News
Exploring Details Behind the Tesla Model S Update
After four years on the market, Tesla has quietly released a new styling update for the Model S aligning it with the design found on the Model X and Model 3 prototype.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has once said that Tesla continues to improve on their vehicles making sometimes twenty engineering design changes per week, with many of them being released via over-the-air software updates, but major redesigns are few and far between.
Let’s take a closer look at what the new Model S “refresh” introduced.
Exterior Design Updates
The most noticeable exterior update is the new front-end of the Model S which looks most like the front-end of the Model X.
-
- 2016 Tesla Model S revised front end
-
- Red Tesla Model X with Silver 20″ Wheels
Though they look very similar in design, the Model S looks even sleeker due to the lower profile over the Model X. The revised look keeps the Model S modern in appearance, but subtle enough that it still remains true to its original contour and body lines.
One update that easily goes unnoticed is the relocation of the front facing radar. Because of the new grill-less design of the Model S, the Tesla design team had to move the radar up from the bottom grill to the open space behind the Tesla emblem. This not only helps with functionality because of a higher mounting position with potentially less obstruction, but the new hidden location makes the car look a heck of a lot better.
Also improved on the exterior are the headlights which are now adaptive LED headlamps that adjust according to the curvature of the road. This is standard equipment found on the Model X but also seen on the Model 3 prototypes.
Interior Design Updates
The interior treatment of the Model S received a few new updates as well. Tesla has included a standard center console that looks to be the same one from the Model X.
-
- Revised Tesla Model S center console
-
- Tesla Model X Front Interior
Tesla Model S (left) vs Model X (right) interior
Tesla has also added a Figured Ash as an available interior trim. This trim has been very popular among Model X buyers, but it also happens to be a personal favorite of mine.
Additional Features
The Model S onboard charger has been upgraded from a 40A standard charger to a 48A standard charger, with an option to further increase charging rate by opting for a 72A “high amperage” charger. The older Model S configurations offered a 40A charger standard with an option to upgrade to 80A (‘dual chargers‘).
Tesla also made the automatic lift gate now a standard option which makes sense for a premium vehicle in this price range.
Included in the premium upgrade package is the BioWeapon defense mode air filtration system, as well as ambient interior lighting (previously an optional upgrade).
Pricing
While there were many rumors of a Model S price increase leading up to this design refresh, the new updates do not seem to be reflected in the price.
“The new Model S may actually be less expensive than before”
I priced out the latest Model S with options that I chose from before, and compared the new price side by side with one I previously saved.
The price from before was $98,450 and the new price is $104,450, but despite the price difference there are a couple of key differences which makes for the price disparity. Let me explain.
The last time I configured a Model S I couldn’t locate a high amperage/dual charger option so my $98,450 does not include that option. On the other hand, the updated Model S comes with a 48A charger as a standard feature. This is included in the base price of the vehicle.
Tesla also no longer offers the S85D which I priced-out back then, so this new price is for the 90D. In the past the extra 5 kWh was a $3,000 option.
If you back both of those out to the new price you get to a price difference of $99,950 or a price increase of $500. Keep in mind that the updated Model S also comes with a center console (previously a $650 extra charge) and the new air filtration system. Depending on how you look at it, the new Model S may actually be less expensive than before.
One could easily make the case that the new offering is an improvement over what Tesla offered before and is actually less expensive.
Summary
It’s great to see Tesla keeping the Model S design fresh and current despite all of the activity going on within the company, let alone conquering challenges with launching the Model X and preparing for the Model 3. Being able to pull off this current update – factoring in changes to production, logistics, service, etc – Tesla continues to defy naysayers and show the world what ingenuity and perseverance can accomplish in such a short amount of time.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
