Tesla Updates Model S, Model X, Significantly Raises Prices
Tesla just gave both the Model S sedan and the Model X SUV minor facelifts.
The changes include a new paint color, improved noise cancellation, updated suspension bushings, and slightly more range for the Model S, among others.
The biggest difference is the price, with the cost of all configurations of the Model S and Model X rising by $5000 on Tesla's consumer site.
Tesla just launched updated versions of its two flagship cars, the Model S sedan and the Model X SUV. The updates themselves are pretty minor, but the price changes that come with them are significant.
Tesla
There's a new paint color called Frost Blue, new wheel designs that Tesla says help improve efficiency, a new camera installed in the front bumper for forward visibility, dynamic ambient lighting in the dash and door cards on entry, new adaptive headlights, and, in the Model X, more third-row space. The Model S Plaid also gets new exterior styling, which the company says improves high-speed stability.
Tesla also says the changes improve ride quality for both cars, with updated suspension bushings and a new suspension design—likely following the lead of recent changes to the Model 3 and Model Y. Improved sound-deadening materials and active noise cancellation should make the cabin quieter as well. The non-Plaid Model S also ekes out a few extra miles, with the EPA now rating the standard-battery version at 410 miles of range compared with the previous 402 rating.
Then there's the price, which jumps by $5000 across every configuration. The Model S now starts at $86,630, with the Model S Plaid cresting six figures and starting at $101,630. The standard-range Model X now starts at $91,630, and the Model X Plaid at $106,630. According to Tesla's post announcing the updates, the refreshed cars are available to order now, with both models showing two to four weeks for delivery.
Jack Fitzgerald
Associate News Editor
Jack Fitzgerald's love for cars stems from his as yet unshakable addiction to Formula 1.
After a brief stint as a detailer for a local dealership group in college, he knew he needed a more permanent way to drive all the new cars he couldn't afford and decided to pursue a career in auto writing. By hounding his college professors at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, he was able to travel Wisconsin seeking out stories in the auto world before landing his dream job at Car and Driver. His new goal is to delay the inevitable demise of his 2010 Volkswagen Golf. Read full bio
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
9 minutes ago
- Forbes
Bitcoin Battle: Saylor's Dream Meets Chanos' Reality
Michael Saylor, co-founder and executive chairman of MicroStrategy Inc., speaks during the Bitcoin ... More 2025 conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, US, on Thursday, May 29, 2025. The event will examine Bitcoin's evolving global impact, with speakers from education, policy, finance, and technology. Photographer: Ronda Churchill/Bloomberg It's rare to see two titans of finance openly clashing on Bloomberg. On one side, you have Jim Chanos, the short-selling legend who made his name exposing Enron, now calling a multi-billion-dollar Bitcoin strategy 'financial gibberish.' On the other, Michael Saylor, the billionaire evangelist who transformed MicroStrategy into a leveraged crypto play, fired back that Chanos 'just doesn't get it' and is ignoring a model that has 'generated $8.4 billion in shareholder value.' This dispute isn't just a squabble; it's a philosophical showdown. At its core, the debate focuses on a fundamental question in modern investing: is Saylor's company a revolutionary tool for wealth creation, or is it just a glorified Bitcoin tracker that trades at an unjustifiable premium? When a legendary short seller calls your model absurd, and you counter by claiming billions in value creation, Wall Street takes notice. And so should we. Beneath the headlines lies a deeper question: what should we value, and how should we determine that? The name Jim Chanos evokes shivers in boardrooms. Best known for shorting Enron before its collapse, Chanos has built his reputation sniffing out companies with weak fundamentals and flashy facades. To him, valuation matters. Cash flows matter. Reality matters. On the opposite end of the spectrum stands Michael Saylor, the philosophical bull turned Bitcoin maximalist. Once the CEO of a quiet business intelligence firm, Saylor transformed MicroStrategy with a bold financial experiment: raise debt and equity, buy Bitcoin, repeat. While Chanos sees a threat, Saylor envisions a future secured by digital scarcity and conviction. It's not just a disagreement over numbers. It's a clash of belief systems: value versus vision, discipline versus disruption, and fundamentals versus faith. The stakes aren't just about one stock; they're about which worldview wins the next decade. DELIVERING ALPHA — Pictured: Jim Chanos, Founder and Managing Partner, Kynikos Associates, during ... More the Best Ideas panel at the 6th annual CNBC Institutional Investor Delivering Alpha Conference on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at the Pierre Hotel in New York — (Photo by: Heidi Gutman/CNBC/NBCU Photo Bank/NBCUniversal via Getty Images) When you set aside the brand and discussions about legacy software, Strategy, formerly known as MicroStrategy, no longer operates as a tech company. It's a leveraged Bitcoin holding vehicle with a public ticker. The playbook is simple, bold, and controversial: issue equity or preferred shares, use the proceeds to buy