75kWh Model S and X going away?

75kWh Model S and X going away?

lilbean | January 9, 2019

I thought it went away a while ago.

Darthamerica | January 9, 2019

Nope not yet. Makes me wonder if they are just trying to create more differentiation between M3 or if new batteries are coming.

greg | January 9, 2019

@Darth, Reasons:

First the one, then the other.

lilbean | January 9, 2019

I think they want to boost Model 3 sales and also sell more expensive Model S and X models.

carlk | January 9, 2019

lilbean That makes sense. Margin on higher end Model 3 is probably higher than that of the base S. New battery and new design that is more efficient for manufacturing, as confirmed by Sandy Munro, plus efficiency of scale can be the reasons.

reed_lewis | January 10, 2019

I am sure that the profit on the 100D Model S is higher than the profit on the 75D Model S.

I am also sure that they will eventually offer a 120 or higher Model S/X at some point.

The issue with the 75D is that now with the Nissan Leaf e+ going about 230 miles, The Kona, and the other EVs coming out that are > 200 miles the Model S/X need to be over 300 miles at a minimum to be 'premium' and justify the higher price point.

I own a Model S 75D and for me it meets all my needs without issue with the super charger network.

bp | January 10, 2019

This could be the first step towards introduction of a new S/X battery pack (with V3 supercharging), while also eliminating the overlap between the 3/Y and S/X pricing. And if they are going to design a new pack, makes sense to do it only for the 100's.

SO | January 10, 2019

They are going to change the naming to be like the 3. IE Long Range, Performance, etc.

lilbean | January 10, 2019

I think the problem with calling it Long Range is that today's Long Range may be tomorrow's Short Range.

lilbean | January 10, 2019

@carlk That makes sense too. :)

jimglas | January 10, 2019

I suspect it is to simplify construction for efficiency, like limiting the color and battery options on the model 3

psusi | January 10, 2019

WTF Tesla?! So now it's one size fits all? I'm glad I got my 75 while I could before Tesla ownership became a more expensive proposition, yet again ( they already discontinued the 60, which is what I originally was going to get ).

Yodrak. | January 10, 2019

Limiting of options is going to reduce demand if it reaches the point where people are finding that Tesla is no longer offering what they want, and are including things they do not want. I know that I could not afford a Model S if the 75 kWhr battery option is eliminated, and the Model 3 cargo capacity is insufficient for my needs. I will be hard pressed to buy another Tesla if something were to happen to the S 75D I have now.

Darthamerica | January 10, 2019

@Yodrak there's always pre owned. I know some people only want a new car but if you're willing to get a used one you could potentially get a lot more car within your price range.

Yodrak. | January 10, 2019

"there's always pre owned"

True, but my point is to question the long-term wisdom of eliminating options and model overlap, if that is indeed the intent as some posters believe, if the result might be a self-inflicted loss of new-car sales.

psusi | January 10, 2019

Indeed.. I first started saving up for the Model S 60 because it was "only" 60 grand. I ended up spending 100 grand on the X 75. IIRC, the 90 was 110 grand, and that is now to be the entry level for the X? The goal was supposedly for prices to come DOWN over time so more people could afford them, but they keep jacking them up!

Earl and Nagin ... | January 10, 2019

@psusi and Yodrak,
There will, undoubtedly be new options available. Originally, there was the 40, 60, and 85, then the P, the the P+, then 70, then 75, . . .
Relax and enjoy the ride. The only thing that has been consistent with Tesla is change and awesomeness.

lilbean | January 10, 2019

Tesla is always changing. The cars keep getting better. Technology keeps getting better. People will still buy the cars just like iPhones. Upgrades are expected.

jimglas | January 10, 2019

I would love to trade up to a MX200D, close to 600 miles per charge!

SO | January 10, 2019

Tesla is definitely getting better. In just two years, I can now get an S that has about 45 miles more range than mine for 2k less than I paid.

The only caveats are no pano roof and free supercharging. But still, not bad.

I would love to just battery swap my 90 to a 200. I love my car but having more range is always nice. Now THAT would be freaking awesome. But I’m not holding my breath.

Yodrak. | January 10, 2019

"There will, undoubtedly be new options available." "Upgrades are expected."

Yes, new options will become available and upgrades are expected. But upgrades are not the subject of this thread.

The subject of this thread is that the most affordable Models S and X are no longer available.

Wilber | January 10, 2019

The Cleantechnica folks have been speculating today about how this decision fits into other things. They think it may be related to switching to the 2170 cells, or to the design 'refresh' that is coming up sometime 'soon', or to the version 3 supercharger to be rolled out soon.....

