75 S and X discontinued

[Destiny1701]

My prediction is the switch to the 2170 cells with the following ranges:

Model X SR - 250 miles
Model X MR - 320 miles
Model X LR Performance - 350 miles

Model S SR - 275 miles
Model S MR - 350 miles
Model S LR Performace - 400 miles

SR is plenty of miles for most people, keeps entry price down and boosts sales, MR offers more range For those who need it, and then package the LR with performance at an ultra premium EV at an ultra premium price to help increase the average margin (in dollars) for the S and X.

I like your thought I still believe they may start the model SX battery at the LR M3 range...same battery to streamline production of 2170. It no longer makes sense to continue a version of their premium S/X brand with less range than an M3.

I think it may be more an SR, LR, PLR lineup.
2 batteries not 3.

 

[ICUDoc]

Agree that this is a move to 2170, which means lighter/cheaper/smaller battery packs per given kwh

Yes, this makes sense to me. Can anyone show me a link to an analysis of 2170(0) vs 18650 with respect to capacity, weight, power, cooling of the whole battery pack (not individual cells as I found that already- but can't work out the differences when putting all the cells together as packed cylinders)? I understand it will be an informed guess but the geek in me wants to enjoy thinking about the numbers...

 

[MassX1317]

I like your thought I still believe they may start the model SX battery at the LR M3 range...same battery to streamline production of 2170. It no longer makes sense to continue a version of their premium S/X brand with less range than an M3.

I think it may be more an SR, LR, PLR lineup.
2 batteries not 3.

The S and X would get a lot less range than the 3 with the same battery.

Also, the protection for the model 3 battery is in the structure of the car. In the S and X the batteries are protected more by the pack and the pack becomes part of the structure of the car.

I think the 3/Y, S/X and Roadster/Pickup Truck will each have their own sets of batteries.

 

[vickh]

If history is a guide, probably not initially. Over time, yes.

theoritcally it could help the lower range CPO hold their price better right? They would fill the void b/t M3 and 100D that new cant'

 

[vickh]

Still have my original 40 (locked) w/CHAdeMO. 90k miles. No regrets (so far). I've also owned a 3... and I've often recommended a low end S or CPO to those considering a 3. The S, despite it's design age is a better car (IMO).
.

care to share why your MS recommendations why you got rid of the 3 esp given the leap from no AP in your MS 40?

 

[Chunky Jr.]

I have a 2013 P85, and the main thing that would compel me to upgrade is significantly higher range. 400+ miles would do that. Not just for competitive reasons, but maybe they want to bump the range because there are a lot more people like me holding onto their cars and not upgrading and they want to pick up some of that pent up demand.

 

[aaron0k]

care to share why your MS recommendations why you got rid of the 3 esp given the leap from no AP in your MS 40?

Off-topic, but since you asked... bought the 3 as a 'surprise' Xmas (2017) present for my wife; to replace the 40. After 3 months, she wanted the 40 back.

M3 vs MS:
1. Reduced cargo space and overall room (frunks on 2013 RWD's are huge).
2. Couldn't get used to the console and single centered display.
3. Horrible rear camera, that you couldn't leave on (and wouldn't want to). By far her biggest annoyance.
4. No power rear lift.
5. Funky door handles.
6. Phone Key = Poopoo. No keyfob option at the time (and still no passive entry)

- Range on the 40 was adequate for her daily needs and we have more CHAdeMO chargers in our area vs. SC.
- She didn't care about 0-60 performance or AP (mostly local streets).
- Coil suspension felt better on the 40 (though I didn't agree).

However, it costs a lot more to insure a 2013 MS vs. a 2017 3.

Personally, I loved driving the 3. Very sporty and nimble. In the end I agreed that the 2013 MS offered more convenience for her than the 3.

If you're coming from a MS/MX, you'll miss certain things. However, everyone has different needs and preferences; it's great that Tesla has more options to fit those desires.

 

[JPoldo]

Poll - why dropping the 75 S/X?

I leased a S75 in Aug 2017 and have no regrets. To get the price below $80k, I selected the 75 battery, deletied AP and dual motors, and a few other goodies denying Tesla of some high profit items. But had to have the pano roof, premium audio, ash interior, and blue exterior. So pleased to drive the luxurious S75 over a longer range M3.

 

[whitex]

While I still believe this is to improve profit margins, there is another part to this which I haven't seen mentioned here - if 75's are in fact discontinued and won't return next quarter as a sales lever (get a 75 with referral), it will put some positive pressure on the used Model S/X (not just 75's), combined with the rebate going away, this could help Tesla stay in the "lowest depreciation in its class".

 

[electronblue]

It is not impossible there could be an intermediate step before 2170 like renaming batteries to Standard and Long Range while keeping them initially as 18650 batteries maybe ~80 kWh and 100 kWh for example to continue on the depopulated 100 kWh line of thinking. The Standard Range product would then have slightly better public specs and higher price as 75 did but not yet be a sea change. [100 kWh would simply be = Long Range battery in this idea. Eventually these would be replaced by 2170 products with better specs but same names.]

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=39834&flag=1

 

[CRASHER]

Looks like you have a date with a power pole in your future.

No, but at least I won't be try to save when someone decide to pull in front on HOV lanes.

 

[fbitz777]

Tesla must provide an X at the current pricing of the X75 or they'll loose me in future purchase....I have a GLS for less already
Then there is Ipace and EQC. Discussion about moving down to Model 3 don't make any sense as I need SUV with lots of cargo room.

103k+tax is the minimum I am now able to price the X100 (with EAP)...ridiculous unless they have another announcement soon.

This will deter existing X75 owners from upgrading for a while.

 

[GoTzillaR]

While I still believe this is to improve profit margins, there is another part to this which I haven't seen mentioned here - if 75's are in fact discontinued and won't return next quarter as a sales lever (get a 75 with referral), it will put some positive pressure on the used Model S/X (not just 75's), combined with the rebate going away, this could help Tesla stay in the "lowest depreciation in its class".

Well, while I agree with you, it's hard to believe that tesla can stay competitive n the premium market without an S/X in the price range of what current 75kw is at. So I guess we are only getting half of the news and the other half is the 100kw will get a $5k drop. If this really happens, depreciation will be worse than we expect.

 

[Olle]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the comparison of base level S/X with the "Tesla Killers", as these start trickling out to journalists and youtubers. 75 kWh doesn't sound good when Audi, Jag and Porsche start at 90 and 95.
Remember Jaguar's drag race between X75D and iPace? These things are not good PR and by deleting 75, Tesla's big models can stay clear for a while, even if higher range options weren't to be immediately released. Perhaps base S/X 0-60 will be lowered to 3.5 sec for the same reason?

 

[Floridian21]

Well, while I agree with you, it's hard to believe that tesla can stay competitive n the premium market without an S/X in the price range of what current 75kw is at. So I guess we are only getting half of the news and the other half is the 100kw will get a $5k drop. If this really happens, depreciation will be worse than we expect.

I agree with you. A vision into a noob mind from someone who had just started looking recently and is not ‘educated’ on long term ownership of a Tesla : What this is effectively doing for me is saying “75 is a has been and 100 is new normal ..and you can not even imagine what the future will bring (120..150?)!” I feel like going for a used 75 after announcement for me is what going for a 40 would have felt like in 2015/2016. This is my naive opinion thinking out loud.

 

[Chunky Jr.]

I think it is smart for Tesla to focus on range rather than battery pack size. A competitor could have a car with a larger battery but have lower range, and some buyers could be duped into thinking it is better. Reminds me of the old MHz/GHz wars in the computer industry when Apple and PCs were trying to compete on clock speed specs even though they weren't a good measure of relative speed.

 

[ecarfan]

MR (Mid Range)

It's all about marketing. Nobody wants a short range. That is why there isn't a short range Model 3 option. LOL

I think it is worth keeping in mind that the term “Short Range” or “SR” is not a Model 3-related term that Tesla uses as far as I know. It’s something that started being bandied about on TMC and elsewhere online.

When the 3 first went into production, Tesla announced that the car would initially only be available with the “Long Range” battery option, and that the “base” version would be available later. Then several months ago there was the surprise announcement of the “Mid Range” version at a lower cost. The $35K base Model 3 is coming later this year. Tesla is not calling it the “Short Range” version, for good reason, which you point out.