Bitcoin, then do it all over again. Rinse, repeat, and continue the cycle. This model has transformed Saylor's firm into a robust corporate Bitcoin ETF. But unlike a regulated ETF, Strategy isn't passive. It's actively engineering upside using capital markets. To Saylor, this technique is an innovation. He calls it 'financial engineering for the digital age,' a form of monetary arbitrage. Borrow at 10%, bet on Bitcoin appreciating at 50%+, and shareholders pocket the difference. Critics like Jim Chanos call it something else: dangerous leverage masked as genius. They argue that the company is no longer generating value through operations or fundamentals but through financial alchemy based entirely on Bitcoin's price rising forever. However, others are copying Saylor's blueprint. Trump Media, other crypto-adjacent SPACs, and a crop of speculative small caps are now mimicking this model of equity offerings, hype, and digital assets as collateral. The question is no longer what Strategy does. It's how long the market will reward it for doing it. Never one to hold back, Jim Chanos views Strategy's valuation as detached from reality. At the heart of his critique is what he calls a 'yawning disconnect' between the company's share price and its actual Bitcoin holdings. Chanos argues that Strategy's current trading at approximately 1.8 times its net asset value (NAV), essentially its Bitcoin per-share value, is irrational. 'That's like buying Bitcoin with an 80% premium slapped on,' he told Bloomberg. To illustrate, Chanos offers a memorable analogy: 'It's like saying my house that rose in value from $450,000 to $500,000 last year is not worth $500,000. It's worth $1.5 million because it is worth $500,000 plus a 20 multiple on the $50,000 increase. Of course, that's absurd.' He argues that little more than hype and financial sleight of hand sustain this premium. Chanos disclosed that he shorted Strategy when the NAV premium was between 2.2 and 2.3 times, expecting it to compress back toward 1x. His position reflects more than just a tactical trade; it's a philosophical objection to what he sees as a marketing-driven vehicle masquerading as a technology company. 'This is not a tech business,' Chanos says. 'It's a tracker fund with leverage and a bullhorn.' He believes that the sole significant innovation in this situation is the branding, and he is confident that the market will eventually recognize it. From my seat after three decades of analyzing markets, bubbles, and breakups, I can say this: both Jim Chanos and Michael Saylor are right, but they're having two different conversations. Saylor has built a model that's undeniably worked as long as Bitcoin keeps climbing. He's turned capital markets into a Bitcoin-buying engine, leveraged the spread between the cost of debt and BTC appreciation, and framed that delta as value creation. That playbook has printed shareholder gains. There's no disagreement at that point. But Chanos isn't debating Bitcoin. He is questioning the valuation multiple, and he is correct in doing so. Strategy trades at a ~1.8x premium to its net Bitcoin holdings. Strip away the narrative, and you're paying $1.80 for every $1.00 of crypto exposure. Would you do that for gold? Would you choose to invest in Tesla stock, which has a substantial cash reserve? This conversation isn't a debate about crypto conviction; it's about valuation discipline. As investors, our job is to ask not what the company owns, but how the market is pricing it. Markets misprice dreams all the time. The challenge is knowing when the dream is priced in and when it's overbought. Saylor may be running the most successful macro trade of the decade. But Chanos reminds us: even the best trades can lose their edge when priced like religion, not risk. This saga is not just a dispute between two titans of finance, but it also serves as a lesson in understanding market perception. Don't confuse performance with fundamentals. MicroStrategy isn't a tech innovator anymore; it's a Bitcoin carry trade dressed in corporate clothing. Investors must ask: are you buying a business or renting exposure to an asset? 'Story stocks' often thrive on blurred lines between narrative and numbers. That's where risk hides. Financial engineering, despite its power, has both positive and negative effects. When done with precision, it unlocks value. When misunderstood, it magnifies volatility and obscures true worth. Know what you own. Respect the difference between price action and pricing power. Above all, avoid mistaking a trade for a strategy. This feud between Chanos and Saylor is more than a personality clash on Bitcoin, it's a mirror held up to modern markets. Fundamentally, it compels us to consider a more profound inquiry: what should we incentivize? Should we reward profits or performance? Should we prioritize substance over spectacle? When does bold strategy become reckless leverage? And when does skepticism blind us to financial innovation? Chanos sees a tracker fund in a tuxedo dressed up, overvalued, and divorced from fundamentals. Saylor sees the future of corporate finance leveraging cheap capital to capture asymmetric upside. The market, for now, seems to be siding with the tuxedo, favoring Saylor's bold Bitcoin vision over Chanos' valuation discipline. However, seasoned investors are aware that markets often make subtle changes before making significant ones. Whether it's Saylor's leveraged bet on Bitcoin or Chanos' warning about unsustainable premiums, the real risk lies in the assumptions we fail to question. Pay attention not just to the noise but to what's quietly being priced in.
