My 2023 RWD Y (based on the energy screen method) allows me to use 69.2kwh of what I believe to be an 80kwh battery; closer to 90% than 80%
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
USA MY RWD has soft limited LR battery!
- Thread starter bzobzo
- Start date
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Seems like maybe the answer was that they were waiting on switching the RWD to be an LR before they do a final release, or something.They know we are eager to know, so they are holding it back
Maybe we'll get EPA fueleconomy.gov numbers by the middle of the year. About a year late relative to other manufacturers...
They're "waiting on regulatory approval" according to Elon. Which, translated, probably means that Tesla has not submitted the appropriate documents in full, yet.
Last edited:
I'm glad to see RWD purchased since November are likely to all get upgradable range. But will it actually be worth it? At highway speeds it is likely under 30 mile range difference and only really useful before the first charging stop of the trip. Much bigger reason for the 2024 cars to unlock as they'll also get faster charging.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
There are no “lease terms” that prohibit you from charging any car to 100% every single day if you want to. That’s not a thing.
They aren’t.
if you don’t plan to buy out at the end of the lease, why not charge to 100%?
If Tesla is smart enough, they should software lock cars that are on lease to prevent frequent charge to 100%.
That’s another reason not to buy a used Tesla off lease.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
ven7782
Member
Any thoughts on this? Will it be worth it?
electrek.co
Elon Musk reveals Tesla software-locked cheapest Model Y, offers 40-60 more miles of range
Elon Musk has revealed that Tesla software-locked its cheapest Model Y (Standard Range RWD), and it plans to offer 40...
electrek.co
Depends on the owner. At $1500-2000, it will be cheaper than previous Tesla range unlock options which started at $3000 I believe. However, buying this extra range will make almost no difference on road trips - the only time when you need range anyway. The combined range and charging of the '24 RWD will already make it a road tripping monster that is better than almost any other EV - even the new Model 3. It will only make a difference if you bought this car and later realized you must drive a certain route that is 20-30 miles beyond current 100-0% range that also doesn't have reliable charging. If you needed that, you probably bought the LR AWD.Any thoughts on this? Will it be worth it?
Elon Musk reveals Tesla software-locked cheapest Model Y, offers 40-60 more miles of range
Elon Musk has revealed that Tesla software-locked its cheapest Model Y (Standard Range RWD), and it plans to offer 40...
My plan will likely be to not buy the extra range until I need it, perhaps to compensate for battery degradation after a few years. I'll be able to watch to see if they drop the price over time and maybe catch a deal. I'd likely also pay for this upgrade if I were going to sell the car as it will be much easier to resell with 300+ miles range.
The other thing is that it will likely unlock the full ~250kW charging capability, and make the 0-60 minutely faster. Which could cut a couple minutes off quick charges at the low end.
Yes, that will be an added benefit for 2024 owners. If earlier speculation holds true, the upgrade may cost $1500 for 2023 cars and $2000 for 2024 cars because more range will be unlocked and because of the added charging benefit. However, don't expect it to be much faster. All difference will be in the first 40% and will likely only be 1-2 minutes faster over that period - less if you plug in at anything over 10-15% SOC.
The 2024 cars definitely charge slower than 2023 and the charge curve certainly looks like it is software locked at 170 kW. We don't know if this paid upgrade will include faster charging or if there is another reason to hold charging lower in the 2024 battery pack.
Hmm. So the AWD Fremont 2170 peaks at 250 kW (maybe higher since Tesla’s v3 Supercharger only goes to 250 kW and the v4 is ironically also locked at 250 as well) and the AWD Austin 4680 peaks at 227 kW. And this RWD peaks at 163 kW. But the RWD LFP has always been capped at 170 kW right? Or maybe just published at 170 and really 163?
Is the rest of the Supercharging hardware path the same between AWD and RWD? Like wire diameter? Is there any other reason for Tesla to limit the charging speed besides product differentiation and maybe slight warranty/reliability? It seems crazy to increase the congestion at Superchargers, but I understand that product differentiation is done by limits on torque, horsepower and max speed, sometimes on identical hardware. I just never thought about peak charge rate as a product differentiator before.
I’m thinking about when we’ve had natural disasters and Tesla “capacity unlimited” supercharging on cars in those regions. I wonder if Tesla would/could increase the charge peak as well. Anyone know if the original software locked 40kW S cars without supercharging actually got to supercharge during the temporary “capacity unlimited” window? Or if their cars did at least charge to 60 kW over AC temporarily?
Is the rest of the Supercharging hardware path the same between AWD and RWD? Like wire diameter? Is there any other reason for Tesla to limit the charging speed besides product differentiation and maybe slight warranty/reliability? It seems crazy to increase the congestion at Superchargers, but I understand that product differentiation is done by limits on torque, horsepower and max speed, sometimes on identical hardware. I just never thought about peak charge rate as a product differentiator before.
I’m thinking about when we’ve had natural disasters and Tesla “capacity unlimited” supercharging on cars in those regions. I wonder if Tesla would/could increase the charge peak as well. Anyone know if the original software locked 40kW S cars without supercharging actually got to supercharge during the temporary “capacity unlimited” window? Or if their cars did at least charge to 60 kW over AC temporarily?
Last edited:
I have seen 256 kW in my own car (Fremont built '23 MY RWD with 2170 cells). There are no V4 chargers, only V4 dispensers. All V4s that are installed today are connected to V3 cabinets (the actual charger).
It's likely 170 kW coming out of the charger and 163 kW going into the battery because there are losses.
Every battery pack has a different C-rate which determines both max charge and discharge speed. Since the 2024 MY RWD cars definitely have a different battery from the '23 cars, it's possible they have to limit charging for warranty. The other possibility is that Tesla limits charging to 170 so they can navigate vehicles to V2 chargers, which are capped at 150 kW, without affecting the owner experience too much. On a recent road trip my own car twice navigated to V2 chargers when there were open V3s nearby. This could theoretically reduce congestion at V3s.
This honestly ties this discussion to the recent firing of the Supercharger team. From my own experience, that team had been emphasizing installing new V3 locations, while leaving older V2 locations in place nearby. But it had the effect of leaving the V2s with really low usage. So low that it's hard to believe they can operate profitably. The Supercharger network is great, but parts of it are certainly showing age. Even the latest V4 locations are not future proof and will have to be upgraded to support 800V+ vehicles natively. Effectively, Tesla will be looking for ways to recover investment in the network and maximize usage of stations build today as they start the long, expensive process of completely rebuilding it.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The 170kW limit for my Model 3 SR+ is seen at the car, I would imagine that limit for Model Y would be similar.
