Tesla Economist has a theory that the EPA numbers on this car are wrong. The weights are weird and the efficiency is weird.
If the range was a bit higher, it would all make a lot more sense.
Another possibility is they are being super conservative with the range and using software limiting for a while until the packs prove out.
PS: Someone else posted a link to this yesterday or a day before, but worth revisiting perhaps.
There are a few area in EPA legislation and regulations that make some BEV issues ambiguous. First is that primary references are to 'engines' and 'equipment' with most 'equipment comments, regulations and definitions referring to things such as ignitions systems, exhaust systems, with catalytic converters , urea injection and Engine management systems all having fairly clear inspection, testing and certification processes.
Fuel economy si the only place where much attention is places on BEV, and there specific testing approaches, content and manufacturer options provide a fair amount of leeway. Skipping the hundred of pages, there are a small number of facts:
1. Manufacturers do the testing in accordance with the EPA standard, which have enough options to allow a vast amount of 'wiggle room';
2. There really do not appear any precise battery, BMS or vehicle alteration criteria for BEV. There ARE such rules for 'engines'.
3. Individual OEM approaches display quite a range based on which EPA approved process they choose to follow.
So, Tesla may well have not disclosed actual operations differences between 4680, 2170 and 1680 cells as such. They do make new tests and new tests when they are positioning a new vehicle differently. Recently some of the differences have become a bit obvious, not just Model Y.
Model S Plaid, as an example, easily exceeds it's listed fuel efficiency whenever it is driven as one would drive an EPA test. Since rather a large number of Plaid owners pursue non-EPA driving style they don't tend to see the results.
That makes me believe that once there is a reason to demonstrate the actual results fo the front and rear castings, structural pack and 4680's we will see some quite major revisions, together with model designation changes. FWIW, note that the Model S refresh has
No need to worry about it. Just take one of those Austin cars, weight it and drive the EPA cycles.
...or the weight is less than listed by the EPA. The weight, range, and efficiency claims don't jibe. Something doesn't match.
I highly doubt Tesla is giving away unused battery capacity when they can sell all they can make (it's not software limited).
Again, simpliest explaination is often correct: this is a STANDARD AWD, with 16% more range than a 2170-based Model 3 SR+ from Sept 2020.
No "by" the EPA. IT's by Tesla to the EPA. Manufacturers deliver the specifications and test results to the EPA. Some do testing themselves, some hire others to do it for them.
Sometime soon we'll have revised numbers, probably for weight too, for that matter. We can only wait to see if they'll change the numbers or something else.
