According to Electrek: https://electrek.co/2019/01/09/tesla-discontinuing-75-kwh-battery-pack-m...
You have until Sunday night to order an S/X with a 75kWh battery.
Looks like I bought at the right time (well, 100 days ago), since the 75D met my needs.
I’m shocked that the 75D S and X will no longer be... in spite of their departures,it merely makes me love my 75D even more...
With the cost of batteries coming down, maybe Tesla will sell only the 100, but price it right in the middle of the current 75 and 100, reducing the price of a 100 by about $8500. This would offset the net price of an MS100D due to decrease in the federal tax credit.
EVRider beat me to posting this news, pasting the post contents and deleting mine.
Last day to order a Model S 75D or X 75D is Sunday January 13 2019
Submitted by Firaz on January 9, 2019
Elon Musk on Twitter: "Starting on Monday, Tesla will no longer be taking orders for the 75 kWh version of the Model S & X. If you’d like that version, please order by Sunday night at [tesla.com]"https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1083141248872075265?s=20
As noted in a similar thread in the general forum it could be that Tesla just wants to direct some 75D buyers to 100D and others to higher end Model 3. Margin on higher end Model 3 is probably better than that on the base S.
Wow. Don't know what else to say. Well, I do, but I won't.
Anyone know if the 2017 S75 battery is locked to 75 or can it be unlocked for more distance? If so anyone know the cost
robgorman and carlk both might be right. I won't be surprised if we see cheaper bigger batteries. That is my guess because less cobalt means cheaper batteries. Also the new 7021 (not sure of the correct number) cell size would fit more power in the same framework.
If Tesla is going to the 2170 battery in the S and X you will see a 400 mile model soon. My guess is 335 and 400 models.
400 miles rated range. The Holy Grail for me. If I could get a Model S with 400 miles of rated range, that would make my 284 mile weekly roundtrip commute to work a cinch. No need to stop to supercharge then.
I am hoping for a 500 to 600 miles range S and X by the time the 600+ miles Roadster is available.
@Fins - All 75 batteries made are that size. Nothing to unlock.
From what i understand reading prior threads on this topic, the 2170 batteries don't fit in the S/X battery pack. They would have to make the pack taller which there is no space for without a pretty significant change to the chassis.
Apparently Elon said they're eliminating the battery size reference to S/X going forward. So there will no longer be a "75" or "100". Models will conform more like the way the 3 is named. So my guess is come monday this could all just be a renaming of the existing models. Whether we get a bump in pack sizes or not remains to be seen.
"I am hoping for a 500 to 600 miles range S and X by the time the 600+ miles Roadster is available"
Careful on what you wish for. Most people have this sentiment, but think about it. The larger the battery, the longer the car will be charging at the supercharger.
Yes, I know that a larger battery charges faster, but think about it. One of the big benefits of a larger battery is being able to skip chargers. So when you do get to a charger, you are most likely going to charge it up enough to do that again which means charging longer to get those extra miles.
Another way to look at it, while the fuel pump nozzle for diesel is larger, along with the opening in the filler neck for a diesel truck which means more fuel can go in at a given rate vs a gasoline car, you really haven't gained anything if the fuel tank on the truck is 35 gallons vs the 15 in the car.
Larger battery cons: weight
Pros: longer range when needed especially in winter, more charge before hitting tapering so faster charge overall
JR, Musk announced a 3rd gen supercharger rollout this year that will make the current SC a toy in comparison.
@jordanrichard, however, due to speed tapering off as the battery gets above 80%, the rate of charge will be much faster on a larger battery. 80% of a 500 mile battery means it will charge at full speed to 400 miles before the rate of charge slows. Right now, if you need a full 250-300 miles, it takes quite some time, well over an hour to charge. Being that most people don't drive 400 miles straight without stopping. At 70 MPH, that's over 5 1/2 hours of driving. Most people's bladders aren't that big!. I think a 500 mile range battery is plenty and very few would feel the need to stay at the charger over 80%.
