Nio's ES6 already has solid state batts w/ ~570 mile range.

Range at the 745 or 932 mile level is, for almost everyone, just a waste. Totally unnecessary except for rare applicants, and especially so if charging times decrease. Even when range at that level becomes technically possible - and in some ways it is possible even today - it is not going to become a standard.

 

[father_of_6]

Range at the 745 or 932 mile level is, for almost everyone, just a waste. Totally unnecessary except for rare applicants, and especially so if charging times decrease. Even when range at that level becomes technically possible - and in some ways it is possible even today - it is not going to become a standard.

To each his own. I fitted a 245 gallon gas tank onto my last sedan and only had to stop for gas once a season. Had to camp out overnight to get a full tank though. /s

 

[SteevHD]

To each his own. I fitted a 245 gallon gas tank onto my last sedan and only had to stop for gas once a season. Had to camp out overnight to get a full tank though. /s

Yeah, and plenty of people who commute 100+ miles a day for work that would love to only charge once a week. Or live/work far from supercharger infrastructure, so they avoid ev's because of range anxiety.

 

[3sr+buyer]

Range at the 745 or 932 mile level is, for almost everyone, just a waste. Totally unnecessary except for rare applicants, and especially so if charging times decrease. Even when range at that level becomes technically possible - and in some ways it is possible even today - it is not going to become a standard.

But note that these range numbers are probably based on a test methodology that gives more optimistic results than US EPA testing (which is frequently complained about here as being too optimistic by drivers who drive at 78mph with the heat or AC blasting in extreme weather).

Still, if those range numbers end up being about 550 miles of typical real world range, or 300 miles of lead foot extreme weather range, that may be more than enough for most people who need to make bladder stops more frequently than that.

 

[E90alex]

Yeah, and plenty of people who commute 100+ miles a day for work that would love to only charge once a week. Or live/work far from supercharger infrastructure, so they avoid ev's because of range anxiety.

Or just install a charger?

 

[SteevHD]

Or just install a charger?

If you own your home and your service from the pole can support it, sure. Point is there's plenty of things ICE owners point to as reasons to avoid electric cars, and larger battery capacity fixes most of them, especially if vehicle-to-load is a feature.

 

[E90alex]

If you own your home and your service from the pole can support it, sure. Point is there's plenty of things ICE owners point to as reasons to avoid electric cars, and larger battery capacity fixes most of them, especially if vehicle-to-load is a feature.

No, they will just keep moving the goal posts and will never be satisfied. They want 900 miles of range in a $25k car that can fully charge 0-100% in 5 minutes. No use in catering to that customer as it would be a waste of resources to make such a battery, even if it’s physically possible. Keep in mind charging infrastructure will keep advancing as well in the meantime which will negate the need for such insane range.

They just need to change their ways of thinking, which will happen with time as EVs become more and more mainstream and they experience it first hand through friends or family. Or they will be forced into an EV anyways when the new car market is 99% EV and gasoline becomes too expensive.

 

[Destiny1701]

Yeah, and plenty of people who commute 100+ miles a day for work that would love to only charge once a week. Or live/work far from supercharger infrastructure, so they avoid ev's because of range anxiety.

Keep in mind the revenue mode/potential of the SC chargers when they calculate and consider range Vs cost/benefit. Some degree of efficiency improvement for sure…likely to occur, but I don’t think Tesla will ever look to make their own ‘gas stations’ service less end less.

EM has mentioned on more than one occasion that range max becomes a moot point when you have enough chargers. The case for 400mile becomes less and less viable as access to ‘refuel’ becomes commonplace.

There is no benefit (to Tesla) in creating too high of a range and thus reducing the inflow of ‘energy’ revenue from the chargers. The fact they’ve opened them up to competitor auto manufacturers means they see ‘Tesla Energy’ as the holy grail.

This is just my thought so no ripping! I just tend to see things from a more global business/profit case perspective when it comes to larger companies. They never act without bottom line as the primary driver of decisions and strategy.

