Design Your Model S/Model X pages on the Tesla website now show the refreshed vehicles. The new wheel designs are an improvement.  

Tesla Refreshes Model X And S With Subtle Upgrades And Steeper Prices - Autoblog   Model S And X Get Quiet Refresh And Louder Price Hikes | Carscoops   From a visual standpoint, there’s very little to tell the refreshed Model S and Model X from the outgoing cars. However, the Plaid versions of the duo adopt newly designed front bumpers that give them a slightly more aggressive look. Whether or not that’s a good thing will be a matter of personal taste, but there’s no doubt that despite the basic shape of the Model S now being 13 years old, it still looks good. The Model X, on the other hand, is as bulbous as ever. Read: Why Tesla Pulled The Model S And X From China     Sticking with the visual updates, both models get new wheels. The Model X sports 20- and 22-inch rims, the latter being a $5,500 option, while the Model S can be configured with new 19- and 21-inch wheels, with the larger ones priced at $4,500. Tesla has also incorporated a new and improved camera into the front bumper, while the headlights have been updated with new adaptive functions. According to Tesla, the changes made to the exterior of the Model S Plaid also enhance its high-speed stability.   Much like the most recent updates made to the Model 3 and Model Y, Tesla has also made some upgrades under the skin of both models, although they don’t go as far as the 3 or Y. They include new bushings and an updated suspension ride, which the carmaker says should improve the ride. Other alterations also promise to make the cabin even quieter, thanks in part to a better Active Noise Cancellation system.   The interior of both models has been largely retained from the outgoing model. With that being said, configurable ambient lighting has been added to the dashboard, door panels, and around the center console. Tesla has also proudly boasted of a unique animation for the ambient lighting when the EV is started up, not something you get on the cheaper 3 or Y.

Hey Lawler, you're right but a decade late! The Autoline host said this in 2018: Sergio published his famous “Confessions of a Capital Junkie” essay three years ago, but his conclusions are even more relevant today.   Marchionne declared there are too many automakers making too many similar models and using too many similar components. He saw this duplication of effort as wasting capital. He predicted many automakers will have to merge and even tried to get General Motors to merge with FCA, but that effort went nowhere.   Since he wrote that article, automakers are under even more pressure to invest in areas they never had to spend on before. Not only do they need to electrify their entire product lines, they need to develop autonomous cars and launch mobility services. They need to allot new money to new areas such as cybersecurity and connectivity.   Most of them are straining to come up with the capital to do all that, at the same time they have to continually invest a fortune redesigning and improving their existing product lines.   Some of the duplication in this industry is crazy. For example, GM makes 2.0L 4-cylinder engines. So does Ford. So does FCA. I’m absolutely positive that none of their customers could tell the difference between these engines because the specifications are so similar. The same goes for the different 6-speed and 8-speed automatic transmissions they all make.   Most owners can’t tell you what the displacement of their engine is. Or how many gears are in the transmission. Most don’t care, just like they don’t care who supplied the steel, who made the headlamps or who makes the seats. All they want is a good-looking, comfortable car that drives well, is efficient and reliable.   Engines and transmissions are extremely capital intensive. They take years to design and develop and require a huge amount of tooling. GM, Ford and FCA spend billions of dollars every year duplicating what the other is doing.  By merging their powertrain operations together, they could free up billions in capital.   GM and Ford already have collaborated on designing a couple of automatic transmissions. But it has not saved them the kind of money Marchionne was envisioning. This is not about collaboration or joint ventures.   When automakers collaborate on a project, it tends to go slowly. There are more meetings, more arguments and more compromises. They often collaborate on a product, then bring it back in-house and tweak it more to their own liking. Yes, they save some money, but they could be saving much more.   What the auto industry needs are standalone powertrain suppliers who can make commodity engines and transmissions. OEMs may want to keep some of their high-performance powertrains in-house because the customers who buy them truly care about where they come from. But the commodity stuff can go.

Yea, that's right. More generally the head honcho's dictum of Ford gettin' out of the boring-car business and into the iconic-vehicle business is a good move with little risk. In the U.S., Ford can whack all of its remaining boring unibody anonymous blobs out of the lineup, and focus on only these: Body on frame vehicles Electric vehicles Mustang including MME Bronco including BS Maverick Ford Pro including the services And as you mentioned if Ford can get the spiraling warranty costs under control and also implement lean manufacturing principles properly (which they completely failed to do when I worked for Ford and have failed to do since I left), the combination of an iconic-vehicle product lineup and improved operations management should make 10% pretax net profit margin a reasonable goal for Ford. 

For roughly ten years Ford has successfully marketed EcoBoost engine technology, but if the future involves much greater use of HEV, PHEV, and EREV powertrains, EcoBoost may not be best engine choice, particularly on smaller and lighter vehicles, and also as electric power level is increased.  Ford has the 2.5L Atkinson engine, but may need smaller Atkinson engines for future vehicles that are smaller and or more fuel efficient.  IIRC Toyota and Honda have hybrid powertrains with 1.5 ~ 2.0 liter Atkinson engines, though smallest not necessarily sold in North America.  Anyway, I can imagine a scenario where smaller EcoBoost are phased out and replaced with some type of hybrid.

Looks great but I think they’re missing an opportunity not offering the Dark Horse 5.0 or Raptor 3.5 as an upgrade or a supercharged Predator option from the factory.  Although it is pretty easy to add the supercharger.

Government officials who mandated BEV adoption probably knew they were creating a future grid problem that would require a lot of money to fix, but didn’t want that cost associated directly back to their mandates for fear there would be greater pushback.  Obviously we have been hearing for years all kinds of futuristic plans on how BEVs would be charged with limited affect on grid, and in some cases actually helping the grid by reducing peak loads, but IMO many of those concepts are way out in left field and won’t materialize for a very long time, if ever.   Helping the environment has to start with being honest and objective, and I don’t expect much of either from government officials.  As I’ve stated many times, I believe the correct way to look at BEV charging loads’ effect on power generation and associated emissions must be on an incremental basis, and not on average.  The same applies to AI growth, which is cumulative with BEV charging loads.  Bottom line is that BEVs are not reducing GHGs as much as many proponents claim.  And to make matters worse, when average buyers see a BEV gets 120 MPGe, they have no idea what that really means as it relates to CO2 generated at electricity power plants.  How can they make an informed decision if being misled?  The whole thing is disappointing.

Agree people want what they want, which is often what’s best for them.  A good product will market itself because people will want to buy it without a lot of convincing.  IMO most people are not inherently against EV mobility on principle, so if they are not buying electric cars, maybe we should ask what’s wrong with the cars instead of blaming the people who don’t want to buy them.   When electrification works great in “similar” applications, buyers adapt quickly.  One example are electric versus gas golf carts.  Marketing may be required to differentiate between brands, but many buyers prefer electric over gas due to overall advantages.  Another reminder for me are all the new electric bikes I’m seeing in my community.  There are no gas-bike counterparts (for all practical purposes) so they are a new application of electrification that buyers are embracing willingly.   My point has remained over time that most people are not against BEVs on principle, or against change, or against technology, etc. as much as they are against spending limited resources on vehicles that do not serve them as well overall.  BEVs simply need to be more competitive against ICEVs and HEVs.

Sold for USD $204,000 on 6/10/25. Holy cow!

https://transmissioncoolerguide.com/transmission-coolers/best-transmission-coolers/