Tesla To Close Order Books For Model S, X 75D Next Monday


Thus widening the price gap between the Model 3 and its soon-to-be-more-expensive stablemates.

After this weekend you’ll no longer be able to order the cheapest current versions of the Tesla Model S and X. Last call for the 75-kWh battery versions.

So, come Monday, the Tesla Model S 75D and Tesla Model X 75D will no longer be available for ordering.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk made the announcement via Twitter just moments ago.

You can check out pricing and range of all versions of the Tesla Model S and X here.

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

90 Comments on "Tesla To Close Order Books For Model S, X 75D Next Monday"

newest oldest most voted

That leaves only 1 battery pack option: 100 kWh.

Could it be that there might be another battery pack option in the works (for the Model S and the Model X)?

How about a 120 kWh battery pack for the Model S and the Model X?

Perhaps Panasonic has managed to increase the energy density of the 18650 battery cells?

120kw would make sense. Also the model s is due for a re-design with 20-700 batteries.

I think they are going to go with 125kWh, which would give them about 420 miles per charge, and with 240kW Supercharger V3, it will charge from 0% to 80% in about 25 minutes. And that 80% charge will give you 335 miles of range. Essentially, an 80% charge with a 125kWh gives you the same range as a 100% charge on 100kWh battery.

@ mzs

“240kW Supercharger V3”

Has that already been announced by Elon Musk?

where are you hearing that next SC will be 240 KW ?

I would make sense to increase capacity and charging speed at the same time.
Will the old cars be able to take advantage of the faster super chargers?

Yeah maybe Tesla is teaming up with Atlis. TH-TH-TH-TH-THat’s ALL, Folks !!!

Faster charging huh? Like going from 80 amperes to 48 for the Home Charging. (thats 22kw to 11 across the pond).

LOL you’re dreaming.

A rough calculation shows the Model S pack could fit about 6100 of the new 2170 cells used in the Model 3 (and only if this new pack is a bit thicker), yielding about 110kWh.

The Model 3 can charge at about 110kW for 10-15 min, and then tapers. That would mean this theoretical pack could do 150kW for 15 min and taper after that, not 240kW for 25 min.

I’d love Tesla to be prove me wrong, though.

If they have better chemistry like SparkEV (3C charge rate to 80%), even 100 kWh would be capable of 300 kW charging power all the way to 80%. I don’t expect Tesla to be quite as good as SparkEV, but 240 kW is plausible.

It all depends on where the bottleneck is for charging. If the bottleneck is voltage, they can redesign the pack to be higher volts and charge faster.

@ Jim-NJ

The 18650 battery cells are still being produced by Panasonic in Japan, and then shipped to Tesla. Right?

It would indeed be a major step forward if they would not have to do that anymore. They would not have to depend on the shipments of battery cells that are produced by Panasonic in Japan.

It would be great if they could use the 21700 cells for the production of the modules that they put in the battery packs of the Tesla Model S and the Tesla Model X.

This would make a lot of sense because the production capacity of battery cells and battery packs at the Gigafactory in Nevada is meant to increase in the coming years anyway. The increase in scale and volume of production of battery cells will lead to lower cost and higher margins and/or lower and more competitive prices.

And in general terms it also makes a lot of sense to use the same battery cells for the production of all the battery modules for all the battery packs for all their EV models.

This would be a fundamental and a very important announcement.

@Benz, replying to your first question:
“In a recent statement to Japanese media, Panasonic announced that it plans to move its Tesla battery production facilities to the United States next year.” and “Tesla’s two flagship vehicles — the Model S and Model X — are still equipped with custom 18650 cells, which are produced by Panasonic in facilities located in Japan. Based on a report from the Nikkei Asian Review, these are the operations that the Japanese company will be bringing over to a “US-based unit starting next April.”
Teslarati, 20 November 2018

That would seem optimal with the release of supercharging v3 to more than 250 kW.

More like 125kW so the new 100kW will offer 350 miles and the 125kW can offer 400+ miles. This should happen well before next gen, and put all models on same cells including roadster and semi. I expect the announcement with the base 3 and Y. With all lower models able to pay to activate more range. With older models able to activate necessary cells to maintain range.

kWh and kW aren’t the same thing. *sigh*.