CNBC
12 minutes ago
- CNBC
Google, Scale AI's largest customer, plans split after Meta deal, sources say
Alphabet's Google, the largest customer of Scale AI, plans to cut ties with Scale after news broke that rival Meta is taking a 49% stake in the AI data-labeling startup, five sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. Google had planned to pay Scale AI about $200 million this year for the human-labeled training data that is crucial for developing technology, including the sophisticated AI models that power Gemini, its ChatGPT competitor, one of the sources said. The search giant already held conversations with several of Scale AI's rivals this week as it seeks to shift away much of that workload, sources added. Scale's loss of significant business comes as Meta takes a big stake in the company, valuing it at $29 billion. Scale was worth $14 billion before the deal. Scale AI intends to keep its business running while its CEO, Alexandr Wang, along with a few employees, move over to Meta. Since its core business is concentrated around a few customers, it could suffer greatly if it loses key customers like Google. In a statement, a Scale AI spokesperson said its business, which spans work with major companies and governments, remains strong, as it is committed to protecting customer data. The company declined to comment on specifics with Google. Scale AI raked in $870 million in revenue in 2024, and Google spent some $150 million on Scale AI's services last year, sources said. Other major tech companies that are customers of Scale's, including Microsoft, are backing away as well. Elon Musk's xAI is also looking to exit, one of the sources said. OpenAI decided to pull back from Scale several months ago, according to sources familiar with the matter, though it spends far less money than Google. OpenAI's CFO said on Friday that the company will continue to work with Scale AI, as one of its many data vendors. Companies that compete with Meta in developing cutting-edge AI models are concerned that doing business with Scale could expose their research priorities and road map to a rival, five sources said. By contracting with Scale AI, customers often share proprietary data as well as prototype products for which Scale's workers are providing data-labeling services. With Meta now taking a 49% stake, AI companies are concerned that one of their chief rivals could gain knowledge about their business strategy and technical blueprints. Google, Microsoft and OpenAI declined to comment. xAI did not respond to a request for comment. The bulk of Scale AI's revenue comes from charging generative AI model makers for providing access to a network of human trainers with specialized knowledge — from historians to scientists, some with doctorate degrees. The humans annotate complex datasets that are used to "post-train" AI models, and as AI models have become smarter, the demand for the sophisticated human-provided examples has surged, and one annotation could cost as much as $100. Scale also does data-labeling for enterprises like self-driving car companies and the U.S. government, which are likely to stay, according to the sources. But its biggest money-maker is in partnering with generative AI model makers, the sources said. Google had already sought to diversify its data service providers for more than a year, three of the sources said. But Meta's moves this week have led Google to seek to move off Scale AI on all its key contracts, the sources added. Because of the way data-labeling contracts are structured, that process could happen quickly, two sources said. This will provide an opening for Scale AI's rivals to jump in. "The Meta-Scale deal marks a turning point," said Jonathan Siddharth, CEO of Turing, a Scale AI competitor. "Leading AI labs are realizing neutrality is no longer optional, it's essential." Labelbox, another competitor, will "probably generate hundreds of millions of new revenue" by the end of the year from customers fleeing Scale, its CEO, Manu Sharma, told Reuters. Handshake, a competitor focusing on building a network of PhDs and experts, saw a surge of workload from top AI labs that compete with Meta. "Our demand has tripled overnight after the news," said Garrett Lord, CEO at Handshake. Many AI labs now want to hire in-house data-labelers, which allows their data to remain secure, said Brendan Foody, CEO of Mercor, a startup that in addition to competing directly with Scale AI also builds technology around being able to recruit and vet candidates in an automated way, enabling AI labs to scale up their data labeling operations quickly. Founded in 2016, Scale AI provides vast amounts of labeled data or curated training data, which is crucial for developing sophisticated tools such as OpenAI's ChatGPT. The Meta deal will be a boon for Scale AI's investors including Accel and Index Ventures, as well as its current and former employees. As part of the deal, Scale AI's CEO, Wang, will take a top position leading Meta's AI efforts. Meta is fighting the perception that it may have fallen behind in the AI race after its initial set of Llama 4 large language models released in April fell short of performance expectations.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
