Connect with us

News

Cadillac Lyriq vs Ford Mach-E vs Tesla Model Y: Features, price, and tech comparison

(Credit:Cadillac/Ford/KITT/Instagram)

Published

on

GM has entered the premium all-electric crossover SUV market, and its flagship vehicle is the rather eye-catching Cadillac Lyriq. Poised to hit the roads in the first half of 2022, the Lyriq will be entering an market already saturated by formidable opponents like the Ford Mustang Mach-E and the best-selling Tesla Model Y.  

With the competiton in the EV SUV market in mind, it’s important to know how the Cadillac Lyriq stacks up against two of the strongest entries in the premium all-electric crossover segment today. Below is a comparison of the Cadillac Lyriq, the Ford Mustang Mach-E (both in SR and ER variants), and the Tesla Model Y Long Range Dual Motor AWD. 

Size and Weight

The Cadillac Lyriq is quite a hefty vehicle, dwarfing the Mach-E and the Model Y with its 196.7-inch length, 77.8-inch width, and a 121.8-inch wheelbase. In comparison, the Mach-E has a length of 186.0 inches, and width of 74.0 inches, and a wheelbase of 117.0 inches. The Model Y has a length of 187.0 inches, a width of 75.6 inches, and a wheelbase of 113.8 inches. The Lyriq is precisely the same height as the Model Y at 63.9 inches, making it taller than the Mach-E, which has a height of 63.0 inches. 

All this size translates to the Cadillac Lyriq’s curb weight, which also stands far above the Mach-E and the Model Y. The Lyriq has some serious heft at 5,610 pounds, while the Mach-E and Model Y are far lighter at 4,394-4,890 pounds for the Ford and 4,416 pounds for the Tesla. 

Advertisement

Interior Dimensions and Cargo Space

While the Cadillac Lyriq is significantly larger than the Mustang Mach-E and the Model Y outside, it is comparable to its two rivals when it comes to the interior. While it edges out its rivals in legroom, shoulder room, and hip room, in terms of headroom, the Lyriq is actually behind its competitors, with 38.6 inches in the front and 37.7 inches at the rear. Despite being smaller physically, the Mach-E features a front headroom of 40.4 inches and rear headroom of 39.3 inches. The Model Y has significantly more headroom than the Lyriq as well, with 41.0 inches at the front and 39.4 inches at the rear. 

This trend continues all the way to the Lyriq’s cargo space when its second-row seats are folded down. With this setup, the Lyriq boasts 60.8 cubic feet of cargo space, which is slightly higher than the Mach-E’s 59.7 cubic feet, but significantly behind the Model Y, which offers a whopping 68 cubic feet of cargo space with the second-row seats folded down. 

Battery and Estimated Range

The Cadillac Lyriq features a large 100 kWh battery, which GM notes should provide the all-electric SUV with about 300 miles of range. The Mustang Mach-E offers two battery sizes: a 75.7 kWh standard range unit that gives drivers about 211 miles of range and a 98.8 kWh extended range battery that provides 300 miles of range. The Model Y taps into Tesla’s vast experience as an all-electric car maker by drawing out 326 miles of EPA-rated range with a 75 kWh battery pack. 

Performance and 0-60 Times

GM noted that the Lyriq’s electric motor produces 340 hp and 325 lb-ft of torque. GM’s estimates might seem conservative when compared to the Mach E, which produces 346 hp and 428 lb-ft of torque in its ER AWD version, and the Model Y Long Range, which has 384 hp and 376 lb-ft of torque. GM is also yet to release the 0-60 mph figures for the Lyriq, though Roadshow estimates that the vehicle, thanks to its large size and lower power, would likely be significantly slower than both the Mach-E Extended Range AWD and the Model Y Long Range, which boast a 5.5-second and 4.8-second 0-60 mph time, respectively. 

Advertisement

Driver-Assist Technologies

GM’s brochure for the Lyriq notes that the all-electric SUV is equipped with the company’s award-winning Super Cruise, “the first truly hands-free driver assistance feature for compatible roads.” Super Cruise is impressive, though it only works on pre-mapped roads, and it requires users to have an active Cadillac Connected Services plan. Super Cruise-equipped vehicles like the Lyriq include 3 years of connectivity to support functionality, after which a Connected Services Plan must be purchased. 

Ford, for its part, has recently announced its BlueCruise, a Level 2 driver-assist technology that also, in the carmaker’s words, offers a “true hands-free driving experience while in Hands-Free Mode that does not require a driver’s hands to stay in contact with the steering wheel, unless prompted by vehicle alerts.” Mach-E customers would be able to purchase BlueCruise software, including a three-year service period, for $600 in the second half of 2021, when the service is expected to launch. 

Last but not least, the Tesla Model Y is equipped with basic Autopilot for free, though customers could opt-in for the carmaker’s Full Self-Driving suite for a $10,000 charge. Basic Autopilot includes key functions like Traffic-Aware Cruise Control and Autosteer, while FSD includes advanced features like Navigate on Autopilot with Auto Lane Change, Autopark, Summon, and Traffic Light and Stop Sign Control. Unlike Ford and GM, however, Tesla’s Autopilot and FSD suite are, in their current iteration, not hands-free. 

