Apples for Apples 2170 for 2170

Apples for Apples 2170 for 2170

So, by my understanding the Model S isn't currently using the new denser 2170 cells. Of course Tesla will pop those bad boys in the S eventually which it would be safe to assume this will give you an increase in range in all the Model S battery pack options.
Now that got me thinkng that the Model 3 could still come close to the 300mil range and the S still having more range over the 3 according the Elons tweet saying the S will have more range.
If the 3 gets the new 2170 I would bet the S would get them the same time and we would see the new range numbers on Model S configurater. Probably changing from low 300s to mid 300s.. making the model 3 300 range seem more likely.

leskchan | 03. April 2017

Not necessary. Model 3 will simply get a smaller pack. Given the smaller physical size of the chassis, you may not be able squeeze the 75kWh, etc. pack in there.

KP in NPT | 03. April 2017

Elon has said that the S/X will get the 2170s by the end of the year, and that 75 will be the largest battery that can fit in the Model 3 with the current density. So yes it's possible the S/X switches soon. And calculations I've read have said that around 300 will be the M3 75 range.

noleaf4me | 03. April 2017

I like 300. | 03. April 2017

If as Tesla aims, the 2170s are significantly less expensive to build than it costs them to acquire 18650s, they are motivated to stuff 2170s in every car battery pack and Tesla energy box that they build ASAP.

By the sound of it the 2170s will have about 2/3 more energy capacity than the 18650s but are 46% bigger. This comes from the assumption, supported by J.B. Straubel comments that the 2170s may have as much as 10% more energy capacity per unit volume. Therefore in a given volume, you put about 60% as many 2170s as 18650s to get the same energy capacity. If the 2170 cost to Tesla is half that of the 18650 (I made that up.) the cells in the battery pack cost maybe as little as 30% as much! That could significantly reduce the cost of all battery packs. This gives Tesla more headroom for profit or pricing flexibility. It pays to be a battery technology leader.

3dwin | 03. April 2017

Hello Keith I'm also from the 909(rialto). Whatever the range is on model 3. I know Elon wants the range to be way better that what currently out there. Ahem, bolt.

johndoeeyed | 03. April 2017

@KP in NPT
Would you supply a link where 'Elon has said that the S/X will get the 2170s by the end of the year,'
I have not seen that myself, and would be interested.

KP in NPT | 03. April 2017

Sure, johndoeeyed. It was on a call with investors

johndoeeyed | 03. April 2017

@KP in NPT
Thanks for the link but that is not a convincing link at all.
An 'individual' from a 'secret call' using a 'bit rough' recording and then trying to interpret and paraphrase what he 'heard', is not a reliable source to then say 'Elon said...', particulary when the individual says "maybe something else was mentioned regarding the transition" followed by "but i’ve always assumed all models switch to 2170 eventually"

From the link you supplied:
"“he (Elon Musk) definitely said the phrase “transition by end of year”. 2170 talk was just prior…talking about improved chemistry/geometry, active/passive content. but there were some decent gaps in the audio / muffled noise. maybe something else was mentioned regarding the transition. but i’ve always assumed all models switch to 2170 eventually. just timing a question.”

KP in NPT | 03. April 2017

Well you are free to draw your own conclusion. That was the conclusion of the author and the person on the call. We will soon see I guess

dchuck | 04. April 2017

I liken this to my debates with the wife about shoes.

Wife: Honey the shoe store has a sale on, All shoes are 30% off!

Me: Great that means we can save 30%

Wife: No, dear that means i can buy 30% more shoes.


30% more range, or 30% more profit. If i were Tesla I know which one i would choose.

topher | 04. April 2017

"No, dear that means i can buy 30% more shoes."

Don't tell her that it is actually 42% more shoes...

Thank you kindly.

Bighorn | 04. April 2017

+1 topher:) | 04. April 2017

2 pairs instead of one is more than likely...

Red Sage ca us | 05. April 2017

There is effectively no difference between something being 'on sale' and being 'for sale'. You don't 'save money' by spending it.

brando | 09. April 2017

Look how much money I saved.
I tried, but can't find.