More Detailed Analysis On Discontinuation Of Tesla’s 75-kWh Battery


It seems there are some realistic reasons Tesla is killing its 75 kWh pack.

Yesterday, we published an article by our friend and Tesla owner Dan Zorrilla. He reached out to us with some ideas related to Tesla’s decision to stop taking orders for its Model S and Model X with the 75 kWh battery pack. Of course, there was a bit of a frenzy in the Tesla community yesterday. It’s no surprise people were trying to figure out exactly why this might be happening.

Fast forward to today, and we have a more detailed analysis from Sean Mitchell. As usual, Sean took the time to do some extensive research to learn why this situation came to be. Not only does he offer healthy dialogue on similar oncepts as Dan, but he also provides several links to videos and articles that support his case.

Check out the video above, as well as the anaylsis, links, and videos below. Then, let us know what you think in the comment section.

Video Description via Sean Mitchell ( on YouTube:

The reason Tesla’s 75 kWh battery is going away

As you may have seen, yesterday Elon Musk announced on Twitter that Tesla will kill the 75 kWh battery for Model S and X. Those who are interested in buying should get their order in within the next 4 days.

Not only is this a small demand level to sell more cars in Q1 2019, I believe there is a larger driver for Tesla.

This video will cover my theory on why.

1. Larger battery offerings

We know that Tesla has the ability to offer a longer range vehicle based on what we’ve seen with the Roadster and Semi. What we don’t know is will Tesla use the current battery cells, the 18650 (18 mm x 65 mm), the 2170 (21 mm x 70 mm) or something completely different. Video:

Elon said in an interview with MKBHD that doubling the modules of the Roadster would only increase the volume of the pack 80% or 4-5 inches higher. Video:

The potential switch also aligns with the end of Tesla and Panasonic’s agreement of 2 billion 18650 cells announced in 2013, which according to my estimates has ended. Article:…

2. Supercharger v3

A breakdown of a Model 3 by the YouTube channel Ingineerix
notes that the charging cable on the Model 3 appears to be able to take a higher rate than S and X due to its diameter. Video:

Finally, if this is not convincing enough, Elon stated recently that V3 should arrive some time early 2019.


If Tesla moves to 2170 cells for S and X, it should by nature of the battery architecture be able to withstand an upgrade from 120 kW charge rate to something higher.

Both Elon and JB Straubel are on the record saying that they think 350 kW is too high.

Here’s what Elon had to say on a Q1 2018 quarterly call:
“We’re definitely going to be improving our Supercharger’s technology. The thing about a 350 kW charger is that it doesn’t actually make a ton of sense, unless you got a monster battery pack or have like a crazy high C rating… We think 350 kW for a single car; you’re gonna frag the battery pack if you do that. You cannot charge a high-energy battery pack at that rate, unless it’s a very high kW battery pack. So, (for us), something along the couple of hundred, 200-250 kW, maybe.” Article:…

If Tesla moves to a 250 kW Supercharger this ~2x improvement on it current 120 kW charge rate.

This could potentially get a 0-100% charge in about 30 minutes. If we apply Tesla’s current approach of charging quickly on the front end, then slowing down at the battery gets closer to a full charge, we might see an 80% in 15 or less.

Could this also impact the size of the battery in S and X? Elon has said on multiple occasions that he does not see the battery going beyond 100 kWh but perhaps he meant based on the 18650 cells.

Categories: Tesla, Videos

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

120 Comments on "More Detailed Analysis On Discontinuation Of Tesla’s 75-kWh Battery"

newest oldest most voted

“We’re definitely going to be improving our Supercharger’s technology.”

By switching to CCS.

I’ll take that bet. I don’t see it happening in the US any time soon.

So your guess is that they introduce another proprietary plug to allow for higher currents?

My guess is that V3 will be a proprietary plug, yes. They might be able to squeeze that much power out of the existing plug (e.g. by eating into margins and/or increasing the voltage). If not, they may need a new plug. But I don’t see that plug being CCS.