Also, keep in mind, according to Tesla, faster superchargers are coming very soon. So, possibly within the next year, the speed to get 400 miles in range will be quicker than it currently is to get 250 miles in range.
I wonder, rather selfishly, if prices of used cars with <90 KWh will rise as a result?
For both pragmatic and selfish reasons, I'm pleased by this....
1. This will better differentiate the S and the 3. There is too much overlap in features/performance/range for the same relative price points.
2. This will slow down the proliferation of Model S as more buyers opt for the 3. I hate seeing my car a dozen times on the way to work.
3. Makes my decision to get two 75 size battery vehicles even better. :) We don't need the range given the ability to charge at home. And we saved a ton of $$.
Yes, definitely selfish.
'17 S75 & X75D: (Uncorked AP2.5 Bio 48.12.1)*2. Grin on!
My MS is feeling less like a Bay Area Camry with the proliferation of Model 3.
@TranzNDance. Love it!
Since Wh/mi will be all over the map for competitions, taking the focus off of battery size and moving to range is a smart move for Tesla. Naive buyers could focus on battery size alone and assume a larger batter means more range even though a 75S might get more range than a competitor with an 85.
It reminds me of the old clock speed wars in the computer industry where Apple would try to compete with clock speed, but that wasn't a good measure of relative speeds given the different architectures.
"This will better differentiate the S and the 3. There is too much overlap in features/performance/range for the same relative price points."
Yes, it will more fully differentiate the two models, but I disagree about too much overlap. The two models offer different features so it's good for consumers to be able to make a choice based on the features they want at a particular price point.
"This will slow down the proliferation of Model S as more buyers opt for the 3."
I agree it will slow the sales of Model S as fewer consumers will be able to afford the S, but my feeling is that not all of them who have been priced out of the S will buy a 3 instead. Some of them who want the features of the S will opt for a used S rather than a 3 and Tesla will make fewer total sales.
S & 3 need to differentiate on more than range. I'd hate to see the 3 artificially capped at a range that is less than the S. If they had a 400 mile S and a 400 mile 3, people should be able to pick which one they prefer based on performance, storage, looks, comfort, etc. Similar to how people choose a 5 series BMW over a 3 series. They don't do it because the 5 series can go further on a tank of gas.
I suspect there will still be 2 battery versions available for the S, with one Long Range and one Mid-Range. The only question is what kWh. It's hard to imagine not having an entry point for the S in the $80+ K range.
Tesla will begin seeing competition from major automobile companies this year. I think they will have to begin positioning the 3 and S against the competition. The Audi etron SUV looks likes competition for the X (and a bunch of high end gas SUVs). The Audi GT, due in 2020, has similar specifications to a model S. At a guess, I think Tesla is in the process of structuring its product line.
I think many of the buyers of Teslas are enthusiastic about electric cars or very committed to reducing pollution. I bought my Tesla because I have wanted an electric car since I was a kid back in the 1950s. I love the car and my wife likes driving it too but she won't take it out by herself. In part, she is worried about damaging my new toy, but unfamiliarity with the Tesla user interface is also a problem. She would be much more comfortable with a conventional dash like her Audi Q5.
Tesla and other electric car makers have to get past the jargon of kWh battery packs and focus on the real and practical range of their vehicles. For example, there is no point telling a customer that the car goes some number of miles on a charge if it only happens when you leave it for hours getting from 90% to 100%. If a user can connect the car to a Supercharger (or equivalent) for 30 minutes and actually drive 250 miles at least 95% of the time then that is what the car makers' specifications should say. Either the industry will have to get agreement amongst themselves about what range means or regulators will do it for them.
The model 3 has different, better battery and motor technology than my 2017 model S100D. A future version of the S using the model 3 technology might deliver the same range and performance with a smaller battery capacity. As a manufacturer, you would want to break from the number meaning the battery capacity. In the model 3 world, the batteries are 'standard' and 'long range' if I recall correctly. This nomenclature makes more sense because the technology can be revised without changing the model identification. So maybe the future will have base RWD models with a standard driving range whether they are model S or 3. The two vehicles could have the same driving range but different battery pack capacity as required. The LR batteries would also have different capacities but deliver the same long driving range. The model upgrades could be LR batteries, AWD, LR with AWD, and Performance (P) versions.
