News
Can electric trucks breakthrough gas and diesel pickup loyalty?
Electric trucks haven’t yet made their way to the market, but plenty of them are announced. The big question is: Will EV trucks ever see the success that sedans and crossovers have? Can they be more popular than the gas and diesel trucks that are widely utilized across the world?
Pickup trucks are popular outside of the United States. In Canada, China, and even Australia, pickups are used by everyone from construction use to daily drivers. Their versatility as a luxury vehicle or a way to move large objects from one location to another makes them one of the more feasible types of vehicles available to consumers. For years, trucks have been listed as powerful, sturdy, and capable machines that have loyal consumer bases because of their adequacy for a wide range of activities.
But with the ongoing transition away from gas powertrains and toward electrification, trucks are simply next on the list to receive battery-powered operation. With several manufacturers releasing designs, pricing, and other variables for electric trucks, the question remains of whether or not the EV truck segment as a whole will be able to make a dent in the popularity of petrol-powered trucks in the future.
There seem to be several boundaries that EV trucks need to cross into to gain the trust and secure a sale to a driver who is interested in a truck but has their mind set on gas or diesel powertrains. I believe that one is going to be proving effectiveness in “work” settings like towing, off-roading, and hauling. The other is breaking through the brand loyalty that many truck buyers have with a certain manufacturer. Interestingly, it is tough to determine which will be harder for an EV truck maker to break, but it will likely be switching an owner away from their usual manufacturer.
Truck owners seem to hold a loyalty to their favorite manufacturer that is unmatched by owners of other segments. All too often, especially in my neck of the woods, I see and hear truck owners talking about why their manufacturer is the best, why others cannot seem to compare, and why they’ll never buy another brand of truck. Sometimes, you’ll even see the infamous bumper sticker of a kid peeing on a rival truck maker’s logo.
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
But breaking a consumer away from a brand that they have put many years, and many dollars, into owning a certain vehicle is arguably one of the most difficult parts of selling cars. Past the production issues, which have plagued many car companies, Tesla included, for years, growing a brand is difficult. To have a consumer willingly switch brands is a tough task, and it usually relies on that company providing a massive shortcoming to that consumer in particular.
For example, bad customer service, poor quality, or even a political stance can cause a consumer to switch sides and consider other options. But these things are rare occurrences, so to really convince someone to try a different brand without any negative experiences really requires a product that makes someone go, “Wow, I need that.”
Credit: @KimPaquette | Twitter
Electric trucks certainly have the pizzazz and the appeal to make this happen. I would argue that the Cybertruck is probably the truck that will most likely drive more people to switch from gas or diesel-powered machines to electric ones. Simply because the design is so unique, many people may just be looking for something new that looks “tough” and “durable.” The Cybertruck certainly fits that bill.
However, the Rivian R1T has it’s own advantages too. Because of the fact that it has more of a “traditional” truck look, which is exactly what Tesla and Elon Musk were looking to avoid, it may be more fitting for many recurring truck buyers. It has the durability; it has the look, it has the options. It also is around the same price as many other trucks on the market, so the “too expensive” argument goes out of the window for those that still use it.
The next real test is proving durability and effectiveness. We have seen the Cybertruck pull the F-150 in a tug of war, but people still may be looking to see the vehicle perform normal everyday work. Same with the R1T.
The typical truck buyer is likely hauling things as small as 2x4s or as large as a boat. Before religious pickup buyers truly accept EV trucks, the manufacturers will have to prove that their products are capable of hauling normal, everyday things and large and difficult items. Performance and overall use capabilities will be proven before any truck buyers consider an electric option.
Please e-mail or tweet your thoughts about this subject. I am certainly interested in hearing what you all have to say about trucks and how EV makers can start making a dent in gas-powered pickup sales once deliveries begin. I think it will take more than a new, fresh, and fun way to drive a car to swing consumers to the “other side,” unlike it was with the sedan segment. Sedans are sedans, and they’re all pretty similar. I don’t believe there is as much brand loyalty on that side of things, but I could be wrong.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
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 to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