I would love to be wrong on this one.

Tesla already started implementing CCS support in European superchargers. It would be logical to extend that to the USA at some point.

Yes. And in Europe, there are a significant number of CCS cars on the road, along with chargers. Tesla helps themselves more than their competitors (although they win too) in Europe. Not so in the US. Not until CCS EVs reach critical mass and EA has rolled out their network, at a minimum.

But if you were going to intro a new plug with new cable cooling requirements and dual head your chargers… why wouldn’t you just update to a 250 Kw CCS level and gain overall in flexibility for your cars and the ability to charge others via an app to use your network globally.

If Tesla introduces CCS for Model 3, there would suddenly be critical mass of CCS capable EVs.

Do Not Read Between The Lines

EU countries implemented laws that bar Tesla from installing Superchargers without CCS.

When the USA implements a similar law, Tesla will go CCS in the USA.

They will go CCS. It saves cost and allows faster charging. Their SC don’t relly on the type of plug to restrict access. So they can have their cake and it too, alone, without other car makers at the table.

I was not aware of this. Time to write congress?

It’s certainly true that Tesla has been forced to include CCS charging for the European market because of European regulations. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they will wait for the same thing to happen in the USA. If Tesla sees CCS becoming the true universal charging standard for EVs (outside of China, anyway), then they may indeed move to equip newer Tesla cars for CCS charging.

It’s not going to happen soon, but eventually, Tesla’s proprietary charging protocol will be seen as a liability, not an asset. If Tesla exercises proper foresight in this area, then it’s going to plan for the future and soon equip all its cars for CCS charging as well as Tesla protocol charging.

Wow. This is the first post you have written in months that I did not have to downvote.

Coming from a serial Tesla basher like you, down-votes are a compliment. Sorry I’m not at 100% anymore. (◣_◢)

Judge a man by the reputation of his enemies. –Arabian proverb

You can’t allow competitors with slower rates of charge on the network. They are buying power at a (significantly) slower rate! It’s very inefficient from a utilization and economics perspective.

You could kick everyone off after 30 minutes and charge overage fees through the roof, but then a Bolt or Jag leaving with 25% charge.. I still don’t think it’s worthwhile. It’s a function of time vs revenue. You’re talking about half the charge rate. It just inconveniences the loyal customers.

Really what laws, is a private company with exclusive chargers for Tesla owners. They added CCS to give people in Europe more options to charge.

Since 2014 the European Union has required the provision of CCS Type 2 or Combo 2 within the European electric vehicle network. This charging environment encompasses charging couplers, charging communication, charging stations, the electric vehicle and various functions for the charging process as e.g. load balancing and charge authorization.

As a result of this requirement, Tesla was destined to change its charging standard because one standard applies to all of the EU. Whether Tesla was forced to change is not really the issue.

I understand that because Tesla is a member of the CCS consortium, Tesla is prohibited from building a CCS adapter. This would have effectively shut out Tesla owners to every non-proprietary charging station in the EU. From a competitive standpoint, that would have been unacceptable.

Nothing legally prohibits a CCS adapter from or to anything. At best there are technical hurdles like not circumventing locking of the cable or reporting the junction temperature of the plug.

I believe you mean “if”, not “when”

European have their plug, we have ours.
No need to bring European stuff here.

why not a secondary plug for the higher rate so that you can be compatible with existing charger stations?

Did you ever research the BetaMax vs VHS debate. The better technology does NOT always win.

Path dependency, critical mass, etc plays a role. It’s the same reason we use QWERTY on a typewriter or keypad (aka path dependency).

Then history repeats itself in Blu-ray vs HD DVD war.

I am smart to know that history has provided numerous road maps on competing technologies. Tesla May dominate the EV market today but it will probably be a minority player once the other auto makers start producing EVs and that standard might be CSS. Food for thought.

In summary, the best TECHNOLOGY does not always win. We had ICE because battery power vehicles suck about 100 years ago.

