News
Updated: Tesla Model Y specification discrepancy has experts scratching their heads
Update: 5/3 12:40 pm est: Tesla has updated the specifications of the Model Y RWD in North America. See para. 3
A discrepancy in the Tesla Model Y’s specifications leaves experts and fans confused and wondering what will come to the United States.
Tesla has always been at least a little tight-lipped about its engineering and design, and this pseudo-secrecy certainly isn’t aided by its lack of a communications team. However, this has come to a head recently as fans have discovered a discrepancy in the specifications of Tesla’s newest offering, the rear-wheel-drive single-motor Model Y, which currently is only sold in select markets.
The Tesla Model Y spec discrepancy was first identified by Mathias Føns on Twitter, who pointed out that the Model Y RWD sold in North America is significantly heavier and charges substantially faster than its counterpart abroad.
The??Tesla Model Y RWD that recently launched has head-scratching specs
It weighs 319kg more than the??MY LR
Furthermore, it weighs 389kg more than the??MY RWD, has 47% higher max supercharging capabilities & ~15 km lower range (WLPT→EPA)
Did Tesla stealth launch new MY tech? pic.twitter.com/tYqoow7x4e
— Mathias Føns (@FonsDK) May 2, 2023
Since its discovery, Tesla has updated its website, decreasing the weight listed in North America to match the global model. However, the Model Y RWD outside of North America still charges at 170kW, while its North American counterpart charges at 250kW. Tesla has not publically addressed this disparity.
Looking at the spec sheets posted on Tesla websites worldwide, the heavier and faster charging Model Y RWD is only being sold in North America, including both Canada and Mexico, though the vehicle is not yet available in the States. In contrast, models sold in Australia, Europe, and Asia are lighter and charge significantly slower. Specifically, the North American model is 389kg (857.6 lbs) heavier than its global counterpart and charges almost twice as fast, 250kW vs. 170kW. The listed weight of the model sold in China is 2kg heavier than the one sold in Europe, but it has the same recorded charging speed.
The two models also seem to differ slightly in estimated range, though they aren’t precisely comparable considering they use entirely different testing schedules; EPA in North America, WLTP in Europe and Australia, and CLTC in China.
Strangely, this discrepancy continues when comparing the Model Y RWD with the Model Y Long-Range AWD sold in the same market. According to the Tesla Canada website, the RWD is 319kg (703.3 lbs) heavier than the LR AWD, though they charge at the same speed, 250kW.
While some have hypothesized that this weight difference has to do with how the weight is measured in each country, the more likely difference, which could also explain the dramatic difference in charging speed, is battery chemistry. Tesla does not list this difference on its website. Still, using lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries in North America would explain the incredible weight difference and the charging speed increase, that is, if the global model is using a lithium nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) battery.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has previously noted that the automaker plans to switch all of its lower-priced offerings to the cheaper-to-produce LFP battery, further adding credence to the battery chemistry hypothesis.
With Tesla expected to continue to grow the reach of each of its product lines, many anticipate it will only be a matter of time before the RWD variant of the Model Y makes its way to Tesla’s home market, the United States. And with the rest of North America already using the heavier, faster charging model, Americans should expect access to this variant instead of the global version.
Along with the charging speed bump, the LFP battery would provide significantly improved durability and battery lifespan compared to those sold in Europe, Asia, and Australia.
What do you think of the article? Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns? Shoot me an email at william@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @WilliamWritin. If you have news tips, email us at tips@teslarati.com!
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Investor's Corner
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk is not happy about this Tesla Full Self-Driving approval delay
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.