Just a few thoughts, not intended to get a discussion started about the number of Superchargers versus CCS 150 kW chargers or the capability of global automobile manufacturers to build competent electric vehicles.
Concern: 75D Firmware Update to Increase Performance
Pay Type: Goodwill
Corrections: Update Configuration Variables And Vehicle Firmware to Increase 75D
Updated the vehicle's firmware to version 17.44.34 and updated the vehicle configuration
to improve performance.
Roger1, competition this year, from who? I am serious.
The Audi E-Tron after being revealed with great fan fare in San Francisco has been delayed for software issues and battery issues as in LG wants to charge more for them and this means Audi has to renegotiate. Then there is the fact that Audi has decided to meet the E-Tron a special order item. Go to the E-Tron page of Audi’s site and find the range numbers for the vehicle. All they state is in 30 mins you can get 80% charge which works out to something like 162 miles. So one you have then do some math to get what that equates to at 100%. Also, that range in 30 mins that they are boasting is only possible using a 150kw fast charger is practically doesn’t exist yet. Doesn’t sound like they want to really sell this thing.
MB also is having software issues and has recently announced that it will be a slow roll out of thier “EQ” line, going to Europe and China first, then the U.S. They can’t provide ANY range numbers for the U.S. market.
Porsche with the now named Tacan can’t provide any range numbers. Their site provides no data, no specs, no pictures of the production Tacan.
BMW is essentially silent about their EVs
GM just announced that instead of Chevy taking point to bring GM’s EV to the mass market, Cadillac will be leading the way for GM’s EV efforts. Which means they are going to make their EV program a niche player. The Bolt is a relative sales dud, now that the 3 is out.
What does VW have coming to the U.S. market this year that can really compete with Tesla?
So, just where is this competition coming from “this year”?
Maybe he means "this year" in the same way Elon says "3 months maybe, 6 months definitely"
No, I think he is falling for the propaganda the traditional OEMs have been pushing and the media regurgitates. Just look at how many articles have the headlines about the forth coming competition Tesla will be facing. Then when you actually read the article, there is nothing really coming. These “journalist” cite PR releases or what they saw as concept cars.
interesting video on why the 75 is going away.
If you compare the price of the P3D vs 75D it can be called cannibalisation. There has to be a difference thus deleting the 75 is the most logical thing to do.
"If you compare the price of the P3D vs 75D it can be called cannibalisation."
How so? There are people who want an S, and do not want either P or a 3? Tesla has lost that sale.
@Bill, “Maybe he means "this year" in the same way Elon says "3 months maybe, 6 months definitely”
So he is overly optimistic. Meh.
Show me the vaporware being created. Hint, it isn’t, in any volume worth considering.
I like the idea of more range. Nice for when going for drives off the beaten track. And cold weather.
I’d be ecstatic to someday swap my 90 battery for a 200.
Jordanrichard, the etron is supposed to have a range of 400 km, WLTP cycle. The battery pack capacity is 95 kWh. The 150 kW chargers are already being installed in Europe. Bjorn Nyland on YouTube shows videos of using a public 150kW charger. Audi's site claims 80% charge in 30 minutes with a 150kW charger. Audi will take your reservation for an etron SUV today - not unlike Tesla with the model 3.
I think the vehicles are real and deliverable based on the public information I have seen. I find it interesting that all the European based companies are currently holding back and I think there is a reason. Tesla has a substantial network of Superchargers that make driving an electric car possible over medium to longer distances. There is no network of high powered chargers for CCS plug vehicles in North America. If I was in charge of marketing a high end BEV I would not introduce it without a network of fast chargers. Tesla got away with it because they were first to market. The large number of level 2 chargers are too slow to be relevant if you are travelling longer distances. Purchasers of high end brand vehicles aren't going to stand around while a level 2 charger puts 20 miles per hour into the battery. Even a 50 kW CHAdeMO DC charger with an adaptor will be too slow.