They are the “Automotive Apple” so yes, why go with industries standards when you can make your own proprietary offering?

It doesn’t have to be an either/or thing. If Tesla cars are equipped for both CCS protocol and Tesla protocol charging, then that’s a win-win for all drivers of Tesla cars, as well as supporting general EV adoption… which is what Elon says he is aiming for.

Even Apple is transitioning to USB-C. I’m guessing the 2019 iPhones will be adopting the USB-C Standard and drop the lightning connector. Just like the new iPad.

Why not support both CCS and the Tesla standard?

Tesla will be forced to do so since they have to take care of the legacy cars.

Some legacy cars will likely receive retrofits in the future….
I am also interested in knowing if ever Tesla will provide battery pack upgrades to older cars? Would be nice to buy a used Model S 60(not the software locked one), and have it upgraded to a 75kWh or 100kWh. Even better if you could keep the old battery(and use it for solar).

Tesla could offer adapter for legacy cars. Better yet, how about adapter for CCS cars to use Superchargers?

That would only make sense if there were more superchargers than CCS chargers in the world.

There surely are more superchargers than CCS stations that can deliver > 300 A.

One issue is that Supercharger v2 has a max output designed for 96 series batteries, and some other cars would only be able to accept a partial charge.

Just like the 1772 adapter Tesla will offer a CCS adapter

CCS uses a different data “handshake” protocol. A CCS adapter would have to be a “smart” adapter, and thus more expensive.

Or perhaps Tesla can use an OTA update to enable existing cars to perform the CCS “handshake”?

Actually the proposed Tesla CCS adapter is just a mechanical adapter and you will have to get a hardware retrofit in the car itself in order to use it.

If you say so, then we can be sure it’s not true. You’re very reliable that way.


Although it sounds nice to offer Supercharger access to competing brands, it would lead to more full Supercharger locations and more frustration for Tesla owners having to wait for a free charger. Tesla must look after its own customers first.

Yup. I’m surprised at all the suggestions that Tesla turn its Supercharger system into a profit center by opening it up to allow non-Tesla cars to charge there for a fee. That would overburden the system in some areas. It’s already overburdened in some areas of California, so that would make the Supercharger network less usable and thus worth less for everyone.

See “The tragedy of the commons”. It’s just a bad idea, unless other auto makers contribute to building out more Supercharger stalls and locations. And I think it’s pretty clear by now that this will never happen. Other auto makers don’t want to see Tesla’s charging protocol become the universal standard.

On the other hand, if Tesla turned its superchargers into a profit center; they could use that money to build more superchargers.

That is what the Tesla superchargers will do in Europe.

LOL, no. They may add CCS charging in parallel to the Supercharger ability someday. But they would be absolutely insane to just drop their biggest competitive advantage over everyone else…a nation-wide fast-charge network that is tightly coupled to their in-car software.

See my reply earlier, CCS does not stop them to restrict access to their SC network.

They are currently adding CCS to the european network. Most likely software limited to Tesla cars… that would work here too.

Yes, but Tesla is only doing that because they’re being forced to by European regulations. I think that Tesla would be smart to equip their cars for dual charging worldwide, because the industry seems to be gradually converging on CCS charging as the true standard… outside China, which has its own proprietary system mandated by law.

But that would require Tesla to license CCS charging in the U.S., and equipping American Tesla cars for CCS charging is more complex (and thus more expensive) than it is in Europe.

I hope Tesla will eventually make the change here in the USA too, but it may or may not happen soon.

No license require to use CCS. No one to ask for permission either. That is the point of an open standard.

Offering the same capabilities across markets would increase economy of scale and reduce mfg and logistics complexity.

Yes there would be growing pains, but there is a huge positive marketing to people already bought into the EV world.

Think every competitors EV that stops to charge at a Tesla station. It’s like a huge advert to hey Tesla is everywhere. Put up signage showing regular EV charge time vs Tesla charge time and pictures of Tesla models to dream of during that 15-30min charge time.

