News
An inside look at Tesla’s P100D battery pack: more cells, 102 kWh capacity, backwards compatibility in mind
New details of Tesla’s mysterious P100D battery pack, which Tesla CTO JB Straubel once described as having notable changes in battery module and pack technology, and a “complete redo on the cooling architecture”, have emerged thanks to Jason Hughes’s latest project.
Hughes posted photos of a dismantled 100 kWh battery pack, which he obtained through the purchase of a salvaged Tesla P100D, that reveal an increase in the number of 18650 lithium-ion cells being packed within each battery module. Hughes also discovered a surprising increase in battery capacity beyond 100 kWh, and what appears to be a replaceable connector that allows Tesla to retrofit older vehicles with the newer battery pack.
More 18650 Battery Cells
As outlined in Hughes’s blog post, Tesla was able to fit more of its cylindrical 18650 lithium-ion battery cells into each of the 16 modules making up the P100D battery pack. It’s worth noting that Tesla has maintained a relatively similar form factor on battery packs produced for Model S and Model X vehicles since their introduction. Regardless of the vehicle’s model version – be it a P85, a 60, 75D, or 90D – the uniform skateboard design of the battery pack allows for ease of production, as Tesla can manufacture a single-style pack that can be installed across its fleet of vehicles. Under that same notion, Tesla has also been able to create ‘unlockable features’ by software limiting vehicle range depending on the option purchased by the customer. In other words, Tesla installs the same battery pack into like-kind vehicles (e.g. Model S 60 uses the same pack as Model S 75).
Tesla P85 battery pack module vs. P100D module [Credit: Jason Hughes via @wk057]
Hughes’s dissection of the P100D battery shows that Tesla leveraged the same design concept by distributing a total of 8,256 battery cells across the 16 modules making up the battery pack, bringing total capacity up to the advertised 100 kWh number. However, and much to Hughes’s surprise – he had previously criticized Tesla for providing less battery capacity than what’s perceived by way of the vehicle’s nameplate – Tesla actually provided 102.4 kWh of capacity on the P100D pack, representing a 2.4% increase over what’s marketed.
Backwards Compatible Design
Tesla has also, seemingly, taken into account the ability to retrofit new battery packs onto older vehicles by using the same high and low-voltage connectors across packs. According to Hughes, “the pack itself has the same high-voltage connection, the same low voltages connectors, and the same cooling connector.” However, Hughes notes that there’s subtle changes on the P100D pack that would require a new part in order for it to be retrofittable onto non-P100D vehicles.
“The [P100D] pack has the newer ring around the high-voltage connector. So, it’s plug-and-play (for the most part, firmware and config changes needed) on the Model X and refreshed Model S, however it would require a different spacer ring on the high voltage connector. Tesla even has a part number for it, so it should be pretty simple to put into any Model S/X.” says Hughes.
What about that new P100D battery cooling architecture?
Well. It’s not magic. Tesla did improve battery cooling in the new P100D 100 kWh battery pack. And Tesla did provide a redone architecture, but it isn’t one of mythical proportions.
Hughes reveals Tesla’s approach to improve battery pack cooling was to use shorter and thinner cooling loops per battery module, thereby improving the rate of heat dissipation. Unlike most other electric car makers who do not “prime” their vehicle’s batteries through the use of a thermal management system, Tesla pumps fluid through the battery module to regulate the temperature of its battery pack in order to bring them to optimal operating temperatures. By ensuring the lithium-ion cells operate within ideal temperatures, Tesla is able to provide the best performance possible, while ensuring cell longevity.
Tesla P100D battery module cooling loops [Credit: Jason Hughes]
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