The critical factor for the Europeans and GM will be getting the 150kW charger network built out to reasonable numbers in high population density areas along the east and west coast of USA this year. I have experience building out distributed facilities and the key is real estate. If the Electrify organization can get access to companies with significant real estate holdings and move quickly to permit then a rapid buildout is possible. After real estate, the next critical factor is proximity to megawatts of electricity in the local power distribution network. Electrify will need a few large scale general contractors with geographically dispersed resources to manage the buildout.
Charger stations aren't much of a build - basically a parking lot with charger stations, concrete pad with AC to DC converter electronics, utility connection and underground conduit to tie it all together. A charger station seems to be going in at a location I pass frequently. The concrete pad for the converters is in place and conduit has been run in a layout that looks like a charger station. It could be something else but the location relative to a couple of extremely high volume expressways makes me think charger station.
If Electrify started work last fall then I think they will have sufficient stations online in fall 2019 to demonstrate credibility. Working stations, a map of planned stations, and a stream of announcements about stations coming on line will provide the dealers' sales forces with a means of countering 'range anxiety' for potential purchasers. So, I think the serious marketing effort will begin in the fall of 2019.
GM moving the electric car point position to Cadillac seems to be an obvious move to me. Electric cars have been a niche market - people at the leading edge of concern about carbon dioxide emissions. People willing to accept some inconvenience to reduce their personal emission footprint. - that's the world of the Chevy Bolt. I believe that car manufacturers have accepted the reality of electric cars and may even be enthusiastic as the potential for lower cost vehicles becomes apparent. Would you rather build an electric motor with 1 moving part or an ICE with dozens of them plus a transmission? High end vehicles have better margins and can 'afford' the higher current cost for batteries. Balancing battery cost versus range in a $50,000 vehicle is much easier than doing it for a $25,000 vehicle. I don't think it's an accident that manufacturers are concentrating on high end electric vehicles at this time.
If you are interested in looking further, check out videos on YouTube - not the guys sitting speculating about cars - the ones with real cars to test. Most of the action is in Europe where the cars are being released first. People are receiving deliveries of the Jaguar iPace in the UK and dealers have demonstrators to lend out so you can find 3rd party videos about the car.
I will stick with my opinion that competition is coming this year.
"GM just announced that instead of Chevy taking point to bring GM’s EV to the mass market, Cadillac will be leading the way for GM’s EV efforts."
A wise choice, I think. The "mass market" isn't buying EVs, the upscale market is where the EV action is.
Given that Tesla is killing BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Jag, and Volvo sales in the US, are you surprised the European manufacturers are panicked?
I think the same survival instinct by the ICE business areas within the European manufactures is still holding back their ability to truly compete with Tesla though. Clearly, BMW's lame I-3 and the wimpy Mercedes EVs are great examples.
The iPace may serve to keep a few Jaguar diehards from jumping ship but I wasn't impressed when I saw it even though I sincerely hope that we get more viable EV options on the market. Tesla can't replace every car in the world soon enough by themselves.
Earl and Nagin,
I think Tesla buyers are a different group than many other car owners. The Tesla vehicle interface through the touchscreen is completely foreign and sometimes intimidating. My wife has an Audi Q5 that she loves. Put an electric motor and battery in the same body with the same dash and operating controls and she would be happy. She enjoys driving the Tesla but isn't comfortable with the interface.
I expect that many of the new electric vehicles will look very much like their ICE siblings. People buy the vehicle appearance and brand. An electric vehicle that doesn't look like one of the family will not project the same brand image. The iPace looks like a Jaguar so their existing customer base will accept it. The Audi 55 etron looks like a Q series ICE vehicle. The GT sedan looks like vehicles in the A series. The big name auto companies will be able to sell electric vehicles to people who would not consider a Tesla.
