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
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
Investor's Corner
Lucid CEO dispels any rumors of bankruptcy: ‘So far from the facts’
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.
News
Tesla responds to strange Supercharging pricing error with classy move
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.