It has been 7 years now, no excuses to still get them confused.

Agree 100%. Even the writers screw this up, as well as some engineers that should know better.

This seems like a very good reason why Tesla are moving away from specifying the figures and just referring to ‘Long Range’ or ‘Standard Range’.

It could be 7yrs for you and 7 days for another person.😩

Semi will supposedly use NMC cells… Though I’m not sure how official that is.

I’m pretty confident the entry Model 3 and Model Y won’t have software-locked capacity. Tesla moved away from that approach in the Model S — and I’d be surprised if they reintroduced it in the more margin-constrained model…

“Perhaps Panasonic has managed to increase the energy density of the 18650 battery cells?”

If that is the case, than fewer battery cells will be required in a 100 kWh battery pack. And that would result in a lighter battery pack and therefore a higher range. Even if the increase in energy density is only 10%.

The range increase would be insignificant.

Also, just making existing battery options a bit lighter wouldn’t explain changes in the lineup…

“Could it be that there might be another battery pack option in the works (for the Model S and the Model X)?”

I assume so. It seems odd for Tesla to offer the MS and MX with only a single battery size available, and I suspect that won’t last long.

Could it be that Tesla is finally ready to switch the MS and MX over to using 2170 cells? And if so, will that be just one part of a major refresh of the MS which a lot of people think is overdue?

So much speculation, so little time… 😉

I am also guessing that kwh will drop from battery sizing and instead, it will be miles, similar to M3.
That way, they can change out the cells as they see fit without having to inform customers.

“I am also guessing that kwh will drop from battery sizing and instead, it will be miles, similar to M3.”

I, too, was wondering if Tesla will make that change for the MS/MX. I can see that’s the way the market is moving; other auto makers seem to be following suit. Makes sense; it’s less confusing to those who are not technically inclined.

On the other hand, Tesla might continue using (nominal and rounded off) battery pack sizes for the MS/MX, since that’s what people have come to expect.

Either way, I won’t be surprised.

If there is a significant capacity change, they will still want to / have to inform customers. If there is no significant change, they wouldn’t have to inform them either way…

Wonder if just the discussion of a new, bigger battery pack will slow orders of the 100kWhr models? We should hear from Musk soon either confirming a bigger battery, or definitively eliminating the possibility.

Have been looking at a X100D, but those are over $100K with anything more than the base model – add sales tax and you quickly get to $120K. Can’t get myself to go there.

> Wonder if just the discussion of a new, bigger battery pack will slow orders of the 100kWhr models?

I doubt it, as it’s just speculation at this point. Also, a hypothetical longer range version would obviously cost more, so nobody is losing out by buying now, unless cost is no barrier to them and they just want the best car available.

There is also talk that the prices might drop as well. That’s also speculation at this point, but is possibly likely to affect short-term buying decisions, certainly it’ll affect it more than the possibility of a new longer range model.

> Have been looking at a X100D, but those are over $100K with anything more than the base model – add sales tax and you quickly get to $120K. Can’t get myself to go there.

Have you considered leasing?

I can’t see how they can sell those cars with the lousy ventilation system. The Model 3 system is light years ahead. In KA you can’t get the car cool enough

Ron Swanson's Mustache

So maybe it will look something like this:

Tesla kills the 75kwh versions of the S & X, shoves a bigger battery into a new model that gets somewhere between 110-125kwh, and offers a bit of a price break on the 100kwh model to entice those who would have otherwise bought a 75kwh model.

@ PP

Right after the Tesla Semi and also the new Tesla Roadster (with the 200 kWh battery pack) were revealed in 2017, I thought why they couldn’t also give the Tesla Model S and the Tesla Model X a higher capacity battery pack as well?

The new Tesla Roadster is a smaller vehicle than the Tesla Model S and the Tesla Model X (in volumetric dimensions). I thought that if that smaller new Tesla Roadster can be equipped with a 200 kWh battery pack, then why can’t the Tesla Model S and the Tesla Model X also be equipped with a higher capacity battery pack?

Just imagine that Tesla will indeed manage to equip the Tesla Model S and the Tesla Model X with a substantially higher capacity battery pack (say 150 kWh), and that would result in a substantially higher range (say substantially more than 400 miles EPA)?