One of the key components for getting widespread acceptance of electric vehicles is the charger network. People will start to be comfortable when every community of five thousand people has an electric vehicle charger station. The major auto makers with their huge financial capacity can fund CCS stations collectively. Tesla has the advantage now with Superchargers but that could be lost within a few short years. Tesla will have to partner with the CCS crowd to put some Supercharger stations in the same location as new CCS chargers. Proprietary Tesla chargers can only be a short term measure - Telsa will have to adopt the ugly CCS plug in North America as it has done in Europe.
We have moved a long way from the topic of 75 kWh batteries...
@Roger1 - There will always be people who like one interior UI over another, and nothing wrong with that. I think Tesla is on the right track for most people, as others continue to use awful iDrive or mouse pads style interfaces that require locking out most features while driving, as it is just too hard to actually use these contraptions. Seems some automakers are in love with these messy systems they created and are unwilling to admit it sucks for most people.
As for CCS, I'm afraid you may be right for the long term, but so far no automaker is doing anything individually or collectively in the USA to install CSS stations other than a single station in some dealer lots (ignoring VW that was forced to do some CCS stations due to dieselgate). Once the VW program is over in a couple of years, funding stops. Not to say other manufacturers might get there act together, but so far there is no indication they will.
Not sure why Tesla needs to partner with the CCS crowd. I'm not too excited to stop into some dealer (with limited access and hours) that has a single charger that has a 90% likelihood of being ICEd or tied up charging dealer cars. Let's hope Tesla doesn't have to downgrade to CCS in the USA like Europe. Should Tesla do CCS, I wonder if all the other automakers will just dump cars into the Tesla CCS SC network providing a lot less availability for Teslas. Hopefully there will be ways to restrict Tesla Superchargers to Teslas.
I charge at home and when I travel out of town, there are ample SC's available, with more coming on-line all the time. J1772 in an emergency. I'd hate to see Tesla have to mess with CCS.
Electrify America is installing multiple CCS and one CHAdeMO port in various locations. There are very few now, but I think that it will grow eventually.
I just purchased the CHAdeMO adapter for my Model S but have not gotten it yet. I could have used it the past two weekends as I was in Nashua, and Salem NH, and had to drive up to Hookset NH to Super Charge. There are a few good CHAdeMO locations there that I could have used.
I would love to see Tesla make available either a CCS port or have some sort of adapter as it opens up more higher speed locations to charge,
@reed. Agree. My Chademo adapter works great in a pinch and a CCS adapter would be a handy addition off the supercharger grid (less and less of an issue)
@AERODYNE I was thinking the same thing. It's a pretty big leap from the price I paid for my '16 70D compared to what someone will have to pay for a 100D after today. It seems a lot of people will by priced out of a Model S unless they look for a used one with a <90 battery. Thus, more demand/higher resale value for used. Is this just wishful thinking?
I for one, was VERY impressed with the Jaguar iPace. Storage space galore, OVERHEAD GRAB HANDLES (!) (yes, I'm shouting, shrieking with glee actually), Apple Car Play, an appropriately sumptuous interior - lots of things to like, and lots of little things to remind one that Tesla is still a very young automaker, or a very middlingly mature tech company.
When you get your CHAdeMO adaptor, take it to your Tesla service center and ask them to update the internal software to the current revision. Ask them to test it after the update. My adaptor did not work on the first CHAdeMO charger I tried but it was not a problem because I could easily reach a Supercharger. I would not have wanted to discover the problem where the alternative was a level 2 charger.
Now that they dropped the 75D i was curious what a comparably configured 100D would cost today vs what i bought in late 2017 (it's been ~16 months). I paid $97,150 for a nicely equipped 75D. Build the same 100D today and it's $102,500 or +$5,350 more. It also has air suspension which mine does not (although i still prefer it without). As i recall the difference back then was closer to $18k.
By my calculation, today a 100D costs $15,000 more than what a comparably equipped 75D would have cost a few days ago.