Advertisement

Price 

The Cadillac Lyriq stays true to its brand, starting at $59,990. That’s far more expensive than the Mustang Mach-E, which starts at a more modest $43,995. The Tesla Model Y Long Range slots right in the middle of the Lyriq and Mach-E, with its current starting price of $51,690 including destination charges. 

Check out the Cadillac Lyriq’s brochure below.

My23 Lyriq PDF Brochure v14 Final by Maria Merano on Scribd

Advertisement

Do you have anything to share with the Teslarati Team? We’d love to hear from you, email us at tips@teslarati.com or reach out to me at maria@teslarati.com.

Maria--aka "M"-- is an experienced writer and book editor. She's written about several topics including health, tech, and politics. As a book editor, she's worked with authors who write Sci-Fi, Romance, and Dark Fantasy. M loves hearing from TESLARATI readers. If you have any tips or article ideas, contact her at maria@teslarati.com or via X, @Writer_01001101.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much

There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.

Published

on

(Photo: Hector Perez/YouTube)

Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 began rolling out to some owners earlier this week, and there are some notable improvements that came with this update.

There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.

Overall operation saw a handful of slight improvements, especially with parking performance, which has been the most notable difference with the arrival of FSD v14.3. However, there are still some very notable shortcomings, most notably with region-specific signage and navigation.

Tesla Assisted Smart Summon (ASS) improvements

There are noticeable improvements to ASS operation, which has definitely been inconsistent in terms of performance. Tesla wrote in the release notes for v14.3.2:

“Unified the model between Actually Smart Summon, FSD, and Robotaxi for more capable and reliable behavior.”
As recently as this month, I used Summon with no success. It had pulled around the parking lot I was in incorrectly, leaving the range at which Summon can be operated and losing a signal while moving in the middle of the lot.

This caused me to sprint across the lot to retrieve the vehicle:

Unfortunately, Summon was not dependable or accurate enough to use regularly. It appears Tesla might have bridged the gap needed to make it an effective feature, as two tests in parking lots proved that Summon was more responsive and faster to navigate to the location chosen.

It also did so without hesitation, confidently, and at a comfortable speed. I was able to test it twice at different distances:

I plan to test this more thoroughly and regularly through the next few weeks, and I avoided using it in a congested parking lot initially because I have not had overwhelming success with Summon in the past. I wanted to set a low baseline for it to see if it could simply pull up to the place I pinned in the Tesla app.

It was two for two, which is a big improvement because I don’t think I ever had successful Summon attempts back-to-back. It just seems more confident than ever before.

New Disengagement Categories

This is a really good idea from Tesla, but there are some issues with it. The categories you can select are Critical, Comfort, Preference, and Other.

I think the reasons why people choose to take over would be a better way to prompt drivers, like, “Traveling Too Fast,” “Incorrect Maneuver,” “Navigation Error,” would be more beneficial.

I say this because it seems that how we each categorize things might be different. For example, I shared a video of an intervention because the car had navigated to an exit to a parking lot and put its left blinker on, despite left turns not being allowed there.

I disengaged and chose Critical as the reason; it’s not a comfort issue, it’s not a preference, it’s quite literally an illegal turn, and it’s also dangerous because it cuts across several lanes of traffic and is 180 degrees.

Some said I should not have labeled this as Critical, but that’s the description I best characterized the disengagement as.

Categorizing interventions is a good thing, but it’s kind of hard to determine how to label them correctly.

Inconsistency with Regional Traffic Patterns

Tesla Full Self-Driving is pretty inconsistent with how it handles regional or local traffic patterns and road rules. The most frequent example I like to use is that of the “Except Right Turn” stop sign, which has become a notorious sighting on our social media platforms.

In the initial rollout of v14.3, my Model Y successfully navigated through one of these stop signs with no issues. However, testing at two of these stop signs yesterday proved it is still not sure how to read signs and navigate through them properly.

Off camera, I approached another one of these signs and felt the car coming to a stop, so I nudged it forward with the accelerator pedal pressed.

This helped the car go through the sign without stopping, but I could feel the bucking of the vehicle as the car really wanted to stop.

Musk said on the earnings call earlier this week that unsupervised FSD would probably be available in some regions before others, including a state-to-state basis in the U.S.

“It’s difficult to release this like to everyone everywhere all at once because we do want to make sure that they’re not unique situations in a city that particularly complex intersection or — actually, they tend to be places where people get into accidents a lot because they’re just — perhaps there’s — and like I said, an unsafe intersection or bad road markings or a lot of weather challenges. So I think we would release unsupervised gradually to the customer fleet as we feel like a particular geography is confirmed to be safe.”
This could be one of those examples that Tesla just has to figure out.

Highway Operation

Full Self-Driving is already pretty good at routine roadway navigation, so I don’t have too much to report here.

