News
Tesla’s Q1 delivery results highlight the need for a Model S and Model X update
One of the most notable takeaways from Tesla’s Q1 2019 vehicle production and deliveries report was the steep decline in Model S and Model X sales. Over the course of the quarter, Tesla produced 14,150 Model S and X, a drastic drop from the 25,000 units that were manufactured last quarter. Deliveries of the flagship sedan and SUV also fell to 12,100 units. Under these circumstances, it appears that the time is now right for Tesla to start preparing for the release of an updated Model S and Model X.
A steep decline
Tesla did not provide a commentary behind the decline in Model S and X sales. This does not mean that the lower production and delivery figures of the vehicles were a complete surprise, as Tesla did shift a lot of its efforts in producing the Model S in favor of the Model 3 in Q1. The vehicles’ entry-level trim, the 75D variant, was also discontinued. Thus, the signs of a decline were already there. What was really surprising was the scope and gravity of the decline.
A possible explanation behind the Model S and Model X’s numbers in the first quarter may lie in the simple fact that the vehicles, particularly the full-size premium sedan, are getting long in the tooth. Tesla started producing the Model S in 2012, and the vehicle has pretty much stayed the same since then, save for a facelift when the Model X was released. Granted, improvements were rolled out to the Model S as soon as they were available, as noted by Elon Musk in a tweet, but design-wise, Tesla’s flagship sedan is still practically competing in the market with a nearly 7-year-old interior and exterior.
The Model 3’s immense success did not help the Model S’ case either. It should be noted that Tesla anti-sold the Model 3 after it was unveiled, with the company and Elon Musk asserting that the Model S was a superior vehicle. Now that the Model 3 is making a mark in several markets across the globe, it is becoming evident that the electric sedan is simply Tesla’s best bang-for-your-buck car. With Tesla’s latest hardware and batteries, the Model 3 is a solid choice. Other Model 3-specific features, such as Track Mode for the Performance variant, add to the vehicle’s attractiveness to car buyers.
The Model 3 is such a solid vehicle that it is starting to make the Model S a harder sell, at least in its present iteration. Granted, the Model S is larger, and it has more bells and whistles such as Smart Air Suspension and a second display, but these are luxuries that a significant number of car buyers will likely be willing to forego in exchange for savings associated with a Model 3 purchase. The Tesla Model Y appears set to do the same to the Model X as well, as the vehicle presents much of the premium SUV’s advantages in a smaller package, at a far more affordable price.
A better Model S and X in the Model 3 era
If Tesla wishes to rekindle the interest and justify the higher prices of its flagship sedan and SUV, it would be a good idea to introduce updated versions of the vehicles as soon as the company is able. These improvements can come in various forms, such as better range, significantly better performance, and a far more exquisite exterior and interior design. With these improvements in place, the Model S and X will not only have the advantage of larger cabin space and a handful of unique features over their more affordable stablemates. They will be vehicles that are truly, without a doubt, a class above the Model 3 (and the Model Y for that matter).
It’s not like Tesla does not seem to be preparing for a potential Model S and Model X update either. Last year, a patent application emerged depicting a Model S/X dashboard equipped with the Model 3’s clever and acclaimed HVAC system. Panasonic, Tesla’s battery partner, also announced last November that it is doubling down on its partnership with the electric car maker by bringing some of its Japan-based battery cell production activities to the United States.
In a statement to the Nikkei Asian Review, Panasonic stated that it will be bringing its operations that build the Model S and Model X’s 18650 cells over to a “US-based unit starting (next) April (2019).” Elon Musk noted during the Q4 earnings call that there are no plans to change the Model S and Model X’s batteries to 2170 cells. Perhaps improved 18650 cells are in order with Panasonic’s move to the US? One can hope.
At this point in Tesla’s history, it would probably be wise to temper expectations with regards to the Model S and Model X’s quarterly sales. Tesla is now at a point where it is pursuing the mass market, and the company is accomplishing this with the Model 3 (and later, the Model Y). The Model S and Model X will definitely still be the company’s flagships, but they will likely just see a sustained demand of perhaps 25,000 per quarter, and that’s completely fine. Both vehicles were brought to market to prove that electric cars can be better than their gasoline-powered counterparts. Both vehicles already accomplished their mission. The Model 3 and Model Y is proof of that.
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