Anyway, will be interesting to learn about whatever is 'next' about the MX!

Darthamerica | January 10, 2019

At some point batteries cost will be like memory storage. It won't be worth the cost of having two different packs if volume is skewed towards the higher capacity version. In addition to ease of production, it also gives more room for higher price and margin. This isn't to say there won't be different types of MS/MX. Just that the differences will be focused in other areas. Performance vs luxury MS/MX versions perhaps. M3 would own the economy and performance in the mid tier.

jordanrichard | January 11, 2019

A physically different S is still 1 to 2 years away, at the very least. If they were to utilize the 2170 cells, which means a thicker floor, I see the S getting taller or adapting the Model X's windshield and the Model 3's rear glass, to regain the headroom. Of course that would mean the S losing it's hatch back.

Darthamerica | January 11, 2019

Jordan there's no way to know with Tesla but you could be right. Depending on what Model Y looks like Tesla could use the opportunity to make the design language more common between models.

Darthamerica | January 11, 2019

Another opinion...

jimglas | January 12, 2019

thanks Darth, interesting (and exciting) video

Darthamerica | January 12, 2019

@Jim my pleasure. Glad we have something we both enjoy in spite of our different politics! I'm very excited to know what Tesla will do next. I upgraded my original Model S when AP1 came out. I've been holding off on getting an AP2 car in anticipation of a big refresh. I think we are getting close. New AP hardware or range close to 400 miles would likely compel me to buy again...

jimglas | January 12, 2019

See what happens with the MY, I may have to trade in my MX

Darthamerica | January 12, 2019

@Jim MX is what I want...

bruce | January 12, 2019

Test drove a Model 3 today (long range and performance), but ended up placing an order for a 75X. Think it is just a lot more car for the money. Got a 75 S in 2017, and now know that range is less of an issue than most people believe. It's nice, but not critical. My thought was that the X, which we have always wanted, will be further out of range after the 75 is discontinued. I know Tesla, and suspect that they will extend the deadline for ordering 75 S and X autos, so that they can stimulate more sales, and that after generating such sales, will wait a short time and then reduce the price of the 100. How likely do people think this is, and am I making a mistake by ordering a 75X before this deadline.

lilbean | January 12, 2019

No. I didn't think that's going to happen.

blue adept | January 13, 2019


As others have mentioned, technological improvements are to be expected (Tesla is a technology company afterall), so it only makes sense that previous battery versions are discontinued as innovations in the technology are made that improve their efficiency, performance, charge capacitance, etc., etc., much the same as is the case with any other technology company, so it isn't an issue of 'a limiting of options', or even an unavailability of 'more affordable models', as it is one of Tesla prioritizing the advancement of their technology to aid in improving our experience with their product with 'affordability' being at the discretion of the buyer and dependent on their chosen configuration.

jimglas | January 13, 2019

@Bruce: I love my MX, but I find the range is much less than advertised. Probably a lot to do with me driving fast, mountains and cold. But much more pronounced than in my P3D.

Darthamerica | January 13, 2019

@Jim likewise with Model S. EV ranges are too variable to be relied on as a fixed number. I wish they would come up with a different way to communicate range to drivers. It's better to report range as a variable between two values based on driving style, terrain, weather and vampire loss. It would be cool if the car could "learn" the driver and report an estimated range based on the driver profile.

That way if "Darth" got in the car the estimated range would be X. If you used the car and selected your profile it would report Y.

Yodrak. | January 13, 2019

"As others have mentioned, technological improvements are to be expected"

I agree. But this particular move by Tesla does not introduce any technological improvements. What this move does is put the Models S and X beyond the reach of some buyers.

Darthamerica | January 13, 2019

@Yodrak they aren't obligated to sell cheaper S/X. Tesla uses M3 for that purpose. But wait a bit and see what comes next. I think there's more to this than just simplifying the lineup.

Yodrak. | January 13, 2019

"they aren't obligated to sell cheaper S/X."

I did not write or imply that Tesla was obligated to sell the Models S and X at any price point. What I wrote was that Tesla has just priced some people out of the market for a Model S or X.

Some of the people who would otherwise have purchased an X might instead be willing to purchase an S, and some of the people who would otherwise have purchased an S might instead be willing to purchase a 3, but some of those people might, as you observed previously, buy a used S or X instead of a new one. In which case, Tesla has lost a sale. And some might decide to not purchase a Tesla at all, in which case Tesla has again lost a sale.

