News
Tesla’s sustainability focus is evident down to the Model Y’s thermal system
It is no secret that Tesla’s main focus revolves around sustainability. Its mission is to accelerate the advent of sustainable energy, which is one of the reasons why every vehicle the company releases is designed to be a preferable alternative to cars powered by the internal combustion engine. This point became especially evident recently when the Model Y’s thermal system was compared side-by-side to that of the Ford Mustang Mach-E.
As discussed by automotive teardown expert Sandy Munro in his Munro Live YouTube channel, the Tesla Model Y’s thermal system is quite a feat in first-principles thinking and engineering. This could be seen in custom-designed components such as the Octovalve, as well as the hoses that Tesla used for the system. Munro noted that overall, the Model Y’s thermal system only uses 10 hoses with a total length of 6.35 meters, which is very conservative compared to other electric vehicles in the market.
Munro and Associates is currently in the process of tearing down the Ford Mustang Mach-E, and one of the things that caught the team’s attention was the all-electric crossover’s thermal system, which the automotive veteran candidly dubbed as a “nightmare.” This “nightmare” was represented by the lengthy, twisted cacophony of hoses that Ford used for its all-electric crossover’s thermal system. Compared to the Model Y, the Mach-E uses 250% more parts, which likely makes the vehicle more costly to build.
The teardown team found that the Mustang Mach-E’s thermal system had a total part count of 35 pieces, and the total length of its hoses stood at 18.42 meters, over two times longer than the hoses used in the Model Y. The fluids in the Model Y are significantly less than those used in the Mustang Mach-E as well, though they essentially play the same role.
As noted by members of the electric vehicle community who are familiar with thermal systems, the Mach-E also uses conventional rubber coolant hoses, which are generally heavy and not easy to recycle. These rubber hoses are very cheap, however, despite the fact that they require a lot of energy to manufacture. In contrast, Tesla appears to be using nylon materials for the Model Y’s tubing, which is more recyclable and more energy efficient to produce. Nylon tubing is significantly lighter than the rubber hoses used in the Mach-E, but it is several times more expensive.
Munro and Associates only showed a glimpse of the engineering prowess displayed by Tesla team when it designed the Model Y, but one thing was immediately evident when the all-electric crossover’s thermal system was compared to the Mach-E. The Tesla Model Y is created from the ground up to be a vehicle that’s designed for a renewable future, and its components seem to have been selected with sustainability in mind. The Model Y’s nylon hoses, which are more expensive but more sustainable, seem to be part of this strategy.
Tesla’s experience in building electric vehicles is evident in the Model Y’s components. Veterans like Ford, on the other hand, seem to still be learning the ropes. But this is not the most thought-provoking conclusion from Munro’s comparison of the Model Y and Mach-E’s thermal system. While the Tesla is miles ahead, Munro emphasized that the Ford Mustang Mach-E is already the best non-Tesla electric car that they have torn down and analyzed to date.
Watch Munro’s comparison of the Tesla Model Y and Ford Mustang Mach-E’s thermal system below.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