I do see MS having the 400+ but again a lower volume, higher class bragging rights vehicle…not the bread and butter mass market 3/Y product. I could be wrong but somehow I always seem to consider what the engineers propose Vs what the business guys ultimately axe or proceed with.

 

[cousin_IT]

Keep in mind the revenue mode/potential of the SC chargers when they calculate and consider range Vs cost/benefit. Some degree of efficiency improvement for sure…likely to occur, but I don’t think Tesla will ever look to make their own ‘gas stations’ service less end less.

EM has mentioned on more than one occasion that range max becomes a moot point when you have enough chargers. The case for 400mile becomes less and less viable as access to ‘refuel’ becomes commonplace.

There is no benefit (to Tesla) in creating too high of a range and thus reducing the inflow of ‘energy’ revenue from the chargers. The fact they’ve opened them up to competitor auto manufacturers means they see ‘Tesla Energy’ as the holy grail.

This is just my thought so no ripping! I just tend to see things from a more global business/profit case perspective when it comes to larger companies. They never act without bottom line as the primary driver of decisions and strategy.

I do see MS having the 400+ but again a lower volume, higher class bragging rights vehicle…not the bread and butter mass market 3/Y product. I could be wrong but somehow I always seem to consider what the engineers propose Vs what the business guys ultimately axe or proceed with.

I largely follow your argument but for longer commutes the time loss of recharging adds up, especially with alot of SuC’s being located away from the highway. I would prefer a larger battery capacity so I have the luxury of charging less. Also keep in mind charging > 70% SoC takes exponentially longer and a larger battery negates this problem.

 

[Destiny1701]

I largely follow your argument but for longer commutes the time loss of recharging adds up, especially with alot of SuC’s being located away from the highway. I would prefer a larger battery capacity so I have the luxury of charging less. Also keep in mind charging > 70% SoC takes exponentially longer and a larger battery negates this problem.

I see your use case for sure as a consumer. and I’m sure many agree with you. I’m just not sure T sees it the same. If time loss is the issue, wouldn’t they rather you upgrade a model and pay for the higher range? Hence…get the premium S if you want to ‘buy’ yourself the luxury of less stops?

SChargers are growing ever still in locations so I imagine that’s also on the ‘profit model’ agenda and eventually will result in less and less ‘dead zones’ or area off the beaten path.

Are you saying T would rather everyone charge 30-80 % and get on their way? Ie. Max out the amount of kw/hour and charge more? I was under the impression it makes not diff to Tesla if one charges 40-70% or 60-90% in terms of $/kw. The only $ premium being for super fast DC when one comes in at 20-30%. I could be mistaken.

 

[Bouba]

More energy dense battery packs could lead to smaller and lighter packs...improving the cars efficiency and handling...so increased range can still happen

 

[Watts_Up]

EM has mentioned on more than one occasion that range max becomes a moot point when you have enough chargers.
The case for 400mile becomes less and less viable as access to ‘refuel’ becomes commonplace.

One issue with EVs is when you drive away from major arteries where you
will not find a charging location at your final destination, like National Parks.
So you are limited to travel to locations where you will have to include your return trip.

For example, with a 300 miles range EV, a 90% to 20% consumption will be 210 miles, or 105 miles one way.
If you have passengers with luggages, travel in cold winter or hot summer using AC, your range woulbe even lower.

If you have a 500 miles range EV, then a 90% to 20% consumption will be 350 miles, 175 miles one way.
This will be already more comfortable situation and would be closer to some typical ICEs vehicles.

One advantage of EVs over ICEs vwhicles is that you can recover some energy when going down hill.
And also, you could carry some solar panels and cover your car with them when parked and recharge your battery.

In fact, the new 2023 Hybrid Prius offers an option allowing charging directly the propulsion battery with a solar panel
installed inside the roof. I wish Tesla would provide such capability that could be added like the towing option