Model S range and interior update imminent?

[whitex]

and fairly soon too -- the model S/X sales are crashing hard. for Tesla's sake - it's wise to get on it sooner rather than later.

Not much is going to help the fact that S and X are no longer the least expensive viable EV's. Many people who bought MS only did so because there was no other option, today there is -Model 3, and other competition coming to market too. S and X are lower volume cars which benefited from displaced demand from people who wanted a cheaper EV, but paid for the premium car due to no cheaper option. Combine that with current long time owners not so crazy about paid for but undelivered features, new less usable UI, and ever growing service and parts times, and you realize that refreshing an MS to be more like M3 is not going to generate any more more sales. They are already working on a larger version of the Model 3, the Model Y (which will further shift demand away from S and X).

 

[electronblue]

YAYAYAYYYY 100 Pages and 2 years of forum posts and an update is still imminent!!! (Joke)

Seeing what happened to Model S/X sales in the meanwhile looks like TMC knew better what Tesla should have done... refresh imminently.

One thing is for sure Elon Musk’s declarations that Model S/X would always be the better car weren’t accurate.

In fairness we have significant leaks suggesting a refresh was planned for much earlier but didn’t happen due to the Model 3 hell. That would better fit with Musk’s original claim — and the title of this thread.

 

[DanCar]

The drive unit update is tied to a battery pack update, going to be release in the next couple months. 400 mile range coming.

Is this a guess, a hope, or something else?

 

[sandpiper]

and fairly soon too -- the model S/X sales are crashing hard. for Tesla's sake - it's wise to get on it sooner rather than later.

I'm pretty sure that Tesla is aware of this. And I'm sure that if they could drop an amazing update today they would do it. It's not a case of their sitting back and thinking "nah... we don't need to"

They're resource strapped and probably in the midst of chaos. They will get this out as quickly as they can... for sure.

 

[sandpiper]

I could see the motor upgrade happening at the same time as a battery upgrade because I can’t see Tesla re-engineering an “old” / soon to be discontinued battery pack for use with the new drive line only to ditch it a month or two down the road.

The only exception to this would be if the current long range 100d is going to become the base model s with 5% more range and the king if the hill second battery pack 130d ( long range ) will take the top spot.

I agree with the first point. Especially given that the 3 motor is in-fact the battery heating system, I see all of this happening together. The drive train system is just too integrated to put out piecemeal. And this is probably why the upgrade has been delayed.

On the second point, I don't see them running two parallel packs/drive trains. They will likely have a 100, but I expect that it will be a reduced version of the new larger pack. You don't want to have two completely different systems on the same assembly line; that would be a mess.

 

[LCR1]

... You don't want to have two completely different systems on the same assembly line; that would be a mess.

Other manufacturers seem to do it perfectly fine, why can't tesla figure it out

 

[sandpiper]

Other manufacturers seem to do it perfectly fine, why can't tesla figure it out

Oh it can be done. It just makes things more expensive. Plus, there will be modifications to the vehicle structure to accommodate the new hardware. Do you really want multiple versions of the same body components? That means more stamping die changes, more storage, more sub assembly stations and so on - all of which also makes things more expensive.

And I'm not seeing any downside to switching everything over.

 

[Simon21]

I'm OK with the update as long as my P100D is still the fastest sedan ever made.

What impact is this new drive unit update going to have? Just better battery life or better performance as well ?

 

[Zaxxon]

Post #2000 here, the update is still imminent, right? If it didn't happen till now, it must be so much more imminent.

In fact, my sources tell me that it's the most imminent that it's ever been!

 

[LCR1]

Oh it can be done. It just makes things more expensive. Plus, there will be modifications to the vehicle structure to accommodate the new hardware. Do you really want multiple versions of the same body components? That means more stamping die changes, more storage, more sub assembly stations and so on - all of which also makes things more expensive.

And I'm not seeing any downside to switching everything over.

I'm pretty sure Ford, toyota and everyone else isn't building multiple versions of cars on a line because it's more expensive.

 

[sandpiper]

I'm pretty sure Ford, toyota and everyone else isn't building multiple versions of cars on a line because it's more expensive.

It's cheaper to run two models on one line, rather than to have two lines as long as the models share the same platform. It's more expensive to run two models on one line than to eliminate one of the two models altogether and have only one model.

