One of the more popular Tesla rumors that has made its way through the community is the possibility of a refreshed design of the Model S and Model X. The two cars have had very minor cosmetic adjustments since their introduction in 2012 and 2015. While they contribute to Tesla’s quarterly sales and delivery figures, they are, in essence, sentimental vehicles. At least, that is what Tesla CEO Elon Musk said during a 2019 Tesla Earnings call. “To be totally frank, we’re continuing to make them more for sentimental reasons than anything else. They’re really of minor importance to the future,” Musk said.
Which begs the question: Why is Tesla planning a refresh of the two vehicles now, a year and a half after Musk called the S and X “sentimental” cars that had relatively minor importance to the future. While the Tesla community has certainly convinced itself that a newly designed Model S and Model X are on the way, there is the possibility that it isn’t even going to happen.
It all started when Tesla shut down Model S and Model X production lines in late 2020. The catalyst to all the rumors was that the company was upgrading production lines to handle the redesigned vehicles, and Tesla could agree upon the right modifications to make for the new models. It all makes sense of why many people jumped to “They’re refreshing the cars” right away. After all, the Model 3 just had an update of its own, and it was mostly cosmetic.
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
However, the S and X have been around for so many years, with the only huge change being the nosecone modification. There have been many software updates and performance upgrades, but those apply to every Tesla vehicle, for the most part, with very few exceptions included.
The Model S and Model X production lines being shut down led to me getting nosy and calling my local showroom. I decided to give them a call because they’re always willing to talk about Tesla, and they’re so knowledgeable that it is nice to have a reasonable conversation with someone who knows what is going on within the community. According to who I spoke to, they received emails stating that the lines were being shut down for efficiency reasons. There was no hint toward a redesign of the Model S and Model X. Of course, Tesla isn’t going to tell the showroom associates and sales advisors this. It’s obviously going to stay among the company’s executives.
But if we dig into the efficiency of the Model S and Model X lines at Fremont, it makes a lot of sense. The Model S and Model X only accounted for 18,920 of the over 180,000 vehicles that Tesla delivered in Q4 2020. The car was only delivered 57,039 times for the full year, while Tesla delivered just shy of half a million cars in total.
Tesla Model S and Model X are disappearing from showrooms, further hinting at coming ‘refresh’
Does it make sense to have two production lines dedicated to cars making up only around 12-13% of the total output at Fremont? Could these lines be consolidated into one, with the other line being converted to a 3/Y line? This would alleviate some of the supply constraints that Tesla has with Model 3 and Model Y production. It could enable faster deliveries as demand climbs, and it could enable Tesla to be more efficient in its production of the S and X moving forward.
Musk has been a huge proponent of increasing manufacturing and production efficiency. It makes a lot of sense to me that Tesla would consider shutting down S/X lines to upgrade one line to a 3/Y line; the demand for S/X just isn’t great enough to dedicate two lines to the operation. 3/Y production is much more important.
This is all speculation, and while I do think that Tesla will upgrade and update the S and X in some ways, I don’t see how they can make major changes, especially since the company has already announced and shown the Model S Plaid, which is set to begin deliveries later this year. If Tesla were to refresh the S, there would be a major cause for concern for those who already ordered the Plaid S because it would likely mean a new vehicle would be on its way that would look entirely different than the current Plaid Model S.
It just seems like IF Tesla is going to refresh the S, they will widen the body style as the Plaid Model S has influenced. It will likely not have the rear diffuser or the spoiler. It may just be a wider body style.
Tesla Model S “Refresh” spotted with Plaid-style widebody and new wheels near HQ
Of course, Tesla will also likely implement the 4680 battery cells in the cars, which would revamp the battery pack with more life, power, and longevity. That is if Tesla has the supply for it because the company is still very early on in its battery manufacturing efforts at Kato Road. It is not unlikely that the S and X could be the first cars to use Tesla’s structural battery pack to increase safety and rigidity. Once again, these are all speculation and only thoughts that make sense.
Of course, there is always the possibility that Tesla could be attempting to rebirth the S/X with a complete revamp of its design and infrastructure. It could lead to a less expensive cost. Tesla having 4 vehicles that are mass-market instead of 2 could bring Tesla closer to price parity, increasing the growth of the EV sector. How they will do this, it likely depends on the batteries, which make up so much of the vehicle’s cost. However, the cars will likely need some kind of cosmetic update as well to appeal to customers moving forward. The 3 and Y seem to be more widely accepted, not only because of price but because of look.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
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