What would that mean for the sales numbers of the expensive EV models of other brands (Jaguar i-Pace, Audi e-tron quattro, Mercedes Benz EQC)?

I very seriously doubt there is room in a Model S or Model X for a 150 kWh battery pack. Tesla has been able to pack more into a smaller volume as Panasonic continues to increase the energy density of their cells, but I don’t see a 50% increase in one jump. At least, not without a radically different cell type, which hasn’t happened during the 10 years Tesla has been selling cars.

It has been less than 2 years since Elon made repeated statements that Tesla would be capping the MS/MX packs at 100 kWh for what was then the foreseeable future (for example, see link below). I didn’t expect that to last all that long, but I don’t regard increasing capacity by 50% all in one jump as a realistic possibility.

Nor do I think the 200 kWh pack in the new Roadster means what you think it does. That was likely a result of needing a lower C rating for powering the motor, to reduce waste heat. A physically larger battery pack, with more cells, would also give improved thermal mass and lower the rate at which heat needs to be transferred out of individual cells.


A significantly larger pack would require raising the floor level, and making the car even heavier. It’s good to prove a point (Roadster), but it’s probably not a good trade-off for a more utilitarian vehicle like the Model S…

Remember when S and X 60’s existed? My how times have changed.

Speaking of remembering, how bout EM’s comment that 100 kwh would be about it.

>> In 2013, Tesla canceled a 40 kWh version of the car due to lack of demand <<

120kwh will be the sweet spot for the MS. wonder if they will make a battery upgrade from the 85kwh available.

The new Nissan Leaf has 62kWh battery pack that is only 5mm bigger than the 40kWh pack in the current LEAF, that’s 55% increase in capacity.
so, 150 kWh for Model S/X might be possible?

Even if a 150 kWh battery pack is possible for the MS and/or MX, Tesla won’t do that. An increase of 50% all at once is far beyond their previous incremental increases in battery pack sizes for the MS/MX.

Nissan upgraded from low density to high density cells. Tesla already uses high density cells.

Nissan’s density increase isn’t that much different than the density increase between the 18650’s and Tesla’s 2170’s.


“These batteries are steadily improving every single year – maybe around 5% improvement in their energy density their ability to store energy in a given amount of mass. That’s probably one of the key metrics we worry about. And when we went from the Roadster to the Model S, they have improved by about 40% and when we were designing the Model 3, they were about another 30% better. That improvement just continues on every single year in the background.”

Model 3’s 2170 energy density is slightly lower than current 18650s based on best available numbers.

Model 3 pack density is higher because it doesn’t have side rails.

There are much higher density cells that what Tesla is currently using. They have not used them to date primarily due to cost and secondly because of weight.

To the best of my knowledge, the cells Tesla is using are the highest density cells available, aside from some experimental or speciality cells with very short cycle life.

This seems like a smart move. The Model 3 is a good enough car that for people who don’t want the 100, a LR performance M3 should do the trick nicely.

Customers don’t want to be forced into a smaller car. They want options.

That makes no sense, considering that the LR Model 3 has virtually the same range as the 100 kWh Model S — so reasons for buying Model S are *not* related to the battery.

This is going to make Model-S/X more expensive. I believe its sales have frozen because of the fewer battery options and increased price range.
If 100 KWh is the base option, will they significantly reduce the prices in light of the decrease in fed rebate by $3,750.
As long as they have the market, they can do anything.
But for those who expected the electric vehicle prices to go down, don’t look at Tesla.
Luckily there are many other players coming to the field.

Even with Audi and Porsche, I tend to lean toward Tesla for my next EV purchase because of the Super Charger network.
Traveling even 300 miles round trip would require 1 charging and having the Super Charger at convenient locations make it that much less painful even when you have to stop for 20 min.

I agree with Milfan and Eddie. That will be a lot of battery to carry around for nothing if you are not a long trip person. It might make the S and X a little more elitist, as they will now have more options to skip SCs on the road trips. The cost for a higher kWh pack is going to push the price up quite a bit.