CCS. The VHS of fast charging.

Is Tesla not Nissan

That would make the most sense to me. Make having dual ports with a Tesla port and a CCS port as a $1000 option.

CCS supports SC v3.

Sell an adapater for legacy Tesla vehicles.

The time is definitely right for an upgrade on the charging speed, seeing as the E-Tron charges faster than any current Tesla.
Can’t have that. 😉

Really? The Audi E-tron charges at what rate? And are you looking at charge rate or miles added rate, where efficiency counts?? Reminder: the Audi E-tron is not the Porsche Taycon or the future Audi model based on the Taycon internals.

150kW, InsideEVs just had an article about it not too long ago

And thus is slower in a MPH rate.
Now – take the X75 – then I suspect the Audi is faster since it is the least efficient Tesla body style but has a smaller battery, so slower charging. (But I haven’t checked – typically 100 kw is the speed and the Audi is like 30% less efficient – so the Audi should be a tick faster)

Yeah. Not that the e-Tron is real competition for Tesla, since it will be sold in very low numbers. But it takes a bit of the shine off Tesla’s “We have better EV tech than anybody else” glory, so likely Tesla is going to want to perform an upgrade.

It wasn’t *that* long ago that Elon said they have no plans going to 2170:

Let’s see if that one changed then 🙂

Remains to be seen if that is actually true from a miles/hr perspective which is all that matters for driving. Etron charges faster but uses way more energy. We haven’t seen the charging curve yet either.

Not all that matters.

Germany and California have high electricity rates. And some people (like myself) size their solar to match their driving in an efficient EV (I have an i3, Tesla 3 is as or more efficient). Those ultra fast chargers will be less available than regular (even 50 kW ones) chargers, and so in many cases, a less efficient EV is worse than a more efficient one.

I bet people will look hard at highway MPGe for their second EV. In my opinion, it’s the single best all-in figure of engineering excellence in EVs for a given range and performance level, which are price choices.

While I agree, you also have to consider that a few more solar panels doesn’t cost that much money. A few thousand dollars would make up for the poor efficiency of the Etron. If it was a full size SUZ, then we could talk. But since it is rather small for its horrible efficiency numbers – there is just the idea of such poor engineering. But only 1% of us would care about that.

Also Elon spoke of frakking the batteries at such high rates… should be interesting when the competitive headlines about charging superlatives gives way to the headlines about frakked batteries in their ‘tesla Killer’ batteries.

I have no idea what “frakking” batteries means.

Charging at excess current vs capacity causes unsuitable parasitic chemical reactions, structural damage and swelling beyond mechanical limits, resulting in permanent damage and loss of performance.

a year and a half is an eternity in developing something using agile methodologies

It’s really short for safety-critical physical engineering and mass manufacturing.

At the time, there was no expectation that the Nevada plant would have excess capacity anytime soon. Tesla was deep into other projects and the Model 3 hadn’t hit production yet. It made no sense to put specific plans in place. Plus, the 2013 contract with Panasonic went through the end of 2017. There was no advantage to changing the cell form factor without making other changes, such as range. And if it wouldn’t increase sales to get a car with the same range and capability but with a different form factor, then it would have made sense only if Tesla could save money doing so. But it would have meant a complete redesign of the battery pack. Tesla always made battery packs with less range than the maximum, so they likely would have kept 75 and 100 had they switched cells. If they want to look at it now, because it will allow them to move past 100, then it might be an option to offer a new pack with 2170 cells if that would help, and keep the 100 the way it is since the manufacturing process is in place. But Nevada would have to be capable of… Read more »

The problem wasn’t a “complete redesign of the battery pack”. Tesla could have done that easily; they certainly did for the Model 3!

No, the reason we haven’t already seen the MS & MX switched over to 2170 cells is because of limitations in battery cell production, and much bigger problems with automating the assembly of battery packs, at Gigafactory 1. But now that those problems have been solved, we could see the MS & MX switched over to 2170 cells quite soon.