There's no reason for Tesla to keep two substantially different models of the S. You don't see Honda running the prior model year of Civic together with the new model year of Civic. It would be silly for a bunch of reasons.

 

[henderrj]

[QUOTE="sandpiper, post: 3552135, member: 28699"And I'm not seeing any downside to switching everything over.[/QUOTE]

The downside is that the equipment to make the 100 packs is already there. New equipment always costs. That's why companies often stick with a technology long after it is cheaper to build new types. Tesla will keep using the 100 kwh pack machinery until it no longer works well, is my guess. 100 kilowatt hour is really enough for 90% of all use cases, so why build new equipment for what works perfectly well?

 

[sandpiper]

The downside is that the equipment to make the 100 packs is already there. New equipment always costs. That's why companies often stick with a technology long after it is cheaper to build new types. Tesla will keep using the 100 kwh pack machinery until it no longer works well, is my guess. 100 kilowatt hour is really enough for 90% of all use cases, so why build new equipment for what works perfectly well?

The downside is that the equipment to make the 100 packs is already there. New equipment always costs. That's why companies often stick with a technology long after it is cheaper to build new types. Tesla will keep using the 100 kwh pack machinery until it no longer works well, is my guess. 100 kilowatt hour is really enough for 90% of all use cases, so why build new equipment for what works perfectly well?[/QUOTE]

So, I would partially agree. That could be true, if the geometry of how the new packs integrate into the cars doesn't change. But it they're looking at changing the motors to an M3 style motor, then that implies that that's not so.

The M3 doesn't have the same battery heating system as the S. The S has resistance heating in the pack. As I understand it The 3 circulates fluid through the gearmotor to draw heat from it and then feeds the fluid through a heat exchanger, and then fluid on the other side of the exchanger is used to heat the pack. If the pack needs extra heat, the motor controller will drive the motor like a dynamic brake causing the motor to heat up and provide the heat for the battery.

So that implies that the new packs will not be the same externally or internally. Given that, and given that they've already got a lot of experience in building the M3 packs and modules, I expect it would be relatively easy to gear up to full volume on an M3 style pack for the S. And so there's no motivation to run two different pack lines. They would be better off to shut it down, repurpose any general purpose equipment (robots and such) and then use the old space for something else.

 

[sillydriver]

In fact, my sources tell me that it's the most imminent that it's ever been!

It's always the most imminent it's ever been. Whenever that update will in fact occur, whether tomorrow or one hundred years from now, it's closer now than it has been any time before. And in a minute from now it will be closer and more imminent still.

 

[MP3Mike]

The M3 doesn't have the same battery heating system as the S. The S has resistance heating in the pack. As I understand it The 3 circulates fluid through the gearmotor to draw heat from it and then feeds the fluid through a heat exchanger, and then fluid on the other side of the exchanger is used to heat the pack. If the pack needs extra heat, the motor controller will drive the motor like a dynamic brake causing the motor to heat up and provide the heat for the battery.

So that implies that the new packs will not be the same externally or internally. Given that, and given that they've already got a lot of experience in building the M3 packs and modules, I expect it would be relatively easy to gear up to full volume on an M3 style pack for the S. And so there's no motivation to run two different pack lines. They would be better off to shut it down, repurpose any general purpose equipment (robots and such) and then use the old space for something else.

First the pack heater for the S&X isn't in the pack, it is under the Frunk tub. Second there is no reason they couldn't use the Model 3 motor and not use the zero torque heating mode. (Since they have the pack heater up front.) Or they could replace the pack heater with a hose and use the Model 3 motor to provide heat. (Or keep both and have redundency.) No changes to the battery pack would be necessary.

The pack has no direct contact with the motor, so there is no reason that it would have to change externally, or internally, to support a motor change.

 

[Zaxxon]

It's always the most imminent it's ever been.

 

[sandpiper]

First the pack heater for the S&X isn't in the pack, it is under the Frunk tub. Second there is no reason they couldn't use the Model 3 motor and not use the zero torque heating mode. (Since they have the pack heater up front.) Or they could replace the pack heater with a hose and use the Model 3 motor to provide heat. (Or keep both and have redundency.) No changes to the battery pack would be necessary.

The pack has no direct contact with the motor, so there is no reason that it would have to change externally, or internally, to support a motor change.

So, first of all, I stand corrected on the location of the resistance heater. Oops!!! I had thought it was in the pack.

