Hmmm - speculation that Austin Ys are using 50kWh packs.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hmmm - speculation that Austin Ys are using 50kWh packs.
I'm skeptical. They haven't rolled out the new chemistry yet so these aren't going to be super efficient.
There are cars in the wild though. They are getting charged and we will find out soon. It's super easy to check this. Just run one down and charge it.
Yeah, I'm taking it with a truckload of salt. Seems too good to be true.
True, since the 4680s already seem to be surpassing the 2170s on peak C rate (3.3 for 4680 vs 3.0 for 2170), and equivalent on average C rate (2170 is about 1.25 C from 10%-80% [average of 103 kW], and this charging session demonstrated 1.24 C from 10%-80% [about 84 kW average rate]).
I'm already impressed by the charging curve. We don't need to be banking on it improving with software.
Well, it's pretty close to 50kwh, maybe it's 55kwh? Because some kwh are lost to the charging+car being on in the sun with the A/C blasting and battery management system kicking on.Supercharging video already showed it taking 59 kWh from 9% to 97%. So it can't be 50 kWh.
Assuming 10% loss. That would show 60 kWh. 20% would be 55ish. To me, 60 passes the sniff test all around.Supercharging video already showed it taking 59 kWh from 9% to 97%. So it can't be 50 kWh.
Current Model Y is 270 Wh/mi.Yeah, I'm taking it with a truckload of salt. Seems too good to be true.
They aren't.Hmmm - speculation that Austin Ys are using 50kWh packs.
Supercharging video already showed it taking 59 kWh from 9% to 97%. So it can't be 50 kWh.
Exactly. It's impossible that the larger heavier Model Y is more efficient than a Model 3. It's not a 50 or 55 kWh pack.If the 4680 MY has only 50 kWh and range of 279 miles it would be 179 Wh/mi.
That is an absolutely giant leap in efficiency. Seems like something Tesla or someone would have mentioned by now.
Or wildly speculate with a tilt that they’ve heard it’s true! 50 kWh just doesn’t pass the sniff test. 55 could but really tight. 60 makes a lot of sense (or 59 with a round down on the model)Current Model Y is 270 Wh/mi.
If the 4680 MY has only 50 kWh and range of 279 miles it would be 179 Wh/mi.
That is an absolutely giant leap in efficiency. Seems like something Tesla or someone would have mentioned by now.
One of the problems with the Tesla Twitter community is some of the louder voices tend to rebroadcast good news with little to no effort to verify it.
Assuming 10% loss. That would show 60 kWh. 20% would be 55ish. To me, 60 passes the sniff test all around.
Texas Ys are much lighter.
"The Texas-made Model Y at 4,220 pounds weighs 178 pounds less than the Long Range and 142 pounds less than the Performance."
People spend a lot of money to drop that much weight on cars for performance reasons. I think nearly 200lbs dropped is pretty great. 2170 pack weights 1060lbs. So if half that savings is from the pack and half from the castings, then it looks even better. Obv things like seats, motors, etc. are unchanged.178 lbs is not "much". 4%. "slightly" is a more appropriate adjective.
I’m 99% sure it is what you’re charged (matches my receipts on supercharging). Which would be delivered to the vehicle, not delivered to pack. So various charging losses would be included.Just looked it up, and I'm pretty sure the +kWh display on the vehicle screen reports only the energy actually used by the vehicle and is already net of losses. The vehicle saw +59 kWh enter the pack from 9% to 97%.
So unless the Model Y AWD expends a ton of energy cooling the cells, I don't think it could be far off of 67 kWh usable.
The 4680 doesn't need to have amazing energy density or charge speed to be an incredible innovation. It can be an innovation in terms of cost and ease of manufacturing.
I'm taking a break from moderation due to work constraints, but I can see it just fine. Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' RoundtableMods. What happened to post #345,568 from @ZeApelido?
I’m 99% sure it is what you’re charged (matches my receipts on supercharging). Which would be delivered to the vehicle, not delivered to pack. So various charging losses would be included.
In the end, the Electrify America charging station showed 39 kWh dispensed, and the Model 3's display screen showed 35 kWh received, for a difference of 4 kWh.
I’ve personally had 42 kWh and gotten 48% charge on an 18 M3P (so ~75 kWh pack). That was just in March. On a V3, the discrepancy tends to be higher on % vs kWh… which makes sense with cooling losses.This is the best article I can find on the subject, where they used a Chademo adapter so they could see the kWh reported by the EA station vs the kWh reported by the vehicle screen:
Tesla Model 3 Charging Losses Explained
We examine the YouTube video from the channel, State Of Charge, that analyzes and explains charging losses when DC fast charging a 2021 Tesla Model 3.insideevs.com
Agree, automakers pay a lot for a few pounds for many reasons. 178 lbs is a lot but keep in mind you have given up 50 miles of range.People spend a lot of money to drop that much weight on cars for performance reasons. I think nearly 200lbs dropped is pretty great. 2170 pack weights 1060lbs. So if half that savings is from the pack and half from the castings, then it looks even better. Obv things like seats, motors, etc. are unchanged.