That’s a no-brainer. Tesla is certainly going to want to save money by switching to the new cells. I think the real question is: What other changes will Tesla make to the MS & MX at the same time?

Hopefully, when Tesla switches to 2170 cells, they will also switch the motors to Model 3 ones, or Model 3 derived motors. IIRC those are more efficient at higher speed, more efficient in cold environment and hot environment, and they produce more torque…
Of course, the better cooling system for Model 3 is a must-have as well. Imagine track mode on a 900HP Model S….

Also, I think they might be planning on an interior update, making it look more like Model 3.

They might, though the front motor on the Model 3 is an induction motor, not the reluctance motor of the rear (and the Semi). Plus, they will want to keep a performance distinction between the 3 & Y and the S & X, so they might not be able to share many parts or manufacturing steps if there are different numbers of windings, different gauges of wires in the windings, etc.

Making one battery style instead of 2 would seem easier.

I suspect you’re taking his tweet out of context.

Tesla (or Elon) said maybe a year or more ago that they planned to switch the MS and MX over to 2170 cells, but later announced a delay in that plan, obviously due to the highly publicized problems with automating the assembly of battery packs using the 2170 cells.

Now that this problem has been solved, we know that Tesla will switch the MS and MX over to 2170 cells. It’s only a matter of time, and that may be coming very soon.

I get that Model S/X will move to 2170 and that charge rates will increase but I don’t see what that’s to do with the discontinuation of the 75kWh versions nor does Sean Mitchell actually explain the connection unless I missed something.

My take: in the past these lower range versions were discontinued for lack of demand, it’s reasonable to assume that Tesla isn’t ditching any hot sellers here. The 75kWh editions probably had trouble competing with lower cost but longer range Model 3. They are just longer a good fit within the range.

I agree for the Model S, but not for the Model X, since it does not compare to the Model 3. Until the Model Y comes out there is no other Tesla SUV. To gain an advantage over the Jaguar, Mercedes and Audi electric SUV’s, Tesla needs the low cost Model X. The Model X will probably be the only 7 seater with a tow capacity inTesla’slineup. I think they are going to increase battery capacity in both Model S and X.

True, Model X/75 was still pretty competitive with i-Pace and e-Tron in terms of price and range while not likely to be cross shopped against longer range Model 3. Looks like for whatever reason Tesla chooses not to compete with its new European rivals directly. It’s also possible that the recent $2K price cut makes it no longer worth Tesla’s while.

At least in the US, Tesla will have a price competitive option for the I-pace and e-Tron when they arrive here. Tesla will compete – anything else would be strange.

You’re right, I didn’t explicitly explain the correlation. My thought is they will discontinue the smaller pack to make more of a distinction between 3 and S/X. This also paves the way for a 100 and 120 kWh pack for S/X, increasing range and performance.

Exactly, I expect a 120D, 140D, P120D, P140D to be showing up soon, in the next 3-6 months. There should be three tiers for best sales. 100D, 120D, 140D.

@ Joe

“100D, 120D, 140D”

That could be achievable by switching from 18650 to 21700?

2170 cells reportedly have little if any higher energy density than the 18650 cells which Panasonic currently makes. But there probably is already some room for larger capacity, since it’s been more than a year and a half since Tesla introduced the 100 kWh packs. We’ve seen pretty steady improvements in the energy density of the Panasonic cells used in Tesla cars.

But from what Tesla said, they have achieved more efficient packing in the Model 3 battery pack. I think 140 kWh might be beyond the limits of what’s currently possible, but I think it likely that at least 120 kWh possible, perhaps even 125-130 kWh, using the new architecture.

I was under the impression that the new cell packing setup, new module packaging setup, combined with higher energy density in 2170 was able to give Model 3 batteries 25% higher pack-level energy density than Model S ones…
25% higher energy density should mean that they can build a 125kWh Model S or Model X, with the same weight as the current ones. Or, build a 120kWh or a 115 or 110kWh, all would have more range, and weigh less..