George Russell mocks Max Verstappen's penalty as he takes pole for Canadian GP
Red Bull Racing driver Max Verstappen, of the Netherlands, drives during the third practice session at the F1 Canadian Grand Prix auto race, Saturday, June 14, 2025, in Montreal. (Jacques Boissinot/The Canadian Press via AP) Red Bull Racing driver Max Verstappen, of the Netherlands, stands in his garage during the third practice session at the F1 Canadian Grand Prix auto race, Saturday, June 14, 2025, in Montreal. (Graham Hughes/The Canadian Press via AP) Mercedes driver George Russell, of Britain, drives during the third practice session at the F1 Canadian Grand Prix auto race, Saturday, June 14, 2025, in Montreal. (Jacques Boissinot/The Canadian Press via AP) Mercedes driver George Russell, of Britain, sits in his car during the third practice session at the F1 Canadian Grand Prix auto race, Saturday, June 14, 2025, in Montreal. (Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press via AP) Mercedes driver George Russell, of Britain, sits in his car during the third practice session at the F1 Canadian Grand Prix auto race, Saturday, June 14, 2025, in Montreal. (Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press via AP) Red Bull Racing driver Max Verstappen, of the Netherlands, drives during the third practice session at the F1 Canadian Grand Prix auto race, Saturday, June 14, 2025, in Montreal. (Jacques Boissinot/The Canadian Press via AP) Red Bull Racing driver Max Verstappen, of the Netherlands, stands in his garage during the third practice session at the F1 Canadian Grand Prix auto race, Saturday, June 14, 2025, in Montreal. (Graham Hughes/The Canadian Press via AP) Mercedes driver George Russell, of Britain, drives during the third practice session at the F1 Canadian Grand Prix auto race, Saturday, June 14, 2025, in Montreal. (Jacques Boissinot/The Canadian Press via AP) Mercedes driver George Russell, of Britain, sits in his car during the third practice session at the F1 Canadian Grand Prix auto race, Saturday, June 14, 2025, in Montreal. (Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press via AP) The feud between George Russell and four-time reigning Formula 1 champion Max Verstappen could continue at the Canadian Grand Prix after the two locked up the front row in Saturday qualifying. Russell of Mercedes won the pole for the sixth time in his F1 career with a lap of 1 minute, 10.899 seconds to best Verstappen of Red Bull, who was .160 seconds behind. Advertisement Russell also won the pole in Montreal last year but finished third as Verstappen won the race. The two have sparred on-track frequently over the last few seasons and it happened again last weekend at the Spanish Grand Prix, where Verstappen made contact with Russell that shoved Russell off course. The maneuver earned Verstappen three penalty points and put him just one point away from a one-race suspension. Verstappen ultimately said his actions were inappropriate, an admission that shocked Russell, who believes the champion is a dirty driver. Verstappen in Montreal vowed not to change his aggressive driving style despite staring down a possible race suspension. 'We're mates, it's all good,' Russell joked. 'I've got a few more points on my license to play with.' Advertisement Russell's comments were clearly playing to the crowd at Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, where they roared with laughter as he mocked Verstappen's penalty situation. The qualifying results were a bit of a surprise considering the season-long domination of McLaren, including driver championship leader Oscar Piastri. But he qualified third, while teammate Lando Norris was seventh. The duo has combined to win seven of nine races this season and are 1-2 in the championship standings. Verstappen, who has indicated he believes his hopes for a fifth consecutive title are fading, has won twice. Piastri said he was satisfied with third. Advertisement 'After how practice went I'm pretty happy at the moment,' he said. 'It was a nice turnaround. I'm pretty happy with third, which is a bit different this year.' Kimi Antonelli, Russell's teammate at Mercedes, qualified fourth and was followed by Lewis Hamilton of Ferrari and Fernando Alonso in his best qualifying effort of the season for Aston Martin. After Norris in seventh was Charles Leclerc of Ferrari, Isack Hadjar of Racing Bulls, and Alex Albon of Williams. Albon was involved in a bizarre incident in the first qualifying group when his engine cover inexplicably blew off his Williams and littered the track with debris. It brought out a red flag but didn't prevent him from advancing to the next round. Advertisement His teammate, Carlos Sainz Jr., wasn't as fortunate and was eliminated in the first round. Yuki Tsunoda, meanwhile, qualified 11th but received a 10-place grid infraction and two penalty points for passing Piastri under the red flag in Saturday's earlier practice session. ___ AP auto racing:
