I am hoping for an earlier than expected S/X with 120kWh from 2170's. It's been heavily implied by JB Straubbel, +40% in battery density over the 2012 Model S.
85 * 1.4 = 119.
And with a 10% more dense cell dimensionally, plus newly developed chemistry (+10%), you're there, 119kWh.
But lest not forget that 2170's fit upright, like 18650, in the same batteryhousing. So really there is 70/65 = 108% the volume usage.
Tesla may not even need the new chemistry to make a 120kWh pack. Or, the largest pack may bump to 130kWh overnight. At the same manufacturing cost. Split the benefit with the customer, and everyone gets a cheaper better car, with Tesla making more margin on an already really high margin car.
A 100D (from 18650's) would be a minor update (really a downgrade), just a bit early if ready to ship this year.
Really I'd like them to offer a hypermiler that has a longer gear ratio on a single rear motor layout, eclipsing the range a D layout would manage, in part due to weight saving, and in part due to a 4 years optimized rear motor. Say, a Model 3 motor, in beta of sorts. No need for 300kW output, a hypermiler will be more than happy with 200kWh. It's all about reducing consumption at 50-80mph. If the D does that using mostly the smaller front motor, why use the rear at all? Stick the small one in the back, add cargo space, most would be happy. Voilá, a 360 mile car, say at the price of a currrent -90-.
Don't get me started on a 120-130kWh non-D car with updated drivetrain for slight improved consumption.
Even a PL version that utilized (if at all possible with this tech) higher output power from the battery. Even quicker 0-60, really? Unless motors are built that don't heat as quickly, 1/4 times will not improve toooo much if at all.
Elon Musk Verified account @elonmusk 