Tesla is now pushing into the market a lot of 3 year old off lease, loaded 100D and P100D’s, at around the same price or LOWER than the 75D.
Of course, they’re going to see a drop in demand as people buy Value and pick up these great deals.

Musk is completely in touch, as we’ve seen over and over again, with the sales numbers.

It also makes room for the 100D to become the low end model, and clear inventory now.

The 100D is not 3 years old

Correct. The P100D was introduced in August 2016, and that was the first with a 100 kWh battery pack.

Interesting how your fact – which is readily verifiable – get a downvote and Joe’s incorrect market assessment got 7 upvotes.
There are 6 100D (combined P and nonP) Model X’s listed for sale on Tesla’s site… In the United States. And only 2 are below $100k.

Since’s P’s are a different animal – I wonder when the 100D went for sale? Nov/Dec 2016? So just over 2 years ago.

All these S and X cars are out of my desired price range so my opinion is hypothetical, but it always seemed to me that the price markup from 75 to 100 kWh was way out of line with the likely cost of providing it. I would have felt ripped off paying that much more for 25 more kWh. But if is is really true that demand for the 75 kWh model was a small part of total S/X demand then this is a sensible move by Tesla now that a longe range AWD model 3 can be had with little waiting time and (???) be more profitable. I’m not in the market, but it would be nice to see them update the battery/motors system in the S/X to the model 3 standard. I think a longer range S/X would make sense in the quest to really offer a seamless transition in terms of usable range (especially in cold weather) from a high end heat engined vehicle. 400 (or more) mile range would be nice in a $100k+ vehicle and would even more clearly differentiate them from the first generaton of EVs from the German luxury brands and Jaguar.

I’m pretty confident that Tesla had more than one reason for discontinuing the 75 kWh battery packs for the MS/MX, but surely a wish to create more market separation between the Model 3 and the Model S is one of those reasons. Falling demand in the U.S. for the Model S is a problem Tesla wants to correct, and we may soon see bigger changes in the MS than just a larger capacity battery pack.

Two Words and a Name: Lithium-Titanate and Jeff Dahn. 🙂

LTO is awesome, but energy density is nowhere near the level needed for long range passenger cars.

Agree with Doggydogworld. LTO is significantly more expensive and has advantages of almost no degradation (very long life) and higher safety. But is also significantly heavier and not suitable for the desired long range.

Sounds decent for energy storage that requires daily cycling in environmentally exposed areas.

There will be a second generation of the Tesla Model S and the Tesla Model X.

The only question is when?

Previously this was expected in 2020 (or perhaps even later than that).

And now it seems that it’s very much possible that it will arrive even before 2020.

I don’t think that Tesla will simply do ONLY a battery pack upgrade for the Tesla Model S and the Tesla Model X (from 18650 to 21700).

They will do it thoroughly.

I think that they already have been working for the past two years on the design of the second generation Tesla Model S and Tesla Model X.

And the third generation of the Tesla Model S and the Tesla Model X will then certainly not arrive before 2025.

No way they’ve done a redesign in secret. Tesla has too many stalkers for that. Besides, new version affects 75D and 100D equally. Whatever is going on here only affects 75D.

@ Dog Deleting the 75 kWh battery pack as an option is only the first step of stepping away from the 18650 battery cells. What I was trying to point out was that Tesla will do it thoroughly. Meaning that there will be the switch from the 18650 battery cells to the 21700 battery cells. But by doing that it means that the volumetric dimensions of the battery pack will change. And that will require a redesign of the skateboard platform and a redesign of the vehicle body itself as well. And perhaps there will be no more aluminum? If they really decide to do that, then they will be good for another 5 years or so. The Tesla Model S and the Tesla Model X cannot afford to look outdated. A modern design will increase sales numbers substantially. The Tesla Model S and the Tesla Model X have got to be successful EV models. The competition has arrived in 2019, and more competition will arrive in 2019 and thereafter. And that means that Tesla must raise the bar even further. In order for the other car manufacturers to come up with even better EV models. And that will make… Read more »

“…there will be the switch from the 18650 battery cells to the 21700 battery cells. But by doing that it means that the volumetric dimensions of the battery pack will change. And that will require a redesign of the skateboard platform and a redesign of the vehicle body itself as well.”

