News
These were the best-selling EV brands in the U.S. in Q1
Tesla remained the clear market leader in Q1, while Chevrolet and others saw substantial sales growth with the introduction of new models.
A recent report has revealed the latest estimates on electric vehicle (EV) sales for the first quarter of the year, with Tesla and Ford landing the top two spots, while GM’s brands saw the most sales growth.
On Thursday, Cox Automotive released data estimates for the U.S. EV market in Q1 2025, showing that Tesla remained the clear market leader among brands, while Ford, GM, BMW, and Hyundai made up the rest of the top five. The report estimated 296,227 EVs sold overall, marking an 11.4 percent increase year over year, and bringing new-vehicle EV sales to around 7.5 percent of the market.
Cox notes that this is still a steady increase from 7 percent of the market during Q1 last year, despite headwinds created by the Trump administration’s tariff war.
“The year certainly started strong, but the road ahead will be anything but smooth,” said Valdez Streaty, Cox Automotive analyst.
Tesla outsold the next top 10 brand names combined in Q1 with 128,100 units, though sales declined 8.6 percent year over year for the brand. Ford was the second-best-selling brand with 22,550 units sold, representing an 11.5 percent increase year over year.
Meanwhile, GM’s Chevrolet brand saw a 114.2 percent increase in sales from the first quarter of 2024 with 19,186, as led by the Chevy Equinox EV. The rest of the top 10 was made up, in order, by VW (9,564), Honda (9,561), Kia (8,656), Rivian (8,553), and Cadillac (7,972).
Brands such as Porsche, Toyota, and GMC joined the Chevy brand in seeing substantial sales growth, representing 249 percent, 196 percent, and 183 percent increases year over year, respectively.
It’s worth noting that multiple automakers own different brands, such as Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac being owned by GM, Audi being owned by VW, or Stellantis owning Jeep and Dodge, among other examples still.
EV Sales Volume Change by Brand: Q1 2025 versus Q1 2024

Credit: Cox Automotive
New Entries: EV Sales Volume in Q1 2025

Credit: Cox Automotive
READ MORE ON EV SALES: Tesla vs. competition: How many BEVs did OEMs sell in the U.S. in 2024?
Tesla doesn’t break out sales data by region, though the company recently reported delivering 336,681 units globally in the first quarter, representing a 13-percent drop from Q1 2024.
While it’s not a surprise that Tesla’s market share steadily declines as more competition enters the market, recent pressure on Elon Musk for his involvement with the Trump administration has, if nothing else, caused some automakers to try to poach Tesla owners with special trade-ins and other promotions.
Tesla has also been rolling out the refreshed Model Y, and the potential effects of the transition to it from the legacy model may play a role, though future quarters will show a better glimpse at the impact of the redesigned vehicle’s arrival.
At the time of writing, Cox Automotive has also not yet responded to Teslarati’s request for clarification on which brands are included in the “additional EV models” category. However, we expect these to include low-volume, luxury, and other niche EV brands, such as Lucid Motors. The publication also says the data overall excludes super exotics.
You can see EV sales ranked by brand below, check out the full data from Cox Automotive here, or read the publication’s press release on the report here.
Mass-market EV sellers in Q1 2025, ranked by brand
- Tesla: 128,100
- Ford: 22,500
- Chevrolet: 19,186
- BMW:13,538
- Hyundai: 12,843
- VW: 9,564
- Honda: 9,561
- Kia: 8,656
- Rivian: 8,553
- Cadillac: 7,972
- Nissan: 6,471
- Audi: 5,905
- Toyota: 5,610
- Acura: 4,813
- GMC: 4,728
- Porsche: 4,358
- Mercedes: 3,472
- Subaru: 3,131
- Volvo: 2,718
- Jeep: 2,595
- Dodge: 1,947
- Genesis: 1,496
- Lexus: 1,453
- Mini: 696
- Jaguar: 381
- Additional EV models*: 5,390
Total EV sales estimated by KBB in the U.S. in Q1 2025: 296,227
*The additional EV models category is likely made up of low-volume, luxury, and niche EV makers
Top 10 EV models sold in the U.S. in Q1 2025
- Tesla Model Y: 64,051
- Tesla Model 3: 52,520
- Ford Mustang Mach-E: 11,607
- Chevrolet Equinox EV: 10,329
- Honda Prologue: 9,561
- Hyundai Ioniq 5: 8,611
- VW ID.4: 7,663
- Ford F-150 Lightning: 7,187
- BMW i4: 7,125
- Tesla Cybertruck: 6,406
Here’s how many EVs were sold in the U.S. last year by model
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
Investor's Corner
Tesla uber bull Ron Baron says ‘the time to buy the stock is now’
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.