Maybe whatever Tesla does next will bring back some of the lost sales. Maybe not. The sales lost to purchase of another vehicle, be it a used Tesla or something else, are lost for quite a while.

Yodrak. | January 13, 2019

"wait a bit and see what comes next."

You wait and see, my lease is up and I need to do something now. (Not me personally, but some people are in this situation.)

Darthamerica | January 13, 2019

@Yodrak I understand and it's how I felt when Tesla took away the Model S third row and said just buy an X if you want 3 rows. At the end of the day it's a business and they would only do this if it's profitable/advantageous to them.

Yodrak. | January 13, 2019

"they would only do this if it's profitable/advantageous to them."

If they think it's going to be profitable or advantageous to them.

My thought is that Tesla has estimated it will save the company some money. Will the savings exceed the losses?

Time may tell, or we or Tesla may never know for sure.

Darthamerica | January 13, 2019

@Yodrak they'll know. It's a simple demand forecast, CapEx vs ROI calculation. If they meet or exceed the ROI target then it worked. Since Tesla is a public company you can look at the 10K report and know too...
SEC Filings | Tesla, Inc.

Yodrak. | January 13, 2019

"they'll know. It's a simple demand forecast, CapEx vs ROI calculation."

No, they will not know. Other factors are involved in the macro number categories you identify. Even looking at lower -level numbers, Tesla cannot know how many sales were shifted to other models or lost entirely, it can only speculate.

Darthamerica | January 13, 2019

@Yodrak "ok"

blue adept | January 13, 2019


"But this particular move by Tesla does not introduce any technological improvements."

Customer sentiment in the EV market is primarily oriented around range, that is, an EV with comparable ICE mileage so that the distinction between the two are all but indiscernible/unnoticeable.

A more than 75kWh battery pack is, obviously, more desirable because of the increased range it would provide for the bigger/heavier 'S' and 'X' models, so the transition is an obvious one.

While that may seem unfortunate to you and others, do try to remember that what might seem initially desirable to you would prove itself less so should you happen to find yourself stranded somewhere because you wanted to get a good deal/cut some corners just so you could enjoy the trappings of a higher market vehicle that would, nonetheless, find itself hamstrung with lower market capabilities.

I suggest you do as others have suggested and look into obtaining a CPO that would possess both the necessary performance capability and desired styling aesthetics while staying within your budget.

Alas, time has proven yet again that EVERYONE wants something for nothing if they can get it, do they not?!

jordanrichard | January 14, 2019

The order page for the S and X still show the 75 pack.

Darthamerica | January 14, 2019

I think the cutoff is 12 noon PST today.

Yodrak. | January 14, 2019

"A more than 75kWh battery pack is, obviously, more desirable because of the increased range it would provide for the bigger/heavier 'S' and 'X' models, so the transition is an obvious one."

Agree that a larger battery is more desireable, but many Model S owners are quite satisfied with our 75 kWhr battery, so the transition is not at all obvious.

WTF are you to tell me what it is I wanted?

"EVERYONE wants something for nothing if they can get it"

You're going over the top here.

blue adept | January 14, 2019

"Agree that a larger battery is more desirable, but many Model S owners are quite satisfied with our 75 kWhr battery, so the transition is not at all obvious."

To your and others viewpoint it might well not be all that 'obvious' but to Tesla, who is focused on bringing their customers the best products that they can while working to stay within the boundaries of a certain price point, it is a quite obvious move given that Tesla, as a still yet somewhat fledgling company, is still working to prove itself and does so by improving its products.

"WTF are you to tell me what it is I wanted?"

Who TF are YOU to be trying to tell Tesla what is best for THEIR vehicles/business?!

"You're going over the top here."

Configuring your Tesla with all of the bells and whistles only to skimp on the battery pack is what I'm alluding to, but the point is that the 75kWh packs weren't meeting Tesla's desired performance/range parameters so, again, it makes perfect sense on Tesla's part to insure product integrity, so not so 'over the top' as practical and realistic.

But that's not necessarily your point as your concerns seem to be more so oriented towards frugality than actual performance parameters which, to that end, I've heard that Tesla will be lowering its base price across their model lineup to compensate for Trumptato phasing out the tax credit which should, to a degree, balance things out from a purely expense perspective.

Yodrak. | January 14, 2019

"Configuring your Tesla with all of the bells and whistles only to skimp on the battery pack is what I'm alluding to,"

What makes you think that I or other purchasers of a 75 kwhr Model S configured "with all of the bells and whistles"? Just curious how you came to know so much.