Not at all. It has been said there is sufficient “head room” inside the MS/MX battery packs for the 5 mm higher 2170 cells.

Now, I do expect to see a complete redesign of the MS/MX battery packs, as well as other changes to the cars; perhaps minor changes, but perhaps major ones, taking advantage of innovations seen in the Model 3. But a major redesign of the body seems unnecessary, unless Tesla is planning on switching from aluminum to high-strength and ultra-high-strength steel.

@ PP

“Not at all. It has been said there is sufficient “head room” inside the MS/MX battery packs for the 5 mm higher 2170 cells.”

That’s interesting info.

It would be a major point if the new more advanced battery pack (with the taller 21700 battery cells) can be simply fitted under the skateboard platform just like the current battery pack. That would be the jackpot. Because no extra cost and retooling in the production process at the Assembly Lines in the factory in Fremont will be required. And therefore, the switch from 18650 to 21700 would then be very swift and very smooth. That would be very efficient.

But I have my doubts about that.

The design of the battery pack of the Tesla Model 3 is very advanced. And the aim is to redesign the battery pack of the Tesla Model S and the Tesla Model X to such an advanced level as well. As time goes by technology gets more advanced (because engineers do some hardcore engineering), and products improve in quality and efficiency. To remain competitive your products may better be equipped with the latest technology.

The S still turns heads. At 7 yrs with only a nose job, it’s aging extremely well. I see no need for any change in external aesthetics.

On the contrary, Tesla performed much testing of the prototype Model 3 at a closed testing facility in Ohio, with nobody being the wiser.

Tesla has every reason to hide a major refresh of the Model S, to avoid the Osborne Effect. A major refresh may be coming very soon!

You and I are on the same page. With falling sales of the Model S, at least in the U.S., Tesla is going to want to refresh the MS sooner rather than later. Refresh coming soon, perhaps?

I’m not predicting this will happen within the next couple of months, but I certainly won’t be surprised if it happens!

Only argument is that the Model S has falling sales is that we now have options – the X and the 3. It isn’t because the S isn’t amazing, its just that some buyers are siphoned off to the other cars.
I have 5/2015 Model S. I would have gotten the 3 if it was available. If my car was totaled today, I would get the 3. I love my hatch but not for $40k. I can’t be alone.
So a redesign of the Model S will cost money and lead to increased sales. But I am not sure that it is worth it compared to spending effort getting the Model Y out – or lower priced 3 variants. Or even the Roadster. I am just not sure.

I think they will stop mentioning battery capacity like they do on Model3. We may see a Model S short range and long range.

Short range, lol. It’s supposed to be standard range, but it starts with the same letter and the opposite of long is short, so….

I agree they’ll move further away from battery capacity and emphasize range more. I don’t think the SR/LR naming helps their cause, though. Might as well call the SR the crippled version. Oops, I mean range-challenged version.

“Standard range”, “Mid Range” and “Long Range”. Not “Short Range”! Tesla certainly doesn’t want any of its cars labeled as “short range”.

Same as condom marketing, right?

Technically the LR can also be rightfully called “Low Range”.

If they are going away from the kWh monikers, then they should just have the S, and the S LR, for example. I would not bother emphasizing a standard model with more letters, particularly in Tesla’s case, where the term “short” does come to mind quicker than “standard”.

If they keep the MR, it should be changed (but they won’t, at this point, most likely). It makes the most sense, to me, to have the 3, the 3 EX (for extended range, since the range is extended compared to the base model), and the 3 LR (for long range, signifying the top of the line). I guess people could get those backwards, as well, so I guess it’s a good thing that I’m not in marketing.