We really need to drive a stake through the heart of this bad meme that a larger battery pack is “worth nothing” if you don’t drive further than the car’s full range.

There are many advantages to a larger battery pack: Better longevity and thus less loss of capacity over the years; better resale value; the ability to fast-charge faster; and reduced worry over loss of range in very cold weather.

Those who say an EV has a battery pack that’s “too big” need to think about all the benefits that provides. Added range is only one benefit.

+1. I would love to see a 100kwh tm3. A larger pack would lower the number of cycles required for daily driving by a lot. I could go 2-3 days even in really cold weather vs my Bolt which I think has degraded to about 50kwh. Also long trips would be much faster, charging is faster, range is more. The only down side I see is cost and if everyone is right, that won’t be an issue much longer.

Ron Swanson's Mustache

Totally agree.

I have never understood the mentality of “that car’s battery is too big.”

No, it isn’t, especially if the weight or size penalty for a bigger battery is negligible.

Actually, the cost of the 25 kWh larger pack is only some $4,000 or so higher. The rest of the price difference is just extra margin — performance upgrades always come with a large margin.

However, if Tesla is selling only few of the high-margin 100 kWh variants, and mostly the low-margin 75 kWh ones, it might be more profitable to drop the 75 kWh option, and make the 100 kWh cheaper instead. While this would reduce margin on the latter, it could very well increase *average* margin across variants.

(I still think it more likely though that they will simply introduce new capacity variants, and that’s why they are discontinuing the 75 kWh one… Might even just be going up to 80 kWh and 105 kWh for example.)

Further elevation of the S and X into a premium class. It has to separate the S from the 3 in terms of appeal.

It also means the price of the Model 3 can now start creeping up as well.

Thus far it’s been creeping down…

I assume this will increase their margins, as Tesla charges $15k (Model X) or $18k (Model S) to add a mere 25 kWh to the battery pack (25 kWh would cost Tesla $3750 at $150/kWh pack cost). Maybe this move is intended to push entry level S and X buyers to the performance versions of the 3 and Y, which would have higher margins than the entry level S and X?

Has the lovely effect of increasing margins on both models. Good thing to do when production constrained. In the future if/when Tesla has excess capacity it might make sense to have lower trims for the S/X but right now they’ll do best to maximize their margins so they can fund the new factories they will need to meet future demand.

I don’t think Model S 75 buyers would generally go to Model 3 Performance instead… More likely just regular LR. Which probably doesn’t have a higher margin than the S 75?…

They always seem to open one door when they close another. Should be interesting.

(I guess they’re making good enough margin on the Model 3?)

Elon Musk has said 100kwh is as big as he wanted to go. My purely speculative guess? They’ll stick with the 100kwh but use a different battery pack which might have one or more changes of:
1. Switch to model 3 cells,
2. Switch to revamped version of the current cells.
3. Repackage the battery pack.

So some combination of those 3 which would lead to fewer cells and a smaller pack which would be cheaper to make and increase the profit margin, while reducing curb weight and thusly longer range, faster acceleration, and more nimble handling. . Should be good for about 300 pounds of shed weight.

Oh and at some point they should upgrade the motors and electronics a la Model 3….which would shed even more weight and perhaps reduce cost.

The S might now really need more range but the X really does. If your actually going to toe anything bigger batteries are necessary.

I know, right? They really stubbed that one.

That’s what I get for typing on my phone and not proof reading myself.

The S might not really need more range but the X really does. If your actually going to tow anything bigger batteries are necessary.

The Achilles’ heel of EVs has always been the very limited amount of energy the battery pack can hold, as compared to a tankful of gasoline. The surprisingly large hit to range when towing with the MX isn’t due to poor engineering; it’s a direct result of the limitations of the energy available. That limitation will lessen over time, as battery cells continue to increase in energy density, and as the average pack capacity continues to rise. But for the near future, towing at highway speed is going to continue to put serious limitations on an EV’s range.

I don’t see how a slightly upgraded pack could save 140 kg, or significantly improve margins.

And neither would explain why they are dropping the 75 kWh one, anyway…

That kinda sucks. Some people don’t need 100 KWH and it will be the only option?

How about 80 or 90KWH?

