News
Opinion: Tesla Model S Plaid’s ‘packaging symphony’ shows need for a flagship design update
When rumors of the Tesla Model S Plaid started emerging, many were excited to see the company’s new flagship sedan. It takes something special, after all, to dethrone the Model S “Raven” Performance, a vehicle that is already capable of humbling supercars on the quarter-mile. But while the specs of the Plaid definitely did not disappoint, one could not deny that the car’s exterior left much to be desired.
The Tesla Model S Plaid, to put it bluntly, looks very similar to the Model S “Raven” Performance. Save for a slightly wider stance and some updated accents here and there, the car looks nearly identical to its predecessor. This was something that Tesla critics immediately pounced on, and it was something that could have been avoided. The Model S Plaid, after all, is a revolutionary car in its own right. Its ongoing teardown continues to prove it.
A “Packaging Symphony”
Auto veteran Sandy Munro of Munro & Associates is currently in the process of tearing down and analyzing every aspect of the Model S Plaid, and so far, the expert has been impressed with the vehicle. A recent video posted on the Munro Live YouTube channel showcased the Model S Plaid’s rear motor assembly, and as per one of the team’s experts, the vehicle’s rear cradle and electric drive module are nothing short of a “packaging symphony.”
The Munro team’s thoughts on the Model S Plaid were unsurprising, considering that the vehicle is filled to the brim with new innovation. The team even concluded in its rear cradle review that compared to its predecessors, the Model S Plaid is really a new generation vehicle. And in a lot of ways, the car does show it. Its specs are on a completely different level compared to the numbers achieved by the Model S “Raven” Performance, and the Plaid’s interior is fully revamped as well.
Considering that the Model S Plaid is also a completely different car beneath the hood, one could find it unfortunate that Tesla opted to package all this innovation in a body that, while now iconic, is getting a little bit long in the tooth. This is not to say that the Model S’ look is no longer attractive, of course. The Model S is still a beautiful car and its lines are now timeless, but it’s hard to shake the idea that for a vehicle like the Plaid, it would have been better if Tesla implemented just as much updates in the vehicle’s exterior as it did with the car’s interior.
Missed Opportunities
This is especially strange since, in the months leading up to the Model S Plaid’s official release, the internet was abuzz with fan renders of what the updated vehicle could look like. Some were radical, but most were subtle enough that they would not look out of place in Tesla’s lineup. Very few could have predicted the vehicle’s actual design, however, as the Plaid was pretty much identical to the Model S “Raven” Performance.
There is no doubt that the sheer engineering involved in the Model S Plaid’s creation is absolutely insane. Every square inch of the car’s interior and everything behind the hood of the vehicle proves this. It’s just a bit surprising — if not a tad bit disappointing — that Tesla opted to simply maintain the status quo with the vehicle’s exterior, which is something that the company rarely does. Tesla made a name for itself as an automaker that does what it thinks is best, after all, regardless of what the rest of the auto sector thinks. The Cybertruck’s brutalist XY design is an example of that.
Even in a company like Tesla, with a mission as important as those outlined by CEO Elon Musk, it does not hurt to put extra effort in packaging the company’s most formidable vehicles in a body that looks the part. Tesla already did that with the next-generation Roadster, and there is no reason why the company could not do that for its flagship sedan and SUV. The Model S and Model X Plaid would likely be successful in their respective segments — their specs and performance are just that good — but just imagine how much more successful the vehicles could be if their exteriors were redone as much as their interior and tech.
Watch Munro Live‘s teardown of the Model S Plaid’s rear cradle and electric drive module in the video below.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