Back to the S/X 75D discontinuation announcement: I agree with many posters in this thread that it seems unlikely Tesla will only offer a single S/X battery size, whether it is 100 or something greater that results from the switch to 2170 cells. If Tesla did that, the base price of the S/X would rise significantly and sales would suffer.

As noted upthread, Elon tweeted yesterday confirmation that S/X pack sizes going forward would no longer be designated with numbers. That does not surprise me; it’s the right thing to do for many reasons. I expect that, like the 3, there will be a base S/X battery and a “Long Range” battery option, likely starting next Monday.

SPECULATION
It seems reasonable to assume that this change in battery designation will be done at the same time as a significant change to the battery packs themselves. We know the 75 pack is going away on Monday. We know that Tesla iterates and improves as rapidly as the technology allows it to. The 18650 is now an “old” cell type. The 2170 is Tesla’s “new” cell type. If production capacity is available, it seems inevitable that Tesla will switch to the 2170 for S/X packs, which will result in greater total pack capacity in the same volume (the entire pack architecture would need to be redesigned to accomate the slightly larger cells but since there is no more room in the vehicle for a bigger pack enclosure without a massive chassis redesign, I suspect Tesla has been able to accomplish that).

So my expectation is that on Monday, Tesla will announce new EPA numbers for the base S/X, from 259/237 to something like 300/272. That will put the base S/X well above the base Model 3 at 220 and better serve to differentiate the two model lines.

At the same time, Tesla will announce the EPA numbers for the optional “Long Range” S/X battery pack as something around 385/340, raising the bar for the competition and maintaining Tesla’s huge advantage over the various “Tesla killer” full size sedans and SUVs that other manufacturers have announced.
/SPECULATION

 

[Chunky Jr.]

S & 3 need to differentiate on more than range. I'd hate to see the 3 artificially capped at a range that is less than the S. If they had a 400 mile S and a 400 mile 3, people should be able to pick which one they prefer based on performance, storage, looks, comfort, etc. Similar to how people choose a 5 series BMW over a 3 series. They don't do it because the 5 series can go further on a tank of gas.

 

[ecarfan]

S & 3 need to differentiate on more than range. I'd hate to see the 3 artificially capped at a range that is less than the S. If they had a 400 mile S and a 400 mile 3, people should be able to pick which one they prefer based on performance, storage, looks, comfort, etc. Similar to how people choose a 5 series BMW over a 3 series. They don't do it because the 5 series can go further on a tank of gas.

A major part of the manufacturing cost of an EV is the capacity of the battery pack. I suspect it is a greater percentage of the total vehicle cost than an ICE typically is to conventional vehicles. Making a 20 gallon or a 10 gallon gas tank costs basically the same: making a 300 mile range battery costs far more than making a 200 mile range battery. In addition, the physically larger S/X can accommodate a physically larger battery pack enclosure.

Because of those factors, it makes sense for Tesla to differentiate model lines based on range.

And all car manufacturers “artificially” restrict or enhance vehicle performance to some degree to emphasize model line differences.

 

[Erleichda]

The 2170 cell is around 50% larger by volume than the 18650, but it can deliver almost double the current (the 18650 delivers 3,000 mA, and the 2170 has been tested at 5,750-6,000 mA). It's how the smaller Model 3 was able to attain lower cost and better range per size of the battery pack. It's the highest energy density at the lowest cost in the World. Both batteries cost the same to produce now. Why wouldn't they want that efficiency in the S and X too?

So the relatively larger skateboard pack on the Model S and X might be able to fit more 2170 than a model 3 since they are bigger. Hence, they would have only one Battery module to produce, which would give it an even greater advantage over competition in range. (e.g. the Jag IPace battery at 90kw is ~30% larger than the 75kw 18650 module Model X to get arguably the same range. Imagine if the X was using the 2170! Theoretically you might see midrange of 300 and LR nearing 400miles.)

As others have mentioned, the upcoming 350w Chargers only work with 2170 too. Thus...time for a battery upgrade which is Tesla's secret weapon.