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.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
