News
Tesla’s 75 kWh battery pack removal opens doors to ‘Track Mode’ for Model S & X
In a recent update on Twitter, Elon Musk announced that Tesla would be discontinuing the 75 kWh variants of the Model S and Model X. Starting this coming Monday, Tesla’s two flagship vehicles would only be offered at 100 kWh and 100 kWh Performance versions, widening the price gap between the cars and the company’s newest offering — the Model 3.
In a way, retiring the 75D line seems to be the right decision for Tesla. After all, the Model S 75D, which is priced at $76,000 before options, pretty much overlaps with the price of a fully-loaded Model 3 Performance. That said, this change also results in the base price of the Model S and Model X increasing significantly. The Model S 100D — the vehicle’s base version starting Monday — would start at $94,000, while the Model X 100D would start at $97,000, far higher than the Model X 75D’s starting price of $82,000.
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 https://t.co/46TXqRJ3C1
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 9, 2019
Apart from widening the gap between the more affordable Model 3 and the flagship Model S and X, though, the retirement of the 75 kWh battery pack also opens the doors to a very likely battery upgrade for the full-size sedan and SUV. The Model S and X, after all, are still equipped with 18650 cells, which are smaller and a bit older than the 2170 cells being used on the Model 3. These cells are also imported from Panasonic’s facilities in Japan, instead of being produced in Gigafactory 1.
By retiring the 75 kWh battery pack, Tesla would give itself an opportunity to roll out the newer cells to its flagship vehicles. The 2170 cells, for one, would probably even allow the Performance-branded Model S and X to handle extended track driving. Part of the reason behind the current generation Model S and X’s inability to be competitive on the track, after all, is their batteries, which have a tendency to overheat after a few laps around a closed circuit. This particular issue has been largely addressed by Tesla with the Model 3 and its 2170 cells, as evidenced by the vehicle’s dedicated Track Mode setting.
A Track Mode feature for the Performance Model S and X would make the vehicles even more fearsome than they already are. Even with their general inability to be driven on a racecourse, the Model S and Model X have nonetheless developed a reputation as monsters in straight-line races over the years. Equipped with a battery that has the same tech as the Model 3 — from its 2170 cells to its clever cooling systems — the Model S and X would be downright frightening.
Apart from opening the doors to Track Mode, an update to 2170 cells would likely result in more range for the Model S and Model X as well. This is something that Tesla could definitely use as a selling point for its flagship vehicles, considering that the competition, including the Porsche Taycan and the Jaguar I-PACE, are still pretty much competing against the bar set by vehicles that were created during the 18650 cell era. One can only speculate how much range a Long Range version of the Model S would have if it were equipped with 2170 cells. Perhaps even a 400-mile range? Such a scenario is plausible.
Hidden within this new update from Elon Musk, though, is something that bodes well for the company’s upcoming vehicle — the Model Y. Seeing as Tesla retired the Model X 75D, the company’s only SUV in its lineup now starts at $97,000. That’s very expensive, and this price notably reduces the size of the vehicle’s potential consumer base in an incredibly popular segment. By adopting this strategy at this point, Tesla appears to be hinting at the release of another, more affordable SUV that can compete more aggressively than the entry-level Model X. This vehicle, of course, would be the Model Y.
The Model Y has been in the rumor mill for some time now. In recent months, though, Elon Musk has provided a number of updates on the vehicle. During the company’s third-quarter earnings call, for one, Musk mentioned that he had already approved the construction of the Model Y’s alpha prototype. Musk has also joked that the upcoming SUV would be unveiled this 2018, perhaps sometime in the first half of the year.
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