Or the 85kWh battery made for Model3 might get used for the next modelS.

Fantasizing is not analysis.

My guess work.
Tesla will increase battery pack capacity. The 25kWh currently cost a hell of more money.
So they’ll make a 125kWh new pack with a raise in price and decrease the current price of the 100kWh pack for a little less than insane price.
In the end, both models will be more expensive but with more battery capacity.

“Could this also impact the size of the battery in S and X? Elon has said on multiple occasions that he does not see the battery going beyond 100 kWh…”

Yes, he did say that repeatedly, but it was often with a qualifier of “…at the present time” or some such.

It’s been two years since he made such statements. With other EV makers offering similar sized battery packs, perhaps it’s time for Tesla to move up!

I’ve been surprised at the conservative nature of articles speculating on this change. There are so many more possibilities than merely creating the latest in a series of larger capacity battery packs for the MS/MX, or even stuffing 2170 cells into the space intended for 18650 cells.

We know that Tesla wants to switch from 18650 to the cheaper 2170 cells. But will Tesla make that change without making other changes? It has been said so often that the Model S needs a major refresh that I think it’s now conventional wisdom.



Will Tesla go to the trouble of switching the Model S/X battery packs over to 2170 cells without making other changes? For example, the shorter wiring harness and the new, more efficient permanent magnet rear motor in the Model 3 are surely things that Tesla would like to see in the Model S and X, also.

Does Tesla have a major refresh of the Model S, and possibly the Model X, coming soon?

So much speculation, so little time… 🙂

And, by coincidence, just today someone posted a “spy photo” of a camouflaged car to the IEVs Forum; a car which just might be a refreshed Model S.

His lack of understanding of lithium charging rates concerns me. 100% in an hour, 80% in 30 minutes. The way you get faster is you overspec your pack. You sell a 200kwhr pack as a 175kwhr pack. You sneak a few 100% charges into the battery over every 100,000 miles to exercise it, but otherwise the pack only ever charges to 80%. And it does it in 30 minutes. So as far as you know, the car went to 100% in 30 minutes. *THAT’S* how you get around the 80%-30min/100%-60min rule–by not actually getting around the rule.

That’s what GM did with the Volt 1.0 (a PHEV, not a BEV), but Tesla has never done that. Based on tests performed on various Tesla battery packs, it’s claimed that the difference between full capacity and usable capacity is only 4-8%.

125 kWh battery pack is on the way for the S & X……

“Elon has said on multiple occasions that he does not see the battery going beyond 100 kWh”

I’m sure Elon knows what the Osborne Effect is, and knows better than to make that mistake.

Tesla may add CCS to North American Superchargers in order to attract other manufacturers to the network.

Think about it… someone like BMW partnering up to build more Superchargers.

It could be time for Tesla to ditch the big “TESLA” signage on Supercharger stalls… or just adopt something else on new installations going forwards. Other manufacturers won’t like having their noses rubbed in it. Perhaps “Electrify” or “Energi” or one of those bland brand-name types.

Why would any large manufacturer consider something like that if they could just grab a billion and build a network much larger than Tesla?

Because they aren’t doing that. None of them are. At this point, they are relying upon VW’s court settlement (Electrify America, here in the US) to build it out for everyone.

It would arguably be cheaper for someone like BMW to buy in to Tesla’s SC network, since they don’t have a 800V architecture, either.

Interesting. At first, Tesla was the company claiming that it makes things possible “good old” car manufacturer say that won’t work. Now it’s Porsche (a “good old” car manufacturer) which is about to start mass production of cars with 350kW charging (Audi also already announced an BEV with the same charging technology). But now Tesla (Musk and Straubel) say: “We think 350 kW for a single car; you’re gonna frag the battery pack if you do that.”


Might not be the same chemistry; plus, the VW group is using an 800V architecture, which reduces the amount of current you need to charge at 350kW.

I’m sure Straubel is exactly right – as the S and X are designed, they can’t handle 350kW charging.