If anything reintroduce a 60 kWh or whatever pack the mid-range M3 is using. No new development should be necessary, but we would have the option of an entry-level mod S/X.

Neither the MS or the MX are entry-level vehicles, nor are likely to be in the future.

For people dead set against getting a 100 kWh or bigger battery there is the Model 3.

Within 2 months the price of the 100D will go down. Again.

All auto makers want a clear market separation between models. With this change, Tesla is increasing the market separation between the MS/MX and the Model 3.

If you want a Tesla with a smaller capacity pack, then buy a Model 3.

Or buy a used Model S/X

We don’t know that it will be the only option. I think it very likely they will introduce new options…

Saving on the refresh costs. Fewer models.

No orders have been placed for those vehicles for the last 3 months anyway.

I suppose you can cite VIN registration data to back up your specious remark? Or was it based on your regular conversations with a store or local club? The world demand is hard to make claims over.

Speculating is what we do here. I find your speculation bold but lacking merit. Meanwhile, claims about margin fiddling, pack changes, and a refresh all sound reasonable. The only times I have seen Tesla orders shift low have been with the original brown paint and the short-lived Performance+ suspension and tire package.
My club still sees plenty of new buyers getting the model you say isn’t being ordered.

“No orders have been placed for those vehicles for the last 3 months anyway.”

And the Earth is flat, too! 🙄

Some say it’s dinosaur-shaped…

Registration data from one market (I think Norway?) suggests very much the opposite…

Though I guess that might be changing somewhat, now that Model 3 is coming to Europe, i.e. Model S 75 won’t stay the cheapest readily available long-range EV for long…

Norwegians are crazy if they were buying a lot of 75 kwh Model S when Model 3 is about to come their way.

Announcements like this in the past have been followed up with new battery options being offered not too much later.

My guess is that after the 75 gets the boot, we will see multiple new battery pack sizes introduced. The big question is whether they are going to dump putting the battery size in the model trim name, or whether we are going to see LR/MR/SR sizes for the S/X. And what cells will be in the new sizes.

Also, whether or not the new battery packs are 800V for charging well beyond 150 kW

I really hope they’re going to decrease the price of the 100 models. Right now they’re charging 600 usd/kWh. That’s crazy since it cost Tesla themselves about 150 usd/kWh.

My guess is they will offer a 120-125 kWh pack for the S/X and lower the price of the 100 kWh S/X to near the current 75 kWh models. I can’t see Tesla leaving the $75K range CUV market to the iPace and upcoming Audi and Mercedes CUVs. More likely they will just off the 100 kWh X in that range which would give it a really big competitive advantage in range at that price point. But, my guess plus 5 bucks buys you coffee at Starbucks.

Not sure we can expect such a big jump… More likely they’ll introduce slightly larger replacements to both variants, at a slightly higher price. (Same price would make people who ordered recently pretty angry…)

Agree — there will be a 125 kWh or somewhere in that range version that comes in to replace the 75 which is now on the lower end of the range game…..and likely be based on the newer cells being made in NV.

Hopefully they will continue to adjust the prices somewhat to keep it in line with higher end luxury vehicle competition…..

Will this be forever or will a lower kWh offer appear at the end the quarter?

Driving S/75 sales into Model 3 to help its volume and profitability?

Also the market expectations have changed. Hard to sell an $80k vehicle with the range and charging capability of a $40k one now that there is a choice.

I think this is really short sited. I like the size and hatchback of the model S, but don’t need over 200 mile range. What I really desire is model S 60D performance 🙂
Please don’t force me to buy TM3 with ridiculous small trunk egress.

In other words: No more incentive in Germany when buying a Model S? (Model X never get one, only 10 year free car tax like all BEV/FCEV)
Because they had to do some tricks to come onto the list (they created a new trim with only one color availabe and moved other things very many people want to have to a new very expensive package, so in the end like nobody will buy that trim but it meets the incentitive requirements if it’s really sold when someone asks).
With the bigger battery, it will probably be much more expensive…
Where’re now the people crying “Germany has something against Tesla!”? (also e.g. the BMW i8 also doesn’t get incentives due to the price limit).

Ok, according to the current rules that incentive ends at June 30th 2019 anyway…