However, I was happy with FSD’s decision-making at several points, including its choice not to pass a slightly slower car and remain in the right lane as we approached the off-ramp:

Better Maneuvering at Stop Signs

Many FSD users report some strange operations at stop signs, especially four-way intersections where there is a stop sign and a line on the road, and they’re not even with one another.

I experienced this quite frequently and found that FSD would actually double stop: once at the stop sign and again at the line.

This created some interesting scenarios for me and I had many cars honk at me when the second stop would happen. Other vehicles that had waved me on to proceed through the intersection would become frustrated at the second stop.

FSD seems to have worked through this particular maneuver:

FSD should know to go to the more appropriate location (whichever provides better visibility), and proceed when it is the car’s turn to move. The double stop really ruined the flow of traffic at times and generally caused some frustration from other drivers.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how

Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.

Published

on

tesla-asia-model-3
Credit: Tesla Asia/Twitter

Tesla has a plan to make Hardware 3 owners whole after CEO Elon Musk admitted that those with that self-driving chip in their cars will not have access to unsupervised Full Self-Driving.

The company’s strategy is so crazy that it is sort of hard to believe.

Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.

During the Tesla Q1 earnings call on Wednesday, Musk finally clarified what the company’s plans are for Hardware 3 owners, what they will be offered, and what Tesla will have to do internally to prepare for it.

The answer was somewhat mind-boggling.

Musk said:

“Unfortunately, Hardware 3 — I wish it were otherwise, but Hardware 3 simply does not have the capability to achieve unsupervised FSD. We did think at one point it would have that, but relative to Hardware 4, it has only 1/8 of the memory bandwidth of Hardware 4. And memory bandwidth is one of the key elements needed for unsupervised FSD.”
He continued, stating that HW3 owners would have the opportunity to trade their cars in at a discounted rate in order to get the AI4 chip:

“So for customers that have bought FSD, what we’re offering is essentially a trade-in — like a discounted trade-in for cars that have AI4 hardware, and we’ll also be offering the ability to upgrade the car, to replace the computer. And you also need to replace the cameras, unfortunately, to go to Hardware 4.”
Obviously, Tesla has a lot of people to work with and make this whole thing right. Musk was adamant that HW3 would be capable of FSD, and now that the company has finally admitted that it is not, there are some things that could come of this.

There has been open talk about some sort of class action lawsuit against Tesla. The promises that Tesla made previously could be considered a breach of contract or even false advertising, and that’s according to Grok, Musk’s own AI program.

Musk went on to say that Tesla would likely have to establish new microfactories to effectively and efficiently replace HW3 computers and cameras:

…So to do this efficiently, we’re going to have to set up, like kind of micro factories or small factories in major metropolitan areas in order to do it efficiently. Because if it’s done just at the service center, it is extremely slow to do so and inefficient. So we basically need like many production lines to make the change.”
This is going to be an extremely costly process, especially if Tesla has to buy real estate, properties, and equipment to complete this work. Additionally, there was no wording on pricing, but Musk never said it would be free. It will likely come with some kind of price tag, and HW3 owners, after being left hanging for so long, will have something to say about that.

Advertisement



Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX just got pulled into the biggest Weapons Program in U.S. history

SpaceX joins the Golden Dome software group, deepening its role in America’s most expensive defense program.

Published

on

By

US Golden Dome space defense system (Concept render by Grok)

SpaceX has joined a nine-company group developing the core operating software for the Golden Dome, America’s next-generation missile defense system. According to a Bloomberg report, SpaceX is focused on integrating satellite communications for military operations and is working alongside eight other defense and artificial intelligence companies, including Anduril Industries, Palantir Technologies, and Aalyria Technologies, to build software connecting missile defense capabilities.

The Golden Dome concept dates back to President Trump’s 2024 campaign, and on January 27, 2025, he signed an executive order directing the U.S. Armed Forces to construct the system before the end of his term. The system is planned to employ a constellation of thousands of satellites equipped with interceptors, with data centers in space providing automated control through an AI network.

FCC accepts SpaceX filing for 1 million orbital data center plan

Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, director of the Golden Dome initiative, has described the software layer as a “glue layer” that would enable officers to manage and control radars, sensors, and missile batteries across services. The consortium is aiming to test the platform this summer.

Trump selected a design in May 2025 with a $175 billion price tag, expected to be operational by the end of his term in 2029, though the Congressional Budget Office projected the cost could reach $831 billion over two decades.

The Golden Dome role is only the latest in a string of military wins for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported, the U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX a $178.5 million task order on April 1, 2026 to launch missile tracking satellites for the Space Development Agency, covering two Falcon 9 launches beginning in Q3 2027. That came on top of more than $22 billion in government contracts held by SpaceX as of 2024, per CEO Gwynne Shotwell, spanning NASA resupply missions, classified intelligence satellites through its Starshield program, and military broadband.

The accumulation of defense contracts, now including a seat at the table on the most expensive weapons program in U.S. history, positions SpaceX as the dominant infrastructure provider for American national security in space. With a SpaceX IPO still on the horizon, each new contract adds weight to what is already one of the most consequential companies in aerospace history, raising real questions about how much of America’s defense architecture will depend on a single private operator before it ever trades publicly.

Continue Reading