With that said, even if the changes were minor, there's still zero reason to retain the old pack. When you put in the heat exchanger (which doesn't exist in the current S), and revise motor mounting, that implies that there are revisions to the vehicle mounting structure. And that means revision to stamping dies, weld cells, etc... Why would you want to keep two geometries running on the same line? You'd only do that if it somehow saved money, or if you needed to do it for a while to ramp up the new equipment.

Here it won't do either of these things. If they're going to tool up for the new structural elements, they'll clearly tool up for the final expected volume. There's no saving money by somehow installing half of a die, or by modifying half of a weld cell. I would be more inclined to think that they might run two parallel lines for a bit if they were trying to prove out something radically new. But the new pack will undoubtedly be very similar to the 3 pack, probably using very similar or identical modules, so they know how to make those. And the motor(s) will undoubtedly also be very similar, but maybe a little bit larger. So there's not a lot to be learned there either.

I guess we can argue until we're both purple. We will see who's right.

 

[sillydriver]

The M3 doesn't have the same battery heating system as the S. The S has resistance heating in the pack. As I understand it The 3 circulates fluid through the gearmotor to draw heat from it and then feeds the fluid through a heat exchanger, and then fluid on the other side of the exchanger is used to heat the pack. If the pack needs extra heat, the motor controller will drive the motor like a dynamic brake causing the motor to heat up and provide the heat for the battery.

That's brilliant! I didn't know. So the 3 uses waste heat to heat the pack except in extreme circumstances, which means pack heating no longer costs any range.

First the pack heater for the S&X isn't in the pack, it is under the Frunk tub. Second there is no reason they couldn't use the Model 3 motor and not use the zero torque heating mode. (Since they have the pack heater up front.) Or they could replace the pack heater with a hose and use the Model 3 motor to provide heat. (Or keep both and have redundency.) No changes to the battery pack would be necessary.

The pack has no direct contact with the motor, so there is no reason that it would have to change externally, or internally, to support a motor change.

I'm not sure how much Model S range is typically lost heating the pack (clearly a winter issue) but if it's at all significant then the MS should definitely use a version of the M3 heating system. I doubt that Tesla would redesign the MS drive train to gain a few percent efficiency using M3 permanent magnet motors if they didn't also utilize the M3's pack heating scheme that's part of the M3's overall efficiency gain.

 

[MP3Mike]

With that said, even if the changes were minor, there's still zero reason to retain the old pack. When you put in the heat exchanger (which doesn't exist in the current S), and revise motor mounting, that implies that there are revisions to the vehicle mounting structure. And that means revision to stamping dies, weld cells, etc... Why would you want to keep two geometries running on the same line? You'd only do that if it somehow saved money, or if you needed to do it for a while to ramp up the new equipment.

Umm.. The Mode S&X motors do have a heat exchanger... And they are mounted to a sub-frame that then attaches to the car. So all you would need is a different sub-frame. (Which is relatively small.) No changes to body/battery would be necessary.

If they use the Model 3 motor as-is they would have to keep the Performance induction motor since it is more powerful than the Model 3 motor, so that means at least two sub-frames. (Which I think they already have two, one for the large and one for the small drive unit.) So really, swapping out the motor would be very easy for them to do, and could even be offered as a retrofit. (Not that they will, but they could.)

 

[MP3Mike]

That's brilliant! I didn't know. So the 3 uses waste heat to heat the pack except in extreme circumstances, which means pack heating no longer costs any range.

I'm not sure how much Model S range is typically lost heating the pack (clearly a winter issue) but if it's at all significant then the MS should definitely use a version of the M3 heating system. I doubt that Tesla would redesign the MS drive train to gain a few percent efficiency using M3 permanent magnet motors if they didn't also utilize the M3's pack heating scheme that's part of the M3's overall efficiency gain.

The S&X use waste drive-unit heat to heat the pack as well. The difference is that if there isn't enough waste heat the S&X turn on a resistive heater, and the Model 3 runs the motor in a zero torque mode if parked, or in an inefficient mode if moving to create extra heat. So efficiency wise there shouldn't be much difference. What they really did is remove parts, reduce complexity, increase reliability, and of course reduce costs.

I guess another difference is the heater in the S&X is single "speed", ~5kW, while in the Model 3 they can control the amount of power used. (Which should allow pack heating on lower powered EVSEs, which has been a problem in cold climates for the S&X.)